Assassin's Creed Odyssey Director Says 'We Missed The Mark' With Controversial DLC Relationship [Update]

A day after apologizing for surprising Assassin’s Creed Odyssey players with a mandatory in-game relationship that seemed to contradict the game’s pre-release promise to let players define their character’s own sexuality, the game’s creative director offered a fuller apology and explanation of what his team was trying to accomplish and what they got wrong.

“Reading through player responses [to] our new DLC for Legacy of the First Blade, Shadow Heritage, we want to extend an apology to players disappointed by a relationship your character partakes in,” Odyssey creative director Jonathan Dumont said in a post on the game’s forums. “The intention of this story was to explain how your character’s bloodline has a lasting impact on the Assassins, but looking through your responses it is clear that we missed the mark.”

He went on to say that players will not have to continue the romantic relationship in the next installment of the game’s DLC, saying the developers wanted players to have the option of deciding that their character choice to procreate was a utilitarian decision rather than a romantic one.

The plot development occurs at the end of the second chapter of a three-part paid expansion and constitutes a spoiler for those who haven’t played the game.

At the end of the DLC, the player’s character decides to enter into a relationship with either the daughter (if they’re playing as Alexios) or son (if they’re playing as Kassandra) of the proto-Assassin Darius. They then have a child. As Kotaku writer Heather Alexandra noted yesterday after playing through the DLC, the player can rebuff the romantic advances of Darius’ kid but they’ll still wind up in a relationship and have the baby.

Kassandra with the scripted father of her child.

This seemed to contradict the repeated push by Odyssey’s creators in advance of the game’s October release to portray the game as an adventure so malleable that players could choose their own romantic partners, male or female. In a quote that’s been given new life in the past day, Dumont had told Entertainment Weekly: “Since the story is choice-driven, we never force players in romantic situations they might not be comfortable with.”

Many Odyssey players were upset by the DLC twist, and a lengthy thread on the game’s subreddit filled with people expressing hurt over a seemingly broken promise. One wrote that she is gay and felt like she was being punched in the stomach. On Twitter, people who saw Kotaku’s coverage complained that a game that had made them feel included now felt like a lie.

In a statement yesterday, Ubisoft referred to the relationship twist as part of a “set story” and then hyped the next chapter of the DLC: “Without spoiling it, you will engage in an important relationship as part of a set story. The motivation behind this relationship is yours to explore in game and will be reflected in your character’s story arc. There is one episode left in Legacy of the First Blade which will tie your character’s actions together.”

Today, Dumont skipped past any spoiler worries and product hype and offered a clearer explanation of what the team was going. For those who won’t get the reference, the other characters he mentions are the two people who raised the game’s protagonist:

Alexios/Kassandra realising their own mortality and the sacrifice Leonidas and Myrrine made before them to keep their legacy alive, felt the desire and duty to preserve their important lineage. Our goal was to let players choose between a utilitarian view of ensuring your bloodline lived on or forming a romantic relationship. We attempted to distinguish between the two but could have done this more carefully as we were walking a narrow line between role-play choices and story, and the clarity and motivation for this decision was poorly executed. As you continue the adventure in [the] next episode Bloodline, please know that you will not have to engage in a lasting romantic relationship if you do not desire to.

Dumont’s statement continued, describing the last 24 hours as “humbling”:

We have read your responses online and taken them to heart. This has been a learning experience for us. Understanding how attached you feel to your Kassandra and your Alexios is humbling and knowing we let you down is not something we take lightly. We’ll work to do better and make sure the element of player choice in Assassin’s Creed Odyssey carries through our DLC content so you can stay true to the character you have embodied throughout.

A Ubisoft rep confirmed to Kotaku that the content of the second DLC will not be changed but said that the next chapter of the expansion will “make the character development and choice much more clear to players, and that is where they will be able to decide how they want to handle their relationship now that they have ensured that their bloodline will continue.”

But they said that the trophy/achievement players receive after their character has a child will be renamed, given that some players said that it implies that being gay or not having a kid or both is just a phase of being young. They passed along a statement from Dumont about this: “It was definitively not written with that intention. This was an oversight in the review process and we very regrettably missed it. We share the frustration of players who find this offensive and the achievement/trophy name will be changed when DLC 1.3 patch is available.”

