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

[Theodric]

I suspect many of those drawn to Garlemald, however, do not have an aversion to the concept of a monarchy. To say nothing of the simple fact that any other system of rule is beholden to its own set of problems - often with far less accountability than the system they are supposedly replacing. It's not like the class divide is removed - for all the talk of everyone being 'equal' it's Lyse eating the finest food and drink in Ala Mhigo's palace whereas the everyman sits in grim little villages working themselves half to death.

There's also the simple fact that many of us live in countries with a rich history that we would like to see positively portrayed in fantasy video games where such aesthetics blend with the genre rather readily.

I'm not hugely interested in modern day takes and ideals being copied and pasted into fiction. To me that makes for a very bland experience overall.

As an aside, it was but recently that the Queen's Jubilee was celebrated here in the UK. Some people joined in with the festivities, some didn't - but there's enough support for the monarchy that it isn't likely to go anywhere anytime soon.

[Lunaxia]

snip

snip

I mean, the game is based on real life, so you can't really divorce the two. The civilisations depicted are drawn from those that have existed in our world, and they more or less hold the same set of values that we do. It is perfectly fine to say "I want to see how they handle the depiction of a (continued) monarchy", though, and you don't need to defend it by tearing into the flaws of one system while glossing over the glaring problems of another. I certainly won't disagree with either of you about the persistence of class division and uneven distribution of wealth in democratic nations, but I find it a little amusing this is the argument you want to use against democracy when royalty is lavished with unlimited wealth and social status without peer purely on the premise of being born into a particular family. Not to mention the impenetrable circle of aristrocrats that typically surrounds them and dominates the upper echelons of society, making any hope of the social mobility you mention practically impossible. At least in a democratic society, the people have some control over who sits atop the pyramid and oversees their governance.

"Solus" may have improved the lines of the Garlean people - ultimately to make them pliable to his underlying cause and inflict untold suffering on other nations, I think it's worth remembering - but at the other end of that spectrum you have Zenos, the final heir, and the gamble you're actually taking every time you put power in someone's hands by virtue of their birth rather than by their suitability to lead.

Lastly, being British myself, I would also strongly disagree on that take with the British monarchy, but this is neither the time nor place for it, haha.

[Lauront]

I mean, the game is based on real life, so you can't really divorce the two.

Only ever selectively and only to a degree, when it wants to make a specific point. Without getting into a drawn out discussion about political systems, which goes beyond the scope of this thread, suffice it to say, there are those of us who enjoy monarchies and associated systems as part of fantasy settings, and so tracking what happened to occur in the real world as a matter of specific historical scenarios does not feature particularly prominently in that respect. Part of why I find Amaurot so interesting is how unique its own specific form of technocratic (?) government is and how their society is structured around their unique traits.

The situation with Garlemald was a messy one, with Elidibus initially assuming executive control but then the writers chose to throw in the wildcard of Zenos, both of whom undermined Varis, in different ways. I think he was unfortunately the victim of those writing decisions, much like Elidibus himself was. Given that Garlemald hasn't got a mature monarchy and how their experience with one ended, I can understand why they might not be the best case to retain the system in its hereditary form, so I'll grant that, but all the stars aligned for it to implode into a civil war, going beyond its political system and including a Zenos-ex-machina, who foiled their plans, coupled with Fandaniel putting his own puppet's connections to use. I consider it a mistake to have written Garlemald purely as an instrument of the Ascians' agenda, especially when there are several aspects to the Garlean state that could've been wed to Venat's own ideology/viewpoints, however that could maybe be attributed to shifting or not yet formulated plans on the writers' part.

"Forging ahead", a key thing I'd like them to focus on is how it plans to position itself to deal with neighbours who may still be hostile after the empire's fall, including some of which have always been nipping at its heels until they ended up being subdued by it, as well as those provinces which may remain loyal to it in some respect and not want a return of old regimes (much as with the Bozja plotline.)

[anhaato]

I mean, the game is based on real life, so you can't really divorce the two.

Ooh ooh my turn my turn! I suppose I should assume, based on everyone else's stances on ingame regime changes, that you all support US-backed regime changes in the Middle East, yes?