Can 7.0 focus on a storyline without the philosophizing

...and you conveniently refused to even look at / ignored the rest of the post. Didnt meet your narrative.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by VelKallor

...and you conveniently refused to even look at / ignored the rest of the post. Didnt meet your narrative.

---

I think they were tired of refuting your same, tired old points.

Btw: why does the sacred timeline with a genocide and the death of countless beings due to the Endsinger need to be protected??? The timeline with WoL dead had to be changed... guess because the WoL pays the sub

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AwesomeJr44

There's the age old "you just skipped cutscenes or didn't understand the DEEP themes!!!" excuse again. Gotta love that one. Regardless, if there's no real good or evil in EW, why does the story bend over backwards to paint someone who committed genocide as a 'herois'?

---

I swear people that pull out this excuse are very close to how the Rick and Morty intellectual crowd sound.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Eorzean_username

...

---

Oh yes, my post was intentionally provocative. I don't think the WoL literally told her about rape specifically and she was all giddy about it, but there are still horrific implications in her insistence of realizing the terribly flawed timeline of an individual she met (for a few hours at best). Implications that the story made sure to ignore. She chose that blurry vision instead of the world and the inhabitants she knew. Could the story please address that? No?
And for those who're going to tell me that she didn't intentionally preserve the timeline, that argument was out the second the devs confirmed she spared Emet-Selch for that reason. (With the other unfortunate implication that she intended for the 7 Calamities to happen all along.)

The timeloop was a huge mistake which killed the story completely and the main reason it's incredibly hard to see Venat (and the WoL, who's just as complicit) as a sympathetic character.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by VelKallor

...and you conveniently refused to even look at / ignored the rest of the post. Didnt meet your narrative.

---

No, that isn't the case. It's odd that you're responding here rather than in the other thread where the points you raised were debunked with actual sources.

I'll be blunt - the grasp of the story from some here is very bare bones. At best they've gone through the MSQ's and echo what other posters say based of 'feels' rather than facts. By their own admission, many of those fawning over 'cRyStAl MoMmY' have not completed all of the side content or soaked up every side quest to see how the overall package fits together. It's certainly a lot of to ask of anybody and that's fine.

Yet as I recall, Lauront and I took the time to refute your points in the following posts:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lauront

They clearly had enough to muster enough sacrifices for Zodiark to be summoned in the first place, to save their star, and then again to restore the star. Resilience is also an acquired trait, not just an inherent one. The ancients were shown, in virtually all of their depictions, as a very ascetic, pragmatic people who valued efficiency and the well-being of the star above all else. Though they possessed great inherent power, it came with its own risks (e.g. shown in Venat's side story), and they learnt to manage these. You can imagine many other a species, possessed of such power, ending itself in a crescendo of bloodshed. The notion that, if confronted with the truth of what hit them, they would not adjust as necessary to ensure the survival of their star to me is a rather laughable one. Among the destroyed stars we're shown, they alone turned it around (the dragons had to enact an exodus to survive) - it was the lack of faith of one of their own, thanks to what she was told, that undid them.

But we're not shown Venat providing this information to them. We're shown some scene with some straw ancients prattling on about "perfect paradises" etc., which is not congruent with what we saw detailed about the 3rd sacrifice, i.e. that it was to be undertaken for their brethren, who we now know to be in a limbo of sorts in Zodiark, in order to release them. Meanwhile Venat responds with the equivalent of Hallmark greeting card platitudes about despair that I would not blame anyone in that situation for shrugging off. The arguments shown in Venat's stylised cutscene (and it is indeed stylised as it fits none of the details we know about the 3rd sacrifice), without the context informing them, are not convincing ones and border on tone-deaf. Even in Anamnesis Anyder, Venat (probably because she knows her former colleagues have good reason to doubt what is being said due to the information she's not providing them) refuses to speak ill of the Convocation, noting that they too do what they think is best for the star.

Meanwhile, for all their supposed 'resilience', the sundered are no less susceptible to succumbing to despair, as shown in Thavnair. The Omega sidequest elaborates on this in articulating that there is no single one character trait or attitude that makes one resilient to despair - sometimes even strength of character can result in this, and tentatively attributes this variance to the sundered, dragons and ancients possessing, unlike his species, variety in individual perspectives. In the 8UC we see the Ironworks convinced they had to go back in time to save the WoL (at the potential risk of their own timeline fading) and 'right' the timeline, because they deemed the path of their timeline doomed.

There is an irony in the words as well given that the WoL is in fact one of the most rejoined sundered, being 9/14ths as opposed to the usual 8/14th of the Source and is reliant on a variety of ancient props, such as Azem's crystal, and Emet's fondness and Elidibus's sense of duty, without whom their efforts would've resulted in an absolute failure. Really, barring thinness of aether (which indirect methods could've maybe accomplished, like the Resonance allows Garleans to use magic), the ancients generally and the Convocation specifically exhibited all of the bolded in that quote, and to it I'd add a measure of selflessness.



