Sundering stuff established in the Q&A

[Brinne]

If Venat's ideology resonates with you and enriches your perspective of life and inspires you to live more fully, that's great, and I'm happy the character and the expansion works so well for you. At the same time, I do hope you can have some level of understanding why a fair number of people, who may be struggling with their own experiences with specific levels of trauma or disability, would find an ideology that amounts to, in the context of coping with extreme suffering, "the strong triumph and survive and the weak are doomed and die; those who choose to be strong pass a test demonstrating they have the right to live, the weak who succumb to temptation have failed it" extremely troubling.

Like I've said, I don't actually think this was the actual intent of the writers in terms of theme as a whole; I think that this was largely a "whoops!" in regards to Venat's character specifically because they were attempting to juggle so, so many balls with her. But it's still what has wound up, in its final form, emerging from her text. People have a right to interrogate this, you know? And hope that the writers of a story they've loved and been invested in for a long time recognize what's happened, and address it in some way.

[Lauront]

Agreed, and once more, this is a commercial product that is charging a monthly fee and prides itself on its story. Much as there may be the urge to tell some fans what to do with their feedback (I believe more so on the part of certain posters than the writers themselves), businesses can ill afford to simply disregard it, particularly ones like SE which encourage heavy fan engagement. A lot of the feedback here is well articulated and is premised on a strong understanding of the story, and up to now at least, some measure of enjoyment of it, even if for different reasons for all of us, such that "go watch that cutscene again" isn't going to cut it. We've seen the cutscenes and the dialogue at this point, and even if the writers desire a certain interpretation in certain cases, they can by no means compel it, and Yoshi at the very least - from his interviews - has always accepted and acknowledged that fact. The Q&A resolved some questions and left others in people's minds, so it's not a one and done.

[Rulakir]

Well, most ideologies are divisive. The issue has always been in how Venat was portrayed. The only people who hated her (that we've seen) were the Ascians, although, I'm curious what the souls released from Zodiark think. I've seen it said the WoL & Scions didn't have a reason to because she was benefiting them, but that certainly hasn't stopped people from condemning the actions of the past even if they're where they are because of them. You can't use the excuse of them having a different morality either, she knew what she was doing was unkind and unjust. Had we treated her as someone we begrudgingly had to work with, who created a situation we had no choice but to see through, then it might've been different.

[Cleretic]

If Venat's ideology resonates with you and enriches your perspective of life and inspires you to live more fully, that's great, and I'm happy the character and the expansion works so well for you. At the same time, I do hope you can have some level of understanding why a fair number of people, who may be struggling with their own experiences with specific levels of trauma or disability, would find an ideology that amounts to, in the context of coping with extreme suffering, "the strong triumph and survive and the weak are doomed and die; those who choose to be strong pass a test demonstrating they have the right to live, the weak who succumb to temptation have failed it" extremely troubling.

Like I've said, I don't actually think this was the actual intent of the writers in terms of theme as a whole; I think that this was largely a "whoops!" in regards to Venat's character specifically because they were attempting to juggle so, so many balls with her. But it's still what has wound up, in its final form, emerging from her text. People have a right to interrogate this, you know? And hope that the writers of a story they've loved and been invested in for a long time recognize what's happened, and address it in some way.

And similarly, I hope that people who think the Convocations/Ascians were right know that there are those who find their worldview to be somewhere ranging from 'tragically misguided' to 'abhorrent', and no attempts at both-sides-ism will ever equalize that load. Nor, perhaps do they even think that 'equality' was ever a question in this; that objection to the Ascians doesn't inherently mean agreement with Venat.

[Lucida3b]

There is a difference between backseating and pointing out writing issues however, like objectively if you start to think about the end of elpis cutscene it literally does not make sense canonically with all the info we go

[KageTokage]

That cutscene is not meant to be taken literally and is just a condensed and metaphorical version of the events that transpired during/after the Final Days, though nonetheless still a bit confusing at first glance.

I still was really hoping we'd have actually gotten to see the battle between Hydaelyn and Zodiark, though.

[Cleretic]

I thought it was pretty clear that it wasn't a literal depiction of events. You've got the part where Venat, Emet and Hythlodaeus all completely passively go past a man getting eaten by a monster (which I can kinda believe Emet would do, but not Venat or Hythlodaeus), but there's also the transition between Venat walking through the pain of the End of Days to her meeting thew crowd of distraught Ancients, which clearly can't just be her walking because she crosses a chasm.

Easy peasy.

Can we not? Seriously, this is just pathetic, and it doesn't make anyone, least of all you, look good.

[Absimiliard]

I'm not so sure even Emet-Selch would walk by one of his people getting eaten by a monster and not do something. Remember, he was a genuinely good person back then despite the harsh exterior he maintained. A far cry from the Ascian the WoL dealt with in the First, and certainly far too devoted to his people to just watch them suffer without lifting a hand.

Also: What was even the point in the ad homimage a few posts above? I'm assuming it was bait.

[KizuyaKatogami]

My question is, after all the rage and disagreement with us getting a biased telling of events in ShB from Emet…why do the exact same with Venat? What does that really show lol, or add. Especially when we know said memories can be malleable. Why didn’t we get a pic from someone like say, Elidibus who was trying to play mediator at that point.

[Lauront]

That cutscene is not meant to be taken literally and is just a condensed and metaphorical version of the events that transpired during/after the Final Days, though nonetheless still a bit confusing at first glance.

I still was really hoping we'd have actually gotten to see the battle between Hydaelyn and Zodiark, though.

When combined with the time travel aspect, it managed to confuse quite a few people as to whether it was effectively a retcon. IMO, the worse aspect of it is the confusion it caused around the disagreement between the factions - given that Yoshi is still referring back to the Anyder scene with reference to her summoners, it is quite clear the SHB source material is still relevant (indeed, is required) to obtain context beyond what was included in that scene, so I think that poster's point remains valid. I'd like to have seen what Kizuya mentioned, and showing the sundering of Zodiark, the star and everyone on it.