Inconsistencies with the sundering (Spoilers)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PeaTearGriffin

You're aren't furthering the discussion here. You're just attacking me because I disagree with your take on the story.

---

I have been adding and just presenting my view in the priors posts, and while it was a stark different than yours, I never made any accusation. But when you say "people are just making excuse" for disagreeing with you, that pretty much kill off the interest right there. I mean ... what's the point of discussing thing with someone who already readily dismissing your opinion as "excuse"? Same thing like I can talk about how people like/hate the game all days, but the moment people throw out accusation like "you're just a whitenight/fanboy/bootlicker" there is really no point in continuing. This is like insulting someone and accusing them of taking offend. That's not how you would entice someone to further your discussion.

If you want to blame someone for derailing your discussion, you should blame your own choice of wording. Or at the very least, even if you want to blame me, you need to blame yourself first.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MikkoAkure

It's literally the same cutscene. She narrates over the whole thing and is walking the whole time except for the pause in the summoning sequence.

---

Yes, I know. Just because the end of the cutscene was metaphorical that doesn't mean the entire cutscene has to be. Even still, that metaphorical walk down the smoky hallway still doesn't retcon anything from shadowbringers. A cutscene can be metaphorical and not retell a different version of events.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MikkoAkure

We also see Hythlodeus there even though we know in EW that he got sacrificed to Zodiark and thus should not be walking around. That scene happens right as she's talking about those sacrificed to Zodiark. Unless you expect that the writers want us to believe that he was Zodiark'd 1 minute before Hydaelyn was summoned.

---

This is also another continuity error, thank you for pointing that out. This really only drives home the point how careless the writers were.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Raven2014

I have been adding and just presenting my view in the priors posts, and while it was a stark different than yours, I never made any accusation.

---

You just called me a gaslighter...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Raven2014

So because people have a different take of opinion than your own version is simply making excuse? You know what's this called? It's called gaslighting.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Raven2014

So ... tell me, what make you and your version somehow more valid or superior

---

You're also putting words in my mouth because I never said my alternate fan theories were more valid or superior.

Anyhow I'm done speaking with you about this. You've done nothing but be confrontational ever since I told you my opinion about the story, and now I'm going to block you.

Quote:

---

I brought this up earlier and someone said that it still makes sense because blasphemies still appear even after the endsinger died, and that sin eaters still exist on the first.

---

There are inconsistencies, but when media released after Endwalker continues to affirm what was established before 6.0 as canon, you really don't have a leg to stand upon. I'm encouraging you to quit looking so deep into what is clearly just a poorly directed scene that is placed in a portion of the story where it doesn't belong.

People expected a 1-for-1 retelling of the Final Days and Sundering; I did too but accepted that they wanted to go with the vague nonsense metaphorical bs as Ishikawa has done many times, and instead got an intellectual experiment of a scene with little to no narrative value and now said people; e.g. you, are grasping at straws and trying to affirm their delusional interpretation by asserting that a nonsensical, symbolic scene with no value to the narrative has anymore value than being a nonsensical, symbolic scene.

Even your examples of these so-called inconsistencies make no sense:

Terminus Beasts appear because the role quests canonically take place at the time they are introduced in the MSQ, as does every quest that exists in the game. They also still remain from those who turned, which like in the First, the entire world was afflicted—that's potentially millions who fell to despair and turned into Terminus beast and they aren't just going to "go away."

Likewise, Sin Eaters exist on the First because while we ended the Everlasting Light, there is an entire world that was swallowed by a flood of a light wherein all the inhabitants were turned—human and beast alike. Norvrandt has a few eaters remaining, but the Empty; aka the entire world outside of it, is still a bleached wasteland that will take centuries to be restored and Sin Eaters will be as plentiful as there was life in the First.

This means that despite the fact we go to Norvrandt: the First's Eorzea, the First's Gyr Abania, Othard, Ilsabard, Thavnair, Meracydia, The New World, Sharlayan and variant of everything else we know on the source had all the inhabitants turned by the flood. Said lands are likely still teeming with sin eaters and will be for a lo ng time. Ending the flood doesn't stop their existence.

It is poor writing, but not in the way you think and continue to assert it is.

You don't like the writing in Endwalker, that's fine, I don't either, but asserting utter nonsense to try and criticize their poor decisions and use of metaphorical storytelling is just... well, its silly. You are genuinely making no sense.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PeaTearGriffin

Yes, I know. Just because the end of the cutscene was metaphorical that doesn't mean the entire cutscene has to be. Even still, that metaphorical walk down the smoky hallway still doesn't retcon anything from shadowbringers. A cutscene can be metaphorical and not retell a different version of events.



This is also another continuity error, thank you for pointing that out. This really only drives home the point how careless the writers were.

---

Schrodinger's Cutscene... It's simultaneously metaphorical and inaccurate unless player "Weebpolice" decides which one agrees with his point at any moment of time.


I really don't understand how you can look at this and think it's not metaphorical. Especially the part with Hythlodeus. He has his whole thing with Emet-Selch right as she's narrating about sacrifices.

You said in your OP that you just watched someone else play Endwalker and it's difficult talking about the story with someone who hasn't even experienced it and is getting everything second hand. I didn't agree with the whole idea of having a cinematic cutscene that condenses the events of the Final Days/Sundering, but your take on it feels like someone who came to class without their homework and copied someone else's who just rushed through the material.


