Actually, Assassin's Creed, Gender Matters A Lot In Your Viking Adventure

In the middle of Assassin's Creed Valhalla's recent gameplay reveal, game director Eric Baptizat said something striking regarding its protagonist, Evior. Players are "allowed to change, at any time, your skill tree or the gender of your character," he said, adding that "you can swap [gender] at any time."

While on a certain level this is a welcome option, part of me couldn't help but find this decision a little odd. If we can change gender at any time during the game, does that mean that Valhalla essentially interprets gender as meaningless? Or at least, purely visual?

We reached out for further clarification, and received the following from a Ubisoft spokesperson:

"You can choose to play as Female or Male Eivor and choose to change the gender of your character at any time during the game. From early on developing the vision of this game, we had a specific intention with Eivor. We wanted to have a deep dive into a specific psyche. We knew that it was vital to immerse players in the Viking way of life, from daily activities to combat. Eivor is dedicated to following Norse culture and beliefs, and elements of that fact are woven throughout the story and is part of the reason we chose to focus on one character. Being able to have Eivor be male or female allows players to be given some choice over their journey, but also - without spoiling anything - has a tie to the overall story. Focusing on one personality allows us to get deeper into that character while respecting the boundaries of the brand and lore."

With Valhalla, what Ubisoft seems to be doing is simplifying the player customisation of its series. In 2018's Assassin's Creed Odyssey, the series' last main entry, players would choose between one of two siblings at the beginning of the game, Kassandra or Alexios. Now, there is simply one character, Eivor, and their gender is up to you.

It's not a huge leap from Odyssey, and only cements something that was already bothering me since that game. You can choose gender, Alexios or Kassandra, but whichever sibling you choose as the hero, the other sibling is always the villain. The script is almost unchanged regardless, with NPCs referring to the player as the genderless "misthios". Many RPGs have to compromise their scripts to account for player choices. Whether it's Mass Effect, Dragon Age or The Elder Scrolls, whatever customisation you pick for your avatar will seldom be acknowledged by the game. It's easier to suspend my disbelief in those more fantastical games - but Assassin's Creed is set in our world, in our history.

To put it simply, it was really weird that nobody commented upon Kassandra's gender in Odyssey. Nobody seems at all surprised that a woman is cutting her way across Ancient Greece as a terrific warrior with her own ship and crew. None of the gendered expectations placed upon almost every other woman in the game seems to apply to Kassandra. While Odyssey does show us a handful of warrior women, the game also depicts its armies as overwhelmingly male. Even in the militaristic Sparta, nobody remarks upon her role and authority.

Assassin's Creed, a series in which you fight the pope who's wielding an ancient artefact that lets him control minds and create holograms, obviously isn't aiming to be wholly historically accurate in any meaningful sense. And in the case of Odyssey, not only does it show us Atlantis, but there are immortals and mythological creatures running about, too. Admittedly, part of me is curious about just how Valhalla will justify the choice of gender with the in-fiction Animus technobabble: perhaps it can simulate an entire historical period based on "genetic memory", but what gender this person presented as is beyond its means. Could Valhalla present a chance for this present-day framing device to actually mean something? Perhaps in a sharp bit of commentary they'll reveal that they cannot say for certain what gender anybody is based on their DNA.

Still, these games draw upon real history, from the historical figures that populate its story to the locations, both brought to life with extensive research, and major events that your quests intersect with. To reference these very real forces of politics and culture but pretend they have no bearing on your character is at best silly and, at worst, reckless.

By showing us a version of history where these problems don't exist, Assassin's Creed (and other historical games such as Kingdom Come: Deliverance) are at risk of historical revisionism. With their aspirations for the games as at least partially educational culminating in the last two titles' Discovery Tour modes, the lack of engagement with gender issues is glaring. It's as if the developers are trying to present to us pieces of history in a vacuum, separate from context with only the parts deemed inoffensive left in.

Given Ubisoft is currently in the midst of a very public scandal with dozens of its staff accused of abuse and harassment, its Human Resources department implicated in a cover up, and senior members stepping down as a result, this is more than just a bad look. It seems more like a symptom of a company that has, based on these accounts, historically shown little to no regard for women or their well being. In such an environment, an unwillingness to explore these topics within their games comes across like an avoidance of reality, one which now seems to have caught up with them.

This does not mean historical games have to be chock full of misogyny in some miserable attempt to capture the authenticity of the times; but acknowledgement is important. It's not like this is outside the realm of wider popular culture, either. Mad Max: Fury Road is a film all about gender, and yet it can explore that without having anybody comment upon the fact Furiosa is a woman. It shows us, by how she interacts with that world and the role she occupies, what her womanhood means to her. And even the traditionally rather conservative period drama genre has interrogated gender with a modern lens recently, as is the case with Portrait of a Lady on Fire or The Favourite.

Perhaps it's telling that games are at their most comfortable doing this when the player isn't on the receiving end. The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt has a large cast of women who all get to be dynamic, rounded characters and all of them have to contend with a world that is misogynistic to its core. While the game and Geralt take their side in that conflict, you as the player never have to be put in the position of having your capability or authority questioned because of your gender. Since games are almost always looking to give us some kind of power fantasy, maybe this is really the limit of what representation they can meaningfully offer. That the trials and obstacles of women, of all marginalised groups, cannot really be the subject of games which are only interested in making us feel bad-ass.

It's also a sure sign of the limits of how they're made. First, in that development traditionally emphasises a gameplay formula long before a narrative steps into the picture; and secondly, in that a game like this has few of its senior development roles filled by marginalised genders. Again, considering what has been reported regarding the current Ubisoft climate, the possibility of any worthwhile representation in these games is slim because the people who deserve a platform and voice are unable to feel safe. Is anyone really going to suggest a story that tackles these themes in an environment like that?

There are plenty of indie games that, within the means of their vastly smaller budgets, offer more personal and meaningful stories about gender without needing to be created in hostile environments. The truly sublime Lionkiller is a text adventure which describes itself as "gay mulan set during the first opium war". Not just evocatively written, it tackles head on issues of misogyny within the context of its time period. Imagine the kind of rich, powerful experiences we'd see if talents such as these were given the resources afforded to a team like that of Assassin's Creed?

As games push for greater representation, they have to back up that inclusion with meaning. More than anything it's about putting a more diverse range of people in charge of any game's development and stories. There's room for the fantasy of being a viking where gender is irrelevant, but Assassin's Creed Valhalla strikes me as a missed opportunity, as with most of the series' take on history, to touch on or explore shifts in culture and society. If it's no more meaningful than a simple outfit swap, then we're presenting a falsehood of gender that deserves no place in the world today, or the in-game depiction of its era's history.

More than anything though it's clear that Ubisoft as a company needs to change radically to create an environment where not only are new voices bolstered but they feel safe. The art being made and the studio making it are not separate. What stories they won't tell are often as important as the ones they will and Ubisoft's blank spots are, based on what's come out recently, deeply suspect. For now I'd recommend seeking out stories by marginalised creators, like Lionkiller, to see what's possible and what creators with greater freedom and security can achieve.

Featured Image Credit: Ubisoft

Topics: Feature, Assassin's Creed, Assassin's Creed Valhalla, Ubisoft, Opinion