Would Endwalker have been better if we never visited Elpis at all?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TaleraRistain

The OP asked if we felt Elpis was necessary and in the narrative that was told, the connection with Meteion that we met and connected with by way of Elpis was necessary. She was part of the hivemind of the Meteia but we help her start to remember the part that is our Meteion. The Dead Ends felt a lot less like she was trying to convince us and more that she was trying to convince herself. And then after we broke her free from the hivemind Endsinger, that connection with us helped her understand what hope was and release it into the universe.

If we had come to that point as a stranger instead of a friend, she would have reacted much differently.

---

Eh, throw in some echo vision we give her that we saw of Hermes. Honestly a random stranger pulling out the Elpis flowers at the end would have a bit more WTF factor to it imo. Either way, I'm not concerned about Meteion; I'm concerned about bad time loops, genocide justification and being denied seeing a really cool Primal fight.

Honestly it would've been fine if they kept the warrior of light consistent.

"You kill people, regardless of the reason we can never have peace until you're gone."

"Oh it's okay mommy Venat you were just doing what was best for the world."

WoL should've been like "I understand where you're coming from but you're no longer worthy to hold the light."

Edit: My opinion on OP's question is that the narrative would have been no different with or without Elpis inclusion. The events that took place there had already occurred by the point we were in the narrative, so it didn't matter.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Xtrasweettea

3. Venat becoming the Jesus Christ figure who decided to flip the universal table and sunder the universe, destroying everything and locking what we were told was basically "the devil" for 10 years in the same reality that our characters were in

---

Friend, with all due respect, no.
Venat sundered Etheirys exclusively.

The sundering did not effect anything out of the star's direct influence; likely only those things within the veil of aether Zodiark used to shield the star from Dynamis (although this is speculation on my part), and the Shards/reflections exist within paradoxical pocket dimensions.

This is why Midgardsormr and his brood are so incredibly strong and aether rich compared to the sundered life of Etheirys— they are whole, unsundered beings.

Further: how could she sunder the entire known universe when she used only a fraction of a fraction of the population of Etheriys remaining to perform the act, when Zodiark needed half of an entire super earth to stop the final days? A much smaller act than the impossibly herculean task of sundering an entire plane of existence on a universal scale.

No, it was just the planet and nothing more.

Also:

Quote:

---

i would also suggest splitting meteion and the endsinger into 2 separate characters and have meteion and endsinger

---

They were. The Meteia created the nest where they gathered the souls of the dead, said souls became the Endsinger alongside the other Meteia. Which is why when we encounter it they when confronting you alone they say "as we did, as we died." Indicating it is the amalgamation of the dead souls that the Meteia collected and stored in the Dead Sun to end the cycle of death and rebirth in the universe. It is highly likely that the Endsinger did not exist up until that point and was created as desperation move to confront us physical after we overturned the Meteia's power over Ultima Thule.


------

Oh and another note, I'm not going to jump into the major debates here, because wow that's a horrible life decision, but... as a writer I have to ask that people quit using coercive and manipulative verbiage and phrasing to get their point across.

I've seen the phrases "genocide apologist" and "genocide sympathizer" among others used in many threads, and that needs to stop. It's manipulative and serves only to garner a negative response from those reading your post. Many of the arguments, debates and vitriol in these threads can be avoided if people opt to use neutral, non-accusatory language intended to encourage debate, rather than thinly veiled and or subtle insults and criticisms of one's personal, individual character over their opinion of a fake, fantasy, non-important video game narrative.

Debate and discussion is a two way street and if one starts with a bad faith argument or accusation before even stating their point, then that individual has already indicated that they do not want to discuss anything and only wish prove that they have the moral high ground.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BubblyBoar

And even after being said so by the dev team, people still reject it because they full heartily believe that the unsundered world was a better one.

---

What was said by the dev team? That Venat believed that this is "probably" what would happen to them "if they continued as they were"? You are speaking as though this statement is some damning, objective end to the matter but the fact remains that everything that was done to their society was done based on the subjective thought process of a single person. As stated by the devs. The devs even ask you to think about this person's right to make that decision for mankind; comparing it to another well-known antagonist's mindset in the game.

No one is making anything up or refusing to come to terms with it. They're pointing out the blatant contradictions and inconsistencies in the story and why it all falls apart with even the smallest bit of examination. The devs inability to be firm and decisive on any points also does not help the story in any way, with them making statements like

"Whatever you would be doing is what X would be doing"
"We *think* that's what would have happened"
"We'll allow you to come to your own conclusions about that"

In response to very pertinent lore questions.
Brilliant.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Xirean

Eh, throw in some echo vision we give her that we saw of Hermes. Honestly a random stranger pulling out the Elpis flowers at the end would have a bit more WTF factor to it imo. Either way, I'm not concerned about Meteion; I'm concerned about bad time loops, genocide justification and being denied seeing a really cool Primal fight.

