That's not shocking at all. It's part of the "can do both". Are you in upper management at Ubisoft?
-
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.
Ubisoft Exec Talks About Why The Company's Games Don't Want To Take Political Stances
- Thread starter vestan
- Start date
That's not shocking at all. It's part of the "can do both". Are you in upper management at Ubisoft?
I don't see what's so mature about plugging your ears and both siding very sensitive subjects. I see this as more of continuing the already established status quo of Ubisoft's games and the general AAA industry, of never taking a stance, say nothing and do nothing.
Ah yes, the Vietnam War, that popular war that's notoriously difficult to make judgments about after the fact
Seems like a good time to signal-boost Finale Fireworker's thread about this from last month https://www.resetera.com/threads/a-...phy-on-video-games-and-their-politics.117370/
Can't say I recall telling people how to consume media.
Cool I can copy and paste my response from when this was brought up last (less than 30 days ago):
Here's the deal with Ubi's answers to this:
The Division, Ghost Recon Wildlands, and presumably now Breakpoint are all stories with political elements. There are elements about war, government, corruption, morality, etc. I think what Ubisoft is getting at is while all of those elements are inherent to a Clancy game there is not some moral of the story at the end telling exactly what to take away from it. You experience the game and if you want to reflect on the questions the game raises about say the use of drones or allying yourself with a group of rebels because it benefits you in the short run, then you can reflect on them. The previous game did a great job of this-they were all plot points but it didn't give you the message "please feel this emotion now and think about this statement". Specifically Wildlands left me with thoughts about times the US government has turned a blind eye to a rebel political group in one country that didn't align with US values simply because the rebel group was fighting someone the US really did not like. It made me think and making someone think is a great thing-like a good book.
I do not believe Ubi is naive enough to think that there will not be political themes in this game. Rather, it seems that Ubi is saying it isn't using the story to dwell on these in a way that tells the player how they should feel about things. The politics are a plot device rather than some carefully laid message for the player. Lets take the original Star Wars for example-there is a lot going on there: an empire, the dissolution of a senate, genocide, a group of rebels on a suicide mission, religion...but these are all plot devices in Star Wars rather than being the message of the story. These themes are things for the viewers to think about in their own time rather than something the viewer must grapple with while they watch Luke fly his X-wing down the death star trench.
Can you not just enjoy the game, realize there are political elements to the story, and unpack those elements with your own ability to think and discern for yourself or must Ubisoft deliver some moral message to you on a silver platter? I cannot imagine being so fixated on how every piece of media relates to current affairs that I had to hear something that explicitly validates my world view while reading a novel, watching a movie, or playing a game
Again the quote in question:
"We're creating a game here, we're not trying to make political statements in our games," he says. "We've rooted ourselves in reality, and you'll get what you get out of your playthrough--everybody will get something different out of their experience. The story might make you see different situations, but we're not trying to guide anybody or to make any sorts of statements. It's a 'What if?' scenario, it's Tom Clancy, it's purely fictional."
This translates to: Our game has political elements. These are plot devices in our story. We trust our players to be capable of thinking about these plot devices for themselves. We think our players are intelligent people who might reflect back on some of these political elements when they are away from the console.
Here's the deal with Ubi's answers to this:
The Division, Ghost Recon Wildlands, and presumably now Breakpoint are all stories with political elements. There are elements about war, government, corruption, morality, etc. I think what Ubisoft is getting at is while all of those elements are inherent to a Clancy game there is not some moral of the story at the end telling exactly what to take away from it. You experience the game and if you want to reflect on the questions the game raises about say the use of drones or allying yourself with a group of rebels because it benefits you in the short run, then you can reflect on them. The previous game did a great job of this-they were all plot points but it didn't give you the message "please feel this emotion now and think about this statement". Specifically Wildlands left me with thoughts about times the US government has turned a blind eye to a rebel political group in one country that didn't align with US values simply because the rebel group was fighting someone the US really did not like. It made me think and making someone think is a great thing-like a good book.
