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

[aveyond-dreams]

Exactly. When it's the protagonists AUs are fine, when it's the antagonists suddenly time travel can only be in loops.

Adding to my unsatisfied feelings are, once again, the Scions invoke nothing in the way of costs. Thancred even jokes in Ultima Thule that he doesn't have a scar to brag about which, while meant in that context, still applies to the EW journey as a whole. Contrast that to a civilization that was completely eradicated with the added insult that it was 'for the best'.

I've been evaluating my feelings towards FFXIV as a whole because if I remove Ishgard and anything involving the Ascians from the equation there isn't much else I've found of interest save for some parts of the east in SB. Plus, as I was telling Theodric, if I'm not invested in the same characters the writers are am I not doomed to perpetual disappointment? It's bad enough that, like Lurina said (I miss her), EW felt like I wasn't ethically on the same page as the writers. It doesn't inspire confidence going into future storylines.

At present I still believe that Stranger of Paradise handled not only time travel better but actually had the sacrifices made by the main party mean something significant. In Endwalker we had an admittedly beloved fanservice zone that then proceeded to cause innumerable problems and implications, culminating in an extremely weak final zone that once more, reads like a fanfic of comfort characters than a full-fledged story.

I understand that perhaps due to global events there may have been a low mood at the time of writing that made it difficult to part ways with key characters, however the recent interview leads me to believe that this wasn't the original plan and that talented writers ended up having to write plot points that they didn't want to do initially. How is one of the lead writers fully aware that players will hate a certain character, and then is told to include them in the story anyway? This does not make sense.

As for me, were it not for Ishgard introducing much-needed traditional fantasy elements into this game, there is little chance I would have stuck around past level 30. The starter nations of FFXIV are comparatively less interesting than their FFXI counterparts. Though I initially started in Windurst back then, San d'Oria became my eventual home in that game, and Ishgard fills that space for me in FFXIV. The aesthetics of the Garlemald Empire and the personalities of its characters were also quite interesting, and as we drew nearer to Shadowbringers I began to find the Ascians more interesting.

However, Garlemald is now in ruins, the Ascians have no further role to play in the main story, Ishgard's plot points are resolved, and parts of the community seem convinced that the remaining regions of the world map *must* draw directly from their real world geographic counterparts or else it goes against the representation of that real world region. How am I supposed to stick around for a Meracydia expansion that takes us to fantasy Australia or Africa, when that isn't what the majority of fantasy-lovers want to visit in terms of setting? Doubly so when the story would inevitably revolve around more "liberation!" headed by the Scions.


Simply put, I came for castles, dragons, and interesting villains/empires. I am not here to be preached to about morals and despair via someone else's comfort characters.

[Ixon]

I can say that this entire personal trip I have been on, exploring the ends and outs of Endwalkers story, it's relation to the rest of the expansion, and the moral driving compass has been at the very least fun. IF the story was written at a very superficial level, meant only to paint Venat as a tragic hero and shifting blame to "Despair", then I can completely see the holes in the logic. However, IF it was written to be looked at from both a surface AND deep level point of view, then it did a great job cause it sparked a 250+ page discussion on it.

I don't personally see Venat as a hero, or a villain. To be fair I didn't give a crap at all about Zodiark OR Hydaelyn at all till ShB, and even then it was just wanting to know more. Venat to me had seen the world through another's eyes, as she says so herself(says newborns, but w/e), and most likely came to contradict the general attitude carried on by the general populace of the ancients by her "answer" she discovered through her journeys. Hence why she stepped down from the Convocation, and did not return to the Aetherical Sea. Hermes, in another way, was the same. Though instead of journeying to find his "answer", had instead decided to send his creation to the cosmos in an effort to discover answers that he knew he would not get from the people around him. Again, this could be this deep, or just a way to shift blame off Venat, both have valid reasoning.

