/r/ffxivdiscussion: Japanese reception to Dawntrail MSQ [SPOILERS]

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Vahlnir

As far as Lyse goes, if we actually got to see her development and accomplishments ourselves, I think she would have been viewed more favorably. Sadly, a lot of the good she did was done off screen. She's far from my favorite character, but she was also a victim of bad writing.

I'm seeing the same exact problems arising in DT. They prefer to tell instead of show, when showing instead of telling is the best way, especially when there's a lot to unpack. A near endless stream of cutscenes and dialogue aren't going to get most people engaged. Quite the opposite, in fact.

---

I've always argued Lyse suffered more from the poor writing around her character whereas she, herself, was reasonably consistent. It's still not great by any means but far less insufferable. Mary Sue Lamat is just that, a Mary Sue. There is not a single instance in the entirety of Dawntrail where she struggles. Sure, we're told about her insecurities but they never actually impede her. She just wants about them while everyone else, including our own character, praise and reassure her. It comes across as completely surface level just so the writer can argue she's not damn near perfect. The fact our character can't even give "..." answers like in previous expansion really highlights just how much the narrative wants you to like Wuk Lamat.

Heck, perhaps the best emphasis of that is when you unlock the EXs. The Wandering Minstrel, a character who usually champions us, outright says "Wuk Lamat and her companion." Literally every character, even small note ones, are made to wax poetics for this Mary Sue. It's absolute drivel.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ForteNightshade

Sure, we're told about her insecurities but they never actually impede her. She just wants about them while everyone else, including our own character, praise and reassure her. It comes across as completely surface level just so the writer can argue she's not damn near perfect.

---

Because her insecurities are irrational. That's part of her character arc, whether it pleased anyone or not. She's unreasonably comparing her accomplishments to others, and she has to realize the silliness of that, but her actual weaknesses are that she knows less about her nation's people than she should, and her naivety -- both of which we see her overcome as well (at least in the ways that matter to the story, regarding her naivety). But her insecurities are never treated as being reflections of reality. The truth is, by the end of her arc, that she is and always was fit to rule, according to the narrative's logic. Her only real obstacle was her self-doubt, and her sense of duty still overrode that at every turn, which, again, only speaks to the writers' intent.

Point being, the writers never once pretended that she was seriously flawed. They weren't trying to fool us. I understand that you wanted a more complex character than we got, and that you want to believe the writers wanted the same thing, but I just don't think that they did. They wanted us to see beyond reasonable doubt that we were backing the correct claimant, every step of the way, and that desire created a Mary Sue. I'm not saying that anyone has to like it just because it was the intent, and I agree that they overcompensated, but it's what we got.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Turnintino

snip

---

But I would argue back saying that what we got was bad and that's where the issue is. Especially because she was absolutely not fit to rule and with a lack of change in her character meant that she still isn't fit to rule. She enacts no policy changes or aspirations to further the growth of her country and goes on and on about peace, but doesn't actually want to take action about anything, and every time we find a situation where we maybe can have an actual conflict, there's a magic hand wavium that fixes it, like the farmers not growing crops. Oh but we have a plant for that so you're efforts were literally for nothing lol silly eugenicists. It undermines everything else in the story, including ourselves.

It doesn't matter if it was done on purpose or not. I can intentionally put vinegar in my tea, that doesn't make the tea any good.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ryaduera

But I would argue back saying that what we got was bad and that's where the issue is. Especially because she was absolutely not fit to rule and with a lack of change in her character meant that she still isn't fit to rule. She enacts no policy changes or aspirations to further the growth of her country and goes on and on about peace, but doesn't actually want to take action about anything, and every time we find a situation where we maybe can have an actual conflict, there's a magic hand wavium that fixes it, like the farmers not growing crops. Oh but we have a plant for that so you're efforts were literally for nothing lol silly eugenicists. It undermines everything else in the story, including ourselves.

It doesn't matter if it was done on purpose or not. I can intentionally put vinegar in my tea, that doesn't make the tea any good.

---

Notice that I said "according to the narrative's logic", "I'm not saying that anyone has to like it", and "I agree that [the writers] overcompensated".

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Turnintino

Notice that I said "according to the narrative's logic", "I'm not saying that anyone has to like it", and "I agree that [the writers] overcompensated".

---

You can re-highlight what you said all you want, my point is that every point of the writers intention doesn't have anything to do with writing a Mary Sue at all, but rather the execution of the intentions. Everything within those intentions can still be written in a way to make a compelling character without needing to resort to this... excrement we got. Not to mention, when critiquing a work, it's usually not considered what the author wanted, because all that really matters is what the author delivered. The message sent matters little to the message received.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ryaduera

You can re-highlight what you said all you want, my point is that every point of the writers intention doesn't have anything to do with writing a Mary Sue at all, but rather the execution of the intentions. Everything within those intentions can still be written in a way to make a compelling character without needing to resort to this... excrement we got. Not to mention, when critiquing a work, it's usually not considered what the author wanted, because all that really matters is what the author delivered. The message sent matters little to the message received.

---

You're just regurgitating my own point back at me. What I was responding to, and my comment, was about the issue I took with Forte's reading. Not that I think the writing is good. Not that I think it's unreasonable to dislike it or Lamat. I have no interest in arguing with someone about how they feel. It's okay to be a hater lol. If you're going to rationalize that from the perspective of the writer's intent, however, which Forte was doing, I will interject if I feel I can clarify, and I did. Now please go debate with someone who you actually disagree with, thank you.

Great talk.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 4clubbedace

"From start to finish it's just problems caused by low IQ lizards, maybe slaughtering all the savages wasn't such a bad idea"

I feel a lot of these are either bad faith or very racist

---

Life lesson for you, do not go to Japan and ask around what people's thoughts are of the Chinese, Koreans, or your average Gaijin. You will have a bad time. This is honestly what I expected to be honest.

To summarize, the problem with the story is that the succession story is less interesting to the general audience than what happens afterwards. Yet every effort was made to make the succession story as complete as possible, leaving insufficient room to give the story surrounding Section 9 the same level of polish. Too much time with Wuk Lamat and not enough time with Sphene.