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

[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?

[Lauront]

Tbh I think that if a significant portion felt the way some of you do about the story then the game wouldn't have a 9.4 metacritic score.
Especially since people who feel this way tend to usually be significantly louder than those who don't.
Yes there's no way of knowing for sure and what the actual stats are, but all of the stats kinda speak against you here.

Nothing is universally loved there will always be people who dislike something, but I think it's fair to say that people in this thread are being a bit overly dramatic and are probably not representing a very significant portion of the playerbase.
I know that this isn't a significant representation of anything either, but even Streamers who go into it with a negative or very skeptical mentality with existing audiences they garnered from competing games have still ended up loving it some even calling it the best story they've ever experienced.
I mean there just rly isn't much implying that there's some large group of people here that are so negative about it.

My problem here is what you're referring to as the "stats". I could just as easily point to the direction the game's player numbers on steam are headed as a counter to this point, particularly when most of these Metacritic scores (if I was to use the argument many on here do about the OF: a tiny minority in their own right) are in the large majority dated now by several months, so sorry, but I don't consider this a great argument, and that's even assuming I was to take that score as being solely attributable to the story. I don't put much stock into what streamers, who have an interest in being positive about the product for audience engagement and financial reasons, say.

The fact, once more, that the writers felt the need to address ambiguities in the story via the methods I mentioned is not suggestive of critical views on the story are as tiny a minority as you may think it is. And this does not necessarily equate to a low score - many are able to compartmentalise this and focus on what they enjoyed, particularly for as complex a beast as an MMO, including in terms of story aspects.

You are using words.

Yes, I am using words, much like you are. You've passed your Perception check, bravo.

I don't think they mean what you think they mean. Ask anywhere. In game. Peruse the internet. FFXIV's story is overwhelmingly popular. You don't have to like the truth, but it doesn't make it any less true. At least using the same straw man arguments yourself that you and your buddies are claiming against me tells me all I need to know. It's sad some people desperately need justification and can't stand that their opinion is shared by very few. :\

I have perused the internet. This is part of the internet - I have also been on other sites like Reddit and Twitter to know enough about their characteristics, including that you in particular don't know those characteristics, if you think the former, for example, leans highly negative on this game. Going in-game is an incredibly biased sample and does not account for all those who stopped playing for a variety of reasons, either, but then you're assuming an answer here and I am sure if I was to probe, I'd find a variety of views on the topic, if such an exercise in pointlessness took my fancy. It's all the more curious to me that those who enjoy EW feel this need to console themselves that they're this huge majority - what do you need this validation for? I am not even disputing that reception of it is by and large positive. What I am disputing is that this means the story is flawless or that this majority is as absolute as you are presenting it as, based on other sites with similar issues as samples to the OF. Your approach does not really allow for the sort of nuance this topic requires, because it's not as simple as hate/love the story.

[KageTokage]

The removal of dynamis is no more than is necessary to steer the story back from the false path.

Honestly, at this point I kind of want them to do more with it so it feels less like something that was thrown in simply to create a threat that could actually bring down Ancient society.

Considering the shenanigans the XIIth legion was able to pull off with the Resonant tech and the VIIth with synthetic auracite, some other legion finding a way to manipulate dynamis through research and analysis of the transformed wouldn't feel like much of a stretch; particularly after the final role quest plainly stated there's still fallout from the Final Days lingering on Etheriys.

[Lauront]

To be fair, while I can't say it inherently enthuses me as a concept, if they want to work with it to also showcase the downside of being more readily able to manipulate it, i.e. being more susceptible to it, and avoid retroactively using it to dunk on the ancients, I'd be cool with that, especially if it comes up as an issue in a more sundered shard. They did show this with how the revived Final Days were highly detrimental to the sundered as they directly affected them, but then it was over quite soon. So provided it's not just used to prop up the sundered further, it could be interesting.

[Teraq]

Honestly, at this point I kind of want them to do more with it so it feels less like something that was thrown in simply to create a threat that could actually bring down Ancient society.

This is the part that's always felt particularly bs to me. There is no reason why they couldn't have made the Final Days entirely based on empathic powers and overwhelming Ancients' self-control with pure emotion... other than cooking up a more plausible excuse for genocide.

[Lucida3b]

My problem here is what you're referring to as the "stats". I could just as easily point to the direction the game's player numbers on steam are headed as a counter to this point, particularly when most of these Metacritic scores (if I was to use the argument many on here do about the OF: a tiny minority in their own right) are in the large majority dated now by several months, so sorry, but I don't consider this a great argument, and that's even assuming I was to take that score as being solely attributable to the story. I don't put much stock into what streamers, who have an interest in being positive about the product for audience engagement and financial reasons, say.

The fact, once more, that the writers felt the need to address ambiguities in the story via the methods I mentioned is not suggestive of critical views on the story are as tiny a minority as you may think it is. And this does not necessarily equate to a low score - many are able to compartmentalise this and focus on what they enjoyed, particularly for as complex a beast as an MMO, including in terms of story aspects.

Ill point out that a game being loved at the start doesnt mean it will be loved years later, bioshock infinite for example was cheered on but over the last half decade people have gotten FAR more critical of it.

I mean if the concept of a cult hit is the inverse of the above after all!

[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

[CrownySuccubus]

"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

Pretty sure that was Islabard, not Eorzea. And even then, specifically the people of Corvos.