Why are the so few companions?

SpiritofESO · July 18

FlipFlopFrog wrote: »

As the title says, why are the so few companions? Also as a side point, why are they all referred to as 'they'? So for example in the skill descriptions it will say something like "Mirri shrouds themselves in shadow " it's really confusing to read a sentence that refers to a single person as a group like that.

There are eight companions and I have maxed all of them to earn their perks. I use four of the companions regularly, and the other four I only equip with the most basic armor and weapons since they go unused.

I do not use plural pronouns to address or refer to a singular human being. Simply put, this current liberal trend of being oh-so-sensitive about one's gender identification affects me not at all. I have always been respectful of perceived gender identification, but on the other hand it's not my concern. Nor do I equate gender identification with sex. Biological sex is simple, two genders, that's all. Gender identification is psychological and human beings are very complex. Again that is not my concern.

"Mirri shrouds herself in shadow" is correct English grammar. "Themselves" is incorrect, but if someone insists on using it because of some liberal bias, I have no problem with that.

And, you're right, it is confusing to use a plural pronoun when a singular one is called for.

Benzux · July 18

SpiritofESO wrote: »

FlipFlopFrog wrote: »

As the title says, why are the so few companions? Also as a side point, why are they all referred to as 'they'? So for example in the skill descriptions it will say something like "Mirri shrouds themselves in shadow " it's really confusing to read a sentence that refers to a single person as a group like that.

There are eight companions and I have maxed all of them to earn their perks. I use four of the companions regularly, and the other four I only equip with the most basic armor and weapons since they go unused.

I do not use plural pronouns to address or refer to a singular human being. Simply put, this current liberal trend of being oh-so-sensitive about one's gender identification affects me not at all. I have always been respectful of perceived gender identification, but on the other hand it's not my concern. Nor do I equate gender identification with sex. Biological sex is simple, two genders, that's all. Gender identification is psychological and human beings are very complex. Again that is not my concern.

"Mirri shrouds herself in shadow" is correct English grammar. "Themselves" is incorrect, but if someone insists on using it because of some liberal bias, I have no problem with that.

And, you're right, it is confusing to use a plural pronoun when a singular one is called for.

The singular "they" has been used in the English language for far longer than any of us here have been alive, there's no "liberal bias" involved. It is very much correct to use said pronoun when the gender of the person we are speaking of is unknown, irrelevant, or needs to be purposefully obscured, etc., or the very simple case of that being someone's preference due to their own identity.

As has already been brought up in this thread, the reason for the gender-neutral pronoun usage in companion ability descriptions is most likely simply because these descriptions are written ahead of time and made to fit any or potentially all possible companions, regardless of their gender.

Syldras · July 18

SpiritofESO wrote: »

Nor do I equate gender identification with sex. Biological sex is simple, two genders, that's all.

That does look a little contradictive to me? I'd think it's a typo, but if not, I'd be interested in how it was meant.

Anyway, singular they for people in general (unknown whether male or female, undefined, or singular words that describe a group of both male or female people) did already come up in literature centuries ago. "There's not a man I meet but doth salute me / As if I were their well-acquainted friend" - Antipholus of Syracuse in the Comedy of Errors, by Shakespeare, published in 1592. It has nothing to do with gender or identity at all, just plain grammar.

whitecrow · July 18

Soarora wrote: »

I grew up as an American using "they" for when I don't know the gender of who I am referring to.

People keep bringing this up, missing the fact that we DO know the gender of each of these characters.

adriant1978 · July 18

whitecrow wrote: »

Soarora wrote: »

I grew up as an American using "they" for when I don't know the gender of who I am referring to.

People keep bringing this up, missing the fact that we DO know the gender of each of these characters.

People are trying to claim that the skill descriptions were written before the gender of the characters was known. That seems unlikely to me, but even if true it just suggests serious laziness that they would not be updated when the gender was decided upon.

JemadarofCaerSalis · July 18

adriant1978 wrote: »

whitecrow wrote: »

Soarora wrote: »

I grew up as an American using "they" for when I don't know the gender of who I am referring to.

People keep bringing this up, missing the fact that we DO know the gender of each of these characters.

