Endwalker was a great mess(SPOILERS)

[Raven2014]

I doubt there's much logic to be attributed to Venat's actions. At the end of the day, she caused her entire race to be wiped out based on her own misguided, biased judgement and because she decided to fawn over an individual who gave her a very biased account of what happened in the future.

No, there are plenty logic to it. (I'll explain down below).

What do you mean known future for unknown?

She may not know the "exact" future, but she had plenty "evident" for form her decision.


I think people are focusing on the wrong thing. The Final Day is simply ONE of the MANY ways a star can meet its end, the Endsinger is not really the final boss. In another word, they are not the point of the story. Think about it, by the time Venat sundered the world, the final day was already stopped. What she was trying to averse isn't the final day, but the ultimate end of mankind.

Elpis story was there wasn't merely for us to learn the nature of final day, but also to show us (the players) the fatal flaw of the Ancient society that would serve as the basic for Venat decision. Specifically, that flaw is the apathy toward life. While their indifference toward the creation is obvious, the subtext also showed it applies to all life. Here are the key moment:

- Meltion asked you to demonstrate your "sorrow" to "cheer up" Herme (as ironic as it sounds) because he is like the only ancient possess that emotion (which came from his cherish of life).
- Emer-setch said while he understand the "rationality", he can not work out the emotion why you have to be sad when someone die. He also considered the fact Venat didn't end her life after leaving the office is an act in tune with her rebellious personality.
- When accompanied you, a research literally tell Venat "hi there lady Venat, I can not wait for the day you finally kill yourself and it will be beautiful!". Her reaction is clearly uncomfortable about it.


Herme and Venat actually share a common trait: they both cherish lives. But this strait is making them the outcast of their society. And the last straw is during the sundering scence, when given the choice between "suffer and live" or "die", we saw the ancient pick the latter without much thought. Basically, even if the ancient was spared the final day, their society in its current trajectory will arrive at a deadend anway, that's what Venat was trying to stop. That's the point of the story.


Then, before her trial she told the party Meltion is a place where emotion and memory reign supreme, to which Alisae ask if mankind is truly powerless. She answered by address each of the Scion. On the surface, it looks like she merely recounting their lives, but once you put it together with the report by Metion and what she showed you in the final dungeon, Hydalyn was also drawing parallel of the struggle that spelled the end of those dead world, and how now the scion (as representative of mankind) had shown the will to overcome those.


Of course, there is nothing taken for granted. That's why the moon was created as a contingency. Even during the trial, she said we either show the will to overcome the trial or they must leave and never look back. She sacrified everything not for "assured" victory, but to make a bet on mankind's potential. Now, if you want to argue the merit of her decision, or whatever it's justifiable then that's up for debate. But I want to point out it's plenty logical, and definitely not simply based on her bias about our 1-side story.

[AnotherPerson]

No, there are plenty logic to it. (I'll explain down below).



She may not know the "exact" future, but she had plenty "evident" for form her decision.


I think people are focusing on the wrong thing. The Final Day is simply ONE of the MANY ways a star can meet its end, the Endsinger is not really the final boss. In another word, they are not the point of the story. Think about it, by the time Venat sundered the world, the final day was already stopped. What she was trying to averse isn't the final day, but the ultimate end of mankind.

Elpis story was there wasn't merely for us to learn the nature of final day, but also to show us (the players) the fatal flaw of the Ancient society that would serve as the basic for Venat decision. Specifically, that flaw is the apathy toward life. While their indifference toward the creation is obvious, the subtext also showed it applies to all life.

Then, before her trial she told the party Meltion is a place where emotion and memory reign supreme, to which Alisae ask if mankind is truly powerless. She answered by address each of the Scion. On the surface, it looks like she merely recounting their lives, but once you put it together with the report by Metion and what she showed you in the final dungeon, Hydalyn was also drawing parallel of the struggle that spelled the end of those dead world, and how now the scion (as representative of mankind) had shown the will to overcome those.

Of course, there is nothing taken for granted. That's why the moon was created as a contingency. Even during the trial, she said we either show the will to overcome the trial or they must leave and never look back. She sacrified everything not for "assured" victory, but to make a bet on mankind's potential. Now, if you want to argue the merit of her decision, or whatever it's justifiable then that's up for debate. But I want to point out it's plenty logical, and definitely not simply based on her bias about our 1-side story.

