I'm liking the game so far as to get immersed into the story about the empire seeking control. Feels like the battle of old against Rome, numerous battle to remain free. You stand up against tyranny, absolute abuse, control and rule.
There should be messages of living in freedom, human rights and standing up for dreams, things Final Fantasy was made of. For a company to have started out this way, happen to take a turn to a new direction. I'm not sure what their massage to their fan is anymore but main stream pop-culture and soap-operas. Do you think SE needs to reform?
Comments and ideas are welcomed.
Final Fantasy Soft vs Enix
Printable View
-
04-17-2013, 01:30 AMPSxpert2011Final Fantasy Soft vs Enix
-
04-17-2013, 03:48 AMBowen
This horse has been ridden, beaten, left to die in the desert, and beaten again.
Please, just stop. ;_; -
04-17-2013, 05:48 AMPSxpert2011Stop what.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bowen
Your not explaining, what are you talking about??
IDK what your talking about. Do you understand the context of my post sir/miss??
I -
04-17-2013, 06:27 AMAldoraI'm not quite sure i follow you from this point on. Can you elaborate on that?Quote:
Originally Posted by PSxpert2011
I thought it was a real shame that they've put the original Story on hold. Once i had finished the final mission of the original story, i was craving for more. Then Yoshi-p introduced the "Seventh Umbral Era" quest line, which evolved into a fitting end for 1.0. According to Yoshi-p, the story of ARR picks up right where we left of.
They didn't say if the original story will be woven into any new direction they have planned for us. For all we know they have scrapped it. But... That being said, i don't feel that this new direction (as shown in the A New Beginning vid) is any "different" from we are "used to" when it comes to a Final Fantasy game. When i think back to the stories from the previous Final Fantasy games, they all have that feeling of a "soap-opera" in them (with lots of drama). However, it wasn't really out of place. At least not in my opinion.
I'm sitting here strolling down the Final Fantasy Memory lane, but i can't find a trace where i thought that a Final Fantasy game had a "Mainstream Pop-Culture"-feel to it. They all had that certain flavor you would only see in JRPG's if you compare them with the Western RPG's.
But again, that's my personal opinion.
Can you tell me more about your vision of this new direction. What kind of direction do you feel they are heading to and in what way to do you feel they could or should "reform"? -
04-17-2013, 06:32 AMSkyeWindbinderOkay, first of all, the title of this thread is a little vague. Are you implying that Square was better with stories back in their "Soft" days than they are in their "Enix" days? (If so, that should be better touched on in your OP) Because I don't really think there was all to much a problem as far as story is concerned. 1.0 had an excellent story going for it. The Enix Dragon Quests had excellent stories (especially 8). Hell, even FFXIII had a pretty good story.Quote:
Originally Posted by PSxpert2011
-
04-17-2013, 06:40 AMZehira
I don't see anything wrong with Square and Enix being merged. The only reason the father of Final Fantasy left the company because he stated that he just disliked how the father of PlayStation (Ken Kutaragi) has done to third-party developers.
Fanbase rage started right after FFXI came out because it's a MMO which the company is making money and not listening to its fanbase for years. What games that many people are waiting for:
Final Fantasy versus XIII
Kingdom Hearts 3
A remake of Final Fantasy VII
A new game of Chrono series
I think there are more. -
04-17-2013, 07:25 AMAldoraI, myself can't wait for Final Fantasy versus XIII, Kingdom Hearts 3 and Lightning Returns : Final Fantasy XIII. I haven't even thought about a new game in the Chrono Series. I loved Chrono Trigger and Chrono Cross, so it would be great if they would make another one of those.Quote:
Originally Posted by Zehira
-
04-17-2013, 08:49 AMZehiraI am a huge fan of FF7 since it came out, I would love to see a remake of it. SE themselves have said they want to do it but not going to it for now. I also want to see another Chrono game, I don't even know what's going on with SE's finance as they have lost a lot of money recently just for FFXIV:ARR. Even if that game is successful, a chance of other games that people are waiting too long will be made.Quote:
Originally Posted by Aldora
SE never want to say anything about FFvsXIII at all even if you try to ask them just one thing and they will say nope sorry deal with it. :( -
04-17-2013, 08:59 AMAbriaelFunny you'd mention that, considering that Rome was one of the most democratic and "free" civilizations of antiquity.Quote:
Originally Posted by PSxpert2011
Maybe you mean the Rome based in Hollywood, California. -
04-17-2013, 09:32 AMMjollnira) Missed the point of the threadQuote:
Originally Posted by Abriael
b) Condescending and patronising tone again
c) Whereas the Roman Empire had many different qualities throughout its 2,200 years, it was an expansionist civilization which the majority of its leaders achieved through direct conflict. It was at war for the larger part of its existence.
