The Negative Impact of Poor Character Writing on the Quality of Dawntrail's MSQ

[Wired-Lain]

So we are jumping from not understanding the purpose and meaning of genocide to also not understanding who or what Emet is. Emet is a humanoid Ancient commenting on his perception of, for the purposes of this game, actual human beings. The reason Emet says this with sarcastic inflection is because he knows it's bs and just doesn't care. He's rationalizing rejoining, which also happens to be an aggression against the entire world. You're talking about Emet like his goal is to slaughter worlds when it's not-- it's to rejoin them back into a singular world.

The issue with Endless is not one of perception. You either accept that they're fascimilies or you don't.

Not accepting it is voluntarily co opting of the writing on the part of players. No thanks. I'm going to go by what the game is about.

And I'm not worried about you think of me at all. Do you not realize you're sitting here saying the writers are fascist, Erenville is fascist, Krile is fascist, etc? Why would I care what you think when your perception of what happened in this story is so completely disturbing?

Why is people disagreeing with writers such a novel concept to you, if the purpose of fiction was to blindly accept whatever it said and put zero extra thought into it we wouldn't be talking about anything. To examine a piece of media from multiple angles is part and parcel with any narrative, especially one that poses ethical dilemmas that are frustratingly ignored and brushed over. If you don't care and are happy to accept the most surface level parts of the text without question or examination why are you even bothering to engage people on this, you can go on your merry way.

[Galvuu]

Why is people disagreeing with writers such a novel concept to you, if the purpose of fiction was to blindly accept whatever it said and put zero extra thought into it we wouldn't be talking about anything. To examine a piece of media from multiple angles is part and parcel with any narrative, especially one that poses ethical dilemmas that are frustratingly ignored and brushed over. If you don't care and are happy to accept the most surface level parts of the text without question or examination why are you even bothering to engage people on this, you can go on your merry way.

XIV has an additional issue that started early, but became very pronounced with EW, where it has conflicting messages. This isn't even a DT issue, although DT exacerbates it.
Sometimes, a lot of naturalist arguments are thrown around ("this is against the natural cycle, so it's bad" or "this is the way of nature, so it's good"), but often use technology or unnatural ways to solve natural problems. All of Sharlayan and Garlemald hinge on technology to flourish, and this is never seen as wrong, nor are "unnatural" solutions to problems. It becomes even more complicated when you consider most of the world was populated by creatures originally designed by the ancients through a meticulous process (as unnatural as it can get). Hell, in a way, dying is unnatural, as the kind of mortality most races in XIV have is the result of the Sundering, basically the actions of a magic super-weapon. Is using electrope to farm bad? If it is, is using Sharlayan techniques bad, even if they hinge on magic or some process of magically-assisted artificial selection (something we're shown they do in Labyrinthos)?

On the other hand, there is also dissonance in a lot of messages that appear in EW regarding suffering. Obviously, you need to know when to let go, and going around murdering entire worlds (be it Emet-Selch or Sphene or whomever) to revive your loved ones is morally reproachable. But then there's that whole tirade of "growing through suffering" or becoming stronger for it, and how societies without pain or scarcity eventually go into suicidal atrophy. That seems at odds with the ultimate goals of the scions or the WoL, which is to relieve people of suffering and establish lasting, world-wide peace. If, hypothetically, through great feats of magic and technology, all war, disease and strife is gone from the world, potentially perpetually, does the world become worse for it? Do we turn into the Ea or something, and lose our way? Does it become the moral thing to do then, in such an hypothetical state of Etheirys, to... create strife and war? So people remember suffering once again, and relearn how to endure and surpass it?I, personally, do not agree with this message to begin with- terrible things happen, and we need to move on, yes. But, if I could, I'd make it so no one needs to do that, so that no one needs to bury a loved one that was prematurely taken, or endure hunger and pain. But the game itself is sometimes at odds with that message.

It makes it very hard for me to consume the story without thinking of these things. There's also the ton of lore retcons on top of this, which make it even more incongruent, and harder to digest with no thought. Ofc, everyone will have their read on this. I just find it discordant.

