*Spoilers* Anyone feel joining Emet would have been better

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lurina

If you read the quest log annotation for Ysayle, her minion dialogue, or the reactions the characters have to her throughout the story and upon her death, she couldn't be more different to Venat. All of them are neutral or acknowledge that, even though she ultimately did something heroic, she was a complicated character. They do not straight up tell you she is a hero. I understand that if you were comfortable with the story of EW to begin with you might not have gone trawling around looking for this stuff to check whether or not you've gone crazy for disliking it, but it really does feel like night and day.

---

And yet repeatedly the game gives justifications for Ysayles less just actions, going as far as to have her appear heroically multiple times in our moments of need. Estinien, the man meant to be her foil, named his armor after her and lives on in her memory. There’s no moral ambiguity or confusion. And this applies to others as well. Yotsuyu was never portrayed as anything but evil for what she did, however tragic her backstory was. With Tsuyu however, the game clearly states what it’s moral position is, and makes clear that she was indeed innocent. Fordola as well was given a clear moral arc, especially now after the role quest. There’s moral ambiguity in the questions these figures represent, but that game never minced words in taking sides. Only now do people find it frustrating.

And I resent the idea that I haven’t gone looking for these things. My enjoyment of the story didn’t lull me into shutting my brain off. I’ve watched cutscenes, looked for quest text, reread the encyclopedias after Endwalkers end. It’s unfair to believe that if I enjoyed things then that means I haven’t thought about it. I’ve seen many others in this thread and in other ones say the exact same thing, and it’s just not true.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lurina

As for Y'shtola, I didn't mean her comment in the cutscene, but rather what she says if you speak with her afterwards. She says (paraphrasing) that though Venat might have thought of herself as cruel person, she just couldn't see how much good she'd truly done for the world. Again, in terms of what the story wants you to feel, it comes across as about as subtle as a sack of bricks.

---

The game always did that. How do you think I felt when several characters straight up say, “Id do the same” in regards to Emet? It’s baffling to me that people have a problem with it now.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lurina

I've said this before, but I earnestly don't dislike Venat's character in isolation. She's very charming in Elpis, and if you ignore the framing of the game, you can read the Sundering as a coldly utilitarian act, or as an fallible ideological decision that framed strength and embracing suffering as pivotal to the expense of all else - I could go on.

The issue isn't with her, it's with the game itself. My strong impression is that it doesn't want me to think she's interesting or analyze her actions critically, it wants me to love her and think of her as a savior and also my mom. I find that really uncomfortable.

---

I disagree entirely. The game made clear that I should make up my own mind.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pofruin

Where is the issue then? That game shows her as what she specifically IS (mom and savior) for each and every character present when meeting her?

Does the fact that your progenitor Diety is not Unfallable, Omniscient, doesn't share your moral values, has committed atrocities, was Duplicious and Hasardous to You yourself and was generaly pshychopatically autoritarian somehow change the fact that she WAS in fact responsible for your creation and focused every effort in continued survival of you and yours?

There is so much Zenoism going around here. Where people judge the story from their own personal moral towers, without adjusting for POW of the characters present. Can you give good reason Why Alisae or Yshtola would not feel at least somewhat grateful to Hydelyn?

---

I'm not sure I see where you're coming from regarding her being the player character's mom and savior - the Loporrits excepted, she didn't create any of the modern races. They're either sundered Ancients, their creations, or creations of Zodiark. And the fact her actions "created" the world as it is now doesn't establish any intrinsically maternal relationship. The world we live in today would not exist in a remotely recognizable form if it weren't for Augustus Caesar creating the foundation for western civilization, but I have to admit I don't harbor any real paternal feelings for him, nor do I see why anyone inherently would. Lots of things good and bad have happened over the course of history that I wouldn't exist without; at least 6 of my great-grandparents were directly involved in a fascist regime. This doesn't mean I don't judge them for those actions, and I don't see why the people of Etheirys would think differently.

Remember that Venat was just some lady, not an actual goddess. The story hammers in ad infinitum that Primals aren't really divine.

But all of this is really beside the point. Even if we dismiss the characters reactions, the quest journal has no relationship to Hydaelyn, and it still stans her pretty hard. At a certain point, it feels clear to me that what you're seeing is the perspective of the writers.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lyth

The reason why I asked for a citation was because I knew that it wasn't supported by the in-game text. You knew this as well. The reason why the lore discussion in these forums gets progressively more distorted with each retelling is because people like sprinkling in partial truths on their fiction.

