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

[Theodric]

Calling out posters who conveniently only show up to make snippy comments is hardly equal to getting one's knickers in a twist.

[KizuyaKatogami]

Dont get your knickers in a twist my guy. Ive already posted my two cents on this issue manu posts ago. Funny how you couldve easily ignored my previous post but instead I somehow struck a nerve or something?

1.Not your guy
2.Your comment contributed nothing to the debate, and instead is trying to derail conversation. Again, i get you disagree with criticism of the beloved expansion, but making comments like that is unnecessary. It isn’t the first time either which is why i’m addressing it.

[Brinne]

Interesting! Thanks for sharing. I'm curious, if you don't mind elaborating, does it have to do with her violating people's rights?

I mean, I can’t actually speak for my friends, of course, but it’s fair to say we’re all fiercely progressive – many identifying as some variety of socialist - and almost all of us had varying levels of contempt for Venat (the person I would say was most “friendly” to her was so in a “cheerfully-acknowledging-she’s-a-comically-terrible-person” sort of way) – a few of them were legitimately, deeply, infuriated by the walking montage scene. Myself, I was so uneasy with the dissonance of Venat’s narrative presentation and her actions that the segment of the game between her montage and Zenos showing up at the very end (praise Zenos) was probably the most actively unpleasant experience thus far playing FFXIV for me – which I have been for almost ten years now - and my discomfort seemed to pale next to theirs.

I think it’s a mixture of things. As far as in-universe reasoning goes, Venat’s philosophy of embracing “strength” and more or less choosing to cull those who couldn’t live up to her ideals of “strength” rubbed us the wrong way. I suppose you could say that she expected the Ancients – and the Sundered, in many ways – to survive and thrive in conditions of hardship, to just toughen up, with their social support systems cut off and destroyed. She was full of praise for the ones able to make it, and the ones who couldn’t were, alas, an unfortunate loss at best, succumbing to weakness. Their fates are their individual responsibilities. One of my friends joked that “wow, she really told the Ancients to just bootstrap.” Venat has a focus on internal grit and the strong surviving, so to speak, and it has some overlap (to my/our perception) with something we have an inherent and fairly deep distaste for in the bigger picture, and find often translates into callousness and excuses to turn away from the needs and humanity of others less privileged. tldr; Venat is basically a Social Darwinist, do not want, lol.

The other part is a bit meta-textual. Many of us were fairly enamored with Shadowbringers because of its case for nonjudgmental empathy, for reaching out and understanding others – both individually and culturally – and respecting them, even if they were different from us. We had a fair few discussions about how Amaurot was remarkable for taking a long-worn fantasy trope – the extinct ancient civilization, often used to prop up the “modern” version of humanity – and filling it was such a degree of humanity and empathy. Rather than falling on any number of traditional Othering tropes in this context, they balanced a genuine urge to see them as people, with as much a right to live as we did, along with having a legitimately distinct and interesting culture. (I loved learning about Amaurot’s culture and sucked up every tidbit we could get like a high-speed vacuum cleaner. I’m actually not much of a world lore person, generally – my focus is usually on characterization and such – but FFXIV’s Amaurot might be one of the first/only times my brain actually got hooked on Lore in that sense.)

But we really valued that. We fundamentally rejected the idea of seeing the Ancients as the “Other,” a group alien and Not Like Us that it could justify or soften the idea of seeing them subjected to violence (or subjecting them to violence ourselves). FFXIV, at the time, seemed to reject them as empty fodder to teach a Valuable Lesson or Warning for the protagonists. The most precious thing about them in terms of narrative construction is the way Shadowbringers truly and sincerely urged us to see ourselves in them, and vice-versa, and thus mourn the meaningless cruelty they were subjected to.

Venat’s narrative upends this. Suddenly the focus, from her perspective, is on the flaws of the Ancients, how, alas, they were indeed fated to doom themselves on a Thematic Lesson Basis. What was done to them was used to augment Venat’s “determination” and her “hard decisions.” The fury of one friend in particular over the montage sequence was based around how it was contorting itself to uplift the struggles of Venat as a tragic individual, asking us to focus on her perspective and how much the Sundering was hurting her, and used everyone she had killed and subjected to suffering as narrative accessories for her noble torment.

Second tldr; we tend to find protagonist-centric morality at the expense of the masses really distasteful; Great Man Theory gtfo, never, ever look away from the humanity and consequences to other people at large and in the margins, challenge and dismantle exceptionalist thought, etc, etc.

