Sundering stuff established in the Q&A

[Rulakir]

I didn't mean to derail the thread with my comment about lack of amusement in the MSQ. :P It was more thinking about the idea of Venat liking the sound of the sundered world better than theirs. We've done nothing but fight wars, primals, and almost die in the process of saving a post-apocalyptic world. Were I an Ancient listening to the WoL I'd be like, "Sounds awful, you should stay here." :P

[EaraGrace]

Nobody decided it was an "inescapable reality" except for Venat. It was two sentences of description from a hostile source with no further context whatsoever. If Venat decides that the extremely vague description of the Plenty is enough to classify as "honest" and "truthful", then yes, it's her honest and truthful opinion that the current way the Ancients live is Bad, and the Sundered is Better. And if anyone disagrees with her, that must mean they're not "looking honestly and truthfully" at their world - and took it upon herself to correct them. It's interesting that that's the fallen world Venat hooks on in particular, when many were described - but the ones that fell to war and conquest and disease don't seem to deter her from embracing a newly created world that suffers from those same afflictions. Again, it speaks to an inherent ideology - one that's probably slowly being consciously realized before our eyes - and a confirmation bias.

Except it’s not an ideology, it’s fact. No matter how many problems the Ancients solve, no matter how advanced they become, they will again find themselves suffering in one form or another. This is true of their universe and ours as well. To call it ideology is to make a grave mistake, that this truth can be avoided, and ignored. As she says, the Ancients did not eliminate suffering for all time, nor did they root out strife and conflict, instead “mankind was but spared it’s biting sting for a time.” Inevitably it would return, either from within like with Hermes, or without like Meteion and the Omicron.

Venat thinks of the ability to embrace suffering in terms of strength and weakness - those are her own terms. Those who can find "everlasting light in deepest despair" are "strong," and those who can't and succumb to the temptation of things being easier and with less sorrow, are "weak." And that the ability to not live according to that way of thinking bars one from "the path to true happiness." It's not simply about overcoming a specific obstacle. It truly is, to an extent, about virtue, about becoming strong, about a way of living. She talks about how our peoples' resilience in the face of hardship gives her heart - the condition for a strong people who "find a way forward" is, well, hardship. And, well, the suggestion her interpretation of a vague description is, to her, the equivalent of rejecting gravity or time - yeah, I think that about sums up the way she thinks, for better or worse.

At no point does she judge anyone as “weak.” The Ancients and the Convocation she outright refuses to speak badly of, even as they damn themselves and everyone else. When she compliments the Scions at the Mothercrystal, she does noting how each has felt and given into despair, yet resolved to fight all the same. And “finding a way forward” is about facing the reality of life. Once again, if suffering was not a constant she would not advocate for us to face it. But it does, and thus she we wishes us to confront it with both eyes open. To see the world how it is, and then endeavor to change it however we can. She loved the Ancient world, and there’s no indication she views the Sumdered one as preferable. In fact it’s the opposite, when we retell the story of what will happen she remarks that it will “bring death to all I hold dear.” When she does Sunder the world she states that she does so “in spite of, or perhaps because of” her love for people. She says this due to her belief that the Sundering is necessary for survival, but not a good thing given what it will do to the world she loves.

If it was about a specific action, she wouldn't be tying it to Hermes's emotional state. She relates to his anguish, not his quirky nonconformity.

She relates to his frustration with the Ancients inflexibility. But anguish? No. Understanding where someone is coming from does not mean sharing in it.

It's an interesting speech, framed in inspiring ways - it's just that in hindsight, once you sort of pull back the vague terms in which she's speaking and the narrative framing, you can absolutely see the seeds of the elements that led her to choosing the path of Sundering and the subsequent Rejoinings. She thinks our world and our struggles sound cool and incredible and she wishes she could be there, and our world is one in which mankind's potential can shine, and that she had some kind of internal revelation that let her see and feel the world in a unique way she doesn't feel most others, sadly, share.

