On Themis [6.4 SPOILER]

[Brinne]

It's fine to enjoy it that way. Even when your literary analysis and or philosophical deep dive get used as a weapon by others to tell people to shut the heck up. Though I'm not sure how one is to have both happening at the same time.

Look, I'm going to put this as gently as possible, and want to emphasize I'm not personally annoyed and that I do understand why you're frustrated at all the toxicity and that can be hard to untangle: can you see how throwing in basically a potshot even when agreeing to a bridge, that associates and assigns implicit responsibility to the bad behavior of the perceived "side" of an opinion or interest to someone who has nothing to do with it, while also underscoring that you are being very generous to agree to that bridge despite the sin of opinion association, does not help in clearing out the toxicity or making things better? That it's really unnecessary to keep invoking this kind of thing when speaking to a single person who is only speaking for themselves?

Like how it is with everyone's "favorite" subject and how most of the worldbuilding people cam easily go yeah that was a crap thing to have happened but it had to happen cause otherwise the world the game takes place in can't exist. Or at least not in the way it currently is.

I mean, I try to let it go when someone takes an approach of "it sucks and it's weird, but because video game," however... frankly, if you're using the reasoning "because video game," that is stepping into exegetic discussion, not in-universe worldbuilding, and thus people are going to challenge "it HAD to happen" because the writers making the game could do literally whatever they want. It's not weird that they'd then be inclined to start discussing their view of options, and what they think would have made the fact of the weirdness and that 'it was a crap thing to have happened' go down better even with the understanding the format of the game means we couldn't fundamentally alter the setting itself. There's been lots of discussion that you could leave Hydaelyn's decisions completely unchanged, in both mindset and action, and it would have been fine if not for the narrative framework and the tone set around it, which DIDN'T have to happen and continues to be a deliberate choice made and enacted by the creative staff.

[SannaR]

snips cause why not writean essay? Also how the forum does character count is dumb.

I meant that I'm not sure how those in the worldbuilding camp and the literary analysis camp can have a talk without it getting heated. If not also a lot of misunderstanding happening. Or if one side is wanting to have a side discussion but the dominant discussion is being had by the other the side discussion should be allowed to happen. And not you know get told to stfu by a third party. As what happened many a moon ago by the third group that has been hinted at a few times. A group that composes of people who romanticized the perfection of the Unsundered world painted by Emet in ShB. Who also love/like the Ascians and a third in game faction. Where they didn't out right say, but heavily hinted at/implied that the main reason they enjoyed said faction was due to how they othered anyone not them. And how said faction chose to deal with those they othered. Only to become very hostile and get very hyperbolic when people tried to not engage with that group any further. Normally those who try to find a middle ground or to try and restart the conversation aren't the ones taking potshots.

If you think I've been trying to lump you in with those who have behaved in such away or like a certain person in a different thread then no as you've been civil. I'm just trying to explain to you and the other "newer" people the history I guess of what some of us old timers delt with. When we say things like a bunch of posters left due to the unsavory language a group tended to pepper every single post they'd make with.

I guess we'll just have to disagree then? Cause to me because the writers chose to write it that way it's how they want to have their world be in that type of setting. That I'll assume part of the reason that they chose to write it that was is due to needing the earlier bits match up with the later bits as best they can. That they I hope unintentionally shot themselves in the foot by not having an idea of how they wanted a faction in their game to be until some time in Stormblood. So that once they actually had an idea they had to try and make it look like it jived with the worldbuilding they had already done.

[thegreatonemal]

Look, I'm going to put this as gently as possible, and want to emphasize I'm not personally annoyed and that I do understand why you're frustrated at all the toxicity and that can be hard to untangle: can you see how throwing in basically a potshot even when agreeing to a bridge, that associates and assigns implicit responsibility to the bad behavior of the perceived "side" of an opinion or interest to someone who has nothing to do with it, while also underscoring that you are being very generous to agree to that bridge despite the sin of opinion association, does not help in clearing out the toxicity or making things better? That it's really unnecessary to keep invoking this kind of thing when speaking to a single person who is only speaking for themselves?



