Inconsistencies with the sundering (Spoilers)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ReynTime

SAll the dead ancients, and millions killed by calamities? They were just stepping stones for hope!

---

That's some strong accusations you make against my WoL, mister! :D

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PeaTearGriffin

I've been watching a friend stream his playthrough of endwalker and I cannot for the life of me see how Venat sundering all the ancients makes sense. They were able to successfully stop the final days by having Zodiark create a shield of aether to protect etheirys and forestall the final days. Wouldn't sundering etheirys and zodiark into 14 separate shards (the source and its 13 reflections) theoretically give each shard only 1/14th of zodiark's aether which might not be enough aether to stop meteion's attack? Sure you can say that each shard had less aether making dynamis more available for the inhabitants to use against the dynamis wielded by meteion, but how much positive dynamis would people on an individual shard expect to have just after having experienced the initial onset of the final days and then having their world suddenly sundered into pieces?


Also there are more inconsistencies between the way shadowbringers and endwalker illustrate the sundering. In shadowbringers we see the cutscene with Emet Selch telling us that after order was restored the sundering happened when Hydaelyn battles Zodiark, but in endwalker we see the cutscene with venat in amaurot during the final days walking around and then sundering the world before zodiark even restored order and also without even having to fight zodiark. What also struck me as odd was that during that same cutscene venat says that they were able to forestall the final days by summoning zodiark, but blasphemies are still popping up everywhere and killing the ancients. Also isn't venat already supposed to be hydaelyn at this point? From the looks of it, she looks just like plain venat walking around but then she has the ability to sunder?... Why exactly did the writers suddenly decide to retell a different version of events in endwalker? It seems like an accidental and careless retcon.


Also why the heck weren't Elidibus, Lahabrea, and Emet Selch sundered? Is that explained in the game later at all?

---

You should ask this at the PAX event, there's a place to make questions, its about the journey so far and you do have some good points.

https://na.finalfantasyxiv.com/lodes...c94ff889620dd6

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ath192

You should ask this at the PAX event, there's a place to make questions, its about the journey so far and you do have some good points.

https://na.finalfantasyxiv.com/lodes...c94ff889620dd6

---

Well, damn. Even if OP did ask questions they would've gone ignored lol.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kpxmanifesto

Well, damn. Even if OP did ask questions they would've gone ignored lol.

---

Well you know xD my intentions were good lmao.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PeaTearGriffin

I've been watching a friend stream his playthrough of endwalker and I cannot for the life of me see how Venat sundering all the ancients makes sense. They were able to successfully stop the final days by having Zodiark create a shield of aether to protect etheirys and forestall the final days. Wouldn't sundering etheirys and zodiark into 14 separate shards (the source and its 13 reflections) theoretically give each shard only 1/14th of zodiark's aether which might not be enough aether to stop meteion's attack? Sure you can say that each shard had less aether making dynamis more available for the inhabitants to use against the dynamis wielded by meteion, but how much positive dynamis would people on an individual shard expect to have just after having experienced the initial onset of the final days and then having their world suddenly sundered into pieces?


Also there are more inconsistencies between the way shadowbringers and endwalker illustrate the sundering. In shadowbringers we see the cutscene with Emet Selch telling us that after order was restored the sundering happened when Hydaelyn battles Zodiark, but in endwalker we see the cutscene with venat in amaurot during the final days walking around and then sundering the world before zodiark even restored order and also without even having to fight zodiark. What also struck me as odd was that during that same cutscene venat says that they were able to forestall the final days by summoning zodiark, but blasphemies are still popping up everywhere and killing the ancients. Also isn't venat already supposed to be hydaelyn at this point? From the looks of it, she looks just like plain venat walking around but then she has the ability to sunder?... Why exactly did the writers suddenly decide to retell a different version of events in endwalker? It seems like an accidental and careless retcon.


Also why the heck weren't Elidibus, Lahabrea, and Emet Selch sundered? Is that explained in the game later at all?

---

Technically, the other part that I was not expecting just because of the narrative hand wavium and just sheer amount of insane predetermination, was going all the way back to Elpis. To be frank, I didn't grind too harshly into the problems with the narrative because I've ended up having this kind of thing happen with long running and rather free floaty ideas in Dungeons and Dragons. It's the problem of saying "the dragon is in the castle" vs "the dragon is in the cave behind the castle" vs "there is a metaphorical dragon that exists in the castle".

