On Themis [6.4 SPOILER]

[Lunaxia]

Some rough thoughts that could probably be organized a little better, but are at least hitting the notes I'd like.

So I was going to let sleeping dogs lie here, but... well, as fatigued of these discussions as I may be, I am more fatigued by one side (and I apologise for using the term here when the notion of "sides" in the first place is so reductive and ridiculous, but it's easy shorthand for "people basically satisfied with the story" and "those who took issue with it", so please bear with me) constantly and in very bad faith trying to make a joke out of the other's attempts to explain themselves when for months now they've taken great care to put forth their reasoning in a fair and level-headed way, so I'm going to acquiesce to the request of a counter-perspective to the best of my exhausted and brain-addled abilities and explain.

To begin with, I do have to echo the sentiment that your post does come across as rather condescending and disingenuous at first read, but if you truly have been by and large absent from the forums to the extent the backgrounds of these discussions are foreign to you, and possibly have not read through this what's been posted here (even as I struggle to fathom why), then it becomes a little more understandable - though you also do a disservice to the posters here by not first attempting to gain some insight into the current context of these threads, even as... well, fraught as they can get since Endwalker's release.

And I do have to be brutally honest, in that you do seem to be making a strawman out of the "opposing side", as it were, because the people whose viewpoints you appear to be attempting to summarise... do not exist in any context around here, and if you feel they do, then what you've said isn't so much a (still baffling and pretty insular, I have to say) misunderstanding but a wilful misread of everything that's been said thus far. Maybe they do exist somewhere that you've encountered them (and for that I can only apologise), but no one, and I mean no one here was ever condoning the Ascians' actions or hoping they would be "vindicated", nor are they merely "sad" their favourite characters "lost" (again, kind of patronising), and automatically expressing sympathy as if the concerns being expressed are inherently the result of some poor soul's misunderstanding of the game's narrative rather than considering the possibility the story malfunctions from a logical perspective, is well... really patronising, yeah.

As I said in my very original post here, I enjoyed the Ascians because of how diametrically opposed they were to us, how from their perspective they had every right to be, and the moral complexity surrounding the two sides in the story. I enjoyed them as characters, like you, for their depth of their characters, their flaws, and their fundamental humanity. I enjoyed their individual arcs, and respective (pre-6.0) endings. Contrary to belief, I did not actually want the corpse of Emet-Selch's character dredged up from the dead, sucked dry of any poignancy his farewell left us with and made a mannequin for a fun spot of fanservice any more than I did Elidibus'. I resented their return and what felt a very laboured and unnecessary concession of Hydaelyn's actions and her methods not because I believed they were right in the first place or they're just so gosh darned handsome (I mean, come on, really?), but because it felt at odds with the characters we had come to know, with very little to gain but to paint a garish smile on the Sundering itself and force something resembling a happy ending so that we don't have to feel so guilty for what was done to the Ancients. I don't think the story did enough to adequately justify what Venat did or why her particular brand of wiping a race from existence is that much better than the Ascians' own, (which I do not agree with either, for the record) and they ultimately failed to convince me why one was necessitated and viewed as beneficial whereas the other was a senseless, vindictive crime.

And I really resent the remark that said empathy towards the Ancients is down to some pithy generalisation that their beauty and "perfection" (...that doesn't exist, nor has anyone claimed it to, and you would have to have read the story with something sharp jammed in your frontal lobe to have missed the clear story beats on why they were not perfect) is innately more appealing than the "messy" Sundered, and all of the charming implications towards my character that comment entails. I've never not identified with the Sundered, and I have never not wanted them to survive. But I'm also capable of sufficient empathy that I don't believe the Ancients should have been consigned to death either, and after spending 5.0's climax refuting the notion that any one race is somehow more entitled to life than another, and expressing the importance of the right to self-determine, 6.0 felt like a series of inexplicable Well, That Happened moments with regards to the writing that frankly felt like the devs were so hell bent on cutting their chosen path to deliver that all important Inspirational Message in the final arc that they missed the total lack of self-awareness and rampant hypocrisy that the story was leaving in its wake.

Now, perhaps my views are extreme, or misplaced, or simply incomprehensible to you, which is fine. I'd be lying if I wasn't left puzzled by anyone who came away feeling Endwalker was well-written or thought-provoking for the right reasons. You don't have to agree with it, or even engage with it, and I have a feeling we occupy fundamentally opposing viewpoints to the point that I doubt we'll find much in the way of common ground - the story has more or less driven me off at this juncture, for one - but refusing to acknowledge that perspective and choosing to place the fault for any disappointment with the player for not perceiving the story correctly or putting it down to some really juvenile reasons isn't just unfair and dishonest, but insulting on the face of it. Just something to consider.

