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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MikkoAkure

The Omega quests give us, the player, an option to personally agree or disagree with any or all of them, but none of the options actually change any of the resulting dialogue. Ishikawa herself said that the final third of the Dead Ends is representative of where the Ancients would have gone if nothing changed and Omega in that cutscene you referenced compares Hermes' "change or die" test that he put onto humanity to that of the ancient, biological Omicrons. So ultimately I don't expect anything to change and I don't think there's any added nuance beyond asking the player a question that will never come up again and doesn't even change how the NPCs in the cutscene react.

---

No, this is reductive. The Omega quests did a lot more than simply offer a dialogue choice - there was a great deal of context before and after asking us to make that choice for ourselves. The entire Thavnair section built up to a rejection of the idea that overcoming despair has anything to do with one's internal character or anything that can be calculated or engineered. Omega set out on this journey with you because - like Venat - it was searching for an "answer," a way to replicate, the formula regarding what gave one set of people "strength" of heart over another. Venat's conclusion in 6.0 was that it was "learning to embrace suffering." The Omega quest's conclusion, set after the fact and as a clarification, asserts: "it's arbitrary and random and the premise of one person having greater 'strength' against despair is wrong to begin with."

Omega openly criticizing Venat, pointing out the horror that she committed, and flat out saying if you approve of Venat's actions, it makes no sense you don't approve of Hermes's actions is a HUGE shift in framing from 6.0. That Omega compares Hermes (and thus Venat) to the Omicrons positively in itself has nuance, because consider how the Omicrons have been presented by the narrative. Ruthless, vicious warmongers with a mindset we're presumed to disagree with and oppose. Furthermore, asking the question the way it was in and of itself changes the way we're pushed to understand Venat's moral position - rather than the one who was "right," she's now associated with that group of Ancients as a whole, who all did horrible things based on their own beliefs. The narrative, rather than saying Venat Was Right, is now explicitly pushing "Venat and Emet-Selch are probably morally equivalent, actually."

And then even the Watcher himself (very gently) expresses that Venat was probably wrong to try to erase all knowledge of the past. I understand - and agree - with the idea that the Omega quests "aren't enough" and they need to continue with the new framework it established and push further. I also agree that the insistence that "Ancients probably would have wound up as a Dead End" continues to be a very irritating thorn in my side. But overall, it was a HUGE swerve into the right direction on several fronts.

That the Plenty are supposedly intended to show how the Ancients would have turned out just doesn't sit right with me - by that, then, it's implied the Ancients deserved to die over us because one day their way of life will end? So will that of the mortals, only (possibly) minorly delayed through their more finite lifespans and inclination towards war and power struggles, as well as possessing constitution more prone to disease and injury. It's more likely they'll bring about their end in a similar manner to the other two races depicted in the Dead Ends than somehow managing to wait it out until the death of the universe, and then what? Are they truly trying to push the narrative that it's better to propagate mass suffering to needlessly prolong a race's lifespan than to attempt to attain a better way of life for all? What makes the mortals so much more deserving of living out their time how they see fit than the Ancients?

They make a point of saying everyone has a right to life, and use that as the justification of Hydaelyn's sundering the star and the survival of mankind as it is now, yet at the same time they're saying that because the Ancients would have doomed themselves trying to make a better world, what happened to them isn't as big a deal (while also telling us to make the world a better place for those that "come after"! ...but not too quickly, apparently?) It just smacks of hypocrisy, but the "good guys" live so it's all right, evidently.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lucida3b

Personally i dont agree with every complaint in this thread, though i can see some points in many of them. However I feel the complaints are representative of a larger issue where venat/EW plotpoints resulted in a 'damn bursting' effect where everyone is looking back and is agitated at things they didnt find as much as a issue in the past and so on.

