What's the point with that quite lackluster story in Endwalker?

You know who else got more or less killed off at the end of their game?

Tidus in FFX, when the Fayth are finally awakened from their dreams and he fades away along with Auron and Jecht.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BaconBits

You know who else got more or less killed off at the end of their game?

---

There's a chance some people in here might want to play other FF games you know.

FFX was released nearly 21 years ago, buzz off.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Theodric

'Artificial'? How so?
I was under the impression that it is rather widely considered to be one of the most shocking and iconic video game scenes to date.

---

If you have played the original Japanese version and you can see she is very out of character there.
The entire "she need to die to join life stream in order to counter Meteor" is just an aftermath made up story because gaming industry do not have DLC technology yet.
Ancient in the original Japanese text clearly indicating they have ability connect to life stream without death.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Theodric

I'm not entirely convinced that such a theory holds, given that a number of posters commenting within this thread and others have a join date that suggests that they are, in fact, not just riding the recent tide of 'refugees' from WoW.
I don't think many people are arguing in favour of black and white morality, either - but more so actual stakes for the protagonists and lasting consequences.

---

Yet, every complaint is showing they want an epic end fight with Zodiac (big evil dude) and Scion death (one of key character death)
It is same poor WoW style of storytelling copy and paste into their expansion.

Quote:

---

I disagree. I'd attribute the storytelling in previous expansions to be in line with previous Final Fantasy games, though the franchise has never really shied away from meaningful consequences. Both the early and more recent games have examples of major characters dying, settlements being wiped off the map and so on - whilst not limiting such things almost exclusively to the antagonists.

---

Yet through out entire FF franchise none of the main cast is killed off except Aerith's artificial death (FF7R is retcon her death)
FF12 has highest review among NA community and it does not need to kill one of their main cast isn't it?
FF10 retcon Tidus's death and not to mention to entire FF13 series with Lightening.
You don't need artificial death to tell a good story.

Quote:

---

Such is subjective, I believe. WoW's storytelling had many flaws but many of the characters felt distinct to me at the height of their respective story arcs. The Scions, meanwhile, strike me as very bland. They don't often express much agency of their own and often exist in the present day to fawn over the player character.

---

Is it?
WoW's story telling has been bad since TBC and only was ignored by fanboys because Blizzard was at their peak.
There are countless complaints over the lore in past years.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by KizuyaKatogami

He says that but that’s with things occurring my how they did. Had Venat actually told them everything and didn’t kept secrets, things could’ve gone in a completely different direction and the ancients might’ve actually stood a chance. As for the Aerith comment, i’ll point you to ff13-2 and ff15. Both games that ended up killing off the main protagonists at the end of the game, not in the middle. So there’s really no excuse.Its especially bad when they keep resorting to emotional manipulation when they talk about people theyve lost and its the same 3-4 faces from 3 expansions ago because they dont have anyone else to pick from lmao.

---

Agreed - they had plenty of potential avenues to explore. 8 and a bit sundered suffice to bring her down. To me there is nothing to suggest they could not, in all that time, devise suitable methods to counter her with the knowledge in their hands. So while Emet does say that, to me it's not significant other than as a means of reconciling the two by the end.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by KizuyaKatogami

To my knowledge though, i dont recall 1 and 3 being the most talked about. But character deaths moving the story starts as early as ff2. FF7 is one of the most talked about ones and it had a very iconic character death that drove the story forward.We dont know where the remake is going truth be told. For all we know they could be giving people false hope and in the end itll turn out exactly how it did before if not worse. FF6's most iconic moment is the world coming to ruin. I dont think its a coincidence that the popular and rated series is the same series that deals an awful lot with death and suffering and again, please tell me then how im expected to take a theme about loss,suffering, and moving on seriously if it never applies to the main cast and in fact, the main cast contradicts said theme and actually gets resurrected. Something even you said earlier ruined WoW. 14 did the very same thing.Personally i think whats artificial is constant death fakeouts and constant fluff in a world ending situation. The world is ending meanwhile im going on a lunch date with people and supposed to laugh because a catboy ate a burger and an elf lady doesnt like pickles? Such tension, such threat. Lets not forget playing dress up with bunnies less than 5 minutes after slaying the god who was the only thing keeping the planet safe.

