The big event at the end of the current patchcycle - Predictions

[KageTokage]

The way I understood it I doubt it was a prophecy. It's a description of the lifestream in parable:


"The serpent that sleeps in the deep slowly sheds its skin of old.

Eventually, the serpent devours its own tail, and renders new flesh using its own. The pain felt with cause the earth to quake, the mountains to crumble, and the rivers to run dry. Thus, seven wedges must be driven into its back."

In German it becomes clearer as it's written differently. For example it says that seven wedges "have been" driven into it's back. Not "must be". So it already happened whatever it was. When and where was the text written? I doubt it's referring to the calamities considering the seventh was just a mere five years ago.

I interpret it as such: natural catastrophies are attributed to the inner workings of the lifestream, the process of continuous shaping and destruction of aetherial form. In turn the lifestream either was naturally or artificially altered in some way. If naturally, what was observed? If artificially, what was done and by whom?

I consider it a historical mystery with potential present day implications rather than a prophecy about future events.

This just really makes me wish there was more consistency between translations because lately it feels like you need to reference all of the translations to be certain of what the "correct" one is.

[Kesey]

I don't think the "big event" can be predicted.

The story seems to be focused on you taking care of this other problem (the void) instead of focusing on the rebuilding of the source. So they are going to blindside you the player and the characters with the tragedy angle because we are distracted.

Furthermore, the other clue about 7.0 was that the adventure was going revolve around a moralistic question and prophecy and calamity don't really fit that.

[RyuDragnier]

I don't think the "big event" can be predicted.

The story seems to be focused on you taking care of this other problem (the void) instead of focusing on the rebuilding of the source. So they are going to blindside you the player and the characters with the tragedy angle because we are distracted.

Furthermore, the other clue about 7.0 was that the adventure was going revolve around a moralistic question and prophecy and calamity don't really fit that.

I wonder if they're going to bring into play actual factions with a branching story for zones? Such as choosing between the side of a local government or rebels. Whichever side you choose, the story will follow theirs for the zone until one final event happens, and you find out you've been helping commit a tragedy (two different tragedies that will happen at the same time regardless of your original choice, mind you). The opposing side will blame you for taking part in it, and you have the guilt for having helped commit it.

[Hurlstone]

I wonder if they're going to bring into play actual factions with a branching story for zones? Such as choosing between the side of a local government or rebels. Whichever side you choose, the story will follow theirs for the zone until one final event happens, and you find out you've been helping commit a tragedy (two different tragedies that will happen at the same time regardless of your original choice, mind you). The opposing side will blame you for taking part in it, and you have the guilt for having helped commit it.

It would be very interesting if they did try and do that. They have dipped their toe into that think before with that choice we make in Zandor (Though I am not sure if it actually effected anything, did not feel like it) They would have to be carefully though, not to gate anything to big off to the player, but I would like to see them take a few more risks like that. Good way to perhaps help define our WoL too.

[Kesey]

I wonder if they're going to bring into play actual factions with a branching story for zones? Such as choosing between the side of a local government or rebels. Whichever side you choose, the story will follow theirs for the zone until one final event happens, and you find out you've been helping commit a tragedy (two different tragedies that will happen at the same time regardless of your original choice, mind you). The opposing side will blame you for taking part in it, and you have the guilt for having helped commit it.

When they say "moralistic question" it's most likely a question like should we go to (insert new area) and help these people, even if they don't deserve it? And since we're The Hero, we of course have to say yes, even if most of our friends don't want to get involved and some players may have mixed feelings until we actually get there.

[Cleretic]

It would be very interesting if they did try and do that. They have dipped their toe into that think before with that choice we make in Zandor (Though I am not sure if it actually effected anything, did not feel like it) They would have to be carefully though, not to gate anything to big off to the player, but I would like to see them take a few more risks like that. Good way to perhaps help define our WoL too.

It did affect something, just not in a way a lot of people expected.

