Ardbert's Party vs the Scions Analysis

[aveyond-dreams]

Ysayle in the context of Heavensward can be very much considered a main cast member, and Estinien went through his own ordeals. Haurchefaunt also died, Aymeric was stabbed, and of the cast that returned from the life stream they at the very least attempted to mention their new physical impairments in the plot. Unfortunately it didn’t lead anywhere.

Still a lot more danger than Endwalker at any rate.

[Theodric]

It's always strange when the very same poster who insinuates that people who like Garlemald are 'genocide apologists' or 'fascists' tries to claim that posting 'agree to disagree' is anywhere near as grotesque or deranged as trying to shame people for liking the 'wrong' characters or factions in a fictional setting.

I've commented on the past that another thing that happens around these parts is that the same people who attack people for holding the 'wrong' opinions have a track record of pushing and pushing until their targets eventually get curt with them or give a bit of light pushback. At which point the poster doing the aggravating will then point to that comment as an example of supposed toxicity.

Though I'm not really the sort of guy to entertain conspiracy theories about supposed 'forum cliques'. This isn't high school.

[SentioftheHoukai]

snip this, and this

Honestly, I really don't care about whatever semantics you wanna peddle and then claim somewhere else you were "pushed out" of the Forums. Frankly, I don't see what they've said as demands merely statements of not having enjoyed the sequences in question. Even then, they still have nowhere not once claimed their non-enjoyment of certain in-game sequences objectively bad.

Anyway, seeing as we're entertaining this now what even of it? Let's say they were demands, what would even change? The devs claim to look to these forums for inspiration but based on recent in-game evidence clearly that can't be true. At the end of the day, the devs can choose to plug their ears and ignore any and all criticism for that is their right. At the end of the day, the mods and devs decide whether or not our so-called "demands" are unwelcome here. How exactly is it in the bounds of your authority to determine if us waffling over the soliloquies over the term demand is relevant or not? I haven't seen the devs come in here and endorse any defenses of them, and we're not being in any way rude or inconsiderate of any here users of this forum so clearly we haven't crossed any lines regardless. You have nothing.

[Striker44]

objectively bad[/I].

"Again, all I want is a better story."

Aveyond did this literally two posts above you...

And he doesn't want a "better" story, because that's a completely subjective term with zero usefulness whatsoever despite his attempt to act like it objectively means anything. What he's insisting on is a story that suits his own personal whims and desires.

As for Theo, "I don't want to argue"...

"Ah, I see a certain miqo'te is doing that thing most Venat enthusiasts seem to do where they pretend sources dismantling and correcting their points haven't just been posted multiple times as recent as a page or two ago."

Ignoring for a moment that every word he wrote was wrong, a post like that exists for no purpose except to argue. Double bonus points that it was actually directed at me lol.

If you're going to be trolls desiring an echo chamber, at least be courageous enough to admit that's what you are...

[SentioftheHoukai]

"Again, all I want is a better story."

Aveyond did this literally two posts above you...

And he doesn't want a "better" story, because that's a completely subjective term with zero usefulness whatsoever despite his attempt to act like it objectively means anything. What he's insisting on is a story that suits his own personal whims and desires.

As for Theo, "I don't want to argue"...

"Ah, I see a certain miqo'te is doing that thing most Venat enthusiasts seem to do where they pretend sources dismantling and correcting their points haven't just been posted multiple times as recent as a page or two ago."

Ignoring for a moment that every word he wrote was wrong, a post like that exists for no purpose except to argue. Double bonus points that it was actually directed at me lol.

If you're going to be trolls desiring an echo chamber, at least be courageous enough to admit that's what you are...

.......Wot?

You are literally contradicting yourself here. Yes, Aveyond wanting "a better story" is subjective. It's just, like.... his opinion, man. Alas, he has every right to state it. How, in any shape, way or form are you contradicting anything I said. Frankly, after enough snide remarks of your own that contribute little to the discussion at hand beyond mindless banter maybe you ought to just weather it when others make one or two directed at you. Honestly.....

Also, this:

Ignoring for a moment that every word he wrote was wrong

is an example of a statement framed as objective.

If you're going to be trolls desiring an echo chamber

Who's the real troll here, let's be honest and completely open with ourselves.

[Brinne]

It's always strange when the very same poster who insinuates that people who like Garlemald are 'genocide apologists' or 'fascists' tries to claim that posting 'agree to disagree' is anywhere near as grotesque or deranged as trying to shame people for liking the 'wrong' characters or factions in a fictional setting.

Wait, when did this happen? When did anyone even bring up Garlemald, let alone fascism, in any capacity in this discussion? This is pretty out of left field.

Though I'm not really the sort of guy to entertain conspiracy theories about supposed 'forum cliques'. This isn't high school.

Conspiracy theories about 'social media crowds' and the 'niche types who flock to Twitter and Tumblr', and/or far left conspiracies based on the social media likes of minor staffers at SE, however, are obviously fair game.

[CrownySuccubus]

It's always strange when the very same poster who insinuates that people who like Garlemald are 'genocide apologists'

I have gone out of my way multiple times to flat out say that liking Garlemald doesn't make anyone fascists.

Likewise, I have never called anyone "genocide apologists". I said "Garlemald apologism" and "dictator apologism", respectively. But if YOU think these two things somehow mean "genocide apologist" (or as you said last time, "fascist apologist"), I'd love for you to explain exactly why.

