Is it just me, or did 5.3 represent a big decline in storytelling? (spoilers)

[Arallir]

As to the ethics of it... I wouldn't have thought they'd take that route, but since they did I can only go from the backwards approach that "it was considered okay so why is it okay?" - and my best take on it is that, simply enough, G'raha is uniquely positioned to make that decision on behalf of his other self because he does know how he would answer the question if it was proposed to him.

And this is strange. I personally see this is the same fan service. It seems that they were frightened of the possible reaction of the people, if they do not leave "that very special" G'raha . After all, the original version of G'raha was not that popular. Exarch became popular. And the disgusting thing is, that knowing G'raha, if we asked him if he agreed to accept the consciousness of another self, he would agree. For us. And this is not fair.
Let everyone imagine that the consciousness of us 90 years old will be placed in us.Will we remain ourselves?

A far better comparison than Oversoul (which destroys the host, body and soul) is Soroban's state at the end of the Four Lords storyline: sharing a body with Genbu's soul but not overwritten - although G'raha seems to have merged more fully between the two identities.

For me, the Soroban and Genbu case is more like the Minfilia and Ryn case. Of these, too, in the end, there should be one.

[Maedia]

It’s just you.

[Arallir]

It’s just you.

I may have misunderstood you, so I would like to ask: were you reffering to us directly or to author of this whole disscution?

[Maedia]

The author. I thought the story was good

[PondHollow]

The music in cutscenes was way too schmalzy, the characters were over-emotive...

I agree with this perception and like you, dislike it, but you are reading way too much into it.

This game does that cloying bit from time to time. It's not permanent; it just punctuates other things.

There are a lot of people who like it, for example, in movies and TV series. It's a fairly normal part of narrative media.

[Arallir]

I’d like to apologize if I'm already bothering everyone else, but I thought more on the topic and came to the conclusion that I was probably too emotional back then, as a result of which my message seemed to be taken wrong. As if I was blaming them for something, Arbert or G’raha. I'll try it again, more calmly and thoughtfully.

The first point of my message contained two thoughts:
1) It is time for the developers to give us the opportunity to successfully negotiate with our opponents, and not to resolve all disagreements solely by force. Especially with the game’s message that both conflicting parties have something to fight for and none of them are better or worse, and the conclusion of Heavensward being "we do not want to sacrifice anyone."

If anyone disagrees with this idea, please explain why.

2) They should have allowed us to successfully convince Elidibus.
Because of his accusations of us as "killers". Victory in battle does not prove at all that we are right. Only that we are stronger. (Remember the trial by combat in Ishgard? The side quests say that often such "justice" is not on the side of the victims. Because they are not fighters and cannot secure a tough fighter for themselves.) Reaching an agreement would look like an ideological victory, and proof of why we are not a "murderer" and everything that he accused us of.

[Arallir]

And due to the fact that they are together with Emet-Selkh the last representatives of their race. (The split ones are not entirely counted here, because they are more like us, they only remember their former selves, they control Echo better, and can exist outside the bodies.) And the destruction of the last representatives of the species is the same genocide that we do not justify in Garlemald and what really made Thordan wrong one. It turns out that the game is again going by double standards. Shadowbringers revealed to us the history of the ancients, showed a picture with their eyes, and it seems to me that this should mean something, lead to something. To some conclusion. But the result as it is, neutralizes it all, makes it a big fat “zero”. Just like the death of Emet-Selch. For example, the disclosure of the history of the Dragonsong War led to the reconciliation of dragons and Ishgard. What the disclosure of this truth led us to - I do not see.
Plus, the appeal to the player's character to "convince" (which is exactly what Y’Shtola says after solo instance) sounds in some way like an appeal to the player himself. And if someone treats me like that, I expect to be allowed to do it. If I were to write this script, then knowing what the result would be, I at least would not address the main character’s convictions. And then I used one of the NPC for this, the same Alphinaud, for example. And having two fixed characters on hand, I would prescribe them a good detailed dialogue on the desired topic.


If someone believes that an ordinary victory in battle is enough, the destruction of the Ascians as a race is not genocide, thinks that you can tease players, and sees some conclusion from the truth about the ancients - it will be very interesting for me to hear your opinion and why do you think so.

