Quote:
Originally Posted by
Karl0217
Ah, in that case your prior statements like are also merely assumptions without anything resembling hard evidence to back them up. Which according to your little wall of text here makes them effectively meaningless and inconsequential.
You're this close to getting it. Assumptions and speculation are by their very nature without proof (that's what assume means afterall). So yes, my assumptions are not necessarily backed up by hard proof. The difference is, when I'm asking for evidence it's when people have made all encompassing statements, not necessarily just assumptions.
For example, when you said the FFXIV devs unlocked the 1.0 genderlocks because they were damaging to the game, you made a definitive statement. I asked for proof because there is a myriad of reasons why they might have done that, instead of one definitive reason you put out there.
This is why I often use words such as likely, possibly, potentially, maybe. etc. etc. Instead of hard language that confirms this or that, I don't say the devs will do X because of Y, only that they may do X because of Y.
Quote:
Except you haven't provided evidence for any of your statements in any of your posts to anybody in this thread.
Demonstrably false, but ok. I've certainly provided evidence for any hard claims I've made. I've also directed to plenty of evidence that supports my assumptions as well.
Quote:
You continue to make baseless assumption after baseless assumption, from market shares in China/Korea
Bringing up that FFXIV exists in the Chinese and Korean markets, as a point that the NA/JP/EU communities/playerbase aren't the only ones that matter in factoring into the decisions of the future content implemented into the game is far from baseless assumption.
Does FFXIV exist in a Chinese and Korean market? Yes. Does the communities of these two regions matter when considering what gets added to the game? Yes. Could different things appeal to those different communities that might not appeal to western ones? Yes. So in what way is that assumption unfounded?
Quote:
to the reasons why Square Enix removed the 1.0 genderlocks,
An assumption based on the fact that they didn't rectify the genderlocks in their prior MMO, FFXI. And that they didn't rectify those genderlocks when they developed FFXIV 1.0. And that a game failing so tremendously that it damaged a 20+ year old brand and them making an unheard of revamp to an MMO would motivate them to go above and beyond and do things they might not have normally considered a priority before but knew it would earn them favor and shine positively on them at a time when they desperately needed it. So again, not an unfounded assumption at all. And again, I'm not saying they only did the gender unlocking because the game failed, but it was certainly a factor into their decision to do it, and even after doing it the director was on record as being still open to the idea of a future gender locked race meaning he hadn't completely written off the idea.
Quote:
and then turn around demand evidence the minute somebody posts an opinion you dislike.
Once again, I ask for evidence, not demand it (you love to just misattribute things and words to me, huh. How many times do I have to correct you on that). And those requests are when someone has made a claim (not just an assumption) that the devs, yoshida, SE, whoever did or didn't do something or their motivations.
Quote:
explain how a gender-locked race would boost market shares for Square Enix in China and Korea and provide evidence to back it up. Otherwise you are just blowing smoke.
I'll do that as soon as you prove how a gender-locked race would hurt market shares currently, with evidence to back it up since that's what your claim was that started this in the first place. You asserted that it "definitely damaged the 1.0 version" (A absolute statement, not an assumption in case you needed that spelled out):
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Karl0217
Gender-locked races definitely damaged the 1.0 version of the game enough that one of the first things Yoshida did after taking over the project was remove them. Or have you forgotten that?
And I said you would be hard pressed to find solid evidence backing that up. Just like you'd be hard pressed to find evidence of such a thing significantly damaging any MMO because there's a ton of factors to be had on whether an MMO succeeds or fails and without extensive data and polling it'd be difficult to determine the percentage of that damage could be attributed to genderlocks (if any at all).
You don't get to make an assertion and then try to get around having to back it up when called for proof and try to goad me into providing proof of a counter-claim. Who's the one being weasely now?
