Review of 6.3 Story Content

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kaurhz

I love how nigh-on most threads relating to the OP always seem to evolve into not being taken seriously, or just a general comedic skit, and yes I use the word evolve very intentionally

---

Oh yeah, this was an Avy-D thread!

Yeah well, there's only so much discussion you can squeeze out of anything when 99.9% of your dialogue consists of hate and dissatisfaction, you know?

He's like an NPC, programmed to only say something bad until the writers remember he exists and give him something else to say, like on an event or a holiday. Then he's back to his default script.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Renalt

You're triggering the OP showing that! He's sensitive to such things.

---

Trigger him Harder
Im Hungry!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Renalt

He sets a low bar. It's pretty much on the ground and we just step over it.

---

No bar is too low for Hermes to limbo!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Midareyukki

Yeah well, there's only so much discussion you can squeeze out of anything when 99.9% of your dialogue consists of hate and dissatisfaction, you know?

---

Oh, this is precisely why I referenced it as evolving. I used evolving quite seriously there, you know? - That being said, I don't mind the dissatisfaction, it's crucial to voice this. It's more the 'I know what's best for everyone, and if you say otherwise, you're just a shill'

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kaurhz

I love how nigh-on most threads relating to the OP always seem to evolve into not being taken seriously, or just a general comedic skit, and yes I use the word evolve very intentionally

---

Even though it was said, but yes, and what's the point of talking to someone who just hates the game for no reason. It's like discussing with people who think tying relic to Hildibrand quests is a bad idea, even when you tell them objective reasons why it's an not bad idea

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kaurhz

I love how nigh-on most threads relating to the OP always seem to evolve into not being taken seriously, or just a general comedic skit, and yes I use the word evolve very intentionally

---

Because most discussion in this game is tied to whether your personal self-image is attached to it. People are highly defensive of anything in this game, and not for any actual substance, but because it forms a core part of who they are as individuals. And so, if OP has a point to make about the game, the only thing we can do is attack OP. Because it's not really about the game anymore. Why do you think the FFXIV has such an explosive amount of drama nearly everywhere? Modders, RP and the club scene, streamers, etc. The game is just an empty vessel because there's not really much else there once you finish the story.

Maybe someday our drama can evolve to be a bit more tasteful and substantive?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by caffe_macchiato

Maybe someday our drama can evolve to be a bit more tasteful and substantive?

---

Is the good point. Game not have any content after story for the player who get the hardstuck on the extreme difficult. Where is the moderate difficult. Tasteful drama it is better than tasteless drama. Is why tread it talk about the delicious food only.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Graeham

Is the good point. Game not have any content after story for the player who get the hardstuck on the extreme difficult. Where is the moderate difficult. Tasteful drama it is better than tasteless drama. Is why tread it talk about the delicious food only.

---

This man gets it. OP is Tasteless, but Food is Delicious.
We should talk about more Food. Not about Shadowgods and tasteless Drama

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by caffe_macchiato

Because most discussion in this game is tied to whether your personal self-image is attached to it. People are highly defensive of anything in this game, and not for any actual substance, but because it forms a core part of who they are as individuals. And so, if OP has a point to make about the game, the only thing we can do is attack OP. Because it's not really about the game anymore. Why do you think the FFXIV has such an explosive amount of drama nearly everywhere? Modders, RP and the club scene, streamers, etc. The game is just an empty vessel because there's not really much else there once you finish the story.

Maybe someday our drama can evolve to be a bit more tasteful and substantive?

---

By all means, you're more than welcome to have your own opinion of the game. That being said, there are just as many who view disagreement with their own opinion as being an attack on themselves, and this does extend to those who are criticizing the game - If they weren't then conversations would not derail to this extent. I would daresay a short visit to the OPs post history would reveal something that aligns pretty well with this statement considering he has routinely attempted to undermine or invalidate opinions based on largely irrelevant information e.g., the platform used to express a said opinion, and even going as far to attempt to invalidate based on whether they are a streamer or previous game history.

