• Ever wanted an RSS feed of all your favorite gaming news sites? Go check out our new Gaming Headlines feed! Read more about it here.
  • We have made minor adjustments to how the search bar works on ResetEra. You can read about the changes here.

EarthPainting

Member
Oct 26, 2017
3,878
Town adjacent to Silent Hill
They're not bisexual. They are what the player wanted to be, straight, bi, gay or asexual. That was one of the big PR points before launch and they betrayed that with this DLC.
I didn't really keep up with the PR beyond some E3 footage and impressions, so fair enough. It's definitely unacceptable if they were misleading people. If they wanted to go down the bi-road, they should have been more up-front and clear. Thanks to the DLC, what we ended up getting didn't have you choose your sexuality in the game after all, but merely who you would or wouldn't romance. Perhaps a small distinction, but with pretty significant consequences. Regardless of that, it still betrays the fact that they apparently said they wouldn't force anything on the player, because that's exactly what they ended up doing anyway. You'd think they would be extra careful with DLC since you're expecting people to open up their wallet a second time. Just a big careless mess.

Despite the apology Ubisoft seems to be doubling down on the decision and I don't understand why. Having a child out of a sense of duty isn't actually a very interesting idea at all, at least in comparison to the story that the player has created in their own playthrough that the DLC actively undermines. "Letting" the player decide the motivation for their playable character is a just a shitty consolation prize to stepping over the agency that they had promised players in the main game. By removing a choice that matters greatly to players they're instead substituting it with one that doesn't matter at all. For a story idea that sounds really dull.
I know I'm not alone in thinking the greater Assassin's Creed canon is pretty consistently the weakest aspect of the series, and usually leads to iffy creative decisions. I wish they'd drop all of it already. I'm not sure if anyone would even miss it.
 

wBENDERw

Member
Oct 27, 2017
457
wow that was fast

GS: UBI

ima blow past this DLC and wait for the next I want that new weapon!
 

chandoog

Member
Oct 27, 2017
20,074
Is the recently released 2nd part the final part of thi DLC ? or will there be more story ? I thought it was a 3 part DLC.
 

AtmaPhoenix

Member
Oct 25, 2017
4,001
The Internet
I'm gonna spoiler this because I'm not 100% sure about talking about it openly: but spoilers for the plot of the main Odyssey game:

If they wanted to continue the bloodline or whatever, couldn't they have done it with the sibling instead? That way your version of Alexios/Kass can be whatever you want and the other sibling continues the bloodline. I guess there are endings where you kill Deimos but that can just be tough shit and non-canonical?

I feel like this was a real easy solution unless I'm missing something obvious.
 

RJeddy

Member
Dec 4, 2017
721
Kassandra is the canon protagonist according to the novel, correct? Did she have a set love interest (and thus canon sexuality for story purposes) in there?
 

Deleted member 1635

User requested account closure
Banned
Oct 25, 2017
6,800
That's a really weird way to interpret the character's sexuality. Sure, in the real world who you have sex with doesn't necessarily define your sexuality. But, for a fictional character, unless you predefine it there's no way to solidify it like that. You, as the player controlling the character, don't just choose who they fuck. You choose who they WANT to fuck. Their entire pitch for the romance that Ubi presented is built around that.

You're controlling the character, but you really only get to make a few choices. You can choose who to have sex with, not who the character wants to have sex with. The latter is just in your head. The game always gives you the ability to have sex with any sexable character regardless of their gender or your past choices. Alexios and Kassandra is always up for whatever with whomever if you make the choice.
 

Driggonny

Member
Oct 26, 2017
2,170
You're controlling the character, but you really only get to make a few choices. You can choose who to have sex with, not who the character wants to have sex with. The latter is just in your head. The game always gives you the ability to have sex with any sexable character regardless of their gender or your past choices. Alexios and Kassandra is always up for whatever with whomever if you make the choice.
Are you really saying they're canonically bisexual fuck machines just because the game gives you the option?
 

Eumi

Member
Nov 3, 2017
3,518
I'm saying that you never got to choose their sexuality along with tons of other aspects of the character and their journey, just occasionally who they fucked, killed (or spared), or robbed.
This seems like bullshit semantics.