That's actually great points I forgotten about. The ancients were a society focused towards perfection, but we also know all societies fixated on perfection eventually met its demise. To live is to suffer, but suffering is required to be continue existence. The Ancients didn't want suffering, but they were fine about returning to the star at the end when it reaches perfection. In that case, wouldn't their end be when they finished making the perfect world like the other civilizations that achieved what they wanted? They'd just go kill themselves after because they achieved their goal. Yeah, it actually makes sense why Venat did what she did now. She cherishes life, not just the dedication to making a better life.

[Lauront]

No, there are plenty logic to it. (I'll explain down below).

And the big problem is that regarding the Plenty, she had a summary of a couple of lines of what happened to that star. She had little reason at that point to attribute it to "apathy towards life" as such (which does not appear to have been the ancients' view tbh, nor were they lacking for emotions), but rather apathy towards it because joy became meaningless in the absence of sorrow. The problem people have here is how she is connecting this to her people outside of that singular cutscene - bearing in mind not all of us have suffered amnesia regarding the events of SHB and their recounting of events leading to her faction's summoning of Hydaelyn. It is possible that, one day, they too would meet that fate - it's possible they might not. The issue is that the scene in question shows her sundering the star at a point where her people are still mourning the loss they suffered, of the state of their beautiful star, to which they were devoted. And the problem people have with that is that they were not given the necessary information as to what she was basing her concerns on, as opposed to being provided rather glib platitudes when they express a desire to reclaim their former way of life. So her people were never really given a proper opportunity to consider it and make adjustments if necessary, once a proper understanding had been achieved. So for Ms "Nothing is impossible", apparently a conversation with her people about what Hermes had learnt via the Meteia was too difficult. There may be logic there that would make sense to her or Hermes with the knowledge they'd acquired, but not so much anyone else. Hermes's own mindset was to foster life even when it became inimical to the broader balance of the star. He is not exactly reasonable.

That's actually great points I forgotten about. The ancients were a society focused towards perfection, but we also know all societies fixated on perfection eventually met its demise. To live is to suffer, but suffering is required to be continue existence. The Ancients didn't want suffering, but they were fine about returning to the star at the end when it reaches perfection. In that case, wouldn't their end be when they finished making the perfect world like the other civilizations that achieved what they wanted? They'd just go kill themselves after because they achieved their goal. Yeah, it actually makes sense why Venat did what she did now. She cherishes life, not just the dedication to making a better life.

It goes beyond that even, because the dragons had attained something like a state of perfection and their star's destruction was not due to the incoherence of such a society but for no other reason than it was invaded by the Omicrons. Stars mired in suffering perished, those without it perished, those anywhere in between perished. So there's that. A fate that may befall the Source too, in any case, in the future, once the "lessons" the Scions supposedly learnt are gone. The poster here made a good list of all the issues with her thinking.

What she did makes sense to her, maybe. Not to anyone asking well why not give your people this knowledge to give them a chance to adapt, rather than just mouthing off some platitudes about suffering that in the moment, seem vacuous?

If you consider it reasonable to sunder your own people, based on a half-baked understanding of what happened to another star, which you never even tried to explain properly to your people, based on what was shown so far, then so be it... I certainly don't.

[Raven2014]

And the big problem is that regarding the Plenty, she had a summary of a couple of lines of what happened to that star.

And here is the problem with people taking cutsceen literally instead of abstractly. I remember going through Elpis in a matter of hours, whence the game implied it took days. Also, the Hydalyn vs Zodiak war is understood as a big civil war between 2 supreme entities ... do you think the sundering happens just like that, she talked to a few random ancient, and sunder them on the spot in her human form!?

The "characters" definitely would have a lot more detail form in all story elements that are abstracted into a few line to be delivered to the players, that's just how it is in a video game ... unless someone decide to write a book.

They weren’t really obsessed with perfection

not yet anyway, but it's clear they're on the road there, seeing how easily they willing to cast away "imperfection".

This is even what the scions and the main cast strive for. It’s what numerous npc’s regard as well. Striving for the best in the future.

The difference is ... the Scion pursuit the cause while weep for any life that is loss. The ancient putting the perfection of the start at the foremost and everything else (including life) is a distant second.

[Lauront]

And here is the problem with people taking cutsceen literally instead of abstractly. I remember going through Elpis in a matter of hours, whence the game implied it took days. Also, the Hydalyn vs Zodiak war is understood as a big civil war between 2 supreme entities ... do you think the sundering happens just like that, she talked to a few random ancient, and sunder them on the spot in her human form!?

The "characters" definitely would have a lot more detail form in all story elements that are abstracted into a few line to be delivered to the players, that's just how it is in a video game ... unless someone decide to write a book.