In case the implication of that paragraph is lost - This thread is reaping only what it ended up sowing. To say the OP has merely shared points about the game and their own opinion I would say is largely untrue. People are just giving him the same courtesy that they have extended to others - That is to say not treating the opinion seriously.

I am inclined to agree that mayhap the drama and disagreements can evolve into something a little more tasteful but this is not a 1-way street.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by caffe_macchiato

Because most discussion in this game is tied to whether your personal self-image is attached to it. People are highly defensive of anything in this game, and not for any actual substance, but because it forms a core part of who they are as individuals. And so, if OP has a point to make about the game, the only thing we can do is attack OP.

---

There was a time (mostly around Stormblood and partly Shadowbringers) were I was hugely negative too. Even so much that I was near quitting the game. I posted a lot and not once did I get any kind of personal hate thrown in my way. Disagreement sure but never hate. Could of course be, because I do try to remain civil even when I am really annoyed at something and because I tried to not make this into a "I am right and everyone else who disagrees with me is wrong".

Its not disliking something in the game and stating it that gets under peoples skin. Its having a certain attitude about it.

Honestly the most insults I ever got on my long years here on the forum where from those that hated something. You are bascially a sheep and tempered if you like the good guys and the story.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kaurhz

I love how nigh-on most threads relating to the OP always seem to evolve into not being taken seriously, or just a general comedic skit, and yes I use the word evolve very intentionally

---

You reap what you sow, treat others how you'd want to be treated, etc...

I don't see anything in this expansion living up to expectations even going into the rest of the patch content. This is an expansion that seems designed to 'lower the bar'. It might be a smart business move in many ways. Writing good and consistent characters and story arcs is hard. It takes time and rewrites that do not match well with mmo release time lines. So instead they drop the ball. They let things get lost, retcon others and in general just lower the overall quality.
People accept this. Make excuses for it. And convince themselves it is somehow better for it.
Now the company can keep putting out the lower quality, easier to make product and everyone just sees it as normal vs a drop in quality.
Shadowbringers brought people in. (Actually WoW collapsing brought them in but lets pretend it stood on its own merit). People talked shit about other games compared to this one. They CANNOT admit they were wrong. So whatever this game does going forward will always be better and awesome because to say otherwise is to admit to being wrong.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by caffe_macchiato

The game is just an empty vessel because there's not really much else there once you finish the story.

---

Way too accurate. If the game had better/longer lasting repeatable content people probably wouldn't be hyper-analyzing an MMO story. This expansion has that WoD stink all over it in how raid-or-die it feels but people really aren't ready to deal with that lol.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Necrotica

I don't see anything in this expansion living up to expectations even going into the rest of the patch content. This is an expansion that seems designed to 'lower the bar'. It might be a smart business move in many ways. Writing good and consistent characters and story arcs is hard. It takes time and rewrites that do not match well with mmo release time lines. So instead they drop the ball. They let things get lost, retcon others and in general just lower the overall quality.
People accept this. Make excuses for it. And convince themselves it is somehow better for it.
Now the company can keep putting out the lower quality, easier to make product and everyone just sees it as normal vs a drop in quality.
Shadowbringers brought people in. (Actually WoW collapsing brought them in but lets pretend it stood on its own merit). People talked shit about other games compared to this one. They CANNOT admit they were wrong. So whatever this game does going forward will always be better and awesome because to say otherwise is to admit to being wrong.

---

A bit overgeneralizing of a statement, isnt it?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Saraide

A bit overgeneralizing of a statement, isnt it?

---

Says the people who overgeneralize Endwalker

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Atelier-Bagur

Says the people who overgeneralize Endwalker

---

What do you mean?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Saraide

What do you mean?

