'Assassin's Creed' is sexist for adding female characters?

[Dread Not]

Alyrium Denryle, in Assassin's Creed games there is only one player character per game with the exception of rare side sequences, it makes no sense to demand that "at least one" of the main characters be a woman when there was only one character.

Gee, did I completely fucking dream playing as someone other than Ratonhnhaké:ton for the first three sequences of ACIII? Across 8 main games and 6 protagonists, plus Haytham, plus Desmond, in a tale that spans centuries, you have an all out sausage fest that can't be bothered to put the player in the shoes of a woman taking part in these world changing events. "At least one" of those 6+ could easily have been a woman, and no, that doesn't mean they have to include multiple characters per entry despite there already being a precedent for that.

[Titan Uranus]

Alyrium Denryle, in Assassin's Creed games there is only one player character per game with the exception of rare side sequences, it makes no sense to demand that "at least one" of the main characters be a woman when there was only one character.

Assassin's Creed Chronicles called, it wants you to catch up with what's been done with the game writing style.

Alyrium was very clearly talking about the past relatively major games, not a recently released 2D side-game.

Where's the option for "I don't care so long as the game is good"?

Do you remember all the problems with AC: Unity ?

Alyrium Denryle, in Assassin's Creed games there is only one player character per game with the exception of rare side sequences, it makes no sense to demand that "at least one" of the main characters be a woman when there was only one character.

From memory, the complains were about wanting a female character in the co-op.

I don't remember all of the troubles of Unity, as I realized that the series was awful around Ass Creed 2.75. The complaints were about the co-op, but it seemed as though Alyrium was talking about the campaign and the characters, not what your irrelevant skin looks like in multiplayer.

Alyrium Denryle, in Assassin's Creed games there is only one player character per game with the exception of rare side sequences, it makes no sense to demand that "at least one" of the main characters be a woman when there was only one character.

Gee, did I completely fucking dream playing as someone other than Ratonhnhaké:ton for the first three sequences of ACIII? Across 8 main games and 6 protagonists, plus Haytham, plus Desmond, in a tale that spans centuries, you have an all out sausage fest that can't be bothered to put the player in the shoes of a woman taking part in these world changing events. "At least one" of those 6+ could easily have been a woman, and no, that doesn't mean they have to include multiple characters per entry despite there already being a precedent for that.

If it took you more than a couple of hours to complete the Haythem sequences then you were incompetent or handicaping yourself.
They did have a female character in Ass Creed liberation, which was also the only one to feature any significant new mechanics since AC 2.5 (that make sense for assassins). Here's the thing though, no one bought it, so why would they have put another woman lead in Ass Creed when the last one tanked hard?
As for the multiple characters per entry, I was responding specifically to Alyrium's seeming demand for equal choice between male and female. Which is foolish because it guarantees a shallower game than if you picked one gender.

[Gaidin]

Alyrium Denryle, in Assassin's Creed games there is only one player character per game with the exception of rare side sequences, it makes no sense to demand that "at least one" of the main characters be a woman when there was only one character.

Assassin's Creed Chronicles called, it wants you to catch up with what's been done with the game writing style.

Alyrium was very clearly talking about the past relatively major games, not a recently released 2D side-game.

Assassin's Creed games are Assassin's Creed games. I've got no problem pretending the DS games don't exist, but when they're sticking these in their timeline because yes, they're sticking these in their timeline. Cry.

[Dread Not]

If it took you more than a couple of hours to complete the Haythem sequences then you were incompetent or handicaping yourself.

Uh huh, two hours of main game missions you must complete to progress are "rare side sequences." Be sure to lift with your legs while moving those goal posts.

Here's the thing though, no one bought it, so why would they have put another woman lead in Ass Creed when the last one tanked hard?

Yes, clearly Aveline the vagina-haver is the only explanation for that game's commercial performance, and we shouldn't speak up about game studios only caring about their bottom line. And yes, why in a million years would Ubisoft spring for another female PC? Oh wait, Syndicate is the topic at hand. Clearly Evie's inclusion was an impossible expectation up until the minute of its announcement.