In my opinion, Venat agreed with Hermes and his decision to "test" the people of Etheirys, probably fueling buried thoughts of her own. When the Final Days came upon Etheirys, the people did not embrace despair and elect to live with it, they chose an option to ignore it by way of Zodiark. Zodiark wasn't an answer to the meaning of life, it was a shield to the problem. In the Elpis cut scene you see Venat almost pleading with the people of Etheirys to accept despair, take it into you, and become stronger through the ability to push through it and find meaning even in the darkest of times. Something that she ascertained that the other stars had failed to do, given Metions reporting. When the Ancients had denied it, and chose to ignore it, they had failed both Hermes and Venats test. She is shown in somewhat anguish before she draws her weapon, remorseful for what she believes she must do for the future of all life. I also don't even think Venat herself believes that what she did was all good and righteousness, and I believe she was completely aware the pain she was going to inflict in doing so as she says "All is excruciating pain. I breathe fire and torment. I birth a world of suffering to mire and plague." Her sentence was to be a steward of the star for thousands of years, imprisoned almost, until we basically kill her in the end. Now I don't think her a her in that regard, I just think of her as another character in our story. One that, like many others, believed they were on the right path no matter the cost. She at least must have been very convincing to have other sacrifice themselves to power he cause, though that could have just been easily retconned in. Now of course the narrative does push the player more to believe she was an all good god on the surface level, but maybe that was the case only for those who would not dig to deep, or as said, just a bad story.(Side theory, Hydaelyns angelic features were a by product or molding even of thousands of years of people praying to the Good God Hydaelyn. While Zodiarks more demonic form comes my theory that he was an already existing design in the depths of Pandemonium with all the other demonic looking things. Not a lot of facts to it, but makes sense to me IF I was looking for more of a reason other than Good vs Bad.)

Now again, if this was just a poorly written story simply meant to at most make you clap and say Venat good, despair bad, Ancients who? Then I am right along side the rest with the disappointment. All I can do is plays devils advocate and maybe assume there was reasoning for what they did, writing a plot that would be a staple story for those who only glanced at it on the surface, while providing a plot that instigates discussion from those who looked deeper. Who knows. I do find it funny going back and watching the ShB cut scenes where Emet says "For eons I have measured your worth and found you wanting.". Almost as if he was conducting a test of his own, or that he knew of Venat and Hermes test and was seeing if it held any truth. Though we know because of the memory wipe this shouldn't be the case, it was at least amusing. Maybe the test is still happening and we have to fight through the despair of potentially bad writing, the discussions have been enlightening at least.

[Lauront]

However, Garlemald is now in ruins, the Ascians have no further role to play in the main story, Ishgard's plot points are resolved, and parts of the community seem convinced that the remaining regions of the world map *must* draw directly from their real world geographic counterparts or else it goes against the representation of that real world region. How am I supposed to stick around for a Meracydia expansion that takes us to fantasy Australia or Africa, when that isn't what the majority of fantasy-lovers want to visit in terms of setting? Doubly so when the story would inevitably revolve around more "liberation!" headed by the Scions.


Simply put, I came for castles, dragons, and interesting villains/empires. I am not here to be preached to about morals and despair via someone else's comfort characters.

Hear hear! I'm of the same mind on that.

She didn't need to show anyone else's past to Emet-Selch. The main thing she needed to show them was the scene in the room where everything was explained and what happened next; which she was very much present for and thus would have known exactly where to take them to tap into the aetherical remnants for viewing the past events. She knew that Emet-Selch and Hythlodaeus had been wandering around with us down below for at least a day so at that point the many researchers that had seen and spoken with us could have helped with advising Emet-Selch and Hythlodaeus on locations they had seen us in together. It's not a plot hole, it's a plot crater.

And they didn't ask to see our memories of Eorzea or the First when we were telling them everything the first time, I doubt they'd need them to be willing to accept the story the second time around.

One of their biggest mistakes of that zone was taking the time to teach us how everyone could use the environment to see past events and then trying to use memory wiping as an effective plot device 30 minutes later.

Indeed, plus in addition to that there were plenty of witnesses to other incidents, such as those surrounding Hermes's behaviour and his outbursts.

[Theodric]

Simply put, I came for castles, dragons, and interesting villains/empires. I am not here to be preached to about morals and despair via someone else's comfort characters.

