Brevity. There just isn't any real need to mention it explicitly every single time, it's enough to set the precedent.Quote:
Originally Posted by Alleo
-
11-28-2019, 09:36 AMJandor
-
11-28-2019, 06:27 PMAlleoThe thing is the lore book was not written overtime its one edition.Quote:
Originally Posted by Jandor
If they wanted to make a precedent why only mention them at the end of 2.0? Why is there no mentioning with Ifrit or any other primals? If these are not done solo then not saying that from the start and only later mentioning it sounds strange.
Yet they go out of their way to make sure to mention, in quite a lot examples, the people that are with us with their names. So in most situations they have no problem with taking up space to mention that x scions are with us and then also have no problem to write when we have a group (including the sentence that it was on the wish of the city states with steps of faith) but for the whole rest they are using singular only?
I am sorry but that is no precedent for me. A precedent would be if they mention at the very start that the WoL is a leader of a group of adventurers that came to Eorzea and how they slew Ifrit. Then afterwards maybe you could get away with only saying that its him. But they did not do that. They make it clear that the WoL is the only survivor of bahamut (so no we had no group of surviving adventurers with us) then say how it was the echo that save the adventurer (singular) then write that Ifrit tries to slaughter the adventurer (singular) and then was killed by the adventurer (singular). This adventurer (singular) was then seen as an eikon slayer by the people and he (singular) got more request for aid.
So the precdent is that if no group is mentioned than its solo because they started it up with showing it all solo.
And they go out of their way to establish that more. With Ravana they went out of their way to say that we and Ysayle go there together and after she failed we take it up. No mention of a group. They make a great point that we go to the ARF alone! So many examples that are done with only a solo person in mind and yet this should still count as a group?
The group only came up three times in this! With the 2.0 MSQ dungeons, with the Garlean soldier before that and with Steps of faith. After the 2.0 dungeons they drop it again to "singular" adventurer. But suddenly with steps of faith its a group again. Why? If you say that they only need to set one precedent and it counts for stuff that happened before the precedent and for it afterwards, why make sure to mention the group there again? Why not write it like the rest too?
No it only really makes sense that the precedent is that we do it solo and the exceptions which have to be written down are being in groups. -
11-28-2019, 10:44 PMJandor
My view isn't that every encounter ever in a party is 100% canonically done in a party. It's that I think the default is that if you're in a party in game then you're in a party in the story. I've arrived at this conclusion for a few reasons.
One, when explicitly mentioned either way, mentioning a party is more common than saying you did it solo.
Two, FFXIV often takes time to create a lore excuse for its gameplay mechanics. You use linkshell devices to chat, you learn to swim from an NPC, teleporting is a real spell and teleport destinations even come up as a plot point. So it makes sense that when you require a party, you really do require a party.
Three, the hero of an FF game/JRPG/most RPGs in general is typically the leader of a group. You're often treat like a great warrior in your own right, but you're also just as often treat like a great hero who inspires all those around you.
You're free to have your own view of course, doesn't affect my enjoyment of the game, like I'm sure my view doesn't affect yours.
But a line like "the adventurer went to face X" doesn't convince me he/she went to face them alone, anymore than someone saying "Genghis Khan invaded China" would make me picture the leader of the Mongols leaping over the Great Wall all by himself.
We know we have adventurer friends, we know the threats we face are often dangerous, sometimes potentially world ending, it just doesn't make sense to me that the default is we tell the lads to stay home while we go sort it all out on our own.
Edit: I feel I should mention though, that my mention of the WoLs party was initially in relation to facing Ran'jit. However often you think we did stuff solo vs. in a party overall, it's mentioned over and over that we have a party in Stormblood, we basically face Ran'jit without our mates after an expansion of having them help us with nearly everything. -
11-29-2019, 12:05 AMAlleo
Yet for other parts we do accept that gameplay is different from the story. For example we only do dungeons once. Every other run is pure gameplay. So if we get a quest ingame that says that we have to run dungeon x again (for example with the relic quests) than I am quite sure that most of us would accept that this is pure gameplay and that at most we remember stuff or we run in story through a very different dungeon (since bosses dont respawn). Yet when it comes to simple quest dialogue (that is in the quest menue itself) we suddenly have to accept that this is 100% done in story?
