You can't "lock" something that doesn't exist.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Penthea

I literally said if we can't access something then we're locked out of it. You're over-complicating it by assuming I have an opinion I didn't state.

I'm trying to dispel this idea that OP has that something can't be locked if it doesn't exist. Considering we do know male viera exist in the story, that point they made is contradictory.

This doesn't mean they won't be released at a later date but that's another conversation based on maybes.



Please direct me to where I said we cannot ask for something that doesn't exist in the game. Good luck finding it.

Lol, all this drama and assumptions about my opinions thrown at me just because I said "if it's in the story and we can't play it, it's locked."

---

You saying that 'if we can't access something then we're locked out of it' is entirely *your opinion*. You even admit it at the end of this post: 'lol, all this drama and assumptions about *my opinions* thrown at me just because I said........'

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Penthea

Please direct me to where I said we cannot ask for something that doesn't exist in the game. Good luck finding it.

Lol, all this drama and assumptions about my opinions thrown at me just because I said "if it's in the story and we can't play it, it's locked."

---

Did I say you said that? You're assuming I'm assuming you said something. Please don't twist my words if you didn't understand them.

I was talking about the outrage done here by people on the forums being hypocritical, since it was only unleashed for male Viera and nothing else. Since according to your logic (this is where your part comes in), we had things locked for a long time but no one said anything regarding them.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Joven

You saying that 'if we can't access something then we're locked out of it' is entirely *your opinion*. You even admit it at the end of this post: 'lol, all this drama and assumptions about *my opinions* thrown at me just because I said........'

---

Reaching again. I'm referring to the opinions you claim I have when I stated none.

Saying that things in the story we can't play are locked isn't an opinion. It's a fact. While female hrothgar are up for debate, male viera are not. We know they exist in lore.

For the record I am strongly against gender locking. But my main issue with the viera and hrothgar isn't that. It's that they're very stereotypical in some ways. The female viera are slender, elegant and sexy. The male hrothgar are large, muscular and imposing. These are overdone tropes of gender presentation. Countless games have had men and women depicted in this form. It's boring. SE are better than this. I'm also not fond of how ronso are essentially miqos on steroids. We already had a cat race. Now we will have two. Also I was one of the voices who wanted viera before they were announced. Both genders.

By the way, the above is an opinion. It appears you need some education on what that is.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Penthea

Reaching again. I'm referring to the opinions you claim I have when I stated none.

Saying that things in the story we can't play are locked isn't an opinion. It's a fact. While female hrothgar are up for debate, male viera are not. We know they exist in lore.

For the record I am strongly against gender locking. But my main issue with the viera and hrothgar isn't that. It's that they're very stereotypical in some ways. The female viera are slender, elegant and sexy. The male hrothgar are large, muscular and imposing. These are overdone tropes of gender presentation. Countless games have had men and women depicted in this form. It's boring. SE are better than this. I'm also not fond of how ronso are essentially miqos on steroids. We already had a cat race. Now we will have two. Also I was one of the voices who wanted viera before they were announced. Both genders.

By the way, the above is an opinion. It appears you need some education on what that is.

---

A fact is something that the majority agrees on or is provable through experimentation. You seem to be the one who needs a lesson in facts vs opinions.

Viera have alway been slender, elegant and sexy in every game they've been in since their introduction. On top of that they've also been portrayed as only female in those same games and it's never been a problem. As for Hrothgar, what's wrong with a beastly tribe being large muscular and imposing? Their appearance imbodies the primal animal kingdom and the animal kingdom is ruled by strength. Also, if you don't like the feline face options for Hrothgar then they have a wolf-like head as well.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Joven

A fact is something that the majority agrees on or is provable through experimentation. You seem to be the one who needs a lesson in facts vs opinions.

---

K. Whatever you say Mister throws assumptions.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Joven

Viera have alway been slender, elegant and sexy in every game they've been in since their introduction. On top of that they've also been portrayed as only female in those same games and it's never been a problem. As for Hrothgar, what's wrong with a beastly tribe being large muscular and imposing? Their appearance imbodies the primal animal kingdom and the animal kingdom is ruled by strength. Also, if you don't like the feline face options for Hrothgar then they have a wolf-like head as well.

---

You miss the point. The problem is where we could have diversity, we have none. The absence of male viera and female hrothgar is the absence of diversity.

It's not necessarily about them being viera, hrothgar or anything. It's about how the playable genders look. There are no elegant, slender and sexy males. There are no large, imposing and muscular bestial females.

I'm tired of being pigeonholed into being a cutesy or sexy race if I want to play a female with bestial features. And I know others are tired of masculinity always equating to being larger and stronger than comparitively smaller women.

It's boring to see this over and over again.

What is the point of this thread? To start drama? 1.0 was genderlocked. They unlocked and gave us boicats, and female this and thats. Why go out of your way to post a thread badmouthing people who only want to choose the gender they want for the race they like??

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Melichoir

Humor me then, what would you call it when a player race only has one available gender?