But sure. Somehow the writers make a fully retconned cutscene at the height of a story, say it's metaphorical to cover-up their inadequacies, and 1 guy on the forums who hasn't even played the expansion uncovers the truth that it's not a metaphor after all despite admitting that half of the cutscene is indeed metaphorical.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MikkoAkure

Schrodinger's Cutscene... It's simultaneously metaphorical and inaccurate unless player "Weebpolice" decides which one agrees with his point at any moment of time.

---

Sure lets just do away with any kind nuance that this argument may contain. It's either completely black or completely white. There's no in between. Nope, not at all.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MikkoAkure

I really don't understand how you can look at this and think it's not metaphorical.

---

You know what? I'll entertain this notion for a second. Let's say that this cutscene is in fact metaphorical.

In this metaphorical cutscene, what is the metaphor for etheirys being restored to its habitable state? Also, what is the metaphor for the major battle between hydaelyn and zodiark that sunders etheirys?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MikkoAkure

You said in your OP that you just watched someone else play Endwalker and it's difficult talking about the story with someone who hasn't even experienced it and is getting everything second hand. I didn't agree with the whole idea of having a cinematic cutscene that condenses the events of the Final Days/Sundering, but your take on it feels like someone who came to class without their homework and copied someone else's who just rushed through the material. But sure. Somehow the writers make a fully retconned cutscene at the height of a story, say it's metaphorical to cover-up their inadequacies, and 1 guy on the forums who hasn't even played the expansion uncovers the truth that it's not a metaphor after all despite admitting that half of the cutscene is indeed metaphorical.

---

Handwaving this away in attempt to dismiss this isn't going to prove anything.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Aniya_Estlihn

They have literally said it is symbolic, and we have a Lodestone story released after Endwalker featuring Venat and the Watcher at the time shortly before the Sundering—which is still canon to Endwalker. It wasn't retconned, it was a cinematic representation of Venat's guilt and burden presented through cutscene form. It's a scene meant to make us feel bad for her and that's all it is.

---

Yeah, I'd probably say this cut scene was indeed metaphorical. It would make no sense otherwise. It might not seem like the best reasoning to have a cut scene made in such a manner but in the end, it is what it is.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Aniya_Estlihn

There are inconsistencies, but when media released after Endwalker continues to affirm what was established before 6.0 as canon, you really don't have a leg to stand upon. I'm encouraging you to quit looking so deep into what is clearly just a poorly directed scene that is placed in a portion of the story where it doesn't belong.

---

Yes, but that doesn't mean the cutscene was not an accidental retcon. If they released media after endwalker affirming what was established before 6.0 as canon, that just means they didn't double down on their accidental retcon and instead chose to stick with what was established before 6.0.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Aniya_Estlihn

Even your examples of these so-called inconsistencies make no sense:

---

I know. I've already acknowledged this. That's why I said "someone said that it still makes sense because blasphemies still appear even after the endsinger died, and that sin eaters still exist on the first."

But I'll ask you the same question I asked the commenter above. If you're so convinced this cutscene is a metaphor, then show me the metaphor.

In this metaphorical cutscene, what is the metaphor for etheirys being restored to its habitable state? Also, what is the metaphor for the major battle between hydaelyn and zodiark that sunders etheirys?

You already said yourself that the second half of the same cutscene is metaphorical. I don't know how you can't see that it extends to the whole thing.

Venat walks through ruined Amaurot telling of the events back then as scenes she describes unfold around her happening directly with her narration despite the fact they could not have happened all close together like that. Then you have things like monsters killing people while Venat just watches, seconds before Hytholodeus parts from Emet-Selch and calmly walks past the same monster that just ate somebody and the monster doesn't even notice him. After the sword scene is another walking scene with events happening around her again like the first half of the cutscene, all to the same music and the same pace of the narration.

It makes zero sense for this to be presented as a writer's take on true events and to think that it is, you'd have to be super dense.


I would have rather had a cutscene that goes over the restoration of Etheirys and the actual battle, but they went with a super condensed metaphorical version for the art and to push the angle she went with on clipping the wings of the Ancients. I disagree with it, but it doesn't mean that the writers randomly had brain fungus and forgot the whole lore of the game that Shadowbringers brought up just for this one cutscene and then went back to the rest of the game fitting with the real events right after. There is no conspiracy they're trying to cover up, just a cutscene that apparently went over your head.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MikkoAkure

You already said yourself that the second half of the same cutscene is metaphorical. I don't know how you can't see that it extends to the whole thing.

Venat walks through ruined Amaurot telling of the events back then as scenes she describes unfold around her happening directly with her narration despite the fact they could not have happened all close together like that. Then you have things like monsters killing people while Venat just watches, seconds before Hytholodeus parts from Emet-Selch and calmly walks past the same monster that just ate somebody and the monster doesn't even notice him. After the sword scene is another walking scene with events happening around her again like the first half of the cutscene, all to the same music and the same pace of the narration.

It makes zero sense for this to be presented as a writer's take on true events and to think that it is, you'd have to be super dense.


I would have rather had a cutscene that goes over the restoration of Etheirys and the actual battle, but they went with a super condensed metaphorical version for the art and to push the angle she went with on clipping the wings of the Ancients. I disagree with it, but it doesn't mean that the writers randomly had brain fungus and forgot the whole lore of the game that Shadowbringers brought up just for this one cutscene and then went back to the rest of the game fitting with the real events right after. There is no conspiracy they're trying to cover up, just a cutscene that apparently went over your head.

