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

[Renathras]

Honestly?

I think the "no one was really good" "twist" has become so commonplace, it's now the trope/cliche.

Reddit had a thread of people praising Myths of the Realm (saw it completely opposite of the threads here on the topic), and one of the things people were talking about is how refreshing it was to have gods that were actually good guys for once, not some various shade of gray or secretly evil.

I've seen a similar discussion with people that like the "edgy" versions of Superman telling off people that like the "pure good guy" versions as somehow unable to appreciate something better. But I think people, especially in uncertain and chaotic times (like the ones we live in) like to see good guys that are just genuinely good guys.

I don't think "everyone was wrong" is a compelling story, and it's certainly not brave or risky or fresh; it's been done so much, it's the common thing/trope/cliche at this point. For example, Venat being "the good guy" the whole time after all when everyone thought they were going to do a twist and make her "secretly evil the whole time" was refreshing since the "secretly evil the whole time" is so overdone that everyone was expecting it.

I'm not certain, but I think some of the opposition to Venat being good (NOT ALL, just let me make that clear, but SOME) was due to people that were so absolutely ready for that, their expectation was subverted and they weren't able to process "No, she was actually genuinely good the whole time". That's how cliche and un-interesting/un-creative the "secretly evil the whole time" has become. It's like the bad guy in the first Harry Potter or the bad guy who was Ares in Wonder Women were both obvious from the start since modern media doesn't tend to have good guys that are actually that good, so we know when we first are introduced to them they're going to be the bad guy.

.

I think NOT doing the "everyone was wrong" story was the braver and more creative, less cliche move at this point.

It's a common misconception...

Have I not pointed out it was stylistic several times?

In any case, I think this ultimately comes down to whether you buy into what ifs or not. If you buy into the what ifs, and ignore that many of them have either been somewhat or absolutely ruled out by the writers/producer (that is, if you ignore "Word of God"), then Venat COULD be wrong because MAYbe there was another solution.

But the game overall doesn't indicate that, seems to indicate the opposite, and the writer/producer have also held this position. That is, you can say you think they might have changed...but the story, writer, and producer are telling you they would not have. So you're having to say your view of the world is more correct than those who created it and literally wrote the characters and their decisions.

But we see this in real life, too - that people hindsight second guess and preach at people who, in the moment with imperfect knowledge, were actually making decisions and doing things.

As to your last point: The game has also been clear that cultists who will not change cannot always be reasoned with, and if they cannot, sometimes can't be saved. Lambs of Dalamud and some of the Dravanian cultists come to mind. People so convinced they were right, no amount of argument or evidence would convince them otherwise. We have those in the real world, too.

Oh, and Emet made it pretty clear that the Sundered ARE the natural successors of Etheirys in his mind.

.

At the end of the day, you may believe whatever you want. But when the story, writer, and producer are all telling you something, and you have to reject what they're saying or hinting at as well as some things we do know about Human/sentient nature (Ancients would be included) and rely on hypothetical "what ifs" for your points to be valid, I don't think it's reasonable to expect people to agree.

I'm not saying you're wrong. But I'm saying at best your position is not objectively certain.

Either way, people believing what they want is great, and with that I'll make my way out of the thread, I think.

[Absimiliard]

Honestly?
I think the "no one was really good" "twist" has become so commonplace, it's now the trope/cliche.

Reddit had a thread of people praising Myths of the Realm (saw it completely opposite of the threads here on the topic), and one of the things people were talking about is how refreshing it was to have gods that were actually good guys for once, not some various shade of gray or secretly evil.

I've seen a similar discussion with people that like the "edgy" versions of Superman telling off people that like the "pure good guy" versions as somehow unable to appreciate something better. But I think people, especially in uncertain and chaotic times (like the ones we live in) like to see good guys that are just genuinely good guys.

I don't think "everyone was wrong" is a compelling story, and it's certainly not brave or risky or fresh; it's been done so much, it's the common thing/trope/cliche at this point. For example, Venat being "the good guy" the whole time after all when everyone thought they were going to do a twist and make her "secretly evil the whole time" was refreshing since the "secretly evil the whole time" is so overdone that everyone was expecting it.

I'm not certain, but I think some of the opposition to Venat being good (NOT ALL, just let me make that clear, but SOME) was due to people that were so absolutely ready for that, their expectation was subverted and they weren't able to process "No, she was actually genuinely good the whole time". That's how cliche and un-interesting/un-creative the "secretly evil the whole time" has become. It's like the bad guy in the first Harry Potter or the bad guy who was Ares in Wonder Women were both obvious from the start since modern media doesn't tend to have good guys that are actually that good, so we know when we first are introduced to them they're going to be the bad guy.

I think NOT doing the "everyone was wrong" story was the braver and more creative, less cliche move at this point.

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.

The above aside, I might note people have a tendency to root for the underdog since it's something they themselves can relate to. This is why you see more people favoring villains or hoping for a more morally grey story these days. We know going into almost any given story the "good guys" will be vindicated and the "bad guys" will most likely die. It's tiresome, and an increasing number of people have grown weary of it. It's got nothing to do with making something edgy. It's simply about relatability and seeking hope. Hope not everyone sees in watching protagonists repeatedly trounce everything in their path without the least bit of consequences, let alone introspection as to whether or not what they're doing is even right.

