Male Viera as a playable character! show your support

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Komarimono

You remembered correctly. No is actually not a common thing said frankly in japan. If something is to be responded with a negative, or No like statement, it's generally deflected or redirected in a polite fashion or ignored.

---

i'm actually curious about the japanese perception on the lack of male viera. i recall seeing posts saying something to the affect that westerners were upset and that they perceived the westerner's discontentment being rooted in it being a sex/gender issue

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by grinkdaboy

i'm actually curious about the japanese perception on the lack of male viera. i recall seeing posts saying something to the affect that westerners were upset and that they perceived the westerner's discontentment being rooted in it being a sex/gender issue

---

Easiest way I can explain is like thus. We're not politically correct. It's led to drama from other japanese gaming companies who refuse to censor this and that, or by their refusal to "adding more diversity" e.i. Care little about genders, pronouns etc. As for how they feel, mixed like on the english forums. Many comment on how they added the other genders with 2.0, why can't they do it for Viera and Ro. Others saying they are fine with it. What's far different is they are being more civil about it. They are showing passion for what they want, but at the same time listening to others points.

Most if not all agree, that lore and costs are what are important.

One of the most important posts was:
ユーザーは、自分の希望要望を熱く語って、
「そんなに愛されてるなら、なんとか頑張ってみるか」って思わせたらいいんですよ。
（物理的に無理な場合もありますけど）

As the player you should give you opinion in a passionate manner that makes the developers think [Hmmmmm if they want it that much, we may be able to make it work] (But there are impossible requests at times)

In other words, be passionate but reasonable. Just make it known it's wanted in a way that catches positive attention, but don't request what you want it to be. Stick to facts and simply keep it civil.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Vahlnir

If that was the case we wouldn't have been told "we can't do x because of server limitations" so many times. lol

---

To be fair a lot of things they said they couldn't do because of server or data communication limitations started being implemented after they changed their servers. Not a lot of people pay attention to it but quality of life patches started to happen more often when they localized the servers and separated hosts according to their designated locations. Then years after that we had another server change with SE expanding their capacity, and we managed to have a lot of quality of life patches after that. So in a sense it's better to use the maybe. "With the current situation, my answer is a no. If X thing change, then it might be possible.". If what they need to implement the missing genders is something they can't consider doing at the moment, then the answer is a no. However if those conditions change in the future, it becomes a maybe.

I just wish they would have been a little bit more transparent with the actual reasoning, because we jumped from "we can't because of lore", to "lore is not really the issue it's diversity", to "diversity was never in question it's actually a team decision", to "too much work not enough time finish both", to "it is what it is just bear with us please". And I think that is what got some people worked up. The reasoning seems to always be something else and is very inconsistent. Just like how the male bunny outfit went from "it takes 6 months to design something unique please wait", to "our male team got replaced with an all female team designing it to cater to the aimed audience", to "here carbon copy of the female version but on the dudes, it took us a year to deliver and it was very hard to design but there is it, enjoy!".

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DevilsDontFly

I just wish they would have been a little bit more transparent with the actual reasoning, because we jumped from "we can't because of lore", to "lore is not really the issue it's diversity", to "diversity was never in question it's actually a team decision", to "too much work not enough time finish both", to "it is what it is just bear with us please". And I think that is what got some people worked up. The reasoning seems to always be something else and is very inconsistent. Just like how the male bunny outfit went from "it takes 6 months to design something unique please wait", to "our male team got replaced with an all female team designing it to cater to the aimed audience", to "here carbon copy of the female version but on the dudes, it took us a year to deliver and it was very hard to design but there is it, enjoy!".

---

I think that is because people weren't satisfied with "lore is the reason" and demanded another answer.
They got another answer and still wasn't ok with that and demanded another one.
And so it went on and on.
People are never satisfied with the answer untill they get to hear what they want.

