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

[Teraq]

So much for this thread being an echo chamber of drones who all have the same opinion!

[CrownySuccubus]

Honestly, I only have one question. Especially given your final sentence there.

Why are we discussing G'raha?

Like... Sure, fine, okay, he has writing-derived flaws, not everyone accepts that he does, some people outright hate him for it, other people want him to have more focus due to it. And some deny he has any whatsoever. Whatever floats eachother's.

...but this is a thread on Endwalker's story. No Scion, other than maybe Estinien, underwent that much in terms of character development in Endwalker. Just establishing who they are after their individual and collective progresses from 2.0 to 6.0. There isn't that much to pick on other than that, for any of the Scions.

And that's the thing. Admitting there's flaws and wanting "more" isn't necessarily a bad thing. Even people who like the characters are allowed to express that... but why did we start picking on G'raha when his character is on the same bag as others who just got "established at the endline"?

To be honest, I agree with Brinne that it really does come across as an initial dislike of the character that's being justified by any "plausible" criticism that can be fisted on. There's a lot of stuff that's being repeated which I just don't see as corroborated by the lore, the character, or the writing.

Gr'aha is hardly a flawless diamond above any and all criticism. But like you, I don't know why the hell EVERY single complaint about Endwalker, whether it be story, mechanics, pacing, content, etc. always circles back around to him.

[Rulakir]

You see what happens when you COMMUNICATE with people rather than acting like a Bad Girls reject?

Brinne is one of the most intelligent, articulate posters in this thread. This sort of behavior isn't making you look as cool as you think it is.

Gr'aha is hardly a flawless diamond above any and all criticism. But like you, I don't know why the hell EVERY single complaint about Endwalker, whether it be story, mechanics, pacing, content, etc. always circles back around to him.

Because this thread is full of people who hate him. G'raha living rent free in a lot of people's heads.

[CrownySuccubus]

So much for this thread being an echo chamber of drones who all have the same opinion!

I mean, it's like at most 3 - 4 people arguing with each other about one specific thing, and name-calling and insulting the opposition.

The Galactic Senate this ain't.

But the fact remains that all of his "hardships" were noble. They weren't a result of his personality flaws. The worst there was him exerting himself for the sake of others, which was brushed down to a bad habit that ultimately just got better. He did all the things he was met to do with no real consequence. His body became crystal, sure, but we just transplant him into his younger self, so all's well and good. There was no real gravitas to him, and that alone didn't exactly push for character development.

It's not so much "oh others had to go through hardship, why can't this person" and more "this guy has no flaws, and his hardships have a foregone conclusion, so he doesn't exactly have a character development other than a mild character growth". Because really most of his growth is off-screen. The rest is just him being more open, trusting and idolizing people less.

Mmm. I suppose this is a fair point. I did say that Gr'aha's best scene in 6.0 (the "how do you prove you're the same person when you wake up?" speech) was too much tell and not enough show.

[Theodric]

He's brought up from time to time because to some of us he is very much a big reason as to why Endwalker proved to be a disappointment. Much like how some people disliked the story suddenly ignoring the weight of Zodiark's defeat in order to go and run around with a bunch of cute rabbits.

At the end of the day although there's some overlap here and there...a lot of the complaints regarding Endwalker vary. What is a 'non issue' for one person isn't the case for someone else.

I'd also disagree with the insinuation that it 'always' comes back to G'raha. Y'shtola has been criticised for the baby talk by some posters here as of 6.1 and beyond.

[Xirean]

To be honest, I agree with Brinne that it really does come across as an initial dislike of the character that's being justified by any "plausible" criticism that can be fisted on. There's a lot of stuff that's being repeated which I just don't see as corroborated by the lore, the character, or the writing.

Gr'aha is hardly a flawless diamond above any and all criticism. But like you, I don't know why the hell EVERY single complaint about Endwalker, whether it be story, mechanics, pacing, content, etc. always circles back around to him.

I think for a few people his current character is more a symptom of the issue. The larger problem is lack of ability to express while playing the MSQ. The game is obviously not going to be like Dragon Age or Mass Effect, but it would be nice to have a bit more input at times with how the player character feels about a situation/character. I personally don't have an issue with G'raha, but I do have a big issue with Venat and would really have preferred to be able to voice that.

[Brinne]

Which is just not true. If we go by the idea that everything is subjective and no flaw can be criticised because it's just not something that appeals to tastes, then we can't provide feedback or improve on a product. There ARE things that are wrong, even in writing, that people should pay attention to. That's what I was referring to.