Abriael, a blunt tone is fine if you lack the eloquence to hold a civil discussion (I'm used to it here), but it's becoming quite clear your intent is to gain some notoriety on these forums to increase the popularity of your review site. It's becoming tiresome watching you derail thread after thread with your passive-aggressive posts.
I think they're well on-target and don't need reformation. The storyline in 1.0 regards The Echo literally blew my mind (actually, I meant literarily blew my mind) to the point where it's still provoking thoughts and theories, despite being offline for five months. I loved the Dalamud storyline, though I found it comparatively basic (because Anonymoose hasn't analysed it fully yet and uncovered something insane). For me, it has re-captured the storytelling prowess the series had displayed in earlier years. I'm really looking forward to an active conflict with the Garlean Empire in the years to come.Quote:
Originally Posted by PSxpert2011
-
04-17-2013, 09:59 AMAbriaelNot really. It's more that the OP missed his own point, besides trying to beat a dead and buried horse for the millionth time.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mjollnir
Not really. Simply realistic.Quote:
b) Condescending and patronising tone again
You mean like every civilization during that timeframe?Quote:
c) Whereas the Roman Empire had many different qualities throughout its 2,200 years, it was an expansionist civilization which the majority of its leaders achieved through direct conflict. It was at war for the larger part of its existence.
Expansionism and Militarism were traits endemic of that period of history when peace simply wasn't seen as a value. Not nearly exclusive to the Roman Kingdom, Republic or Empire. Rome simply had the means and strategic ingenuity to actually earn results from those common traits.
If they didn't expand, they would have been expanded upon. That's an iron rule of antiquity, that affected every civilization without any exception.
Civilizations should be judged based on the values of their time, not on modern values that still didn't exist or were simply irrealistic back then.
This is an awesome conspiracy theory, but I've been around here since day one. I doubt I need any effort to gain any kind of notoriety (whether negative or positive).Quote:
Abriael, a blunt tone is fine if you lack the eloquence to hold a civil discussion (I'm used to it here), but it's becoming quite clear your intent is to gain some notoriety on these forums to increase the popularity of your review site. It's becoming tiresome watching you derail thread after thread with your passive-aggressive posts.
Besides, I don't know if you noticed, but *very* few people read this forum nowadays, with the majority of the community moved elsewhere. If my goal was to "increase the popularity of my review site" (lol), I'd have plenty better places to be than in this half-abandoned forum.
On the other hand, you seem to enjoy throwing personal attacks quite a lot. Which is funny for someone painting himself as upholding "civil discussion". Also ironic that you'd define my posting passive-aggressive, while yours are quite active-aggressive. -
04-17-2013, 11:23 AMBowenI understood your post. I just think that the "Enix vs Soft" debate has been beaten to death already.Quote:
Originally Posted by PSxpert2011
If that's all you're seeing in the newer games, you really need to go and replay them. FFX touched on topics such as organized religion. The whole idea behind the Church of Yevon was clearly taken from real life Christian organizations. Beyond that, there was the whole point behind Summoner's sacrifices, and Yuna's own personal journey.Quote:
I'm not sure what their massage to their fan is anymore but main stream pop-culture and soap-operas. Do you think SE needs to reform?
