Quote:
Originally Posted by Absimiliard
"Even if you interact with others, you cannot affect meaningful change."
-
10-16-2023, 02:11 AMTurtledeluxe
-
10-16-2023, 02:14 AMAbsimiliardOnce again omitting surrounding context.Quote:
Originally Posted by Turtledeluxe
-
10-16-2023, 02:16 AMTurtledeluxeAlright, I'm just going to say it. It's fine if you think casually throwing around the term genocide makes you edgy. It's fine if you want have a unique take on EW. As I said the issue is that edgy takes have storytelling implications. My analysis of the storytelling implications is also just an opinion.Quote:
Originally Posted by Absimiliard
Also EW has been out for over a year. The fact several of you still think it's shocking or interesting to label everything genocide and put out "what if Zodiark was right" theories (which I know that isn't what you're saying and it's hilarious you are triggered by it) is frankly a bit cringey so sorry if I come across as dismissive.
Genocide isn't absent context. You are welcome to analyze a character but people know what they're doing when they use the term and then have the audacity to play moral superiority over a technicality "well that's what it is!!". Then when people call you out it's "hey man everyone can have opinions". It seems like you're crying wolf and want total autonomy to just say whatever. -
10-16-2023, 02:17 AMSwordsmanAlright, I'll take this a step further and say this. I think the guy you're arguing with is a Titanman alt. There's no way his arguments were made in good faith. A majority of the things he's saying have some kind of passive-aggressive comment inserted in it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Absimiliard
-
10-16-2023, 02:17 AMBoblawblah
It's wild seeing the EXACT same arguments as 800+ pages ago. No change, no deviation, just the same stuff on both sides. I have to admit, I'm impressed that you all are able to keep it up for this long.
-
10-16-2023, 02:19 AMAbsimiliardThe thought had occurred to me as well. If not him, then one of the Titanmen copycats we occasionally see rise from the depths. Either way, I've kept engaging in full knowledge it was almost definitely a troll. Why? Well, see the post below.Quote:
Originally Posted by Swordsman
You cannot possibly comprehend the levels of boredom I operate at.Quote:
Originally Posted by Boblawblah
-
10-16-2023, 02:26 AMLunaxiaThat's your preogative. I just come here to discuss and hopefully convey what I think and feel about the story, and to that end I'm mindful of the words I use and what they may mean to other people when I'm making a point.Quote:
Originally Posted by Theodric
Except I've outright called the actions of both Venat and the Ascians murder, killing and death on multiple occasions, so that doesn't work here. Opting not to use words with charged historical undertones when it is not necessary to not muddy the waters of the discussion is not employing euphemisms. I've been very open and vocal about what she did, the double standards and hypocrisy that are rife in Endwalker's story and the tragedy that was the Sundering on many occasions, and I like to think I've earned some credit to not have it immediately assume my choices revolve around defending or shielding her from criticism. I don't use those terms for the Ascians either, and you would know that were you not so quick to jump to conclusions. This is part of what prevents other people from actually taking the point you're trying to make seriously.Quote:
Originally Posted by Vyrerus
And highlighting the recency of the term hardly helps your case here, given that it was coined to actually describe some of the events I would prefer to keep out of the discussion, and makes dividing that particular word from its origins even more tenuous. -
10-16-2023, 02:28 AMAbsimiliardI've found the term omnicide far more accurately captures the crime. She did not single out a particular race, religion, nation, creed, or ethnic group. She killed everything and everyone on the entire planet except herself, Zodiark, the three unsundered, and a few of her creations. The eradication of all life on a world is outside the scope of genocide as a term.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lunaxia
-
10-16-2023, 02:37 AMTurtledeluxe
It's amazing when people who s post that hard accuse people of being alts.
Especially when you're quoting someone who is being far more gracious than me in pointing out the aggressiveness of your trolling. -
10-16-2023, 02:43 AMTheodricThe simple fact that you're passing it off as 'trolling' says it all, really. I don't think you're coming here in good faith...but that aside, we've presented our case and compiled ample sources to back up our talking points and so the onus is now on you to provide textual or developer commentary evidence of your stance, since simply referring to a scene by name won't cut it as you do not seem able to accurately represent what is actually being depicted. Even the cutscene that you are alluding to does not refer to tempering, so much as the attitude of the strawman ancients to despair, and that is also discussed as part of her motives in the Q&A, whereas tempering is not brought up at all.Quote:
Originally Posted by Turtledeluxe
The developers have confirmed - per the story clarification Q&A that took place shortly after Endwalker's launch - that Venat can be read as trying to maintain the timeline for the Sundered's future, so plus the AU split for the 8UC timeline based on G'raha's actions, that also shows there was the potential to affect meaningful change, and so in addition to what Absimiliard has already said, Elidibus's words don't matter as we are already aware that it is possible.
