Ubisoft's Assassin's Creed opening disclaimer change is bizarre.

[Erttheking]

Personally I just see it as them trying to duck that time a year ago when they constantly had their foot in their mouth about womez being 2 hrd to animate.

 

[Ambient_Malice]

It wasn't "expanded". The new disclaimer no longer mentions "various religious faiths". That line was the key reason why the statement was seen as an attempt to weasel out of responsibility for offending people.

Somehow I imagine "beliefs" is meant to include the religious ones.

Perhaps. But then why specify "various gender identities" as in its stead? If the goal was to simplify the statement by condensation, that would make sense. After all, "religious faith" is just as much an "identity" as "gender identities".

Exactly what content in AC: Syndicate is so offensive to people of "various sexual orientations and gender identities" that it needs a disclaimer? Because that disclaimer is, IMO, meant to be Ubisoft's "I have a black friend" defense. When Assassin's Creed offends billions of such-and-such-ians, they can whine, "B-B-But we have Such-and-suchians on the development team!" Like when Tyler the Creator fans defend his lyrics by pointing to his "diverse" band members.

Well, according to some people in this thread, there's a transgender (or some such, it's apparently vague) person of in Syndicate so, yeah. Have you actually played the game?

I am playing the game right now. I have met Ned Wynert, the "controversial" character who is literally only controversial because some people are obsessive when it comes to celebrating or scorning these sorts of characters, and because Ubisoft decide to refer to him/her as "a young man" in the ingame bio. Under any other circumstances, people would just assume the character is a woman dressed as a man, (Every person who wasn't blind, deaf, and/or stupid knew James Kidd in Black Flag was a woman dressed in drag from the moment she appeared onscreen) which is not exactly a new storytelling device.

I suppose some people might be offended by various characters (but never the shining beacons of never-having-a-strong-opinion-on-anyone-or-anything that are our lead characters) saying "bugger" and "sod", but that would require really thin skin.

Just been hanging out with Charles Darwin who namedrops his bro Charles Dickens, who I coincidentally met earlier because this series is rapidly running out of historically significant celebrities it can actually use as it approaches the modern age and potential lawsuits.

Personally I just see it as them trying to duck that time a year ago when they constantly had their foot in their mouth about womez being 2 hrd to animate.

They never said any such thing, and it annoys me this claim still floats around. That said, it's also important to note Unity and Syndicate are by different lead teams (Ubisoft Montreal vs Ubisoft Quebec) with totally different main staff. Who knows whether the next Assassin's Creed will have Syndicate's disclaimer, revert to the old one, or even come up with a new one?

 

[Something Amyss]

Alright my snark aside, my grasp on history isn't doctorate level, but I never heard of the prevalence of a large amount of brutal, violent female enforcer thugs in the Victorian era criminal underworld ready to beat people to death(As is the case with every enemy you meet in every Assassins Creed game).

Weirdly enough, when you frame it that way, the men must only be in there for inclusivity, becuase Victorian England was nowhere near as absurd as that with the men in gangs, either. Seems like a rather poor way to make the argument that this is senseless or somehow done specifically for inclusivity.

But hey, I did my best to address your points so I think it's reasonable of me to ask you a serious question. Do you genuinely believe there's a "sudden" problem regarding the quality of the series now, because of the game's efforts to be inclusive?

I don't know why you'd think I'd take either your prior "address" or this question as serious. Especially since the answer to this one should be clear from context. It seems you don't want actual discourse, so I'll bow out now.

 

[Something Amyss]

Personally I just see it as them trying to duck that time a year ago when they constantly had their foot in their mouth about womez being 2 hrd to animate.

Did you see how poor that game was? Clearly, women were too hard to animate.

 

[Ambient_Malice]

Personally I just see it as them trying to duck that time a year ago when they constantly had their foot in their mouth about womez being 2 hrd to animate.

Did you see how poor that game was? Clearly, women were too hard to animate.

Unity was a technologically impressive game with decent story and gameplay torpedoed by technical issues. It is also the game where Assassin's Creed very clearly had finally lost any sense of story direction. The "real" Assassin's Creed storyline behind the ultimately pointless "running around as (fictional) historical figures to find hints to the location of the bits and bobs" is spinning its wheels, going nowhere in a hurry.

 

[Erttheking]

If we're going to remove things from Assassin's Creed on the grounds that "it makes no fucking sense at all", then there would nothing in the game. xD

It's all crazy, fictional bullshit, so why sweat it over having women in gangs in a time period they probably didn't? On top of every other batshit crazy thing they let fly with their world setting, being gender diverse in their gangs isn't even a blip on my radar.

