Political Ideology and Storytelling Within FFXIV

[Caurcas]

Take away all the magitek stuff and XIV is decidedly Early Modern in terms of setting. A setting rarely explored. Although this does lead to some weirdness, highlighted in a few places. Most the role of the firearm. In Ishgard you have purposed arming of the civilian population in the MCH quest line, but in follow up you still have temple knights. Garlemald seems to be able to produce metallic cartridges yet does not arm its force in mass with firearms, instead opting for melee. Same thing in Limsa where in the player's barracks you see stacks of rifles, yet only the admiral seems to use guns in story content.

[Lium]

Take away all the magitek stuff and XIV is decidedly Early Modern in terms of setting. A setting rarely explored. Although this does lead to some weirdness, highlighted in a few places. Most the role of the firearm. In Ishgard you have purposed arming of the civilian population in the MCH quest line, but in follow up you still have temple knights. Garlemald seems to be able to produce metallic cartridges yet does not arm its force in mass with firearms, instead opting for melee. Same thing in Limsa where in the player's barracks you see stacks of rifles, yet only the admiral seems to use guns in story content.

In many ways it's kind of like steampunk. Society is on the cusp of industrialization. Some countries and cultures use firearms and early tech, while others are still using spears and swords and archaic devices. And sometimes, they overlap.

[MikkoAkure]

Take away all the magitek stuff and XIV is decidedly Early Modern in terms of setting. A setting rarely explored. Although this does lead to some weirdness, highlighted in a few places. Most the role of the firearm. In Ishgard you have purposed arming of the civilian population in the MCH quest line, but in follow up you still have temple knights. Garlemald seems to be able to produce metallic cartridges yet does not arm its force in mass with firearms, instead opting for melee. Same thing in Limsa where in the player's barracks you see stacks of rifles, yet only the admiral seems to use guns in story content.

Funny enough, Limsa has gun control laws and there's also been issues with Lominsan firearms being illegally smuggled into Kugane and there's a leve to make shields to protect people.

There are a few cutscenes of Lominsans other than the Admiral using guns. The Yellowjackets, Barracudas, and quite a few pirates are armed with pistols, but they need to be licensed. Long rifles exist in the game as set pieces in Limsa Lominsa, but no one has been seen picking one up.

And yeah like you said, part of the point of Ishgard's government changes is that now there's no longer the existential threat of dragons destroying the city, the people are upset about being under the thumb of the nobles. And now they have guns. At least we don't have a full on French-style revolution with a guillotine and the two sides work together and the knights and machinists combine their tactics.

I'm sure we'll learn more about Garlean citizens and their lives and history when we get there, if their culture isn't already completely erased.

[Hurlstone]

Is the game political? Well yes I would say it is. Actually, I think its very hard to not make a piece of art on this level that is completely free of any biases or viewpoint. FF14 has a voice and a story to tell but its a little hard to judge just what the overall theme of the story is until we see Endwalker, I would say. As the game has continued more and more of its themes and ideas get questioned and subverted. For example, ARR presents Hydaelyn as mostly a traditional, loving deity who is the embodiment of all that is right. As of SHB though, we now see her and what she represents in a much more unknowing and possibly darker light. The Azians are shown as maniacal villains in black robes, and while they are still our opponents, we can now see them and their story in a much more nuanced light. We even get a subversion of that within the same expansion when we meet Fandaniel , who taunts the player by proudly saying that he is just a mad villain, and that they will not find any sympathy or understanding within them. Each expansion dissects the lore a little more, going deeper into the culture and motivations that inhabit the world. Its one of the reasons why I adore this game so much, and love how the expansions grow the overall arc and ideas.

If I would guess I would say a lot of the story is about freedom. I admit, as a lefty socialist I do love when the story empathises the idea of cooperation and equality between people rather then submitting to gods or royalty. I am not saying that the game is a communist paradise, far from it in fact, but I feel the idea of freedom and collaboration are central to the games core message. I do not think they always hit the mark on their ideas nor do they land on the messaging I would personally like. I like SB more then most, but it was really strange in how it handled some of its themes (I still find it weird how everyone kinda just accepted the barbaric practise of the Ruby Tithe, and I really disliked how Nanamo’s story ended.) and naturally there will be questlines that go in opposit directions in regards to what they have to say, but I feel that this is the main aim of the MSQ at least. Plus, these contradictions just make for a more realistic world.

[Steelbreaker25]

But that all makes sense, it's not really what concerns me about the WoL. I've just noticed over time that the WoL is meaner to complete randoms asking for legitimately-needed help than they are actual despots. Varis, Yotsuyu, Emet-Selch, and even Nidhogg (admittedly in a sidequest) get a weird amount of respect, and it's not even in 'don't burn bridges to potential employers' senses, since they're all either not the type to hire or are well past having any power. I'm pretty sure Gaius also got off pretty easy back when the Praetorium had lines, but I don't know how to check that.

The only instances where I can think of this happening are in very lighthearted joke questlines, like the Namazu beast tribes. Or Hildebrand, but he deserves it. In every other case, the game implies the WoL is almost compulsive in helping anyone who asks for anything.

[Cleretic]

The only instances where I can think of this happening are in very lighthearted joke questlines, like the Namazu beast tribes. Or Hildebrand, but he deserves it. In every other case, the game implies the WoL is almost compulsive in helping anyone who asks for anything.

