What is with the constant mistreatment of the Garlean story?(6.1 Patch spoilers)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lauront

Only if you're trying to use it as an explicit attempt to display good character, while not holding to the principle yourself. If you think "virtue signalling" means any and all words imbued with a moral judgement in them, such as murder etc., that is simply a misuse of the term.

---

Since we aren't talking about a real life event, nor something that can be replicated in real life, words like "murder" and "genocide" are invented by the players in order to create a moral rejection of an aspect of the story. The story itself never uses those words. The moral judgment (whether or not it's correct) is one completely fabricated by people of the audience.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CrownySuccubus

Nope. It was you.

---

There's no link between what you're saying and what I said in the post in question. I was hardly taking offense, I simply identified something present in my own history and culture that I would enjoy seeing more of in a genre ordinarily more eager to make use of such tropes.

I'll leave it up to others to go and read the full context behind the exchange if they are inclined to do so. Whatever beef you have with me doesn't need to involve dragging multiple threads off topic, in my view.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CrownySuccubus

Since we aren't talking about a real life event, nor something that can be replicated in real life, words like "murder" and "genocide" are invented by the players in order to create a moral rejection of an aspect of the story. The story itself never uses those words. The moral judgment (whether or not it's correct) is one completely fabricated by people of the audience.

---

If someone deliberately wipes out an entire race and culture, including from memory...then it is an act of genocide. The game doesn't need to explicitly use the term for it to be as such.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CrownySuccubus

Nope. It was you.



Also, not sure what CRT has to do with this, but please use all the buzzwords, I guess.

---

Why is it every single time you enter a thread it seems like that thread goes off the rails? I’ve seen like 3 today where it’s happened. If you have an issue with someone take it to dm’s or something. I’m just trying to have a discussion about a faction that has gotten nothing but bad writing and rushed writing attached to it. I’m not here to argue whether said nation was a dictatorship, who or what engaged in genocide or whatever. If people want to argue that by all means, make your own thread about it more power to you guys. I’d love to just have a discussion where people aren’t engaging in consistent passive aggressive back and forths thank you.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Theodric

There's no link between what you're saying and what I said in the post in question. I was hardly taking offense, I simply identified something present in my own history and culture that I would enjoy seeing more of in a genre ordinarily more eager to make use of such tropes.

I'll leave it up to others to go and read the full context behind the exchange if they are inclined to do so.

---

You didn't like the fact that I called a fictional nation a "dictatorship", implying that I only did so because it was a monarchy. Thus, you took offense to me using that term due to the negative associations between it and monarchies. I then explained to you that I called it a "dictatorship" because, by strict definition of the term, that's what it is: a country ruled by one or few with executive control.

I saved them the trouble, and it still illustrates my point.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Theodric

Whatever beef you have with me doesn't need to involve dragging multiple threads off topic, in my view.

---

I don't have any beef with you. As I've said before, if someone replies to me, I'll reply to them.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by KizuyaKatogami

Why is it every single time you enter a thread it seems like that thread goes off the rails? I’ve seen like 3 today where it’s happened. If you have an issue with someone take it to dm’s or something. I’m just trying to have a discussion about a faction that has gotten nothing but bad writing and rushed writing attached to it. I’m not here to argue whether said nation was a dictatorship, who or what engaged in genocide or whatever. If people want to argue that by all means, make your own thread about it more power to you guys. I’d love to just have a discussion where people aren’t engaging in consistent passive aggressive back and forths thank you.

---

Then stop replying with petty nonsense like this.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Theodric

If someone deliberately wipes out an entire race and culture, including from memory...then it is an act of genocide. The game doesn't need to explicitly use the term for it to be as such.

---

By the exact same token, if someone creates an "anatomically correct" doll and you are left to speculate what was done with said anatomically correct doll, then the game doesn't explicitly need to tell you that they are using their dead girlfriend's likeness as a fleshlight and passing it to their friend.

It was tied up quickly because--as has been implied by Yoshi-P and other staff--the Garlean-related stories were unpopular. Period.