The characters aren't open to any relationship because they're bisexual, they're open because that is the best way mechanically for the player to interact with the relationship gameplay.

Like, my character in say Fallout New Vegas is a good person, because I played them that way. But by your logic, they actually have no morals, because I could make them do a bad thing if I wanted. Which is just silly, and obviously not the intention.

The devs even outright state that they didn't want to force people in to relationships because they wanted to respect how people were role playing.

You're being absolutely ridiculous in an attempt to spin these MC's as unarguably bi.

The mechanic works the way it does to facilitate the players iwn headcanon, not to dismiss it.
 

Deleted member 1635

User requested account closure
Banned
Oct 25, 2017
6,800
This seems like bullshit semantics.

The characters aren't open to any relationship because they're bisexual, they're open because that is the best way mechanically for the player to interact with the relationship gameplay.

Like, my character in say Fallout New Vegas is a good person, because I played them that way. But by your logic, they actually have no morals, because I could make them do a bad thing if I wanted. Which is just silly, and obviously not the intention.

The devs even outright state that they didn't want to force people in to relationships because they wanted to respect how people were role playing.

You're being absolutely ridiculous in an attempt to spin these MC's as unarguably bi.

The mechanic works the way it does to facilitate the players iwn headcanon, not to dismiss it.

I may be misremembering, but Fallout New Vegas does not frequently force your character to do things in cutscenes or have them speak for you in ways that you wouldn't given the choice. That's the big difference here. Alexios and Kassandra are Ubisoft's characters. You just get to make some light surface level choices about *some* of their actions through the course of the adventure.
 

Eumi

Member
Nov 3, 2017
3,518
I may be misremembering, but Fallout New Vegas does not frequently force your character to do things in cutscenes or have them speak for you in ways that you wouldn't given the choice. That's the big difference here. Alexios and Kassandra are Ubisoft's characters. You just get to make some light surface level choices about *some* of their actions through the course of the adventure.
Yeah, but of those choices you can choose, sexuality was one that you had complete control over, as stated as designed intention by the devs.

Until now, which is the whole issue.
 
Oct 27, 2017
1,099
User Banned (1 Week): Pattern of dismissive behavior towards concerns surrounding inclusivity
Was this really that big of a deal? Apologizing seems unnecessary

I completely agree. I honestly think people get pissed about shit just to get pissed about it... It's to the point where I feel there is a select few who just ramble nonsense to rile others up. This is a videogames... It's their videogame and they decide what happens in the story for the most part.

This isn't the first time a game has been "open choice" just to make a decision for the characters at the end for the sake of the story.

People claiming "they really fucked up" "I cannot forgive this" are just silly
 

Persephone

Member
Oct 25, 2017
4,455
I completely agree. I honestly think people get pissed about shit just to get pissed about it... It's to the point where I feel there is a select few who just ramble nonsense to rile others up. This is a videogames... It's their videogame and they decide what happens in the story for the most part.

This isn't the first time a game has been "open choice" just to make a decision for the characters at the end for the sake of the story.

People claiming "they really fucked up" "I cannot forgive this" are just silly

This is peak straight privilege right here

Do you know what it feels like to FINALLY be able to play a character who is gay like you in a mainstream big deal AAA video game? It feels amazing. And then Ubisoft fucking slapped us gays in the face. But no we're being pissed for the sake of being pissed, because being shat upon by everyone is just so much fun and we crave more of it.
 

Deleted member 1635

User requested account closure
Banned
Oct 25, 2017
6,800
Yeah, but of those choices you can choose, sexuality was one that you had complete control over, as stated as designed intention by the devs.

Until now, which is the whole issue.

Fair enough. The devs never should have said that if they intended for the character to have a child. I mean, I can see their logic in that you can choose to technically not be in a romantic relationship with the person who you paired with to reproduce out of obligation, and that may even make sense in the context of the era and story, but it's easy to understand why that wouldn't please people who really appreciated the ability to have full control over who the character had sex with in the game.
 

Gomography

Alt-account.
Banned
Dec 16, 2018
178
It sounds like you'll still have the baby...but don't need to like the other parent?

