Endwalker was "meh" (for reasons other than technical issues)

[Dogempire]

It absolutely did not. He went into a non-sequitur on his personal beliefs which had nothing to do with the actual history of their conquest or how they supposedly offered 'prosperity'. Alphinaud is supposed to be a master debater from a nation of scholars and getting shut up by such a stupid argument is absolute cringe storytelling. I don't think the writers even know how to write a smart character. You can't keep fanboying how smart and talented Alphinaud is and then keep having him fail so God damn always and resort to stupid anime schlock like 'the power of hope and friendship'.

Maybe it's because no matter how intelligent you are, someone can pose a question that makes you question your beliefs? Maybe you can't come up with all the answers right on the spot no matter how intelligent you are if you meet the right person to question your motives?

To me it makes more sense that the question stumped him initially, only for him to come up with an answer later after thinking on it

You can be an intelligent person but still admit that you don't know all the answers, heck admitting you don't know all the answers is essential to developing a more rounded worldview

[KatsuraJun]

It absolutely did not. He went into a non-sequitur on his personal beliefs which had nothing to do with the actual history of their conquest or how they supposedly offered 'prosperity'. Alphinaud is supposed to be a master debater from a nation of scholars and getting shut up by such a stupid argument is absolute cringe storytelling. I don't think the writers even know how to write a smart character. You can't keep fanboying how smart and talented Alphinaud is and then keep having him fail so God damn always and resort to stupid anime schlock like 'the power of hope and friendship'.

He went into his personal beliefs precisely because it is a matter of personal belief.

The core disagreement between him and Quintus was simply this: given that humans will naturally come into conflict because of their differences in values, that as established by Quintus holds greater value to them than peace (if peace was your greatest desire, why not surrender?), is there any hope of real resolution, or can you boil down every human interaction to a zero-sum game where one party stands to lose from the exchange? In the end, all Alphinaud can do is affirm his belief in the ability for humans to cooperate ー ergo, the power of friendship/hope/whathaveyou.

It's precisely because he is a good orator that he doesn't launch into the trap of calling out Garlemald about their conquests, because you saw how well *that* went with Varis, no? lol. In the end, it's action which proves the truth of Alphinaud's worldview, which is why he set out to prove their good intentions through action and not words with characters like Jullus. Whereas, the one whose worldview led to self-destruction is Quintus.

[Puremallace]

Endwalker is plagued with the same problem as Stormblood; trying to tie up too many storylines in too little time and trying to do too many things at the same time.

Too little time? This is the largest expansion in MMO history in terms of cutscenes and length. Hell if anything I thought they over did it on the size.

[Jybril]

Too little time? This is the largest expansion in MMO history in terms of cutscenes and length. Hell if anything I thought they over did it on the size.

Because everything was all pushed into one patch. So the pacing was off like it was in SB.
Some things probably needed some more time to be fleshed out and not tied up in one patch
instead they should did it all within this expansions lifetime.
I said it before in another topic, but they made this same mistake in SB and they did it again here.

[CharlotteSilver]

Endwalker is plagued with the same problem as Stormblood; trying to tie up too many storylines in too little time and trying to do too many things at the same time.

Stormblood's problem was that it introduced a bunch of storylines that went no where and weren't interesting the slightest. Everyone always praises the Doma parts cus it starts and wraps up a contained story. 61-64 and then 68-70 is completely pointless, the Ala Mhigans easily being the most pathetic city state we've ever had the opportunity to communicate with.

As for EW, it's all fine, apart from one glaring issue. The level 88 filler is a Stormblood-tier blemish on an otherwise well-paced scenario. Seriously, whoever designed Labirynthos part 2 needs to take a second look at what they consider good. Awfully paced, zero reason to be doing what we're doing, ONE voiced cutscene that means anything, and the worst part, Torn from the Heavens on a god damn 30 second loop for 2 levels because it stays even when you finish the 89 trial. Why? Wouldn't be surprised if they patch it.

[Orieldis]

Calling the Garleans 'dumb' for refusing the aid of their enemy since conception is a bit flippant, don't you think?

The Legatus had a point - warring states don't do things out of the goodness of their hearts, regardless of what you and the contingency believe. The offering of aid carries and implicit expectation that the Garleans who accept will cooperate with their 'liberators,' which is a hard thing to sell after all of the things the alliance - and especially the WoL - have done to them. In a way, it's a predatory proposition - they are in no position to refuse, and if they do, then they will starve and freeze to death. Whether they were wrong in the war is irrelevant at this point.

That's not even talking about how utterly terrifying it must be to see the WoL in their presence. Having heard the things the WoL and alliance has done to Garleans (and then multiplied due to likely propaganda), how could you possibly trust them?

[DoH]

Calling the Garleans 'dumb' for refusing the aid of their enemy since conception is a bit flippant, don't you think?

The Legatus had a point - warring states don't do things out of the goodness of their hearts, regardless of what you and the contingency believe. The offering of aid carries and implicit expectation that the Garleans who accept will cooperate with their 'liberators,' which is a hard thing to sell after all of the things the alliance - and especially the WoL - have done to them. In a way, it's a predatory proposition - they are in no position to refuse, and if they do, then they will starve and freeze to death. Whether they were wrong in the war is irrelevant at this point.

