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

Embrace the Republic. Also Bozja started strong, but ended weak. The IVth became comically evil despite their stated goals. Misija is perhaps the angriest the writers have ever made me by trying to make her sympathetic and my character understand. That went out the window when she was flooding her trousers while betraying WoL and the Bozjans. Lyon was cool though, and Noah had potential but it was squandered. Sidenote, noticing alot of disappeared post in this thread.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by KageTokage

I'm mostly hoping it doesn't just end up being "good Garleans + the Eorzean alliance vs. bad Garleans" and that perhaps the people of provinces end up stirring up their own issues that need to be dealt with.

With Garlean influence weakened, other powers might intend to move in to fill the voids left behind and the provinces regaining their independence may not be an entirely good thing.

---

That's what I'm hoping.

Re: Elpis time travel

Personally, I considered it the only morally correct choice for me to try to avert the Final Days for the Ancients. The cost without an AU is a future that simply wouldn't come to be and I'm perfectly fine with that given the mess the sundering and rejoinings caused over the subsequent millennia. As far as an AU, well, this just exemplifies how much of a failure Venat's plan was. No WoL = Meteion is never defeated and Etheirys is destroyed. (I don't know how anyone rationalizes AU and time loops. More power to you if you can, but the mental gymnastics are too much for me.)

I don't know about EW memorability since most of my memories starting from Elpis aren't pleasant.

Re: SB

The main reason I didn't hate SB is because parts of the eastern half reminded me of Okami, a.k.a. the best game ever made. The journey itself left much to be desired. First of all, I hated Ilberd and I was irked to no end that we decided to give him everything he wanted, especially when the reasons why nobody had done so before hadn't changed. Secondly, neither Ala Mhigo or Doma had any hope of standing toe to toe with Garlemald. Were I to summarize my experience I'd say I traveled the world forcing people to do things they didn't want to do that were almost assuredly going to lead to their detriment. I was extremely uncomfortable badgering a bunch of farmers with pitchforks to stand up against magitek. Not to mention manipulating the Naadam to forcibly involve the people of the Steppe who previously had no quarrel with the Garleans. Both sides were also heavily reliant on the Scions and the WoL to the extent that I became their poster child for victory and I did not like being turned into a war mascot.

The story barely worked out only because Zenos didn't care/became obsessed with us and Elidibus was arguably incompetent. Had Varis or virtually anyone else been in charge both nations would've been crushed underfoot with Garlemald barely breaking a sweat. Then every reason why the people we talked to expressed they didn't want to fight would've come to fruition. While I didn't hate Lyse, her being promoted to Resistance leader due to familial ties while Raubahn was more qualified and still doing all of the work was nonsensical.

The thing that makes me especially laugh (bitterly) about SB in hindsight regarding the Naadam is that Werlyt postulates that the Empire is especially racist against Au Ra. Seems like a good idea to bring the potential wrath of a militarized super power against a people they especially loathe and would be humiliated to lose against. Guess it's a good thing they collapsed before something horrible could happen...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tokinokanatae

The thing that makes me especially laugh (bitterly) about SB in hindsight regarding the Naadam is that Werlyt postulates that the Empire is especially racist against Au Ra. Seems like a good idea to bring the potential wrath of a militarized super power against a people they especially loathe and would be humiliated to lose against. Guess it's a good thing they collapsed before something horrible could happen...

---

I thought it was only Valens that was that way. I don’t remember it being a thing that it was a widely felt thing that garleans were racist against them unless i’m just forgetting stuff.

Hien is a bit of a mini-Venat to me in the sense of his likability and personal charisma being enough to paper over his, uh, rather questionable attitude and actions, as long as you don't think about it too hard. He's not actually important enough to be a serious issue for me overall, but whenever he shows up, it's more like a light-hearted "Oh! Look! It's Hien! He's terrible! Rope any uninvolved cultures into fighting your wars today, Hien?"

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Brinne

Hien is a bit of a mini-Venat to me in the sense of his likability and personal charisma being enough to paper over his, uh, rather questionable attitude and actions, as long as you don't think about it too hard. He's not actually important enough to be a serious issue for me overall, but whenever he shows up, it's more like a light-hearted "Oh! Look! It's Hien! He's terrible! Rope any uninvolved cultures into fighting your wars today, Hien?"

---

Ngl that’s partially why i like him. He isn’t some picture perfect character like the scions or venat. It adds a sense of realism of him not exactly making the best choices, and i don’t think the story paints him as some flawless monarch. Compare that to how some other characters are treated and..yeah i’ll take him over the others any day.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by KizuyaKatogami

Ngl that’s partially why i like him. He isn’t some picture perfect character like the scions or venat. It adds a sense of realism of him not exactly making the best choices, and i don’t think the story paints him as some flawless monarch. Compare that to how some other characters are treated and..yeah i’ll take him over the others any day.

