Ubisoft @ E3 2018 Official Discussion Thread


Just Dance: Chair Royale


This is absolutely the most vapid pointless back and forth.

Like, the PR team don’t want to talk politics, the journalists typically don’t have any actual questions to follow up this one with (especially when they could much better work on nuanced discussion of the actual text of the games when released and barely any publications actually do even that much).

The interview seems far more interested in treating this as a gotcha than actually being interested in the responses given. Like, it derails itself. If that response had been shrugged off and they had continued to ask about political topics then we might have actually got something interesting said. As it was, that just kinda broke the interview. And it’s always USians who think things suddenly get political when you talk about fictional US domestic stuff (or write long meandering pieces about how a game needs more respect for the constitution because reasons). It’s just so exhausting.

“Please Foreign Corporation, tell us how your next project is a call for US citizens to rise up against this current administration (who seem to be extremely eager to get into trade wars and illegally penalise anyone seen to criticise them)…”

Ye, so weird that a professional PR person doesn’t answer that one and pushes a “it’s all just stories” angle. I mean, have you seen how other despotic regimes with one thousandth of the reach have reacted to stuff like that?


In polygons defense, the PR spokesperson was quick to say the game isn’t political while answering another question, they were the one that wanted to make that statement. And the interviewer tries to bring things back on some sort of track.

Edit: I certainly agree that Ubisoft probably feels it’s in their best interest to not poke the wasp nest so to speak after getting in trouble over Wildlands, but they keep wanting to use political unrest as set dressing for their looter shooters so I’m not exactly sympathetic.



(but fill it up with bullets)


Did they get in trouble for that game? I thought it was just more nightmarish Clance-brand propaganda dressed in marketable mechanics that everyone ignored until a random old Sam Fisher appearance in a DLC.


It was all of those things, but it also caused a diplomatic incident


Not to defend Ubi’s obviously false “it’s not political” stance, but it is interesting to see the shoe on the other foot after decades of American companies setting military conflicts in other countries and insisting it’s just a game.

As with the way so many Far Cry 5 reviews dealt with the socio-political aspects of that game in ways reviews of FC3/4/Wildlands didn’t, maybe this will finally get some people to recognize the glaring double-standard American reviewers apply to games set in the US vs those not.


I think part of that might just be circumstance of the current growth in games criticism (sites realizing “wait, we can talk about the implicit political stances games make.”) and post-election whiplash (in the US and UK) many people faced, alongside more (violent, militeristic) games taking place in the USA. It’s good to see many people and publications becoming politically aware of the implicit messages in many games, at the very least.

But also, Far Cry 3 is still adored by many folks, so who knows?


Yeah, you definitely have a point. Even the old guard outlets have a lot of younger people more in tune with these issues.

And speaking of FC3 - I fired up the Classic Edition that came with FC5 and hoo-boy, the white saviour stuff is even worse than I remembered. On my first mission, I fucked up my stealth approach, got spotted by a dog, then ran around trying to find someone to shoot while the AI cleared out the camp. Then all the natives told me I had proven my worth and was an honorary tribe member. It’s so comically bad that if I didn’t know better I would think it’s satire. And I don’t know if it’s just a bad port or what, but that game controls like shit.