If anything, I think the stories and plot points have become more complex and sophisticated since the merge. -
04-17-2013, 11:54 AMSkyeWindbinderlol Go easy on Abriael. Sometimes he doesn't play well with others, but I don't think he really means any true maliciousness.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mjollnir
Well, for the most part. ;) -
04-17-2013, 06:39 PMMjollnirHe seems quite cogent to me. As for beating a dead horse; forums are fluid creatures. People may read them every day, once a week, disappear for a bit and come back, etc. If they haven't seen this discussion before, or have evolved their opinion, or the world has moved on since the last time the discussion was active, there's most likely a new perspective to be had. You've tried to stifle that with your post. If the topic was indeed dead, it would have dropped down the boards of its own accord.Quote:
Originally Posted by Abriael
Being realistic (which you weren't, as per below) does not preclude being condescending and patronising. Besides, I was making a callback to the other exchange of posts we've had recently.Quote:
Originally Posted by Abriael
Hang on a sec. PSXpert compared the story with a struggle against the tyranny of Rome. You suggested that such a struggle didn't happen outside of Hollywood. I pointed out that it most certainly did. You respond by listing a lot of unrelated "Rome stuff" which neither defends your position or bears any relevance to the point? It is ok to admit you may have been mistaken (humility is a good quality).Quote:
Originally Posted by Abriael
Well if we're dropping FFXIV-lifetime into this, I've also been around since day one too (quite literally; I was in the very first wave of 1.0 alphas). I brought that up because it's only been in the last couple of weeks your posting style has changed from having strong opinions on topics to posting needlessly negative or derogatory comments in certain threads.Quote:
Originally Posted by Abriael
I don't consider them half-abandoned. There's a hundred or so active posters and a few hundred more posting intermittently. This community is still here, even if there's not much in the way of FFXIV for us to discuss (thank the mods for allowing the social threads here to prosper). There's an FFXIV forum I've seen recently which has dozens of posts made every minute. The majority of people may be logged in there, but the sense of community is non-existent.Quote:
Originally Posted by Abriael
Quite a lot? The only thing that I've posted that could be construed as a personal attack is me theorising on your reasons for making rude, derogatory comments. I'm sorry if you took it that way, but you denied it to be the case, so I don't know how you can consider it an attack. Again, quite a lot? No, maybe once, maybe, and for that I apologise. My intention was to discuss a reason for your current attitude. I'm not aware of any personal attacks I've made toward anyone else on the forum (well ok there was that one time with fusional, but I think we resolved that...). If there is, you should probably take this opportunity to highlight them. Else perhaps apologise for that statement, if it's incorrect.Quote:
Originally Posted by Abriael
I'd go easy on him if he went easy on others. I know you can stand up for yourself (and create half an hour of light reading in the process!), but others don't. Posts like those add weight to the opinion expressed on the fan-site forums that here we are all trolls and fanboys.Quote:
Originally Posted by SkyeWindbinder
When someone decides that they have no need for humility and courtesy in a public place that I frequent (online or off), it goes against my being to sit by and accept it without challenge. We're a community and a certain level of respect and decent behaviour is required to keep it together. And yes, for a large part there's no maliciousness, but taking the time to produce an interview with Yoshi-P and offering commentary on new hardware doesn't give you a right to deride other posters on your whim.
---
Sorry, I hate it when it's necessary to meta-post without bringing anything to the discussion topic, so...
I think comparing the Garlean Empire to Rome is a reasonable allegory, as better explained by those who have become much more involved in the lore than I (do a forum search on "Rome" to read some good posts on the comparison). -
04-18-2013, 12:44 AMAbriaelThat's why we have a search function. You used it yourself. It works.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mjollnir
There's nothing "patronizing" or "condescending" in telling someone that he's stating an incorrect concept and why.Quote:
Being realistic (which you weren't, as per below) does not preclude being condescending and patronising. Besides, I was making a callback to the other exchange of posts we've had recently.