---

An all/ only Female or Male race.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SendohJin

the semantic problem is people who use this term incorrectly trivialize the solution.

the response is frequently "just unlock it", "unlock it already" when it really should be, "we want 2 complete races added this expansion instead of 2 halves". it sounds much more unreasonable to ask for two races to be added to one expansion.

it allows them to be entitled without sounding like it. it allows them to make what would normally be an unreasonable demand sound more reasonable.

maybe some people feel like we're owed two races since Stormblood didn't have one and that's probably a discussion worth having but we rarely if ever talk about it like that because semantics dictates that we just talk about unlocking what's been locked.

---

This really is the reason behind this and doesn't get enough focus.
Which is why I casually point this out when I come to these forums. It's alarmist in that it makes others think something being taken away from them and makes it seem that it can easily be fixed.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Penthea

K. Whatever you say Mister throws assumptions.



You miss the point. The problem is where we could have diversity, we have none. The absence of male viera and female hrothgar is the absence of diversity.

It's not necessarily about them being viera, hrothgar or anything. It's about how the playable genders look. There are no elegant, slender and sexy males. There are no large, imposing and muscular bestial females.

I'm tired of being pigeonholed into being a cutesy or sexy race if I want to play a female with bestial features. And I know others are tired of masculinity always equating to being larger and stronger than comparitively smaller women.

It's boring to see this over and over again.

---

DICTIONARY
Search for a word
fact
/fakt/
Learn to pronounce
noun
a thing that is known or proved to be true.
"he ignores some historical and economic facts"
synonyms: reality, actuality, certainty, factuality, certitude; More
a piece of information used as evidence or as part of a report or news article.
synonyms: detail, piece of information, particular, item, specific, element, point, factor, feature, characteristic, respect, ingredient, attribute, circumstance, consideration, aspect, facet; More
used in discussing the significance of something that is the case.

None of your statements presents any evidence that what you say is taken as fact. So tell me again how I'm throwing assumptions around.

If you have a problem with being 'cutesy' or 'sexy' and find the concept boring then maybe this game isn't for you. This game doesn't need more diversity as there's plenty of it already. If you want to play as a beefy woman pick fem-roes or hyur highlanders, both of which can be pretty muscular. You claim you're tired of being cutesy yet you chose to play as a catgirl, yeah, ok.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Veliaire

What is the point of this thread? To start drama? 1.0 was genderlocked. They unlocked and gave us boicats, and female this and thats. Why go out of your way to post a thread badmouthing people who only want to choose the gender they want for the race they like??

---

Just because OP has a different opinion doesn't mean they're badmouthing people. All they're saying is that you're using a word in a wrong manner and why people didn't get the other genders. They didn't say that you're not allowed to ask for the gender you want for the race you like. An opinion is not an attack.

So let me ask this, do you consider both sentences to be one and the same in terms of meaning and why?

• Please remove the lock on X feature in the game
• Please add X feature to the game

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Veliaire

What is the point of this thread? To start drama? 1.0 was genderlocked. They unlocked and gave us boicats, and female this and thats. Why go out of your way to post a thread badmouthing people who only want to choose the gender they want for the race they like??

---

So where exactly in the following post is the OP badmouthing anyone? Seems to me you're the one opening her post for drama. There is nothing in her/his OP that creates drama from what I can see. The OP seems to make a lot of sense to me and isn't attacking anyone other than expressing an opinion in a polite and courteous way about why only two genders were made. I totally agree with everything she has said.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JohnnyDevo

I'm seeing all sorts of stuff about "gender lock" on the two new races, as if SE is purposefully withholding content from us, and that female Hrothgar and male Viera exist as playable races, but are "locked" from us.

The thing is, making another gender of an existing race is the same amount of work as making a single gender of a new race. You can't just slap boobs on a hrothgar and call it female, you have to make an entirely new model, and you have to match existing gear to it, you have to make all the new customization options, and the list of things just goes on.

The fact is, it takes the same amount of manpower and effort to make a single race with two genders as it does to make two races with a single gender.

They did not have the manpower to make two races with two genders. They've told us this, and they've said that because they wanted to include hrothgar, a concession had to be made.

Yes, I do believe the other genders should be created. But no, I don't believe there's any locking, malice, personal attacks on sexuality, or anything of that nature that I've seen in the general hubbub that is these forums.

We got a nice thing. We had to lose another nice thing to get it. I'd say have patience, and that the extra genders will come eventually.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LaylaTsarra

So where exactly in the following post is the OP badmouthing anyone? Seems to me you're the one opening her post for drama. There is nothing in her/his OP that creates drama from what I can see. The OP seems to make a lot of sense to me and isn't attacking anyone other than expressing an opinion in a polite and courteous way about why only two genders were made. I totally agree with everything she has said.

---

If you insist on approaching this matter with logic and common sense you need to get off the internet. :D

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Veliaire

What is the point of this thread? To start drama?

---

Nah, I'm pretty sure you're the only person starting drama right now. What was the point of your comment exactly?

Great way to sum it up, OP!

You guys are really bored, aren't you? 18 pages of worthless arguments on sementics that achieve absolutly nothing.

And then you complain that SE doesn't listen to the official forums enough...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Melichoir

Except this is also a misnomer by the same logic used for Genderlock. We can either read that as 1 sexuality, or unisex, both do not describe the situation. The former for obvious reasons, and the latter as unisex describes being for both sexes, not limitation to a single sex.

