Why Assassin’s Creed Won’t Abandon Dual Protagonists

The debate around Assassin’s Creed Shadows has been fierce. From passionate lore arguments to culture-war noise, much of the conversation has centered on Ubisoft’s decision to structure the game around two playable heroes. Despite the backlash, Ubisoft developers have made it clear: dual protagonists are not off the table for future Assassin’s Creed titles. Instead, the studio is treating the reception to Shadows as a case study in how—and when—to use this design approach more effectively.

This article explores why Ubisoft is reluctant to abandon multiple playable leads, what went wrong (and right) with Shadows, and how the franchise could evolve while still occasionally embracing dual protagonists when the story and setting truly demand it.

From Solo Assassins to Shared Spotlights: A Brief History

To understand why the dual-protagonist debate matters so much, it helps to quickly trace how Assassin’s Creed has handled its main characters over the years.

• Early era: Games like Assassin’s Creed II and Brotherhood focused almost entirely on a single, tightly defined protagonist such as Ezio Auditore.
• Experiments with multiple leads: Later entries like Assassin’s Creed Syndicate offered two separate characters (Evie and Jacob Frye), with players swapping between them.
• Player-created heroes: RPG-leaning titles such as Odyssey allowed players to choose between Alexios and Kassandra, blending narrative identity with player preference.
• Modern experiments: Assassin’s Creed Valhalla played with gender presentation while largely maintaining a single canonical protagonist, Eivor.

Shadows continues this trend by offering two distinct characters with different combat, stealth, and narrative flavors. The backlash, however, signals that simply providing options is not enough—the way those options are woven into the story and mechanics is what ultimately determines whether players embrace them.

What Made Assassin’s Creed Shadows So Divisive?

The strong reactions to Shadows weren’t just about having two heroes. They stemmed from several overlapping factors that intensified the debate:

• Contrasting playstyles: One protagonist leans heavily into stealth and agility, while the other emphasizes direct combat and power. Some players naturally gravitate toward one style and feel “forced” when the game shifts them to the other.
• Character preference and bias: As Ubisoft itself has acknowledged in interviews, dual protagonists can split audiences along unexpected lines. Some players simply don’t connect with one character’s personality, background, or design, making sections focused on them feel like a chore.
• Fan expectations for historical settings: Assassin’s Creed has always walked a tightrope between creative fiction and historical inspiration. For a setting as heavily scrutinized as feudal Japan, assumptions about who should be “the” protagonist sparked particularly heated discussion.
• Online culture-war framing: Major game releases often become magnets for broader cultural arguments. Ubisoft developers have described parts of the response as crossing into toxicity, with some commentary focusing more on identity politics than game design.

At the core, though, the design issue is clear: when you split narrative focus between two protagonists, you risk splitting your community as well.

Why Ubisoft Still Sees Value in Dual Protagonists

Despite the controversy, Ubisoft isn’t ready to declare dual protagonists a failed experiment. Developers have repeatedly said they would consider using multiple leads again—if the story and setting justify it. That caveat is important.

Here are the main reasons the studio still views multiple protagonists as a powerful tool:

• Broader perspectives on the setting: A single hero can only see so much. Two protagonists from different backgrounds can offer contrasting views on major events, power structures, and cultural tensions within the same historical period.
• Varied gameplay loops: One character can specialize in stealth and infiltration, while another embodies heavy combat, social infiltration, or long-range tactics. This diversity can help keep open-world play fresh.
• Stronger thematic contrast: Dual protagonists can be written to represent opposing philosophies (e.g., revenge vs. justice, tradition vs. change), giving players a richer sense of conflict that plays out both in cutscenes and in moment-to-moment gameplay.
• Replayability and player agency: Multiple leads encourage replays where players lean into different builds, strategies, and story choices, extending the life of an already content-rich series.

Ubisoft’s stance is not that “dual protagonists must be the future,” but that this approach remains part of their toolkit. The lesson from Shadows is that the justification has to be crystal clear—not just to the designers, but to the audience playing the game.

Design Lessons Ubisoft Is Taking From Shadows

Public comments from Shadows developers suggest that Ubisoft is treating the controversy as an opportunity to refine its narrative and systems design. Several key lessons stand out.

1. Dual Protagonists Must Serve the Setting First

Ubisoft has signaled that future decisions about multiple heroes will begin with the setting and narrative, not a feature checklist. In practice, that means asking questions like:

• Does this historical moment naturally involve two parallel perspectives that are equally important?
• Can each protagonist offer unique access to different social strata, locations, or factions within the world?
• Would the story feel incomplete if it focused on just one of these characters?

When the answer is yes, dual protagonists can enhance immersion. When it is no, they risk feeling like an imposed gimmick.

2. Character Switching Needs Clear Intent

Players tend to accept character switching when it serves a clear narrative or mechanical purpose. Confusion arises when the transitions feel arbitrary or disrupt the playstyle they prefer. Ubisoft’s takeaway appears to be:

• Let players control the pace of switching where possible, especially in open-world exploration.
• Use forced switches sparingly and only at moments of high dramatic payoff.
• Communicate expectations early so players understand how often they will change perspectives.

Transparent design makes it easier for players to embrace the structure rather than feel blindsided by it.

