What's the point with that quite lackluster story in Endwalker?

[KizuyaKatogami]

I agree completely, especially as it would mean that she knowingly and willingly allowed her son/brother/nephew whatever to become a sacrificial lamb instead of, you know, warning anyone. I think it's a wild theory but it is out there. I hope nothing comes of it.

I joked with a few friends about what if Azem is Themis’ parent. Mainly joked, but with all of the random and bad writing in EW, i wouldn’t put anything past them.

[aveyond-dreams]

Ok anyway so maybe let's stop with the "philosophical" antagonists based off whatever it was they were trying to do and get back to people who are actually interesting and entertaining. I found the militaristic dictators and scheming manipulators like Varis, Emet, and even Thordan a lot better than "oh, there are really no clear antagonists!" thing they did in Endwalker.

[CrownySuccubus]

Ok anyway so maybe let's stop with the "philosophical" antagonists based off whatever it was they were trying to do and get back to people who are actually interesting and entertaining. I found the militaristic dictators and scheming manipulators like Varis, Emet, and even Thordan a lot better than "oh, there are really no clear antagonists!" thing they did in Endwalker.

Emet was an example of "there are really no clear antagonists". The fact that he actually had a good point (before EW tried to erase most of it) was one of the reasons he was so popular.

Likewise, when discussing HW, the antagonist most people remember is Nidhogg who, again, was someone who wasn't a clear black-and-white antagonist. On the other hand, the Garlean villains like Gaius, Varis, and Zenos have at best met with lukewarm reception.

If anything, I think the misstep here was trying to maintain a "gray" morality while also trying to state that there is one, objective way to deal with oblivion. Those two things are not compatible, because by definition, oblivion is the blackest possible morality, and thus whatever defeats it is being called the "whitest".

[Skyborne]

Ok anyway so maybe let's stop with the "philosophical" antagonists based off whatever it was they were trying to do and get back to people who are actually interesting and entertaining. I found the militaristic dictators and scheming manipulators like Varis, Emet, and even Thordan a lot better than "oh, there are really no clear antagonists!" thing they did in Endwalker.

Definitely on my list of 'things that Endwalker brings out in people' is the notion that liking the story or certain characters in EW makes you a super deep philosopher-king, and anyone who didn't like the story or whatever aspects of it is some knuckle-dragging trog pleb who just didn't understand it and never picked up a philosophy book in your life. Yeah, I get it, the "villain" was the abstract concept of despair. Amazing, clapclapclapclappityclap. If you liked it you liked it, no need to swaddle yourself in some sort of "I am very smart" security blanket. Might be rose-tinted glasses but I don't recall this sort of thing in HW or StB. A bit in ShB, but not at such a fever pitch.

Would've thought that the Q&A with the writers going "wow, I didn't think you guys would think about this so deeply" and admitting they often wrote stuff as they went along/improvised would've silenced a lot of it, but it continues. And then, on the other side, you have the extreme "don't think about the story of this story-driven game that gets endlessly praised for the story, okay, turn your brain off".

[Rulakir]

I don't have high hopes for Pandemonium. I'm hoping Eric isn't 'our' Lahabrea (and that seems plausible given that Claudien looks like his sundered form) and so far I've found most of the story boring. Partly because I don't particularly care about this guy combined with wanting to have an Elidibus adventure that's just been a lot of long, drawn out dialog about things of no interest to me.

The purpose of the Ancients seems to be to break our hearts since the powers that be won't lay a finger on the Scions.

Elidibus' fate just confuses me. G'raha implies the process of the Crystal Tower cycling aether would've destroyed his soul. Elidibus himself says he's using the last of his "essence" to send us to the past, but then mentions seeing his loved ones again in the "promised land". I also don't know what the 'truth that warms his heart' is going to be since thanks to the time loop nothing we do in Pandemonium is going to spare him his fate.

