Can 7.0 focus on a storyline without the philosophizing

[Kailea_Nagisa]

Well Duh, all of the Development happened several Chapters / Expansions ago.
This is about the end of the World and overcoming it through the Power of Friendship and blahblahblah. Thats why there was all of those "Lectures" about the the meaning of life and existentialism. That was the ""Theme""
Feel free to say you dont like how it was handled, MANY people will agree with you on that, but hey, its the story they wanted to tell, and its how they chose to tell it.
Its done, it already happened.

Now for the Next story, Cant say what its about yet. Why haven't fully concluded and Branched into the Road to 7.0 yet.
Some Big Event is apparently gonna happen. We have to wait and see.

I swear, a ton of you people sound like you did not even pay attention to the EW story lol, these forums never disappoint with the hot takes.

[Zanarkand-Ronso]

I swear, a ton of you people sound like you did not even pay attention to the EW story lol, these forums never disappoint with the hot takes.

I made a Hot Take?
Im confused lol

[kpxmanifesto]

The philosophy they tried to portray in 6.0 EW, for me personally, fell really flat. Especially since we saved universe without any sacrifice, and without any real stakes. It all felt staged

Oh yeah, all those fake death scenes on UT. What inspirational cutscenes I guess, lol.

I think the game would have been better served by consistency. For years it was extremely and obsessively preachy when it came to matters such as genocide, insisting that it was a line in the sand that could never be crossed even if the reasons for indulging such an act happened to be seen as an 'impossible choice' or 'deeply sympathetic'. Endwalker swings around and suddenly when the pretty mother goddess reveals that she deliberately inflicted genocide upon her own people for a situation she, herself, helped escalate through inaction and treachery and suddenly it's 'regrettable, but necessary'.

The consistency bit is what confused me the most. The story as a whole I would've found much better if they ditched Venat's philosophical reasons for sundering the ancients and just stuck with the original reason from ShB where a colossal battle between Zodiark and Hydaelyn sundered everyone.

To make that change so suddenly kind of threw me off. It's like the writer, instead of opting to write a story that was more consistent with the plot from ShB, decided they wanted to try to impress the audience by inserting some other preachy and sanctimonious philosophical reason into it (“No more shall man have wings to bear him to paradise,") but it just came off as ludicrous and unnecessary. It reminded me of this pseudo-intellectual kid at high school/college who would always try to impress people and appear sophisticated by sharing their philosophical takes and outlooks on life, but in reality they barely had a surface-level knowledge of the topics they tried to lecture people about. That's what EW MSQ's writing reminded me of.

You know, if you don't like someone, you can just block them and don't engage with them, it's that simple.

They'll never block Gaius. They need to leave him unblocked to either A: argue with him, or B: report his posts to the mods, and they can't do either of those without being able to read his posts.