Kotaku73%

Ex-Assassin's Creed Hexe Director Explains Why Trying To Get Things Done With 1,000-Person Teams Felt Like ‘Pissing Upstream’ 71%

By Lewis Parker63%

7/22/2026, 10:00:09 PM

BS Summary: This article contains 19 faulty reasoning types, including Hasty Generalization, Anecdotal, and Biased Writer Voice, with Negativity Bias as the most egregious example at 43.7% saturation with 191 hits. Analysis detected 944 faulty-reasoning hits from 437 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 63.5% and a BS Rank of 71% (6,280 of 21,197 articles). This article is worse (more manipulative) than 70.40% of the article peer group.

Clint Hocking, the first of two directors to part ways with Ubisoft during Assassin’s Creed Hexe’s development, has equated managing Watch Dogs: Legion’s 1,000ish-person development team to “pissing upstream” in a new interview, during which he recounted attending pointless meetings with “directors and producers” who would simply relay info to someone who wasn’t “even in the meeting.” 
Hocking sat down with FRVR to discuss his time working at Ubisoft, during which he served as the creative director behind Far Cry 2, Tom Clancy’s Splinter Cell: Chaos Theory, and Watch Dogs: Legion. 
Since stepping down as Assassin’s Creed Hexe’s director in February 2026, Hocking has founded a new indie studio, Build Machine Games. 
However, as the host of FRVR’s podcast noted, Hocking was, for whatever reason, not allowed to talk about his time working on Assassin’s Creed Hexe. 
That didn’t stop him from talking about the “disconnected” process behind the scenes on Watch Dogs: Legion’s development, though. 
Hocking recounted how he was able to “just walk over to the desk of a person who was making a thing” and simply “talk to them” during Splinter Cell: Chaos Theory’s development. 
In contrast, managing the 1000ish-person development team of Watch Dogs: Legion often resulted in feedback getting back to relevant staff “six weeks later.” 
“On a huge game with 1,000 people, you go into a meeting to review some piece of content, or quest, or some location, and there’s 30 people in the meeting,” Hocking explained. 
“Directors and producers and project managers…and very often the level designer who built it isn’t even in the meeting.” 
“So there’s people there just writing down what you say and making tasks out of it,” he continued. 
“Then you finish the review, and you say, ‘OK, well then when are we going to see the iterations and the improvements that we talked about? 
’ And they’re like, ‘Well…so it’s going to be six weeks before we see an iteration on this because the person who needs to do the iteration is working on this. 
’ Then, by the time you get back there six weeks later…the whole context is different. 
It very often feels like pissing upstream.” 
This isn’t the first time that a former Ubisoft developer has accused the studio of being organized in ways that are not exactly conducive to productivity. 
I can only imagine how much Hocking will have to say about Assassin’s Creed Hexe’s development, or lack thereof, once the NDA he is presumably under runs out in the hopefully not-so-distant future. 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 5.7%Lewis Parker: 3.3%Kotaku: 4.0%Confirmation Bias5.7%This article: 7.3%Lewis Parker: 0.8%Kotaku: 1.6%Anchoring Bias7.3%This article: 5.9%Lewis Parker: 5.4%Kotaku: 3.9%Availability Heuristic5.9%This article: 7.3%Lewis Parker: 1.2%Kotaku: 1.1%Representativeness Heuristic7.3%This article: 0.0%Lewis Parker: 0.0%Kotaku: 1.0%Hindsight Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Lewis Parker: 0.0%Kotaku: 1.6%Overconfidence Bias0.0%This article: 4.1%Lewis Parker: 5.5%Kotaku: 5.8%Framing Effect4.1%This article: 0.0%Lewis Parker: 1.1%Kotaku: 1.0%Loss Aversion0.0%This article: 0.0%Lewis Parker: 0.3%Kotaku: 1.1%Status Quo Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Lewis Parker: 0.2%Kotaku: 0.4%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 7.6%Lewis Parker: 3.4%Kotaku: 2.8%Optimism Bias7.6%This article: 1.6%Lewis Parker: 2.5%Kotaku: 3.4%Pessimism Bias1.6%This article: 43.7%Lewis Parker: 20.9%Kotaku: 13.6%Negativity Bias43.7%This article: 0.0%Lewis Parker: 0.5%Kotaku: 2.0%Self-Serving Bias0.0%This article: 4.3%Lewis Parker: 1.1%Kotaku: 1.5%Fundamental Attribution Error4.3%This article: 0.0%Lewis Parker: 0.0%Kotaku: 0.3%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Lewis Parker: 0.7%Kotaku: 1.3%In-Group Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Lewis Parker: 0.1%Kotaku: 0.3%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Lewis Parker: 1.4%Kotaku: 3.6%Halo Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Lewis Parker: 0.5%Kotaku: 0.3%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Lewis Parker: 0.0%Kotaku: 0.2%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 14.6%Lewis Parker: 3.2%Kotaku: 2.4%Recency Bias14.6%This article: 0.0%Lewis Parker: 0.3%Kotaku: 0.6%Primacy Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Lewis Parker: 0.0%Kotaku: 0.0%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Lewis Parker: 0.2%Kotaku: 1.4%Ad Hominem0.0%This article: 0.0%Lewis Parker: 0.0%Kotaku: 0.6%Straw Man0.0%This article: 7.8%Lewis Parker: 4.0%Kotaku: 2.6%Appeal to Authority7.8%This article: 0.0%Lewis Parker: 1.4%Kotaku: 2.3%False Dilemma0.0%This article: 0.0%Lewis Parker: 1.8%Kotaku: 0.9%Slippery Slope0.0%This article: 0.0%Lewis Parker: 0.0%Kotaku: 0.2%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 28.4%Lewis Parker: 11.0%Kotaku: 9.1%Hasty Generalization28.4%This article: 0.0%Lewis Parker: 0.0%Kotaku: 0.3%Red Herring0.0%This article: 0.0%Lewis Parker: 0.7%Kotaku: 1.0%Bandwagon0.0%This article: 9.2%Lewis Parker: 9.4%Kotaku: 5.9%Appeal to Emotion9.2%This article: 0.0%Lewis Parker: 1.1%Kotaku: 0.8%Begging the Question0.0%This article: 0.0%Lewis Parker: 1.7%Kotaku: 2.3%Post Hoc (False Cause)0.0%This article: 0.0%Lewis Parker: 0.0%Kotaku: 0.3%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 7.6%Lewis Parker: 2.3%Kotaku: 0.7%Burden of Proof7.6%This article: 0.0%Lewis Parker: 0.0%Kotaku: 0.2%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 0.0%Lewis Parker: 0.4%Kotaku: 0.5%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 24.7%Lewis Parker: 10.1%Kotaku: 4.3%Anecdotal24.7%This article: 0.0%Lewis Parker: 0.0%Kotaku: 0.1%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 5.7%Lewis Parker: 3.2%Kotaku: 2.0%Ambiguity (Equivocation)5.7%This article: 0.0%Lewis Parker: 0.0%Kotaku: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Lewis Parker: 0.0%Kotaku: 0.1%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%Lewis Parker: 1.4%Kotaku: 0.5%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%Lewis Parker: 0.4%Kotaku: 0.2%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%Lewis Parker: 0.4%Kotaku: 0.1%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Lewis Parker: 4.1%Kotaku: 2.7%Unattributed Quote0.0%This article: 5.7%Lewis Parker: 3.7%Kotaku: 1.7%Quote-first Misdirection5.7%This article: 17.2%Lewis Parker: 12.9%Kotaku: 15.2%Biased Writer Voice17.2%This article: 7.6%Lewis Parker: 0.9%Kotaku: 2.4%Indoctrination7.6%This article: 0.0%Lewis Parker: 0.0%Kotaku: 0.6%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Lewis Parker: 0.0%Kotaku: 0.1%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Lewis Parker: 6.9%Kotaku: 3.6%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…0.0%

