Ubisoft Apologizes for "Controversial" Relationship in Assassin’s Creed Odyssey DLC

[Dekoth-E-]

People get attached to characters in stories. Its been happening ever since people started telling stories. Your argument is fucking stupid.

Ok bud, justify it however you need to sleep better. /Eyeroll

 

[Derangel]

Ok bud, justify it however you need to sleep better. /Eyeroll

I have nothing to justify. I'm not the one trolling with nonsense in order to pretend to be better than other people.

 

[wizzi01]

The only people being whiny in this thread are the people somehow hyper offended about people having an issue with Ubisoft failing to live up to their promises to players.

You sound pretty whiny and hyper offended.

 

[lcpiper]

I'm actually wondering if it didn't force you on a heterosexual relationship, what would be options for lineage to continue (I doubt adoption since the bloodline won't continue)? (well common sense says have sex, have a baby). (don't get me wrong, I'm just wondering how it would have played out).

Nope, just pay for a surrogate mom, problem solved.

 

[kirbyrj]

Nope, just pay for a surrogate mom, problem solved.

Player choice is great, I'm all for it.

But it don't change the fact that it takes a man and a woman to make a kid.

If in order to support the plot and the choices the dev must write in surrogate mothers, adopted children, and bastard babies ...... whatever, life will find a way.

So, how exactly does a surrogate pass on the "tainted ones" genes if you're playing as a purely gay character? It doesn't solve the narrative's "problem" at all.

This is just marketing nonsense. They should have never said they were giving people the choice and then no one could complain.

 

[lcpiper]

So, people should actually LEARN why people are upset about Ubisoft's decision before getting their panties in a twist and acting all offended. Ubisoft marketed the fuck out of the concept of player choice for AC: O and a ton of that marketing was focused on allowing the player to decide exactly who their character (Alexios or Cassandra) would engage in romantic or sexual relations with. Ubisoft themselves heavily promoted that the player could make Alexios or Cassandra straight, gay, bi, or nonsexual by their own choices. Player choice was one of the primary pillars of the game's marketing and something Ubi talked about from the day the game was announced. So Ubisoft throwing that away for what sounds like a poorly told narrative reason is going to make people angry because Ubisoft specifically designed and marketed the game in a way that goes against removing that kind of agency from the player. If Alexios and Cassandra had been straight from the get go or if the main game didn't have romance options no one would give a damn.

Player choice is great, I'm all for it.

But it don't change the fact that it takes a man and a woman to make a kid.

If in order to support the plot and the choices the dev must write in surrogate mothers, adopted children, and bastard babies ...... whatever, life will find a way.

 

[lcpiper]

So, how exactly does a surrogate pass on the "tainted ones" genes if you're playing as a purely gay character? It doesn't solve the "problem" at all.

This is just marketing nonsense. They should have never said they were giving people the choice and then no one could complain.

Never seen a company promise something out of an honest desire to serve all, and then one of your development people says " Boss .... We have a problem and you're not going to like it"

 

[Derangel]

Player choice is great, I'm all for it.

But it don't change the fact that it takes a man and a woman to make a kid.

If in order to support the plot and the choices the dev must write in surrogate mothers, adopted children, and bastard babies ...... whatever, life will find a way.

I mean they chose to write the plot as is and make the promises they made. I can sympathize with the idea that development is hard and making sense of all the possible options would require a lot of work but, quite frankly, that is not the player’s problem. It’s something they really should have considered from the get go. I don’t tend to feel sorry for writers or companies that have to deal with a lot of complaints after they write themselves in corners that could have easily have been avoided with better planning.

 

[lcpiper]

I mean they chose to write the plot as is and make the promises they made. I can sympathize with the idea that development is hard and making sense of all the possible options would require a lot of work but, quite frankly, that is not the player’s problem. It’s something they really should have considered from the get go. I don’t tend to feel sorry for writers or companies that have to deal with a lot of complaints after they write themselves in corners that could have easily have been avoided with better planning.

Ahhh, on the one hand you have a plot that has no problems, flows, it's a story. Then you have an executive that starts making promises. And these two are followed by the very real and unforgiving effects of time tables, milestones, costs, and dead lines. Sometimes something has got to give, it can't all be done, and someone is going to have to say I'm sorry. The question becomes, do you say I'm sorry before or after a portion of your customers call you out for your failure. I think that in this case, they decided to wait and see if the fire was going to be big or small, before trying to put it out.

"Maybe we can get by with a garden hose, won't need to call the forest service at all"

It's just business after-all.

 

[Zulgrib]

Like at that time science allowed to make children without heterosexual intercourse ?
Come on, grow up. I hate Ubisoft but they did nothing wrong on this.

 

[Derangel]

Ahhh, on the one hand you have a plot that has no problems, flows, it's a story. Then you have an executive that starts making promises. And these two are followed by the very real and unforgiving effects of time tables, milestones, costs, and dead lines. Sometimes something has got to give, it can't all be done, and someone is going to have to say I'm sorry. The question becomes, do you say I'm sorry before or after a portion of your customers call you out for your failure. I think that in this case, they decided to wait and see if the fire was going to be big or small, before trying to put it out.

"Maybe we can get by with a garden hose, won't need to call the forest service at all"

It's just business after-all.

That is a good point. If the choice option was something forced on the development team from higher up the ladder there isn't much they can do, especially if it came late in development. Hopefully this is something Ubisoft can take into account in the future and either give developers time to design around these kind of options or forgo them all together in favor of giving the developers more wiggle room with their stories.

Like at that time science allowed to make children without heterosexual intercourse ?
Come on, grow up. I hate Ubisoft but they did nothing wrong on this.

Not sure how familiar you are with the series, but there is a race of people called the First Civilization. They existed before humanity and had tech that is advanced hundreds if not thousands of years beyond even our modern abilities. The tech and medical practices historically available at whatever time period the game is set really has no limit on what they could do.

 

[kirbyrj]

Not sure how familiar you are with the series, but there is a race of people called the First Civilization. They existed before humanity and had tech that is advanced hundreds if not thousands of years beyond even our modern abilities. The tech and medical practices historically available at whatever time period the game is set really has no limit on what they could do.

Yeah, ok. I can see them now, "Let's whip up some Deus Ex Machina in vitro fertilization relic of the First Civilization JUST so that marketing teams' boast of player choice doesn't come back to bite us." If you want to practice some suspension of disbelief and say that some pregnancy relic magically survived the great catastrophe when the First Civilization was wiped out, more power to you.

 

[Derangel]

Yeah, ok. I can see them now, "Let's whip up some Deus Ex Machina in vitro fertilization relic of the First Civilization JUST so that marketing teams' boast of player choice doesn't come back to bite us." If you want to practice some suspension of disbelief and say that some pregnancy relic magically survived the great catastrophe when the First Civilization was wiped out, more power to you.

I'm not necessarily saying it would be the best option, especially if the player choice thing was thrown on the team last minute, but saying "this tech didn't exist at the time" is an argument that doesn't work for the series. To be honest, I'd be totally fine with the series throwing out all the First Civilization stuff entirely and focusing more on better representing the time periods the games are set it.