Endwalker vs shadowbringers story, which did you enjoy more and why? (spoilers)

[TaleraRistain]

im curious how it could be deemed "too far." This isnt a kids game, they make that pretty clear within the first few hours of the game.Even yoshi p said in an interview in ShB that its unrealistic to expect everyone on the ally side to make it out safely in a story filled with war and strife. So im just extremely curious on this.

I think Hyperia explained it pretty well. Even if it was outside our control, our character would still commit the act. It's not a kid's game but they're also careful with the choices they make for us, even if they should be a little more open sometimes.

I won't go into full gory details but you should look up that recent controversy on that Martha is Dead game. There's a large difference between watching and participating.

[TheMightyMollusk]

im curious how it could be deemed "too far." This isnt a kids game, they make that pretty clear within the first few hours of the game.Even yoshi p said in an interview in ShB that its unrealistic to expect everyone on the ally side to make it out safely in a story filled with war and strife. So im just extremely curious on this.

On the pragmatic side: We need the Scions around for the Trust system. Especially for the Hydaelyn trial. That alone meant they weren't going anywhere.

On the writing side: Because in the end, it's an heroic fantasy story. The WoL isn't going to turn into some depressed, brooding mess; the Scions aren't going to all start dropping like flies; the bad guys aren't going to just teleport us to the bottom of the ocean and call it a day. They won't go that dark because it's simply not that kind of game.

[KageTokage]

The thing is, even if it's our character's body causing the harm, the blame still ultimately falls on Zenos.

Though I doubt it would affect our reputation regardless considering that the people of Whitebrim Front readily sweep the whole incident that occurs during the DRK quests under the rug despite us very much being responsible for causing others harm there, albeit indirectly (As would've also been the case with the aforementioned event).

[KizuyaKatogami]

On the pragmatic side: We need the Scions around for the Trust system. Especially for the Hydaelyn trial. That alone meant they weren't going anywhere.

On the writing side: Because in the end, it's an heroic fantasy story. The WoL isn't going to turn into some depressed, brooding mess; the Scions aren't going to all start dropping like flies; the bad guys aren't going to just teleport us to the bottom of the ocean and call it a day. They won't go that dark because it's simply not that kind of game.

What do you mean it isnt that kind of game though? The first dungeon we do in this game is literally a sex slave dungeon. The second dungeon goes on to be the template for a healer girl to become psychotic and practice in necromancy while holding close her husband's severed head. Haurchefant was literally impaled through the heart, ysayle was blown to bits. WoL being a somewhat brooding mess is what the drk quests are about. And no one is asking for the scions to start dropping like flies. idk how you get asking for one death or injury= asking for them all to be mass murderd. I find it funny though theres complaining about the game not going that dark when they have a literal kid turn into a blasphemy and then be squashed in front of his father...Like what even? It just seems like people arent willing to let anything happen to their comfort characters, so they immediately ascribe "cheap shock value" to anyone asking for consequences for them.

As far as trusts go, we can already go into previously cleared dungeons with characters that werent even present for it. I dont see why they cant continue that trend with a dead character, not that they would really need to as the trust members cast is pretty bloated. We have what, 3 dps, 1 tank, 2 healers. and one jack of all trades. Theres nothing stopping them from introducing new characters for the trusts as well.

[Iscah]

The biggest problem I had with EW was just that it tried to set up suspense for something that I don't believe would ever happen in FFXIV. So, it wasn't suspenseful.

I don't see why "we know the world isn't really going to be destroyed" is something to treat as a specific failing of Endwalker or even FFXIV in general, because that's just the same suspension of disbelief called for in the vast majority of stories across any media.

You don't ever believe that the villain is truly going to win; the question is not whether but how the hero is going to overcome that threat.

[Vahlnir]

In most ways I probably enjoyed Shadowbringers more, but on an emotional and personal level Endwalker resonated more with me with its overall themes. I thought they were both pretty good. Endwalker's story felt a bit rushed though.

[Theodric]

I don't see why "we know the world isn't really going to be destroyed" is something to treat as a specific failing of Endwalker or even FFXIV in general, because that's just the same suspension of disbelief called for in the vast majority of stories across any media.

You don't ever believe that the villain is truly going to win; the question is not whether but how the hero is going to overcome that threat.

I daresay it's a bit more complicated than that. For starters, tastes vary. Secondly, in a game where the 'mother goddess' figure is complicit in the horrifying genocide of many innocent men, women and children then I daresay it isn't clear cut as to who the 'heroes' and 'villains' actually are.

Yet even if we reduce things to a rather simple narrative of 'good guys' and 'bad guys' there are plenty of people - myself included - who would prefer that the hero have some meaningful stakes and genuine struggles.

It's a lot like how some people choose to completely ignore the presence of PvP in this game. They have every right to do as much, but there's plenty of people who enjoy it so it exists as something for players to indulge in if they so choose.

The same line of thinking can be applied to the story. In order to appeal to a broad range of tastes...then maybe, from time to time, a major protagonist could be killed off in a tasteful manner to show that a threat is an actual threat and that the 'good guys' don't always get to go home and emerge completely unscathed from a fierce battle.

It's not like the cast isn't a large one, either. There's plenty of new and existing characters that can step up and enter the spotlight. The game is set to have a good few more expansions and last at least another ten years.

Finally, if nothing else...the supposed 'theme' of Endwalker was the idea of overcoming despair. That'd be a lot easier to buy into if the bulk of the 'despair' didn't involve the Scions watching terrible things happen to throwaway NPC's and sympathetic antagonists rather than people they actually knew and cared about on an intimate level.

[Novae]

"Take it, we fight as one"

ShB >EW

[Garruss]

Shadowbringers, the pacing was just right the race to try save the first while at the same time wanting to get back to Eozrea to make sure our world was safe was a good mix with the cutting back to it. The story revelations when we find out more about Zodiark and Hydaelyn, the Ancients, and of course about ourselves just work so well. The feeling of getting to 5.3 and seeing the ending of Shadowbringers was great it was a ride from start to finish and felt like it really built upon the plot points we've had since the start.

Not to say Endwalker was bad but there were pacing issues and it really did feel like two expansions smashed into one just to rush to get to the end of the arc, I still think they should have gone with the original idea, and made it 2. The whole reason for the final days did really feels a bit meh in my opinion, I enjoyed it but well sometimes it's not how I felt the story would go or flow, I don't think they spent enough time showing the effects of the final days on the planet it all got very rushed then.

[Iscah]

...

None of that is what I'm talking about. My point doesn't have anything to do with whether there are clearly defined heroes and villains, but the idea of needing the stakes to be "something that could happen" or the story won't be believable or enjoyable.

The post I quoted was claiming that EW's problem was setting the stakes on an threat that clearly wouldn't be carried through, ie. the destruction of the world.

So, generically speaking, I don't see that as different to any other story where a villain (or other disaster) threatens the protagonists. While it's not impossible to have stories where the protagonists lose in the end, it is highly unlikely in a standard story structure. There are plenty that revolve around the heroes setting out to thwart a world-ending catastrophe, so I don't see why EW specifically deserves scorn for introducing a similar degree of threat.