Would Endwalker have been better if we never visited Elpis at all?

[Xirean]

Elpis should have broken the standard design of "Zone Plot -> Dungeon -> Zone Resolution" and been split into two stories. We should have visited before the summoning of Zodiark and had the Meteion plot ending in the dungeon of Ktisis, then we should have re-visited the zone post-Final Days and should have seen the Ancients growing over reliance on their shiny new God-Machine.

Now this sounds awesome! It's been shown that they can make things in the background change based on story progression, but if they had the map progress it would be epic.

I think it was necessary. We needed that connection with Meteion. Things would have gone very differently in Ultima Thule if she hadn't known us.

Considering that for many people one issue with Elpis is Meteion herself, I don't think making things work for our interaction with her is much of a concern. I don't mind her being the end boss, but A LOT of people wanted something completely different.

[TaleraRistain]

I think it was necessary. We needed that connection with Meteion. Things would have gone very differently in Ultima Thule if she hadn't known us.

[BubblyBoar]

Stuff

It has to be clarified because of people like you that can't seem to come to terms with it. Some people are so delusional about the concept of a utopia that they will argue until they are blue in the face about it. And even after being said so by the dev team, people still reject it because they full heartily believe that the unsundered world was a better one. No matter how well a story is written, people will miss the point, especially if it goes against a core belief that they have. It's why this topic keep coming up. Endwalker hit a specific point that rubbed some people the absolutely wrong away. It basically broke down the idea of a utopia and some people will not accept that. The story made the point clearly. Everyone saw this point clearly. Everyone except for those that don't want to accept that point. So they reject/ignore/purposely miss it because it challenges their beliefs. This is why so many posts regarding the topic comes back with the same answer. The point was obvious, how did you miss it? But your pride and inability to accept what was written chooses to argue with these people instead of accept that you were wrong. You even go on to admit that it doesn't matter what anyone says, not even the people that wrote the story, you will just see it your way. You are the one being stubborn in your own hubris and pride. Essentially, the story is bad because you wanted it to be different and no one can tell you otherwise. There's no point is discussing things with you if that is your outlook so I simply won't. Easy right?

[KizuyaKatogami]

It has to be clarified because of people like you that can't seem to come to terms with it. Some people are so delusional about the concept of a utopia that they will argue until they are blue in the face about it. And even after being said so by the dev team, people still reject it because they full heartily believe that the unsundered world was a better one. No matter how well a story is written, people will miss the point, especially if it goes against a core belief that they have. It's why this topic keep coming up. Endwalker hit a specific point that rubbed some people the absolutely wrong away. It basically broke down the idea of a utopia and some people will not accept that. The story made the point clearly. Everyone saw this point clearly. Everyone except for those that don't want to accept that point. So they reject/ignore/purposely miss it because it challenges their beliefs. This is why so many posts regarding the topic comes back with the same answer. The point was obvious, how did you miss it? But your pride and inability to accept what was written chooses to argue with these people instead of accept that you were wrong. You even go on to admit that it doesn't matter what anyone says, not even the people that wrote the story, you will just see it your way. You are the one being stubborn in your own hubris and pride. Essentially, the story is bad because you wanted it to be different and no one can tell you otherwise. There's no point is discussing things with you if that is your outlook so I simply won't. Easy right?

Except people have pointed out objective pacing issues, massive plot holes, rushed plot lines etc which doesn’t even really include the issue you’re talking about. There’s loads of other issues with Endwalker.

[Rolder50]

I think it would've been better if we'd done what we did with Cid's memories in the Southern Front - but Meteion would still be the end villain, so no, it wouldn't have improved Endwalker overall. Only Elpis.

It could also improve other aspects of the story. For example, I would have liked to see more meat added to the Garlemald story, or more time spent during the so called "Final Days". Both of which could be achieved if Elpis was just a solo instance or some such.

[BubblyBoar]

Except people have pointed out objective pacing issues, massive plot holes, rushed plot lines etc which doesn’t even really include the issue you’re talking about. There’s loads of other issues with Endwalker.