The text in dialogue is also really different between languages. In german Alisaie and Lyse tell us to go to defeat Susano (alone) while they hold the others back while as far as I have heard the english version makes a joke about group content here? So which one is right?
What about the trust system now? We in canon have the scions with us in dungeons. So if you use that canon system you dont have others with you and the scions also perfectly fit into the cutscenes before an instance and afterwards. Yet somehow you still can use the conten with randoms. Doesnt that show that the random part is not canon? None of the scions ever mention other adventurers with us and they behave always before and afterwards af if it was only with them. Isnt that another hint hat maybe the "party up"feature is gameplay only? Especially when they went out of their way in that very same expansion to show how these 7 other randoms appear against Hades.
The lore book (unlike the game) is purely written in an in lore view. These are scholar of Eorzea that wrote it. There are no gamplay mechanics and other stuff to use here. And in that book they make sure to give a difference. From the very start. So even when we were still a simple adventurer and not special it was already written like we were alone. I also doubt that scholars would forget all the other important eikon slayers that are as strong or nearly as strong as the WoL. Also we are not really a leader the whole time. Yes we are that way when we go against the Garleans but otherwise there is no hint that we would necessarily be the lead. Again we start out as a truly unknown individual. And even there it was only us who got mentioned. And later these "scholars" do point out other people like Alphinaud, Ysayle, Aymeric, Estinien. If the WoL was THE big hero which only ever needed to be mentioned (while the rest of the assumed group is completely forgotten..) then why are those mentioned?
The fun thing is that shadowbringers probably falls more into the category of the other FF games with having a group. Because in those other FF games you might have a leader but especially in the newer ones the rest of the party is always important and does not somehow just disappear as soon as a "dungeon" or "boss fight" is over. The scions in this expansion fit with that. The assumed unnamed groups not so much..they are not even noticed by the scions. If a party is with the WoL the whole time through all those primals and dungeons..well it sucks to be them because unlike Genghis Khan soldiers who were nothing but fodder, those individuals should be nearly equal as the WoL and thus important and known individuals..that they would be threated even worse than NPC Nr. x would be quite bad..especially since it would not show a good light on our character.
About Ranjit:
The problem with trying to say that we lost because we normally are not able to beat up enemies without others (which is wrong because we also have quite the solo instances in story and with job quests) cant hold up because at the end we still defeated him solo..after a very short amount of time on the first (especially compared to his decades of training..)and while we were under the heavy influence of the Light which did not power us up..we have learned no new tricks that could beat his training style..and the argument from some that he got no break really does not make sense to me. The WoL had to do much more the whole time and yet we still found time to rest. I doubt that Ranjit was active 24/7 until the end. He was the whole time in a much better position because he was the hunter and we the prey. So no that is imo also not a good argument how we suddenly were able to beat him. -
11-29-2019, 06:18 AMKhalithar
I would have preferred they do something to defy conventions so far. I would have loved it when we face the Eulmore general that he's this great esteemed warrior and we brutally crush him. Then he goes mad trying to get stronger than us, only to be defeated each time until we finish him off. =/
-
11-29-2019, 10:26 AMRhaisWell, they did kind of do something like that with the "WE GO TOGETHER" guy, the one in Doma castle. I can't remember his name, but we fought him multiple times and he kept coming back only to be defeated each time.Quote:
Originally Posted by Khalithar
-
11-29-2019, 02:42 PMErendisOh, that comic relief character. I'd rather have someone we can take seriously....Quote:
Originally Posted by Rhais
-
11-29-2019, 06:05 PMTheodricThat wouldn't be 'defying conventions' since that's exactly what the Warrior of Light does in the vast majority of confrontations.Quote:
Originally Posted by Khalithar
-
11-29-2019, 06:45 PMJandorI'd say Japanese. Failing that then I'd say English, as the English translation lead is also co-lead world and lore developer.Quote:
Originally Posted by Alleo
Doesn't the Trust system back up my idea that we mainly run party stuff in actual parties? As soon as the story moves to a place where our previous adventurer friends can't realistically come with us we get a whole system for running them with our NPC friends instead.Quote:
Originally Posted by Alleo
The Scions have mentioned other adventurers before, they only really address us in cutscenes though because the other players have gone.
