Ishgard the most messed up area?

[Vrankyl]

For what i saw from Ishgard and only on basic game that i finish the story : Ishgard has no use, no interest, and his inspiration too much close from england and france make it very common and déjà vu. Ishgard is just useless, has no major role, and has less identity than other kingdom in the game.
Else we have the right to phrase criticisme, i gave some argument no? SO accept it or let this topic away, we can not be agree always, but still i have right to spell what is wrong for me.

It's kind of hard to say Ishgard is useless and has no major role when they have an ENTIRE expansion dedicated to the Holy See of Ishgard. As many others have stated you have only experienced a drop in a bucket of the story that is written for Ishgard and I do encourage you to wait to pass judgement on them at least until you complete the MSQ up to Patch 3.3 Revenge of the Horde. They have a very deep and complex identity that is fleshed out and expanded on throughout the entirety of the Heavensward Expansion.

[Iscah]

Tell me is there archi bishop in gondor? Do you see any crusade or inquisitor stuff in lord of the ring? Is gandalf look like Merlin?
No no no and no.

No, no and yes? Gandalf and Merlin definitely have the same "old man wizard" archetype.

I don't have enough knowledge of Lord of the Rings to argue plot details, but not having an archbishop or crusaders isn't an instant sign that the world-building is "good" or that one that includes them is "bad" - it just means that Tolkien didn't choose to include those elements in his story. He certainly did an amazing job at world-building - and perhaps with far more freedom (as a single writer in full control of his world) to develop details than the tied-by-game-requirements FFXIV team. But there are still kings and queens - is that being lazy and copying real-world ideas? What about the "Dark Lord" which is the most generic fantasy villain idea you could find?

Tolkien had his own influences, mostly myths and legends, and an interesting thing there is that he specifically avoided any references to religion in his story. So no, you're not going to find an archbishop in Middle-earth - but because Tolkien didn't want to write about them, not because including one would somehow ruin the originality of the rest of his world-building.

[Ibuki-]

When there's bias point of view from the start, it'll probably remain the same at the end. You do you.

[Enla]

He told me it is like i do criticism of gondor, so yes there is comparisson and no Gondor is not the topic here, dont even know why he mention it really.

I speak from my experience, and from what i saw, Ishgard is no use, i already say, and has no identity, cause too much close from france england middle age times. But you know what that not a problème that is just a fact, but you are free to see this area great and nice if you like this kind.
And for next, i really dont expect Ishgard to astonish me, maybe i almost already know how it will be, so it doesnt matter, that is just a small part of the game, but for me was important to highlight whats wrong with this kingdom. People cant be always agree, but i gave some argument that no one seem counter , just saying "you know nothing you have no right to speak" bleh.

after everyone has his owns expectation, for me, seeing crusade, inquisitor, french like name, or some design too much historical, that bored me, and i see that as a lack of imagination and a bad point.

'He' is the one replying to you, and no analogy is still not comparison. I brought up nothing about LoTR in general, just an analogy of how you're basically making assumptions using a well known and loved story. You're reading so much into what in essence was a basic analogy that I could have done with even Star Wars. And I never said you had no right to express your opinion. Disagreement and pointing out you're coming from an uninformed place is not me trying to gag you.

Perhaps you did not understand J. R. R. Tolkien very well. He absolutely pulled from history to build his world. Tolkien referred to Minas Tirith (Gondor) as a "Byzantine City", meaning the Eastern Roman Empire.

Rohan


Scandinavian Viking Helmet

And hell some of his battles were pulled from history as well. People have drawn parallels between the charge of the Rohirrim and the Siege of Vienna to just name the most obvious example. Not to mention that in some of his later writings he wrote that Middle Earth was just Europe in the deep past. Though with Tolkien you never know what was canon and what wasn't if it wasn't published /by/ him, given how he was constantly revising up and until his death.

[Derio]

I do know that It has been almost 2 years since SB came out and I have visited Ishgard perhaps less than 5 times.

[kikix12]

Armor is "suppose" to protect the vital organs above all else.

Yes. But there are several locations around the stomach where attacks are not likely to be lethal (other than from bleeding out), or at least can be treated (and this also applies to fantasy medieval times, at the very least). Because of that, in tandem with the stomach absolutely needing to have freedom of movement of a certain degree, the armor actually does not protect it as well (hence the gaps and the open bottom of the "dress", despite there being some more armor underneath, yes).

For similar reasons (freedom of movement) neck, a very vital area that can lead to very fast death from even reasonably small damage, was not as well protected as chest or head. Because it is imperative for the head to be able to move, there were gaps in the plate armor in the area of the base of the neck where people actually very often attacked. You saw ever in a movie swordsmen holding their own swords blade leaving only a small tip with which they attacked?! Yeah, that's the way people used swords to aim for the gaps in plates, mainly for the neck area.

