What's the point with that quite lackluster story in Endwalker?

From what I've seen, some people are very choosy when it comes to declaring the weight of what a 'minority opinion' actually is. Nor do I think there is any particular reliable measure of it in a community notorious for shouting down and sabotaging opposing opinions.

It's a lot like how the social media sphere is very loud and very active but often finds itself completely out of alignment with the views of regular people who have more important things to worry about than whatever social media is whipping itself up into a frenzy over on any given day.

Furthermore, Garlemald has a decent amount of fans. It just so happens that any time it is brought up those who dislike it feel compelled to ignore that personal tastes differ and they have to go off on a tangent each and every time it is mentioned even in passing. As such, all but the most stubborn of fans ceased to bother talking about it in public.

Something which - up until Shadowbringers - applied to the Ascians as well. Which ties rather well into this thread's purpose. By existing and remaining active more people emerge with the confidence to weigh in with their own thoughts and feedback.

Either way, I don't care much about 'managing expectations'. I'm putting my thoughts out there in the hope that they're taken on board. If not? So be it - there's other games to play if 6.2 does not show an improvement.

Some of us have been here before. World of Warcraft had a lot of players who insisted that any criticism of the direction of the story or other elements of the game came from a 'minority'. The result was that it went from having ten million active players at its height to fading into relative obscurity.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Theodric

Furthermore, Garlemald has a decent amount of fans. It just so happens that any time it is brought up those who dislike it feel compelled to ignore that personal tastes differ and they have to go off on a tangent each and every time it is mentioned even in passing. As such, all but the most stubborn of fans ceased to bother talking about it in public.

---

To be fair, along with G'raha Tia, you mention Garlemald "in passing" a lot. It's often one of the first things you mention in a thread, so there's no surprise that people respond to it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CrownySuccubus

Uh, no? The actual problem is that the argument relied on those famous Weasel Words "many people" [dislike G'raha Tia], which is irrelevant given the fan-favorite status of the character. The way it seems intended, as Brinne said above, is "lots of people agree with me, so I must be correct on some level."

---

The thing is though, is that this is the argument a lot of people use to show that more people are dissatisfied with EW than there seems to be. So im just curious why its okay(not saying you just in general) to say it under those circumstances, but then when it comes to Graha its used as a way to denote the criticism.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CrownySuccubus

To be fair, along with G'raha Tia, you mention Garlemald "in passing" a lot. It's often one of the first things you mention in a thread, so there's no surprise that people respond to it.

---

I post about a great many things. I did just win a bet with a friend in regards to stating that, once again, a long post of mine would be trimmed down in order for a certain someone to focus almost exclusively on the mention of Garlemald, though.

As an aside, here's something else I talk about a lot - cats:

https://forum.square-enix.com/ffxiv/...Coon-minion%21

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by KizuyaKatogami

The thing is though, is that this is the argument a lot of people use to show that more people are dissatisfied with EW than there seems to be. So im just curious why its okay(not saying you just in general) to say it under those circumstances, but then when it comes to Graha its used as a way to denote the criticism.

---

It's not okay, though. As myself, Brinne and tokinokanatae (edit) just said, it's not a particularly strong argument regardless of whether you're criticizing the game itself or G'raha in particular.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Theodric

I post about a great many things. I did just win a bet with a friend in regards to stating that, once again, a long post of mine would be trimmed down in order for a certain someone to focus almost exclusively on the mention of Garlemald, though.

---

Send them my way so I can win my own bet the next time G'raha, Garlemald, or burgers are brought up. Oh and democracy.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by KizuyaKatogami

Right but the thing is i’ve seen those same types of arguments said in here occasionally by those posters :p and many people in here in general. Which is why i bring up it seems the case is its okay to bring it up for x argument but not y.

---

Okay? Some guys said some things somewhere at some time, I guess. Not sure how we're supposed to comment on that.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CrownySuccubus

It's not okay, though. As myself, Brinne and Midareyukki just said, it's not a particularly strong argument regardless of whether you're criticizing the game itself or G'raha in particular.

---

Right but the thing is i’ve seen those same types of arguments said in here occasionally by those posters :p and many people in here in general. Which is why i bring up it seems the case is its okay to bring it up for x argument but not y.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by KizuyaKatogami

Right but the thing is i’ve seen those same types of arguments said in here occasionally by those posters :p and many people in here in general. Which is why i bring up it seems the case is its okay to bring it up for x argument but not y.