Quote:
Q: I don’t really understand why the Warrior of Light messing around in Elpis didn’t create any alternate timelines. What happened?
This is consistent with:Quote:
A: Well, I think the most important thing is that you can come up with your own theories for this one. In my personal interpretation however is that the timelines were always the same. Another interpretation you can have is that maybe Venat worked really hard behind the scenes to ensure the timeline didn’t go awry. Therefore the Warrior of Light was always acting in accordance with this plan of Venat so the timeline that we are aware of didn’t change when we went back to the affected. I personally think that when we went to Mare Lamentorum and we first met Argos and Argos really took to us when we were able to ride it, that's basically the proof that at that point, the timeline is going accordingly. We are adding all these stuff to New Game+ in 6.1 so if you’re interested in this I suggest you replay it and think about these questions when you’re playing it.
Quote:
Q: I am interested to know how unsundered Ascians such as Lahabrea, Elidibus and Emet-Selch avoided being kicked into 14 pieces by Hydaelyn.
Quote:
A: As you think back to the text towards the end Emet-Selch did imply that Venat let him live unsundered. In fact Venat did intentionally leave a tiny floor in her Sundering attack - a crack that Emet-Selch can wiggle through. Sort of like…yes it was a powerful attack but intentionally chose to do it in this fashion. So we said this in the actual game as well which is when Hydaelyn did the attack, it was a really strong one. It was delivered at the limit of her power so she couldn’t really fine tune it. So as intentional as this was when she did that big massive light attack that sundered the world, she couldn’t guarantee that Emet-Selch would live and she was kind of making a gamble. In fact what happened was, at the time that Hydaelyn performed the sundering, Emet-Selch was with Lahabrea and Elidibus (the time he was already out of being Zodiark core so he’s a little bit different than his original but nevertheless he was there) so they ended up joining forces, and escaped to the rift without being Sundered. You may recall if you read Tales of the Shadows that Elidibus, when he came out of Zodiark he ended up losing some of his memories as well as some parts of himself and that’s sort of the point in Patch 5.3 and when he “dies” you sort of know that he lost a lot in the process as well just like Emet-Selch. So yeah, basically they worked together at that time and escaped being Sundered.
An unfortunate consequence of what happens when a setting ties so much of its story to a handful of characters and lacks much in the way of content with staying power along the lines of Eureka, Bozja and Ishgard reconstruction.Quote:
Originally Posted by Boblawblah
-
10-16-2023, 02:48 AMLunaxiaAnd regressed them back to a state of sub-human intelligence and capability (talking post-Sundering here, not a swipe at mortals, lol), leaving them to rebuild mankind and civilisation all over again while instilling herself as their guiding figure, and all of the hardship and suffering that entails. All of which is what I'm referring to when I say a direct conflation of IRL events with what happens in game is a bit of a false equivalency to make - and it's not to her benefit.Quote:
Originally Posted by Absimiliard
-
10-16-2023, 02:58 AMTurtledeluxeIt's confusing to me that you're aware of the shakiness of the time travel in the game. It's hard to keep track between the critics ITT of who realize that and who doesn't. It's not really made especially clear and the way you interpret it can shift your opinion on the story entirely.Quote:
Originally Posted by Theodric
The reason I use the word trolling is because it's hard to take anyone seriously who applies genocide to what's happened with Venat, and even Zodiark. On top of that, you're making a moral demand of the player and, in a way, making it personal. It's hard not to be dismissive of it, it's hard not to call it trolling. Hope that make sense. I just don't feel like EW is asking you to answer than moral question in that way-- the story has components already, such as Venat's final words, that communicate to the player what happened with humanity is tragic and all the parties involved feel their own way about it (even Emet) that spans the range of guilt. Whether you're talking about the summoning or the sundering-- boiling it down to genocide is reductive and unhelpful. EW isn't asking that question, you are, to stir up a "bad faith" debate I am uninterested in.
