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

[Alucard135]

Humor me then, what would you call it when a player race only has one available sex when it is clear that in regards to in game lore and descriptions, that it has 2?

unisexual playable races

That lol.

There are so many games out there that just because the lore stated that there is only one gender available, everything was ok (Tera Popori, Elin, Baraka. Blade and Soul Yun. Warhammer greenskins). I wouldn't call it gender locked since, as I have stated many times before, there are no playable features that you were prevented from by having one gender only. And the same lore you're using is explaining why such feature doesn't exist. Lord of the rings online got away from making female dwarves just because they used the lore to state that they look like males. FFXIV used the lore also to explain the lack of male Viera. But let's be honest, everyone for male Viera are saying lore is no excuse.

But let's assume something fun. If the only reason for all this outcry and we're considered genderlocked in Viera race was because the lore said there are males (not because they made them and have them already in the game), then if SE was to make up their own lore on Hrothgar (since they can because they're not tied to FFX lore) and said that they are only males, would you consider Hrothgar gender locked?

it allows them to be entitled without sounding like it. it allows them to make what would normally be an unreasonable demand sound more reasonable.

Just look at the news articles echoing the same things to see how bad this have gotten.

[Melichoir]

unisexual playable races

Except this is also a misnomer by the same logic used for Genderlock. We can either read that as 1 sexuality, or unisex, both do not describe the situation. The former for obvious reasons, and the latter as unisex describes being for both sexes, not limitation to a single sex. If you want to argue the nuance here that since youve added "playable races" gives it context, then simply the same logic cna be applied to Genderlocked - Genderlocked Playable races; races that are playable but locked to one gender.

See how semantics over what were describing is stupid?

the semantic problem is people who use this term incorrectly trivialize the solution.

the response is frequently "just unlock it", "unlock it already" when it really should be, "we want 2 complete races added this expansion instead of 2 halves". it sounds much more unreasonable to ask for two races to be added to one expansion.

it allows them to be entitled without sounding like it. it allows them to make what would normally be an unreasonable demand sound more reasonable.

maybe some people feel like we're owed two races since Stormblood didn't have one and that's probably a discussion worth having but we rarely if ever talk about it like that because semantics dictates that we just talk about unlocking what's been locked.

This is pretty much hogwash. Not even joking or being hyperbolic. No one is trivializing any solution, because people understand what is meant by genderlocked, and they understand what they mean by unlock it. Again, people colloquially know what is being stated when they say the race is genderlocked (race being limited to one gender for whatever reason), and they know what is being said when they want it 'unlocked' (making both genders available for that race). The only people who are giving this trouble is people arguing semantics, and theyre arguing the semantics generally to dismiss the core complaint by changing the focus away from what it is to talk about pedantic literal interpretations of a word, or by using same said semantics to dismiss the core of the issue.

OR TLDR - Youre trying to steer the conversation away from the core issue people have, or discredit that complaint by using semantics to claim "There is no genderlock cause there is no second gender to choose, so what are you complaining about!"

I outlined what this conversation is supposed to have. The discussion about semantics of a word and people using said word to describe a situation has nothing to do with the core issue, nor has anything to do with suggestions.

There are so many games out there that just because the lore stated that there is only one gender available, everything was ok (Tera Popori, Elin, Baraka. Blade and Soul Yun. Warhammer greenskins). I wouldn't call it gender locked since, as I have stated many times before, there are no playable features that you were prevented from by having one gender only.

Yes, the lore stated it. It doesnt make it a good choice, or one the player desires. Let's talk Tera - There were people who wanted male Elin, female popori. While the lore stated why something was genderlocked, that did not stop people requesting having a more expanded character creation system to create characters they wanted. Do the devs have to do it? No. Far as I know, they still havent. That's fine. Players who want it voiced their opinions and desires, devs chose a response, players chose how to respond. Notice though how that exchange goes : Players voice their feelings, give suggestions to the situation, devs listen and respond, players make a choice at that time.

Notice how that exchange wasnt stopped before it was started by people saying "Hold up here! We gotta make sure our terminology is just right!" The semantics debate doesnt have anything to do with the issue at hand.