---

Please feel free to call me out if you catch me doing this! I am also human and sometimes cranky and don't fully think out what I write on the fly!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lunaxia

Because there was no reason for you make such a statement other than as an oblique attempt undermine the argument, which I think you know.

I'm baffled as to why anyone in this thread would continue to try to do this when the very reason this thread exists, and why we're here, is to refute the notion that popularity or majority mindsets are automatically correct, or that seemingly minority opinions are unequivocally wrong for being just that.

---

I don't even think we are the minority. I think that we are the majority [as is demonstrated by Yoshi having to explain himself in a special live letter] but even as a majority the moment we step into the safe spaces of those who like the game we get downvote nuked into oblivion.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CrownySuccubus

Okay? Some guys said some things somewhere at some time, I guess. Not sure how we're supposed to comment on that.

---

This coming from the person who linked someone else’s old posts? :p

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by KizuyaKatogami

This coming from the person who linked someone else’s old posts? :p

---

????? Huh?! I don't think you understand my point.

You aren't telling us who said what, when they said it, where they said it, or in what context, so there's no way for anyone else to comment on it beyond a vague response of "Okay, sure".

The entire point of linking to old posts is to specifically show who said what, and in what context. Which is essentially the same purpose as quote tags. So that people know what you're talking about.

If you need further demonstration on why it matters, from now on, you could try replying to specific posts in this thread without using any quotes and just the basic "Reply" button. It will become much easier for people to get completely lost.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CrownySuccubus

????? Huh?! I don't think you understand my point.

You aren't telling us who said what, when they said it, where they said it, or in what context, so there's no way for anyone else to comment on it beyond a vague response of "Okay, sure".

The entire point of linking to old posts is to specifically show who said what, and in what context. Which is essentially the same purpose as quote tags. So that people know what you're talking about.

If you need further demonstration on why it matters, from now on, you could try replying to specific posts in this thread without using any quotes and just the basic "Reply" button. It will become much easier for people to get completely lost.

---

I specifically said it’s the same people arguing against it. It’s not hard to see who said “the people who dislike graha are a minority.” Lol. My point is, the same people saying that are the same ones offering pushback against people saying “the people who dislike Endwalker are a minority.” It’s a silencing tactic and it’s a bit messed up to play the double standard game. Tbh i find the whole argument of minority majority etc to be extremely stupid and just overall….not important. Especially when in the end it’s used as a silencing tactic.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by KizuyaKatogami

I specifically said it’s the same people arguing against it.

---

And who are those people?! You've provided a distinction without a difference.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by KizuyaKatogami

t’s not hard to see who said “the people who dislike graha are a minority.” Lol. My point is, the same people saying that are the same ones offering pushback against people saying “the people who dislike Endwalker are a minority.” It’s a silencing tactic and it’s a bit messed up to play the double standard game.

---

Hang on. The point you made earlier was:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by KizuyaKatogami

The thing is though, is that this is the argument a lot of people use to show that more people are dissatisfied with EW than there seems to be. So im just curious why its okay(not saying you just in general) to say it under those circumstances, but then when it comes to Graha its used as a way to denote the criticism.

---

People who try to artificially inflate the number of dissatisfied players aren't the same people saying "the people who dislike Endwalker are a minority".

EDIT: I see where I'm confused now. You said they're "offering pushback". Let me apologize and correct myself:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by KizuyaKatogami

It’s not hard to see who said “the people who dislike graha are a minority.” Lol.

---

Saying that alone? Sure. However...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by KizuyaKatogami

My point is, the same people saying that are the same ones offering pushback against people saying “the people who dislike Endwalker are a minority.”

---

I'm going to be 100% honest and say I haven't noticed anybody who said BOTH of those things. So I still don't know who you're talking about. I legitimately have no idea who said that or when, so I genuinely cannot say anything about it other than "Yeah, they're wrong." Finding people who say disliking G'raha is the minority by itself? Sure. Easy. But someone who ALSO says that more people are dissatisfied with EW than it seems to be? I legitimately have no idea who you mean and wouldn't even know where to look for that.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by KizuyaKatogami

Tbh i find the whole argument of minority majority etc to be extremely stupid and just overall….not important. Especially when in the end it’s used as a silencing tactic.

---

You're the person who said "this is how many people, including myself perceive him" [as pushy], though. No one is dismissing your opinion or the fact that you feel that way. But that simply means it's subjective.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CrownySuccubus

And who are those people?! You've provided a distinction without a difference.