There are also some players who were unbothered by the DLC’s plot development. Some of those people are the predictable sort who’ll mock any discussion of inclusivity or offence. Others focused on the idea of authorial intent or even the traditions of older Assassin’s Creed games to require that the historical protagonist has a biological descendant in order for modern-day characters to relive their lives through the Animus device—the conceit that what players mostly play is happening in the Animus. The creative freedom argument must contend with the developers’ own promises to its player base. As for the rules of AC? They’re bent all the time and recent games in the series, including Odyssey, have featured Animus tech that doesn’t require descendants.

Update: This story has been updated to incorporate comments from Ubisoft PR and Dumont about whether the DLC will be changed (it won’t) or if the “growing up” trophy/achievement for engaging in a straight relationship and having a kid will be renamed (it will).


Comments

    Some of those people are the predictable sort who’ll mock any discussion of inclusivity or offence.

    As Karen Stohr famously wrote:

    ...mockery conducted by the less powerful toward the more powerful can be an important way of expressing negative feelings of frustration and building solidarity with like-minded people. Being able to laugh at figures who pose actual threats can make a difficult situation seem more manageable.

    Now that the mockers have become the mocked, will there be a circle of infinite mockery? I, for one, say 'yes'.

    Additionally, Stohr states that:

    mockery can serve as a potent moral criticism of the target of the mockery. We often think of mockery as “taking someone down a notch,” and in cases where the person’s claim to superiority or power rests on faulty grounds this might be thought a justified way of pointing it out. The creation of a persona can be a potent way of calling attention to the target’s flaws, particularly when those flaws are unacknowledged by the target and his allies.

      Yet another example of cutting out the middle ground...if you disagree, then you will be belittled.

        And also
        if you are not extreme
        you will not get noticed.

      Now that the mockers have become the mocked, will there be a circle of infinite mockery?

      If you read Stohr's quote, it's beyond simply the direction of the mockery, it relates to the power balance in current society. So no, the mockers becoming the mocked isn't equivalent or perpetual as long as the same side retains the power balance in the equation - which they do.

        But that's the point: the power is constantly shifting, at least in the eye of the beholder. There are countless examples of the mocker becoming the mocked on Facebook and Instagram alone! The power of social status follows.

        :-P

          Depends which dynamic you're talking about. I think for sexuality, the power (or privilege, or standing, whichever term you prefer) is still pretty firmly on heterosexuality. You don't tend to hear stories of straight people getting assaulted because they're straight, or drunk idiots throwing slurs and insults at someone because they're straight, but sadly that kind of thing still happens too often to non-straight folks. There's even studies on how people who have traits that are stereotypically associated with homosexuality have lower job application success rates in male-dominated industries.

          I wish I could say the world was at a place where the balance was so even it shifts back and forth, but we've got a ways to go for that.

          But that's the point: the power is constantly shifting,

          It isn't, though. Not at all.

          at least in the eye of the beholder.

          If by "beholder" you mean outside observers, then I would still disagree. If you mean in the perception of a participant, then yes — but that doesn't make them correct. And it's when they're wrong that power is seen as "shifting", because imagined status is fleeting and can vanish in an instant of correction.

          Stohr isn't talking about the balance of power in the conversation, or "the power of social status". She's speaking of real, societal power imbalances, systemic things that change only glacially. The key phrase in her quote is this one: "Being able to laugh at figures who pose actual threats". She's talking about oppressors and the oppressed, in real terms and with consequences that matter.

          Mockery of the powerful by the marginalized can be positive and empowering, in the ways she describes. But not all mockery is that mockery. Mockery of the marginalized by the powerful probably came first, really, and at any rate it's been around for as long as we've come together to form societies. Comedians call it "punching down". And it's that type of mockery that leads to reversal, where "the mocker becomes the mocked". Not because they lacked power and gained it by mocking others, but because they only imagined themselves the empowered victims, when really they were the bullies right from the start.

    I’m a 34 year old gay man and I’d like to say: the outcry around this DLC narrative is banal and embarrassing, and it’s okay to be straight.

      I'm a 35 year old straight man and I'd like to say: I'm tired of homosexual men supporting me in my lifestyle choices. The deep and pervasive shame I carry is real and weighs on me like the screams of 1000 Irish-Catholic immigrants. Please... just let me flaggelate myself in peace...

