Genderlock reminder to SE

[Wynn_Storm]

Haha I remember seeing this same argument on twitter and seeing people laugh at it just as hard. Never fails to give me a chuckle.

At least it makes more sense than what a lot of the pro male viera people keep spewing out.

[xbahax92]

At least it makes more sense than what a lot of the pro male viera people keep spewing out.

Ah yes. Because the same lore made Ashelia and Rasler into siblings. Ba'gamnan became their royal guard, there is a connection between Ramza and his likes from FFtactics. Lore friendly indeed.

[Wynn_Storm]

Ah yes. Because the same lore made Ashelia and Rasler into siblings. Ba'gamnan became their royal guard, there is a connection between Ramza and his likes from FFtactics. Lore friendly indeed.

This is exactly what i mean, spewing nonsense. I don't know where i talked about lore in my post. Are you pro male viera people just seeing things now?

[Halivel]

This is exactly what i mean, spewing nonsense. I don't know where i talked about lore in my post. Are you pro male viera people just seeing things now?

I think it adressed not directly to you, but more to Zorvan comment. Since Ivalice lore was broken anyway, lore as excuse sounds just meh (and it's not even the reason anymore, Yoshi said their reasons). But since you wrote that it makes more sence, last answer was adressed to your comment. Not sure that it's the correct order though.

[Cidel]

Okay, someone (actually several, preferably from opposing viewpoints) explain to me what exactly the whole issue is with the lore being used? I'm constantly seeing "the lore excuse" and I'm getting the feeling both sides are interpreting in such a way that supports their own narratives. What exactly irks people about the opposition referencing/ignoring lore? I have my own theories, but I want to see why this gets turned into such a hot topic. Like, at what point does the lore become gospel and unchangeable or nonsense and negligible?

Half-devil's advocate, but genuine question.

[Halivel]

Okay, someone (actually several, preferably from opposing viewpoints) explain to me what exactly the whole issue is with the lore being used? I'm constantly seeing "the lore excuse" and I'm getting the feeling both sides are interpreting in such a way that supports their own narratives. What exactly irks people about the opposition referencing/ignoring lore? I have my own theories, but I want to see why this gets turned into such a hot topic. Like, at what point does the lore become gospel and unchangeable or nonsense and negligible?

Half-devil's advocate, but genuine question.

It's hard topic. Lore is important, of course, and it's not like SE should ingore it at all just because. But in case with WoL (players) it has some nuances.

In my opinion, we need lore more for explaining for how world works, than for us itself. For example, we don't see male Keepers of the Moon in MSQ (and see them 2 or 3 times overall in side quests), almost don't see Duskwight Elezens (just... 1 in Lancer story I think?), there is no Au Ra in Eorzea (outside of Yugiri and guy in Ydelshire from custom deliveries). So, that be said, with lore we can explain why we don't see some races (since it's topic) among NPC or see them only in specific locations (Au Ra).

Still, when we try to stick lore on player, it breaks a lot. We should be unable to play as WHM, BLM, DRG, DRK, SCH, SMN, SAM, NIN (and well, almost all jobs at all). Should remove male miqo'tes, duskwight Elezens, whole Au Ra race (if player bought full game and started play as Au Ra from 1st level, his first meeting with Yugiri will look quite ridiculous in terms of lore). And should not even add female Viera in the first place, because of their lore. However, WoL is special, and other players don't count in our story - that's why we can play our jobs and rare races. If Hydaelyn pick only one person from race for making him a protector of the world (and his homeland, in case with both F and M Vieras as example) it doesn't break lore, because WoL is an exception.

[Nora_of_Mira]

I want to see why this gets turned into such a hot topic. Like, at what point does the lore become gospel and unchangeable or nonsense and negligible?

Half-devil's advocate, but genuine question.

i probably have an unpopular opinion, but I believe it depends on style of game. FFxiv and all MMOs get content added over many YEARS, changing its story and characters, etc. And all of these changes aren't decided on at the same time, the creators grow and get older over time, their opinions and perspectives on life change over time, and that can reflect in the stories they weave and the art they create. So my stance on MMOs: use lore when it's convenient, but dont use it to limit players because the lore can change over time (and has). I think that's perfectly fine. an MMO environment can't adhere strictly to the lore set in place 5+ years ago because things change, peoples desires change, everything changes.

Compare this to a standalone game like Dark Souls whose lore is basically a central pillar of its popularity. The lore was created, and it received 2-3 DLC (i cant remember honestly) in it's lifespan, so its quite easy to adhere to its own lore as its not still in active development. the lore was so ingrained into the gameplay that people often found a forgotten texture somewhere and assumed it was lore. the lore is basically DS's identity and cant afford to change thanks to the value both the devs and players put in it.

I dont think its the same for FFxiv. they dont need to be strict with the lore and I wouldn't use lore as a defense for not adding something at this point.

[xbahax92]

This is exactly what i mean, spewing nonsense. I don't know where i talked about lore in my post. Are you pro male viera people just seeing things now?

Following the chain of posts, you protect Zorvans point, while he is saying lore is justifiable and responding that to MrKimper. It was a indirect answer to Zorvan and a message to you. Dunno why you get all up just because I quoted you, maybe manage your temper first.