Ishgard the most messed up area?

[Kazhim]

Yea OP has either not been paying attention to what npcs are saying or they're making a lot of judgements based on very limited knowledge.

Knowledge of what ?

Sorry i just ended basic game, and when i m guessing the end of plot befor the half of the story, that mean the story is very bad wrote. Also to the end of basic game, if we watch only this, Yshgard has no existenc at all, and my criticism of it is still viable for now. Also at Isghard when i saw the inquisitor first time i knew that was the bad guy, so why read bunch of text for something i know already? waste of time really;

You want another exemple?

Ok, when i did the blue quest for the league of ashes in Thanalan, where you meet tribe of beastmen, here i read whole dialogue, cause i found that very interesting, to involve those guy in the story and give them a more important role in the lore, same for the last quest of the black mage, which is very good in many aspect.

But sorry again ha, Yshgard tales is too much predictable, and as i mentionned, many thing are not right with this area;

At least for the evil empire they tried to build something different from roman empire which is based on, and i find this better managed than Ysghard.

[Iscah]

Forgot to reply to this earlier...

also if i said muslim that was for the joke, cause they are just replace by dragon and dragon adorator, draw as fanatic in the game, as crusader saw muslmim like fanatic or heretic.

It's still not a fair comparision to make. The Crusaders and the Ishgardians might both be in a war against "heretics", but there were other real-world groups seen as heretics - as you pointed out yourself. So you can't equate the in-game heretics and real-world Muslims just based on that, when there isn't any other parallel between them.



Also, is it possible that the French translation of the game is drawing on more direct French-history references than the English translation? Or even just as an effect of translating concepts? eg. Playing in English, I would never connect "Archbishop Thordan" as being a French-inspired element. But evidently you did from the French term.

[Enla]

Knowledge of what ?

Sorry i just ended basic game, and when i m guessing the end of plot befor the half of the story, that mean the story is very bad wrote. Also to the end of basic game, if we watch only this, Yshgard has no existenc at all, and my criticism of it is still viable for now. Also at Isghard when i saw the inquisitor first time i knew that was the bad guy, so why read bunch of text for something i know already? waste of time really;

You want another exemple?

Ok, when i did the blue quest for the league of ashes in Thanalan, where you meet tribe of beastmen, here i read whole dialogue, cause i found that very interesting, to involve those guy in the story and give them a more important role in the lore, same for the last quest of the black mage, which is very good in many aspect.

But sorry again ha, Yshgard tales is too much predictable, and as i mentionned, many thing are not right with this area;

At least for the evil empire they tried to build something different from roman empire which is based on, and i find this better managed than Ysghard.

You're basically doing the equivalent of criticizing Gondor for not appearing in LoTR after reading Fellowship of the Ring but haven't actually read Two Towers or Return of the King to see if it comes up - let alone knowing anything about it. Just play the game and then form an opinion. If you still think Ishard is still so horrible once you actually get through it then fine. People are entitled to their opinions. What people are criticizing you for is the lack of informed opinion. Which your post here basically just reinforced.

[Kazhim]

You're basically doing the equivalent of criticizing Gondor for not appearing in LoTR after reading Fellowship of the Ring but haven't actually read Two Towers or Return of the King to see if it comes up - let alone knowing anything about it. Just play the game and then form an opinion. If you still think Ishard is still so horrible once you actually get through it then fine. People are entitled to their opinions. What people are criticizing you for is the lack of informed opinion. Which your post here basically just reinforced.

Hell no, Lord of the ring, is really better, and built his myth and background on very very large period, also i never saw Gondor or Rohan as a remake of middle age in europe, but a merge of many inspiration and cultur with a very strong identity. Tell me is there archi bishop in gondor? Do you see any crusade or inquisitor stuff in lord of the ring? Is gandalf look like Merlin?
No no no and no.
So dont compare two tales who has definitely not the same level of writting and deep.

For what i saw from Ishgard and only on basic game that i finish the story : Ishgard has no use, no interest, and his inspiration too much close from england and france make it very common and déjà vu. Ishgard is just useless, has no major role, and has less identity than other kingdom in the game.
Else we have the right to phrase criticisme, i gave some argument no? SO accept it or let this topic away, we can not be agree always, but still i have right to spell what is wrong for me.

