Review of 6.3 Story Content

[Kazhar]

Yet people still use ShB for being better even though it did the exact same thing as EW but somehow people are pretending that Shb was perfect? What?

Not even prime forum scapegoat aveyond ever said ShB was perfect.
I can't talk about what other people feel, but when I say ShB was better, I talk about aspects which I care about. It had a much stronger antagonist, I liked the central theme much better, the main cast (despite being the exact same) was more compelling and the climax was absolutely great. Also, none of the things I truly hated about EW were present at the time so it's a definitive plus.
Was it a flawed expansion? Absolutely, but I don't think there's anything contradictory with liking one but hating the other.

Also the people being overly cynical over Venat and Hermes? How about how manipulative Crystal Exarch and Emet-Selch were over the WoL and the Scions

Crystal Exarch being a bit manipulative isn't anywhere close to the scale of what Venat and Hermes did. And the whole time he wanted to sacrifice himself anyway, he never had any intention of harming the WoL. You could argue the scale is similar with Emet-Selch but the main difference is that the story never pretends he's not the villain. (Alphinaud celebrates his death with his happiest face, did the same happen with Venat?)
Many of those who are the most critical of the story said they would have been fine with Venat's portrayal if she wasn't framed as an all-loving hero. There's nothing contradictory with the same people being fans of Emet-Selch.

[Atelier-Bagur]

Not even prime forum scapegoat aveyond ever said ShB was perfect.
I can't talk about what other people feel, but when I say ShB was better, I talk about aspects which I care about. It had a much stronger antagonist, I liked the central theme much better, the main cast (despite being the exact same) was more compelling and the climax was absolutely great. Also, none of the things I truly hated about EW were present at the time so it's a definitive plus.
Was it a flawed expansion? Absolutely, but I don't think there's anything contradictory with liking one but hating the other.



Crystal Exarch being a bit manipulative isn't anywhere close to the scale of what Venat and Hermes did. And the whole time he wanted to sacrifice himself anyway, he never had any intention of harming the WoL. You could argue the scale is similar with Emet-Selch but the main difference is that the story never pretends he's not the villain. (Alphinaud celebrates his death with his happiest face, did the same happen with Venat?)
Many of those who are the most critical of the story said they would have been fine with Venat's portrayal if she wasn't framed as an all-loving hero. There's nothing contradictory with the same people being fans of Emet-Selch.

How can you actually say all of this when Crystal Exarch is painted the exact same way. He was always vague, heck he owns one an entire city where everyone reveres him! Hes just as manipulative as Venat if we're going with that angle, even if he did it all for the greater good. Admit it, its just baseless cherry picking, in fact I think its even worse because your character was actively put in danger for it.

The same reasons you gave for why he did it for self-sacrificial were just the same with Venat with her spending all her aether for the chance of giving the world and its heroes the hope they need to confront Meteion. She died for it.

[Atelier-Bagur]

The only reason people excuse Crystal Exarch is just because he turned out to be Graha Tia, who eventually reverted back to his old goofy self and absolving of his previous character as the Exarch.

What sucks is that all these points that am Im making are all fine for me, I dont ultimately care because the way it was presented and the emotions worked for what they wanted to tell. But im forced to stoop into the same bs overly critical cynicism that aveyond and others give flack to EW because I feel like Im the only one who sees how this is just more of the same with how they handle characters and story beats just with different context. Yet people are acting like what EW did was too different or worse even though these characterizations ARE THE EXACT SAME AS HOW THEY WERE HANDLED IN PREVIOUS EXPANSIONS LIKE WHAT THE ACTUAL F?

[Kazhar]

I don't know really. As I see it, you're really just taking aspects about both expansions which seem very superficial to me and try to argue they're the exact same because of that and I don't think even the most passionate story defenders would agree with that take.
And even if you were right, the idea that similar stories begets similar reception is so strange, and I don't think it applies anywhere in any medium.
Execution is everything, and details could make a huge difference (you wouldn't hear me complain about Venat this much if only minor changes were made to the overall arc of FFXIV.)

EDIT: For exemple, Metal Gear Solid 1 and Metal Gear Solid 2 have such a similar structure and characters it's even a major plot point of the second game, yet people's opinion on both games' stories and what many consider their main strengths and weaknesses couldn't be more different.

[Midareyukki]

The only reason people excuse Crystal Exarch is just because he turned out to be Graha Tia, who eventually reverted back to his old goofy self and absolving of his previous character as the Exarch.

What sucks is that all these points that am Im making are all fine for me, I dont ultimately care because the way it was presented and the emotions worked for what they wanted to tell. But im forced to stoop into the same bs overly critical cynicism that aveyond and others give flack to EW because I feel like Im the only one who sees how this is just more of the same with how they handle characters and story beats just with different context. Yet people are acting like what EW did was too different or worse even though these characterizations ARE THE EXACT SAME AS HOW THEY WERE HANDLED IN PREVIOUS EXPANSIONS LIKE WHAT THE ACTUAL F?

I just feel like the problems brought up in Shadowbringers were not major components of the story. Stuff that impacted the enjoyment at a macro-scale. Things that put everything else done so far in a different light. The issues people bring up with Endwalker, on the other hand, are major components that do impact the story so far. It gives you a different outlook on Hydaelyn and the Ascians. It recontextualizes a lot of things that happened because of the message Endwalker pushed. The Elpis episode recontextualizes all you've been given until then about the Ancients. And while Shadowbringers built Vauthry to be the end-goal, with Emet Selch as a potential sequel antagonist, it delivered, since Innocence happens way late into the game, and the only thing left after that is Amaurot. Fandaniel barely had any chance to explain his character past "deranged Asahi" before usurping the one boss that everyone wanted to see since A Realm Reborn.

