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

[Theodric]

Theodric, you got a moment?

This is rambling, I know, but I feel like...I've been railroaded this time around in ways that weren't apparent before, and it got to a breaking point this last patch where I was just constantly saying, I would not do this, and I turned on the entire plotline as a result. Not really trying to start a fight, just getting my thoughts out there.

Yeah, I feel similarly - I'm a roleplayer and I never took the approach of my character being a Warrior of Light or even brushing shoulders with the Scions. He was just someone fairly normal living in the game world who liked to go on adventures from time to time.

Though I can completely understand people feeling disconnected from the Warrior of Light if they choose to imagine their character as one. I think it's pretty jarring how far removed from the professed ideals the actions of the Scions actually are. On the one hand, they insisted that no matter how hard it would be to face the truth the people of Ishgard needed to learn the circumstances surrounding the Dragonsong War. Now they're going around defiling their promise to 'Remember the Ancients'. Y'shtola claims to be writing a book on the subject but I'm not convinced that it will tell the raw, unfiltered truth or even reach the 'everyman' - since the Scions have already comitted to sanitising Venat's actions and covering up the origins of the Twelve.

The Scions also ruined Shadowbringers for me to a large degree. It's the furthest our character has ever traveled - outside of Ultima Thule - yet every prominent Scion was present which meant that only Ryne and Lyna served as consistent companions whilst exploring a new world...and the latter fell away after the first zone.

I can't really get excited for Tural on that basis alone. We're not only stuck with the Scions once again but the story is heavily implying that everything is going to revolve around Sharlayans past and present. I'd have much preferred a clean slate and with only two or three of the Scions deciding to come along for the ride or none at all.

As for Yoshi-P's answers during various Q&A sessions, I do think it's unfortunate that he's telling people to go with their headcanon since the game is so far removed from the idea of giving the player any real agency. I would have loved for the Warrior of Light to want to learn more about the Ancient world and even be saddened and nostalgic towards Amaurot. Instead our character never once really pushes back against Venat to point out how messed up it is to deliberately inflict genocide upon one's own species and then replace them with something altogether different.

It's why I simply laugh whenever the game tries to insist that Venat is a 'good person'. She really isn't. Our character saw Emet-Selch's recreation of the Final Days and then later went back in time - repeatedly - to directly interact with numerous Ancients. All of which proved to be very friendly and even showed kindness towards what they saw as 'Azem's Familiar'. It's pretty weird that the game expects me to be fine with the player character doubling down on the abandonment of the Ancients to a grisly fate knowing that they'll be holding the broken remains of their loved ones.

Even worse? The game will very likely continue to trot out that tiresome and hypocritical quote favoured by Louisoux:

"To ignore the plight of those one might conceivably save is not wisdom—it is indolence."

[Renathras]

Good being good and evil being evil are by and far the norms in modern storytelling. Rarely do we see stories acknowledge the hero could just as easily have been a villain were it not for the story being told from their perspective/side.

We...must be watching very different media.

[Absimiliard]

If anything, players should be bothered by the fact the writers didn't think we could handle the more nuanced story they were rather clearly setting up. We went from the more thought-provoking scenario of potentially everyone being in the wrong in how the Final Days were handled to this weirdly sanitized void of coddling and shifted responsibility.

Or am I mistaken? Have people really degenerated so much as to not be able to handle the thought of their fictional character and its patron being every bit as guilty as the enemies they've been fighting? I don't believe so, at any rate.

[PetThisMiqo]

The story is fantastic and it hurts my soul to read all of the foul and hurtful words that the vocal loud minority are saying about it. Please take a moment to put yourself in the place of the writers who wave this immaculate tale and think about how they must feel knowing that you hate their story so much. If you truly dislike EndWalker so much then instead of attacking others you should look inside of yourself and understand that you do not belong here in our wonderous community. Leave us in peace and allow those of us who enjoy EndWalkers' tale to do so without your obnoxious screeching.

[ReynTime]

I don't think there's anything wrong with black and white stories existing. Good wins unscathed and all. It's a problem in XIV because the game's story was developing into being a little more than that after 2.1. Endwalker's handling of how the good guys overcome threats can be summed up in that one cheesy cutscene from 2.0 A Realm Reborn where you see all characters yelling "YAAA" flying towards Lahabrea.

[Halivel]

We...must be watching very different media.

He's not wrong tho. We can occasionally get morally grey villains or supporting characters, but a morally grey protagonist is a rarity. How many times WoL was directly called out for all the atrocities they've commited over the course of the story? Once, by Varis during negotiations in Werlyt. Twice if you count "In the Cold" and the conversation we have with Fandaniel afterwards.