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'm in awe, that there are people who really think that cutscene was a retcon. There were wayyyy too many inconsistencies in it, for it to be anything other than metaphorical and just a visual spectacle.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Semirhage

These threads always read like some CinemaSins "just fly the ring to Mordor on eagles and the whole story is over. PROBLEM SOLVED!" It just reminds me that the modern media consumer has zero interest in what stories are about, and would rather meticulously dissect the physics "rules" of magic.

---

Nahh, i hate it when the story writers let some protagonists or antagonists act very stupid because otherwise the story does not make any sense. :/ Instead of creating a story where stupid acting is not necessary. And this happened to the EW story and propably the time travel thing was the reason for it. You should never ... NEVER introduce time traveling if you do not exactly know what you are doing. Otherwise you will have to retcon many things, you propably will create "grandfather paradox"-like situations, causal loops etc.


Cheers

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 might say it's neither retcon nor metaphor.

You have the story of the Sundering as told by ShB Emet-Selch, who has no memories of Meteion.

You have the story of the Sundering as told by EW Venat/Hydaelyn, who does remember Meteion.

These are the stories that they've each been telling themselves, to remind themselves of why they've been carrying their burdens for thousands of years. And to paraphrase an old saying, there are three sides to the story: Team Zodiark's, Team Hydaelyn's, and The Truth.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Coratanni

I'm in awe, that there are people who really think that cutscene was a retcon. There were wayyyy too many inconsistencies in it, for it to be anything other than metaphorical and just a visual spectacle.

---

The OP has a point though. The story writer is telling us through this metaphorical cutscene that the cause of the sundering was different from how Emet-Selch said it happened in ShB. If the story wasn't retconned then we would know that the sundering was actually because of a battle between Zodiark and Hydaelyn, but we didn't see that mentioned at all in EW MSQ

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AmiableApkallu

I might say it's neither retcon nor metaphor.

You have the story of the Sundering as told by ShB Emet-Selch, who has no memories of Meteion.

You have the story of the Sundering as told by EW Venat/Hydaelyn, who does remember Meteion.

These are the stories that they've each been telling themselves, to remind themselves of why they've been carrying their burdens for thousands of years. And to paraphrase an old saying, there are three sides to the story: Team Zodiark's, Team Hydaelyn's, and The Truth.

---

This is something that I noticed a lot of people tend to forget, and I've seen it happened across different media too. Manga's forums are usually especially hot about it. For some reason people tend to take whatever a character say earlier in a story as the gospel and ultimate truth, and thus claim anything that happened later as reton, lie, inconsistency .etc. Often forgetting that as a player we're given an omnipotent POV of multiple layers that NPCs don't have. A NPC is not necessary lying, their story is simply their truth, but that does not mean it's the universal truth.

Usually, the objective truth - if existed, would be narrated in general form through an invisible DM, but you risk breaking the 4th wall with it and you will be essentially told how to see the world the way the writers want you to. So instead of that, FF14's narrative is told through the actual characters, and you decide which version you agree more or attempt to reconcile different view and find your own version of the truth.

Even if a story point appears to be opaque or murky, it could very well be on purpose to provoke debate among the player readership, which for the most part is always a good thing. Comparing to writer make thing absolutely black and white, with crystal clear interpretation leaving no room for debate which would make thing boring IMO.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kpxmanifesto

The OP has a point though. The story writer is telling us through this metaphorical cutscene that the cause of the sundering was different from how Emet-Selch said it happened in ShB. If the story wasn't retconned then we would know that the sundering was actually because of a battle between Zodiark and Hydaelyn, but we didn't see that mentioned at all in EW MSQ

---

The first Tales from the Dawn restates the ShB reason for the Sundering. It's almost as if events can have more than 1 reason for happening.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MikkoAkure

The first Tales from the Dawn restates the ShB reason for the Sundering. It's almost as if events can have more than 1 reason for happening.

---

So a double retcon? They messed up the cutscene by forgetting to show the metaphor for the great battle between Zodiark and Hydaelyn, and then they have to write more lore after the game was finished to reconcile the two diverged stories? That's just plain carelessness.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by NekoMataMata

Isn't that poor story telling? You know, having to have the creators of the story explain things outside of the story themselves?