---

unisexual is not unisex. unisexual has a very specific definition that means exactly what we are talking about.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Melichoir

If you want to argue the nuance here that since youve added "playable races" gives it context, then simply the same logic cna be applied to Genderlocked - Genderlocked Playable races; races that are playable but locked to one gender.

See how semantics over what were describing is stupid?

---

the devs are giving players a race to play with. "playable races" was not added to the phrase for context, "playable races" is where you start. "playable races" is the topic.

of course it's stupid if someone is purposely going to make it something it's not.

and there is no nuance about the word unisexual, it means exactly what the word means. but this statement "races that are playable but locked to one gender." why is locked the appropriate word at all? isn't limited the best word there?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SendohJin

why is locked the appropriate word at all? isn't limited the best word there?

---

I can't wait to hear about BLU being a locked class.

I agree that it is mistaken to infer any malice on part of the devs, or to try hurl any number of isms and phobias at them in terms of the usual fashionable "social crusades" raging these days, as 1) it's their game at the end of the day, 2) we know this is a business decision and 3) even if it wasn't, calling them names isn't going to sweeten their disposition much nor does everyone subscribe to the "social crusades" in question. I definitely don't.

However, it is a "lock" however you wish to phrase it. At the least, the males do exist for Viera and they're not currently available to play. SE are reviewing whether they will maintain it. It's pedantic to try pretend that this doesn't amount to what is usually understood by a "gender lock". Whether you call it "limited" or "genderlocked", the same exact arguments apply anyway.

I would like to see male Viera and female Hrothgar added, but I'm willing to wait. I will be saddened if they don't add them.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fyce

You guys are really bored, aren't you? 18 pages of worthless arguments on sementics that achieve absolutly nothing.

---

I would say on a positive note that at least OP here made it about semantics from post #1. A lot of the other threads are also about semantics but pretend to be about some sort of social message or something.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fyce

You guys are really bored, aren't you? 18 pages of worthless arguments on sementics that achieve absolutly nothing.

And then you complain that SE doesn't listen to the official forums enough...

---

So I guess you must be bored as well to feel the need to participate.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Joven

So I guess you must be bored as well to feel the need to participate.

---

When it comes to the OF:

-One way or another, we're all bored

-One way or another, we tend to repeat ourselves using different words

-One way or another, we're all pots calling the kettle black

-One way or another, we all entertain ourselves with all of the above.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Joven

I think the real issue people are having is letting their expectations get the better of them and jumping the gun on the outrage bandwagon. By using a term they knew would generate the most stir they guaranteed people would be talking about this for a long time even after an official decision.

---

There are some people who are hyperbolic, sure. This is a legitimate criticism. However, that is only a minor facet, and the use of the term was being used as it it commonly understood. Were there people espousing that the assets did exist and theres mal intention on the part of the devs? Sure. Were they a majority? No. Were those who were saying said things helping the conversation? No.

However their actions dont mean we got to hold the entire debate so a small handful of people can use semantics to dismiss the issue outright. It is literally pointing to a small amount of bad actors and saying the entire discussion eneds to be thrown out. Frankly, from my perspective, it does appear to be a situation of attempting to stifle the complaint through diversion and distractions. As a point, if we want to discuss the nuances and semantics of the word, start a thread for it and discuss it. However, what Im seeing more commonly is that because Genderlock is semantically incorrect (as defined by those using the argument), were not really in a position to complain. The semantics of the word has nothing to do with stopping the conversation.

You want to disagree with how a word is being used, go for it. But dont use that disagreement as a means to dismiss the entirety of the issue. It's a bad faith tactic when discussing differences of thought. People clearly understand the core of the complaint. the word usage is, at best, a minor issue and is not the foundation of the core of the complaint.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alucard135

Snip 1

---

Ill point out a concession, using what you just said here. You clarify "Genderlock classes." And you go ahead and use race locked classes as another example. That means that Genderlocked Races is an aspect as well. Which is what Viera and Hrothgar are. Your descriptors are as follows: Genderlocked classes - Classes locked to Gender. Race Locked classes - Classes locked to Races. Basic logic then points that you can have Genderlocked Races - Races locked to a single gender. So the only issue then implied, by your own words, is what words are tagged along with it.

Oh and I still disagree fundamentally with your assertion that Genderlocked referred to classes. Been playing MMOs a long time, and that has not been the understanding in any discussion that discussion has ever come up with.

Secondly, the difference is that you are discussing conflating factions and races. Garlemald is a faction, not a race. Youre referring to Race when you talk about garleans and a third eye. And yes, that would also be true. We are locked out of that choice. But as I explained, LORE reasons also come into effect in certain cases. We have very strong and story critical lore regarding that aspect. Can people still be upset about it? Sure. But unlike Viera and hrothgar, there are other factors here which help at least give plausible reason. And you know what, why not give the cosmetic third eye to players?

