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

I didn't view Thordan as bad. His intentions were good, but he was taking the authoritarian route to 'save' the world. The Garleans' weren't much different, many of them had the belief that to stop the threat of primals everything had to be under their rule.

Hard disagree about Yotsuyu. Her backstory may have been unfortunate, but she turned into a twisted individual who derived pleasure from torturing innocents. Don't get me wrong, I liked having a strictly 'bad' antagonist for once (other than Zenos I guess), but she had no redeeming qualities until she lost her memory.

Fordola I frankly never understood. She was willing to lose everything to gain something I didn't think was worth it and would've been a hollow victory had she ever achieved it.

I usually love sympathetic antagonists, but thanks to ShB & EW I'm over it. I've no interest in continually being presented with conflicts where the opposition loses everything and the WoL/Scions don't even break a fingernail. It actually is starting to feel emotionally manipulative because the writers won't touch the protagonists, so the only way to get tears is to make the antagonists likeable and then take everything from them. Maybe Yotsuyu is one of the writers. ;P

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rulakir

I usually love sympathetic antagonists, but thanks to ShB & EW I'm over it. I've no interest in continually being presented with conflicts where the opposition loses everything and the WoL/Scions don't even break a fingernail. It actually is starting to feel emotionally manipulative because the writers won't touch the protagonists, so the only way to get tears is to make the antagonists likeable and then take everything from them. Maybe Yotsuyu is one of the writers. ;P

---

This so much! It's why like, yes, im happy pandemonium is giving us some time with Elidibus because heavens know he deserved far more screentime than he got....but also hes dead. So theyre going to emotionally manipulate us, get us attached ot him and then oop, dont forget hes dead lul. Then you go back to the same familiar faces of the scions and its just...idk. For me personally, i find the "antagonists" so much more appealing and tolerable than the scions, so getting to have some time with them but then having them be taken away is such a horrible feeling. Which, we should be feeling for both sides. It's just such a one sided thing that its tiresome.We're always going to win, everyone is always going to be okay and the antagonists are always going to be the only ones to suffer.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rulakir

I didn't view Thordan as bad. His intentions were good, but he was taking the authoritarian route to 'save' the world. The Garleans' weren't much different, many of them had the belief that to stop the threat of primals everything had to be under their rule.

Hard disagree about Yotsuyu. Her backstory may have been unfortunate, but she turned into a twisted individual who derived pleasure from torturing innocents. Don't get me wrong, I liked having a strictly 'bad' antagonist for once (other than Zenos I guess), but she had no redeeming qualities until she lost her memory.

---

Thordan was dealt a very bad set of cards and I think he went ahead with what he saw as the most sensible way of resolving it once and for all. The fact that Varis saw him as a strong leader does suggest he was relatable to him.

As for Yotsuyu? I'll agree she's not that sympathetic, because she's a bit like Amon in that she relishes in spreading misery due to her own internal demons, but she had a really good stage presence which made her memorable. Given that they threw in Fandaniel to compound Amon's woes, I was a bit let down they didn't take the opportunity to add her to the trio of misery.

Quote:

---

I usually love sympathetic antagonists, but thanks to ShB & EW I'm over it. I've no interest in continually being presented with conflicts where the opposition loses everything and the WoL/Scions don't even break a fingernail. It actually is starting to feel emotionally manipulative because the writers won't touch the protagonists, so the only way to get tears is to make the antagonists likeable and then take everything from them. Maybe Yotsuyu is one of the writers. ;P

---

Agreed. I also felt little desire to console Meteion. I fully understand Hermes was to blame for her predicament, but no thanks. Some option here would've been nice. It annoys me a bit because such options are mostly absent with antagonists I like better.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rulakir

I didn't view Thordan as bad.

---

Thordan had imo probably the least forced sympathetic backstory. He wasn't purely bad, but rather frustrated with the crappy hand has been dealt.