Quote:
And if the director does something that seriously damages the game's reputation and sales they can and will be replaced by management. Something Yoshida is well aware of considering how he got his current position and what happened to his predecessor. And we are back to the fact you haven't proved that there won't be a major backlash for them re-introducing gender-locks.
Yoshida has essentially pulled a miracle with Final Fantasy XIV. He relaunched a complete failure of a game to incredible success that has only grown. He was promoted to the board of directors and is head of the MMO division for SE at this point. He would have to butcher the current game so extremely that it would fail completely once again to be even considered to be removed/step down.
There would certainly be a backlash for this decision, but I'd be hard pressed to ever consider it major, or even damaging to the game. I don't have to prove there won't be a backlash because I've never made the assertion that there wouldn't be.
However, you're the one using language impying this decision (if it even happens) would somehow damage the game so badly that Yoshida would have to be replaced, and that is one wild presumption you have, and dare I use your own words, a baseless assumption.
Quote:
The official reveal were they said they were having to significantly rework the coding for the helmets and footgear to accommodate the Viera and that they were still in the process of doing so?
Oh good, it's not just me who has words put into their mouth by you. They never said they significantly reworked coding for helmets and footgear, in fact their exact statement was: "We're having to make some changes to systems, such as how helmets work."
Given we don't know the full extent of what changes these are, we cannot say if they're significantly changed or not.
Quote:
You know, did it ever occur to you the reason they didn't show case the male Viera might be because Fran's armor was the only gear set they had that didn't cause the game to crash when they slapped it on a Viera character model?
Of course male viera still being in development and not ready to show is a possible explanation that's been brought numerous times. However Yoshida has had no problem in the past telling his audience that he cannot show something because it is not ready. He even did exactly that just prior to the Viera announcement about the 8-man raid. It is very telling that for some reason, he chose not to say that at all when he has done so many times in the past. This should be something to consider and is another item in the pile of things that could point to there not being male viera announced.
Quote:
So on one hand you admit that the Dramaturge's statement doesn't necessarily mean there aren't any male Viera in Dalmasca but in the next you still say it should be considered as evidence they won't show up?
Because it is not hard proof either way. It both confirms male Viera exist, but also paints them in a light that explains why we may never see one in the game. It has never been an absolute declaration that male viera aren't coming, but it absolutely could be a big hint that they aren't, especially when compiled with the big picture of everything else.
Quote:
The plot point we are heading into the Ra'tika Greatwood and your assumption that we will have some exception to the rule about them attacking outsiders while heading into the woods are two very separate things. After all, to make contact and travel with the head of the Ishgardian Heretics, Iceheart, we first had to head into their territory and get attacked by her followers.
And we know absolutely nothing about why we are heading into the Greatwood. So all of it assumptions. You assuming we will be attacked by male viera is no different than assuming we won't be because we will likely be invitied or some other circumstance that makes not everything hostile to us. If male Viera aren't going to be in the game, than the latter is more plausible, if they are going to be in, then the former will likely happen.
Quote:
So you think they will get into a life and death struggle with the Empire over their homeland, demand our help, take us into their homeland to fight the Empire and somehow we will never once see male Viera, who form the main line of defense of said homeland, while fighting the Empire in the homeland, which is where all male Viera reside lore-wise? And you were the one who called other people in this thread delusional?
I won't say exactly what kind of struggle we will be involved in within the Greatwood, but yes, it's absolutely possible for them to have us go through the entire area and never see a single male Viera and there's plenty of absolutely valid reasons as to why that may be. For starters, one zone is not the entire area on the map. We go to zones all the time but they are far from being 100% of the land mass. We will likely only be given access to a small part of the overall woods. If we're only involved in one part of the woods, they could easily write in something happening that draws the male viera to a different part we will never go to.
Not unlike past Ivalice games that had players in Viera lands but still never encountering male Viera because they were elsewhere. It's not a hard idea to grasp that there's a myriad of reasons they can write up to explain how we would never see them even when venturing into their lands.