Yoshi P - Your next live letter, DT msq and the damage to the brand

[Volgia]

You seem to be missing the point here, it's not about any individual character. You in fact just pointed out an example of the poor writing, you saying Alisae says "Okay we aren't really trusting her are we." However the actions taken by the entire group and the next few cutscenes just ignore that statement. As I said in my previous comment, one of the tells of bad writing is telling not showing. Alisae tells us how to feel instead of the story showing us how we should feel. They just blurt out emotions then act contrary to those emotions, or they just completely change in personality within the span of a cutscene. Alisae barely spent time with Wuk for example, yet is now calling her lami ti, Alisae, one of the most emotionally guarded characters just decides I'm BFF with this person I've functionally barely met and had very few scenes with.

That's just how the MSQ has always been, this isn't worse than it already was. It's kind of disingenous to say that Bakool had no redemption arc when all of the 94 questline is exactly looking how he had to uphold this supremacist ideology because if he didn't it meant that sacrificing thousands of children to make him happen was for nothing. It wasn't a 2 min cutscene, it was Wuk Lamat beating him, it was him helping bridge their people and your group, it was you, Koana and the scions helping them establish a means of economy to support their land, it was him coming to the defense of Tuliyollali and saving it's people to the soul-sucking machines.

I can say the same about Alisae, she spent ALL the expansion with Wuk, she fought shoulder to shoulder against Valigarmanda and Zoral'ja. You don't like the story because you feel like it has no subtelty or subtext then you probably shouldn't like any of the early expansions either.

Again it's easy to fall into the trap of not liking something, and rationalizing it all to be the OBJECTIVELY bad and then bouncing back and forth on posts and analysis that already agree with you, especially here in the FF Forums, there were people doing this kind of analysis to Shadowbringers and Endwalker, it seems to happen to every damn expansion.

[Malthir]

That's just how the MSQ has always been, this isn't worse than it already was. It's kind of disingenous to say that Bakool had no redemption arc when all of the 94 questline is exactly looking how he had to uphold this supremacist ideology because if he didn't it meant that sacrificing thousands of children to make him happen was for nothing. It wasn't a 2 min cutscene, it was Wuk Lamat beating him, it was him helping bridge their people and your group, it was you, Koana and the scions helping them establish a means of economy to support their land, it was him coming to the defense of Tuloyali and saving it's people to the soul-sucking machines.

I can say the same about Alisae, she spent ALL the expansion with Wuk, she fought shoulder to shoulder against Valigarmanda and Zoral'ja. You don't like the story because you feel like it has no subtelty or subtext then you probably shouldn't like any of the early expansions either.

Again it's easy to fall into the trap of not liking something, and rationalizing it all to be the OBJECTIVELY bad and then bouncing back and forth on posts and analysis that already agree with you, especially here in the FF Forums, there were people doing this kind of analysis to Shadowbringers and Endwalker, it seems to happen to every damn expansion.

So I give you actual examples of poor writing and your response is "Nuh uh, that's just your opinion.". I don't feel like it has no subtlety, it has no depth, everything is 2D. You're told how to feel in direct lines to the audience, like being shown a laugh sign in a live audience show. It's a text book example of bad story telling. Also no this is not like the other expacs, the story was never hollow, characters didn't tell you how to feel, the characters grew the story developed and the audience emoted to what happened. They made their first mistake when storyboarding this expac, they added alot of different plotlines that would involve massive emotional development for various characters, but decided to resolve them all within the MSQ this creates a massive problem as you then do not have the time to establish new characters, get people emotionally invested, develop each character leading to the emotional payoff at the end of their plot, which is almost impossible to do even when you write well, you might be able to pull it off for 1 character but not for that many all at once.

To give you an actual example how this is not how it's always been, I will use Bakool again as the example. His character arc is functionally close to Gaius's in intent just delivered poorly. That's because Gaius changes over the length of several expac, it's organic, the character becomes introspective, their world view changes as they interact with different people and plot lines, he starts to change his opinions and views. DT Bakool would be if Gaius, went from loyal general to leading the revolution all within ARR.

[Valorak]

So I give you actual examples of poor writing and your response is "Nuh uh, that's just your opinion.". I don't feel like it has no subtlety, it has no depth, everything is 2D. You're told how to feel in direct lines to the audience, like being shown a laugh sign in a live audience show...

I mean, you're trying to pass it off as objectively bad by using aspects of literary theory and criticism. But nothing about literary criticism is objective and it never has been.

Literary standards have changed multiple times over the centuries. Some things that were once accepted as the "right way" to do things have fallen out of favor, and things that were once considered average, controversial, or bad, are now hailed as cornerstones of literature. Not to mention the fact that for every "rule" that there is about good writing, it can be subverted by someone that decides to purposefully break convention.

