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

[Skyborne]

"Circlejerk" 99% of the time is used with a negative connotation (hence me using it sarcastically), and the clarion call of people who insert themselves into a previously pleasant convo in the most aggressive and patronizing way possible -- with the insinuation that if you don't immediately listen to and consider their opinion (no matter how poorly phrased it may be or if it's been heard and considered but discarded numerous times before) then you are simply some shameful close-minded person who didn't change their mind like they are obligated to do. And if the people this is directed to don't take to well to it, then well, it just proves they are circlejerking and closed-off!

And, well, telling people how they should feel doesn't exactly work well either. Baiting a reaction, hmmmmmmmmmmmm...


here is your last (you)

[Theodric]

'Fan favourite' characters are often promoted by a fandom supressing other characters that have their own share of fans, though. How many more people would speak up in favour of liking the likes of Varis, Nabriales or Gaius if they weren't immediately accused of supporting 'fascism', 'bigotry' or 'genocide' the moment they did so pretty much anywhere that the game is discussed?

Nobody is saying that G'raha isn't popular. They're simply outlining that the degree of popularity is often inflated and they're by no means universally well liked. Now, if the game wants to insist on pretending as if everybody has to like or appreciate his presence then that becomes a problem. All some of us are asking for is for G'raha to be dialled back a little and for more variety to exist within the rest of our travelling companions. Not all of us are interested in literally every character in the game existing to praise our self insert after all.

[CrownySuccubus]

'Fan favourite' characters are often promoted by a fandom supressing other characters that have their own share of fans, though. How many more people would speak up in favour of liking the likes of Varis, Nabriales or Gaius if they weren't immediately accused of supporting 'fascism', 'bigotry' or 'genocide' the moment they did so pretty much anywhere that the game is discussed?

But, by definition, supporting the Garleans is literally supporting bigotry and genocide (fascism has a lot of different definitions, so it's somewhat debatable), at least within the fictional setting of The Source. Most Garleans were bigoted and genocidal, whether or not they had "sympathetic reasons" for doing it. Most Garleans looked down on every other race (the tolerant ones, like Gabranth and Garus are considered rare exceptions) and they definitely wanted to commit at least cultural genocide (they wanted to impose Garlean rule, atheism, and military doctrine on every single race) and Varis outright states he wants to cause a Rejoining to eliminate the diverse races into one superior race.

Supporting the Garleans doesn't necessarily make you a fascist-supporter IRL, but that is definitely what your character would be in-game.

[Xirean]

But, by definition, supporting the Garleans is literally supporting bigotry and genocide (fascism has a lot of different definitions, so it's somewhat debatable), at least within the fictional setting of The Source. Most Garleans were bigoted and genocidal, whether or not they had "sympathetic reasons" for doing it. Most Garleans looked down on every other race (the tolerant ones, like Gabranth and Garus are considered rare exceptions) and they definitely wanted to commit at least cultural genocide (they wanted to impose Garlean rule, atheism, and military doctrine on every single race) and Varis outright states he wants to cause a Rejoining to eliminate the diverse races into one superior race.

Supporting the Garleans doesn't necessarily make you a fascist-supporter IRL, but that is definitely what your character would be in-game.

I think you're comparing Garleans as a whole to the Garlean military that we have fought against. We can't judge an entire group of people by the few generals that we punched in the face. I'm sure a good number of those citizens would also have liked to punch them in the face.

[Theodric]

But, by definition, supporting the Garleans is literally supporting bigotry and genocide (fascism has a lot of different definitions, so it's somewhat debatable), at least within the fictional setting of The Source. Most Garleans were bigoted and genocidal, whether or not they had "sympathetic reasons" for doing it. Most Garleans looked down on every other race (the tolerant ones, like Gabranth and Garus are considered rare exceptions) and they definitely wanted to commit at least cultural genocide (they wanted to impose Garlean rule, atheism, and military doctrine on every single race) and Varis outright states he wants to cause a Rejoining to eliminate the diverse races into one superior race.

Supporting the Garleans doesn't necessarily make you a fascist-supporter IRL, but that is definitely what your character would be in-game.

It's not, though. Someone isn't supporting murder by joining the Dark Brotherhood in an Elder Scrolls game. They're not supporting incest by rooting for Cersei Lannister in Game of Thrones. Fiction is fiction. Something people immerse themselves in temporarily and I daresay the fondly looked upon 'majority' of people don't overanalyse such scenarios to the same degree as those who declare everything to be an 'issue'.

It just sucks out a lot of the fun out of fictional settings as far as I'm concerned. Much like it did when people who played World of Warcraft attacked people for liking the 'wrong' playable races or faction.

[CrownySuccubus]

I think you're comparing Garleans as a whole to the Garlean military that we have fought against. We can't judge an entire group of people by the few generals that we punched in the face. I'm sure a good number of those citizens would also have liked to punch them in the face.

Fair enough. But the Garlean military is the ruling faction. They are a militant country -- even Solus and Varis both gained support and earned their rule by military prowess. Even if individual Garleans disagree with the military, it ultimately doesn't matter because the military is calling the shots.