? This is pants on the head wrong. Never ever was it mentioned that his tempering would be the source of any "mandate" for repeated sacrifices to sustain him. It's not even shown that either Zodiark or Hydaelyn require constant aether like this. In fact, the Q&A contradicts this:



The reason the Convocation and the parts of the populace who agreed with them wanted to undertake this sacrifice is known from Hythlodaeus's shade - it is to restore their brethren within Zodiark. Tempering is not alluded to as a factor, and at the end of the day, the tempering only affected the Convocation and is from a primal with no real will of its own when not controlled by Themis, who in turn, as shown by Fandaniel controlling Zodiark, could suppress the souls within him when controlling the primal if needed. So the above is Reddit headcanons on steroids and doesn't line up with what either Hydaelyn herself, her group or Yoshi say about their motives.



How does it not? She eliminated them as a species for the very purpose of them becoming abler to directly wield dynamis (the logic of which is itself questionable, and also renders the sundered more susceptible to it.) Before you say it didn't kill anyone - it did. It cut the ancients' lifespans to a fraction of what they once were. This is no different to killing by poison. They also devolved to such a degree that they had to evolve into the sundered races to cope with their much weaker forms, as per Yoshi in the Q&A. Consider that from what we're shown of ancient facilities, they require creation magicks to be operated. They're not going to be very usable to the sundered (who are also much smaller), are they? Nor will they be available to deal with the predators roaming the star. Venat went even further than this in desiring that memory of her people was forgotten. This is a genocide in every single facet. There isn't a credible definition by which this is not a genocide. Yoshi even refers to Emet as being spared from being killed in discussing him, and Hermes's short stories likewise refer to him as being killed by the Sundering (not the EN one, of course.) And in order for her plan to work, which as Yoshi said, can be read as trying to preserve the timeline, it requires yet more genocide. Why? Because that in turn requires the Rejoinings to reach the present day state of affairs. She spared Emet to help enact her plan.

The NieR short story (authored by Ishikawa) gave a taste of what the situation was like after the Sundering, since the game itself neglected to show it:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YC0U_aTv0EI



Don't lump Azem into this. She made a hard, horrible, terrible choice, but the necessity of it is eminently debatable.



Sorry but changing a word here isn't going to make it not a genocide. The claim that they were 'doomed' anyway is similar logic to what Emet-Selch uses regarding the sundered. And it could be true - how many of the dead ends are the sundered subject to, both including ones where supposed 'perfection' is the cause of the end* and affairs such as war or the plague? We've already seen them fall prey to such ends on a micro-scale. How easy would it be for some future antagonist or villain to say "I've glimpsed your future, all paths end in doom, it's time to end it." I have a hunch that if that happens, even if the proposed solution is the totally-not-a-genocide called Sundering, it won't go unopposed and people won't excuse it on the basis of "maybes" in the future - sort of how like with the Rejoinings there was never this humming and hawing about whether they're genocides. They can even have Clive come over from XVI and remind this future not-Venat that "Where there's a chance, there's still a choice" (paraphrasing.)

*Remember, the Nibirun became that way from a state similar to the sundered... funnily enough the tribe quests then go on to show there's hope even for this race of strawmen, who incidentally remind me much more of certain quarters of the 14 fandom than of the ascetic ancients.



No, not really:

https://i.imgur.com/cn49Exw.png


It's only with EW that a third and by all accounts final sacrifice, detailing "a portion of it", of this ambiguous life, somehow becomes interminable sacrifices... and all of this based on a stylised cutscene from Venat's perspective. It's EW canon based off what is little better than headcanon. It doesn't even make sense for the sacrifices to be interminable on another basis: their restored brethren would likewise possess creation magicks. So the notion that they'd run to Zodiark for every little thing, whether informed by Venat about the truth regarding Endsinger or not, is implausible.

Without the first two sacrifices, there is no star. They had tried other methods but none worked (known from JP dialogue from Emet in the Amaurot dungeon) due to the Final Days messing with their creation magicks. A certain someone didn't give them enough information to try another effective solution earlier, so they had to resort to large-scale sacrifice to preserve and revive their star and, later, to retrieve their brethren from the limbo that was being inside Zodiark.

Have to agree on one thing though, this topic has worn thin for me as well.



And at the end of the day, they did try listen to him, but he wasn't described in his short story as being particularly receptive. Judging their society by him alone (where really, it's just a case that his despondent mentality was difficult for the others to grasp viscerally) would be like me judging sundered society on the basis of Ilberd, Amon, Yotsuyu, Zenos etc. and saying "wow these sundered are kind of psychotic/scary and don't grasp mental health concepts, time for them to all die!" GCBTW "empath" logic on the ancients, though.



Yeah but don't also try ignore the fact that Nidhogg himself had delivered a less than favourable view of the sundered, claiming that they were ill fit as stewards of the star. This is understandable, to an extent, because he was tasked with protecting his kind and we know from EW that other attempts of theirs to settle on other stars were met with very harsh conflict, and it certainly doesn't justify Thordan's killing of Ratatoskr, which still seems to have come down to powerlust, but it's not like Nidhogg conveyed an intent to just co-exist and sing kumbaya. It can readily be interpreted as a threat of future violence. Of course this is where diplomacy should've come in.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Theodric

If you can't acknowledge that the complete eradication and deliberate destruction of an entire race counts as an act of genocide then there's not really much room to see eye to eye, is there?

