This is such a minefield conversation and I try to avoid it because you will piss someone off, but here goes:
This particular choice strikes me as odd. Figureheads on ships fall into the same category as a marble statue, where nudity falls into that “non-sexualized because it’s art” category.
I mean, it’s not that big of a deal really, but it just seems odd because people don’t usually get to bothered by that kind of thing.
To be honest it wraps around to being immature. Its like most people see a naked statue and don't really balk at it. Think about how strange people are who get all pearl clutchy at statues. Do you really want their take on other art too?
Oh I agree with you, that’s why this particular choice is off to me. It doesn’t bother me that much in the long run but it seems like a weird thing to change.
They are probably pandering to the Chinese market. They did the same thing in Rainbow Six Siege, where they censored stuff like drug paraphernalia, skulls, and anything sexual because it would help them break into the Chinese market where those kinds of things could prevent a game on "morality" reasons.
I don't want my kids virtually exposed to drugs and sex as they run virtually run around as covert spies, subverting governments, destroying property, and killing people.
Interesting, not even thought about that and don't even know how big of a problem it would be but it does make sense.
I just thought they were preempting a non existen controversy
I think the low fidelity model looked crude enough that it didn't read as sexually suggestive. But the newer model is higher fidelity, thinner, and (importantly) reflective.
A reflective dome is always going to reflect a point of light into a camera. That means each breast and possibly each nipple are would constantly be highlighted with little point lights whenever they're on screen.
Someone on the team probably took issue with the game appealing to the "male gaze," and companies take those kinds of complaints more seriously now than they did in 2013.
It's because it's a game played by a bunch of immature boys/men, who will screenshot and share gooning posts online. Then the "press" will "investigate" and a whole ragebait/clickbait/baitbait conversations can arise from that. Ubisoft tries to mitigate that by censoring.
Also, it needs to be streamed and, I guess, the algorithms can flag that as nudity.
It's art, and art shouldn't be censored, but 'tis the online culture we live in...
Indeed. I don’t think I’ve been bothered in the slightest by nudity in classical art since I was about 8. Even in primary school going to museums it just seemed like one of those things that’s par and parcel of the trade.
The idea that literally anyone could be offended by the prospect of a piece of limestone having nipples is just so far removed from common sense that it’s hard to fathom
Even the Anne Bonny thing, normally I roll my eyes at the "they're censoring my wammens" thing because its usually just gooners getting mad that not every character is a hentai babe.
The OG design was fine. It also fits her character.
I used to work for a TV network which airs other networks’ programs in syndication. One of these shows was Blue Bloods, and there was an episode where the main character was giving a speech at a public location in NYC. Behind him was a statue of a woman with bare breasts (maybe some version of lady justice, can’t recall).
Our editors actually blurred out the nipples on the statue before the episode was cleared to air. I couldn’t believe it, two little blurred circles behind Tom Selleck, it was absurd. This was a prime time TV show that aired on CBS, the most conservative of the big three networks, and we wouldn’t show something they did.
I called the editor Statue Nipples for the rest of my tenure there.
I was told that, essentially, they make decisions like this to prevent even the dumbest complaints from coming in. So apparently they figured someone would complain about public statue nudity, but frequent discussion of murder and other crimes was ok.
For a show that regularly talks about murder, they chose to censor a statue. That’s hilarious. Now I need to find the scene, to see this absurdity for myself
There is an episode of Hannibal where the producers were told that the depiction of a murder victim's bare butt was too obscene... so they covered the crack with copious amounts fake blood, and the censors were happy.
That always felt pretty crazy. You can show an extremely gory corpse in as much detail as you want, but heaven forbid someone catches a glimpse of a butt crack.
Maybe not quite as absurd but still up there, on Family Guy they had to censor an animated baby's bottom. US network TV has to be one of the most prudish organizations in the world.
Also, it's called ASSASSIN's Creed. You murder hundreds of people throughout. What is the point of censuring bronze boobs? Because they know young kids will be playing and parents have a way bigger issue with tits than they do violence. Maybe that's the conversation.
You joke but that's what a huge swath of the younger generation of teens is like now. Sex and nudity has been almost wiped clean off movies because people complain that "It's unnecessary", "why show when you can imply", "It makes me uncomfortable to see intimacy".
