|
yknow id been thinking they would probably do something to try to give a fresh start to new players for the next expansion. and it seems like they may not. but i was wondering if this is a good way they could have their cake and eat it too and was curious if other people would find it off-putting do like a second protagonist character. so for the new expack everybody has to create a new character and start from 0 on one of the new jobs. at level 30 instead of getting your job stone or whatever, your original WOL walks through a portal on to your shard and joins the story. for new players that havent created a WOL they just plug in meteor survivor. for existing players, once you hit that point, your job progress and everything becomes shared between your two characters, which would have the bonus effect of basically giving you a swappable fantasia supposing the level cap is 50 like ARR, you’d be incentivized to play one of the new jobs rather than sync down something you have at 90 which could be a drawback but theyd be able to design the new jobs with that in mind. just thinking itd be tough trying to balance on-boarding new players without expecting them to play 5 games to get to the shiny new stuff and also respecting peoples investment in their current character but theres an idea. treat the original msq like a prequel and then new players can go back and design a WOL and jump into at their leisure. i do hope the next arc comes with like an aesthetic refresh of like the UI and stuff. slap a new skin on there. they dabbled with some new text boxes in this expansion i think. also throw out the little interstitial cutscene music that theyve been reusing since ARR and come up with new generic themes for those etc oops total fantasybooking snipe
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2021 03:37
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 20, 2024 10:43 |
|
|
wizardofloneliness posted:Honestly, based on a lot of the posting about this I get the impression a lot of those people are interpreting "suffering" purely as a political thing or something that only happens in an unjust society (like ours) and that's why they're getting upset about it. Yeah, I get it, life under late-stage capitalism is loving terrible, but if we instituted gay space luxury communism tomorrow, there would still be plenty of suffering. It is literally not something you can completely progress your way out of. The game's world is not meant to be a representation of our current reality and it is not saying "no, we shouldn't try to improve society somewhat" or that it's actually necessary that poor people exist or whatever. I can't speak for other people, but this isn't really where I'm coming from with it at all. Most of the reasons I felt uncomfortable with plot beats in EW are personal and, like I said, come from my experiences with abuse. The problem to me isn't the message about suffering itself being unavoidable, it's a moral universe that portrays creating additional suffering as sometimes the righteous thing to do. Likewise, in regard to the "to get EW you have to approach it from a Buddhist perspective" stuff, I feel like something that isn't really getting through is that I get what it's trying to say, and I agree. Suffering is a part of life and always will be, and understanding that is pivotal to being able to live... And most of the time, Endwalker delivers that message powerfully, if a little awkwardly. But with the scenario they created - one in which a pretty big chunk of what we identify as mortal turmoil is not natural for humanity, but was instead created by some lady - they were from the beginning straddling a line where it was easy to trip over from that into sentiments of "life is hard, so being hurt is for your own good" and "trying to minimize suffering is conceited" by mistake. And, well, I think they did at a couple points. The problem isn't the thesis of the story, it's the errata of the narrative undermining it. This isn't a uniquely western take. There are also Japanese fans who seem to be a little weirded out by rock mom. PoorWeather fucked around with this message at 03:51 on Dec 14, 2021 |
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2021 03:46
|
|
|
PoorWeather posted:I can't speak for other people, but this isn't really where I'm coming from with it at all. Most of the reasons I felt uncomfortable with plot beats in EW are personal and, like I said, come from my experiences with abuse. The problem to me isn't the message about suffering itself being unavoidable, it's a moral universe that portrays creating additional suffering as sometimes the righteous thing to do. To be honest I'm getting more weirded out by the people who basically seem to insist on reading the story as "If you take any action to stop mass murder you are actually the baddie because you are making people suffer by not letting them commit mass murder." "Suffering" was not created by anyone. That is the point. She created a world where people suffer because they don't have omnipotent god power. And yes that is a world of greater suffering that a world of omnipotent god power because people don't have omnipotent god power, but it isn't a case of "actually I like people suffering." The story doesn't shy away from the fact that sometimes you have to fight to protect your ideals or people who can't fight for themselves. This is inevitably going to create additional suffering because sometimes those ideals conflict. It also is clear that the story is perfectly willing to accept other methods. You try (and sometimes succeed) at talking issues through instead of fighting through them, and even Venat was shown clearly begging, pleading, and doing everything she could to stop the terrible atrocities before she took action to stop it using the power available to her. ImpAtom fucked around with this message at 04:11 on Dec 14, 2021 |
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2021 03:56
|
|
|
Macaluso posted:Can I just say, having the twins' dad actually interact with the bunnies was very good. In fact I'm so glad they came down to the planet and everyone had to interact with them. Puddingway zombie shambling around in the background is also so good. I want literally everyone to interact with the bunnies. I was so mad the Puddingway quest didn't have any optional discussion points, I crave their opinions on everything. I want to show them to everyone, especially the Gobbies. It's hilarious that Venat created them specifically to appeal to humanity because drat, she sure got me there. 