Emet-Selch was scrutinized for being ready to sacrifice the Source and its reflections in order to save his own world (not without reason), and then Venat was praised for doing the exact same thing because she was "a goodie" (she's not. She's just as morally grey if not worse in some aspects, the difference is that she happens to be on our side of the conflict, and the narrative excuses her actions as result of that. While the intention was obviously to make her a 100% positive character, she absolutely isn't when you actually stop for a second to think about just what she did).

Point being: it's not uncommon to see morally grey characters, that is true. The thing is, the vast majority of them are portrayed as villains. And when the same actions are commited by protagonists, more often than not you'll see them being presented as a necessarily sacrifice that they will be praised for. I've no idea what's currently going on in the sector of heroic movies since I don't like neither DC nor Marvel and don't watch them, but when it comes to games and manga - the main character and his company being directly called out of the horrors they commit is not as commonplace as you might think it is.

[ReynTime]

He's not wrong tho. We can occasionally get morally grey villains or supporting characters, but a morally grey protagonist is a rarity. How many times WoL was directly called out for all the atrocities they've commited over the course of the story? Once, by Varis during negotiations in Werlyt. Twice if you count "In the Cold" and the conversation we have with Fandaniel afterwards.

Emet-Selch was scrutinized for being ready to sacrifice the Source and its reflections in order to save his own world (not without reason), and then Venat was praised for doing the exact same thing because she was "a goodie" (she's not. She's just as morally grey if not worse in some aspects, the difference is that she happens to be on our side of the conflict, and the narrative excuses her actions as result of that. While the intention was obviously to make her a 100% positive character, she absolutely isn't when you actually stop for a second to think about just what she did).

Point being: it's not uncommon to see morally grey characters, that is true. The thing is, the vast majority of them are portrayed as villains. And when the same actions are commited by protagonists, more often than not you'll see them being presented as a necessarily sacrifice that they will be praised for. I've no idea what's currently going on in the sector of heroic movies since I don't like neither DC nor Marvel and don't watch them, but when it comes to games and manga - the main character and his company being directly called out of the horrors they commit is not as commonplace as you might think it is.

Thanos is from Marvel and his movie motivation, which is vastly different to his original marvel comic motivation, is written morally grey. And that's the antagonist for the climax villain of the entire good era of the MCU. In that same era there was also a whole movie about an internal struggle with the heroes because one of them refused to antagonize his brainwashed close friend even at the cost of having to cause collateral damage. So IDK what Renathras watches either. Maybe he only knows 90s era Disney villains.

Not to mention the first two Avengers movies had the heroes needing to learn to set aside their differences to fight the antagonist. Which at the time was getting old, but it certainly beats how Scions act.

[Renathras]

He's not wrong tho. We can occasionally get morally grey villains or supporting characters, but a morally grey protagonist is a rarity.

Off the top of my head:

Deadpool
Punisher
Venom (in some incarnations)
Ben Solo (we all knew it was coming)
Emet-Selch (and arguably all the Ascians other than maybe Fandaniel) - and he WAS treated as morally gray and not outright condemned (the climax of the story we make peace with him; then do again an expansion later)
Batman (yes, he doesn't kill, but part of his character is that he doesn't stand on the light side of the law)
A good chunk of the Marvel cast after The Snap, and half of them after Winter Soldier
Vegeta
Terminator (in T2 and T3)
Benjamin Sisko (DS9) - honestly, most of the Star Trek captains other than Picard.
Thanos himself was portrayed as "maybe he's right, but we don't like it", just like Emet.

That's just off the top of my head without actually thinking. I can easily expand this list.

Morally gray characters are more commonplace now than "true good" characters are. I can't really think of any true good main characters these days. Most are faulty in various ways, even if they're overall benevolent, and many of them come from older stories before the "subverting expectations" cliche became common, like the LotR characters (though even many of those outside of the core cast were not "true good", such as Boramir) which are from a book series written 60-80 years ago.

I do agree that a lot are anti-heroes, but quite a few are not and are the main characters and not portrayed as villains. Batman is often treated as more good than Superman, even, despite being on the shady side of things, and the moral heart of the Justice League. And many of the villains, like Emet, have their motivations explored to kind of give them a "maybe they're wrong, but they're wrong for the right reasons/circumstance and things that happened to them shaped them into what they were."

Honestly, Venat is in the Emet boat of "imperfect being trying to do what's right and choose the best of all bad options".