I also don't care if you think Venat is a bad character-- what I have an issue with is thinking Venat working to undo the future in her own time by making the case against Hermes openly and possibly undoing Meteion (I'm not even sure what's being argued here really) just sounds again, not realistic, given that it's an MMO about your player.....I'm not even disagreeing that the story as is doesn't make a *ton* of sense here. But I think it's the result of many different writers trying very hard to loop back the end to ARR with all these other plot threads they created. Because stop and think-- how much longer would we have dwelled on Elpis and Elpis problems if the story became about their timeline.... and the lesson of the game would be that you can just time travel to solve your problems.....huh??? -
10-16-2023, 03:15 AMAbsimiliardI can see where you're coming from given some people feel some kind of way about some rather nasty historical events, but I don't think most people using the term in relation to this are trying to make any kind of comparison to prior atrocities. I believe they are using it only with the textbook definition in mind, nothing more. Doesn't mean people won't make the connection on their own after reading the word, but you get what I'm saying. Regardless, I still don't find the term appropriate based on its definition.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lunaxia
Genocide I can understand, but I'm not certain if omnicide would necessarily fall under the same umbrella. As it stands, the term has not been applied to any event in real life. Nor could it be, because it would mean we were all dead. It has, however, been used in fiction on a number of occasions.
As an aside, have you played NieR Re[in]carnation by chance? If not, it might be worth taking a peek at the lore they hid away over there as part of the crossover event. It ties in nicely with what you said about the state of mortals immediately post-sundering, though I suspect you already have given how you described what they were reduced to. -
10-16-2023, 03:29 AMVyrerusEuphemism:Quote:
Originally Posted by Lunaxia
1) the substitution of a mild, indirect, or vague expression for one thought to be offensive, harsh, or blunt
2) the substitution of an agreeable or inoffensive expression for one that may offend or suggest something unpleasant
You are avoiding using the term genocide because you find it unpleasant, as it does not muddy the waters of discussion whatsoever, and never seemed to muddy the waters of discussion when used to describe actions of the Garlean Empire or the Ascians in prior expansions and years past forum discussions.
You are doing the opposite of being open when you refrain from calling The Sundering what it was. I'm sure you think you're being impartial, and winning folks over who don't agree with my line of thought, but you're not. They aren't disagreeing from a place of logic or rationale, but from a place of feelings. In fact, that is entirely what the Sundering metaphor scene is predicated upon.
Genocide itself is older than its own modern, universal term. That was my point. With not every language having a precise word for it. We do now. Use it.
The man who coined the term was himself a Polish born Jew by the name of Raphael Lemkin. Again, by shying away from the actual term, you are granting more power to the perpetrators of it, than you are to victims.
Like you know why Raphael Lemkin coined the term and then campaigned for the Genocide Convention?
Because the crime itself was not universally recognized. He had to invent a term and then campaign for it to even feel like he was getting close to justice done for the atrocities that went on in The Holocaust.
Like do you see how your insistence on denying the term's use is a microcosm of the very issue he campaigned against? -
10-16-2023, 03:50 AMLunaxiaWhen I say IRL events, I mean the basic idea of what those words are actually taken to mean in our world, including why they happen and the motives behind them. It's nearly impossible to divorce the implications of such terms and where they came from, from the words themselves - well, you can try to in the context of an argument, but it's not a standard you can impose on other people or assume will be readily accepted, and you will be inviting a comparison to actual historical events should you choose to use them, even if that's not your intention.Quote:
Originally Posted by Absimiliard
I have! It certainly would have lent a different tone to the events of the game if they'd bothered to throw that in there from the beginning. It's genuinely fascinating they chose to even make that a thing, when they had Endwalker play out the way they did. I wonder if it was planned when the story's future still lay in a different direction to what we wound up getting?Quote:
As an aside, have you played NieR Re[in]carnation by chance? If not, it might be worth taking a peek at the lore they hid away over there as part of the crossover event. It ties in nicely with what you said about the state of mortals immediately post-sundering, though I suspect you already have given how you described what they were reduced to.