Pigbuster fucked around with this message at 04:19 on Dec 14, 2021 |
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2021 04:15
|
|
|
Cheatingway was the one that got me. I can't hate them after that.
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2021 04:17
|
|
|
Nothingway is the true hero.
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2021 04:20
|
|
|
Super No Vacancy posted:yknow id been thinking they would probably do something to try to give a fresh start to new players for the next expansion. and it seems like they may not. but i was wondering if this is a good way they could have their cake and eat it too and was curious if other people would find it off-putting
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2021 04:25
|
|
|
I basically can't see any world where they have you treated as a new character even if you started in 7.0 fresh tbh (this is if they actually do this clean break thing obviously). The amount of different dialogue states they do based on what you've done is already big, and doing something like that would make it even more insane and just not feasible. I predict you'll be able to start new in 7.0 but with something saying "hey yeah as far as people are concerned you did infact do 2-6.3, heres some stuff to get you up to speed" with some sort of journal that gives a little summary of the exdpacs and major characters you can choose to read or ignore.
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2021 04:28
|
|
|
NPC dialogue flags work off quest state and not level though right? So long as they never did anything in Eorzea again to make NPCs need to change their dialogue, it'd work just fine. Old MSQ NPC dialogue would still just reflect wherever you happen to be in the old MSQ.
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2021 04:35
|
|
|
homeless snail posted:NPC dialogue flags work off quest state and not level though right? So long as they never did anything in Eorzea again to make NPCs need to change their dialogue, it'd work just fine. Old MSQ NPC dialogue would still just reflect wherever you happen to be in the old MSQ. I mean, if they want to have things referenced that you did, you now have to also plan for someone who has not done any of that, or maybe has done a little bit, or most, etc. I don't think old MSQ stuff would be effected at all, but it would cause problems going forward.
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2021 04:38
|
|
|
I wouldn't mind if they let people skip to 7.0 I guess but I'd hate if they tried to make it a clean slate and went out of the way not to reference things we did or characters we know. In any case it really doesn't seem to me like they'd do that.
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2021 04:40
|
|
|
I should also say that I'm working off the assumption that, the 7.0 MSQ will not continue into 8.0, god willing. Its time for vignettes.
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2021 04:42
|
|
|
ImpAtom posted:To be honest I'm getting more weirded out by the people who basically seem to insist on reading the story as "If you take any action to stop mass murder you are actually the baddie because you are making people suffer by not letting them commit mass murder." I don't mean to be abrasive, but whenever you've disagreed with me over this junk in the past 40 pages, you've done it by representing the narrative of EW as its (for lack of a better term) platonic ideal, and then using that as a basis to act like it's indicative of some character flaw or failure of understanding on my part that I was bothered by it. That's a little weird too, if you don't mind me saying so. Everyone is going to focus on different details in a story based on their own emotional landscape, and I would never attempt to put someone down for their take, however much I personally didn't get it. My problem is not the thrust of the narrative, but the details. Again, I get what they were trying to convey, which was clearly along the lines of what you're saying. But the minutia of various elements - the fact that disease and old age are not natural for humans in this universe but an aberration, the way they wrote Venat's character and then treated her textually and subtextually through the rest of the script, the way they wrote Ancient society, the broader implications of the Sundering, a whole bunch of other moments scattered throughout the expac - created a contrary impression for me that a lot of people seem to be reaching independently. Which is that she wasn't just "taking actions to stop mass murder", but also doing something really horrific herself. When a group engaging with a piece of media in good faith come away from it feeling a troubling implication that doesn't go away no matter how much they squint at it, they didn't screw up consuming it. The writers just failed to account for their perspective when they were making economical choices about what would be shown and emphasized. And like, that's not even necessarily a flaw. No story is going to land right for everyone. Like somebody mentioned earlier, a lot of people who watched the ending of the Good Place with specific experiences in regard to suicidal feelings felt like the writers poisoned the entire show in retrospect, even though their intent was probably perfectly innocent. Those people's feelings were still valid - they weren't watching the show wrong or misunderstanding it, despite the intent not being malicious. I wish I could have a conversation about what I found uncomfortable in the story and hear other people's more positive interpretations so as to better digest without it getting like, vaguely confrontational. PoorWeather fucked around with this message at 05:10 on Dec 14, 2021 |
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2021 04:52
|
|
|
Macaluso posted:I hope interdimensional travel happens because A) I want Yshtola to be able to get back to the First and B) I don't want Ryne to be a thing that only exists in Shadowbringers. I'm annoyed her character isn't hanging out somewhere in the world. She should really be at the cafe in the Crystarium, with Gaia if you do Eden. I was bummed when I went to take one final screenshot of Shadowbringers the night before Endwalker maintenance happened and I found out Ryne doesn't exist anywhere in any of the zones after Eden is complete. Isn''t B already possible now that Ryne is dating an ascian? I could have sworn there was a moment at very end of the eden raid series where Gaia mentions she retained some of the dimensional magics and she can pop into the source with Ryne if she needs to.