---

It only creates that impression if you single out that section of the quote. While I admitted in my reply to you it is a little ambiguous about the "pre-existing" creatures, the final line draws a clear distinction between humanity and the new life. If the Ancients intended to sacrifice other members of their own species, there would not be a tension about whether to hand over the world to that new life or not.

And you're one to talk about distortion. You still haven't answered why you thought I wanted Emet to succeed.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by EaraGrace

I disagree entirely. The game made clear that I should make up my own mind.

---

That's fine. Like I said, it feels like you played a different game to me, but everyone has experiences with media that. As Heinlein said, man is not a rational animal, he is a rationalizing animal; people have an emotional response and work backwards.

I did say "might not", though, so I think you might've got a little mad at me in that first paragraph for nothing. If you really did go back and review a bunch of the older journal dialogue and arrived at the same conclusion, then fair enough, I guess.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lurina

The world we live in today would not exist in a remotely recognizable form if it weren't for Augustus Caesar creating the foundation for western civilization, but I have to admit I don't harbor any real paternal feelings for him, nor do I see why anyone inherently would.

---

I don't know, Lurina. I've been having some very odd visions lately...

https://i.ibb.co/tYBwcpf/SONY-DSC.jpg

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jandor

I don't know, Lurina. I've been having some very odd visions lately...

https://i.ibb.co/tYBwcpf/SONY-DSC.jpg

---

That's the wrong Caesar! This joke image isn't historically accurate all!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lurina

That's the wrong Caesar! This joke image isn't historically accurate all!

---

I blame it on all the reckless time traveling we've been getting up to. :cool:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jandor

I blame it on all the reckless time traveling we've been getting up to. :cool:

---

Not blaming it on Spiggy-Selch?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by EaraGrace

I find myself feeling similarly. I think some people just don’t like the games writing. And I think some people like Venat. It seems like that’s all this truly comes down to.

---

Fixed it for you

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kordarion

I'm being sarcastic, so don't take my post too serious, but your post was just obnoxious. You could have just said you have a problem with the writing instead you were an arse.

---

Nilroreo didn't say anything insulting to Eara. You're the one who looks bad in this situation.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kordarion

Fixed it for you. :p

I'm being sarcastic, so don't take my post too serious, but your post was just obnoxious. You could have just said you have a problem with the writing instead you were an arse.

---

A little trigger happy there, maybe cool it with the ad hominems? I never insulted anyone. The correction was to explain my position.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rannie

Not blaming it on Spiggy-Selch?

---

Spriggy-selch is an adorable bundle of scheming cuteness, I could never blame spriggy-selch.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rulakir

Nilroreo didn't say anything insulting to Eara. You're the one who looks bad in this situation.

---

They didn't say anything bad true, they were however being condescending. Altering someone's post when quoting it and saying fixed it is poor etiquette, as I said all they needed to do was say that it's not that they don't like Venat but they don't like the writing and been civil. Instead they came across as mocking and rude.

Also your response proves my point, all I did was exactly what Nilroreo did, and you see it as the obnoxious trash it is.

Edit: ill admit I should have worded my changed quote better than I did.

instead I should have said:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Nilroreo

Changing other peoples quotes rather than refuting them is just rude

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Nilroreo

A little trigger happy there, maybe cool it with the ad hominems? I never insulted anyone. The correction was to explain my position.

---

No but you were being condescending by changing someone else words rather than refuting them.

Edit: I do apologise for taking it too far, I realised that to late in hindsight.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kordarion

They didn't say anything bad true, they were however being condescending. Altering someone's post when quoting it and saying fixed it is poor etiquette, as I said all they needed to do was say that it's not that they don't like Venat but they don't like the writing and been civil. Instead they came across as mocking and rude.

Also your response proves my point, all I did was exactly what Nilroreo did, and you see it as the obnoxious trash it is.

---

The two are not even remotely the same. I don't know what to say if you can't see the difference when one involves personal insults and the other does not.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rulakir

The two are not even remotely the same. I don't know what to say if you can't see the difference when one involves personal insults and the other does not.

---

Yeah in hindsight I did go over the top.

instead I should have said:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Nilroreo

Changing other peoples quotes rather than refuting them is just rude

---

Fixed it :P

Would that have been a better equivalence?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lurina

That's fine. Like I said, it feels like you played a different game to me, but everyone has experiences with media that. As Heinlein said, man is not a rational animal, he is a rationalizing animal; people have an emotional response and work backwards.