[Enla]

Hell no, Lord of the ring, is really better, and built his myth and background on very very large period, also i never saw Gondor or Rohan as a remake of middle age in europe, but a merge of many inspiration and cultur with a very strong identity. Tell me is there archi bishop in gondor? Do you see any crusade or inquisitor stuff in lord of the ring? Is gandalf look like Merlin?
No no no and no.
So dont compare two tales who has definitely not the same level of writting and deep.

For what i saw from Ishgard and only on basic game that i finish the story : Ishgard has no use, no interest, and his inspiration too much close from england and france make it very common and déjà vu. Ishgard is just useless, has no major role, and has less identity than other kingdom in the game.
Else we have the right to phrase criticisme, i gave some argument no? SO accept it or let this topic away, we can not be agree always, but still i have right to spell what is wrong for me.

Analogy is lost on you isn't it? You do realize analogy isn't /comparison/ right? Not even close to being comparison in any way at that?
You've also only saw one area of like six. S I X. Along with what amounts to four hours of story focused on Ishgard versus well over forty the game actually has waiting for you. Just play the game. No one cares that you dislike Ishgard, but on a public forum we very much have the right to point out you're making uninformed criticisms. If you come out of the end of Heavensward with the same opinion good! I still hate most of the ARR story in spite of having completed it several times and I'll hold that opinion for a very long time. That opinion however came from actually experiencing it. Not playing 4D chess against myself based on story speculations that if you actually played, you'd see aren't true. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

[KageTokage]

I feel like the OP is going to also hate Stormblood's regions for taking heavy inspiration from real world locales.

[Kazhim]

Forgot to reply to this earlier...



It's still not a fair comparision to make. The Crusaders and the Ishgardians might both be in a war against "heretics", but there were other real-world groups seen as heretics - as you pointed out yourself. So you can't equate the in-game heretics and real-world Muslims just based on that, when there isn't any other parallel between them.



Also, is it possible that the French translation of the game is drawing on more direct French-history references than the English translation? Or even just as an effect of translating concepts? eg. Playing in English, I would never connect "Archbishop Thordan" as being a French-inspired element. But evidently you did from the French term.

Maybe, i dont make equate, but i m bored to see "crusade" stuff in all fantasy tale that i read or play.
Ok there is one book where we see Jihad, but that one and lonely and maybe best book ever made about arabian and middle east culture,; Dune.
However Jihad is still not over present in the main story of the saga.

While crusade, when we know on what it refer to, historically, it would be insight to not take again those word and code who belong to a specific period. Archi bishop, inquisitor, crusader, should be take off from heroic fantasy to be replace by something more original. All major author in heroic fantasy book never use those, Robbin Hobbs, Tolkien, the author of Narnia, and i skip many of other.

So for me i expect than an heroic fantasy give me journey, and not recall me bad stuff from european history.

also, it could be better if they did an effort to manage this kingdom in a real role, and identity.

[Kazhim]

I feel like the OP is going to also hate Stormblood's regions for taking heavy inspiration from real world locales.

I dont hate, i just find Yshgard messy and not very interesting, for what i mentionned.

[Kazhim]

Analogy is lost on you isn't it? You do realize analogy isn't /comparison/ right? Not even close to being comparison in any way at that?
You've also only saw one area of like six. S I X. Along with what amounts to four hours of story focused on Ishgard versus well over forty the game actually has waiting for you. Just play the game. No one cares that you dislike Ishgard, but on a public forum we very much have the right to point out you're making uninformed criticisms. If you come out of the end of Heavensward with the same opinion good! I still hate most of the ARR story in spite of having completed it several times and I'll hold that opinion for a very long time. That opinion however came from actually experiencing it. Not playing 4D chess against myself based on story speculations that if you actually played, you'd see aren't true. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

He told me it is like i do criticism of gondor, so yes there is comparisson and no Gondor is not the topic here, dont even know why he mention it really.

I speak from my experience, and from what i saw, Ishgard is no use, i already say, and has no identity, cause too much close from france england middle age times. But you know what that not a problème that is just a fact, but you are free to see this area great and nice if you like this kind.
And for next, i really dont expect Ishgard to astonish me, maybe i almost already know how it will be, so it doesnt matter, that is just a small part of the game, but for me was important to highlight whats wrong with this kingdom. People cant be always agree, but i gave some argument that no one seem counter , just saying "you know nothing you have no right to speak" bleh.

after everyone has his owns expectation, for me, seeing crusade, inquisitor, french like name, or some design too much historical, that bored me, and i see that as a lack of imagination and a bad point.