-
10-16-2023, 03:58 AMTheodricNope, I am doing neither of those things. I am simply critical of the fact that the story is pushing a genocide – feel free to substitute in whatever term you prefer – as necessary and, as a solution to Endsinger, as a good thing. But I am making no demand of anyone, so much as pointing out things for what they are. Even if I did not use the term, and used terms like “mass slaughter and enforced regression through magic”, I am sure you would claim the same thing, because these are still frightful actions. But it’s a massive leap of logic to think I’m making a moral “demand” on you in relation to interpreting a video game story. The term is already used in game to discuss less destructive actions in game. Maybe you want a word with the writers over that?Quote:
Originally Posted by Turtledeluxe
If the story simply presented it as the writers did in the Q&A, as a tragic event which you’re free to come to your conclusions about, I might agree. But it doesn’t. It pushes Venat’s actions as necessary and frames them in an unabashedly positive light, e.g. in the Codex. In other language versions, such as JP, she doesn’t even apologise for her course of action so much as say what’s done is done. At the end of the day, it doesn’t matter what question Endwalker thinks it’s asking, what matters is what message it is ultimately sending, whether the writers realise this or not. I am well within my rights to point out that the game is deviating from its usual preachy tone in not calling this out for Venat. The writers clearly realised it was an issue enough to bring in the Omega side quests. I just think that it was too little, too late.Quote:
Originally Posted by Turtledeluxe
What you are describing now is down to how the story was ultimately written. There’s many ways to address this, as others brought up, but for me it would be sufficient to do so through including some open criticism of Venat in the MSQ, not propping her up via the codex, more clearly present the Sundering instead of stylised cutscenes with ancient strawmen and shoving the actual aftermath into a crossover for NieR, and leaving the inference of an AU for Panda, much as they did with the short story covering the 8UC, An Unpromised Tomorrow. None of that would require massive effort or rewrites.Quote:
Originally Posted by Turtledeluxe
Is that not exactly what happened during the course of SHB and EW both, though? The Warrior of Light travels back in time to solve a problem that has no answer in the present during Endwalker. The same happens again with Pandaemonium. And that is not to mention the myriads of other plot devices appearing through the course of each expansion, like Cid’s solution to the Void… so I can’t really make much sense of this objection.Quote:
Originally Posted by Turtledeluxe
-
10-16-2023, 04:01 AMAbsimiliardGenuine question. I'm obviously well aware of what genocide is often taken to mean, but where does omnicide enter into it? As it stands, I don't believe I've ever seen the term applied to anything that wasn't a planet getting glassed in some SciFi setting or as a preamble to some post-apocalyptic settings. I don't think most people even realize it is a word.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lunaxia
I too have long wondered that. My suspicion was as yours seemingly is; the story had a different planned direction. I might be misremembering, but I believe the developers (or at least Yoshi-P) at some point mentioned wanting to make Endwalker lighter after the complete disaster that was everything from the year 2019 onward. If nothing else, we can pretty handily infer it based on the stark contrast between what ShB was setting up and what Endwalker delivered. The only term I can think of to do it justice is tonal whiplash.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lunaxia
I also considered the possibility it was sequestered away in NieR Re[in]carnation as a means of revealing the truth of the sundering without it affecting people's view of the story or characters in Endwalker proper. The FFXIV team's side of the crossover happened in late May of 2022, if memory serves. We were several months into Endwalker by then. -
10-16-2023, 04:46 AMLunaxiaOkay, well, you keep fighting the good fight defending the victims of these crimes by insisting what a character did in a video game is an adequate parallel to what they went through, and I'm going to be over here keeping my debates free of allusions to the Nazi regime and the horrors involved in the event some people may find it somewhat distasteful. Enjoy.Quote:
Originally Posted by Vyrerus
I've never actually heard of the term myself, so I'm one of the people in that camp, lol. On preliminary research, it seems a fairly neutral term typically relating to human extinction in some form. It may not be the best fit here, though, since it appears to describe scenarios that occur passively or indirectly as a result of human action rather than actively requiring a perpetrator. You could say what Venat did resulted in in the omnicide of Etheriys, but not that she committed it, I think?Quote:
Originally Posted by Absimiliard
I'm pretty sure I remember something along those lines too, that the impact of the difficulty and hardship of the past few years had also given them cause to reconsider. And you know, it's a nice intention! ...I just wish they'd thought to do it properly and not rushed it and compromised on the quality of the story to do so. They wanted to deliver something comforting and uplifting, which I can appreciate, but I don't think they realise that to a lot of people, a really good story can have just that effect without having to contain an artificial inspirational message.Quote:
I too have long wondered that. My suspicion was as yours seemingly is; the story had a different planned direction...