---

Agree to disagree; I felt that the story painted Hien as basically 100% a good guy and a more or less perfect figure/role model as a leader (Lyse is inspired by him and all, Gosetsu is utterly devoted and this never changes, Yugiri is utterly devoted and this never changes, he's not personally held to account or is even particularly involved in the ugliness of Yotsuyu's backstory as we explore it; I don't remember a single time we express significant disagreement with he or his methods), and his actions re: the Nadaam and other things were never seriously questioned. He does have a very nice, smooth voice that is very easy on the ears, though, I'll give him that!

It is a bit jarring that the 'good guys' are never held accountable for the same actions that they kill and enforce regime change over elsewhere but if I had things my way the game would either take a consistent stance across the board or ditch the preachy sophistry altogether.

I'm willing to make an allowance for the fact that when dealing with state actors in such a setting that they can probably get their hands fairly bloody without their morals being brought into question. Again, it would be nice if you could express some of your views via your character to perhaps dispute it, but I think with Venat it's the sheer scale and extent of it that made it much harder for me to ignore.

By the by it's also why I find it funny when Yoshi tries to brush off Venat's or Hermes's mentality to "it's just an ancient thing, bruh...they're just so scary"... when multiple sundered characters pass rather similar judgements on the rest of mankind or make such decisions on similar bases.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rulakir

The story barely worked out only because Zenos didn't care/became obsessed with us and Elidibus was arguably incompetent.

---

In what sense? Elidibus's goal is to usher in a calamity, which barring the time travel, he managed to do. I think the issues with Elidibus are more in a retrospective sense - i.e. given that we learnt he was a primal, why didn't he do x,y or z. However, at least until 4.5, he seemed to be moving rather cleverly; its Varis's agenda which was curtailed as a result. Technically speaking, if we remove the Exarch (re the kidnapping of the WoL) and Emet-Selch (5.3) from the equation, Elidibus would've succeeded in ending the WoL twice through his own methods. Or do you mean with the equilibrium shifting too far to light i.e. he let the WoL become a problem for them?

The EW role quests did at least go over how his rather naïve treatment of "Tsuyu" and other post-occupation matters soured opinions of him; to the extent that he was the only leader that had some of his people actively turning against him.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lauront

I'm willing to make an allowance for the fact that when dealing with state actors in such a setting that they can probably get their hands fairly bloody without their morals being brought into question. Again, it would be nice if you could express some of your views via your character to perhaps dispute it, but I think with Venat it's the sheer scale and extent of it that made it much harder for me to ignore.

---

I mean, I'm no fan of Hien and could in fact cheerfully criticize him for days over tea, but as I said, it's not game-breaking or anything for me. And I will say that there's a distinction between "I will manipulate these uninvolved people to fight in my war for my country" versus what was ultimately "I will flat out kill everyone over a philosophical disagreement." One is mostly "wow, uh, pretty cutthroat and ruthless methods for your cause, bro, kinda weird though that we don't get to point out how ruthless and terrible to those people they are" and the other is "what is this I don't even."

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by KageTokage

The EW role quests did at least go over how his rather naïve treatment of "Tsuyu" and other post-occupation matters soured opinions of him; to the extent that he was the only leader that had some of his people actively turning against him.

---

Hien had some conflict over Tsuyu, but that was very much in a "hm, do I punish a person who is fundamentally innocent for the crimes she committed as a different self and how will people respond to that" - it's a situation where Hien's fundamental goodness of person and intent is never in question - versus "wow, the father I idolized sure did run a country that turned a blind eye to sex trafficking and abuse!" The most he says about what Yotsuyu actually endured is a very vague "uh, we'll make it so things are better? I'll assign the guy who sold Yotsuyu into slavery to another post I guess? I can't judge him?" Which. Hm. Yes.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Brinne

I mean, I'm no fan of Hien and could in fact cheerfully criticize him for days over tea, but as I said, it's not game-breaking or anything for me. And I will say that there's a distinction between "I will manipulate these uninvolved people to fight in my war for my country" versus what was ultimately "I will flat out kill everyone over a philosophical disagreement." One is mostly "wow, uh, pretty cutthroat and ruthless methods for your cause, bro, kinda weird though that we don't get to point out how ruthless and terrible to those people they are" and the other is "what is this I don't even."

---

Yup, and in all fairness, I think it's fine for the game to reflect the ability to at least tolerate such a cut-throat mentality given that the character is part of the setting and, ultimately, the player should be given some agency in the manner of character they want to play; it also fits particularly well with some jobs - that would of course include options to express some shock at his methods. After all, if they could add in that totally bizarre expression of shock in Elpis with the butterflies... they could do it in situations where it actually would fit better. It's just weird to me, because Yoshi didn't want to allow a thief type character to be playable because it didn't fit with the sort of character they wanted you to play, but wiping out a race for barely logical philosophical reasons? All good!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Theodric

It is a bit jarring that the 'good guys' are never held accountable for the same actions that they kill and enforce regime change over elsewhere but if I had things my way the game would either take a consistent stance across the board or ditch the preachy sophistry altogether.