Second, You are equating the idea that just because you dont ahve access to something, that the situation being described doesnt exist. Let's think this through a second. IF a race was denied access to a class, but another race had access to that class, Your logic states that you ARENT being class locked by race because you have the opportunity to play that 'feature', you just have to play a different race. Where as most people would point out "What if I want to play x class on A race? Youre not letting me do that." Essentially, youre preventing certain combinations from occuring. In this case, the prevention occuring is Male of a race with all Classes. It's an inverse of that example.

Youre also defining features by class and mechanics, and not appearance. Female and Male variations are features. Just like glamour is. Just like dungeons. Just like Classes. Genderlocking by race removes a feature that is available to other races.

And the same lore you're using is explaining why such feature doesn't exist. Lord of the rings online got away from making female dwarves just because they used the lore to state that they look like males. FFXIV used the lore also to explain the lack of male Viera. But let's be honest, everyone for male Viera are saying lore is no excuse.

No one (well mostly no one) said the lore doesnt exist (atleast for male viera). Ive said in many threads that the lore is there. My criticism is the lore is flimsy. It's flimsy in other games too such as LOTRO (as there is developmental artwork of female dwarves for the movies which are canon, and they do not 'look just like the men'). Unless there is extremely compelling reasons, lore should not be held up as a means to prevent player choice, particularly when there is precedence. In FFXIV ARR, they gave the opposite gender to all races that were locked in 1.0. They stated this was done because of fan request. This was done in spite of lore. The game is objectively better for it.

When you would want to keep it to the lore is when that lore is extremely important. As in, very key plots and themes of the story revolve around it. In FFXIVs case, for male viera there is almost no story point substantial enough that this is the case at this time, and there is zero when it comes to female hrothgar. The lore justification is flimsy (maybe even flimsier than Male Miqote to be frank), and is limiting player option. This is why that point is often discredited. There is nothing gained by holding the lore, except possibly fan service to tactics fans...which doesnt make sense. Can you fan service a fan by limiting what you give them? Like that is a strange argument to make from a fan point

"OH YISSS! IM SUPER HYPED! THE DEVS DIDNT GIVE ME MORE! YES, THAT MAKES ME TOTALLY HYPED!!!" I mean, if as a fan of something, Id probably want more as long as it was done nicely? Since the argument about genderlocking being incorrect revolves around in game assets not existing, that means that same argument states we will never see male viera in game, so were not really expanding on Viera. From that standpoint, the only thing going for you is it's faithful, which then only goes back to demonstrating how weak the lore is and how people are being limited by it. The only time the lore is important in this case is because it does demonstrate the race ISNT limited to one sex. This is important because this + the precedence set by the devs gave rise to a very important expectation: We would be getting male viera. This was even more fueled by the fact that Hrothgar was, for all intensive purposes, nothing more than the rumorest of rumors.

Getting two races that are genderlocked goes against previous precedence, and you cant use the lore to argue against the inclusion of male vieras because of that very same precedence. That key part is important.

But let's assume something fun. If the only reason for all this outcry and we're considered genderlocked in Viera race was because the lore said there are males (not because they made them and have them already in the game), then if SE was to make up their own lore on Hrothgar (since they can because they're not tied to FFX lore) and said that they are only males, would you consider Hrothgar gender locked?

Depends on the lore involved at that point. Shooting from the hip answer: Yes, they would be. Why? Because precedent set up by the devs concerning all other races, along with no formal lore currently for Hrothgar. Could that be overridden by lore? Sure, if its a big part of story or themes that give it substantial credibility. Will some people complain? Sure. Will people begrudgingly accept that design choice if teh story involved was really good (along with a lack of expectations, which Hrothgar does have)? Probably.

[Alucard135]

Second, You are equating the idea that just because you dont ahve access to something, that the situation being described doesnt exist. Let's think this through a second. IF a race was denied access to a class, but another race had access to that class, Your logic states that you ARENT being class locked by race because you have the opportunity to play that 'feature', you just have to play a different race. Where as most people would point out "What if I want to play x class on A race? Youre not letting me do that." Essentially, youre preventing certain combinations from occuring. In this case, the prevention occuring is Male of a race with all Classes. It's an inverse of that example.

Nope, that is not my logic. The class in this case already exists, in the game. It's animations, build, etc are all available. But it's locked by a gender, hence why it's called genderlocked classes (and that's how the term has been used for a long time along with racelocked classes). But let's look at Viera now. You only have females, but the males don't have a model, or any thing available in game (except their mention in the lore). So by your logic you want to say that Viera are genderlocked because you don't have access to something that doesn't even exist in the game yet. By that logic I can say we're locked from Garlemald, sharlayan or any other location that we don't even know if we'll visit in the future and demand that lock to be lifted and no one should question me and say "but how can they remove the lock if they're not in the game yet?".