---

Kizuya said "the same people" you mentioned in your post, so that would be me and tokinokanatae, I think.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Brinne

Kizuya said "the same people" you mentioned in your post, so that would be me and tokinokanatae, I think.

---

Well, specifically, he said:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by KizuyaKatogami

My point is, the same people saying that are the same ones offering pushback against people saying “the people who dislike Endwalker are a minority.”

---

Did the two of you do that? Because I honestly didn't see it. But I'll try rereading through your posts when I get the chance.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CrownySuccubus

Did the two of you do that? Because I honestly didn't see it. But I'll try rereading through your posts when I get the chance.

---

Not that I can remember, but again, if someone sees me doing that, they're free to call me out. I'd appreciate it, actually.

I didn't. I think it's obvious that both G'raha Tia and Endwalker are genuinely popular with the overall playerbase--with a vocal minority that have a variety of issues with both-- and I don't see the point of denying that.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CrownySuccubus

And who are those people?! You've provided a distinction without a difference.



Hang on. The point you made earlier was:



People who try to artificially inflate the number of dissatisfied players aren't the same people saying "the people who dislike Endwalker are a minority".

EDIT: I see where I'm confused now. You said they're "offering pushback". Let me apologize and correct myself:



Saying that alone? Sure. However...



I'm going to be 100% honest and say I haven't noticed anybody who said BOTH of those things. So I still don't know who you're talking about. I legitimately have no idea who said that or when, so I genuinely cannot say anything about it other than "Yeah, they're wrong." Finding people who say disliking G'raha is the minority by itself? Sure. Easy. But someone who ALSO says that more people are dissatisfied with EW than it seems to be? I legitimately have no idea who you mean and wouldn't even know where to look for that.



You're the person who said "this is how many people, including myself perceive him" [as pushy], though. No one is dismissing your opinion or the fact that you feel that way. But that simply means it's subjective.

---

I’m not sure if there’s confusion or what so i’ll try to be a bit more specific. When i’m referring to those people saying it(and let me clarify, i’m fairly certain it something both myself and many regular posters have said), it’s in reference to when people come in here to deflect criticism by saying “You’re the minority, the majority loves endwalker.” Many of us have argued against that saying it’s a pretty shitty argument and it honestly doesn’t matter. So my point is, if we agree it’s a shitty argument why is it being used to deflect criticism of a character?

...anyway, here's some Jullus:

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/FJQv5kjV...g&name=900x900

Source: https://twitter.com/ebelcities/statu...63048633192452

To me he's the best thing that came out of Endwalker so I do hope we see more of him in 6.2 and beyond!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by KizuyaKatogami

So my point is, if we agree it’s a shitty argument why is it being used to deflect criticism of a character?

---

Well, like I said;

Quote:

---

You're the person who said "this is how many people, including myself perceive him" [as pushy], though. No one is dismissing your opinion or the fact that you feel that way. But that simply means it's subjective.

---

To be as clear as possible:

1) Your criticism is based on how you felt about the character.

2) No one is deflecting your opinion, and you have the right to feel that way. Someone else, likewise, can feel the opposite.

3) But you ALSO said "many others feel the same way", which introduces numbers into the argument.

4) If numbers are part of the argument, then it becomes majority vs minority. Or tribalism.

4) If you think numbers are (in your own terms) a shitty argument, then it goes back to being your opinion. Which, I repeat, you are entitled to have....but thus becomes highly subjective.

All I know is if I found myself having to tolerate characters as pushy as G'raha Tia and writing that was unable to commit to any meaningful sacrifices or development when I started playing, I wouldn't have stayed on as long as I did. None of the other "anime husbands" for lack of a better term have ever been pushed onto the player with as much force as the catboy. Not Aymeric, not Hien, and not Ardbert.

Maybe if so many things didn't go wrong with Endwalker's story I would be able to overlook certain failings in favor of the overall picture, but the more time that passes the more all the flaws are laid bare. Endwalker should have been the ultimate final battle of Season 1. Instead it was a circus with only one zone that was thematically on point and executed well being Garlemald, along with the 2nd visit to Thavnair. Labyrinthos was simply atrocious, the Moon was turned into a joke and failed to deliver on what Ascian/Zodiark fans were expecting, Elpis did enormous damage to the entire story, and Ultima Thule demanded too much suspension of disbelief when it was obvious it was just a series of fakeouts one after the other.