I myself took it abstractly. It doesn't resolve the problem or people's issues with what they were shown, and you then have to make assumptions that she did give her people a fair shot. Unless she related the basis for her concerns, rather than just speaking in terms of platitudes, I'd say she did not.

If the writers failed to make it clear, while employing so many convoluted plot mechanisms, that is on them. As it is, there was so much filler in the story, they more or less wrote a book anyway.

[Raven2014]

If the writers failed to make it clear, while employing so many convoluted plot mechanisms, that is on them. As it is, there was so much filler in the story, they more or less wrote a book anyway.

What you call a failure, I take it with the greatest sense of appreciation. For me good writing is not about spelling out the A, B, C of why something happens, but to provide enough pieces for the reader to come to the conclusion "oh I see, that's why it happens" WITHOUT being told straight out.

[Lauront]

What you call a failure, I take it with the greatest sense of appreciation. For me good writing is not about spelling out the A, B, C of why something happens, but to provide enough pieces for the reader to come to the conclusion "oh I see, that's why it happens" WITHOUT being told straight out.

This is the culmination of years of plots and planning. It's not that I or anyone else is asking them to spell out every little detail. It's that what details we already have line up poorly with what we're shown, so people are rightly asking questions and don't take her logic as sound on a "trust me bruh" basis. I don't think we're going to agree on this front.

[KizuyaKatogami]

not yet anyway, but it's clear they're on the road there, seeing how easily they willing to cast away "imperfection".



The difference is ... the Scion pursuit the cause while weep for any life that is loss. The ancient putting the perfection of the start at the foremost and everything else (including life) is a distant second.

Could you give me some citations on this? Because i really dont see this at all.






These are just a few examples, but im pretty sure this shows they didnt just write things off, and they did weep/mourn for life. As far as the scions go, im fairly certain Estinien wasnt weeping or crying for all of the dragons he was slaughtering, and Graha/Ironworks were willing to sacrifice an entire timeline of people to die to bring back the WoL and avert a calamity. So i find it hard to believe the scions care for all life, especially with how many quests and references there are of us slaughtering animals left and right to the point its even stated in Diadem we're responsible for the nigh-on extinction of an animal species.

[Raven2014]

Could you give me some citations on this? Because i really dont see this at all.

How can you not see it when it's the exact reason behind Herme's identity crisis, so much he decided to seek comfort in others star? I mean ... his last line was basically something like "if the law says imperfection has no right to exist, then by the virtue that man is imperfect, then he too must be erased". I don't remember the exact line but he said something to that effect. And while I don't have SS to share, I had cited several instances "in the MSQ" for this. Another example is when the researchers insist on "delete" the flying shark concept due to the mutation after 3 generation, despite the solution is fairly trivial if one bother to look. His assistant even wonder why Herme wanted to go through all the trouble when it would be much simpler to just simply delete and restart.


Sure, you can cite some acedonetal evidence to the contrary, but if the apathy toward life is the exception rather than the norm, I doubt Herme would have turned out the way he did. Also, dressing up "death" with pretty words doesn't make it s0. In real life, we do this as a way to cope, while the ancient actually believe it so (which make it worse). Venat and Herme basically hold the view of our normal society, while the ancient society view is more align to what we would consider to be a cult in real life.

As far as the scions go, im fairly certain Estinien wasnt weeping or crying for all of the dragons he was slaughtering, and Graha/Ironworks were willing to sacrifice an entire timeline of people to die to bring back the WoL and avert a calamity.

Then you missed the whole point of the "human potential theme". Go back to the cutsceen where Hydalyn address the Scion, in fact she specifically address this particular point about Estinien. Where his fire for vengeance consumed him, now in its place is a fire for life burn brightly. That's the whole point about the concept of suffer then change for the better.

Very unlike the Ancient, who are even after suffer the tragedy of the final day still decide to reject it while clinging to the old way.

[HappyHubris]

and Venat actually share a common trait: they both cherish lives.

Venat literally slaughtered her entire world - the ancients, the other peoples, their creations...everything, because she met a cool guy. She traded her world for numerous ones where life had much less worth. On Source, civilizations are massacred in conquest, for profit (beast tribes/dragons), or for pleasure (Zenos and Gar Empire racists).

And that's not even bringing up how she was only interested in a tiny minority of the lives on Source (that little ark would barely fit a large town's worth of people in a handful of trips) and was more than willing to let the other shards die to the end days. Whereas if she worked with the ancients they could have saved incredible amounts of death, giving her an infinite lifetime to spread her views and develop a more empathetic faction.

The writers ignored Venat's characterization and decided that she would choose horrible suffering for all creation over memory wiping her, which was a poor decision.