---

FF14 did killed off main Scions and there is no need to kill one Scion each expansion just for dramatic effect.
In the history of FF, the only main playable character death is Aerith and even that seems going to be retcon by FF7R.
FF12 has highest feedback among NA players and this story does not requires story to kill off a main playable characters.
There are other examples like FF10 and FF13 with Tidus and Lightening.
You probably should realize it by now only reason Aerith stay dead is only because gaming industry does not have technology of DLC.
The moment they have the ability to make dlc or ep2 they immediately retcon Tidus' death.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Divinemights

If you have played the original Japanese version and you can see she is very out of character there.
The entire "she need to die to join life stream in order to counter Meteor" is just an aftermath made up story because gaming industry do not have DLC technology yet.
Ancient in the original Japanese text clearly indicating they have ability connect to life stream without death.



Yet, every complaint is showing they want an epic end fight with Zodiac (big evil dude) and Scion death (one of key character death)
It is same poor WoW style of storytelling copy and paste into their expansion.



Yet through out entire FF franchise none of the main cast is killed off except Aerith's artificial death (FF7R is retcon her death)
FF12 has highest review among NA community and it does not need to kill one of their main cast isn't it?
FF10 retcon Tidus's death and not to mention to entire FF13 series with Lightening.
You don't need artificial death to tell a good story.




Is it?
WoW's story telling has been bad since TBC and only was ignored by fanboys because Blizzard was at their peak.
There are countless complaints over the lore in past years.

---

Just as theres been complaints with 14’s lore for the past years. One of the things you literally bashed WoW’s story for is something 14 did this very expansion, so why the double standard? As for main cast, you seem to have forgotten a main cast member that dies in ff5. Or in FF4. Or in FF type 0. Or in FF15. Just to name a few. FF12 opens up with two fairly prominent character deaths that are what moves the story forward. Not to mention they do actually kill off 2 characters who join your party for a time. It’s really not a good idea to try to use past ff’s as examples because most of them take risks that 14 just doesn’t at all. I’ve played all of them, i know how they work. I know what happens in them. Hence why i can tell you death and consequences and destruction is a very clear staple among them.Its not so much asking for a scion death every expansion as it is to have stakes and consequences in the story. We were literally facing an apocalypse that not even ancient god-like beings survived. The planet got decimated. Yet we end up literally perfectly fine. Same goes for ShB where we fight against said god-like beings and only win the first fight due to plot armor and an asspull. That does not make a good story. All of the other ff games ive mentioned with actual deaths and consequences show correctly that no matter if youre the hero or not, youre not invincible. You're not going to always win. 14 has been lately, we always win. We can do no wrong, everything goes our way no matter what. Them creating a few nameless npcs just to be killed off doesnt change that. Not to mention that was literally at the most in two areas. While thavnair and garlemald are suffering we're having a lunch date.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Divinemights

WoW's story telling has been bad since TBC and only was ignored by fanboys because Blizzard was at their peak.

---

Yes, a good lesson to draw upon and avoid in this game - to not let the fanboys squelch criticism. Complacence breeds such problems and I am glad people are voicing their discontent at how they used time travel in this expansion, and other aspects.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Scryar

You know what is artificial.
That there is a world ending threat and there are zero causalities on the "good guys" side aside from a few throwaway characters.
That the enemies of team WOL fall left and right but we somehow get through all that mainly unharmed.
Zenos absolutely should have killed someone. This whole scene was sabotaged by the ending of nothing happening.

After Heavenward for a character to die
a) they have to be a "baddie"
b ) if they are not , they have to be a minor character.

---

Artificial death refers to a game character suddenly behaves out of character and performed something because plot demands to.
Aerith from FF7 original was the first and Joe from Last of US 2 was the second, these 2 are the best examples.

What zero causalities you are referring to?
People are died left and right in entire Endwalker.
Are you ignoring the death of sisters because they don't trust you means nothing?
A child turned into a monster and got stomped to death in front of his own father is not consider as tragedy to you just because you want blood of Scion?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Floortank

I read books as part of my profession and I've been with the Final Fantasy franchise for over twenty years. I have written a book about the series, in pre publication. I do not have nearly as much to say about World of Warcraft. Your argument here is simply false.

---

Personal opinion is always subjective and I never expect you to agree and I was simply summary the trend of this thread. People want same old style of WoW storytelling vs modern Japanese story telling.

I do not think Fandaniel is even mean to be the main villian like Emet in Shadowbringer. He is just a trigger character to connect each arc and that is why his death is so early.

