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

[Theodric]

1. Knowing how extremely stubborn the Ancients were, I doubt they would'nt have believed her without concrete proof of the Final Days due to how the Ancients themselves couldnt know the early warning signs because of their lack of sensing dynamis.

2. She did wind up telling people who would support her which is where the opposing group came from whom rejected the Convocation's summoning of Zodiark, since again, their solution of preserving their world wouldnt have ultimately helped them against Meteion.

3. News flash this game runs of so many plot conveniences because of the nature of the jrpg formula. This isnt some Game of Throne level of deep writing which I think you mentioned somewhere was what you were looking for in FFXIV when all this time it clearly isnt written that way, yes this even includes the beloved Shadowbringers and Heavensward stories, those stories worked not because of how they tried to make every single detail of a character's motive click and concise but because FFXIV's story as a whole resonates more in an emotional level. Endwalker is no different.

4. Does this mean the story is immune to criticism? Absolutely not, I had my fair share of complaints with some aspects of every story's expansion but ultimately I just try to enjoy for what is presented to me and I'm satisfied. I know Im sounding like Im denying of you from your own personal takes but thats not what Im trying to do. Just sharing my own thoughts since I feel sometimes people read into things waaaay too much.

1 - The Ancients weren't shown to be unwilling to listen to reason when it came to working to the benefit of Etheirys. Even when Emet-Selch was sceptical of the story told to him by the player character, he vowed to take it seriously since it was his sworn duty as a member of the Convocation. A key point to remember is that Venat wrote off the Ancients based on information she had available that would have helped them. Nor was it ever a guarantee that they were fated to destroy themselves - it was very much framed as her opinion, rather than an inevitable conclusion.

2 - We have no confirmation as to how much she told her supporters, especially when much of her actions involved feigning Zodiark as being the reason for her actions. Keeping Zodiark's power in check was not her actual goal, nor was the third round of sacrifices the reason for doing what she did. A point she herself raises during the conversation in Elpis when speaking about the act.

3 - I've always found such arguments to be disingenuous, personally. The game frequently markets the story as its main selling point and actively encourages speculation, so expecting consistency doesn't strike me as an unreasonable demand. I also do not think that it is unfair to point out that the game had a very different atmosphere back in the days of ARR and HW. An atmosphere many of us came to enjoy and wish to see more of. I'm not sure where you're getting the idea that I want Game of Thrones level of writing or grit, either. I've only ever pushed for the main characters to not be clad in plot armour at every possible turn.

4 - I noted that you made this comment in another thread related to the story:

inb4 people come in to ruin this thread with "Endwalker sucked, Shadowbringers was still better".

I personally also appreciate and enjoyed what this expansion brought and couldnt get enough of the beautiful leitmotif Soken composed for it. Here's to further adventures in Eorzea.

Just as I wouldn't expect people to deliberately go into a thread praising the story and claiming that it's terrible, I think that deliberately going into a thread where people are raising concerns is very much a faux pas. Obviously I can't stop you, though I will say that I don't see much point in endless circular arguments about an issue that is very much a matter of subjective personal tastes.

I'm not misunderstanding the story. I simply don't agree with Venat's reasoning and I recognise that there were alternative routes that she could have taken as outlined above. She chose to inflict genocide upon her own people after deciding to write them off in favour of fawning over the Sundered instead.

I'm not going to suddenly change my mind and proclaim that genocide is perfectly acceptable so long as it is done a certain way and at this point, after a fair bit of me stating that it's fine to agree to disagree I find it pretty strange to see attempts to change what is obviously a strongly held belief. Over a fictional event, no less.

At this point, I'm pretty much just awaiting the upcoming Live Letter so we can get an indication of the upcoming story. I'm pretty excited to have my character become an adventurer again and I look forward to fighting more 'humble' threats for a while.

[Lauront]

1 - The Ancients weren't shown to be unwilling to listen to reason when it came to working to the benefit of Etheirys. Even when Emet-Selch was sceptical of the story told to him by the player character, he vowed to take it seriously since it was his sworn duty as a member of the Convocation. A key point to remember is that Venat wrote off the Ancients based on information she had available that would have helped them. Nor was it ever a guarantee that they were fated to destroy themselves - it was very much framed as her opinion, rather than an inevitable conclusion.

On point 1. this is in fact shown throughout the Elpis sidequests, where many of the ancients will willingly adapt new practices or insights where they think they make sense. She and Hermes may have harboured certain beliefs about their people, but the sidequests paint a more complex picture. Even the whole debate over the sacrifices of the "new life" was premised over the securing the best future for the star (which she herself concedes in 5.2 in Anamnesis Anyder.) So concrete evidence that their way of life could ultimately end in their doom might've swayed matters. Even the Scions (Y'shtola in particular) were sceptical about a situation like the Plenty ending in doom, until they saw it, so I think it's unrealistic to expect ancients who had seen so many ills wiped out over time through their efforts to just be convinced through mere words. Had they been given a full account and the chance to investigate further? Might've had another outcome.

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?

I thought this poster has a pretty interesting take on what truly motivated her, or at least swayed her, and in my view it is as you have worded it - through providing validation to her own deeply held beliefs. That scene where she discusses the future with you on the skybridge is where I got the impression that she may have been swayed to commit to preserving the timelines later on, and I think this only enhanced the dissatisfaction she had with her people's responses in the face of her words (their reactions were quite understandable given the circumstances and what they had actually been told.) I suspect though is that she was not prepared for what she'd end up seeing play out in practice, and that's why she becomes conflicted and apologetic over it, even if it gets the job done in the end. Anyway, I agree with your question about flipping the outcome (and you can do the same for the Rejoinings, beyond being instrumental parts of her plan, i.e. premise that their completion would've been necessary to drive back Meteion - would people then be comfortable with them?) Whatever the outcome, I think she at least acknowledges the harshness in it.

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.

On the other hand, something like Jenova, Lavos or the Creator would also have fit equally well. The star is rich in aether and souls after all. I had thought they'd have an internal collaborator though, a subversive type like Hermes. In essence, Meteion was corrupted by what she saw in the alien civilisations, but meh, still not what I hoped for.