I can't think of a single time that we're shown with other players outside of an instance where we are actually with other players at that time, and they've moved away from putting the cutscenes inside the instance itself after the end of ARR.
If they remade Meridianum and Praetorium to be more in line with normal end of story dungeons, then despite the fact it's canon we had help, all our adventurer friends would disappear from the cutscenes.
I suspect the game just isn't set up to remember who you were with so they can be slotted into scenes when they're not there.
If anything, doesn't that make it less reliable? If the lore book is written from in-character in-game perspectives then I don't think we can take it as gospel.Quote:
Originally Posted by Alleo
Whatever you think of the party situation and other adventurers, I think we can both agree these Eorzean scholars weren't there with us. -
11-29-2019, 08:20 PMAlleoYeah that one was horrible. It made no sense to me that we would let him run away and seeing on what happened with him at the end it would have been much nicer to just have ended him earlier..Quote:
Originally Posted by Rhais
I honestly wish that Ranjit was someone we could have had beaten but did not because we needed to protect the others thus we took hits or made sure to distract him which means we could not fight him fully. Thus later when we are alone we can go full out and defeat him.
@Jandor: I am putting your quotes and my answer behind spoiler. Kinda getting a bit big.
Why would SE care if it makes sense to have a group with us or not? If there are truly groups with us at each primal then most of those fights (and in game story) dont make any sense either. And its not like we do have dungeons and trials without the scions either.Quote:
Originally Posted by Jandor
So what is canon then? If I run the stuff with only the scions then its kinda canon that only the scions are there (and it makes sense) but you can still run it with randoms and as you said, it makes no sense that random adventurers are there with us. Doesnt that kinda hint that the gameplay part of searching for groups is just that: Gameplay? And when we truly needed a group in lore we get a whole cutscene with the exarch summoning them before we even go into the group search.
Also why would the other players go? I mean we are talking in story about other adventurers like us that are living in that world and that have risked their lifes and suddenly no matter the situation they just disappear into thin air? Why is nobody shocked or sad that somehow we are the only one getting out after the ARF if we went there with 7 other people? (And how they even got there)
The big questions are always: Who are those strongh people that are able to keep up with the WoL? Why are those not with the scions even though they have the echo? How are they able to be where its necessary even when its impossible for them to be there? Why are they gone afterwards even though there is no way for them to escape? Why is not a single NPC mentioning them, seeing them as heros, calling their names? Why does the WoL never ever seemingly care about them?
Now we are going to just put the lore book down as being canon because its written in an ingame view? No I dont, sry. Its still written by the lore writers of these games and they did think about what they want to include or not. Just because they have written that from a certain view does not make something suddenly wrong or false.
And again: If those are from the view of the people why would they exclude the other heros? At the beginning we were a nobody..why would they then already ignore the other heros at this point? We were all nobodies back then, so the WoL does not have a reason to be special. So if we had others with us at Ifrit, Garuda, Titan and more why are those not mentioned from the start? But later with steps of faith where we are famous they thought about mentioning at least that we had help. It does not make sense to me that all the writing is wrong in the lore book and it should be group for each one of them but somehow the writers decided to only include that with three examples which are further down the book..and one example even having these adventurers with us in cutscenes.
In the end I still wait for a good explanation for all these adventurers with the primals..because if they are fighting with us means that each cutscene before and after the fight (as in story cutscenes) are false, because in realitiy we are not there standing just with us and the scions. There are random 7 other people there too that are ignored by everyone..oh and in some cases four of those people will stand back and watch us fight through a dungeon only to come in at the trial fight afterwards. The very same people will also stand back and disappear in solo fights or when we really needed help.
So all that we see is wrong, including the lore book itself.