---

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

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PeaTearGriffin

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

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

---

I don't think there is. I could say that Venat holding her sword out in front of the other ancients who were praying to Zodiark is the metaphor for Hydaelyn's great battle with Zodiark but I would be really reaching.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PeaTearGriffin

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

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

---

It’s not meant to accurately portray the events of the Sundering as described in Shadowbringers.

This whole point of this scene wasn’t a 1-to-1 depiction of the actual events that happened, for better or worse. It was to describe the newly revealed additional motivation for the Sundering that only just became news to us. In the frame of what they wanted to show us, they could’ve had a longer cutscene that also included the actual Sundering and the events that preceded it after Zodiark, but they went at it this way instead for whatever reason.

Considering you’re the only one who seems to not get it, I would recommend playing the game instead of watching a friend stream or watching clips out of context. It might make more sense to you then.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MikkoAkure

It’s not meant to accurately portray the events of the Sundering as described in Shadowbringers.

This whole point of this scene wasn’t a 1-to-1 depiction of the actual events that happened, for better or worse. It was to describe the newly revealed additional motivation for the Sundering that only just became news to us. In the frame of what they wanted to show us, they could’ve had a longer cutscene that also included the actual Sundering and the events that preceded it after Zodiark, but they went at it this way instead for whatever reason.

Considering you’re the only one who seems to not get it, I would recommend playing the game instead of watching a friend stream or watching clips out of context. It might make more sense to you then.

---

He's too busy making the Lalafell wall in Limsa. :p

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PeaTearGriffin

Hermes designed a being that could reach the edge of the universe. The people from the source designed a ship that could reach the edge of the universe. Suddenly going to the edge of the universe is impossible? Also the scenario we're discussing includes a fan theory that involves a much more powerful zodiark. You're not keeping up with the discussion.

There's no need to shut down players examining the story with more granularity. If you can't handle that, this might not be the best thread for you to stick around in.

---

There is more to it than just traveling there. Remember that Ultima Thule did not exist as a visible space until Thancred sacrificed himself? Or that each single scion bascially needed to overpower the Meteions with their answers while nearly dieing?

So even if they reached her I doubt they would have been able to interact with her.

I am really not sure why some dont understand that her scene was not meant to show us how it exactly happened? We know that the second round of sacrifices restored the planet, yet when we see Venat and the group of ancients talk the city is still burning and in ruins and even one of the beasts is still flying around. That should really be enough of a hint that what its shown is not what truly is happening.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PeaTearGriffin

You just called me a gaslighter...

---

Yes I did, after you said people disagree with you are just making excuse. Before that I was having a normal convo with you. So next time if you don't want unpleasantly, don't start it yourself.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MikkoAkure

It’s not meant to accurately portray the events of the Sundering as described in Shadowbringers.

---

I would go as far as saying it's not meant to portray the events "at all". ShB gives a historical and chronicle account of the physical conflict, while this cutsceen illustrate the justification and ideal clash of that conflict, not a cinematic recreation of the chronicle account. The CS isn't meant to show "this is what happened", but a "why it happens" on an abstract level (exactly what a stage play is), and consistently answer the question Venat posed to herself in Elpis. We didn't travel back in time to see a grandeur and cooler version of what we already know from ShB, we went to find the reason behind them, and that's what we got.

This is like accusing the cutsceen fail at something it never tries to do. Or complaining why an apple doesn't taste like orange.

I think some are realizing why I stopped replying to this thread let alone try to debate with the OP as it's useless to try and do so. Even if you explain everything while making sure you cross your T's and dot your I's the OP will ignore most of what you said while going yes but what about X? And if you try to say no that's not what the lore or the devs have said he just pushes back with the "I'm not ignoring what the story says... I just want to explore this theory" cause we all need another thread about that cutscene.

I think EW was rushed. They had about a decade of story to wrap up and for some reason (I believe Yoshi was bored/wanted to move on) they decided to try and wrap up everything in one expansion.
I am almost past caring about the story at this point and not sure I want to commit to the next. I was very invested in the story, especially after ShB and watching EW jump the shark was a huge disappointment.
So many characters, places and plot-points just dumped so we could move on. And no, Uncle Emet's bucket-list didn't inspire me. His transformation from complex villain to tour-guide, just made me wonder what on earth had happened to my favourite character.

To get back that scene with Hydaelyn, scenes that are metaphorical are iirc something we haven't seen in previous expansions. I'm not sure I buy 'it's a metaphor' when it comes to that scene because even if it wasn't meant to be literal, I'm not sure that's the right word for it. Also, a metaphor only works if people understand that it is one. So the fact that people have to be told, means it wasn't well done.

If people enjoyed EW, great, good for them.
If people didn't enjoy it or found some aspects flawed and they want to discuss that, this forum should be the place to do that.
And if some people want to tie themselves in knots trying to explain away all the plot holes and inconsistencies, knock yourselves out.

As I said, I'm almost past caring at this point. I'm hoping the next expansion will be better but the poor writing in EW has been enough to make me very wary about committing to a pre-purchase.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kpxmanifesto

I don't think there is. I could say that Venat holding her sword out in front of the other ancients who were praying to Zodiark is the metaphor for Hydaelyn's great battle with Zodiark but I would be really reaching.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MikkoAkure

It’s not meant to accurately portray the events of the Sundering as described in Shadowbringers.