I'm not saying that I view Dawntrail as a literary masterpiece or anything like that and I think that most people would agree with that, but using literary analysis doesn't mean that your viewpoint suddenly becomes objective. It's still ultimately, just an opinion. Pacing, characterization, subtext, prose; those are all things that people will not necessarily agree upon. Just because you interpreted the characterization as flat, that does not mean that everyone will.

I'm not here to change your opinion, because I don't really care to do so. But just as an example to show how subjective opinions like that are, I'll pick on the "Wuk Lamat and Erenville are childhood friends" bit you posted earlier. From my standpoint, I'm wondering why you need some sort of overt gesture in game to show you that? And why do you think the dialogue doesn't show it?

I think that it's very clearly shown in the way that they speak to each other, and in their presence around each other despite their different personalities. I have outwardly mismatched friends just like that IRL, and we have had, and will continue to have very similar interactions to the ones that Wuk Lamat and Erenville have. I found their rapport with each other to be immediately relatable and fitting for their personalities, so I don't need a character arc just to convince me that they're old friends. I would have viewed that as kind of redundant and may have wondered why we needed that to be reinforced when it was already so obvious.

[Raven2014]

I mean, you're trying to pass it off as objectively bad by using aspects of literary theory and criticism. But nothing about literary criticism is objective and it never has been.

Literary standards have changed multiple times over the centuries. Some things that were once accepted as the "right way" to do things have fallen out of favor, and things that were once considered average, controversial, or bad, are now hailed as cornerstones of literature. Not to mention the fact that for every "rule" that there is about good writing, it can be subverted by someone that decides to purposefully break convention.

And ... what is exactly the point you're trying to make? Even if thing is not absolutely objective, that doesn't mean subjective is the one free get out of jail card. It's the same thing with "opinion". Sure, you can have any opinion you want, but what you cann't do is demand the opinion to be respected if it fails to stand up to merit.

- I hate anything Shakespeare and I can give a list of why I think its stupid. That won't change the fact his works is universally hold in high-regard.

- You can say the 5$ BigMac taste better than a craft-burger made from the finest cut of NewYork steak, and that's fine. But it won't change the fact the latter is much higher quality.

- You can claim your schoolband sounds 10x better than the performance of the Tokyo ochestra. And that's fine, maybe that's really true to you, but I hope you won't believe that you can convince anyone of that.

The point is, EW was hold to high esteemed universally while DT is criticized across the board. Sure, it may not be an scientifically and objectively fact and it's completely fine even if someone prefer DT over EW. But to defend DT's from an "objective" argument is a bit of a disillusion argument. To you, maybe a cheap patty does taste better than a cut of New York steak, but trying to make an objective/subjective argument out of it is really just waxing philosophy.

[Valorak]

And ... what is exactly the point you're trying to make? Even if thing is not absolutely objective, that doesn't mean subjective is the one free get out of jail card. It's the same thing with "opinion". Sure, you can have any opinion you want, but what you cann't do is demand the opinion to be respected if it fails to stand up to merit.

- I hate anything Shakespeare and I can give a list of why I think its stupid. That won't change the fact his works is universally hold in high-regard.

- You can say the 5$ BigMac taste better than a craft-burger made from the finest cut of NewYork steak, and that's fine. But it won't change the fact the latter is much higher quality.

- You can claim your schoolband sounds 10x better than the performance of the Tokyo ochestra. And that's fine, maybe that's really true to you, but I hope you won't believe that you can convince anyone of that.

The point is, EW was hold to high esteemed universally while DT is criticized across the board. Sure, it may not be an scientifically and objectively fact and it's completely fine even if someone prefer DT over EW. But to defend DT's from an "objective" argument is a bit of a disillusion argument. To you, maybe a cheap patty does taste better than a cut of New York steak, but trying to make an objective/subjective argument out of it is really just waxing philosophy.

To re-summarize, my point was to show that literary criticism just supports a person's personal subjective opinion on a work. But it does not, and never will, make it anything beyond a subjective opinion. No matter how detailed you make your analysis of it. That was really my sole interest in the topic.

But if you're reaaaaally attempting to use popular opinion as a metric to show that a subjective opinion is more right, then I'd like to take the opportunity to remind you that, as imperfect as review sites are, Steam still has Dawntrail holding at 61% positive user reviews, and Metacritic has balanced around 52% positive, 13% mixed, and 35% negative. As well as generally favorable critical reviews. So doesn't that mean that your opinion is the one in question by your own estimations? Doesn't sound like it's being "criticized across the board" to me.

[Nothv13]

But if you're reaaaaally attempting to use popular opinion as a metric to show that a subjective opinion is more right, then I'd like to take the opportunity to remind you that, as imperfect as review sites are, Steam still has Dawntrail holding at 61% positive user reviews, and Metacritic has balanced around 52% positive, 13% mixed, and 35% negative. As well as generally favorable critical reviews. So doesn't that mean that your opinion is the one in question by your own estimations? Doesn't sound like it's being "criticized across the board" to me.

