Reminder: Selectable Character Gender is a "Minimum Bar."

*OFFTOPIC*

"

jsuslak313 wrote:

How many folks are upset that when they go to McDonald's....they can't get a German Wienerschnitzel?

This is heresy on so many levels, I dont even know where to begin but it did make me chuckle :D

"

Phrazz wrote:

I don't think anyone will die on this hill, because I really can't see how this is game breaking for anyone. It's clearly not a priority for GGG, and I don't think them not adding genders will have any serious consequences. So no one will by dying on any hills here.

Perhaps there is a "lost in translation" thing happening here. Dying on the hill as a metaphor means putting up a tremendous fight against the opposition. Not sure what you thought it meant. GGG is making a stand here, as it appears, for not a single good reason.

Jonathan had already detailed how easy & streamlined the new rigging process is for characters & models in PoE2. In PoE1 this type of project would have been a nightmare. In PoE2? Not even remotely, as they have already admitted (not on this topic specifically)

I suppose the point being, that this isn't a resource issue, Tencent is footing all bills. It's not a tech issue, as already detailed. It's not a narrative issue, becaue well, the game isn't even out. Tell whatever story you want. Players want it. Granted not all, but enough where there shouldn't be a debate.

And lastly, and maybe most importantly, there isn't a good reason why they shouldn't. The time, resource, and effort is null argument since the money isn't theirs, and the game isn't even out.

Who knows maybe they want to monetize the option as MTX skins. God help them if their financial folks are telling them this. The backlash would be wild.

"

jsuslak313 wrote:

If gender is a dealbreaker for you playing the game....then that's on you and not the game.

I've addressed your "that's a 'You' problem" response earlier. Read that, please.

"

jsuslak313 wrote:

...
PoE2 is a unique product with unique choices and unique constraints. They will do what they want, as is their right and prerogative.

Touching on this because I keep seeing variations on it.

Obviously, Grinding Gear will do what they want. It's their game, they'll make it as they like. This does not mean their choices and decisions are immune to criticism, especially when their goal is to entice a large number of people into giving them money for their work. If people can constantly lambast and excoriate Grinding Gear for their balance decisions, those selfsame people have no standing to dismiss other people's far less inflammatory criticism of Grinding Gear's decisions with "you don't have the right to want these things/make these requests, GGG does what they want because they have a vision."

The playerbase does not get to meme on "Vision(TM)" when it comes to trade, pace of play, and balance adjustments, only to hold up "Vision!" as a shield against criticism on a subject they disapprove of.

Or, to put it short: this is a meaningless objection that doesn't matter. So all y'all - please stop making it.

I completely disagree. Puting to much emphasis on such meaningless things is whats wrong in todays gaming industry. What matters is gameplay. That is the single important thing. Not graphical fidelity, not music, not customization or anything else. Just look what games went viral this past few years. Games like vampire survivors, halls of torment, palworld etc. Gender customization in the end doesnt matter one bit. Its pointless waste of money.

"

DarthSki44 wrote:

Perhaps there is a "lost in translation" thing happening here. Dying on the hill as a metaphor means putting up a tremendous fight against the opposition.

I know what the metaphor means. And as I see it, "dying" in this regard is ignoring the outcome/consequences. GGG isn't dying on this hill, because there won't be any consequences. The "cost/consequences" part of that metaphor is important to its meaning. You should look it up.

But you're right; adding it as MTX, on the other hand... That will have consequences.

0 importance to add it imo. You only double/triple the cost/time for rigging equipment and mtx. It comes at a cost. It is up to GGG if they feel the cost is worth the minimal benefits.

It's interesting to me that this thing people in the PoE forums keep brushing off as inconsequential, valueless, and of minimal benefits is a widely adopted industry norm in many other games. Many of them very highly lauded.

Regardless.

I will say in all fairness, Darth, that man-hours and developer work time is a finite resource no amount of Tencent money can expand. Not quickly or easily. Tencent is also unlikely to allow a truly unlimited tap.

That being said, Grinding Gear bought an entire convention hall's worth of couches for their recent LA event to demonstrate couch co-op. Will they ever have need of something like a hundred couches again? Was buying a hundred couches cheap? Did they get a return on that investment?

"Expensive" has different magnitudes to a large company rather than an individual. Without any idea of what it costs to do the full VO set for a PoE2 class we can't say whether the cost is prohibitive or not, but even Forever's 2k~10k range is not gonna be a big deal to a company like Grinding Gear. Hellaciously expensive for most of us individual players yes, not so much for them. I have no doubt a PoE2 character class has a very large number of lines over and above what the Goddess swords do, but they're also far more likely to get a return.

The financials are one thing, but I no longer believe GGG when they say modeling/animating would be prohibitive. They've proudly showed off their new system, explained how it's dramatically easier to use and how they can easily tweak their single animation rig for humanoid entities to do new stuff. They can do new skill animations quickly and easily, spin up new humanoid enemies or NPCs quickly and easily. If they can do those things? They can do opposite-gender character classes. It is not a technology problem, not anymore.

I guess I'm one of those "weirdos" that simply does not care. Never did, and never will.
Ever since I've started playing games, the gender of the main character never felt special nor did it feel ill suited for thew role. I'll play a two headed furry if the game is good enough.
Now if the option to choose a gender and /or build your own avatar is available is always a nice bonus, but I never feel like I need to have it.

I'm open for as many options as possible, but won't cry if there aren't.

I'd be interested in seeing a sex-selection. I sometimes think about making a melee witch just because of how cool her two-handed running animation is. If I didn't have to do that and could just make a female marauder, that would be cool.

I could not care less for a gender selection.

The OP started off their post in an antagonistic way, threaded that antagonism into every paragraph, then proceeded with repeated and consistent baiting language in every follow up post. It reminds me of those people that throw their arms and legs about in mosh pits, actively, eagerly engaging in behaviour that that could lead to a negative outcome. All to then say "see, mosh pits are dangerous!".

"

hmcg020 wrote:

I'd be interested in seeing a sex-selection. I sometimes think about making a melee witch just because of how cool her two-handed running animation is. If I didn't have to do that and could just make a female marauder, that would be cool.

I could not care less for a gender selection.

The OP started off their post in an antagonistic way, threaded that antagonism into every paragraph, then proceeded with repeated and consistent baiting language in every follow up post. It reminds me of those people that throw their arms and legs about in mosh pits, actively, eagerly engaging in behaviour that that could lead to a negative outcome. All to then say "see, mosh pits are dangerous!".

Honestly, that's what put me off immediately as well. "Hey, I want to have a discussion but let me start by telling everyone who disagrees me how much I loathe them" is such a great icebreaker.

You are basically inviting negativity that way.

Whatever.. I'm not even against the idea at all. It's the finger-wagging that gets me.