I did say "might not", though, so I think you might've got a little mad at me in that first paragraph for nothing. If you really did go back and review a bunch of the older journal dialogue and arrived at the same conclusion, then fair enough, I guess.

---

I was frustrated with that sentiment, but not angry by any means. It’s just an unfortunately common argument that’s cropped up and I think it adds nothing to this discussion. If we wish to agree that both perspectives are valid, and that people didn’t like or did like the story for subjective reasons, I find that more than agreeable.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Nilroreo

Fixed it for you

---

Case in point. You’re more than within your rights to dislike the writing. Going further, and yes attempting to say that the writing was objectively bad or wrong is not.

That whole 'fixed your post' thing does come across as pretty obnoxious to me, but maybe Nilroreo just sees it a humorous way for people to get their point across.

Different people find different things rude or annoying or whatever. Plenty of people probably find my dumb derailments annoying as hell, it is what it is, live and let live. :p

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Cleretic

but we do know that the people in charge of deciding that had no compunctions about causing genocides for Zodiark's sake. ...rather a lot of them, actually.

---

Except we do know this. We’re told this in the short story. Even the “tempered” convocation was split on the idea of the sacrifices. They didn’t calm down about it until Elidibus ejected from Zodiark and they saw a soul could come out of Zodiark, so i’m not sure where you’re getting this from.

As for the idea that they would continue sacrificing and sacrificing….we’re told via Hythlodaeus that once the 3rd set was done they planned to resume their duties as stewards of the star, there is nothing indicating they would continue sacrificing. For all we know they could have put Zodiark into Pandaemonium afterwards or put him in the center of the star like Hydaelyn was.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by EaraGrace

Case in point. You’re more than within your rights to dislike the writing. Going further, and yes attempting to say that the writing was objectively bad or wrong is not.

---

Considering that worse crime Art can do is fail to get a reaction AND we are sitting at page 100 of discussion about it, it's safe to say that writing is superb in EW.

I would rather argue that EW was way too ambitious for its own good and cut too deep to the point it touched on fundamental values of people. This caused message and the values becoming irreconcilable thus causing considerable distress to people playing it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by EaraGrace

I was frustrated with that sentiment, but not angry by any means. It’s just an unfortunately common argument that’s cropped up and I think it adds nothing to this discussion. If we wish to agree that both perspectives are valid, and that people didn’t like or did like the story for subjective reasons, I find that more than agreeable.

---

I think it's probably folly to try and separate subjectivity and objectivity when it comes to art. For something practical, you can judge it by how well it performs its role; a shovel is good or bad depending on how well it shovels. But writing can only be measured by how consistently it manages to entertain and compel, and all rules of its construction are ultimately guidelines in pursuit of that goal that can be situationally broken. If stories are ultimately 'good' or 'bad', or something inbetween, just comes down to cultural and subcultural consensus. All standards of 'objective' are subjective, and in high literature, are usually re-evaluated a few generations down the line.

I think Endwalker is an awkwardly-written story. This is my subjective interpretation according to my objective standards, themselves informed by personal and educational background.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lurina

I think it's probably folly to try and separate subjectivity and objectivity when it comes to art. For something practical, you can judge it by how well it performs its role; a shovel is good or bad depending on how well it shovels. But writing can only be measured by how consistently it manages to entertain and compel, and all rules of its construction are ultimately guidelines in pursuit of that goal that can be situationally broken. If stories are ultimately 'good' or 'bad', or something inbetween, just comes down to cultural and subcultural consensus. All standards of 'objective' are subjective, and in high literature, are usually re-evaluated a few generations down the line.

I think Endwalker is an awkwardly-written story. This is my subjective interpretation according to my objective standards, themselves informed by personal and educational background.

---

And I find Endwalkers narrative beautiful and well written. As goes dark, goes light and all.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pofruin

Considering that worse crime Art can do is fail to get a reaction AND we are sitting at page 100 of discussion about it, it's safe to say that writing is superb in EW.

I would rather argue that EW was way too ambitious for its own good and cut too deep to the point it touched on fundamental values of people. This caused message and the values becoming irreconcilable thus causing considerable distress to people playing it.

---

Let’s be honest with ourselves. There’s a bit of fun to be had in tense discussion. :p

Ere Our Curtain Falls.

This was soon after Zodiark became the will of the star, and our Final Days were averted. The people were divided, unable to decide what to do with the future that now stretched out before them. Many wished to trade the new life which had sprung forth to reclaim those lost in sacrifice to Zodiark. No small number, however, insisted that the fate of our world should be entrusted to those selfsame freshly minted souls. All were at our wits' end.