Also possible! Perhaps Ishikawa's storyteller side got the better of her and she added in thinking it couldn't hurt at that point to provide some more of her intended background, since I believe she was the one behind that part of the crossover in the first place, and Emet was her character, after all.Quote:
also consider the possibility it was sequestered away in NieR Re[in]carnation as a means of revealing the truth of the sundering without it affecting people's view of the story or characters in Endwalker proper. The FFXIV team's side of the crossover happened in late May of 2022, if memory serves. We were several months into Endwalker by then.
-
10-16-2023, 04:59 AMVyrerusHoney, you're talking about a game that doesn't even keep itself free of allusions to Nazi Germany/Imperial Japan.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lunaxia
The word, genocide, that you are afraid to use was created by one of those victims, and your fear to use it to identify an act that fits its definition is far from tasteful.
Genocide is not a word that was made for one specific people. It was made to hold those who perpetrated it accountable under international law. Go read up on it.
And for the record, I didn't invite the term into FFXIV discussions. FFXIV's scriptwriters did. You will never be free from it, no matter how much you try to namby pansy around it. -
10-16-2023, 05:04 AMAbsimiliardI believe it's one of those terms that can work with or without a perpetrator. The term really seems to be a catch-all for extinction level events with a discernible and presumably non-natural cause. I grabbed this little tidbit fram Merriam-Webster's:Quote:
Originally Posted by Lunaxia
"As our understanding grows, so does the horror. What we face now is not merely slaughter or genocide, but "omnicide," the obliteration of all humans and all living species.—Penney Kome and Patrick Crean"
For our purposes here, I'm of the opinion Venat would indeed qualify as a perpetrator of omnicide. I'm certain plenty of others disagree, but that's kinda my take on it. While it can be argued the shredded up constituent aetherial and physical matter of the world's inhabitants ultimately coalesced into new beings, the simple reality is that those are not the same people or creatures they were. Those people are gone forever, as are all of the old world's other inhabitants. It's certainly extinction of a sort. My own personal philosophy leads me to feel this is in fact worse than simply being killed in the conventional sense, but that's a different discussion entirely. -
10-16-2023, 05:32 AMNayukhuutI had been using genocide, but I agree with you, omnicide is more fitting. I just never really considered the word, but I had been previously arguing that not only did she wipe out the Ancients, but all life on the planet, so it fits. I know the game wants me to view Venat in a positive light, but I just can't.Quote:
Originally Posted by Absimiliard
It colours basically everything her lore touches in game, sadly. For example, after the revelation that the Twelve were just more chess pieces put into place to manipulate the world into what she decided it should be/keep it in the broken state she put it in, I really just wish that I could elect not to have a patron deity. :( -
10-16-2023, 05:36 AMLunaxiaParts of the game I'm also not especially fond of in the way that they're handled, coincidentally, and I've said as much before. And after talking about these topics with other players who have been affected by the history behind these references and who struggle with the way these depictions have been utilised in the game, it's a point of view I very much stand by.Quote:
Originally Posted by Vyrerus
Oh, yes, petrified. Not at all finding it embarrassing to think it's a worthwhile argument to be so adamant in forcing other people to use a word they refrain from out of respect for other people including those victims, in relation to Final Fantasy, than just respecting someone else's decision to do so.Quote:
The word, genocide, that you are afraid to use was created by one of those victims, and your fear to use it to identify an act that fits its definition is far from tasteful.
...and as such is still commonly associated with the hideous crime it was created to help prosecute, keeping such comparisons a foregone conclusion.Quote:
Genocide is not a word that was made for one specific people. It was made to hold those who perpetrated it accountable under international law. Go read up on it.
And there it is. How did I predict several posts ago that this is what it inevitably boils down to? The very idea of being conscious of someone else's response when it comes to a potentially difficult topic seems to provoke a reaction that brings to mind dousing the Witch from Oz in water in some people. But I'll continue to "namby pansy" my way around other people's feelings regardless of your strange desire to control that, and you feel free to use whatever terminology you see fit for your own purposes.Quote:
You will never be free from it, no matter how much you try to namby pansy around it.