Lastly, this is where things get stupid: The common understanding is how something is forcibly selected for you, not that its a secret character you have to 'unlock'. It's clearly understood what people mean, as does everyone else. Yet choosing specifically to try to play the game of "Well, it really doesnt exist so its not locked!" when about everyone knows that a literal understanding isnt what the issue is. Are there some who believe the devs have it and should just throw it out there? Yeah, I suppose theres a few. IS that what people who have issue are broadly talking or even inferring? No. Not even remotely. So the argument is against a small subset of the complaint, and then using that small subset to discredit the wider complaint because it's the wrong semantics. That is the core of the issue with this whole thing with semantics and why its silly as hell.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alucard135

Snip 2

---

Again, this point requires that the assets have to exist for the situation described to exist. It dismisses previous precedence set by the devs themselves, as well as internal logic to the game (Primarily being that every single race has had male/female varients, making hrothgar and viera outliers, post ARR). This gets compounded that the lore itself it fairly flimsy in the context of the game at large, doesnt make sense that there are only female viera as a race. This is even wierder for Hrothgar. If we want to discuss Dev involvement, it is highly likely there are female hrothgar models (albeit unfinished) because that was their initial development race, which semi shoots in the foot the semantics position.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alucard135

Snip 3

---

I get why the devs on LOTRO said what they did, when it comes to development (I assume that was the source of the comment? I might be misunderstanding you). I dont fault them, but its still a dev decision to limit gender selection when there clearly are two genders, and they used a flimsy lore reason. Now, if the devs cited Tolkien directly, who is incredibly thorough with lore, then you get less pushback. Some off hand where they say "Well men and women dwarves all look the same!" is a poor excuse not to develop an asset. This gets even more egregious in games that are very lore heavy. FFXIV is one of them. So under developing a part of the lore seems like a lazy throw-away.

This gets even more complicated cause LOTRO is using another media as direct lore source, where FFXIV does not do this with Tactics or 12. Those games are, best of our knowledge, unconnected to 14. And I dont think you would contest the idea that if lore is really good, people are more willing to make that trade off. When it comes to male Viera, it really isnt substantial. And to flesh it out more, it's going to require a ton of really good writing and some inclusion of male viera assets. Which f they make it, defeats the point of the genderlock semantics argument being proposed. Again, if we wnat to discuss lore regarding male viera and things like that, thats a good conversation to have, but it has nothing to do with the semantics of genderlocked.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alucard135

Snip 4

---

What does this position have anything to do with genderlocking semantics? Dont get me wrong, this is an ok argument as a why things happened or the nuances of the circumstances, and is related to the core complaint because it directly discusses the core issue that people are having issues with (Not having both genders available). Thats worth discussing, cause frankly, even people (such as myself) who want both genders can be wrong about it. Maybe it is BETTER there only be one, if it means really well written lore and other aspects. We just havent been presented substantial arguments for it currently. Plenty for "We'll get it later/just wait/etc", but very few compelling ones for none at all. What some of us arent appreciative of in the discussion regarding this is the semantics debate. It's quite like "Why are we discussing the usage of a word when we both clearly understand what is being discussed, and that the core complaint is that we dont want races to be forcibly locked into one gender. We want that variety." There's more to that, of course, but teh semantics discussing/debate does nothing to address that position. Frankly, it's been used more often as a means of burying the complaint rather than discussing it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alucard135

Snip 5

---

Yes, this is exactly correct. They can add them to the game. A lot of people want this. Again, the issue Im not comfortable with is the semantics debate, which does little to address player positions. Its a red herring because at it's best, the argument only tackles an extremely minor and hyperbolic subset that the broader majority does not share its views with. The quick and dirty is this: The majority is saying "We dont want any race limited to one Gender, especially not Viera. This is disappointing." The hyperbolic minority that the semantics argument is going for is "How dare the devs develop something and not give it to us! Riot! Outrage!!!" These two positions are different in that one is suggesting that they want something to be there (added or developed), where the other assumes it IS there and the devs are being nefarious.

The semantics argument is reliant on the truth being "The assets dont exist, so it cant be 'locked'" which would be a great counter point to the hyperbolic minorities position. But it does nothing to address the majorities position. It's a distraction. If people want to shut down teh minority, arguing semantics probably isnt helpful. Being pragmatic is. "The assets probably dont exist, so theyre not with holding anything from off." That poitn leaves room for the majority to say "Yeah, but we would like them," while shutting down that vocal hyperbolic minority.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

As for entitled, thats another subject up for debate. Let's not beat around the bush on this: Releasing Female Viera, drumming up hype, precedence and expectations set up by the devs themselves, only to pull a bait and switch and reveal Hrothgar (who are male locked) that had no hype or lead up other than a bug and a 'leak' that most people didnt know about was a really big error on their part. I dont fault some people for being disappointed. Some people have said theyd unsub. That's their decision. I personally think its a silly decision, however, they are free to spend their money as they see fit. If theyre unsatisfied wiht the product offered, they can choose to stop buying it. I dont feel anyone has the right to tell them they "Have to play the game". I can have my own thoughts, but people are free to do it.

And frankly, yeah, it might be a good PR move on SE's part if they decide relatively quickly if theyre going to go forward and develop the missing genders. Im sure it's not a cut and dry issue, but I think there is sufficient demand, atleast for Male Viera's sake. Female hrothgar...dunno. It's true Female Roe isnt the most popular, but frankly Im glad they do exist and people have that option. SE has already made their money back on developing them as it is. The only huge hold up I can see is IF in 5.0, lore critical aspects rely on there being no female Hrothgar or Male Viera. Which would leave me skeptical of the 5.0 MSQ being well written honestly. But if that were the case, the cost of implementing goes up as theyll have to change a lot of stuff or retcon things in 5.1 (which theyre already likely developing.)