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2021 05:35
|
|
|
I am going to kidnap Raha and we're going to find an island to settle on and build a farm and poo poo on. Also I visited Unukalhai and he didn't get new lines or anything (yet?). Poor guy.
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2021 05:45
|
|
|
If it's Ascian methods, at least, she'd need a couple handy bodies to possess, and it's also possible that they'd need to kill themselves to do it.
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2021 05:46
|
|
|
... The part of the Garlemald invasion with the surviving citizens in the mansion... ... man...
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2021 05:50
|
|
|
PoorWeather posted:I don't mean to be abrasive, but whenever you've disagreed with me over this junk in the past 40 pages, you've done it by representing the narrative of EW as its (for lack of a better term) platonic ideal, and then using that as a basis to act like it's indicative of some character flaw or failure of understanding on my part that I was bothered by it. That's a little weird too, if you don't mind me saying so. Everyone is going to focus on different details in a story based on their own emotional landscape, and I would never attempt to put someone down for their take, however much I personally didn't get it. The problem here is, and I'm not trying to phrase this in a mean way but there's no way around it, I don't feel like it is being engaged with in good faith. It is in fact a very similar problem to The Good Place where I never felt like people were genuinely interacting with the text, they were responding negatively to the idea that eternal immortal happiness wouldn't be the be-all-end-all of being and backtracking from there. The things with Endwalker feel very similar. The story made it very clear that Venat took action specifically in order to preserve the lives of people who can't defend or protect themselves, that it was her last choice, and that it was the literal limit of her power to stop an overwhelmingly stronger foe. Framing this as "she did something abhorrent" basically seems to be saying that it is worth mass killing of innocent have-nots in order to preserve the power and life of the haves. If you can't see why I don't have any empathy for that position in 2021 then I'm not sure what to say. I don't think there's anything wrong with not liking the story but when the criticism basically seems to boil down arguing that someone is wrong for stopping mass murder because it meant the people preparing to commit mass murder didn't get to be immortal gods, it's very hard for me to treat that as a good faith reading of the text and not a gut response to the idea of someone breaking heaven.
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2021 05:55
|
|
|
I mean. Venat herself thinks she's done something abhorrent. That's why she gets increasingly covered in blood in the post-Elpis cutscene.
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2021 06:10
|
|
|
ImpAtom posted:The problem here is, and I'm not trying to phrase this in a mean way but there's no way around it, I don't feel like it is being engaged with in good faith. It is in fact a very similar problem to The Good Place where I never felt like people were genuinely interacting with the text, they were responding negatively to the idea that eternal immortal happiness wouldn't be the be-all-end-all of being and backtracking from there. I hope you can understand that the point of contention here is that people don't accept the premises you are laying out based on what they directly witnessed in the story, and trying to follow its own logic. "Venat took action specifically in order to preserve the lives of people"? We've just talked in this thread about how that's not actually firmly established on several levels - the types of sacrifices the Ancients wanted were never actually defined, and the Sundering would have torn apart those existences that she was supposedly 'trying to save' as well, and the Big Dramatic Line she gets when (metaphorically, before someone brings it up again) is about removing temptation from her people. Not about saving lines. "It was her last choice"? That falls apart as soon as you begin questioning the fact that she knew everything about the Final Days and didn't share it. Obviously, she didn't do everything she could before falling on that as a last resort. Tonally, yes, the game wants you to believe that through evoking emotion and cinematography. But it doesn't actually pass muster when examined. We've discussed, in this thread, about ways you could potentially tweak events so it could have. Trying to AVOID "she did something abhorrent" - which Venat admits herself that she has done, that there was no justice in what she did, that it was incredibly cruel - feels like to me the bad faith reading, wanting to posit she is morally sound simply because she's our ally and evokes a certain feel-good emotional response, and ignoring that she's committed terrible things on the same level of our "enemies." Shadowbringers went out of its way to try to break down that divide between hero and villain, and posit that everyone involved was, in their own way, a hero, and encouraging the path of empathy. So seeing people wave off or ignore that problems in what Venat did and the problems in trying to convince us she was wholly righteous and just had no choice but to resort to wiping out an entire race could be seen as bad faith because, gosh darnit, we have to remain the good guys. So it works both ways. Can we all just assume that we all like the game and wanted the story to work for us, and for those of us who had problems, honestly think it sucks that it didn't, please?
