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

[Theodric]

What's meant to be wrong with liking Garlemald, exactly...? There were many ways in which it could have been handled without leading to its destruction, especially when it's people have long suffered as a consequence of the Sundering leaving them with the inability to manipulate aether in many cases as well as repeated attempts to subject them to genocide.

The development team outright admitted that Garlemald was set to have an expansion of its own, which suggests that the original plan wasn't to simply do away with the place entirely. Furthermore, it wasn't lacking for fans - even with a vocal subset of the community bizarrely and creepily attacking anyone who dared to mention it in a positive manner.

[CrownySuccubus]

What's meant to be wrong with liking Garlemald, exactly...? There were many ways in which it could have been handled without leading to its destruction, especially when it's people have long suffered as a consequence of the Sundering leaving them with the inability to manipulate aether in many cases as well as repeated attempts to subject them to genocide.

The development team outright admitted that Garlemald was set to have an expansion of its own, which suggests that the original plan wasn't to simply do away with the place entirely. Furthermore, it wasn't lacking for fans - even with a vocal subset of the community bizarrely and creepily attacking anyone who dared to mention it in a positive manner.

Nothing is wrong with "liking" Garlemald per se, but you and Aveyond both do have a pretty strong romanticization of the country and its militarism that goes well beyond just a "villains are cool" viewpoint.

[Theodric]

Nothing is wrong with "liking" Garlemald per se, but you and Aveyond both do have a pretty strong romanticization of the country and its militarism that goes well beyond just a "villains are cool" viewpoint.

It's a fictional nation and whether they're 'villains' is very much a matter of perspective. I'm not sure how liking the place equals 'romanticisation', either. I live in Europe, where much of the Roman's history can still be seen and touched to this very day and the Garleans are based directly off of the Romans with a bit of Russian influence thrown in for good measure.

I don't know, for me it's just weird that of all peoples and places in the story some would identify themselves with they choose an evil militaristic empire that kills people for fun, do countless atrocities and subjugate other nations and treat them terribly just because they're powerful and can... or for revenge I don't know if that's deeper. But I don't really care, it's just a game.

I'm not unused to people making sweeping comments implying 'concern' about someone liking or disliking the 'wrong' thing in a video game. It reminds me of the unhinged players who insisted that if someone played the Horde in World of Warcraft, they had to be a bad person. So bizarre!

[Starshower]

I'm not unused to people making sweeping comments implying 'concern' about someone liking or disliking the 'wrong' thing in a video game. It reminds me of the unhinged players who insisted that if someone played the Horde in World of Warcraft, they had to be a bad person. So bizarre!

I for one love the horde! They have the hottest races!

[CrownySuccubus]

It's a fictional nation and whether they're 'villains' is very much a matter of perspective. I'm not sure how liking the place equals 'romanticisation', either. I live in Europe, where much of the Roman's history can still be seen and touched to this very day and the Garleans are based directly off of the Romans with a bit of Russian influence thrown in for good measure.

They're a military dictatorship that invaded other countries, enslaved and/or oppressed its citizens, respected nothing but military might, and held complete contempt for the beliefs and way of life for those of outsiders. Given what we've seen them do throughout these expansions. calling their villainy a "matter of perspective" is quite romantic, to say the least.

As I also mentioned before, the only thing the Garleans have in common with Romans is their name. Unlike the Romans, the Garleans were not content to simply conquer a place and collect taxes from it. They were a colonial power focused on outright destroying other cultures due to their hatred for religion and outright contempt for anything outside of military strength. They were closer to 20th Century Fascists than they were to the Romans.

[Theodric]

They're a military dictatorship that invaded other countries, enslaved and/or oppressed its citizens, respected nothing but military might, and held complete contempt for the beliefs and way of life for those of outsiders. Given what we've seen them do throughout these expansions. calling their villainy a "matter of perspective" is quite romantic, to say the least.

As I also mentioned before, the only thing the Garleans have in common with Romans is their name. Unlike the Romans, the Garleans were not content to simply conquer a place and collect taxes from it. They were a colonial power focused on outright destroying other cultures due to their hatred for religion and outright contempt for anything outside of military strength. They were closer to 20th Century Fascists than they were to the Romans.

I don't particularly care if they invaded other countries. It's a fictional setting and many of the nations within it have invaded each other at one point or another in the game's established history. They're also not the only nation to do the things you mentioned and it's not like they did it because they woke up one day and decided to be evil for the sake of being evil - they themselves had been driven to the point of near genocide, forced out of their own lands and made to live in a bleak and inhospitable frozen wasteland.

They're the closest thing to the Blood Elves in terms of their backstory, which is what I liked and played in World of Warcraft. They, too, were almost wiped out through no fault of their own but did everything possible to try and thrive and survive. A concept that appeals to me far more than just being handed an 'I WIN' button to conveniently overcome any odds by being praised as a hero who, conveniently, rarely has to get their hands dirty.

What's next? People being attacked for liking the Altmer, Dunmer or Imperials in an Elder Scrolls game?

It's as simple as people having different personal tastes and tropes that they enjoy seeing in play.

[CrownySuccubus]

I don't particularly care if they invaded other countries. It's a fictional setting and many of the nations

This only makes it MORE appropriate to call them villains, since heroes and villains are distinctly a trope for fictional storytelling.

within it have invaded each other at one point or another in the game's established history.

This is "whataboutism". Yes, those other nations have also made villainous acts, and part of the story is making them pay for them.

it's not like they did it because they woke up one day and decided to be evil for the sake of being evil - they themselves had been driven to the point of near genocide, forced out of their own lands and made to live in a bleak and inhospitable frozen wasteland.

Sure. They have sympathetic backstories. Lots of villains have sympathetic backstories.

What's next? People being attacked for liking the Altmer, Dunmer or Imperials in an Elder Scrolls game?

I mean, the Altmer literally try to exterminate lesser races and the Dunmer regularly enslave Khajit and Argonians and treat them as sub-sapients.

Again, feel free to like what you like, but it's silly to get upset when they're called villains when they're villains.

[Starshower]

What's meant to be wrong with liking Garlemald, exactly...? There were many ways in which it could have been handled without leading to its destruction, especially when it's people have long suffered as a consequence of the Sundering leaving them with the inability to manipulate aether in many cases as well as repeated attempts to subject them to genocide.

The development team outright admitted that Garlemald was set to have an expansion of its own, which suggests that the original plan wasn't to simply do away with the place entirely. Furthermore, it wasn't lacking for fans - even with a vocal subset of the community bizarrely and creepily attacking anyone who dared to mention it in a positive manner.

I don't know, for me it's just weird that of all peoples and places in the story some would identify themselves with they choose an evil militaristic empire that kills people for fun, do countless atrocities and subjugate other nations and treat them terribly just because they're powerful and can... or for revenge I don't know if that's deeper. But I don't really care, it's just a game.