That's not even talking about how utterly terrifying it must be to see the WoL in their presence. Having heard the things the WoL and alliance has done to Garleans (and then multiplied due to likely propaganda), how could you possibly trust them?

Because... the WoL could literally kill every single one of them then and there if he wanted to? If the point was to subjugate them, we would already be doing it lol. Also, we had no problem knocking out tempered Garleans on our way there. It would've made much more sense if, instead of letting ourselves be captured, we just knocked everyone out and left them with some supplies that they would wake up to. Then they could choose whether to eat the food or not, and they could find out after the fact (when they aren't subjugated) that we were honest when we said that we're just there to help and not take their country over.

[Orieldis]

Because... the WoL could literally kill every single one of them then and there if he wanted to? If the point was to subjugate them, we would already be doing it lol. Also, we had no problem knocking out tempered Garleans on our way there. It would've made much more sense if, instead of letting ourselves be captured, we just knocked everyone out and left them with some supplies that they would wake up to. Then they could choose whether to eat the food or not, and they could find out after the fact (when they aren't subjugated) that we were honest when we said that we're just there to help and not take their country over.

Sure, we could have just gone in and killed them all, but then:
1) there would be nothing left to subjugate - which was not the intention, and
2) proves the Garleans right about us - that we're savage monsters.
The contingency, no matter how well intentioned, was a means to end the war that, evidently, many Garleans had no interest in doing, even in times of desperation. We even see this after the Legatus commits suicide - many of the refugees are so broken and tired that they just don't care any more and are simply desperate to live. We stripped them of any choice in the matter by moving in when they were at their most desperate, and even then they still wanted to fight. Were we right to do this? From a humanitarian standpoint, yeah. It's either this, or they all die slow and painful deaths. Were they justified to resist, or at the very least, remain skeptical? Sure.

And, if you ask me, the whole "We're merely knocking them out!" wave off was probably the weakest point in the story for me. Ignoring the fact that telling a whole army to set their guns and swords to stun mode is really stupid, so many of the refugees were weak and sick that 'knocking them out' probably would have meant killing them.

[juicybug]

Because... the WoL could literally kill every single one of them then and there if he wanted to? If the point was to subjugate them, we would already be doing it lol. Also, we had no problem knocking out tempered Garleans on our way there. It would've made much more sense if, instead of letting ourselves be captured, we just knocked everyone out and left them with some supplies that they would wake up to. Then they could choose whether to eat the food or not, and they could find out after the fact (when they aren't subjugated) that we were honest when we said that we're just there to help and not take their country over.

Also, they say that accepting the "barbarians" aid is a trap to some degree, taking advantage of the Garleans weakened state, & the eorzeans only motive is to control them after getting their guard down. like extending a hand for aid with the other behind your back holding a knife. basically.
If you're taught something for years and know of nothing else about a people, you will not throw away those ideals just because the "enemy" offers support and aid. There must be some ulterior motive, it just hasn't revealed itself.

When the US military invaded the Japanese islands, some of the villagers (unarmed women and children) upon seeing the foreign enemy soldiers either A: committed suicide by jumping into the sea onto sharp rocks while others hid in fear, Why? Due to propaganda fed to them by their government, even though the soldiers displayed they meant no harm. Fear and hate are powerful driving forces, and the things they used to promote hate is that magic be ebil and primal summoning's are the debil's foosball and the southern nations are primitive barbarians who know nothing else.

It's very reasonable for the Garlean civilians to have their doubts and fears and to act on them. Many of the people you meet are younger, and grew up on that stuff and know nothing else. Racism isn't born, it's taught.
Is the writing top-notch? No but it gets the story across.
its okay to pick apart the things you didnt like, im not disagreeing with anything you said. just adding an explanation as to why didn't the Garleans happily accept you guys with open arms just because the WoL said she/he was nice and there to help.

[Saier]

Calling the Garleans 'dumb' for refusing the aid of their enemy since conception is a bit flippant, don't you think?

The Legatus had a point - warring states don't do things out of the goodness of their hearts, regardless of what you and the contingency believe. The offering of aid carries and implicit expectation that the Garleans who accept will cooperate with their 'liberators,' which is a hard thing to sell after all of the things the alliance - and especially the WoL - have done to them. In a way, it's a predatory proposition - they are in no position to refuse, and if they do, then they will starve and freeze to death. Whether they were wrong in the war is irrelevant at this point.

That's not even talking about how utterly terrifying it must be to see the WoL in their presence. Having heard the things the WoL and alliance has done to Garleans (and then multiplied due to likely propaganda), how could you possibly trust them?

I had that thought too but then remembered that the Garleans were always the aggressors. The Alliance only recently got out from under the Garlean thumb, so I don't think its fair to phrase it that way. I'd say its more like that fable about the tiger with a splinter; the legatus would could never accept help from the same people he wanted to kill / subjugate not that long ago.