Assassin's Creed: Brotherhood Wins WGA Award

February 7, 2011 -

Ubisoft's third game in the popular Assassin's Creed series has won the Writers Guild of America award for games writing. The award winner was announced on Saturday night at a gala event and faced some stiff competition from such games as Fallout New Vegas, Star Wars: The Force Unleashed 2, Prince of Persia: The Forgotten Sands, and Singularity.

Assassin's Creed Brotherhood was written by Ubisoft's Patrice Desilets, Jeffrey Yohalem, Corey May, Jeffrey Yohalem, Ethan Petty, Nicholas Grimwood, and Matt Turner.

You may recall that, prior to this weekend's awards ceremony, there was some controversy about the requirements to be eligible for the honor. Some developers and publishers complained about the requirements of the award such as having to pay for a $60 membership to the guild's Videogame Writers Caucus, and having to submit a script to judges. 

Sources: Blue's News, Big Download


Comments

Re: Assassin's Creed: Brotherhood Wins WGA Award

Star Wars: The Force Unleashed 2?  For writing?

Uh, no.  What, were those five games the only ones that submitted scripts?

 

Andrew Eisen

Re: Assassin's Creed: Brotherhood Wins WGA Award

Came in here to post this.

Seriously, that game didn't even have a proper story stucture. It was just: "Escape the lab, find the general, find the rebellion, go back to the lab, /credits."

Re: Assassin's Creed: Brotherhood Wins WGA Award

That's the level progression.  Here's the story:

Starkiller needs a hug so he tracks down his girlfriend.

 

Andrew Eisen

 
Forgot your password?
Username :
Password :

Shout box

You're not permitted to post shouts.
TechnogeekAlso, it's the upgrade that's available for installation now. You might need to forcibly initiate the Windows Update process before it'll start downloading, though. (If there's a C:\$Windows.~BT folder on your computer, then you're in luck.)07/29/2015 - 8:46am
TechnogeekAdmittedly there's more room to push for an advertiser boycott when you get into opinion content versus pure news, but keep in mind that reviews are opinion content as well.07/29/2015 - 8:46am
TechnogeekMatts: There's a difference between "this person regularly says extremely terrible stuff" and "I don't like the phrasing used in this one specific editorial".07/29/2015 - 8:45am
MattsworknameWait, is that for the upgrade or the clean install only? cause I was gonna do the upgrade07/29/2015 - 8:32am
james_fudgehttps://www.microsoft.com/en-us/software-download/windows1007/29/2015 - 8:30am
PHX Corp@Wilson, I'm still waiting for My upgrade notice aswell07/29/2015 - 7:57am
MattsworknameWilson: how? Im still waiting for my upgrade notice07/29/2015 - 3:44am
Matthew WilsonI updated to a clean instill of windows 10.07/29/2015 - 2:36am
Mattsworknameargue that it's wrong, but then please admit it's wrong on ALL Fronts07/29/2015 - 2:06am
MattsworknameTechnoGeek: It's actually NOT, but it is a method used all across the specturm. See Rush limbaugh, MSNBC, Shawn hannity, etc etc, how many compagns have been brought up to try and shut them down by going after there advertisers. It's fine if you wanna07/29/2015 - 2:05am
Mattsworknamediscussed, while not what I liked and not the methods I wanted to see used, were , in a sense, the effort of thsoe game consuming masses to hold what they felt was supposed to be there press accountable for what many of them felt was Betrayal07/29/2015 - 2:03am
MattsworknameAs we say, the gamers are dead article set of a firestorm among the game consuming populace, who, ideally, were the intended audiance for sites like Kotaku, Polygon, Et all. As such, the turn about on them and the attacking of them, via the metods07/29/2015 - 2:03am
MattsworknameAndrew: Thats kind fo the issue at hand, Accountable is a matter of context. For a media group, it means accountable to its reader. to a goverment, to it's voters and tax payer, to a company, to it's share holders.07/29/2015 - 2:02am
Andrew EisenAnd again, you keep saying "accountable." What exactly does that mean? How is Gamasutra not accounting for the editorial it published?07/28/2015 - 11:47pm
Andrew EisenMatt - I disagree with your 9:12 and 9:16 comment. There are myriad ways to address content you don't like. And they're far easier to execute in the online space.07/28/2015 - 11:47pm
Andrew EisenMatt - Banning in the legal sense? Not that I'm aware but there have certainly been groups of gamers who have worked towards getting content they don't like removed.07/28/2015 - 11:45pm
DanJAlexander's editorial was and continues to be grossly misrepresented by her opponents. And if you don't like a site, you stop reading it - same as not watching a tv show. They get your first click, but not your second.07/28/2015 - 11:40pm
TechnogeekYes, because actively trying to convince advertisers to influence the editorial content of media is a perfectly acceptable thing to do, especially for a movement that's ostensibly about journalistic ethics.07/28/2015 - 11:02pm
Mattsworknameanother07/28/2015 - 9:16pm
Mattsworknameyou HAVE TO click on it. So they get the click revenue weather you like what it says or not. as such, the targeting of advertisers most likely seemed like a good course of action to those who wanted to hold those media groups accountable for one reason07/28/2015 - 9:16pm
 

Be Heard - Contact Your Politician