Ok enough text wall.

So the OP is reasonable, but it kind of assumes people who use the term "genderlock" mean this

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JohnnyDevo

...SE is purposefully withholding content from us, and that female Hrothgar and male Viera exist as playable races, but are "locked" from us.

---

We shouldn't really presume what's going on in people's heads when they use a term like genderlock since is means different things to different people. It's best to ask the person using the term to clarify. And hey, if there are some people who use the term genderlock as if the models for male viera and female hrothgar already exist, then they would be wrong.

I can't speak for anyone but myself, but when I hear the word "genderlock" in this context, I just think it's shorthand for saying female viera and male hrothgar are playable races, but male viera and female hrothgar are not.

tbh though, I'm glad I have not used the term "genderlock" to explain myself since I'd be caught up in all these semantics lol

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Melichoir

Ill point out a concession, using what you just said here. You clarify "Genderlock classes." And you go ahead and use race locked classes as another example. That means that Genderlocked Races is an aspect as well. Which is what Viera and Hrothgar are. Your descriptors are as follows: Genderlocked classes - Classes locked to Gender. Race Locked classes - Classes locked to Races. Basic logic then points that you can have Genderlocked Races - Races locked to a single gender. So the only issue then implied, by your own words, is what words are tagged along with it.

---

What does gender-locked classes and race-locked classes have in common? Both have a feature (class in this case) in the game that you’re locked from accessing by either a gender or a race.

Now for the term gender-locked race to be correct (which I stated in my reply), there has to exist a model of the gender that you’re not able to access (locked from). If a male Viera NPC was to be seen in the game files, then the feature exists, and you’re locked from it. The only thing that exist for male Viera in this case is lore only.

When I mentioned Garlemald and Sharlayan, I did specify I was talking about the locations, not races. So, since they’re mentioned in lore and we can’t go there yet, so they’re locked to us according to your logic and it should be ok that we demand that lock to be removed.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lauront

However, it is a "lock" however you wish to phrase it. At the least, the males do exist for Viera and they're not currently available to play.

---

Do you see how that sounds? You’re saying you’re locked from something that is not currently available to play. It’s like playing a fighting game and there’s a character that you only see in the story and then you go “darn it, that character is locked from us” despite that character having no sprites, animations, or any playable assets in the game (not even a gameshark code will unlock that for you here lol).

Furthermore, they exist in the lore only. If lore is the only reason you’re considering yourself locked, then you just gave SE the perfect tool to end this issue with Hrothgar. Imagine if SE was to say there are no female Hrothgar in the lore. Then there is no lock according to you. How would people ask for female Hrothgar to be added in this case? Oh, I just said it...they ask for them to be added.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Senn

So the OP is reasonable, but it kind of assumes people who use the term "genderlock" mean this

---

Well, they didn’t say people who use the term mean that. They said that they’re using a term that entails that you have a feature that you’re locked from, making it look like SE has all those features but are preventing you from using it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Joven

If you have a problem with being 'cutesy' or 'sexy' and find the concept boring then maybe this game isn't for you.

---

You haven't really been paying attention. Female characters getting pigeonholed into looking cute and/or sexy happens all the time. It can be very difficult to escape it AND find a game with mechanics you like.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Joven

This game doesn't need more diversity as there's plenty of it already. If you want to play as a beefy woman pick fem-roes or hyur highlanders, both of which can be pretty muscular. You claim you're tired of being cutesy yet you chose to play as a catgirl, yeah, ok.

---

But I didn't say I wanted to be beefy. I said bestial. Roes and highlanders don't qualify as that. So not only do you not pay attention to how females are usually represented in games in general, you also do not read.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Penthea

It's not necessarily about them being viera, hrothgar or anything. It's about how the playable genders look. There are no elegant, slender and sexy males. There are no large, imposing and muscular bestial females.

---

I play a moon catgirl because I like the ears, the lion tail and the fangs. You know, bestial features.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alucard135

They said that they’re using a term that entails that you have a feature that you’re locked from, making it look like SE has all those features but are preventing you from using it.

---

This reminds me of the phrase "the letter of the law versus the spirit of the law". Rather than looking at the literal interpretation, look at the spirit of the term in the context people are using it. If you don't understand what they mean because they are using the term incorrectly, fair enough. Simply ask them to clarify.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Melichoir

Big text wall

---

Thank you for putting a lot of how i feel about things into words ^^, it has really been bothering me how some people have judge everyone asking for the genders to be added under the extreme people umbrella, most of us are not like that we are simply asking the devs to consider adding them.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Senn

This reminds me of the phrase "the letter of the law versus the spirit of the law". Rather than looking at the literal interpretation, look at the spirit of the term in the context people are using it. If you don't understand what they mean because they are using the term incorrectly, fair enough. Simply ask them to clarify.

---

And that's what the thread is about lol. It's letting others know that the term is being wrongfully used. Also, if we just say people are using a term that is commonly known for a certain meaning, in this case the term was commonly used for classes locked to certain genders, since as I stated before, you do have a feature that you're locked from in the game.

