Quote Originally Posted by AziraSyuren View Post
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.



I just think people are shit at media analysis.
Considering she is giving a speech about having to sunder everyone to make it impossible to return to paradise, and then says literally "I sunder us"...I don't see how it could be taken to be anything other than what it was. The entire cutscene is a disaster and I suspect localization issues aren't helping. It felt incredibly rushed and in dire need of a few more passes before it was anything near finished. That said, I'm not convinced it was hydaelyn either. It didn't look or sound like the venat-esque version we see in "present day" stuff. Whatever they were going for, they swung and missed by a mile.