---

I guess it depends on how one interprets the Op's question. I took it that the cause of the Final Days remained the same, but we learned about it another way. And that's the question I was answering to the OP. I think going to Elpis and meeting Meteion and connecting with her was essential to that 6.0 storyline and resolution.

If the idea is that the story connected to Elpis wasn't the answer to the Final Days at all, well, the sky's the limit there.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jameseoakes

I think most of the issues are the writing is for it is bad. Endwalker does a terrible job addressing this, the ancients seemed a pretty driven and motivated people so the idea of them ending up as the Plenty seems remote, they even wrote it so the plenty was happy until Meition came. If the writers had have spent time building this as an arc it might have worked but as it is it's a mess filled with lot of deeply unsettling themes on festishing suffering but then not following up on that as the the game then demonises the societies more driven by that.

---

Well, that's not true at all. One of the big plot points of Elpis was what the unsundered did once they were "done" and have completed their duty. They specifically chose to die. Only the "odd" ones did not. How come this fact keeps getting ignored like the connection between the ancients and the Plenty is out of nowhere? This is why people keep asking if those with questions are paying attention. Death as their ending was a constant. And the fact they chose to die rather than see their work flourish after completion is a massive part of their culture. The Plenty shows what happens with the ancients have finished their work. It's incredibly on the nose. But it's like these points are being ignored because some people don't want to accept the message behind it. The argument has constantly been "it's bad written because I disagree with the message." Which is basically a rejection of the story because it offends your beliefs and blaming the writers because of it. Hubris and pride.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PawPaw

Stuff

---

When did I say anything about what Venat said or did? I was specifically mentioning what the devs said about the Plenty and the Unsundered. Not once have I said that Venat did the righteous thing or that she absolutely should have done what she did.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PawPaw

What was said by the dev team? That Venat believed that this is "probably" what would happen to them "if they continued as they were"? You are speaking as though this statement is some damning, objective end to the matter but the fact remains that everything that was done to their society was done based on the subjective thought process of a single person. As stated by the devs. The devs even ask you to think about this person's right to make that decision for mankind; comparing it to another well-known antagonist's mindset in the game.

No one is making anything up or refusing to come to terms with it. They're pointing out the blatant contradictions and inconsistencies in the story and why it all falls apart with even the smallest bit of examination. The devs inability to be firm and decisive on any points also does not help the story in any way, with them making statements like

"Whatever you would be doing is what X would be doing"
"We *think* that's what would have happened"
"We'll allow you to come to your own conclusions about that"

In response to very pertinent lore questions.
Brilliant.

---

Or my all time fave:

Quote:

---

As far as the story is concerned, I don’t have an exact figure in mind or an exact imagining of how long it has been since 1.0. If I go down that rabbit hole I’d never stop thinking how old here, like I don’t know I don’t wanna think about it. It’s better not to think about it. So just feel, or vibe. Hear, feel, think…perhaps?

---

One to do with passage of time but still funny and relevant to any number of them!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BubblyBoar

Well, that's not true at all. One of the big plot points of Elpis was what the unsundered did once they were "done" and have completed their duty. They specifically chose to die. Only the "odd" ones did not. How come this fact keeps getting ignored like the connection between the ancients and the Plenty is out of nowhere? This is why people keep asking if those with questions are paying attention. Death as their ending was a constant. And the fact they chose to die rather than see their work flourish after completion is a massive part of their culture. The Plenty shows what happens with the ancients have finished their work. It's incredibly on the nose. But it's like these points are being ignored because some people don't want to accept the message behind it. The argument has constantly been "it's bad written because I disagree with the message." Which is basically a rejection of the story because it offends your beliefs and blaming the writers because of it. Hubris and pride.

---

They chose to die with the lifes work complete I don't see why that's such an issue. I'd take the fate of the plenty over a world with suffering. Also don't mock me like that, your post is extremely rude and there no need for that.

I don't believe that suffering is some kind of uplifting force that when exposed to makes people better, it breaks most people as this games story in the past has taken time to explore.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lauront

Alright, I'll phrase it another way: if a good chunk of the playerbase is not understanding this story, which is trying to push a very controversial conclusion, then who is at fault here? The playerbase, or the writers for not making their material clear enough to stand on its own? This is the conclusion of a 10 year arc, with plenty of work going into it to supposedly make sure it comes out clear.

---

I disagree that a good chunk of the playerbase does not understand the story as evidenced by the mountain of accolades EW has received everywhere but here. I think a good chunk of those that browse and post on these forums didn't get the story, as evidenced by the mountain of complaints and even hate it has received here. (Though it's possible some are just trolling.)

It's probably pointless to mention this but I'll do it again anyway: There are those that post here that understood the story very well and simply thought it was bad, cliched, whatever. To those posters, my comment of not understanding the story is not directed at you. But if you fall into that category and get defensive anyway, then that's on you.

