Who knew the 6.15 Omega Quests… (Spoilers)

It's a really nice little quest chain. Omega's quest is essentially about the emotional understanding and empathy underpinning Endwalker's themes. The reason why it's presented after the story is not just to let you digest the ideas, but also to serve as a quick sparknotes rundown of the themes to put them into perspective.

I chuckled over Omega's oddly familiar ruminations on Thavnair. What caused some people to survive and others to transform? Was it superior 'strength of will'? Was it the the power of drinking draconic blood? Not really. It could happen to anyone. The power of your bonds, your memories, your friendships, and your family certainly help, though. I very much enjoyed Manius' humanistic perspective on the Garleans' situation. Sure, there will always be miserable people who are lost without factions to shout at others through. But lot of people just want to get on with their lives.

I'm a bit curious about the fluffiness hierarchy. So far we have:
First rung: Viera ears
Second rung: Argos
Third rung: Alpha
Fourth rung: Growingway

Hopefully we'll see this expanded on as we learn more about the fluffsent.

I really enjoyed the Watcher's story, as well as a bit of perspective on Venat's circle of friends. I'd like to hear more about his story as a researcher in Anyder, even if it comes out in supplementary materials.

Either way, it was great to see Omega progressively emotional mature as he moved through Endwalker's themes. I'd actually love to see him and Midgardsormr sit down for tea some day. Although I'm sure that there will be roles for both to play in the new storyline.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jennah

I really hope SE gives us the percentage breakdown on what people picked here at some point.

---

So, practically speaking I don't think this is possible even if they wanted to. (And the fact it doesn't appear to be is probably indication that they didn't want to). They can't take metrics on dialog choices, because that's essentially entirely clientside with no recording of anything; the Anogg/Konogg choice was actually a quest fork, so they could measure by how many people picked up which quests. That said, if those stats were actually being collected I think we'd have seen the results in more or less the same order we saw them; not only are the topmost options statistically favored because of the 'don't care, I'll check the top one and move on' factor, but people also broadly just pick the 'good/nice guy' options more often than not. Mass Effect does collect statistics for player choices and it's always in that direction (unless it comes to punching reporters), and I remember that The Secret World actually did secretly record moral choice options without people knowing, and it was phenomenally 'good guys' inclined. Even with a similar sort of dynamic to what we see between Venat and Emet; the clear visual 'good guys' being inscrutible and daunting, with the visual 'bad guys' being REALLY shady but with some clear charisma while directly acknowledging that the other guys are clearly not benevolent.

Personally, I picked Venat, because my perspective was always that she was ultimately making the correct decision by Ancient philosophy, to do right by the planet (me being an environmentalist probably helps, too). Emet-Selch went against that in a time of extreme duress, which is completely understandable and I can't entirely say I wouldn't do the same, but I think still wrong. And incidentally I do love that Omega put forward Hermes when literally nobody else was or would have, Hermes potentially included. Even when learning emotions, Omega's still a logical being first and foremost, so it makes complete sense that they'd put 'well this guy was factually correct, surely that's also valid' on equal standing.

And honestly, the part of that scene that I most valued: the Watcher is based on the guy from the second Anamnesis recording! Didn't expect him of all people to come back into play, but I'm so happy he did. And answers the very small minority who seemed to think that Venat went against her allies' wishes; he was pretty clearly on board with it all.

I chose, "None of them were justified." Self-justified, sure. Actually justified? Nah, homie don't play that.

Hermes was on the list for two reasons. One, he caused the other two to make the choices they wound up making, and two, the writers of the story really do believe he's a compelling villain.

Venat wasn't justified, because she merely rose to play Hermes' inherently flawed game. It was also made apparent by this quest that she did not inform her followers about her plan to Sunder the world.

Hades, bereft of memories that Venat could have partially restored to him after Zodiark's creation(the point where Hermes' "genius" is no longer needed) via The Echo, is most akin to an innocent of the three. As crazy as that sounds, all of the bad that he did was essentially done in the name of correcting a grievous wrong. Of course, it still can't be excused, but he was the only one of the three performing his actions without being informed. With full knowledge of Meteion and Hermes and his future self, what do you think he would have done?