        I'm a 38 year old straight man into sado-masochism. You sure I can't flaggelate you instead?

        Please don't waste your suffering just on yourself. It's selfish.

          you guys are funny. Ubisoft should consider flaggelate as a choice.

    Should never of promised anything to begin with, but since they did would it of been so hard to stick to it.

    I haven't played a assassins game since the fucked Desmond off, the future/current time stuff is what I liked most even though the whole genetic memories thing was ridiculous the whole "everyone can be special" thing annoys me more.

      *"Should never have promised"

      *"would it have been"

      Oh now I've noticed the errors in the rest of your comment. Never mind. I'm trying to assist a lost cause :P.

    Also I think Ubisoft is pretty liberal trying to find some kind of maliciousness in the name of an achievement/trophy name is a stretch.

    I will never have kids and I really don't see how not wanting them makes me a child or "not grown up".

      Well it depends on the reason to why you don't want to have kids. If you have pretty good reason to not have them, no one would call you a child or "not grown up".

        the reason can be whatever it wants. if someone doesn't want to bring a kid into this already bulging at the seams planet that doesn't make them a child.

          Sure if that is what you think, and at the same time anyone can call you a child for that respond too.

            You make it soumd as though people are under some obligation to spawn.

              Nope. Why does other people's opinion make it some kind of obligation for other people? All I'm saying the person that does not want kids can say whatever they want and people can say whatever they want to the person that does not want kids.

              It is just the reality that not everyone accepts the same thing.

                Most peoples opinions are formed from their or other peoples reasoning.
                Your opinion made it sound like an obligation so I was questioning the reasoning behind your opinion?

                  Which one are you referring to? First one or second one?

                  First one I said it depends on the reason and people can call you a child for it.

                  Second one I said if he say that is the reason then that is the reason and anyone can call him a child for that if they want to.

                  I don't see any obligation on both comments except saying he can say what he wants and people can call him what they want unless you think otherwise?

        I have multiple reasons, but the most prominent one is having a genetic disorder which is hereditary, even though extremely mild caused me to lose my dream job due to the person doing my medical assessment didn't understand it and probably just googled the disorder which can be a lot worse in others.

        Given all that I dont want to pass it on, adoption is a possibility as I believe people should look at doing more instead of having biological children.

        One last reason though I really just can't stand kids... They annoy the shit out of me when I hear them screaming or chucking a tantrum and its not like I can just say Fuck It I'm out if there mine, which I can do for my niece or friends kids.

      Take an upvote as I am unsure why you are downvoted. I’m the same. This has been my personal attitude since my early twenties. I was told often by older people and my father that the attitude would change as I got older. But as I got older my attitude towards not wanting kids got even stronger.

    The most silliest part is the world is full of examples of ways to fit the baby story line in with gay couples of all flavours, but they were just obviously too lazy to do it.

    The family thing is a great idea but given it made 100 hours or so of choice and role playing meaningless, it seems such a strange immersion.

    This arc would have been planned well out, so why bother putting gay choices in there at all.

      >the world is full of examples of ways to fit the baby story line in with gay couples of all flavours
      yes but this is ancient greece, not sure they had IVF and such back then. /s
      Sure they could adopt, but wasnt the whole point they need a blood descendant?

        The series is about clandestine groups searching for magical orbs left by mystical god-like aliens, so some kind of alien technology based conception wouldn't have been the craziest thing they've done.

          They're saving that for the AC game set around the birth of Jesus.

        yes but this is ancient greece, not sure they had IVF and such back then. /s
        Sure they could adopt, but wasnt the whole point they need a blood descendant?
        I realize you were only half-seriously making this argument, but plenty of people would make it seriously, and claim Ubisoft "had to" force a straight narrative, because something something descendants. Their hands were tied, eh?

        Which reminds me of all the people who defended Disney's lame, stereotypical "gay" LeFou in Beauty and the Beast (a moment so fleeting they had to manufacture a controversy to make sure people actually noticed it) by asserting that a more visible, openly-gay character wouldn't be "realistic" for the "time period". Yeah... because that's what you really have to be careful about, in your movie about magical curses and singing furniture: historical accuracy.

