Ishgard the most messed up area?

[Transient_Shadow]

If you pay attention to the story a LOT of stuff is explained. In fact a lot of what you're pointing out is correct. But I won't tell why because spoilers >3<

[Penthea]

If you pay attention to the story a LOT of stuff is explained. In fact a lot of what you're pointing out is correct. But I won't tell why because spoilers >3<

Yea OP has either not been paying attention to what npcs are saying or they're making a lot of judgements based on very limited knowledge.

[Kazhim]

Yea OP has either not been paying attention to what npcs are saying or they're making a lot of judgements based on very limited knowledge.

Knowledge of what ?

Sorry i just ended basic game, and when i m guessing the end of plot befor the half of the story, that mean the story is very bad wrote. Also to the end of basic game, if we watch only this, Yshgard has no existenc at all, and my criticism of it is still viable for now. Also at Isghard when i saw the inquisitor first time i knew that was the bad guy, so why read bunch of text for something i know already? waste of time really;

You want another exemple?

Ok, when i did the blue quest for the league of ashes in Thanalan, where you meet tribe of beastmen, here i read whole dialogue, cause i found that very interesting, to involve those guy in the story and give them a more important role in the lore, same for the last quest of the black mage, which is very good in many aspect.

But sorry again ha, Yshgard tales is too much predictable, and as i mentionned, many thing are not right with this area;

At least for the evil empire they tried to build something different from roman empire which is based on, and i find this better managed than Ysghard.

[Enla]

Knowledge of what ?

Sorry i just ended basic game, and when i m guessing the end of plot befor the half of the story, that mean the story is very bad wrote. Also to the end of basic game, if we watch only this, Yshgard has no existenc at all, and my criticism of it is still viable for now. Also at Isghard when i saw the inquisitor first time i knew that was the bad guy, so why read bunch of text for something i know already? waste of time really;

You want another exemple?

Ok, when i did the blue quest for the league of ashes in Thanalan, where you meet tribe of beastmen, here i read whole dialogue, cause i found that very interesting, to involve those guy in the story and give them a more important role in the lore, same for the last quest of the black mage, which is very good in many aspect.

But sorry again ha, Yshgard tales is too much predictable, and as i mentionned, many thing are not right with this area;

At least for the evil empire they tried to build something different from roman empire which is based on, and i find this better managed than Ysghard.

You're basically doing the equivalent of criticizing Gondor for not appearing in LoTR after reading Fellowship of the Ring but haven't actually read Two Towers or Return of the King to see if it comes up - let alone knowing anything about it. Just play the game and then form an opinion. If you still think Ishard is still so horrible once you actually get through it then fine. People are entitled to their opinions. What people are criticizing you for is the lack of informed opinion. Which your post here basically just reinforced.

[Kazhim]

You're basically doing the equivalent of criticizing Gondor for not appearing in LoTR after reading Fellowship of the Ring but haven't actually read Two Towers or Return of the King to see if it comes up - let alone knowing anything about it. Just play the game and then form an opinion. If you still think Ishard is still so horrible once you actually get through it then fine. People are entitled to their opinions. What people are criticizing you for is the lack of informed opinion. Which your post here basically just reinforced.

Hell no, Lord of the ring, is really better, and built his myth and background on very very large period, also i never saw Gondor or Rohan as a remake of middle age in europe, but a merge of many inspiration and cultur with a very strong identity. 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.
So dont compare two tales who has definitely not the same level of writting and deep.

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.

[Enla]

Hell no, Lord of the ring, is really better, and built his myth and background on very very large period, also i never saw Gondor or Rohan as a remake of middle age in europe, but a merge of many inspiration and cultur with a very strong identity. 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.
So dont compare two tales who has definitely not the same level of writting and deep.

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.

Analogy is lost on you isn't it? You do realize analogy isn't /comparison/ right? Not even close to being comparison in any way at that?
You've also only saw one area of like six. S I X. Along with what amounts to four hours of story focused on Ishgard versus well over forty the game actually has waiting for you. Just play the game. No one cares that you dislike Ishgard, but on a public forum we very much have the right to point out you're making uninformed criticisms. If you come out of the end of Heavensward with the same opinion good! I still hate most of the ARR story in spite of having completed it several times and I'll hold that opinion for a very long time. That opinion however came from actually experiencing it. Not playing 4D chess against myself based on story speculations that if you actually played, you'd see aren't true. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

[Kazhim]

Analogy is lost on you isn't it? You do realize analogy isn't /comparison/ right? Not even close to being comparison in any way at that?
You've also only saw one area of like six. S I X. Along with what amounts to four hours of story focused on Ishgard versus well over forty the game actually has waiting for you. Just play the game. No one cares that you dislike Ishgard, but on a public forum we very much have the right to point out you're making uninformed criticisms. If you come out of the end of Heavensward with the same opinion good! I still hate most of the ARR story in spite of having completed it several times and I'll hold that opinion for a very long time. That opinion however came from actually experiencing it. Not playing 4D chess against myself based on story speculations that if you actually played, you'd see aren't true. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

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.

[Edax]

Hell no, Lord of the ring, is really better, and built his myth and background on very very large period, also i never saw Gondor or Rohan as a remake of middle age in europe, but a merge of many inspiration and cultur with a very strong identity. 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.
So dont compare two tales who has definitely not the same level of writting and deep.

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.

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

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.

You are correct, before you enter Ishgard and learn about it's people, it has no major role in the story. Perhaps you should experience the story before criticizing that the story hasn't happened yet.

Stomach is not where the thickest part of armor should be and kitchen knife is better against armored opponents than a sword is. In real life there is no such thing as damage numbers so a kitchen knife is as much a one-hit-kill of a weapon as a sword, gun or cannon. If it hits the vitals, that is.

And stomach not only is not one of the critical vitals (you can die rather easily from being pierced in certain depth and parts of it, but not all), but it also requires more mobility than the rest of the body. A thick armor on the stomach means you cannot move. Like, literally. Heavy jousting armors were stiff on the stomach, and the knights couldn't even get up on their own once they fell off the horse (onto which they couldn't get without help either).
If you'll look at this armor, you'll notice that around the area that Aymeric was pierced the armor is actually divided into the top and bottom, with the bottom being a sort of plate skirt. If you have the opportunity to stick something between the bottom and top, you can very much hurt the person.
Of course...if your weapon can pierce the chain mail that is traditionally worn under plate armor, but we don't know whether Aymeric wears it too.

Ultimately a kitchen knife is better to deal with a heavily armored enemy than a sword...but in reality...you're not likely to kill anyone with either. Attacking around the neck where it's easiest to slide past the multiple layers of armor is your best bet...or just use blunt weapon. So if we accept suspension of belief as for why arrows can kill heavily armored enemies...a dagger is the least problem here.

Armor is "suppose" to protect the vital organs above all else. However, I can't actually tell what material Aymeric's armor is made of protecting his torso, could be cloth for all I know. That's the problem with "fantasy" armor. 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.

Not to mention the most obvious references: Just about all the military ranks in the Garlean forces have names copied from the Roman army. Add in things like "Castrum Centri" which is simply Latin for "Central Fortress", and the inspiration from the Roman Empire becomes hard to miss.

I agree they borrow Rome's military naming system, but not much else since they don't act terribly Roman. You could do the same thing and have the "Empire" act like Canadians, while giving them roman titles, but they wont be an analog for the Roman Empire anymore. One of the key drivers of Roman expansion was money, and the Garleans have shown they don't really care about that given how they didn't milk Doma or Ala Mhigo for their resources. They just took away their farming tools (tools that the tech advanced Garleans don't need) just to be evil.

[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.

[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.