Support NeoGAF

[Thiagosc777]

https://forums.ubi.com/showthread.p...1-2-Production-Update?p=13900222#post13900222

Hello all,

After hearing player feedback and discussing within the development team we are making changes to a cutscene and some dialogue in Shadow Heritage to better reflect the nature of the relationship for players selecting a non-romantic storyline. These changes, along with renaming a trophy/achievement, are being made now and will be implemented in an upcoming patch.

We’ve also been carefully looking at the next episode, Bloodline, to ensure the paths that players experience mirror the choices they make in game.

Can we expect articles calling gamers entitled now? /s

Of couse not, it's ok when activists do it.

 

[CuNi]

I think that was the worst they could do.
Not because of the change but by showing the crowd that if you cry loud enough you can get things changed in a game, even if you are a minority.
This means that whenever someone will be unhappy with any story or gameplay decision, they will turn to social media, cry cry cry and then demand a change. And now they even have something to point their finger at and say "see! They did it correctly and changed it!". This move may benefit Odyssey, but I honestly think it puts every other developer in a bad situation.

 

[Angry_Megalodon]

Well, if they thought they have had backlash, wait for the next AC game, THAT will be backlash, not from the minority that has whined over the internet but their true customers, the fanbase that has made AC great. Very dangerous road the one they are taking for there is a cliff right at the end.

 

[Zimmy68]

I'm currently wrapping up the DLC and if you have as many hours invested in the story, it was the right thing to do.
First, the dude they hook you up with is the most whimpy, dim witted, sleepy-eyed oaf character model I have seen in the game.
You never see him fight along side of you (if he did, I don't remember), he never comes to your aide, never really does anything for you.
Second, every choice they gave me, I told the guy to pound sand and leave and they still force him on you.
If they want to force an "heir" in the story they should have done it in the main game and have an outside romance via cutscenes that weaves in and out of the story.
Like the guy in Rise of the Tomb Raider.
So I don't see it as them bending to fan backlash as much as correcting a system they created.
I couldn't care less, I am more pissed that they nerfed my OP Hunter build that I was rocking.

 

[JohnnyFootball]

And now it just got 10000X worse.....

Ubisoft just misjudged and felt they just HAD to explain how the bloodline continued when in reality nobody cared to know.

 

[Thiagosc777]

So I don't see it as them bending to fan backlash as much as correcting a system they created.

The same could be said about the ending for Mass Effect 3. They simply ignored all your choices and provided a lame ending that didn't explain what happened.

But mainstream media decided that "gamers are entitled" and created hitpieces attacking gamers.

The question is: why the double standard?

 

[JohnnyFootball]

The same could be said about the ending for Mass Effect 3. They simply ignored all your choices and provided a lame ending that didn't explain what happened.

But mainstream media decided that "gamers are entitled" and created hitpieces attacking gamers.

The question is: why the double standard?

Why don't we at least wait for one article BEFORE we start whining about double standards.?

 

[GTR R35_Supra RZ]

So YOU TELLING ME there's a chance if any controversial in my CyberPunk gm happens things will get cut, changed and recycled just to keep them happy...nah man, I'll fight those bums any legal way possible

Wtf is this BS ?! The scary thing is , developers do listen and bend over to them when they wuss out to keep "Them" happy...disgusting.

 

[Paasei]

Turning off auto updates then. Still not far enough in the game to start the DLC. Would like to see the original ending that apparently shows how the long bloodline starts.

 

[SirKicksalot]

Turning off auto updates then. Still not far enough in the game to start the DLC. Would like to see the original ending that apparently shows how the long bloodline starts.

It will be the same ending, this time with a bit of context.
They should have added some duty to the polis bullshit from the start. It's kind of amazing how they didn't.

 

[Hendrick's]

Can you have sex with your horse yet?

 

[Spukc]

Gamers are so entitled

Jeeshh..

 

[Vawn]

From IGN:

GLAAD responded to Ubisoft’s decision to change the DLC on Twitter, saying "We are pleased that Ubisoft has listened to LGBTQ players and will be making changes to Assassin's Creed. This is an important first step toward mitigating the damage done by the game's latest DLC."