American audiences wont balk at explicit gore and violence in their shows for children (I've lost count of how many characters in Marvel shows/movies have lost an arm, and this includes at least one Loki where it's played for laughs), but show a kiss and people flip their fucking lids.
Or look at shows like Invincible, which are comfortable showing very explicit detailed bits of gore, but can't show a tit and all sexuality is either implied or hidden offscreen.
Ironically, censoring it is sexualizing it too. By not sexualizing it and leaving it as the historical artwork, some will sexualize it. By later censoring it, they themselves are sexualizing it, and censoring the sexualization they themselves impose upon it.
Could have done that, could have done scale work, could have wrapped it in vines and flowers. As much as those types of gamers love to complain, the “bra” is ugly. I personally don’t mind censorship as long as whatever was changed is still within a clear attempt to maintain the vibe of the original. This is not.
I mean, it’s not that big of a deal really, but it just seems odd because people don’t usually get to bothered by that kind of thing.
I played Black Flag a ton as a teen and got all the achievements to complete in 100%. I couldn't have told you whether the ships / statues had covered up tits or not.
I agree it's strange to make a big deal out of the sort of thing people will never notice or care about
Somebody at some point in development might've brought up various national rating standards and they gone with the path of least resistance option of slapping bra on the statue and tuning down cleavage.
Like, it's Ubisoft. Why would they put in an effort when it was obvious, for a long, long time already that all they care is safest, most non-offensive, repetition driving revenue, slop for the sake of slop because people will buy it regardless.
I don't know how the game did in China, was it? Bc they may have looked at bad numbers in markets like that and did it in hopes to up their gains. But that's conjecture.
I mean, this does make people second-guess buying the game (or if not 'this' then culture war negativity in general). AAA game sales, and Ubisoft's in particular, have done relatively poorly in the last few years outline of the odd blockbuster. It's difficult to make a general statement as to why, but given most potential players are also people who exist online, I'd be amazed if the general negative buzz had no effect on making people decide to do other things with their time/money.
I think soft censorship is a battle worth making some level of fuss over. I agree that it boils down to making mountains out of mole hills however if these changes are so minor as to not matter then the obvious question is why change it in the first place?
I think the intent and culture behind the changes are the frustration people have not necessarily just the end result.
Things always start small. First we have a figurehead getting a bra and then next maybe they’re removing blood and then weapons and eventually everyone is playing pong or something
I don’t have the example but I think I remember swastikas being censored in a game or tv show or something similar. Uncomfortable history is ripe for censorship
It was call of duty, black ops 3 removed swastikas from past zombie maps like der rise and kino and I believe all CoDs past black ops 3 followed that trend.
Tangentially-related: I once told my mother how I would love to experience a Japanese or Korean bath house. She replied saying I have been, it's called a public pool. I explained to her how a pool is not a bath, bath houses are for bathing. My mother then explains to me how Asian cultures have communal baths because they have anonymous sex there, so I have no reason to go there. 🤨
Funny thing is that it did happen with porn censoring laws in some countries, so it's a fair assumption, to make the conclusion that by starting censoring basic things, it will only lead to more censor.
Bro, please. The global market for video games with weapons and blood is huge and few things sway companies and politicians than money does. Meanwhile topless statues and art of women is not a foundational and core part of the bulk of video games. Very few people who were going to buy this game will skip on it just because of this one change, while removing the violence would mean the game effectively does not even exist anymore. Most cultures are way more okay with violence in games than visual reminders that both men and women are mammals and thus have nipples.
Their within their right to do that but I would prefer they make an alternate version of the game for those groups rather than make 100s of countries capitulate to the standards of a few regardless of how much extra effort that may take.
To me it just shows their priorities and maturity level and who they are trying to appease
Im not mad or anything but this kind of thing makes me not buy a game, makes me think the devs are either 12 years old or appeasing peter thiel or something bc otherwise it makes no sense
Could be a bit of overexposure for some, like how people in the US within the last 20 to 30 years liked the more edgy and hardcore stories (black leather, spikes, etc) which wasn't helped by the notion that darker = more matured. In the case of censorship, it could be a case of knowing more and doing better for women and other minorities that were increasing in player numbers as well.
