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

[Theodric]

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.

No, that simply isn't true at all. Firstly, suggesting to agree to disagree does not mean that a topic of discussion is to be brushed under the rug entirely. If anything, the people trying to get the last word would be those desperately attempting to make a moral statement out of absolutely everything.

Which is precisely why I am rather firmly opposed to subtle or not so subtle attempts to ridicule or portray posters as 'bad people' for liking or arguing in favour of the 'wrong' characters in a fictional setting. That some people are unable to separate fiction from reality is, quite frankly, not my concern. Someone immersing themselves in a fictional story and rooting for the 'bad guys' is not in any way a statement in support of such events happening in the real world.

It's perfectly possible to say 'I don't like this character or faction' without drawing bizarre conclusions about those who do. Which is precisely why I'm not petty enough to go around declaring that if someone likes Venat then that means that they support genocide in the real world.

[CrownySuccubus]

No, that simply isn't true at all. Firstly, suggesting to agree to disagree does not mean that a topic of discussion is to be brushed under the rug entirely. If anything, the people trying to get the last word would be those desperately attempting to make a moral statement out of absolutely everything.

If a topic isn't "brushed under the rug", and you continue trying to prove that you're right, it's not a case of agree to disagree. I don't see how that's debatable.

Which is precisely why I am rather firmly opposed to subtle or not so subtle attempts to ridicule or portray posters as 'bad people' for liking or arguing in favour of the 'wrong' characters in a fictional setting. That some people are unable to separate fiction from reality is, quite frankly, not my concern. Someone immersing themselves in a fictional story and rooting for the 'bad guys' is not in any way a statement in support of such events happening in the real world.

It's perfectly possible to say 'I don't like this character or faction' without drawing bizarre conclusions about those who do. Which is precisely why I'm not petty enough to go around declaring that if someone likes Venat then that means that they support genocide in the real world.

Again, rooting for the bad guys is fine. But not all reasons for doing so are valid or reasonable.

For example, it's one thing to say, "I root for the violent communist invaders in Red Dawn", but (to use a hyperbolic example) it's another to say, "I root for the violent communist invaders in Red Dawn because I support violent communist invaders IRL.

That's an extreme example, but I stand by the point; feel free to have any opinion you like, but that doesn't mean the reasons for said opinion are laudable.

[Theodric]

If a topic isn't "brushed under the rug", and you continue trying to prove that you're right, it's not a case of agree to disagree. I don't see how that's debatable.

I don't post to prove myself to be right. I post to put my opinions out there in the hope that I might encounter people who share similar concerns for the direction of the game's narrative as well as reinforcing the idea that they're not alone. I also hope that the thread is being read by someone employed by Square Enix who may very well pass feedback along to someone involved in the story.

Again, rooting for the bad guys is fine. But not all reasons for doing so are valid or reasonable.

For example, it's one thing to say, "I root for the violent communist invaders in Red Dawn", but (to use a hyperbolic example) it's another to say, "I root for the violent communist invaders in Red Dawn because I support violent communist invaders IRL.

That's an extreme example, but I stand by the point; feel free to have any opinion you like, but that doesn't mean the reasons for said opinion are laudable.

I imagine many posters have all sorts of different takes on what would be 'valid' or 'reasonable' on any given subject. Ultimately we're dealing with a fictional setting which is primarily there to entertain. It can't please everybody but that's precisely why many favour more variety across the board in terms of how elements within the story play out.

Someone rooting for House Stark in Game of Thrones is going to have very different expectations than those who roots for House Tyrell or House Lannister and so on.

This bothered me too, but it's yet another of example of the game's regions or "overworld" being extremely compressed for the sake of game play. But it is absolutely comical in its execution. For a more concrete example of what I mean, just look at Ishgard as you wander that city. Look out beyond its boundaries and the city seems absolutely MASSIVE both in width and height, something that would take days to full explore were we given more than two tiny zones you transition between in seconds. Then leave the city into Coerthas Central Highlands and fly your mount past (over and past) the the gate supposedly leading to the steps of faith. What you will see is an absolutely tiny and narrow cobblestone walkway connecting to a doll house not much larger than the watch towers already scattered around that zone, and that building is supposed to be the city of Ishgard and the path leading to it are The Steps of Faith, something absolutely tiny and considerably bootleg looking compared to their instance version. It sucks, but expect plenty more zones to get this treatment going forward.

It's why I'm drifting back to single player games for my immersion needs. It never fails to impress me every time I enter Novigrad in The Witcher 3. It's one of the more immersive cities I've seen in an RPG to date. Equally, as far as MMO's go I'd say Divinity's Reach in Guild Wars 2 is a good example of what FFXIV could do if it really pushed itself to its limits.