I swear our society has completely lost it.

 

[mcz117chief]

Come on, guys. I think this was a reasonable solution. They made their game with a pretense that "no sexuality is canon" but then made a DLC where you are forced into a relationship regardless of your role-played sexuality. I think they screwed up and this fix is appropriate. Or am I missing something?

 

[Saruhashi]

It's a pretty interesting thing to have happen to be honest.

I've long thought in open-world games of this type, where there is some kind of player choice in how the main character should react to things, that you can end up with a situation where the character you play as is at odds with the character presented to you in cutscenes.

I never expected though that we'd be in a position where players who experienced this disconnect would actually be able to pressure the developer into changing the story to fit how they played the character.

I would have thought in this case that Ubisoft would just say the character is bisexual and the player was therefore given a lot of choice regarding relationships throughout the game but ultimately in the story she does decided to be with this guy and that's just the character.

I totally get that players can identify with fictional characters but regardless of that the player is not the character.

How far could you take this? Audience demands to change a character because they personally don't play the game that way.

For example, in the opening to Watchdogs 2 I did not harm the guards and just sneaked past them. Cos I felt like they are just security dudes and I don't HAVE to hurt them. However, when you get into the building the cutscene shows the main character battering these dudes anyway. WTF? That's not MY main character.

Even the reporting on this is weird. I'm seeing stuff like " the game forces players into a heterosexual relationship". That doesn't seem odd to anyone in the context of a video game? Now, Uncharted forces players to kill? Will the Last of Us 2 force players into a homosexual relationship?

I'm not sure to what extent the player is "forced" to do anything. Kassandra is not the player and the player is not Kassandra. Kassandra is a character in a narrative that the player has VERY limited control over.

When you think about it. In the first moments of the game the player is given the choice to kill or spare those 2 thugs but if you choose to spare them then you have to kill them anyway in a few minutes. The player is "forced" to kill when maybe they don't want to.

Same with the first mercenary. You cannot recruit this dude so again we are forced to kill.
Then the player is forced to go into dangerous caves and kill a ton of dudes just to level up.
THEN the player is forced to leave their home and travel the Greek world.
Nobody seems to have much issue with any of this, right?

The way it's presented is as if the player somehow feels like they themselves are banging this dude and having a baby against their will. In reality it's the character doing this things because that's what they want to do.

OMG Ubisoft forced me into a heterosexual relationship. WTF? How does that not sound like utter madness?

Do people just get WAY too immersed in these games or something? I never once occurred to me in games that it was ME who was being FORCED to perform the actions of the protagonist.

Interesting to see how this will go forward regarding player choice in open worlds.

 

[sertopico]

From IGN:

GLAAD responded to Ubisoft’s decision to change the DLC on Twitter, saying "We are pleased that Ubisoft has listened to LGBTQ players and will be making changes to Assassin's Creed. This is an important first step toward mitigating the damage done by the game's latest DLC."


I swear our society has completely lost it.

Didn't you know? That's the new way of "fighting" for your rights or somebody else's (even when you are not asked to): you don't need to move, just sit down, write some bullshit on some social media/forum/whatever and wait for the fireworks.

 

[radewagon]

Can we expect articles calling gamers entitled now? /s

Of couse not, it's ok when activists do it.

So activists can't be gamers?
Also, isn't this a good thing, that they changed it? It's more in keeping with the experience they were originally trying to craft.

Also... what's the problem with gamers being entitled anyway? They paid money. They are entitled to the product they were promised. They are SUPPOSED to be entitled.

OMG Ubisoft forced me into a heterosexual relationship. WTF? How does that not sound like utter madness?

Do people just get WAY too immersed in these games or something? I never once occurred to me in games that it was ME who was being FORCED to perform the actions of the protagonist.

I think the bigger issue is that Ubisoft chose to validate non-heterosexual decisions within the game world only to later invalidate them. Kind of like pulling the rug from underneath people. Like saying, "You know that wonderful gay or lesbian person that you were playing as the whole time, turns out it was just a phase in college and they just had to meet the right man or woman to get over it."