You need to thinsk Meteion is a replica of Sisters from the anime "A Certain magical Index" You can not see her by herself but need to view her entire Meterion network as a character. Yes, she is not par with Emet only because we spent merely one chpater with her but we sepnt whole expansion with Emet. I don't think her story has ended and there are more to come to see her true character development.

Zenos, be honest, it is each of our own. I am honestly yawning every time he shows up. To me, he is just a tsudare character pretty much yellowing "Please notice me Senpai" Our conclusion with him is already at its best.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by KizuyaKatogami

Just as theres been complaints with 14’s lore for the past years. One of the things you literally bashed WoW’s story for is something 14 did this very expansion, so why the double standard?

---

Refresh me a bit because it have been years for FF12, which main playble character you are referring dead at the end? Vaan? Ashelia? Balthier? Fran? Penelo? Vossler? Please don't tell me you are ferring to Reks and Ralser because they are plot device characters, not main characters.

Shadow from FF6? All of sudden he decides to suicide there is sure out of no where. Are you counting that?

FF Type O at beginning you already knew everyone are going to die and you are just playing to see how they died. I don't see this is a good example.

Which main character died at FF5? I don't recall any 4 main died at the end. Please do not count those temporary characters. They are always considered as plot devices.

If the writing is truly so brilliant, then surely the writers can be trusted to kill off a major character from time to time on the level of Raubahn or Y'shtola rather than limiting it to minor one scene wonder NPC's or secondary figures that weren't all that important in the first place or who have already 'died' once already such as Minfilia and Ardbert.

The latter of which, incidentally, is one of my favourite characters - though I'm not oblivious to the trend of making antagonists sympathetic and tragic only to kill them off and pretend as if the Warrior of Light has endured anything remotely close to what his opponents have gone through.

The idea that death isn't needed to tell a good story often strikes me as something pushed by those who stand to benefit from keeping the status quo intact. Most people aren't willing to let go of their 'faves' and a big problem in modern storytelling resides within the mob that will push back at any suggestion that maybe if a threat is to be taken seriously, it should actually be a threat.

Though if we concede that the Scions are 'untouchable' then many - myself included - will simply continue to roll their eyes next time they decide to drool and scream over each other to inform us all of how they have supposedly lost 'so much'.

I'd like some consistency and commitment. As it stands, the 'themes' are all over the place. The sophistry about needing to 'move on' from loss wears thin once one considers that the characters stating as much have lost maybe a handful of people whereas those they're lecturing have lost nearly every single person that they've ever known.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Theodric

If the writing is truly so brilliant, then surely the writers can be trusted to kill off a major character from time to time on the level of Raubahn or Y'shtola rather than limiting it to minor one scene wonder NPC's or secondary figures that weren't all that important in the first place or who have already 'died' once already such as Minfilia and Ardbert.

Though if we concede that the Scions are 'untouchable' then many - myself included - will simply continue to roll their eyes next time they decide to drool and scream over each other to inform us all of how they have supposedly lost 'so much'.

---

Please be noted I never said FF14 Enderwalker is untouchable and I am only strongly disagree that you need unnecessary artificial death for dramatic effect. I believed the main theme of Endwalker is to show humanity finally have the strength walk on their own and do not need an entity to carry them. This is strongly showed in Venat's speech before she sundered the world into 14 pieces. This story was never about apocalypses.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Divinemights

Refresh me a bit because it have been years for FF12, which main playble character you are referring dead at the end? Vaan? Ashelia? Balthier? Fran? Penelo? Vossler? Please don't tell me you are ferring to Reks and Ralser because they are plot device characters, not main characters.

Shadow from FF6? All of sudden he decides to suicide there is sure out of no where. Are you counting that?

FF Type O at beginning you already knew everyone are going to die and you are just playing to see how they died. I don't see this is a good example.

Which main character died at FF5? I don't recall any 4 main died at the end. Please do not count those temporary characters. They are always considered as plot devices.

---

"These deaths do not count because I said so".
And if you don't even know about Galuf in FFV I don't think you have grounds to stand on in this debate.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ReynTime

"These deaths do not count because I said so".
And if you don't even know about Galuf in FFV I don't think you have grounds to stand on in this debate.

---

I played original Japanese version and Galuf was never considered as main cast.
He is a character will be substitute since beginning
Old game used to have a beautiful booklet, just FYI

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Divinemights

Please be noted I never said FF14 Enderwalker is untouchable and I am only strongly disagree that you need unnecessary artificial death for dramatic effect. I believed the main theme of Endwalker is to show humanity finally have the strength walk on their own and do not need an entity to carry them. This is strongly showed in Venat's speech before she sundered the world into 14 pieces. This story was never about apocalypses.