As for the multiple characters per entry, I was responding specifically to Alyrium's seeming demand for equal choice between male and female. Which is foolish because it guarantees a shallower game than if you picked one gender.

Citation needed. And no, lauding Bioware does not qualify.

[Lagmonster]

Leaving aside the perversion of asking a company that has profited by churning out a dozen semi-indistinguishable sequels to be an instigator of change, Ubisoft was including Arabic and Native American protagonists during a time when many westerners were in the middle of a semi-racist war with the first and had basically forgotten about the second, to say nothing of how hard they blasphemed with their story over both Christianity and the American vision of their founders, so the fact that they decided that women were the one demographic they didn't attempt to build up doesn't even budge the pin on my giveashitometer.

[TheFeniX]

As much as I love to bag on UbiShit, they also took that kind of risk on a completely new IP and dumped a ton of money into it with the first game. They didn't pussy foot around and try to test the waters. My wife has to be the worst Catholic ever and even she was made "uncomfortable" (for lack of a better term) by some of the themes in the first AssCreed game. However, that was pushed aside because the game was pretty damned good.

Bioware deserves recognition for pushing progressive themes, but what exactly did the original Mass Effect and DragonAge games really push for women aside from Hale delivering a knockout performance as FemShep, really making Meer's dialog sounds stilted in response? The Asari were a pretty big "um, ok" stand-in for a lesbian option. It wasn't until the second game they started taking risks in other areas and we still got Sex Vampires, continuous Miranda ass shots, and Jack needing the dick to find some closure. With Bioware, it's always two steps forward, one step back.

Further, I remember the whole "Fully-Gay" comments from BW developers WRT Dorian and how much it was played up. Numerous interviews and comments about "realistically flawed characters" and other such marketing to show they were breaking the mold with DA:I. So, Bioware gets a pass and Ubisoft gets reamed? It smacks of a lot of hypocrisy to me. The whole GamerGate type mentality of people routinely bashing Bioware for their "full-gay" comments, saying it was purely marketing, were rightfully called out for being shit-slinging retards, we aren't we doing the same for the writer in the OP?

[InsaneTD]

Alyrium Denryle, in Assassin's Creed games there is only one player character per game with the exception of rare side sequences, it makes no sense to demand that "at least one" of the main characters be a woman when there was only one character.

Gee, did I completely fucking dream playing as someone other than Ratonhnhaké:ton for the first three sequences of ACIII? Across 8 main games and 6 protagonists, plus Haytham, plus Desmond, in a tale that spans centuries, you have an all out sausage fest that can't be bothered to put the player in the shoes of a woman taking part in these world changing events. "At least one" of those 6+ could easily have been a woman, and no, that doesn't mean they have to include multiple characters per entry despite there already being a precedent for that.

That tanked cause it was released for previous gen consoles right when the hype was at its highest for current gen, it was never going to do well and felt more like a placating gesture to all the people who couldn't get a current gen for whatever reason. It was then very quietly released for PC*.

Honestly, I was more excited for that then unity at the time, still don't own it though.

The first couple games, the lack of female player character (which in my eyes is actually the issue, there be lots of strong female characters in the story) can be explained away by the time periods, for the history sequences, and genetics for the modern, the male DNA carrying the memories of the male family members, once Desman dies though, this doesn't fly for the modern sequences. The last one I played was four and the modern unnamed generic protagonist number one could of been any gender and still worked fine.

*I do seem to remember it being released for PC, but it was more a, here it is, then a big release. I doubt they ever really cared for it.

[Vendetta]

Here's the thing though, no one bought it, so why would they have put another woman lead in Ass Creed when the last one tanked hard?

No-one bought it because it was on the Vita. Even if both of the people who owned a Vita bought it it wouldn't have been a commercial success. And by the time it finally got released on home consoles it was a port of a two year old handheld game.