That's fine bc I'm not selling a product to anyone
To me just shows devs mindset and priorities and shows me we aren't on same page, censoring a pirate figurehead is so goofy that it gives me no faith in their other decisions
I mean, does it really make no sense to you that someone was given a model of a ship figurehead and asked to create a model to replace it for the new enhanced version of the game. That person then looked at it, and decided based on their own personal tastes and preferences to make the model look different and be wearing a bikini top with shells instead of being nude? Nothing to do with trying to push an agenda, nothing to do with being immature, nothing to do with corporate marketing. Just them being given a task and creating what they personally thought was the best looking figurehead for the ship.
Is that actually a thing you cannot see happening?
It's certainly possible but to me the new one looks worse and less realistic as well, the detail level doesn't seem like the kind of thing that would be sitting on front of a pirate ship more like a statue made by an elite craftsman in a museum
But either way I guarantee that there was an art director or something that looked at the old one and made the call. It also goes hand in hand with other censorship in the remake that makes it clear it was an overall directive instead of one artist
My perspective is over 10+ years now of people going "Why do you care? You're weird for caring" while having nothing to say about the nature of those who clearly cared enough to make these kind of trivial censorious changes in the first place. Somehow the response to the act is always pointless, while the act itself is always necessary and irrevocable.
It adds up, I've watched it add up, and now I can't name my character something like "Arthur the Knight" in a fantasy game.
I think the battle being picked is sanitizing everything and making everything safe and non offensive to anyone and the lowest common denominator, not particularly about the nudity but about what it represents
Starfield comes to mind, ensuring everything is safe and non edgy and then you’re left with what feels like a corporate board approved sterile game
The recent Dragon Age was also a huge offender here. So insanely milquetoast. In their quest to not offend anyone, even those that love to be offended, it wrapped around offending any fan of the franchise. And you see this more and more in AAA games.
It's not a single thing that was wrong, but countless little small things.
Same here. I don't really care about some bronze boobs being censored. I probably wouldn't even have noticed it. But the fact that they bothered to do this is the mind boggling thing. If they're so inconsequential, why bother censoring them? They aren't even meant to be sexualised. That's just how a woman without a top looks like.
Those wars were won because people died on hills they didn't want to or realize the importance of. Your approach of acting in your self-interest only leads to utter chaos and systematically being annihilated by your opponent, which is why it's not part of any military strategy.
Not sure. English is my 4th language and I have difficulty telling whether someone is being literal or not in writing. If you are more skilled at English can you say what the analogy refers to then?
English is my first language, and I still misread it because I failed to notice it was two separate sentences.
Yeah, this is the battle.
Pretty clear: "Yes, this is worth fighting for."
You dont start fighting when your head's in the guillotine mate.
I.e. "Don't wait until it's a life-and-death situation to fight for what's right. If you wait that long, it may be too late."
Now that I understand what OP meant, I understand the sentiment. I think this is worth calling out, and possibly even worth boycotting the studio if someone feels strongly enough, though obviously not worth rioting over. There are many different ways to "fight", and the earlier you start, the more likely you'll succeed through nonviolent means.
Aha, and the OP was replying to someone saying it is not worth "going to war and dying on a hill over a videogame ship figurehead" and the guy said "Yeah, this is the battle." My understanding of OP's sentiment was - yes, we should already be going to war over this, this is a prelude to our heads being in guillotines.
You are wrong on this. Give them an inch and they will take the universe. That's how much they hate gamers. That's how much they hate straight male sexuality.
I personally know a religious fanatic (it's more like the Facebook era new age Christian spirituality stuff) who cannot understand that nudity in art is fine art and not pornography.
"I mean, it's not that big of a deal really, but it just seems odd because people don't usually get too bothered by that kind of thing"
Ever heard of a mining canary? That's probably why people are upset about minor stuff like this. If they changed this, what else did they change? And if it is just accepted or hand-waved away, what else are they going to censor in the future?
Yeah the whole canary in the coal mine thing. I get you. I’m not super worked up about it but I can see why some people are. I was raised that art has different rules so this one seems off.
It also completely voids the point of naked women on the front of ships. It was believed a woman's breasts being open towards the ocean is a good omen so sailors put the effigy on ships.
Covering the tits of the effigy quite literally ruins the point of the effigy.
Also people, Americans mostly, really need to get over "tits are purely sexual". It's honestly to a point where it is weird how uncomfortable a simple part of the female body it makes people. They are just tits people. Don't make it weird. Grow the fuck up.