---

This.
Glad I'm not the only one who felt the feeling was humanity is on thier own now and now a new adventure begins.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Divinemights

Please be noted I never said FF14 Enderwalker is untouchable and I am only strongly disagree that you need unnecessary artificial death for dramatic effect. I believed the main theme of Endwalker is to show humanity finally have the strength walk on their own and do not need an entity to carry them. This is strongly showed in Venat's speech before she sundered the world into 14 pieces. This story was never about apocalypses.

---

What do you mean do not need an entity to carry them? We literally only succeed because we had the help of godlike beings in every expansion. As for the character deaths. Rasler and Reks count, but so do Vossler and Reddas. As for type 0 i’m not sure how you got they would all die at the end just from the beginning but…literally doesn’t change anything that they all died. You’ve been given numerous examples and you try to retort by trying to use “artificial.” In an expansion that felt heavily artificial. The main theme of Endwalker is about dealing with loss,sacrifice, suffering etc and this is directly contradicted by the scions being resurrected at the end. So please tell me what the moral of the story here is because they were only really resurrected due to the ties to a higher up entity.

(1) Its pretty obvious last minute changes were made to the plot to make it more of a "surprise". I assume its because players predicted too much, and every expansion has been twisty, so they need the conclusion to also have twists.

(2) Some important stuff was rushed. (for different reasons) and some stuff was dragged out, due to not really having a point to something that was already too far in development.

potential was there, and good moments in EW are there. i cant say giving EW more development time would have fixed it, but it is what it is.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by KizuyaKatogami

He says that but that’s with things occurring my how they did. Had Venat actually told them everything and didn’t kept secrets, things could’ve gone in a completely different direction and the ancients might’ve actually stood a chance.

---

He's not exactly bereft of information at the end, he knows about everything he forgot, he's somehow been watching us with Hythlo and knows what we've been up to, and he knows all about his own people and what they were capable of. Don't take this personally, but I think Emet's assessment of his peoples chances is far more likely to be accurate than yours is.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jandor

He's not exactly bereft of information at the end, he knows about everything he forgot, he's somehow been watching us with Hythlo and knows what we've been up to, and he knows all about his own people and what they were capable of. Don't take this personally, but I think Emet's assessment of his peoples chances is far more likely to be accurate than yours is.

---

I mean, again, his mindset is clearly different than what it is in Elpis, so much so hes shocked at what he becomes. The fact is with everything we're told and shown, had Venat actually told her people what happened, they could've found a way forward, they just werent given the chance. Considering we have relied upon said unsundered ancients time and time again, we clearly cant do it ourselves. We need their help. If we couldnt do it without their help then whose to say they couldnt do it themselves? Dont take this personally but i think the writer's wrote themselves into a corner with this and it shows. While trying to write the story in a way that indirectly tried to say the sundering isnt all that bad and the sundered are capable of things the ancients arent, they contradicted themselves based on how theyve wrote things in the past. The sundered have hardly ever done thing via their own merit. Theyve done so with indirect help of the ancients or higher up entities. Hydaelyn,allag, etc etc. It just shows we'd be nowhere were it not for them.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by KizuyaKatogami

To be completely honest though, that does raise a good point. Why is Zodiark, a figure and being born of salvation, take onn a demonic form, whereas the being who was created to keep said other being in check is the angelic and benevolent looking one.

---

Without any official reason, my guess is that Zodiark was summoned while under the influence of Meteion, thus their fear twisted its form.

Or because the Ancients have different aesthetics and don't really view Zodiark's appearance as a negative, as seen by some of their creations.

Quote:

---

I think the main problem though is that yes, we had an expansion show us that angelic figures dont mean benevolent or good yet we still only ever use light in the story, and the main angelic figure is still overall treated as benevolent and good with the demonic figure barely getting any credit for anything after its death.

---

At the end of the day, Zodiark was never in any position to care whether it gets credit, while we credited Hydaelyn due to our connection with her/Venat.

Either way, I'm not sure that's something to be viewed as a problem, especially with respect to their appearances.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lauront

Where it grated on my nerves was constantly Hydaelyn using the terms light and dark as interchangeable with good and evil (or associated concepts, like hope and despair), when they spent an entire expansion unravelling this association. It just sits weirdly. The fixation with light at this point is just dull to me.