I mean, I try to let it go when someone takes an approach of "it sucks and it's weird, but because video game," however... frankly, if you're using the reasoning "because video game," that is stepping into exegetic discussion, not in-universe worldbuilding, and thus people are going to challenge "it HAD to happen" because the writers making the game could do literally whatever they want. It's not weird that they'd then be inclined to start discussing their view of options, and what they think would have made the fact of the weirdness and that 'it was a crap thing to have happened' go down better even with the understanding the format of the game means we couldn't fundamentally alter the setting itself. There's been lots of discussion that you could leave Hydaelyn's decisions completely unchanged, in both mindset and action, and it would have been fine if not for the narrative framework and the tone set around it, which DIDN'T have to happen and continues to be a deliberate choice made and enacted by the creative staff.

You being upset that the writers chose to get rid of a group of character is weird. Stories do this all the time. It's perfectly fine to think they got done dirty but there's nothing deeper to it. The writers also punished the one who got rid of them in the story. Venat and all of her followers are permanently dead, no reincarnation for them. I'm confused as to why you think there is some moral issue here. As the story stands it did have to happen and it's treated as a tragedy.

[Brinne]

I meant that I'm not sure how those in the worldbuilding camp and the literary analysis camp can have a talk without it getting heated. If not also a lot of misunderstanding happening.

I mean, there's no "one easy trick" to solve this kind of thing universally, but as a whole I think there can be more of an awareness and an effort to be upfront with, and then understanding of, in turn, if someone clarifies after being challenged or argued with "I'm not talking about the worldbuilding, I'm talking about the writing and the decisions of the writers" or "I'm not talking about the writing decisions or necessarily the quality, I'm just trying to make sense of it on a worldbuilding level," and trying to let things go in peace after that. Yes, there can be some overlap in terms of someone thinking "well, I don't think the worldbuilding explanation works on a writing level..." but there are times when it's appropriate to know when to take a step back, and I'm including myself in needing to make an effort to be self-aware and respect needing to meet people where they're at, if that's what you want to do.

Some of the sources of growing resentment, I think, absolutely comes from the feeling of being willfully misunderstood, or being deliberate reductiveness in the treatment of your perspective or what you're having an issue with to the point of misrepresentation or calling your stance invalid altogether, ala:

You being upset that the writers chose to get rid of a group of character is weird. Stories do this all the time. It's perfectly fine to think they got done dirty but there's nothing deeper to it.

And so it goes.

[Iscah]

I guess we'll just have to disagree then? Cause to me because the writers chose to write it that way it's how they want to have their world be in that type of setting. That I'll assume part of the reason that they chose to write it that was is due to needing the earlier bits match up with the later bits as best they can. That they I hope unintentionally shot themselves in the foot by not having an idea of how they wanted a faction in their game to be until some time in Stormblood. So that once they actually had an idea they had to try and make it look like it jived with the worldbuilding they had already done.

This. So much of the Ascians' story was written with the ending already set in stone by the earlier parts of the game. The end result had to be the Sundering; the writers had no choice but to come up with something that reached that result. I don't think they did the best possible job that could be done, and they had some weird philosophical takes on things, but it's part of the setting now whether we like it or not.

[Brinne]

This. So much of the Ascians' story was written with the ending already set in stone by the earlier parts of the game. The end result had to be the Sundering; the writers had no choice but to come up with something that reached that result. I don't think they did the best possible job that could be done, and they had some weird philosophical takes on things, but it's part of the setting now whether we like it or not.

Right, I don't think this is actually an unfair or unreasonable position at all, and I actually largely agree (because again, this is actually stepping into an exegetic conversation.) I've said many times I don't think the clumsy handling of the Sundering was done out of deliberate malice or anything like that, more like a series of fumbles that was handled extremely badly and reflected certain priorities over others on the part of the creative team.

But I also think this is a bit of an (unintentional) misrepresentation, again - I don't think anyone here is disputing the fact that the Sundering had to happen, narratively, and I've enjoyed a lot of discussion from different people about how the writers ended up in this corner due to approaching things in a backwards way and making things up as they go. However, I think how the Sundering was handled on a storytelling perspective, granting that the fact of it had to have happened, is still a fair topic of discussion. It is perfectly okay for me to be interested in discussing that aspect further and for anyone else to not be interested in it. I shouldn't force anyone into it who doesn't want to have it, and other people, I think, shouldn't feel the need to jump in, lash out and say it's stupid and pointless for me to want to talk about it with others who do too.

