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

[Misplaced_Marbles]

There's some truth to the notion that Garleans offered stability even if it was oppressive, I think Eorzeans are portrayed in a pretty negative way quite frequently in the story too.
We saw that with how people trying to adapt were treated too ( Fordola's parents ).

Emet-Selch himself says in shadowbringers that conquering is easy, what comes after is the hard part. Point was that you need to treat the conquered with dignity. The way Garlean rule has been portrayed and told, even Gaius' rule that supposedly was no different even though it obviously should have been, has always been as bad (and just plain stupid) as possible to justify everyone hating them. Even that stoning scene was less to show Eorzeans as bad and more to show how Garleans don't care unless you're Garlean (and to show why Fordola does what she does). Basically just a grotesque caricature of the worst possible ruler(s).

[YukikoKurosawa]

Which one is your post right here doing, I wonder?

See, that's the problem with this "gatekeeping" argument. Bringing up a topic of discussion does not mean that people can't have an opinion ON an opinion. If someone in here right now came in this thread, and said, "I didn't like Endwalker because it didn't have Captain America in it", they would rightly be called out for it. Having a rant thread isn't a declaration that every single rant is equally valid or reasonable.

I just happen to find this constant vitriol about burgers to fall into the "unreasonable" area, and will continue to say as much unless something changes my mind.

Alright now I know beyond any doubt you're concern trolling.

[MikkoAkure]

Emet-Selch himself says in shadowbringers that conquering is easy, what comes after is the hard part. Point was that you need to treat the conquered with dignity. The way Garlean rule has been portrayed and told, even Gaius' rule that supposedly was no different even though it obviously should have been, has always been as bad (and just plain stupid) as possible to justify everyone hating them. Even that stoning scene was less to show Eorzeans as bad and more to show how Garleans don't care unless you're Garlean (and to show why Fordola does what she does). Basically just a grotesque caricature of the worst possible ruler(s).

Yeah, besides the “designated villain fantasy empire” stuff you mentioned, I don’t think the Garleans were ever meant to be seen in a good light and that was part of the point of that whole part of the game.

Emet-Selch purposefully created the Garlean Empire in a way that it would come crashing down, causing as much chaos and death on the way. It was never meant to last very long and it didn’t matter how unstable and unsustainable it was because it was just a tool to cause a Calamity. He just found a group of people who were technologically inclined and had a giant chip in their shoulder and impressed them and fed into their resentment until the conquered the continent and then straight up lied to them in order to take over Othard and begin a campaign in Aldenard.

People can argue until the chocobos come home about how it had potential and could have been good, but it doesn’t change the fact that it was never meant to be a real, lasting country, everything behind it was fake, and the original emperor laughed while talking about how his exit nearly completely destroyed it and caused more mayhem than expected.

We could’ve had a FFXII-esque plot of Varis fighting against the Ascians in order to regain the reigns of his own country but instead, he drinks the Ascian kool-aid and goes to trigger Calamity after Calamity. In 8UC, the Garlean Empire doesn’t even survive the first one he causes. So much for that plan. Then he purged the country of anyone with half of a good idea that could have led to an Empire that could actually survive and sustain itself and went full evil.

[Theodric]

We could’ve had a FFXII-esque plot of Varis fighting against the Ascians in order to regain the reigns of his own country but instead, he drinks the Ascian kool-aid and goes to trigger Calamity after Calamity. In 8UC, the Garlean Empire doesn’t even survive the first one he causes. So much for that plan. Then he purged the country of anyone with half of a good idea that could have led to an Empire that could actually survive and sustain itself and went full evil.

Right, but that's exactly what many Garlean fans were pushing for...and why when people claim to like Garlemald they usually point at the likes of Regula van Hydrus as to why. Garlemald and the Ascians both suffer from similar writing issues as Hydaelyn. Motivations are so readily retconned that retroactively a lot of things simply don't make sense.

Furthermore, by their own admission they never had any solid plans for many aspects of the story so I don't think it's as simple as Garlemald never being intended to be anything more than outright villains. To me it always seemed to be set to have much of the nuance uncovered when finally it entered the spotlight front and centre. Which was likely going to be the case if not for the bizarre decision to cut the story short across the board.

It's also worth noting that a lot of people came to FFXIV from other MMO's such as WoW or single player games that weren't afraid to introduce factions that were darker than the playable choices but who ultimately would shift into becoming something to side with later on.

