Quote Originally Posted by Denishia View Post
Scattered MSQ thoughts, part one:

Politics with Garlemald is presented as well as I could expect as for in this game, though once more I am frustrated at Trapper's Den and how once again the former slave class that built Garlemald and controls the cerulean and has the magitek expertise that is earning this trade deal is shoved out of the political power in favor of Imperial Era senators (who are realistically self-sabotaging and delusional in their demands and separated themselves from the bulk of their people in nominally more luxurious quarters. That got an eye roll and laugh as well as their obstinate political maneuvering to hold the shreds of what they see as their power while ignorant of outside physical realities and logistics) Still conditioned by the imperialist mindset that destroyed most of their people, turned their country into an abomination, and created misery, genocide, and destruction across all of Ilsabard and Othard. Sadly just like in Werlyt 2.0 no option to tell them the Empire was an Ascian's evil. Cynically wondering what the corruption and brain-drain will look like in Garlemald in a decade and if it can avoid backsliding into another dictatorship that destroys itself and threatens the peace of its neighbors, but this is the best option for this batch of Garleans.

Jullus (and his VA) is yet again the highlight of this zone.
I will say about

Garlemald, that it always leaves a sour taste in my mouth. The people in charge seem to always be ultra-nationalists and for a moment I was sure that the twist was that they were hoarding the resources meant for the common people, instead of just worrying about their cultural identity. A piece of me was going "are you worried that we'd steal all your warmachina and resources and re-traumatize your people because that's what YOU'D do in this position?"


Also, I've seen other people saying about Pandae and... I disagree. Also because I'm one of six people who was still interested in the Heart of Sabik:
I don't think we were meant to see Athena as a "victim" of the auracite. The narrative even goes out of its way to say that even if it drove her desires to the extreme, they were still HERS, and it was still HER in there. And I love that they went back to explain it since it was one of those "We'll throw this at the wall and say how important this is and now we kinda forgot all about it among all these others plot points we also threw at the wall." things from the 2.x era. The fact that it also ties with my favorite side-story is a bonus.