Is that supposed to fix things?
They'll fix it for real with a rape and then apologize a second time shortly after...
So stupid. If you need a bloodline why not some lost cousin or sibling? The anymus or whatever should be able to reach that and you wouldn't even have to let the main character interact in any way with that relative. Bloody idiots.
 

iamandy

Member
Nov 6, 2017
3,300
Brasil
Can anyone say if the romance is mandatory? I don't think having a baby negates her sexuality if she don't love Natakas. Seens natural that she would choose a closing friend, and she cleary care about Darius and Natakas.

The main plot is all about family. I don't think is out of her character if she wants to have a baby.
 
Nov 2, 2017
2,244
Since it keeps coming up, it's worth noting that for all people talk about bloodline stuff, AC geting away from worrying about 'bloodlines' was a positive step and focusing on bloodlines again is a giant step back. The forced relationship stuff is shitty enough, but to try to justify this stuff by invoking a plot device that should have been put down and never allowed to come back is an extra level of awful.

Using bloodline as a plot device is basically inherently problematic because the usual rationale for the bloodline thing is to delineate someone as inherently superior or lesser, which is some eugenicist bullshit that's long been the favored narrative of bigots. And this is doubly so in video games where "bloodlines" tend to get used as an excuse to give characters some sort of The One destiny and/or superpowers.
 

Eumi

Member
Nov 3, 2017
3,518
Can anyone say if the romance is mandatory? I don't think having a baby negates her sexuality if she don't love Natakas. Seens natural that she would choose a closing friend, and she cleary care about Darius and Natakas.

The main plot is all about family. I don't think is out of her character if she wants to have a baby.
There are still pretty deep issues with this even if the characters could potentially show zero attraction to their partner (which does not seem to be the case based on other posters).

It's still a heterosexual relationship, even if not a romantic one, and it is still something that a lot of gay players do not want a character whose sexuality they were told they had control over to engage in. It can, even if unintentionally, enforce some pretty awful stuff about relationships, especially when combined with the achievement name they are now changing.
 

Nome

Designer / Self-requested ban
Banned
Oct 27, 2017
3,312
NYC
Despite the apology Ubisoft seems to be doubling down on the decision and I don't understand why. Having a child out of a sense of duty isn't actually a very interesting idea at all, at least in comparison to the story that the player has created in their own playthrough that the DLC actively undermines. "Letting" the player decide the motivation for their playable character is a just a shitty consolation prize to stepping over the agency that they had promised players in the main game. By removing a choice that matters greatly to players they're instead substituting it with one that doesn't matter at all. For a story idea that sounds really dull.
They're doubling down because it costs money to make changes. What's done is done, probably.
 
May 9, 2018
3,600
They're doubling down because it costs money to make changes. What's done is done, probably.
In light of that, it'll also cost a ton of money to upend their Episode 3 plans which presumably did not account for this amount of backlash.

One of the benefits of episodic gaming is to address legitimate fan complaints like these, although the software development lifecycle requires a few adjustments for it.
 

iamandy

Member
Nov 6, 2017
3,300
Brasil
There are still pretty deep issues with this even if the characters could potentially show zero attraction to their partner (which does not seem to be the case based on other posters).

It's still a heterosexual relationship, even if not a romantic one, and it is still something that a lot of gay players do not want a character whose sexuality they were told they had control over to engage in. It can, even if unintentionally, enforce some pretty awful stuff about relationships, especially when combined with the achievement name they are now changing.
Yeah, I am aware of the problematics and I just don't like the direction they choose. But, speaking as a gay man, seems like a logic decision to make if you want kids, honestly, and won't make my Kassandra 'less gay', especialy because in the game there's no distinction into gay or straight people and is not a social problem.
I have yet to finish the DLC, though. I will hold my judgment for now.
 

Brinksman

Member
Oct 25, 2017
1,182
Ubisoft don't care about "betraying" players narratively. Destroying their agency. Even mocking them through the game. They do that in multiple games and then ignore the outrage. They do care about unintentionally offending players. This DLC questline unintentionally offended players in various aspects. Worse, it contradicts statements made before release, although there are some interpretations that vaguely allow what they've done. It's basically Ubisoft's version of the statement Bioware made before release about ME3's ending. If you say one thing and then do another thing, people get upset. Rightfully so, to varying degrees.

