Would Endwalker have been better if we never visited Elpis at all?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Aniya_Estlihn

We are led to believe that by sundering their world, she did not "kill" anyone, there is no genocide here. Their beings were split and they retained their identities between shards at the start, at least.

---

Genocide doesn't only refer to mass murder. Even quick search says it's "the deliberate and systematic destruction of a racial, political, or cultural group" which the sundering was. As far as what it did, it was expanded upon in the NieR crossover, which was written by Ishikawa (and gave us more lore surrounding the sundering than EW did):

https://i.imgur.com/EuK5qk3.jpg

They were most definitely not carbon copies of the base individual. They were literally the malformed creatures both Emet and Elidibus said they were in ShB. Torn apart to such an extent that they could no longer form words or use language.

It goes on to say, "Their pitiable lives are fleeting. In the simplest of ways, they die and die." Given that by all appearances they were kicked back to what we'd think of as prehistory, it's reasonable to assume without their knowledge and powers they were dying to things like the common cold and infections from cuts.

Quote:

---

If anything, sundered Etheirys is a purgatory of incomplete beings having their souls scrubbed upon death and reborn into new beings ad infinitum without their input or conscious choice in the matter, unlike the ancients who did so willingly because they were immortal.

---

I unfortunately agree with this, which adds to why I find the sundering so disconcerting.

Quote:

---

Venat should be held accountable for that, and I'd argue she was. As her aether and soul dissipated. She does not exist anymore. For even though she forsook her duty to return to the star, forcing that fate upon all life in an ironic twist, she ultimately suffers the most final fate of any character introduced in the narrative of simply fading to oblivion.

---

It was a small measure of karma for someone who cared so little for souls and found them expendable to do so herself, but aside from the comfort of knowing she can't come back there was little satisfaction in it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Aniya_Estlihn

Edit: My opinion on OP's question is that the narrative would have been no different with or without Elpis inclusion. The events that took place there had already occurred by the point we were in the narrative, so it didn't matter.



Friend, with all due respect, no.
Venat sundered Etheirys exclusively.

The sundering did not effect anything out of the star's direct influence; likely only those things within the veil of aether Zodiark used to shield the star from Dynamis (although this is speculation on my part), and the Shards/reflections exist within paradoxical pocket dimensions.

This is why Midgardsormr and his brood are so incredibly strong and aether rich compared to the sundered life of Etheirys— they are whole, unsundered beings.

Further: how could she sunder the entire known universe when she used only a fraction of a fraction of the population of Etheriys remaining to perform the act, when Zodiark needed half of an entire super earth to stop the final days? A much smaller act than the impossibly herculean task of sundering an entire plane of existence on a universal scale.

No, it was just the planet and nothing more.

---

If Venat didn't splinter the universe... the only known reality at the time of the Ancients, and only split one planet into multiple variations, did she shove the other mirrored reflections into these "pocket dimensions?" How did she know about them? Did she make them? How come these pocket dimensions have the same universal rules for survival?

You claim that shattering the universe into multiple pieces seems like a herculean task. It is honestly more herculean to sunder your planet, have the pocket dimensions ready to accept a world, and shove the new world into the pocket dimension, and secure it. This is not including work of inspecting each pocket dimension and finding ones that have the right conditions to live in. Oh, and on top of that, searching each pocket dimension to locate a solar system with the right conditions for life in each dimension.

Or, you know, just splinter the universe (the known reality) into mirrored reflections and have each of the mirrored worlds and the Source be the paradoxical anchor that locks that mirrored reality into place. If a the mirrored planet is consumed, the reality no longer exists.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Xtrasweettea

If Venat didn't splinter the universe... the only known reality at the time of the Ancients, and only split one planet into multiple variations, did she shove the other mirrored reflections into these "pocket dimensions?" How did she know about them? Did she make them? How come these pocket dimensions have the same universal rules for survival?

You claim that shattering the universe into multiple pieces seems like a herculean task. It is honestly more herculean to sunder your planet, have the pocket dimensions ready to accept a world, and shove the new world into the pocket dimension, and secure it. This is not including work of inspecting each pocket dimension and finding ones that have the right conditions to live in. Oh, and on top of that, searching each pocket dimension to locate a solar system with the right conditions for life in each dimension.

Or, you know, just splinter the universe (the known reality) into mirrored reflections and have each of the mirrored worlds and the Source be the paradoxical anchor that locks that mirrored reality into place. If a the mirrored planet is consumed, the reality no longer exists.

---

There is atm no evidence anything but Etheirys was Sundered, and given the strength of Omega, Midgardsormr, the Ea, etc. I think we have reason to presume that it is a localized phenomenon.

Elpis and Endwalker and a whole was amazing.
RIGHT up until the Meteion swarm reports back. Then the plot goes off the rails, and absolutely everyone starts acting wildly out of character.
Judging from 6.1, it looks like they're going to treat Ultima Thule almost like it was some weird fever dream that didn't actually happen going forward, and that may well be for the best.

... then again, apparently lots of people went through this and DIDN'T see Venat as the biggest villain in the series; so what do I know?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by redheadturk

You apparently missed the Neir crossover where it very clearly showed that it was far more than "their beings were split and they retained their identities" because that very clearly showed they didn't. The entire society on all 14 shards was rendered to the stone age, they did not even possess language for several hundred years after. It was, in all respects, a genocide. By the way, that crossover is considered canon.