[TheFeniX]

I doubt even the most delusional of developers look at a game like Remember Me's interesting concepts not coming together as a game or X-Blades by the numbers boring dungeon hacks and said: "must have been the vagina that tanked our sales." They are capable of looking at other factors in a game's success and failure. And I don't think having a male protag somehow bolsters a few more sales from bad games, but it does insulate you from certain criticism. After-all, getting yelled at for not doing something rather than doing something incredibly poorly is easier from a damage control perspective.

But honestly, you aren't likely to see lots of female leads in these types of games, just like you don't see that many in movies. There are obviously stand-outs, but they are just that.

An old one:

The Gears of War series is not only a hit with males, but females as well, which is something Epic’s art director Chris Perna feels is due to the lack of “attractive, stereotypical, sexy” females in the game.

Speaking with OXM, Perna said the female fan reaction to the Gears series, supports a feeling of empowerment according to a lot of the feedback received.

“In Gears you kind of need dirt,” he said. “If you want to create this attractive, stereotypical, sexy female – a lot of games do that and it’s kind of cliché at this point. You see the implants and the blonde hair and pants and you roll your eyes – it’s almost like the game geek’s idealization of what a woman should be. I think because we didn’t go that route we have more believability.

“They’re still feminine. Anya in Gears 3 comes across as being very feminine, and I think it works.From what we’ve heard, when they play the game they feel empowered and they feel good.”

That being said, Perna doesn’t think we’ll see a female lead in the series any time soon, even if the idea is “certainly interesting.”

“If you look at what sells, it’s tough to justify something like that,” he said.

Gears of War: Judgment, a prequel co-developed by Epic Games and People Can Fly, is out next month exclusively for Xbox 360.

The thing is, he's not wrong and he's also not right. It does sell, but you risk a lot on a female lead. You never know how the market is going to react, even when you've put together a ball-bustingly awesome game. Dudes are a safe bet not only among your market, but also with publishers as they also believe female leads can't push sales and risk loads of controversy. That said, stereotypes in fiction aren't a bad thing and GoW was built off them.

It's unlikely we're ever going to reach a point where female protagonist numbers are anywhere near parity to male ones in these types of games. We're going to be stuck with "Are you a boy or a girl?" blank slate games like Elder Scrolls, Mass Effect, etc. And I don't view this as a terrible thing as without a set gender, writers can't just lean on gender stereotypes to create drama but are still being allowed to insert some flavor here and there (such as in Mass Effect and some dialog changes in FFXIV) based on your gender choice.

[Gaidin]

I don't think it's really about the female lead given what you read there. Gamers are gamers. Including female gamers. The actual gamers anyway. They'll take their female leads, but they want their games first because dammit don't try to break their hobby for the SJWs and that is probably the vaguely hidden issue front and center here. Female character without breaking the script, the world, or the game? Cool beans. Female PC without breaking the script, the world, or the game? Even better. But dammit, keep the script, the world, and the game intact because...hobby. We, all of us, want our hobby.

[Sidewinder]

In his video 'Is Evie Frye Ubisoft's attempt at exploiting feminism for PR?' MundaneMatt noted Edward Smith never referred to the female protagonists of video games by name- not even Evie, the 'Assassin's Creed Syndicate' player character that started this controversy- meaning Smith is taking away the female protagonists' CHARACTER IDENTITY, and identifying them only by their gender... something FAR MORE sexist than Smith accuses Ubisoft of doing.

[Vendetta]

Psst: Even if it weren't disingenuous bullshit from a known and notable internet twat (and one of the instigators and early promulgators of the lies about Zoe Quinn last year), that argument would be a tu quoque fallacy anyway.

So fuck off repeating twats, eh?

[Zixinus]

They'll take their female leads, but they want their games first because dammit don't try to break their hobby for the SJWs and that is probably the vaguely hidden issue front and center here.

It's the fear of people who use the term SJW. However those who are called SJW never, ever say "Make our idea of a protagonist/characters AND COMPLETELY RUIN EVERYTHING ELSE!". Amita Sarkeesian never, ever said that it is better to have a politically-correct character with an awful game than to have a great game with bad characters. Nobody wants game developers to make games worse than they have to be. They just want game developers to stop thinking in stereotypes and age-old, boring tropes (be they about women or others).