The second point was about the implementation of our attempts to convince. By relying on the received answers, many refer to the fact that we had phrases during the plot in which we offered peace. I do not deny that we had these remarks. But I meant something different. And more specifically:

[Arallir]

Their insufficiency. Even from a purely technical point of view, Elidibus answers our words every time, no matter how his answer sounds. And we didn't. That is, it's as if we either agree with him, or we have nothing to say. A simple example: He says a compromise is impossible, because he does not want to sacrifice his ideals. That's purely a question from myself, but did really no one want to object to this? But the main character keeps silence, and then the topic changes. Because of this, the effect is created, that our entire attempt to convince is merely for show and to clear our conscience. It doesn't look sincere. That's why I cited Ryne and Lyse with Arenwald as an example. Remember, at least Gaia, or Fordola, to show a desire to agree after the very first appeal to either of them? Did they mind anything? In my opinion, each bristled with needles like a hedgehog.
I don't know how many people from the audience have played Fallout: Las Vegas. But I will also give this example to make it clearer. The local DLC opponent Ulysses also accuses the protagonist of being a murderer. And he says that“I didn’t know”doesn’t work, because ignorance is also a choice. How is the process of persuasion built there: you need to look for information about him, analyze it, apply it in the right way at the right time aside of stats check. There are more than two options to answer, they are not limited to specifically "correct" and "incorrect", and they are all marked as "persuade". But only one will count as a plus. You need to put your head and efforts to get a positive result. This is what I call "persuasion." But I don't even demand such level of detail from the Final Fantasy XIV. I would like to have at least some detailed dialogues and a clear, psychologically sane line of behavior. Why I do not think “you have nothing to fight for”is the psychologically sane option, I described earlier, I will not repeat myself.


The bottom line of this point is as follows: either let Square Enix learn to make plot forks and write detailed variable dialogues, or do not touch such topics. “In Main Character’s name” at least.

Again, if anyone thinks that a few scattered lines are enough, I'd love to hear why.

[Arallir]

The third point was the ending, and it seems that here they understood me as if I had something against G’raha and Albert. I did not try to denigrate Albert, but hinted that the truth told was not in full, minus the ugly episodes, and it looks like as an attempt to deliberately and unnecessarily whitewash him. If it had been told in its entirety, there would not have been a feeling of a double standard. It would be even better if we also told the truth about Hydaelin and the Zodiark. Otherwise, the question arises why we, fighters for truth, reveal to people only that which is convenient and pleasant to us. (Again, will we reveal the story of the Ascians to everyone and keep it as a whole in the history, so that they will be remembered as we promised to Emet-Selch?)
Back then I meant the following: at the very end, we see how the main character, along with the rest, is happily running to fight the hippogriffs. Returning to the topic of the fact that we ended the life of an entire race ... I do not know, putting myself in this place, I would have a completely different state of mind. From the outside it seems that no one, including the main character, even thinks about the meaning of this. How unconcerned the hero looks and that his failure in negotiations, let's call it that, once again had led to bloodshed. I meant that by the atmosphere of the ending. Further details. Unukalhai's words: "It's good that you defeated him as (I emphasize!) Any other Ascian. " It seems to me that in relation to the one who saved you, this is somehow very dishonest. I would have understood even if he had said: "you probably had no choice." Although the translation may be to blame, and the phrase sounded better in the Japanese. Fandaniel's reaction is, of course, based on his personal emotions and attitude. But adding to the rest - it also scratches unpleasantly. This is what was meant by "details."
How would I, for example, prefer:

1) Exarch crystallizes, we wake up young Graha in our time. The final scene ends with what is simply shown to us: the Scions have recovered and we are all together. No hippogriff fun adventure, and therefore no emotional dissonance. Principle: the future belongs to new generations is in force. (All who somehow returned the past are taken out of the plot).

Or

2) We successfully convinced Elidibus and placed the Exarch in young G’raha. Both sides got their second chance. (Not only Elidibus personally, but the entire race through him). Then you can arrange a fun adventure. It’s deserved and nothing gets in the way.

[Arallir]

With roleplay, I probably agree that everyone roleplay in their own way, and what interferes with one does not necessarily interfere with the other. Although it still seems to me that it was precisely because the studio does not write detailed dialogues and does not give us the opportunity to behave in different ways (maybe even more evil), it was best in ARR, where a specific emotion was not attributed to the character, and no details were revealed about him. Everyone could see what they wanted.

As for the fan service, my idea was not to remove G’raha and the twins. It was giving all-important characters the same amount of screen time, and not assigning certain preferences to the main character. Let everyone choose them for themselves. Other games do a great job of presenting all characters equally.

Again, if someone fundamentally believes that existing approach in this part of the Final Fantasy is good, I will be happy to hear the reasons for thinking so.