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

[Chalbee]

Why would you shoot yourself over something so trivial?

I think the word you're looking for is figuratively.

Like I said, context is key

[Arngrim_Greyashe]

Exactly, we want to see the dev team's vision for this game. Not fans' demands. Else we would have gotten Sephiroth for Alphascape instead of the amazing fight against Omega. What bugs me more is that when the dev team tried to partially implement something based on fans' demand, they got labeled with horrible things despite them explaining why they did it instead of people thanking them for their hard work to provide things for as many players as possible.

That's because much of the player base built their own expectations that male viera were going to happen without any guarantee of such. I witnessed it here and in game. They deluded themselves after Paris fanfest into thinking "Oh the males aren't done which is why they didn't show them. They're definitely still coming!" Not to mention the blufever leaks that were nearly, if not 100%, correct in all their predictions/leaks and everyone chose to ignore it. Blissful ignorance. So now they label the devs as lazy, sexist, homophobic, or what have you because they didn't get their way. I realize the above mentioned was a minority, but they were vocal and rude about it. To the people here that are being reasonable and actually voicing your want for male viera and female Hrothgar, thank you for being reasonable adults.

[BillyKaplan]

"Oh the males aren't done which is why they didn't show them."

That's exactly what happened with Hrothgar males, so mocking people for thinking that's why male Vieras weren't shown in Paris is a bit...

[Neoyoshi]

I'm seeing all sorts of stuff about "gender lock" on the two new races, as if SE is purposefully withholding content from us, and that female Hrothgar and male Viera exist as playable races, but are "locked" from us.

The thing is, making another gender of an existing race is the same amount of work as making a single gender of a new race. You can't just slap boobs on a hrothgar and call it female, you have to make an entirely new model, and you have to match existing gear to it, you have to make all the new customization options, and the list of things just goes on.

The fact is, it takes the same amount of manpower and effort to make a single race with two genders as it does to make two races with a single gender.

They did not have the manpower to make two races with two genders. They've told us this, and they've said that because they wanted to include hrothgar, a concession had to be made.

Yes, I do believe the other genders should be created. But no, I don't believe there's any locking, malice, personal attacks on sexuality, or anything of that nature that I've seen in the general hubbub that is these forums.

We got a nice thing. We had to lose another nice thing to get it. I'd say have patience, and that the extra genders will come eventually.

I applaud the effort, but i fear like many others, these words of wisdom will fall on deaf ears. Yoshida's already been interviewed and has addressed that it was a resource & development-based decision; yet readers *ahem* i mean; players still want what they want, and they likely wont stop asking until they get it. D:

Still, very well said; cheers!

[Lambdafish]

I wonder if anyone has been this upset over Mithra and Galka in the 15+ years that those have been around

[LaylaTsarra]

I wonder if anyone has been this upset over Mithra and Galka in the 15+ years that those have been around

LOL certainly a big to do about nothing in my opinion but whatever.

[LyraKuroneko]

I wonder if anyone has been this upset over Mithra and Galka in the 15+ years that those have been around

different game/ different time.

[Joven]

Like I said, context is key

How does that dispute my question? Even if you had just said "reading this thread makes me want to shoot myself" without the need to over exaggerate by adding "literally" the question still remains "why would you shoot yourself over something so trivial?"

[Joven]

I wonder if anyone has been this upset over Mithra and Galka in the 15+ years that those have been around

Don't give them any ideas.

[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.