Ubi's choice plays to a pretty tired interpretation of how some people view homosexuality.

Hope that helps give you some perspective as to why this was a big deal to some gamers. Me, I'm not personally affected, but I can still empathize with people that were. It was a sucky move.

 

[Saruhashi]

Come on, guys. I think this was a reasonable solution. They made their game with a pretense that "no sexuality is canon" but then made a DLC where you are forced into a relationship regardless of your role-played sexuality. I think they screwed up and this fix is appropriate. Or am I missing something?

I mean, for sure I think we can argue that this was poor planning from Ubisoft.
Giving the player choices in how the character develops and then taking the reins and doing something contradictory is dumb.

It's annoying at worst though. I have the same annoyance with RDR2.
My version of Arthur is trying to be a decent dude but I go to rescue some asshole from jail and end up killing 20 men to save a guy I despise.

I wouldn't see that as the game "forcing" me to kill. It's just that the game has created this weird situation where Player Arthur and Storyline Arthur are like 2 different dudes.

The only difference I see is that RDR2 is "forcing" me to kill people I don't want to kill where Assassin's Creed is "forcing" me to fuck people I don't want to fuck.
In reality both of these would be morally abhorrent and it would be difficult to put forward which one is "worse".
It isn't real life though so the demand for this fix is weird.

So I do think the fix is appropriate, they should have just left the sexuality of the character out of the story content, and makes sense from a storytelling perspective.

However, I feel like the way it is framed is awfully strange. As you have even said "you are forced into a relationship".

The way this has played out though with the outrage and then the statement from GLAAD saying this is "an important first step toward mitigating the damage done by the game's latest DLC " just seems too weird to me.

"The damage done by the game's latest DLC". FFS.
They had the character do something that the player doesn't feel the character would have done. That's it.
It's a minor annoyance at worst.

 

[Enygger_Tzu]

And that's why I don't and NEVER will support the rights of the LGBT community in gaming.

They don't support MY rights in gaming, so why would I return the favour?

 

[JohnnyFootball]

It's a pretty interesting thing to have happen to be honest.

I've long thought in open-world games of this type, where there is some kind of player choice in how the main character should react to things, that you can end up with a situation where the character you play as is at odds with the character presented to you in cutscenes.

I never expected though that we'd be in a position where players who experienced this disconnect would actually be able to pressure the developer into changing the story to fit how they played the character.

I would have thought in this case that Ubisoft would just say the character is bisexual and the player was therefore given a lot of choice regarding relationships throughout the game but ultimately in the story she does decided to be with this guy and that's just the character.

I totally get that players can identify with fictional characters but regardless that the player is not the character.

How far could you take this? Audience demands to change a character because they personally don't play the dame that way.

For example, in the opening to Watchdogs 2 I did not harm the guards and just sneaked past them. Cos I felt like they are just security dudes and I don't HAVE to hurt them. However, when you get into the building the cutscene shows the main character battering these dudes anyway. WTF? That's not MY main character.

Even the reporting on this is weird. I'm seeing stuff like " the game forces players into a heterosexual relationship". That doesn't seem odd to anyone in the context of a video game? Now, Uncharted forces players to kill? Will the Last of Us 2 force players into a homosexual relationship?

I'm not sure to what extent the player is "forced" to do anything. Kassandra is not the player and the player is not Kassandra. Kassandra is a character in a narrative that the player has VERY limited control over.

When you think about it. In the first moments of the game the player is given the choice to kill or spare those 2 thugs but if you choose to spare them then you have to kill them anyway in a few minutes. The player is "forced" to kill when maybe they don't want to.

Same with the first mercenary. You cannot recruit this dude so again we are forced to kill.
Then the player is forced to go into dangerous caves and kill a ton of dudes just to level up.
THEN the player is forced to leave their home and travel the Greek world.
Nobody seems to have much issue with any of this, right?

The way it's presented is as if the player somehow feels like they themselves are banging this dude and having a baby against their will. In reality it's the character doing this things because that's what they want to do.

OMG Ubisoft forced me into a heterosexual relationship. WTF? How does that not sound like utter madness?

