Revelations from Keynote II

[Kalise]

And then I got to wondering how far we can apply this to the way players keep wiping to raids and bosses, and yet the Warrior of Light continues to survive and win, from the viewpoint of everyone else.

As I recall, the canon for this is our Echo.

When we wipe to a boss/trial/raid, we're not actually doing that. Our Echo is merely showing us a possible future, one where we fail. Which we then learn from and change how we fight.

Kind of like how we use the Echo to explore people's pasts, like Ysale could. Only we have the seemingly unique ability to see into possible futures (Which if you think about it, creates an innumerable amount of alternate timelines...)

Although having just replayed the Warriors of Darkness arc, I have to wonder about that. During the battle instance against them, you get them down to zero HP and then they "call on the power of the Echo", which revives them in a blaze of light.

So is that supposed to be a genuine "Echo mechanic" rather than just a gameplay mechanic? Do we really, actually call on the Echo and get revived?

Well, it's quite possible that's how THEIR Echo manifests.

As we've noted, different people get different things from their Echo. Fordola gets heightened senses which makes her incredibly potent in battle as she can dodge most attacks sent at her. Ysale shares our capacity to delve into people's pasts. While Krile merely is able to discern the emotions of those around her.

So it could be that the WoD's just have a revivification mechanic as their Echo "Super power".

Either that, or there's some odd interaction with an Echo user going all Ascian and giving up their mortal body. Kind of akin to that scene where Varis gets miffed and shoots Solus, only for Solus to come walking back out in a brand new body seconds later.

[Keever]

As I recall, the canon for this is our Echo.

When we wipe to a boss/trial/raid, we're not actually doing that. Our Echo is merely showing us a possible future, one where we fail. Which we then learn from and change how we fight.

Kind of like how we use the Echo to explore people's pasts, like Ysale could. Only we have the seemingly unique ability to see into possible futures (Which if you think about it, creates an innumerable amount of alternate timelines...)

This is a fan idea with no evidence in any official material. It's entirely based off the fact that we get an "Echo" buff after wiping after a set amount of time in certain encounters, but that ignores the facts that:

A) In many cases the Echo buff is retroactively added to fights a patch or two after they are released--so what, are we supposed to believe that the Echo was unable to help us until the game mechanic was retroactively added?

B) The buff is most likely called that because the Japanese name for the Echo is "the power to surpass/transcend". The game is adding the buff to help you surpass the fight.

Basically, it's just something people say on Reddit which doesn't actually gel well with lore, like, at all.

[RicaRuin]

To add to that, the Echo is what some people use to justify why we can see AoE and other markers. But in some cases, you have to accept that there's Gameplay/Story segregation and not everything that is a gameplay mechanic has to answer to lore.

[RenewalXVII]

To add to that, the Echo is what some people use to justify why we can see AoE and other markers. But in some cases, you have to accept that there's Gameplay/Story segregation and not everything that is a gameplay mechanic has to answer to lore.

This should be Rule 1 when discussing the Lore. At the end of the day, the developer's priority is to produce an enjoyable game, and while they respect the lore and do their best to make things fit, their first priority is always to make the game functional and enjoyable, and then wrangle the lore to fit.

[Kuroka]

Although on the other hand, perhaps not, as normal gameplay mechanics would suggest rewinding time as well (since we return to the start of the battle and the enemy follows their script again). We don't seem to see this happen in the WoD fight - we don't get sent back to the start of the battle each time they use the Echo.

Ofc not, we got the Echo as well, so that doesnt work on us, id say... I do feel part of it is just gameplay mechanic and basically it still happens just like it did with the wod, jsut that we gotta replay everyhing as we would have infinite lives on trials if not...

[Iscah]

Ofc not, we got the Echo as well, so that doesnt work on us, id say...

The other Scions are with us though, and they don't get "reset".

Maybe I can remember to ask about it for the next lore panel, if we don't get answers in the meanwhile.

Overall I would just say "gameplay and story segregation", but then they have a lore-based explanation for respawning at a save point...

[Fenral]

Overall I would just say "gameplay and story segregation", but then they have a lore-based explanation for respawning at a save point...

Which never comes up again aside from the tutorial quests. I'd like to think that there are certain kinds of incapacitation that non-WoLs can just shrug off with a respawn (otherwise we're all mass-murderers), but the setting tries so Twelvesdamned hard to make Eorzea (and beyond) seem so dangerous at every possible moment, that I sometimes wonder why they didn't simply leave it at gameplay-and-story segregation.

