Male Viera as a playable character! show your support

[LaylaTsarra]

I don't agree with you, considering that male viera would have obviously been waay more popular than male hrotgar

Obviously you don't but then you don't work for SE and the Dev team. Believe me they're not stupid and didn't make these selections lightly.

Of course there will be a lot of Hrothgar when the expansion comes out, they will be new. The real test will be how many there are after a few months. I do think they'll be more popular then Roes, but I will continue to show support for not gender locking.

We'll have to wait and see won't we. Now curious how would you test how many male Viera there would be given they're not coming? I'm also interested in getting a hold of your crystal ball since you seem to be able to foretell the future and know that people will fantasia back away from Hrothgar..

I myself wouldn't ever change to hrotgar but I would change to male viera in a heartbeat

I would never have guessed that thank you for letting us all know.

[Lauront]

You're strawmanning here. It's clear the presupposition that the post you're quoting was based on was that SE knew they were adding Viera and Hrothgar based on the overwhelming demand for a bestial race and Viera.

From that point your graph and that logic literally supports the addition of female Viera and male Hrothgar since (of each race) those are the more popular genders.

Point to this "overwhelming demand", please. That graph does not really support the point you think it's making, because male miqo'te vastly outnumber Roegadyn males. Virtually every other male option does - even male Elezen, with their awkward proportions and animations outnumber them. So if they were really aiming to maximise how many people will play the male gender combo, a Roe-based racial pick is really not the optimal choice... unless, of course, the intention is to simply add the gender that would be most popular for the race based on the most proximate body type first, and then later add the missing gender option.

This is all conjecture and your opinion. I'm certain SE knows what will sell better than a random player, if there's anything they truly care about in this game it's making money.

Which is conjecture and opinion in equal measure.

[Veis_Alveare]

Point to this "overwhelming demand", please. That graph does not really support the point you think it's making, because male miqo'te vastly outnumber Roegadyn males. Virtually every other male option does - even male Elezen, with their awkward proportions and animations outnumber them. So if they were really aiming to maximise how many people will play the male gender combo, a Roe-based racial pick is really not the optimal choice... unless, of course, the intention is to simply add the gender that would be most popular for the race based on the most proximate body type first, and then later add the missing gender option.



Which is conjecture and opinion in equal measure.

Do you read? I mean you're able to quote part of my post then respond with something that's refuted by another part of that same post. That's some kind of skill there.

I said (based on comment from Yoshida himself) that in order to even understand this you first need to understand that they had already decided on doing two races, one to satisfy the Viera demand and one for the beast race demand. You people seem like you can't grasp that or something, I don't get it.

From there the more profitable Viera option is clearly... Viera. As we've known them this entire time, as women. No question there, especially in a game that already has such a tilt towards people playing female characters.

Now they could have ignored the community asking for a beast race and done male Viera. They could have made male Viera super bestial (slap bunny ears on a Hrothgar, it's literally cannonically possible with the amount of "I have no idea" that we have about male Viera - there could even be a thing about their connection to protecting The Wood causing them to develop in such an aggressive and physically imposing manner like some Werewolf mythos) or they could have done what they did and made the male of another race.

I'm glad for the diversity, personally. And also glad that they didn't add male Viera as teen-looking character models. We already have lalas, no need to throw fuel on the pedo fire.

http://forum.square-enix.com/ffxiv/t...ayable-race%21

I'm posting from my phone but if you want a glimpse at the demand for playable beast races there you go.

Here's the thing. Come at me with "they want to appease the most people" and I'll point to the underrepresentation of beast players in almost every game that offers them. Come at me with "they wanted to add something new" and I'll point to the tired trope they are reinforcing. Saying "it's ok to sacrifice diversity and player expression because more people would do this" right before ALSO saying "it's fine that they don't add a popularly requested and represented archetype because they wanted to add different options!" seems hella contratdictory to me.

It's almost like a lot of the playerbase of videogames are men and the vast majority of men enjoy looking at attractive women.

Such shock!

[Lauront]

From there

Indeed, from there, i.e. having made the decision (note that this was not how the post Roda was responding to had framed it.) Certainly not the most profitable decision in the abstract, but perhaps so given the decision made, indicating they simply wanted to add another race whilst they still could.

As for that thread, I'm aware of demand for beast races - but the only way to get to "overwhelming demand" is to throw that "and Viera" in there.

[BillyKaplan]

It's almost like a lot of the playerbase of videogames are men and the vast majority of men enjoy looking at attractive women.

By that same logic it would've made a lot more sense to introduce male Viera over male Hroths for the ladies (and us men) who enjoy looking at attractive men, too.
We already know why they added male Hroths, and we already know why they added female Viera. Those reasons are in direct contradiction to each other as Viera was the race more asked for and the males likely would've been played more than male Hroths, while Viera bring little to the table aesthetically compared to Hroths, all the more so for females because guys got male Au Ra while the ladies got a Miqo'te clone.
Defending one decision inevitably undermines the 'justification' used for the other genderlock's existence.

but the only way to get to "overwhelming demand" is to throw that "and Viera" in there.

Didn't Yoshida himself admit that one of the reasons why "beastly races" got such high demand in the older poll because they lumped Viera in there lmao

[Roda]

Didn't Yoshida himself admit that one of the reasons why "beastly races" got such high demand in the older poll because they lumped Viera in there lmao

No they were separate options
http://forum.square-enix.com/ffxiv/threads/46936

[BillyKaplan]

No they were separate options
http://forum.square-enix.com/ffxiv/threads/46936

Ah I see, got my options mixed up

[Lauront]

Didn't Yoshida himself admit that one of the reasons why "beastly races" got such high demand in the older poll because they lumped Viera in there lmao

I'm not sure how valuable it is some 7 years later, but even at the time, the pure mammalian beastmen option was the lowest overall. They don't like the concept of half-breeds, for a variety of reasons, and it's evident that more customisation options were a big thing even then, and remain so, so I guess that will become their next focus.

[Veis_Alveare]

By that same logic it would've made a lot more sense to introduce male Viera over male Hroths for the ladies (and us men) who enjoy looking at attractive men, too.
We already know why they added male Hroths, and we already know why they added female Viera. Those reasons are in direct contradiction to each other as Viera was the race more asked for and the males likely would've been played more than male Hroths, while Viera bring little to the table aesthetically compared to Hroths, all the more so for females because guys got male Au Ra while the ladies got a Miqo'te clone.
Defending one decision inevitably undermines the 'justification' used for the other genderlock's existence.



Didn't Yoshida himself admit that one of the reasons why "beastly races" got such high demand in the older poll because they lumped Viera in there lmao

The difference is less players are female and less players play male characters. This is why we see so much favor towards glamour with female characters, something I would imagine the group of people complaining about a lack of male Viera would be aware of.

You're equating the results of devs pandering to men with the results of pandering to women. These aren't the same.

[BillyKaplan]

The difference is less players are female and less players play male characters . This is why we see so much favor towards glamour with female characters, something I would imagine the group of people complaining about a lack of male Viera would be aware of.

Then here's the question - why invest so much in male Hroth? Why introduce them at all? Cut costs by reusing the Viera assets on the males instead of making two different races. And then you likely gain a better profit because as has been speculated often enough in this thread, male Hroths would likely not be as popular as male Viera.

You're equating the results of devs pandering to men with the results of pandering to women. These aren't the same.

They are not, nor do they need to be, nor was that even my point. My point is that pandering to people who want male Viera would be more beneficial and profitable than pandering to those who wanted male Hroths.