What's the point with that quite lackluster story in Endwalker?

[Lauront]

One very interesting point about this Live Letter:

It was just confirmed the last civilization of the "Dead Ends", the "Ra-La" were - basically - the future of the Ancients, nonetheless, regardless of outcome.

Well no, it didn't. It confirmed it could be if they continued on that path. Not "regardless of the outcome" (e.g. they were given the actual reasons behind her concerns.)

That about sums it up for me. This Q&A has swiftly become FFXIV's Burning of Teldrassil—the event that convinces me I don't want to keep paying to play this game. And it's a shame, too. I really did enjoy Endwalker's story.

I agree partly. I don't think this was the best Q&A ever. The main comfort for me is they did the exact opposite of trying to paint Venat as a saint through comparing her to SHB Emet... but some of those answers are head-scratchers, to put it mildly.

It is a shame that Koji appears to have moved on to 16 and that Oda wasn't really present for this, as I wonder whether he'd agree with some of these questions or go "Hmmm... let's come back to that one!"

I was hoping the Q&A would improve my feelings about certain elements of Endwalker's story, but it kind of did the opposite.

It's not enough to make me completely lose faith in the writers like some other people seem to have, though.

I'm on the same boat. Still very much on the fence about it. Need to see 6.1+ plans in more detail and what comes in Panda and elsewhere.

[TheRod]

Well no, it didn't. It confirmed it could be if they continued on that path. Not "regardless of the outcome" (e.g. they were given the actual reasons behind her concerns.)

I understand your appreciation towards the Ancients as a whole, I truly do. And I also do get that due the nature of what happened in 6.0 patch, it could be not satisfying when we nurture affection for portions of the story and we don't see it fully rewarded in a way we felt a total sense accomplishment or a good, gratifying, ending (and I think early yesterday, before the LL, there was even an interview with Ishikawa pointing that - you'll naturally end up displeasing someone during a closing chapter). Speculation if would they find clarification of their ways further down, if "a" told, if "b" stood quiet, if "x" happened, if "y" didn't, if "z" did, etc... I'll just agree to disagree. This stance I basically hold more strict.

I wish the game had options, for example like in Witcher III where you have like a multitude of endings and you can select what better pleases - curiously, that was also part of the aforementioned interview (Ishikawa, alongside Yoshida) yesterday, but it was also said it's complicated to process everything, even though they would like to have, of course.

[Lauront]

I understand your appreciation towards the Ancients as a whole, I truly do. And I also do get that due the nature of what happened in 6.0 patch, it could be not satisfying when we nurture affection for portions of the story and we don't see it fully rewarded in a way we felt a total sense accomplishment or a good, gratifying, ending (and I think early yesterday, before the LL, there was even an interview with Ishikawa pointing that - you'll naturally end up displeasing someone during a closing chapter). Speculation if would they find clarification of their ways further down, if "a" told, if "b" stood quiet, if "x" happened, if "y" didn't, if "z" did, etc... I'll just agree to disagree. This stance I basically hold more strict.

I don't think it comes down to strictness. There is simply nothing in their answer addressing that scenario as things stand and I think it is relevant to be able to offer the party you're attempting to convince more than just mere musings about suffering.

I wish the game had options, for example like in Witcher III where you have like a multitude of endings and you can select what better pleases - curiously, that was also part of the aforementioned interview (Ishikawa, alongside Yoshida) yesterday, but it was also said it's complicated to process everything, even though they would like to have, of course.

I agree on that front.

Yeah, I wasn't sure what he was going on about with the comment on Ancients in general, here. Did he mean that taking measures like a little genociding and history-wiping here and there because humanity failed a test was something a single Ancient was just likely to do? Oh, those Ancients!

I mean, if anything, the other Ancients we do kind of know, in context of their world as it used to be, took important decisions as a group of fourteen, presumably diverse, representatives, who debated things, could agree or disagree and even had a dedicated mediator.

Exactly. They were used to using debate and reaching consensus to arrive at decisions. The very structure of the Convocation was set up this way. Of course they're not entirely human beings, as they have some very different traits to us, but on this front I thought his argument fell short.

[TheRod]

I don't think it comes down to strictness. There is simply nothing in their answer addressing that scenario as things stand and I think it is relevant to be able to offer the party you're attempting to convince more than just mere musings about suffering.

Oh, pardon if my wording wasn't correct or too clear (or if I misunderstood, again, sorry) - but the "strict" in that part was refering to myself.

I agree on that front.

Soon™

[Lauront]

Oh, pardon if my wording wasn't correct or too clear (or if I misunderstood, again, sorry) - but the "strict" in that part was refering to myself.

Ah I see, yes that will come down to a difference in personal approach.