I can acknowledge, however, that the retort "you didn't get it" has been used dismissively and condescendingly. Which isn't right either.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jameseoakes

They chose to die with the lifes work complete I don't see why that's such an issue. I'd take the fate of the plenty over a world with suffering. Also don't mock me like that, your post is extremely rude and there no need for that

---

And that's a core belief that you have. So someone with that belief will, of course, take issue with a story that preaches the opposite. That is not an example of bad writing, it's just disagreeing with the message. There's plenty of bad writing examples you can poke at. But disagreeing with the message of the story is not an example of the writings doing their job badly.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BubblyBoar

Well, that's not true at all. One of the big plot points of Elpis was what the unsundered did once they were "done" and have completed their duty. They specifically chose to die. Only the "odd" ones did not. How come this fact keeps getting ignored like the connection between the ancients and the Plenty is out of nowhere? This is why people keep asking if those with questions are paying attention. Death as their ending was a constant. And the fact they chose to die rather than see their work flourish after completion is a massive part of their culture. The Plenty shows what happens with the ancients have finished their work. It's incredibly on the nose. But it's like these points are being ignored because some people don't want to accept the message behind it. The argument has constantly been "it's bad written because I disagree with the message." Which is basically a rejection of the story because it offends your beliefs and blaming the writers because of it. Hubris and pride.

---

Who is ignoring the fact that they can choose to return to the star when they feel they have completed their work? I think it's one of the parts of their society that is admirable. Unlike the denizens of the Plenty, the Ancients didn't try to eliminate all things that made them sad, they didn't try to escape death. The vast majority accepted life as finite and chose to start again when they felt they had done all that could be done to better their star. The people of the Plenty could not do this because they had eliminated death in their fear, and that is why Ra-La was created. The only thing that the Plenty and the Ancient world had in common was that they both wore robes and masks, one of the funnier attempts by the writers to draw some parallels.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BubblyBoar

And that's a core belief that you have. So someone with that belief will, of course, take issue with a story that preaches the opposite. That is not an example of bad writing, it's just disagreeing with the message. There's plenty of bad writing examples you can poke at. But disagreeing with the message of the story is not an example of the writings doing their job badly.

---

The way it tells it is terrible it spends no meaningful time on it, it sets up a terrible time loop sets up some dross characters to drive the narrative and then gaslights it's audience. Tell me how this was well written how it sets up Venats actions in any good sense, it's not well written if you have to believe that suffering is a universal good, which I think is a monstrous ideology to hold and honestly I'll take it with pride that I think story of Venat is one of a hellish monster fit to be the true villain of the story

I'm not going to keep repeating myself. if you can't see the through line here, I can't help you at all. I could explain it over and over and over again until I'm blue in the face and you just won't accept anything I say because you're not really here to discuss, just yell your opinion until people think you are right. And you know what? That's fine, have at it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jameseoakes

The way it tells it is terrible it spends no meaningful time on it, it sets up a terrible time loop sets up some dross characters to drive the narrative and then gaslights it's audience. Tell me how this was well written how it sets up Venats actions in any good sense

---

I'll say it for the millionth time, when was I ever bringing up Venat and her actions other than asking why people keep asking me about her?

Absolutely not. Emet-Selch pretty much hard carried the expansion (again) and his characterization in Elpis was vital for that.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jameseoakes

I think most of the issues are the writing is for it is bad. Endwalker does a terrible job addressing this, the ancients seemed a pretty driven and motivated people so the idea of them ending up as the Plenty seems remote, they even wrote it so the plenty was happy until Meition came.

---

I found The Plenty to be so fundamentally different from the Ancients that aside from the masks and robes I never would have made any connection between them. We're talking about a culture who would've had to have moved away from believing returning to the star was beautiful and to be celebrated to believing immortality was the way to go. This is a foundational shift that likely would've taken millennia, which leads me to believe that the Sundering was some sort of extremely premature overreaction on Venat's part.

It also completely ignores how the souls of the Ancients were altered by having experienced the Final Days. At best, I could be talked into accepting The Plenty as their fate before them, but certainly not after when we've seen the experience of it was so detrimental even a shooting star to a sundered soul is enough to relive the trauma and grief.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Nethereal

WoL should've been like "I understand where you're coming from but you're no longer worthy to hold the light."

---

I desperately wanted a dialog option of, "I don't approve of what you've done, but you've left me no choice but to see this through," at a minimum.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Aniya_Estlihn

I've seen the phrases "genocide apologist" and "genocide sympathizer" among others used in many threads, and that needs to stop. It's manipulative and serves only to garner a negative response from those reading your post.

---

Sincerely, how should I frame it when Yoshi-P himself has referred to the rejoinings as "mass murder"? The Final Days and Sundering were worse, so... mass murder apologism? I actually hate using the word genocide, but it's the language of the playerbase.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BubblyBoar

I'm not going to keep repeating myself. if you can't see the through line here, I can't help you at all. I could explain it over and over and over again until I'm blue in the face and you just won't accept anything I say because you're not really here to discuss, just yell your opinion until people think you are right. And you know what? That's fine, have at it.





I'll say it for the millionth time, when was I ever bringing up Venat and her actions other than asking why people keep asking me about her?