---

Good, so you people understand that the game presents a retcon to us with this cutscene. A retcon is defined as: "a piece of new information that imposes a different interpretation on previously described events."

It's crazy the amount of mental gymnastics some of you guys are using just to avoid admitting that the story writers messed up by creating a retcon.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PeaTearGriffin

Good, so you people understand that the game presents a retcon to us with this cutscene. A retcon is defined as: "a piece of new information that imposes a different interpretation on previously described events."

It's crazy the amount of mental gymnastics some of you guys are using just to avoid admitting that the story writers messed up by creating a retcon.

---

That same definition could also be used to describe a "twist"

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Solarra

To get back that scene with Hydaelyn, scenes that are metaphorical are iirc something we haven't seen in previous expansions. I'm not sure I buy 'it's a metaphor' when it comes to that scene because even if it wasn't meant to be literal, I'm not sure that's the right word for it. Also, a metaphor only works if people understand that it is one. So the fact that people have to be told, means it wasn't well done.

---

That's exactly it. Plenty of people don't buy the excuse that it's just a metaphor. People keep saying its metaphorical or symbolic but where are these supposed metaphors and symbolism? That's why I keep thinking that the story writers are using this excuse as a cover up for inattentive writing. What metaphor was there for order being restored in etheirys and the major battle between zodiark and hydaelyn? The cutscene, even if it was a metaphor, presents a different interpretation to the player, aka a retcon.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PeaTearGriffin

Good, so you people understand that the game presents a retcon to us with this cutscene. A retcon is defined as: "a piece of new information that imposes a different interpretation on previously described events."

It's crazy the amount of mental gymnastics some of you guys are using just to avoid admitting that the story writers messed up by creating a retcon.

---

It's not a retcon. A retcon means that previous events would be wrong, and they're not. The scene is never presented as "this is how it actually went down". It's just meant to be a cinematic narration by Venat of the Final Days and explaining a new additional reasoning for the Sundering. The scene itself isn't similar to anything we've had before or since so I won't deny that it's jarring, but at this point after it's been explained to you, you're just doubling-down on being wrong in order to keep pushing a conspiracy theory.

If you honestly believe that a scene where Hytholdeus and a man-eating monster calmly pass each other in the street is meant to be taken as literal events, then there's no hope for you.

I agree it is a massive inconsistency. Especially given the short story where Zodiark Spits out primal Elidibus to help reconcile the conflict. Its insuinuated within the story that order has been restored and a long time has passed since the summoning of Zodiark. The issue with the endwalker portrayal is that Amaurot is still a flaming ruin, when there are multiple instances to suggest that life had been restored long enough for the new life to flourish to a level where they could be used to swap out the original sacrificed souls.

my understanding is that the events go something like this:

Final Days begins > Amaurot debate involving themselves > bring samples back to Amaurot to study> Final days reach Amaurot > Zodiark Summoned as last desparate act > Zodiark weaves aetheric shield which stops the final Days > Ancients turn attention to restoration > unknown time passes and life has returned to normal > Ancients still unhappy with loss of those sacrificed to Zodiark > Split appears in populous - some support sacrificing the new life to restore the others, some do not > Elidius withdraws from Zodiark to find reconciliation > Meeting with Hydealyn and her disciples > Hydealyn sunders Etheirys and seals Zodiark away.

There is some things i have assumed in this, based on things we learn from side quests in amaurot. Ultimately though, the depiction of the sundering in Endwalker falls too soon in the timeline. If it is taken as not being a metaphor then the timeline is shortened somewhat :

Final Days > Zodiark Summoned > Zodiark creates shield > Ancients try to sacrifice non ancient lifeforms > Elidibus splits from Zodiark > Hyealyn Sunders.

I think the key issue is we dont know if the lives Hydealyn wanted to save were newly created arcane constructs who later developed souls, or existing people who lived on etheirys outside of the ancients.

The side quests in Amaurot leave it very unclear if the settlements outside of Amaurot are populated by the ancients or different races entirely. If the second route is true (bare in mind both are part conjecture) then the sacrifices are likely other races less magically inclined, which makes sense given the ancients view themselves as "stewards of the star." - this could also be true if there are only ancients though. Which is why i still think the original plot of events is most likely true and Endwalker mucked up the metorphical depiction of the sundering / reconned prior info to make Vanet seem less like a genocidal maniac*. (*Just my view of her actions. not saying she is or isn't.)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MikkoAkure

explaining a new additional reasoning for the Sundering.

---

You're actually defining a retcon now. Thank you for acknowledging that the cutscene changes what was previously told in shadowbringers.


I'm going to keep this is as simple as possible.


"Retroactive continuity, or retcon for short, is a literary device in which facts in the world of a fictional work which have been established through the narrative itself are adjusted, ignored, supplemented, or contradicted by a subsequently published work which recontextualizes or breaks continuity with the former.[2]"


sauce: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Retroactive_continuity

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PeaTearGriffin

You're actually defining a retcon now. Thank you for acknowledging that the cutscene changes what was previously told in shadowbringers.


I'm going to keep this is as simple as possible.