[Turtledeluxe]

Why is people disagreeing with writers such a novel concept to you, if the purpose of fiction was to blindly accept whatever it said and put zero extra thought into it we wouldn't be talking about anything. To examine a piece of media from multiple angles is part and parcel with any narrative, especially one that poses ethical dilemmas that are frustratingly ignored and brushed over. If you don't care and are happy to accept the most surface level parts of the text without question or examination why are you even bothering to engage people on this, you can go on your merry way.

The context of genocide is not negotiable. The definition of fascimily is not negotiable. Nowhere did i say interpretations aren't allowed, it's just that this particular one is insulting to the writers. Here you are again, saying the writers brushed over an ethical problem, when they in fact wrote several scenes to address it. Maybe you don't find their justification strong writing, that's no reason to accuse them of being fascist or otherwise endorsing fascist ideology.

Also it's beyond subjectivity to deface a term like genocide which has real world application and deep historical impact. It's disrespectful to the staff and other players when you make threads or posts implying they are genocide sympathizers because of your take as well. If you have a take that's personal insulting, expect a reply.

If you can't face the criticism for petulant behavior then don't do it.

[TELOS]

I hate to be the bearer of bad news, but the story of this game has been a "whose genocide/omnicide is more justified" pissing contest since the beginning, but especially since Shadowbringers. The Hunting Logs having the sentient races in them is a contentious topic. The entire Ascian plotline is literally this. Even G'raha Tia is willing to erase an entire timeline and all the people who live in it because he misses his friends – the only reason why he doesn't have consequences is because... well, actually, it's never explained, so we don't know why.

I fail to see what the issue is all of a sudden when Venat's Sundering cutscene is one of the more highly regarded cutscenes in the game.

[Turtledeluxe]

I hate to be the bearer of bad news, but the story of this game has been a "whose genocide/omnicide is more justified" pissing contest since the beginning, but especially since Shadowbringers. The Hunting Logs having the sentient races in them is a contentious topic. The entire Ascian plotline is literally this. Even G'raha Tia is willing to erase an entire timeline and all the people who live in it because he misses his friends – the only reason why he doesn't have consequences is because... well, actually, it's never explained, so we don't know why.

I fail to see what the issue is all of a sudden when Venat's Sundering cutscene is one of the more highly regarded cutscenes in the game.

Genocide is the destruction of a people on the basis of identity. Is G'raha wiping out the timeline because of the group identity or is his motivation missing his friends? Which is it? You cannot call him genocidal just because his actions result in a large scale death. Just because you may have been abusing the word forever, does not make it ok. Also as someone else noted, the timeline is just stranded and didn't result in mass death.

Ancients and Endless aren't even human, even in the context of the storytelling. It's a needless and excessive term to use. The Ancients were in a philosophical conflict and even in the case of the sacrifices, weren't targeting people for any specific reason (well at least not yet).

[chizLemons]

I hate to be the bearer of bad news, but the story of this game has been a "whose genocide/omnicide is more justified" pissing contest since the beginning, but especially since Shadowbringers. The Hunting Logs having the sentient races in them is a contentious topic. The entire Ascian plotline is literally this. Even G'raha Tia is willing to erase an entire timeline and all the people who live in it because he misses his friends – the only reason why he doesn't have consequences is because... well, actually, it's never explained, so we don't know why.

I fail to see what the issue is all of a sudden when Venat's Sundering cutscene is one of the more highly regarded cutscenes in the game.

G'raha Tia didn't "erase a whole timeline because he misses his friends". He was trying to save the world, by going back in time and getting the person most likely to be able to save the First, and in the process, stop the 8th Umbral Calamity from happening. Were you reading the story at all?

Also, he didn't erase that timeline, it's still going on somewhere, he's just not there anymore. We actually have a short story about that.

[Volgia]

What makes FFXIV special is how Natsuko Ishikawa treats its characters.

