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

[Rulakir]

Square Enix has an "ethics" department. Just putting that out there.

Which is disturbing. I know Japanese culture is different than the west, but it's been mentioned a few times that after EW some players don't feel like they're ethically on the same page as the writers. That's a problem and something you'd think that department would've picked up on before production started.

Congratulations. You got a villainous Hydaelyn.
You got your Mommy Crystal Genocidaelyn. Your big evil angelic mommy milker crystal of sundering.

Was it worth it?

Except we didn't, not really. The game still presents her as a protagonist and Yoshi-P said they want to "communicate she's not a bad guy". The writers/devs themselves don't view her as villain and the game doesn't portray her as one either.

It’s like she’s been waiting for an chance to force people to her ideals and her ideals only. She just needed an excuse and the power to finally do it without direct consent of the rest of the world.

Given how ideologically divided the world has been the past two years it's amazing to me that this doesn't get called out more.

I can't say that I'm looking forward to the future patches anymore with the current writing and will take a break from XIV for a bit.

Same. It's particularly worrying that it's going to be a "conflict in values". First, I get enough of that in real life, thanks. Second, I don't trust the writers to handle the subject now after EW.

[Theodric]

Except we didn't, not really. The game still presents her as a protagonist and Yoshi-P said they want to "communicate she's not a bad guy". The writers/devs themselves don't view her as villain and the game doesn't portray her as one either.

I think Yoshi-P unintentionally performed something of an 'own goal' on that front by encouraging players to compare her to Emet-Selch.

He was very much framed as an antagonist but the word 'villain' was used to describe him at various points and even during some of the interviews released during Shadowbringers.

Ultimately he was pushed as justified or unforgivable based on the personal opinion of any given individual player. On the basis of judging him for the events he is responsible for during the story.

Which is another reason why this all makes very little sense to me. Now that we know that Venat is responsible for the Sundering as an intentional act and also indirectly responsible for everything that the Ascians did and suffered through...then I remain baffled as to why there's an insistence that she couldn't possibly be a villain.

She very much is one from the perspective of the majority of the Ancients and I think it's time that more writers realised that it is ultimately the players themselves who have the ultimate say on how they feel about any given character.

I was perfectly okay with the Meteion twist because I had long suspected that a "perfect" race like the Ancients most likely engineered their own demise somehow and I felt more gratified then anything else by the time the whole truth of things came to light.

...and yet how many times would the Sundered have realistically engineered their own demise had they not conveniently had every possible plot device in their favour and minimal meaningful stakes at every turn? I'm reluctant to blame the Ancients as a whole for the actions of subversive ideologues and somehow I doubt the same logic would ever be applied elsewhere in the story. Should the Domans be wiped out because of what Yotsuyu did? Should the Domans be wiped out because of what they did to Yotsuyu in order to make her that way? I don't think so - and I don't think the Ancients deserved to be wiped out either.

I'm also not oblivious to the unfortunate fact that many ideologues in the real world giggle and twitch at the thought of claiming that someone is 'perfect', 'wealthy' or 'stuck up' even if that isn't even the case only to fantasise about those individuals or groups losing every last thing that they care about, including their very lives and that of their loved ones.

There's a much more dangerous variant, however - those that hide their intentions behind tears and the famous words of 'there was no other option'. Which is pretty much Venat to a large degree.

[KageTokage]

...and yet how many times would the Sundered have realistically engineered their own demise had they not conveniently had every possible plot device in their favour and minimal meaningful stakes at every turn? I'm reluctant to blame the Ancients as a whole for the actions of subversive ideologues and somehow I doubt the same logic would ever be applied elsewhere in the story. Should the Domans be wiped out because of what Yotsuyu did? Should the Domans be wiped out because of what they did to Yotsuyu in order to make her that way? I don't think so - and I don't think the Ancients deserved to be wiped out either.

I'm also not oblivious to the unfortunate fact that many ideologues in the real world giggle and twitch at the thought of claiming that someone is 'perfect', 'wealthy' or 'stuck up' even if that isn't even the case only to fantasise about those individuals or groups losing every last thing that they care about, including their very lives and that of their loved ones.

There's a much more dangerous variant, however - those that hide their intentions behind tears and the famous words of 'there was no other option'. Which is pretty much Venat to a large degree.

That's...not really what I was getting at at all.

I simply reasoned that a race that was largely devoid of strife and conflict was more likely to have brought calamity to itself through something like a search for knowledge/answers and/or tampering with forces they didn't have a complete understanding of; both of which were fulfilled with Hermes' creating the Meteia to seek out the peoples of other stars.

[Theodric]

That's...not really what I was getting at at all.