Stormblood, the most Garlean of the expansions, is considered one of the weakest. The story of Bozja has been singled out as being specifically unpopular. To a lot of people, when you say the word "Garlemald", they think of war with unsympathetic antagonists in ugly war zones with an unpopular aesthetic. That Garleans have their fans is undoubtedly true, which is why, as a salve, we are being given more Garlean items for housing and glam, but the reason the story is trying to quickly put all narrative threads with them to rest is because the story is trying to jettison an unpopular element.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tokinokanatae

It was tied up quickly because--as has been implied by Yoshi-P and other staff--the Garlean-related stories were unpopular. Period.

Stormblood, the most Garlean of the expansions, is considered one of the weakest. The story of Bozja has been singled out as being specifically unpopular. To a lot of people, when you say the word "Garlemald", they think of war with unsympathetic antagonists in ugly war zones with an unpopular aesthetic. That Garleans have their fans is undoubtedly true, which is why, as a salve, we are being given more Garlean items for housing and glam, but the reason the story is trying to quickly put all narrative threads with them to rest is because the story is trying to jettison an unpopular element.

---

But for a game that prides itself on its coherent writing, it doesn’t seem okay to just…write off an entire plot of an entire nation simply because it’s unpopular. If it’s unpopular perhaps it’s due to the poor writing? Perhaps they should specifically work on it to make it a more popular thing. A lot of stormbloods problems don’t even really stem, afaik, from any garlean themed things, but moreso the split expansion feeling.

I wouldnt necessarily put it like that. I mean I can buy that the Garleans and political stories are just unpopular subjects with the community; although if that was the case why the flipping heck was Heavensward so popular!? oh thats right...because theres dragons involved. And if you wanna please the everyday fantasy nerd crowd, gotta bring in dragons.

But they do at least attempt to give everyone SOME depth. Its just not as much as we wanted. But there is some neat little stories here and there for those who crave for it, aka do the minor quests in the zones. They do a much better job in fleshing out the lore than the main story in of itself in a lot of ways.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Atelier-Bagur

uh...did you just ignored how almost every npc in Garlemald hated your guts BECAUSE you were the WoL?

---

They didn't hate the WoL specifically. The only character who even recognizes the WoL is Quintus. The Garleans disliked the expedition as a whole because they had believed that the Eorzean and Eastern Alliances were responsible for the destruction of the city, and that they were here to oppress the citizens. It would have been very interesting if there was truth to the matter, with the alliances actually invading the empire as Merlwyb had planned to do towards the end of Stormblood and what had happened in the original timeline (which resulted in Garlemald using the gas in a last ditch effort to fend off the invaders).

I wouldn't suggest that Garlemald was unpopular. It just so happens that quite a few committed FFXIV players have spent a lot of time actively stalking and harassing anyone who dared to like the 'wrong' characters. Stormblood was also controversial due to Ala Mhigo being seen as rather bland and undeserving of three (technically four) entire zones instead of allowing Othard more room to breathe.

It's not like the writers couldn't have mixed things up more and had us get a glimpse at some of the more stable Garlean provinces, or have someone similar to Regula van Hydrus enter the story.

Or someone similar to Rufus Shinra or the Turks show up. The company can't be unaware that the antagonists alone attract a lot of interest in their games, surely?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CrownySuccubus

Since we aren't talking about a real life event, nor something that can be replicated in real life, words like "murder" and "genocide" are invented by the players in order to create a moral rejection of an aspect of the story. The story itself never uses those words. The moral judgment (whether or not it's correct) is one completely fabricated by people of the audience.

---

With all due respect, the players aren't "inventing" anything. They are using readily available terminology to interpret what is happening. Now you can argue whether a murder is justified, and that is obviously a moral judgement (and depending on how you go about it, could be an instance of virtue signalling), but in and of itself, one does not need the story or the writers to use the word to arrive at the conclusion that that's how the action is to be described, i.e. the intention behind and consequences of the action, which is how these terms are defined. Just because it's a fictional scenario doesn't mean you can't apply the terms in that descriptive way...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tokinokanatae

It was tied up quickly because--as has been implied by Yoshi-P and other staff--the Garlean-related stories were unpopular. Period.