If I was talking about those other issues I would have brought them up. But I'm not.

[Lauront]

hot air

And what I am saying to you is it did not make that point well as far as I am concerned. You keep using the words "everyone" and that they saw the point "clearly", then you reference "people like you", when you have zero idea as to what percentage of the playerbase this even represents. There has been ample and vivid discussion of this across this forum, and now multiple attempts by the devs to clarify the story, and according to you, it's just due to "hubris" on part of some of us, when in fact it is presenting a very controversial act and some feel uneasy with the way their character is implicated in it and the message the story is pushing. They are allowed to have this unease. I think if anyone here is possessed of hubris and pride, it is you and your bizarre preconception that everyone is bound to simply agree with the story as presented by the writers - in what universe am I bound to agree with what any writer puts forward automatically? The (rather laughably brazen) attempted point is obvious - what is not is 1) whether it is even consistent with other instantiations of themes pushed in the story, 2) whether they did a good enough job of tying it altogether and articulating/arguing this point and 3) whether this would apply to the ancients in the scenario I presented.

I have made my point now. You have not engaged it and are simply ranting at me for not rolling with what the writers put in - I can sense there is no value in this discussion for me as I have little desire to be lectured at by some EW zealot, with the zillionth iteration of "yOu JuSt DoN't GeT iT". We have little further to discuss.

[TaleraRistain]

Considering that for many people one issue with Elpis is Meteion herself, I don't think making things work for our interaction with her is much of a concern. I don't mind her being the end boss, but A LOT of people wanted something completely different.

The OP asked if we felt Elpis was necessary and in the narrative that was told, the connection with Meteion that we met and connected with by way of Elpis was necessary. She was part of the hivemind of the Meteia but we help her start to remember the part that is our Meteion. The Dead Ends felt a lot less like she was trying to convince us and more that she was trying to convince herself. And then after we broke her free from the hivemind Endsinger, that connection with us helped her understand what hope was and release it into the universe.

If we had come to that point as a stranger instead of a friend, she would have reacted much differently.

[Chie_M]

If I was talking about those other issues I would have brought them up. But I'm not.

The issue we have with your argument is that you're making up what we're complaining about, and dismissing the actual issues we have.

[jameseoakes]

It has to be clarified because of people like you that can't seem to come to terms with it. Some people are so delusional about the concept of a utopia that they will argue until they are blue in the face about it. And even after being said so by the dev team, people still reject it because they full heartily believe that the unsundered world was a better one. No matter how well a story is written, people will miss the point, especially if it goes against a core belief that they have. It's why this topic keep coming up. Endwalker hit a specific point that rubbed some people the absolutely wrong away. It basically broke down the idea of a utopia and some people will not accept that. The story made the point clearly. Everyone saw this point clearly. Everyone except for those that don't want to accept that point. So they reject/ignore/purposely miss it because it challenges their beliefs. This is why so many posts regarding the topic comes back with the same answer. The point was obvious, how did you miss it? But your pride and inability to accept what was written chooses to argue with these people instead of accept that you were wrong. You even go on to admit that it doesn't matter what anyone says, not even the people that wrote the story, you will just see it your way. You are the one being stubborn in your own hubris and pride. Essentially, the story is bad because you wanted it to be different and no one can tell you otherwise. There's no point is discussing things with you if that is your outlook so I simply won't. Easy right?

I think most of the issues are the writing is for it is bad. Endwalker does a terrible job addressing this, the ancients seemed a pretty driven and motivated people so the idea of them ending up as the Plenty seems remote, they even wrote it so the plenty was happy until Meition came. If the writers had have spent time building this as an arc it might have worked but as it is it's a mess filled with lot of deeply unsettling themes on festishing suffering but then not following up on that as the the game then demonises the societies more driven by that.

Edit: I guess I also struggle to see why the Plenty is so bad...I'd much rather a slow decent into apathy than a world of unending suffering given that seems to be the choice given here