---

Looks like they did this twice now. Once with the Live Letter and now with Tales of the dawn.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kpxmanifesto

So a double retcon? They messed up the cutscene by forgetting to show the metaphor for the great battle between Zodiark and Hydaelyn, and then they have to write more lore after the game was finished to reconcile the two diverged stories? That's just plain carelessness.

---

There’s no need to reconcile and neither contradicts the other. Endwalker gave us new reason for why Venat did what she did in addition to what we knew before from ShB.

I won’t deny the cutscene wasn’t straightforward and was more abstract than most of what we’ve seen in the game before. But if you think there’s retcons going on or giant writing mistakes, then you’re either incredibly dense, looking for a reason to be upset, or both.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MikkoAkure

There’s no need to reconcile and neither contradicts the other. Endwalker gave us new reason for why Venat did what she did in addition to what we knew before from ShB.

I won’t deny the cutscene wasn’t straightforward and was more abstract than most of what we’ve seen in the game before. But if you think there’s retcons going on or giant writing mistakes, then you’re either incredibly dense, looking for a reason to be upset, or both.

---

Don't sit here and try to deceive people into thinking you didn't already acknowledge that a retcon was present.
You already said:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MikkoAkure

explaining a new additional reasoning for the Sundering.

---

You cannot take back what you said, no matter how hard you try. And no, being toxic by saying I'm dense or just looking for a reason to be upset won't help you, lmao.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kpxmanifesto

Don't sit here and try to deceive people into thinking you didn't already acknowledge that a retcon was present.
You already said:

---

Real quick can you define retcon so we're all the same page? It seems as though the two of you are using two different working versions of that word.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Xirean

Real quick can you define retcon so we're all the same page? It seems as though the two of you are using two different working versions of that word.

---

I'm just using the Cambridge definition: "a piece of new information given in a movie, television series, etc. that changes, or gives a different way of understanding, what has gone before. Retcon is short for "Retroactive Continuity." https://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/...english/retcon

ShB says that the sundering happened because of a "great battle between Zodiark and Hydaelyn", the EW metaphorical cutscene fails to mention that battle and says it was done by Venat because of her own personal morals.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kpxmanifesto

I'm just using the Cambridge definition: "a piece of new information given in a movie, television series, etc. that changes, or gives a different way of understanding, what has gone before. Retcon is short for "Retroactive Continuity." https://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/...english/retcon

ShB says that the sundering happened because of a "great battle between Zodiark and Hydaelyn", the EW metaphorical cutscene fails to mention that battle and says it was done by Venat because of her own personal morals.

---

Makes more sense. That being said I find that a bit too harsh a definition especially in regards to a thread like this calling out "inconsistencies". We never had information from her perspective about the event. Because of this lack of knowledge we were effectively left with a blank hole. In my opinion, adding information where there previously was none isn't in the spirit of the word "retcon". Does it technically meet that strict definition? Yes, obviously, but I wouldn't really consider it one. Now if we saw events play out one way then saw events play out a different way later from the exact same perspective I would absolutely agree with you.

You can even apply this logic to any other story that doesn't give you all the information at the start. Technically any story that leaves blank spots is technically retconning every time there is a reveal by that definition.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Xirean

Snip

---

Yeah, sure, I suppose you can have the theory that Venat's perspective of what happened is very different from Emet-Selch's.

If your theory is indeed the case, then does the game's story suddenly carry the assumption that Emet-Selch was actually clueless to what the origin of the Sundering was?

At this point we're just filling in the holes with our own interpretations of how things in the game are because the game itself doesn't make any elaboration on it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Xirean

You can even apply this logic to any other story that doesn't give you all the information at the start. Technically any story that leaves blank spots is technically retconning every time there is a reveal by that definition.

---

New information by itself doesn't create a retcon. If new information changes what was previously established, yes, I'd still consider that a retcon. Twists in movies can be seen as retcons too.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kpxmanifesto

If your theory is indeed the case, then does the game's story suddenly carry the assumption that Emet-Selch was actually clueless to what the origin of the Sundering was?