---

At the very least i can say i’ve been an avid scion hater since shb :p. Ever since they all started getting plot armor and having 0 consequences whatsoever i’ve slowly begun to hate him and it only got worse in EW with the slice of life scenes during the final days and their UT fakeouts. I think one of my biggest pet peeves regarding them though is the constant double standards. For example, i’ll bring up graha since he was the main topic for a short time. I find it really strange how i’ve seen so many people criticize Magnai for being an “incel” or giving off really creepy vibes yet….they’re the same people praising graha for making constant advances and worshipping us all the time, it’s seen as “adorable.” And of course in regards to the other scions i don’t think i need to give an example of the many “rules for thee but not for me” events.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by KizuyaKatogami

For example, i’ll bring up graha since he was the main topic for a short time. I find it really strange how i’ve seen so many people criticize Magnai for being an “incel” or giving off really creepy vibes yet….they’re the same people praising graha for making constant advances and worshipping us all the time, it’s seen as “adorable.” And of course in regards to the other scions i don’t think i need to give an example of the many “rules for thee but not for me” events.

---

There are a ton of differences between Magnai and G'raha in behavior, personality, and actions. You can't boil it down to "oh, they're both interested in pursuing romance (which for G'raha does remain an interpretation, not canon.)" Suggesting that you have to have the same opinion of two characters who are explored in very different ways because they performed the same basic type of action or emotion is ludicrous. That's as reductive as trying to say "WoL killed people, Zenos killed people, if you like WoL but don't like Zenos you're a hypocrite."

EDIT: This gets even more incomprehensible if we're trying to criticize on the basis of "what character you like or dislike" as opposed to arguing based on something like moral frameworks. People are allowed to like G'raha and find him adorable, whether based on his circumstances, appearance, character quirks, history, or anything else. There is absolutely nothing wrong with that. It's a fundamentally different discussion than, say, putting forth "Venat was right" or "Venat's way was the best and only way." Emet-Selch is my favorite character, but I mostly shrug if someone expresses that they hate him. When someone expresses, however, that they hate Emet-Selch and therefore the Ancients deserved it and were clearly a dystopian society, that's when I go "whoa, hold up there friendo."

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Brinne

And then even the Watcher himself (very gently) expresses that Venat was probably wrong to try to erase all knowledge of the past. I understand - and agree - with the idea that the Omega quests "aren't enough" and they need to continue with the new framework it established and push further. I also agree that the insistence that "Ancients probably would have wound up as a Dead End" continues to be a very irritating thorn in my side. But overall, it was a HUGE swerve into the right direction on several fronts.

---

Just the name 'Dead Ends' has irked me... it feels, in itself, like a judgement, and a low-key insult. "Oh, you're just a dead end, sweety..." Upon changing my game to JP, the name of the dungeon was simply 'Final Fantasy Remnant'. Much cooler-sounding, less judgy.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lunaxia

goodpost

---

The blessed and wonderful 'majority' always simply ignores it when you point this out. Good to know that going out gurgling and screaming in pain as your body is deformed by tumorous masses, or being bathed in hellfire, is the superior way of life!

Also, RE: That Subject that was brought up pages ago. I guarantee that most, if not all the posters here, have been constantly bombarded with nonstop EW positivity to this day (with only the most mildsauce criticism of pacing and the UT fake sacrifices for the illusion of looking nuanced and fair)... whereas I've seen numerous people, including that behatted lalafell who strolled in, express that they've never seen our particular opinions before (despite this thread and others like it existing for 6 months now being on the front page for much of its life). Who's really out-of-touch?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Brinne

There are a ton of differences between Magnai and G'raha in behavior, personality, and actions. You can't boil it down to "oh, they're both interested in pursuing romance (which for G'raha does remain an interpretation, not canon.)" Suggesting that you have to have the same opinion of two characters who are explored in very different ways because they performed the same basic type of action or emotion is ludicrous. That's as reductive as trying to say "WoL killed people, Zenos killed people, if you like WoL but don't like Zenos you're a hypocrite."

EDIT: This gets even more incomprehensible if we're trying to criticize on the basis of "what character you like or dislike" as opposed to arguing based on something like moral frameworks. People are allowed to like G'raha and find him adorable, whether based on his circumstances, appearance, character quirks, history, or anything else. There is absolutely nothing wrong with that. It's a fundamentally different discussion than, say, putting forth "Venat was right" or "Venat's way was the best and only way." Emet-Selch is my favorite character, but I mostly shrug if someone expresses that they hate him. When someone expresses, however, that they hate Emet-Selch and therefore the Ancients deserved it and were clearly a dystopian society, that's when I go "whoa, hold up there friendo."