[Edax]

Hell no, Lord of the ring, is really better, and built his myth and background on very very large period, also i never saw Gondor or Rohan as a remake of middle age in europe, but a merge of many inspiration and cultur with a very strong identity. Tell me is there archi bishop in gondor? Do you see any crusade or inquisitor stuff in lord of the ring? Is gandalf look like Merlin?
No no no and no.
So dont compare two tales who has definitely not the same level of writting and deep.

For what i saw from Ishgard and only on basic game that i finish the story : Ishgard has no use, no interest, and his inspiration too much close from england and france make it very common and déjà vu. Ishgard is just useless, has no major role, and has less identity than other kingdom in the game.
Else we have the right to phrase criticisme, i gave some argument no? SO accept it or let this topic away, we can not be agree always, but still i have right to spell what is wrong for me.

Perhaps you did not understand J. R. R. Tolkien very well. He absolutely pulled from history to build his world. Tolkien referred to Minas Tirith (Gondor) as a "Byzantine City", meaning the Eastern Roman Empire.

Rohan


Scandinavian Viking Helmet

For what i saw from Ishgard and only on basic game that i finish the story : Ishgard has no use, no interest, and his inspiration too much close from england and france make it very common and déjà vu. Ishgard is just useless, has no major role, and has less identity than other kingdom in the game.
Else we have the right to phrase criticisme, i gave some argument no? SO accept it or let this topic away, we can not be agree always, but still i have right to spell what is wrong for me.

You are correct, before you enter Ishgard and learn about it's people, it has no major role in the story. Perhaps you should experience the story before criticizing that the story hasn't happened yet.

Stomach is not where the thickest part of armor should be and kitchen knife is better against armored opponents than a sword is. In real life there is no such thing as damage numbers so a kitchen knife is as much a one-hit-kill of a weapon as a sword, gun or cannon. If it hits the vitals, that is.

And stomach not only is not one of the critical vitals (you can die rather easily from being pierced in certain depth and parts of it, but not all), but it also requires more mobility than the rest of the body. A thick armor on the stomach means you cannot move. Like, literally. Heavy jousting armors were stiff on the stomach, and the knights couldn't even get up on their own once they fell off the horse (onto which they couldn't get without help either).
If you'll look at this armor, you'll notice that around the area that Aymeric was pierced the armor is actually divided into the top and bottom, with the bottom being a sort of plate skirt. If you have the opportunity to stick something between the bottom and top, you can very much hurt the person.
Of course...if your weapon can pierce the chain mail that is traditionally worn under plate armor, but we don't know whether Aymeric wears it too.

Ultimately a kitchen knife is better to deal with a heavily armored enemy than a sword...but in reality...you're not likely to kill anyone with either. Attacking around the neck where it's easiest to slide past the multiple layers of armor is your best bet...or just use blunt weapon. So if we accept suspension of belief as for why arrows can kill heavily armored enemies...a dagger is the least problem here.

Armor is "suppose" to protect the vital organs above all else. However, I can't actually tell what material Aymeric's armor is made of protecting his torso, could be cloth for all I know. That's the problem with "fantasy" armor. I'd also saw a kitchen knife would be really bad at penetrating armor, you'd be better off with a letter opener cause at least it's thin and can punch through chainmail. A kitchen knife is wide and wont get through the rings and it'll just bounce off plate.

Not to mention the most obvious references: Just about all the military ranks in the Garlean forces have names copied from the Roman army. Add in things like "Castrum Centri" which is simply Latin for "Central Fortress", and the inspiration from the Roman Empire becomes hard to miss.

I agree they borrow Rome's military naming system, but not much else since they don't act terribly Roman. You could do the same thing and have the "Empire" act like Canadians, while giving them roman titles, but they wont be an analog for the Roman Empire anymore. One of the key drivers of Roman expansion was money, and the Garleans have shown they don't really care about that given how they didn't milk Doma or Ala Mhigo for their resources. They just took away their farming tools (tools that the tech advanced Garleans don't need) just to be evil.