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

I think having it is better than not having it, however if it requires substantial development resources (which it likely does depending on the specifics) its hardly a dealbreaker to omit which is why they will.

It really isn't a minimum bar, there are very few games which have voice acting for your character + the ability to change gender and pretending otherwise is disingenuous. I'm not trying to be combative here but its just true.

This is because its the same amount of work to create a male version of the witch as to create the ranger and new always trumps redundancy in game development it isn't even close.

"

Buissonix wrote:

IMO it's a bit wild to read such statements as "there is no excuse" as if GGG wronged its playerbase and owed everyone an apology.

That's just the way they intend it to be. Some may find it old-school, but that's also the case for other facets of the game.

"No excuses" is Jonathan's own words. One of the reasons PoE2 was split off of the base game was because the amount and scope of changes they wanted to make grew beyond the first game's ability to cope, and when they made that call Jonathan specifically said that they were going to start challenging all the sacred cows and things the dev team had previously said it was too difficult, annoying, or costly to do. There had to be reasons to do or not do something, rather than excuses.

All the things they've tossed out to explain why they don't do selectable character gender? Excuses, not reasons, with the sole exception of "VO is expensive."

As for "old school-ness"? Again - the intent with PoE2 is to create a modern ARPG putting everything Grinding Gear has learned into practice. Developers' own words, not mine. They want to make a modern game that stands alongside the industry's recent titans? Well, that comes with expectations.

And once again, for emphasis: they cannot claim 'Vision' with specific gender-locked character classes while offering a vast and endless profusion of 'Vision'-breaking MTX skins. 'Vision' has nothing to do with it. 'Vision', in this specific issue, is a cheap excuse. And I could go dig through his interview history and directly quote Jonathan Rogers saying "no more excuses", were I of a mind to waste the next several hours doing so.

There is no such thing as a "minimum bar". If you need a game that represents anyone and anything then go ahead and make your own. It is entirely up to GGG whether or not they want to invest the resources required to realize such a feature.

yes yes hoho.

"

1453R wrote:

This would matter if those 'important character traits' actually mattered to the story. They do not. There is no 'character arc'.

Depends how you look at it. The world, Piety, Dominus and others react to characters based on their character traits (and even gender) in several situations/scebes. Like a book, you are following their story, not your.

"

DarthSki44 wrote:

"Probably not" bad for players? Please do tell how in the world a simple gender option could be bad from a player / consumer angle. I literally cannot think of a single reason.

Only indirect stuff.

I'm not a developer, so I don't know the time, effort or money they'd have to put into making 6 (or 36, as I don't know if the different ascendancies have different models in PoE 2) new gender models with voice acting, then rewrite the whole story/script to either make the whole script gender neutral, or to make 6 (or 36) different ones.

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.

I respect that some people want this, and I wouldn't see it as a negative thing if they added it. But a to 'demand' it as a 'minimal bar'? Sure, whatever. I'll leave now and let you have your discussion, I just can't see the importance here, one way or the other, so my motivation to debate it any further is too low.

Honestly this has to be the most easily baited forum in existence.

But on to the op's point. Yeah. Selectable Genders and the ability to swag your armor a little bit is basically a baseline for most modern arpgs.

It isn't hard to do, just takes money and time. GGG could have fixed all the problems they keep saying poe1 has, but instead they are making a new game with hosts of new problems.

C'est la Vie

The "Minimum Bar" phrasing is taken from the Game Director's own words. It's not my personal minimum bar being talked about here. It is an industry recognized norm for games broadly like this one and has been for many years now, however. Jonathan rightly recognizes that leaving crucial pieces of Modern Gaming out of his new game will result in poor reception and lackluster sales.

Is it a game-shattering dealbreaker? For me personally, no. I'll play the game regardless. It is a pain point, and one that many people I've talked to about it feel to be an unnecessary one. It does hamper my enjoyment of the game.

I do not like the Marauder. He's a meatheaded muscle goon that makes me sad to play as, which means all the things the Marauder's Ascendancies and its position on the tree allow it to do that nobody else can are effectively blocked off for me. Can I "just go play one of the women", as many people so enjoy (uselessly) pointing out? Sure. Can and have. But for one, they're actively taking away one of my options for "playing one of the women". We used to have three ladies, now we have two. No, the Sorceress and Huntress don't count, or if they do then we're at eight men to four women and that's a real awkwardly lopsided number. And for two, it super bites to have entire areas of the tree softlocked away from me because I just do not want to play the Marauder.

Yes yes, "just play a Witch and spend twenty points pathing down to the Marauder area!" That's a dumb answer and anyone who gives it should feel bad, it's wasteful and inefficient and also means all one's Ascendancy options are totally useless.

And frankly? People can dismiss other players' desires as much as they like, but that makes those desires no less valid. I don't see "well that sounds like a You problem" as a valid response to this issue because nobody else accepts "well that sounds like a You problem" when Grinding Gear does or doees not do things that rustle other folks' jimmies. To demonstrate:

* * *

"Why do we have to spend real money to trade?! They should let us have a Premium tab for free so free-to-players can trade, too!" Man, that sounds like a You problem. Just spend the two bucks and buy a premium tab, cheapo. Drink water instead of Coke one singular time and get your trade tab.

"Why do I have to play the campaign EVERY SINGLE TIME?! Just let us have a Skip feature once we get to maps the first time in a league!" Well, that sounds like a You problem. Grinding Gear's artistic vision and developer integrity is paramount; if they don't want you skipping the campaign, then you should stop wanting to skip the campaign. Suck it up, buttercup.

"Grinding Gear made [Balance decision here] and it SUCKS! Why would they do this?! This ruins all my coolest builds! This is terrible and I hate it!" Whoops, looks like a You problem. The game changes - always has, always will. Adapt or die, Git Gudder. Nobody cares whether you like [Balance decision here] or not, sweetie.

* * *

See? Doesn't feel remotely as acceptable when applied to common community bugbears, does it? "That's a You problem" is not a good argument when one is talking about game design. "We don't wanna" is a reason, sure. But it's not one that's immune to criticism. "We don't wanna" is the reason they haven't pulled the Eternal Labyrinth after all, and yet nobody seems to tell folks off for criticising Grinding Gear over keeping the Labyrinth.

Why is this lame excuse okay for this issue, but not any other issue people take umbrage with GGG over?

I don't see why anyone can disagree with this. Gender choice is all good and fine.

Personally, it's not a make or break for me.

But at the end of the day it's GGG's game and we have to accept their vision.

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

It's also your absolute right to play games that you WANT to play. It is NOT your right to dictate any sort of baseline for anyone else's product.

Regardless of what was said and by whom, and regardless of what OTHER games and companies do with THEIR product....PoE2 is a unique product with unique choices and unique constraints. They will do what they want, as is their right and prerogative.


Nothing to do with good/bad/necessary/unnecessary/inclusive/exclusive....it is simply the choice of the product makers on how to make their products. Just like how a clothing designer can (***gasp***) decide to only make clothing for women! How many folks are attacking Victoria's Secret for not making lingerie lines for men? How many folks are upset that when they go to McDonald's....they can't get a German Wienerschnitzel?

Just chiming in to say that while not as passionate about this as you are (OP) I would welcome the choice in character customization. For example, I love the templar class, but I am really tired of creating an old grandpa bible banger. Some further customizations besides gender would be appreciated, too.