User blog comment:Alexander C. Miles/Numerous Controversies/@comment-2.220.248.79-20140621133735/@comment-2.220.248.79-20140621172506

Feel like? No. If the time period and the narrative behind it make a female lead a good idea then I would support the inclusion of a female lead. But, if they are just going to fling a woman in purely for the purpose of saying "Look, we now have a woman, everyone clap at how diverse we are!", then that is not exactly a good thing is it? As someone who has recently completed a dissertation on women within a masculine domain (women/girls are still a minority consumer in the industry), I can tell you women would prefer no coverage than a novelty, "See we are diverse" coverage.

Would you be happy if they put a woman lead in an AC game, for no other purpose than "well, look how diverse we are"? If that is why they would do it, it would not work, it would feel, yes, shoehorned in, and the end product would suffer.

For example, what if they announced 40ish - 69 AD Roman Empire (With smaller locations in Britannia and the Eastern Roman territories). And they said "We have a female lead" (Whisper: "Because people complained we didn't have one, we wanted to show our diversity"). It would be awful. That is an extreme example, but it would be the same in all time periods. The time period, the story and the reason for having a female lead (game development speaking) must be right. Otherwise it won't work.

But hey, if you think throwing in a female just to show diversity, meaning a female lead is squeezed and bullied into a narrative plot and time period... fine... but the end result won't be as a good as past games.