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2021 06:12
|
|
|
Hellioning posted:I mean. Venat herself thinks she's done something abhorrent. That's why she gets increasingly covered in blood in the post-Elpis cutscene. Less 'blood' and more 'metaphorical depression tar', but yeah. Incidentally, am I the only one that thought that scene might've been leading to a 'Hydaelyn got corrupted and is the final boss' angle? I'm glad it didn't, but I got that vibe.
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2021 06:13
|
|
|
where does unukulhai hang out
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2021 06:13
|
|
|
So think the Hell Emperor will be the final boss of Pandemonium.
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2021 06:14
|
|
|
Hellioning posted:I mean. Venat herself thinks she's done something abhorrent. That's why she gets increasingly covered in blood in the post-Elpis cutscene. I should rephrase that, you're right. She knows she did something that had serious consequences and was terrible. I am referring more to the point that it wasn't done for cruelty or to promote suffering but because it was literally the last option available beyond just giving up. Raelle posted:I hope you can understand that the point of contention here is that people don't accept the premises you are laying out based on what they directly witnessed in the story, and trying to follow its own logic. "Venat took action specifically in order to preserve the lives of people"? We've just talked in this thread about how that's not actually firmly established on several levels - the types of sacrifices the Ancients wanted were never actually defined No, this isn't a valid point at all. The sacrifices were explicitly defined onscreen. The Ascians literally said what their plan is. It was to unsunder the world and then sacrifice the lesser beings. Emet-Selch stated this onscreen. The only way it isn't 'valid' is if you decide that the pre-sundering Ancients actually had some other sacrifice in mind which is never mentioned or explained but also was enough to make the opposing forces sacrifice themselves to stop it. It's flat-out going "Well you don't KNOW, maybe they were going to sacrifice trees" which makes literally every other character's motivations make no sense in any shape or form. This is exactly what I mean by not believing people are reading in good faith. "No, uh, actually Emet-Selch and his pals were super good guys and they just had some cabbages they were going to sacrifice until mean ol' Venat sundered them because she's a bully and afterwards they decided on their plan of reuniting the star and killing the lesser beings." Instead of acknowledging the actual moral complexity of the scene it just boils down to "crystal mom mean. >  "
ImpAtom fucked around with this message at 06:21 on Dec 14, 2021 |
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2021 06:15
|
|
|
Hellioning posted:I mean. Venat herself thinks she's done something abhorrent. That's why she gets increasingly covered in blood in the post-Elpis cutscene. Yeah, honestly I think a lot of people think Hydaelyn is still some immaculate goddess who we're supposed to see as a moral paragon of goodness. That bubble was popped back in Shadowbringers, and she wouldn't be apologizing to us here if she didn't think she did something wrong. Crystal mom did a bad! It's okay to admit it!
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2021 06:16
|
|
|
MonsterEnvy posted:So think the Hell Emperor will be the final boss of Pandemonium. It’ll be Lahabrea, but his transformation is very similar visibly to Hell Emperor.
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2021 06:17
|
|
|
Varis as Hell Emperor would be p. cool.
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2021 06:19
|
|
|
ImpAtom posted:I should rephrase that, you're right. This entire discussion has been about the pre-Sundering context. It's about Venat in the lead-up of her decision to Sunder. And considering that, again, the final say Venat has in the matter is about REMOVING TEMPTATION and not sacrificing, the angle we're asked to take in is that well Venat is unilaterally passing judgment on her people and asserting a moral high ground and that there's a lesson they have to learn, and gosh darn it, she's gonna make them learn it - that's the motivation we're given about why she'd do it even without knowing the nature of the planned sacrifices. Pretending that I'm talking about a context I clearly am not is not really helping with the impression of 'bad faith' here.
