What’s the perfect setting for Ubisoft’s first male East Asian Assassin’s Creed protagonist?
Feudal Japan. Samurai, ninjas, honour codes, beautiful landscapes, rich history. The setting practically writes itself. Ubisoft had never made Assassin’s Creed game with male East Asian lead despite having female Chinese protagonist in Chronicles and spanning settings across Europe, Middle East, Americas, and Caribbean. Japan was obvious choice for correcting this gap whilst delivering game fans had requested for over a decade. Instead, Ubisoft chose Yasuke, the historical black samurai, as protagonist. The decision was technically historically defensible but strategically catastrophic because it handed critics perfect ammunition to accuse Ubisoft of “going woke” whilst simultaneously failing to deliver the East Asian male representation that would have been natural fit for the setting.
The Historical Defence
Yasuke was real person who served Oda Nobunaga in 1580s Japan. He came to Japan with Italian Jesuit missionaries, became Nobunaga’s retainer, and carried his weapons. Japanese historical records mention him but provide limited detail about his specific role and status. Whether he was formally recognised as samurai remains debated because Japanese culture meticulously recorded samurai lineages and Yasuke doesn’t appear in those records with samurai designation. He was likely weapons bearer or bodyguard, which was prestigious position but distinct from samurai status that carried specific legal and social privileges.
The historical existence means Ubisoft can defend protagonist choice as based on real figure rather than fabrication. However, defence misses that Assassin’s Creed has always taken creative liberties with history whilst respecting cultural contexts. Previous games featured fictional protagonists in historical settings rather than making historical figures the playable characters. The choice to centre game around Yasuke specifically rather than creating fictional Japanese protagonist or using one of the hundreds of well-documented Japanese samurai suggests deliberate decision to feature black protagonist in Japanese setting rather than following series’ usual approach.
The timing also matters because representation in gaming became highly politicised topic. Ubisoft making this choice in 2025 meant the decision would inevitably be evaluated through lens of diversity, equity, and inclusion debates regardless of historical accuracy. The company should have anticipated this reception and either committed fully to defending the choice or chosen different protagonist who wouldn’t create controversy. Instead, they chose historically defensible option that was guaranteed to generate backlash without providing clear benefits that would outweigh the criticism.
What Japan Deserved
Assassin’s Creed has featured protagonists from cultures matching game settings. Ezio was Italian for Renaissance Italy. Connor was Native American for Colonial America. Bayek was Egyptian for Ptolemaic Egypt. The pattern of matching protagonist ethnicity to setting respected cultural authenticity whilst allowing stories about people navigating their own societies during historical upheavals. Japan deserved same treatment with Japanese protagonist experiencing samurai culture from inside rather than as outsider. This wouldn’t just be representation for representation’s sake. It would serve storytelling by enabling authentic perspective on Japanese social structures, honour codes, and political conflicts.
The hundreds of notable samurai in Japanese history provided abundant options. Miyamoto Musashi revolutionised sword fighting and wrote Book of Five Rings. Oda Nobunaga himself unified much of Japan through military genius and ruthlessness. Date Masamune led armies despite losing eye to smallpox and founded Sendai. Any of these figures could anchor Assassin’s Creed story whilst providing Japanese male protagonist that series never featured. The wealth of options makes choosing Yasuke seem deliberate rather than necessary, especially because Yasuke’s limited historical documentation required extensive creative invention whilst documented samurai offered richer historical detail to work with.
The argument that featuring Japanese protagonist in Japan would be “too obvious” or lacks unique perspective fails because Assassin’s Creed built success on letting players experience historical settings through perspectives of people from those cultures. The series never needed outsider protagonists to make settings interesting. Ezio didn’t need to be foreigner in Italy for Renaissance setting to work. The outsider perspective that Yasuke theoretically provides isn’t valuable enough to justify skipping obvious opportunity to feature Japanese protagonist in game fans explicitly requested for years specifically because they wanted to play as samurai or ninja in feudal Japan.
The DEI Floodgates
The protagonist choice opened Ubisoft to accusations of prioritising diversity messaging over cultural authenticity. Critics pointed to Ubisoft’s statements about representation and inclusion whilst questioning why representing East Asian men in game set in East Asia apparently took lower priority than featuring black protagonist. The criticism gained traction because logic seemed backwards. If Ubisoft cared about representation, Japanese setting was perfect opportunity to feature underrepresented group in gaming. Choosing black protagonist instead looked like box-ticking exercise that valued representation metrics over authentic cultural portrayal.
The “going woke” accusations wouldn’t have gained traction if Ubisoft had made safe choice of Japanese protagonist. Critics might have complained about other aspects of game but couldn’t have accused Ubisoft of prioritising diversity over authenticity when featuring Japanese protagonist in Japan is literally authentic choice. The decision to feature Yasuke instead gave critics legitimate opening to question Ubisoft’s priorities and motivations. Whether those criticisms are fair is less relevant than that Ubisoft created situation where criticisms were inevitable and difficult to counter.