---

She is the whole cause of the sundering it was all her, if your talking about that you are talking about her....

Then clearly you haven't read anything I wrote because I've been talking about the ancients and their time period, not the sundering. I did say the sundering was less terrible than the Final Days because a single world compared to the universe is a vastly different scale. I also said that that Venat did doesn't mean the sundered don't have a right to exist after it has been done. Neither of these things defend or support what Venat did. Are you sure you are quoting the right person?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lium

I disagree that a good chunk of the playerbase does not understand the story as evidenced by the mountain of accolades EW has received everywhere but here. I think a good chunk of those that browse and post on these forums didn't get the story, as evidenced by the mountain of complaints and even hate it has received here. (Though it's possible some are just trolling.)

It's probably pointless to mention this but I'll do it again anyway: There are those that post here that understood the story very well and simply thought it was bad, cliched, whatever. To those posters, my comment of not understanding the story is not directed at you. But if you fall into that category and get defensive anyway, then that's on you.

I can acknowledge, however, that the retort "you didn't get it" has been used dismissively and condescendingly. Which isn't right either.

---

I think we simply have a disagreement about how clearly understood EW's story was. Yes, EW certainly received many accolades, but I'd question how reflective that is of a story being clear - especially with one where it is aiming for an emotional gutpunch, which it did achieve for a lot of people. It's also a case, perhaps, that people more receptive to the theme may be less likely to question it, but I don't think that's all that is at play here, and I have seen people who initially enjoyed it and then later began stewing on some points, considering whether they were as well made as they initially thought.

The sites on which it did receive such accolades don't represent much less of a minority than this, be it Metacritic or Reddit. I browse Reddit fairly frequently and I have come across some absolute whopper misunderstandings of the story, including from those who like it. There were also critical comments on a number of JP sites. It isn't so much that people can't see what they're trying to do with the Plenty visual parallel. That is abundantly clear. It's that the overall message is condensing so many disparate themes at once and then throwing memory wipes and a time loop in with these, and doing so in the space of the latter third of the expansion while on top of this introducing the ultimate villain and a new form of energy all at once. This is a recipe for muddled understandings, and not just in the sense of "well what are the writers trying to say", but also in the sense of "are they really trying to say this"? I'll go back to the point that it almost comes across that the races wiped out by despair almost had it coming/were constitutionally unfit to exist for not having the "right" attitude to "suffering" (and as others have remarked, it often verges on confusing questions of its inevitability with its necessity or desirability) and this is a very controversial message to push, so it is natural to ask if this was intended or not and if so, are they attempting to justify it?

Anyway in spite of our past interactions perhaps being a bit prickly, your acknowledgement is appreciated.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rulakir

I found The Plenty to be so fundamentally different from the Ancients that aside from the masks and robes I never would have made any connection between them. We're talking about a culture who would've had to have moved away from believing returning to the star was beautiful and to be celebrated to believing immortality was the way to go. This is a foundational shift that likely would've taken millennia, which leads me to believe that the Sundering was some sort of extremely premature overreaction on Venat's part.

It also completely ignores how the souls of the Ancients were altered by having experienced the Final Days. At best, I could be talked into accepting The Plenty as their fate before them, but certainly not after when we've seen the experience of it was so detrimental even a shooting star to a sundered soul is enough to relive the trauma and grief.

---

None of the Thule races seemed to have had any effort put into making them, though the race on the plenty are odd as they were happy until Meition came and convinced them there was no point to anything so they embraced death...which doesn't tie that well with the ancients.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BubblyBoar

Well, that's not true at all. One of the big plot points of Elpis was what the unsundered did once they were "done" and have completed their duty. They specifically chose to die. Only the "odd" ones did not. How come this fact keeps getting ignored like the connection between the ancients and the Plenty is out of nowhere? This is why people keep asking if those with questions are paying attention. Death as their ending was a constant. And the fact they chose to die rather than see their work flourish after completion is a massive part of their culture. The Plenty shows what happens with the ancients have finished their work. It's incredibly on the nose. But it's like these points are being ignored because some people don't want to accept the message behind it. The argument has constantly been "it's bad written because I disagree with the message." Which is basically a rejection of the story because it offends your beliefs and blaming the writers because of it. Hubris and pride.





When did I say anything about what Venat said or did? I was specifically mentioning what the devs said about the Plenty and the Unsundered. Not once have I said that Venat did the righteous thing or that she absolutely should have done what she did.

---

Them returning to the star is something along the lines of assisted suicide, which is something I actually support wholeheartedly. What is wrong with refusing to linger once your work is done? What is wrong with not taking up space and resources when you decide you are done with life, as long as it is done at your own volition? I don't see a gods damn thing wrong with it personally.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PawPaw

Who is ignoring the fact that they can choose to return to the star when they feel they have completed their work? I think it's one of the parts of their society that is admirable. Unlike the denizens of the Plenty, the Ancients didn't try to eliminate all things that made them sad, they didn't try to escape death.The vast majority accepted life as finite and chose to start again when they felt they had done all that could be done to better their star. The people of the Plenty could not do this because they had eliminated death in their fear, and that is why Ra-La was created. The only thing that the Plenty and the Ancient world had in common was that they both wore robes and masks, one of the funnier attempts by the writers to draw some parallels.