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2021 06:23
|
|
|
Raelle posted:This entire discussion has been about the pre-Sundering context. It's about Venat in the lead-up of her decision to Sunder. And considering that, again, the final say Venat has in the matter is about REMOVING TEMPTATION and not sacrificing, the angle we're asked to take in is that well Venat is unilaterally passing judgment on her people and asserting a moral high ground and that there's a lesson they have to learn, and gosh darn it, she's gonna make them learn it - that's the motivation we're given about why she'd do it even without knowing the nature of the planned sacrifices. Well, among other things, you are going "it's all Venat" and ignoring the fact that Venat was literally part of a group who explicitly stood against the other Ancients. She did not unilaterally pass judgment. She was part of a faction who opposed the other faction. That is in fact how she got the power in the first place. A lesser sacrifice occurred to give her the power to stand against Zodiark. Your argument basically seems to boil down to "she made the choice all by herself and without anyone else" which... isn't the case. Venat was the heart of Hydaelyn but she wasn't the sole creator.
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2021 06:25
|
|
|
ImpAtom posted:To be honest I'm getting more weirded out by the people who basically seem to insist on reading the story as "If you take any action to stop mass murder you are actually the baddie because you are making people suffer by not letting them commit mass murder." I think that sometimes the game does give a vague sense of 'Suffering in itself is actually a good, if you don't suffer from lack of something, you'll fall into despair' and that can influence folks to see Hydaelin's decision as a 'She sundered because she felt 'immortality and that Power were harmful in themselves, and it was better for mankind to be humbled and brought low' and not the 'The way the Power was being used was immoral and self-defeating, and she saw no other ways to fight than to break that power and the world, and with it, introduce the suffering of aging and 'normal' frailty to people who hadn't had that yet, which was an unfortunate side" effect of that' But yeah, I think perhaps the lesson here is kind of like in Stormblood. By all means, fight for what you believe in. It can be worth it, and the prize might be worth the price. But do not ignore the price. Do not look away from the suffering that was caused by the methods you used to fight. Which is why it was important that Hydaelin acknowledged the particular forms of suffering she introduced to people, and expresses regret over it, even if she feels she did the right thing in her situation.
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2021 06:25
|
|
|
That scene in Endwalker does not overwrite the previous scenes in Shadowbringers where Venat meets her followers who agree with her and help her summon Hydaelyn. Who are stated when it comes up to collectively oppose the plan to sacrifice the life of the planet to Zodiark in replacement of the people who currently live as part of Zodiark and are performing the duty they decided upon to protect the planet.
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2021 06:26
|
|
|
ImpAtom posted:Well, among other things, you are going "it's all Venat" and ignoring the fact that Venat was literally part of a group who explicitly stood against the other Ancients. She did not unilaterally pass judgment. She was part of a faction who opposed the other faction. That is in fact how she got the power in the first place. A lesser sacrifice occurred to give her the power to stand against Zodiark. Your argument basically seems to boil down to "she made the choice all by herself and without anyone else" which... isn't the case. Venat was the heart of Hydaelyn but she wasn't the sole creator. That's not the point and you know it. Yes, Venat has a group. And they were a significant minority compared to the vast majority who opposed her. If you want me to tweak my wording, then fine - Venat's small group, with her at the head, decided it was their place to cast judgment on their entire race, against their will.
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2021 06:28
|
|
|
Bell_ posted:Maybe we did. Who has called us the Warrior of Light since we ended the Song of Endings? It's not the WoL dying, exactly, but one of the endings I thought they might do, particularly after it turned out despair was what was spreading the Final Days, was that the WoL would turn into a primal of hope the way Louisoix turned into the Phoenix during the last Cataclysm. It would have more or less fit right into the game's canon -- Primals are generated from faith and prayer, and the WoL has spent the last 5 expansions becoming the beacon of hope bringing peace to all peoples across multiple worlds. I could very easily see a schmaltzy scene where the primal is born from the faith of people all over Etheirys that the WoL (me, btw) will save them from the Final Days. Then either we can pilot it the way Louisoix did, or it can be a detatched parody of ourselves the way Shiva and Bahamut turned out, and we get to fight ourselves as the final boss rampaging through Eorzea.