The Sundering was very much an act of deliberate genocide and no amount of screeching or preaching from the protagonists or those that imprinted upon the pretty mother goddess figure is going to change that.

It's a statement of fact, not opinion. If you completely wipe out an entire group of people and then work to obscure any knowledge of their existence and replace them with completely different beings altogether...then that is very much genocide at play.

Much in the same way as how the Rejoinings would inevitably involve genocide as well.

---

(Those curious can, of course, follow the post links to see what exactly was being responded to - the short version is the usual bizarre narrative that the Ancients weren't subject to genocide through the Sundering and that they couldn't appreciate life or each other...which is readily refuted by the bonds shown between them in Elpis, Amaurot and Pandaemonium.)

By all means, feel free to favour and root for Venat. That isn't the problem here. It's the bizarre insistence that she had 'no choice' when she quite clearly had other options available to her. Not everybody self inserts in this game and instead look at the broader narrative, rather than what happens to benefit their 'Warrior of Light' and the Scions.

To say nothing of the fact that many of us aren't going to accept paper thin reasoning for genocide, even if it's fictional, when that reasoning is poorly written and doesn't hold up under even the slightest bit of scrutiny.

Not sure why every story thread turns into a debate about Venat. Regardless, the fact that there is such controversy surrounding Venat at the very least implies bad writing.

I believe Yoshi P mentioned that the story is up for interpretation. In that case, why does the writing portray the situation under such a black-and-white lens? I would concur that when I played through Endwalker, I have not felt that the writers intended Venat to be a morally grey character. In fact, in one of the 6.x patches, you were given a choice to say that Venat's actions were unforgivable, but one of the Scions would quickly dismiss you and change the topic as if they wanted to move on and the cutscene had an "Awkard..." mood as if you just blurted out a racist slur.

They tied so much of the outgoing story arc to her and had her play such a central role in EW regarding one of its foundational events, that it's difficult to discuss issues with the story without her coming up at some point, and it's not without its tensions with the Scions and their own actions as Eorzean_username brought up. Even the codex itself does this when it discusses Zodiark and immediately pivots back to her. Entries referencing her can only be described as hagiographic in nature... though not to the extent her short story was. :p Though you're right about what Yoshi has said, and not just once. The only piece of writing which to me showcased it (and then, to an extent) was the Omega sidequest...

The way they approached all this is largely why I dread them doing any further writing of this sort.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TheDecay

Not sure why every story thread turns into a debate about Venat. Regardless, the fact that there is such controversy surrounding Venat at the very least implies bad writing.

I believe Yoshi P mentioned that the story is up for interpretation. In that case, why does the writing portray the situation under such a black-and-white lens? I would concur that when I played through Endwalker, I have not felt that the writers intended Venat to be a morally grey character. In fact, in one of the 6.x patches, you were given a choice to say that Venat's actions were unforgivable, but one of the Scions would quickly dismiss you and change the topic as if they wanted to move on and the cutscene had an "Awkard..." mood as if you just blurted out a racist slur.

---

Was that when the Watcher offers the choice in the Omega side quest? I am a staunch Venat supporter, though I do understand why people wanted a bit more ambiguity and introspection regarding her actions and the reactions form the Scions. That would have been cool, especially to have Thancred or someone call Venat out, but if I could only like and support writing that I felt was flawless, then I would never like anything I feel haha. Thats the thing with writing and storytelling, its very subjective. The very fact her arc can be seen as, at best, divisive rather the outright hated points more to that then bad writing.

I do wish we could move on from just debating about Vanet, but at leats it has been a while since I have seen the Geneva Conventions being posted here... thats somthing!

It's hard to avoid Venat when talking about Endwalker since she's so integral to its story. (Hermes too, and the writing around him is arguably even worse but saying he was unlikeable is much less of a controversial take.)
But it's true that she takes a bit too much of the spotlight, which makes people believe often that she's the ONLY issue we have with 6.0 and 6.x. and feeds the misguided idea that only raging misogynists dislike the expac, unfortunately.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TheDecay

Not sure why every story thread turns into a debate about Venat.

---

It's probably a few things.

a) EW "revelations" and M. Night Shyamalan time-travel "plot twist" turned Venat into the Kevin Bacon of FFXIV. Now, no matter what you're talking about, you can somehow end up connecting it back to Venat's conscious and intentional decisions.

For example, you want to complain about the really excessively sledgehammered philosophising / preachiness in XIV plot — great, Venat is here in our Contacts, ready to provide multiple scenes in which she gives us excellent examples of the problem, and can be traced as causing several more of them.

————————

b) Venat is one of the few controversial characters who receives no real consequences nor accountability, and never will.

Everyone else around you handles her with downy-soft mittens in the storyline; still praises her constantly; fawns about her almost at random; and then she gets to "feel a little bad" for ~5 seconds, before being reassured that she's actually a great absentee parent, and allowed to dissipate into sparkles with a smile, while knowing that her ridiculous plan will still be carried out just as she wanted it.

She just... completely wins. From a plotting perspective, she suffers no serious downsides and has to fight for nothing. She does whatever she wants, then gets rewarded with everything she wants, then just "goes home".