Frankly, I don't see what they've said as demands merely statements of not having enjoyed the sequences in question.

Anyway, seeing as we're entertaining this now what even of it? Let's say they were demands, what would even change? .

LOL, YOU tell ME. I'm not the one trying to insist that they're "not demands". If you don't believe it changes anything, then who cares if you think they're "merely statements"? Then that would mean the argument is pointless, but that didn't stop Lauront from claiming that it was "hyperbole" or "disingenuous", and the rest of your clique from clapping along.

"It's totally not demands, but even if they are, it doesn't change anything" is the most self-defeating argument I've ever seen.

"Group strategy" is a very interesting spin on it, as is the word "clique", when it is simply my own take on that particular point. But while we're on the topic: forceful in what sense and why is it significant?

I don't recall ever claiming it is imperative for SE to listen to anything I have to say or that it converts to some "silent majority" viewpoint - SE can do whatever it wants and I can likewise do whatever I want, all the way up to unsubbing/not buying future products of theirs. Obviously I am offering the feedback in the hopes that they will listen to me, as do we all.

Distinction without a difference. You guys do a lot of justifying your arguments under the belief that what you want will lead to the game's success, while insisting that you're the ones who "really care" about the game or whatever, with the added implication that there's some unseen multitudes that would likewise be dissatisfied if what you demand isn't implemented in future installments.

[SentioftheHoukai]

I have gone out of my way multiple times to flat out say that liking Garlemald doesn't make anyone fascists.

Likewise, I have never called anyone "genocide apologists". I said "Garlemald apologism" and "dictator apologism", respectively. But if YOU think these two things somehow mean "genocide apologist" (or as you said last time, "fascist apologist"), I'd love for you to explain exactly why.

Who's using weasel words now? Garlemald is framed as the stereotypical "evil empire that dominates those it thinks its lessers" which is a Final Fantasy staple. Multiple times has favoring this faction been stated to be wrong or immoral, and never once has anyone who claims to favor it ever stated why. I don't blame 'em, considering the results so far why bother inviting more misery upon oneself? Regardless, one could like Garlemald for its bloody fashion sense and be ridiculed for it here, but I've stopped caring as some on this Forum aren't open to discussing in good faith. Same with Ascian Rejoinings and the Great Sundering, but I'm not gonna pursue that thread again as I'm rather weary of debating morals with brick walls.

[Lauront]

Distinction without a difference. You guys do a lot of justifying your arguments under the belief that what you want will lead to the game's success, while insisting that you're the ones who "really care" about the game or whatever, with the added implication that there's some unseen multitudes that would likewise be dissatisfied if what you demand isn't implemented in future installments.

Are you going to answer my question or not? I will repeat it for you:

forceful in what sense and why is it significant?

I am asking this question because Striker made a particular point of singling and emphasising out the word "demand", with the implication of it being forceful in nature. I'll refresh your memory:

Compare that to certain other posters on here, who act as if they're the ultimate arbiters of anything right or wrong, and then demand that the dev team change things to suit them or else they must be horrible writers. That's not productive (or mature for that matter). Case in point posted shortly after your comment: "This story is not constructed as well as more recent single player titles, and if they want to regard FFXIV as one then they need to do better than what we're seeing now with this party." That's trolling at best and uselessly toxic at worst.

So I invite you to explain what the significance of that is. Especially, since as you noted, the term can be used to denote concepts such as consumer demand. Yet it is clear he's not using it in that sense.

Striker did not explain how the specific, excerpted statement he included in his post was "toxic" or that of a "troll", either.

By the way, you're throwing in an awful lot of "you guys" there. I don't profess to know what the game's "silent majority" believes, I can at best rely on proxy indicators which are admittedly of limited use, but I do note for someone concerned (supposedly) about this matter, you seldom push back on any claims made by Striker or similar to that effect, and his claims about "majorities". I leave it to the reader to infer why that might be.

We all have our views on what contributes to a game's success or not - I am contributing my views with my own conception of what I'd like to see in it - and yeah, I'd hope that if the game implemented them, it wouldn't crash and burn, so I'd hope they would be conducive to its future success.

[Brinne]

Who's using weasel words now? Garlemald is framed as the stereotypical "evil empire that dominates those it thinks its lessers" which is a Final Fantasy staple. Multiple times has favoring this faction been stated to be wrong or immoral, and never once has anyone who claims to favor it ever stated why. I don't blame 'em, considering the results so far why bother inviting more misery upon oneself? Regardless, one could like Garlemald for its bloody fashion sense and be ridiculed for it here, but I've stopped caring as some on this Forum aren't open to discussing in good faith. Same with Ascian Rejoinings and the Great Sundering, but I'm not gonna pursue that thread again as I'm rather weary of debating morals with brick walls.

I'm an Ascian/Ancient fan, and Emet-Selch is my favorite character. (I even think Venat was a horrible person and the Sundering is an unjustifiable mass murder that has basically broken the game's lore, and have posted about this, passionately, at length! I have had many arguments about it with other posters, even!) I'm very familiar with the frustrating "if you like [x] you are a fascist/bad person/support war crimes" rhetoric used to try to emotionally pressure other people. And because I recognize the manipulative, disengenuous rhetoric for what it is in that situation, I also recognize manipulative rhetoric when it's used elsewhere - ie, bringing in the victimhood of Garlemald fans out of nowhere, without context, in a completely unrelated discussion.