Likewise. My reaction to the Scions and the majority of the city state leaders can be summed up by this rather excellent quote:



I've played enough JRPG's over the years to know full well what sort of fun and interesting character tropes can be put into play. Which begs the question - why is it only the antagonists and villains who seem to have compelling motives, high stakes and sympathetic backstories? Even comparing the cast of the typical single player Final Fantasy game, the protagonists were allowed to have flaws, make mistakes and endure meaningful losses.

FFXIV seems to be following a lazy and predictable pattern where anything even remotely gritty or interesting is eroded away. Primals are no longer a threat since there's a cure for Tempering. Limsa is no longer engaging in piracy. There's no longer any border disputes or threats of invasion. No inquisitors left in Ishgard.

I just don't know why the game is so scared to be bold, to allow some characters who aren't perfect to remain that way and at the forefront. I'm tired of our companions always agreeing with one another or sucking up to the player's self insert.

We desperately need some variety. A solid rival figure who isn't a complete psychopath.

[Rokke]

(Side theory, Hydaelyns angelic features were a by product or molding even of thousands of years of people praying to the Good God Hydaelyn. While Zodiarks more demonic form comes my theory that he was an already existing design in the depths of Pandemonium with all the other demonic looking things. Not a lot of facts to it, but makes sense to me IF I was looking for more of a reason other than Good vs Bad.)

Hydaelyn looks like how she does because the team let Yoshitaka Amano design her. Same for Zodiark. Thats why neither of them really look like their prior ingame depictions.

[Rulakir]

I understand that perhaps due to global events there may have been a low mood at the time of writing that made it difficult to part ways with key characters, however the recent interview leads me to believe that this wasn't the original plan and that talented writers ended up having to write plot points that they didn't want to do initially.

This seems to be a growing sentiment. I can't help but wonder what we would've gotten without covid, but I also suspect there's more to the meddling than that.

How am I supposed to stick around for a Meracydia expansion that takes us to fantasy Australia or Africa, when that isn't what the majority of fantasy-lovers want to visit in terms of setting?

I don't know what 'fantasy Australia' is supposed to look like. :P Africa could be cool, it's certainly been done before (Quest for Glory 3: Wages of War) and we do lack for a proper Egyptian aesthetic.

Simply put, I came for castles, dragons, and interesting villains/empires. I am not here to be preached to about morals and despair via someone else's comfort characters.

Amen. I'm hoping the preachiness of EW is a one and done.

[PawPaw]

Amen. I'm hoping the preachiness of EW is a one and done.

Uhhh, isn't the next theme "values" or something? I'd say find your spot in a pew now because the preachiness has probably only just begun.

[Brinne]

Broke? My brain has been sundered into ten and three reflections. It feels so horrendously out of touch with the story that came before, that I can only assume that someone higher up the food chain stepped in and said "No you cant put her in a negative light," so they bent over backwards to play take-backsies.

Ah, to see a 6.0 that you and I could enjoy...

You know what's funny? Back in 5.0, based on the information we got there, while I completely fell in love with the Ancients and my heart broke for them - as the Zodiark and Hydaelyn conflict was described back then, I would probably say I'd lean to siding with Hydaelyn, even if the situation was just tragic all around.

My assumptions were that a) the third sacrifice was People in some form or another, b) the Sundering was likely an unintended consequence due to the civil war, and c) the people sacrificed to Zodiark were truly dead-dead. With that in mind, my feelings were somewhere along the lines of "I understand their feelings, but yes, sacrificing others to revive your dead is still probably a moral wrong and sets a troublesome precedent. And consistently with Shadowbringers's presentation and themes, sometimes terrible things like the Sundering are just what happens for no rhyme or reason, and all we can do is deal as best we can and with as much kindness as we can with the fallout." The main source of suspicion and aggravation I felt toward Hydaelyn was her subsequent choice to erase the Ancients from history and lie about what had happened - something Shadowbringers seemed to be clear was wrong, given its emphasis on honoring the past, even if your choices differ from theirs. There was a line about "remember us" that was presented with some significance, if I recall correctly.