---

Overgeneralize the negative aspects of its story. Prior expansions also suffered the same criticisms and bad pacing, ShB included but apparently its "cool to hate" EW.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Atelier-Bagur

Overgeneralize the negative aspects of its story. Prior expansions also suffered the same criticisms and bad pacing, ShB included but apparently its "cool to hate" EW.

---

Where did I overgeneralize the negative aspects of endwalker?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Saraide

Where did I overgeneralize the negative aspects of endwalker?

---

Not you specifically, other people.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Atelier-Bagur

Not you specifically, other people.

---

Then why say I am one of the people overgeneralizing endwalker?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Atelier-Bagur

Not you specifically, other people.

---

Can you give specific examples? I thought the general outlook was that it was positively received, with negative takes on it being pretty sparse. I've seen a lot more disdain thrown at Endwalker, and it wasn't without reason. Usually people point to the exact same topics:

- Hydaelyn's motivation and actions not being satisfactory, with some people feeling it justifies genocide
- Zodiark being curbed early on in the story as the first trial with little build-up, as well as those who criticise it saying that it doesn't do justice to the years of build-up as the end-goal antagonist of the first arc
- Fandaniel being irritating and poorly executed, with him being unsatisfying as a villain. Especially after him usurping Zodiark
- Meteion being an arse-pull with an anvillicious arc whose message ranges from falsely hopeful to insultingly dismissive of people's struggles

I think the only consistent complaint back in SHB that I can remember was Ran'jit's character being poorly executed. Everything else ranged from hype to "not the best execution, but it's passable" like the 2nd arc of Amh Araeng.

While I see aspects of the patches being a little underwhelming to what we have before. What I do see is a lot of groundwork for a wider issue, they have gone in since 5.2/3 to now... reworked ARR quests, added trusts to most story related dungeons, reworked trials into solo duties to provide better flow. Reworked how some of the collectible systems work in crafter/gatherers. Reworked spear fishing, adding more diving zones to ARR, introduced new casual content, reworked the PVP system, adding in lots of QoL to the UI with likey more on the way. That is without the visual overhaul in 7.0, I think they have decided to focus on a lot of core systems and new player experience to mark 7.0 as essentially ARR once more in a way. Not maybe on the same sort of scale but I think they are clearly intending spending time reworking core stuff for their next '10 year goal'

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Midareyukki

Can you give specific examples? I thought the general outlook was that it was positively received, with negative takes on it being pretty sparse. I've seen a lot more disdain thrown at Endwalker, and it wasn't without reason. Usually people point to the exact same topics:

- Hydaelyn's motivation and actions not being satisfactory, with some people feeling it justifies genocide
- Zodiark being curbed early on in the story as the first trial with little build-up, as well as those who criticise it saying that it doesn't do justice to the years of build-up as the end-goal antagonist of the first arc
- Fandaniel being irritating and poorly executed, with him being unsatisfying as a villain. Especially after him usurping Zodiark
- Meteion being an arse-pull with an anvillicious arc whose message ranges from falsely hopeful to insultingly dismissive of people's struggles

I think the only consistent complaint back in SHB that I can remember was Ran'jit's character being poorly executed. Everything else ranged from hype to "not the best execution, but it's passable" like the 2nd arc of Amh Araeng.

---

Not only the 2nd Ahm Araeng arc with the Talos but also the 2nd Kholusia arc which also had terrible pacing with yet again more Talos stuff.

Then theres also the Raktika part with the Viis and Yshtooa yet again with another fake death, the stuff with Ill Mheg was also pretty annoying. I legit think people oversell ShB and really only remember and like the last bit with Amarout and Emet-Selch because it was such a big twist that it overshadows (lol) everything the msq in ShB was going for.

If were going to be overly critical of EW then yeah its time to be overly critical of ShB and talk about how almost pointless 90 percent of its story was with the concept of Light Wardens just a reskin of the early ARR beats with Scions and the primals.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Saraide

Then why say I am one of the people overgeneralizing endwalker?