---

That’s not what the souls on the moon said.

Quote:

---

Temperamental Spirit:
The Final Days taught us to fear a death forced upon us.
The injustice of duties and dreams left unfulfilled. The grief of unexpected partings...
Swift as darkness, cold as ash.
Such tragedy, yet no catharsis! Such truth, yet no consolation...

---

https://i.imgur.com/89s7DIT.jpg

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jameseoakes

None of the Thule races seemed to have had any effort put into making them, though the race on the plenty are odd as they were happy until Meition came and convinced them there was no point to anything so they embraced death...which doesn't tie that well with the ancients.

---

I don’t think that’s what the dialogue in Dead Ends was implying. Meteion asked what they lived for and they told her they had nothing to live for. They even seemed bemused by her repeated questions, as if what she was asking was childish.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by redheadturk

Them returning to the star is something along the lines of assisted suicide, which is something I actually support wholeheartedly. What is wrong with refusing to linger once your work is done? What is wrong with not taking up space and resources when you decide you are done with life, as long as it is done at your own volition? I don't see a gods damn thing wrong with it personally.

---

The problem with it in the story was that it was hypocritical. They chose when to die, but other life did not. It was the crux of Hermes' plight. Personally, I see it as abandoning their duty. They created these lifeforms and this environment fuck off after it's done. It feels like "I had my fun and tinkered a bit, but I'm done now. Good luck with the world I left you in!" Seems kind of selfish to me. But that's just my personal opinion. Nothing to do with the point I was making in the part you quoted.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by redheadturk

Them returning to the star is something along the lines of assisted suicide, which is something I actually support wholeheartedly. What is wrong with refusing to linger once your work is done? What is wrong with not taking up space and resources when you decide you are done with life, as long as it is done at your own volition? I don't see a gods damn thing wrong with it personally.

---

They also have a solid working knowledge of what happens to there souls after they die and that death is not really the end and that they will be in some fashion reborn but with fresh ideas which makes the Ancients seem a pretty dynamic society all things considered which makes it feel very odd that then are pushing them as stagnant society. There writing often seems to mismatched in Endwalker with them showing different thing to what they are apparently saying

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by EaraGrace

I don’t think that’s what the dialogue in Dead Ends was implying. Meteion asked what they lived for and they told her they had nothing to live for. They even seemed bemused by her repeated questions, as if what she was asking was childish.

---

No it says they had no answer to her question and that she was unable to stop asking it and that drove them to there fate

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by EaraGrace

That’s not what the souls on the moon said.

---

Ah yes, lamenting the deaths forced upon them by the advent of the Final Days as opposed to what they would normally be able to do which would be to have the freedom to choose their own end. That totally negates everything I said about them valuing their existences and understanding that life is finite. You got me.

Edit: Oh I see what you were trying to do! I generally don't bother looking at screenshots but you were attempting to say that the agonizings of the traumatized souls that had been trapped for 12k years were a very good and completely normal representation of the views of the Ancients before the Final Days and that they had always been aggressively seeking paradise. It wasn't because of the trauma they had been subjected to and possibly their desire for the nightmare to end.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DPZ2

If the entirety of the storyline surrounding Venat and the events of Elpis had not been in-game, would the story seem better to you? Or was it essential for the successful conclusion of 6.0, despite the dislike of that storyline for a number of forum posters?

---

No, it would not have been better. I *loved* Elpis, as did many, many, many other players. The absurdly minuscule few that are the forum naysayers who badmouth anything and everything aren't even a drop in the bucket compared to the hundreds of thousands and possibly 1,000,000+ players, who overwhelmingly enjoyed the expansion and Elpis in particular.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rulakir

Sincerely, how should I frame it when Yoshi-P himself has referred to the rejoinings as "mass murder"? The Final Days and Sundering were worse, so... mass murder apologism? I actually hate using the word genocide, but it's the language of the playerbase.

---

I was not referring to the character's actions, but how individual posters and players are addressing one another mid-discussion. You can refer to the actions of the characters in such a way. The issue is that people have been referring to one another's opinions as "apologist" or "sympathetic" of said actions and lumping those they wish to debate with into the same umbrella as the characters who made those decisions. It's subtle, but does a number on the sub-conscious mind, which is where the problem lies.

Personally, I wouldn't use genocide to describe Venat's or any character's actions. Not at all.

As her actions very much fall in line with the star-centric dogma the ancients believed en masse: service to the star no matter the cost.

We are led to believe that by sundering their world, she did not "kill" anyone, there is no genocide here. Their beings were split and they retained their identities between shards at the start, at least.