As far as EW goes, the writing was annoying at times. Y'shtola outright states that Hydaelyn is the one who forestalled the Final Days by sundering Zodiark and I was like, WTF?! Elidibus says that the future we return to exists as a result of the Final Days when, no, actually it exists as a result of the sundering. It's little things like which add up to stacking the deck in Venat's favor that's infuriating. Like I've said, the gaslighting in EW is real.

[AziraSyuren]

I don't have high hopes for Pandemonium. I'm hoping Eric isn't 'our' Lahabrea (and that seems plausible given that Claudien looks like his sundered form) and so far I've found most of the story boring. Partly because I don't particularly care about this guy combined with wanting to have an Elidibus adventure that's just been a lot of long, drawn out dialog about things of no interest to me.

The purpose of the Ancients seems to be to break our hearts since the powers that be won't lay a finger on the Scions.

Elidibus' fate just confuses me. G'raha implies the process of the Crystal Tower cycling aether would've destroyed his soul. Elidibus himself says he's using the last of his "essence" to send us to the past, but then mentions seeing his loved ones again in the "promised land". I also don't know what the 'truth that warms his heart' is going to be since thanks to the time loop nothing we do in Pandemonium is going to spare him his fate.

As far as EW goes, the writing was annoying at times. Y'shtola outright states that Hydaelyn is the one who forestalled the Final Days by sundering Zodiark and I was like, WTF?! Elidibus says that the future we return to exists as a result of the Final Days when, no, actually it exists as a result of the sundering. It's little things like which add up to stacking the deck in Venat's favor that's infuriating. Like I've said, the gaslighting in EW is real.

This is also something that would've been easily resolved with a few lines of dialogue along the lines of "a full unsundered Zodiark could not sustain himself forever and would've eventually vanished and caused the Final Days to restart again," which is something that could've been sold by the internal logic of the story given how aether-hungry primals are. This would've left a plot hole over how Hyd didn't cause the same, but I think I'd take that over the tonal mishmash that we got.

I mean, I could also go on at length about how Western/American media gets its own cultural values wrong (for example, Detroit: Become Human is a master class in not understanding how civil rights movements work). Or that one issue of Batman where Tim Drake tries to tell off a teenager for smoking weed and accidentally proves why it's actually not that bad. Saying a work hamfists a cultural morality into its story badly isn't inherently criticizing the culture itself. For example, I can point to Persona 3 as much, much better game at tackling the concept of Mono no Aware or...hell, if we're looking within the same franchise, Final Fantasy VI.

Or Final Fantasy X, which was a masterful repudiation of the idea that life sucks and that we should learn how to cope with it instead of trying to solve the sources of our suffering.

(outside of that fucking audio drama lol)

[CrownySuccubus]

Or Final Fantasy X, which was a masterful repudiation of the idea that life sucks and that we should learn how to cope with it instead of trying to solve the sources of our suffering.

Yeah, I recall learning that Tidus bluntly stating that he hated his father was considered shocking in Japan for its day. Speaking ill of one's parents, especially in public, is considered one of the ultimate no-nos there. But the entire point of the story was to call out how upholding tradition and respecting our parents/superiors/elders even when they're clearly wrong can be terrible.

I think part of the reason this flew over people's heads and/or fell flat is because we were never shown the true consequences of this outside of Hermes himself.

Instead, we were shown that it works

Yeah, like I said earlier, Hermes literally defeated his own argument. By abusing his position to circumvent the rules, he totally proved why those rules were justified.

This story wouldn't have happened if Hermes had tried to pass Meteion through the proper protocols. Either she would have gotten scrapped, or someone like Emet would have caught that flaw in Hermes' purpose for her.

[AziraSyuren]

Yeah, I recall learning that Tidus bluntly stating that he hated his father was considered shocking in Japan for its day. Speaking ill of one's parents, especially in public, is considered one of the ultimate no-nos there. But the entire point of the story was to call out how upholding tradition and respecting our parents/superiors/elders even when they're clearly wrong can be terrible.