There are multiple complaints of varying degrees of sensibility. Ubisoft are willing to make slight changes (such as renaming the achievement) to alleviate some of those concerns. And that's respectable. That's a developer that listens to its community and isn't a dick. They can't please everyone but they can try to avoid carelessly upsetting players for no good reason.

But like I say, this is a fairly special case. Far Cry 5 demonstrates Ubisoft's willingness to smash the players in the face with a shovel and then smugly ignore their howls of anguish -- then announce a sequel that firmly cements said the game's ending as canon. This ending spawned an unbelievable wave of upset. I remember people on social media finishing the game and then talking about how they were so angry they were shaking. They felt the implications of the ending were a moral violation.


Far Cry 5 is a textbook example of "strong and unified community backlash". But it's also an example of Ubisoft sticking to their guns because they had a story to tell, and a sequel already in development. People are still angry. That single scene made thousands and thousands of players -- potentially millions -- be so disgusted that they never wanted to play the game again. it was dead to them. They went from loving the game to despising it within minutes. A number desperately tried to cling to "it was all a dream" conspiracy theories because the game's ending was so upsetting for them.


I think with Far Cry they've been very deliberately setting out to challenge and provoke the audience for some time, so not necessarily sure how applicable it is to the wider company, but I have a similar anecdote from one of their niche projects. There was an unsalvageably broken strategy game sequel they put out a few years ago which featured a storyline focused on a homosexual relationship, rustling the usual suspects' jimmies as you might imagine. To their credit, in all their damage control around that appallingly flawed game, they refused to dignify the relatively sizable backlash they received on that particular matter with any response.

It's my perception that Ubisoft, as a sweeping generality, can't stand criticism which is this clear-cut and this well-founded, throwing commitments they themselves gave in black and white back in their collective faces, but will also tend do only the bare minimum to satisfy such criticism.

It's for that reason I have a sense, albeit derived straight from my ass to a fair extent, that this is a case where they really could be pushed to make significant changes to this DLC with a strong enough outcry, but I'm not convinced the wider gaming community has the correct mentality to deliver any such impetus. More like the opposite.
 

ZiggyPalffyLA

Banned
Nov 2, 2017
4,504
Los Angeles, California
The relationship is clearly framed in an affective way, not simply about "procreation".

I haven't played the DLC so I didn't know any of this, but Freddy Mercury had a loving, affectionate relationship with a woman and it doesn't make him any less of a gay icon. I understand the anger, really I do, but Ubisoft really only promised us that we'd be able to affect the MC's present and future, not their past.
 

Deleted member 3208

Oct 25, 2017
11,934
I'm gonna spoiler this because I'm not 100% sure about talking about it openly: but spoilers for the plot of the main Odyssey game:

If they wanted to continue the bloodline or whatever, couldn't they have done it with the sibling instead? That way your version of Alexios/Kass can be whatever you want and the other sibling continues the bloodline. I guess there are endings where you kill Deimos but that can just be tough shit and non-canonical?

I feel like this was a real easy solution unless I'm missing something obvious.
Reading the Assasin's Creed wikia...

Canonically, Kassandra kills him when he threatened their mother.
 

Persephone

Member
Oct 25, 2017
4,455
I haven't played the DLC so I didn't know any of this, but Freddy Mercury had a loving, affectionate relationship with a woman and it doesn't make him any less of a gay icon. I understand the anger, really I do, but Ubisoft really only promised us that we'd be able to affect the MC's present and future, not their past.

Freddie Mercury was bi...
 

ZiggyPalffyLA

Banned
Nov 2, 2017
4,504
Los Angeles, California

Icemonk191

Banned
Oct 25, 2017
3,814
I'm still allowed to have an opinion on the concept of a gay man having loving feelings toward a woman, considering that's exactly what/who I am.



Still a gay icon.

Cool. But that's not what a lot of other people feel like in regard to the game forcefully making the character that the players chose to be gay to be in a straight relationship. I hope you can understand why this is a big deal.
 

Grisby

Member
Oct 29, 2017
2,535
I don't think they intentionally wanted to hurt players but it shows they have a lot to learn about rpgs.