---

That's actually very explicitly the case. I'm not going to defend Elpis or the big cutscene in question (I think they are the weakest point of the entire game), but Emet absolutely had no idea because he was literally robbed of the knowledge. From his perspective the sundering happened as part of the battle. Since we don't get to see a literal telling of events or, very unfortunately, the fight itself, we can't dispute his statement on the when, only the why. The cutscene where the sundering is shown attempts to justify Venat's actions through her own words. Despite this, later when you fight her she states "Against the power of the almighty Zodiark, I had no other alternative" which heavily leans back onto the "it was part of the fight" explanation. I still wouldn't consider that an inconsistency or a retcon. Her justification for her actions are hers and hers alone nor would I be surprised that someone who did what she did would find an internal justification for it.

Quote:

---

New information by itself doesn't create a retcon. If new information changes what was previously established, yes, I'd still consider that a retcon. Twists in movies can be seen as retcons too.

---

So this is where I would have to disagree; not on the raw definition of the word, but on the spirit of the word. People often bring up the word retcon to imply something really bad happened as a result of something being changed; or rather that the change itself is bad. In this instance that's difficult to judge. There was no information present and then we obtained new information. By that logic alone, there was no change. Just filling in the blank. We can decide if we like that new info or not later.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kpxmanifesto

ShB says that the sundering happened because of a "great battle between Zodiark and Hydaelyn", the EW metaphorical cutscene fails to mention that battle and says it was done by Venat because of her own personal morals.

---

We already knew since ShB 5.0 MSQ that Hydaelyn objected to the third sacrifice due to her own personal morals and then in 5.2 we find out that Venat summoned Hydaelyn again due to her morals. In “Beneath the Surface”, we’re told Venat didn’t believe Zodiark is a permanent solution and that tracks with what we find out later in Endwalker so there’s still continuity. It was never just left off in ShB that “there was a battle and Sundering happened”.

The battle between Zodiark and Hydaelyn still happens, it’s just not shown in that one weird cutscene.


If we’re going by the “official” definition you provided, then this whole game was retconned in ShB when it was revealed that the Ascians are Ancients. Or when we find out that Zodiark and Hydaelyn are primals. Or when we find out in post-ARR that Ascian powers are also the Echo and later in ShB that it’s due to some soul memory thing. Or in SB when we find out that Emet-Selch was Solus.

There are so many more much larger examples that fit better with the common idea of retcons than this one the thread is about that also definitely fit the definition you provided. I still don’t consider this a retcon and don’t agree with the “official” definition.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Xirean

but Emet absolutely had no idea because he was literally robbed of the knowledge. From his perspective the sundering happened as part of the battle.

---

A very powerful and capable sorcerer so talented that he’s elected to the Convocation of the Fourteen, able enough to avoid being sundered himself (which is another inconsistency that the OP mentioned), but suddenly can’t identify what’s happening or what’s going on? If that’s the logic that some people want to go with then I guess it is what it is.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Xirean

"Against the power of the almighty Zodiark, I had no other alternative" which heavily leans back onto the "it was part of the fight" explanation.

---

Well, this is certainly an interesting interpretation of that quote, but to be honest I just don’t see this as Hydaelyn talking about a direct battle with Zodiark. For all we know she could be speaking about how she sundered everyone before Zodiark was summoned because if Zodiark were to be summoned then it would already be too late.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Xirean

People often bring up the word retcon to imply something really bad happened as a result of something being changed; or rather that the change itself is bad.

---

The change was controversial, which is why we see plenty of posts on the forums of people expressing their discontent with the events surrounding the sundering. Labelling something as a retcon can also be used to call out a writer for changing the story around in a way that's more convenient for the writer, which is exactly what I think happened with EW.

Retcons can be used by writers to handwave away details that are a nuisance to work with, and a somewhat knowledgeable writer can disguise a retcon through "newly received information" or some other "unexpected occurrence" that changes details of the story. Yoshi P already admitted to doing this for parts of the story during the Endwalker Q and A session: "when you're making this world you'll just sort of sometimes ignore things that are inconvenient" (4:25:35). https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WRpdIL7_NII

I believe the OP already mentioned this, but it seems that the retconning of ShB's story was a thinly veiled attempt to make things more convenient for the development team. Maybe the painstaking process of creating a detailed metaphorical or literal cutscene that showed a battle between Zodiark and Hydaelyn would have taken too much out of the allotted time for developing the game, so they just changed the story around a bit to show that the Sundering was something she did by herself.

