What is with the constant mistreatment of the Garlean story?(6.1 Patch spoilers)

[CrownySuccubus]

Only if you're trying to use it as an explicit attempt to display good character, while not holding to the principle yourself. If you think "virtue signalling" means any and all words imbued with a moral judgement in them, such as murder etc., that is simply a misuse of the term.

Since we aren't talking about a real life event, nor something that can be replicated in real life, words like "murder" and "genocide" are invented by the players in order to create a moral rejection of an aspect of the story. The story itself never uses those words. The moral judgment (whether or not it's correct) is one completely fabricated by people of the audience.

[Theodric]

Nope. It was you.

There's no link between what you're saying and what I said in the post in question. I was hardly taking offense, I simply identified something present in my own history and culture that I would enjoy seeing more of in a genre ordinarily more eager to make use of such tropes.

I'll leave it up to others to go and read the full context behind the exchange if they are inclined to do so. Whatever beef you have with me doesn't need to involve dragging multiple threads off topic, in my view.

Since we aren't talking about a real life event, nor something that can be replicated in real life, words like "murder" and "genocide" are invented by the players in order to create a moral rejection of an aspect of the story. The story itself never uses those words. The moral judgment (whether or not it's correct) is one completely fabricated by people of the audience.

If someone deliberately wipes out an entire race and culture, including from memory...then it is an act of genocide. The game doesn't need to explicitly use the term for it to be as such.

[KizuyaKatogami]

Nope. It was you.



Also, not sure what CRT has to do with this, but please use all the buzzwords, I guess.

Why is it every single time you enter a thread it seems like that thread goes off the rails? I’ve seen like 3 today where it’s happened. If you have an issue with someone take it to dm’s or something. I’m just trying to have a discussion about a faction that has gotten nothing but bad writing and rushed writing attached to it. I’m not here to argue whether said nation was a dictatorship, who or what engaged in genocide or whatever. If people want to argue that by all means, make your own thread about it more power to you guys. I’d love to just have a discussion where people aren’t engaging in consistent passive aggressive back and forths thank you.

[CrownySuccubus]

There's no link between what you're saying and what I said in the post in question. I was hardly taking offense, I simply identified something present in my own history and culture that I would enjoy seeing more of in a genre ordinarily more eager to make use of such tropes.

I'll leave it up to others to go and read the full context behind the exchange if they are inclined to do so.

You didn't like the fact that I called a fictional nation a "dictatorship", implying that I only did so because it was a monarchy. Thus, you took offense to me using that term due to the negative associations between it and monarchies. I then explained to you that I called it a "dictatorship" because, by strict definition of the term, that's what it is: a country ruled by one or few with executive control.

I saved them the trouble, and it still illustrates my point.

Whatever beef you have with me doesn't need to involve dragging multiple threads off topic, in my view.

I don't have any beef with you. As I've said before, if someone replies to me, I'll reply to them.

Why is it every single time you enter a thread it seems like that thread goes off the rails? I’ve seen like 3 today where it’s happened. If you have an issue with someone take it to dm’s or something. I’m just trying to have a discussion about a faction that has gotten nothing but bad writing and rushed writing attached to it. I’m not here to argue whether said nation was a dictatorship, who or what engaged in genocide or whatever. If people want to argue that by all means, make your own thread about it more power to you guys. I’d love to just have a discussion where people aren’t engaging in consistent passive aggressive back and forths thank you.

Then stop replying with petty nonsense like this.

If someone deliberately wipes out an entire race and culture, including from memory...then it is an act of genocide. The game doesn't need to explicitly use the term for it to be as such.

By the exact same token, if someone creates an "anatomically correct" doll and you are left to speculate what was done with said anatomically correct doll, then the game doesn't explicitly need to tell you that they are using their dead girlfriend's likeness as a fleshlight and passing it to their friend.

[tokinokanatae]

It was tied up quickly because--as has been implied by Yoshi-P and other staff--the Garlean-related stories were unpopular. Period.