The company’s corporate statements about diversity also undermined defence of protagonist choice. Ubisoft publicised commitments to representation and inclusion in games. However, those commitments apparently didn’t extend to ensuring male East Asian protagonists got representation in setting where they were natural fit. The contradiction between stated values and actual choices made critics’ arguments about performative diversity seem credible because Ubisoft’s actions contradicted their diversity messaging when it mattered most.
The Marketing Disaster
Nobody could focus on gameplay, graphics, or innovation because protagonist controversy dominated discussion. Preview coverage dedicated paragraphs to representation debates rather than evaluating combat systems or mission design. Social media arguments about historical accuracy and DEI politics drowned out conversations about whether game was actually good. The marketing completely failed because Ubisoft’s own protagonist choice ensured conversation would be about politics rather than gameplay.
The tragedy is that game apparently looks beautiful with excellent recreation of feudal Japan and refined combat systems building on series’ strengths. However, these achievements got buried under controversy that Ubisoft created through protagonist choice. A game that should have generated excitement about finally bringing Assassin’s Creed to Japan instead generated arguments about representation politics that served nobody’s interests. The developers who built the game deserved better than having their work overshadowed by executive decisions about protagonist that handed critics ammunition.
The comparison to Ghost of Tsushima demonstrates what Ubisoft lost. Sucker Punch’s game featured Japanese protagonist in feudal Japan setting and received widespread praise for cultural respect and authentic portrayal. The game succeeded commercially and critically because it delivered experience players wanted without unnecessary controversy. Assassin’s Creed Shadows could have achieved similar reception by following obvious path of Japanese protagonist in Japanese setting. Instead, Ubisoft chose controversy over guaranteed success for reasons that remain unclear.
The Woke Credentials Defence
Personal progressive values don’t prevent recognising when representation choices serve corporate interests rather than actual advocacy. Supporting diversity means wanting authentic representation that respects cultures being portrayed. Featuring black protagonist in Japanese setting whilst never having featured East Asian male protagonist doesn’t advance representation goals. It just creates situation where critics can legitimately question whether representation commitments are authentic or performative.
The Japanese gaming audience also reacted negatively to protagonist choice. The cultural insensitivity of featuring outsider as samurai in game about Japanese history offended people whose culture was being portrayed. This matters because representation should serve communities being represented rather than corporate diversity metrics. If Japanese audience felt disrespected by protagonist choice, then choice failed at basic level of cultural sensitivity regardless of whether Yasuke was historical figure. The representation mathematics where featuring black protagonist counts more than respecting Japanese cultural sensibilities reveals warped priorities where metrics matter more than actual cultural engagement.
The progressive position should be demanding that Ubisoft respect Japanese culture by featuring Japanese protagonists in games about Japanese history whilst also advocating for black protagonists in settings where they make cultural sense. These aren’t contradictory goals. They’re complementary commitments to authentic representation that serves communities rather than corporate interests. Defending Yasuke choice as progressive win ignores that choice came at expense of East Asian representation whilst potentially offending culture being portrayed.
What Ubisoft Should Have Done
Make the fucking obvious choice. Japanese protagonist in Japan. Save Yasuke for side character or DLC that explores his unique historical position without centring entire game around outsider perspective. Feature black protagonists in settings where they’re cultural fit rather than forcing representation into contexts that generate controversy without serving communities supposedly being represented. Recognise that representation means authentic cultural portrayal rather than checking boxes on diversity metrics.
The risk-averse approach would have been Japanese protagonist that nobody could criticise without looking absurd. “Why is your Japanese game about Japanese person?” isn’t coherent criticism. The choice would have been safe, obvious, and exactly what fans requested for over a decade. Sometimes the safe choice is right choice because it serves everyone’s interests without creating unnecessary problems. Ubisoft’s attempt to be interesting through unexpected protagonist choice backfired because interesting doesn’t matter if it alienates audiences and derails marketing.
The Boycott Position
Personal love for Assassin’s Creed series doesn’t override recognition that protagonist choice was wrong and deserves criticism through refusing to purchase. The series has delivered hundreds of hours of entertainment through excellent historical settings and engaging gameplay. However, this entry’s protagonist choice represents such fundamental misunderstanding of representation and cultural respect that supporting it financially would endorse approach that harms representation goals whilst disrespecting Japanese culture. The boycott isn’t about cancel culture or woke politics. It’s about demanding that developers respect cultures they’re portraying and make representation choices that serve communities rather than corporate metrics.
Was featuring Yasuke in Assassin’s Creed Shadows legitimate historical choice that critics unfairly attacked, or did Ubisoft hand critics perfect ammunition by choosing representation that didn’t serve Japanese culture whilst failing to feature East Asian male protagonist in obvious setting for one?