[Anonymoose]

This a main reason why I've stopped posting (as if i posted much on lore to begin with to be one of the top lore afficionado like you) as much or at all on the lore forums.... I'll still do some goofy posts on General discussion but that has gotten really bad lately. Not the school part just the whole hack and forth and oh my God the name calling and just bs...

If frequency of posting made me any less likely to be wrong about stuff, I would dive into waaay more of these fights... I just assume that I'm as entitled to be wrong about stuff as everyone else and that it's fun to throw citations and interpretations at each other instead of insults and names. But then again I think that because I started playing at a time when we had no hope of getting anything right ever.

<snip>

This showed up while I was typing that and more conversation is happening, I'll reply to this one separately.

[Brinne]

Now, perhaps my views are extreme, or misplaced, or simply incomprehensible to you, which is fine. I'd be lying if I wasn't left puzzled by anyone who came away feeling Endwalker was well-written or thought-provoking for the right reasons. You don't have to agree with it, or even engage with it, and I have a feeling we occupy fundamentally opposing viewpoints to the point that I doubt we'll find much in the way of common ground - the story has more or less driven me off at this juncture, for one - but refusing to acknowledge that perspective and choosing to place the fault for any disappointment with the player for not perceiving the story correctly or putting it down to some really juvenile reasons isn't just unfair and dishonest, but insulting on the face of it. Just something to consider.

There are points where it feels like there's just a diametrically opposed framework between those who come here for the fun of playing with worldbuilding trivia and diegetic speculation--ie, stuff like, what is the Heart of Sabik, what is Ultima really?--which is completely fine, by the way, I think that stuff can be very fun too, and no, people shouldn't just come in and stomp all over your sandbox out of bitterness and spite. But there's also those interested in discussion of the story as a written story penned by living people making decisions and prioritizing certain elements over others in a way that has nothing to do with worldbuilding or in-universe "lore", what the story is doing on a broader level, (as opposed to whatever it intended), how it is executed, and examining what works narratively and what doesn't. And like there's just a chasm because the former doesn't understand why the latter can't just find a way to be okay with the game and let them have their toybox fun (hence the allusions to them just being sour grapes spoilsports who didn't get their way), and the latter doesn't understand why the former keeps trying to justify narratively extremely questionable moves and decisions with fantasy fluff that's ultimately irrelevant to that inquiry altogether.

On a side note, I had assumed your forums access had finally run out, Lunaxia, so it's a nice surprise to see you again, understandable as it is you're exhausted with the discourse!

[Yuella]

I think the devs can feel that the playerbase have opposing viewpoints on this. That's why they created that Omega side quests where the watcher asked us who we agree with. There is no right or wrong answer and it's just your personal opinion.

[RyuDragnier]

There are points where it feels like there's just a diametrically opposed framework between those who come here for the fun of playing with worldbuilding trivia and diegetic speculation--ie, stuff like, what is the Heart of Sabik, what is Ultima really?--which is completely fine, by the way, I think that stuff can be very fun too, and no, people shouldn't just come in and stomp all over your sandbox out of bitterness and spite. But there's also those interested in discussion of the story as a written story penned by living people making decisions and prioritizing certain elements over others in a way that has nothing to do with worldbuilding or in-universe "lore", what the story is doing on a broader level, (as opposed to whatever it intended), how it is executed, and examining what works narratively and what doesn't. And like there's just a chasm because the former doesn't understand why the latter can't just find a way to be okay with the game and let them have their toybox fun (hence the allusions to them just being sour grapes spoilsports who didn't get their way), and the latter doesn't understand why the former keeps trying to justify narratively extremely questionable moves and decisions with fantasy fluff that's ultimately irrelevant to that inquiry altogether.

On a side note, I had assumed your forums access had finally run out, Lunaxia, so it's a nice surprise to see you again, understandable as it is you're exhausted with the discourse!

Well put.

I fit more into the first camp that likes the worldbuilding and seeing what they can do with that, as unfortunately critical dissection of the actual writing is not my forte (there's a reason why I failed essay writing 7 times in college but got perfect grades in creative writing). I can really only see points as they're put in my face because I lack the capability to actually dissect the writing, so my apologies for not noticing things until they're pointed out (as we saw earlier in another thread just a day ago, once again thanks Lurina). Which may also be why I butt heads with a few posters in here from time to time, I may in fact be looking at things mostly from a worldbuilding perspective.