The thing is, even with all the supernatural/conspiracy nonsense in this series, it always seemed to pride itself on making the periods as authentic as possible. Just as with a period piece, the point is to transport the audience to that time in history. Usually a slightly romanticized version of it, but still one that feels quite authentic. Having loads of women fighting in street gangs on par with men in 19th century London completely knocks me out of that, because I know it's complete bullcrap. Just as it would seeing female soldiers in the Waffen-SS in Indiana Jones.

If it's fantasy steampunk London, or the universe of Dishonored, do what you will. I got no problem with Dragon Age, The Elder Scrolls, or Fallout either. But if you're going for a grounded and historically accurate depiction of the 19th century, I'm affraid you're going to have to be politically incorrect, because that time period unfortunately was.

Ok lets be honest, Assassin's Creed has a skin deep portrayal of history. Every single important character in the time period somehow needs to have something to do with the main character, Leonado Da Vinci's tank, machine-gun and war based flying machine are all actually real things, all the thieves in II somehow know parkour, the Boston Tea Party in III was all wrong as it was done in silence and wasn't a riot that ended with several dozen dead (The Intolerable Acts would've been downright reasonable if that had happened) and in Assassin's Creed II portrays Lorenzo de' Medici as a very good man...when history seems to rather disagree with that. Also apparently the Borgias aren't as bad as they were made out to be and apparently there's some criticisms on how it showed the politics of the French Revolution. Also I haven't played Syndicate but could you please tell me if any of these words were used?

http://mentalfloss.com/article/53529/56-delightful-victorian-slang-terms-you-should-be-using

Then there's the fact that you can get history logs about actual history that directly contradicts what happens in the game. Heavily implying that the Templars are actively re-writing history. So there's a real basis to go crazy with alternate history (Which is basically what assassin's creed is when the Templars are making tanks a few hundred years too early and there was a female thug and fighter all the way back in Assassin's Creed II)

 

[Something Amyss]

Unity was a technologically impressive game with decent story and gameplay torpedoed by technical issues.

And if we're being technically, I was technically impressed by how bad the technicals were.

So, what's the problem if you're perfectly aware that there's a character that might generate controversy and they might want to have something to cover their ass? Is it because it involves sexuality and gender identity and those are evil, SJW, Tumblrite words and as such must be whined about at every possible instance?

In fairness, it has to be to protect from the SJWs. Nerd culture is always so welcoming of minorities when they appear in media. I mean, look at the warm welcome that black Storm Trooper got.

Ok lets be honest, Assassin's Creed has a skin deep portrayal of history.

And has since the first game. And the weird thing is, I thought we all knew and accepted this. I think Doctor Who has a better grasp of history.

...actually, the "weird" thing is the one thing he said he *knew* was wrong is the bit that's not ahistorical. I know it's a saying that "truth is stranger than fiction," but it's weird to see people's cutoffs.

 

[Ambient_Malice]

Perhaps. But then why specify "various gender identities" as in its stead? If the goal was to simplify the statement by condensation, that would make sense. After all, "religious faith" is just as much an "identity" as "gender identities".

Because they likely imagined people wouldn't be so utterly in need of something to take issue with that turning "religious faiths and beliefs" into just "beliefs" would be a problem. In addition to that, "identity" is such an overly broad term that encompasses everything and, as such, means very little. The goal was probably to condense the beliefs part while expanding to sexuality and gender identity because to not do so would make it rather unwieldy, or, at least, more so than it already is.

Because the Assassin's Creed storyline is explicitly offensive to religious people. That's why it is so odd. We're not talking "A character who might be seen as demeaning" stuff. The entire overarching narrative of Assassin's Creed is offensive towards people who hold to a few major religions with billions of members. Taken with no sense of humour, it a direct attack on their beliefs and identity.

Aka, it is "problematic".

I am playing the game right now. I have met Ned Wynert, the "controversial" character who is literally only controversial because some people are obsessive when it comes to celebrating or scorning these sorts of characters, and because Ubisoft decide to refer to him/her as "a young man" in the ingame bio. Under any other circumstances, people would just assume the character is a woman dressed as a man, (Every person who wasn't blind, deaf, and/or stupid knew James Kidd in Black Flag was a woman dressed in drag from the moment she appeared onscreen) which is not exactly a new storytelling device.

So, what's the problem if you're perfectly aware that there's a character that might generate controversy and they might want to have something to cover their ass? Is it because it involves sexuality and gender identity and those are evil, SJW, Tumblrite words and as such must be whined about at every possible instance?

Because Marc-Alexis Côté refers to the statement as being something that is "inclusive" vs "exclusive". The statement is a squirmy admission that originally served a very clear purpose because "offending every major religion" is arguably the linchpin of the Assassin's Creed story. Côté and his team don't seem to understand this, and seem to think the statement is something akin to a plaque commemorating a monument made by a diverse team working towards a singular goal. It's no longer being treated as a disclaimer/awkward apology with an excuse for creating a game that is inherently offensive on a catastrophic level towards billions, as it was interpreted before, but rather as some sort of cheerful mission statement with a special emphasis on sex and gender rather than religion -- which was, and remains, the biggest sticking point for the franchise.