---

There is a difference between the physical and the philosophical concepts of light and dark.

I feel that's why people are confused because Shadowbringers only dealt with the former, not the latter. Light entities may be bad, and so are void entities, but shining your light over the darkness is still a good thing.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ApolloGenX

You are right, I shouldn't have said "new" future... in fact, according to this story- this entire arc had already happened before players even started playing...because back in the past we said it would.

That still removes all agency from the characters and essentially means that we have been in a predetermined play that started I don't know over a thousand years ago. I don't love that. I especially don't love that it is being passed off as some kind of "You helped set this is motion". No we didn't. If we did, then all the rest of the circumstances they ignored would have been factored into the story, but they weren't. That's why I think we should have been passive learners in the past... we just left behind way too much evidence/opportunity for things to have gone differently to be shoehorned into the story the writers wrote. It was their story, not ours.

It's fine to say we are stuck on this course of history- I think it's a cheap trick to try to lay that at the feet of players and say "You were responsible for how we got here... because we said so". No, we weren't. You wrote a history and then stuck us into it, ignored the actual impact we had and said "Ta-da! Now you are responsible".

---

It doesn't matter whether you do something because someone says that you will or because you want to. It can even be both and you'll still have your agency as you're still the one who does the action.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rulakir

Except Hydaelyn is still the antagonist to the Ancients, even moreso now given what we learned in EW. I didn't clarify this enough in my initial response as to why I felt like the narrative was gaslighting me. Her actions align more with the villains, in fact she shares numerous similarities to Hermes, but the storyline treats her as the opposite. Even saying she's the heroine of the WoL's tale is being generous since our reality is a direct result of the decisions she made, choices which led to the deaths of billions and wasn't guaranteed to save anyone.

---

The decisions she made was a result of Hermes's action and with the knowledge that we gave her.

We don't see her as a villain because we benefit from her actions. If she had allowed the Convocation to proceed, we would not have existed.

Our reality is indeed due to her, and since we're the hero of the story, the fact that we exist because of her and she is not going against us means that she would be treated as an ally even if we have to fight her in the end.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by linayar

Without any official reason, my guess is that Zodiark was summoned while under the influence of Meteion, thus their fear twisted its form.

Or because the Ancients have different aesthetics and don't really view Zodiark's appearance as a negative, as seen by some of their creations.

At the end of the day, Zodiark was never in any position to care whether it gets credit, while we credited Hydaelyn due to our connection with her/Venat.

Either way, I'm not sure that's something to be viewed as a problem, especially with respect to their appearances.

---

It's not about being in a position to care. Its about the writing. Both him and Elidibus were essentially shafted, hardly even a word of thanks given to both of them despite them being the only reason we even lived and won against Meteion. Meanwhile Venat is treated as benevolent and as a hero despite the atrocities she committed. Shes even given a minion in her honor lol. Where our Emet minion? Or elidibus minion. We're supposed to be remembering them and everything yet we dont even get that. Theres a very clear bias present which contradicts their claims of both sides are neither good nor bad.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Millybonk

• The mighty Zodiark, which has been build up as this mighty(evil) entity over several expansions, turns out to be nothing but filler trash for the first Endwalker trial
• The true cause of the Final Days is a pet-project from an ancient which goes mad after observing countless dead world and possibly causing the death of several world by projecting negative emotions unto them, and is thus dead-set on bringing despair to every world, upon which said ancient goes mad and is now letting her run her course to test humanity if they can withstand/fight despair
• Venat, who hasn't had her memory wiped + still remembers you from being in Elpis, quite apparently doesn't lift a finger to learn about Dynamis herself or to mobilize the other ancients to end Meteion then and there, and instead chooses to turn herself into Hydaelyn, sunder the world and the inhabitants, thereby forcing them to live with and face despair and gambling that their resilience against despair might be enough to face Meteion one day

Really?
This is the best SQ could do in terms of story after ShB?

---

One thing about Venat. Sundering the world is understanding Dynamis. Without being sundered, the Warrior of Light has no chance against Meteion, because the aetheric concentration would be too dense. The WoL does use Dynamis to perform limit breaks and essentially win fights. That is beaten into the storyline of Elpis about weak aetheric concentrations in the Warrior of Light, pretending to be a familiar, etc. He beats Zenos to death not with Aetheric power, but with Dynamis.