Stormblood, the most Garlean of the expansions, is considered one of the weakest. The story of Bozja has been singled out as being specifically unpopular.

---

I want to know where Yoshida is getting the idea that the Garlemald war storyline was "unpopular". Is it truly? Or is this another one of Yoshida's biases dictating the direction of the game?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MoofiaBossVal

I want to know where Yoshida is getting the idea that the Garlemald war storyline was "unpopular". Is it truly? Or is this another one of Yoshida's biases dictating the direction of the game?

---

This is what i’m questioning as well. Looking at the way Hydaelyn was handled and what the codex says about her, and his previous comments about him being a big fan of her, along with just many other things that seems to show his bias has SOME effect on the story, i wouldn’t be surprised if it’s just not *his* cup of tea.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lauront

With all due respect, the players aren't "inventing" anything. They are using readily available terminology to interpret what is happening. Now you can argue whether a murder is justified, and that is obviously a moral judgement (and depending on how you go about it, could be an instance of virtue signalling), but in and of itself, one does not need the story or the writers to use the word to arrive at the conclusion that that's how the action is to be described, i.e. the intention behind and consequences of the action, which is how these terms are defined. Just because it's a fictional scenario doesn't mean you can't apply the terms in that descriptive way...

---

Sure. Which is why I said to Theodric.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CrownySuccubus

By the exact same token, if someone creates an "anatomically correct" doll and you are left to speculate what was done with said anatomically correct doll, then the game doesn't explicitly need to tell you that they are using their dead girlfriend's likeness as a fleshlight and passing it to their friend.

---

It is silly to refer to one of these criticisms (both of which affect how players view a character) as "virtue signalling" and not the other.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MoofiaBossVal

They didn't hate the WoL specifically. The only character who even recognizes the WoL is Quintus. The Garleans disliked the expedition as a whole because they had believed that the Eorzean and Eastern Alliances were responsible for the destruction of the city, and that they were here to oppress the citizens. It would have been very interesting if there was truth to the matter, with the alliances actually invading the empire as Merlwyb had planned to do towards the end of Stormblood and what had happened in the original timeline (which resulted in Garlemald using the gas in a last ditch effort to fend off the invaders).

---

They totally did though, did you not talk to the npcs at Tertium? Almost every person there had some beef with you because you were the WoL. There was even an NPC who stated their hatred towards you because one of their relatives was at Praetorium or something and they died during our raid. The minor quests also showcased some of the Garleans distaste for you as well.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lauront

With all due respect, the players aren't "inventing" anything. They are using readily available terminology to interpret what is happening. Now you can argue whether a murder is justified, and that is obviously a moral judgement (and depending on how you go about it, could be an instance of virtue signalling), but in and of itself, one does not need the story or the writers to use the word to arrive at the conclusion that that's how the action is to be described, i.e. the intention behind and consequences of the action, which is how these terms are defined. Just because it's a fictional scenario doesn't mean you can't apply the terms in that descriptive way...

---

I mean, by your logic, garlean were commuting genocide and atrocities on the people and beast tribes they were invading, and the ascians wanted to commit genocide on all living things across 14 worlds.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Theodric

I wouldn't suggest that Garlemald was unpopular. It just so happens that quite a few committed FFXIV players have spent a lot of time actively stalking and harassing anyone who dared to like the 'wrong' characters. Stormblood was also controversial due to Ala Mhigo being seen as rather bland and undeserving of three (technically four) entire zones instead of allowing Othard more room to breathe.

It's not like the writers couldn't have mixed things up more and had us get a glimpse at some of the more stable Garlean provinces, or have someone similar to Regula van Hydrus enter the story.

Or someone similar to Rufus Shinra or the Turks show up. The company can't be unaware that the antagonists alone attract a lot of interest in their games, surely?