I'm not exactly sure what kind of discussion you're used to, but normally "your arguments don't apply because I say they don't apply so I'm right and you're wrong" doesn't exactly work in "civilized discussion" (since that's what you paint yourself as upholding).Quote:
Hang on a sec. PSXpert compared the story with a struggle against the tyranny of Rome. You suggested that such a struggle didn't happen outside of Hollywood. I pointed out that it most certainly did. You respond by listing a lot of unrelated "Rome stuff" which neither defends your position or bears any relevance to the point? It is ok to admit you may have been mistaken (humility is a good quality).
Tyranny is a form of government. And Ancient Rome (besides a few very limited and transient periods of its long history) simply never adopted that form of government.
Rome was actually one of the most democratic nations of antiquity, both with its citizen and with annexed populations.
I suggest reading on it. This is a good place to start and it features a tons of sources if you want to go deeper.
Ancient Rome was, for the majority of its history, a mix between an oligarchy and a democracy, even more democratic (especially with annexed nations) than the oft popularly-praised Greek city-states. Check here for a good summary and then expand to the sources if you so wish.
You're simply confusing military expansion with tyranny. But they aren't the same thing.
If you think military expansion is the same as tyranny, then you'll be hard pressed to find many nations that aren't "tyrannical", as a vast majority of them sits on territories conquered with arms, even recently.
Again, you're judging the Roman civilization according to modern moral values, and that's simply inappropriate when studying ancient history.
Aside from the fact that my comments are never derogatory towards individuals in this forum (they can be at time towards external individuals, but never without cause), my attitude never changed. I always attack the argument (even very firmly), not the person making it.Quote:
Well if we're dropping FFXIV-lifetime into this, I've also been around since day one too (quite literally; I was in the very first wave of 1.0 alphas). I brought that up because it's only been in the last couple of weeks your posting style has changed from having strong opinions on topics to posting needlessly negative or derogatory comments in certain threads.
Maybe you recently found yourself on the opposite site of the moat, and that made you think that my attitude changed, but that's simply not the case.
Simply put, being on the receiving end of my arguments is quite different than when you agree with me.
Even assuming your numbers are correct, I'd say it's a tad ridiculous to assume that I'm staging some sort of "advertising campaign" (wasting a crapton of my time) for such small numbers.Quote:
I don't consider them half-abandoned. There's a hundred or so active posters and a few hundred more posting intermittently. This community is still here, even if there's not much in the way of FFXIV for us to discuss (thank the mods for allowing the social threads here to prosper). There's an FFXIV forum I've seen recently which has dozens of posts made every minute. The majority of people may be logged in there, but the sense of community is non-existent.
I never meant to say that the sense of community is not here, and I agree with your vision of that, but the numbers simply aren't.
There's no "reason" for my current attitude other the fact that I enjoy frank, honest debate. if someone is wrong, I'll tell him, and explain why at length. Some may not like it, but that's always been the case.Quote:
Quite a lot? The only thing that I've posted that could be construed as a personal attack is me theorising on your reasons for making rude, derogatory comments. I'm sorry if you took it that way, but you denied it to be the case, so I don't know how you can consider it an attack. Again, quite a lot? No, maybe once, maybe, and for that I apologise. My intention was to discuss a reason for your current attitude. I'm not aware of any personal attacks I've made toward anyone else on the forum (well ok there was that one time with fusional, but I think we resolved that...). If there is, you should probably take this opportunity to highlight them. Else perhaps apologise for that statement, if it's incorrect.
Your idea of "going easy" on someone is simply different from mine. In this forums there are some people expressing concepts that make me triple facepalm by how absolutely nonsensical they are. Most would simply scoff, throw in a personal jab and leave.Quote:
I'd go easy on him if he went easy on others. I know you can stand up for yourself (and create half an hour of light reading in the process!), but others don't. Posts like those add weight to the opinion expressed on the fan-site forums that here we are all trolls and fanboys.