As a result, I think there's one of those "unresolved issues" tripwires here, because anyone unsatisfied can't even hope that the plot will get better resolution some day. So people resort to screaming into the void about it at every even-vaguely-related opportunity out of sheer impotent frustration.

————————

c) People who don't think about it too much, and/or have moral compasses very unlike mine I guess, tend to feel the way that the plot "wants" you to feel about Venat, and become polarised and confused when they see actual hostility towards her as a character.

So she's much more likely to set off a fireworks display at a single mention, even a tangential mention, than less confusing characters (such as... just about everyone else in the entire game, save maybe Hades during ShB).

————————

d) Stemming from all three above, at this point you could basically create a variant of Godwin's Law for Venat/Hydaelyn with regard to FFXIV Story discussions.

————————

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TheDecay

I believe Yoshi P mentioned that the story is up for interpretation.

---

Honestly, this sounds like the kind of thing that someone says when they just don't want to talk about it any more, because they have no intention of ever returning to it.

"It means what you want it to mean!" is a great way to deflect responsibility off the creators. It's like distracting a pack of dogs in a cartoon by throwing a single steak that they'll all go fight over.

Now "everyone" is correct, so "no one" can be disappointed (or bother you about it any more). Hooray!

————————

I'm not saying that stories can't be deliberately-written to be ambiguous and open to viewer interpretation...

...I just think calling EW that kind of story is kind of pushing it in terms of plausibility, since it seems to bend over backwards at every turn to indicate exactly what it wants to mean and exactly how it wants you to feel about it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Eorzean_username

Honestly, this sounds like the kind of thing that someone says when they just don't want to talk about it any more, because they have no intention of ever returning to it.

"It means what you want it to mean!" is a great way to deflect responsibility off the creators. It's like distracting a pack of dogs in a cartoon by throwing a single steak that they'll all go fight over.

Now "everyone" is correct, so "no one" can be disappointed (or bother you about it any more). Hooray!

————————

I'm not saying that stories can't be deliberately-written to be ambiguous and open to viewer interpretation...

...I just think calling EW that kind of story is kind of pushing it in terms of plausibility, since it seems to bend over backwards at every turn to indicate exactly what it wants to mean and exactly how it wants you to feel about it.

---

It pretty much means they are done talking about it, and that they don't want to explore it anymore. Cause exploring it further will most likely just make the plot even worse. That's pretty much why they won't tell us what Azem was doing that whole time Venat did what she did. Because the true answer will probably be an unsatisfying one. It is easier for things to be left unsaid so people can head canon the possibilities that make them happiest. Is it lazy? Yes. Is it bad writing? Yes. But it's not uncommon in video game stories especially if the true answer has risk of displeasing people.

Shadowbringers have good character developments but the overarching story is boring (the world is shrouded by light, so kill the lightwardens one by one to restore darkness. That's it).

Endwalker is the other way around only because all the characters have been developed in Shadowbringers, so they didn't have to do it again. They can focus on delivering a great overarching story of overcoming despair.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by VelKallor

No one said this.

Venat was faced with an impossible decision. She COULD NOT tell them of Elpis, could not tell them what she already knew about the earthshattering blunder Hermes had made. Could not tell them that they, the Ancients and their overweening arrogance, had laid the seed of their own destruction. Could not tell Emet-Selch about the gaping hole in his memory thanks to Kairos. The timeline had to remain.

From a youtube video commentary

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SwTcMt6k8FQ



She had to make a decision no one should have had to make, she had little recourse BUT to sunder the worlds. They had forestalled the Final Days for a time..but she knew that day would come.

There WAS no perfect solution, no perfect answer..she did what she HAD to.

In the same vein as the Kobiyashi Maru, no matter what she did, they would LOSE. Meteion was still out there, the Final Days would come again. There was no choice, no alternative. Often there never is...a lesson that I had to personally relearn a long time ago.

In her own words:

" No more shall man have wings to bear him to Paradise..henceforth, he shall WALK."

"As fragmented, imperfect beings, yours is a never-ending quest.
A quest to find your purpose, knowing your end is assured.
To find the strength to continue, when all strength has left you.
To find joy, even as darkness descends...
...and amidst deepest despair, light everlasting."

---

I see someone doesn't watch the lore Q&A ;p

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hurlstone

Was that when the Watcher offers the choice in the Omega side quest? I am a staunch Venat supporter, though I do understand why people wanted a bit more ambiguity and introspection regarding her actions and the reactions form the Scions. That would have been cool, especially to have Thancred or someone call Venat out, but if I could only like and support writing that I felt was flawless, then I would never like anything I feel haha. Thats the thing with writing and storytelling, its very subjective. The very fact her arc can be seen as, at best, divisive rather the outright hated points more to that then bad writing.

I do wish we could move on from just debating about Vanet, but at leats it has been a while since I have seen the Geneva Conventions being posted here... thats somthing!

---

Precisely. If the intention is to make Venat's actions morally ambiguous, then some different reactions from the Scions would be very welcome. We can have Thancred just wondering out loud that he doesn't know what to feel about Venat's actions as you suggested.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TheDecay

Precisely. If the intention is to make Venat's actions morally ambiguous, then some different reactions from the Scions would be very welcome. We can have Thancred just wondering out loud that he doesn't know what to feel about Venat's actions as you suggested.