Those are absolutely horrendous scores for a video game. Particularly one that has been pulling mid to high 80's since 2.0 including the expansion that was considered to be bad (SB). The only thing saving the score from being lower is that the new jobs are good, combat design is good and music for the most part is good. Hell I've read quite a few reviews calling the game good while mentioning how absolutely horrid the story is, they just place less value on the story.

[Raven2014]

But if you're reaaaaally attempting to use popular opinion as a metric to show that a subjective opinion is more right, then I'd like to take the opportunity to remind you that, as imperfect as review sites are, Steam still has Dawntrail holding at 61% positive user reviews, and Metacritic has balanced around 52% positive, 13% mixed, and 35% negative. As well as generally favorable critical reviews. So doesn't that mean that your opinion is the one in question by your own estimations? Doesn't sound like it's being "criticized across the board" to me.

And ... you are aware that all of those numbers are much lower than all previous entries on the same platform across the board ... right? If you run a business that has been enjoying 8 to 10 rating for a decade, and now you get hit by a 5 or a 6 ... do you really think anyone gonna say "well it's ok because that's still above average" is providing a ... sensible defense? Like ... really?

I still don't get your point beside just waxing pointless philosophy. If you have product that went from a 9;10/10 down to 5;6/10, THAT - in itself is a problem. That's not a subjective, that's objective because guess what, it's just simple math, it's number. So the claim that DT has a problem is not subjective, it's objective. What you're demonstrating is a lack in understanding quantitative literacy. The negation of "everything" is not "nothing", or vice versa. If almost everyone liked it before, you don't have to wait until no one like it any more to conclude you have a problem. No one, in no field being marketing, politic, activism, economy .etc. gonna say having a positive opinion (yes, even if it's just opinions) going from a super majority down to barely a simple majority as not an issue. Managers and campaign staffs would be fired for less.


And those who try to debate it as "oh it's still majority" - well, they have a denial problem.

[Valorak]

And ... you are aware that all of those numbers are much lower than all previous entries on the same platform across the board ... right? If you run a business that has been enjoying 8 to 10 rating for a decade, and now you get hit by a 5 or a 6 ... do you really think anyone gonna say "well it's ok because that's still above average" is providing a ... sensible defense? Like ... really?

I still don't get your point beside just waxing pointless philosophy. If you have product that went from a 9;10/10 down to 5;6/10, THAT - in itself is a problem. That's not a subjective, that's objective because guess what, it's just simple math, it's number. So the claim that DT has a problem is not subjective, it's objective. What you're demonstrating is a lack in understanding quantitative literacy. The negation of "everything" is not "nothing", or vice versa. If almost everyone liked it before, you don't have to wait until no one like it any more to conclude you have a problem. No one, in no field being marketing, politic, activism, economy .etc. gonna say having a positive opinion (yes, even if it's just opinions) going from a super majority down to barely a simple majority as not an issue. Managers and campaign staffs would be fired for less.


And those who try to debate it as "oh it's still majority" - well, they have a denial problem.

Oh boy. I think you're really confusing yourself on what I was posting about, which was that literary criticism doesn't equate to objective truth about the quality of a story. That was the avenue that poster I responded to was attacking the story on. If you don't understand why I was making that post then don't bend yourself out of shape about it. It wasn't aimed at you.

I don't really care at all about the fact that the story is divisive and that there are people that don't like it. They're free to. And you're free to try to point out where I said that it wasn't divisive, or that negative opinions of the story don't count for anything, or that Square shouldn't pay attention, or blah blah blah, but good luck on that journey.

[Xellith]

Steam still has Dawntrail holding at 61% positive user reviews.

It's actually at 60% at the moment. I suspect it will settle at 58% and then rise slightly if the patch content is good.

[Striker44]

It's actually at 60% at the moment. I suspect it will settle at 58% and then rise slightly if the patch content is good.

I'll put my prediction out there that by the time the expansion is over, it'll be back in the 75-80% range. It started at 86% until word got out that it users were rating it very positively, then suddenly dropped. Classic review bombing from one small segment. Give it time for not only the patch content, but just regular ole' players in general who are enjoying the game to add their own reviews and it will pop back up.

Should note that EW post expansion content was also seen as pretty bad, so if DT has good post patch, it could retain players better. As of now, during the actual expansion, it is losing players faster than EW did. Using Steamd in less than a month it has fallen to a point that EW took a month and half to fall to.)

Again, EW at this point isn't a valid comparison since the "WoW exodus" was still going on. You had a large group of people join who weren't even there for the "new" content but had a ton of old content they were playing through, and who were still mad at Blizzard. You don't have that this time around. Frankly, the fact that DT's opening # is so close to EW's even without a similar anomalous influx is incredible.