"Retroactive continuity, or retcon for short, is a literary device in which facts in the world of a fictional work which have been established through the narrative itself are adjusted, ignored, supplemented, or contradicted by a subsequently published work which recontextualizes or breaks continuity with the former.[2]"


sauce: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Retroactive_continuity

---

You're going at this as if the writers completely ignored or changed world events, which is not true.

The cutscene does not in any way at all contradict the events of how we were told the Sundering went down if you don't take the cutscene literally, which has been my point this whole time.

It is never meant to be literal. They certainly could have made it clearer that it's not a literal telling of events, but they didn't. But there's still no way that all of the events of that cutscene could have happened that close to one another even if it were supposed to be a "new literal version". Or that Venat would just calmly walk through all that, Emet-Selch and Hythlodeus ignore everything that's going on around them as the latter and a monster calmly walk past each other, etc.


The key part of the definition you copied is the last bit. Us learning that Venat wanted to sunder people to fight Meteion added more to what we already know, but didn't change the continuity or events that we learned about in ShB. It's never presented to us as a break because again, it's not a literal cutscene that shows us the actual events of the Sundering and was never at all meant to be taken that way.

Plenty of people who actually played the game understand this and the writers have apparently said as much, so I don't know why you keeping digging down into this, especially since you've never even played it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MikkoAkure

You're going at this as if the writers completely ignored or changed world events, which is not true.

---

You can move the goalposts all you like for the definition of retcon, but like you said already, it's "explaining a new additional reasoning for the Sundering."

A new additional reasoning in the endwalker cutscene that recontextualizes or breaks continuity with how the sundering was described in shadowbringers.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PeaTearGriffin

That's entirely true, but summoning zodiark helped the ancients regain control of their creation magic again. The ancients were an especially advanced civilization very dedicated to science and technology. I really don't think that they would be incapable of creating something that could travel the stars. Even one scientist alone (hermes) was able to create a being all by himself that could reach the end of the universe (meteion).

It's also true that sundered people can't lose control of their creation magic, but they can turn into blasphemies themselves which I don't think is that much better.

---

They had control over it on Etheirys behind their shield but what do you think would happen when they got out into space where it was mostly dynamis? And they were advanced in science and technology but a lot of that was built on a basis of what their creation magic could do for them. They weren't like the Garleans who had to rely on other means because anything aether-based was not at their disposal.

And we can see from how they wanted to bring the original sacrifices back that once things were stable again they wanted to just get back to the old normal. Why would they go off to find Meteion when they're safe behind their shield and things are back to how they were? In many ways they had much less conviction than the sundered because they didn't have to worry about certain things. It's horrible for someone to turn into a blasphemy but they can resist through strength of will.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TaleraRistain

They had control over it on Etheirys behind their shield but what do you think would happen when they got out into space where it was mostly dynamis? And they were advanced in science and technology but a lot of that was built on a basis of what their creation magic could do for them. They weren't like the Garleans who had to rely on other means because anything aether-based was not at their disposal.

---

They have at least 12 000 years to create something able to best Meteion. (assuming someone would tell them what threat they're dealing with at last) After all, Meteion herself was created by one of theirs, why should we assume they're absolutely unable to make any breakthrough into Dynamis research if you give them such an absurd amount of time? Our own mankind did a much bigger leap in barely a century.

Quote:

---

Why would they go off to find Meteion when they're safe behind their shield and things are back to how they were?

---

Do you really not know the answer to that question? The community accuse the Ancients of being many things, but I doubt most of them would believe they'd be that stupid.
After the trauma and destruction it caused, it would be silly to not do anything to counter the Apocalypse at their doorstep.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PeaTearGriffin

You can move the goalposts all you like for the definition of retcon, but like you said already, it's "explaining a new additional reasoning for the Sundering."

A new additional reasoning in the endwalker cutscene that recontextualizes or breaks continuity with how the sundering was described in shadowbringers.

---

You're missing the key point of your own posted definition. No continuity is broken here. If you want an example of a retcon in gaming, take the Warcraft series. In Warcraft 1 and 2, the Orcs were a bloodthirsty race of conquerors. In Warcraft 3, they were suddenly a peaceful, shamanistic race that just happened to have a subset of them drink demon blood and become bloodthirsty conquerors. That breaks continuity by changing the very core of who the entire race is. Nothing similar happened in EW w/ the Sundering. The only place I'd see a retcon on that front would be in ShB, where the Ascians were changed from your typical simple villains to have a more complex backstory.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PeaTearGriffin

You can move the goalposts all you like for the definition of retcon, but like you said already, it's "explaining a new additional reasoning for the Sundering."

A new additional reasoning in the endwalker cutscene that recontextualizes or breaks continuity with how the sundering was described in shadowbringers.

---

Ok. HOW was sundering described in shadowbringers? And please provide dialogue sources

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Striker44

You're missing the key point of your own posted definition. No continuity is broken here. If you want an example of a retcon in gaming, take the Warcraft series. In Warcraft 1 and 2, the Orcs were a bloodthirsty race of conquerors. In Warcraft 3, they were suddenly a peaceful, shamanistic race that just happened to have a subset of them drink demon blood and become bloodthirsty conquerors. That breaks continuity by changing the very core of who the entire race is. Nothing similar happened in EW w/ the Sundering. The only place I'd see a retcon on that front would be in ShB, where the Ascians were changed from your typical simple villains to have a more complex backstory.

