Sundering stuff established in the Q&A

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Theodric

A somewhat distant third at that. The equivalent of a bronze medal, I believe.

---

Lmao, if were at the point where coming in third in a popularity poll for a game with only a single other character having a healthy lead over you equals not popular then its a word with no meaning.

Even Hytho in second only got 13.1 to her 11.7. Literally less then 2 percent. Not a distant lead at all. But nobody would claim Hythodaleus in unpopular, and rightly so.

Really if anything That poll shows that there are three tiers to NPC popularity as of EW.

Emet comfortably at the top all by himself with no competition-Hytho and Venat in there own group where there only competition is each other-Everyone else in a really close grouping brawl.

At no point did I suggest that it wasn't an impressive feat.

It'll be interesting to see how things fare if and when there's another character popularity poll within the course of the next few weeks or months and everything is still at least somewhat 'fresh'.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by polyphonica

Honestly, I would say that the Japanese is quite the opposite. A more literal translation of his Japanese line would be "Still, the fact that humanity has gotten this far... It's true that this result could not have been achieved by our methods." The context for this line is all the pain and suffering he had to endure, so Venat will get no thanks for the part she made him play in it. And in the Japanese it's not pointed at the WoL specifically, but that "humanity" has gotten this far.

If the French translation is more specific here, I think they made an inference that wasn't present in either the Japanese or English versions, and may have slightly constrained the meaning of the line.

(Reference if you want to hear the Japanese line: https://youtu.be/c4My9iGEqGA?t=1459)

---

Accepting that as the case for the time being (as I'm not familiar with Japanese in the slightest), both the French and German versions are in agreement that what she is being praised for is her matchmaking ability, i.e. bringing them all there (and by this I would assume it doesn't just mean physically getting there but also navigating the vagaries of time travel, setting Emet aside in the Aetherial Sea, marking Meteion etc etc., i.e. the cumulative set of actions to bring them all together.) As was mentioned, they coordinate to discuss and agree these translations in tandem, so we have one set specific to her matchmaking ability and the other with a somewhat less precise claim but which can be read in the same vein. As far as I am concerned, this undermines any sweeping reading of the claim as amounting to an assertion from Emet that the ancients would've never been able to achieve all this even had circumstances been different (i.e. she spilled the beans.)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Teah_Kaye

I find it interesting how the game refers to both Venat ("Wind-up Herois") and Emet (in the Minstrel's Ballad flavor text, before we really even saw him do anything that could be considered heroic) as "heroes." It kind of makes you wonder what their working definition of that term is.

---

They are taking the term to mean self-abnegation in service of a greater ideal, I believe. By that definition, Emet-Selch, Elidibus and Venat would all qualify - in fact, they sort of set this up for Elidibus with this (even more evident in the French version.) WoL in this case can be taken as synonymous for hero. Though with Hades, they do throw in "fallen" to qualify it.

Some of you really twist yourself into knots trying to dislike Venat, to the point where a good number of you are straight up lying about stuff to make it seem like she was worshiped without question especially once it came to light what she was and what she had to do. She herself agonized over the choice she had to make, didn't know if it would even be enough and came up with a back up plan that would have been for nothing given our foe's actual endgame.

Given the circumstances and the nature of our foe sundering was the only viable option to her considering her most of her people were set onto a different course. the leaders of which couldn't say no and change paths even if they wanted too. Ya know, tempered an all that.

I really don't see how tempering can be invoked here to make that claim. Besides the fact that Zodiark's tempering appears to have resulted from the power that went into summoning him (forcing alignment to his aether's aspect), and not the flawed rites the Ascians passed on to the beast tribes, there is the fact that the primal is made to be controlled by its heart, i.e. Elidibus, and beyond that is comprised of a very vague will representing his purpose. Emet-Selch even deviates from his original course of action, forsaking his plan, to give the WoL a chance to prove himself. The sources on it also suggest the Convocation itself was divided over this matter along with their wider society, hence the emergence of Elidibus to mediate. Rather, I would speculate that without being able to reveal what was motivating her view that the ancients should cease with their pursuit of perfection, they did not find her claims convincing. Y'shtola herself, even after having heard Hydaelyn's words and your recounting of the trip to Elpis, was shocked by what she had seen in the Plenty, i.e. that their pursuit of perfection could end thus, so for the ancients who had achieved the eradication of so many ills, without evidence to back them, her words would've rung hollow. With Elidibus emerging from Zodiark, he could also convey the state/will of the souls in the primal, and prove that this sort of withdrawal was possible.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by thegreatonemal

Some of you really twist yourself into knots trying to dislike Venat, to the point where a good number of you are straight up lying about stuff to make it seem like she was worshiped without question especially once it came to light what she was and what she had to do. She herself agonized over the choice she had to make, didn't know if it would even be enough and came up with a back up plan that would have been for nothing given our foe's actual endgame.

Given the circumstances and the nature of our foe sundering was the only viable option to her considering her most of her people were set onto a different course. the leaders of which couldn't say no and change paths even if they wanted too. Ya know, tempered an all that.