I imagine it would be. The whole story was basically about how some gaijin outsider came out of nowhere and wouldn't shut up about how fucked up everything about their system was, and how correct he really was. From what I know about Japanese culture, that's literally as subversive as it gets.

This reminded me of a ridiculous comment I saw on Reddit calling Elpis a slaughterhouse. I thought, wow, must be nice to be so ignorant of what truly happens in slaughterhouses or in animal testing. Elpis was an absolute paradise for all creatures by comparison.



Truly a horror show.

They literally went out of their way to show that the denizens of Elpis treated most of their creations tenderly and with respect and affection. Like... why? Why undercut the points you're trying to make so much? Why undercut it at every turn? They were inches away from nailing it completely if they just chose not to include a few lines of dialogue or change the portrayal of certain characters just a little bit.

[Brinne]

I think what it comes down to, for me, is that I really can't buy that the aspects of Endwalker that cross into "oh god what is this?" territory stem from anything actually fundamentally based in cultural expression or exploring themes. Again, I think the bulk of FFXIV and its messaging actually stands starkly at odds with the Venat Strangeness, which is part of what adds to the Titanic-levels of uncomfortable dissonance.

It's not really about culture, and it's not even about themes. Goal number one was to make you like Hydaelyn. It's that simple and that crass. Earlier plot points they established, while winging it with no real plan in mind, made it so that Hydaelyn destroyed the world and the Ancient society that the audience ended up way more in love with and sympathetic to than most of the team had expected. So if you need to be made to like Hydaelyn after that, well, she NEEDS to have a "good reason" to have killed all of those people. What would be a "good reason" to kill the Ancients? Well... we established they were good people with a good society, so what if they were... too good? And what if being too good... was bad!?

So in the end, the route they hit upon to make Hydaelyn sympathetic and worthy of your support was making it so the Ancients were "bad" for being "too good," and thus we end up with "suffering good, bettering societal conditions bad, bam, Hydaelyn justified. Now look at how hard it was for her to kill all those people."

I honestly think, at this point, it's that simple - and it bears out with the sort of baffled "look we were kinda just winging this, okay?" tone the writers have taken when pressed further about the story. I would not say "theme" in the sense EW tried to pursue was a strong point - or even seemed to be a primary concern - for FFXIV up until Shadowbringers, which seems to have been largely Ishikawa's individual effort that largely slipped under Yoshida's notice, given his confusion to its reception.

EDIT:

They literally went out of their way to show that the denizens of Elpis treated most of their creations tenderly and with respect and affection. Like... why? Why undercut the points you're trying to make so much? Why undercut it at every turn? They were inches away from nailing it completely if they just chose not to include a few lines of dialogue or change the portrayal of certain characters just a little bit.

I just remember how, even in the midst of Hermes's angry rants, he still mentions that the Ancients go out of their way to make it quick and painless for the creations they put down. He's just still upset that they have to die to begin with. You'd think this would be the setup for an FFIX-ish theme where the antagonist learns to cope with and accept death, and that argument could have been made if Venat hadn't essentially taken his side, lmao.

The FFX talk is also interesting, especially when you consider FFX was voted as the most beloved Final Fantasy game of all time in Japan.

[CrownySuccubus]

(snip)

I mean, this talk is basically backing up my point that the writers chose to try to portray Venat as "good" or "justified" in her genocide is with the "they couldn't accept suffering/death" card.

"Not being able to accept suffering/death is bad" is literally the main motivation of the villain of FFIII, two villains in FFIX, several villains in FFX, and the final antagonist of the FFXIII trilogy, and so on. Also, main villain of the very first FF sought immortality, the main villain of FFIV wanted to prolong his society at the expense of the Earth, and the villain of FFVI thought life was meaningless because death is inevitable.

Where they failed is by not making the Ancients or their society bad enough to justify it. Then, they even tried to throw in a few dead planets to double down on "See?! This is what THEY would have been like!"