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

[CrownySuccubus]

- G'raha works himself to exhaustion and bleeds just to please his heroes, but it all worked out fine anyway.

See, the issue I have with most of the people saying this in the thread is that, the way it's said, it comes across more like sour grapes than a legitimate argument about inconsistency or double standards. One of the major themes of FFXIV is that the Scions are slowly becoming more experienced and "wiser" during their journeys and avoid making the same mistakes. So, the argument of "X character suffered Y hardship but Z character didn't" doesn't quite resonate. Gr'aha is a relative latecomer to the Scions and hasn't been through the same number of expansions to make sacrifices and mistakes, and as a latecomer, he's also surrounded by Scions who have improved their adventuring credentials and have considerably more resources.

So, with all that in mind, this comes across less like a double standard and more like, "My grandma died when there was no vaccine for COVID, so it's a double standard that other people can get vaccinated and live."

Or, in the context of FFXIV, "This character I liked better suffered and/or died because the Scions failed to save them, so how come I don't get to watch Gr'aha Tia die?"

[Theodric]

To be fair, I do think that there's merit to the idea of people just being able to sit down and enjoy something without thinking very much about the deeper implications of something. It's the approach I take to horror movies. There's always that sense of 'why did X not just do Y and then they could have escaped' at play though then there wouldn't be much of a movie.

FFXIV is a different beast since it isn't a one and done affair. It's an ongoing project and actively promotes itself as 'story driven'. Yet when you look at things closely, more and more it is expecting people to not think about or react to certain things.

Personally if I get invested in something I can't simply pretend as if everything is fine if there's a lack of meaningful consequences for the protagonists and the 'messages' and 'themes' are deliberately applied in a 'rules for thee but not for me' manner.

[Midareyukki]

Since just repeating a line of question marks would probably be sort of gauche, this time I guess I will go with:

ahahahaha what

Oh look, my conditional clause resolved to positive. I rest my case.

QED.

[Rulakir]

I can't believe this has now turned into the G'raha malding thread. *sigh*

I can admit if Urianger started getting flirty with the WoL I wouldn't like it because I don't like his character, but that's skippable and has no effect on the story. It's a far cry from having to go through an entire expansion MSQ where my character acts contrary to my own values and reacts in ways that are the polar opposite of what I'm thinking and feeling.

I don't know what to tell you other than to make your own thread about it because nobody is going to read 550+ pages deep into an Endwalker thread for complaints about how certain NPCs are too close for comfort. If it bothers you that much, bring the attention to it you think it deserves since it's clearly negatively affecting your gameplay experience to a distracting degree.

[Midareyukki]

See, the issue I have with most of the people saying this in the thread is that, the way it's said, it comes across more like sour grapes than a legitimate argument about inconsistency or double standards. One of the major themes of FFXIV is that the Scions are slowly becoming more experienced and "wiser" during their journeys and avoid making the same mistakes. So, the argument of "X character suffered Y hardship but Z character didn't" doesn't quite resonate.

True, though at the same time it's a matter of consistency.

At least when it comes to G'raha, because let's be real here, he did undergo a trial. He had to spend 100 years in a dead world, hailed from another dead world he wanted to save, had to endure not only the problems of that world but also see the rise of a nation that would undo his hard work, then when he managed to summon his heroes it took a massive toll on him (and the procedure wasn't even done right, plus Y'shtola not trusting him due to him being so secretive), and then not only having to endure torture at the hands of Emet, but also having to deal with Elidibus. Oh and the only way to get everyone back safely was to draw on his blood while his body was on the verge of going the King Midas route.

Y'shtola... did things I guess?

But the fact remains that all of his "hardships" were noble. They weren't a result of his personality flaws. The worst there was him exerting himself for the sake of others, which was brushed down to a bad habit that ultimately just got better. He did all the things he was met to do with no real consequence. His body became crystal, sure, but we just transplant him into his younger self, so all's well and good. There was no real gravitas to him, and that alone didn't exactly push for character development.

It's not so much "oh others had to go through hardship, why can't this person" and more "this guy has no flaws, and his hardships have a foregone conclusion, so he doesn't exactly have a character development other than a mild character growth". Because really most of his growth is off-screen. The rest is just him being more open, trusting and idolizing people less.

Plus, it is fair to contrast him to other characters. That's a healthy thing: that's how we can determine what characters have gone through the most vs those who didn't. So we know who to give a break and who is next in line to be tested. Because otherwise, what, do we really need another speech from Alphinaud about how far he's come? Because we know all too well by now. Let G'raha undergo his trials and explore his flaws. Without a foregone conclusion.

I can't believe this has now turned into the G'raha malding thread. *sigh*

Is this directed at me? Because I'm not malding, I'm just hoping G'raha gets more spotlight. And just admitting to the problem in the writing of an otherwise solid character. You wish the rest of the thread was this okay with him.

[Lunaxia]

On one hand, everyone's a critic. [...]

I'm glad someone's brought this up, because I'm more than raising my eyebrow at how some people are trying to subtly jab at previously discussed issues with G'raha's character and make out they come from petty gripes to do with bitterness or how he presents himself rather than valid criticism.

I don't know what to tell you other than to make your own thread about it because nobody is going to read 550+ pages deep into an Endwalker thread for complaints about how certain NPCs are too close for comfort. If it bothers you that much, bring the attention to it you think it deserves since it's clearly negatively affecting your gameplay experience to a distracting degree.

Let's not participate in the gatekeeping we've often complained about being subjected to outside of this thread, shall we?