[CrownySuccubus]

I don't post to prove myself to be right. I post to put my opinions out there in the hope that I might encounter people who share similar concerns for the direction of the game's narrative as well as reinforcing the idea that they're not alone. I also hope that the thread is being read by someone employed by Square Enix who may very well pass feedback along to someone involved in the story.

Distinction without a difference. Whether you're debating with the goal of being right, or in hopes that other people will agree with you, the ultimate aim is still to argue that your points have merit or are correct. So if someone disagrees, and this creates a situation where you keep replying to prove that you're right/have merits worth agreeing with, then you're not agreeing to disagree. You're arguing to prove that you are correct or at least have a point.

I imagine many posters have all sorts of different takes on what would be 'valid' or 'reasonable' on any given subject. Ultimately we're dealing with a fictional setting which is primarily there to entertain. It can't please everybody but that's precisely why many favour more variety across the board in terms of how elements within the story play out.

Someone rooting for House Stark in Game of Thrones is going to have very different expectations than those who roots for House Tyrell or House Lannister and so on.

Of course people have different ideas of what's reasonable or valid. Discussing that is literally the entire point of a public forum. Likewise, I don't care why someone like House Tyrell or House Lannister, but if their reasons go along the lines of "I like the Lannisters because I support incest", then I'm going to put that in the "unreasonable" category. Someone else might not think so, and that's A-OK, but they'll have a hell of a time convincing me otherwise.

[SentioftheHoukai]

Distinction without a difference. Whether you're debating with the goal of being right, or in hopes that other people will agree with you, the ultimate aim is still to argue that your points have merit or are correct. So if someone disagrees, and this creates a situation where you keep replying to prove that you're right/have merits worth agreeing with, then you're not agreeing to disagree. You're arguing to prove that you are correct or at least have a point.



Of course people have different ideas of what's reasonable or valid. Discussing that is literally the entire point of a public forum. Likewise, I don't care why someone like House Tyrell or House Lannister, but if their reasons go along the lines of "I like the Lannisters because I support incest", then I'm going to put that in the "unreasonable" category. Someone else might not think so, and that's A-OK, but they'll have a hell of a time convincing me otherwise.

Has anyone ever actually said they're a bigoted, racist ass and that's why they like Garlemald? What people are you around that speak like this? Or..... could it be that you are simply extrapolating such results onto the likes of Theodric and the others? Please. Explain to me where precisely you have acquired this logic and pattern of thought, if it is NOT in fact you making assumptions of your own biases?

[CrownySuccubus]

Has anyone ever actually said they're a bigoted, racist ass and that's why they like Garlemald? What people are you around that speak like this? Or..... could it be that you are simply extrapolating such results onto the likes of Theodric and the others? Please. Explain to me where precisely you have acquired this logic and pattern of thought, if it is NOT in fact you making assumptions of your own biases?

Just going to quote myself the last time Theodric complained about this subject:

I mean, liking Garlemald is one thing. They look cool, act tough, and have cool machines. That doesn't make anyone a Nazi.

But, if someone (speaking generally here) were to say that they thought Garlemald was right or that their actions were laudable, that'd definitely be cause for concern.

I'm not sure what was supposedly said, so I make no accusations. But, generally speaking, it's one thing to say that the Empire is cool. It's another thing entirely to say that the Empire is cool because they conquer what they deem inferior races and think only the strong should survive and rule.

The point is, I don't know under what context these "accusations" were made. I certainly hope that no one actually said anything red-flag worthy, but this is the internet in 2022. You can't rule out anything.

Theodric's point seems to imply that he wants anybody to be able to like anything for any reason, but that's impossible, because there definitely ARE reasons for liking something that lack validity or reasonableness.

[Raoabolic]

But, if someone (speaking generally here) were to say that they thought Garlemald was right or that their actions were laudable, that'd definitely be cause for concern.

"Haha, look at the non magic users! Let's bully them until they are forced to live up north in the barren snow!"
-The rest of Eorzea

[SentioftheHoukai]

Just going to quote myself the last time Theodric complained about this subject:



The point is, I don't know under what context these "accusations" were made. I certainly hope that no one actually said anything red-flag worthy, but this is the internet in 2022. You can't rule out anything.

Theodric's point seems to imply that he wants anybody to be able to like anything for any reason, but that's impossible, because there definitely ARE reasons for liking something that lack validity or reasonableness.

Unless you're a mind reader, or somehow know Theodric in real life and he constantly does Nazi and white supremacist shit under your direct supervision..... Then you don't actually "know" ANYTHING.

Seriously, this nonsensical assertion that everybody in the universe is an expert at psychoanalyzing random strangers over the internet is ridiculous.