It's not, though. Someone isn't supporting murder by joining the Dark Brotherhood in an Elder Scrolls game. They're not supporting incest by rooting for Cersei Lannister in Game of Thrones. Fiction is fiction.

As I said. Supporting it in game means your character supports it. You don't join the Dark Brotherhood to have your character bake cookies. You join it to commit murder, thus supporting the faction's goal of committing murder.

As I already said: this does not mean YOU support it IRL. But the character you are controlling defintely does, within that fictional world.

Something people immerse themselves in temporarily and I daresay the fondly looked upon 'majority' of people don't overanalyse such scenarios to the same degree as those who declare everything to be an 'issue'.

It just sucks out a lot of the fun out of fictional settings as far as I'm concerned. Much like it did when people who played World of Warcraft attacked people for liking the 'wrong' playable races or faction.

The "just turn your brain off" argument doesn't work on a platform that is specifically meant to discuss and criticize. You can't complain about people turning their brains off and enjoying Venat and G'raha Tia as characters and then turn around and say it ruins your fun to think about other stuff.

I guess anyone who supports gridania them supports racists, anyone who supports limsa supports piracy and murder, anyone who supports uldah promotes slavery and racism etc etc. Everyone in 14 sucks. We know this.

None of this is incorrect.

[Xirean]

All this talk about G'raha and I'm just sitting over here wondering why Thancred is still here. I've had a problem with him since meeting him in Uldah and the game later on called him one of "my closest friends" in a dream sequence. I've got no issue with people disliking a character. It would be nice if the game had more ability to let people express how they feel about events or individuals. I realize that is difficult given the game's structure, but I honestly don't care. If someone presents a stupid plan I'd like the chance to at least call the plan stupid before we HAVE to do it.

Either this is an "all opinions are valid" situation or it's a "my opinion is the objectively correct one" situation.

That really depends on what the opinion is. Genocide is wrong and if someone thinks it's right, they are wrong and their opinion is wrong.

[Theodric]

All this talk about G'raha and I'm just sitting over here wondering why Thancred is still here. I've had a problem with him since meeting him in Uldah and the game later on called him one of "my closest friends" in a dream sequence. I've got no issue with people disliking a character. It would be nice if the game had more ability to let people express how they feel about events or individuals. I realize that is difficult given the game's structure, but I honestly don't care. If someone presents a stupid plan I'd like the chance to at least call the plan stupid before we HAVE to do it.

See, I like Thancred but I'd be fine with everyone having the option to tell him to back off or whatever if they don't like him. It wouldn't be hard. It doesn't even need to change anything.

It's just...if the game can spend a small fortune animating an optional scene with Estinien's foot stepping onto a balcony that the majority of players will never see then there's no reason why some of the lengthy dialogue can't be trimmed down and worked into slightly different player reactions to certain characters. What's to stop the player saying that they don't want to bring Thancred or G'raha along for the ride only for a different character to step in and point out that they're needed for a particular mission? It wouldn't rob players of agency to the same degree as it does to insist that we have to love and like everybody that we travel with.

Furthermore, Emet-Selch is the most popular character to date when it comes to recent popularity polls. That didn't spare him from being written out of the story altogether, though. At least for the time being, at any rate.

[Ayuhra]

I think the story is suffering a bit in the hands of Natsuko Ishikawa. She seems to like to bring us to emotional lows with ultimately happy endings and our close friends (Scions) never seem to be in real danger in her hands. Now I am not saying she is a bad writer. She made me care about the people in the world of FFXIV a lot and that's huge. Caring about the people makes me care about the story.

But it's time to let some Banri Oda influence seep back in. He had great world building and wasn't afraid to kill characters. A balance between them would be ideal. Oda to threaten the characters and build out the world, Ishikawa to make me care by writing said characters and establishing their motives. Maybe with more Oda the Final Days would have felt more apocalyptic.

I think there was some knee jerk reaction against killing characters after Heavensward and that was fair at the time, honestly. If we'd kept killing off NPCs like that we would be in the opposite situation, where we don't dare care about anyone and deaths have lost any emotional impact.

As for G'raha I like him a lot. He's not my favorite character but he's fun. Some of the issue with him is his energetic enthusiasm can make it hard to remember he's hundreds of years old and ran a society.

[KizuyaKatogami]

But, by definition, supporting the Garleans is literally supporting bigotry and genocide (fascism has a lot of different definitions, so it's somewhat debatable), at least within the fictional setting of The Source. Most Garleans were bigoted and genocidal, whether or not they had "sympathetic reasons" for doing it. Most Garleans looked down on every other race (the tolerant ones, like Gabranth and Garus are considered rare exceptions) and they definitely wanted to commit at least cultural genocide (they wanted to impose Garlean rule, atheism, and military doctrine on every single race) and Varis outright states he wants to cause a Rejoining to eliminate the diverse races into one superior race.

Supporting the Garleans doesn't necessarily make you a fascist-supporter IRL, but that is definitely what your character would be in-game.

I guess anyone who supports gridania them supports racists, anyone who supports limsa supports piracy and murder, anyone who supports uldah promotes slavery and racism etc etc. Everyone in 14 sucks. We know this.