My guess? The game's writing had gone through a drastic shift in direction when the Heavensward crew left to work on FFXVI. That was when plot points started getting dropped left and right in favor of emotional spectacle, which of course gets a lot more very vocal stans from the JRPG crowd, compared to something like Matsuno's works which are generally far more appreciated by people who actually play other things outside of JRPGs or MMOs. You can even see signs of this in the discourse in the Lore forum - I had been away for 3 years and only recently returned to find that the lore section has devolved into personal arguments rather than the deep analysis that used to be far more common, because the recent presentation of XIV's story has emphasized us having to take everything at face value. (It's also worth considering that JRPG writing in recent times is rather abysmal, especially considering that the Trails series which was previously the closest thing to matching XIV's emphasis on world building went completely off the rails and became just another generic JRPG series in the end. People who play exclusively JRPGs tend to have low standards in regards to writing by default, considering so many rely on emotional impact at the expense of literally everything else - it also doesn't help that this particular crowd seems like the major culprit behind the negative reception that may have chased Matsuno off from any further involvement in XIV.)
What many stans fail to realize is that the only reason XIV is a step above your typical JRPG is because it built up the lore and context to give the big twists their major emotional impact later. It's why all the statements about how ARR is trash is misguided at best. The only thing wrong about ARR is the presentation - it could go through a quality pass to make it more in line with the rest of the game. But once again, my major issue with Endwalker is how the Garlemald arc basically ended as an off-screen sacrifice in favor of the Ancients completely hijacking the entire story last minute. It's probably the single biggest disappointment from a writing standpoint I've encountered in all of gaming thus far, and it gives me incredibly irrational hatred for Zenos and Fandango asshole especially.
Since XVI's development is wrapping up, maybe the Heavensward writers will come back in time to rein everything in for the next major story arc. Maybe a lot of the older lore hasn't been expanded on simply because the previous writers were absent working on XVI instead. (And hopefully Ishikawa goes on to work on FFXVII instead, or she stays lead writer for XIV for the entire next big story arc. I don't mean to belittle her work, but there's a massive tonal difference between her writing and literally everything else in the game, and having her take over the lead writer position mid-way clearly resulted in a massive whiplash between pre-ShB and post-ShB, to the point where it looks like a lot of plot points from pre-ShB were sacrificed for the sake of the accelerated spectacle that Endwalker ended up becoming. I'd like to see what she does when she's not constrained by previously established lore.)
Sadly, I wonder if it's too late for my idea in particular. My idea would have been far more relevant back in Stormblood, when the Garleans and the whole Primal stuff were still in play. Since both are now out of the picture with Endwalker, there's much less around to give context to the necessity of the Grand Companies. Supposedly there's a Squadron/Grand Company rework that was being mentioned early on in the EW patch cycle, so who knows.
Also regarding my earlier point about Roaille, her being the Ivy was not much of a reveal at all because we hardly talked to her to begin with. Same for stuff like how Mistbeard is basically a title. Again, we literally don't get to know anyone in the Grand Companies aside from their leaders, outside of a few sidequests here and there. The entire Bard questline in general is probably the only real look we have in regards to the operational structure of the Twin Adders for instance.



Reply With Quote