---

uh...I big to differ with that statement my friend. I dont think FFVII was popular because of Rufus or the Turks. Ok granted Sephiroth is a major contender but so was Cloud and Tifa and Aeris etc. I dont think people raved FFX because of antagonists like Seymour being impactful. In the series, the attraction is almost always the protagonists than the antagonists. And in the case of FFXIV, the fact that the protag is a customizable avatar that is the center stage to the story carries a lot more attraction than most of the characters in this story. Heck the fact that your personal character has close relations to many of the other characters says how much thats the case.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Valkyrie_Lenneth

I mean, by your logic, garlean were commuting genocide and atrocities on the people and beast tribes they were invading, and the ascians wanted to commit genocide on all living things across 14 worlds.

---

I'm not aware of anyone disputing that - much as we can lay such terms on Ul'dah, which made use of the concept of a beast tribe to benefit its own ventures, or indeed Hydaelyn, who as per the Q&A, allowed Emet-Selch to escape, knowing what would result from that once she sundered the world...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Atelier-Bagur

uh...I big to differ with that statement my friend. I dont think FFVII was popular because of Rufus or the Turks. Ok granted Sephiroth is a major contender but so was Cloud and Tifa and Aeris etc. I dont think people raved FFX because of antagonists like Seymour being impactful. In the series, the attraction is almost always the protagonists. And in the case of FFXIV, the fact that the protag is a customizable avatar that is the center stage to the story carries a lot more than most of the characters in this story.

---

Rufus proved to be so popular that he was brought back from the dead and given an expanded role in the various sequels and prequels to FFVII. The Turks, too, have proven to be very popular...and FFVII's recent remake expanded the roles of both the protagonists and antagonists alike because it recognised that a lot of people enjoy both...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Atelier-Bagur

uh...I big to differ with that statement my friend. I dont think FFVII was popular because of Rufus or the Turks. Ok granted Sephiroth is a major contender but so was Cloud and Tifa and Aeris etc. I dont think people raved FFX because of antagonists like Seymour being impactful. In the series, the attraction is almost always the protagonists. And in the case of FFXIV, the fact that the protag is a customizable avatar that is the center stage to the story carries a lot more than most of the characters in this story.

---

FFX is a game with a strong main cast which compensates for having people like Seymour.

FFXIV is a game with a weak main cast which is compensated for by the antagonist factions, or at least that was the case until recently.

I am grateful for the fact that the void is being made a focus early on and that I took a liking to what I saw almost instantly, because in absence of Garlemald and the Ancients there is very little left in FFXIV's world to keep my main interest.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by KizuyaKatogami

Between the whole place getting destroyed off screen, Regula getting shafted again and again, especially with us not even being able to mention him to Varis doing the alliance meeting and him not getting any sort of revels whatsoever in the weapons questline. Bozja being a cliffhanger that amounts to nothing and kills off its most prominent character off screen, to now the second legion being confirmed as destroyed so that whole Corvos plot line is gone, Nerva being built up all throughout ShB only to just end up as a blasphemy fodder without even his own model and used as a reskinned boss. To now the garleans just saying bye and going to the moon. Is this the superb writing everyone talks about? Building up plot points only for them to all be destroyed off screen or amounted to nothing more than fodder?

---

Regula? Didn't he die in the Warring Triad story arch? Bozja is made for the hardcore minority its an FF11 zone. People only go there to get their ultimate weapon and finish their solo quest. The content afterwards no one but hardcore players visits thus not worth anyones time.


I do agree with the fact so much is missing from that area in terms of story. I'm hoping a story line opens up to rebuilding.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HisShadowX

Regula? Didn't he die in the Warring Triad story arch? Bozja is made for the hardcore minority its an FF11 zone. People only go there to get their ultimate weapon and finish their solo quest. The content afterwards no one but hardcore players visits thus not worth anyones time.


I do agree with the fact so much is missing from that area in terms of story. I'm hoping a story line opens up to rebuilding.

