POE 2: Class Gender Lock is a Step Backwards

"

bongoclock#1186 wrote:

You aren't playing YOURSELF.

You are playing a person in exile. You just get to chose how their life goes afterwards.

It is their story, not yours.

of course we arent playing ourselves directly, but its more of an extension of ourselves within the game.

"

Ashgan9#6435 wrote:

hundreds of MTX to look like the craziest demonic or full on clown, but for some reason people have a hangup on this... just boggles the mind.

If GGG wanna go and add it as an MTX, sure, no problems at all. But wasting Dev time on changing the whole character select screen, models etc etc...nah im good.

What do you guys think? Does this bother anyone else, or am I overreacting? Would love to hear your thoughts![/quote]

YES!! YOU ARE

"

hmcg020#6029 wrote:

Another post about gender locks from someone who apparently doesn't even play this game.

Uhhh no one is playing this game yet.

Anyone arguing that gender locks make sense, that they Fit The Vision(C), that the characters are characters not 'toons' and their backstories matter, or anything else of that sort is being a deliberately obtuse and actively disingenuous jerk.

You can use over a thousand random outlandish MTXes to make your character look like everything from Beelzeboss to Ozzy Osbourne, and/or turn your Witch into a Strength-based quarterstaff build relying on grenades...but somehow - somehow! - letting people play a male Witch or a female Marauder is simply An Unacceptable Step Too Far.

Ridiculous. Absurd, and utterly hypocritical.

This is one aspect of the game where Grinding Gear unambiguously made a mistake. Here's hoping they've figured that out by the time Path 3 comes around.

"

1453R#7804 wrote:

Anyone arguing that gender locks make sense, that they Fit The Vision(C), that the characters are characters not 'toons' and their backstories matter, or anything else of that sort is being a deliberately obtuse and actively disingenuous jerk.

so anyone who disagrees with you is deliberately obtuse and a jerk ?
yikes

"

1453R#7804 wrote:

You can use over a thousand random outlandish MTXes to make your character look like everything from Beelzeboss to Ozzy Osbourne, and/or turn your Witch into a Strength-based quarterstaff build relying on grenades...but somehow - somehow! - letting people play a male Witch or a female Marauder is simply An Unacceptable Step Too Far.

one of my favourite games where i played as a character was mass effect. it allowed me to play as male/female, change my appearance and even my first name.

i still would say ME1/2 is one of the best scifi character driven RPGs i've ever played, even tho i entirely skipped a female playthru.

heck the best turn based RPG in the market is baldurs gate. you get to PLAY as the main characters of the game OR as your own adventurer.

its exactly like what you said.

female witch is ok, but if the witch is male suddenly its no good. i dont even understand why its no good. why was it ok when the witch was female but if we get a hypothethical male witch suddenly its bad?

"

grepman#2451 wrote:

"

1453R#7804 wrote:

Anyone arguing that gender locks make sense, that they Fit The Vision(C), that the characters are characters not 'toons' and their backstories matter, or anything else of that sort is being a deliberately obtuse and actively disingenuous jerk.

so anyone who disagrees with you is deliberately obtuse and a jerk ?
yikes

on surface level yeah it sounds pretty bad. but on the flipside, going against his argument is pretty weak NGL.

like for real, why isit suddenly bad if we're allowed to play a male witch?

"

exsea#1724 wrote:

"

grepman#2451 wrote:

"

1453R#7804 wrote:

Anyone arguing that gender locks make sense, that they Fit The Vision(C), that the characters are characters not 'toons' and their backstories matter, or anything else of that sort is being a deliberately obtuse and actively disingenuous jerk.

so anyone who disagrees with you is deliberately obtuse and a jerk ?
yikes

on surface level yeah it sounds pretty bad. but on the flipside, going against his argument is pretty weak NGL.

like for real, why isit suddenly bad if we're allowed to play a male witch?

Who said it's bad ?

I was addressing the ridiculous logic of "anyone who disagrees with me is a jerk".

I don't really care one way or the other. I do think if devs want a set name, gender, bodytype, race whatever for their characters in their game, it's their right to do so. Without being harassed by people who don't.


Plenty of games in many genres are genderlocked with specific characters playing a specific role. And in CRPGs as well. It's not "bad" nor is it "good". It just...is ?

"

grepman#2451 wrote:

Who said it's bad ?

I was addressing the ridiculous logic of "anyone who disagrees with me is a jerk".

I don't really care one way or the other. I do think if devs want a set name, gender, bodytype, race whatever for their characters in their game, it's their right to do so. Without being harassed by people who don't.


Plenty of games in many genres are genderlocked with specific characters playing a specific role. And in CRPGs as well. It's not "bad" nor is it "good". It just...is ?

being in this forums for so long i ve seen a lot of people suggesting that we should get more options for character models. in usually there will inevitably be pushback and some people will actually say its a bad opinion.

and yeah that logic is who disagrees with me is a jerk is weird but then again. i can only imagine he got so annoyed with some of the responses hes getting