---

Werent you also one of the people in the other story thread whom supported aveyond's takes and what not?

Oh whatever, I did make a mistake by not fully reading what you posted here so my bad.

On the topic of ShB story and pacing, I am going to go ahead and say a lot of it was due to it being a fairly contained story. Further, I will also say that the post-story of Shadowbringers had some very severe pacing issues, and I do mean really severe.

Many of these pacing issues which I would argue ended up cascading into Endwalker.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Atelier-Bagur

Not only the 2nd Ahm Araeng arc with the Talos but also the 2nd Kholusia arc which also had terrible pacing with yet again more Talos stuff.

Then theres also the Raktika part with the Viis and Yshtooa yet again with another fake death, the stuff with Ill Mheg was also pretty annoying. I legit think people oversell ShB and really only remember and like the last bit with Amarout and Emet-Selch because it was such a big twist that it overshadows (lol) everything the msq in ShB was going for.

If were going to be overly critical of EW then yeah its time to be overly critical of ShB and talk about how almost pointless 90 percent of its story was with the concept of Light Wardens just a reskin of the early ARR beats with Scions and the primals.

---

People do talk about the pacing of EW but this isn't anywhere close to be a major complaint. (ever heard of Venat and Hermes?) I wouldn't be surprised if, out of the 700+ pages of the lackluster thread, only 20 or less were dedicated to that. More people were annoyed by the fake out deaths, which is indeed a criticism shared with ShB, but the Ultima Thule arc goes above and beyond just Y'shtola dying for 5 minutes, with the entire sequence dedicated to the Scions making long, empty farewell speeches to no one in particular since even they know they're going to come back.
And I would even argue the pacing issues are way more egregious in both cases, so the argument that "ShB did it first" doesn't stand.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kazhar

People do talk about the pacing of EW but this isn't anywhere close to be a major complaint. (ever heard of Venat and Hermes?) I wouldn't be surprised if, out of the 700+ pages of the lackluster thread, only 20 or less were dedicated to that. More people were annoyed by the fake out deaths, which is indeed a criticism shared with ShB, but the Ultima Thule arc goes above and beyond just Y'shtola dying for 5 minutes, with the entire sequence dedicated to the Scions making long, empty farewell speeches to no one in particular since even they know they're going to come back.
And I would even argue the pacing issues are way more egregious in both cases, so the argument that "ShB did it first" doesn't stand.

---

Yet people still use ShB for being better even though it did the exact same thing as EW but somehow people are pretending that Shb was perfect? What?

Also the people being overly cynical over Venat and Hermes? How about how manipulative Crystal Exarch and Emet-Selch were over the WoL and the Scions, especially with how they just thrusted the dangerous responsibility of the WoL to consume the light even though it was brought up multiple times that this might be bad but people brushed it off till the last minute were it became an issue. The characters actively ignored this but suddenly it made it all ok because Ardbert came at the last second to save us? Where were the cynics arguing over how scummy and contrived this plot point was?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Atelier-Bagur

Not only the 2nd Ahm Araeng arc with the Talos but also the 2nd Kholusia arc which also had terrible pacing with yet again more Talos stuff.

Then theres also the Raktika part with the Viis and Yshtooa yet again with another fake death, the stuff with Ill Mheg was also pretty annoying. I legit think people oversell ShB and really only remember and like the last bit with Amarout and Emet-Selch because it was such a big twist that it overshadows (lol) everything the msq in ShB was going for.

If were going to be overly critical of EW then yeah its time to be overly critical of ShB and talk about how almost pointless 90 percent of its story was with the concept of Light Wardens just a reskin of the early ARR beats with Scions and the primals.

---

I personally haven't seen the amount of vitriol thrown at EW be thrown at those scenes in SHB. That's the thing o: Like, sure, I do remember people say that the bit with the Talos was annoying, Magnus was really off-putting, Y'shtola's tenth fake-out death being just more of the same... But none of that carried the same amount of disdain Endwalker is receiving.