Zodiark, however, and for reasons that I don't recall, or perhaps never understood, keeps The Final Days in check. It might be tied to what I wrote above. Because Zenos is on the moon, maybe it alters the aetheric concentrations on Hydaelyn to be "balanced", and a higher concentration of light allowed Meteion to resume the Final Days; similar to what happened when the first was overwhelmed in light.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by KizuyaKatogami

It's not about being in a position to care. Its about the writing. Both him and Elidibus were essentially shafted, hardly even a word of thanks given to both of them despite them being the only reason we even lived and won against Meteion. Meanwhile Venat is treated as benevolent and as a hero despite the atrocities she committed. Shes even given a minion in her honor lol. Where our Emet minion? Or elidibus minion. We're supposed to be remembering them and everything yet we dont even get that. Theres a very clear bias present which contradicts their claims of both sides are neither good nor bad.

---

Considering we're the only one interacting directly with them, I can see why they might not be on anyone else's mind in terms of a "word of thanks" and, Elidibus aside, we simply do not interact with Zodiark at the level that we would have a word of thanks for him.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by linayar

Considering we're the only one interacting directly with them, I can see why they might not be on anyone else's mind in terms of a "word of thanks" and, Elidibus aside, we simply do not interact with Zodiark at the level that we would have a word of thanks for him.

---

It’s as simple as having a minion made in memory of him.For either of them really. We don’t even have a dialogue option to thank Elidibus for what he did or to even bring it up to Emet despite Emet basically having a hand in his demise.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by linayar

Without any official reason, my guess is that Zodiark was summoned while under the influence of Meteion, thus their fear twisted its form.

---

There were statues of Zodiark before the final days even hit, in Akadaemia.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by KizuyaKatogami

I mean, again, his mindset is clearly different than what it is in Elpis, so much so hes shocked at what he becomes. The fact is with everything we're told and shown, had Venat actually told her people what happened, they could've found a way forward, they just werent given the chance. Considering we have relied upon said unsundered ancients time and time again, we clearly cant do it ourselves. We need their help. If we couldnt do it without their help then whose to say they couldnt do it themselves? Dont take this personally but i think the writer's wrote themselves into a corner with this and it shows. While trying to write the story in a way that indirectly tried to say the sundering isnt all that bad and the sundered are capable of things the ancients arent, they contradicted themselves based on how theyve wrote things in the past. The sundered have hardly ever done thing via their own merit. Theyve done so with indirect help of the ancients or higher up entities. Hydaelyn,allag, etc etc. It just shows we'd be nowhere were it not for them.

---

Cute, but irrelevant. The story is what the story is, you don't have to like it, but wishing it was different doesn't actually make it so.

The Ancients couldn't win, you're outright told that. I would have personally preferred that it be reinforced with a little more explicit showing along the way, but they decided to go with mainly just telling us, and I struggle to think of a way they could have more explicitly told us without just breaking the 4th wall and literally telling us.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jandor

Cute, but irrelevant. The story is what the story is, you don't have to like it, but wishing it was different doesn't actually make it so.

The Ancients couldn't win, you're outright told that. I would have personally preferred that it be reinforced with a little more explicit showing along the way, but they decided to go with mainly just telling us, and I struggle to think of a way they could have more explicitly told us without just breaking the 4th wall and literally telling us.

---

Its not exactly irrelevant. We're not outright told that. We're told they didnt win, where the circumstances were they didnt know what they were facing. We're shown they could in some ways manipulate dynamis.They had an entire facility that could literally help them hone said power. There's nothing pointing to the fact they couldnt have adapted and come together to combat Meteion. Considering they were able to create a being who could shield them from Meteion for thousands of years, one doesnt have to go through hoops to acknowledge they'd be able to find a way had they known the truth. You're banking your entire argument on one line of dialogue. Whereas we have numerous other lines of dialogue showing that they wouldve had a chance had Venat not banked everything on one person and instead trusted her own people. When the writing contradicts its own points then no its not irrelevant and i will call it out as such.Its just one of the many flaws of Endwalker and it seems more people are starting to acknowledge said flaws which is good. Wouldnt want more shoddy writing like this in the future anyhow. Better to call these problems out sooner rather than later. Not everyone is going to be captivated by fluff moment #269. Some people want to see actual in depth writing.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Platinumstorm

One thing about Venat. Sundering the world is understanding Dynamis. Without being sundered, the Warrior of Light has no chance against Meteion, because the aetheric concentration would be too dense. The WoL does use Dynamis to perform limit breaks and essentially win fights. That is beaten into the storyline of Elpis about weak aetheric concentrations in the Warrior of Light, pretending to be a familiar, etc. He beats Zenos to death not with Aetheric power, but with Dynamis.