I simply reasoned that a race that was largely devoid of strife and conflict was more likely to have brought calamity to itself through something like a search for knowledge/answers and/or tampering with forces they didn't have a complete understanding of; both of which were fulfilled with Hermes' creating the Meteia to seek out the peoples of other stars.

Fair enough. It was the use of the word 'gratified' that led me to read it that way.

Still, I wouldn't really consider Hermes or Venat to be representative of the Ancients as a whole when they deliberately ignored the methods employed to mitigate dangerous actions and illegal concepts. The 'perfection' of the Ancient world is also a lot more agreeable to many, I suspect, compared to what the Sundered world brings to the table.

Maybe it'd sit better with me if the game didn't turn the pursuit of betterment into a wacky caricature in the same breath as constantly glorifying flaws and differences. How unfortunate that none of the heavy handed worlds that Meteion encountered happened to fall into ruin due to having far too many competing special groups vying for power and control.

I kept waiting for the penny to drop and for someone to express disbelief in response to Venat's reason for wiping out her own people but that moment never came.

[Caurcas]

That's...not really what I was getting at at all.

I simply reasoned that a race that was largely devoid of strife and conflict was more likely to have brought calamity to itself through something like a search for knowledge/answers and/or tampering with forces they didn't have a complete understanding of; both of which were fulfilled with Hermes' creating the Meteia to seek out the peoples of other stars.

But did it have to be a weird bird loli?

[Atelier-Bagur]

...and yet how many times would the Sundered have realistically engineered their own demise had they not conveniently had every possible plot device in their favour and minimal meaningful stakes at every turn? I'm reluctant to blame the Ancients as a whole for the actions of subversive ideologues and somehow I doubt the same logic would ever be applied elsewhere in the story. Should the Domans be wiped out because of what Yotsuyu did? Should the Domans be wiped out because of what they did to Yotsuyu in order to make her that way? I don't think so - and I don't think the Ancients deserved to be wiped out either.

Blows my mind how people dont get this, nobody is saying that the Ancients didnt deserve to continue to exist. The whole point is that their "perfect paradise" clearly still had flaws that ultimately caused their own demise due to the actions of one of their own when they're tampering with forces beyond their control. We've seen this parallel a couple of times in this game, such as the Allagans, the Garlean Empire, Mhach, freaking the recent Pandaemonium raids HELLO!! etc. Its because of stuff like this that gave proof to the message that ultimately people themselves will cause their own doom, nothing lasts forever, but that despite all of that, there's still hope that people can find meaning in their lives to make it "worth it".

But back to the whole sundering thing, so ok what would've been a better option then? The story illustrated the Venat and her supporters argued against the Convocation's solution to sacrifice their own to summon Zodirak and advert the Final Days, which wouldnt have been a lasting solution due to Meteion eventually coming to end everything with the song of oblivion and Zodiark wouldnt have been able to deal with that, but without proof of that being the case the Convocation didnt agree with them. I think the confusion here is you're misinterpreting the whole thing about Venat knowing some of the unsundered would survive to cause conflict with her plans. Of course some of the powerful convocation people would survive, she knew that in order for the timeline to still run its intended course she had to allow some of the unfavorable things to occur as long as Zodiark is still imprisoned for our current timeline to exist. Definitely I'll agree that its a very controversial decision in her part but ultimately a necessary one since she believed that the WoL whom she met in her time is the one would be able to combat Meteion's song in the future. Nothing too hard to think about that. You can go ahead and not like it but Im pretty sure that was the intention behind how this narrative was presented, there was no black and white villian here just circumstances and people having to make hard choices for their belief of preserving their world.

[Vyrerus]

He was very much framed as an antagonist but the word 'villain' was used to describe him at various points and even during some of the interviews released during Shadowbringers.

I said it weeks ago in some long buried argument in Lore, but I view Venat as an, "Anti-Villain." Much in the same vein as Ozymandias from Watchmen.

The grandest desire to do good, while also validating her own morals and perceived superiority.

I mean, think about it. She lived her life flying in the face of Amaurotine society, to a degree, taking what she thought was good and denying what was bad. She already believed herself above her society.

Her act can be described as cruel, and to quote one of the best lessons ever shown in gaming:

"Cruelty leads to suffering. And when one suffers, it is the way of life to spread suffering. The suffering within builds, until its sound is all one hears. And so when a kindness is offered, it is punished. And a greater darkness is served."

KOTOR2's Beggar Problem

Look at Venat's actions, and then imagine that it wasn't a story where the conclusion of victory was predetermined. Imagine if we'd faced Meteion and lost. What would we think of Venat's actions then?