I prefer to explain why they are wrong. Even at length if necessary. I would say that's a lot more productive than a lot of what I see around here, but to each his own.
I would say that your behavior isn't exactly that respectful to begin with. considering that you're attacking the person instead of his arguments, proceeding to go as far as to second guess his motives for posting.Quote:
When someone decides that they have no need for humility and courtesy in a public place that I frequent (online or off), it goes against my being to sit by and accept it without challenge. We're a community and a certain level of respect and decent behaviour is required to keep it together. And yes, for a large part there's no maliciousness, but taking the time to produce an interview with Yoshi-P and offering commentary on new hardware doesn't give you a right to deride other posters on your whim.
Rome is an historical nation. The Garlean Empire is a fantasy nation. That alone makes them quite incomparable.Quote:
think comparing the Garlean Empire to Rome is a reasonable allegory, as better explained by those who have become much more involved in the lore than I (do a forum search on "Rome" to read some good posts on the comparison).
Rome has for the vast majority of its history a nation with strong elements of democracy in its form of government. It was expansionistic, like pretty much every nation in its age, but factually treated annexed nations very fairly for the standards of the time.
While, as far as we know (as information is direly scarce) the Garlean Empire is a full fledged autocracy with some limited elements of military oligarchy, that has no problem committing untold (literally) atrocities on conquered populations.
The parallel between the two civilizations is limited to the use of iconic names (legion, legatus and such) and designs.
The simple fact of the matter is that Hydaelyn is a fully fictional world in which there are good nations and evil nations.
There are the evil invaders and the peaceful victims that would want nothing else than sit on their nice island and not hurt a mosquito.
That kind of black and white setup did not exist in antiquity, where warlike culture was the norm. -
04-18-2013, 02:04 AMMjollnirI had presumed the OP did that. If there's an active post asking a question, I'll respond to it if I want to. I'm not about to search the forum each time someone makes a thread to see if the topic has been covered before, that's ridiculous. I did do a brief search just now on "Squaresoft" and the OPs of threads that it returned didn't posit the same question as is here.Quote:
Originally Posted by Abriael
No there's not, but that's not what we're talking about. Compare:Quote:
Originally Posted by Abriael
Quote:
Originally Posted by Not Abriael
In the second one, I italicised the patronising and condescending bit for you.Quote:
Originally Posted by Abriael
You began to talk about something else entirely.Quote:
Originally Posted by Abriael
The OP's perspective, one that I should think everyone understood, was that the nation of Rome was tyrannical in its attitude to the parts of the world that were not part of it (because we are talking from a perspective of Eorzea vs Garlemald), not that it was a Tyranny. Luckily, I don't need wiki refresher because I studied Latin for five years, then spent my higher education studying Ancient History, Classical Civilisation and Philosophy. Also, living in one of the countries that was part of the Roman Empire and still having its physical legacy visible on a daily basis, along with historical sites where those that resisted the advance of the Roman Empire fought what I'm confident they perceived as a tyrannical attitude (oppressive and controlling), gives me enough of a basis to form a reasonable judgment. The Iceni would have perceived themselves as resisting the tyranny of Rome, as they would have been oppressed against their will, for instance.Quote:
Originally Posted by Abriael
Err...Quote:
Originally Posted by Abriael
Ok, call me out if you were making a genuine suggestion and not being derogatory in that closing comment. If that's the case I've totally misread the situation.Quote:
Originally Posted by Abriael
Can't think of a time when I've agreed with you previously. I tend to just hit a 'Like' on a post from someone who has already written what I would say though. That's cool; we come to the forms for discussion. I just perceived a lot more hostility than I've seen for a while (good ole ClausL notwithstanding!), specifically from you. Perhaps it's just that time of the month.Quote:
Originally Posted by Abriael
Fair enough. I'm not in your industry, I have no idea how many people read your editorials and I don't know if you focus entirely on FFXIV or if this is just one of many games for you (I can't answer that for myself because your site is down).Quote:
Originally Posted by Abriael
Bold bit: someone has a different opinion and you want to share yours to see if they agree with that instead. If they do, nice. If they don't, they're not wrong. Here, I'm trying to help you see my perspective on all this. You're free to agree or disagree. Ultimately, rhe difference between you're wrong and I disagree.Quote:
Originally Posted by Abriael
Err...Quote:
Originally Posted by Abriael
It was only when I called you on that post^ that you began your explanations.Quote:
Originally Posted by Abriael
I disagree that in these forums most would throw personal jabs and leave, or that a lot of posts are not productive. I just don't see it.
