Why I personally am upset with Ubisoft about AC: Unity

[Seraj33]

I liked the gaming industry better when gameplay and graphics and general enjoyability mattered over the amount of one gender it had in it.

Seriously. You wont give women higher wages or equal rights by making every game have the mandatory "nopenisplz option".
If a game has a male main character, then let it have a male main character.
If a game has a female main character, then let it have a fucking female maincharacter.

Now go reproduce and teach your children that women and men should always be treated with equal respect.

In this case. Either you play the game and enjoy it instead of hating it for something that in all honesty, isnt as much as an issue we make it out to be. Or you just go play another game. Or you go outside. The choice, is, yours.

That was definitively not my point. I specifically said the gender politics are not what got me upset. Please, debate with me, not the strawman standing next to me.

Okay this then.
The point I tried to make is, it makes no sense to make the main character be able to be female if the main character is supposed to be male. That is how Assassins creed is. The main character is male, has always been and will be now.
The other assassins are all male because in co op every player sees themselves as the main character. So there is no point in having a female character option.

And I agree that Ubisoft handeled it poorly and I understand that it is nice to play as a female character sometimes, I choose it myself at times. But is it impossible for you to enjoy the game just because you can't be female in it?
Personally I can enjoy Gothic even though the character is ONLY male. And I can enjoy Payday 1 and 2 even though all four of the playable characters as well as Bain are men.
It just really doesn't matter to me.

Genders shouldn't matter in my opinion.
How about you? Why exactly is it so important to play as a female character besides because its fun from time to time?

 

[Zhukov]

What happened to people who wanted to play fun games?

I don't care who the character is, could be Bayonetta, could be Spyro, could be Dante, doesn't fucking matter as long as the game is fucking good. Fuck narrative, fuck story, fuck that cancerous "cinematic experience" attitude. GAMEPLAY should be the top priority, shit like avatars and characters should take a back seat.

And I already know what's gonna follow, that tired and smug "Oh so you don't want games to grow and mature?" or "Games aren't your cis, het, white, ablest, gender binary, restroom inequality, [insert every other SJW "I WIN THIS ARGUMENT" buzzword here] toys anymore" argument.

Oh, I don't have to use arguments about maturing the medium or gender issues on this on.

I am going to be rather smug though.

See, some of us find narrative and characters and perhaps even a "cinematic experience" to be fun and/or engaging.

Crazy, I know. Goddamn human beings with their differences in preference.

 

[Matthew Jabour]

When have Ubi ever given you a choice what gender to choose?

I mean, you really want every game to have gender options? That would completely take away the uniqueness of a predetermined character. Character customisation is fun and all, but it lacks the quality of a well rounded and well written character with their own personality. It's no coincidence that the most memorable and iconic game characters aren't customizable.

It's always good to have choice, which is why there's games with gender/character customisation and games where they're predetermined.

You don't think Ubisoft has the capability to make at least two well-defined, well-rounded characters? Because I'm pretty sure they could, and if they did, the game would be better for it.

Example: In Dead Island, you can pick from four different characters, each of which is fleshed out uniquely, and one of which is, in fact, female. (Let's not get into the gender politics of THAT series right now, we don't have all day.) Now, it was easier to do this in that game, since it's from a first person perspective, but the characterization didn't exactly suffer. Each character played a different role in the game, and each had a story. Now how, exactly, is one of the largest companies on the planet incapable of doing at least the same?

No, because of cutscenes and voice acting and how much work goes into the creation and back story of a Assassins Creed protagonist Ubisoft giving a gender option would be stupid. It would cost a shit ton and weaken the character that they are trying to create. I thought people were upset that the nameless multiplayer companions the main story were not female. But having two different character models of different genders in each cutscene, with different dialogue and mannerisms and an altered story to boot? Hard to wonder why Ubisoft and EA treats their customers like shit when you complain about the stupidest shit. Dead Island was not the most story centric game. The first person perspective meant that character models for the PC did not matter as much but what people are suggesting here is that Ubisoft have two parallel and fully produced stories for no reason at all. Why did people not complain about this in any other Assassins Creed? Or what about The Last of Us? Naughty Dog saying only a big strong man can protect a little girl in the post-apocalypse? Why did they not mo-cap and script and render double the cutscenes for that game so I can play as a woman? See how stupid this argument is?

Because they're making a game with four player characters. Having them all be the same guy isn't just stupid, it's lazy. They want the gameplay of four player co-op, but aren't willing to commit to having the story for it. Even if it was just four different men, that would at least require effort.