Just google it and see how many topics you'll see that discusses that way in different MMOs. You'll rarely find topics discussing it for races having one gender (you'll maybe find two or there there from people misusing the term).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alucard135

...

---

Eh, people aren't going to change how they use the term, especially if it's a convenient way of saying something in fewer words. We should all try to be a little more lenient and accommodating, and if we don't understand something, ask for clarification.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alucard135

Now for the term gender-locked race to be correct (which I stated in my reply), there has to exist a model of the gender that you’re not able to access (locked from). If a male Viera NPC was to be seen in the game files, then the feature exists, and you’re locked from it. The only thing that exist for male Viera in this case is lore only.

---

I'm going to take a crack at why gender lock can be used with regards to Viera/Hrothgar.
there are two ways you can be locked from something
1.You can be locked out, it exists you aren't allowed to access anything else
2.You can be locked in, there is only this option there is nothing else

The latter would allow the usage of gender lock in the following sentence
I have to play as a female if i want to play Viera i wish this wasn't the case i wish Viera wasn't gender locked
asking for the lock to be removed in the above case would be asking for another gender option for Viera something that currently doesn't exist

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Crushnight

I'm going to take a crack at why gender lock can be used with regards to Viera/Hrothgar.
there are two ways you can be locked from something
1.You can be locked out, it exists you aren't allowed to access anything else
2.You can be locked in, there is only this option there is nothing else

The latter would allow the usage of gender lock in the following sentence
I have to play as a female if i want to play Viera i wish this wasn't the case i wish Viera wasn't gender locked
asking for the lock to be removed in the above case would be asking for another gender option for Viera something that currently doesn't exist

---

In that second case, you are correct in saying that. You are technically locked into the female Viera option. But, it doesn't necessarily require only one option to be considered locked-in in that case. Some can extend that into being locked into 2 options. So in that sense, all races are locked into either 1 or 2 genders. So some can easily say all races are gender-locked into 2 options and that they want them all to be non binary.

But the main issue if you were to go with the second case, is that's not the commonly known meaning for the word. So you'll have to explain it every time you use it.

i just don’t understand the meaning of this thread in general
call it genderlock/missing gender/limited race whatever - everyone knows what people mean by it, wether you agree with the term or not, it just feels like this thread is making a mountain of a molehill
the point is some people want the other genders added, you can discuss the terminology of the naming or whatever, the main point doesn‘t change at all
and if you think about it, this thread just makes people talk more about the „genderlocking“ (or whatever) issue even more
it is everybodys own choice what to make with the word „genderlock“ since it‘s not something everybody can agree with and until now everybody understood very well what was meant by it

Futhermore... isn't this entire premise kind of flawed to begin with? You totally can lock something that doesn't exist. :v I mean, I've definitely heard of fictional locked stuff. If you've ever read a story with a locked door in it you've seen how something can be locked and not exist.

This whole thread is pointless.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alucard135

What does gender-locked classes and race-locked classes have in common? Both have a feature (class in this case) in the game that you’re locked from accessing by either a gender or a race.

Now for the term gender-locked race to be correct (which I stated in my reply), there has to exist a model of the gender that you’re not able to access (locked from). If a male Viera NPC was to be seen in the game files, then the feature exists, and you’re locked from it. The only thing that exist for male Viera in this case is lore only.

---

Heres the logic

Race = A
Class = B
Gender = C

A class being locked to a Race = Race locked Class (A x B)

A Class being locked to a Gender = Gender Locked class. (C x B)

Logically

A Race being locked to a Gender = Gender Locked Race (C x A)

The structure demonstrated is something being limited to another facet, you can say it is Locked. That's the semantics argument. If the core criticism is saying "Genderlock" =/= "genderlocked race", then thats a contextual issue in regards to the discussion that isnt being addressed, since this game does not lock any class to a race or gender, so the Class aspect is irrelevant, and what we can discuss is Gender and Race.



Im pulling the semantics argument here specifically to point out the logic being used and why it is self defeating. If were strictly talking about semantics, what I illustrate above discredits the semantics point broadly. Instead, the big crucial caveat that youre trying to push is the game asset has to exist for it to be locked, an then turning the focus to the 'locked aspect' being used literally, rather than figuratively. Consider WoW, if a race cannot be a certain class, it is not race locked class if you include the assets point caveat because there is no in game asset for that race/class combination (and for clarity assets here is certain attack animations which do differ which is cosmetic assets). If we talk about mechanics, such as skills, then that falls apart in FFXIVs case cause there is no racial skills/passives, as class is purely cosmetic.

So if your argument flies for WoW is based on a selection choice, but only with gameplay mechanics and doesnt need to worry about cosmetics (animations, look and feel, etc), then it doesnt work with ffxiv as race is a purely cosmetic choice. If this argument about assets works for FFXIV and it is about cosmetics included, then WoW (or any MMO which does this) is race or gender locked to the max if the cosmetics between races/genders differs, making the term meaningless. As another quick example, Vindictus is not gender locked because some of those classes do not have a male equivilant assets....except in common discussions it is referred as such. See why if you include the asset portion it doesnt work half the time, and it's also depends on how you consider assets.

