soo are the dragons really the enemy?

[EdwinLi]

Here is a lore hint that Ishgard may be a Antagonist of FF14Heavensward and the Dragons that are loyal to Midgardsormr may be our allies against the Ascians.

Midgardsormr says the Dragons are attacking Ishgard because...

In English version, because of the sins of their ancestors.

In japanese version, because Ishgard is commiting the same sin again their ancestors commited long ago.

If you can guess what that "Sin" is then you'll understand a bit more.

Midgardsormr also hints he was the keeper of the Lake because of a relationship (I'm talking Friend Zone level) with Hydaelyn (most likely to serve as a guardian to the Seal that imprisoned the Primals before it was broken)

Back in 2.2, it is revealed that the Holy See of Ishgard may be working with the Ascians.

Midgardsormr minion form also resembles the future Dragon Flying Mount we will obtain for completing 3.0 Main Scenario.

[Intaki]

In English version, because of the sins of their ancestors.

In japanese version, because Ishgard is commiting the same sin again their ancestors commited long ago.

There is no difference in what the English and Japanese dialogue communicated. Both referred to the past conflict as a motivator for the ongoing war.

[Tiggy]

There is no difference in what the English and Japanese dialogue communicated. Both referred to the past conflict as a motivator for the ongoing war.

How can you say that they are the same? In one it is said that the war is because of the sins of the ancestors. Past tense and long ago. In the Japanese version it is clearly said they are about to commit the same sin as one commited in the past. Future tense with a reference to a past action so coming soon but similar. Quite different in terms of the information conveyed. Past tense and future tense make a significant change in what the information means.

[Intaki]

I don't think the dragons are bad guys, personally.

In spite of the fact that we know the dragons are more than willing to slaughter every man, woman, and child they can get their hands on, in addition to basically tempering people?

How can you say that they are the same?

Because they are? Both of them refer to the desire to continue the war as being rooted in the past. The Japanese version (or rather, the Redditor with an agenda version) simply tries to justify it further by insinuating that because Ishgard did bad things before, it follows that it will do so again. But that's never established as the main cause of the call to war.

[Tiggy]

The Japanese version (or rather, the Redditor with an agenda version) simply tries to justify it further by insinuating that because Ishgard did bad things before, it follows that it will do so again. But that's never established as the main cause of the call to war.

And yet that is a perfect example of how the Japanese version provides MORE information thus making them not the same. Yes, the share some overlapping information, but they are not exactly the same as you pointed out as well. Making the statement that "There is no difference in what the English and Japanese dialogue communicated" a false oversimplification of the quote at hand as we can explicitly point out one piece of data that was clearly not in both.

[Intaki]

Making the statement that "There is no difference in what the English and Japanese dialogue communicated" a false oversimplification of the quote at hand as we can explicitly point out one piece of data that was clearly not in both.

Except it really isn't. I'm not going to keep posting on this issue since it'll likely just end up as another thread lock, but understand that if you believe the Dravanians' desire to destroy Ishgard is rooted in anything but the past, you are going to be severely disappointed.

[Tiggy]

One has historical context, the other clearly does not.

but understand that if you believe the Dravanians' desire to destroy Ishgard is rooted in anything but the past, you are going to be severely disappointed.

You can objectively look at the information without conveying a specific personal expectation. Do not put words in my mouth because you failed to understand what I said. I simply pointed out that those two snips of data have a clear objective difference and that the original statement made by you was clearly false. No where did I express personal expectations on the matter. No where did I say what I think will happen. I simply pointed out objective differences and how they clearly make your statement quite plainly a false oversimplification. Even you two posts ago commented about the differences between the two admitting they aren't the same statements so you yourself are tacitly admitting that your original statement is wrong. You can debate what the words actually mean, but that's not what I was commenting on at all. Saying they are the same is false plain and simple. Suggesting that we will get a differing version of the story in general is an entirely different argument and that appears to be what you are suggesting and possibly what square is doing. That was never the point of my comment at all.

[Hiruke]

There is no difference in what the English and Japanese dialogue communicated. Both referred to the past conflict as a motivator for the ongoing war.

This is factually inaccurate. In these lines in particular, the English says they are going to war because of the past. In the Japanese, it's because of the past, and, MORE IMPORTANTLY, that that past is now being repeated.

English makes them seem spiteful.

Japanese gives them a legit reason.

I mean, the difference is right there in the lines. Full breakdown in following (spoiler) thread:

http://www.reddit.com/r/ffxiv/commen...ersus_english/

[LineageRazor]

This is factually inaccurate.
...
I mean, the difference is right there in the lines. Full breakdown in following (spoiler) thread:

Intaki is aware of the Reddit spoiler thread:

The Japanese version (or rather, the Redditor with an agenda version) simply tries to justify it further by insinuating that because Ishgard did bad things before, it follows that it will do so again.

He/she believes that it is the result of a biased translation - that the translator wished to portray the dragons in a positive light, and so tailored his or her translation to emphasize this. I do not know if there's any truth to that belief. It would take someone fluent in Japanese to examine that Reddit thread and declare, "Yeah, that's pretty much the best, most straightforward way to translate that." or "Huh, there's some odd translation choices being made here. The author may have an agenda!" I don't know if anyone in this thread, including Intaki, has those qualifications, so it's pointless to argue about it. Intaki thinks liberties were taken, and no one else here can provide any evidence to the contrary since none of us can translate it ourselves.

Anyway, what I'm most curious about is whether the Heavensward expansion Main Scenario quests are going to require completion of the original Main Scenario quests to begin them. One thing that was kind of interesting in FFXI was that each expansion had a completely independent storyline, with the exception of the first expansion (which required completion of the Main Scenario of the base game). You could play the scenario from Wings of the Goddess without ever touching the scenario from. Making expansions independent has a lot going for it - players new to the game purchasing the expansion don't have to worry about catching up on all the previous expansions before they can dig into the new stuff.

Every indication right now is that Heavensward is going to pick right up from the current Main Scenario. It's early in the game's life, so maybe this is feasible now, just as Rise of the Zilart was when it was released for FFXI.

[MilesSaintboroguh]

blah.

Highly doubt it since the end of 2.5 seems to be shaping up to throwing you into the mess that is Ishgard and how their troubles might spill over into other city states if it's not dealt with soon, not to mention the showing of the Ascians influencing the Holy See in some way and said Ascians have been troublesome to everyone for a long time.