The thing is that as a medium matures and becomes bigger, it will always draw criticism in whatever and every aspect possible worth commenting on. The more popular a medium gets the more commentary it will receive from whatever. With gamers you have a hostility to these criticisms, especially from perceived outsiders because in the past outsiders dismissed or condemned video games. Thing is, the people doing it now are not fundamentalist idiots or pseudo-intellectuals looking for excuse to lash their pet causes. The standard of what should be in a video game matured as well, both the players and the creators. You are going to get a discussion about these sort of things and that's normal.

The thing is, that from the creation stand-point some of the things being asked is not that difficult or have any effect on the game creation process at all. Have a more adult's conception of women (ie, they have more depth than a trophy); don't use boobs or ass shots as your main marketing material; don't put women in ridiculously revealing skin-tight clothes for the sake of cheap titillation (especially when it makes no sense and yes, especially stupid bikini armor). If there is a reason for a titillation, fine, but don't try to make it that small section the prime feature of the game. Part of the reason I'd like these to happen isn't because I am terribly upset about the perceived idea of women or an ardent feminist, but because I'm not a confused 12 year old anymore and tired as shit of these kinds of things. They're cheap and if I want porn I can get porn. Please take away these kind of cheap shit, don't give women some kind of silly special treatment that you wouldn't have given to male characters. Put some effort into writing female characters, especially if you are also putting in effort for the male ones. That's not even a feminist agenda, that's a demand for good writing.

Note that most of these would at best effect fairly minor aspects story-writing, visual designs (the worst is that you'll have a harder time telling gender by armor which actually makes sense) and mostly marketing (sell the game, not non-existent porn). Nothing about gameplay. Games would not get worse than they otherwise would, except for an immature audience who secretly takes pleasure in this sort of shit.

[Lagmonster]

I figure the percentage of games revelling in shameless nudity and violence should be basically the same as the percentage of consumers who are entertained by that. If the percentage seems unacceptably high, you need to ask yourself if the problem is the dev making the game or the people buying it.

Consumers who bought the second or third God of War, for example, could be reasonably assured to be people who could not wait to act out some offensive sex and violence. These aren't people who were fooled by marketing; these are people who specifically said "yes, I will pay money to partake of some fantasy sexism".

Sexism in video games will never ever fully disappear (even if you try outlawing it - see how well that worked on anything else), but will probably slowly become less a dominant slice of the industry as the attitudes of consumers change.

[Zixinus]

Making a game that is about sexual fantasies or really having that content and then advertising it as such is fine. You are getting what you paid for.

My problem is when it is used as such but have the game be about something entirely different, where such stuff is not even really part of it and would actually be improved by its absence (or at least not made worse). X-blades for example. It was an awful game, but it would have at least been less obnoxious or pretentious.
My annoyance also extends to games where the sex of the characters is a focus rather than who they are and what they do in the game (some Tomb Raider advertising), especially when their sex is not relevant that much.

Sexism cannot get got entirely rid of, in some form or the other it will always be around, even once mainstream society moves beyond stuff there by old cultural inertia. In a sense it will never entirely cease to be a problem. But it should be talked about, criticized, discussed, analyzed like any other aspect of the medium. Thus the worst examples of it should be pointed out and called out on.
And the people who overly defensive or outright hostile as a knee-jerk reaction to this need to grow up and realize this is normal, that not everyone making a criticism on the medium is a clueless asshole or wants to ruin gaming.

[Gaidin]

They'll take their female leads, but they want their games first because dammit don't try to break their hobby for the SJWs and that is probably the vaguely hidden issue front and center here.

It's the fear of people who use the term SJW. However those who are called SJW never, ever say "Make our idea of a protagonist/characters AND COMPLETELY RUIN EVERYTHING ELSE!". Amita Sarkeesian never, ever said that it is better to have a politically-correct character with an awful game than to have a great game with bad characters. Nobody wants game developers to make games worse than they have to be. They just want game developers to stop thinking in stereotypes and age-old, boring tropes (be they about women or others).