Do people just get WAY too immersed in these games or something? I never once occurred to me in games that it was ME who was being FORCED to perform the actions of the protagonist.

Interesting to see how this will go forward regarding player choice in open worlds.

This is a great post, but unfortunately we live in a world where feelings take precedent over reality.

 

[ResilientBanana]

Hopefully they don't even put shit like this in the next game.

 

[Mochilador]

What a joke.

 

[Allandor]

I really don't get it. This is a fucking video game and Ubisoft is the writer of the story. It is not that they crossed a line or anything.
If you're not happy about how the story ends, ok, but it is still just a video game.

I heard no one calling for another Harry Potter ending because he has kids and is married. It is just a story someone wrote, not harming anyone. Why are people still complaining.

 

[base]

Can I still make sex with my girlfriend? I don't want to hurt their feelings for being straight.

 

[mcz117chief]

snip

Right, I agree with you. How would you have solved this issue yourself? Would be like "eh, whatever", "damn, ok, I'll fix it, sorry" or something else?

The way I see it, they made a statement before the game launched "your character, your sexuality" mostly to prevent people from endlessly debating who is who sexually, but then they also canonically confirmed that there is only one "right" sexuality for the characters, so it kind of sucks. Like you said they did go a bit too far with their prostrating before the NPC crowd.

Your example though, you said that your Arthur does something that you wouldn't have done yourself, ok but we are having a bit of a different issue, albeit related, gameplay vs story. Gameplay wise running around in a circle for 2 hours is possible and nobody in the game will comment on that but when you make a story mission then you are forced into following the story the designers set up for you. So you have the story from the devs you have to follow and the gameplay sandbox where you are free to do as you please. You can't expect characters to behave in story as they do in your sandbox, it can be the other way around though, you can behave in your sandbox like your character does in the story. In case of AssCreed you were allowed to pursue any relationship in the sandbox and it would have no impact on the story, but then it didn't all of a sudden when a specific sexuality was chosen for the story (although it was a DLC but still). You get my point?

 

[Saruhashi]

Hopefully they don't even put shit like this in the next game.

I mean I think really the only way to properly do character driven games is to be quite restrictive on player choice so that character development can take place (Spider-Man, God of War).

Once you let the player pick and mix the kind of person the main character is that "integrity" really breaks down (RDR2, Assassins Creedy Odyssey).

At the very least I hope that this outrage and controversy will lead to developers being a bit more sensible about this stuff.

It's funny because I feel like if this was something like doing a "no kill" run in a game and then the ending cutscene has the character going on a murder spree then there would definitely be criticism of that choice but not on the same level.

Here, you can go the whole game with no relationships, or being gay, or just not liking that one dude and the games says "well she had a baby with this man in the end" and suddenly everyone (well, not everyone, let's be real here) is going mental and wants it changed AND the studio agrees to change it.

If only Mass Effect 3 had come out in 2019 and the endings were all "Shepard gets married". No more "entitled gamers" comments.
Bioware would be "forced" to change the game.

 

[Senhua]

USA 2030 (Assassin's Creed Odyssey Timeline Singularity)
X: Hey dude, what do you want to do for summer holiday
Y: ehhmm play some console video games?
X: What the hell, consoles gaming these days is for gay only dude. No way I touch that shit at all.

 

[Saruhashi]

Right, I agree with you. How would you have solved this issue yourself? Would be like "eh, whatever", "damn, ok, I'll fix it, sorry" or something else?

The way I see it, they made a statement before the game launched "your character, your sexuality" mostly to prevent people from endlessly debating who is who sexually, but then they also canonically confirmed that there is only one "right" sexuality for the characters, so it kind of sucks. Like you said they did go a bit too far with their prostrating before the NPC crowd.

Your example though, you said that your Arthur does something that you wouldn't have done yourself, ok but we are having a bit of a different issue, albeit related, gameplay vs story. Gameplay wise running around in a circle for 2 hours is possible and nobody in the game will comment on that but when you make a story mission then you are forced into following the story the designers set up for you. So you have the story from the devs you have to follow and the gameplay sandbox where you are free to do as you please. You can't expect characters to behave in story as they do in your sandbox, it can be the other way around though, you can behave in your sandbox like your character does in the story. In case of AssCreed you were allowed to pursue any relationship in the sandbox and it would have no impact on the story, but then it didn't all of a sudden when a specific sexuality was chosen for the story (although it was a DLC but still). You get my point?