---

I would be interested in how you would enforce that for our character. An Expansion in a jail cell? XD Our character has been personally called out for past transgressions, but the most they can do is have others suffer in our stead to make us feel bad. We had that table talk with Varis zos Galvus calling the nations and our character out. Then there was the whole quest line with Merlwyb acknowledging Limsa's past digressions. Our fight with Garleans was a straight up war, and rules are quite different when it comes to a war. Plus almost the entirety of the Garlemald zone was about how badly we affected their lives, when for everything up till then it was the other way around.

Could be cool if story wise our character and maybe even the scions were exiled for our crimes in order for the Garleans and remaining beast tribes to remotely accept an alliance. Probably won't happen, but just a thought.

It's not the transgressions I care about so much as the hypocrisy surrounding them. I don't need the game to be preaching real world modern day morals and ideologies to me at every turn. I just want a cool story at the end of the day. In World of Warcraft I played a Blood Elf Warlock since the idea of using demonic magic appealed to me. It doesn't mean I go around summoning big, beefy demons in the real world.

Stuff like Limsa's piracy never bothered me. Pirates are cool and it's a real shame that the nation has opted to remove access to a key fantasy trope. I despise the majority of the Beast Tribes, so I could care less if they're 'oppressed' or not. Most fantasy settings do well enough having large swathes of semi-sentient beings such as kobolds and goblins being fodder to be culled.

What bothers me is sitting through near a decade of concern trolling from characters who never hold themselves or their allies truly accountable for their crimes yet insist on condemning others for doing whatever is needed simply to survive in what is very much a bleak and cruel world.

It's why Venat walking away with zero consequences and criticism for her actions felt bizarre and tone deaf. It just reveals all the preaching and moral concerns as irrelevant because they're never actually applied properly and fairly - thus we could do without them across the board as I see it.

I certainly don't agree with all the hot takes here about how Venat committed genocide. This is being said as if ancients weren't sacrificed en masse to support their new god, and then more to fix the damage, and yet more to fight the second coming of the final days. At that point it was a dilemma of "do I let everyone be sacrificed for something that isn't working, or do I protect the still living souls and allow them to live on, but as fragments of their former selves?" and I don't know about you, but I'd choose a guaranteed future over the basically-guaranteed extinction of Etheirys. People just love to conveniently forget what would've happened if she didn't do all of that...

The one thing I wish they didn't do regarding this is ultimately portray her as the ACTUAL benevolent god, while Zodiark remained a malicious god purely because he no longer had a mind of his own and was the figure of worship of the Bad Guys TM. If they had only let Zodiark actually matter when the chips fell, and didn't make us kiss the ground Hydaelyn walks upon, then it would've been a far more compelling "maybe there's no real right or wrong" moment. Instead they had to portray her actions as abject good when it's debatable at best. The conclusion of the Elpis scene absolutely broke me, and I still believe it was an amazing part of the story. It would've been much better if we had instead just watched how everything proceeded up to it WITHOUT us intervening and creating a paradox that completely blows up numerous plot points from before.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by anhaato

I certainly don't agree with all the hot takes here about how Venat committed genocide. This is being said as if ancients weren't sacrificed en masse to support their new god, and then more to fix the damage, and yet more to fight the second coming of the final days. At that point it was a dilemma of "do I let everyone be sacrificed for something that probably won't even work, or do I protect the still living souls and allow them to live on, but as fragments of their former selves?" and I don't know about you, but I'd choose a guaranteed future over the basically-guaranteed extinction of Etheirys. People just love to conveniently forget what would've happened if she didn't do all of that...

The one thing I wish they didn't do regarding this is ultimately portray her as the ACTUAL benevolent god, while Zodiark remained a malicious god purely because he no longer had a mind of his own and was the figure of worship of the Bad Guys TM. If they had only let Zodiark actually matter when the chips fell, and didn't make us kiss the ground Hydaelyn walks upon, then it would've been a far more compelling "maybe there's no real right or wrong" moment. Instead they had to portray her actions as abject good when it's debatable at best. The conclusion of the Elpis scene absolutely broke me, and I still believe it was an amazing part of the story. It would've been much better if we had instead just watched how everything proceeded up to it WITHOUT us intervening and creating a paradox that completely blows up numerous plot points from before.