This is like being given four slices of toast, but only enough butter for one. Then, when you ask for more, other people jump on you. "Why can't you enjoy the butter that you have?" they shout. "Do you know how hard it is to put butter on toast?" Regardless of how hard it might be to butter toast, when you serve toast, you've created the expectation that their will be butter. Either just serve one slice of toast, or give us some more goddamn butter!

 

[Matthew Jabour]

Huh?

Wouldn't that be like me getting upset with Bethesda because they keep making open world games, but I prefer more linear games with better pacing?

Damn it Bethesda, I'm a customer expressing a desire for a product and you're failing to provide!

That's completely different. One's a cosmetic change that requires a moderate amount of effort, and one's a complete overhaul that would make no sense.

Also, I was arguing that I like MORE choice, not less. That may not be the point you were going for, but you ended up making it nonetheless.

Not different at all.

I am asking for an open world game that focuses on exploration to be a linear game that focuses on pacing. Silly, right?

You are asking for a game with a single, set protagonist to be a game with a player-created customizable protagonist. Also silly. It'd be like me demanding that The Last of Us feature multiple customizable protagonists, despite it being made to fit with one particular protagonist of set attributes.

Look, I'm not against female protagonists. Or customizable ones (although I wouldn't want customizable protagonists in all games). I would be happy to see an Assassin's Creed game with a chick doing all the real estate management and item collection (and stabbing, if they remember to include that). But pointing to one game with a male protagonist and saying, "I demand that you make this game different, because I want it so", is a bit goofy. Also, much too late considering how far along development has proceeded.

Saying you'd like to see a chick at the helm of Assassin's Creed 2015 or AC2016 would be a much more reasonable statement.

Besides, your "customer is always right" point rings hollow here. Last I checked, AC games sell rather well. So if this one sells well despite having the incredibly generic leading man then wouldn't that signify that The Customer was satisfied with their white bread?

I never said I wanted a customizable protagonist, just a female one. The two are not mutually inclusive.

And as for people being satisfied with the same thing, I have just one thing to say: There is no perfect tomato sauce, but there are perfect tomato sauces.

That means that if you ask people what they want, the average of that data will settle on the same thing: male, white protagonist. But if you instead consider people on a more individual basis, you will find that some actually want female protagonists, and some want black protagonists - you get what I mean. Just because people are happy with a white bread lad doesn't mean they wouldn't enjoy a female protagonist more.

 

[Matthew Jabour]

P.S. No, I'm not being entitled for demanding something from a product I want. Ubisoft's making millions off us with this franchise, the least they could do is include multiple character options.

No, you are entitled, you can make the same argument on pretty much every succsessful company, if you don't like it don't buy it. Just don't ***** about that they have some obligations to make things the way you like it.

It's like saying that JK rowling should rewrite the entire Harry potter franchise with him as a girl and release it for free because you enjoy female protagonists in books.

Firstly, Harry Potter already has multiple strong female characters. That may be a minor point, but I hate it when people use bad examples.

Secondly, don't ever discredit 'bitching' about undesirable things to try and change them. It was because of all the complaints he got from the Star Wars prequels that George Lucas finally stepped out of the director's chair. Consumers have the power to change things; why not use it?

So does AC series (Mary Read for example), and I doubt "power of consumers" really caused George Lucas to step out of the director's chair.

Your post is saying that because your'e offended by something NOT appearing, Ubisoft has the obligation to waste hundread of man hours and a lots of money for something that will not actually effect the experience, giving people who actually want to play the game less content.

That's the definition of entitlement.

1. Lucas specifically said that he was leaving because of his criticisms. I wouldn't say something like that if there hadn't been articles on this very website.

2. Am I entitled to ask for more than one player character? Because Ubisoft is opening its doors to four-player co-op, but still only wants to give enough characterization for one personality. Is it entitlement to call out a multimillion dollar company for being lazy?

 

[Matthew Jabour]

You don't think Ubisoft has the capability to make at least two well-defined, well-rounded characters? Because I'm pretty sure they could, and if they did, the game would be better for it.

Example: In Dead Island, you can pick from four different characters, each of which is fleshed out uniquely, and one of which is, in fact, female. (Let's not get into the gender politics of THAT series right now, we don't have all day.) Now, it was easier to do this in that game, since it's from a first person perspective, but the characterization didn't exactly suffer. Each character played a different role in the game, and each had a story. Now how, exactly, is one of the largest companies on the planet incapable of doing at least the same?

Was Dead Island all that well regarded for its story and characters though? Not that I ever played it, but I can't remember anyone ever saying 'Man, that Dead Island sure had a great story with engaging characters.' Quite the opposite.