[Brinne]

Yes, and I'm very much more of a "literary analysis" type person (as silly and awkward as that is to say in relation to a goofy video game, but hey, every piece of media produced for an audience legitimately is informed by a web of various levels of decisions and influences that can be dissected, too). So we were clearly always destined to meet at dawn with dueling pistols, where only one can leave the subforum alive.

I'm joking, of course. Both forms of approaching the story are perfectly valid and great and can be tons of fun. The problem is resentment brewing when one area feels the other is stepping on their toes or interfering with their (again, both completely valid) versions of "fun" or "interest," which can quickly come across as condescending because they're speaking essentially two completely different languages with two completely different sets of goalposts, usually without recognizing it.

In Moose's case recently, yes, I, like Lunaxia, have a hard time not bristling a bit at the allegation that (because I presume he's speaking more from the toybox model) I must be criticizing the story because the dolls and action figures I like from the box (that I probably like just because they're cool and pretty and less messy than the ugly Sundered) didn't win. No. I'm sorry. That is just flat out, absolutely, incorrect. I won't presume deliberate malice on Moose's part, because again, we are probably speaking from fundamentally different frameworks, but it is incorrect.

[SannaR]

The worst part of the 'legitimate complaints' around here is that they're so fervent and so prone to attacks that it doesn't feel safe or possible to talk about the actual game.

Have the issues you have, and air them if you want, but don't stomp on the people who just want to enjoy things and talk about the game we all played.

You mean one shouldn't have their 1st response be the equivalent of dropping an H Bomb to swat a fly and use how they've been treated in the past for years on other sites as being justified to the use of said H Bomb? Only to then be confused as to why everyone else is mad at the use of said H Bomb? Or that some people thought the suplex they used as a tackle was them being subtle about their own vileness they have towards others opinions? Especially considering the Elpis section. Only for them to also be shocked when they get any kind of push back? I'm so glad none of that sort of behavior ever happened on these forms or this section ever. reads the 2nd post in the ask Kate lore stuff at fan fest thread and sighs

[Denishia]

Shoves the terms Watsonian and Doylist over here for ease of conversation

[Brinne]

I don't think even Watsonian and Doylist is quite sufficient at encompassing the extent of the chasm here, because both of those are mostly approaches to asking "why/how did a thing happen?" and less including of analysis, analytical filters, and commentary on what a thing did after thing has happened and become published text.

(Well, at least to my understanding. Someone can obviously come in and correct me.)

"Why did thing happen" and "what is thing saying as a finished text" and "does what thing is saying as a finished text match with what thing intended to say in concept" and "how was thing executed once thing was decided as thing that happened and will be attempted to be said" aren't all quite the same questions.

[SannaR]

Yes, and I'm very much more of a "literary analysis" type person (as silly and awkward as that is to say in relation to a goofy video game, but hey, every piece of media produced for an audience legitimately is informed by a web of various levels of decisions and influences that can be dissected, too). So we were clearly always destined to meet at dawn with dueling pistols, where only one can leave the subforum alive.

I'm joking, of course. Both forms of approaching the story are perfectly valid and great and can be tons of fun. The problem is resentment brewing when one area feels the other is stepping on their toes or interfering with their (again, both completely valid) versions of "fun" or "interest," which can quickly come across as condescending because they're speaking essentially two completely different languages with two completely different sets of goalposts, usually without recognizing it.

In Moose's case recently, yes, I, like Lunaxia, have a hard time not bristling a bit at the allegation that (because I presume he's speaking more from the toybox model) I must be criticizing the story because the dolls and action figures I like from the box (that I probably like just because they're cool and pretty and less messy than the ugly Sundered) didn't win. No. I'm sorry. That is just flat out, absolutely, incorrect. I won't presume deliberate malice on Moose's part, because again, we are probably speaking from fundamentally different frameworks, but it is incorrect.

I think that's the thing though. For a long time this sub section has been mostly filled with the non literary analysis types. Until EW happened and a bunch of people really did drive out a good chunk of people all because they were bitter and spiteful and wanted to tell those they had disagreed with to go suck it. Or to suck on certain bits of anatomy while shouting "Ha I knew it I knew that she was evil and to top it all off also a complete bitch! How do you feel now those who succkle at thine mommy godds dearest teets? That you now are (expletive) wrong?" And to justify using such vitriol and vileness as I said in my other response all the stuff having been flung at them pertaining to an unrelated topic on othere sites and social media. All to the point where even topics that didn't even mention certain characters or story beats would turn into the gazillionth time that poor horse was turned into glue.