Youre also defining features by class and mechanics, and not appearance. Female and Male variations are features. Just like glamour is. Just like dungeons. Just like Classes. Genderlocking by race removes a feature that is available to other races.

I do include appearance in features. But do they exist in the game yet? Let me give you an example. Suppose in 5.x in one MSQ there was a male Viera NPC. In this case, the feature already exists and you're being locked from it by only being able to play as female Viera. But if the only thing we have is literally text on said race and nothing more, and you consider that enough to be called features that you're locked from, then that brings me back to my point of asking for the lock to be lifted from zones that we only know from text also.

No one (well mostly no one) said the lore doesnt exist ....

I might have messed up the lore on LOTR but thanks for pointing out that they don't look exactly like males. Upon reading further on their lore, it seems a lot similar to Viera in terms of how rare you see a female dwarf. According to Tolkien Gateway website "Dwarves wanted their women to be protected from other races and they usually kept them concealed inside their mountain halls. They seldom traveled in the outside world, only in great need, and when they did, they were dressed as men". And in the game you get to only play as male dwarves. Yet all I could find was just a single thread where the word genderlock was used for dwarves by OP and most responses were "females dress as males". So it turns out the term was not commonly used in that context as some say.

Can you fan service a fan by limiting what you give them? Like that is a strange argument to make from a fan point

Yes if what they're getting is at the cost of the actual product's development. Let's say a product includes (X, Y and Z) core components that you're paying for. The developer knew you're interested in a feature β and decided to give it partially to you in a way that minimizes their cost when delivering the product and to ensure that you get X, Y and Z components. In that case, it's natural to be thrilled and happy. But let's assume the developer gave you X and Y only along with β. The first thing that would happen is that you'd ask for component Z. And since it's a core component, it can drastically affect your product's performance. So no one in their right mind would be happy about losing a core component over a side feature.

Since the argument about genderlocking being incorrect revolves around in game assets not existing, that means that same argument states we will never see male viera in game, so were not really expanding on Viera.

Not really, they can still add them if they wanted. There is no need for the use of a term that can't be applied to this case to get the dev team to make them. What needs to be shown to them is demand in the form of likes to a certain thread regarding that topic or asking them to create a poll for that. The fact that we got female Viera is a fact that they're listening. I have no doubt that they will add these two genders later on. But we shouldn't try to force them to do it knowing that it can cost us actual content that we're paying for. One example that comes to mind from the misuse of such terms is one user here that made a thread demanding SE to announce that they're making male Viera as soon as possible. And even in multiple posts stated that they think that SE are going to work on male Viera now and release them in 5.0 or 5.1. At one point that same user said that SE shouldn't do any modification to character creation until they remove the gender lock. So as SendohJin said, they are now sounding entitled.

[Joven]

I've decided that I'm going to create an outrage thread demanding the devs include bait boxes in the next update. I'll threaten to unsub, call them names, misconstrue terms to suit my needs and make unwarranted personal attacks about their beliefs. The whole nine yards. What do you guys think? Think it'll work?

[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.

[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.

[SendohJin]

Except this is also a misnomer by the same logic used for Genderlock. We can either read that as 1 sexuality, or unisex, both do not describe the situation. The former for obvious reasons, and the latter as unisex describes being for both sexes, not limitation to a single sex.

unisexual is not unisex. unisexual has a very specific definition that means exactly what we are talking about.

If you want to argue the nuance here that since youve added "playable races" gives it context, then simply the same logic cna be applied to Genderlocked - Genderlocked Playable races; races that are playable but locked to one gender.

See how semantics over what were describing is stupid?

the devs are giving players a race to play with. "playable races" was not added to the phrase for context, "playable races" is where you start. "playable races" is the topic.

of course it's stupid if someone is purposely going to make it something it's not.

and there is no nuance about the word unisexual, it means exactly what the word means. but this statement "races that are playable but locked to one gender." why is locked the appropriate word at all? isn't limited the best word there?

[Alucard135]

why is locked the appropriate word at all? isn't limited the best word there?

I can't wait to hear about BLU being a locked class.