You don't have kids in Dragon Age (well you kind of can with Morrigan but it's still your choice) or Mass Effect like that. The relationship/sexual orientation you choose plays out in the story.

AC's odyssey's romances were pretty half assed and not anything of note but if you're gonna take a stronger story stance you need to factor in that player choice and how they want to role play as.
 

Deleted member 2533

User requested account closure
Banned
Oct 25, 2017
8,325
They should have let the player choose to be hetero or gay, and if the player is gay have them raise an orphan as their own. Then you'd get people on message boards arguring whether "bloodline" is canon or not, and the key will be that Ubi never addresses which plot is the "true" one, while planting seeds for either being correct through all their games.

It would drive people nuts!

After the "Mario's last name isn't Mario" controversy I can't be bothered to put any stock in any games plots. They're developed by so many different teams over so many years and decades that it's all a mess. Has anyone ever really tried going over the Zelda timeline? It's a Gordian Knot.

It's Mario Mario to me, damnit!
 

Luke_wal

Member
Oct 25, 2017
2,257
What's most infuriting about this is that Greek mythology is full of people having same-sex kids. Gods like Apollo would have demigod children with mortal men, and it was just never explained except through deification. Athena was born from Zeus's skull, and some myths show her having her kids the same way. The Greek myth stuff in this game could EASILY be used to hand-wave having a same-sex child, or creating a descendant from the DNA.
 

GameShrink

Banned
Oct 29, 2017
2,680
People shouldn't be too hard on Ubi, it's not like there are a ton of games that offer this amount of control to the player.
The lessons to be learned are:

For Ubi: If you're going to market your game as being inclusive of a certain audience, remain aware of that audience throughout the game's lifespan and take their feelings into account.

For Players: If you're getting really invested in a character someone else is in charge of writing, remember that you never have 100% control over that character. You can't force them to do something that's just not in the script, everything is ultimately left to the whims of the writers.

It was a crappy move, but these are the growing pains of an industry that's trying to incorporate more options for the sake of inclusivity.
 

Micolash

Alt Account
Banned
Dec 6, 2018
25
According to Kotaku, they aren't going to:


I guess the third part of the DLC is too far along in development to course correct...

Good. I want to see where they're taking the story and what their original plans were.

I hate the idea of forcing the devs to change the story they wanted to tell. The GGers freaking out at the women in the Battlefield V stories, the people years ago sending threats to Bioware over ME3's ending. It just never ends.
 

devSin

Member
Oct 27, 2017
6,197
The relationship is clearly framed in an affective way, not simply about "procreation".
This is the main problem IMO (given that they're sticking with the child plot). They admit they fucked it up, but it'd be nice to see them go back and adjust the cutscenes to make things more neutral if you never expressed interest (they don't need to add any content, because they can just let you choose a motivation in the final part).

Obviously, it doesn't undo the damage of it, but it at least gets closer to what they claim they intended and isn't quite such a slap in the face for people who thought their character choices were going to be respected.
 

Mass_Pincup

The Fallen
Oct 25, 2017
7,129
That's the perfect exemple as to why that level of agency in regards to your character makes the franchise overreaching story basically impossible to write.

They wrote themselves into a corner and should just drop the pretense of writing a millennial long plot to become a standard RPG franchise with an historical twist.
 

Wulfram

Member
Mar 3, 2018
1,478
I don't think they intentionally wanted to hurt players but it shows they have a lot to learn about rpgs.

You don't have kids in Dragon Age (well you kind of can with Morrigan but it's still your choice) or Mass Effect like that. The relationship/sexual orientation you choose plays out in the story.

AC's odyssey's romances were pretty half assed and not anything of note but if you're gonna take a stronger story stance you need to factor in that player choice and how they want to role play as.

I'm not sure its really an RPG thing. Lots of RPGs have set protagonists with defined sexualities and romantic interests. Like The Witcher, for example.

The problem was that they gave the impression that this aspect at least was left up to the player. And they seem to have missed the special sensitivity of this particular issue.