So EW's clarification on all of those points was an absolute trip to me. In particular, I felt, uh, gut-punched? By our exploration of the moon and the reveal that the souls were in fact trapped, in anguish, suffering in purgatory, permanently within Zodiark if something wasn't done. That immediately flipped me from "Yeah, it sucks, but the Hydaelyn faction was probably more right" to "oh god what in the hell was WRONG with the Hydaelyn faction!?" To me, Emet-Selch would have been a terrible person if he had truly just shrugged and accepted Hythlodaeus and his people being stuck in there, forever unable to return to the Star. And then the Sundering was deliberate - a deliberate, specific attempt to inflict harm upon the Ancients because of them being a disappointment to Hydaelyn. And then the Q&A clarified that actually, at least most of the People we know are in fact descendants of Sundered Ancients, so the seemingly far-fetched idea that the potential third sacrifice was mostly flora and fauna turned out to be the real implication?

I mean, the information we initially got about the third sacrifice was essentially from Emet-Selch, so I guess I have to assume that's what he thought the civil war was about. Soft-hearted as he is, perhaps he was projecting, and truly felt terrible about having to sacrifice those chickens? Heck.

But either way, all of this piling up alongside EW acting like its clarifications were grounds to side more with Hydaelyn, not less, was, um, a strange experience, to say the least.

[PawPaw]

In particular, I felt, uh, gut-punched? By our exploration of the moon and the reveal that the souls were in fact trapped, in anguish, suffering in purgatory, permanently within Zodiark if something wasn't done. That immediately flipped me from "Yeah, it sucks, but the Hydaelyn faction was probably more right" to "oh god what in the hell was WRONG with the Hydaelyn faction!?" To me, Emet-Selch would have been a terrible person if he had truly just shrugged and accepted Hythlodaeus and his people being stuck in there, forever unable to return to the Star.

Nooooooooo, the implications of what we saw on the moon and the fact that she would have left them trapped there forever hadn't even registered for me until reading this, now I'm even more upset, lol

[CrownySuccubus]

This seems to be a growing sentiment. I can't help but wonder what we would've gotten without covid, but I also suspect there's more to the meddling than that.



I don't know what 'fantasy Australia' is supposed to look like. :P Africa could be cool, it's certainly been done before (Quest for Glory 3: Wages of War) and we do lack for a proper Egyptian aesthetic.





Amen. I'm hoping the preachiness of EW is a one and done.

I think there's a lot of misunderstanding about how much potential fantasy Africa could have. As most probably know, Africa is a huge continent with vastly different kinds of civilizations and levels of society. Unfortunately, it's also been the subject of centuries of misinformation, both unintentional and malicious.

For example, there's a lot of overlap between the ancient world and many African nations. The Greeks, Roman and Egyptian societies regularly had contact and trade with sub-Saharan African nations. The Greek hero Perseus married Andromeda, queen of what the Greeks called Aethiopia. We don't know if this was the same as modern day Ethiopia, but it was somewhere within the same ballpark. To the Greeks, Aethiopia was sort of a catch-all term for most areas south of Egypt. But we do know it was within the sub-Saharan portion of the continent because the term Aethiopia specifically meant "Dark Skin".

Even within the middle ages, there were lots of rich African nations with wealth, power and military might on par with the mostly Christianized Europe. We know this because there were accounts of kings like Mansa Musa -- possibly the richest man who ever lived, in terms of wealth inequality. Mansa Musa traveled from Africa to Mecca spending so much gold that he single-handedly destroyed the European economy for years. They had knights and guards that seemed even more impressive and disciplined than most seen in Europe at the time.

Naturally, not ALL of Africa was like this...but again, it's a big continent. Similarly, not every place in Europe and Asia were as prosperous and civilized as Rome, Greece or China. FFXIV's fantasy Rome is a technologically superior polar state. Its fantasy Greece is an ancient, even-MORE-advanced utopia filled with giant wizards. They can do literally ANYTHING they want with a fantasy Africa.