I can only wonder how far the social media and streamer crowd will be able to carry this game if the writing continues on its downward spiral. As a Final Fantasy fan I feel betrayed by the fact that the story can't seem to just take itself seriously these days. Or worse, when it does you have a sector of the playerbase that apparently is turned off by deeper and darker storylines but will gush nonstop over the slice of life and fanservice scenes. Humour that fits with the theme and game world is one thing, but eating McDonalds at the end of the world? Are you kidding me? (Note that gameplay is reduced further beyond mere QoL fixes in order to accommodate those players as well.)

This is the kind of stuff that made me fall in love with FFXIV:
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/EtA4rh6W8AMt3sN.jpg


This is the stuff that makes me want to uninstall FFXIV:
https://i.ytimg.com/vi/lsHjjSBdDHo/maxresdefault.jpg

I came here for the mix of medieval vs. magitek conflict. The redheaded catboy with schoolgirl hair did not sell me on this game, and if my first encounter with him was that grotesque CGI model of him in the Endwalker trailer I would have been turned off. It's like they took Lucy from the Chronicles of Narnia, mixed it with a cat, and then gave it the voice of an adult male. I do not dare imagine what terrors await us when the graphics update arrives and they continue to push the "realistic" G'raha Tia onto us. At that point it goes from running from a stalker to running from a horror movie monster.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tokinokanatae

I didn't. I think it's obvious that both G'raha Tia and Endwalker are genuinely popular with the overall playerbase--with a vocal minority that have a variety of issues with both-- and I don't see the point of denying that.

---

I cannot wait for someone as uncompromising and as no-nonsense as Asmongold to experience what was done to this character. I have a sneaking suspicion that he is intelligent enough to see through not only the messy writing revolving around G'raha Tia but also - gasps - Venat as well. What if all it takes is one streamer to actually speak out against the ridiculousness to unmask and give voice to other people who stay silent on this issue? Because you don't see me posting on twitter about this because I don't feel like getting dogpiled by their stans and being called every name in the book. On social media, it feels like either you like the plushies or you become a target. The fanbase for this game is already challenging enough to deal with, even someone who is used to being the target of their ire can get tired of it after a while.

In the end it's easy for me to focus and hone in onto this specific character because out of all of them he is guilty of the most problems attached to the current writing. The twins and Y'shtola are infuriating enough with their behavior, but at least they aren't so overtly written as the community hugs plushie. Any characters with grit are neutered one after the other or otherwise pushed to the side-remember when Gaius didn't even show up to Garlemald? (Ah but he was too busy dressing up as a chicken for Easter.) Another mind-boggling moment that I wasn't prepared to forgive until I saw how the zone actually turned out. Otherwise it would have been yet another disaster.

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/FQvhxo0XoAYfLfU.jpg

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Theodric

...anyway, here's some Jullus:

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/FJQv5kjV...g&name=900x900

Source: https://twitter.com/ebelcities/statu...63048633192452

To me he's the best thing that came out of Endwalker so I do hope we see more of him in 6.2 and beyond!

---

When the new story was mentioned I thought we would be getting a new crew and Jullus was my number 2 pick. Would love to see more of him.

G'raha, Garlemald, AND burgers.

Really wish I had made that bet. Or had a bingo card.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CrownySuccubus

Well, like I said;



To be as clear as possible:

1) Your criticism is based on how you felt about the character.

2) No one is deflecting your opinion, and you have the right to feel that way. Someone else, likewise, can feel the opposite.

3) But you ALSO said "many others feel the same way", which introduces numbers into the argument.

4) If numbers are part of the argument, then it becomes majority vs minority. Or tribalism.

4) If you think numbers are (in your own terms) a shitty argument, then it goes back to being your opinion. Which, I repeat, you are entitled to have....but thus becomes highly subjective.

---

Yes many others. There’s no inherent number there. Many players can still be the minority but again, that’s irrelevant. Either way though, it’s hypocritical to say to not bring up a minority vs majority argument but then to bring it up when it suits your argument is all i’m saying.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by KizuyaKatogami

Yes many others. There’s no inherent number there. Many players can still be the minority but again, that’s irrelevant. Either way though, it’s hypocritical to say to not bring up a minority vs majority argument but then to bring it up when it suits your argument is all i’m saying.

---

An inherent number is irrelevant, because the intention was to indicate that it was more than just you.

