Can 7.0 focus on a storyline without the philosophizing

[IkaraGreydancer]

Considering you were very much involved in several lore threads, either here or lore forum, I call bs that you haven't seen any evidence posted.

Most likely, you don't see that evidence as evidence because it's against your argument.


"the characters understood and accepted Venat and her reasoning (nuance that many here claim doesn't exist in EW) but put her down as it was time too."

Except that they don't intend to do put her down. We fight her because she's issuing a test. Also, the scion accepting her is not even a nuance as they're not that bothered against her action.

If you want to debate, at least watch the cutscene first. Don't expect people to do your homework.

Can you prove what I have and have not see? Legit question btw. I even said I've seen opinions, but not sources with irrefutable evidence. Has nothing to do with it being against what I think. I'll gladly go back if I'm 100% wrong about something. I've done it before.

They don't intend to put her down? According to who? I saw no one pulling punches. They understood what they had to do and they did it. Your interpretation may be different n that's fine. And it quite literally IS nuance because they accepted her reasoning for doing what she did even though normally they wouldn't. The reasoning itself is what makes it acceptable to them. It isn't just black n white. But hey if you wanna call bs go for it. Don't really care to convince you.

They're the biggest bad-faith poster here unfortunately.

Ahh yes more hateboner bs from you. At least try n farm likes in a better way. Coming at me is way to easy as many folks here dislike me. I've been called basically everything here in these forums so at this point its just funny to me. This just adds to the list. With you, not agreeing or seeing things how you do = "bad faith". You even claimed I am responsible for the entire forum being how it is. It is CLEAR you have a grave dislike for me and youre not even trying to hide it now. Taking any chance to crap on me when possible. You've called out others here for doing things you yourself have done and do like thread derailing. Get over yourself

[FTP]

Bruh, because the world is LITERALLY about to be destroyed, their focus is CRISES CRISES CRISES! That's the whole point of EW in the Final Days....

If the setting precludes differences in personalities and motives, they should write a different setting.

I appreciate how in the cases when our different companions and allies do disagree, or otherwise aren't in perfect alignment, they handle that as adults. Character bickering while they still work towards the greater goal just makes the story better. In other words they have the ability to write individual personalities without compromising the whole.

[BRVV]

Bruh, because the world is LITERALLY about to be destroyed, their focus is CRISES CRISES CRISES! That's the whole point of EW in the Final Days....

My dude we had time to go to lunch twice... during the MSQ

(and funny bits with little rabbits!)

[TheDecay]

???

You just reinforced the point behind

Well, we briefly enjoyed the satisfaction of watching the Scions's usual "let me fix you" attitude fall completely flat, when Magnus basically told Thancred to eff-off. I think that was a solid idea and a good writing decision.

...However, FFXIV could only hold its breath for so long.

And so, 1 hour later, our resident grief-stricken alcoholic spontaneously-combusted into a go-getter leader who's suddenly totally inspired by his wife's legacy, totally "over" his dead child, and now full of vim and vigor for TROLLEYS because we have, once again, shown up and solved everyone's flaws through the power of lecturing them and collecting+delivering a sparkling object.

Unfortunately you're dealing with yet another bad-faith poster who has nothing but smart-ass one-liners. They're here to engage in Twitter style "debate", not an exchange of ideas.

Another major issue with the "hardships" and "inner conflicts" that the Scions have is that we barely see any effects. Saying that Thancred has X or Y issue is not convincing. Showing us the issues that that could cause, such as his alcoholism resulting in someone getting killed or a critical mission failing is better, if not the standard of good storytelling. Sadly, FF14 is not good storytelling since it does not know how to "show, not tell". We do get glimpses of it though, particularly with Alphinaud, but that was 4 expansions ago and most of the inner conflicts are only told to us.

[TheMightyMollusk]

yet another bad-faith poster

Found a new catchphrase, I see.

[IkaraGreydancer]

Found a new catchphrase, I see.

Been using it since he came to the forums. Interestingly enough he has a signature for this yet doesn't even follow it most times. Bad faith means just as little as "white knight", "Shill", "Bootlicker", etc now. They'll find a new buzzword eventually, ironically just like the Twitter folks he dislikes does.