If you say Misija should be executed, then she dies of her wounds in the Diablo Armament fight before anyone can do anything. If you say she should face a proper Bozjan trial, Bajsaljen takes the knife and kills her himself. I used to think that the explanation was 'they're taking worse care of her if she's due to be executed so she dies faster', but now that I write that, I'm realizing that it's actually fulfilling what you say to do, just in an indirect way; if she's due to stand a Bozjan trial, then it's a Bozjan that decides to kill her.

My guess is this alleged 'choice' will be a Sophie's Choice situation--something like us having to make a decision about who to help, neither option is 'the good one' but there's no way to save both, and we just have to live with the decision we make. Whether or not said 'choice' is actually a branching thing we're asked to decide about, or our hand is circumstantially forced down one path, I don't know; they're capable of doing both well.

...but either way there's gonna be a lot of people deliberately distorting or ignoring facts to claim that whatever choice they thought was The Right One was objectively and morally superior and the other side is some kind of turbo-ubercriminal. They'll be the minority, but they sure won't realize it.

[Hurlstone]

It did affect something, just not in a way a lot of people expected.

If you say Misija should be executed, then she dies of her wounds in the Diablo Armament fight before anyone can do anything. If you say she should face a proper Bozjan trial, Bajsaljen takes the knife and kills her himself. I used to think that the explanation was 'they're taking worse care of her if she's due to be executed so she dies faster', but now that I write that, I'm realizing that it's actually fulfilling what you say to do, just in an indirect way; if she's due to stand a Bozjan trial, then it's a Bozjan that decides to kill her.

Oh I see. Cheers for the extra info! That makes more sense now.

When I read that Misija died either way I kinda dismissed it as a faux choice, but that take on the situation makes sense for sure. Even then, her dieing by Bajsaljen's hand I would say is a more 'heroic' end to her character then the other, so aligns more with the choice to have her face trial rather then executed.

My guess is this alleged 'choice' will be a Sophie's Choice situation--something like us having to make a decision about who to help, neither option is 'the good one' but there's no way to save both, and we just have to live with the decision we make. Whether or not said 'choice' is actually a branching thing we're asked to decide about, or our hand is circumstantially forced down one path, I don't know; they're capable of doing both well.

Yeah, I think they could handle it well, though they would still have to be careful not to make one side more 'right' then other if they do want such a situation. FFXIV deals with a lot of dark themes and stuff, but at its core it still has a moral heart expressed via things like the Scions and their ‘Save who you can, remember who you cannot’ approach which the WoL has been tied too over the years. That said 7.0 will be the best time to add in such moral dilemmas that have shades of grey, and over time we have been able to respond with more sarcastic/less heroic retorts even if they do not have any impact on the story.

[Seraphor]

I've always kinda wanted a "sophies choice" with the Twins.
One of them dies, due to your choices you can save the other.
Any subsequent questlines they're in then include that one remaining twin in the same role, different voice lines though, both would still technically be in the game, but mutually exclusive per player, with the option to view both paths via Unending Journey.

[Kranel_San]

I'm partially convinced Golbez is Xande or something.

The thing I am far more convinced of is that Golbez is baiting us into basically our only option to enter the Void being the Crystal Tower, which will be the stage of the climax of this story arc.
There is no more fitting tool to attempt a Void incursion than the same Crystal Tower Xande used to attempt his incurson, but failed. That failure I suspect was not a flaw in the tower itself, but Ascian meddling to cause a rejoining and remove the Allagan Empire in the same package.

Whether this whole Void arc truly wont be connected to the future expansion? I have my doubts. But either way, the Crystal Tower seems like an obvious inclusion.

Once more into the crystal tower. I wish they make other side content mandatory so we can finally get rid of the crystal tower and move on.

[RyuDragnier]

My guess is this alleged 'choice' will be a Sophie's Choice situation--something like us having to make a decision about who to help, neither option is 'the good one' but there's no way to save both, and we just have to live with the decision we make. Whether or not said 'choice' is actually a branching thing we're asked to decide about, or our hand is circumstantially forced down one path, I don't know; they're capable of doing both well.

The easiest way would be to make both individuals perform atrocities nobody can agree with afterwards. So there was never a case of "one side is less evil", but a case of "both sides are horrible and it was a moment we could not win in no matter what."