People are trying to claim that the skill descriptions were written before the gender of the characters was known. That seems unlikely to me, but even if true it just suggests serious laziness that they would not be updated when the gender was decided upon.

I mean, why is it so unlikely?

In most cases for the companions, the gender is one of the least important aspects of them.

So, why wouldnt' someone be told 'Okay, we are going to create a companion that is a Khajiit Necromancer that is out of time and *proceeds to describe the type of of skills they want*, so work on the skills while this other team starts on the quests and story'

Zerith-var being male isn't even really relevant to his own story, he could easily have been female and little would have changed. The only relevance it has is, ironically, that it influences the pronouns that other characters use to refer to Zerith. It doesn't affect the skills and passives and bonuses at all.

So, again, why is it so unlikely that they might have done the skills, which would potentially be some of the easiest things to create about a companion, first, before they had finished fleshing out the story and details of the companion?

adriant1978 · July 18

JemadarofCaerSalis wrote: »

adriant1978 wrote: »

whitecrow wrote: »

Soarora wrote: »

I grew up as an American using "they" for when I don't know the gender of who I am referring to.

People keep bringing this up, missing the fact that we DO know the gender of each of these characters.

People are trying to claim that the skill descriptions were written before the gender of the characters was known. That seems unlikely to me, but even if true it just suggests serious laziness that they would not be updated when the gender was decided upon.

I mean, why is it so unlikely?

It seems unlikely to me because if I was workshopping a character I can't imagine their gender not coming up as part of the process. That said, I'm not a game designer and (I assume) neither are you, so does either of us really how this process works?

I do however stand by my assertion though that it's very lazy not to do a second pass of the skill descriptions once all the details of the character are known. Correcting typos and instances where placeholder text is in danger of making it into the released product is surely the mark of good QA.

Syldras · July 18

JemadarofCaerSalis wrote: »

Zerith-var being male isn't even really relevant to his own story, he could easily have been female and little would have changed. The only relevance it has is, ironically, that it influences the pronouns that other characters use to refer to Zerith. It doesn't affect the skills and passives and bonuses at all.
So, again, why is it so unlikely that they might have done the skills, which would potentially be some of the easiest things to create about a companion, first, before they had finished fleshing out the story and details of the companion?

They could change the description of the skills accordingly after the character concept is final. Basically at the time when they also write quest dialogues for the companion.

I'm not a native English speaker, so of course I can't judge whether it matters much in English, but from the significance it has in my own culture and its language, it would feel strange and unfinished somehow to keep the undefined or neutral form if a person's gender is known. With real world men and women, it would even be seen as respectless to refer to them with a neutral term, because it would mean denying them being full-grown adults. Then again, we only use neutral terms when referring to things, sometimes animals, and, interestingly, for diminutive forms (just put certain endings to random word and put a neutral article in front of it, and it will be a diminutive - which can be, depending on context, everything from affectionate to deeply insulting; most often insulting, really, as you'd only use an affectionate diminutive if you're very close to a person, and most often even just jokingly, but not towards anyone else).

JemadarofCaerSalis · July 18

Syldras wrote: »

JemadarofCaerSalis wrote: »

Zerith-var being male isn't even really relevant to his own story, he could easily have been female and little would have changed. The only relevance it has is, ironically, that it influences the pronouns that other characters use to refer to Zerith. It doesn't affect the skills and passives and bonuses at all.
So, again, why is it so unlikely that they might have done the skills, which would potentially be some of the easiest things to create about a companion, first, before they had finished fleshing out the story and details of the companion?

They could change the description of the skills accordingly after the character concept is final. Basically at the time when they also write quest dialogues for the companion.

I'm not a native English speaker, so of course I can't judge whether it matters much in English, but from the significance it has in my own culture and its language, it would feel strange and unfinished somehow to keep the undefined or neutral form if a person's gender is known. With real world men and women, it would even be seen as respectless to refer to them with a neutral term, because it would mean denying them being full-grown adults. Then again, we only use neutral terms when referring to things, sometimes animals, and, interestingly, for diminutive forms (just put certain endings to random word and put a neutral article in front of it, and it will be a diminutive - which can be, depending on context, everything from affectionate to deeply insulting; most often insulting, really, as you'd only use an affectionate diminutive if you're very close to a person, and most often even just jokingly, but not towards anyone else).