Oh yeah, I get your point.

I think it's a fundamental issue with suspension of disbelief in gaming,
It seems even more of an issue when player choice is involved in games that also want to present cohesive stories.
Open-world games suffer most of all because you can have all manner of things that disrupt the narrative.

I already said how I would have solved it. Kassandra is bisexual. There you go.
The player was allowed to select which partners, if any, she has in the sandbox but at some point in her story she has a kid with this dude, no biggie.
The story doesn't say "she is straight". She's bi. Problem solved.

Like surely a bisexual woman could have relationships with several women, some time where she is single and then finally meets a dude she likes and has a kid with him? This doesn't change her sexuality or make a statement that she believes that she is straight now. That would be fine.

Of course I would have just never included romance in the game as this situation seems pretty predictable, really.

 

[Bkdk]

I would be a lot happier if it’s not a change but as an addition or alternate ending type of thing as fan service for certain fans. For video games I really want a game to end kind of like what I hoped for especially those focus on gamer choices, that’s the main point of me playing a game. More revenue for the devs too if they release various alternate endings for tarted fan groups.

 

[mcz117chief]

snip

What I meant is how would you solve this exact issue, making a statement, then releasing a DLC that ignores it.

Other than that I think putting explicit or ambiguous sexuality of pc/npc characters in a game is fine, just make sure you keep it in mind all the way throughout the development. I don't see it as a different issue than screwing up any other part of the story, for example if at the begging of the game the character said "my parents are dead" but then you would have a mission later in the game where they would ask you for help.

 

[Fbh]

Eh, I don't see such a big problem with this. It is kinda weird that they let you chose how to approach relationships through the whole main game and then take that away in the DLC. Putting the whole LGBT thing aside, if the Witcher 3 Blood and Wine had been like "you chose Yennefer in the main game but we have just decided Gerlat will be with Triss now" it would have been disappointing.

With that said isn't the whole premise of the AC world that they use the animus to relive the life of an ancestor? How exactly did people think the bloodline continued ?

I'll also agree it's ironic how the media likes to label gamers as "entitled" when they complain about something....except if it's LGBT related, then it's always ok

I really don't get it. This is a fucking video game and Ubisoft is the writer of the story. It is not that they crossed a line or anything.
If you're not happy about how the story ends, ok, but it is still just a video game.

I heard no one calling for another Harry Potter ending because he has kids and is married. It is just a story someone wrote, not harming anyone. Why are people still complaining.

Ok but imagine Harry Potter had been one of those choose your own adventure books and for 6 whole book you chose the path in which Harry ends up in a relationship with Hermione. But then in book 7 the author decides that without giving you a choice he is just going to make him dump Hermione and end up with Ginny. Wouldn't you have been a bit disappointed?

 

[mcz117chief]

With that said isn't the whole premise of the AC world that they use the animus to relive the life an ancestor? How exactly did people think the bloodline continued ?

I read somewhere that you just need genetic material and put it into the Animus. Something about the Origins game having the DNA of the main character from a mummy or something.

 

[Woo-Fu]

I think it is a good change. Can argue all day about whether or not they should respond to criticism like this but the reality of the situation is that the change makes the DLC fit better with the game and the character.

If she needs to bear a child for the storyline to fit into canon that doesn't mean she has to be married to somebody. People have been getting pregnant out of wedlock since the dawn of marriage, by accident. I'm pretty sure a heroine could manage it on purpose.

I'm not arguing this from the sexuality point of view, btw, I'm arguing it from the player choice point of view. Don't let me choose how I respond to practically every other NPC in the main game and then force something like this on the character in DLC.

 

[TGO]

So what does the update actually do.

 

[Cert.in.Death]

Boo-hoo. And I roll my eyes at Ubisoft for cow-towing to their audience’s gripes by altering the creative portion of their work.