Once again, context. That was never what I was saying and obviously not at all what I believe. It's just that, as a reflection of the specific discussion that was happening prior, it goes both ways. Some flaws are subjective. Some aren't. That's why I said I don't really care at all if someone dislikes Emet-Selch, but if they start reaching to make strange comparisons or illogical arguments based on that dislike, that is when I'll speak up. The same applies to G'raha. All the things you wrote about him when you jumped in? I don't even disagree with any of them. I could wall of text about the issues I have with the way his character was handled, and how I would have liked it to be done differently. I do disagree that viewing G'raha's affections positively and Magnai's negatively reflects a double standard or hypocrisy.

[Midareyukki]

Brinne is one of the most intelligent, articulate posters in this thread. This sort of behavior isn't making you look as cool as you think it is.

Ah yes. So intelligent that she replies with a string of question marks instead of expressing intent and making herself look utterly simple.

I don't care about being cool. I care about people telling me what the problem is so we can work it out. But if you do nothing but go "what" at me, then yeah, it's your own personal problem. I don't speak "whatever".

Or are you trying to go for cookie points to score with her? Because I had to repeat the problem with her sentence about twice now. And if you two haven't figured out what the problem is yet, then it really does show she's not as smart as you idolize her to be.

Also "articulate". Right, and I've seen my 3 year old niece produce a much more congruent sentence than "??????????????".

"Being cool", pfft. Sis, do you think? My signature already invalidates any coolness. I'm not the one pursuing something in lieu of others. I just want to engage in conversation like everyone else, and not be met with a string of characters. If I did that to you, you'd think I were stupid. And that's what I did.

Once again, context. That was never what I was saying and obviously not at all what I believe. It's just that, as a reflection of the specific discussion that was happening prior, it goes both ways. Some flaws are subjective. Some aren't. That's why I said I don't really care at all if someone dislikes Emet-Selch, but if they start reaching to make strange comparisons or illogical arguments based on that dislike, that is when I'll speak up. The same applies to G'raha. All the things you wrote about him when you jumped in? I don't even disagree with any of them. I could wall of text about the issues I have with the way his character was handled, and how I would have liked it to be done differently. I do disagree that viewing G'raha's affections positively and Magnai's negatively reflects a double standard or hypocrisy.

Except that is what you wrote. And being so absolute about it was the problem. Because you say "and you're allowed to say that", but you also say "the flaws people pointed out are subjective". It really didn't sound like you were saying "not all flaws pointed out are valid", but more like "all criticism isn't valid".

Which given the nature of this thread and half the stuff I've seen, really is a regurgitated sentiment that just shuts people down of any kind, be they right or be they wrong. Or be they just plain weird. Still. Forgive me, I did misinterpret what you were going for.

Also, next time, try not to reply with question marks like an alien? Not everyone gets intention off a string of punctuation. And if after me telling you what I was warning you in your statement twice didn't resolve it, then I'm sorry, but you're not doing yourself any favours either.

Perhaps I should have said "some people" instead of "a lot of people?" I can agree with that, and I'll try to be more careful in the future.

That would have helped, yes.

[Lunaxia]

It's not gatekeeping to want the thread to stay on topic, which seems to be increasingly difficult these days. So glad we got that shout out from Zepla since the thread hasn't gone back to normal since.

I don't see how it differs to the treatment given to Venat in this thread. It's criticism of a prominent character in Endwalker, and in relation to that, the writing overall. Just because opinions are more split over this particular character doesn't make it any more off topic.

And if you're upset that people are pointing out comments have been made about G'raha based on his appearance and mannerisms as part of what fuels their dislike for him, then if that doesn't apply to you, then cool. There's no need to get defensive or assume it's about you.

I get the impression this is fundamentally a lot of peoples' problem with G'raha, and most everything else is looking for more reasonable-sounding justification after the fact.

Come now, it's a bit underhand to insinuate I'm getting defensive when you made such a sweeping blanket statement about anyone who criticises him, really.

Honestly, I only have one question. Especially given your final sentence there.

Why are we discussing G'raha?

Because several pages ago, someone asked for opinions about him.

[tokinokanatae]

And that's the thing. Admitting there's flaws and wanting "more" isn't necessarily a bad thing. Even people who like the characters are allowed to express that... but why did we start picking on G'raha when his character is on the same bag as others who just got "established at the endline"?

This is fundamentally my issue. G'raha is actually one of my favorite NPCs in the game (he and Emet-Selch are basically neck and neck as far as I'm concerned), but I'm not offended by the idea that other people don't like him or wish he wasn't around. Rather, I don't understand why he in particular has become the focal point of so-called issues with the expansion as a whole. If you have trouble with the humor, G'raha is just one of many characters that has the comedy moments. If you have trouble with his presumption of closeness to the WoL, there are other characters (like Alisaie) that presume as much and more about us. If all of that grates you because you dislike him specifically, then that's fine, but let's not pretend that it's a problem that's especially egregious with him compared to other characters. (If it's sour grapes because he's more popular than your unappreciated fave, the fanbase at large is not conspiring to like the cute catboy to spite you.)