---

Her plan wasn’t a guaranteed future though. There was nothing showing that her plan would 100% work, she gambled the lives of billions on a plan even she herself didn’t fully believe in and made a backup plan for that would end in the extermination of countless worlds. You’re acting like the ancients sacrificed other people without consent. The ancients who were sacrificed for the 1st and 2nd round were volunteers. There was also no indication they would continue sacrificing people after the 3rd round, in fact we have a counterpoint to that of Hythlodaeus who tells us after said 3rd sacrifice they would go back to their duties as stewards of the star. If she didn’t do all of that and instead told them the damn truth, they most likely could have all survived.

I’ll agree with the Zodiark comment though, it’s writer bias at its finest.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by anhaato

I certainly don't agree with all the hot takes here about how Venat committed genocide.

---

I'm going to link to the relevant dialogue here, because I think your understanding is a bit patchy (possibly because of the muddled post-Elpis flash forward scene, as it doesn't do a good job of conveying the story properly):

https://i.imgur.com/uPg5xZT.png

They sacrificed to bring Zodiark into being to halt the crisis, because of how depleted the star was by that point. Further sacrifices were made to rectify that. I'm not sure how exactly that means that what she did to the remaining 25% or so of the ancients is not genocide. Bear in mind, for her plan to work, she required Zodiark to be summoned and the star to be repaired, hence...

https://i.imgur.com/vea6qTr.png

So there is no doubt about Zodiark functioning. Her reason for fracturing the remnant 25% is because she feared they'd eventually meet the fate of the Plenty, because they did not respond to her demands regarding suffering in the way she liked, and wanted to restore the world back to how it was (bearing in mind they were not given the true story behind her concerns.) It's for this reason that people term it a genocide. It's only dubiously shown as 'necessary' to deal with Meteion, and when answering the question about this, the writers framed a lot of it around her beliefs more than anything else.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by KizuyaKatogami

Her plan wasn’t a guaranteed future though. There was nothing showing that her plan would 100% work, she gambled the lives of billions on a plan even she herself didn’t fully believe in and made a backup plan for that would end in the extermination of countless worlds. You’re acting like the ancients sacrificed other people without consent. The ancients who were sacrificed for the 1st and 2nd round were volunteers. There was also no indication they would continue sacrificing people after the 3rd round, in fact we have a counterpoint to that of Hythlodaeus who tells us after said 3rd sacrifice they would go back to their duties as stewards of the star. If she didn’t do all of that and instead told them the damn truth, they most likely could have all survived.

I’ll agree with the Zodiark comment though, it’s writer bias at its finest.

---

So if people get brainwashed or fearmongered into consent then it's ok? And, again, the world was ultimately dying either way and they were seeing it to its destruction, Zodiark or no. Tell them the truth about what evil is out there? So they can freak out some more, and cause more destruction in their muh despair? Convince them they were wrong, because that was going so well? The intent of the Elpis arc was to stress that the original Etheirys was ruled by a flawed society that would either destroy itself or be destroyed, at the precipice of disaster Venat made her decision, and the final Elpis scene was trying to sum that up into a few minutes of footage. I got their intent, but I will admit that it was poorly illustrated through the Elpis arc. Instead of properly giving the impression that they would destroy themselves the way the other worlds did, they turned some bird into a galactic school shooter and her creator into her accomplice and sent them on a genocide mission. So in a way I understand your point and everyone else's but I don't agree.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by anhaato

So if people get brainwashed or fearmongered into consent then it's ok?

---

What are you even talking about? Their world was at risk of destruction. They developed a method to counter this. What gives you the impression they were brainwashed or fearmongered?

Quote:

---

And, again, the world was ultimately dying either way and they were seeing it to its destruction, Zodiark or no.

---

According to whom? They did not know about the bird creature, in large part thanks to Venat. For all intents and purposes, Zodiark did stop the problem cold in its tracks, so they had ample time to develop a means to deal with her.

Quote:

---

Tell them the truth about what evil is out there? So they can freak out some more, and cause more destruction in their muh despair?

---

Zodiark was an effective shield against Meteion and restored the star, so I am unsure why that would cause an issue.

Quote:

---

The intent of the Elpis arc was to stress that the original Etheirys was ruled by a flawed society that would either destroy itself or be destroyed

---

An "intent" that was instantiated into the story very poorly and which was predicated on her not telling them the truth.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by anhaato

So if people get brainwashed or fearmongered into consent then it's ok? And, again, the world was ultimately dying either way and they were seeing it to its destruction, Zodiark or no.

---

????????