He had the misfortune of being born and raised into a position of leadership presiding over a nation built on deceit and betrayal, and he understood very well that Nidhogg had every right to feel the way that he did. He figured they would never be forgiven for his ancestors transgressions, and he couldn't afford to spill the beans on the true nature of this conflict and risk creating more Dravanian sympathizers out of his own numbers. So he took the easy way out and chose to wash his hands of all the baggage dumped on their generation by just killing all dragons and sparing anyone else from having to linger on this issue any longer.

Ilberd I feel is another really underappreciated one. Guy just wanted his land liberated from garlemalds clutches by any means neccessary and didnt care how history would remember him. His speech about Renouncing any attachment he may have had towards his discouraged countrymen and having no reservations over using their lives to fuel his rebellion still gives me chills.

Quote:

---

I usually love sympathetic antagonists, but thanks to ShB & EW I'm over it.

---

I don't mind them usually, though I've never been a fan of excessive sympathy to the point where the story practically begs you to forgive them (literally every demon slayer villain). Emet, like Ilberd doesnt care what you think of him and doesnt ask for sympathy. But Hermes jumping from this incredibly compassionate man with an unparalleled lust for life to complete nihilist with the story painting him as a victim of his surroundings instead of the deranged madman he really is is really something.

I think FFVIIR handled its antagonists rather well. They're not written to conveniently fall into whatever trap is laid before them, nor do they lack for elements of friendship or loyalty towards one another - particularly in regards to Rufus and The Turks. The protagonists, meanwhile, aren't written to always be righteous and although they don't necessarily always fall into traps, they're often manipulated into doing things for the 'bad guys' in a way that makes sense whenever they let their emotions get the better of them.

I think FFXIV could learn a lot from previous games. As much as I like sympathetic and entertaining antagonists, I like seeing them earn the occasional victory far more than a constant string of defeats based on increasingly contrived scenarios. I fear FFXIV has become so caught up in trying to please everybody that it won't actually let anything bad or shocking happen to any character of note...unless they're an antagonist, which in turn leads to a rather predictable experience.

Not everybody playing the game sees the player character as themselves, either. So we're not all in need of seeing the Warrior of Light wrapped in cotton wool to spare him a dose of realism every now and then.

I'd like to see one of the Scions endure a fate similar to Valens. If we're meant to believe that suffering is a 'necessity' and that multiple worlds were wiped out because they couldn't handle it then it sure would be good to see the protagonists face some actual bleak scenarios from time to time that don't just revolve around them seeing bad things happen to throwaway characters or secondary figures temporarily elevated into the spotlight.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TaleraRistain

Telos apparently means purpose. Telomania means obsession with purpose. You're going to cause the universe to live on and there will be more pain and suffering and she's desperate to stop you.

---

Telos just means end or completion, I don't think even in ancient Greek it meant purpose

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by baklava151

Telos just means end or completion, I don't think even in ancient Greek it meant purpose

---

It can basically mean purpose (see for instance the word "teleology") in the same sense that the word "end" can imply a goal or purpose. So for example with the Telophoroi it was bringers of the end. With Meteion? It's probably the writers being clever and playing on the word's dual meaning, since Meteion was obsessed with finding purpose (since Hermes was), but then she is also the Endsinger, and also driven mad by the what she believed to be the inevitability of civilisational death and even the eventual end of the universe, both of which she helped accelerate, so obsessed with the end in that sense too.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lauront

It can basically mean purpose (see for instance the word "teleology") in the same sense that the word "end" can imply a goal or purpose. So for example with the Telophoroi it was bringers of the end. With Meteion? It's probably the writers being clever and playing on the word's dual meaning, since Meteion was obsessed with finding purpose (since Hermes was), but then she is also the Endsinger, and also driven mad by the what she believed to be the inevitability of civilisational death and even the eventual end of the universe, both of which she helped accelerate, so obsessed with the end in that sense too.

---

I could see it, language is a pretty flexible thing

I thought this expansion had brilliant storytelling as did millions of others. Maybe you just have bad taste.

A not insignificant amount of people in the present day consume and approve of whatever is put before them. As such, fast food is amongst the most popular cuisine in the world. Yet one would not be incorrect to state that such fare simply does not compare to much of what is on offer elsewhere.