Best thing from Zadnor

[Y2K21]

I'm sure they're just saving them for later.

They why say the main guy is dead and everyone is now basically just AWOL? That makes zero sense when you could have had them as a side conflict since they werent going to be part of the main enemy in EW.

[Vahlnir]

They why say the main guy is dead and everyone is now basically just AWOL? That makes zero sense when you could have had them as a side conflict since they werent going to be part of the main enemy in EW.

If you didn't notice (looking like you didn't tbh) they appear to be setting up a future storyline. The Bozja conflict is over, but I'm guessing they are going to continue the overall Ivalice story elsewhere, maybe Dalmasca or somewhere else. We have yet to deal with Gabranth. Could be the next relic story as well. We will see.

[Y2K21]

If you didn't notice (looking like you didn't tbh) they appear to be setting up a future storyline. The Bozja conflict is over, but I'm guessing they are going to continue the overall Ivalice story elsewhere, maybe Dalmasca or somewhere else. We have yet to deal with Gabranth. Could be the next relic story as well. We will see.

So why do they randomly add in that Noah is dead in the Field Notes that we get at the end of the storyline? Its kind of weird to say they are setting up a future storyline when in the side lore they go "Lol he dead".

Even if we want to buy into the "ghost of Gabranth" thing -- it makes zero sense for the writing team to add in a cinematic for a cliffhanger with Dalmasca -- then write Field Notes stories which wrap up everything and close all the loose end associated with it -- then decide to swerve back to "Gabranth is alive" after making him a very sickly man without anything anymore. Its nonsensical. Why bother writing the Field Notes like that at all if you plan on continuing the story? Its not a subversion of expectations nor good storytelling.

We already know with the last cutscene that there would be more, so why write a conclusion to it if its not true?

[RyuDragnier]

So why do they randomly add in that Noah is dead in the Field Notes that we get at the end of the storyline? Its kind of weird to say they are setting up a future storyline when in the side lore they go "Lol he dead".

Even if we want to buy into the "ghost of Gabranth" thing -- it makes zero sense for the writing team to add in a cinematic for a cliffhanger with Dalmasca -- then write Field Notes stories which wrap up everything and close all the loose end associated with it -- then decide to swerve back to "Gabranth is alive" after making him a very sickly man without anything anymore. Its nonsensical. Why bother writing the Field Notes like that at all if you plan on continuing the story? Its not a subversion of expectations nor good storytelling.

We already know with the last cutscene that there would be more, so why write a conclusion to it if its not true?

You didn't read the field notes fully, did you? They mentioned they found his corpse in his armor, his face burned so they couldn't identify him...but even if they could, very few people have actually seen his face without his helmet. Meaning the man obviously faked his own death.

[Y2K21]

You didn't read the field notes fully, did you? They mentioned they found his corpse in his armor, his face burned so they couldn't identify him...but even if they could, very few people have actually seen his face without his helmet. Meaning the man obviously faked his own death.

Again: I will repeat the same question I asked.

Why bother writing the Field Notes like that at all if you plan on continuing the story? Its not a subversion of expectations nor good storytelling.

Going "he will still be a threat" to "no hes dead" to "no hes actually may be alive" with zero build up is mindbogglingly bad.

[RyuDragnier]

Again: I will repeat the same question I asked.

Why bother writing the Field Notes like that at all if you plan on continuing the story? Its not a subversion of expectations nor good storytelling.

Because instead of everybody asking "Why didn't anybody hunt him down before now!?" when he shows back up again, it gives us a reason ahead of time...everybody thought the man was dead. It's future proofing the storyline, and also allows them to integrate him into the story without us even knowing its him. Example, we could end up meeting some random sick NPC who is part of a questline in EW that we end up helping get better, and then find out when Ivalice is picked back up again that it was really him, resulting in a serious "Nice Job Breaking It Hero" moment. It allows major twists and turns, and for them to think outside of the box with what to do with him. In general it's Storywriting 101, if you want to use a character later but want to put them on the backburner, you have to write them out of the story temporarily.

[Y2K21]

Because instead of everybody asking "Why didn't anybody hunt him down before now!?" when he shows back up again, it gives us a reason ahead of time...everybody thought the man was dead. It's future proofing the storyline, and also allows them to integrate him into the story without us even knowing its him.

...that actually makes no sense since you can do this without killing/"faking his death" storyline, since it was already believed that he had no loyalty to the falling Garlemand and was going his own way. That was the entire point of the high loyalty thing because he had his own ideals for the IVth Legion.

Why make the story so convoluted with the freedom of Dalmasca, the dissolution of the IVth, faking his death, and Lyon betraying him all in a side-lore Field Note IF you are just going to use him later? Especially since this all happens off screen with no real story-timing at all.

[Laphicet]

Again: I will repeat the same question I asked.

Why bother writing the Field Notes like that at all if you plan on continuing the story? Its not a subversion of expectations nor good storytelling.

Going "he will still be a threat" to "no hes dead" to "no hes actually may be alive" with zero build up is mindbogglingly bad.

Because history being recorded improperly or stories being covered up is a recurring thing in Matsuno's works (which Bozja draws heavily from). It was a key part of the story of the Ivalice raids, too, if you remembered that.

And, in fact, going by Ryu's post above this, Noah Van Galbranth is pulling something oddly similar to what Ramza and his crew did for the history of ivalice/dalmasca in the FFXIV universe.

[Y2K21]

Because history being recorded improperly or stories being covered up is a recurring thing in Matsuno's works (which Bozja draws heavily from). It was a key part of the story of the Ivalice raids, too, if you remembered that.

And, in fact, going by Ryu's post above this, Noah Van Galbranth is pulling something oddly similar to what Ramza and his crew did for the history of ivalice/dalmasca in the FFXIV universe.

That could be possible -- I just feel like it would be completely weird and random to just go down this path with very little fanfare. I hope you are right and there is more to it - but I dont see it in the grand scheme of Endwalker.