They... they saved the world? A whole point is made in Shadowbringers about how they were such selfless, good people they were willing to sacrifice themselves for those they loved? The face we're given, narratively, regarding the sacrifices, was Hythlodaeus. A-are you arguing Emet-Selch brainwashed and fearmongered him into consenting?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by anhaato

So if people get brainwashed or fearmongered into consent then it's ok? And, again, the world was ultimately dying either way and they were seeing it to its destruction, Zodiark or no. Tell them the truth about what evil is out there? So they can freak out some more, and cause more destruction in their muh despair? Convince them they were wrong, because that was going so well? The intent of the Elpis arc was to stress that the original Etheirys was ruled by a flawed society that would either destroy itself or be destroyed, at the precipice of disaster Venat made her decision, and the final Elpis scene was trying to sum that up into a few minutes of footage. I got their intent, but I will admit that it was poorly illustrated through the Elpis arc. Instead of properly giving the impression that they would destroy themselves the way the other worlds did, they turned some bird into a galactic school shooter and her creator into her accomplice and sent them on a genocide mission. So in a way I understand your point and everyone else's but I don't agree.

---

Brainwashed or fear mongered? That’s literally what she did with the sundering though. She sundered everyone and everything, and then kept it all a secret and even took to having the planet named after herself. How were they seeing it to it’s destruction? They were taking care of the planet, it was Hermes that ultimately had a hand in destroying it. Had she told them what was to come, it stands to reason they could combat it. The sundered world literally didn’t stand a better chance whatsoever. They all succumbed to despair just as much as well, the only reason the WoL even got as far as they did was because of the “flawed” society you speak of. There is nothing showing that the ancients would destroy themselves. The Plenty isn’t any indication whatsoever, but in the end, every civilization will fall at some point, so what they don’t deserve to live? They deserve to be ripped apart with 0 consent? Guess we should just kill all the sundered since eventually their civilization will fall apart.

My point TLDR is that the intent of the story was the express that the star was on the verge of killing itself off and that's when she chose to sunder them so the star wouldn't end at that moment. The writers failed to make a proper story around it so it came off wrong. People are straight up accusing the game of being pro-genocide and it's not that serious.

Sigh I just saw the interview Zepla covered and it confirmed what i have speculated for a while, a Garlemald expansion was gutted to rush the finale. This just crushed me, I have wanted a Garlean expansion for years, especially with how much they have been building up to it for the past 4 years all throughout Stormblood and Shadowbringers and it just got massacred because they wanted to be done with the story.

What is even more disappointing is that despite being the focus point for the original 6.0 expansion when 7.0 would be the Hydalyn and Zodiark story arch conclusion and like i said before the storyline being built up for 2 expansions Garlemald only gets 1 zone and it feels more like a side trip in the MQS. This is probably why Ilsabard feels so awkward on the map not even getting a map like Orthard, instead still being covered with clouds. Oh but that is okay because here is a zone with dumb moon bunnies and a final zone that was made only for the 6.0 MQS and serves no other purpose and could have easily been an instance like the Omega rift in 4.0.

What is more Garlemald has gotten very little side content compared to other stories despite being such a large part of the over all story and world building so far. I mean we have the the final role quest confirmed to be there but that is it. I can only hope it gets the Lions share of the stories in the patch questlines and hopefully an enclave like zone so that the main quests there are not just in the subway to make up for the lack of hub which I feel it would have gotten as the endgame hub if the original plan for 6.0 held.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by anhaato

My point TLDR is that the intent of the story was the express that the star was on the verge of killing itself off and that's when she chose to sunder them so the star wouldn't end at that moment. The writers failed to make a proper story around it so it came off wrong. People are straight up accusing the game of being pro-genocide and it's not that serious.

---

Yes, but the writers frame that all around her belief. She believes her people won't change (the in-game touchpoint to that is the strawmen in the post-Elpis scene), so she makes the decision to sunder them because of that belief - given that she hides the truth of it all from them, the question then becomes, what reason did she give them to change, besides platitudes? Her actions, whether from good intent or not, are genocidal. There are no two ways about it. She intends to end them as a species to bring about one which she believes will not succumb to the fate of the Plenty (and secondarily, which can manipulate dynamis more readily... although in effect this also makes them far, far more vulnerable to it.)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by anhaato

My point TLDR is that the intent of the story was the express that the star was on the verge of killing itself off and that's when she chose to sunder them so the star wouldn't end at that moment. The writers failed to make a proper story around it so it came off wrong. People are straight up accusing the game of being pro-genocide and it's not that serious.

---

But Zodiark shielded them from Meteion. And we know that even while sundered he shielded them for 12000+ years. That isn’t really on the verge of killing itself. The planet was thriving at that point where are you getting this information?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by anhaato

My point TLDR is that the intent of the story was the express that the star was on the verge of killing itself off and that's when she chose to sunder them so the star wouldn't end at that moment. The writers failed to make a proper story around it so it came off wrong. People are straight up accusing the game of being pro-genocide and it's not that serious.