But I still I don't know who you mean, so I assume this is resolved?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Xirean

When the new story was mentioned I thought we would be getting a new crew and Jullus was my number 2 pick. Would love to see more of him.

---

Yeah. I'm hoping we get some manner of Garlemald reconstruction either on the Source or up on the moon. After that is resolved, he'd be a good candidate for someone to come up fight at our character's side. He already has the skill to do as much and unlike someone like Hien he isn't in a leadership role so him slipping away to find ways to help his homeland would work nicely as a justification for his presence.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Theodric

Yeah. I'm hoping we get some manner of Garlemald reconstruction either on the Source or up on the moon. After that is resolved, he'd be a good candidate for someone to come up fight at our character's side. He already has the skill to do as much and unlike someone like Hien he isn't in a leadership role so him slipping away to find ways to help his homeland would work nicely as a justification for his presence.

---

I wouldn't get your hopes up for reconstruction anywhere tbh. Every person that went to the moon did so in sidequests. Seems like an unlikely thing to come back up.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CrownySuccubus

An inherent number is irrelevant, because the intention was to indicate that it was more than just you.

But I still I don't know who you mean, so I assume this is resolved?

---

I…already said who it was. Again can’t get any more specific outright specifically naming names which i don’t like to do considering how bendable the tos is, but by saying regulars in this thread including myself idk how else to say it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Xirean

I wouldn't get your hopes up for reconstruction anywhere tbh. Every person that went to the moon did so in sidequests. Seems like an unlikely thing to come back up.

---

It wasn't explicitly confirmed but Yoshi-P did dangle the concept of the Garlean equivalent of Ishgard's reconstruction. Narratively it'd make sense - the Garleans were hit the hardest by the events leading up to and during Endwalker and if the Ilsabard Contingent truly intends to avert further conflict in the future then it wouldn't make much sense to just leave the scattered Garleans to their own devices.

If nothing else, I fully intend to propose it as a subject to discuss next time there's a thread for gathering questions about the game.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Theodric

It wasn't explicitly confirmed but Yoshi-P did dangle the concept of the Garlean equivalent of Ishgard's reconstruction. Narratively it'd make sense - the Garleans were hit the hardest by the events leading up to and during Endwalker and if the Ilsabard Contingent truly intends to avert further conflict in the future then it wouldn't make much sense to just leave the scattered Garleans to their own devices.

If nothing else, I fully intend to propose it as a subject to discuss next time there's a thread for gathering questions about the game.

---

That makes me think about future housing zones. Garlemald could be cool but it would rely a lot on architecture to differentiate it from Ishgard. Smileton I think would be a great housing zone.

As someone who has both crafters and gatherers levelled I am very much hoping for Garlemald to have at least its own chain of tribe quests if not a full-on reconstruction. Though there is the chance that they ship us off to Ala Mhigo for the next reconstruction and that instead of the crafter/gatherer tribes being Garlemald and the Loporrits that they send us to Elpis to be delivery familiars or something. Anything is possible these days now that sense and reason have been tossed into the wind.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Brinne

snip

---

I understand what you're saying, but I don't agree with it. When other users come into this thread and have strips torn off them for doing more or less the same thing to us regarding Venat/ the Ancients and so on, I'm not inclined to let it slide when we start using it against each other, regardless of the how or why behind it. We've less excuse than they do for resorting to such measures when too often we've been on the receiving end of it, and it's something we should be very aware of throwing around. Hostility or bad faith don't even come into it for me, it's just a matter of avoiding outright hypocrisy. If you felt the need to explain because you felt my post was a swipe at you, it wasn't; I saw your post and appreciate the acknowledgement. It was a general bewilderment towards a trend of thinking I've seen from multiple users I felt needed comment. That post I replied to in particular was especially odd to me, because there are many reasons to think that comparing Magnai and G'raha is like apples and oranges without falling on such out of place reasoning.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CrownySuccubus

Uh, no? The actual problem is that the argument relied on those famous Weasel Words "many people" [dislike G'raha Tia], which is irrelevant given the fan-favorite status of the character. The way it seems intended, as Brinne said above, is "lots of people agree with me, so I must be correct on some level."

Just going to quote what I said, since I don't think you're listening.

---

I don't think even you know what argument you're trying to make at this point.