Zodiark, however, and for reasons that I don't recall, or perhaps never understood, keeps The Final Days in check. It might be tied to what I wrote above. Because Zenos is on the moon, maybe it alters the aetheric concentrations on Hydaelyn to be "balanced", and a higher concentration of light allowed Meteion to resume the Final Days; similar to what happened when the first was overwhelmed in light.

---

Meteoin was stagnating and decaying small areas of celestial aetherflow. Whenever it would decay and weaken she would flood dynamis in and start wrecking havoc. The ancients noticed this but not exactly why. They thought the stagnation and decay of the celestial aether was the final days itself. Thus summoned zodiark and being of darkness which represents the astral aspect. Change and growth. Zodiark forces the celestial aether to be unable to decay and stagnate so meteion could no longer affect the planet. Once we killed zodiark his protection vanished immediately letting meteion get back to rotting the celestial aether. Thats why hydaelyn put zodiark into stasis and didnt destroy him. She knew his death would doom the planet too.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by KizuyaKatogami

Its not exactly irrelevant. We're not outright told that. We're told they didnt win, where the circumstances were they didnt know what they were facing. We're shown they could in some ways manipulate dynamis.They had an entire facility that could literally help them hone said power. There's nothing pointing to the fact they couldnt have adapted and come together to combat Meteion.

---

Emet remembers:
https://i.ibb.co/99kP0S6/1.png

Emet has been watching:
https://i.ibb.co/mRKbN4D/2.png

Emet wouldn't have done better:
https://i.ibb.co/t2KHGPM/3.png

You're not supposed to think Venat is evil or stupid, it's been one of your complaints if I recall correctly, and I doubt you're supposed to get the impression that Emet is lying to us here, or maybe missing some solution that he's just not thought of. When both those characters tell you their people couldn't have done better, and they know them far better than we do, then it's a safe bet that they really couldn't have done better.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jandor

Emet remembers:
https://i.ibb.co/99kP0S6/1.png

Emet has been watching:
https://i.ibb.co/mRKbN4D/2.png

Emet wouldn't have done better:
https://i.ibb.co/t2KHGPM/3.png

You're not supposed to think Venat is evil or stupid, it's been one of your complaints if I recall correctly, and I doubt you're supposed to get the impression that Emet is lying to us here, or maybe missing some solution that he's just not thought of. When both those characters tell you their people couldn't have done better, and they know them far better than we do, then it's a safe bet that they really couldn't have done better.

---

Except besides those lines of dialogue, everything else points otherwise. Why wouldn’t they be able to hone their dynamis skills? We know they were able to manipulate it as they use limit breaks in the dungeon. Hermes was able to create a familiar who could interact with it. They had an entire facility again, they could use to hone their skills. They’re commenting on it as how they see it now. Considering they never even got the chance to try, they don’t know for certain. Keep in mind this is the Emet that toiled centuries to being about a rejoining. The rejoining methods would not have brought them that far that is correct. Venat telling them originally what was going on might have. What we know points to them having at least had the right tools, it was a matter of using them. Venat is the one who gambled everything on a single person and had forsaken her own people so i’m not really going to even address her thoughts as she’s the one who kept secrets from them in the first place.

Tough luck then that the writers provided lore allowing for potential workarounds to the ancients' high aetheric density posing an issue for dynamis. I frankly don't care for arguments about what we're "supposed" to believe. The writers can try make the point and I can either take it or leave it depending on whether I find it persuasive. In this case, to me it is not at all persuasive. They have also gone on the record in the past on how different aspects of the story are open to interpretation. A character's opinion on the matter falls in that category to me.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by KizuyaKatogami

Keep in mind this is the Emet that toiled centuries to being about a rejoining. The rejoining methods would not have brought them that far that is correct.

---

That is actually a good point as well.

It also wasn't so long ago that Tempering was considered to be irreversible and something that could result only in slaying the Tempered as an act of mercy. Quite a few characters suggested as much only for a cure to be found at a later date. In itself, that is but one example of an established 'impossibility' later turning out to have some workaround.

I also rather suspect that the Ancients would stand a far better chance fighting against the Final Days had they not been dealing with a subversive traitor within their midst who deliberately withheld key information that would have served to aid in the investigations.