        Like @crotchdot says, they had infinite narrative options for keeping their promise. But whoever wrote this storyline either wasn't aware of or ignored that promise, and nobody up the chain bothered to make sure they hold themselves to it. I'd be embarrassed, too!

        Last edited 21/01/19 3:39 pm

      Thats because being gay is just for fun. This is serious DLC so you must be straight. Family stuff is for straight people only.

      A scene where it is suggested that having a blood related child is important to continue the bloodline, despite the characters sexual orientation would have been kinda interesting. Handled sensitively and sincerely, it could have explored the conflicting complexity of duty to the bloodline vs. duty to self identity. It could have been framed as the MC making a selfless compromise, while reinforcing the importance and validity of their own identity. Potentially more interesting and nuanced than 'oh hey you're straight now because reasons', at least.

    A paragraph disputing people for being unbothered by the whole thing is a weird way to end the article.

    For me, the fact that you couldn't avoid it just bugged me.
    It wasn't the name of the achievement, it wasn't that I'd been playing Kassandra as mostly gay the entire run (she did bed the odd bloke, 'cause of course she did), it was the fact that Natakas just wasn't likeable.

    When he smiled it wasn't so bad, but then the corners of his lips would drop (which was most of the time) and I just wanted Kassandra to shove the spear between his ribs.
    I would have chosen Darius over Natakas if push came to shove, 'cept Natakas still would have been there with that stupid expression on his face.

    So when a character is retconned to be gay (Tholdier Theventy Thix) it gets a standing ovation. When a character is later retconned to be straight it is the worse thing in the world. This is why sexual orientation and politics should not be in video games. What easy lives everyone must live for this to be such a big deal.

      The problem is not with the character being straight... the problem is being forced into a relationship not of your sexuality after being literally promised otherwise.

      Say if you were a straight guy and promised a relationship with a woman and instead it was a guy then later you had sex... with absolutely no choice or option otherwise.

      It would feel more like rape or forced marriage than an actual relationship.

      The same applies for gay people.

      It's not a fucking popularity contest of who would get the most ovation... it's basic human rights and having choices of your own preference.

      Gay people have not got any real representation in games except maybe Mass Effect and Dragon Age... if you look at how many games have ever been made than in comparison how many had non straight characters it would give you a bit of an idea.

      Considering the most basic and overused of game plots involves a straight guy rescuing a princess.

        sexuality in video games is a human right.... Ubisoft are rapists.... and we should let princesses die.

        sorry im one of the above mentioned people who just want to get in the way of diversity because im evil, i had to mock someone for no reason i chose you.

        So having a gay character in a video game is a human right now?

      My character was banging all and sundry no matter the gender, but it's a bit annoying to get railroaded. On the other hand you can't choose a lot of other things that happen so whatever.

        I lived through the great Mass Effect 3 ending catastrophe. I understand the disappointment of realising choices don't actually matter in games but I also recall games media outlets including Kotaku calling gamers entitled because they didn't like the ending. How the turntables have timed.

      Giving choice and then taking it away is a shitty move. It doesn't matter if it's about sexuality or something else, it's a shitty move regardless. That never happened with Soldier 76, which by the way you can fuck off with the lisp stereotype, that's not cool.

        It’s hilarious. Stop being overly dramatic about a joke.

          No excuses on this one. Affecting a lisp for a gay person isn't a joke, it's homophobic stereotyping. Please don't do it.

          did you think telling him not to be overly dramatic was going to result in anything but a more dramatic response.

            Which part of my response do you think qualifies as 'dramatic', illexi?

              No excuses on this one

              i think that is overdramatic, i think we should reserve that kind of language for actually detestable and harmful people like child molesters, people who bomb abortion clinics, rapists.... Louis CK?

              i definitely don't want to live in a world where theres no excuse for offending your apparently very delicate feelings.

              by the way my friend who is gay and also an sjw snowflake found that comment amusing

                "It's hilarious" is the reason he gave to justify his mistake - an excuse. Telling him he doesn't get to make excuses is hardly dramatic.

                Don't worry, you don't live in a world where there's no excuse for "offending my feelings". You live in a world where there's no excuse for homophobic stereotyping. Completely different things.