437 words analyzed.

Speakers

1speaker60%attributed speech176writer words
Voice mapSelect a segment to jump to its words
Writer's voice • 18 words • 100.0% coverageClint Hocking • 57 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 34 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 21 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 25 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 19 words • 0.0% coverageClint Hocking • 32 words • 0.0% coverageClint Hocking • 23 words • 0.0% coverageClint Hocking • 32 words • 0.0% coverageClint Hocking • 19 words • 0.0% coverageClint Hocking • 18 words • 0.0% coverageClint Hocking • 26 words • 0.0% coverageClint Hocking • 31 words • 0.0% coverageClint Hocking • 16 words • 0.0% coverageClint Hocking • 7 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 26 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 33 words • 100.0% coverage
Selected voice

Clint Hocking

90%flagged-word coverage
261 attributed words100% of attributed speech88% writer coverage
0%12.5%25.0%Biased Writer Voice+11.6 ptsWriter: 10.2%Clint Hocking: 21.8%21.8%Indoctrination-18.8 ptsWriter: 18.8%Clint Hocking: 0.0%0.0%Quote-first Misdirection-7.5 ptsWriter: 10.2%Clint Hocking: 2.7%2.7%

Attribution is sentence-level. Pattern percentages are calculated only from words assigned to that voice.

Loading…
Loading…
Loading…

Analysis

Hover over highlighted words in the article to view the associated bias or fallacy analysis.