If we go by broad basics, where there is credible inference that a race and class exist, but that combination cant be played, then racelocked class makes sense. Much like if we go broad and say gender and race are options, but certain combinations cannot be played, then its gender locked.

honestly some arguments here get me to laugh. i‘ve encountered nobody that thinks SE ACTUALLY created male viera/female hrothgar thinking they are just withholding the missing genders from us, to validate their point that the term „genderlock“ is wrongly used. NOBODY really thought that- that‘s just a very silly and stupid argument... again i‘ve encountered NOONE saying even something similar to that

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Melichoir

Heres the logic

Race = A
Class = B
Gender = C

A class being locked to a Race = Race locked Class (A x B)

A Class being locked to a Gender = Gender Locked class. (C x B)

Logically

A Race being locked to a Gender = Gender Locked Race (C x A).

---

That is the same reasoning as Crushnight said regarding being locked into something. Which I agree with you there. Yet, look at some of the responses here stating it's a gender lock because they're locked from a gender that is not yet available in the game. That is clearly not the same way you're stating it, so you can see why some don't see it that way.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fukuro

honestly some arguments here get me to laugh. i‘ve encountered nobody that thinks SE ACTUALLY created male viera/female hrothgar thinking they are just withholding the missing genders from us, to validate their point that the term „genderlock“ is wrongly used. NOBODY really thought that- that‘s just a very silly and stupid argument... again i‘ve encountered NOONE saying even something similar to that

---

Yes, nobody thinks that....

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by zeylos

Lol I love how you assume they are coming in 6.0,but SE could literally put them tomorrow and no one would ever have known they were ready. You don't know when they are going to put them, and stating the other genders are coming will come will get them a lot of hype for this expansion

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Penthea

You haven't really been paying attention. Female characters getting pigeonholed into looking cute and/or sexy happens all the time. It can be very difficult to escape it AND find a game with mechanics you like.

---

This may come as a surprise to you, but people, both male and female, like cute and/or sexy things. Weird, right? That's why models exist. That's why celebrities are lauded, because they're attractive.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Penthea

But I didn't say I wanted to be beefy. I said bestial. Roes and highlanders don't qualify as that. So not only do you not pay attention to how females are usually represented in games in general, you also do not read.

---

I read what you said, I just didn't care enough to fix my reply.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Penthea

I play a moon catgirl because I like the ears, the lion tail and the fangs. You know, bestial features.

---

Sure, keep telling yourself it's because those features are "beastial". Au ra, both Raen and Xaela, have far more options to make a beastial looking character if that's what you truely wanted. I guarantee if they were to release female Hrothgar to be as hulking and primal looking as the males are that you would have nothing to do with them.

I'm going to ask you a question and I want you to 100% honest with me and yourself: if they never announced new races for this expansion would you be on here right now complaining about the female characters being "too cute" and "too sexy", or complaining about "muh diversity" and lack of "beastial" female races? I'm going to go ahead and take a crack at the answer and say no, you wouldn't. You'd still be playing the game and none of these "issues" would never have crossed your mind.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Joven

Sure, keep telling yourself it's because those features are "beastial".

---

I'd be very interested to see you explain how furry ears, furry tails, and fangs are not bestial features considering the hrothgar also have them.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Joven

Au ra, both Raen and Xaela, have far more options to make a beastial looking character if that's what you truely wanted.

---

I'm not sure how having patches of scales is any more bestial than having some fur and fangs? I suppose you think lizards are higher up in the bestial tree?

By the way I have an au ra alt that I play more than my main these days.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Joven

I guarantee if they were to release female Hrothgar to be as hulking and primal looking as the males are that you would have nothing to do with them.

---

I played Bless Online for a while, and I played a lupus. The other race options included a small cute race that could have animal features or none, elves and humans. I also had an elf character but I made her quite muscular and a bit stocky (she's a paladin so I wanted her to look physically strong) so she ended up not looking like a stereotypical slender elf.

The only reason why I was a blood elf in WoW was because of a racial I found very useful as a healer in pve and pvp. If races were purely cosmetic, I would have been a troll instead. I played competitively so every edge I could get mattered. When I retired from that scene I changed my race to troll. I ended up with tusks, a mohawk and no eyebrows.

One of my favourite characters I played in table top role playing was a half orc barbarian who dreamed of becoming a bard.

Sorry to disappoint you, but not everything I play looks like my main from FFXIV.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Joven

I'm going to ask you a question and I want you to 100% honest with me and yourself: if they never announced new races for this expansion would you be on here right now complaining about the female characters being "too cute" and "too sexy", or complaining about "muh diversity" and lack of "beastial" female races? I'm going to go ahead and take a crack at the answer and say no, you wouldn't. You'd still be playing the game and none of these "issues" would never have crossed your mind.

---

When I started playing this game properly it was already HW but at the time I only had a copy of ARR. So if I wanted to play a bestial race, miqo'te was my only choice. I nearly played a roe but the lion tail won me over. I didn't get a copy of HW until I was around lvl 48.