(Bioware retcons aspects of my characters all the time. I complain about it a fair bit, but its not really a huge deal that my Shepard would never have worked for Cerberus, or my Hawke is actually pretty OK with Blood Magic, because there's no significant real world equivalence)
 

Ferrs

Avenger
Oct 26, 2017
18,829
I haven't played the DLC so I didn't know any of this, but Freddy Mercury had a loving, affectionate relationship with a woman and it doesn't make him any less of a gay icon. I understand the anger, really I do, but Ubisoft really only promised us that we'd be able to affect the MC's present and future, not their past.

I don't understand what is the point you trying to show me. This was not about turning Kassandra into a gay icon, this is about Ubisoft taking choices when they said otherwise. You can still think Kassandra is the best LGTB character in gaming, it doesn't take out the fact of what happened in this DLC.

Also what about the past? this DLC is not about Kassandra's past but present, this DLC happens alongside the main game.
 

Albatross

Member
Nov 11, 2017
197
That's the perfect exemple as to why that level of agency in regards to your character makes the franchise overreaching story basically impossible to write.

They wrote themselves into a corner and should just drop the pretense of writing a millennial long plot to become a standard RPG franchise with an historical twist.
Except the fact that, before the second episode of the dlc the plot was perfectly fine. There were NO plot reason which required Kassandra to have a baby.
The main game plot stood on its legs, it's what they added AFTER its release which has made everything fall down.
 
Oct 25, 2017
1,498
Good. I want to see where they're taking the story and what their original plans were.

I hate the idea of forcing the devs to change the story they wanted to tell. The GGers freaking out at the women in the Battlefield V stories, the people years ago sending threats to Bioware over ME3's ending. It just never ends.

This is in no way comparable to the BFV or ME3 ending, and the fact that you think it does says a lot about you.
 
Oct 25, 2017
4,956
I know you're getting a lot of shit for this but I actually agree with you 100%. Alexios having a kid doesn't affect my feelings toward him as a character, whether gay, bisexual, or straight. Lots of gay men have kids through surrogates, and since that wasn't an option in Ancient Greece there's nothing wrong with impregnating a woman in order to have a child. It doesn't change someone's sexuality.

The game is, very specifically, a game where you will not be forced into having a relationship with someone. The DLC is literally, abjectly, a contradiction of that, so it is shit.

Good. I want to see where they're taking the story and what their original plans were.

I hate the idea of forcing the devs to change the story they wanted to tell. The GGers freaking out at the women in the Battlefield V stories, the people years ago sending threats to Bioware over ME3's ending. It just never ends.

People want the DLC to be changed because the DLC literally does something they said they would never do. We're not forcing the developers to change the story they wanted to tell, we're expecting that the developer tell the story they claimed they wanted to tell.
 

Mass_Pincup

The Fallen
Oct 25, 2017
7,129
Except the fact that, before the second episode of the dlc the plot was perfectly fine. There were NO plot reason which required Kassandra to have a baby.
The main game plot stood on its legs, it's what they added AFTER its release which has made everything fall down.

As was said before, lineage was an important part of the franchise. That's why you had all those interconnected stories between III, Unity, Rogue and Black Flag. Now what that means is that they basically have to drop every part of the family dimension which was a cornerstone of the franchise. That's why I said that the attempt to tell an overreaching story with meaning in that franchise is basically dead because that would make a particular path canon and it would result in the mess that this DLC was.
 

Nooblet

Member
Oct 25, 2017
13,637
I'm gonna spoiler this because I'm not 100% sure about talking about it openly: but spoilers for the plot of the main Odyssey game:

If they wanted to continue the bloodline or whatever, couldn't they have done it with the sibling instead? That way your version of Alexios/Kass can be whatever you want and the other sibling continues the bloodline. I guess there are endings where you kill Deimos but that can just be tough shit and non-canonical?

I feel like this was a real easy solution unless I'm missing something obvious.
Not really.
Killing Deimos is just as easy as saving. Infact it's more difficult to save Deimos than killing. Additionally forming a canon for the main story in the same game's story and telling people who didn't pick the canon option "tough luck" is further disregard for player choice and is probably even worse because Deimos living or dying affects the main story of the game itself. It'd be fine if the sequel were to do this as there'd be a long gap then but since Odyssey just came out 3 months ago they need not do this.