3. Parkour and Core Identity Need Renewed Focus

Beyond protagonists, developers have also highlighted parkour as an area they want to push harder in future games. Parkour has long been a distinctive pillar of Assassin’s Creed, but in some recent entries it has taken a backseat to combat and RPG systems. Ubisoft has publicly discussed redirecting more attention to traversal—both through post-launch updates to Shadows and in future titles.

This renewed focus on parkour is linked to the protagonist debate. A character whose identity is grounded in stealth and graceful movement through the environment naturally benefits from a refined parkour system, reinforcing the fantasy of being an assassin rather than a generic action hero.

The Wider Industry Trend: Multiple Playable Leads

Ubisoft’s willingness to stick with dual protagonists fits into a broader industry pattern. Modern AAA games routinely experiment with multiple playable characters as a way to diversify gameplay and deepen storytelling. For example, Grand Theft Auto V used three protagonists, allowing players to jump between different lifestyles and parts of the map, while The Last of Us Part II mirrored the narrative by placing players in the shoes of opposing sides of a conflict.

Academic work on game narrative and player identification suggests that shifting perspectives can both enrich storytelling and complicate emotional engagement. Researchers studying narrative agency in games note that giving players control over multiple characters can increase their sense of influence over the story world, but it can also dilute attachment to any single figure if not handled carefully.¹

Ubisoft’s current position mirrors that nuance: multiple protagonists are neither inherently superior nor inherently flawed. They are a high-reward, high-risk design choice.

How Future Assassin’s Creed Games Could Use Dual Protagonists Better

Assuming Ubisoft keeps the door open for dual protagonists, how could future titles refine the idea so it feels less divisive and more essential?

Make Each Protagonist Mechanically Essential

The best use cases for multiple leads give each character tools that are not just different, but indispensable. Imagine future games where:

• One protagonist is the only one who can engage in social stealth in high-society areas.
• The other is uniquely equipped to survive in harsh wilderness or warfare zones.
• Certain missions offer multiple solutions depending on which character you bring, reshaping level flow and outcomes.

This approach encourages players to appreciate both heroes as problem-solving instruments, not just narrative obligations.

Clarify Canon While Preserving Player Choice

One ongoing challenge for the franchise is balancing player agency with a coherent overarching lore. When you have multiple protagonists, the question of who is “canon” becomes more complex. Ubisoft can address this by:

• Signaling a preferred or canonical path in tie-in media (novels, comics, official timelines).
• Letting players know upfront whether their choices impact larger canon or are framed as alternate viewpoints.
• Ensuring that, even if both leads are canon, their arcs converge on key historical beats in consistent ways.

This helps both lore-focused fans and casual players orient themselves without feeling that their preferred character is treated as lesser.

Use Community Feedback Without Designing by Committee

Ubisoft has decades of experience building live-service and blockbuster games, and the studio is increasingly explicit about listening to player feedback. However, there’s a difference between absorbing criticism and chasing every trend. Healthy use of community input might look like:

• Tracking where players drop off or disengage when forced into specific characters or mission types.
• Analyzing which protagonist abilities see the most and least use, then tuning future designs to reduce dead-ends.
• Separating good-faith critiques about pacing, representation, or mechanics from coordinated toxicity or bad-faith outrage.

Major studios increasingly employ data analytics and user research to inform design decisions, but as researchers caution, metrics need to be interpreted in context rather than followed blindly.²

What the Backlash Means for Players and the Series

For players, the Shadows controversy sends a few clear signals about the future of Assassin’s Creed:

• Dual protagonists are now a conditional feature, not a default plan. Ubisoft has publicly framed them as something the team will use sparingly and deliberately.
• Fan response truly matters. While the studio is not making design decisions purely by poll, it is using backlash as a lens to reassess pacing, character focus, and how it communicates its creative choices.
• The identity of the series is still evolving. Between renewed attention to parkour, experimentation with protagonists, and shifting historical settings, Assassin’s Creed remains in a state of controlled reinvention.

For Ubisoft, the situation underscores a broader reality of modern game development: every major design decision will be interpreted not just as a gameplay choice, but as a cultural statement. That doesn’t mean the studio should shy away from risk. It does mean that experimentation needs a clearer narrative justification and stronger communication with the audience.

FAQ: Dual Protagonists in Assassin’s Creed After Shadows

Will future Assassin’s Creed games definitely have dual protagonists?

No. Ubisoft has indicated that multiple protagonists will only be used when the setting and story truly call for them. It is not a guaranteed feature of every future installment.

Does the backlash mean Ubisoft regrets using two heroes in Shadows?

Developers have openly acknowledged underestimating how divisive dual protagonists can be, but they have described their experience with Shadows more as a learning opportunity than a total mistake. The key lesson is to ensure stronger narrative justification and better pacing.

Could Ubisoft return to a purely single-protagonist model for several games?

It is entirely possible. The series has alternated between experimentation and back-to-basics approaches before. A tightly focused, single-lead story could serve as a palate cleanser after a more complex dual-protagonist structure.

Why do some players dislike dual protagonists so much?

Reasons vary. Some players strongly prefer one playstyle and feel frustrated when forced to switch. Others connect emotionally with only one character and see time with the other as a distraction. There are also players who dislike the narrative fragmentation that multiple perspectives can create.

Is Ubisoft only responding to fan criticism, or also to internal feedback?

Both. Studios routinely conduct internal postmortems on major projects, evaluating what worked and what didn’t. Those internal assessments, combined with player data and external reviews, shape how future games are planned and scoped.³