For my part? I for one do not get a message of hope from seeing antagonist after antagonist crushed beneath the "righteous" heels of their "moral betters." If anything, it serves as a rather blatant reminder for some as to the fact most people are powerless - their ambitions, even their very lives hold no meaning or value to those with real power. Our society is for the most part ruled by those at the top, for it is they whose voices are heard and in turn influence even concepts such as right and wrong by directing the greater whole. There is no parity to speak of. You could spend your whole life fighting for what you believe is right and never make a dent. You might also be forced to watch as this thing you wholeheartedly believe to be right is perceived as outright villainous, because your betters have deemed it such. Where's the hope in that?

Rarely invoked though it is, allowing the villains of a story to have a point provides some semblance of parity and allows people to be more open and honest in their favoring of the "bad guy." In turn, allowing the good guys to be flawed - potentially gravely so -- brings things back down to earth. It adds more substance than simply "unga bunga, me good, you bad, me curbstomp now." It gives you something to think about. After all, truly well-written villains are indeed the heroes of their own stories. If that's the case, then why can't the opposite be true? Why shouldn't the heroes be the villains of their opposition's story once in a while? Protagonists don't always have to be in the right.

[OdinelStarrei]

Theodric, you got a moment?

I was wondering earlier, "Why did I have such an adverse reaction to this patch? To the point that I would be willing to actually participate in a MSQ discussion, aren't I usually content with just world building and what not?"

I think I'm experiencing a significant amount of character dissonance. I'm not sure if my reactions to the events in the last expansion actually reflect the perspective of my current character. For reference, usually I took the god killing as a unfortunate means to an end, man is in control of their own fate, etc etc. Internalizing a lot of the Dark Knight storyline, as that is my headcanon job after the betrayal of 2.55, and with the knowledge gained in the Ratika Greatwood, and Amaurot proper, I think my character would have the option of being...a lot more morose. I have a personal interest in the collapse of developed societies and civilizations, and consider the preservation of history to be important, which is why I considered the Ascians and Omicrons inherently antithetical to my character no matter what their reasoning, as their methods led to entire worlds being deleted and the histories of those worlds being permanently lost.


I think a reason why I always have head gear that covers my entire head on every job is because I want to imagine what my character expression is myself. So when Asahi is going off on Yotsuyu, I know I want to kill him, and what that looks like on my character. When G'raha Tia fanboys over me, I know that I either look disgusted or sad. I know that when there are opportunities to grant knowledge or bring people together, I'm focused on the task. And I know that if there is a dialogue option that is "..." I'm most likely going to pick it, because of the honestly pretty traumatic experiences my character must have gone through over the course of FFXIV. As many misgivings I might have had about 5.X or 6.X, that ending cutscene of 5.0 where you're not actually celebrating with anyone at all, you're just looking at the Crystal Tower alone over a railing at the Crystarium was very in-character for me.

This Dawntrail thing. In the tail end of the 50 DRK quests, there's a part where Esteem prompts the idea of leaving Eorzea entirely and returning to a nobody, without the mantle of Warrior of Light. That's been sticking with me recently. I kinda hate all these characters now, and I don't think I'm even the main character of my own story somehow. All the characters I like are either on a different shard, busy, or their questlines are wrapped up in ways I probably did not like and I will probably never see them again (Mikoto...). If I had the opportunity to leave, to take a step away from Scions who I don't really enjoy being around, to explore new lands, or even better, return to the First and assist with the restoration of the Empty/Void (before this patch screwed all that up), would I have done that? And I think that I would. And having the Scions hop on board the boat with me overseas again just...exhausts me. I'm tired of being part of their group.

Something that I'm also reminded of is that QA where someone asked "What was Azem doing during the Final Days?" And the answer was "Whatever you think Azem was doing." And I think that was a dangerous thing to say. Because as essentially Azem-, I think that I would've been trying to stop Venat from the Sundering. My answer was "No one was right" in the Omega quest for a reason, and I think I may have a hard time moving on and accepting, yeah, this is the world state now. This is how things ended up.

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.

[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."

[Silverquick]

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."[/I]

That's really the problem.

Because they Retconned the story so bad, they had to change it so far outside of it's intended path it's not even recognizable. You can see it when you go back and play "NEW GAME+".

The Ascians were supposed to be the Voidsent, the ancient ones of the dark world. Kinda like Zero. They were the bad guys you were fighting the whole time and they were seeking to bring the Darkness to the Source. And... as much as I really did like the Shadowbringers story, with the way they wrote Emet-Selk you just couldn't bring yourself to see them as the bad guys anymore, more like people... you and them were just fighting to save your own worlds, which brought you into a collision. No real right or wrong just that one had to win, and one had to lose. Which caused them a little problem...

So they had to invent the Venat storyline to separate the Ascians from being the bad guys, and were s00per secretly a peace loving people who were "misunderstood".

If you look closely... the Endwalker original story is the invented arc... while the post Endwalker story with Golbas is what was the original intended ending with the Ascians and Zodiark.

It's why its almost 2 of the Identical story in both End Walker and Post Endwalker.

The second one is the original it was supposed to be with the Ascians... until they changed course radically.

So yeah Yoshi probably knows that too. And anyone who was here in the beginning of FFXIV can see it plain as day, this was not the original story they were telling.. they Retconned it really bad. So of course it is disappointing to a lot of people.

[Nayukhuut]

I don't recall Ascians having supposed to have been Voidsent. When I played through ARR I just got the impression they were from between the worlds, and that they followed their god. Even in Heavensward you hear that Elidibus saved Unukalhai when the 13th was going under, and that implies that they were there before said Shard was overcome.

I could be wrong though, it's been a while since I played through ARR.

[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.