[Spoiler] Isn't Dark Knight using Akasa ?

[KariTheFox]

I'm not sure how you can say dynamis "solved problems" when it was quite literally the cause of the final days. If anything it was an antagonistic force that our aether-based characters had to find ways to counteract.

Also, in the context of Endwalker, it was introduced very early on through the Elpis flowers and in Thavnair, and explored more throughout the Elpis questline before being central to the ending. And even prior to Endwalker, there was a looming question of what unknown force caused the Final Days; and then Endwalker goes on to introduce and explain a previously-unknown force that caused the Final Days; seems like decent enough set up and payoff to me.

[leezard]

Aren't Limit Breaks Dynamis? I thought I read that somewhere.

Yep, when you use the LB3 in the Endsinger fight she exclaims 'Dynamis?' so it's implied that Dynamis has something to do with it.

[Lyth]

...

Dynamis doesn't get introduced in the eleventh hour, in this story, however. The Elpis flower and its associated musical motif shows up in the Level 80 quest 'The Medial Circuit', which is the fifth quest in. The term Akasha shows up for the first time in the Level 81 quest 'The Color of Joy'. You're given plenty of foreshadowing well in advance of any of these things becoming plot relevant. The story also very deliberately makes a point of feeding you lines such as Hermes' "A flower" and Hyth's "Perhaps when our time comes to return to the star, we shall remember the days we had lost,' which are very deliberately delivered in a throwaway fashion initially only for them to come back with a vengeance at the climax (they do cheat a bit by changing the delivery each time). It's amazing how even lyrically that bit of refrain that we've heard in the trailer for months, 'Our song of hope she dances on the wind, higher, oh higher/On wings of hope you rise up in the night' carries a whole other emotional impact when it contextually slams into you during your fight with the Endsinger.

I don't think that a formal discussion of Dynamis was at all necessary for resolution of this story. Even if you willfully ignore the running theme of the indomitable spirit triumphing against all odds that comes up in FFXIV time and again (didn't they literally spell this out for us with Alpha and Omega), this is a recurring theme in the wider Final Fantasy series as well. Many long term fans would have been more surprised if the montage of our friends praying for us didn't show up in the final fight, as part of the obligatory homage to FFIV. (Again, can I reiterate how much powerful storytelling in this game gets conveyed simply through sound? The simple inclusion of the sound of the Scions' gloves tightening makes the moment feel even more clutch.)

If you want to talk about hard vs. soft magic systems, it's worth looking at Amaurot's Creation magic first as an example of soft magic. This is actually the sort of thing that runs the risk of Deus Ex Machina, much more than Dynamis. But much like the Gandalf example included in your link, it really exists just to highlight a difference in power between the Ancients and ourselves. And we'll probably see the counterpoint/flaw to its use get demonstrated in the current raid series, given the identity of the one who was historically in charge of Creation Magic.

It's also worth remembering the zeroth rule: 'Always err on the side of awesome.' It's perfectly fine to have an epiphany at the climax. The highlight of Shadowbringers' climax was the Revan reveal moment: Emet's stunned look just after you rejoin with Arbert and Emet realizes that he's up against Azem. Despite having a predilection for hard magic systems, Sanderson does this all the time with plot twists in his work as well. Characters always break their limitations in the climax. Not because it was preordained in dialogue box 23 from ARR or in book one of the EE vol. 1, but because it's hella cool.

[Theodric]

I think people are free to interpret the story and its supposed 'themes' however they so wish. Especially when the game's themes change as often as the wind blows. ARR and HW were prone to gritty realism for the most part, with many lasting consequences all around for both antagonists and protagonists alike. It was from SB and beyond where the tone shifted towards some of the more controversial and predictably stale JRPG tropes.

No story is going to please everybody, though I think it does a lot of people a disservice to dismiss concerns about Dynamis being introduced so hastily at so critical a point. Many of us have invested in and played the likes of WoW. We've been at these crossroads before and seen large swathes of a story retroactively changed to suit the latest whims of what the writers think is 'cool' as well as increasingly contrived methods introduced to empower and keep certain characters alive.

[Lihtleita]

dynamis being misinterperated to be aether is the same as believing the sun is a ball of gas.

[Lyth]

...

What is so 'hasty' or 'contrived' about the discussion about Dynamis' in this expansion? Just because a world-building element wasn't formally discussed in ARR doesn't automatically make it a retroactive change. Any serial work is obliged to expand on itself and introduce new information about the world eventually. There are missing parts of the map. Does it matter when these segments are fleshed out by the writers? Is designing the map as you go along cheating? No, it's irrelevant, as long as you don't go back and redraw areas that we've already seen when it's convenient.

[Denishia]

Sure, I understand the fear that everything and every enemy going forward is going to be explained via dynamis instead of aether because here's our new hot plot macguffin - but it's yet to be a factor in the Pandaemonion raids, and it feels like a useful additive retcon instead of subtractive.

When 7.0 comes out and all the new added skills for all of the jobs have in their tool tips dynamis instead of aether, feel free to say 'I Told You So'.

The point about new zones and areas in the map are a good one; FFXIV is generally very good about revisiting old lore and places instead of abandoning them for the new thing. Like the primals, they will often re-contextualize and add to with additive retcons, but that's in part because this is a MMO.

[Theodric]

What is so 'hasty' or 'contrived' about the discussion about Dynamis' in this expansion? Just because a world-building element wasn't formally discussed in ARR doesn't automatically make it a retroactive change. Any serial work is obliged to expand on itself and introduce new information about the world eventually. There are missing parts of the map. Does it matter when these segments are fleshed out by the writers? Is designing the map as you go along cheating? No, it's irrelevant, as long as you don't go back and redraw areas that we've already seen when it's convenient.

You're free to believe differently, though Veloran's post covers much of the constructive criticism being put forward. It need not be a controversy - the writers are free to write whatever they so wish, though that doesn't mean that everybody invested in the story needs to like or agree with absolutely everything put in front of them. Nor does it mean that those same individuals dislike absolutely everything that the expansion brought about.

It strikes me as something to agree to disagree on. Personal tastes are just that - personal tastes. The writers may or may not opt to retroactively change how past story elements played out, though WoW did the same thing and it led to more problems than it solved.

[Lyth]

It's not a question whether you enjoy or dislike story elements. That's an issue of personal taste. If someone wants to claim that Dynamis is a retroactive change, however, the burden of proof is on them to show how it contradicts the established facts. Not that it would be necessarily hard to do now or perhaps in the future; it takes significantly more effort to construct an error-free self-consistent continuity that spans ten years of stories than it is to poke a lore hole in it. But at least put in some work before you come to claim your internet points. It's all too easy to imply and allege fault in the writing from a safe distance without actually committing to it.

[KizuyaKatogami]

It's not a question whether you enjoy or dislike story elements. That's an issue of personal taste. If someone wants to claim that Dynamis is a retroactive change, however, the burden of proof is on them to show how it contradicts the established facts. Not that it would be necessarily hard to do now or perhaps in the future; it takes significantly more effort to construct an error-free self-consistent continuity that spans ten years of stories than it is to poke a lore hole in it. But at least put in some work before you come to claim your internet points. It's all too easy to imply and allege fault in the writing from a safe distance without actually committing to it.

People have already put in work and given points on why it is a retroactive change. Just because you don’t agree with it doesn’t make it any less true.What does internet points have to do with it? It just sounds like you’re upset about other peoples takes on the story elements and deus ex machina inserts and trying to throw things around to make them less relevant. Dynamis is just one of the many faults in the writing this expansion.