Crossing Eden
Hello, my name is Yves Guillemot, Vivendi S.A.'s Employee of the Month!
What about metascore?How about metascore?
What about metascore?How about metascore?
Lol, how he markets his own game there at the end
Lol, how he markets his own game there at the end
What about metascore?
Hah true. Maybe they should have asked him why Ac1 and Ac2 didn't give you a gender optionWhich is probably why he threw his thoughts out there in the first place...
I am positive that the fact that you never see a female avatar wearing Arno's outfits will not factor into any professional reviews especially not when there will be potentially many more aspects of the game to give legitimate criticism to besides the cutting room floor content."Logical explanations" for why content is missing do not factor into critics' reviews of your game. They review the game both in terms of what it is and what is missing. When Arthur Gies reviews this game and considers the co-op, is he going to deferring to the developers' excuses for why he feels it isn't fully fleshed-out, or is he going to be evaluating it in terms of what it is and what he feels is missing? When you discuss WD's multiplayer, do you defer to the developer's explanations for why it is the way it is and stay silent, or do you instead criticize it continuously in this thread?
from the 2013 Ubisoft shareholders report...
Thinking about this today, why would they? Why should they? They got enough feedback from AC3 to inform them of what kind of character people want. Most of you either abandoned AC3 or completed it begrudgingly because of Connor. Why would they ever expect the public to accept a female in the lead role of the main line games if people couldn't even accept a character that went against the grain?
Edit: The AC series has always featured strong female characters in each of their games. The playable female characters in the multiplayer also always seemed more popular than the male selections. And of course there was Aveline. So I think Ubi should be let off the hook a bit here.
Me too. I just hope Ubi gives us a look at Connor as an NPC while he visits France and acts as a guest mentor of some sort.Don't remind me. I'm still bummed we didn't get more Connor.
I don't think you're on the right track here. I'm all for a female protagonist, naturally one of the mainline games will have a female lead, (probably...preferably...hopefully... ಥ_ಥ set in Feudal Japan), but in this case I don't think that appealing to a mainline demographic was part of the reason why they decided to go for a male lead during a very bloody revolution time. I mentioned it before but for all we know the next AC:Unity could look like this.Thinking about this today, why would they? Why should they? They got enough feedback from AC3 to inform them of what kind of character people want. Most of you either abandoned AC3 or completed it begrudgingly because of Connor. Why would they ever expect the public to accept a female in the lead role of the main line games if people couldn't even accept a character that went against the grain?
Edit: The AC series has always featured strong female characters in each of their games. The playable female characters in the multiplayer also always seemed more popular than the male selections. And of course there was Aveline. So I think Ubi should be let off the hook a bit here.
Me too. I just hope Ubi gives us a look at Connor as an NPC while he visits France and acts as a guest mentor of some sort.
People weren't a fan of connor, but I'd say he was AC3's smallest problem. I certainly hope that wasn't ubisoft's main focus when thinking about how to improve the game, or blamed poor reception solely on himThinking about this today, why would they? Why should they? They got enough feedback from AC3 to inform them of what kind of character people want. Most of you either abandoned AC3 or completed it begrudgingly because of Connor. Why would they ever expect the public to accept a female in the lead role of the main line games if people couldn't even accept a character that went against the grain?
Edit: The AC series has always featured strong female characters in each of their games. The playable female characters in the multiplayer also always seemed more popular than the male selections. And of course there was Aveline. So I think Ubi should be let off the hook a bit here.
I blame the "next gen on last gen consoles" focus. I feel like it wouldn't been a much better game on next gen consoles considering the engine was made for it in the first place. Huge fan of AC3 but some criticisms were definitely valid. Like the bugs, oh lord the bugs.People weren't a fan of connor, but I'd say he was AC3's smallest problem. I certainly hope that wasn't ubisoft's main focus when thinking about how to improve the game, or blamed poor reception solely on him
I blame the "next gen on last gen consoles" focus. I feel like it wouldn't been a much better game on next gen consoles considering the engine was made for it in the first place. Huge fan of AC3 but some criticisms were definitely valid. Like the bugs, oh lord the bugs.
Yes. However, this is all off-topic discussion that would suitable in another thread.and the whole first 3 hours of the game where you "grow up" being infuriatingly lame.
As if the poor pacing wasn't bad enough, the game's back half just sort of meandered and then rushed to conclude, at the expense of plot and characterization. And then there was the bloat of systems that made the game feel like it was going to collapse under the weight of.and the whole first 3 hours of the game where you "grow up" being infuriatingly lame.
