Inconsistencies with the sundering (Spoilers)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ReynTime

SAll the dead ancients, and millions killed by calamities? They were just stepping stones for hope!

---

That's some strong accusations you make against my WoL, mister! :D

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PeaTearGriffin

I've been watching a friend stream his playthrough of endwalker and I cannot for the life of me see how Venat sundering all the ancients makes sense. They were able to successfully stop the final days by having Zodiark create a shield of aether to protect etheirys and forestall the final days. Wouldn't sundering etheirys and zodiark into 14 separate shards (the source and its 13 reflections) theoretically give each shard only 1/14th of zodiark's aether which might not be enough aether to stop meteion's attack? Sure you can say that each shard had less aether making dynamis more available for the inhabitants to use against the dynamis wielded by meteion, but how much positive dynamis would people on an individual shard expect to have just after having experienced the initial onset of the final days and then having their world suddenly sundered into pieces?


Also there are more inconsistencies between the way shadowbringers and endwalker illustrate the sundering. In shadowbringers we see the cutscene with Emet Selch telling us that after order was restored the sundering happened when Hydaelyn battles Zodiark, but in endwalker we see the cutscene with venat in amaurot during the final days walking around and then sundering the world before zodiark even restored order and also without even having to fight zodiark. What also struck me as odd was that during that same cutscene venat says that they were able to forestall the final days by summoning zodiark, but blasphemies are still popping up everywhere and killing the ancients. Also isn't venat already supposed to be hydaelyn at this point? From the looks of it, she looks just like plain venat walking around but then she has the ability to sunder?... Why exactly did the writers suddenly decide to retell a different version of events in endwalker? It seems like an accidental and careless retcon.


Also why the heck weren't Elidibus, Lahabrea, and Emet Selch sundered? Is that explained in the game later at all?

---

You should ask this at the PAX event, there's a place to make questions, its about the journey so far and you do have some good points.

https://na.finalfantasyxiv.com/lodes...c94ff889620dd6

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ath192

You should ask this at the PAX event, there's a place to make questions, its about the journey so far and you do have some good points.

https://na.finalfantasyxiv.com/lodes...c94ff889620dd6

---

Well, damn. Even if OP did ask questions they would've gone ignored lol.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kpxmanifesto

Well, damn. Even if OP did ask questions they would've gone ignored lol.

---

Well you know xD my intentions were good lmao.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PeaTearGriffin

I've been watching a friend stream his playthrough of endwalker and I cannot for the life of me see how Venat sundering all the ancients makes sense. They were able to successfully stop the final days by having Zodiark create a shield of aether to protect etheirys and forestall the final days. Wouldn't sundering etheirys and zodiark into 14 separate shards (the source and its 13 reflections) theoretically give each shard only 1/14th of zodiark's aether which might not be enough aether to stop meteion's attack? Sure you can say that each shard had less aether making dynamis more available for the inhabitants to use against the dynamis wielded by meteion, but how much positive dynamis would people on an individual shard expect to have just after having experienced the initial onset of the final days and then having their world suddenly sundered into pieces?


Also there are more inconsistencies between the way shadowbringers and endwalker illustrate the sundering. In shadowbringers we see the cutscene with Emet Selch telling us that after order was restored the sundering happened when Hydaelyn battles Zodiark, but in endwalker we see the cutscene with venat in amaurot during the final days walking around and then sundering the world before zodiark even restored order and also without even having to fight zodiark. What also struck me as odd was that during that same cutscene venat says that they were able to forestall the final days by summoning zodiark, but blasphemies are still popping up everywhere and killing the ancients. Also isn't venat already supposed to be hydaelyn at this point? From the looks of it, she looks just like plain venat walking around but then she has the ability to sunder?... Why exactly did the writers suddenly decide to retell a different version of events in endwalker? It seems like an accidental and careless retcon.


Also why the heck weren't Elidibus, Lahabrea, and Emet Selch sundered? Is that explained in the game later at all?

---

Technically, the other part that I was not expecting just because of the narrative hand wavium and just sheer amount of insane predetermination, was going all the way back to Elpis. To be frank, I didn't grind too harshly into the problems with the narrative because I've ended up having this kind of thing happen with long running and rather free floaty ideas in Dungeons and Dragons. It's the problem of saying "the dragon is in the castle" vs "the dragon is in the cave behind the castle" vs "there is a metaphorical dragon that exists in the castle".