I think that's the difference and why you're seeing such a double standard.

Because it's as I said. SHB's scenes ranged from good to mediocre with weird execution. And those scenes were quite minor.

Contrast that to the major players in Endwalker: Fandaniel, Zodiark, Hydaelyn and Meteion.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Atelier-Bagur

Where were the cynics arguing over how scummy and contrived this plot point was?

---

Probably in Bozja playing content! oooooooh 8)8)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Atelier-Bagur

Yet people still use ShB for being better even though it did the exact same thing as EW but somehow people are pretending that Shb was perfect? What?

---

Not even prime forum scapegoat aveyond ever said ShB was perfect.
I can't talk about what other people feel, but when I say ShB was better, I talk about aspects which I care about. It had a much stronger antagonist, I liked the central theme much better, the main cast (despite being the exact same) was more compelling and the climax was absolutely great. Also, none of the things I truly hated about EW were present at the time so it's a definitive plus.
Was it a flawed expansion? Absolutely, but I don't think there's anything contradictory with liking one but hating the other.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Atelier-Bagur

Also the people being overly cynical over Venat and Hermes? How about how manipulative Crystal Exarch and Emet-Selch were over the WoL and the Scions

---

Crystal Exarch being a bit manipulative isn't anywhere close to the scale of what Venat and Hermes did. And the whole time he wanted to sacrifice himself anyway, he never had any intention of harming the WoL. You could argue the scale is similar with Emet-Selch but the main difference is that the story never pretends he's not the villain. (Alphinaud celebrates his death with his happiest face, did the same happen with Venat?)
Many of those who are the most critical of the story said they would have been fine with Venat's portrayal if she wasn't framed as an all-loving hero. There's nothing contradictory with the same people being fans of Emet-Selch.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kazhar

Not even prime forum scapegoat aveyond ever said ShB was perfect.
I can't talk about what other people feel, but when I say ShB was better, I talk about aspects which I care about. It had a much stronger antagonist, I liked the central theme much better, the main cast (despite being the exact same) was more compelling and the climax was absolutely great. Also, none of the things I truly hated about EW were present at the time so it's a definitive plus.
Was it a flawed expansion? Absolutely, but I don't think there's anything contradictory with liking one but hating the other.



Crystal Exarch being a bit manipulative isn't anywhere close to the scale of what Venat and Hermes did. And the whole time he wanted to sacrifice himself anyway, he never had any intention of harming the WoL. You could argue the scale is similar with Emet-Selch but the main difference is that the story never pretends he's not the villain. (Alphinaud celebrates his death with his happiest face, did the same happen with Venat?)
Many of those who are the most critical of the story said they would have been fine with Venat's portrayal if she wasn't framed as an all-loving hero. There's nothing contradictory with the same people being fans of Emet-Selch.

---

How can you actually say all of this when Crystal Exarch is painted the exact same way. He was always vague, heck he owns one an entire city where everyone reveres him! Hes just as manipulative as Venat if we're going with that angle, even if he did it all for the greater good. Admit it, its just baseless cherry picking, in fact I think its even worse because your character was actively put in danger for it.

The same reasons you gave for why he did it for self-sacrificial were just the same with Venat with her spending all her aether for the chance of giving the world and its heroes the hope they need to confront Meteion. She died for it.

The only reason people excuse Crystal Exarch is just because he turned out to be Graha Tia, who eventually reverted back to his old goofy self and absolving of his previous character as the Exarch.

What sucks is that all these points that am Im making are all fine for me, I dont ultimately care because the way it was presented and the emotions worked for what they wanted to tell. But im forced to stoop into the same bs overly critical cynicism that aveyond and others give flack to EW because I feel like Im the only one who sees how this is just more of the same with how they handle characters and story beats just with different context. Yet people are acting like what EW did was too different or worse even though these characterizations ARE THE EXACT SAME AS HOW THEY WERE HANDLED IN PREVIOUS EXPANSIONS LIKE WHAT THE ACTUAL F?