Emet-Selch actually explains this quite well in Shadowbringers when he shows the example using Ryne. Upon the initial strike, she (Hydaelyn) sundered the world into 14 perfectly identical pieces, 13 reflections and 1 source. Stating that there were no differences other than the amount of aether each shard retained. This implies that no one died from the action until those who died properly, well, died.

In fact, I feel we can safely assume that this example of his is the justification they retroactively used for her actions in the sundering— to illustrate that she really only enforced the idea of one returning to the star upon death, by introducing actual 'death' to a society that saw death, in the form of returning to the star, as a conscious decision and not an ultimate fate.

It's ironic, really. They avert the death brought about by the final days and to prevent more death via people offering themselves to Zodiark, she introduced cyclical death into the world as a force of nature, removing their choice over the matter.

If anything, sundered Etheirys is a purgatory of incomplete beings having their souls scrubbed upon death and reborn into new beings that start to gradually differ from the original ad infinitum without their input or conscious choice in the matter, unlike the ancients who did so willingly because they were immortal.

Venat should be held accountable for that, and I'd argue she was. As her aether and soul dissipated. She does not exist anymore. For even though she forsook her duty to return to the star, forcing that fate upon all life upon Etheirys in an ironic twist, she ultimately suffers the most final fate of any character introduced in the narrative of simply fading to oblivion.

I also do not see the points on either side of people claiming rejoinings are genocide nor Venat allowing the Final Days to take place being genocide. Thats over-simplifying a very complex moral dilemma that really detracts from what was taking place in the narrative and the actions and decisions taken by their characters and their motivations behind such.

I agree with neither Venat, the Convocation or Emet-Selch's decisions, but I, at the very least, understand and respect their reasoning for making the decisions and taking the actions they did in the first place. They're flawed, they are meant to be flawed. In justifying/arguing against their flaws we encounter flaws and faults in our own beliefs and morals. It's elegant, really.

I will also state here that I am not trying to convince anyone of anything. This is my opinion, my interpretation and that is still evolving as I go back through the narrative and really absorb it piece by piece. My opinion is not infallible, and I will not presume to even make such a claim.

Regardless, I will return to my earlier statement that getting involved in this discussion any further would be a bad decision on my behalf and leave it here before I get ahead of myself. As I fear I've already involved myself far more than I initially intended to.

No, they should never let us time travel back in time to Elpis. All I know is their better be time travel in 7.0.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PawPaw

Ah yes, lamenting the deaths forced upon them by the advent of the Final Days as opposed to what they would normally be able to do which would be to have the freedom to choose their own end. That totally negates everything I said about them valuing their existences and understanding that life is finite. You got me.

---

It does completely contradict what you said here though.

Quote:

---

Unlike the denizens of the Plenty, the Ancients didn't try to eliminate all things that made them sad, they didn't try to escape death.

---

They feared the very concept of an involuntary end (the Final Days just showed them that that was a possibility for them) and thus created Zodiark as a solution to that fear. The fact is that the Ancients and the denizens of the Plenty both sought to eliminate their fears, a clear parallel between the two. Combined with Hermes speech after the Lykaons are put down, where he says explicitly that they were heading towards mass suicide, it seems like we have enough reason to connect the two.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jameseoakes

No it says they had no answer to her question and that she was unable to stop asking it and that drove them to there fate

---

That last bit is what I’m questioning. Where does it say that drove them to their fate? In top of that I have to say that if I asked someone what they lived for, and the question so shook them that they decided life wasn’t worth living, I’d struggle to hold myself responsible for that.

Quote:

---

We are led to believe that by sundering their world, she did not "kill" anyone, there is no genocide here. Their beings were split and they retained their identities between shards at the start, at least.

Emet-Selch actually explains this quite well in Shadowbringers when he shows the example using Ryne. Upon the initial strike, she (Hydaelyn) sundered the world into 14 perfectly identical pieces, 13 reflections and 1 source. Stating that there were no differences other than the amount of aether each shard retained. This implies that no one died from the action until those who died properly, well, died.

---

You apparently missed the Neir crossover where it very clearly showed that it was far more than "their beings were split and they retained their identities" because that very clearly showed they didn't. The entire society on all 14 shards was rendered to the stone age, they did not even possess language for several hundred years after. It was, in all respects, a genocide. By the way, that crossover is considered canon.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Aniya_Estlihn

We are led to believe that by sundering their world, she did not "kill" anyone, there is no genocide here. Their beings were split and they retained their identities between shards at the start, at least.

---

Genocide doesn't only refer to mass murder. Even quick search says it's "the deliberate and systematic destruction of a racial, political, or cultural group" which the sundering was. As far as what it did, it was expanded upon in the NieR crossover, which was written by Ishikawa (and gave us more lore surrounding the sundering than EW did):

https://i.imgur.com/EuK5qk3.jpg

They were most definitely not carbon copies of the base individual. They were literally the malformed creatures both Emet and Elidibus said they were in ShB. Torn apart to such an extent that they could no longer form words or use language.