---

Very well, if it's canon and I missed out on some pertinent information that should have been in the game, I'll concede I was wrong. However, going on the information provided in the game's narrative itself, which is what most will use to discuss the narrative; and not some worthless crossover that most aren't going to even recognize the existence of after the poor reception of Dark Apocalypse, you cannot fault me for still having held the same opinion and understanding that the game had presented—in a voiced scene no less— during Shadowbringers' main narrative.

I will argue, however, that is is a blatant retcon that spits in the face of and contradicts the narrative of Shadowbringers.
Which is just... lovely... I'm glad this arc is over, to hells with it and its yo-yoing continuity that they feel can be altered ad nauseum every time a new detail is "revealed."

I still will never see Venat as a villain, nor the ancients or convocation—they were humans prioritizing survival over all else. You cannot fault them for that.
I will, however, fault the inconsistencies between the narrative presented in game and a canon crossover in a game so removed from the narrative that it's almost insulting.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Aniya_Estlihn

Very well, if it's canon and I missed out on some pertinent information that should have been in the game, I'll concede I was wrong. However, going on the information provided in the game's narrative itself, which is what most will use to discuss the narrative; and not some worthless crossover that most aren't going to even recognize the existence of after the poor reception of Dark Apocalypse, you cannot fault me for still having held the same opinion and understanding that the game had presented—in a voiced scene no less— during Shadowbringers' main narrative.

I will argue, however, that is is a blatant retcon that spits in the face of and contradicts the narrative of Shadowbringers.
Which is just... lovely... I'm glad this arc is over, to hells with it and its yo-yoing continuity that they feel can be altered ad nauseum every time a new detail is "revealed."

I still will never see Venat as a villain, nor the ancients or convocation—they were humans prioritizing survival over all else. You cannot fault them for that.
I will, however, fault the inconsistencies between the narrative presented in game and a canon crossover in a game so removed from the narrative that it's almost insulting.

---

Not really, the crossover simply shows thee full effects of the Sundering in a way Emet's dry explanation did not. And it could have easily been inferred from the lore of the first Umbral Era anyway.

Since Elpis was the best part of Endwalker, the answer is NO!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Aniya_Estlihn

I will argue, however, that is is a blatant retcon that spits in the face of and contradicts the narrative of Shadowbringers.

---

I found it consistent. Emet says in that same scene: "When I beheld the shattered remnants of our home, I knew deepest despair. The inhabitants of these fourteen fragments were feeble, frail, and foolish. Oblivious to their imperfection, ignorant of their past. Malformed creatures thrashing blindly about. Pitiful. Disturbing. Depressing."

I'd say if anything EW seemed to gloss over the brutality of the sundering for obvious reasons.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Aniya_Estlihn

snip

---

Well said. Venat, Emet, the Convocation - they weren't evil. They weren't setting out to harm. They were flawed humans and humans sometimes make mistakes. The decisions they made make sense in the context of the environment they lived in. They were trying to help and wanted to fix things because as you said, service to the star at any cost.

I personally agreed with Azem. Azem didn't take part in either summoning. But we've gotten indications especially in stories that Azem went out and lived in the world in ways that even Venat doesn't seem to have done.

I am honestly somewhat flabbergasted that for so many the main point of contention about Elpis seems to be the qualities or lack thereof of the society of Amaurot and an extrapolated morality of lack thereof for Venat's actions resulting from this.
Also, this feels like it might belong more into the lore subform.

All that aside, and to actually address OP's question, assuming it wasn't just meant to bait people into exactly the argument people have been having here, I don't think visiting Elpis in and of itself is the blunder the story committs in that chapter.

I understand not everyone likes stable time loops, but they are usually the cleanest way to include time travel, and there was narrative merit to getting a first glance look at the flaws that ran through Ancient civilisation even prior to the Final Days. However, they come with their trappings and Endwalker blunders on some of them, fittingly mirroring those of Alexander almost to a tee, with both times information being created from nothing. Alexander had Mide and Dayan becoming their own ancestors, thereby generating genetic information from nothing, while Elpis makes it seem like Venat only came up with the name Hydaelyn cause we told her that's the name she had come up with in the future. Since Alexander already did this, this sort of consistency has already been ruined though, so while I don't like it I just kind of have to roll with the idea that in XIV, information can just be generated from nothing in the flow of time.

However, the big problem with Elpis to me was and will always be the fact that it is a zone. Yes, a lot of people would not have appreciated hours of cutscenes without any gameplay, but because it is a zone we have be able to continuously visit it. We already jumped through some insane narrative hoops to ensure we could keep visiting the First in Shadowbringers. It made sense in-universe, but you could very much feel the handwaving going on to ensure it ended up that way, from suddenly synching passage of time between First and Source, as well as exempting us from normal means of travelling between worlds while mainting our bodily aether. Elpis multiplies this problem manifold by also having to worry about the causality of it all. It is not a stable time loop, but an open and permanent portal to Elpis of the pre-sundered days, as evidenced by the Pandæmonium raids. The game still treats it like it will eventually become a stable and closed time loop, but the longer that is ongoing the more it strains suspension of disbelief and robs Elpis (and the act of time travel) of its gravitas.

Overall, I wouldn't want it gone. I very much enjoyed what was there in spite of its problems. But I disagree with making it a zone.