I think that just does comes down to laziness. They create the skills before they finalize anything else about the character, and then just don't go back to change it.

Again, I have seen this in single player games as well, where companion skills and various descriptions will use 'they' instead of the gender of the character.

Same for player character, game designers often use 'they' instead of using a variable based upon the selection of the player at character creation. IE, instead of going 'okay, the player selected 'Male' so use 'He/Him' where needed' they just put 'they' and call it a day. (ie create a variable that has say 0, 1, and 2 as acceptible parameters, or however many choices there are to select and each variable is tied to a specific set of pronouns.)

So, it isn't just ZOS or bethesda (in fact, I am pretty sure that Single Player Bethesda games have that variable that can be set for a character, including NPCs? Been a while since I modded them, so can't remember) that does this.

As for being a game designer, no, but I wanted to be, and I have often thought about it, and when I do create characters, I don't always care about the gender, because that isn't the important thing about the character. The role could be filled by anyone, so the personality and actions of the character are more important. So, I might use a 'placeholder' character until I have fleshed out the details and decide the exact details.

Basically, the important details get decided upon immediately, leaving less important details for last. If the gender of the character isn't important, then it gets decided last, which means other details can often be decided first, which includes things like skill sets. If the gender of the character is important, yes, it is decided upon before anything else.

spartaxoxo · July 18

In American English, it has been very normal to use a neutral form for someone and it meant nothing. It was used when gender was unknown, irrelevant, or sensitive information e.g. Our accomplice in this prank has requested that their identity be revealed later..

Syldras · July 18

JemadarofCaerSalis wrote: »

So, it isn't just ZOS or bethesda (in fact, I am pretty sure that Single Player Bethesda games have that variable that can be set for a character, including NPCs? Been a while since I modded them, so can't remember) that does this.

Honestly, there must be a way to define a character's sex or gender for dialogues and menus. How else would the translation work? There are languages where a genderneutral form for humans just doesn't exist, and the only way to say you don't know someone's gender is literally using the phrase "he or she".

And it would come across very strange in dialogues if other characters would refer to you by saying "he or she" and "him or her" all the time. Imagine there's a quest where some high-ranked character assigns you an npc companion for a quest, by telling that companion "Lead him or her to the tower! Protect him or her at all costs!" - while you're standing next to them.

spartaxoxo · July 18

adriant1978 wrote: »

JemadarofCaerSalis wrote: »

adriant1978 wrote: »

whitecrow wrote: »

Soarora wrote: »

I grew up as an American using "they" for when I don't know the gender of who I am referring to.

People keep bringing this up, missing the fact that we DO know the gender of each of these characters.

People are trying to claim that the skill descriptions were written before the gender of the characters was known. That seems unlikely to me, but even if true it just suggests serious laziness that they would not be updated when the gender was decided upon.

I mean, why is it so unlikely?

It seems unlikely to me because if I was workshopping a character I can't imagine their gender not coming up as part of the process. That said, I'm not a game designer and (I assume) neither are you, so does either of us really how this process works?

I do however stand by my assertion though that it's very lazy not to do a second pass of the skill descriptions once all the details of the character are known. Correcting typos and instances where placeholder text is in danger of making it into the released product is surely the mark of good QA.

I am not a game designer. But, I have seen game designers in other games talk about this type of process. Sometimes they have the kits created before the characters. Sometimes it's the other way around. A couple of Overwatch examples since they sometimes do developer deep dives that explains this type of stuff.

The character of Brigitte in that game was decided on after they had created her kit. That game has lore and character already fleshed out just waiting for kits. And also they sometimes create kits based on gameplay needs or because they think something would be cool.

In Brigitte's case, supports were getting ripped to shreds by flankers at the time and they basically required help to deal with it. So. They wanted to give them some independent options if a team can't or wouldn't help. At the same time, they had been wanting to do something a bit more like Paladin like for a hero. So they created her kit with these ideas in mind and gave it the code name "Pally."