The Illidari and Worgen in WoW are excellent examples of such. Both were hostile to begin with and then through the natural evolution of the story both became playable options. Such options don't even need to be playable either - just written in a way to reflect the actual nuance that exists given the circumstances of a faction's existence.

I think FFXIV would have benefitted immensely from such an approach. Expecting everybody to root for the self proclaimed 'supreme deity' was always going to be a questionable move and it certainly wasn't Hydaelyn or the Scions that many of us stuck around for over the years.

Much like how in Elder Scrolls Online I care nothing for Orcs but I can't get enough of Dunmer, Nords, Bretons or Altmer.

[MikkoAkure]

Right, but that\\'s exactly what many Garlean fans were pushing for...and why when people claim to like Garlemald they usually point at the likes of Regula van Hydrus as to why. Garlemald and the Ascians both suffer from similar writing issues as Hydaelyn. Motivations are so readily retconned that retroactively a lot of things simply don\\'t make sense.

Furthermore, by their own admission they never had any solid plans for many aspects of the story so I don\\'t think it\\'s as simple as Garlemald never being intended to be anything more than outright villains. To me it always seemed to be set to have much of the nuance uncovered when finally it entered the spotlight front and centre. Which was likely going to be the case if not for the bizarre decision to cut the story short across the board.

The revelation that the Garlean Empire was engineered to be unstable came in Shadowbringers so I don’t think much would have changed much in a Garlean-centric expansion. If Solus ended up not being an Ascian and was just some guy, I could’ve seen more nuance being added, but it’s creation being tied to the main existential threat of the game directly instead of just simply being used by them changes things. The citizens are still victims, but the empire is not.

Then on top of that, while the Garlean Empire’s image could have been rehabilitated after Heavensward, especially after our time with Regulus, Stormblood ended up throwing a lot of that potential good will away with Zenos going around doing random acts of evil on purpose to get people to rebel so he could kill strong, angry fighters. Unlike the Archadian Empire, the Garleans didn’t leave cities intact after war and while originally left intact after conquest, both Rabanastre and Doma were completely razed after they rebelled. Neither even have anything to do with the supposed reason for the empire’s existence so it’s difficult to see the point there other than “bad guy stuff”.

Another reason why an Archadian Empire narrative doesn’t work here is that we never had any characters from near the beginning of the story that could add more nuance to Garlemald. If they wanted to leave their options open, we would have had a Larsa-equivalent in the MSQ back in ARR or HW. All of the main Garlean protagonists we’ve had through the years are deserters and turn coats who changed completely to Eorzea and aren’t in a position to change things. The closest we got was Maxima (who doesn’t even get a unique model) and that was a ray of hope for nuance, but his whole faction ended up getting purged by Varis. That let us know that the individual citizens aren’t necessarily bad, but didn’t change our ideas about the government.

[Rosenstrauch]

They did actually introduce a potential Larsa-equivalent in Shadowbringers—Nerva Galvus.

Only they kept him offscreen all the way to his reveal in 6.1, where he was dead all along, having turned into a blasphemy. Fun stuff.

[Raoabolic]

They did actually introduce a potential Larsa-equivalent in Shadowbringers—Nerva Galvus.

Only they kept him offscreen all the way to his reveal in 6.1, where he was dead all along, having turned into a blasphemy. Fun stuff.

But they explained it in a couple of sentences, are you that shocked they wrapped up Nerva's ending like that considering how they handled the Ascian/Hydaelyn storyline? You can tell the new writers were just tying up loose ends so they can do their own thing without the old writing team's "baggage", lol.

[CrownySuccubus]

I don't engage in 'gatekeeping'. I've pretty firmly and frequently during my decade long stint on this forum suggested 'agreeing to disagree'.

You have a habit of claiming that you "agree to disagree" while continuing to make one last attempt to disprove or refute the opposite point. Which negates the point; it thus comes across as an attempt to get one final word while claiming you want the argument to stop.

I believe I made it quite clear from the beginning that my goal is to get you all to stop derailing threads by starting fights with people because you don’t like the way they criticize the story or it’s characters. You, in particular, have been repeatedly starting shit trying to shut people down, taking up countless pages with it and it’s beyond annoying.

Which is nonsense, because your definition of "derailing a thread" is to actually respond to what people are saying. If that annoys you, or anybody else, then too bad.

