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

[Lunaxia]

Haha, no apology necessary (though I am very apologetic for one this late - I didn't think to check after a few days and then life also proceeded to Do Things on my end... don't feel obligated to reply though, I just hate leaving discussions hanging in mid-air and have been enjoying this myself!)

Agreed with all of this re: the themes of isolation. It's a blind spot in tons of media, not just FFXIV, of course. I will say that prior to Endwalker, the game - well, primarily Shadowbringers - appealed to me in what felt like its approach being... hm, how to put this...

100%, and it did soften me a little towards the Scions where I might otherwise have found them grating - that sort of acknowledgement of the relentless optimism of their cause and ability to effect change being a result of life being extraordinarily kind to them in a way not many others are afforded. That "we know you can't, so we will for you" stance helped shift them away from potentially obnoxious territory to being somewhat endearing - and story-wise, it also served to make those moments when that "privilege" (it's such a handy word!) became tremulous and matters threatened to fall beyond their control all the more effective; seeing them grapple with our potentially turning into a sin eater and coming up against a situation where for once there aren't any answers was not only an integral part of what made the Amaurot portion so good, in my eyes, but a necessity for it to really work. We needed to have that very real vulnerability underscored to put us on Emet's level and truly understand his headspace and where he's coming from, and to put to rest the myth of pure good and evil once and for all to help the writing (and the characters) evolve and mature from that.

...and then Endwalker (I feel as if most of my posts in this thread could be summed up by those three words alone) responded to the resounding success inspired by such good writing by soundly throwing the entire concept in the bin, cladding its heroes in impenetrable plot armor and protecting them from actually having to experience the message it spent the entire previous expansion trying to convey (???)

But exasperation aside, to circle back, I do fully appreciate the villains at least get a more human examination in that respect, even if the conclusion isn't always what I'd necessarily agree with. And Garlemald really was great - though as effective as it was, I can never help but imagine the chapter with Quintus fleshed out into a full arc over the expansion and witnessing all the drama of the various warring factions prior to the Empire's fall, given what we know of their ruling class, and what could have been makes me ache, honestly. It almost makes you want to pick up a pen yourself.

A lot of what Emet has done can be rightfully called out to be vile and heinous...

For sure! That was important to me too, and I was glad the journal entry for Shadowbringers especially really drove that home... particularly when that last exchange with Emet was followed up by Alphinaud immediately running up to us and happily proclaiming his death in a way some might consider to be a bit tactless, I was a little concerned about their intention there, but it turned out well enough. Though I really wanted the effects and consequences of that fight to be examined more in the following patches, I was relieved at least that alongside the Scions' celebration, we did have those feelings of ours - and the weight of what we actually did - touched upon.

And yes! Conflict between characters is so necessary for any good story (as I think I harped on about many, many pages ago), and after the Scions always having been a tad stale and one-dimensional in that regard, ShB really brought some interesting dynamics to the table - Thancred and Y'shtola, Thancred's issues regarding Minfilia and Ryne, Emet and... just about everyone, including the Exarch - to the point that I genuinely enjoyed having them around for once. Those sorts of disagreements, personality clashes and occasional outright hostilities give the characters humanity and some much needed colour that I know the writers are capable of, when they stop playing it safe - and the Scions above all else still really need that if they insist on making them work long term.

With the Scions and Emet, though, the disconnect between how they reacted to him before and after his death was actually a problem that preceded EW for me - it always felt a little inconsistent and pandering to what they felt the players wanted, and I still believe that had Emet not been such a mesmerising fan favourite, the writers would have dealt with him differently in terms of how he's perceived and treated within the story.

I think we sort of process a 'difference in scale' in terms of Atrocities Committed in different ways...

I think that's fairly accurate, and I do get your take on it - examining the fundamental point of "this person is willing to sacrifice innocent lives for their own desired outcome", and the morality and what it means for someone to choose to cross that line is a completely valid thing to do, and not something I actually disagree with. I suppose for the sake of the story, I'm buying into the game's basic premise that "good people do (very) bad things when pushed", and instead look to the circumstances that surround that decision and the "rap sheet", as it were, before making my personal judgement when the game asks me to relate or sympathise with a character. To some degree I have to take that perspective, since the game's inconsistency with how it handles the actions of certain characters depending on who the writers want us to favour or promote as a new ally would make it difficult for me to embrace the story otherwise. Gaius' character, for instance, frequently bothers me - I don't hate him, and I didn't mind him quite so much during the 4.x MSQ, but I ended up spending the majority of the Weapons story "don't know, don't care"-ing through the cutscenes because I neither agreed with nor cared for the sudden, heavy-handed softening of his image that it seemed to me they felt necessitated the introduction of a less than believable lizard family from nowhere to make it work. As with Emet, I don't object to redemption arcs (or even merely "I'm no longer trying to kill you" arcs), or believe previously villainous characters should be permanently blacklisted, but they need to make it believable and leave some room for players to make up their own minds rather than foisting them into artificial situations to dredge up some good will for them.

Oh, fully agreed. I love Emet-Selch, but I'm honestly mostly...

It's certainly a strange position to take, but I give some of the blame to Endwalker for the horribly clumsy and offhand way it tries to justify that thought process with that level 87 cutscene in Amaurot. I'm still a little perplexed that was how they handled the great summoning, and the war between Hydaelyn and Zodiark that supposedly followed. It was so bizarrely rushed for what in any other circumstances would and should have been one of the most pivotal and climactic reveals/ moments of the entire series, and if anything I would have even been tempted to give it a cinematic of some sort (I guess perhaps it wouldn't have been a very good look for Venat, though.) So many strange decisions surrounding this expansion.

I am glad, though (and again confused) that they seem to be doubling back on themselves and putting paid to the argument the Ancients deserved their fate for their inability to handle hardship, with an Ancient-centered storyline surrounding grief, deception, abuse/ manipulation and coping with unbearable emotional turmoil. It's getting increasingly harder to find a leg for Venat's reasoning to stand on... and lately I have actually noticed across several FFXIV communities a small but distinct change in the tide regarding the unanimous claim the story was getting previously. It looks like the myriad inconsistencies in the story are starting to dawn on some people.