[Iscah]

I agree - trying to write respawning into lore raises more questions than it answers. Particularly why significant NPCs never manage to hit the window between zero HP and death that allows them to aetherially drift off to their home point.

The "aetherial respawn" would make more sense (but worse story) if characters dissolved into aether, FFX-style, upon death. The lore suggests that it should work that way - in which case there would be logical layers of near-death experiences:
1. Zero HP/unconscious but able to hold form; able to be revived
2. Critical negative HP that triggers physical dissolution of the body; soul has enough energy to "hold onto" its aether and find its way to an aetheryte beacon
3. Second critical point, soul can no longer hold physical aether and death is permanent.

From a story (and in-world!) perspective this would be pretty awful though, as you'd have no certainty that a person was really dying or was going to be perfectly fine.

(...oh, wait! Maybe that's how Gaius survived in the end!)


I guess perhaps a variation could be seen in-game that the first two levels work the same, but at the third stage the body doesn't have enough energy left to instinctively dissipate and instead remains in physical form.

I still think it would be easier to not try to have a lore explanation for respawning, unless it's really well-integrated and used as a plot point elsewhere. When aether, life and death are so central to the story, it's awkward having this "get out of death free" card that's apparently available even to non-Echo-blessed people.

[Ceridwenae]

So, back on a different subject.... G'raha Tia again.

If...

I'm going to preface this with a big "I am not a lorehound in any way, shape or form", despite enjoying reading the threads on the Lore forum. This is from a pure gameplay/storytelling PoV. I cannot speculate on Lore in any real depth (please be kind!).

If the character shown is G'raha and he ends up having direct ties to the MSQ, it will be very, very confusing for anyone who only ever plays MSQ and has never stepped foot into the Crystal Tower raid series. My experience was more a case of people who have been in the MSQ can turn up in raid-related stuff, but raid plots have no direct impact upon MSQ plots, other than perhaps a meta kind of speculation and potential fleshing-outs for those that enjoy that sort of thing. Is there precedence for previous raid-only characters to be dropped into the MSQ?

If this theory is correct, that would require every player to have not only started the first alliance raids, but to have actually finished them, otherwise this catboi is going to be so far out of leftfield as to present major storytelling problems for those who do not raid. Having seen something like that happen in a different game, it's not something you want to wish upon any character, and it can constitute rather an off-day for a writer. That's not to say there isn't time to establish an MSQ foothold for G'raha - or indeed, do we have this already? Or, if not, is there enough time to lay sufficient groundwork so he doesn't risk being deus ex machina?

Resonating with the players when telling the story is key. Two examples in this particular game off the top of my head are firstly, in ARR, with Thancred. If a player doesn't start in Ul'dah, the game makes sure we spend enough time with this hapless individual to understand how he gets into the predicament he gets into, and to actually feel something about it. It gets a worthy set-up. Secondly in HW, with Estinien. We have bags of time with him, understanding his motivations (just in case we've not experienced the DRG 30-50 story), and it causes us to feel something when he lets his guard down at the end of that expansion. It had a perfect set-up.

Does G'raha have something similar, as in, have we spent, in any meaningful way, time with him? Do we know him (if we have not taken part in the Crystal Tower raids, I mean)? Unless there is a time travel segment, I'm thinking that ship has sailed for the average, non-raiding MSQ punter. Of course, everyone who hasn't done it already, can go back and do the raid, but it would seem a bit much storytelling-wise ("To understand the MSQ you must now go and do raiding").

If no, then I would suggest time is running out and either we have a good whack of the first bit of expansion with him and have him (re-)established, or it's just not him in that poster. Mixing the plots just isn't going to work so well.

[Kalise]

Well... "Respawning" does have some lore to go with it.

Notably inferred lore. Specifically in the HW BLM quests. Wherein you get yelled at for "Not being able to control your power" because you apparently KILLED the cultists that were attacking your friends. (Though, it turned out that their deaths were not your fault and instead due to them using Black Magic without a Soul Crystal causing them to set their souls on fire due to the sheer power they're attempting to wield)

Which implies that typically, you DON'T kill enemies, even though gameplay wise you bring them down to 0 HP and then watch them fall down.

This also is referenced in other quests too where you will fight someone and essentially "Kill" them gameplay wise (I.e. Bring them down to 0 HP) yet they're still fine and continue to exist in cutscenes post-fight.

So, there's likely some sort of gameplay mechanic > lore happening where we bring enemies down to 0 HP just because it's more obvious that they're finished with than if they drop down to their knees and stay there in the fight (Like happens on some occasions), while in actuality we don't kill all of the enemies we beat, likely only actually killing beasts/monsters while just pummelling people into submission.