---

Writing and storytelling in execution can put forth really troubling messages, through carelessness, even when the intention wasn't explicitly to do so. What we are left with is, for whatever reasons - the need to make people like Hydaelyn, the need to make the player feel generally positive, posit whatever you like - is a story that is scrambling to justify a reason the Ancients as a people had to die and that the person that definitively ended them did so for "the greater good" and "had no choice." That's, um, not unfair to call "genocide apologism." Kind of textbook, actually. I do wish I had a less loaded term to use than "genocide," honestly, but that word already flooded the lexicon of the FFXIV fanbase during Shadowbringers, so the cat is long out of the bag, and I can't really think of a better alternative to describe what was committed. If someone comes up with one it would actually be a relief.

But the sundering wasn't genocide anyway. Also I am getting ubermensch undertone with all the Ancient praise, which is ironic honestly.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by KizuyaKatogami

But Zodiark shielded them from Meteion. And we know that even while sundered he shielded them for 12000+ years. That isn’t really on the verge of killing itself. The planet was thriving at that point where are you getting this information?

---

I mean, yeah, that's exactly why they failed. In making us sympathize with the Ascians over Shadowbringers they made Zodiark into a Not Actually Evil god, thus writing themselves into a hole that made it hard to justify why what Venat did was good. When they made Zodiark neutral at worst, the introduction of "oh the world was gonna die anyway" didn't really stick. Instead of accepting that Hydaelyn is now a morally gray figure at best (allowing us to defeat an intergalactic world-ender, at the price of ending a civilization) they tried and failed to retcon that back to Hydey good Zodey bad world gonna die (I feel like YoshiP was partly responsible for this) and it fell apart. This is intent vs result, my point.

I still have some hope that they can salvage the Garlean expansion after getting expansion gutted though. I hope that maybe one of the reasons they did this was to make the situation more unique in Ilsabard so that the plot was not to similar to Stormblood. Now with us having helped the capitol and Ilsabard being devastated by both the Civil War and apparently suffering the most damage from the final days, the various still active legions and the power vacuum that they wanted to create a more unique Ilsabard experience. I also hope that the developers see people wanting the clouds removed on Ilsabard and more traditional European fantasy zones which Ilsbard will have. I can imagine there could be a zone in Ilsabard inspired by Germany and Switzerland, something hinted at with the Online Store outfit as well as a Norwegian like zone and a more Gothic Romania like zone. And of course they can do a better conclusion to the Garlean storyline and do further world building with the Three Continents.

My main fear is that they are just going to Lazily have Ilsbard be resolved offscreen just like the Empire fell anticlimatically offscreen and all these storyarchs just remain on the cutting room floor and we will instead just go to Meracydia, or the New World, or other Shards to "Move On", locations i have almost zero interest in going to until this story is resolved in Ilsabard. If it is one of those locations first for 7.0 however then I may consider "moving on" and unsubscribing until an Ilsabard (or another Orthard) expansion is confirmed and use that time to whittle away at my increasing game library or further raise a Viera alt.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lauront

In what sense? Elidibus's goal is to usher in a calamity, which barring the time travel, he managed to do. I think the issues with Elidibus are more in a retrospective sense - i.e. given that we learnt he was a primal, why didn't he do x,y or z. However, at least until 4.5, he seemed to be moving rather cleverly; its Varis's agenda which was curtailed as a result. Technically speaking, if we remove the Exarch (re the kidnapping of the WoL) and Emet-Selch (5.3) from the equation, Elidibus would've succeeded in ending the WoL twice through his own methods. Or do you mean with the equilibrium shifting too far to light i.e. he let the WoL become a problem for them?

---

I was more referring to his inability to deal with Zenos and to finish off the WoL in SB. Zenos, in particular, seems to be the reason why Black Rose was never deployed in our current timeline, which has caused me to wonder if he exists in the 8UC. As far as ShB, agreed, but that whole expansion was about the WoL getting gifted with 'get out of jail free' cards. Emet was an assured win had it not been for the Ardbert merger and Elidibus was an assured win had it not been for Emet's intervention.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by anhaato

I mean, yeah, that's exactly why they failed. In making us sympathize with the Ascians over Shadowbringers they made Zodiark into a Not Actually Evil god, thus writing themselves into a hole that made it hard to justify why what Venat did was good. When they made Zodiark neutral at worst, the introduction of "oh the world was gonna die anyway" didn't really stick. Instead of accepting that Hydaelyn is now a morally gray figure at best (allowing us to defeat an intergalactic world-ender, at the price of ending a civilization) they tried and failed to retcon that back to Hydey good Zodey bad world gonna die (I feel like YoshiP was partly responsible for this) and it fell apart. This is intent vs result, my point.

---

I mean, then we're in absolute agreement. I don't think the writers intentionally set forth to specifically do a Genocide Apologism. However, in the actual story they wrote and published, the text does, in fact, contain a Genocide Apologism. My feeling is they were so laser-focused on making the playerbase love Hydaelyn and convey that she was Good that they were careless and didn't think things through - at least, that's my hope - and here we are.