[Theodric]

I'm glad someone's brought this up, because I'm more than raising my eyebrow at how some people are trying to subtly jab at previously discussed issues with G'raha's character and make out they come from petty gripes to do with bitterness or how he presents himself rather than valid criticism.

It's actually a common tactic and one I've dealt with over on the lore forum quite often. Where valid points will be 'questioned' with some comment from another thread by a completely different poster. As if there can't be multiple reasons why someone opposes a particular situation or character.

What's interesting is that this sniping often comes from the very same posters who demand to be explicitly catered to if they happen to be 'uncomfortable' with a particular situation or character themselves.

On my end, if people like G'raha? Fair enough! More power to those that do and I'm happy to agree to disagree on the matter. I'm not going to pretend as the writing and behaviour of the character isn't tied to my criticism of Endwalker though because he very much is.

He's just another bunch of pixels on the screen at the end of the day and as we know, a decent amount of people like Meteion and Venat. It just comes across as hypocritical to me to declare those two 'fair game' but G'raha as a problem to criticise.

[Rulakir]

It's not gatekeeping to want the thread to stay on topic, which seems to be increasingly difficult these days. So glad we got that shout out from Zepla since the thread hasn't gone back to normal since.

[Brinne]

To be clear, my line of question marks (which I will repeat: ?????????) reflects jumping into a conversation revolving around questioning an attempting specific comparison between two characters' specific behavior, acting like an argument is made saying something that wasn't - that the character has no flaws and their writing can't be questioned - and then, in a thread where most posters here have regularly criticized the writing, putting forth that they're probably the types who will accept anything and are therefore not qualified to argue, out of nowhere.

I am "what"-ing at the complete non-sequitor and derailment. If you want to discuss places where I think the writing and handling of G'raha's character fall short, I'd be happy to do so. I have problems with him, and the way that the plot handles him overall, that I could talk about, too. But the discussion taking place at the moment had, you know, context - whether liking G'raha's feelings for the WoL and disliking Magnai's behavior constitutes as a double standard. And if you're upset that people are pointing out comments have been made about G'raha based on his appearance and mannerisms as part of what fuels their dislike for him, then if that doesn't apply to you, then cool. There's no need to get defensive or assume it's about you.

[Midareyukki]

It's actually a common tactic and one I've dealt with over on the lore forum quite often. Where valid points will be 'questioned' with some comment from another thread by a completely different poster. As if there can't be multiple reasons why someone opposes a particular situation or character.

What's interesting is that this sniping often comes from the very same posters who demand to be explicitly catered to if they happen to be 'uncomfortable' with a particular situation or character themselves.

On my end, if people like G'raha? Fair enough! More power to those that do and I'm happy to agree to disagree on the matter. I'm not going to pretend as the writing and behaviour of the character isn't tied to my criticism of Endwalker though because he very much is.

He's just another bunch of pixels on the screen at the end of the day and as we know, a decent amount of people like Meteion and Venat. It just comes across as hypocritical to me to declare those two 'fair game' but G'raha as a problem to criticise.

Honestly, I only have one question. Especially given your final sentence there.

Why are we discussing G'raha?

Like... Sure, fine, okay, he has writing-derived flaws, not everyone accepts that he does, some people outright hate him for it, other people want him to have more focus due to it. And some deny he has any whatsoever. Whatever floats eachother's.

...but this is a thread on Endwalker's story. No Scion, other than maybe Estinien, underwent that much in terms of character development in Endwalker. Just establishing who they are after their individual and collective progresses from 2.0 to 6.0. There isn't that much to pick on other than that, for any of the Scions.

And that's the thing. Admitting there's flaws and wanting "more" isn't necessarily a bad thing. Even people who like the characters are allowed to express that... but why did we start picking on G'raha when his character is on the same bag as others who just got "established at the endline"?

To be clear, my line of question marks (which I will repeat: ?????????) reflects jumping into a conversation revolving around questioning an attempting specific comparison between two characters' specific behavior, acting like an argument is made saying something that wasn't - that the character has no flaws and their writing can't be questioned - and then, in a thread where most posters here have regularly criticized the writing, putting forth that they're probably the types who will accept anything and are therefore not qualified to argue, out of nowhere.

I am "what"-ing at the complete non-sequitor and derailment. If you want to discuss places where I think the writing and handling of G'raha's character fall short, I'd be happy to do so. I have problems with him, and the way that the plot handles him overall, that I could talk about, too. But the discussion taking place at the moment had, you know, context - whether liking G'raha's feelings for the WoL and disliking Magnai's behavior constitutes as a double standard. And if you're upset that people are pointing out comments have been made about G'raha based on his appearance and mannerisms as part of what fuels their dislike for him, then if that doesn't apply to you, then cool. There's no need to get defensive or assume it's about you.

AH OKAY.

You see what happens when you COMMUNICATE with people rather than acting like a Bad Girls reject? People actually understand your grievance with them. FUNNY HOW THAT HAPPENS, EH?

Sorry, I don't speak Question Mark. I, like you I hope unless you're a Dalek and you're not telling me, speak English. Not vague... whatever that was.

Anyway, my grievance with you was saying

It's just not reflective of hypocrisy or flawed writing or much else beyond "it doesn't appeal to my tastes." Which you are free to say!

Which is just not true. If we go by the idea that everything is subjective and no flaw can be criticised because it's just not something that appeals to tastes, then we can't provide feedback or improve on a product. There ARE things that are wrong, even in writing, that people should pay attention to. That's what I was referring to.

Maybe stop being so bitter. It will age you.