Remember that the release of EW was already delayed for two weeks because Yoshi P wanted to edit the cutscenes on Ultima Thule, and they were already behind schedule and on crunch time. Could you imagine how much more of a delay it would’ve been if they had to create a cutscene (metaphorical or not) where Zodiark battles Hydaelyn?

What’s more is that it almost seems like SE tried to gloss it over by writing the Tales of the Dawn entry that reconciles both ShB’s and EW’s version of the Sundering. It’s almost as if the writers thought: “Hopefully people will forgive and forget that we didn’t include the bit about the battle between Hydaelyn and Zodiark in the EW MSQ if we write it here.”

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MikkoAkure

The battle between Zodiark and Hydaelyn still happens, it’s just not shown in that one weird cutscene.

---

And that's why the OP is calling it a retcon. Such a crucial and definitive moment in the game and the writer forgets or refuses to add that in?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MikkoAkure

If we’re going by the “official” definition you provided, then this whole game was retconned in ShB when it was revealed that the Ascians are Ancients. Or when we find out that Zodiark and Hydaelyn are primals. Or when we find out in post-ARR that Ascian powers are also the Echo and later in ShB that it’s due to some soul memory thing. Or in SB when we find out that Emet-Selch was Solus.

---

This is a textbook example of Reductio ad Absurdum. It's not going to work here.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kpxmanifesto

A very powerful and capable sorcerer so talented that he’s elected to the Convocation of the Fourteen, able enough to avoid being sundered himself (which is another inconsistency that the OP mentioned), but suddenly can’t identify what’s happening or what’s going on? If that’s the logic that some people want to go with then I guess it is what it is.

---

He literally doesn't and that is simply the text of the story. All we know that he knows is that Hydaelyn sundered the world and very likely that she is Venat (I don't know for certain of that knowledge). We know that he doesn't know why, which is the main discussion point of this thread. All of that knowledge he could have had or inferred was stolen from him by the memory wipe.

Emet, Lahabrea, and Elidibus avoiding the sundering was explicitly stated to be purposeful by Venat from an interview with Yoshi P post EW launch. If you have other information to contradict that then I would like to see it and would probably agree that it is a retcon.

Really the only issue I'm seeing here is people refusing to accept that character motivations can be fleshed out and given nuance after you know what actions were taken. If that's a problem then I don't know what to tell you. Also just because we didn't see the fight doesn't mean the fight didn't occur and it's kinda sad that it needs to be said. Almost as sad as the fight not being shown honestly, it would have been epic.

I'm not a fan of the cutscene we got while leaving Elpis. But I can recognize that it's not literal. Aside from us being given new information about the final days (which was going to happen anyway) and Venat's specific motivations, I don't see the retcon. We had blank spaces and the writers filled them in.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kpxmanifesto

And that's why the OP is calling it a retcon. Such a crucial and definitive moment in the game and the writer forgets or refuses to add that in?

---

And what I was saying is that it makes much more sense that the devs decided to make a weird stylistic choice to throw in this abstract cutscene at the climax of a decade-long story in an effort to be cinematic. Rather than the writers either straight-up forgetting their own story but only at this specific part, or a conspiracy theory that they purposefully simplified things to make it easier on the devs and then backpedaled later on with a “double retcon”.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kpxmanifesto

This is a textbook example of Reductio ad Absurdum. It's not going to work here.

---

No, I was just listing things that actually make more sense as retcons than this that fit the definition you provided, but no one really argues or complains about as being retcons. Calling things out with discourse buzzwords doesn’t suddenly make you right.

My point is that something being a retcon is more subjective than “anything and everything that fits a specific dictionary definition”. I don’t see reveals as retcons and there’s nothing in this that contradicts with information that we knew before, unless you take the cutscene as literal as the OP does.


As I said before, Hydaelyn/Venat was already said to have done what she did due to her personal morals back in Shadowbringers. Then in 5.2, she and her people mention Zodiark not being a permanent solution which connects directly to the motives we learn about at the end of Elpis so there’s still been continuity this whole time and no contradictions.

Just because we get one confusing cutscene, additional fuel for her to do what she already does added to her already existing list of personal excuses for the Sundering, and no Hydaelyn-Zodiark beat down like we should have had means that there’s a retcon.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kpxmanifesto

And that's why the OP is calling it a retcon. Such a crucial and definitive moment in the game and the writer forgets or refuses to add that in?