Well I know that about her. That's why I wasn't naming names and instead using a term. For instance I might call the article of the OP a misguided SJW article whatever brought it about. It's trying to get in on the cause for whatever reason it wants to get in on the cause, but it just seems to well, do damage. As I said and will add to, don't break the hobby for the SJWs because the ones worth helping are more gamers than SJWs and someone you might want to higher as either an advisor or writer anyway. Not that they'll let you, they're more interested in what they do. But there that is.

I see no reason to keep what I don't disagree with or wasn't clarifying on so I snipped it.

[Vendetta]

Do be aware though that anyone who uses the term "SJW" unironically is a fuckwit. It was a term invented by fuckwits and only ever used by fuckwits to refer to people holding not actually very controversial opinions that they want to trivialise.

[Zixinus]

That's why I wasn't naming names and instead using a term.

Why? If you have a problem with that person, why hide behind terms?

It's trying to get in on the cause for whatever reason it wants to get in on the cause, but it just seems to well, do damage

What damage? It's one person writing on a blog about his feelings about the PR for a few upcoming games, fairly literately. Please show this damage you speak of.

As I said and will add to, don't break the hobby for the SJWs because the ones worth helping are more gamers than SJWs and someone you might want to higher as either an advisor or writer anyway

But that's exactly my point: the so-called SJWs who care about this care about gaming and love it. Anita for example might not be a hardcore gamer, but she loves video games, that's the reason she started doing her videos. If they didn't care about gaming, they wouldn't talk about it, wouldn't spend effort to analyze it.

They want gaming to be better, not worse. Criticism isn't always about destruction, it is about trying to fix something that you want. Sure, there are critics that criticize for the sake of it and thus never truly satisfied, but as pointed out, that's their job as pointed out.

Not that they'll let you, they're more interested in what they do. But there that is.

Please elaborate, I have difficulty making sense of this.

[Gaidin]

Do be aware though that anyone who uses the term "SJW" unironically is a fuckwit. It was a term invented by fuckwits and only ever used by fuckwits to refer to people holding not actually very controversial opinions that they want to trivialise.

A term is a term. I'm pretty indifferent to its use as long as I can correctly differentiate between the ones doing correct and the bulls in the china shops. Got a problem, too fucking bad.

[Gaidin]

That's why I wasn't naming names and instead using a term.

Why? If you have a problem with that person, why hide behind terms?

It's trying to get in on the cause for whatever reason it wants to get in on the cause, but it just seems to well, do damage

What damage? It's one person writing on a blog about his feelings about the PR for a few upcoming games, fairly literately. Please show this damage you speak of.

Well if you're going to break up the point into two sentences I'll just shove them back together. Basically it's been noted and/or theorized in this very thread that this article, if it gets enough traction just because Ubisoft isn't going to change an established money making PR method whatever people think, could possibly cause them to do a full 180 back to their usual big hairy man Assassin's Creed games. Oops.

Not that they'll let you, they're more interested in what they do. But there that is.

Please elaborate, I have difficulty making sense of this.

Riddle me this. If they're more interested in being a critic or doing their talks or trying to effect all the gaming industry why the hell would they take a contract to advise one game company in 80 hour/week perpetual crunch with some of those deadlines for things like E3, Alpha, Beta, other shows, etc. If you give me a good answer, I'll accept that they might, between them all, hatch a plan to do something from the inside. There is more than one right? There is more than Anita right?

[TheFeniX]

You can't get rid of sexism in fiction unless you manage to smash gender roles completely. Men and Women are different. We grow up differently and establish our differences intentionally. The fact that we're biologically different means we'll avoid what the other likes to establish our connection with our identity. We talk about different things, we enjoy different types of entertainment. There is obviously overlap and people are complicated. However, fiction is almost never as complicated as real life because these characters don't have years of experience that made them who they are.

Sexism in of itself isn't a terrible thing. Well, let me rephrase I guess. Good or bad: People just don't seem to mind it when done right. Game of Thrones is very popular among men and women and it's a very sexist setting. The main thing is they don't make a dig at women for being women outside the context of the show. Same with media like 50 Shades of Grey, romance novels, etc. You can put women into submissive roles, give them agency, make interesting characters, and women will devour it. They don't have to go around shooting/stabbing people for women to get on board.