 

[Ambient_Malice]

Though it's nice to know that sexuality and gender identity merely being included alongside belief means that they are being given a special emphasis; it's very reminiscent of the "gay people are asking for special treatment" line of thinking.

Religion was given special emphasis in the old disclaimer arguably due to how offensive the games are. I'm not sure what your point is exactly. My point is that Assassin's Creed and some of its developers have completely lost the plot in this particular regard partially because the original storyline -- the source of the offensive themes and implications -- has been forgotten. The new statement is just the latest manifestation of the series spinning its wheels narratively.

Yes, I'm aware, mostly because this point has been repeated. None of this explains why "Beliefs" needs to have "religious" in front of it nor why sexuality and gender identity needs to be completely absent.

It actually said "religious faiths and beliefs", which is semantically different. Also, the new statement is supposed to be about "embracing diversity". Aside from me disagreeing that the statement should strive for that, since it's supposed to be grovelling and grovelling is good, it's an extremely half-arsed effort at creating a diversity statement.

There's zero mention of ethnicity, for a start. Oh, wow, Ubisoft, I'm so proud of your diverse team of white men and women, half of whom speak French--thus filling the "multicultural" checkbox--who live in Canada. But I'm really uncomfortable, Ubisoft, because I don't know for certain that people who share my POLITICAL beliefs are represented by this glowing statement. And do you hire enough red-haired folk? I must know these things to feel included. I mean, "beliefs" could just mean "people who believe that chicken burgers should be called chicken sandwiches".

 

[Ambient_Malice]

Religion was given special emphasis in the old disclaimer arguably due to how offensive the games are. I'm not sure what your point is exactly. My point is that Assassin's Creed and some of its developers have completely lost the plot in this particular regard partially because the original storyline -- the source of the offensive themes and implications -- has been forgotten. The new statement is just the latest manifestation of the series spinning its wheels narratively.

My point is that you seem to regard the mere inclusion of sexual orientation and gender identity as giving them some sort of special emphasis over religious belief based on nothing more than your insistence that simply saying "beliefs" isn't enough. That said, your point seems to be one about the changing plot of the series but, instead of possibly making a thread discussing that in regards to the actual games and their story, you decided to complain about the disclaimer including people you don't think it should include.

When did I say that? I'm saying that the disclaimer is bizarre because this team at Ubisoft have forgotten that the statement is a form of apology for the offensive material in the game, yet they're actually proud of how diverse and inclusive they think their game is. They can put whatever they want on the disclaimer so long as they recognise that they're pre-emptively apologising for including those things.

Assassin's Creed is like Tumblr's wet dream:
A small and diverse group of oppressed but enlightened, anarchist-esque individuals fighting The Man. But really what this disclaimer is truly saying is, "We're heroes."

It's not really that simple. Assassin's Creed once upon a time had this storyline about Templars and Assassins and their complex war to achieve more or less the same thing via different methods. The Assassins are not necessarily the "good" side. But that storyline has fallen apart as the games have turned into these meaningless side stories that are mostly disconnected to the main story that Ubisoft forgot it was telling after Assassin's Creed 3.

 

[EHKOS]

I...don't really care anymore. After playing the Need for Speed reboot and nearly ending my play session the way Arin ended the Teletubbies episode, just...make levels, that you beat, and then you go.

 

[Gethsemani_v1legacy]

Though it's nice to know that sexuality and gender identity merely being included alongside belief means that they are being given a special emphasis; it's very reminiscent of the "gay people are asking for special treatment" line of thinking.

Religion was given special emphasis in the old disclaimer arguably due to how offensive the games are. I'm not sure what your point is exactly. My point is that Assassin's Creed and some of its developers have completely lost the plot in this particular regard partially because the original storyline -- the source of the offensive themes and implications -- has been forgotten. The new statement is just the latest manifestation of the series spinning its wheels narratively.

As you yourself mention, Religion has not been a major thing in Assassin's Creed since Assassin's Creed 2. The first and second game dealt with the premise that the Abrahamic religions were lies perpetuated by the Templars to establish control over society and hide the truth of the Progenitors ("Adam and Eve"). Every game since has dealt less and less with this idea (Brotherhood paying lip service to it by having you fight the Pope) and turned attention to Templars trying to manipulate other facets of society to gain the control they want, resulting in Unity exploring the concept of revolutions and their fallout and putting a twist on the French Revolution.