While playing I did note that the female au ra have similar proportions and height to female miqos. I appreciate that SE wanted to do some serious sexual dimorphism with the au ra, and honestly I do think that's cool, but the way they chose to do it resulted in bringing in a bit more of the same in the female spectrum. No tall and slim bestial males existed before au ra, but petite and cute bestial females already did with miqos, and for some reason SE chose to give the female au ra similar height and proportions to them.

On top of that female miqos aren't worlds apart from female midlanders. So we actually have three different races that fill the role of "slim petite female around the same size of a human" role.

This did bother me but not enough to affect my enjoyment in the game. It's when hrothgar was leaked that I started getting very annoyed. No male viera were announced so the likelihood was the "replacement" for male viera would be male hrothgar. Which would mean no female hrothgar. As you know, this is how it turned out.

Seeing male hrothgar feels like SE are almost dangling a thing I want in front of me. I played FFX so I know what female ronso looked like, and they were so cool. I'm very disappointed that female hrothgar isn't going to be playable for the foreseeable future.

And for the record I do like how my character looks. But I would make some changes if I could. I really wish there was a muscle slider for miqos, and if there was an option to make characters less slim then I would do that as well.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Joven

This may come as a surprise to you, but people, both male and female, like cute and/or sexy things. Weird, right? That's why models exist. That's why celebrities are lauded, because they're attractive.



I read what you said, I just didn't care enough to fix my reply.



Sure, keep telling yourself it's because those features are "beastial". Au ra, both Raen and Xaela, have far more options to make a beastial looking character if that's what you truely wanted. I guarantee if they were to release female Hrothgar to be as hulking and primal looking as the males are that you would have nothing to do with them.

I'm going to ask you a question and I want you to 100% honest with me and yourself: if they never announced new races for this expansion would you be on here right now complaining about the female characters being "too cute" and "too sexy", or complaining about "muh diversity" and lack of "beastial" female races? I'm going to go ahead and take a crack at the answer and say no, you wouldn't. You'd still be playing the game and none of these "issues" would never have crossed your mind.

---

Off topic but yeah, w/e.
I've been pointing to the stats for a long time now. Cat girls are played 17times more than Femroes. There is a huge gap in the numbers between female elezen/femroe and all the other races females. Roebros are played more than both femroe and femelzen and not that far from both combined or from male elezen. On top of that the demand for the Viera (only ever depicted as attractive females) was so great that they felt that they just had to add them.

Given the nature of how biased people have shown to be towards the cute/ attractive females in this game I pretty much feel like if you're not one of the 7k Femroes out There right now you're prob not gonna play beast headed Femroe ( again, the HROTHGAR are a different body shape than the Roebros, making then inverted triangle shapes heroic buff human shaped instead of long armed meat walls. but the femroe already have normalized tall buff human shape cause no one is gonna play Roebros with boobs and se refuses to give females the thickness. So yeah ... That's why we're getting things this way. They want to make as many people happy as they can and also bring some fantasy into these races)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Penthea

I\\\\\\'d be very interested to see you explain how furry ears, furry tails, and fangs are not bestial features considering the hrothgar also have them.

---

I never said they weren\\\\\\'t, but the furry tails and ears on the Miqo\\\\\\'te serve only to add to their "cuteness" factor, not make them look beastial. Hrothgar have both the facial features and posture to actually convey "beastly".

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Penthea

I\\\\\\'m not sure how having patches of scales is any more bestial than having some fur and fangs? I suppose you think lizards are higher up in the bestial tree?

---

They also have horns and spiked tails. It\\\\\\'s easier to create a fierce looking or "more beastial" looking Au ra than Miqo\\\\\\'te because of their feature choices which is why I suggested them.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Penthea

exposition dump

---

It's good that you are actually willing to play a race that's not considered cute, but it still doesn\\\\\\'t change the fact you actively chose a cute looking race/gender combo for *this game* to be your main when you had other non cute options like Roegadyn or Hyur highlander. Even male Miqo\\\\\\'te aren\\\\\\'t typically "cute" in the sense you mean if you\\\\\\'re sticking to your "beastial" claim.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Penthea

mmore exposition dump

---

It was a simple yes or no question. There was no need for an exposition dump.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by reivaxe

Off topic but yeah, w/e.
I've been pointing to the stats for a long time now. Cat girls are played 17times more than Femroes. There is a huge gap in the numbers between female elezen/femroe and all the other races females. Roebros are played more than both femroe and femelzen and not that far from both combined or from male elezen. On top of that the demand for the Viera (only ever depicted as attractive females) was so great that they felt that they just had to add them.

Given the nature of how biased people have shown to be towards the cute/ attractive females in this game I pretty much feel like if you're not one of the 7k Femroes out There right now you're prob not gonna play beast headed Femroe ( again, the HROTHGAR are a different body shape than the Roebros, making then inverted triangle shapes heroic buff human shaped instead of long armed meat walls. but the femroe already have normalized tall buff human shape cause no one is gonna play Roebros with boobs and se refuses to give females the thickness. So yeah ... That's why we're getting things this way. They want to make as many people happy as they can and also bring some fantasy into these races)

---

I have alts of each race and alternated them between male and female. When I made a Roe character it happened to fall on the male. Femroes aren't my first choice, but I have nothing against them. If I had more character slots on the same server then I would have a character for each race and gender because I like variety. As far as Hrothgar goes I'm actually excited for them.