---

Right. Shadowbringers tells one version of events and then endwalker tells a different version of events, but "no continuity is broken." Seeing people jump through all sorts of mental hoops to say that endwalker didn't retcon or break continuity with the story from shadowbringers is getting really old.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PeaTearGriffin

I suppose that could be the case, but then the idea that Zodiark has the potential to be that powerful introduces an additional inconsistency. With that kind of difference in power where just 1/14th of Zodiark's aether is enough to stop meteion, the ancients (barring venat's personal moral opinion that people should suffer) could just summon zodiark, have him kill meteion because he's so much more powerful than meteion in this scenario, and then work on restoring etheirys. We already know from the game's cutscenes that "Dynamis is a far weaker form of energy, and is almost completely nullified by Aether in equal quantities." If just 1/14th of Zodiark's aether is enough to nullify meteion, we can assume that zodiark can kill meteion with an additional fraction of his aether, then use his remaining aether to restore the world. Of course these are just fan theories at this point, but the hypothetical scenario that Zodiark is indeed that aetherically powerful creates more possibilities that might be better alternatives to sundering the world.

---

maybe...because Venat met us at Elpis and we told her what happened with our world, all the shards, where we are from, about Hydaelyn, etc. So, Venat could have just make things in order to keep our existence in her future possible (by sundering Zodiark and becoming Hydaelyn) since we and she was the only ones to know exactly about Meteion and the Final Days's source. If she changes history, our existence or knowledge could be neutralized or worthless.

About Zodiark "restoring the world" I understood that it was impossible. Zodiark is a Primal and the top most aether consuming at that. In order to keep him you have basicaly to destroy the life in the world. All creations must have to be given to him as "sacrifices" from time to time to keep him existing, as we learn in ShB. So, the very existence of Zodiark in it's full form is a threat to the planet itself. The sundering could make him weaker in a way that he could not be summoned anymore (prision at the Moon) and sacrifices made to him not more possible (that's why the unsundered tried to Rejoin all reflexes through Calamities in order to give Zodiark power enough to free himself).

I think these 2 points (our very existence that Venat met at Elpis and the necessity to weaken Zodiark's power before he consumes all the world to keep existing), are reason enough to justify the sundering instead of doing something else ( but I agree about trying to use Zodiark to kill Meteion before the sundering).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wanzzo

About Zodiark "restoring the world" I understood that it was impossible. Zodiark is a Primal and the top most aether consuming at that. In order to keep him you have basicaly to destroy the life in the world. All creations must have to be given to him as "sacrifices" from time to time to keep him existing, as we learn in ShB. So, the very existence of Zodiark in it's full form is a threat to the planet itself. The sundering could make him weaker in a way that he could not be summoned anymore (prision at the Moon) and sacrifices made to him not more possible (that's why the unsundered tried to Rejoin all reflexes through Calamities in order to give Zodiark power enough to free himself).

---

This is actually incorrect. We were told explicitly that Zodiark indeed could (and did) restore the world. The first summoning fully healed the world, the second populated it with new life in the same vein as what the ancients put forth prior with their own creation magics. The third sacrifice would have used a portion of that created life (or rather its descendants, born through natural reproduction after the initial models were created by Zodiark) to resurrect everyone whose life was given to summon Zodiark in the first place. Furthermore, neither Zodiark nor Hydaelyn consume aether just by existing; that's a flaw introduced in modern primals. Neither would they require continuous sacrifices to go on existing, and they did not drain aether form the surrounding environment whatsoever. Thus, neither of them posed any kind of actual threat to the planet merely by existing.

Simply put, the sacrifices were there primarily to fuel Zodiark's powers on a large scale without necessitating that he consume the ancient souls within. Zodiark's directives are to heal and protect the world, and keep those souls safe for the time when they may be returned to life. Tasks such as healing the entire world, inside and out, after the effects of the Final Days are monumental indeed, as would be seeding an entire planet with enough new life to provide the necessary genetic diversity for it to become self-sustaining. When doing anything else, like say shielding Etheirys, he required only so much aether as could be safely provided by the souls within.

The sundering did not weaken Zodiark in such a way he couldn't be "summoned" anymore, it took the entity itself, which still physically existed (i.e. it was still "summoned"), and split it across the shards so that its shield could continue to protect Etheirys in the long term.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Absimiliard

This is actually incorrect. We were told explicitly that Zodiark indeed could (and did) restore the world. The first summoning fully healed the world, the second populated it with new life in the same vein as what the ancients put forth prior with their own creation magics. The third sacrifice would have used a portion of that created life to resurrect everyone whose life was given to summon Zodiark in the first place. Furthermore, neither Zodiark nor Hydaelyn consume aether just by existing; that's a flaw introduced in modern primals. Neither would they require continuous sacrifices to go on existing, and they did not drain aether form the surrounding environment whatsoever. Thus, neither of them posed any kind of actual threat to the planet merely by existing.

The sundering did not weaken Zodiark in such a way he couldn't be "summoned" anymore, it took the entity itself, which still physically existed (i.e. it was still "summoned"), and split it across the shards so that its shield could continue to product Etheirys in the long term.

---

ohh thank you!

I have to revise the cutscenes. Probably i misunderstood that part with Y'shtola after we reach that Library created by Emet at the ocean.

