A game for 4 year olds

[DPZ2]

Hypothetical question; if in the future the game actually gave us garlemald expansion where they're to rebuild their empire and for some provinces agree to still be under them (let's say for example, because of their technological advantage and economic reason), in a well written and logical story, will you still against it?

First, 'rebuild their [60 year old] empire' is probably never going to happen.

The Garleans I've encountered along the way could do just as well in a Republic (as was the case before Empire), or anything less threatening. Empires are built on the backs of conquered nations. I can't see the advantage for a now freed state to allow the Garleans to exert the same level of control as before.

So, no Empire building ... that way leads to one of the freed states deciding to take advantage of the desolation of Garlemald to become their next conqueror.

I can see no 'logical story' coming out of such a situtation -- only doom, disaster and despair for Garlemald and its peoples.

It is no longer the story of the Warrior of Light at that point. It will be hidden off screen, as was Ala Mhigo for the most part.

[Cleretic]

So, no Empire building ... that way leads to one of the freed states deciding to take advantage of the desolation of Garlemald to become their next conqueror.

I should point out that this sort of story has been approached around Garlemald a couple times. Bozja definitely paints Gabranth as essentially trying this, and both the Doma and Ala Mhigo parts of the Stormblood patch content have 'let's not leave ourselves open to tyrannical rule again' as a significant element. So it's clear where the general mindset is around the problem, as well as it being clear that we've gone through this song and dance before. (And for people who think the game is 'too pro-democracy' or whatever, I should point out that Doma grapples with that question while remaining a feudal lordship because Doma's relationship to the problem is different to everyone else's.)

Also, I should point out: a lot of the people who tend to be fairly pro-imperialism or the like are usually picturing themselves as the empire in the equation, rather than the conquered. This game tends not to.


Concluding the Garleans' story more than it has been so far is kinda weird, because yes it should be done, but it's hard to figure out where or how. It's not a story that suits the broad, often grand and combat-heavy approach of the MSQ, because honestly, most of the playerbase isn't super interested in that sort of dense politics with very little action (same reason why we won't get a war tribunal to determine guilt for people like Fordola). But at the same time you don't necessarily want it to be too far out of the way, so the all-roles capstone probably won't be where it's best explored. The tone is DEFINITELY not light or comedic, so Hildibrand's out, as is most likely a tribe quest even if I think that'd nail it (while tribe quests can deal with heavier subjects, they fly better being light-hearted).

Ideally they'd be best off with a slightly more extended wrapup that we just happen to be present for, similar to the EW role quests (the capstone was indeed Garlean, but was way too brief and focused on the Blasphemy). It's kinda hard to imagine where exactly that sort of approach might fit though, especially in a patch cycle where all the major content tentpoles are already accounted for.