It goes on to say, "Their pitiable lives are fleeting. In the simplest of ways, they die and die." Given that by all appearances they were kicked back to what we'd think of as prehistory, it's reasonable to assume without their knowledge and powers they were dying to things like the common cold and infections from cuts.

Quote:

---

If anything, sundered Etheirys is a purgatory of incomplete beings having their souls scrubbed upon death and reborn into new beings ad infinitum without their input or conscious choice in the matter, unlike the ancients who did so willingly because they were immortal.

---

I unfortunately agree with this, which adds to why I find the sundering so disconcerting.

Quote:

---

Venat should be held accountable for that, and I'd argue she was. As her aether and soul dissipated. She does not exist anymore. For even though she forsook her duty to return to the star, forcing that fate upon all life in an ironic twist, she ultimately suffers the most final fate of any character introduced in the narrative of simply fading to oblivion.

---

It was a small measure of karma for someone who cared so little for souls and found them expendable to do so herself, but aside from the comfort of knowing she can't come back there was little satisfaction in it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Aniya_Estlihn

Edit: My opinion on OP's question is that the narrative would have been no different with or without Elpis inclusion. The events that took place there had already occurred by the point we were in the narrative, so it didn't matter.



Friend, with all due respect, no.
Venat sundered Etheirys exclusively.

The sundering did not effect anything out of the star's direct influence; likely only those things within the veil of aether Zodiark used to shield the star from Dynamis (although this is speculation on my part), and the Shards/reflections exist within paradoxical pocket dimensions.

This is why Midgardsormr and his brood are so incredibly strong and aether rich compared to the sundered life of Etheirys— they are whole, unsundered beings.

Further: how could she sunder the entire known universe when she used only a fraction of a fraction of the population of Etheriys remaining to perform the act, when Zodiark needed half of an entire super earth to stop the final days? A much smaller act than the impossibly herculean task of sundering an entire plane of existence on a universal scale.

No, it was just the planet and nothing more.

---

If Venat didn't splinter the universe... the only known reality at the time of the Ancients, and only split one planet into multiple variations, did she shove the other mirrored reflections into these "pocket dimensions?" How did she know about them? Did she make them? How come these pocket dimensions have the same universal rules for survival?

You claim that shattering the universe into multiple pieces seems like a herculean task. It is honestly more herculean to sunder your planet, have the pocket dimensions ready to accept a world, and shove the new world into the pocket dimension, and secure it. This is not including work of inspecting each pocket dimension and finding ones that have the right conditions to live in. Oh, and on top of that, searching each pocket dimension to locate a solar system with the right conditions for life in each dimension.

Or, you know, just splinter the universe (the known reality) into mirrored reflections and have each of the mirrored worlds and the Source be the paradoxical anchor that locks that mirrored reality into place. If a the mirrored planet is consumed, the reality no longer exists.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Xtrasweettea

If Venat didn't splinter the universe... the only known reality at the time of the Ancients, and only split one planet into multiple variations, did she shove the other mirrored reflections into these "pocket dimensions?" How did she know about them? Did she make them? How come these pocket dimensions have the same universal rules for survival?

You claim that shattering the universe into multiple pieces seems like a herculean task. It is honestly more herculean to sunder your planet, have the pocket dimensions ready to accept a world, and shove the new world into the pocket dimension, and secure it. This is not including work of inspecting each pocket dimension and finding ones that have the right conditions to live in. Oh, and on top of that, searching each pocket dimension to locate a solar system with the right conditions for life in each dimension.

Or, you know, just splinter the universe (the known reality) into mirrored reflections and have each of the mirrored worlds and the Source be the paradoxical anchor that locks that mirrored reality into place. If a the mirrored planet is consumed, the reality no longer exists.

---

There is atm no evidence anything but Etheirys was Sundered, and given the strength of Omega, Midgardsormr, the Ea, etc. I think we have reason to presume that it is a localized phenomenon.

Elpis and Endwalker and a whole was amazing.
RIGHT up until the Meteion swarm reports back. Then the plot goes off the rails, and absolutely everyone starts acting wildly out of character.
Judging from 6.1, it looks like they're going to treat Ultima Thule almost like it was some weird fever dream that didn't actually happen going forward, and that may well be for the best.

... then again, apparently lots of people went through this and DIDN'T see Venat as the biggest villain in the series; so what do I know?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by redheadturk

You apparently missed the Neir crossover where it very clearly showed that it was far more than "their beings were split and they retained their identities" because that very clearly showed they didn't. The entire society on all 14 shards was rendered to the stone age, they did not even possess language for several hundred years after. It was, in all respects, a genocide. By the way, that crossover is considered canon.

---

Very well, if it's canon and I missed out on some pertinent information that should have been in the game, I'll concede I was wrong. However, going on the information provided in the game's narrative itself, which is what most will use to discuss the narrative; and not some worthless crossover that most aren't going to even recognize the existence of after the poor reception of Dark Apocalypse, you cannot fault me for still having held the same opinion and understanding that the game had presented—in a voiced scene no less— during Shadowbringers' main narrative.