                Nice throw-in of the friend argument at the end there, but it doesn't change the fact Simocrates' comment was homophobic stereotyping. Nor that you're defending him for it.

                  i wouldn't say it was hilarious but i think part of the justification was also it being a joke, you don't have to like the joke but a joke about a specific FICTIONAL character in a game is not an attack on the entire gay population even if it is a stereotype.(not a stereotype i have ever heard before i guess i don't have as many homophobic friends as you)

                  Your problem is your a collectivist you don't see a gay person you see a gay the person fictional or otherwise isn't an individual to you its part of the gays.

                  To be perfectly clear it is not homophobic, it is a joke and i will defend him and his right to make jokes about whatever he likes, just like i would and have defended gay people making jokes about straight guys. Or black people making stereotypical jokes about white people etc etc.

                  I know you have laughed at stereotypical jokes made at the expense of other people before because everyone has, but you lose you mind when someone does it to one of your "special groups" you have no principals and your only doing this to signal what a great person you are standing up for the gays, well i think the gays can do it themselves and your attitude insults the people your supposedly defending you make me sick.

                  @illexi I'm sure it helps you rationalise your nonsense by projecting and inventing fictions about me and the way I see people, but that's all it is: fiction. And if you ever wonder in future why I told you you're a troll incapable of having a respectful conversation, just refer back to what you wrote here.

                  leave me alone don't ever talk to me again im sick of your bullshit, keep defaming people who don't agree with you, and joke police people arbitrarily based on your own version of reality and who is and isn't oppressed.

                  this thread started with me replying to someone else yet you say im the troll and im just posting to get a rise out of people. your a liar do not ever talk to me again im sick of your insinuations about my character. Your a despicable e=thug character assassin and i want nothing to do with you ever again.

                  @illexi "this thread started with me replying to someone else"

                  Yeah. And you were talking about me, so of course I'm going to respond. Let's not also forget the other thread you jumped into earlier tonight where I was talking with soldant and skrybe and you inserted yourself in that too. You jumped in yourself. You want to be left alone, then stop trolling and leave alone.

                  "im sick of your insinuations about my character"

                  If you have a problem with that, start with your own behaviour. A few of your own words to me:

                  Your problem is your a collectivist you don't see a gay person you see a gay the person fictional or otherwise isn't an individual to you its part of the gays.

                  I know you have laughed at stereotypical jokes made at the expense of other people before

                  you have no principals and your only doing this to signal what a great person you are standing up for the gays

                  Don't like being on the receiving end? Don't dish it out in the first place.

                  take your own advice pal, you apparently don't want to talk to me either but you still wanted the last word, just one more little dig at me.

                  i hope you feel better now.

                  this entire debacle is on you dude, first you overreact to the words i use i think deliberately so you don't have to face the fact and admit your wrong twice now. on this topic i 100% agree with your post about this article but that joke was not homophobic and @simocrates has nothing to excuse, you overreacted just be a big boy and admit you were wrong. (i have had to do it before it wont kill you)

                  secondly the number of false rape allegations is higher than 8% that is the entirety of the last giant argument you caused by being unable to admit your wrong, i don't know even approximately what it is but i know that it 100% is not 8% because it mathematically doesn't add up. Now go right ahead and try again to make me sound like some kind of insensitive asshole because i disagree with you and you have some personal experience in this topic assuming arrogantly as usual that i don't have any experience with this topic.

                  Last edited 23/01/19 10:58 am

                  @illexi

                  Now go right ahead and try again to make me sound like some kind of insensitive asshole because i disagree with you

                  No need, you're doing a great job of that all by yourself. The fact you even had to tag in an ally to throw some votes around and make you feel better speaks volumes. Sad thing is, as much as I disagree with Simocrates and think his views are wrong, he's not an idiot and he still has some of my respect. It's a shame that description applies to only one of the two of you.

                  Before you waste everyone's time replying again, people who "want nothing to do with" someone "ever again" don't keep messaging them. Make your choice: you either want it done, or you want to keep clumsily trying to pick a fight. Trying both just makes you a hypocrite.

                  tag in an ally to throw some votes i tagged him because i thought that was what your meant to do, now i know better thank you i was wrong, he is not an ally and i don't know what the votes thing your talking about is.

                  i doubt anybody else is reading this anymore for a start secondly you said i'm a troll and you didn't want to talk to me so we are both guilty of being stubborn on this issue don't try and pin that solely on me. Anyone who is still reading this will have noticed you didn't admit you were wrong again, the joke was not homophobic your completely wrong you don't have to like the joke that is fine, but just because you don't like it or even found it personally offensive or your offended on behalf of someone else it is still not homophobic, i think you should man up and admit you were wrong.