Perhaps this comes down to perspective then. I see her complimenting our world as her expressing admiration for how humanity stands in the face of darkness, but not stating it’s a better or preferred state to be in.

We are not her people. She keeps calling us "her children" just like Garuda did Ixal...

We have to keep in mind a square is a rectangle, but not all rectangles are squares. The Unsundered were human, as are the sundered. Different yes, but still members of the same group. If someone says “us Hrothgars” or “we Ala Mhigans” they aren’t saying they aren’t part of the same people as every other race.

[Lucida3b]

Most of my thoughts have been layed out in this thread or a few others

But to give my two cents, I Feel like one issue that is not heavily been talked about (as far as I can see anyway) is that Shadowbringers as noted goes for that moral/philosophical ambiguity, vs Endwalker going for 'this is the correct answer' at times, which results In a disconnect. (Along with how Endwalker makes or renders some parts of Shadowbringers a tad 'iffy' to say the least)

The former feels far more what Ishikawa does than the latter, and even Endwalker goes back and forth on this like with Alisaei noting that what could break some people could barely phase others In Ultima Thule. All of which makes me somewhat lean towards multiple writing ideas for venat OR Covid issues making polishing the writing a lot harder.

[KizuyaKatogami]

Most of my thoughts have been layed out in this thread or a few others

But to give my two cents, I Feel like one issue that is not heavily been talked about (as far as I can see anyway) is that Shadowbringers as noted goes for that moral/philosophical ambiguity, vs Endwalker going for 'this is the correct answer' at times, which results In a disconnect. (Along with how Endwalker makes or renders some parts of Shadowbringers a tad 'iffy' to say the least)

The former feels far more what Ishikawa does than the latter, and even Endwalker goes back and forth on this like with Alisaei noting that what could break some people could barely phase others In Ultima Thule. All of which makes me somewhat lean towards multiple writing ideas for venat OR Covid issues making polishing the writing a lot harder.

Yeah it feels like they dropped a lot of that ambiguity in comparison to shadowbringers which is such a shame. I feel like it was some personal biases that got in the way honestly. Especially with the way Yoshi P emphasized how much time they supposedly spent on Venat/Hydaelyn and how she made him cry etc.

[Kyohei]

Might be, but I'm more of the mind that him wishing to "continue the hype of ShB" and thus deciding to wrap things up completely in 6.0 instead of 7.0 had a greater impact on how the story ended up.
When they had initially in mind to continue developing things and ending them in the span of two expansions then the final decision is to make everything in one...there is bound to be details left to be desired. Especially when working with tight deadlines, and covid issues impacting the team.

[Lucida3b]

Yeah it feels like they dropped a lot of that ambiguity in comparison to shadowbringers which is such a shame. I feel like it was some personal biases that got in the way honestly. Especially with the way Yoshi P emphasized how much time they supposedly spent on Venat/Hydaelyn and how she made him cry etc.

Yeah, Like shadowbringers with emet went with the whole 'you may be superior, but the moral cost of allowing your plan to go through is too high' from people like Alisaei or Y'shtola, so it honestly in some ways feels quite OOC for them to not be more critical of hydealyn/venat, not even including the stuff like the twins compassion for garlemald citizens as well.

I can also comment on her criticism on the whole dynamis and creation magic to be a bit funny, when as Ultima Thule shows that some basic creation magic can counteract the dynamis effect pretty hard, to the point where Meteoin seems to never even try again to delete them.

[KageTokage]

Honestly, I don't feel like Endwalker needed much to make it at least on par with Shadowbringers.

Its biggest detractors were the awkward pacing and the insanely convoluted time travel/causal loop they decided to use as their lazy resolution to the Hydaelyn/Zodiark conflict. In all seriousness I'm feeling like it was done specifically to avoid having to place too much effort into fleshing out Venat's motives when they could just attempt to justify it as "I did this because the future said so...oh, and dynamis".