---

Because it's probably not a "moment"? Given the time line, that civil war could have lasted for decades if not more before a victor was decided, it's not like Hydalin came into being, meet Zodiak on the field the war concluded before dinner.


The OP calling it a retcon doesn't make it a retcon, and no thing he had said so far can be constituted as "proof". The issue is he probably had never seen this sort of story telling before and thus refuse to acknowledge it. What he wants is an Hollywood rendition of the civil, where you basically travel back in time and "live" in the moment, to see thing happens exactly how it is. What he wants is a re-creation direct by a movie director. What we get is a "stage play" directed by playwright. And they're both valid form of story telling.


For example, let's say the true story is about a war between two countries. And there are tons of political/social/ideal reason for the war. Then the two armies meet each others on the field with hundred thousand soldier, and one army won, the war concluded. And the kings leading their respect army actually never cross sword with one another.

- You can tell this story Hollywood style by recreating all the critical meetings, using CGI to recreate the battles .etc. (ala LOTR style). This is what you get if you watch the story adaption in a Movie theater.

- Now let's say a "playwright" want to adapt this story, but with only at most a dozen actors. Not for a movie, but to play it on a stage in Broadway. So during that battle, instead of the hundred thousands of army, instead of show all the strategic/tactical and cool factor, you will most likely see two "avatars" represent their respective side on the stage (probably the kings), that would come blow to blow while delivering "dramatic lines" to explain the their motivation (despite they never actually see each other in the real story). Instead of two armies clashing, you probably see the two king trade blade in sword play (again, despite they never face each other in the real story). And the "victory" will be likely symbolized by one king strike down the other king with his own sword - which again, something that doesn't happen.


So if the "play" is recton to you, then it is your choice. But I also gonna say, if you call that a recton, then it's because you never really watch a play before. What happen in FF14 during that scene while is a well written scene, but it's not exactly something rare or new to anyone who somewhat familiar with playwright. It's not recton, it's called adaption that depends on the medium of choice. And a 1 to 1 recreation is not the only form of story telling that can exist or the only one that's valid.

Unfortunately, I don't really have the time to read everyone’s responses, but I’ll at least break down my reasoning for why I’m siding with OP. I’ve posted something like this earlier in this same thread too, but I’ll post it again, so nobody has to check through all the pages.

During the Letter from the Producer LIVE Part LXVIII, Yoshi P just seemed kind of unprepared to answer the fans' questions about EW's lore. He was stumbling a lot when answering questions or outright deflecting them, and it wasn't a very satisfying Q and A session for people either seeking answers to unresolved storylines or trying to fill plot holes.

He'd make comments like "I didn't actually imagine anybody would ask this" (3:40:57) or "wow you guys are paying close attention to this game!" (3:45:55). Like, dude this game is renowned for its story. Why is the guy so surprised that fans are looking for closure and want to ask questions that tie up loose ends?

He would also deflect some of the questions by saying things like "when you're making this world you'll just sort of sometimes ignore things that are inconvenient" (4:25:35) and "I think you guys can come up with your own theories for this one" (4:08:49).

The overall vibe just felt really off, and Yoshi P looked visibly uncomfortable as he struggled to answer fans' questions about the lore, moving around nervously, looking straight up at the ceiling, grimacing, etc. He was pretty much in damage control mode for the entire duration of answering questions related to the MSQ.

After seeing his attitude during the Q and A session it became clear to me why the game retcons itself and produces continuity errors like the ones OP mentioned. The dev team just has a habit of, as Yoshi P would put it: “ignoring things that are inconvenient.”

You can watch the whole thing here at: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WRpdIL7_NII

Anyways, I’m out of time for today as there’s other things in life that need tending to. Thanks everyone for engaging with me in this conversation. Have a good day.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kpxmanifesto

After seeing his attitude during the Q and A session it became clear to me why the game retcons itself and produces continuity errors like the ones OP mentioned. The dev team just has a habit of, as Yoshi P would put it: “ignoring things that are inconvenient.”

---

That would explain this horrendous cutscene in endwalker that retcons what emet selch said in shadowbringers. Of course square enix tried to save it by rewriting the story to include both of the explanations from shadowbringers and endwalker in Tales of the Dawn, but it's too late and the damage has already been done.

Calling the Venat cutscene "horrendous".

