Assassin Creed III's creative designer Alex Hutchinson says a lady protagonist wasn't plausible in his game because the history of the American Revolution was a sausage party (a "history of men", if you prefer). He says because every scene is packed with bros in powdered wigs, players "would stop believing" in a female assassin, since she couldn't convincingly sneak around or blend with crowds.
![SIGN IT](http://i1007.photobucket.com/albums/af193/jmldouglas/jonathan-trumbull-signing-of-the-declaration-of-independence-large.jpg)
That's as maybe*, but you wonder if it doesn't also dodge the more straightforward commercial rationale: more people still want to play as men than as women and/or gamemakers still believe this to be the case.
Though Hutchinson says "I think lots of people want [a female lead]", there's probably lots more happiest with a hero. For all the attention given to Mass Effect's lady Shepard, less than a fifth of players go FemShep, and Activision's focus testing steers it well clear of games with women in lead roles ("lose the chick", if you prefer).
Historical accuracy and physical believability are but two of the tactful explanations for the way things are (preventing upskirts is another). And though historical accuracy and physical believability don't regularly top a designer's list of priorities, they could each well be a genuine concern.
The biggest concern? I don't think so.
Assassin's Creed III's setting "a bit of a pain" for female characters
*If women were all but invisible to that bit of history, couldn't that be the basis of your social stealth. (No-one ever notices the maidservant, suspects she's garotted Banastre Tarleton, etc, etc.)
Log in to comment