So if Religion is no longer a major concept in the games (and hasn't been for the last 6 years of an 8 year old franchise) and other, potentially sensitive, concepts are being introduced, why should they not change the disclaimer?

 

[Smooth Operator]

I guess that disclaimer will need to get bigger and bigger in the coming years to appease every which flavour of looney toon.
Honestly Ubisoft save yourself the time and put down "We made all this shit up, so fuck you!", a nice clean blanket cover for anything you do while still giving something to get offended about.

 

[Ambient_Malice]

As you yourself mention, Religion has not been a major thing in Assassin's Creed since Assassin's Creed 2.

It's not quite so simple.

http://assassinscreed.wikia.com/wiki/Isu

You're forgetting the First Civilization, who are prominent in AC1, AC2, AC: Brotherhood, AC: Revelations, AC3, and AC4. The entire series revolves around them. This storyline has been on an awkward hiatus for the past two years, but it is supposed to come back. Allegedly, AC: Unity was missing modern day content due to development time constraints. Who knows why Syndicate downplays it.

Assassin's Creed is currently spinning its wheels, but it SHOULD be going back to its original subject matter soon. And that subject matter is about an ancient race of beings that took primates and turned them into humans, intending to create a slave labor force and a military force. (The Templars later planted fake fossils to trick the world into believing that humans evolved from apes in order to disguise this event. This is canon. For reals.)

Oh, yea, and they can reincarnate through humans and the entire plot of Assassin's Creed 4 was about you being manipulated into being a human host for Juno.

So religion-esque subject matter remains the core of Assassin's Creed, regardless of individual entries failing to add anything meaningful to this storyline. The First Civilization are, for all intents and purposes, gods. And in this context, the Ubisoft religion disclaimer makes a lot of sense.

Unless of course Assassin's Creed 7 (Syndicate is AC6) centers around how the First Civilization invented gayness in order to make more efficient soldiers, and also invented a cure for gayness, and you play the ghost of Desmond trapped in the Animus who has finally come to terms with his sexuality and must explore history to gather the Pieces of the Rainbow to unlock the super fruity secrets of the First Civilization. Then the current disclaimer would make way more sense.

 

[Gethsemani_v1legacy]

So religion-esque subject matter remains the core of Assassin's Creed, regardless of individual entries failing to add anything meaningful to this storyline. The First Civilization are, for all intents and purposes, gods. And in this context, the Ubisoft religion disclaimer makes a lot of sense.

I'm sorry but your explanation makes about as much sense as having Baldur's Gate, Game of Thrones or any other media with fictional religions carry a disclaimer about the religious diversity of the developers/authors. The inclusion of fictional religions or gods is not in itself offensive. The reason the disclaimer was made in the first place was because Assassin's Creed took a very dim and cynical view of religion in general and Christianity in particular (opiate of the masses and tyrant's tool) and pretty much said that religion was hogwash. The whole plot about the progenitors and their shenanigans has not been about religion since the Adam and Eve reveal in AC2 and it has since stopped being a conspiratorial take on the Adam and Eve story and has delved straight into sci-fi territory.

So once again, since the themes in recent Assassin's Creed games are no longer about religion why should they not change the disclaimer?

 

[CrazyCapnMorgan]

You know, I just look at stupid shit like this and when I analyze it, suddenly George Carlin pops into my head with a perfect synopsis of what I'm looking at:

"Pardon me, I have nothing to say!"

 

[Casual Shinji]

I suppose that's why Syndicate has women running around in street gangs and goon squads during 19th century London, even if it makes no fucking sense at all.

Agreed. I mean, I can accept Batman-style grappling hooks that I can see existed through DNA-encoded memories accessed to look for pieces of artifacts left by ancient aliens, but this nonsense with chicks in gangs is totally blowing my immersion.

You know, I'm just going to stop for a moment and be serious, and point out that the one part of that sentence that actually happened historically was the women in street gangs. Yup...no sense at all.

Again, I'll point toward the likes of Indiana Jones; A series filled with magic mcguffins and ridiculous stunts. Despite all that lunacy, if you had Indy fighting a bunch of female nazi soldiers on the battlefield you'd be hard pressed not to raise an eyebrow.

You won't hear me say there weren't any women invloved in crime, street level or otherwise, throughout the industrial revolution (or any other part of history). There's a story about a woman who lead a band of pirates during, I think, the 18th century. Though she did so from land, as most pirates operated that way apparently. And violent muggings need only have someone desperate enough to do it. But if you're going to tell me there were women gang "enforcers" right along with men, then that is indeed stretching my suspension to believe in this take on 19th century London. Unless ofcourse they were the result of Templar magic mischieve.

And yes, the series obviously has many things that don't make sense historically, like British accents in France, but this thread was specifically about equal gender representation. And that in the case of Syndicate's gangs it doesn't make sense to include it.