I don't know really. As I see it, you're really just taking aspects about both expansions which seem very superficial to me and try to argue they're the exact same because of that and I don't think even the most passionate story defenders would agree with that take.
And even if you were right, the idea that similar stories begets similar reception is so strange, and I don't think it applies anywhere in any medium.
Execution is everything, and details could make a huge difference (you wouldn't hear me complain about Venat this much if only minor changes were made to the overall arc of FFXIV.)

EDIT: For exemple, Metal Gear Solid 1 and Metal Gear Solid 2 have such a similar structure and characters it's even a major plot point of the second game, yet people's opinion on both games' stories and what many consider their main strengths and weaknesses couldn't be more different.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Atelier-Bagur

The only reason people excuse Crystal Exarch is just because he turned out to be Graha Tia, who eventually reverted back to his old goofy self and absolving of his previous character as the Exarch.

What sucks is that all these points that am Im making are all fine for me, I dont ultimately care because the way it was presented and the emotions worked for what they wanted to tell. But im forced to stoop into the same bs overly critical cynicism that aveyond and others give flack to EW because I feel like Im the only one who sees how this is just more of the same with how they handle characters and story beats just with different context. Yet people are acting like what EW did was too different or worse even though these characterizations ARE THE EXACT SAME AS HOW THEY WERE HANDLED IN PREVIOUS EXPANSIONS LIKE WHAT THE ACTUAL F?

---

I just feel like the problems brought up in Shadowbringers were not major components of the story. Stuff that impacted the enjoyment at a macro-scale. Things that put everything else done so far in a different light. The issues people bring up with Endwalker, on the other hand, are major components that do impact the story so far. It gives you a different outlook on Hydaelyn and the Ascians. It recontextualizes a lot of things that happened because of the message Endwalker pushed. The Elpis episode recontextualizes all you've been given until then about the Ancients. And while Shadowbringers built Vauthry to be the end-goal, with Emet Selch as a potential sequel antagonist, it delivered, since Innocence happens way late into the game, and the only thing left after that is Amaurot. Fandaniel barely had any chance to explain his character past "deranged Asahi" before usurping the one boss that everyone wanted to see since A Realm Reborn.

I at least act like they're different and worse specifically because of how they impacted me as a player who was paying attention to the story overall. Even if I found Y'shtola's death irritating in SHB, she was just more of the same and I ignored it after it happened. Even if Ran'jit was bland, I ignored him and focused on the characters that weren't. Fandaniel becoming Zodiark came so out of left field I kept thinking about it even after it happened. Way later. And not only did it make me feel it didn't live up to the hype, I started comparing the rest of Endwalker to a possible "what if" based on whether Zodiark was alive or not.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Atelier-Bagur

Werent you also one of the people in the other story thread whom supported aveyond's takes and what not?

Oh whatever, I did make a mistake by not fully reading what you posted here so my bad.

---

Yea you got the wrong guy, I like the endwalker story a lot.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Necrotica

Shadowbringers brought people in. (Actually WoW collapsing brought them in but lets pretend it stood on its own merit). People talked shit about other games compared to this one. They CANNOT admit they were wrong. So whatever this game does going forward will always be better and awesome because to say otherwise is to admit to being wrong.

---

Necrot make the good point. FF game it is popular because of the WoW. Now that WoW player is the majority in FF must make FF like the WoW. Game is scare to do because Yoshi island would admit that the WoW is better.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Atelier-Bagur

The only reason people excuse Crystal Exarch is just because he turned out to be Graha Tia, who eventually reverted back to his old goofy self and absolving of his previous character as the Exarch.