If Ubi made two well-rounded and well-defined unique characters as an optional protagonist, they'd have to make two versions of the game that would react accordingly to each personality. That is, if they want it to be the protagonist's story and not just some story with interchangeable hero person á la Mass Effect. Sure they could do it, but it would take either double the developement time or double the developement team to pull it off

Maybe if they made two seperate scenarios with its own protagonist that cross eachother's path on several occasions. But then they'd have that make each scenario half the playthrough length it would be otherwise.

Resident Evil pulled it off, and that was ten years ago. I refuse to believe that this billion-dollar corporation can't shill out enough for a female character. When Mitt Romney walks down the street and a hobo asks him for change, does he try to convince the hobo that he doesn't have anything on him?

 

[Zhukov]

I never said I wanted a customizable protagonist, just a female one. The two are not mutually inclusive.

Oh? My mistake.

My argument still works though.

You seem to expect a game that is late into development to change into something that it is not. That is unrealistic.

Like I said, saying that you'd like to see one in the next AC, or the one after that depending on how their development cycles work, would be much more reasonable.

And as for people being satisfied with the same thing, I have just one thing to say: There is no perfect tomato sauce, but there are perfect tomato sauces.

That means that if you ask people what they want, the average of that data will settle on the same thing: male, white protagonist. But if you instead consider people on a more individual basis, you will find that some actually want female protagonists, and some want black protagonists - you get what I mean. Just because people are happy with a white bread lad doesn't mean they wouldn't enjoy a female protagonist more.

Thing is, when it comes to the customer being satisfied, from Ubisoft's perspective they only have to be satisfied enough. Enough to buy the game. Which they probably will. In large numbers. Unless it ends up sucking.

Allow me to rephrase.

How many people, do you think, who would have bought AC:U if it let them play as a female will decline to buy the game because it does not?

Do you think anyone who would buy the game with a dude would decline to do so if it was a chick?

Does the former group outnumber the latter?

 

[nomotog_v1legacy]

What happened to people who wanted to play fun games?

I don't care who the character is, could be Bayonetta, could be Spyro, could be Dante, doesn't fucking matter as long as the game is fucking good. Fuck narrative, fuck story, fuck that cancerous "cinematic experience" attitude. GAMEPLAY should be the top priority, shit like avatars and characters should take a back seat.

And I already know what's gonna follow, that tired and smug "Oh so you don't want games to grow and mature?" or "Games aren't your cis, het, white, ablest, gender binary, restroom inequality, [insert every other SJW "I WIN THIS ARGUMENT" buzzword here] toys anymore" argument.

Setting and narrative can really affect your fun. Shooting demons is fun, but shooting gray cubes is less fun. Context, setting and narrative really do matter. This goes x2 for AC. The series is more or less an game that lets you play historical tourist well stabbing people.

I also find at least 3/4 of people prefer to play a character of their own race, sex or general group when given the option. I see this in MMOs (I've played and play a fair few) where most people will create or choose a character that looks like them in some way: women play women, men play men, dark skinned people play with dark skin, white with white, etc. Most people also go for a race or species that looks human, even when given a wide choice. In fact, if you look at the most popular species and races in fantasy settings, you will notice almost all of them are very human in appearance.

Also, you don't stab people while on vacation?

Of coarse I don't. I'm on vacation. The numbers I have see on cross play suggest women tend to play women well men tend to play men and sometimes women. In my experience, there is practically no way to tell who is what, so ya.

 

[Casual Shinji]

Resident Evil pulled it off, and that was ten years ago. I refuse to believe that this billion-dollar corporation can't shill out enough for a female character. When Mitt Romney walks down the street and a hobo asks him for change, does he try to convince the hobo that he doesn't have anything on him?

That was a small cast of characters in a mansion. And I doubt the length of that game was as long as an Assassin's Creed game can usually be. And again, Resident Evil is not too famous for it's terrific storytelling and well-written characters.

I recognize that "gamers" who want a "cinematic experience" are simply fedora tipping, pretentious clowns who will be satisfied with anything that bangs the Dear Esther/Gone Home/Heavy Rain drum.

Wow, way to show you're judgemental side there, my friend. After all, people who like a cinematic experience in their games want only that and nothing else, right? God forbid people can like story-first games and gameplay focused ones.

 

[Gankytim]

I recognize that "gamers" who want a "cinematic experience" are simply fedora tipping, pretentious clowns who will be satisfied with anything that bangs the Dear Esther/Gone Home/Heavy Rain drum.