Now I already apologised for trying to guess your reasons for your posting style and explained why I did that. That's the second time you've accused me of personal attacks that I've never made and now you're saying I'm not being respectful toward you? If it's truly the case that I've hurt your feelings, I'm sorry (as that is not my intention), but from what you've said about yourself, you'd led me to believe you had a thicker skin than that.Quote:
Originally Posted by Abriael
I hope we can both agree now that any further discussion on the meta-matter is just going to be us re-iterating the same differing points of view and call it quits there (though I'd still appreciate an apology). I don't want to get the OP's thread locked over our difference of opinion, which we can continue to debate outside these forums if you really need to.
Regarding the thread's actual subject matter, which I'm glad we can return to at the end of our posts, I'm going to have to disagree with you here and leave it at that. To me, this sentence makes zero sense whatsoever, so trying to continue a discussion is going to send us round in circles, as we'd essentially be trying to talk about two different things.Quote:
Originally Posted by Abriael
-
04-18-2013, 03:19 AMAbriaelThere's nothing patronizing or condescending in that. The fact that Hollywood gave a vision of Rome (and not only Rome) that has absolutely nothing to do with historical reality is indeed a fact.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mjollnir
Absolutely not. I simply explained why Rome has nothing to do in any realistic shape or form, with a tyranny.Quote:
You began to talk about something else entirely.
I should have imagined that you were British. British pride brought to an extreme romanticization of the "struggle" of the Iceni and the whole story of Boudica, ignoring facts that staged that uprising. British tradition very conveniently ignores the fact that the Iceni *voluntarily* allied themselves with Rome, and the relationship escalated when their king tried to circumvent Roman succession law (to which he initially agreed).Quote:
The OP's perspective, one that I should think everyone understood, was that the nation of Rome was tyrannical in its attitude to the parts of the world that were not part of it (because we are talking from a perspective of Eorzea vs Garlemald), not that it was a Tyranny. Luckily, I don't need wiki refresher because I studied Latin for five years, then spent my higher education studying Ancient History, Classical Civilisation and Philosophy. Also, living in one of the countries that was part of the Roman Empire and still having its physical legacy visible on a daily basis, along with historical sites where those that resisted the advance of the Roman Empire fought what I'm confident they perceived as a tyrannical attitude (oppressive and controlling), gives me enough of a basis to form a reasonable judgment. The Iceni would have perceived themselves as resisting the tyranny of Rome, as they would have been oppressed against their will, for instance.
It's the same British pride that brought The Creative Assembly to the frankly ridiculous idea of including the Iceni as a playable faction in Total War: Rome 2, despite their almost complete historical irrelevance compared to the whole european/middle eastern/north african theater.
Of course It's very possible that you'll take this as a personal jab to your nationality, but it isn't. Every nation tends to put its own roots on a pedestal.
Besides, even if you were to (wrongly) put the entire responsibility of the uprising on Rome, the actions of a single Procurartor during a single situation aren't enough to paint an entire civilization.