I do not believe Ubi is naive enough to think that there will not be political themes in this game. Rather, it seems that Ubi is saying it isn't using the story to dwell on these in a way that tells the player how they should feel about things. The politics are a plot device rather than some carefully laid message for the player. Lets take the original Star Wars for example-there is a lot going on there: an empire, the dissolution of a senate, genocide, a group of rebels on a suicide mission, religion...but these are all plot devices in Star Wars rather than being the message of the story. These themes are things for the viewers to think about in their own time rather than something the viewer must grapple with while they watch Luke fly his X-wing down the death star trench.
Can you not just enjoy the game, realize there are political elements to the story, and unpack those elements with your own ability to think and discern for yourself or must Ubisoft deliver some moral message to you on a silver platter? I cannot imagine being so fixated on how every piece of media relates to current affairs that I had to hear something that explicitly validates my world view while reading a novel, watching a movie, or playing a game
Again the quote in question:
"We're creating a game here, we're not trying to make political statements in our games," he says. "We've rooted ourselves in reality, and you'll get what you get out of your playthrough--everybody will get something different out of their experience. The story might make you see different situations, but we're not trying to guide anybody or to make any sorts of statements. It's a 'What if?' scenario, it's Tom Clancy, it's purely fictional."
This translates to: Our game has political elements. These are plot devices in our story. We trust our players to be capable of thinking about these plot devices for themselves. We think our players are intelligent people who might reflect back on some of these political elements when they are away from the console.
Ubisoft has made Tetris games before, but, like, Tom Clancy does not make the Tetris of English literature, let's put it that way
Every time they talk about this they put their foots so far down their mouths that they can kick their own asses. I could respect it more if they just remained silent, this response is as stupid as it is intellectually insulting.
Also, I'm going to assume that Yves Guillemot read your thread, Finale Fireworker , and it took him this long to put together a response after being so defeated.
When you're creating media, there's no such thing as being apolitical. What Ubi is doing is in itself is a political stance, and not a good one.
These people get it.
At this point -- especially in a video game community infested with incels, neo-nazis, and all manner of other alt-right extremists -- vehemently insisting that you're not making a statement is inherently political. Their insistence on being tepid and free of any kind of viewpoint is essentially a refusal to condemn the hateful, extremist views that they know a swath of their consumers engage in. And this ain't the fucking time to be a good German.
Here's a question for you, since the word 'nonpolitical' literally means not related to politics, what fun IS political in nature?! I cannot think of anything fun about politics. It just seems like a bunch of pain and disappointment.
money has no religion
money has no caste
money has no political siding
money is money and money rules all
siding with one religion means losing money from the rest
siding with one caste means losing money from the rest
siding with one political party means losing money from the rest
as a business, they're in it to make money.
Their PR announcements should (and actively do) reflect their stance on whether or not they want to make money. Yves making any statement on political stances and whatnot is him defending his means of making money from all sides. We don't know if he actively believes in what he says, but regardless of his beliefs, he's acting as the face of a company that exists to make money.
money has no caste
money has no political siding
money is money and money rules all
siding with one religion means losing money from the rest
siding with one caste means losing money from the rest
siding with one political party means losing money from the rest
as a business, they're in it to make money.
Their PR announcements should (and actively do) reflect their stance on whether or not they want to make money. Yves making any statement on political stances and whatnot is him defending his means of making money from all sides. We don't know if he actively believes in what he says, but regardless of his beliefs, he's acting as the face of a company that exists to make money.
When has this ever actually worked without leaving glaring holes in representation of viewpoints?
It's pretty much impossible to be apolitical while having a game and story based in reality. With sandbox games it's can be easy to ignore usually, but you're going to be making a political statement to a sizable chunk of people regardless. How big of a political disagreement something is varies with time. Lots of our political polarization in the U.S. for example is based on black and white disagreements over reality itself. Aknowleging, or not aknowleging, some simple thing may very well be making a statement that one side is right and another is wrong.
"I seriously hope we never have this impact, and that we don't make someone think a cult is a great place to go," he says.