                  And i have decided i don't care anymore you wont leave me alone anyway so i'm going to continue responding to your idiotic baiting until the end of time if i have to. I'm clearly far too stubborn to let you have the last word and ignore you.

                  @illexi I never said I didn't want to talk to you, I said I wasn't going to debate particular topics with you. I still don't.

                  You said before you've never heard of the gay lisp stereotype, but you're still content to declare it's not a homophobic stereotype. If you've never heard of it, you don't have the information to be able to make a statement like that. Science magazine describes the notion of a gay lisp as "an offensive stereotype to many people"; Perceptual Bias and the Myth of the Gay Lisp (Munson/Zimmerman) notes that despite the stereotype, the presence of an actual disposition for lisping has never been substantiated in experimental study.

                  You're defending a homophobic stereotype without knowing it even exists, just like in the other thread where you're defending a false claim statistic without understanding the surrounding data and methodology. This is one of the bigger problems I have with you - you're not actually doing research, you're starting from a conclusion of your choosing and selectively finding any superficial evidence that supports that preconceived conclusion. It's called confirmation bias. You decided false rape claims were common, so you only looked at data that sounded like it supported that conclusion. You decided a gay lisp isn't a homophobic stereotype so you just declared it wasn't even though you admit you knew nothing about it.

                  Not everyone has experience assessing things from a proper scientific perspective. Even people that do still make mistakes sometimes. I'd have been willing to give you the benefit of the doubt and help you if I could have believed that you had any genuine interest in learning the facts, even when they're the opposite of what you believe. But like I said in a different reply, you have a track record of mocking issues you think are politically left. For example, these are all quotes from you:

                  Mocking socialism:
                  you apparently haven't heard the great news about the socialist utopia where we will achieve both equality of outcome and opportunity.

                  Mocking wage inequality:
                  "muh wage gap" lol

                  Mocking feminism:
                  please can one of you lefty gender warrior male ally (funny how male ally is started to sound like sex pest in my head) fruit cakes tell me where do i go to publicly apologise for being born with a cock and beg forgiveness from all the women i have "somehow" hurt simply by existing.

                  Mocking sexual assault allegations:
                  i have noticed every time this happens the reporting is identical, like reporters have a template ready to fill out in these cases, the only difference is if the subject is female insert "rape threats" either before or after "death threats".

                  Mocking the genuine risks to transgender people:
                  the biggest threat to trans peoples feelings is all the media and people like scrump telling them the whole world hates them every time someone cracks a joke

                  And that's just from a few of your comments. What impression do you think you've created by mocking and/or dismissing social/societal issues like this? Do these comments sound like someone who's open-minded and receptive to finding the real answers, or someone who's already locked themselves in? I'll grant you that it's possible you might not be a troll, but the alternative is that you're just incredibly naive combined with a desire to prove that your opinions matter. Naive isn't a bad thing, everyone's naive at first. But it's how you go from there that makes the measure of a person, and mockery has been a pretty shitty path for you to choose.

                  I don't believe in 'sin for life'. I think anyone can change and grow and be a better person, even if they've done hurtful or harmful things in the past. Nobody is irredeemable. Maybe sometime in the future you'll be willing to have a respectful conversation about things like this with empathy, an appreciation for the effect blanket things you say have on people, and without the mockery or sarcasm. But I'm not insulting you by saying I don't think you're there yet, and I'm not dodging what I think you see as a back-and-forth game by choosing not to discuss certain topics with you. I'm just making sure that I don't give you the opportunity to pick open a wound and then dig around in it because you think it's fun to fuck with people on the left. And I didn't suggest you look up the studies but refuse to debate the topic with you to make things one-sided, I left you the extent of what I was willing to do on the topic - some advice on where to find the information you'd need to make a more informed conclusion.