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2021 06:29
|
|
|
Begemot posted:Yeah, honestly I think a lot of people think Hydaelyn is still some immaculate goddess who we're supposed to see as a moral paragon of goodness. That bubble was popped back in Shadowbringers, and she wouldn't be apologizing to us here if she didn't think she did something wrong. 
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2021 06:30
|
|
|
Raelle posted:That's not the point and you know it. Yes, Venat has a group. And they were a significant minority compared to the vast majority who opposed her. If you want me to tweak my wording, then fine - Venat's small group, with her at the head, decided it was their place to cast judgment on their entire race, against their will. I feel that this is less a case of 'I judge you worthy of your punishment' and more of a 'An act that is both abhorrent and long-term harmful is being committed, and the only solution I see is something that is also abhorrent but less so' And one can argue whether her take on that was right. Emet seems to stand by his decision at the end of everything. But I think portraying it as Venat going 'All of you DESERVE to suffer old age and die for what you did' is not supported by what you see.
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2021 06:35
|
|
|
I think one of the bigger wrinkles is the future knowledge, and because of the echo she can prove it's true, so I think that feeds into the perception somewhat. Especially when at least to me 'closing the time loop' is as indefensible as "you must meet some minimum quotient of suffering" (Not that the game IS saying that but just as an example.) Like doing everything she can should include spreading that future knowledge to me.
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2021 06:40
|
|
|
Raelle posted:That's not the point and you know it. Yes, Venat has a group. And they were a significant minority compared to the vast majority who opposed her. If you want me to tweak my wording, then fine - Venat's small group, with her at the head, decided it was their place to cast judgment on their entire race, against their will. It seems unlikely that Venat's group was a "significant minority" considering they had enough to create the second most powerful Primal of all time, second only to the one which took literally half of the remaining Ancient's lives to summon. They only mention it was a lesser sacrifice which it would have to be because their entire race had been halved and not everyone was onboard. The entire point is that it was a genuine conflict, not "Venat is mean." Likewise she didn't set out to Sunder with no other choice. It's explicitly described in game as "a desperate act" and they repeatedly cite the fact that she wasn't strong enough to destroy Zodiark, merely imprison him. (And destroying him would have restarted the End of Days.) They did make a decision that people opposed because that is going to happen when you have two intractable viewpoints. One side was going to come out on top because they had two completely separate goals. That does not make it a squeaky-clean choice with no grey or darkness anywhere any more then us killing Hades was one. That's the point of Shadowbringers. One side's hero is another side's villain. That doesn't mean the game itself isn't critical of the actions that can be taken for theoretically 'good' goals.
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2021 06:43
|
|
|
I wish Anima was a bigger deal. Definitely thought it'd be a trial.
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2021 06:45
|
|
|
I suppose so. The defense why she couldn't do that made my eyebrows go a bit up, but I rolled with it for the story. Basically, Hermes' active collaboration was a requirement for anyone to even survive the Final Days, and she wasn't sure if revealing what happened might end up with him taking sides against them or not left in a position to help, leading to the Final Days just straight up killing everyone the first time. Because yeah. If not for that one, the most convenient way seems to be 'Hey guys, good news, I was there during the Memory Wipe' but escaped. So there's this huge disaster coming. We should take the time we have to prepare our response and have a measured debate about what sacrifices are and are not acceptable to perform, and emotionally prepare our population for all of this so they won't start performing desperate actions.
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2021 06:46
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 20, 2024 10:43 |
|
|
Eimi posted:I think one of the bigger wrinkles is the future knowledge, and because of the echo she can prove it's true, so I think that feeds into the perception somewhat. Especially when at least to me 'closing the time loop' is as indefensible as "you must meet some minimum quotient of suffering" (Not that the game IS saying that but just as an example.) Like doing everything she can should include spreading that future knowledge to me. Yeah, a big reason I kinda wish Elpis was instead a shorter section of 'wander around this place as an intangible spirit to see The Truth' is because it would take out the whole 'time loop' part, and I kinda think that the time loop makes things needlessly complicated. Even if it's not actually influential--I believe that ultimately Venat would've left that day as the only one with knowledge of what happened, since her actions there were basically solo, and so would have come up with the same plan anyway--it just adds an element that confuses rather than actually adds to the story. The time loop doesn't matter, and yet has to be explained and therefore is considered an important thing to discuss.
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2021 06:47
|
|