[Lucida3b]

Honestly, I don't feel like Endwalker needed much to make it at least on par with Shadowbringers.

Its biggest detractors were the awkward pacing and the insanely convoluted time travel/causal loop they decided to use as their lazy resolution to the Hydaelyn/Zodiark conflict. In all seriousness I'm feeling like it was done specifically to avoid having to place too much effort into fleshing out Venat's motives when they could just attempt to justify it as "I did this because the future said so...oh, and dynamis".

Personally I dont think its the time travel itself is the primary issue, its the things the time travel is utilized for is the biggest issue (After all alexander has a timeloop vs the towers splitting of the timelines)

Which is obviously Venat/Hydealyn and the Sundering as said before, and even then the biggest issue is primarily the literal last 10-20 minutes of Elpis. And Honestly you can kinda see the threads of differing ideas at times if you wanna tinfoil hat slightly, as someone earlier noted on how they could've gone with the Elidibus thing and have Venat not really know who she was anymore. You could argue if there is a trace element of that maybe when Hydealyn had to take a moment to remember the WoL again, which feels a bit odd considering Hydealyns earlier appearance on the boat to sharlayan and the varying messages she does through Krile.

Honestly I feel like some of the apparent pushback outside of the character/story issues is just due to how tight and well written Shadowbringers was, the moment you went to the first it immediately layed out rules and justifications for currency, travel between worlds and several other things in a incredibly tightly well written way, so the sloppiness of parts of Endwalker stand out a lot

[KizuyaKatogami]

Personally I dont think its the time travel itself is the primary issue, its the things the time travel is utilized for is the biggest issue (After all alexander has a timeloop vs the towers splitting of the timelines)

Which is obviously Venat/Hydealyn and the Sundering as said before, and even then the biggest issue is primarily the literal last 10-20 minutes of Elpis. And Honestly you can kinda see the threads of differing ideas at times if you wanna tinfoil hat slightly, as someone earlier noted on how they could've gone with the Elidibus thing and have Venat not really know who she was anymore. You could argue if there is a trace element of that maybe when Hydealyn had to take a moment to remember the WoL again, which feels a bit odd considering Hydealyns earlier appearance on the boat to sharlayan and the varying messages she does through Krile.

Honestly I feel like some of the apparent pushback outside of the character/story issues is just due to how tight and well written Shadowbringers was, the moment you went to the first it immediately layed out rules and justifications for currency, travel between worlds and several other things in a incredibly tightly well written way, so the sloppiness of parts of Endwalker stand out a lot

I think it’s also the fact yknow, this is the ending expansion for a 10+ year arc, and it was delayed heavily. People probably thought they’d be getting the money’s worth and a semi coherent story. What we got was basically a story that the devs were tired of and just tried to wrap things up incredibly quickly with barely any acknowledgement and the loose threads are plentiful.

[Rulakir]

I think it’s also the fact yknow, this is the ending expansion for a 10+ year arc, and it was delayed heavily. People probably thought they’d be getting the money’s worth and a semi coherent story. What we got was basically a story that the devs were tired of and just tried to wrap things up incredibly quickly with barely any acknowledgement and the loose threads are plentiful.

Additionally, it's the fact that the Hydaelyn & Zodiark saga is the foundation of the lore for the world and the team just seems to want to be done with it. Any unanswered questions or unaddressed plot points? Too bad, we're not doing that anymore. Not to mention that despite it being billed as a 10 year arc the Ascians and their motivations were only fleshed out in ShB. It's more like a 2 year story that abruptly came to an end because Yoshi-P specifically seemed to be tired of it since Ishikawa mentioned going to 7.0 or 8.0.

I don't understand it either because the story and its characters were popular. I'd like to know what the team dislikes about it so much that they're in such a rush to do something new when it seems like at least half or more of the playerbase didn't want to be finished with it yet.