You can try it yourself on anyone.
Ask them a question and when they give you one you ask them "why?".
And he/she will give you another one.
Keep asking "why" and see how deep the rabbit hole it can go.
But ofcourse, it demend on how willing that person is to continue answering over and over.

SE have been quite tolerate sofar with giving more and deeper explanations to why it can't happen now.
And I think it is up to the players to show respect to their decision.
It doesn't mean one have to stop wanting it. but to it in a good manner and not demanding it.
Just keep the question alive in a calm and civil manner.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Evergrey

I think that is because people weren't satisfied with "lore is the reason" and demanded another answer.
They got another answer and still wasn't ok with that and demanded another one.
And so it went on and on.
People are never satisfied with the answer untill they get what they want.

You can try it yourself on anyone.
Ask them a question and when they give you one you ask them "why?".
And he/she will give you another one.
Keep asking "why" and see how deep the rabbit hole it can go.

---

I agree with you, people are and will never be satisfied with anything. I just feel like it would have been best to just stick to one thing for the time being and leave it at that. With a different answer every time you get asked the same question, especially back to back like it happened after the reveals, it comes off as beating around the bush and doesn't sound very genuine. That's just my opinion though.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Komarimono

Which is, yet again, never said they are being considered. I'm not even sure how any of those words posted there could even be interpreted as such. If anything, what is being said, is a big, huge, large No, due to the costs and time required implied in such a thing.

---

Sorry but you're the one reading things into that quote that are not there.

He stated that they were not able to add them due to the costs they posed. He then said if they were to find a way to overcome that obstacle, we may see them but that he can't promise it. That is the same thing as considering it. In case you're unfamiliar with the definition of the word:

Quote:

---

Definition of consider
transitive verb

1 : to think about carefully: such as
a : to think of especially with regard to taking some action
is considering you for the job
considered moving to the city

---

I'd say the bigger stretch here is to ignore his words and just translate it into a "no", when he specifically says if they can find a way to overcome it, we may get to see them.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Evergrey

Exactly.
But alot of people can't take that No for an answer. As it is not what they wanted to hear.
For now there is no Male Viera planned.
And I find little reason to keep crying about it since SE already know the demand for them.
That demand won't change the reasons to why they can't implement them.
People just have to wait for the time when it is possible to do so.
It's not like SE is going to forget about it if people stop crying.

---

Then he could have just stopped at the development issue they present without going any further into the matter. As Alleo pointed out, they could just give a statement like they did on child characters.

Furthermore, no one is "crying" about it. It is a request we're making to see them added. I accept that it may not happen.

Demand can actually change the company's decision, if they forecast adequate profit to be made out of their implementation, which is ultimately what dictates whether the incurrence of the cost is worthwhile, compared to other alternative uses of said funds.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lauront

Sorry but you're the one reading things into that quote that are not there.

He stated that they were not able to add them due to the costs they posed. He then said if they were to find a way to overcome that obstacle, we may see them but that he can't promise it. That is the same thing as considering it. In case you're unfamiliar with the definition of the word:



I'd say the bigger stretch here is to ignore his words and just translate it into a "no", when he specifically says if they can find a way to overcome it, we may get to see them.

---

Honestly I feel you're just reaching for anything at this point. Very few are even seeing how any of his words can be quoted to imply that, unless taken out of context, which I fear you and others have done. And things taken out of context lose there full meaning and can be construed in a manner that supports a point when the original content was not meant to support it.

And I think you're just reaching in there to pull out a "no" when there isn't one. it is a "nothing planned for now but that may change" which is the "functional equivalent" of "we're considering it".

So I suggest you stop referring to it as "lies" and we both move on since I don't really find anything you have to say on the matter particularly compelling.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lauront

And I think you're just reaching in there to pull out a "no" when there isn't one. it is a "nothing planned for now but that may change" which is the "functional equivalent" of "we're considering it".

---

Would help your argument in this case if you could even quote the exact statement that implies this, in its full format.

Already done it with the link provided.