At once, we saw it, shimmering. It poured out of Zodiark's breast, and resolved into the shape of a man. As he looked us over─mouths agape, no doubt─he gave what passed for an earnest smile.

"Fear...not... You will make...the right choice. And I will see it through."

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by EaraGrace

And I find Endwalkers narrative beautiful and well written. As goes dark, goes light and all.

---

Well, I guess I'm saying that you should probably not let yourself get so worked up about people calling the story objectively bad. It's like going to a restaurant review where the author says the dishes are bad because they're too sweet, and commenting, "but I like sweet food!" It's implicit that they can only judge it according to their own standards, because that's all anyone can do.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lurina

Well, I guess I'm saying that you should probably not let yourself get so worked up about people calling the story objectively bad. It's like going to a restaurant review where the author says the dishes are bad because they're too sweet, and commenting, "but I like sweet food!" It's implicit that they can only judge it according to their own standards, because that's all anyone can do.

---

I’ll take that advice into consideration, condescension not included.

And I think I would still argue with the critic. If they’re going to purport to being an objective voice, and then ultimately fall back on subjective tastes, then I have every reason to point out that there rating isn’t objective.

If a game critic said a world based around the ocean had too much water in it, I’d point out that that’s a pretty odd judgement.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by EaraGrace

I’ll take that advice into consideration, condescension not included.

And I think I would still argue with the critic. If they’re going to purport to being an objective voice, and then ultimately fall back on subjective tastes, then I have every reason to point out that there rating isn’t objective.

---

I didn't mean to be condescending. Sorry if it came across that way.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lurina

I didn't mean to be condescending. Sorry if it came across that way.

---

No offense taken. Perhaps a misreading on my part.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lurina

It only creates that impression if you single out that section of the quote. While I admitted in my reply to you it is a little ambiguous about the "pre-existing" creatures, the final line draws a clear distinction between humanity and the new life. If the Ancients intended to sacrifice other members of their own species, there would not be a tension about whether to hand over the world to that new life or not.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lurina

彼らは、ゾディアークに命を捧げるのをやめ、新しい世界を、生まれ来る命たちに任せるべきだと言うんだ。

They believed that it was time for the sacrifices to come to an end, and for them to hand the new world over to the new lives living upon it.

---

Again, your quotes don't demonstrate a 'clear distinction' on the Amaurotians' sacrifices. The final line talks about handing over the planet to the 'new lives' living on the 'new world'. Not really relevant to your claim at all, although people have humorously pointed out that the Ancients obviously weren't planning on handing over the new world to the dolphins. I shouldn't have to keep fact checking you.

I also went back and had a look at that post you keep going on about. I didn't make any claims about what your personal views were. Go back and actually read it. You're not the only person on these forums.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rannie

Not blaming it on Spiggy-Selch?

---

Nobody can blame Spiggy-Selch, just like nobody can blame you, Rannie-brea. Sorry, your character's face reminds me of Lahabrea-possessed Thancred too much.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Cleretic

Except that using Zodiark requires sacrificing an absurd amount of life. We can't really put a name on the crime that the third sacrifice would've been, given we don't know the selection process, but we do know that the people in charge of deciding that had no compunctions about causing genocides for Zodiark's sake. ...rather a lot of them, actually.

---

The people of Eorzea sacrifice endless animal life for sustenance; heck they slaughtered beastmen for profit. How is that different from sacrificing animal life for a world reset?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Vyrerus

And did you notice? Hydaelyn still has wings.

---

*Chef's Kiss*
That was perfect.

I agree that it's important to note that Sundering was a genocide in and of itself. The game beats us over the head with how evil it would be to extinguish the sundered to restore the ancients, but it was equally evil to wipe out the ancients to create the sundered.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pofruin

Considering that worse crime Art can do is fail to get a reaction AND we are sitting at page 100 of discussion about it, it's safe to say that writing is superb in EW.

---

I mean, a lot of people wrote a lot of words about the 8th season of Game of Thrones or Batman vs Superman, but I wouldn't call them "superb."

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HappyHubris

The people of Eorzea sacrifice endless animal life for sustenance; heck they slaughtered beastmen for profit. How is that different from sacrificing animal life for a world reset?

---

It probably wasn't just animal life, I doubt Ancient society would have been split over whether to hand the world over to some cows and rabbits and such.

