Franchises and the future of inclusive gaming

“We won’t even start [a game] if we don’t think we can build a franchise out of it,” Ubisoft VP Tony Key recently told [a]list daily’s Steve Peterson. “There’s no more fire and forget – it’s too expensive … until we’re the biggest game of the year we’re not going to be satisfied.”

For some, Key’s comments are a welcome dedication to the big and bold, the pursuit of the AAA blockbuster title, the kind of game that commands an epic budget, epic marketing, and an epic production team. These are the games that, theoretically, drop our collective jaws (and encourage us to drop preorders at our retailers of choice). And, listen, I like flash as much as the next gamer. But this little tidbit has me concerned, though perhaps it’s not exactly a new or even surprising sentiment, considering the demand for those big budget mega-titles, and it’s not the first time Ubisoft has talked about dropping everything to go big and the limitations of “smaller” games. It’s just that the more this kind of sentiment is expressed, the more concerned I am for the chances of innovation in those big releases.

It’s not that I’m anti-franchise or particularly pro-Ubisoft. Sometimes I dig their games, sometimes not, so their mission doesn’t especially effect me (and if it means fewer thrown-together filler titles, I’m all for it). What concerns me here is that while Key may be speaking for Ubisoft, his remarks may well be reflective of a widespread attitude among developers looking at the risks inherent in floating new, innovative titles in a market that often demands bigger (if not necessarily better). With the cost of developing games on the rise, studios want to go with the smart bet, which means that already-successful games beg for a follow-up. It’s easier, and almost guarantees success. The market may not be satisfied with the quality of a second or sixth entry in a series, but they’ll often buy it first and complain later. At least, that seems to be the thinking, and sales numbers bear the theory out at least far enough to sway Ubisoft (and probably others).

But that attitude leaves a lot less room for a shift toward more inclusive games. Already we hear rumblings that AAA titles may not succeed with a female protagonist, for instance, so if this is the way the big studios are tilting, what’s the likelihood we’ll see an increase in strong female characters?  After all, pursuing franchises means less risk, and if mitigating risk is the name of the game, we’re damned sure not going to see an increase in strong women or other “risky” protagonists and characters who break out of more traditional molds. An industry interested in maximizing profits in pursuit of those games of the year may, at best, give us a Shepherd-style character, one who can be female, but who may not be much marketed as such (even if people love her).

Free character creation, too, comes with its own host of problems. I love being able to design my own avatar, and will spend hours doing it, no shame, but part of why I do tend to spend a lot of time on the process, when offered, is that even a dozen screens of options often equals a sadly limited experience. Of course, even that limited user-created experience can have great benefits… but not every game is designed for that style of play. Sometimes a different narrative structure, one that demands a more set character, is required,  so the FemShep effect will only take us so far in the journey toward more inclusive gaming.

We’ve talked a lot about Remember Me lately, and it’s all I could think about reading Key’s remarks, even though it’s a Capcom-published title. Regardless of how problematic we found the presentation of the female protagonist, hey, at least she was there, right? But Remember Me was always a risk, and one that hasn’t really delivered for Capcom. Still, there was always the chance that someone could do better next time. We keep hoping that the more we talk about problematic female characters, the more attention someone, somewhere may pay, and eventually, we’ll see progress. As female gamers, that’s what many of us long for: those progressive steps toward better representation in the hobby we love. If studios are looking to mitigate risk, however, when will we get that next shot? If recycling the status quo is the order of the day, where does that leave us?

But wait, you say. Ubisoft threw us a bone with Aveline in Assassin’s Creed III: Liberation, right? A female protagonist, the series’ first! …and one shunted to the Vita. Sure, it’s been a great mover for the handheld, but the risk of the female protagonist was reduced by sheer lack of competition. The Vita, even now, nearly a year after the release of Liberation, still boasts a limited title selection, and while Liberation’s been a good seller for the system, it will never command the numbers of even the worst-performing AC multiplatform title. By February, four months after its release, Liberation hadn’t sold a quarter what ACIII did in its first month.

I can’t fault studios for trying to make good business decisions. After all, I want them to stay in business, to keep producing games. But more and more it’s looking as though we have the indies on one side, chasing the weird and wonderful, and on the other the blockbusters, and never the twain shall meet. I’m just not convinced of the benefits of such a division, and what opportunities might be lost for the big studios that might overlook potentially great ideas in favor of staid rehashes. That’s the pessimistic view, and middle ground might still be found with developers utilizing crowdfunding platforms, but when you’ve spent a lifetime waiting for the industry to deliver a handful of pro-fem experiences, these developments aren’t particularly heartening.