Just think, those systems were optional, hidden and available whenever. Imagine if the series dedicated a button to a checklist and made optional objectives blink in your face and locked behind an online pass.... oh wait.As if the poor pacing wasn't bad enough, the game's back half just sort of meandered and then rushed to conclude, at the expense of plot and characterization. And then there was the bloat of systems that made the game feel like it was going to collapse under the weight of.
Man, I was so hyped for that game. What a letdown.
Bookmarked.
We'll see. (✌゚∀゚yeah me too. Hoping it'll one day read "WE DID IT" because Ubisoft became less lazy and rep women killers.... (...awkward phrasing)
This line of argumentation just doesn't work, if you are "on the other side", where everything is fine.
I'm an engineer and went to an engineering school. Women were outnumbered 5:1 at the school when I got there, and that shrank to 3:1 by the time I graduated. Women don't enter those fields as much as men, and they just don't play games as much as men. I have a friend who's an artist at Ubi, and I was joking with him today that if a team of women made a AAA title, it would probably end up a fps with a male lead solely due to the market they'd be serving.Here is my stance on things, as I see them as an employee (note these are my own thoughts as a person and not an official statement):
Ubisoft does not employ discrimination against women. We have a lot of women here. The difference is that there are much less women applying in the first place, which is a societal issue like you mentioned previously. Not being discriminatory doesn't mean you suddenly have equal sized dev teams, because that requires equal sized proportions of the population to apply in the first place.
What his picture DOES show though is that not only are women not discouraged in these offices, they flourish and are represented in all levels of the company like you'd hope and expect.
Does it bother anyone else that "We didn't have the resources to implement more than one player characer" has become "Women are too hard to animate"? It appears the entire industry and press has been dogpiling on Ubisoft on stuff that they never actually said. It looks like AC: Unity has the same co-op multiplayer as Dead Rising and Halo where everyone plays the same PC. People are just plain making shit up about Ubisoft's comments (#womenaretoohardtoanimate, there are four male co-op characters), saying it would only take a couple days to implement a new player character and game system into the game, and comparing the workload of a vita game to a current gen AAA game.
This line of argumentation just doesn't work, if you are "on the other side", where everything is fine.
Yes it completely bothers me as an animator. There's nothing worse than when an animator's words get twisted by people who're misinformed/don't bother to look up any clarification. It's just like when one of the facial animators of Frozen talked about the difficulties of making facial deformation look natural on the facial rigs which were much more complex than a typical Disney film and tumblr users misinterpreted it as him saying "she always has to look pretty."Does it bother anyone else that "We didn't have the resources to implement more than one player characer" has become "Women are too hard to animate"? It appears the entire industry and press has been dogpiling on Ubisoft on stuff that they never actually said. It looks like AC: Unity has the same co-op multiplayer as Dead Rising and Halo where everyone plays the same PC. People are just plain making shit up about Ubisoft's comments (#womenaretoohardtoanimate, there are four male co-op characters), saying it would only take a couple days to implement a new player character and game system into the game, and comparing the workload of a vita game to a current gen AAA game.
You can understand where Ken Levine is coming from. But I don't know how true it is that a "dude with gun" cover helps a game sell more considering how common that motif is. They're the ones with all the sales data, but I wonder about their interpretation of it.This thread reminds me of when Naughty Dog had to fight for Ellie to be on a magazine cover with Joel. This is what I think it boils down to, publishers for some reason generally feel having a woman lead will make their game sell less as opposed to a male lead. You can p.r your way with statements like 'we are equal and don't discriminate etc' but I think it all just bowls down to money and selling a product.
Publishers think games with female leads will sell less, so give them less marketing, and so they sell less.Games with only female heroes are given half the marketing budget as games with male heroes. That’s an enormous handicap that cripples their ability to sell well. “Games with a female only protagonist, got half the spending of female optional, and only 40 percent of the marketing budget of male-led games. Less than that, actually,” Zatkin said.
You can understand where Ken Levine is coming from. But I don't know how true it is that a "dude with gun" cover helps a game sell more considering how common that motif is. They're the ones with all the sales data, but I wonder about their interpretation of it.
This ought to have been linked to already.
Publishers think games with female leads will sell less, so give them less marketing, and so they sell less.
Given an equal opportunity, it's hard to tell if there is merit to the belief that a game sells less if it has a female lead, because, at least when this research was done, there weren't enough examples for a meaningful comparison to get made.
Or that they're 50% of established fanbases and franchises. Thats a given, some series have more male fans than female fans.Women and men watch different movies, read different books, listent to different music. Obviously there is media that crosses over the genders and gaming has that to a degree in some MMOs, the Sims, etc. I just don't get this notion that because women are 50% of the population that they're also 50% of the potential market for AAA action/shooters.