There might also be some disagreement about "if we can build a tentative agreement that it was clumsy and we all have to live with it now, how do we as fans handle it going forward?" The approach to some seems to be to rationalize it in order to continue enjoying the game as best they can (please correct me if I'm the one misrepresenting here), and some who feel better about voicing their dissatisfaction with "how it was handled" in a way they hope reaches the writers in the official forums in hopes that either they don't do this so much going forward, or maybe in hopes that future content that touches on it might help reduce the dissonance, and some weirdoes who just like going in-depth with this kind of thing with others - or anyone might have some mish-mash of any of those - but again, I think we can all be allowed those ideas on "how to approach a part of the game we're not really crazy about" while respecting one anothers' choices about it, as long as it doesn't devolve into harassment or abuse?

[thegreatonemal]

I mean, there's no "one easy trick" to solve this kind of thing universally, but as a whole I think there can be more of an awareness and an effort to be upfront with, and then understanding of, in turn, if someone clarifies after being challenged or argued with "I'm not talking about the worldbuilding, I'm talking about the writing and the decisions of the writers" or "I'm not talking about the writing decisions or necessarily the quality, I'm just trying to make sense of it on a worldbuilding level," and trying to let things go in peace after that. Yes, there can be some overlap in terms of someone thinking "well, I don't think the worldbuilding explanation works on a writing level..." but there are times when it's appropriate to know when to take a step back, and I'm including myself in needing to make an effort to be self-aware and respect needing to meet people where they're at, if that's what you want to do.

Some of the sources of growing resentment, I think, absolutely comes from the feeling of being willfully misunderstood, or being deliberate reductiveness in the treatment of your perspective or what you're having an issue with to the point of misrepresentation or calling your stance invalid altogether, ala:



And so it goes.

Would be lovely if you answered the question I posed. I'm not here to fight. I just want clarity as to why you think this reflects on the writers. It's a strange angle to to come at it from. This isn't the ending to attack on titan for example, where it would make perfect sense to come out it from that angle.

Nobody is harping on you for wanting to have that discussion. We are gonna harp on you when you derail a thread to have that discussion. This particular thread was about Themis in the name raid that just dropped. A raid finale that doesn't have much to do with the sundering.

[Brinne]

Would be lovely if you answered the question I posed. I'm not here to fight.

I'm going to be blunt, mal, and go ahead and say that based on your posts here and the history of your posts that I've seen, I don't believe you and I don't believe you're actually asking this in good faith. I could be wrong, and my impressions could change going forward, but that's where I am right now, so this is one of the times I think it's best for me to take a step back instead of engaging someone in what I strongly suspect will just end up an exercise in frustration for everyone involved.

[thegreatonemal]

I'm going to be blunt, mal, and go ahead and say that based on your posts here and the history of your posts that I've seen, I don't believe you and I don't believe you're actually asking this in good faith. I could be wrong, and my impressions could change going forward, but that's where I am right now, so this is one of the times I think it's best for me to take a step back instead of engaging someone in what I strongly suspect will just end up an exercise in frustration for everyone involved.

I don't think we've spoken much my arguments have been no different from anybody else on the "other side" in these arguments. To be honest I don't think you're acting in good faith either however the points you brought up were at least new so I was willing to give you the benefit of the doubt. Didn't think I had that sort of reputation here as I rarely post. I guess you were also around when some of those toxic people were still posting here.

[Brinne]

whistles

This sure went places, fast. Not sure how to feel about this one, all honesty.

I just noticed an opportunity I missed before for WIFECHAT, the only topic that truly matters, so:

I get what Sanna is saying broadly, I think - and it's true that, and a part of my appreciation reflects that, a lot of the times, the motives for an "evil mother" figure is going to be directly, intrinsically tied to her motherhood, always painted as the core of her identity, whether in a negative or positive way. But Athena's actual reasons and motives for being evil weren't actually tied up in Erich himself - her cruelty towards him is in purely treating him as a mere method, completely incidental, disposal, and irrelevant to her internal world one way or another, which is also linked to the lack of where you'd normally see things like, yes, "womb symbolism" and the like. (Instead, Athena gets poison/parasite symbolism in Abyssos, which is absolutely awesome and I could freak out about it in an absolutely embarrassing way.)

In other words: yes, indeed. My wife is, in fact, perfect.