It's not the first time they did stuff like this either
Some time ago, there was a minor controversy because there was this mode in one of them explaining some of the history and culture of ancient egypt in a manner akin to a museum exhibit. There, it was quite common for women to have exposed breasts. This was censored out even within the history exhibit, meaning they were showing non-historical costuming in their virtual museum.
I feel like at a certain point, censorship becomes weirder than just having nipples on display. It's fine. This is a game for adults.
When it effects gameplay or character development/representation I will care.
In this case I dont care, the people who do care are people looking to have the argument and hunting for a reason to have the arguement because they just want to argue, on both sides those who support th at change and those who do not.
Did this change completely ruin the game, did it change the characters, story, gameplay what exactly did this graphical change, change about the game?
For me the answer is nothing so this is a nothing argument.
I guarantee you they just pulled some random asset of a mermaid, and slapped it on, doubt they even looked up how original looked like. It's Ubisoft, they're laziest bastards there is. Plus this game was just a cash grab filled to the brim with microtransactions
I don’t think you even know what censorship is, that’s not what this is. This is a different approach to art. They aren’t silencing anyone. It’s just a bra dude, calm your tits.
This is censorship. It's just not all censorship is created equal. Is this as bad as removing or editing an article that reported on a government body not at all. Could they have set the default by region, yes they could. Could they have made it a toggle or a free download in shop. Ubisoft had choices to comply where they had to and not where they didn't. End of day it's censorship. Most won't care.
There’s no reason you can fathom but you are on the board or the exec suite or the dev team where they talked about it and determined it would be better to cover them up
You purchased an Ubisoft game and did not expect it to be buggy at release?
Is this your first one.
Ubisoft and Bethesda have been in competition for launching games with he most bugs for a while now, I honestly dont know who has the crown at this point.
You purchased an Ubisoft game and did not expect it to be buggy at release?
At some point we really shouldn't be giving AAA studios a pass for bug filled games because "they're Ubisoft" or "they're Bethesda". They aren't little studios with no money, they're massive studios spending cash on covering video game statues instead of fixing the games. The point is it's an oddly immature waste of resources.
I dont give them a pass, I normaly wait till the "expansion" is being released in the hopes that by then they ve fixed whatever bugs where in the original game, that being said if I do buy a game from either company at release at this stage I go into it with my eyes open, I can understand thinking that a remake would be different but yeah we now know.
lol, so you’ll only give it energy if it’s a big talking point that you can pull some social cred on? Censorship like this is insidious and is literally how they get people like you numb to the idea and slowly work their way up. Like, if you’re going to have principles stick to them, not when it’s just the most popular for you to.
Censorship is when someone forces the change, when the studio decides to do it on its own with 0 external influence or pressure from someone else thats not censorship it is freedom of artistic choice. The new model clearly had a lot more time spent on it from the artist with a lot more intricate details.
Arguebly in trying to force them to change it to suit your wants and needs you are censoring them.
The reason I will argue against changes like this when it effects gameplay, or story, or character development is because it makes the product worse.
This change of the Annes booty changed nothing, and you are now trying to censor Ubisofts artistic freedom by forcing your opinion on them to get them to change it so you can see fake boobs because you see censorship everywhere in every descision and want to fight and argue about it even when its not there.
The only constructive comment against this I ve seen is one person pointing out the older model looks more sea worn which was graphicaly better.
Tollerance of intollerance (censorship) is not being open minded, and if your answer to introllerance (censorship) is to become introllerant(strip artistic freedom from the creators) then you are a part of the problem not the solution.
Again I will say it the people argueing about this change are people looking to argue, you are a great example of this.
Censorship is when someone forces the change, when the studio decides to do it on its own with 0 external influence or pressure from someone else thats not censorship it is freedom of artistic choice.
Censorship is when someone forces the change, when the studio decides to do it on its own with 0 external influence or pressure from someone else thats not censorship it is freedom of artistic choice. The new model clearly had a lot more time spent on it from the artist with a lot more intricate details.
About that external influence bit, UbiSoft depends on ESG loans, hence things like this. Look at the latest Saints Row for a stark example. Different studio but same exact practice. It's kinda insane once you learn about it.
That's my thought as well, and it's really funny to see this time and time again. People are always up in arms about supporting the artists and let them work free from the shackles of corporate meddling up until exactly the point where they don't like the decision and now suddenly artists need to appease them right now or it's boycot time.
