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

[Melichoir]

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

[Senn]

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

...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

[Alucard135]

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.

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.

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.

[Penthea]

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.

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.

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.

[Senn]

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.

[Crushnight]

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.

[Alucard135]

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).

[Senn]

...

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.

[Crushnight]

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

[Alucard135]

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.