Anyway, really thanks for clarifying that to me :)
+1 Kupo.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wanzzo

ohh thank you!

I have to revise the cutscenes. Probably i misunderstood that part with Y'shtola after we reach that Library created by Emet at the ocean.

Anyway, really thanks for clarifying that to me :)
+1 Kupo.

---

Always happy to toss out info. Quite a few things changed between ShB and EW as more of the information surrounding Zodiark and Hydaelyn came to light. Many of the Scions' (and players, for that matter) prior suppositions turned out to be incorrect. It's easy for the waters to get a bit muddied when theories later turn out to be so off base from the facts.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kazhar

Do you really not know the answer to that question? The community accuse the Ancients of being many things, but I doubt most of them would believe they'd be that stupid.
After the trauma and destruction it caused, it would be silly to not do anything to counter the Apocalypse at their doorstep.

---

Complacency. Their society had a problem with it.

You can see it in the two NPCs in Amaurot that talk about troubles going on elsewhere and if they should help or not. And in the Azem story where we, someone considered a troublemaking rebel, goes out to save people in a village that's going to be destroyed. I believe it was Emet who had the reasoning "They would have left already if they didn't want to die" (paraphrasing). We've seen indications their people live for at least hundreds of years. Why hadn't they already explored the universe? Why weren't they out there trying to help other planets, too? Their society was conditioned to only be concerned with Etheirys. It didn't encourage individuality or free thinking. The Watcher is scandalized in his story that Venat shows her face. We can see from the Panda raids that you can research topics but only the things that the society deems acceptable. When some creation comes out unexpectedly, it's outside of spec and is usually destroyed. Or they toss the misfits into a place like Panda so they can poke and prod at them to their heart's content.

They're safe now. Things are going back right back to how they should be. Why would anyone rock the boat for a universe they haven't bothered to care for up to this point?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TaleraRistain

Complacency. Their society had a problem with it.

You can see it in the two NPCs in Amaurot that talk about troubles going on elsewhere and if they should help or not. And in the Azem story where we, someone considered a troublemaking rebel, goes out to save people in a village that's going to be destroyed. I believe it was Emet who had the reasoning "They would have left already if they didn't want to die" (paraphrasing). We've seen indications their people live for at least hundreds of years. Why hadn't they already explored the universe? Why weren't they out there trying to help other planets, too? Their society was conditioned to only be concerned with Etheirys. It didn't encourage individuality or free thinking. The Watcher is scandalized in his story that Venat shows her face. We can see from the Panda raids that you can research topics but only the things that the society deems acceptable. When some creation comes out unexpectedly, it's outside of spec and is usually destroyed. Or they toss the misfits into a place like Panda so they can poke and prod at them to their heart's content.

They're safe now. Things are going back right back to how they should be. Why would anyone rock the boat for a universe they haven't bothered to care for up to this point?

---

I would tend to argue this take doesn't completely work after what we saw in Elpis. We're shown pretty conclusively the ancients were no different from us. Their society certainly had its problems, but complacency to the point of allowing their own end wouldn't seem to be one of those. They were just people living their lives, no different from those who would come after in that regard. Up until the business with Meteion they had no way of even knowing the universe held other life, let alone its current state. In the end, they never found out - Hermes lost his memories, and Venat never spoke a word of it. We've no way of knowing if they would have cared or not. Even if they didn't, it would be pretty realistic - real humans wouldn't care about other worlds either. Most of us don't even care about our own neighbors, let alone other countries or planets.

At any rate, I think we can safely assume they at least wouldn't have just sat around with their thumbs up their behind if they'd been aware of Meteion. If not for the danger she posed to the rest of the universe, then for the danger she still posed to Etheirys in spite of Zodiark's shield. The eldest primal could've protected the planet for an incomprehensible length of time, but that period was none the less not without limit. Beyond that, what of the universe itself? Should the universe die, would not that kill Etheirys regardless of whether or not Zodiark's power had reached its limit? Self-preservation is a powerful motivator. It can make you lash out in desperation, yes, but it can also give you the drive to innovate in truly fantastic ways. It all depends on your skillset and the circumstances surrounding your sense of need.

One thing we do know is they were working on space travel around the time everything went downhill. We see it in one of the Anyders, although it wasn't completed by the time their civilization came to an end. It looked like they were getting pretty close to having that finalized, too.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Absimiliard

At any rate, I think we can safely assume they at least wouldn't have just sat around with their thumbs up their behind if they'd been aware of Meteion.

---

Even if they would have found a way to get rid of Meteion, I don't think it would have mattered, because neither she nor Dynamis were ever the real threat. Keep in mind that civilizations all over the universe were already flying head first against the great filter before she was ever a thing.

So what was that ultimate threat? It's Hermes's question. What's the point of it all? Once a civilization gets far enough as to achieve everything there is to achieve they will inevitable end up with that question, and the answer is always going to be: There isn't one. It's all ultimately pointless. That's why the Ea and Omicrons decided there's nothing left to do but to kill themselves. That's like, literally the entire point of that whole zone, and they hammer it home pretty hard.

And the ancients were fast approaching that self same end. Theirs was the perfect paradise, they had no problems left to overcome. All they did everyday all day long were creating more and more concepts, but.. why? What's the point? Hermes may have been the first to ponder the question, but he would not have been the last. And they would have failed to come up with an answer just like the Ea did. Their only life line was that they kept themselves busy enough with their pointless creations that they didn't have to face that question, but how long could they have kept doing this until they ran out of every conceivable creation? What then?