As for the beastmen, well, I don't think anyone is arguing that slaughtering the beastmen for profit is a good thing.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HappyHubris

I agree that it's important to note that Sundering was a genocide in and of itself. The game beats us over the head with how evil it would be to extinguish the sundered to restore the ancients, but it was equally evil to wipe out the ancients to create the sundered.

---

Omnicide. Wiping out a single demographic is genocide. Venat wiped out all of them. Language used is but a small difference, but it's one I feel worthy of noting. Really drives home the gravity of the act far more so than calling it mere genocide.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Absimiliard

Omnicide. Wiping out a single demographic is genocide. Venat wiped out all of them. Language used is but a small difference, but it's one I feel worthy of noting. Really drives home the gravity of the act far more so than calling it mere genocide.

---

^this. And again, this is the problem I have with those who say Venat did nothing wrong. This is the reason I am dissatisfied with a great deal of EW's narrative even if I loved Elpis and Ultima Thule. SE not sufficiently painting Venat's actions as being as wrong as they were "necessary" [note the necessary in quotes, it would not have been if she had actually told people what they were up against.] was highly disappointing. Whitewashing of something that is a crime no matter how you slice it just bothers me to no end.

I normally stay off the forums but read them, but on the whole subject here.

People calling Zodiark's summon idiotic because it would only delay the End of Days. Consider this people, they NOT KNEW of the final days, it was a catastrophic event for them destroying their lives, and since Venat not told them at all, how should they had known it would return at all? We as players know details they not know or can't know, we have seen things and know things yet also not share info only when the plot demands it, we are the same in this case.

Both sides in this are neutral and acted out of desperation, but I do agree that the story painting Venat as the good sacrificial person is bs. On top of the Scions showing doubt but never question it. I enjoyed Endwalker a lot, but those points are terrible writing. Venat should have forgotten all like the rest, and rest had played out and even should have stayed in mystery why she did what she did in becoming Hydaelyn, but at least make it fair for both sides, and not get me started on the imagery of her as Angel while Zodiark is this hideous beast. Because tell me this, if Primal represent the belief of their summoners, WHY do they both look so different of the same race? It is cliché in my eyes, because i guess traditions of their artwork dark vs light.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by KizuyaKatogami

Except we do know this. We’re told this in the short story. Even the “tempered” convocation was split on the idea of the sacrifices. They didn’t calm down about it until Elidibus ejected from Zodiark and they saw a soul could come out of Zodiark, so i’m not sure where you’re getting this from.

As for the idea that they would continue sacrificing and sacrificing….we’re told via Hythlodaeus that once the 3rd set was done they planned to resume their duties as stewards of the star, there is nothing indicating they would continue sacrificing. For all we know they could have put Zodiark into Pandaemonium afterwards or put him in the center of the star like Hydaelyn was.

---

There's no indication that it was the Convocation that was split, Eldibus is pretty clearly referring to the Convocation on one side and Venat and co on the other.

The only time the Convocation is ever referred to as being hesitant or split on a decision is about Elidibus being the Heart and thats pre Summoning

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Absimiliard

Omnicide. Wiping out a single demographic is genocide. Venat wiped out all of them. Language used is but a small difference, but it's one I feel worthy of noting. Really drives home the gravity of the act far more so than calling it mere genocide.

---

Omnicide is the destruction of all life, or all human life, depending on context.

Life still exists and humanity still exists, the sundered are still human beings, even if they are individually weaker than the Ancients.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jandor

How is it Omnicide? Life still exists, mankind still exists for that matter. The sundered are still mankind, even if they are individually less powerful than the Ancients.

---

The complete elimination of their culture? That counts as omnicide.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by redheadturk

The complete elimination of their culture? That counts as omnicide.

---

Omnicide has a pretty binary definition. Are all humans dead? If they're not, it's not omnicide.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Slatersev

There's no indication that it was the Convocation that was split, Eldibus is pretty clearly referring to the Convocation on one side and Venat and co on the other.

The only time the Convocation is ever referred to as being hesitant or split on a decision is about Elidibus being the Heart and thats pre Summoning

---

The french version goes over it. This poster went over it pretty well, just scroll to the elidibus section.

https://forum.square-enix.com/ffxiv/...=1#post5565636

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jandor

Omnicide has a pretty binary definition. Are all humans dead? If they're not, it's not omnicide.

---

They as a people no longer existed. Changed or not, they did not exist in the form they once did. The Ancients no longer existed after Venat's actions, and now that we have killed the last three Unsundered they never will again.