I'd have to see it actually being used to vouch for correct grammatical usage, but it's somewhat tricky when very, very few people including the most maniacal villains would actually opt for such an outcome, lol. In fact, I struggle thinking of anyone outside of a JRPG setting who would... it's not really a trope over here. Or perhaps it is, I don't actually read sci-fi.Quote:
Originally Posted by Absimiliard
-
10-16-2023, 05:41 AMSwordsman
I've been sort of tracking the conversation for the past few pages and I'll weigh in on it. I don't think merely using the word "genocide" in regards to an event in a video game is insensitive.
If a specific IRL event was referenced and had a comparison made to it like: "oh yeah, the Sundering was the Ancients' version of the Holocaust," then I would say that's inappropriate and going too far. But to just say the Sundering was genocide doesn't seem distasteful to me.
Just my 2 cents. -
10-16-2023, 05:56 AMTurtledeluxeYou are though, because you and others are very pushy about "call it genocide or nothing at all". Ypu know the reason you're asking for that isn't due to textbook definitions, it's because you want people to conform to your view. As far as the game, it doesn't really paint Venat as a flawless character nor does it suggest the sundering is perfect. Yes the game has general overtones of the guardians of light (which has a positive connotation) and yes traditionally Hydaelyn was viewed as the savior of the star-- the entire point of Shadowbringers and Endwalker was revealing that being a savior is significantly more complicated than that and perhapsyou maybe even get your hands very dirty in the process. Things are not black and white as you are painting them in real life or in the game. Yes the game has other instances where maybe it's asking you to make a moral decision, that is not relevant to the sundering.Quote:
Originally Posted by Theodric
I'm fine with JP version with her actions being regarded as necessary. We will never agree on this because you and others have elected the interpretation of the story that imo, makes no sense and doesn't work on any level. Which is to say, you seem to think the trip to Elpis offerred some chance to change the future. I don't agree. I think the Elpis trip resulted in a time convergence where everyone got on the same page in the present time (Venat specifically calls this out). The past timeline still occurred-- past Venat did not have the information and no amount of Elpis visits is going to change that. We also don't agree that she "did nothing to stop it". The walk seq. clearly shows us she made attempts to convince people to not summon, and they ignored her. We literally worked with her to try to apprehend Hermes and it failed.
I've already said the story isn't ideal but I attribute it to being nearly impossible given how big the story is and how many plot threads had to be resolved, how gameplay has to be involved given it's a game, etc. For example we could've discovered the secrets of Elpis through a scroll, no time travel. Makes more sense, takes less effort, solves lots of problems, but it's boring and doesn't serve the gameplay. Yes the story has missed opportunities as with the Nier crossover.Quote:
Originally Posted by Theodric
I'm so glad you asked because yes, to a degree this is true. But to clarify, there's a huge difference between solving some problems (ie now we know how to reach Meteion, now we know what dynamis is , etc ) and being equipped to deal with the future vs knowing the future and just preventing it. What if we apprehended Hermes? What if Venat stopped him? What would that even mean for the present time of the game? It creates all sorts of problems and for what? So you can regard Venat as more logical?Quote:
Originally Posted by Theodric
-
10-16-2023, 06:23 AMLunaxiaThe thing is, though, is that by throwing around words like genocide, eugenics, extermination, racial cleansing, and so on, that's arguably what you are doing - you're just taking a step back from actually referring to the events where these things similarly occurred in tandem, and share the common feature of being associated with, by name. I'll even allow it's being done unwittingly or without that intention, but to other people it's a very clear inference to make that you are seemingly bringing to the table, and that's what I'm wary of and what I personally object to, because like you, I find it inappropriate, and others do too. This is what I mean when I talk about keeping other people's points of view in mind, and encourage taking a minute to think about what you may be implying with what you're saying, and what it may suggest to other people.Quote:
Originally Posted by Swordsman
-
10-16-2023, 07:05 AMSwordsmanYou may feel that way, but I and several others don't. This is an argument born from emotion and feelings, and I don't think there's any definitively right or wrong answer here.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lunaxia
-
10-16-2023, 08:11 AMLunaxiaI wasn't the one insisting otherwise, or commanding somebody to use a term they're not comfortable with. I was merely explaining my personal preferences on the matter and how the argument may present to to other people. What you do with that is entirely up to you.Quote:
Originally Posted by Swordsman
-
10-16-2023, 08:42 AMSwordsmanNobody said you did. Thanks for sharing your opinion otherwise.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lunaxia
-
10-16-2023, 09:04 AMTheodric
As an aside, I just noticed that we hit 888 pages. Nice.