But full disclosure: I couldn’t care less about AC since Unity.

 

[DunDunDunpachi]

When so-called "GamerGaters" (gators?) talk about the insidious influence of ideological agenda in gaming, this is what they're referring to.

Gamers who complained about Mass Effect's ending were called entitled. Gamers who complained about Valve's slow descent into non-development were called entitled. Gamers who complained about the rise of microtransactions in their AAA games were called entitled.

But a small minority cries about the ending for one of 2018's biggest AAA titles and they hop right to it.

Huh.

 

[Baron Samedi]

Well, if they thought they have had backlash, wait for the next AC game, THAT will be backlash, not from the minority that has whined over the internet but their true customers, the fanbase that has made AC great. Very dangerous road the one they are taking for there is a cliff right at the end.

lol you..

 

[The Alien]

Oh poor, sycophantic Ubi.

Right or wrong, agree or disagree,....ya shoulda stuck to your guns. Now you will be caught in the endless, impossible loop of trying to please everyone.

 

[mckmas8808]

So what was the problem with the initial ending?

 

[mcz117chief]

Oh poor, sycophantic Ubi.

Right or wrong, agree or disagree,....ya shoulda stuck to your guns. Now you will be caught in the endless, impossible loop of trying to please everyone.

No, you don't understand. They got called out BECAUSE they didn't stick to their guns. The criticism is completely legitimate.

 

[Thiagosc777]

No, you don't understand. They got called out BECAUSE they didn't stick to their guns. The criticism is completely legitimate.

They had no guns. They created a game with two missions, pander to the mainstream media and sell microtransactions. Their mistake is that at some point someone remembered it was an Assassin's Creed game and wanted to have a blood connection between these characters and others in the future of the series.

And it worked, for the most part. The mainstream media circled the wagons around this game like their lives depended on it and showered it with praise, and most fans (not everyone of course) is content with paying for EXP boosters.

They tried to tell a story, but then it was too late.

 

[Vlightray]

Nice glad I hadn't got the DLC yet now I can avoid it.

 

[royox]

So what was the problem with the initial ending?

MC had sex with a person of the other gender so they could continue the bloodline (Assassins Creed lore). Aparently this angered the SJW mob because that's not a gay thing to do.

 

[BusierDonkey]

So what was the problem with the initial ending?

Spoiler

At the end of the game your character procreates. Obviously at the time they didn't make turkey baster babies yet and openly gay people in 500BC would have been persecuted, so your gay or lesbian character must have porked a member of the opposite sex. The horror.

 

[Journey]

MC had sex with a person of the other gender so they could continue the bloodline (Assassins Creed lore). Aparently this angered the SJW mob because that's not a gay thing to do.

You must be joking... :/

 

[petran79]

Ubisoft for Nobel Peace Prize

 

[zeorhymer]

Ubi messed up from the start. You can make your own story! Didn't they learn from ME3 where their choices made a difference at the ending. ME3 assured people that there won't be a 1,2,3 ending. Of course at the end of the day, it was a 1,2,3 ending. Ubi over-promised and couldn't deliver. Had to back track on a lot of things.

 

[mcz117chief]

You must be joking... :/

That was not the point, the point is that Ubisoft said that no sexuality is canon to prevent people from going nuts about it being this way or the other, but then later did declare heterosexuality was the actual canon sexuality this whole time so people are rightfully pissed about it.

They had no guns.

Yes, they had. They said no sexuality is canon but then they turned around and declared a canonical sexuality via a DLC.

 

[mckmas8808]

MC had sex with a person of the other gender so they could continue the bloodline (Assassins Creed lore). Aparently this angered the SJW mob because that's not a gay thing to do.

Spoiler

At the end of the game your character procreates. Obviously at the time they didn't make turkey baster babies yet and openly gay people in 500BC would have been persecuted, so your gay or lesbian character must have porked a member of the opposite sex. The horror.

You guys HAVE GOT TO BE KIDDING ME! Yall serious?

 

[mcz117chief]

You guys HAVE GOT TO BE KIDDING ME! Yall serious?

I would like to know why you have this reaction.