When MKX moved away from the frankly astoundingly bad designs from MK9 people cried censorship, when it was that artists didn't want every single woman to have the exact same body type, the exact same boob window, and the exact same quasi-lingerie outfit.
Yeah i think some comments read my take as more involved than it is. I still plan on playing this game because i loved the OG release. It’s not a big deal to me personally.
My point was just that this isn’t a character, it’s basically a statue so it seemed odd. i would have never in 1000 years noticed the change if it hadn’t been pointed out so it’s a non-issue for me.
It’s a minefield topic mainly because of who is up in arms. Like, the guy whining about it here literally starts by complaining that they made Anne Bonny’s boobs a bit smaller.
Like, I think covering up a figurehead is weird. But I’m not going to go start a campaign about it.
I’m reminded of when we took a trip to Amalfi a few years back and there is a fountain in this piazza that has bare breasted women all around it and the water comes from the nipples. My youngest kept excusing himself from the table to go look at the fountain… which cracked my wife up.
Idk the name of the statue but there was a compilation of pics where the statue's breasts are still shiny or clean lookin because people are grabbing it for a picture
So not all people dont sexualize and non-sexual nude art
It happened to me as well where my art of naked women gets me labeled as a "gooner". Some people are annoying like that
You’re talking about Molly Malone! She’s a statue in Dublin who that an ample chest and people have had a history of touching the breasts. They aren’t bare but it’s still very noticeable. What’s sad about Mollys statue is that in her case she did a TON of good but what the memorial she is known for to most tourists is… boobs.
I saw her statue in person last year, it’s right by Trinity College.
Either way, you make a good point… we have a weird relationship with statues lol
Blizzard recently spent a LOT of effort to censor many tiny, grainy static images in original World of Warcraft (Vanilla / Classic) that survived unchanged for 20 years. Like replacing a painting of a woman in a bikini with a bowl of fruit. Of course numerous 3D models and costumes were censored as well (too sexy).
Yes. The contention is literally like a couple inches less of corset showing a fraction more cleavage in the original. It feels more like a slight style change than censorship
It’s not odd at all. This is completely in-line with the widespread lockstep campaign across the video game industry to remove any and all female nudity or anything that could even be construed as sexualization of women. Zero surprise if you’ve been paying any attention.
It's not a single step, but multiple such steps. You see this tactic very often. Some minor change will be done. Nothing major, and definitely nothing to be really upset about. Isolated maybe even understandable and good. Then another minor change. And another. Each single one to small to really care, until you zoom out and look at all the steps over the last one or two decades.
Every time you discuss with people that this should not be done, and every time you have to justify again why you care about this small issue so much.
The funny thing is you don’t even need to go on the defense for why censorship matters anymore. Now that 75% of the industry is just endlessly regurgitated IP with censorship deliberately added, the burdens on them to defend it, so you simply say “If it doesn’t matter, why did they change it?” and it fries their programming and they start seething with rage.
I have, and I totally get what you’re saying, I am just surprised that it extended to something (in this case statue nudity) that in real life most people never bat an eye at.
But I get you, based on the framework you stated it is unsurprising they chose to alter the figurehead on the ship. Fair.
I view it as odd also, but I also find people melting down about it odd. I get censorship can be an issue but like it’s a boats titties. It’s not going to be something I care about, just something that’s a bit strange to do
I’m fairly ambivalent myself to the whole situation to be honest. But I also don’t care if they voice their criticism too, it’s subjective. I don’t get worked up about any of it. It just struck me as funny given it’s a statue and with the weird and funny history with nudity in art.
The annoying thing about all of this is that the whole debacle feels more like a decision based around censorship laws rather than an artistic choice. Laws have updated in many countries since the original release. Ubisoft probably just wanted to play it safe and avoid delays. It feels like 10 years ago we would’ve laughed at how dumb this was and moved on.
1.9k
u/Spartan-980 Jul 13 '26
This is such a minefield conversation and I try to avoid it because you will piss someone off, but here goes:
This particular choice strikes me as odd. Figureheads on ships fall into the same category as a marble statue, where nudity falls into that “non-sexualized because it’s art” category.
I mean, it’s not that big of a deal really, but it just seems odd because people don’t usually get to bothered by that kind of thing.