I will argue, however, that is is a blatant retcon that spits in the face of and contradicts the narrative of Shadowbringers.
Which is just... lovely... I'm glad this arc is over, to hells with it and its yo-yoing continuity that they feel can be altered ad nauseum every time a new detail is "revealed."

I still will never see Venat as a villain, nor the ancients or convocation—they were humans prioritizing survival over all else. You cannot fault them for that.
I will, however, fault the inconsistencies between the narrative presented in game and a canon crossover in a game so removed from the narrative that it's almost insulting.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Aniya_Estlihn

Very well, if it's canon and I missed out on some pertinent information that should have been in the game, I'll concede I was wrong. However, going on the information provided in the game's narrative itself, which is what most will use to discuss the narrative; and not some worthless crossover that most aren't going to even recognize the existence of after the poor reception of Dark Apocalypse, you cannot fault me for still having held the same opinion and understanding that the game had presented—in a voiced scene no less— during Shadowbringers' main narrative.

I will argue, however, that is is a blatant retcon that spits in the face of and contradicts the narrative of Shadowbringers.
Which is just... lovely... I'm glad this arc is over, to hells with it and its yo-yoing continuity that they feel can be altered ad nauseum every time a new detail is "revealed."

I still will never see Venat as a villain, nor the ancients or convocation—they were humans prioritizing survival over all else. You cannot fault them for that.
I will, however, fault the inconsistencies between the narrative presented in game and a canon crossover in a game so removed from the narrative that it's almost insulting.

---

Not really, the crossover simply shows thee full effects of the Sundering in a way Emet's dry explanation did not. And it could have easily been inferred from the lore of the first Umbral Era anyway.

Since Elpis was the best part of Endwalker, the answer is NO!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Aniya_Estlihn

I will argue, however, that is is a blatant retcon that spits in the face of and contradicts the narrative of Shadowbringers.

---

I found it consistent. Emet says in that same scene: "When I beheld the shattered remnants of our home, I knew deepest despair. The inhabitants of these fourteen fragments were feeble, frail, and foolish. Oblivious to their imperfection, ignorant of their past. Malformed creatures thrashing blindly about. Pitiful. Disturbing. Depressing."

I'd say if anything EW seemed to gloss over the brutality of the sundering for obvious reasons.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Aniya_Estlihn

snip

---

Well said. Venat, Emet, the Convocation - they weren't evil. They weren't setting out to harm. They were flawed humans and humans sometimes make mistakes. The decisions they made make sense in the context of the environment they lived in. They were trying to help and wanted to fix things because as you said, service to the star at any cost.

I personally agreed with Azem. Azem didn't take part in either summoning. But we've gotten indications especially in stories that Azem went out and lived in the world in ways that even Venat doesn't seem to have done.

I am honestly somewhat flabbergasted that for so many the main point of contention about Elpis seems to be the qualities or lack thereof of the society of Amaurot and an extrapolated morality of lack thereof for Venat's actions resulting from this.
Also, this feels like it might belong more into the lore subform.

All that aside, and to actually address OP's question, assuming it wasn't just meant to bait people into exactly the argument people have been having here, I don't think visiting Elpis in and of itself is the blunder the story committs in that chapter.

I understand not everyone likes stable time loops, but they are usually the cleanest way to include time travel, and there was narrative merit to getting a first glance look at the flaws that ran through Ancient civilisation even prior to the Final Days. However, they come with their trappings and Endwalker blunders on some of them, fittingly mirroring those of Alexander almost to a tee, with both times information being created from nothing. Alexander had Mide and Dayan becoming their own ancestors, thereby generating genetic information from nothing, while Elpis makes it seem like Venat only came up with the name Hydaelyn cause we told her that's the name she had come up with in the future. Since Alexander already did this, this sort of consistency has already been ruined though, so while I don't like it I just kind of have to roll with the idea that in XIV, information can just be generated from nothing in the flow of time.

However, the big problem with Elpis to me was and will always be the fact that it is a zone. Yes, a lot of people would not have appreciated hours of cutscenes without any gameplay, but because it is a zone we have be able to continuously visit it. We already jumped through some insane narrative hoops to ensure we could keep visiting the First in Shadowbringers. It made sense in-universe, but you could very much feel the handwaving going on to ensure it ended up that way, from suddenly synching passage of time between First and Source, as well as exempting us from normal means of travelling between worlds while mainting our bodily aether. Elpis multiplies this problem manifold by also having to worry about the causality of it all. It is not a stable time loop, but an open and permanent portal to Elpis of the pre-sundered days, as evidenced by the Pandæmonium raids. The game still treats it like it will eventually become a stable and closed time loop, but the longer that is ongoing the more it strains suspension of disbelief and robs Elpis (and the act of time travel) of its gravitas.

Overall, I wouldn't want it gone. I very much enjoyed what was there in spite of its problems. But I disagree with making it a zone.