---

Thancred had the perfect opportunity of doing so after it was revealed that the escape plan required them to ditch all the population of the shards (including Ryne, shouldn't he care a little more about that?). But I guess the writers were more interested in wrapping the story quickly (since Venat's plan A and B were obviously their clutch to move the story to the finish line) than to write characters who act as themselves, so they just made a small mention and moved on.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kozh

I see someone doesn't watch the lore Q&A ;p

---

Is that the one where Yoshi P plays Zelda because he's bored? /jk i know that was a live letter.

Why? Did they retcon something there? Or come up with something? I just *LOVE* this defense by people. You have to actively seek out other stuff for the entertainment product you do consume not to be full of plotholes? Most of the times i was dumb enough to go to wikis it's just boring lore that doesn't change anything. If you NEED to read some external stuff for your MAIN STORY to make sense than you have an awful story.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Nav_Fae

It pretty much means they are done talking about it, and that they don't want to explore it anymore. Cause exploring it further will most likely just make the plot even worse. That's pretty much why they won't tell us what Azem was doing that whole time Venat did what she did. Because the true answer will probably be an unsatisfying one. It is easier for things to be left unsaid so people can head canon the possibilities that make them happiest. Is it lazy? Yes. Is it bad writing? Yes. But it's not uncommon in video game stories especially if the true answer has risk of displeasing people.

---

To be honest, I'm one of those who doesn't want to know anything more about Azem. I think, in some cases (such as this one), it's better left as a bit of a mystery.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BRVV

Is that the one where Yoshi P plays Zelda because he's bored? /jk i know that was a live letter.

Why? Did they retcon something there? Or come up with something? I just *LOVE* this defense by people. You have to actively seek out other stuff for the entertainment product you do consume not to be full of plotholes? Most of the times i was dumb enough to go to wikis it's just boring lore that doesn't change anything. If you NEED to read some external stuff for your MAIN STORY to make sense than you have an awful story.

---

It's from the following Live Letter:

https://forum.square-enix.com/ffxiv/...803-03-2022%29

The third post is the cliff notes version of the lore related questions. The video in the first post has the full answers if you're willing to sit through it.

The reddit discord translations section has a transcript of the live version as well, which is more comprehensive than the summary version they put together.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Theodric

As such, I think that the core cast should reflect that. I'm Scottish, I've made friends from many different parts of the world during my time playing MMO's. We don't always agree on everything and it's outright bizarre that the writers of this game insist on pushing mutual agreement amongst the core cast at pretty much every turn. That isn't how real, relatable individuals operate.

---

I had forgotten this but I just went through story on an alt and there was a point where Alphinaud went and asked Riol and Alianne why they stayed with the Scions after the Crystal Braves disbanded. And the simple answer they gave was that they recognized that the Scions were all united in a common cause.

Also, when you watch the core group we interact with, there's an unspoken agreement to be open to input and allow people to speak. They debate different perspectives or paths to take and each gives their viewpoint in a non-judgmental atmosphere. You're not going to see a lot of direct conflict in that sort of environment and it's not unrealistic because that's how effective teams work in the real world.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TaleraRistain

I had forgotten this but I just went through story on an alt and there was a point where Alphinaud went and asked Riol and Alianne why they stayed with the Scions after the Crystal Braves disbanded. And the simple answer they gave was that they recognized that the Scions were all united in a common cause.

Also, when you watch the core group we interact with, there's an unspoken agreement to be open to input and allow people to speak. They debate different perspectives or paths to take and each gives their viewpoint in a non-judgmental atmosphere. You're not going to see a lot of direct conflict in that sort of environment and it's not unrealistic because that's how effective teams work in the real world.

---

They dress it up very nicely but there's rarely any serious attempt to truly see where the 'other side' are coming from. More often than not the story will treat anyone with different viewpoints or opinions as in the wrong or in need of being humbled or humiliated - often with some silly strawman being conjured up in the process. Even in cases where the vote goes the 'wrong way' initially, the Scions will insist on doubling down and trying to force through the 'correct' result. Either through actual force or deception.

As for 'effective teams'. I'd argue otherwise. I'd say that a group of individuals from different backgrounds and belief systems would genuinely be more capable of understanding where different people are coming from as opposed to those who push out anyone the moment there's even the slightest meaningful difference.

Let's also not forget that it wasn't until recently that the typical stance embraced by society at large could be summed up as 'live and let live'. Ultimately I don't think the game does a good job at accounting for different tastes, personal beliefs, cultural differences and personality differences amongst the playerbase.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Carin-Eri

To be honest, I'm one of those who doesn't want to know anything more about Azem. I think, in some cases (such as this one), it's better left as a bit of a mystery.

---

Hmmm, I more or less agree. think the way Azem has be set now is a good place to stop or take a break, at least. We have the in-game explanation for summoning folk now, and we know that our character was connected to the Ancients in a special way. No need for any more info outside of decoration or head-canon and now EW is wrapped up, I would rather we move onto more newer things.

