[Spoilers] I’m irrevocably Unimpressed

At the end of the day it all comes down to perspective. There really is no right and wrong here. For any of the shards to exist the source had to be fractured and what was there to; basically, die. For Emet's memory of the source to exist all the shards must in essence die.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wyssahtyn

Ah, yes, slaughtering all filthy subhumansancients in order to bring back the master race no less is plainly, PLAINLY, A VERY GOOD THING. That people can actually take the Ascian's words and believe in them so wholeheartedly is frankly concerning.

Should have figured this sort of trash would have popped up after Varis's tripe in 4.5.

---

Ah, the worst sort of literary critic. The sort that acts as if supporting a fictional character or faction is equal to doing so in the real world. To say nothing of the deliberate overlooking of nuance - of which there is much to be found in FFXIV.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mario710

Seriously, I cannot believe genocide of all things was brought into this. Did any of you not read the story? We are not actually alive.

The rejoining absolutely should happen. We are fragmented souls? If all the shards rejoin the source, then we become whole? Are you ok with being a ghost?

Is it genocide to delete your entire portfolio of dead family members?

---

Keeping things hidden for spoilers

Correction. Our soul is rejoined into that of another and essentially merged into one being. We, the person we currently are now, would cease to exist. It would be the equivalent of your soul merging with all of your siblings to form one "perfect human". All of your individuality would be gone. You and them wouldn't be the same.

We were essentially fighting for our individuality; Emet fighting for a bygone world he viewed a Utopia.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Theodric

Ah, the worst sort of literary critic. The sort that acts as if supporting a fictional character or faction is equal to doing so in the real world. To say nothing of the deliberate overlooking of nuance - of which there is much to be found in FFXIV.

---

By all means feel free to explain the "nuance" in the wholesale genocide of countless peoples in the pursuit of the possible resurrection of a dead race. Furthermore, explain the nuance in "She [Hydaelyn] simply cannot be trusted. She's a Primal. A false deity. A parasite to be cut out so that the reins of history can be firmly placed into the hands of man for better or for worse", since you're so keen to always drag out your haughty shield of "nuance".

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wyssahtyn

By all means feel free to explain the "nuance" in the wholesale genocide of countless peoples in the pursuit of the possible resurrection of a dead race.

---

Sure, here you go:

http://forum.square-enix.com/ffxiv/t...=1#post5071522

From the lead developers own mouth, no less.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Theodric

Sure, here you go:

http://forum.square-enix.com/ffxiv/t...=1#post5071522

From the lead developers own mouth, no less.

---

The only relevant thing to my first question in that interview basically amounts to "Emet-Selch has his reasons". If that is your standard for "nuance", then I question your standards and how you have the gall to call me "the worst kind of literary critic". Furthermore, that does not even answer my question to begin with in its partial relevance. I asked you, the user Theodric, to explain the "nuance" in the wholesale genocide of countless peoples in the possible resurrection of a dead race. I did not ask for the developers' answer. The expectation is that you use your own words. Additionally, you neglected to address my second question.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wyssahtyn

The only relevant thing to my first question in that interview basically amounts to "Emet-Selch has his reasons". If that is your standard for "nuance", then I question your standards and how you have the gall to call me "the worst kind of literary critic". Furthermore, that does not even answer my question to begin with in its partial relevance. I asked you, the user Theodric, to explain the "nuance" in the wholesale genocide of countless peoples in the possible resurrection of a dead race. I did not ask for the developers' answer. The expectation is that you use your own words. Additionally, you neglected to address my second question.

---

The interview answers all of your questions, though. You implied that it was 'concerning' that people believed the Ascians and felt sympathy for their plight. It isn't concerning at all by any measure because...it's fiction. It's really that simple. You're free to read into it as you so please, though so too are others and the lead developer intended the character in question to be a tragic and sympathetic figure. I'd say it proved to be quite the success.

The motives and history of various characters and factions is what makes a story fascinating to me. I enjoy compiling the facts and figuring out why they do what they do - and compelling antagonists are in abundance in FFXIV and the series as a whole.

Those who have become highly invested in Hydaelyn are not going to accept that the other side has their own rationale for the topic and are not written to be villains, no matter who says it, not even if it’s the devs. I agree that this is the worst kind of ‘critic’ and is unable to grasp the part of the story where they 1) saw all their sacrifices undone by some Primal, which ended up consuming the aether of said sacrifices and 2) don’t consider post Sundering beings to be alive in the same sense they are, for pretty understandable reasons.

Trying to imply it’s ‘concerning’ people find their side sympathetic is just a bad faith tactic and is not going to work. If the story goes in the direction that there is much more to it, then I may reassess but frankly it’s just speculation at this point.

Read the interview, don’t read it. I doubt anyone hugely cares. You are free to ignore the nuances in the story much as people are free to ignore your uh... ‘concern’.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ForteNightshade

We were essentially fighting for our individuality; Emet fighting for a bygone world he viewed a Utopia.[/HB]

---

And yet it is abundantly clear that the sundering of their world into 13 was their own doing. There's plenty of reason to think this "Utopia" would just repeat history and sundering into 13 again if it were restored. Emet is deluded, viewing his own people with dangerously rose-tinted glasses.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Theodric

It isn't concerning at all by any measure because...it's fiction.

---

I don't think you even have a basic idea of what literature is. You're supposed to be concerned when you read 1984. You're supposed to be concerned when you read It Can't Happen Here. Your not suppose to disregard these books simply because they are fiction.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mario710

I don't follow the 'genocide is bad' philosophy. It is clearly stated that we don't actually EXIST. Everyone and everything across the different shards are fragmented reflections.

Yes, genocide is awful, however, restoring a shade does not count as genocide. As Emet-Selch put it: "You are not actually alive to me."

Well, would you look at that? Guess what? He's right.

---

are you memeing right now?

you have to be memeing