The most recent examples I can think of are in the Nier questline. Which is a little debatable on the 'joke quests' front, but personally I lean towards it not being one given... you know. All the death, destruction and grieving. And perhaps the most painful example is in Stormblood: "Just know I'll kill your god if I have to. Maybe even if I don't." Which is a line I've seen pages of arguments crop up about elsewhere, and it's hard to really come to a full consensus about, but... well, we never get even that ambiguously rude to a number of the outright villains. And that line was said to an entirely innocent Ananta asking the WoL for help. These instances don't happen a lot, but they do happen enough to notice--and especially to notice when there are those barbs for innocence, but aren't those barbs for some of the worst people we've fought.

And then you've got the Dark Knight questline. Which is difficult to quantify in the same way, but I do think needs to be acknowledged in the conversation, and doesn't exactly paint the fondest picture of the WoL.

[Cilia]

I'm fine with politics being a thing in entertainment (this game included), so long as they are contextually appropriate. Much of this game's world and cultures are derived from real-world history and culture; given I clock the approximate time period this game is set in to be 1800 - 1850, the pro-democratic and anti-imperialistic tones are fine with me given they parallel what happened in the real world.

I don't like it when a piece of work is used as an excuse to lecture audiences on contemporary hot-button political issues; not only does that make the work very dated, viewers will either agree or disagree with the message it's sending. They're either preaching to the choir or making people roll their eyes, in other words. While entertainment can be used for political posturing, I don't like it when that's the main point of the work; no matter how strongly held the beliefs of the author(s) / producer(s) may be a piece of entertainment still needs to be, you know, entertaining.

The only case I can see of socio-political commentary being a little too heavy-handed for my taste is Yotsuyu's character arc, which is a scathing critique of how orphans are treated in Japanese society (and to a lesser degree Japanese society in general). Well that and the Save the Queen questline ("You thought Bozja was a fairly-governed democracy, but gotcha! It was really a highly-stratified caste system run by ubiquitous Corrupt Bigoted Nobles™!"), but I don't hold that against the game's usual writers because... Matsuno, who is well-known for that.

(P.S. I don't have a problem with the anti-imperialist undertones and don't see why the writers wouldn't be "qualified" to use them, given Japan's own sordid history with imperialism.)

[Theodric]

I do believe that this should add further clarification on the subject when it comes to the intent of the writers, especially the last paragraph:

Q: With each new expansion new themes are introduced and are focused on. How does the team decide on which themes to focus on with each new expansion?

Naoki Yoshida: The major themes for the expansion would be first conveyed from me as the game’s director to the development team. Although it is somewhat difficult to describe my personal decision-making process it could be summarised as [requiring a sense of] surprise and fun. This contains a dual meaning in that I assess whether as developers ourselves we would encounter surprises while enjoying the production process, at the same time as considering whether the story of the expansion would be exciting and fun for the players. In the last expansion Shadowbringers, I had thought that players must have grown tired of being referred to as a Warrior of Light. I also came up with the idea of reversing the conventional notion of light equating to justice or something holy and darkness equating to evil or something bad to generate a sense of surprise.

The current state of global affairs is incredibly complex and simple two-dimensional theories of good/bad from ancient times can no longer quantify this world we live in. As such, a large factor [that contributed to the selection of these themes] is that I thought I could cultivate new values and a new sense of realisation within myself by changing perspective and carefully considering the other party’s arguments in regard to a given event. Half of the time these things are born from one’s intuition and flashes of inspiration. I guessed as much but it really is hard to explain. (laughs)

Source: https://www.impulsegamer.com/naoki-y...vs-lore-story/

[Lauront]

I'm fine with politics being a thing in entertainment (this game included), so long as they are contextually appropriate. Much of this game's world and cultures are derived from real-world history and culture; given I clock the approximate time period this game is set in to be 1800 - 1850, the pro-democratic and anti-imperialistic tones are fine with me given they parallel what happened in the real world.

I don't like it when a piece of work is used as an excuse to lecture audiences on contemporary hot-button political issues; not only does that make the work very dated, viewers will either agree or disagree with the message it's sending. They're either preaching to the choir or making people roll their eyes, in other words. While entertainment can be used for political posturing, I don't like it when that's the main point of the work; no matter how strongly held the beliefs of the author(s) / producer(s) may be a piece of entertainment still needs to be, you know, entertaining.

Agreed with all that.

[vormela]

The entire idea of calamities is that they end civilizations in the way we imagine civilization development and "uncivilized peoples" AKA beastmen to be since like the Enlightenment era and going back to Greece and beyond.

I don't see how a story based on civilization-ending calamities and religiosity and factions can not be political. That someone can take a history class and come out of it not understanding historical lenses, paradigm shifts, etc...it says a lot about the state of education and critical thinking.

I do like the idea posited that the way the politics works is within a specific historical timeframe. That seems like the best way to approach it. That makes it so we can still escape our present situation and fantasize.

Video games are escapist, and this game definitely is written with the MMORPG medium considered and pivotal to the story, as best exemplified by the Warriors of Light archetype in 5.3...we are all warriors of light even IRL just like the dopes at the Crystarium because we have played the game/seen the meteor shower... but if we don't do anything IRL that is Azem-like then are we truly warriors of light? This is so meta but I just know they are cognizant of these things while writing and it is these things that make me love the story so much more, even if they remove some of the fantasy.

Does anyone else have these ideas or is it just me? I don't know, maybe I am going insane. Their message wasn't lost to me in that scene. It made me verrry self-aware and not feeling fantastical at all for a brief instant. Just chef's kiss mwah A++ would play again even with politics.