My annoyance also extends to games where the sex of the characters is a focus rather than who they are and what they do in the game (some Tomb Raider advertising), especially when their sex is not relevant that much.

And this really seems to be where women are at, my wife included. They generally don't like to be beat over the head with "I am woman, hear me roar" bullshit anymore than they want to see female characters stand in the background in bikinis shouting "please save me." They want to see actual characters. They will consume content with male leads just fine if it rubs them right in other areas. Men meanwhile tend to be much more beholden to gameplay (or the mechanics) than anything. They will not buy your stripper-assassin game (like X-Blades) just because "dat ass," nor will they turn down good gameplay because the characters are sexist stereotypes. Probably helps that sexist stereotypes towards men are almost always positive, whereas sexist stereotypes towards women are almost always negative.

[Zixinus]

Basically it's been noted and/or theorized in this very thread that this article, if it gets enough traction just because Ubisoft isn't going to change an established money making PR method whatever people think, could possibly cause them to do a full 180 back to their usual big hairy man Assassin's Creed games. Oops.

That would only happen if the people making those decision didn't actually read the OP's article and only paid attention to KukuruyoArt's comment. Which is like not having any positive black PC characters because it offends die-hard racists.

The OP article isn't even specifically about AC, it is about a current marketing trend where it names two other games that do this. Which is what the OP really is criticizing. The OP post is not criticizing the game, that's what KukuroyoArt is saying and is misrepresenting.

If Ubisoft took the article seriously, then the obvious lesson that should have been taken isn't to not make anymore AC games with female protagonist, but to make the PR about female PCs more subtle.

Riddle me this. If they're more interested in being a critic or doing their talks or trying to effect all the gaming industry why the hell would they take a contract to advise one game company in 80 hour/week perpetual crunch with some of those deadlines for things like E3, Alpha, Beta, other shows, etc.

What are you talking about? I am literary confused at what you are talking about.

There is more than one right? There is more than Anita right?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q1qndga6SNU
A video from people that were or are in game development. The series talks about nearly everything relating to game design, they actually have multiple videos on gender and sexuality.

Women and how they should be portrayed is not some sort of alien topic forced upon video games from the outside. It has been one between developers too as well as players. Which would happen naturally as more female developers make games.

The thing is that this whole issue isn't some big, unknown mystery that nobody has figured out. Ubisoft has released two games, from the top of my head, that handled female PCs right (even if they got other aspects wrong): Beyond Good and Evil and Mirror's Edge. From what marketing material I have seen for both, they didn't dwell on the gender of their PCs but what they did and who they are. That's it. There is not some big, esoteric agenda according to which everything must fall in line, just that people need to get their heads out of their asses about the issue.

[Gaidin]

What are you talking about? I am literary confused at what you are talking about.

Seriously. If you can't grasp the fact that I'm asking you if they're content with being critical of the industry as a whole why should they take a contract with one specific company, I really am not going to beat your head with a clue bat any further.

[Vendetta]

What are you talking about? I am literary confused at what you are talking about.

Seriously. If you can't grasp the fact that I'm asking you if they're content with being critical of the industry as a whole why should they take a contract with one specific company, I really am not going to beat your head with a clue bat any further.

Yes, but what the fuck does that have to do with anything?

It is quite possible to be critical of things, even professionally, without actually getting involved personally in making them, people have been doing it in every medium for literally centuries.

[Gaidin]

Yes, but what the fuck does that have to do with anything?

It is quite possible to be critical of things, even professionally, without actually getting involved personally in making them, people have been doing it in every medium for literally centuries.

Because that post Zixinus uselessly broke up into individual sentences there was a thought of whether or not a game company would contract someone like Anita as an advisor of all things followed by whether she'd even take the contract or even how long she'd consider it. Among other things given restrictions such contracts might have for people like her and what her speaking gigs and videos might now be limited to if she could do them at all for a period of time. And, well, etc.