Someone pointed out YoshiP's detachment from what the players are actually interested in; this I think was the root of the story's downfall. Shadowbringers wasn't a hit because of the high stakes, it was a hit because of how well it was done. If they had gone with the original plan of resolving Garlemald and THEN taking care of the ultimate Final Days threat then the story would've been a lot more fleshed out, but I feel YoshiP thought we wanted another lore-heavy high-stakes battle with godlike figures and a grand conclusion, so as soon as we had gotten out of the frying pan of shb it was straight into the fire of ew. And because they thought we wanted that, it just became a good vs evil shounen anime in the end hence the problems with trying to portray Venat's actions as good even though Hydaelyn was set up to be Maybe Not That Good since, once again someone else pointed out, way back in 3.x.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Brinne

I mean, then we're in absolute agreement. I don't think the writers intentionally set forth to specifically do a Genocide Apologism. However, in the actual story they wrote and published, the text does, in fact, contain a Genocide Apologism. My feeling is they were so laser-focused on making the playerbase love Hydaelyn and convey that she was Good that they were careless and didn't think things through - at least, that's my hope - and here we are.

---

That's a fair assessment, and again I said before that I know why people feel this way, but I'm choosing to look at what I believe to be their intent.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rulakir

I was more referring to his inability to deal with Zenos and to finish off the WoL in SB. Zenos, in particular, seems to be the reason why Black Rose was never deployed in our current timeline, which has caused me to wonder if he exists in the 8UC. As far as ShB, agreed, but that whole expansion was about the WoL getting gifted with 'get out of jail free' cards. Emet was an assured win had it not been for the Ardbert merger and Elidibus was an assured win had it not been for Emet's intervention.

---

Ah I see. Particularly given Elidibus's primal aspect (although a 5.3 thing), it did sit rather strangely that he did not leverage that to gain more power, but I suspect it wasn't really planned out that early and instead was retrofitted. Regarding Zenos, my suspicion is Emet-Selch may have simply removed him from the equation if he posed a threat to their plans, if Black Rose itself did not, since he'd have little to keep him on the First. On the other hand, we saw how Zenos's motivation drained without the WoL as a sparring partner, so it's not inconceivable that, depending on the order of events, something similar happened in the 8UC, as well.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by FrightfulNight

My main fear is that they are just going to Lazily have Ilsbard be resolved offscreen just like the Empire fell anticlimatically offscreen and all these storyarchs just remain on the cutting room floor and we will instead just go to Meracydia, or the New World, or other Shards to "Move On", locations i have almost zero interest in going to until this story is resolved in Ilsabard. If it is one of those locations first for 7.0 however then I may consider "moving on" and unsubscribing until an Ilsabard (or another Orthard) expansion is confirmed and use that time to whittle away at my increasing game library or further raise a Viera alt.

---

Would be nice to actually explore Ilsabard and deal with Garlemald in a way that isn't "lmao not my problem just move on sweeties, now you are part of the glorious global citizen Alliance and everything is great". However, it's pretty early to tell until 6.1 actually releases in a couple weeks. And even then, we may have to wait another 4+ months to see how things are going. My hopes aren't too high, considering how hard they want to just bury anything old and just immediately beat this "new adventure! new adventure! avenchur!" horse. While having afterschool club meetings and pizza parties with the Scions, of course.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Brinne

My personal feeling is that because I do believe/hope that it was basically unintentional, now that it's been pointed out and come to their attention, that I can get past it and basically forgive it if it is addressed in some way. Please, please do not double down on "Venat absolute good, those Ancients sadly just had to die," FFXIV team. I've loved your game for almost ten years, want to keep loving it, and I really wish I wasn't here, cringeposting all my dignity away. Woe.

---

Still 99% sure we will get some sort of Tales of the End where Venat is shown saving Amaurotine schoolchildren from a burning building or something. P-please like her... please...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by anhaato

That's a fair assessment, and again I said before that I know why people feel this way, but I'm choosing to look at what I believe to be their intent.

---

My personal feeling is that because I do believe/hope that it was basically unintentional, now that it's been pointed out and come to their attention, that I can get past it and basically forgive it if it is addressed in some way. Please, please do not double down on "Venat absolute good, those Ancients sadly just had to die," FFXIV team. I've loved your game for almost ten years, want to keep loving it, and I really wish I wasn't here, cringeposting all my dignity away. Woe.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Brinne

My personal feeling is that because I do believe/hope that it was basically unintentional, now that it's been pointed out and come to their attention, that I can get past it and basically forgive it if it is addressed in some way. Please, please do not double down on "Venat absolute good, those Ancients sadly just had to die," FFXIV team. I've loved your game for almost ten years, want to keep loving it, and I really wish I wasn't here, cringeposting all my dignity away. Woe.