---

that and anybody who actually likes FFXII (like me lol). It also has its share of very much interesting villains such as Menenius and Lyon. I did not expect an optional side story thats made for grinding to have me care for its villians. Heck there's also a lot of character lore and backstory for numerous of the FATE bosses you encounter and its been pretty fun collecting their profiles and seeing how they all fit together. Too bad all of those characters are never given proper attention into the Bozja storyline but heck its better than nothing.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HisShadowX

Regula? Didn't he die in the Warring Triad story arch? Bozja is made for the hardcore minority its an FF11 zone. People only go there to get their ultimate weapon and finish their solo quest. The content afterwards no one but hardcore players visits thus not worth anyones time.


I do agree with the fact so much is missing from that area in terms of story. I'm hoping a story line opens up to rebuilding.

---

Yes regula did, however he “showed” up during the weapons questline or at least his data did, however they refused to give him an actual appearance in that form. He was a pretty impactful character on the garlean side of things and he’s also someone who was extremely close with Varis, which is why o brought up its strange for as much as people praise the dialogue options in the game, we didn’t have one to bring up regula to Varis had we done the warring triad questline.

Bozja is still side content story, as much as raid stories are, and as much as trial series stories are. It’s not just for hardcore players. I was extremely interested in it because it’s inspired by the Ivalice series of ff games, and i’m a huge fan of those. Seeing them bring in Ganbranth and build him up was incredibly exciting, but then we don’t fight him whatsoever, we don’t even physically meet him, he’s killed off screen that you can only get that knowledge from reading a field note.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CrownySuccubus

Exactly this. I struggle to see this "nuance" in the Garleans when there basically was none. Off the top of my head, I can't think of a single instance where a Garlean (who was not a rogue or defector) had their actions treated as on the "right" side. Every single time there was any conflict involving the Garleans, they were on the "bad" side.

---

Well, There is Gaius back in ARR. His belief was that the lack of a singular governing body in Eorzea resulting in perpetual conflict between its separate factions and the beast tribes in particular frequently driven to desperate measures would inevitably turn the continent into a ticking time bomb, with the fallout inevitably spreading into their own territory. While their methods weren't exactly humane, us triumphing over him didn't exactly prove him wrong as it would take 3 whole expansions before any meaningful progress is made to quash the primal issue, and even then there was still some reluctancy from some of the beast tribes to suddenly join forces with us.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Nilroreo

Well, There is Gaius back in ARR. His belief was that the lack of a singular governing body in Eorzea resulting in perpetual conflict between its separate factions and the beast tribes in particular frequently driven to desperate measures would inevitably turn the continent into a ticking time bomb, with the fallout inevitably spreading into their own territory. While their methods weren't exactly humane, us triumphing over him didn't exactly prove him wrong as it would take 3 whole expansions before any meaningful progress is made to quash the primal issue, and even then there was still some reluctancy from some of the beast tribes to suddenly join forces with us.

---

Gaius is too busy walking around in a chicken suit these days, I'm afraid:

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

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/FQQv1oYW...pg&name=medium

At least WoW didn't go so far as to have Tyrande or Jaina walk around in an animal costume even as their people were displaced and homelands burned.

For me Garlemald is going to be the most interesting nation with the most interesting characters that perished due plot armor and plot convenience, i always hated how a nation with airships, air support units, more advanced artillery, paratroopers, basically star destroyers, fireguns, mechas, more refinated alloys and a large ect get beated by medieval set city-states.

His faction dealt with consecuences more than anyone else but i guess 2 dudes can infiltrate and destry entire bases of the black rose and get in to the imperial palace himself like nothing. is no wonder why it can be considering a boring faction if despite all they wonders they just lose by a bunch of guys in robes and iron swords all the time, it's truly a shame how poorly set was handled the comflict and is part bcs Garlemald was just an op faction in a more serious setting.