Wow, way to show you're judgemental side there, my friend. After all, people who like a cinematic experience in their games want only that and nothing else, right? God forbid people can like story-first games and gameplay focused ones.

Oh no, don't be mistaken. It was merely to prove a point.

He can be smug? So can I.

Just throw the shoe onto the other foot, it's the only way some people learn.

 

[CrazyBlaze]

Also a crouch button.

hold it... the 7th main entry into the series, and they're finally adding in my biggest gripe with the franchise?

if you're not shitting me, you are the first person to make me even remotely interested in AC:U!

Shortly after the three minute mark.

 

[nomotog_v1legacy]

What happened to people who wanted to play fun games?

I don't care who the character is, could be Bayonetta, could be Spyro, could be Dante, doesn't fucking matter as long as the game is fucking good. Fuck narrative, fuck story, fuck that cancerous "cinematic experience" attitude. GAMEPLAY should be the top priority, shit like avatars and characters should take a back seat.

And I already know what's gonna follow, that tired and smug "Oh so you don't want games to grow and mature?" or "Games aren't your cis, het, white, ablest, gender binary, restroom inequality, [insert every other SJW "I WIN THIS ARGUMENT" buzzword here] toys anymore" argument.

Setting and narrative can really affect your fun. Shooting demons is fun, but shooting gray cubes is less fun. Context, setting and narrative really do matter. This goes x2 for AC. The series is more or less an game that lets you play historical tourist well stabbing people.

Wow, you're the first person to actually throw a good, non-fallacy ridden argument at me in this debate. Seriously, good show.

I'll agree that context is important, but no matter how good and well made the setting and story is, it doesn't change the fact that a unfun game won't make a lasting impact.

Example 1: The story of Metal Gear Rising takes an obvious back seat, but the game is so fun you're distracted from the glaring plothole that is Raiden's mere presence, the game stands on its own two feet and its noticably weak narrative is rarely adressed.

Example 2: Heavy Rain has VERY little focus on gameplay, it's at least 85% story. What's left? There's nothing really challenging or fun for the player to come back to. No matter how good Heavy Rains narrative is, it still isn't a good game.

Assassins Creed has very big presence of setting and atmosphere, I wont deny that. When a new Assassins Creed is announced the big question is "What historical period?" and yes, I will even agree that maybe in a setting like the french revoloution, females might need a large role even if just for the sake of historical accuracy. But the bottom line is, no matter how good and immersive the setting it, if the stabbing of historical figures isn't fun I'll probably end up shelving it and never coming back to it.

I hope they do the gameplay good, but I only hope. The gameplay in AC has been rather stagnate and i think that is why people aren't really talking about it. We kind of know what it will be. The gameplay demo didn't even have any real surprises except for lockpicking and environmental interiors. (I am mildly excited about the second one.)

 

[Casual Shinji]

Wow, way to show you're judgemental side there, my friend. After all, people who like a cinematic experience in their games want only that and nothing else, right? God forbid people can like story-first games and gameplay focused ones.

Oh no, don't be mistaken. It was merely to prove a point.

He can be smug and make generaliztions? So can I.

Just throw the shoe onto the other foot, it's the only way some people learn.

How was he generalizing? He simply stated that there's more than enough people who do like story, narrative, cinematic experience, character designs etc. And that different people have different preferences. That's not generalizing or in any way an insult.

 

[suitepee7]

Also a crouch button.

hold it... the 7th main entry into the series, and they're finally adding in my biggest gripe with the franchise?

if you're not shitting me, you are the first person to make me even remotely interested in AC:U!

Shortly after the three minute mark.

wow, hadn't seen that video, the stealth in an assassins creed game actually looks decent for once! thanks for enlightening me and finding the vid ^^

 

[T_ConX]

The whole 'No female PCs thing in ACV' thing just seems so petty to me. It just seems like there's so much reactionary misinformation getting thrown around.

The best part of the controversy was finding out that every game critic and journalist knows much more about both game design AND the French Revolution than the BILLION DOLLARS IN YEARLY REVENUE VIDEO GAME PUBLISHER that is BASED IN FRANCE. Sorry guys, but that's kind of a tough sell. The Ubisoft corporate HQ is a half hour drive from the public square where King Louis XVI and Queen Marie Antoinette were executed. The Bastille is 15 minutes away.

Game design is a complicated process. They probably made some estimations about how much work it would take to make a fully playable female character for the co-op, and decided that there wasn't any way to pull it off without cutting other features. It's a lot more than just animating; they would have to rework every customization item, rewrite and re-record dialog, and then run all this through quality assurance. It's a sizable workload.

"But... Ubisoft has 73 different studios working on this game! They could have done something!"