---

No. Can not excuse the Grahad. There is tread about this made by guild. Chara in game it not follow traditional masculine type. Grahad it is the big offender. He eating the delcious cheesie burger but he skip the leg day so is push off by God Meteo. Was greatest disappoint of decade.

To fix must make the new training story like famous movie Rocky Ivy. Grahad he become the boxer and go to cold north of Garlemalding. He pull the sled and do the sit up and cut the log. Sudden he go from the puny Myquote to the musclecat HothGAR to chorus of Rye or the Kaiser.

I actually agree with Atelier-Bagur

Now, I LOVE Shadowbringers. Its my Favorite Expansion of the game so far, I Will (-Insert over the top explicit dialogue-) ck.
But no, just like Endwalker, the game has its dry moments and bad pacing. The downtime in ShB gets pretty bad like EW. While I could stomach and even enjoy parts of the Talos quest-chain, it felt like pure padding, same with the Forest & the Fey in some cases.
Crystal Exarch /G'raha's Hero Worship is just as bad as Venat's. I love both characters, but I recognize that G'raha really only gets a pass here, because he's a returning callback to ARR, and lets be honest, it was a hype AF reveal! So it just hits better naturally then Vanats whole arc and reveal, even if we've known about her longer, we had more time and character with G'raha.

Endwalker is full of flaws, but really was a great time.
Shadowbringers was an AMAZING TIME, but its not void of Criticism and isnt the perfect child. One more example is Ranjit. Unless he makes a return...his character amounted to nothing besides a steppingstone for Thancred and Ryne. And one lil Instanced Bossfight. Zenos had more Character and was a legit threat even in Stormblood then this guy in Shadowbringers.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Graeham

Game is scare to do because Yoshi island would admit that the WoW is better.

---

Both games are good in their own way, both games are flawed in many ways.
Dont be one of 'Those' people who act like you cant enjoy both

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Midareyukki

I just feel like the problems brought up in Shadowbringers were not major components of the story. Stuff that impacted the enjoyment at a macro-scale. Things that put everything else done so far in a different light. The issues people bring up with Endwalker, on the other hand, are major components that do impact the story so far. It gives you a different outlook on Hydaelyn and the Ascians. It recontextualizes a lot of things that happened because of the message Endwalker pushed. The Elpis episode recontextualizes all you've been given until then about the Ancients. And while Shadowbringers built Vauthry to be the end-goal, with Emet Selch as a potential sequel antagonist, it delivered, since Innocence happens way late into the game, and the only thing left after that is Amaurot. Fandaniel barely had any chance to explain his character past "deranged Asahi" before usurping the one boss that everyone wanted to see since A Realm Reborn.

I at least act like they're different and worse specifically because of how they impacted me as a player who was paying attention to the story overall. Even if I found Y'shtola's death irritating in SHB, she was just more of the same and I ignored it after it happened. Even if Ran'jit was bland, I ignored him and focused on the characters that weren't. Fandaniel becoming Zodiark came so out of left field I kept thinking about it even after it happened. Way later. And not only did it make me feel it didn't live up to the hype, I started comparing the rest of Endwalker to a possible "what if" based on whether Zodiark was alive or not.

---

Theyre not major or because you wanted to just ignore the pink elephant in the storyboard just because what you were seeing in front of you was super cool?

I mean hey, im in that same field too. Like I said before, Im fine with criticizing the story but it feels like those whom criticizing EW are actively ignoring what came before and then act as if "Shb or HW did it better". No it didnt, its why I keep asking where we the Shb criticizers for all the bs the msq pulled, they only cared more about the good it actually did and thats fine with me.


But guess what, so is EW. Theres a lot of the same bs plot contriviences it pulled but I didnt care because what good it brought into the story to me was ultimately just as good as any of the other moments in previous expansion stories.

Sometimes, I ultimately feel like Im screaming in a dark echo chamber.

Haven't had another thread devoured by the EW debate in a while.