What's wrong with a bit of comedy in a seasonal event? I didn't know seasonal events were important story beats.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Theodric

I wouldn't suggest that Garlemald was unpopular. It just so happens that quite a few committed FFXIV players have spent a lot of time actively stalking and harassing anyone who dared to like the 'wrong' characters. Stormblood was also controversial due to Ala Mhigo being seen as rather bland and undeserving of three (technically four) entire zones instead of allowing Othard more room to breathe.

---

How FFXIV players feel about Garlean fans is a completely separate issue from how they feel about Garlemald as a story element. It's pretty obvious that after the end of Stormblood, they identified that a large enough portion of their player base didn't like the "war story" aspect of Stormblood. The zones and allied NPCs may have had a part to play in this as well, but Stormblood was also heavily criticized for its story. (The writers and Yoshi-P are also obviously not interested in portraying a fascist military state as a force for good--individual minor characters overcoming their fascist brainwashing is as far as they're willing to go--so a tour of the provinces that "love the taste of imperial boot" was probably never, ever remotely on the table.)

After Stormblood, the expansions with the most fantasy elements have proven to be the most popular, so they're going to continue doing what works for as many people as possible. Even trying to work on Garlean content in side content--like Bozja and Werlyt--had mixed reviews at best. You can say Stormblood is a fluke, but when return trips to the well keep on getting disinterested responses, it's best to find another place for water.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Theodric

Gaius is too busy walking around in a chicken suit these days, I'm afraid:

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

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/FQQv1oYW...pg&name=medium

At least WoW didn't go so far as to have Tyrande or Jaina walk around in an animal costume even as their people were displaced and homelands burned.

---

Are we seriously going to start to demonize characters having a bit of "fun"? Since when did we need to have every single character be this no-nonsense, brooding and boring character archetype?
Also Gaius isnt really doing it because he likes it, he's participating because he wants to make his only living daughter left happy. Thats a very human trait and that shouldnt be seen as a negative thing.

Oh no, Society will judge him for liking a joke in a game.

Theodric, I really want to agree with you but you seem to have a terrible taste in what's actually good character building. It seems to me that you want every character in this game to be dark, edgy, and brooding with the themes and story cater towards a dark tone when really FFXIV wasnt ever going to be a Game of Thrones. Nor do I want it to. Dark tones for the sake of dark tones doesnt create engaging stories alone.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Atelier-Bagur

Theodric, I really want to agree with you but you seem to have a terrible taste in what's actually good character building. It seems to me that you want every character in this game to be dark, edgy, and brooding with the themes and story cater towards a dark tone when really FFXIV wasnt ever going to be a Game of Thrones. Nor do I want it to. Dark tones for the sake of dark tones doesnt create engaging stories alone.

---

I've never stated anywhere that I'd like every character to be dark, edgy or brooding. I simply enjoy consistency and for maybe one or two characters to go against the grain from time to time. You've brought up 'Game of Thrones' many times, yet that's not even something I have pushed for either. I simply liked that ARR wasn't WoW - at the time - and focused primarily on world building and a healthy combination of consequences for both the protagonists and antagonists alike.

MMO's by their very nature are also meant to appeal to a broad variety of tastes, so on that basis alone there's plenty of room for variety.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tokinokanatae

How FFXIV players feel about Garlean fans is a completely separate issue from how they feel about Garlemald as a story element. It's pretty obvious that after the end of Stormblood, they identified that a large enough portion of their player base didn't like the "war story" aspect of Stormblood. The zones and allied NPCs may have had a part to play in this as well, but Stormblood was also heavily criticized for its story. (The writers and Yoshi-P are also obviously not interested in portraying a fascist military state as a force for good--individual minor characters overcoming their fascist brainwashing is as far as they're willing to go--so a tour of the provinces that "love the taste of imperial boot" was probably never, ever remotely on the table.)

After Stormblood, the expansions with the most fantasy elements have proven to be the most popular, so they're going to continue doing what works for as many people as possible. Even trying to work on Garlean content in side content--like Bozja and Werlyt--had mixed reviews at best. You can say Stormblood is a fluke, but when return trips to the well keep on getting disinterested responses, it's best to find another place for water.