This is a political stance. THIS IS A POLITICAL STANCE. Boy.
This is a political stance. THIS IS A POLITICAL STANCE. Boy.
That's awesome. Maybe the 360 degree view of life that I gain from a totally nonpolitical Ubisoft game will convince me to become a neonazi.
It's good to be open to different viewpoints and consider all perspectives. I think equal rights for all people is a pretty good idea, but maybe I'm wrong! Maybe Ubisoft can help me see the value in sexism and racism that I hadn't even considered before!
Does Ubisoft have any Muslims on staff? Maybe I can play a Ubisoft game to figure out whether or not I should hate them.
Help me, Ubi. I'm adrift in the waters of moral ambiguity and only by considering all perspectives can I hope to discover what's right.
It's good to be open to different viewpoints and consider all perspectives. I think equal rights for all people is a pretty good idea, but maybe I'm wrong! Maybe Ubisoft can help me see the value in sexism and racism that I hadn't even considered before!
Does Ubisoft have any Muslims on staff? Maybe I can play a Ubisoft game to figure out whether or not I should hate them.
Help me, Ubi. I'm adrift in the waters of moral ambiguity and only by considering all perspectives can I hope to discover what's right.
Last edited:
Honestly, this is the truth of the matter.
I love some of their games but fuck them for their stance. Their games this gen have never amounted to more than being sum of their parts with pretention of more during marketing campaigns.
They've actually have tried to claim their are no villains in Assassin's Creed before, something that even got pulled with the movie as stated by its director Director Justin Kurzel.
Reminds me of King Kong. People say it was symbolic of the slave trade or something while the creators say it wasn't.
Doesn't mean that interpretation is wrong, just that it wasn't intentional. Similar for this. The purpose of their games isn't to deliver some narrative or commentary on something political but if that's your takeaway, so be it.
This honestly doesn't change how you experience the game.
Doesn't mean that interpretation is wrong, just that it wasn't intentional. Similar for this. The purpose of their games isn't to deliver some narrative or commentary on something political but if that's your takeaway, so be it.
This honestly doesn't change how you experience the game.
If they're worried about people that don't want to engage in nuanced stories that make a point, just offer ways for people to skip cutscenes and forced story sequences in their games so they can continue to ignore things they don't want to see while doing justice for the highly political settings and scenarios they constantly set their games in (post-apocalypse DC, isolated US cult, terrorist in a random island, post-Brexit UK). It just comes off as the games writing version of centrism where they don't want to be offensive to anybody and end up not writing satisfying stories for those that want it, especially when they advertise the game to have that kind of story in it. If they want people to make decisions about what they like or don't like about the world and characters in it, then it should have choices for the player to make that changes things. As it is, you're a blank slate of a character that just does whatever they're told and doesn't really have a presence in the world.
I'm bit lost why Ubisoft raises this agression from people here. I don't think their games generally are problematic at all, though maybe I'm missing something. Sure the AC Odyssey DLC stuff was definitely a blunder, but atleast they adressed it and tried to fix that a bit. Their games have rather great minority and female representation (in context of AAA games atleast), not sure why we have people saying they're pandering to nazis or alt-right. Seems really stupid and come out of nowhere. Why the fuck people think Ubi games or the people at the helm would be saying "maybe nazis are right" or some shit, it's such a stretch that it hurts. The GG-types keep raging how Ubi panders to SJW:s and Era-types keep shouting how Ubi panders to nazis. It's wild.
Last edited:
Jesus Christ, it's like the gaming community/industry isn't even at Critical Thinking 101. They read The Lorax and thought, "What environmental message? I only saw fun rhyming words."
So if they made a game fighting the Nazis they'd want me to empathise with them?
The fuck is this bollocks this moron is spouting?
The fuck is this bollocks this moron is spouting?
I wonder how UBI would've handled Red Dead Redemption 2? Because Rockstar went in on America's treatment of women, minorities and Native American's. No both sides bullshit with it. And I think it's sold better than any game that UBI's ever released.