Okay.... {spoilers}

[Morningstar1337]

They were already trying to lighten the mood, just not in the MSQ, there was a reason Goblins were involved in this expansion's raid, and why the Vath, Mogmender and Gundu quests all seem to be a little more personal in scope. At the same time I don't think Hildibrand will appear in the MSQ bar very vague or short cameos

[Theodric]

-snip-

I guess. I'm still not convinced that FFXIV's story is particularly dark though. It has its moments, certainly, but everything seems to work out a little too nicely. I think the body count should have been higher and that more minor characters along the lines of Honoroit should have perished. They're not likely to play a huge role in the story after we take our leave of Ishgard anyway and whilst killing off characters for the sake of it is silly it does help make antagonists feel like a genuine threat. Nidhogg didn't really accomplish much beyond slaughter generic nameless soldiers and possess a friend who got better anyway.

[Fenral]

Eh, if you need characters to have names before their deaths matter, you're kind of playing the wrong series. You said yourself that what happened to A'aba was a shame, but that's pretty much what it sounds like you're asking for more of. You can't really have it both ways. While death can be a way to show off a villain's power level, sometimes you can get a lot more mileage out of not killing characters.

By way of comparison, it's not like Berserk kills off every named character Guts meets, either. It has some spectacularly low points (*cough*Eclipse*cough*), but he's actually pretty good about saving the people in his immediate vicinity, even if they may never show up again. If he didn't, instead of seeming edgy he'd just come across as sort of inept.

Final Fantasy has slightly higher standards for its heroes, though, so the fact that we don't see more named character death is meant as a testament to how well the WoL gets the job done.

[Laili]

I think 4.0 has potential to be way darker than anything in 3.0. Ongoing occupation generally has a lot more atrocities and vitriol being flung around, especially when it comes to stuff like brainwashing.

[Ametrine]

If a high body count of minor characters is your need, that's more or less Attack on Titan's wheelhouse, but the glaring flaw with that kind or story telling is the narrative becomes exhausting and partially predictable as you know most of these people are going to die. It's just how and when.

So, unless you derive entertainment from the myriad ways that people can die (which is part of the cathartic appeal of super violent media), you're just alienating a large part of people from enjoying, and thus supporting, your production.



That's why we only see death rarely happen to important characters. It has to have an actual impact and consequences. Otherwise the best we'll see is constant anguish or desensitization over loss, neither of which make for the best extended narratives.

[Theodric]

As I said, it's a matter of balance. Not every antagonist needs to slaughter major or minor characters. At the same time, though, if a particular antagonist is pushed as the 'big bad' of an expansion then it leads to disappointment when they don't really manage to achieve very much at all. Many people believe that Gaius deserved better treatment than he received in 2.0 and I'm inclined to agree. I feel the same way about Nidhogg - because he was brought back from the dead but didn't really accomplish very much beyond uniting Ishgard against him.

[Cilia]

Very rarely do antagonists manage to kill off major protagonists in just about any form of media. If a protagonist dies, they can't continue to influence the narrative, after all - they've failed at playing their part, in a manner of speaking. If the villain succeeds, we have failed, after all - that's why villains can't ever really accomplish much. Having Nidhogg raze Ishgard, for instance, would not only make us absolute failures at our role of guardians and protectors but also cut the area off from later use (i.e. you couldn't ever go back). Having us mercy kill Estinien instead of freeing him from Nidhogg's grasp is also just a bit too cynical for this game (though I was utterly convinced it was going to be necessary). So... yeah, for better or worse the most Nidhogg could do to build him up as a genuine threat is possess Estinien and slaughter rank and file Temple Knights. (I always hated how his attack was "imminent" but we were allowed as much time as we wanted to make a long journey to try and get Hraesvelgr to convince him not to... and then he was just sitting around in the Aery...)

Remember, Aerith's death has a lot of impact and shock because protagonists don't usually die for good. Same with Leomon in Digimon Tamers, half of Night Raid in Akame ga Kill!, etc.

Ironically enough, the only major protagonist to die (metaphorically speaking) is Minfilia. We can shape the future of nations and save the entire world, but we couldn't save the woman who took us in and taught us what it means to be a guardian and protector.

... how strange this world is, and how cruel.

[Fenral]

Eh, I think Akame ga Kill! is naive in its own special way, but that's a topic for another time.

[Frederick22]

Many people believe that Gaius deserved better treatment than he received in 2.0 and I'm inclined to agree.

I have a slighty suspect that this role will be on Regula..

But well people can dream xD

[Cilia]

This is going to be a bit lengthy and skew off-topic, so hide boxed for fair warning.

The problem with Akame ga Kill!'s portrayal of death is that, while it has impact and strikes named and unnamed characters alike, the characters are never really allowed proper time to grieve. While this is a bit of a weakness in its storytelling, it's important to remember they're at war - guerrilla or otherwise - and thus don't really have a whole lot of time to do so. There's also the fact that their skills aren't really missed - people die on both sides but their deaths ultimately change nothing.

That's in stark contrast to VII: Aerith's death has a permanent, lasting impact on the game and even into Advent Children. Though they continue their mission because it must be done, the party never stops grieving for her, and Cloud continues to be haunted by guilt over her death years afterward. It's just a bit overwrought, but that's the kind of impact death actually has on people.

The same holds true in Digimon Tamers: Leomon's murder at Beelzemon's hand influences the entire rest of the story. Jeri/Juri despairs over it until the last (or next to last, I can't remember exactly) episode, allowing an artificial Eldritch Abomination to start erasing the world. Takato feels guilty about his inaction allowing it to happen. And after realizing how wrong it was of him to do so, Impmon/Beelzemon is nearly driven insane by guilt and the need to atone to the point he nearly dies in the attempt. (Remember, Digimon is a childrens' series!)

... so honestly, the most realistic portrayal of death we've gotten is Haurchefant's. Senseless and unnecessary, and others continued to grieve for him until... what, arguably the end of 3.3? Does Francel still visit his grave? Sometimes I just loiter in the Waking Sands' Solar...

Anyway, the problem with Gaius was that he didn't really make a move until the last act of 2.0. Except for the raid on the Waking Sands, which was brutal and unnecessary, there was no action from the Garleans until Gaius showed up with the Ultima Weapon, handed the primals their asses, and then issued his ultimatum to the city-states. He was competent and capable and would have won were it not for a direct divine intervention.