---

But mixed reviews for what reason? I wasn't too fond of Werlyt, but that was specifically due to the story they were pursuing with the orphans and some reasons relating to the fights - nonetheless, I found Valens amusing. Bozja I enjoyed for the story and instances, but I found the zones rather depressing and the structuring of the whole affair pretty poor. They also didn't do the best job in representing the 4th Legion in a way that was consistent with what the story was pushing. I don't think a similar storyline in some of the provinces of Ilsabard, especially given a bit more visual flair, would've had the same poor reception.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by KizuyaKatogami

Between the whole place getting destroyed off screen, Regula getting shafted again and again, especially with us not even being able to mention him to Varis doing the alliance meeting and him not getting any sort of revels whatsoever in the weapons questline. Bozja being a cliffhanger that amounts to nothing and kills off its most prominent character off screen, to now the second legion being confirmed as destroyed so that whole Corvos plot line is gone, Nerva being built up all throughout ShB only to just end up as a blasphemy fodder without even his own model and used as a reskinned boss. To now the garleans just saying bye and going to the moon. Is this the superb writing everyone talks about? Building up plot points only for them to all be destroyed off screen or amounted to nothing more than fodder?

---

My guess is they bit off more than they could chew and rather than waiting to finish the stories in a later expac, they chose the easy way out. I was severely let down by how Garlemald was handled. The exact same god damn thing they did in SB, they did here.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Theodric

I've never stated anywhere that I'd like every character to be dark, edgy or brooding. I simply enjoy consistency and for maybe one or two characters to go against the grain from time to time. You've brought up 'Game of Thrones' many times, yet that's not even something I have pushed for either. I simply liked that ARR wasn't WoW - at the time - and focused primarily on world building and a healthy combination of consequences for both the protagonists and antagonists alike.

MMO's by their very nature are also meant to appeal to a broad variety of tastes, so on that basis alone there's plenty of room for variety.

---

and thats true, but what pushes me back is when you started critiquing or at least gave the impression that people like Gaius shouldnt be allowed to be silly, when that wasnt even the case. He wasnt even doing out of his volition, he only dressed up for the festivities because his daughter wanted to have fun. And knowing what we know between Gaius and his love for his children, its very in his character to do stuff for the sake of his loved ones. However you seem to see that as "inconsistent". Thats what brought me to question your tastes.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lauront

But mixed reviews for what reason? I wasn't too fond of Werlyt, but that was specifically due to the story they were pursuing with the orphans and some reasons relating to the fights - nonetheless, I found Valens amusing. Bozja I enjoyed for the story and instances, but I found the zones rather depressing and the structuring of the whole affair pretty poor. They also didn't do the best job in representing the 4th Legion in a way that was consistent with what the story was pushing. I don't think a similar storyline in some of the provinces of Ilsabard, especially given a bit more visual flair, would've had the same poor reception.

---

I think we're getting into "Garlemald as a plot element cannot fail, it can only BE failed" here, unfortunately. I don't think an expansionist Imperial Empire that regularly engages in human experimentation is a good fit for a game that has been increasingly moving towards a more abstract, escapist fantasy POV. I think Yoshi-P on a personal level prefers gritty fantasy war drama--which is why Garlemald got as many chances as it did--but A) he's going to defer to the majority of the playerbase, and B) his perspective on Garlemald obviously doesn't match what their dedicated fanbase would want anyway, so even if he was inclined to make content based on his personal preference, it's not going to appeal to Garlean fans.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Atelier-Bagur

Theodric, I really want to agree with you but you seem to have a terrible taste in what's actually good character building. It seems to me that you want every character in this game to be dark, edgy, and brooding with the themes and story cater towards a dark tone when really FFXIV wasnt ever going to be a Game of Thrones. Nor do I want it to. Dark tones for the sake of dark tones doesnt create engaging stories alone.

---

I don’t think he’s asking for the game to be 100% dark, (here we go with the thread derailment) but i can understand where he’s coming from. Especially lately, the game has been littered with constant fluff and anime slice of life moments that seem really out of place especially in the featured expansions(ShB and EW) where we’re in an apocalyptic atmosphere.