If we hadn't been given Options 1 or 5, then I probably would have chosen Hades.

More interesting to me though, was the mention Omega made of the Ancients' civilization being a Stage IV civilization. If you're unaware of the Kardashev Scale, then I suggest looking into it. Stage 4 is actually a further step added to the theory later by someone else. The scale itself is about potential energy consumption/usage that a civilization is capable of.

Stage 1 is a civilization a bit above modern day society in terms of power it can consume when compared to the Sun's power output.

Stage 2 is a civilization that can use all of the energy the sun radiates.

Stage 3 is a civilization that can use all of the energy an entire galaxy is comprised of.

The extra stages, Stage IV is a civilization that can use all of the energy in the universe. Stage V is all energy in multiple universes.

I never really doubted they were okay with whatever they thought Venat had planned, but considering that he stated that none of them knew her true intentions, it felt like it was implying she didn't tell them the whole story.

I suppose that truth will likely come to light in Myths of the Realm assuming the Twelve really are of Ancient make like many suspect.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Cleretic

...

---

It's similar to what happened with Emet's Amaurotian simulacra in the Tempest. Creation magic is very precise, so a single stray thought can result in a deviation from what you had originally anticipated. Most of the simulacra lack self-awareness, but the thought 'Hythlodaeus will realize the truth' gave Hyth 2.0 a special insight into the true nature of the place. The same seems to be true of Venat and the Watcher, given that they were close originally.

I'd really like to know more about his name, his backstory, and what lead him personally to stand up against the rest of his society's decision.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Shookbeast

…Would lead to our WOL taking a stance on the Venat/Emet discussion?

It’s a lovely little quest though. Very sweet.

(Unless, perhaps… if that message ends up being from someone we know/knew/will know.)

---

I loved the quest. Being able to take a stance on something historic like this was awesome. Please more "taking stances" if the situation allows it. Absolutely dug that multiple choice answer.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Vyrerus

I chose, "None of them were justified." Self-justified, sure. Actually justified? Nah, homie don't play that.

Hermes was on the list for two reasons. One, he caused the other two to make the choices they wound up making, and two, the writers of the story really do believe he's a compelling villain.

Venat wasn't justified, because she merely rose to play Hermes' inherently flawed game. It was also made apparent by this quest that she did not inform her followers about her plan to Sunder the world.

Hades, bereft of memories that Venat could have partially restored to him after Zodiark's creation(the point where Hermes' "genius" is no longer needed) via The Echo, is most akin to an innocent of the three. As crazy as that sounds, all of the bad that he did was essentially done in the name of correcting a grievous wrong. Of course, it still can't be excused, but he was the only one of the three performing his actions without being informed. With full knowledge of Meteion and Hermes and his future self, what do you think he would have done?

If we hadn't been given Options 1 or 5, then I probably would have chosen Hades.

More interesting to me though, was the mention Omega made of the Ancients' civilization being a Stage IV civilization. If you're unaware of the Kardashev Scale, then I suggest looking into it. Stage 4 is actually a further step added to the theory later by someone else. The scale itself is about potential energy consumption/usage that a civilization is capable of.

Stage 1 is a civilization a bit above modern day society in terms of power it can consume when compared to the Sun's power output.

Stage 2 is a civilization that can use all of the energy the sun radiates.

Stage 3 is a civilization that can use all of the energy an entire galaxy is comprised of.

The extra stages, Stage IV is a civilization that can use all of the energy in the universe. Stage V is all energy in multiple universes.

---

Well articulated.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Iscah

snip.

---

Uh, we didn’t know that her followers souls were literally consumed and extinguished though which is my point, and which is something they had answered in a QnA. Their souls are gone. Like gone gone. We don’t know if her followers willingly did it knowing their souls would be extinguished, in fact what we see in 5.2 contradicts this, in that they say they’ll miss venat. They can’t really miss her if they don’t exist anymore now can they?