.

I think it's more common than you think. But it's common enough it's become the expectation rather than subverting it.

[Absimiliard]

Off the top of my head:

Deadpool
Punisher
Venom (in some incarnations)
Ben Solo (we all knew it was coming)
Emet-Selch (and arguably all the Ascians other than maybe Fandaniel) - and he WAS treated as morally gray and not outright condemned (the climax of the story we make peace with him; then do again an expansion later)
Batman (yes, he doesn't kill, but part of his character is that he doesn't stand on the light side of the law)
A good chunk of the Marvel cast after The Snap, and half of them after Winter Soldier
Vegeta
Terminator (in T2 and T3)
Benjamin Sisko (DS9) - honestly, most of the Star Trek captains other than Picard.
Thanos himself was portrayed as "maybe he's right, but we don't like it", just like Emet.

- Deadpool is nine times out of ten shown doing the right thing, and he'll probably get a pass when he doesn't if it's in one of his own comics.
- The Punisher is very much on the dark side of that scale in most stories, and his actions are addressed as such despite all the good they do. He's just a psychopath that preys on its own.
- Venom has fluctuated between anti-hero and villain for his entire existence, but his actions are nearly always portrayed as evil regardless of the potential benefits they may have.
- Ben Solo was well aware what he was doing was wrong but chose to keep doing it anyway. He butchered loads of innocent people. He then proceeded to get a pass after his five-minute redemption arc.
- Emet-Selch is condemned repeatedly in-universe for his actions. I do tend agree with the assessment of him falling under the umbrella of people who tried to make the best of a crap situation even if the story doesn't really try to paint him in that light.
- Batman is treated in-universe as a force of good nine times out of ten. Additionally, I would note lawful and good are not the same thing. One need not operate within the law to be a force for good.
- Most of Marvel's heroic cast were left broken after failing to prevent the snap, but they very much stuck to their roots. Only two of them really went off the rails, and both wound up getting back in line by the end.
- Vegeta is a genuinely good person, husband, and father by the time of Super. He is everything a fair portion of the fandom mistakenly believes Goku's selfish ass to be. His journey from one side of the spectrum to the other was fantastic.
- T2's T-800's complete lack of morality is called out infrequently, and we see it gradually become more human through its interactions with John. None the less, within the context of that franchise it is considered a purely heroic figure. I would also note the T-800 is not in fact the protagonist of Terminator 2; John Connor is.
- T3's T-850 never really overcomes its programming. Everything it does, from avoiding civilian casualties to protecting John and Katherine, is a result of its defined mission parameters. It would have been perfectly willing to mass slaughter random bystanders if that had somehow been required for the mission. The story treats it as a heroic figure. As with the prior example, the terminator was not the movie's protagonist. That role was again John Connor's.
- Thanos only received the benefit of the "maybe he's got a point" half this equation. Both versions of him were treated purely as villainous by the story.

[Turtledeluxe]

[LIST][*]The mighty Zodiark

Were you even paying attention? His summoning wasn't complete. I've never heard a single person complain about going to the moon or the trial. Not sure what you mean by filler trash aside from your post.

of the Final Days is a pet-project from an ancient which goes mad after observing countless dead world and possibly causing the death of several world by projecting negative emotions unto them, and is thus dead-set on bringing despair to every world, upon which said ancient goes mad and is now letting her run her course to test humanity if they can withstand/fight despair

Umm there's no projecting but everything else you said is right. And?? Is this account your main?

[*]Venat, who hasn't had her memory wiped + still remembers you from being in Elpis, quite apparently doesn't lift a finger to learn about Dynamis herself or to mobilize the other ancients to end Meteion then and there, and instead chooses to turn herself into Hydaelyn, sunder the world and the inhabitants, thereby forcing them to live with and face despair and gambling that their resilience against despair might be enough to face Meteion one day

Why would anyone believe Venat's story with zero evidence...? You're saying she would have successfully convinced everyone and also found a solution in time? That's incredibly doubtful and unbelievable. Secondly she had no choice but to sunder the world, that was the whole point. Did you fall asleep during the sequence where she explains (as though she did not anticipate) the world she created contained mire and plague? It wasn't some kind of test. She told Zodiark's followers off but that doesn't make it some grand scheme or test. Venat couldn't even imagine what was going to happen...that was the entire point.

How is this thread still ongoing?

Also there are reasons to dislike the story but nothing in this post makes a credible argument other than "I wasn't paying attention" or 'It was filler".