                  I have conversations like this with people all the time; I get met with confrontation and hostility most of those times, because a lot of the people who come to nasty conclusions about these kinds of things are also the kind of people who don't like their views being challenged, so they turn it into a fight instead. A lot of the time it works and I can get through to the other person. Some remain impenetrable. It's wearying, but every person I can help to treat others around them nicer is a little bit more positivity in the world. But I'm also human, and I have limits, and if you give me every sign that you're planning to stay intractably impenetrable, there are times I'm just going to save myself the weariness and write you off.

                  Here's what I've learned from a lot of experience, a lot of horrible experiences and a lot of really nice ones too. At the end of the day, it costs nothing to assume good faith. Believe people when they share a vulnerable moment, help them. That doesn't mean go after the accused, it just means stand with the person telling their story. Be there for them. Nobody gets hurt and nothing is lost in treating people like people, being nice to them, supporting and believing them. If it turns out later they're lying, then fine, the worst that happened is you were nice to them. If that's the great cost of assuming good faith, then that's a pretty good life. Distrust, disbelieve, assume bad faith, and the legacy you leave behind is to pile more hurt on top of hurt, and more negativity on top of negativity. And that's a pretty horrible mark to leave on the world and the people around us. It's up to us what mark we choose to leave, and frankly it's a no-brainer to me which of the them is the better choice.

                  to be honest i didn't read most of that response, but your either lying or just dumb because i never said it wasn't a homophobic stereotype i actually assumed it was because you said it was. What i said was it was not one i was aware of, that being said using it to make a joke is not homophobia. (dislike of or prejudice against homosexual people) You can even be offended gay people may be offended but it is not homophobia. your just wrong.

                  secondly i did do the research i laid it out all very clearly i couldn't make it any simpler, based on the statistics i found from the US the rate of false accusations of rape is definitely higher than 8%.

                  i guess i have to do it again ugh.

                  approximately 3% go to trial and 2% result in conviction 6% proven to be false, remainder is 91%.... out of that 91% i can guarantee you that more than 2% are false allegations now either say yes more than 8% off accusations are false or.. whatever i don't know why i bother your either so stuck in your own ideology that you can't even see correctly what i'm saying or your doing the same thing but it's because you don't like me, either way it's your loss and i couldn't care less anymore.

                  The fact that we are having an argument about the rate of false accusations when only 3% even make it to court is kinda sick if you really think about it.

                  @illexi

                  You said: "not a stereotype i have ever heard before"
                  You said: "To be perfectly clear it is not homophobic"

                  This isn't hard to follow: you can't declare it's not homophobic if it's something you've never heard of before. You don't have the requisite knowledge to know if it's homophobic or not, because you've never heard of it before. You decided to defend something you didn't understand, because you're not actually interested in the facts, you're only interested in trying to pick a fight.

                  You didn't do the research, because if you did you'd have seen that the same studies you're getting the 8% figure from have more detailed information in them including confidence intervals and error margins. You're literally arguing against the studies you got the figure you're trying to defend from in the first place.

                  i guess i have to do it again ugh.

                  No, you really don't. I shouldn't have to tell you for the fourth time that I'm not going to debate that topic with you. I pointed you in the right direction to find the information you need to make a better-informed conclusion, but I'm not going to waste time listening to you bleat the same misunderstandings of simple statistical concepts over and over. Go and read the full studies and inform yourself, don't just stick to the same cherry-picked figure you've clearly misinterpreted.

                  The fact that we are having an argument about the rate of false accusations when only 3% even make it to court is kinda sick if you really think about it.

                  We aren't having that argument, you are having that argument. I told you four times (seven if we include this reply) that I'm not going to argue it with you. What's sick is your apparent obsession with trying to push an assertion that false rape claims are more frequent than they are, your abject refusal to read the sources you've selectively quoted from, and your inability to comprehend the simple notion that I'm not going to debate it with you.

                  You can repeat your mistaken numbers until you're blue in the face, I'm not going to debate the numbers or their implications with you. I will, however, keep telling you that you've interpreted the figures wrongly, because you have, and will keep telling you where to look to find the correct meaning of the figures.

                  It's a shame you didn't read my earlier comment, because I explained a lot about how you can improve your approach and technique. I granted you some benefit of the doubt about your intentions, I gave you a way forward that might have actually led somewhere productive. The fact you didn't even bother to read it tells me everything about you that I need to know - you're a troll, you're so obsessed with 'winning' that you can't stop replying even after having a tantrum about how you never wanted to interact any more, and you have a serious deficiency in the skill and capacity to listen and discuss. With the utmost seriousness, you need help. Of a kind I'm just not qualified to give you.

