Live Letter Thoughts

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by redheadturk

I too want more of a HW approach, darker story where death has meaning. I also want them to take the shb approach, unravel the time loop and allow both Ancient and Sundered to have their happy endings in a separate timeline. There was no reason they couldn't have gone with a branched timeline, which would have satisfied those of us who love the Ancients.

---

Your personal want of something doesnt just wish it into existence. You not being able to ration why something didnt happen the way you think/want, doesnt just make it happen that way.
And again, I have no qualms or arguments against a Darker Story. But thats just not how this story is currently being told. Sorry Fam

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Shougun

GW2's mount system feels insanely better than FXIV's,
I would lose all my mounts, paid included, for that system.. not that I suggest that be the way they do it if they did lol.

---

Well thats a FLIGHT system. Its naturally better because its a whole mechanic WITH your mounts, instead of just having faster movement speed around a map.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BaconBits

Whether you're for or against Venat, you cannot deny she exudes Big Momma Energy™.

She is referred to as the Mothercrystal for a reason lmao.

---

That's literally not what I'm talking about. It's the tone they use lol.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by redheadturk

I too want more of a HW approach, darker story where death has meaning. I also want them to take the shb approach, unravel the time loop and allow both Ancient and Sundered to have their happy endings in a separate timeline. There was no reason they couldn't have gone with a branched timeline, which would have satisfied those of us who love the Ancients.

---

Darker story where death has meaning, but they shouldn't apply it to the ancients. Did I get that right? You want us messing around multiple timelines (as if the time travel we just did wasn't bad enough) just so they can have their happy ending. To me, this feels more like fairytale than a "darker" story. Let's be consistent.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Anura

Darker story where death has meaning, but they shouldn't apply it to the ancients. Did I get that right? You want us messing around multiple timelines (as if the time travel we just did wasn't bad enough) just so they can have their happy ending. To me, this feels more like fairytale than a "darker" story. Let's be consistent.

---

You realise there's a difference between the extinction of an entire race and one or two samey protagonists dying every now and then...right?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Anura

Darker story where death has meaning, but they shouldn't apply it to the ancients. Did I get that right? You want us messing around multiple timelines (as if the time travel we just did wasn't bad enough) just so they can have their happy ending. To me, this feels more like fairytale than a "darker" story. Let's be consistent.

---

What they did to the Ancients is something that if it happened IRL would get a person executed. It's called genocide, and yes, it very well should be rectified.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by redheadturk

What they did to the Ancients is something that if it happened IRL would get a person executed. It's called genocide, and yes, it very well should be rectified.

---

Well, you guys keep using that word, but I don't think it's accurate.


Genocide requires the intent of eradicating a race or ethnicity. The sundering was not meant to do that. It may be the end result, but it was not the intent.

And even then, if you can "rebuild" the ancients via the rejoining, then they aren't eradicated, no? They are simply split.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Anura

Darker story where death has meaning, but they shouldn't apply it to the ancients. Did I get that right? You want us messing around multiple timelines (as if the time travel we just did wasn't bad enough) just so they can have their happy ending. To me, this feels more like fairytale than a "darker" story. Let's be consistent.

---

Funny, I recall just such a story where, in spite of messing with time, the protagonists in an alternate timeline endure rather than being wiped out - yes, Endsinger looms large, but luckily the supreme deity is there to provide the right crowd with the information needed to hopefully 'forge ahead'.

As it stands, it is the major protagonists (particularly the Scions) which are by and large exempted from death, epitomised by the fact that with UT we are told it was obvious that the Scions wouldn't be dying there and would just be coming back - obvious in no small part because of the level of plot armour these characters enjoy.

Having the ancients struggle against and, say, succeed against the Endsinger in an AU is somehow materially worse than having the sundered do this in the current timeline, with the titanium grade plot armour and enveloping them at all times, against rather improbable odds, which the plot simply brute forces its way through? Seems like you only want the protagonists to be afforded this chance and solely want negative consequences accruing to third parties, by and large. So please do spare me this twaddle.

I by and large don't really care that much for an AU for its own sake, even though it'd be an interesting opportunity to explore their world under better conditions; I'd just like to see them given the full information they need to actually get an opportunity to find ways to address the situation.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Valkyrie_Lenneth

And even then, if you can "rebuild" the ancients via the rejoining, then they aren't eradicated, no? They are simply split.

---

Have a supreme deity inflict that fate on the sundered then, for their own good. I am sure that'll jog Alphinaud's memory and it won't take him long to offer some choice quotes - something about not being able to tolerate their history being wiped out. BTW, she had the intention to change what they were through sundering them (she confirms this to Y'shtola), so I'm not seeing where the intention is missing.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Valkyrie_Lenneth

Well, you guys keep using that word, but I don't think it's accurate.

---

It is. As per usual, my advice to you would include the typical suggestion of bookmarking this post. I know some posters really struggle to grasp concepts that have been explained to them many times already.

At any rate, here's the official definition of genocide:

https://i.imgur.com/Q6LEJqQ.png

The Sundering fits every single criteria. So...yes, it's an act of genocide. Hide it behind fluffy language all you like though if the protagonists wouldn't accept such a thing happening to their loved ones then there's really no reason for anybody else to either.

As opposed to the genocide the Ancients were planning against all the non-Ancient life that appeared after Zodiark but before the Sundering, or the genocides the Ascians committed against eight shards.

So basically both sides are terrible and we're better off without all of them.

Which she enabled by deliberately sparing Emet-Selch, as per the Q&A. What is your point?

BTW, there was no genocide of "all the non-ancient life" that appeared after Zodiark, just a portion of the life Zodiark fostered, which the ancients were divided over and was in the context of those souls inside Zodiark being in a purgatory, and which was not her primary, secondary or even tertiary reason for performing it.