Sundering the Nibirun

I mean...it's not like there wasn't countless variables involved with the path she did choose, and it's frankly a miracle everything worked out even in our case.

It has less to do with being an "ancient fan" and more wanting to not find the course of action taken by the "big good" of the setting morally reprehensible due to having nearly as much maybe/probably involved in the chosen course over hypothetical ones that could've led to less death and suffering. It's not like the whole fiasco didn't involve the sundered at all, either.

The entire topic is about waxing hypothetical to begin with so the eagerness to shoot down theories/possibilities is...strange to me. Though I suppose it's pointless to try to argue with people who are completely dug in on the chosen course being the only good/correct one despite the game explicitly entertaining the notion that maybe it wasn't.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CheshCa7

And there's also Hermes, their best dynamis expert. What would he have done? Too many variables and just a stupid risky decision.

---

Fall into omnicidal despair once he learned about his hand in it. We know that, we saw him do it the first time, he'd obviously do it the second. Venat literally brings that up.

We really do have to accept that Venat knew the Ancient people enough to read them at least mostly correctly. Not only because the story doesn't work otherwise, but because all evidence we see suggests she was right, and that she has the exact resume to be as accurate as expected for this. And... uhm, the knowledge of Meteion wouldn't have helped, because when we learned about her our plan didn't actually revolve around that fact, and Venat knew that fact and still went ahead with her plan. Almost like an active but distant antagonist wouldn't have suddenly allowed for an easier answer.

But I'm not interested in re-litigating this argument again; it was terrible the last seventy-three times, attempt #74 won't suddenly be new and interesting. The OP I suspect asked their question in bad faith, but at least said question posed an alternative angle that was new and worth answering, even if it ultimately isn't very hard to answer.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Cleretic

it was terrible the last seventy-three times, attempt #74 won't suddenly be new and interesting.

---

Gotta make it to seven hundred and seventy-seven, yes yes!
https://i.imgur.com/5PHw0hC.jpg

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Cleretic

But I'm not interested in re-litigating this argument again; it was terrible the last seventy-three times, attempt #74 won't suddenly be new and interesting. The OP I suspect asked their question in bad faith, but at least said question posed an alternative angle that was new and worth answering, even if it ultimately isn't very hard to answer.

---

While I agree with you that there's not really any point in further Venat discourse, it sort of diminishes the sentiment to say it after (as opposed to in lieu of) making a counterpoint anyway. Kinda a "I'm right, you're blocked" energy.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lurina

While I agree with you that there's not really any point in further Venat discourse, it sort of diminishes the sentiment to say it after (as opposed to in lieu of) making a counterpoint anyway. Kinda a "I'm right, you're blocked" energy.

---

That's fair enough, and I apologize. I think that approach kinda comes from an angle of going 'I'm not saying we stop because I think you've won'. Admittedly a bad reflex.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Cleretic

But I'm not interested in re-litigating this argument again; it was terrible the last seventy-three times, attempt #74 won't suddenly be new and interesting. The OP I suspect asked their question in bad faith, but at least said question posed an alternative angle that was new and worth answering, even if it ultimately isn't very hard to answer.

---

Thank you! And yeah you're right it was in bad faith :(. I just continue to be bothered by part of the story and I wish I could like it. But I already didn't like it from the start so it's moreso the general direction they took, what they chose to focus on that I'm in disagreement with.

Fandaniel was an awesome character tho. Also I really like Venat (her English VA is not my taste, but JP is bonkers good), I'm not a Venat/Hydaelyn hater. I am a Dynamis hater and a timeloop hater.

And I can't let go!! Still lookin forward to Pandemonium III and the Omicron finale.

Sundering was only required to be able to deal with the dynamis wave Meteion sent...? Like, if she wasn't sending that, then the sundering wouldn't have been necessary. Now she is not sending it and therefore no one needs to be split into aetheric chunks to survive it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alleluia

Sundering was only required to be able to deal with the dynamis wave Meteion sent...? Like, if she wasn't sending that, then the sundering wouldn't have been necessary. Now she is not sending it and therefore no one needs to be split into aetheric chunks to survive it.

---

It also served to render Zodiark too inoperable to make grand, world-eating sacrifices to. ...a Zodiark that wouldn't have existed without Meteion's assault necessitating it, so that's basically just a 'yes' with a couple more points of separation. Essentially, the Sundering was purpose-designed to address all factors in the exact one situation it was deployed into. In any other context it becomes one of the worst ideas you could do, not because the Sundering itself is inherently bad, but because it's just so specialized and focused on a specific scenario that it's mostly not going to help in any others.

Trying to solve the Nibirun with a Sundering would be like trying to cut a cake with a screwdriver. The fact it's not going to do very well isn't exactly the screwdriver's fault.

I think it's important to understand that, by the developers own admission, the Sundering was part of the canon before they'd even concepted Amaurot, let alone the specifics of the Meteion and Zodiark scenario. Therefore, the way it's written must be understood as an exercise in plugging holes. They'd already written "A+[]=C", and needed to invent something to fill the gap.

The problem with this sort of approach is that you've lost Checkov's Gun before you've even started - obviously you can't have A and C suggest B when B doesn't exist yet. So the only way you can make B seem reasonable (if that's your goal) is to buffer it up with post-hoc explanations. I think this is why the Sundering is written in a way that comes across as quite neurotic, where there's a scattershot of different thematic and worldbuilding reasons why it had to happen; the dynamis manipulation stuff, the time loop stuff, the Ancient culture stuff.

I think they tried to do too much to make people accept the scenario, and ended up making it turn into a bit of a soup, having the opposite effect they wanted. It's easier to buy into one conceit delivered consistently and powerfully than several delivered inconsistently. And EW is ultimately a thematically-driven story, and if the Nibirun show that the Sundering was not thematically necessary for the Ancients as a people to be saved, what are we left with when we consider it from a perspective of pure worldbuilding? "It was necessary to kill 3 billion people to summon the crystal man to save the world, but also having the crystal man will inevitably corrupt society, but also we can't just destroy the crystal man, so the crystal man must be broken into pieces, killing another 1 billion people, to ultimately secure a happy ending (and also we can't refine this scenario because it might break causality and strand us in a doomed reality)"? It's hard to take much from that.

I gave a bit of a cynical take a few pages ago, but if anything, I'd be inclined to read the way the Nibirun are played here as a step away from the idea the Sundering was wholly necessary, as opposed to just a somewhat understandable act done in an extreme set of circumstances. I think that's probably the best move at this point.

No, the Sundering was never necessary. Endwalker still makes sense if you simply re-contextualize it as the action of one person because they believed it was necessary - no more, and no less.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by =Cleretic

We really do have to accept that Venat knew the Ancient people enough to read them at least mostly correctly. Not only because the story doesn't work otherwise, but because all evidence we see suggests she was right, and that she has the exact resume to be as accurate as expected for this.

---

I absolutely do not think we "have to accept" this. Appeals to authority and someone's "resume" and being more "knowledgeable" to justify something an atrocity like the Sundering make me sour even more to it, frankly.