Endwalker Story sucked and it's time to admit it

[AwesomeJr44]

Fair but by your rules I do not think I could judge anything as good! Not Endwalker, not Shadowbringers ect. In a way I can dig it because I do not think any medium or fiction can be classfied as perfect, but I do not think that was your point haha.

Of course not, one infraction isn't enough to condemn a story to being bad. As I've stated, I love Shadowbringers, and it is a high quality story, but the trolley section is really bad. But when you abandon all semblance of logic in pursuit of something else, you're not writing a good story anymore.

I do not even think that is possible. We are all influenced by our views, politics and position.

It is possible, but some find it much harder to do. I personally have a brain that cannot stop thinking (sometimes to my own detriment haha) so I find it very easy to pick apart things and think about them logically. That's not to say I don't have emotions, but I definitely lean more towards the logical end of things. A more emotionally driven person (don't take this as me saying emotions = bad) will have a harder time thinking on a purely logical level, but they will also enjoy emotional moments much more. Thus I am in a better position to analyze a story on an objective level, while someone else (potentially you) might not realize the flaws in something but enjoy it more than I could as they can ignore things I cannot.

Its something I attribute more to writing fiction, but still think it holds merit when considering reviews and opinion pieces. Emotional reactions are also a key point of fiction, and the very fact that such stories can effect people in different ways IS one of the reasons why I think even trying to judge them objectivly is ineffective.

This is true and untrue at the same time. For a story to be the absolute best it can be, it must have logic and emotion combined well. An emotional story might bring you to tears the first time, but as that emotion fades, you will realize that there wasn't much substance there to begin with. On the other hand, a purely logical story, devoid of emotion, will be boring and unentertaining. Thus, both must come into play. This can be seen in the previous expansions of the game. I'll give an example: The Final Steps of Faith.

The Final Steps of Faith is an emotional battle between two opposing factions with two opposing viewpoints. One group wants to make amends for their forefathers' sins, while the other wants to slaughter their enemies. This is emotional because it is the climax of the entirety of Heavensward, even going back to 3.0. You also feel emotion because Estinein is trapped inside Nidhogg and you want to free him, although it might be possible that he is beyond saving. Thus the tensions are high and this becomes an emotional scene. Alright, we have the emotion. Let's step back and look at the logic behind this. Are each of the characters acting in their character? Yes. Everyone involved is acting as they should given what we know about them. Nidhogg has been set up as a wrathful and violent beast whose motives line up with this battle. Aymeric is seeking peace and while he doesn't necessarily want to kill Nidhogg, he knows that if he doesn't the war will go on forever. (as it had the previous 1000 years) Estinein is known to have an intense hate for Nidhogg and a loyalty to Ishgard. Thus when he asks you to put him down, this lines up with his character. If you kill him, you kill Nidhogg AND save Ishgard. This accomplishes both of Estinein's major goals. Finally, even though throwing the eyes into the abyss wasn't a smart idea, it makes sense as everyone knows that when a mortal is entrusted with Nidhogg's eyes, only bad things happen. No one can be trusted with them. Not Estinein, not Aymeric, and not Ishgard. Thus Aymeric tells you to throw them where he believes they cannot come into the hands of mortal men. This is in character. This scene is logically consistent.

This is the ideal scenario. A situation filled with emotion but ALSO logically sound. I can't speak for everyone, but my main issue with Endwalker is that it only uses the former. There is indeed lots of emotion in play. But once you strip away the emotions, there's not much there of substance.

This is one area where the 'veiled personal attacks' seem to come into play. This idea that those who do not agree with the anti-Veant opinion are lacking 'critical thinking' for coming to a different conclusion.

This is mainly because unlike emotions, logic (or at least sound logic) is not subjective. Logic is consistent. If I tell you to solve 1 + 3, and you do not arrive at the answer of 4, you are wrong. It doesn't matter if you would like it to be 3, it is 4. When the people who hate Emet for genocide then defend Venat's genocide, this creates a contradiction in logic. You cannot support genocide and condemn it simultaneously. If the pro-Venat crowd would like to admit that they were wrong about Emet and that genocide is alright, that would be logically consistent, but they so far have only continued to condemn Emet and the Ascians. Thus they cannot be acting with logic as their words themselves are contradictions of logic. (EDIT: When I mention contradictions in logic, I am not saying that nuance doesn't exist. Personally I believe Emet's genocides to be more justified than Venat's due to the situation, but there comes a point where you're not talking of nuance anymore and you're just contradicting yourself)

Take what you said about the Ancients above. I have seen people come to the same conclusion, but I have also seen others say different. We all came to such conclusions in different ways, but why should your way of viewing it be superior? Why should I trust that you came to said conclusion without any biases? I can only judge the material for myself, and despite what you say, there is no universally agreed method to do that. If there was then reading reviews and opinion pieces would be very dull.

My stance on the Ancients is that they were not perfect but a generally good race of people and they were not given a proper chance to prove themselves before being genocided. This is a classic case of show not tell. The story claims that the ancients would never have defeated meteion, yet they were never informed of her existence, thus we are not shown that they can't. With the proper information, they may have come to a solution that did not require sacrifices. This is not a guarantee, but it is a possibility that Venat did not even bother to consider. Thus Hermes' 'test' is unfair as there is no win condition that doesn't require sacrifices. Thus when the story claims that the ancients were wrong and that they would not have succeeded (with the proper info), it is not believable unless you take it at face value and don't think too hard about it.

In the end, we are all arm chair analystes typeing out our opinion for a video game on a forum. None of us should be consider superior to anyone else in opinions or objectivity.

I don't consider myself or my opinions superior to yours. I consider facts and logic superior to your subjective opinion (and my own opinion as well). When a story is logically unsound or tells but not shows, it is not good.

I spoke in the most general of terms about a problem that I had observed on these forums for several months.

Lyth, are you sure you're not an alt of Eara or... *shudder* Cleretic?