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

[AziraSyuren]

-Elpis. I know why they did it, and I know what they were trying to do, but I HATE time travel stories and they botched this one. As others have said, they've now got a contradiction on what happens when you mess with the past, and it's entirely "whatever the plot needs at the moment". Don't like it. And that cutscene on your way out? Issues. We see Venat, not Hydaelyn, sunder the world. When? Where? How? We were told in SHB that Hydaelyn was brought to bear after Zodiark ended the final days and restored life to the world, but that is not at ALL what we see. It's just...bad. All around. I wanted to see Zodiark work his magic, and I think a lot of you did too. And I don't think I'm the only one who wanted to see Hydaelyn stand against him and sunder him. Instead we get some nobody ancients throw a little fit, no grand opposition from anyone meaningful. Just...sloppy. I'm sorry, but it is.

I think a big problem with that cutscene was that it wasn't at all clear what was metaphor, what was not, and when it took place.

My interpretation of it is as follows:
1. First sacrifice happened.
2. Second was about to happen.
3. Venat confronted the Ancients in the scene, and that's when she decided to oppose any future attempts at summoning Zodiark. I don't believe that was the Sundering scene, I just think it's when she resolved to oppose Zodiark. It's just that the opposition was a little more violent rather than merely diplomatic and political.
4. The second happened. The laws of the world were weaved anew, and new life was breathed into the world.
5. -unknown gap of time-
6. Debate over the third sacrifice happened.
7. -unknown gap of time-
8. Hydaelyn vs Zodiark happened.

I also don't believe the time travel part was necessarily contradictory, I just think it's unclear how the rules work. If they never explain why the Exarch could change the past while our actions could not, though, then yeah. It's a problem. They might've actually done that, but I don't remember if they did. I think it's possible to read in between the lines and figure out a good explanation, but if something is a mechanic inherent to how the world functions, I don't think it's best to go that route.

snip

I just think people are shit at media analysis.