It was simply stating a fact, and that's that hollywood painted Rome as a tyrannical nation, while history denies that vision.Quote:
Ok, call me out if you were making a genuine suggestion and not being derogatory in that closing comment. If that's the case I've totally misread the situation.
Or maybe it's simply that we're talking about topics close to my heart, like the state of the game industry, and the musconceptions on it, which are an endless source of frustration for me. That aside, my arguments are always aimed to the opposing argument, not to the person (ClausL notwithstanding, but he was simply a troll)-Quote:
Can't think of a time when I've agreed with you previously. I tend to just hit a 'Like' on a post from someone who has already written what I would say though. That's cool; we come to the forms for discussion. I just perceived a lot more hostility than I've seen for a while (good ole ClausL notwithstanding!), specifically from you. Perhaps it's just that time of the month.
Yeah, our VPS decided to completely change infrastructure without advance notice and they're still working on it. I'd very much like to strangle someone at the moment, but that's entirely unrelated to this discussion.Quote:
Fair enough. I'm not in your industry, I have no idea how many people read your editorials and I don't know if you focus entirely on FFXIV or if this is just one of many games for you (I can't answer that for myself because your site is down).
My site is an entirely generalist one, and frankly, while I definitely enjoy discussion on this forum, it's on a personal level. Even if I were to gain a few more hits they'd be a minimal fraction of our traffic. It's no IGN, bit it's not THAT small :D
Besides, if I really came here for publicity, don't you think I'd go out of my way to be nice and popular?
Opinion goes a long way but it doesn't cover every possible situation. When an opinion is based on a factually wrong foundation, it becomes wrong itself.Quote:
Bold bit: someone has a different opinion and you want to share yours to see if they agree with that instead. If they do, nice. If they don't, they're not wrong. Here, I'm trying to help you see my perspective on all this. You're free to agree or disagree. Ultimately, rhe difference between you're wrong and I disagree.
I didn't describe a general situation, as much as how many behave when there's conflict.Quote:
I disagree that in these forums most would throw personal jabs and leave, or that a lot of posts are not productive. I just don't see it.
Don't worry. My feelings aren't hurt. I just let you know that if you want to uphold the banner of "civil discussion" you may want to direct your retorts at my arguments and not at me, because that's the basics of civil discussion.Quote:
Now I already apologised for trying to guess your reasons for your posting style and explained why I did that. That's the second time you've accused me of personal attacks that I've never made and now you're saying I'm not being respectful toward you? If it's truly the case that I've hurt your feelings, I'm sorry (as that is not my intention), but from what you've said about yourself, you'd led me to believe you had a thicker skin than that.
I'm not sure what doesn't make sense to you. Historical reality is a lot more complex than Fantasy reality.Quote:
Regarding the thread's actual subject matter, which I'm glad we can return to at the end of our posts, I'm going to have to disagree with you here and leave it at that. To me, this sentence makes zero sense whatsoever, so trying to continue a discussion is going to send us round in circles, as we'd essentially be trying to talk about two different things.
The Garlean Empire is described as wholly evil (to the point of systematical genocide), with a few honorable but still dark exceptions (like Van Baelsar). That's something that works well in fantasy, but through the history of humanity nations that could be described as "evil" even just by limiting it to the government are very, very rare. -
04-18-2013, 03:25 AMCedriYou forgot electrocuted, treated for severe burns, burned again, left untreated so it developed a skin infection, had to be put down, revived by a necromancer of the underworld, used for evil, finally defeated by the mahou shoujo army of Nique's thread, restored back to normal horse...ness and then beaten again.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bowen
-
04-18-2013, 05:42 AMMjollnir
Re: the Iceni, I'd re-read your Tacitus, or summary thereof.
