Ardbert's Party vs the Scions Analysis

[aveyond-dreams]

Again, all I want is a better story.

[aveyond-dreams]

Ysayle in the context of Heavensward can be very much considered a main cast member, and Estinien went through his own ordeals. Haurchefaunt also died, Aymeric was stabbed, and of the cast that returned from the life stream they at the very least attempted to mention their new physical impairments in the plot. Unfortunately it didn’t lead anywhere.

Still a lot more danger than Endwalker at any rate.

[Theodric]

It's always strange when the very same poster who insinuates that people who like Garlemald are 'genocide apologists' or 'fascists' tries to claim that posting 'agree to disagree' is anywhere near as grotesque or deranged as trying to shame people for liking the 'wrong' characters or factions in a fictional setting.

I've commented on the past that another thing that happens around these parts is that the same people who attack people for holding the 'wrong' opinions have a track record of pushing and pushing until their targets eventually get curt with them or give a bit of light pushback. At which point the poster doing the aggravating will then point to that comment as an example of supposed toxicity.

Though I'm not really the sort of guy to entertain conspiracy theories about supposed 'forum cliques'. This isn't high school.

[Brinne]

It's always strange when the very same poster who insinuates that people who like Garlemald are 'genocide apologists' or 'fascists' tries to claim that posting 'agree to disagree' is anywhere near as grotesque or deranged as trying to shame people for liking the 'wrong' characters or factions in a fictional setting.

Wait, when did this happen? When did anyone even bring up Garlemald, let alone fascism, in any capacity in this discussion? This is pretty out of left field.

Though I'm not really the sort of guy to entertain conspiracy theories about supposed 'forum cliques'. This isn't high school.

Conspiracy theories about 'social media crowds' and the 'niche types who flock to Twitter and Tumblr', and/or far left conspiracies based on the social media likes of minor staffers at SE, however, are obviously fair game.

[CrownySuccubus]

It's always strange when the very same poster who insinuates that people who like Garlemald are 'genocide apologists'

I have gone out of my way multiple times to flat out say that liking Garlemald doesn't make anyone fascists.

Likewise, I have never called anyone "genocide apologists". I said "Garlemald apologism" and "dictator apologism", respectively. But if YOU think these two things somehow mean "genocide apologist" (or as you said last time, "fascist apologist"), I'd love for you to explain exactly why.

Frankly, I don't see what they've said as demands merely statements of not having enjoyed the sequences in question.

Anyway, seeing as we're entertaining this now what even of it? Let's say they were demands, what would even change? .

LOL, YOU tell ME. I'm not the one trying to insist that they're "not demands". If you don't believe it changes anything, then who cares if you think they're "merely statements"? Then that would mean the argument is pointless, but that didn't stop Lauront from claiming that it was "hyperbole" or "disingenuous", and the rest of your clique from clapping along.

"It's totally not demands, but even if they are, it doesn't change anything" is the most self-defeating argument I've ever seen.

"Group strategy" is a very interesting spin on it, as is the word "clique", when it is simply my own take on that particular point. But while we're on the topic: forceful in what sense and why is it significant?

I don't recall ever claiming it is imperative for SE to listen to anything I have to say or that it converts to some "silent majority" viewpoint - SE can do whatever it wants and I can likewise do whatever I want, all the way up to unsubbing/not buying future products of theirs. Obviously I am offering the feedback in the hopes that they will listen to me, as do we all.

Distinction without a difference. You guys do a lot of justifying your arguments under the belief that what you want will lead to the game's success, while insisting that you're the ones who "really care" about the game or whatever, with the added implication that there's some unseen multitudes that would likewise be dissatisfied if what you demand isn't implemented in future installments.

[SentioftheHoukai]

I have gone out of my way multiple times to flat out say that liking Garlemald doesn't make anyone fascists.

Likewise, I have never called anyone "genocide apologists". I said "Garlemald apologism" and "dictator apologism", respectively. But if YOU think these two things somehow mean "genocide apologist" (or as you said last time, "fascist apologist"), I'd love for you to explain exactly why.

Who's using weasel words now? Garlemald is framed as the stereotypical "evil empire that dominates those it thinks its lessers" which is a Final Fantasy staple. Multiple times has favoring this faction been stated to be wrong or immoral, and never once has anyone who claims to favor it ever stated why. I don't blame 'em, considering the results so far why bother inviting more misery upon oneself? Regardless, one could like Garlemald for its bloody fashion sense and be ridiculed for it here, but I've stopped caring as some on this Forum aren't open to discussing in good faith. Same with Ascian Rejoinings and the Great Sundering, but I'm not gonna pursue that thread again as I'm rather weary of debating morals with brick walls.

[Brinne]

Who's using weasel words now? Garlemald is framed as the stereotypical "evil empire that dominates those it thinks its lessers" which is a Final Fantasy staple. Multiple times has favoring this faction been stated to be wrong or immoral, and never once has anyone who claims to favor it ever stated why. I don't blame 'em, considering the results so far why bother inviting more misery upon oneself? Regardless, one could like Garlemald for its bloody fashion sense and be ridiculed for it here, but I've stopped caring as some on this Forum aren't open to discussing in good faith. Same with Ascian Rejoinings and the Great Sundering, but I'm not gonna pursue that thread again as I'm rather weary of debating morals with brick walls.

I'm an Ascian/Ancient fan, and Emet-Selch is my favorite character. (I even think Venat was a horrible person and the Sundering is an unjustifiable mass murder that has basically broken the game's lore, and have posted about this, passionately, at length! I have had many arguments about it with other posters, even!) I'm very familiar with the frustrating "if you like [x] you are a fascist/bad person/support war crimes" rhetoric used to try to emotionally pressure other people. And because I recognize the manipulative, disengenuous rhetoric for what it is in that situation, I also recognize manipulative rhetoric when it's used elsewhere - ie, bringing in the victimhood of Garlemald fans out of nowhere, without context, in a completely unrelated discussion.