Meteion simply forced the issue by giving them a taste of that despair, and they failed spectacularly. She didn't destroy the world, that was entirely their doing. So what was their solution? To retreat back into their little bubble of bliss. They were never ever going to be able to deal with this issue, because they never even wanted to. They just wanted to continue to delay the inevitable.

And that's why Venat sundered them. To take away that option. To force them to deal with it. She did so because she had faith that humanity, if given time and being subjected to manageable doses of despair, would eventually find an answer to that ultimate question. To find a reason to keep on living. Overcoming Meteion was merely the means of putting that to the test.

And she was proven right, since that is how we actually managed to "defeat" Meteion. It wasn't the battle that did her in, I'm sure she would have had a few more rounds in her, given that she had the despair of an entire universe at her disposal. It's because we showed her that even when faced with the knowledge that all we do is ultimately pointless, and that there is no reason to our suffering, and that death was always assured, we were still able to find a reason to keep on living. Something the Ancients were not, and would never have been able to do.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by VigilanteXII

And the ancients were fast approaching that self same end. Theirs was the perfect paradise, they had no problems left to overcome. All they did everyday all day long were creating more and more concepts, but.. why? What's the point? Hermes may have been the first to ponder the question, but he would not have been the last. And they would have failed to come up with an answer just like the Ea did. Their only life line was that they kept themselves busy enough with their pointless creations that they didn't have to face that question, but how long could they have kept doing this until they ran out of every conceivable creation? What then?

---

They could return to the aetherial sea like the game suggests several times. The story establishes that there is a life and death cycle for the ancients. Ancients that wanted to stay alive and keep making creations were allowed to and those wanted to return to the aetherial sea could do so as well. Also, is there a limited number of conceivable creations? Are creations finite especially when an ancient can create pretty much anything? I don't believe the game establishes there is a limit to the number of different creations.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by VigilanteXII

Meteion simply forced the issue by giving them a taste of that despair, and they failed spectacularly. She didn't destroy the world, that was entirely their doing. So what was their solution? To retreat back into their little bubble of bliss. They were never ever going to be able to deal with this issue, because they never even wanted to. They just wanted to continue to delay the inevitable.

---

They failed spectacularly? They summoned zodiark and put an end to the final days. She didn't destroy the world because the ancients successfully defended themselves against her. It's pretty obvious that they in fact were able to deal with the issue and they wanted to.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by VigilanteXII

And that's why Venat sundered them. To take away that option. To force them to deal with it. She did so because she had faith that humanity, if given time and being subjected to manageable doses of despair, would eventually find an answer to that ultimate question. To find a reason to keep on living. Overcoming Meteion was merely the means of putting that to the test.

---

This is such a strange take that I'll never see eye to eye with this. She had no faith in her own people who were able to stop the final days through summoning zodiark, but she had the utmost faith in humanity from the future who had no solution to their own final days and were transforming into blasphemies and had no choice but to time travel to the past to look for answers from HER OWN people?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by VigilanteXII

Even if they would have found a way to get rid of Meteion, I don't think it would have mattered, because neither she nor Dynamis were ever the real threat. Keep in mind that civilizations all over the universe were already flying head first against the great filter before she was ever a thing.

So what was that ultimate threat? It's Hermes's question. What's the point of it all? Once a civilization gets far enough as to achieve everything there is to achieve they will inevitable end up with that question, and the answer is always going to be: There isn't one. It's all ultimately pointless. That's why the Ea and Omicrons decided there's nothing left to do but to kill themselves. That's like, literally the entire point of that whole zone, and they hammer it home pretty hard.

And the ancients were fast approaching that self same end. Theirs was the perfect paradise, they had no problems left to overcome. All they did everyday all day long were creating more and more concepts, but.. why? What's the point? Hermes may have been the first to ponder the question, but he would not have been the last. And they would have failed to come up with an answer just like the Ea did. Their only life line was that they kept themselves busy enough with their pointless creations that they didn't have to face that question, but how long could they have kept doing this until they ran out of every conceivable creation? What then?

Meteion simply forced the issue by giving them a taste of that despair, and they failed spectacularly. She didn't destroy the world, that was entirely their doing. So what was their solution? To retreat back into their little bubble of bliss. They were never ever going to be able to deal with this issue, because they never even wanted to. They just wanted to continue to delay the inevitable.

And that's why Venat sundered them. To take away that option. To force them to deal with it. She did so because she had faith that humanity, if given time and being subjected to manageable doses of despair, would eventually find an answer to that ultimate question. To find a reason to keep on living. Overcoming Meteion was merely the means of putting that to the test.

And she was proven right, since that is how we actually managed to "defeat" Meteion. It wasn't the battle that did her in, I'm sure she would have had a few more rounds in her, given that she had the despair of an entire universe at her disposal. It's because we showed her that even when faced with the knowledge that all we do is ultimately pointless, and that there is no reason to our suffering, and that death was always assured, we were still able to find a reason to keep on living. Something the Ancients were not, and would never have been able to do.

---

That's a lot of hoops to jump through to justify genocide.

Venat just wanted to see hope and despair clash so hope could shine brighter. All the dead ancients, and millions killed by calamities? They were just stepping stones for hope!