What Zero Could've Been

[Absimiliard]

The issue is that, on these forums at least, it most definitely goes both ways, and particularly the "other" way. Look at how certain posters jump all over anyone who posts about liking the Scions, or Venat, or the EW story arc, etc.. Heck, we have people complaining that in the midst of the usual half-dozen or so "I hate x" threads, someone creates one single thread saying they enjoy that thing and find it a positive. And almost immediately a certain crew goes into any thread like that and either directly or passive-aggressively tries to shoot it down or derail it. We have a group that's not only dedicated to spending their forum life hating on the game, but also trying to drag down anyone who dares to enjoy it. That's just sad.

That shoe quickly goes on the other foot if someone mentions liking the Ancients, Garleans, etc. Ditto for speaking positively about certain primals. What I can't figure out is why speaking positively about Ramuh is considered some grave offense. Wasn't he like... the fairest, most kind out of all of the original primals? Dude had granddad energy, but God forbid you say something nice about him on the forums.

So yeah, that's the rub. Saying things go the "other" way when they are in fact pretty much equal on all fronts is only inviting more trouble.

[Iscah]

That shoe quickly goes on the other foot if someone mentions liking the Ancients, Garleans, etc. Ditto for speaking positively about certain primals. What I can't figure out is why speaking positively about Ramuh is considered some grave offense. Wasn't he like... the fairest, most kind out of all of the original primals? Dude had granddad energy, but God forbid you say something nice about him on the forums.

This seems like a bizarre claim. I have never seen anyone object to Ramuh.

I also think there's a distinction to be made between someone simply liking the Ancients or Garleans, and constantly telling us we should feel bad for accepting that they are the story-designated doomed predecessors and antagonists, respectively. They've been written to exist in those roles.

I also think it's a mistake to equate "expressing a controversial opinion and having people disagree with it" and "expressing a story-aligned opinion and having people disagree with it" as equal events.

Multiple people can disagree with a controversial take because they're all basing their opinions on the same canon; it doesn't mean they're teaming up against the controversial person.

[Absimiliard]

This seems like a bizarre claim. I have never seen anyone object to Ramuh.

I also think there's a distinction to be made between someone simply liking the Ancients or Garleans, and constantly telling us we should feel bad for accepting that they are the story-designated doomed predecessors and antagonists, respectively. They've been written to exist in those roles.

Ramuh hasn't been a subject of debate in a long time. It was just a little something from long ago I revisited to emphasize how ridiculous some of the goings on are at this point in time. Perhaps it's just a me thing, but I definitely see a lot of arguments being made these days as every bit as foolish as the very curious things once thrown around about everyone's favorite old man with a beard heavily resembling certain dangly parts.

While I will agree with that distinction needing to be made, I would also observe the need to distinguish between people claiming we should feel bad for accepting the roles they were written into and people pointing out mitigating circumstances that do, by most reasonable standards, qualify them as sympathetic figures. A great many people on these forums, regardless of their likes and dislikes regarding lore and characters, seem to have a fundamental inability to differentiate between finding a particular demographic sympathetic and being okay with whatever hideous actions they've committed.

[Lauront]

I also think there's a distinction to be made between someone simply liking the Ancients or Garleans, and constantly telling us we should feel bad for accepting that they are the story-designated doomed predecessors and antagonists, respectively. They've been written to exist in those roles.

I also think it's a mistake to equate "expressing a controversial opinion and having people disagree with it" and "expressing a story-aligned opinion and having people disagree with it" as equal events.

Multiple people can disagree with a controversial take because they're all basing their opinions on the same canon; it doesn't mean they're teaming up against the controversial person.

There is a difference, but please let's acknowledge that within the lore subforum, there is a specific poster whose bread and butter it is to try (deliberately) confuse in-game character perspectives/affiliation with player sentiment towards the story, and who is intent to both strawman fans of the ancients, and in the same breath, claim they're tired of discussing them and that the game should move on from them, while obsessively droning on about the topic and refusing to actually deal with good faith criticism of the story and weaving rather strange conspiracies about critics of the story. It's easy enough to identify and filter out trolls or hit and run posts, but we're talking about a rather consistent and persistent pattern here. I wouldn't bring it up otherwise because it's specific to that subforum, but since you two were discussing it...