                  I said all I needed to in my last comment, and you've proven every worst case possibility about yourself with yours. I won't be replying to you again here, there's neither sport nor benefit in mentally sparring with an unarmed opponent. You had a chance to convince me you weren't a troll here and you blew it. Your obsession will compel you to reply again, so take this last opportunity to show even the slightest substance. Or waste it making another clumsy attempt at a left hook that won't even connect. Either way, I imagine the only person who will read your comment will be yourself. You want to let your negativity, your stubbornness, your mental and social inadequacies weigh you down and drown you in the depths, I won't stop you. I'm not shackled to your nonsense - I offered a helping hand, you refused it, so you can sink on your own. I'm off to have a fun afternoon with my friends, hope you enjoy the depths.

      Solider 76's sexuality was never defined either way and there was no official material that suggested he was heterosexual. Therefore it was never retconned, it was simply revealed post hoc.

      If you were to remove sexual orientation from video games you'd never have another game with any romance in it (heterosexual is an origination btw). And removing 'politics' is a laughably absurd and stupidly broad suggestion–goodbye any games that deal with governments, or international relations, or war. Be honest, what you actually mean is: "this is why sexual orientation and politics that I don't agree with should not be in video games".

        Swing and a miss again champ.

          Pretty sure I just explained exactly how Solider 76 wasn’t retconned—if you have any evidence to back up your claims, please by all means enlighten me. Also if you have any suggestions as to how games devoid of sexual orientation or politics would fiction at all, I’m all ears. Otherwise, I’m just going to assume this is a cop out response because you have nothing with which to back up your half baked opinions.

      Well, for starters: "You're desthpicable." –Daffy Duck

      So when a character is retconned to be gay [bigotry] it gets a standing ovation. When a character is later retconned to be straight it is the worse thing in the world. Yes, precisely. You have a firm grasp of the situation. And that will continue to be the case as long as gay characters are so underrepresented in society. Because moves to correct that imbalance are positive, moves to reinforce it are negative. How is this not obvious?

      This is why sexual orientation and politics should not be in video games. REALLY? So you want to remove all romantic interpersonal narratives from gaming? No sex, no love, no dating, no marriage, no relationships period? All characters should just be asexual single parents whose children are delivered by stork?

      Or do you just want to go back to the time when games, like society, tried to pretend everybody was straight and "normal"? Because, I've got news for you: heterosexuality is a sexual orientation!

      Last edited 21/01/19 4:03 pm

        bigotry

        I don't think this word means what you think it means. For 2% of the world's population they are pretty well represented but don't let that get in the way of your narrative.

    Dumb to take away player agency in this RPG where they promised it and hamfisted way to chain in the most boring part of the franchise. Ah well glad I didn't buy the DLC.

    I don't care because I play Assassin's Creed to kill people.

    Thank you for listening.

    When Kassandra (or Alexios) met her Father (Pythagoras), he said that he found another person with the bloodline and had a couple of babies. He had no connection to the mother other then wanting the bloodline and once the kids were born he went back to his own life. Isn't this story line very much the same?

    Also Layla is a direct descendant of Kassandra. If Kassandra never has a kid then this can't happen. Also believe it or not IVF wasn't around in Ancient Greece

      Isn't this story line very much the same? No, because what Pythagoras (an NPC) chose to do, and what the game forces the player to do, are completely different things.

      It's fine if the narrative asserts that Pythagoras made that choice, but it was still his choice. Saying that it's no different if Ubisoft forces the player to make that same "choice"... seems to fundamentally misunderstand the definition of that word.

    So i am only level 42 at this point, playing Alexios, and I have taken every opportunity I am presented with in Odyssey to sleep with anyone I can. Interestingly this has led me so far to sleep with more males than females.

    why is everyone so shocked that a video game company promised us something and then fucked it all up, they do it all the time why is this different?

    lesson here i guess is don't screw over the LGBT community they will stomp you. Go back to shitting on all gamers collectively.

Join the discussion!

Trending Stories Right Now