You know, I almost MIGHT believe you if I'd like..... ever seen Theodric engage in anything remotely resembling gatekeeping instead of, you know? Defending poster's right to express their opinion against actual gatekeepers. As it stands, the only one currently engaging in such is you. Attempts at being subtle by shaming others into silence instead of the bog-standard method of shouting "SHUT UP!" isn't as obfuscative as you'd like it to be.

When you post ANY opinion in a thread, you run the risk that people will challenge it. This should be common sense. A rant thread does not equal hate thread where anyone can just vomit out any words that sound remotely negative about Endwalker (or FFXIV) in general, with no dissension about it whatsoever.

Alright now I know beyond any doubt you're concern trolling.

Whatever makes it easier for you, I suppose.

Tbh the racism thing isn't exactly unique to Garleans, and the Garleans being racist is a bit more understandable too considering their history.

Garleans are racist to an INSANE scale, though. Every city-state in the game has had some history of racism, yes, but the Garleans have an actual goal of cultural genocide across multiple continents. Every racist thing you can blame one single Eorzean city state for (oppressing specific ethnic groups, wiping out an entire city, etc.) Garlean has done to MULTIPLE races or countries.

The whole '' one true race '' thing makes sense too if you know the context behind it ( which we didn't then ), altho the way he presented it was definitely quite unhinged.
But his overall point was that the Ascians were bad and if we were going to stand a chance against them we had to be '' whole ''.
I definitely think Varis is a bit more nuanced with the full context revealed, I also think it's a bit understandable that he'd be a bit unhinged about it considering he had basically been carrying that knowledge alone and even been the grandson of and puppet of an Ascian himself.
Varis just was in a very very screwed up position and could basically not talk to anyone about it until then and like his entire life and the empire he loved was basically a lie.

It's not that I don't think Varis had his reasons. Every villain typically has their reasons. But as you said, he was unhinged. And, likewise, the entire premise of "we need to become one master race to win/survive" is not even remotely entertained as correct or true. The scene basically makes him out to be no different than your typical supremacist/racist dictator. He may BELIEVE he's right, but there's no reason to think he is.

I didn't really get the impression that the Garleans were just treated as racist monsters, especially not if you know the lore of the other races and how shitty they can be towards each other too.
From our pov we don't see much of it because we're the WoL and generally hang around good people.

That's still the fault of the story, then. If the story wants them to seem more than cardboard villains, then THE STORY needs to SHOW it. Otherwise, we might as well assume that Venat had better reasons for Sundering, but the story just decided not to show us. In a fictional plot, if the story doesn't show or infer something, then it might as well not exist.

Edit: When it comes to Ala Mhigo too there's the whole mad king thing.
There's some truth to the notion that Garleans offered stability even if it was oppressive, I think Eorzeans are portrayed in a pretty negative way quite frequently in the story too.
We saw that with how people trying to adapt were treated too ( Fordola's parents ).

We never really see any of these methods of "stability", though. Since most of the provinces we see onscreen are in active rebellion or oppression. I don't doubt that there were definitely provinces (aside from the Capital) that thrived under Garlemald rule....but they're barely seen or mentioned.

[Skyborne]

They did actually introduce a potential Larsa-equivalent in Shadowbringers—Nerva Galvus.

Only they kept him offscreen all the way to his reveal in 6.1, where he was dead all along, having turned into a blasphemy. Fun stuff.

Between this and my poor dim deluded view of Regula's "the emperor will have need of you", "actually the empire was POINTLESS and DUMB and was there merely to spread chaos!" -- with little regard for the real sweat and blood the Garleans themselves put into it, and 'Solus' betraying hints of actually having sentiment for his people between the glory be soup ancedote, parks for kids complete with heated pools, pursuit of theatrical arts, being crushed when his son died of illness, etc -- and Varis being kinda sympathetic sandwiched between two ascians only to turn around and make a funny meme face and commence the gassing, I've had enough Garlemald disappointment for a lifetime. Oh yeah, and the Resonance and experiments along those lines that seemed to be dropped after serving its purpose in 4.0.

I think it was ReynTime who brought it up, but it really does seem like Yoshida just wanted to drop any 1.0 baggage, and tying the Ascians/Garleans together was a means to that.

[ReynTime]

But they explained it in a couple of sentences, are you that shocked they wrapped up Nerva's ending like that considering how they handled the Ascian/Hydaelyn storyline? You can tell the new writers were just tying up loose ends so they can do their own thing without the old writing team's "baggage", lol.

That's how I felt ever since 2.0. So much I was interested in seeing where it would be headed from pre ARR got completely swept under the rug or "killed off-screen"...