[Theodric]

I'm an Ascian/Ancient fan, and Emet-Selch is my favorite character. (I even think Venat was a horrible person and the Sundering is an unjustifiable mass murder that has basically broken the game's lore, and have posted about this, passionately, at length! I have had many arguments about it with other posters, even!) I'm very familiar with the frustrating "if you like [x] you are a fascist/bad person/support war crimes" rhetoric used to try to emotionally pressure other people. And because I recognize the manipulative, disengenuous rhetoric for what it is in that situation, I also recognize manipulative rhetoric when it's used elsewhere - ie, bringing in the victimhood of Garlemald fans out of nowhere, without context, in a completely unrelated discussion.

It's not really out of nowhere when I'm specifically replying to a poster who, completely out of the blue, name dropped both myself and a handful of other posters as part of a very strange and long lasting grudge.

The poster who, repeatedly, has made strange insinuations about not only myself but friends of mine as well and who continues to do so in various different ways.

I know that you had some sort of issue over my linking of a Twitter profile a while back though I really don't think it's at all unreasonable for me, as someone who isn't American, to not want localisation dictated by those who cannot separate themselves from their political identity and who are happy to openly attack and dismiss large swathes of the population based on their personal beliefs.

As someone who is pretty apolitical in general, I'm tired of politics being dragged into everything. It really isn't anymore complicated than that. Nor do I think it to be appropriate for staff working on the game to be dismissing the opinions of players who have an issue with Venat. On the basis that I played World and Warcraft and saw such statements made in defence of Sylvanas Windrunner who proved to be equally as divisive a character.

At any rate, I'm not hugely interested in this inane back and forth. To be quite honest, the two of you creep me out more and more and I'd like you both to make use of the ignore function and leave me alone. Or at least engage in a civil manner.

[Lauront]

Distinction without a difference. You guys do a lot of justifying your arguments under the belief that what you want will lead to the game's success, while insisting that you're the ones who "really care" about the game or whatever, with the added implication that there's some unseen multitudes that would likewise be dissatisfied if what you demand isn't implemented in future installments.

Are you going to answer my question or not? I will repeat it for you:

forceful in what sense and why is it significant?

I am asking this question because Striker made a particular point of singling and emphasising out the word "demand", with the implication of it being forceful in nature. I'll refresh your memory:

Compare that to certain other posters on here, who act as if they're the ultimate arbiters of anything right or wrong, and then demand that the dev team change things to suit them or else they must be horrible writers. That's not productive (or mature for that matter). Case in point posted shortly after your comment: "This story is not constructed as well as more recent single player titles, and if they want to regard FFXIV as one then they need to do better than what we're seeing now with this party." That's trolling at best and uselessly toxic at worst.

So I invite you to explain what the significance of that is. Especially, since as you noted, the term can be used to denote concepts such as consumer demand. Yet it is clear he's not using it in that sense.

Striker did not explain how the specific, excerpted statement he included in his post was "toxic" or that of a "troll", either.

By the way, you're throwing in an awful lot of "you guys" there. I don't profess to know what the game's "silent majority" believes, I can at best rely on proxy indicators which are admittedly of limited use, but I do note for someone concerned (supposedly) about this matter, you seldom push back on any claims made by Striker or similar to that effect, and his claims about "majorities". I leave it to the reader to infer why that might be.

We all have our views on what contributes to a game's success or not - I am contributing my views with my own conception of what I'd like to see in it - and yeah, I'd hope that if the game implemented them, it wouldn't crash and burn, so I'd hope they would be conducive to its future success.

[CrownySuccubus]

Are you going to answer my question or not? I will repeat it for you

I did answer it. You guys are united in the argument that what you don't like is to the dire detriment of the game, to the point of calling it "for kids" or shallow, while positioning yourselves and others who make the same complaints as the only ones who "care" about the series.

The entire argument is one which forcefully seeks to impose specific changes under the justification of objective quality or mass appeal.

By the way, you're throwing in an awful lot of "you guys" there. I don't profess to know what the game's "silent majority" believes, I can at best rely on proxy indicators which are admittedly of limited use, but I do note you seldom push back on any claims made by Striker or similar to that effect, and his claims about "majorities". I leave it to the reader to infer why that might be.

Interesting. So you're implying that me not pushing back against something Striker says means that I agree with him?

Okay. Let's run with that argument.

Based on that, unless I see you actively argue against or disagree with statements made by your clique, what you specifically do or don't profess is irrelevant. If Aveyond makes the claim that there's a silent majority of dissatisfied players, or that SE needs to replace the Scions, and you guys are silent...but you IMMEDIATELY jump in and start arguing when someone tells him he's wrong or his points are invalid, then it doesn't matter if you yourself professed it or not. I mean, this is according to YOUR own logic about my own lack of reaction to Striker.

If someone is breaking into a car, and you throw away the owner's phone before they can call the police, claiming "Well, I don't profess to agree to car theft" is irrelevant. But I will make a note in the future that, you, specifically, claim that you don't know what the "silent majority" wants. So when I say "you guys" or "the clique" from now, we can both assume you're not included in that.

Also, I can prove that even I agree with someone's overall opinion, I absolutely WILL speak out about points or arguments they make that I don't agree with, provided I have the time to respond or see it. In Striker's case, I had three specific posts I wanted to reply to as quickly as possible, so maybe I'll reexamine his posts. In your case, I think that may be a little harder to argue, because Aveyond tends to repeat himself a LOT, so the question of why you never "pushed back" (again, if we're assuming that no pushback = agreement) is arguably a little more egregious.