I'd also saw a kitchen knife would be really bad at penetrating armor, you'd be better off with a letter opener cause at least it's thin and can punch through chainmail. A kitchen knife is wide and wont get through the rings and it'll just bounce off plate.

Yeah. Except I'm not sure why you wrote all of this since it's the same thing as I did. Except instead of comparing sword to a kitchen knife (a larger blade to a smaller blade), you're comparing kitchen knife to a letter opener (again, larger blade to smaller blade). We could go further down and say that you'll have a better luck with awl than with a letter opener cause awl is even thinner and longer. But what's the point?!

If you believe that a sword can pierce armor in a stomach, you should believe a kitchen knife (which is thinner), a letter opener (even thinner) and awl to do the same. In reality only awl out of these would have much of a chance against well-taken care of plate armor due to the chain-mail under it stopping the rest. Swords were better used as clubs against heavily armored weapons, using their hilts to cause concussion. Because in reality metal armor does make one almost impervious to slashing and many kinds of piercing damage. But because it's no fun to spend hours whacking at someone in armor to no effect...medieval fantasy which have an absurd amount of such armors (heavy armor wasn't as common in real life) simply requires suspension of belief. And at that point...really...kitchen knife is a perfectly fine weapon.

[Kazhim]

right then

tolkien and ishgard are bad and have no inspiration

so that what you want me to say?

No

Ishgard is bad designed, bad wrote, and i dont expect much thing of this classico classic of this kingdom, are you able to figur that out or no?
Tolkien deserve that he work harder to make his univers less obvious, and also take byzantine part to do some kind of kingdom near to europe is also merge that i spoke just before, where Yshgard just do a copy of what already existed, with not much deeper stuff.
I created a religious power in the tale that i work but no where you ll find inquisitor, or pop or archibishop, you ll get monk, which is really common, and some synonym rarely used.

and for other kingdom i create, i TRY to creat my own word to give them a role and title.

That is the start of work about a fantasy world you want to create, and tolkien did this too.

You always influent by your own culture and knowledge, and society, but to make your univers unique, you avoid to take same word used, same design seeing everywhere and so on.

What do we have at Isghard, ? 3 poor city with strongholg very classic, just a copy from pictured castle on google. Woo, yes that not a Minas Tirit if we have to compare.

Isghard is a lack of identity and imagination, in the tale , in the global ambiant, in architectur, and design. Oh yes maybe those stars watcher scientist with their weird hat are "original" i admit this.

But seriously, stop to be "the master of lore of FFXIV", ff XIV has the right to be not perfect, to be criticized, you all tell me : "i dont know isghard cause i didnt play the part" , i started it, and from what i see it is bad, very bad, but it doesnt matter at all, Gaius was also bad, and some other stuff too. SO whats your problem.? Defending Yshgard from his obvious default wont make it better.

I dont like those who take easy word and ref to creat a kingdom or a univers, i find that lazy, as the story of Isghard show it.
Heretic, crusader, plot against the noble, we saw this 150 times, and here it was bad managed, no one has good reaction, like the guy who inspect the delivery to his lord "OMG the symbol of heretic, that mean the prince belong to them" come on, even if in middle age they could be very naive, there were some more clever guy.
And other reaction are not even explained in the different scene. No one looked for the true Guillemain, (yeah yeah i read) or when the inquisitor speak about the crime of crusader, no one keep an attention on it.
Basic plot on level and chara design very poorly inspired.
Doest matter once again, the game has the right to not be perfect. But stop your zelotism about " you dont know Ishgard" you dont even look for defend it, you just tell me to shut up because i dont know the "kingdom" which is not true,

Now you are free to send picture, give some other argument than "you have no right to critic". As some already did it to answer to this topic.

[KageTokage]

You're still acting as though you know everything about Ishgard when you haven't even reached HW yet.

Do that first then you can have a more valid argument.

[Iscah]

So it's about terminology then?

Is your problem that they called the ruler of Ishgard an "archbishop" and their campaign against the heretics an "inquisition"?

Would the same plot be fine if they had invented their own names for these things?


(And yes, our disproval of the heretic plot in ARR was stupid and never should have worked as proof. But that really isn't something by which you can judge the entire Heavensward expansion.)

[Tsumdere]

Ishgard is bad designed, bad wrote, and i dont expect much thing of this classico classic of this kingdom, are you able to figur that out or no?

No, because you haven't even gone into Ishgard. I don't know how much more clear we can get.