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

[Theodric]

The fact that even in the Reincarnation story, they subtly try and hint that 'Hydaelyn good Zodiark bad' leaves such a horrible taste in my mouth. Can't even escape it in another universe's retelling.

Especially egregious when this story is supposed to be from Emet-Selch's point of view! Like what the heck!

It's particularly odd given that the game has repeatedly established that Light and Dark do not equal 'good' and 'evil'.

The game in general would do well to stop portraying most attempts to preserve or restore something as a bad thing. Especially in cases when some nutter comes along, kills a bunch of people only for the survivors to be told to stop...trying to prevent their own extinction and elimination of all memory of their loved ones?

[CrownySuccubus]

The game in general would do well to stop portraying most attempts to preserve or restore something as a bad thing.

It doesn't. Not consistently.

There's plenty of plot points/sidestories that present trying to preserve or save something with standing tradition as unambiguously good or positive. Such as preserving the peace of Hingashi even after establishing that its government is corrupt as hell. Or maintaining the traditions of the Viis and the Ronka in the Greatwood.

Imagine if, for example, there was another big bad and it somehow hijacked Meteion from outerspace after the Meteia encountered it, that was actually behind all the extinction of all those worlds, who still wasn't revealed even in Elpis.

I would honestly find this even WORSE than what we got. If "Aliens were the real bad guys" was the reveal all along, then just make it aliens and cut Elpis and Meteion out entirely. That's exactly what my #1 suggestion would be for fixing the story.

Meteion herself was already a hijacking of Zodiark. We don't need another hijack for the hijack.

[RyuDragnier]

It doesn't. Not consistently.

There's plenty of plot points/sidestories that present trying to preserve or save something with standing tradition as unambiguously good or positive. Such as preserving the peace of Hingashi even after establishing that its government is corrupt as hell. Or maintaining the traditions of the Viis and the Ronka in the Greatwood.

But wasn't the SAM storyline panned by the playerbase for that happening with Hingashi? I distinctly remember a LOT of players showing dislike of the 60-70 questline for doing that.

[CrownySuccubus]

But wasn't the SAM storyline panned by the playerbase for that happening with Hingashi? I distinctly remember a LOT of players showing dislike of the 60-70 questline for doing that.

I was just stating what the story does and doesn't do. If we're trying to pick out which ones were good or bad, we'll be here all day.

Even more strange since the Watcher, who was based off of a friend of Venat, says that there were Ancients who wanted to find the root cause of the Final Days, but it is left as one sentence. It's just annoying how we kept getting hints and snippets and fleeting fragments of a more complete story that isn't complete simpery, but is never delved into. Hey, maybe we can look forward to the next collab in some other game... or a side story tucked away somewhere. Somewhere next to the AU where our god-queen actually does the right thing and our friends can revel until dawn in peace and happiness again.

Yeah, this is what frustrates me to no end about Venat.

She watched her own friends and allies sit their and tear their hair out trying to find the root cause of the FD and said nothing.

If the game had shown us that she had done everything she could to warn people, but they didn't believe her, or something else made their preparations moot, then I don't think so many people would have a problem with the story. But again, everything has to serve that "it's actually natural and just that the Ancients crumbled" viewpoint.

[Theodric]

It doesn't. Not consistently.

There's plenty of plot points/sidestories that present trying to preserve or save something with standing tradition as unambiguously good or positive. Such as preserving the peace of Hingashi even after establishing that its government is corrupt as hell. Or maintaining the traditions of the Viis and the Ronka in the Greatwood.

Hence 'most'.

It conveniently almost always portray it as wrong or bad when the antagonists set out to preserve something. Whilst issue can be taken with the methods employed in such a venture, taking issue with the methods is more than enough justification for the protagonists to oppose it. Instead we get weird lectures about how the very same entities who suffered the most from a situation need to 'move on' or basically just roll over and die so that the entities who stand to benefit the most from the same circumstances can continue to prosper.

By portraying the struggle between the Unsundered and Sundered as a clash of like wills and two heroes shouldering the burden and future of their respective civilisations a healthy balance was struck back in Shadowbringers.