---

^This. I'm on the fence about the game and willing to give it a chance, particularly now that they've had time to digest how the story was received vs what they intended, but if they do end up just doubling down on such themes, I think I'll take my leave.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by anhaato

I mean, yeah, that's exactly why they failed. In making us sympathize with the Ascians over Shadowbringers they made Zodiark into a Not Actually Evil god, thus writing themselves into a hole that made it hard to justify why what Venat did was good. When they made Zodiark neutral at worst, the introduction of "oh the world was gonna die anyway" didn't really stick. Instead of accepting that Hydaelyn is now a morally gray figure at best (allowing us to defeat an intergalactic world-ender, at the price of ending a civilization) they tried and failed to retcon that back to Hydey good Zodey bad world gonna die (I feel like YoshiP was partly responsible for this) and it fell apart. This is intent vs result, my point.

---

And most of us here would agree with that.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by FrightfulNight

I still have some hope that they can salvage the Garlean expansion after getting expansion gutted though. I hope that maybe one of the reasons they did this was to make the situation more unique in Ilsabard so that the plot was not to similar to Stormblood. Now with us having helped the capitol and Ilsabard being devastated by both the Civil War and apparently suffering the most damage from the final days, the various still active legions and the power vacuum that they wanted to create a more unique Ilsabard experience. I also hope that the developers see people wanting the clouds removed on Ilsabard and more traditional European fantasy zones which Ilsbard will have. I can imagine there could be a zone in Ilsabard inspired by Germany and Switzerland, something hinted at with the Online Store outfit as well as a Norwegian like zone and a more Gothic Romania like zone. And of course they can do a better conclusion to the Garlean storyline and do further world building with the Three Continents.

My main fear is that they are just going to Lazily have Ilsbard be resolved offscreen just like the Empire fell anticlimatically offscreen and all these storyarchs just remain on the cutting room floor and we will instead just go to Meracydia, or the New World, or other Shards to "Move On", locations i have almost zero interest in going to until this story is resolved in Ilsabard. If it is one of those locations first for 7.0 however then I may consider "moving on" and unsubscribing until an Ilsabard (or another Orthard) expansion is confirmed and use that time to whittle away at my increasing game library or further raise a Viera alt.

---

Yeah, I was bitterly disappointed by the lack of an authentic Garlean expansion. We've been following them in the story since the days of ARR and many people liked what they brought to the table so to have them thrown under the bus struck me as very questionable.

It also makes me second guess the feedback being gathered and sent to the development team. Where are they getting it from? What voices are they listening to and which are they ignoring?

Where are our community representatives and why aren't they engaging with the community here, on the game's official site? I guess they must be busy changing diapers or some such...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by FrightfulNight

I still have some hope that they can salvage the Garlean expansion after getting expansion gutted though. I hope that maybe one of the reasons they did this was to make the situation more unique in Ilsabard so that the plot was not to similar to Stormblood. Now with us having helped the capitol and Ilsabard being devastated by both the Civil War and apparently suffering the most damage from the final days, the various still active legions and the power vacuum that they wanted to create a more unique Ilsabard experience. I also hope that the developers see people wanting the clouds removed on Ilsabard and more traditional European fantasy zones which Ilsbard will have. I can imagine there could be a zone in Ilsabard inspired by Germany and Switzerland, something hinted at with the Online Store outfit as well as a Norwegian like zone and a more Gothic Romania like zone. And of course they can do a better conclusion to the Garlean storyline and do further world building with the Three Continents.

My main fear is that they are just going to Lazily have Ilsbard be resolved offscreen just like the Empire fell anticlimatically offscreen and all these storyarchs just remain on the cutting room floor and we will instead just go to Meracydia, or the New World, or other Shards to "Move On", locations i have almost zero interest in going to until this story is resolved in Ilsabard. If it is one of those locations first for 7.0 however then I may consider "moving on" and unsubscribing until an Ilsabard (or another Orthard) expansion is confirmed and use that time to whittle away at my increasing game library or further raise a Viera alt.

---

My personal preference for the future at this point is to go explore the former imperial territories and perhaps going about restoring fallen monarchies/heirs to their respective thrones. I would love to see zones based off the countries you mention in your post, as opposed to the community-held perception that Meracydia and the New World have to take after lands that I'm just not interested in visiting.

The people who seem to be so vocal about having the representation of a country like Australia of all places do not seem to realize that people don't come to Final Fantasy for that, nor do they come for New-World like aesthetics after that game turned out to be what it was, and beyond 1-2 Egypt like zones I simply wouldn't be interested in a full-on African themed expansion.

You can sell Final Fantasy players the classic "castle in the sky" vs "magitek empire" but I do not see them being interested in some of the ideas that people go on and on about for the sake of "diversity." There is plenty of diversity within the countries of Europe/Asia, which I have no problem being straightforward in saying that is what I am first and foremost interested in seeing.