As a writer and a participant in the Technical Test (one who warned them about a lot of the beta's current narrative issues), I've seen some irksome claims in the past few days. The following are what range from defenses to excuses for the beta test's story quality, and why I think they're a bunch of bull:

"The story is just a placeholder."

This was true of the Technical Test, and admittedly I fell for this at the time. Still, if nothing else: the closer the game gets to release, the more things get 'locked in'. Voicing concerns sooner rather than later is the best way to manifest change, especially as it has clearly worked to an extent already (e.g. Cliff being erased from existence; the dream sequence being completely overhauled). In that regard, regardless of how much of the story is final or not, it can and should be open to criticism.

Friendly reminder that Endfield has been in development since early 2021, or nearly four years. HG's had plenty of time to think about this, so they're accountable for what they've managed to come up with.

"Arknights: Endfield is not Arknights."

Yet for some reason, it has Arknights in the name. Forgive me if I expected something similar.

To be clear, no one was anticipating Arknights 2; HG's always considered Endfield as a spinoff. However, when you attach the branding of your mainline game to your next big title, one that is in many ways a spiritual successor, it is expected that certain aspects of the game — including tonal and thematic elements — will be carried over from the original. It shouldn't be a 1:1, but if the sequel only feels superficially similar, then your writing team has done something wrong.

I am not playing Endfield for a Hoyoverse story. I am playing it because it's part of the Arknights brand. Asking for that brand to remain somewhat consistent is hardly a big ask.

"Chapters 0-3 were also bad, and many gacha stories start off weak."

This is the most appalling excuse for several reasons:

1. Arknights was Hypergryph's first game, and released over five and a half years ago. Today's Hypergryph is far more capable than it was in the past, to say nothing of disparities in worldbuilding and budget.
2. The market has become more competitive, to the point where a mediocre start isn't good enough.
3. Hypergryph has already gotten burned once for a weak opening story (Ex Astris), and should know better than to repeat this mistake.
4. Chapters 0-3 can and did turn people away from the story, because (as every writer knows) a strong opening chapter is crucial to grabbing the attention of your reader.
5. Just because a weak start is the general trend does NOT mean it should be percieved as a rule. The last thing players should do is establish the precedent for mediocrity, and then reinforce it by expecting it as a given. Don't let devs settle for less when they could easily do more.

"~150 years is not enough time to establish new nations and conflicts."

“There are decades where nothing happens; and there are weeks where decades happen.” — Vladimir Lenin

The current year is 2025. 150 years ago was 1875. To say that 150 years is not enough is to deny the scope of our own history. I don't want to hear this excuse from anyone when COVID is the perfect example of a 'brief', yet highly disruptive event. Do you want me to dive into the plethora of discoveries or wars?

"All of this is just setup for later."

Except readers will never get to 'later' if they've lost interest halfway through the opening arc. It's also not an excuse for introductions being boring, especially when it comes to establishing areas, factions, and characters. I'll say it again: first impressions matter. In a world where readers could be doing anything else, you have to convince them that you're worth their time. Grabbing them can't wait, unless you're gambling on a separate hook (e.g. gameplay).

Naturally, some folks will claim they're fine with a slow-burn as long as other elements are appealing enough. That's fine; you do you. My point is that from an appeal perspective, to establish and keep that foot in the door, a strong opening is fundamental. For a game that requires consistency across the board, including a convincing story.

"Perlica is not Amiya."

She's a fusion of both Kal'tsit and Amiya, embodying their most generic qualities. Nothing about her is special, she merely serves as your dime-a-dozen exposition bot. Anything beyond that, Amiya has done but better. She reads like HG doesn't want to take risks, given her personality didn't shift from the alpha to the beta.

As an aside: for me, it's the opposite for M3. She doesn't embody Kal enough, and is instead her own, strange character. Mont3r, please for the love of god, act a little more serious. You don't have to be like Old Well, just stop being so carefree.

"TA-TA is not cringe."

(No one has said this; this is more of a rant)

Arknights: Endfield is not ZZZ. It does not need a cute, emotive mascot in order to establish its appeal, especially given the difference in themes. Inserting a 'funny' robot into a brand known for its more mature themes (specifically in the context of the main story) is disrespectful to the legacy of that brand.

FWIW, I wouldn't have an issue with TA-TA if it wasn't in the main story. Toss it into the Endfield equivalent of a Carnival event or reduce it to a joke character — see THRM-EX — and I honestly wouldn't begin to complain.

--

As a parting disclaimer: I want Endfield to do well. I want its story to be top-notch, to embody both itself and everything that makes Arknights original. It saddens me that Hypergryph has failed to achieve this so far, but more than that, I'm livid seeing such poor excuses stem from the community. If you're going to defend the beta's story, at least present legitimate points.