---

There really isn’t that big of a difference though outside of one of them stops pursuing when asked. The other continues to do it because we don’t have a dialogue option to tell him no. I never said no one is allowed to find Graha adorable lol. My point is though there is constantly double standards like the one i brought up that rub me the wrong way. Where i guess it’s just all okay when an adorable character does something and is pushy but it’s horrible wrong when it’s someone else doing it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Skyborne

Just the name 'Dead Ends' has irked me... it feels, in itself, like a judgement, and a low-key insult. "Oh, you're just a dead end, sweety..." Upon changing my game to JP, the name of the dungeon was simply 'Final Fantasy Remnant'. Much cooler-sounding, less judgy.

---

I have a seething complex in general about "reducing the complexity of a (sometimes formerly) living, breathing human being into being simply a 'lesson' to serve and uplift someone else (Usually Me)" so, uh, I agree, basically. I Oppose Self-Centered Spiritual Cannibalism

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lunaxia

Are they truly trying to push the narrative that it's better to propagate mass suffering to needlessly prolong a race's lifespan than to attempt to attain a better way of life for all? What makes the mortals so much more deserving of living out their time how they see fit than the Ancients.

---

"Humans are able to suffer and die, and thus are superior" is an EXTREMELY common trope in Japanese media. For instance, one of the widespread examples in recent media I can think of is Platinum End...

which ends with the literal extinction of humanity, God and all angels in heaven, has the protagonist state that life ending sooner than expected is natural and it's too painful to go on living without loved ones, has the scientist character state that humankind dying at its most advanced state is probably the best way to go and that the purpose of life is to end, and then has some unseen immortal beings that created the universe for the sole purpose of finding a way to die state that life has no meaning if it doesn't end, and that they're super jealous that humanity gets to experience oblivion.

So yes. That is pretty much what they're saying.

And again, this is why I do not subscribe to Buddhist-esque philosophies.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by KizuyaKatogami

There really isn’t that big of a difference though outside of one of them stops pursuing when asked.

---

No, there are huge differences, and I'm sort of baffled that I even need to point them out.

Magnai's pursuit involves basically asking any available woman who piques his interest if they'll be his Nhaama - he's looking for someone to serve a pre-established role for them. Based on what we've seen, meanwhile, G'raha has been interested in the WoL, and only the WoL, emotionally, this entire time. He's not simply "looking for a suitable partner" in general. Of course one is going to appeal to more people on a deeper level than another. G'raha's backstory, and thus context, is also incredibly different. He has been working to save the Warrior of Light, willing to give up his life, for over a hundred years, with no expectation of reward. That also is going to make most people view his actions in a different light than someone like Magnai. Magnai's personality is rude, gruff, arrogant, and incredibly entitled. G'raha, despite what is said sometimes, is not actually pushy with the WoL, even though, yes, his feelings are obvious - most of the time, he's trying to hold them back so as not to be pushy. That was, like, the Crystal Exarch's whole deal - how the whole time he was holding back as hard as he could so as not to burden the WoL. The two scenes I remember him being remotely "pushy," as either G'raha or the Exarch, are both scenes where he presumed he was about to, or was at great risk of, being about to die, so I think it's reasonable to give him an allowance there. Even then, it's framed as "I want to go on an adventure with you."

Magnai and G'raha expressing their affections is not something that happens in a vacuum and be isolated as "they're making constant advances, they're the same." That's not how characters work. Saying "they're not that different though" doesn't magically make it so.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by KizuyaKatogami

There really isn’t that big of a difference though outside of one of them stops pursuing when asked. The other continues to do it because we don’t have a dialogue option to tell him no.

---

He isn't even "pursuing", though. He simply asks (twice) if it's okay to accompany you on ONE adventure.

Personally, I'd agree that it's stupid to have him finally start going on his own adventures, only to for the WOL to show up and have Krile push him off on them again, but trying to frame this as "Gr'aha and Magnai both show interest in another character, thus their treatment must be the same" is reaching at best.