---

Except you’re literally twisting things into headcanon knots. The tempering seems a non-issue, considering the tempered convocation themselves were divided over the issue. From what i’ve seen, the main problem a lot of people have with Venat is the way she’s portrayed in the story. Yes, she herself agonizes over the choice she made, but the game still goes out of it’s way to paint her as a herois, when honestly her actions paint her as nothing of the sort. She kept secrets from her people, instead of having hope in them in potentially succeeding against Meteion, she never gave them the chance and instead sundered them. We don’t really have Emet painted as a hero, hell, Elidibus who sacrificed himself for us or Zodiark who protected us for thousands of years don’t even get this praise, so why should Venat? She caused so much suffering with her actions alone.

Nobody is obligated to like Venat nor do they need to agree with or approve of her actions.

As for posters supposedly tying themselves into knots? Eh, I daresay that applies much more readily to certain posters who spent a considerable amount of time both here and elsewhere insisting that if someone liked the Ancients or the Garleans then they were 'bad people' or 'morally lacking'. The Rejoinings and campaigns of genocide - despite being fictional events - were cited as evidence of such.

Now we're at a point where it has been revealed that, actually, those supposedly 'utterly unforgivable' acts are entirely at the feet of Venat for allowing them to happen in the first place due to them being a necessity for her 'grand plan' to succeed.

Which, I rather suspect, is the reason why some are now insinuating that fondness for a certain 'mommy goddess' is mandatory. If you want to like her? Go ahead - nobody is stopping you. Just please try to avoid forcing character preferences upon everybody else.

The idea that Venat's solution was the only possible solution has also been picked apart many times as disingenuous framing given that the Ancients were not bestowed the information of what fate awaited them. As such, we cannot say how things would have transpired as Venat opted to sell out her own species and subject them and even many of her precious 'children' to brutal and horrific genocide in both a direct and indirect capacity.

It isn't rocket science as to why a character complicit in such treachery and cruelty is disliked. I'm all for sympathetic antagonists and flawed heroes but Venat, in context, does very little to excite me on that front.

I don't think anybody is suggesting that other posters can't like or root for the character, though.

I'm kind of hoping that maybe Pandemonium might shed a little light on just how strongly the Ancients were being influenced by Zodiark given that there's something seemingly imbuing the wardens with an irrational reverence for Lahabrea.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by KageTokage

I'm kind of hoping that maybe Pandemonium might shed a little light on just how strongly the Ancients were being influenced by Zodiark given that there's something seemingly imbuing the wardens with an irrational reverence for Lahabrea.

---

If anything, the sort of mind control there reminds me of what Ultima was able to effect via her auracites in the Ivalice raid series, i.e. acting on the possessor's desires to corrupt them. With it predating Zodiark's summoning, my guess is the source would be something else.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lauront

As far as I am concerned, this undermines any sweeping reading of the claim as amounting to an assertion from Emet that the ancients would've never been able to achieve all this even had circumstances been different (i.e. she spilled the beans.)

---

Well, I think the rest of the context before that is important too. First he blames Hermes for making him forget; that's the root of it all. Then he laments the 12k years of suffering he had to endure, and says he'll give Venat no thanks for her role in orchestrating that... although he acknowledges that their methods wouldn't have gotten humanity to this point. These "methods" are basically what he's been doing these last 12k years -- trying to sacrifice more life to Zodiark to bring back their past. They tried already to stop Meteion in the past and failed in their "fair chance" (according to Hermes's rules, anyway). Venat and the WoL were always the sort of Plan B that Emet-Selch himself helped to orchestrate in Elpis (although he forgot that he did). He obviously has a huge benefit of hindsight now to see that the ancients were misguided from the start, and so they never got the point of what Venat was doing and why.

The "spilling the beans" option was always there, but a big risk. Venat had one good lead of a possible alternate solution if the Ancients failed, which was the WoL. She herself explained the risk of getting Emet-Selch, who was on the convocation, involved, which could result in Hermes being thrown off the Convocation (at best, or retaliation at worse) which would deprive humanity of probably the most useful player they could have on their side given his research, and could also jeopardize the one other lead they had. So it's basically a two-pronged plan: hope the Convocation is successful and make sure all the best minds are working on that, but protect the backup plan so that you can execute it if need be.

So yeah, if someone were to make a sweeping statement like "there's no possible conceivable way the Ancients could have ever figured out a solution on their own," that's obviously wrong. Hermes himself created Meteion after all, so even without being able to directly manipulate dynamis, they could create more life that did (in a way other than sundering). If it weren't for Hermes's gambit, the memory wipe, and the knowledge of the future Venat had through us, they might have come up with other options. But yeah, the issue for Venat is that straying from the path could mean closing that door, and she at least knew for sure that there was a chance with the WoL.

I guess, in other words, the Convocation's job was Plan A, and Venat's job was Plan B. You're criticizing her for not exploring Plans C (through Z), but if she did that she might have forfeited Plan B. Whatever she did was taking an unbelievable risk, so she chose the largely-known path rather than the unknown one. And yeah, she deserves both criticism and acknowledgement for it, which is what Emet-Selch offered.