Jullus is great. I'm hoping he at least shows up when we find out more about what the twins are doing--ideally with Maximus as they work to create a functioning government with the people that have chosen to remain in Garlemald. I love that sort of thing, and I'm hoping keeping the twins offscreen as long as they have is because they're planning to delve into it a little more than they traditionally have in HW and SB.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Xirean

That makes me think about future housing zones. Garlemald could be cool but it would rely a lot on architecture to differentiate it from Ishgard. Smileton I think would be a great housing zone.

---

Assuming they tap into the Russian and Roman aesthetics, it'd bring unique assets to the table. Especially if it's all mixed with magitek. They don't necessarily need to add a housing zone so much as Garlean housing 'skins' and various indoor and outdoor furniture to suit such a flavour.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lunaxia

I understand what you're saying, but I don't agree with it. When other users come into this thread and have strips torn off them for doing more or less the same thing to us regarding Venat/ the Ancients and so on, I'm not inclined to let it slide when we start using it against each other, regardless of the how or why behind it. We've less excuse than they do for resorting to such measures when too often we've been on the receiving end of it, and it's something we should be very aware of throwing around. Hostility or bad faith don't even come into it for me, it's just a matter of avoiding outright hypocrisy. If you felt the need to explain because you felt my post was a swipe at you, it wasn't; I saw your post and appreciate the acknowledgement. It was a general bewilderment towards a trend of thinking I've seen from multiple users I felt needed comment. That post I replied to in particular was especially odd to me, because there are many reasons to think that comparing Magnai and G'raha is like apples and oranges without falling on such out of place reasoning.



I don't think even you know what argument you're trying to make at this point.

---

Thank you this was essentially the only point i was trying to make this entire time. I just hate the double standard of it all.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tokinokanatae

Jullus is great. I'm hoping he at least shows up when we find out more about what the twins are doing--ideally with Maximus as they work to create a functioning government with the people that have chosen to remain in Garlemald. I love that sort of thing, and I'm hoping keeping the twins offscreen as long as they have is because they're planning to delve into it a little more than they traditionally have in HW and SB.

---

Sidequests in the zone revealed that the remaining royal family was destroyed by rampant machina and then the role quest went on to reveal that there were some members of the senate that survived. Garlemald will be neutered into being another cookie cutter democracy and the writers will then pivot away from it because if the role quest was any indication, they cannot wait to be done with Garlemald's involvement in the plot.

No Larsa to lead the empire into brighter days like back in FFXII's ending, just the same stale preaching. I for one remember how Gabranth entrusted Basch with protecting Larsa and taking up his alias as a judge - a tragic moment for the character seeing as it forever separated him from Asche and Dalmasca but it made the ending all the better.

https://i.pinimg.com/736x/48/9a/bb/4...antasy-art.jpg

Imagine if a character like Thancred was given a similar treatment and send-off, what better way could there be for him to exit the plot if not that? Say one of the royal family members did survive but their bodyguard perished, and in order to protect the world's political stability Thancred choose to stay behind in Garlemald to act as their guardian. Continuing his role as a protector and fatherlike figure, while still having the stealthy element of impersonating someone else. Alas this writing is likely too deep for the playerbase, who apparently can only accept "yay democracy!" as the tried and true solution for complex political dilemmas.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by aveyond-dreams

Sidequests in the zone revealed that the remaining royal family was destroyed by rampant machina and then the role quest went on to reveal that there were some members of the senate that survived. Garlemald will be neutered into being another cookie cutter democracy and the writers will then pivot away from it because if the role quest was any indication, they cannot wait to be done with Garlemald's involvement in the plot.

No Larsa to lead the empire into brighter days like back in FFXII's ending, just the same stale preaching.

---

It's a shame, too, since from what I've seen over the years many of the more passionate Garlean fans were consistently asking for just that - a Larsa type figure to step up much sooner. I don't know what they were thinking in hindsight, especially since they seem to have squandered much of the potential that the likes of Regula brought to the table.

It'd bother me less if the writers weren't treating certain in-game nations clearly inspired by real world counterparts with kid's gloves but then making outright caricatures out of others.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by aveyond-dreams

Sidequests in the zone revealed that the remaining royal family was destroyed by rampant machina and then the role quest went on to reveal that there were some members of the senate that survived. Garlemald will be neutered into being another cookie cutter democracy and the writers will then pivot away from it because if the role quest was any indication, they cannot wait to be done with Garlemald's involvement in the plot.

No Larsa to lead the empire into brighter days like back in FFXII's ending, just the same stale preaching.

