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

[CrownySuccubus]

I'd rather not have another expansion based around regime change, personally.

But, that's pretty much what Final Fantasy is. Standing up for what's right by defeating the corrupt power structure is pretty much what every game in the series is about.

Hingashi intrigues me quite a bit - perceived flaws and all. A highlight of Stormblood for me was actually preventing a violent uprising instead of stoking the flames of one.

Gotta say, it felt weird working for the stormtroopers that one time.

[aveyond-dreams]

But, that's pretty much what Final Fantasy is. Standing up for what's right by defeating the corrupt power structure is pretty much what every game in the series is about.



Gotta say, it felt weird working for the stormtroopers that one time.

Yes but usually it doesn't end up with Alphinaud creating yet another republic and adding it to his growing list. The typical aftermath of overthrowing evil regimes in Final Fantasy games is usually one of the heroes ending up on the throne, or the dissolution of the state in its entirety.

Historically, such stories are oftentimes more tolerable than the present trends here.

[CrownySuccubus]

Yes but usually it doesn't end up with Alphinaud creating yet another republic and adding it to his growing list. The typical aftermath of overthrowing evil regimes in Final Fantasy games is usually one of the heroes ending up on the throne, or the dissolution of the state in its entirety.

Okay, then dissolve the shogunate.

Just saying it's weird that we have a government so corrupt that half of its own police force were either defectors or planning a secret coup, and it's just treated like an "Oh well".

[Theodric]

But, that's pretty much what Final Fantasy is. Standing up for what's right by defeating the corrupt power structure is pretty much what every game in the series is about.

Eh, each to their own but that was never what drew me to the games in the first place. It was the nuance of the more mature titles - a trend I hoped that FFXIV itself would follow. FFXII appealed to me in large part because it didn't result in the Archadian Empire being cut apart and done away with. Larsa ascended the throne but we didn't get rid of the concept of an Emperor.

FFIX didn't end with Queen Garnet abdicating the throne either. I like Empires, Knights, Monarchies and other similar tropes. I'd rather not see them done away with or gutted to the point of every region just subscribing to the same bland set of modern day real world ideals that the Scions often enforce on everybody but themselves.

After seeing how the Ancients and Garleans were handled, I'd rather not see more elements of the game that I like be completely or near completely destroyed and changed. The game's rated for ages sixteen and up in my region so it can...afford to have some grit to it. Not everything needs to wrap up perfectly in a neat little bow.

[CrownySuccubus]

Eh, each to their own but that was never what drew me to the games in the first place. It was the nuance of the more mature titles - a trend I hoped that FFXIV itself would follow. FFXII appealed to me in large part because it didn't result in the Archadian Empire being cut apart and done away with. Larsa ascended the throne but we didn't get rid of the concept of an Emperor.

FFIX didn't end with Queen Garnet abdicating the throne either. I like Empires, Knights, Monarchies and other similar tropes. I'd rather not see them done away with or gutted to the point of every region just subscribing to the same bland set of modern day real world ideals that the Scions often enforce on everybody but themselves.

After seeing how the Ancients and Garleans were handled, I'd rather not see more elements of the game that I like be completely or near completely destroyed and changed. The game's rated for ages sixteen and up in my region so it can...afford to have some grit to it. Not everything needs to wrap up perfectly in a neat little bow.

I don't really know what you mean.

Ishgard was a corrupt theocracy that imploded on itself when its religion was revealed to be based on a lie. Their government may be a republic now, but that's more Aymeric's doing than the Scions'.

Gyr Abania decided themselves that, based on their history, reestablishing any sort of dictatorship was a really, really bad idea. The Scions explicitly had nothing to do with it.

Doma is literally still a dictatorship.

Eulmore was a former cult of personality that, again, decided to elect a democratic leader themselves.

[Theodric]

I don't really know what you mean.

Ishgard was a corrupt theocracy that imploded on itself when its religion was revealed to be based on a lie. Their government may be a republic now, but that's more Aymeric's doing than the Scions'.

Gyr Abania decided themselves that, based on their history, reestablishing any sort of dictatorship was a really, really bad idea. The Scions explicitly had nothing to do with it.

Doma is literally still a dictatorship.

Eulmore was a former cult of personality that, again, decided to elect a democratic leader themselves.

Pretty much every leader figure the game has had our character interact with has gone one of two ways - either they've been killed or they've conveniently done exactly what the Scions have not so subtly nudged them into doing.

I'm already dreading the idea of Alphinaud and Alisae seeding the idea that Garlemald should do away with the idea of an Emperor so it can instead become a democratic republic again. An act which simply serves to strip away a lot of the established flavour...and it'd be further salt in the wound after the region wasn't even given the dignity of an actual expansion largely focused on Garlemald and Garlemald alone.

I also don't really consider the mere existence of a monarchy to be a 'dictatorship' or worthy of scorn. They're a key part of my own country, culture and ancestry and a large part of why I enjoy fantasy settings.

[CrownySuccubus]

Pretty much every leader figure the game has had our character interact with has gone one of two ways - either they've been killed or they've conveniently done exactly what the Scions have not so subtly nudged them into doing.

I'm already dreading the idea of Alphinaud and Alisae seeding the idea that Garlemald should do away with the idea of an Emperor so it can instead become a democratic republic again. An act which simply serves to strip away a lot of the established flavour...and it'd be further salt in the wound after the region wasn't even given the dignity of an actual expansion largely focused on Garlemald and Garlemald alone.

I also don't really consider the mere existence of a monarchy to be a 'dictatorship' or worthy of scorn. They're a key part of my own country, culture and ancestry and a large part of why I enjoy fantasy settings.

A monarchy and a dictatorship are not the exact same thing. "Dictatorship" is merely a word. It refers to a government in which one individual holds most or all of the executive power. That's what Ishgard, Eulmore, Gyr Abania and Garlemald were, and what Doma currently is. Their leaders had the final say on just about all government action or policy. A monarchy that is also dictatorship is called an "Absolute Monarchy".

Gridania, Uldah, Limsa and Hingashi just barely do not fit the technical definitions of "dictatorship" since their leaders can't just do anything they like and usually have to run their ideas by committee.

That being said, absolute monarchies and dictatorships have lots of fundamental problems that are basically proven by history. I really don't care whether or not they're included in a fantasy game with gods and demons and magic, but within the real world, I'm going to treat any form of monarchy and/or dictatorship with a wide berth. And the exact circumstances behind the falls of Ishgard, Eulmore, Garlemald, and Gyr Abania are exactly why.