I know a lot of folks have made the argument that Ubisoft seems to have nearly unlimited resources, but that's just not true. It is true that a number of studios are working on AC5, but many of those studios are relatively small compared to the Montreal studio, and all of them have also been invested on other projects, from AAA titles like FarCry 4 and the new Rainbow Six. Hell, some are probably working on AC6 already, if not AC7. Ubisoft is dedicated to putting out a new Assassins Creed game every year, so there's not a lot of breathing room in their development cycles.

"But... Charlotte Corday!"

Killed a unarmed and naked man who was suffering from Duhring's disease in his bathtub, and executed four days later. Not much of a game there.

If the lack of playable females is enough to keep you from buying AC5, then that's your right. It's your responsibility as a consumer to vote with your dollars. That said, while I'd love to see a female lead in a major AC title, I'm just not put off enough by this fiasco to sit ACV. I did enjoy Liberation a whole bunch, (it's a little on the short side, but it's free of much of the bloat that I thought ruined III) despite the main character not having the same genitals (or skin color) as me, so I'd like to believe I'm more open to playing as a character that looks different from me than the 'FUCK YOU UBISOFT FOR THINK THAT ANIMATING WOMYN IS HARD!' crowd... Which is a nice warm feeling...

Anyway, time to actually play video games. I'm just starting to get the hang of Lightning Returns...

 

[Depulcator]

The gender/ skin color means NOTHING, as long as the game is fun to play, but this seems to be a thread that's gonna pop up for every AAA game until it screams itself silent.

 

[Rebel_Raven]

I'm mad because Ubisoft dangled some hope in front of me, then said it was too hard, and threw their plans out the window, and ABANDONED THEIR VISION, like all the people complaining bitterly that adding women in would make people do.
It reeks of hypocrisy, by the way, that the people supporting artistic vision for not including women as playable characters don't seem to think there's anything wrong when it's women being excluded despite artistic vision. Especially when they only defend the exclusion of women.

If they'd have kept their yaps shut about AC Unity, and Farcry 4, (both falling in the same category of "it's too hard!") I probably would've quietly just ignored those games, and been a bit grateful for AC Liberation, and Child of Light.

I'm in a "what have you done for me lately" kind of mind set with the industry, (You can thank the people expecting games from the 80's, and 90's to remain relevant.) and Ubisoft, for all their might, and power, and talk, screwed up.

It's not even like they hadn't pulled this before. I.E. Farcry 2.

And, yes, I give a damn about the gender of my played character. I used to not, but you can thank the crap the industry started doing for changing that in creating a void of playable women, and trying to bandage it with useless bs excuses that just stopped sticking.

If it weren't for other parts of the industry getting their heads out of their asses, I'd be a lot angrier than I am now. Gaming is how I release stress, and this gender politics getting in the way of me playing a female characters just really interferes with it, nevermind the artistic freedom of developers.

 

[Lilani]

Huh?

Wouldn't that be like me getting upset with Bethesda because they keep making open world games, but I prefer more linear games with better pacing?

Damn it Bethesda, I'm a customer expressing a desire for a product and you're failing to provide!

Are you saying that the most vital core element of Ubisoft games is their specialization in male player-characters? That THAT is the one thing that makes Ubisoft, Ubisoft?

 

[Dalisclock]

Huh?

Wouldn't that be like me getting upset with Bethesda because they keep making open world games, but I prefer more linear games with better pacing?

Damn it Bethesda, I'm a customer expressing a desire for a product and you're failing to provide!

Are you saying that the most vital core element of Ubisoft games is their specialization in male player-characters? That THAT is the one thing that makes Ubisoft, Ubisoft?

Not that I don't care about the Female representation issue, but right now my biggest gripe with ubisoft with the perpetual forced POS that is Uplay.

Once they scrap that particular piece of dead weight, I'll worry more about not being able to play a female in single-player(I personally don't give a shit about co-op or mutiplayer. Never have and probably never will).

Captcha, uplay needs to die in a fire, not Fade Away. Thanks for the solidarity, though.

 

[Eddie the head]

Huh?

Wouldn't that be like me getting upset with Bethesda because they keep making open world games, but I prefer more linear games with better pacing?

Damn it Bethesda, I'm a customer expressing a desire for a product and you're failing to provide!

Are you saying that the most vital core element of Ubisoft games is their specialization in male player-characters? That THAT is the one thing that makes Ubisoft, Ubisoft?

Nope. So? It's still the game Ubisoft wanted to make. Whether it's a big aspect of the game or not isn't the issue. It's still an aspect of the game.