[Hurlstone]

Been using it since he came to the forums. Interestingly enough he has a signature for this yet doesn't even follow it most times. Bad faith means just as little as "white knight", "Shill", "Bootlicker", etc now. They'll find a new buzzword eventually, ironically just like the Twitter folks he dislikes does.

'White Knight' is still my favorite buzz word, as it at least makes us sound like Paladins! 'Bad-faith'ers kinda feels like the most lazy one yet.

[Eorzean_username]

Another major issue with the "hardships" and "inner conflicts" that the Scions have is that we barely see any effects. Saying that Thancred has X or Y issue is not convincing. Showing us the issues that that could cause, such as his alcoholism resulting in someone getting killed or a critical mission failing is better, if not the standard of good storytelling.

I think this is honestly a huge part of why it gets on my nerves.

If the Scions need to have development, we're often just kind of... "told" that they had development, and then the plot hurries along to the next splashy but hollow spike of dopamine.

It just feels like FFXIV storytelling has become really impatient in general. It wants to fast-forward straight to the "punchline" of character arcs at a pace that feels unnaturally-efficient, and it tends to deflate the entire intended impact for me.

Honestly, I liked the moody Amh Araeng arc overall — but elements like Magnus weren't allowed to cook, because everyone has these scheduled deadlines for "I'm fixed now, thanks WOL!"... and it just gets hollow and disappointingly-predictable after a while.

I feel like I would've taken it all a lot more seriously, for example, if Magnus had just refused to help, even after everything we "went through" (ie, digging around in a cave a little) — and then maybe slowly come around after consecutive interactions building up to some kind of turnaround in the 5.30 finale.

We do get glimpses of it though, particularly with Alphinaud, but that was 4 expansions ago and most of the inner conflicts are only told to us.

I think this is why I get so cranky about it.

If XIV had just been like this from Day 0, my standards and expectations would have been set accordingly.

But Maehiro showed that it's entirely possible for XIV to do long, slow-burn character arcs that gradually build-up and evolve over time, as you can see with Alphinaud from ARR 2.00 through ~HW. Honestly, Alphinaud deciding to go to Garlemald as an emissary was a great twist, and had the potential to grow him even further on a new path.

But then Ishkawa basically hit the "Undo" button on that idea (it was essentially pointless from a plotting perspective, since Alphinaud left just to come back unconscious 5 minutes later), and then Ishikawa just turned Alphinaud into a time-frozen "naïve but passionate political teenager!" trope that feels like he actually started developing backwards in ShB (or at best, began treading-water as a character).

And then character "arcs" in general just kind of hit a brick wall, and now the Scions are all 1-dimensional stereotypes of themselves, and it's just... frustrating.

[DPZ2]

The problem is that it creates bad writing and is extremely uninteresting and frankly unconvincing. Many of the moral dilemmas set up in ARR have been slowly whitted away, such as the city states' war and racism against the beast tribes. But those dilemmas are good writing. Your philosophy is hollow if there are no dilemmas and implementing it is straightforward and trivial. It's why we don't consider breathing oxygen a philosophy, but we consider eating only plant-based food a philosophy.

I think the heart of this argument should be to read the words, "To me," at the beginning of each sentence. Let's try it on for size:

To me, the problem is that it creates bad writing and is extremely uninteresting and frankly unconvincing.
To me, many of the moral dilemmas set up in ARR have been slowly whitted away, such as the city states' war and racism against the beast tribes.
To me, those dilemmas are good writing.
To me, your philosophy is hollow if there are no dilemmas and implementing it is straightforward and trivial.
To me, it's why we don't consider breathing oxygen a philosophy, but we consider eating only plant-based food a philosophy.

Once you look at the post in this manner, you can respond directly with "To me, your assessment is wrong" or "To me, you obviously have a different viewpoint about what makes a storyline good or bad." and blow off the rest of the post as meaningless in the context of your own thoughts and feelings.

It makes for much shorter topic threads.

"Sure, I see your argument, and personally reject it. Why do I need any more reasons to feel this way than you?"

[Elissar]

I don't feel encouraged to develop any idea with someone that post using alts tho.