Stormblood, the most Garlean of the expansions, is considered one of the weakest. The story of Bozja has been singled out as being specifically unpopular. To a lot of people, when you say the word "Garlemald", they think of war with unsympathetic antagonists in ugly war zones with an unpopular aesthetic. That Garleans have their fans is undoubtedly true, which is why, as a salve, we are being given more Garlean items for housing and glam, but the reason the story is trying to quickly put all narrative threads with them to rest is because the story is trying to jettison an unpopular element.

[KizuyaKatogami]

It was tied up quickly because--as has been implied by Yoshi-P and other staff--the Garlean-related stories were unpopular. Period.

Stormblood, the most Garlean of the expansions, is considered one of the weakest. The story of Bozja has been singled out as being specifically unpopular. To a lot of people, when you say the word "Garlemald", they think of war with unsympathetic antagonists in ugly war zones with an unpopular aesthetic. That Garleans have their fans is undoubtedly true, which is why, as a salve, we are being given more Garlean items for housing and glam, but the reason the story is trying to quickly put all narrative threads with them to rest is because the story is trying to jettison an unpopular element.

But for a game that prides itself on its coherent writing, it doesn’t seem okay to just…write off an entire plot of an entire nation simply because it’s unpopular. If it’s unpopular perhaps it’s due to the poor writing? Perhaps they should specifically work on it to make it a more popular thing. A lot of stormbloods problems don’t even really stem, afaik, from any garlean themed things, but moreso the split expansion feeling.

[Atelier-Bagur]

I wouldnt necessarily put it like that. I mean I can buy that the Garleans and political stories are just unpopular subjects with the community; although if that was the case why the flipping heck was Heavensward so popular!? oh thats right...because theres dragons involved. And if you wanna please the everyday fantasy nerd crowd, gotta bring in dragons.

But they do at least attempt to give everyone SOME depth. Its just not as much as we wanted. But there is some neat little stories here and there for those who crave for it, aka do the minor quests in the zones. They do a much better job in fleshing out the lore than the main story in of itself in a lot of ways.

[MoofiaBossVal]

uh...did you just ignored how almost every npc in Garlemald hated your guts BECAUSE you were the WoL?

They didn't hate the WoL specifically. The only character who even recognizes the WoL is Quintus. The Garleans disliked the expedition as a whole because they had believed that the Eorzean and Eastern Alliances were responsible for the destruction of the city, and that they were here to oppress the citizens. It would have been very interesting if there was truth to the matter, with the alliances actually invading the empire as Merlwyb had planned to do towards the end of Stormblood and what had happened in the original timeline (which resulted in Garlemald using the gas in a last ditch effort to fend off the invaders).

[Theodric]

I wouldn't suggest that Garlemald was unpopular. It just so happens that quite a few committed FFXIV players have spent a lot of time actively stalking and harassing anyone who dared to like the 'wrong' characters. Stormblood was also controversial due to Ala Mhigo being seen as rather bland and undeserving of three (technically four) entire zones instead of allowing Othard more room to breathe.

It's not like the writers couldn't have mixed things up more and had us get a glimpse at some of the more stable Garlean provinces, or have someone similar to Regula van Hydrus enter the story.

Or someone similar to Rufus Shinra or the Turks show up. The company can't be unaware that the antagonists alone attract a lot of interest in their games, surely?

[Lauront]

Since we aren't talking about a real life event, nor something that can be replicated in real life, words like "murder" and "genocide" are invented by the players in order to create a moral rejection of an aspect of the story. The story itself never uses those words. The moral judgment (whether or not it's correct) is one completely fabricated by people of the audience.

With all due respect, the players aren't "inventing" anything. They are using readily available terminology to interpret what is happening. Now you can argue whether a murder is justified, and that is obviously a moral judgement (and depending on how you go about it, could be an instance of virtue signalling), but in and of itself, one does not need the story or the writers to use the word to arrive at the conclusion that that's how the action is to be described, i.e. the intention behind and consequences of the action, which is how these terms are defined. Just because it's a fictional scenario doesn't mean you can't apply the terms in that descriptive way...