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

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.