The only reason I think we may learn more about them is perhaps if we get a deep dive into Ancient culture and lore, which I doubt we will anytime soon in-game. I suppose they could decide that Azem was busy dealing with 7.0+ threat during the time of the Sundering. That could be interesting thinking about it, but unnecessary.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TheDecay

Precisely. If the intention is to make Venat's actions morally ambiguous, then some different reactions from the Scions would be very welcome. We can have Thancred just wondering out loud that he doesn't know what to feel about Venat's actions as you suggested.

---

Yeah, I feel if anyone would speak out it would be Thancred, given his connection to Minfilia and what she sacrificed to help Hydaelyn, and as Kazhar said the idea of abandoning Ryne and her Shard. Would havge made for a very interesting scene, even if he ended up relenting.

I think the only right way to develop Azem would be to ask our character random inconsequential question (like food or recreation preference) and then randomly drop a fact like "oh, Azem loves [same thing you picked] thing by the way". Although with shifting away from Ancients, I doubt we'll get any of that.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Theodric

More often than not the story will treat anyone with different viewpoints or opinions as in the wrong or in need of being humbled or humiliated - often with some silly strawman being conjured up in the process.

---

This right here is a major issue I have with the game's storytelling in recent years. There are genuinely interesting places in this game's universe with interesting people with interesting points of view that differ from the scions' in major ways. But the story always treats us as the 'correct' point of view, and if someone disagrees with us, they're typically portrayed as the bad guy and/or outright wrong, arrogant, stupid, etc for thinking the way they do.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TaleraRistain

They debate

---

Nah. Not the Scions. I can't even remember the last time the Scions had a minor disagreement, let alone a debate. Plenty of disagreements and debates with world leaders, not so much from within.

Heck, the only thing that comes to mind is when Alphinaud is at first trying to get someone to roger up to be the new antecedent, but everyone settles on doing their "own" thing, which just winds up going right back to working together as a whole group anyway.

Also I'd say that effective teams in the real world have leadership who make executive decisions for them, with each tendril of the team often not agreeing wholesale with said leadership's moves, and often having to disregard or ignore certain commands or mandates for practical considerations the leader doesn't often deal with directly. The Scions are less a team of people, and more a pseudo hivemind of mouthpieces. They want for not knowing what to do. Like, any situation that comes along that, "stumps" them is either something that results in an outcome immediately that they didn't get to exercise control over, or it's the next major plot point, and they just have to wait for the WoL to present the keyword or solution that gives them their, "eureka" moment, leaving me to wonder how they ever actually get stumped when they have all the answers.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Vyrerus

Heck, the only thing that comes to mind is when Alphinaud is at first trying to get someone to roger up to be the new antecedent, but everyone settles on doing their "own" thing, which just winds up going right back to working together as a whole group anyway.

---

For about 4.5 seconds we had hints of actual tension between Thancred and Y'shtola over his delusional hopes of turning Ryne into Minfilia 2 in order to "undo" his own guilt about past events at the cost of someone else's childhood/life.

However, this was waved-away almost instantly, and then we went off to run around a temple with rabbit amazons (which was awesome, don't get me wrong).

Then it got briefly lampshaded when Y'shtola outright says, "Yeah, I'm not going with you to Amh Araeng, because I'll probably say something mean to Thancred along the way. Good luck out there."

And then it just resolved itself, through Thancred's own self-realisations while looking for rocks, and the fact that the plot diverted him off into a fakeout death while the actual moment that he'd been building towards for 20 years solved itself without his presence — obviating the need for anyone to actually confront him.

————————————

And then... I guess everyone was deemed "solved" and "fixed", because I think everyone in the MSQ-crew pretty much became a homogeneous mass after that plot point was done.

Unless you count Alisae sometimes being "bored" by serious adult discussions, Alphinaud saying something HiLaRiOuSLy tactless, Urianger's emotional vulnerabilities being exploited again (and him being shamed for it), or G'raha trying to figure out how to friend you on Instagram... as "tension / conflict".

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Eorzean_username

Unless you count Alisae sometimes being "bored" by serious adult discussions, Alphinaud saying something HiLaRiOuSLy tactless, Urianger's emotional vulnerabilities being exploited again (and him being shamed for it), or G'raha trying to figure out how to friend you on Instagram... as "tension / conflict".

---

It is "tension / conflict" if this is a slice of life anime.

Unfortunately, that is exactly what the story feels like now: slice of life anime wrapped in god-killing antics.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Eorzean_username

For about 4.5 seconds we had hints of actual tension between Thancred and Y'shtola over his delusional hopes of turning Ryne into Minfilia 2 in order to "undo" his own guilt about past events at the cost of someone else's childhood/life.

However, this was waved-away almost instantly, and then we went off to run around a temple with rabbit amazons (which was awesome, don't get me wrong).

Then it got briefly lampshaded when Y'shtola outright says, "Yeah, I'm not going with you to Amh Araeng, because I'll probably say something mean to Thancred along the way. Good luck out there."

And then it just resolved itself, through Thancred's own self-realisations while looking for rocks, and the fact that the plot diverted him off into a fakeout death while the actual moment that he'd been building towards for 20 years solved itself without his presence — obviating the need for anyone to actually confront him.