Don't worry about that; I have no national pride. Personally, I consider the notion foolish; each to their own though. Also, my ancestors didn't so much oppress and control the native Britons as indiscriminately rape and murder them quite literally into the Dark Ages. I don't revere those roots.Quote:
Originally Posted by Abriael
Naw, civil discussion requires manners. Despite my attempts to provoke some from you it's not occurred.Quote:
Originally Posted by Abriael
You can compare FFXIV grass to real grass. You can compare Garlemald to Rome. To come back at me with "you can't" gets us nowhere. Let's leave it alone now.Quote:
Originally Posted by Abriael
-
04-18-2013, 05:58 AMAbriaelTacitus isn't the only source, and there are tons of books written on the topic.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mjollnir
Glad that we agree on something.Quote:
Don't worry about that; I have no national pride. Personally, I consider the notion foolish; each to their own though. Also, my ancestors didn't so much oppress and control the native Britons as indiscriminately rape and murder them quite literally into the Dark Ages. I don't revere those roots.
I would say countering the arguments and not the person is included in the definition of "manners" during discussion. Despite my attempts to provoke that in you, it's not occurred.Quote:
Naw, civil discussion requires manners. Despite my attempts to provoke some from you it's not occurred.
I guess you can "compare" yes. I used the wrong term. You can indeed compare them and notice that they were completely different in their political stricture, ethos, values and behavior towards the conquered.Quote:
You can compare FFXIV grass to real grass. You can compare Garlemald to Rome. To come back at me with "you can't" gets us nowhere. Let's leave it alone now.
-
04-18-2013, 06:28 AMMjollnirOk, now you've displayed a basic misunderstanding of how history works.Quote:
Originally Posted by Abriael
So you feel that I shouldn't comment on the tone of your posts, just the content? I explained earlier why I thought that was necessary. I stand by that, so I guess this is another thing we disagree on.Quote:
Originally Posted by Abriael
Eorzea has not been conquered. It is being threatened. It does not want to be conquered, it wants to remain free. It's people would consider their lives under Garlemald oppressed and controlled. And, speaking of Tacitus, here's a nice summary on that Wikipedia which describes a similar dynamic (hint: it makes mention of Rome).Quote:
Originally Posted by Abriael
-
04-18-2013, 07:35 AMAbriaelI would say not considering multiple sources is a basic misunderstanding of how history works.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mjollnir
Then you may want not to paint yourself as paladin of courtesy, since you can't avoid resorting to personal attacks, which are the very opposite of courtesy.Quote:
So you feel that I shouldn't comment on the tone of your posts, just the content? I explained earlier why I thought that was necessary. I stand by that, so I guess this is another thing we disagree on.
As a matter of fact part of Eorzea has been conquered (Ala Migho for instance), and in the conquered areas the Garlean empire behaved in a way that's radically opposite to how the Roman Empire behaved in the same situation. Let's not even go into the genocidal aspirations the empire has, that never were part of Roman philosophy.Quote:
Eorzea has not been conquered. It is being threatened. It does not want to be conquered, it wants to remain free. It's people would consider their lives under Garlemald oppressed and controlled. And, speaking of Tacitus, here's a nice summary on that Wikipedia which describes a similar dynamic (hint: it makes mention of Rome).
Again, different political stricture, values, ethos and behavior towards the conquered.
If you want a semi-fitting comparison, you may want to look much nearer in history, which is normal, considering that the FANTASY backstory of Eorzea is built on modern values to appease to a modern public, and not ancient historical ones.
What the writers took from history is the flavor, and nothing else. -
04-18-2013, 08:17 AMMjollnirI disagree with pretty much everything you've said about the topic, your reasoning and your comments regards myself and I've explained why in detail. I've got nothing more to add now.Quote:
Originally Posted by Brick Wall
-
04-18-2013, 08:30 AMSkyeWindbinderYes yes, I know I know. lol Just... you have to sometimes learn to take what Abriael says with a grain of salt. Yes, he can be quite rude, but I normally just shrug it off. I'll agree, he has a definite arrogant streak. But the annoyance of it gets dialed down several levels if you just smirk at it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mjollnir
lol You two need to relax a bit.