When they had the kit closer to done, they picked Brigitte to be the one to wield it. She was already the squire of a knight themed hero so she was a perfect fit for the kit.

They have also released art of heroes who already have character designs and some very brief, basic ideas for kits who hadn't made into the game yet. Some of those heroes were later added, like Sojourn.

I don't know how ESO develops companions. But I can definitely see them knowing they wanted companions from all the different player classes long before they knew Zerith would be one rocking the Necromancer kit. It would explain why they're referred to as they/them and why they don't have a next one this year now that they have accomplished that. But that's just me speculating based off what I've gleaned about this type of process in general from developers of other games giving players various sneak peeks into the process of game design.

JemadarofCaerSalis · July 18

Syldras wrote: »

JemadarofCaerSalis wrote: »

So, it isn't just ZOS or bethesda (in fact, I am pretty sure that Single Player Bethesda games have that variable that can be set for a character, including NPCs? Been a while since I modded them, so can't remember) that does this.

Honestly, there must be a way to define a character's sex or gender for dialogues and menus. How else would the translation work? There are languages where a genderneutral form for humans just doesn't exist, and the only way to say you don't know someone's gender is literally using the phrase "he or she".

And it would come across very strange in dialogues if other characters would refer to you by saying "he or she" and "him or her" all the time. Imagine there's a quest where some high-ranked character assigns you an npc companion for a quest, by telling that companion "Lead him or her to the tower! Protect him or her at all costs!" - while you're standing next to them.

As I said, I am pretty sure that Bethesda games do have this, where they just input 'okay, player selected X in the character menu, so use Y' or now they will have fields for pronouns in some games.

Others, they often get around that by just not doing that. IE, they will refer to the Player character by name, or like ESO does, by some generic 'title' such as friend or hero, or vestige.

That reminds me of something funny about Fallout Four. I play with a made up name, so my character was never named by the NPCs in Fallout four. My brother once said something like he had wondered how the game handled letting players select their names because the game uses the name and speaks it. I was confused.

Then I realized. He uses his own name, which is a common name and there is actually some relatively famous characters with his name in the game. So, the game has sound bytes of the person saying his name and uses them

Ishtarknows · July 19

I'd say why do we need so many?

onyxorb · July 21

Ishtarknows wrote: »

I'd say why do we need so many?

I like to match my companion to my toon, just like the outfit, mount and pet.

Plus some companions skills or personalities are just 'bad' for certain toons.

A lot don't like vamp or brotherhood activities for instance, or don't like when you farm certain things, so they are just a pain to use on most of my toons.

I also like having different base skills to choose from when picking which companion to use, although most end up using weapon and guild lines.

My real issue is when are we getting vamp and werewolf companions, or even a something like a dremora companion?
Pretty sure we're still missing some of the races like Orc and maybe Bosmer?

shadyjane62 · July 21

They get in the way.

reazea · July 21

Too few? There are already 8 too many.

BretonMage · July 21

Happy to have a small group of quality companions. IF ZOS needs a bit more time to develop the next quality set of companions, I'm happy to wait.

Benzux wrote: »

The singular "they" has been used in the English language for far longer than any of us here have been alive, there's no "liberal bias" involved. It is very much correct to use said pronoun when the gender of the person we are speaking of is unknown, irrelevant, or needs to be purposefully obscured, etc., or the very simple case of that being someone's preference due to their own identity.

Exactly this. I myself had always assumed "they" was used in skill descriptions because either the gender identity of our companions was considered irrelevant in combat terms, or that ZOS wanted to leave the skills open to possible reuse by another companion in the future.

After all, if you were to look at the character descriptions, ZOS was happy to use gender-specific pronouns there, so the simplest explanation to me is that skill descriptions were deliberately left gender-neutral either for practicality or relevance purposes.

Monte_Cristo · July 21

DreamyLu wrote: »

You mean so many? Not everybody is interested.. I'm glad they're giving it a break and hope it will last for another while.

reazea wrote: »

Too few? There are already 8 too many.

Ishtarknows wrote: »

I'd say why do we need so many?

Same reason why we have so many group dungeons?
Some people like 'em.