The final days is coming and we’re playing dress up with rabbits,having coffee and lunch dates, catboy hero worshipping hour, and then just this patch we had the weird thing with Yshtola’s baby voice etc. Not many games are 100% serious and past ff’s certainly haven’t been like that, but they had their “fluff” moments spread out and in places where they didn’t take away from the story. In terms of character building, most of the scions have had what, 8-10 years to have character building? And we’re still with them, with people still asking for them to complete their arcs because otherwise they’re incredibly bland and boring.In terms of someone commenting ff is typically known for its protagonists only. Correct me if i’m wrong please but 4 is typically well known for Golbez,6 with kefka,5 with gilgamesh or ex death, 7 with sephiroth,9 with kuja etc.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tokinokanatae

I think we're getting into "Garlemald as a plot element cannot fail, it can only BE failed" here, unfortunately. I don't think an expansionist Imperial Empire that regularly engages in human experimentation is a good fit for a game that has been increasingly moving towards a more abstract, escapist fantasy POV. I think Yoshi-P on a personal level prefers gritty fantasy war drama--which is why Garlemald got as many chances as it did--but A) he's going to defer to the majority of the playerbase, and B) his perspective on Garlemald obviously doesn't match what their dedicated fanbase would want anyway, so even if he was inclined to make content based on his personal preference, it's not going to appeal to Garlean fans.

---

I'm merely asking if they gave the reasons for it, because there's plenty of reasons one can dislike Bozja, not all of which relate specifically to the nature of the story they're pushing. A lot of people enjoyed Matsuno's writing on it. So I'm curious if they gave any specifics.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Theodric

Gaius is too busy walking around in a chicken suit these days, I'm afraid:

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

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/FQQv1oYW...pg&name=medium

At least WoW didn't go so far as to have Tyrande or Jaina walk around in an animal costume even as their people were displaced and homelands burned.

---

I...do not know how to feel about this. I don't mind characters dressing up in costumes in one-off jokes, but I question whether it is really a good use of the character to have him be doing these things instead anything more interesting, such as in helping to bring stability and rebuild Garlemald. Instead all they get is a faceless senate. I suppose a moment like Gaius in a chicken suit may have been reasonably earned after spending a considerable amount of time with him as a party member, but this just feels so random.

I can say the same thing for Aymeric the Blue Elephant, why is he playing dressup when I want him in my party as a Paladin? Surely it cannot be too difficult to swap G'raha Tia's model with his and retain whatever code underlies their actions as trust members for Aymeric to function as a tank. Gaius would also have made for a Gunbreaker to replace Thancred, who thankfully did not grace us with the negative value of his presence this patch for more than 20 seconds.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lauront

I'm merely asking if they gave the reasons for it, because there's plenty of reasons one can dislike Bozja, not all of which relate specifically to the nature of the story they're pushing. A lot of people enjoyed Matsuno's writing on it. So I'm curious if they gave any specifics.

---

Matsuno said it was deliberately cut short (and at the time had no chance of being revisited) specifically because the story proved to be so unpopular. Matsuno himself was also on record as saying he wanted the zones to look prettier (which was another common complaint) but I don't think that would have been enough if the Japanese fanbase had such a strong negative reaction to the plot and the NA and EU fanbase didn't have a correspondingly incredibly positive response to the plot.

EDIT, found his tweet:

https://i.redd.it/og5j2013mi771.png

There is a language barrier, so it's possible that the response was more mixed, but using "the worst" seems to indicate people that hated it absolutely hated it.

I don't understand why seasonal events hijinks is being brought up in regards to like, any characters. Its nothing new at all. We had city state leaders run around talking about Cocks during the year of the Cock event years ago. Or pretending to be Santa, or going into a haunted house, etc.

This isnt some new babyfication or whatever. Its the same yucks they have always had during the occasional seasonal event. Literally since ARR.