————————————

And then... I guess everyone was deemed "solved" and "fixed", because I think everyone in the MSQ-crew pretty much became a homogeneous mass after that plot point was done.

Unless you count Alisae sometimes being "bored" by serious adult discussions, Alphinaud saying something HiLaRiOuSLy tactless, Urianger's emotional vulnerabilities being exploited again (and him being shamed for it), or G'raha trying to figure out how to friend you on Instagram... as "tension / conflict".

---

I love you :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AwesomeJr44

This right here is a major issue I have with the game's storytelling in recent years. There are genuinely interesting places in this game's universe with interesting people with interesting points of view that differ from the scions' in major ways. But the story always treats us as the 'correct' point of view, and if someone disagrees with us, they're typically portrayed as the bad guy and/or outright wrong, arrogant, stupid, etc for thinking the way they do.

---

That is the only aspect that i don't like about the MSQ. We "solve" every political problem with democracy and equality. Ul'dah, Ala Mhigo and Ishgard. Shame.

Quote:

---

We "solve" every political problem with democracy and equality. Ul'dah, Ala Mhigo and Ishgard. Shame.

---

We solved Ishgard by standing toe to toe with an enraged, incredibly powerful dragon hellbent on vengeance, who wanted little else than death to all he hated.

We solved Ala Migho by helping win a bitter, hard fought, bloodsoaked campaign for independence that cost thousands of lives. We won, yes, but at a horrible cost. What was left will take decades to rebuild.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Elissar

That is the only aspect that i don't like about the MSQ. We "solve" every political problem with democracy and equality. Ul'dah, Ala Mhigo and Ishgard. Shame.

---

As VelKallor above said, thats a rather toned down viewpoint on battles that cost hundreds of lives and great upheavel that is/will take decades to settle and change. Even so, I actually like that thats how we change things. I honest disagree with the idea that the themes of the game are ‘childish’ or weak in anyway just because it actual empathises the idea of hopeful change and better ways to live/rule.

With Ul'dah though I do hate how thats been swept up under the carpet. ARR shows it as this melting pot on the fringe of collapse, in need of real change, but Heavensward just decided to wrap it up with like one quest, and further attempts felt very weak and akin to “Oh Nanamo you where silly to think a Republic would be a good idea. Look, you say things are getting better now in EW because… we said so? Yeah. Oh ware a mask when meeting Lolorito, thats enough to wrap that arc right?” I honestly would have loved it if Ul’dah had been burnt to the ground and the guillotines brought out (eyes Lolorito) and got a chance to inact actual change, but alas…

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hurlstone

As VelKallor above said, thats a rather toned down viewpoint on battles that cost hundreds of lives and great upheavel that is/will take decades to settle and change. Even so, I actually like that thats how we change things. I honest disagree with the idea that the themes of the game are ‘childish’ or weak in anyway just because it actual empathises the idea of hopeful change and better ways to live/rule.

With Ul'dah though I do hate how thats been swept up under the carpet. ARR shows it as this melting pot on the fringe of collapse, in need of real change, but Heavensward just decided to wrap it up with like one quest, and further attempts felt very weak and akin to “Oh Nanamo you where silly to think a Republic would be a good idea. Look, you say things are getting better now in EW because… we said so? Yeah. Oh ware a mask when meeting Lolorito, thats enough to wrap that arc right?” I honestly would have loved it if Ul’dah had been burnt to the ground and the guillotines brought out (eyes Lolorito) and got a chance to inact actual change, but alas…

---

It's kind of funny when you really think about it, this game heavily pushes the idea/concepts that there is only one way to lead a successful city state and everything else outside that is wrong.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TheDecay

Exactly. Once or twice is fine but they've been doing this for six years now and it's really getting stale. There's really only so many times they can use the existentialist/defying fate trope before it completely loses its power.

---

There is also beauty in consistency. These characters have been around since 1.0 days, they're not gonna just drastically change, they have developed their personalities and characteristics to become who they are all these years as we've watched their progression. If Y'shtola suddenly became lazy or an a**hole a character that wouldn't make sense right? So their belief in friendship and lending a hand and never giving up is gonna play into how they react to the events of the story, so yes, all of these expansions are going to include things that challenge those characteristics, such as existential crises, defying fate, etc...

Also... people like you are in the minority for sure. You're basically asking CBU3 to change their formula that's been working successfully for them because you're annoyed. A lot of people play and support this game, why? Because they are overall enjoying it... simple as that, they are enjoying the story, gameplay, etc. There are thousands of players that don't even check/know about these forums that pay and support the game... sooo posts like these borderline demanding CBU3 what to do aren't really gonna work and it's just you complaining at the end of the day looking for any shred of someone who agrees with you, which again is not a lot....

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PEANUT

There is also beauty in consistency. These characters have been around since 1.0 days, they're not gonna just drastically change, they have developed their personalities and characteristics to become who they are all these years as we've watched their progression. If Y'shtola suddenly became lazy or an a**hole a character that wouldn't make sense right? So their belief in friendship and lending a hand and never giving up is gonna play into how they react to the events of the story, so yes, all of these expansions are going to include things that challenge those characteristics, such as existential crises, defying fate, etc...