---

I'll preface by saying I have a hearty dislike of monarchies, and that a nation's people can never truly be "free" while denied basic democractic process. That being said...

I think it's especially important that Garlemald's "royal" family are relieved of their duty. Established scarcely more than sixty years ago, from the first, they were only ever intended as puppeteers to mastermind the manipulation of Garlemald into causing chaos and strife on the world stage, and exploiting the Garlean's previous sense of vulnerability to their own ends. Though they've enjoyed propserity under rule, Garlemald has never been "free"; they went from one form of subjugation to another, even if they weren't fully aware of it (though some clearly were.) For them to truly start anew and break away from their past, I think it better that their fate be placed truly, squarely in their own hands for the first time than those of another ruler, no matter how benevolent. They deserve that much, at least.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by aveyond-dreams

if the role quest was any indication, they cannot wait to be done with Garlemald's involvement in the plot.

---

Endwalker really made me feel this way with Garlemald and Ascians both. Incidentally, both were my favorite aspects of the story, and neither were done justice now that it's all said and done. Garlemald was off-screened, and the Ascian plot transformed into the Emet-Selch plot – to hell with anyone that isn't Emet-Selch.

I feel like I missed commentary on the final role quest however, probably because I missed conversation by entirely forgetting it existed (look, it's not my fault, it didn't show up as blue on the map!). What were people's feelings on it? I appreciated finally getting some more Nero, his boot licking of Fourchenault was totally on point. On the other hand... poor Nerva, wow. The poster child for Garlemald being off-screened, isn't he? And the Moon? Frankly what I've seen of the Loporrits and Smileton does not inspire trust, at all. All I'm getting from this particular plot point is that it seriously brought down the chances for a Garlemald reconstruction...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lunaxia

I'll preface by saying I have a hearty dislike of monarchies, and that a nation's people can never truly be "free" while denied basic democractic process. That being said...

I think it's especially important that Garlemald's "royal" family are relieved of their duty. Established scarcely more than sixty years ago, from the first, they were only ever intended as puppeteers to mastermind the manipulation of Garlemald into causing chaos and strife on the world stage, and exploiting the Garlean's previous sense of vulnerability to their own ends. Though they've enjoyed propserity under rule, Garlemald has never been "free"; they went from one form of subjugation to another, even if they weren't fully aware of it (though some clearly were.) For them to truly start anew and break away from their past, I think it better that their fate be placed truly, squarely in their own hands for the first time than those of another ruler, no matter how benevolent. They deserve that much, at least.

---

That's great and all but we are talking about a fictional fantasy world, not real life. Even then under the so called "democracies" upward mobility and true freedom is impossible seeing as how the population of FFXIV's world is in a medieval state where literacy and access to higher education is extremely scarce. In any case, the Garlean monarchy still represented the best interests of Garlemald despite the underlying motives and under Solus they knew the most competent government they ever had, with the crowning achievement of previous regimes being the forced retreat all the way into a frozen wasteland.

A benevolent dictatorship (see: Larsa, Ashe, Garnet, etc) would be more beneficial for them and make for a more interesting world than the continued preaching of real world values into the game's world. Do you really think that the senate members just magically turned good after the fall of the empire? They probably still harbor nationalistic motives and other values you disagree with. Evil works best in packs, not as individuals. However, put the power in the hands of someone who leans more benevolent and things just might actually improve. However it's not like we'll see the senate members or the mythical Larsa anyway. Too hard to write, give new Taco Bell scene in 6.2 instead plz

I suspect many of those drawn to Garlemald, however, do not have an aversion to the concept of a monarchy. To say nothing of the simple fact that any other system of rule is beholden to its own set of problems - often with far less accountability than the system they are supposedly replacing. It's not like the class divide is removed - for all the talk of everyone being 'equal' it's Lyse eating the finest food and drink in Ala Mhigo's palace whereas the everyman sits in grim little villages working themselves half to death.

There's also the simple fact that many of us live in countries with a rich history that we would like to see positively portrayed in fantasy video games where such aesthetics blend with the genre rather readily.

I'm not hugely interested in modern day takes and ideals being copied and pasted into fiction. To me that makes for a very bland experience overall.

As an aside, it was but recently that the Queen's Jubilee was celebrated here in the UK. Some people joined in with the festivities, some didn't - but there's enough support for the monarchy that it isn't likely to go anywhere anytime soon.