Most people would have been happy with the same stance continuing into Endwalker, I believe. Rather than everything being rewritten or obscured in a deceptive attempt to reframe opposition to genocide as 'not forging ahead'.

It's why I'm wary of the next storyline being a 'conflict of values'. I can't imagine how many arguments will break out if the game tries to portray everything the Scions desire as correct only to insist that we need to kill everyone who thinks differently to them.

But wasn't the SAM storyline panned by the playerbase for that happening with Hingashi? I distinctly remember a LOT of players showing dislike of the 60-70 questline for doing that.

I enjoyed it. I don't want to eradicate any and all grit or flaws in a specific fantasy nation. It just takes away from the 'fantasy' for me and makes it all dull and boring.

[CrownySuccubus]

Hence 'most'.

It conveniently almost always portray it as wrong or bad when the antagonists set out to preserve something.

Yeah. Because that "something" is usually something like "oppression" or "genocide" or some other system of power built on lies.

Non-invasive and non-oppressive forms of tradition are almost universally treated as either "fine" or positive, though. Which is, again, another reason Hingashi stands out as contradictory.

[Raoabolic]

Yeah. Because that "something" is usually something like "oppression" or "genocide" or some other system of power built on lies.

*Awkwardly stares at the Venat genocide that was hand waved from the story*
*Awkwardly stares at Ala Mingo not getting flak after they failed at forcefully taking Gridana*
*Awkwardly stares at Sil'Dah*
The game picks and chooses what atrocities it wants you to feel bad about, don't think too much about it. lol

[CrownySuccubus]

*Awkwardly stares at the Venat genocide that was hand waved from the story*

Sure.

*Awkwardly stares at Ala Mingo not getting flak after they failed at forcefully taking Gridana*

Pretty sure they established that this was why nobody wanted to help Gyr Abania after they were invaded by Garlemald, and why people hated Ala Mhigan refugees.

*Awkwardly stares at Sil'Dah*

Huh? They specifically portray those people as antagonistic or villainous. Nanamo's entire storyarc is about reclaiming her power from those people.

The game picks and chooses what atrocities it wants you to feel bad about, don't think too much about it. lol

Thus why I said "inconsistent" in my first post. Sometimes it does, sometimes it doesn't.

[RyuDragnier]

Huh? They specifically portray those people as antagonistic or villainous. Nanamo's entire storyarc is about reclaiming her power from those people.

You must be thinking of something different here. Sil'dih was the sister neighbor of Ul'dah. It created a way of flood control which resulted in a war between it and Ul'dah over water, which Ul'dah ultimately won due to their thaumaturges creating a powder that brought the dead back to life as zombies, which they used on Sil'dih via catapults tossing it into the city. They then lied to the populace of Ul'dah that Sil'dih had been bringing back the dead, and used it as a preface for war, and then sealed Sil'dih so everybody would die.

[Theodric]

*Awkwardly stares at the Venat genocide that was hand waved from the story*
*Awkwardly stares at Ala Mingo not getting flak after they failed at forcefully taking Gridana*
*Awkwardly stares at Sil'Dah*
The game picks and chooses what atrocities it wants you to feel bad about, don't think too much about it. lol

Yeah, it's why I'm not a fan of this game's obsession with trying to moralise everything - because it isn't prepared to follow through with it when and where it makes the protagonists and their allies look bad.

I really don't care about a lot of this stuff beyond the double standard. If I get a quest to go and kill some kobolds, I'll go and kill some kobolds. If you give me a quest to go and negotiate with some kobolds to try and form trade deals for ore, then I'll go and do that as well.

I just want a consistent approach. If the game presents something as 'unforgivable' and worthy of violent reform then I don't want it to then double down and say that the same thing is actually fine, so long as 'mommy' is the one partaking of it.

I also want variety in the sort of cultures and nations that we interact with. Just because some people dislike the idea of the monarchy as a concept, I'd rather we didn't do away with the concept of a monarchy everywhere just to push through some lazy copy and paste of real world modern day 'democracy'. Equally, I wouldn't want the likes of the Imperials to be removed from an Elder Scrolls game just because some people dislike the idea of an Empire.

I just want an interesting and complex game world to explore at the end of the day.