---

They all have been little "lets-save-the-world" "personalities". None of them are 3 dimensional. That's not a good thing. They also impose their view on anyone and it's framed as us all saving them. It's the garlean's fault!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PEANUT

A lot of people play and support this game, why? Because they are overall enjoying it...

---

So many are already gone now that streamers moved on. So many people in general (today) just want to be part of the hype. I wonder how successfull 7.0 will be if streamers don't push it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PEANUT

If Y'shtola suddenly became lazy or an a**hole a character that wouldn't make sense right? .

---

Y'shtola's character is now essentially "cat in a humanoid body", either or both would be entirely in keeping.

To answer the broader point, why should I remain invested when the same thing that worked last expansion and the one before is also being used this expansion to the same effect? There's only so many times the same story can be told in different settings before it wears thin or outstays its welcome. We are already at this point, and it's not like stuffing an entire calamity into a potato wasn't straining credulity to begin with. This isn't portal after all.
Personally I think the tone and characterisation of ARR and HW hit a pretty good spot that hasn't really been matched since. I don't think either was perfect by any stretch, but the characters weren't all an amorphous, interchangeable mass all parroting the same answer in unison, like a particularly echoey reddit.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BRVV

They all have been little "lets-save-the-world" "personalities". None of them are 3 dimensional. That's not a good thing. They also impose their view on anyone and it's framed as us all saving them. It's the garlean's fault!



So many are already gone now that streamers moved on. So many people in general (today) just want to be part of the hype. I wonder how successfull 7.0 will be if streamers don't push it.

---

So what would make them 3 dimensional then? They don't "impose" their view on "anyone". Creating a mutual trade agreement with what's left of Garlemald literally explaining that they want to pursue this route so that Garlemald can still retain their independence is not "imposing" on anyone. Even from back in 1.0 the Scions would receive missives for help/aid.

I don't think it's ever been particularly difficult to create characters that differ from one another and who appeal to a broader range of personal tastes. It's something that many players have been asking for over the years that the feedback gathered seems to come exclusively from the same platforms where there's often only mindless fawning over the current cast. We've also seen the likes of Estinien devolve from being the stoic and 'hard hitting truth speaker' to eye candy and comic relief, based almost entirely on the head-canon formed around him on Twitter.

Especially now that we know that the 'Gods' in the setting aren't actually real and really are just artificial creation, this would be the perfect opportunity to have a meaningful split in how the major characters - and nations - see the situation. Some could double down on continuing their current form of worship whereas others could pull away and declare that they see no reason to continue doing so.

It'd reflect how the real world works, where one can find themselves in a circle of friends where some individuals hold religious beliefs and others do not.

We can apply this to many different forms of thinking and belief systems. An excellent way to bring about true diversity within the cast instead of surface level diversity/pandering. Yet when push comes to shove, the game always conveniently shies away from any meaningful ideological differences despite the fact that if you leave the social media bubble and actually step into the real world, you can quite easily encounter people with vastly differing perspectives and experiences getting along fairly well.

In the long term, I think it was a mistake to make the world itself so tied to the player character. I often get the impression that due to the amount of players self inserting or at least getting highly attached to their character, then there's a reluctance to have any meaningful push back towards anything the player character or their core allies ends up doing.

As someone more invested in the world building and various nations over specific characters it is my belief that there's a lot of squandered potential.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PEANUT

So what would make them 3 dimensional then? They don't "impose" their view on "anyone". Creating a mutual trade agreement with what's left of Garlemald literally explaining that they want to pursue this route so that Garlemald can still retain their independence is not "imposing" on anyone. Even from back in 1.0 the Scions would receive missives for help/aid.

---

Physical appearance, social behaviour and psychology should not be immediately guessed by one of them. Easy. For one they could give them goals, desires, motivation. Maybe even fears! Even disagreement among them. One can dream.

Tell that to dead Garleans or better yet: to everyone dead because we just had to decide that we keep this timeline intact despite all the horrible events of the past.

We are now basically a shadow government. Getting favours from everywhere. No democracy. Just us asking for something and getting it. The ultimate fantasy for entitled people.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PEANUT

Also... people like you are in the minority for sure. You're basically asking CBU3 to change their formula that's been working successfully for them because you're annoyed. A lot of people play and support this game, why? Because they are overall enjoying it... simple as that, they are enjoying the story, gameplay, etc. There are thousands of players that don't even check/know about these forums that pay and support the game... sooo posts like these borderline demanding CBU3 what to do aren't really gonna work and it's just you complaining at the end of the day looking for any shred of someone who agrees with you, which again is not a lot....

---

Argumentum ad populum or whatever. Just because a lot of people like something or buy something, doesn't mean it's good. Just because a lot of people view a character certain way, doesn't mean that's who the character is, etc.

After all, there's billions of people who are under educated, and are dumb. Should they go on being that way, just because it serves business interests?

Also fwiw, Y'shtola is a bitchy sassy catgirl, who has totally been an asshole to NPCs outside of the Scions, like that time she gave Merlwyb a verbal beatdown over how Merlwyb runs Limsa Lominsa, in spite of having had 0 leadership responsibilities ever in her life, let alone national level leadership.