Q: Venat said that not even her soul would remain but what does that mean? I’m very fond of her character and would like to see her again. A: The answer is that souls are also made of Aether, and she gives up so much Aether that includes all of her soul as well. By contrast Zodiark was summoned using sacrifices of a lot of people, yes? But he was able to only use their Aether aside from their souls up because Zodiark was really strong and summoned by the Convocation of the Fourteen and so on. Hydaelyn had a much weaker summoning and because of that she didn’t have the option to leave the souls untouched, and that includes Venat she ended up using all of her Aether. In 5.2 there was some discussion of Venat’s group that assisted her in doing this and also how much of the Ancient people were sacrificed to create Zodiark so if you look back at that time it might be of your interest now. At the very end, Hydaelyn still had her own soul, which is Venat’s. That was the very power that she used to fight the Warrior of Light. When she tells you before the final bout she had saved enough Aether specifically to fight you, and that specifically points to Venat’s soul.

Also, the watcher is a simulacrum. Nothing more than that.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lyth

I'd really like to know more about his name, his backstory, and what lead him personally to stand up against the rest of his society's decision.

---

Ten gil on him being a Tales From the End viewpoint character at some point.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rulakir

I believe they absolutely should have fit this within the MSQ. A large part of the controversy with Venat, in particular, is she's portrayed as a tragic heroine of righteousness and benevolence. It's never once addressed that in actuality she represents everything the Scions have consistently fought against and condemned, instead she's universally treated favorably despite her striking similarities to other villains such as Thordan and Hermes. If inserting logic, consistency, and realism into the story would've caused corners to unravel I'd say that speaks volumes about the narrative they were trying to spin.

---

To your first point, it's written morally grey to an extent but they need to usher the story in a certain direction to compel certain characters to do certain things. That's just a literary tactic. FFXIV is unique in the fact that the center of events revolves around the player character so obviously everyone will interpret the story different based on perception, personal experiences etcetc, which is imo what insights the morally grey story telling.

But they still have a story to tell. They still have events and a lore to orchestrate. Inviting an open ended element within the MSQ is offputting if you have nothing to back it up with.

Case 1) Player vehemently disagrees to Hydaelyns / Venats actions:

-> Player journeys to Elpis -> Disagreeing with Venat's Actions, refuses to work alongside her knowing what she would do ->>???? (How do you progress this storyline?)

While not impossible, I highly doubt any story writer would create an MMO with such an open ended execution to conclude all story paths (different cutscenes) etcetc. It's too much of an undertaking. What FFXIV does, and well I might add, is inviting open ended narrative while still keeping a general focus on a goal point. I don't believe that's a failing on the narrative of the game and in fact a clear indication of the risk involved with telling a story that has so many perspectives woven inside. Art that imitates life in a way.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rulakir

I won't argue that Ishikawa clearly has a different view of Hermes than I do because I don't consider an extinction level event to be any sort of 'first step' for mankind, but as far as what's depicted in the game by the time we meet Hermes he seems driven by spite more than a genuine concern for the betterment of his people.

The whole of EW seems to justify violence if people aren't acting the way you think they should and that is a subject that should have been addressed in more than a side quest not everyone will do.

---

Hermes is a conflicting character in alot of ways. If you pool Hermes, Amon, and Fandaniel together, you essentially have a character that has changed face depending on his setting / circumstances. Hermes flipped once at least (pre memory wipe). Amon seemed to have flipped 2 or 3 times in terms of his motivations iirc. Fandaniel is just hard nihilism.

Idk if it justifies violence persay, and I wouldn't leave that to only EW either. SHB AND EW both fuel a narrative that when extreme viewpoints clash, it still falls to "might makes right". SHB Emet tries to argue for the opposite but the irony in that is that ultimately it still plays out that way regardless. It's very hard to have conversations with extreme viewpoints and in turn, that leads to violent clashes.
That's a mirror to society imo.

The only way to really come together is to turn down the temperature first one brick at a time. You see both of these viewpoints of extremes and descaling in Garlemald and even with the beast tribes over the course of the story.

I would instead say that EW elevates an aspect of selfishness and how that can lead to terrifying consequences. Almost every storypoint in EW has an aspect of selfishness associated with it. From the forum, to Zenos, to Garlemald armies, to Hermes insistence on listening to Meteion and "testing mankind", to Hydaelyns decision to sunder etc. All irrespective of any motivations or ultimate goals.