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

[Joven]

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.

[SenorPatty]

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.

[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.

[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.

[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

[Melichoir]

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.

[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.