Secondly: I am not obligated to like the writing, in the sense that simply because the characters are written to fulfil a specific purpose, it does not follow that the execution is going to be good (i.e. yes, in the current timeline, events had to occur as they did, but it doesn't mean I have to celebrate that fact or consider the way this was justified/explained to be well written/appealing/whatever.) You obviously do not have to feel bad about something, you do not have to agree with my approach to it, but simply because something is written a certain way, it does not follow it will succeed in landing with the audience that way - this is out of the writers' control to some degree.

For instance, Yoshi acknowledges audience reception vs what was written did not pan out as he expected, e.g. the portrayal of the ancients in Elpis, of them being 'scary', whereas he notes audience reception of them was largely at odds with that. I have said it before, but it's almost like he's oblivious to the same zone's side-quests, nevermind tidbits we had about the ancients from before. It is also open to the audience to be critical of the theme in question, or how it was handled. There have been many good posts on the topic of how dissonant the writing is in some areas, coupled with themes that are presented in a confusing, at times inconsistent and muddled manner - and once more, I don't have to like a theme or how it's being applied. The story has highly controversial aspects to it, and in some cases raises eyebrows in what it seems to be trying to justify, even if the writers may have tried to walk it back to some extent, e.g. via the Omega quests.

I can't say I am aware of many ancient fans in lore demanding that you feel bad about it - the discussions are usually premised in more abstract terms, around the writing itself, or about the posters' own sentiments on it. Until the poster I mentioned above tries to make it personal and try ignite the discussion, which is why I largely ignore them. They're not alone but they are by far and away the worst offender. The one habit which has to end for productive discussion on the story to continue is this tendency (yes, of all concerned) of lumping individuals into this or that side or camp, and it really is not unique to the posters in this thread. For example, just because I try and assist someone in clarifying a point they're making, it does not follow I agree with their each and every postulate. It's all been discussed to death, though, so there is a certain weariness forming around it...

In sum: I don't care whether you personally feel bad about it or not, but that doesn't mean I'm limited to simply expressing like of the ancients, or Garleans for that matter, when discussing them. My issue really is more to do with the writing. For those who love it, that's their prerogative, so long as they acknowledge I don't have to like it.

On the subject of the Scions, does anyone else crave another situation like Heavensward where we just get dropped into the next expansion by ourselves and have to find our own bearings? I really miss that sense of uncertainty and adventure, and when they were pushing the "you're just an adventurer again" idea I rather hoped that's where they might be going. I enjoyed the presence of the Scions in Shadowbringers, but with Endwalker on top of that plus these latest patches after it was teased we'd be saying goodbye to them (did I imagine that?) I've got heavy character fatigue, as with the majority of our quests feeling like a school trip or that I'm packing an entourage with me wherever I go. I'm more than a little fed up of coming up against a new place or character or what have you and rather being able to acquaint myself with it, I have a Scion loudly shouting down my ear who or what they think it might be.

I'd hoped they'd create some breathing space for new characters past the point of them "disbanding". The point where they could off some has sailed now, but a long vacation wouldn't hurt to give the newer additions a chance to shine.

(Join in the debate and then slowly slide out when they bring out the totems to dance around and Venat effigies to burn.)

I really empathise though, Endwalker made for quite an alienating experience. Playing through it and just... really balking at the clunky exposition, disjointed tone, bizarrely transparent fanservice and tremulous writing, and then looking around to find no one was seeing what I did was... unsettling, to say the least. I was left looking at EW and then at the previous expansions and thinking, did you actually see this? Did we play the same game? Did you play any of the other games? But where are you left with to talk about it?

These forums provide some relief, but it cools off rather rapidly once discussions get going and then there's no real outlet to talk about it properly.

I'm not Venat's biggest fan, and strongly disagree with the justifications they presented for her (really, it almost feels like the time loop is a failsafe if all other excuses are rejected... and even then, it's not a great one), but my issue has never been her so much as the writing around her. Hermes, yes, there's not much I like with that one.

[Iscah]

There is a difference, but please let's acknowledge that within the lore subforum, there is a specific poster [...]

You say that like they're the only person causing any issues and there aren't others engaging in name-calling, personal attacks and not letting people hold their own opinions without having to argue against them.

Both extremes keep the argument going, and I've tried to stay out of it – both because my feelings are somewhere in the middle and I don't want to get caught up in the argument. But here in this thread, they're letting it spill out onto a different group of people who are rightly confused by the name-calling and the self-identifying as some kind of team with a name.