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PeaTearGriffin

Look, people want to defend this cutscene by saying its not a retcon because it's just a metaphor. Show me what part of this cutscene accurately portrays, literally or metaphorically, the events of the sundering from shadowbringers.

What is the metaphor for etheirys being restored to its habitable state? What is the metaphor for the major battle between hydaelyn and zodiark that sunders etheirys?

---

I'm in awe, that there are people who really think that cutscene was a retcon. There were wayyyy too many inconsistencies in it, for it to be anything other than metaphorical and just a visual spectacle.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Semirhage

These threads always read like some CinemaSins "just fly the ring to Mordor on eagles and the whole story is over. PROBLEM SOLVED!" It just reminds me that the modern media consumer has zero interest in what stories are about, and would rather meticulously dissect the physics "rules" of magic.

---

Nahh, i hate it when the story writers let some protagonists or antagonists act very stupid because otherwise the story does not make any sense. :/ Instead of creating a story where stupid acting is not necessary. And this happened to the EW story and propably the time travel thing was the reason for it. You should never ... NEVER introduce time traveling if you do not exactly know what you are doing. Otherwise you will have to retcon many things, you propably will create "grandfather paradox"-like situations, causal loops etc.


Cheers

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PeaTearGriffin

Look, people want to defend this cutscene by saying its not a retcon because it's just a metaphor. Show me what part of this cutscene accurately portrays, literally or metaphorically, the events of the sundering from shadowbringers.

What is the metaphor for etheirys being restored to its habitable state? What is the metaphor for the major battle between hydaelyn and zodiark that sunders etheirys?

---

I might say it's neither retcon nor metaphor.

You have the story of the Sundering as told by ShB Emet-Selch, who has no memories of Meteion.

You have the story of the Sundering as told by EW Venat/Hydaelyn, who does remember Meteion.

These are the stories that they've each been telling themselves, to remind themselves of why they've been carrying their burdens for thousands of years. And to paraphrase an old saying, there are three sides to the story: Team Zodiark's, Team Hydaelyn's, and The Truth.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Coratanni

I'm in awe, that there are people who really think that cutscene was a retcon. There were wayyyy too many inconsistencies in it, for it to be anything other than metaphorical and just a visual spectacle.

---

The OP has a point though. The story writer is telling us through this metaphorical cutscene that the cause of the sundering was different from how Emet-Selch said it happened in ShB. If the story wasn't retconned then we would know that the sundering was actually because of a battle between Zodiark and Hydaelyn, but we didn't see that mentioned at all in EW MSQ

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AmiableApkallu

I might say it's neither retcon nor metaphor.

You have the story of the Sundering as told by ShB Emet-Selch, who has no memories of Meteion.

You have the story of the Sundering as told by EW Venat/Hydaelyn, who does remember Meteion.

These are the stories that they've each been telling themselves, to remind themselves of why they've been carrying their burdens for thousands of years. And to paraphrase an old saying, there are three sides to the story: Team Zodiark's, Team Hydaelyn's, and The Truth.

---

This is something that I noticed a lot of people tend to forget, and I've seen it happened across different media too. Manga's forums are usually especially hot about it. For some reason people tend to take whatever a character say earlier in a story as the gospel and ultimate truth, and thus claim anything that happened later as reton, lie, inconsistency .etc. Often forgetting that as a player we're given an omnipotent POV of multiple layers that NPCs don't have. A NPC is not necessary lying, their story is simply their truth, but that does not mean it's the universal truth.

Usually, the objective truth - if existed, would be narrated in general form through an invisible DM, but you risk breaking the 4th wall with it and you will be essentially told how to see the world the way the writers want you to. So instead of that, FF14's narrative is told through the actual characters, and you decide which version you agree more or attempt to reconcile different view and find your own version of the truth.

Even if a story point appears to be opaque or murky, it could very well be on purpose to provoke debate among the player readership, which for the most part is always a good thing. Comparing to writer make thing absolutely black and white, with crystal clear interpretation leaving no room for debate which would make thing boring IMO.