-
10-16-2023, 09:35 AMTurtledeluxe
The issue isn't just the external context of genocide. It's also just reductive. Is what happened with Zodiark genocide or is it a sacrifice? It's the way things are being framed that just isn't relevant or necessary. I'm not sure why people have a hard time admitting they just want to use an inflammatory word to get attention and or falsely inflate the importance of their rhetoric.
-
10-16-2023, 09:36 AMXirean
Just gonna throw out there that if people can't agree that the deliberate extermination of all life on a planet is genocide/omnicide then there really isn't any room for a conversation. That's effectively the foundation of the entire discussion. Without that terminology understood we have no common ground at least imo. That goes for both the sundering and the rejoinings. Both are genocide/omnicide as both are the complete extermination of all cultures and living things on a world. the idea that we can't agree on that is mind boggling to me.
If by "what happened with Zodiark" you mean the initial summoning of him, then no I wouldn't call that genocide. Those were volunteers. Besides, until the WoL/Fandanial killed Zodiark, all of those people were actually still alive within him.Quote:
Originally Posted by Turtledeluxe
-
10-16-2023, 09:48 AMTurtledeluxe
Ok. Something fundamentally not being understood ITT is that, per Emet dialog at the end of 5.0, they were being tempered by Zodiark (not that you really need that because the walk cutscene with Venat clearly shows us this imo). Venat also became a primal via volunteers. So it's not even just Venat and they had no other option in the face of a primal who was demanding more sacrifices and tempering.
Also per the lore Venat didn't even know exactly what her attack would render in great specificity and it didn't kill everyone. -
10-16-2023, 10:00 AMXireanWhat lore are you referring to that she didn't know what her attack would do? We literally tell her what she does. The walk cutscene, while not a literal retelling of events, shows her doing it deliberately. Also on the mention of not everyone dying; you're right there were THREE survivors from the entire planet. It's also worth noting that the use of the term genocide is not reliant on the effectiveness of said genocide. Not everyone has to be dead for us to call it what it is.Quote:
Originally Posted by Turtledeluxe
-
10-16-2023, 10:18 AMLunaxia
Hmm.
I'm not sure what part of "Venat's actions resulted in the death of all life on Etheriys" needs a specific tag to be understood or prohibits conversation, but if you want to hold on to the term to the extent that you'll pretend as if we have nothing to agree on, then that's your rather odd choice to make.Quote:
Originally Posted by Xirean
...did... did you play the game at all, or...?Quote:
Originally Posted by Turtledeluxe
-
10-16-2023, 11:53 AMTurtledeluxeThe devs stated it in a Q&A. It was a gamble. I've said this several times. It was a general attack meant to shatter Zodiark.Quote:
Originally Posted by Xirean
As far as "we told her"-- the devs also have not given a definitive answer to what happened with the timelines. I understand the morbol thing and elidibus remembering us, but a. Let's be real this would be a total retcon, there's never even been a hint the WoL existed in Elpis, we were proabably in Elpis as Azem and b. Even if the devs conceded that our Elpis visit is truly part of history then they're contradicting themselves by labeling what she did a gamble.
And if the devs can't even make sense it's not worth arguing about imo because it means only your interpretation matters. -
10-16-2023, 12:39 PMXireanWhat game did you play? No evidence the WoL existed in Elpis? Elidibus remembers us being there. When we confront Hydaelyn in the aetherial sea she remembers us being in Elpis. The end of the Paendamonium raid series has Eric remarking about us in the memory vision. If you did the Elpis side quests before finishing Myths of the Realm then you have special dialogue for some of the deities and the events you took part in. Believe me when I say I would love for the WoL to have not actually existed in Elpis, but that's simply what happened.Quote:
Originally Posted by Turtledeluxe
As for the sundering attacking on Zodiark. Link the specific portion of the Q&A you are referring to. -
10-16-2023, 12:51 PMTurtledeluxeI played the game where it's casually hinted at multiple times that we were Azem. It's not possible the WoL existed in Elpis-- they're a sundered being. Argos also responded to us, doesn't mean it was literally us. Also Elidibus just conveniently remembers us despite never having his memory affected by Kairos...? I know someone's going to say "well he died and his memory was freshed"-- please. Elidibus is very familiar with our character and he would've sensed something before now. I don't think he was responding to your literal face but the fact you're a sundered part of Azem (as is Golbez imho). So by extension, there's an original past time line that exists independent of our visit.Quote:
Originally Posted by Xirean
And that goes for everything imo-- the Alliance Raid, pandaemonium, argos whatever. But it literally being our WoL vs Azem (or some Ancient) doesn't make any sense.