You all need to touch grass it's just a video game.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PeaTearGriffin

but it's too late and the damage has already been done.

---

Oh, for sure. My friends that played through MSQ are still under the impression that Venat just did the sundering all by herself and that it was not the result of the conflict between Hydaelyn and Zodiark. I had to link them to the Tales of the Dawn webpage which I didn't even know existed until someone else posted it in this thread.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pratini

Calling the Venat cutscene "horrendous".

You all need to touch grass it's just a video game.

---

Checking your char and it's only 6mo old with that amount of progress? Looks like you need to touch some of that grass too. lol

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by R041

Checking your char and it's only 6mo old with that amount of progress? Looks like you need to touch some of that grass too. lol

---

Well it's a video game so I play it.

You people are arguing about consistency in a video game story as If it was the Bible.

Kind of weird if you ask me.

Who cares if stuff get retconned? Visions change... decisions are made... again who cares? Is it too hard to just enjoy the god damn game?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pratini

Well it's a video game so I play it.

You people are arguing about consistency in a video game story as If it was the Bible.

Kind of weird if you ask me.

Who cares if stuff get retconned? Visions change... decisions are made... again who cares? Is it too hard to just enjoy the god damn game?

---

I mean, I'm not a part of that argument. I just noticed you might need to touch grass too. FLIP THE SCRIPT

But to be fair to them.. People want to keep saying this is an RPGMMO and all about the story "Who cares if our combat and questing is horrible? It's about the writing!", so you can't really blame them if they start arguing about the story when they have nothing else in the game to actually do.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pratini

Is it too hard to just enjoy the god damn game?

---

I think a solid 80% of the people on this forum pay money for a product they hate, and they're mad that the universe doesn't bend to their will.

It confuses me to no end.

Once upon a time I played an MMO that rhymes with Burled of SnoreCraft, but eventually the story became something I deemed unenjoyable and dumb.

So I stopped paying its devs money, and found a game I like.

*places a rock on top of kugane tower* argue away about the rock and whether or not it matters being there since it originally wasnt

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Reimar

Once upon a time I played an MMO that rhymes with Burled of SnoreCraft, but eventually the story became something I deemed unenjoyable and dumb.

So I stopped paying its devs money, and found a game I like.

---

That's just how MMOs are, we all pay for things we hate.

WoW bad XIV good

Tomorrow

XIV bad WoW good

Next day

WoW bad XIV good

Next day

XIV bad WoW good

Next day

WoW bad XIV good

Next day

XIV bad WoW good

Next day

WoW bad XIV good

Next day

XIV bad WoW good

Next day

WoW bad XIV good

Next day

XIV bad WoW good

Next day

WoW bad XIV good

Next day

XIV bad WoW good

Next day

WoW bad XIV good

Next day

XIV bad WoW good

Next day

WoW bad XIV good

Next day

XIV bad WoW good

Next day

WoW bad XIV good

Next day

XIV bad WoW good

Next day

WoW bad XIV good

Next day

XIV bad WoW good

Next day

WoW bad XIV good

Next day

XIV bad WoW good




See you all in 10 years, when we continue this topic.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by R041

That's just how MMOs are, we all pay for things we hate.

---

Except I don't. I pay for a game I like.

0/100 reading comprehension; see me after class.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Reimar

Except I don't. I pay for a game I like.

0/100 reading comprehension; see me after class.

---

0/100 woosh; sir this is a wendy's.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by R041

I mean, I'm not a part of that argument. I just noticed you might need to touch grass too. FLIP THE SCRIPT

---

Oh I take that as a compliment.

"6 month old character accomplished stuff the majority of people will take years"

But yeah this character became my main after the Dynamis launch because of housing so I skipped pretty much everything I already experienced previously.

#SkipperLife

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pratini

Oh I take that as a compliment.

"6 month old character accomplished stuff the majority of people will take years"

But yeah this character became my main after the Dynamis launch because of housing so I skipped pretty much everything I already experienced previously.

#SkipperLife

---

Reviewing your character, yeah it's totally you boosting your alt with them mad monies from a main. But dude could you imagine if you did it all legit. Superhuman lol

I'm mostly memeing anyway, you do you.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by R041

0/100 woosh; sir this is a wendy's.

---

THEN WHERE IN HYDALEN'S NAME IS MY CHILI YOU LALA MONSTER