I mean I think we're putting so much weight on Ishikawa being a master writer, after all she did write in the Endwalker MSQ "And then the Warrior of Light stands there awestruck and watches as how the most important political person in Radz-at-Han gets eaten by a monster".

That being said, I liked reading through your analysis, but some of the points I wanted to challenge were already challenged by another person. I honestly want the MSQ to be a better thing to experience through, I enjoyed Dawntrail, but I'll say that i'm honestly disastisfied with the story not for the quality of the writing or characters, but because it has the same predictable structure we've been getting for the past 7 years.

I think the only thing I wanted to add is that comparing Namikka to Venat or the Crystal Exarch is kind of unfair given the weight of each character in the story.

[Kozh]

Agreed. If Sphene-bot, at the very end had been like "No, you're wrong Wuk, I am right" and then died, I think it would've been a better way for Wuk to have to face the fact that you can't just Talk No Jutsu your way out of every problem.

Having just done the last trial (and finish DT), I was expecting Sphene to say "I hate you. You destroy my people" (okay that might be a bit OOC from Sphene, but I desperately want the game to stop agreeing with Wuk).

[Voidmage]

G'raha Tia didn't "erase a whole timeline because he misses his friends". He was trying to save the world, by going back in time and getting the person most likely to be able to save the First, and in the process, stop the 8th Umbral Calamity from happening. Were you reading the story at all?

Also, he didn't erase that timeline, it's still going on somewhere, he's just not there anymore. We actually have a short story about that.

To add to this.
It wasn’t his decision alone.
Many people came together and said „yes it’s worth the risk of us being erased for a better timeline somewhere else“.
There was resistance but even that is implied to have died down at the end when Midgardsommr was beginning to help and Omega „reawakened“.

That timeline is bleak but it’s also full of hope.
The Ascians may win there but they will absolutely not have an easy time because everyone is now united against them.

I wish we got more short stories from there.
I really wonder if the Ascians win there how Emet Selch and Elidibus will look back.
Will they be full of regret?
Because I don‘t think the „new rejoined“ people would look kindly at it all.

[Lady_Silvermoon]

G'raha Tia didn't "erase a whole timeline because he misses his friends". He was trying to save the world, by going back in time and getting the person most likely to be able to save the First, and in the process, stop the 8th Umbral Calamity from happening. Were you reading the story at all?

Also, he didn't erase that timeline, it's still going on somewhere, he's just not there anymore. We actually have a short story about that.

He did it to save the world, huh? Which world? Definitely not his world as he abandoned it taking with him knowledge and technology that could have greatly improved the lives of the people living in the world he abandoned. Was the Source in a bad state after the eighth umbral calamity? Yes. But the Source has been in a bad state after every umbral calamity, and people have rebuilt. And thanks to the short story we know that they will rebuild again...just without the help of the Exarch and the Crystal Tower.

Maybe you think the First is the world he wanted to save. Why? Until he traveled there he knew nothing about them. The truth is he rewrote time to undo the death of one person fully expecting that action to erase himself and the original timeline. And actually, I'm okay with that. I'm okay with G'raha being so in love with the WoL that he was willing to delete an entire timeline to save them. What I'm not okay with is the preachiness and 'forge ahead' nonsense when we're over here rewriting time to get our desired outcomes. The hypocrisy is galling.

Because say saving the First was his true goal. Once we find out what caused the Flood, G'raha could have gone back in time again and warned Ardbert saving the entire planet from the Flood. Now THAT would be saving the world. So why is that never considered? Because his actual goal has been met, the WoL is alive and that's all he cares about. Also, if he did go back in time again, the timeline would split again so while A First would be spared the pain and suffering brought on by the Flood, OUR First would remain unchanged. And to that, I say exactly.

If this is all about saving the world, why don't we go back to before the creation of Meteion and warn the convocation? That'd be saving the world too, wouldn't it?

But no, the past is the past. You must forge ahead and soldier on...unless the WoL drops dead then time to dropkick time and space into the trash bin because some things are more important than a timeline full of people. Am I right?