. I'd be interested to know how the unsundered Ascians—Lahabrea, Elidibus, and Emet-Selch—avoided being kicked into 14 pieces by Hydaelyn.
A4. https://youtu.be/WRpdIL7_NII?t=13301
Summary: Venat intentionally left a tiny flaw in her sundering attack, a "crack" for Emet-Selch to wiggle through. This was a gamble because she didn't have full control over the sundering attack, she could not be sure Emet-Selch would live.
How is it a gamble and how does she not have control if she knew she was going to it and the result because we told her? Riddle me this -
10-16-2023, 12:53 PMAbsimiliard
-
10-16-2023, 01:23 PMXireanYou mean where multiple characters noted the similarity of the WoL's soul to the soul of Azem.Quote:
Originally Posted by Turtledeluxe
Hythlodaus: "A bit thin in the aether, but it's soul is almost identical to Azem's"
The WoL introduces themself as "Azem's familiar" to several people.
What do you think Elidibus did with the crystal tower? Send the WoL into a fever dream or a simulation? It was time travel which the tower is able to do because of Cid, explained in the sidequests for the dungeon The Twinning. It's the entire reason Shadowbringers was able to happen. It brought the tower to the first along with G'raha Tia.Quote:
It's not possible the WoL existed in Elpis-- they're a sundered being.
When was Elidibus effected by Kairos? He's not part of the Elpis MSQ where that device is relevant.Quote:
Also Elidibus just conveniently remembers us despite never having his memory affected by Kairos...?
How I wish that were the case.Quote:
So by extension, there's an original past time line that exists independent of our visit.
A few things on this. The question is in regards specifically to how the trio escaped the sundering and not if Venat knew if the sundering attack would shatter the world or not. The "gamble" on Venat's part was if she could successfully keep those 3 unsundered or not, which she was able to do as we see in game with those 3 still being unsundered. Ironically you have actually provided evidence that goes against your claim and is one of the bigger pieces of evidence that people have used in this thread to prove that Venat did the sundering on purpose.Quote:
I'd be interested to know how the unsundered Ascians—Lahabrea, Elidibus, and Emet-Selch—avoided being kicked into 14 pieces by Hydaelyn.
A4. https://youtu.be/WRpdIL7_NII?t=13301
Summary: Venat intentionally left a tiny flaw in her sundering attack, a "crack" for Emet-Selch to wiggle through. This was a gamble because she didn't have full control over the sundering attack, she could not be sure Emet-Selch would live.
How is it a gamble and how does she not have control if she knew she was going to it and the result because we told her? Riddle me this
I ask you again. What game did you play? -
10-16-2023, 01:51 PMTurtledeluxeYes, you're proving my point. It's why they don't show Azem, why they never gender Azem, why we seem like Azem to others and most likely why we ended up inheriting the crystal.Quote:
Originally Posted by Xirean
What I suspect occurred is that, in the original past there was no visit. So our visit created a deviant timeline which ends up conjoining with the present time. Recall that Venat tells us "a conjunction has begun to form between your time and mine". This is the reason the devs haven't definitively answered what happened with the timelines imo, because multiple ideas work. I prefer one that makes the story more coherent.Quote:
Originally Posted by Xirean
That's exactly my point. How does he not notice us until conveniently after the "conjunction" begins to form? He has no excuse.Quote:
Originally Posted by Xirean
You didn't answer the question. How can Venat gamble or lack control of something when she's well informed about the future of Emet and her imminent sundering slash?Quote:
Originally Posted by Xirean
In fact in general if it's single timeline time loop, why is the game the way it is at all? I could literally write a book of how it really makes pre EW Hydaelyn nonsensical and bizarrely obsessed with drawing out the Ascian conflict and keeping everything exactly the same.