Furthermore, when increasingly contrived plot devices such as time travel and alternate universes are embraced to justify the continued existence of major protagonists, then it stands to reason that such methods could in theory be deployed in the case of the antagonists as well.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Theodric

It also wasn't so long ago that Tempering was considered to be irreversible and something that could result only in slaying the Tempered as an act of mercy. Quite a few characters suggested as much only for a cure to be found at a later date. In itself, that is but one example of an established 'impossibility' later turning out to have some workaround.

I also rather suspect that the Ancients would stand a far better chance fighting against the Final Days had they not been dealing with a subversive traitor within their midst who deliberately withheld key information that would have served to aid in the investigations.

Furthermore, when increasingly contrived plot devices such as time travel and alternate universes are embraced to justify the continued existence of major protagonists, then it stands to reason that such methods could in theory be deployed in the case of the antagonists as well.

---

/cough ... Zenos...

In the end the truth is you have some people that loved Twilight and some people that hated it. Same here, you have some that loved it and some who think it was not up to the standard we have seen. That doesn't mean everyone will feel that way. Good on you if you loved it, I wish I had. I loved ShB.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by KizuyaKatogami

It’s as simple as having a minion made in memory of him.For either of them really. We don’t even have a dialogue option to thank Elidibus for what he did or to even bring it up to Emet despite Emet basically having a hand in his demise.

---

The thing is, I could see there being no one who would care enough to make a minion in memory of Zodiark.

Quote:

---

There were statues of Zodiark before the final days even hit, in Akadaemia.

---

Maybe Zodiark was based on those statues. Either way, I don't think we have anything that discusses the appearance of Zodiark or its origin, if any, before the summoning. If we do, please share.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jandor

Emet wouldn't have done better:
https://i.ibb.co/t2KHGPM/3.png

---

Yeah, kinda hard to when they didn't even know about Meteion, cause someone didn't bother telling them...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by linayar

The thing is, I could see there being no one who would care enough to make a minion in memory of Zodiark.

---

I don’t think they even say who made the Venat minion though. For Zodiark they could just chalk it off to it being one of the remaining sundered, or that it was found as an early concept in Amaurot. Easily done. We already have the little amaurotine minion that’s essentially a concept. It wouldn’t be very far fetched and it could at least go into some detail of him outright keeping the world safe.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by KizuyaKatogami

I don’t think they even say who made the Venat minion though. For Zodiark they could just chalk it off to it being one of the remaining sundered, or that it was found as an early concept in Amaurot. Easily done. We already have the little amaurotine minion that’s essentially a concept. It wouldn’t be very far fetched and it could at least go into some detail of him outright keeping the world safe.

---

Easily done, sure, but also easily not done. Like I said before, I don't think it's that big of a deal. It doesn't add or subtract to the story/worldbuilding, just nice to have, but also doesn't need to exist.

I love how often that one line from Emet keeps being brought up as somehow proof the Ancients couldn't have done better. This is the same man who was flabbergasted in Elpis about there being another form of energy he'd never heard of before, he wasn't all knowing.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by linayar

Easily done, sure, but also easily not done. Like I said before, I don't think it's that big of a deal. It doesn't add or subtract to the story/worldbuilding, just nice to have, but also doesn't need to exist.

---

I think it’s fairly strange to drive home the idea that both sides are equal but to then constantly give one side far more attention than the other. Especially given how the themes have been recently. It’s especially strange how we’re given 2 graha minions in one expansion when we haven’t had any whatsoever for the ascians/ancients outside of the one that is tied to the angelic god of the game, who is also treated as benevolent and kind. I think the bias should be called out so that maybe in the future they see that there are people that care more for the other side as well and would like to see some equality for once.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by KizuyaKatogami

I think it’s fairly strange to drive home the idea that both sides are equal but to then constantly give one side far more attention than the other. Especially given how the themes have been recently. It’s especially strange how we’re given 2 graha minions in one expansion when we haven’t had any whatsoever for the ascians/ancients outside of the one that is tied to the angelic god of the game, who is also treated as benevolent and kind. I think the bias should be called out so that maybe in the future they see that there are people that care more for the other side as well and would like to see some equality for once.

---

Ok, maybe this is at the center of our differing views. I don't understand what you mean by both sides are equal. Therefore, I must currently reject the idea of that point having been driven home.

Also, any story implication does not necessitate the treatment of minions one way or another. If they want to make a minion of something, they can. If not, they can choose not to as well.