I at least act like they're different and worse specifically because of how they impacted me as a player who was paying attention to the story overall. Even if I found Y'shtola's death irritating in SHB, she was just more of the same and I ignored it after it happened. Even if Ran'jit was bland, I ignored him and focused on the characters that weren't. Fandaniel becoming Zodiark came so out of left field I kept thinking about it even after it happened. Way later. And not only did it make me feel it didn't live up to the hype, I started comparing the rest of Endwalker to a possible "what if" based on whether Zodiark was alive or not.

[Saraide]

Werent you also one of the people in the other story thread whom supported aveyond's takes and what not?

Oh whatever, I did make a mistake by not fully reading what you posted here so my bad.

Yea you got the wrong guy, I like the endwalker story a lot.

[Graeham]

Shadowbringers brought people in. (Actually WoW collapsing brought them in but lets pretend it stood on its own merit). People talked shit about other games compared to this one. They CANNOT admit they were wrong. So whatever this game does going forward will always be better and awesome because to say otherwise is to admit to being wrong.

Necrot make the good point. FF game it is popular because of the WoW. Now that WoW player is the majority in FF must make FF like the WoW. Game is scare to do because Yoshi island would admit that the WoW is better.

The only reason people excuse Crystal Exarch is just because he turned out to be Graha Tia, who eventually reverted back to his old goofy self and absolving of his previous character as the Exarch.

No. Can not excuse the Grahad. There is tread about this made by guild. Chara in game it not follow traditional masculine type. Grahad it is the big offender. He eating the delcious cheesie burger but he skip the leg day so is push off by God Meteo. Was greatest disappoint of decade.

To fix must make the new training story like famous movie Rocky Ivy. Grahad he become the boxer and go to cold north of Garlemalding. He pull the sled and do the sit up and cut the log. Sudden he go from the puny Myquote to the musclecat HothGAR to chorus of Rye or the Kaiser.

[Zanarkand-Ronso]

I actually agree with Atelier-Bagur

Now, I LOVE Shadowbringers. Its my Favorite Expansion of the game so far, I Will (-Insert over the top explicit dialogue-) ck.
But no, just like Endwalker, the game has its dry moments and bad pacing. The downtime in ShB gets pretty bad like EW. While I could stomach and even enjoy parts of the Talos quest-chain, it felt like pure padding, same with the Forest & the Fey in some cases.
Crystal Exarch /G'raha's Hero Worship is just as bad as Venat's. I love both characters, but I recognize that G'raha really only gets a pass here, because he's a returning callback to ARR, and lets be honest, it was a hype AF reveal! So it just hits better naturally then Vanats whole arc and reveal, even if we've known about her longer, we had more time and character with G'raha.

Endwalker is full of flaws, but really was a great time.
Shadowbringers was an AMAZING TIME, but its not void of Criticism and isnt the perfect child. One more example is Ranjit. Unless he makes a return...his character amounted to nothing besides a steppingstone for Thancred and Ryne. And one lil Instanced Bossfight. Zenos had more Character and was a legit threat even in Stormblood then this guy in Shadowbringers.

Game is scare to do because Yoshi island would admit that the WoW is better.

Both games are good in their own way, both games are flawed in many ways.
Dont be one of 'Those' people who act like you cant enjoy both

[Atelier-Bagur]

I just feel like the problems brought up in Shadowbringers were not major components of the story. Stuff that impacted the enjoyment at a macro-scale. Things that put everything else done so far in a different light. The issues people bring up with Endwalker, on the other hand, are major components that do impact the story so far. It gives you a different outlook on Hydaelyn and the Ascians. It recontextualizes a lot of things that happened because of the message Endwalker pushed. The Elpis episode recontextualizes all you've been given until then about the Ancients. And while Shadowbringers built Vauthry to be the end-goal, with Emet Selch as a potential sequel antagonist, it delivered, since Innocence happens way late into the game, and the only thing left after that is Amaurot. Fandaniel barely had any chance to explain his character past "deranged Asahi" before usurping the one boss that everyone wanted to see since A Realm Reborn.

I at least act like they're different and worse specifically because of how they impacted me as a player who was paying attention to the story overall. Even if I found Y'shtola's death irritating in SHB, she was just more of the same and I ignored it after it happened. Even if Ran'jit was bland, I ignored him and focused on the characters that weren't. Fandaniel becoming Zodiark came so out of left field I kept thinking about it even after it happened. Way later. And not only did it make me feel it didn't live up to the hype, I started comparing the rest of Endwalker to a possible "what if" based on whether Zodiark was alive or not.

Theyre not major or because you wanted to just ignore the pink elephant in the storyboard just because what you were seeing in front of you was super cool?

I mean hey, im in that same field too. Like I said before, Im fine with criticizing the story but it feels like those whom criticizing EW are actively ignoring what came before and then act as if "Shb or HW did it better". No it didnt, its why I keep asking where we the Shb criticizers for all the bs the msq pulled, they only cared more about the good it actually did and thats fine with me.


But guess what, so is EW. Theres a lot of the same bs plot contriviences it pulled but I didnt care because what good it brought into the story to me was ultimately just as good as any of the other moments in previous expansion stories.

Sometimes, I ultimately feel like Im screaming in a dark echo chamber.

[TheMightyMollusk]

Haven't had another thread devoured by the EW debate in a while.