[Atelier-Bagur]

Didnt realize this thread was catered solely specific to your personal conversations. Last I checked this is a forum where anyone can post whatever they want and dont need a validation on what they can or cant comment on.

[KizuyaKatogami]

Didnt realize this thread was catered solely specific to your personal conversations. Last I checked this is a forum where anyone can post whatever they want and dont need a validation on what they can or cant comment on.

You’re free to engage in discussion and contribute. The problem lies when there isn’t contribution being made and instead attempted derailment, especially when it’s a continuous thing. It’s not about my personal conversations it’s about everyone in here who wants to engage in an actual discussion which is what these forums are for. Not little quips because you disagree with criticism.

[Atelier-Bagur]

You’re free to engage in discussion and contribute. The problem lies when there isn’t contribution being made and instead attempted derailment, especially when it’s a continuous thing. It’s not about my personal conversations it’s about everyone in here who wants to engage in an actual discussion which is what these forums are for. Not little quips because you disagree with criticism.

Again you couldve just easily ignored my comment. Didnt mean to cause such an uproar over nothing.

[PawPaw]

snip

I loved reading this, thank you so much for sharing. As someone who would also identify as quite progressive, I absolutely loathed Venat's actions, so not sure if any blanket tendencies of political or ideological leanings can be applied to this. It just seems to be down to the individual.

[Lauront]

I mean, I can’t actually speak for my friends, of course, but it’s fair to say we’re all fiercely progressive – many identifying as some variety of socialist - and almost all of us had varying levels of contempt for Venat (the person I would say was most “friendly” to her was so in a “cheerfully-acknowledging-she’s-a-comically-terrible-person” sort of way) – a few of them were legitimately, deeply, infuriated by the walking montage scene. Myself, I was so uneasy with the dissonance of Venat’s narrative presentation and her actions that the segment of the game between her montage and Zenos showing up at the very end (praise Zenos) was probably the most actively unpleasant experience thus far playing FFXIV – which I have been for almost ten years now - for me, and my discomfort seemed to pale next to theirs.

I think it’s a mixture of things. As far as in-universe reasoning goes, Venat’s philosophy of embracing “strength” and more or less choosing to cull those who couldn’t live up to her ideals of “strength” rubbed us the wrong way. I suppose you could say that she expected the Ancients – and the Sundered, in many ways – to survive and thrive in conditions of hardship, to just toughen up, with their social support cut off. She was full of praise for the ones able to make it, and the ones who couldn’t were, alas, an unfortunate loss at best, succumbing to weakness. Their fates are their individual responsibilities. One of my friends joked that “wow, she really told the Ancients to just bootstrap.” Venat has a focus on internal grit and the strong surviving, so to speak, and it has some overlap (to my/our perception) with something we have an inherent and fairly deep distaste for in the bigger picture, and find often translates into callousness and excuses to turn away from the needs and humanity of others less privileged. tldr; Venat is basically a Social Darwinist, do not want, lol.

My biggest issue with it all is that, while I consider the bolded to be fine ideals in the right circumstances, the test Hermes was administering was 1) manifestly unfair and 2) merely sadistic pettiness on his part. He was taking their approach to integrating creations into the star and using it to lash out at them and all creation. As for Venat using this test as the platform for affirming her own views, it's why I like your analysis of her character as succumbing to a romanticisation of "suffering" in the sundered world and thus hinging all her hopes on a singular character, or at least small group thereof, because the sundered as a whole would fail both Hermes's test, as well as her own - the latter in the event that they did not receive plenty of extrinsic aid. Like her finally spilling the beans on what the cause of the Final Days was, a truth she withheld from her people, such that they never got to consider this issue and think about better/other ways to address it.

The other part is a bit meta-textual. Many of us were fairly enamored with Shadowbringers because of its case for nonjudgmental empathy, for reaching out and understanding others – both individually and culturally – and respecting them, even if they were different from us. We had a fair few discussions about how Amaurot was remarkable for taking a long-worn fantasy trope – the extinct ancient civilization, often used to prop up the “modern” version of humanity – and filling it was such a degree of humanity and empathy. Rather than falling on any number of traditional Othering tropes in this context, they balanced a genuine urge to see them as people along with having a legitimately distinct and interesting culture. (I loved learning about Amaurot’s culture and sucked up every tidbit we could get like a high-speed vacuum cleaner. I’m actually not much of a world lore person, generally – my focus is usually on characterization and such – but FFXIV’s Amaurot might be one of the first/only times my brain actually got hooked on Lore in that sense.)

Exactly, and they further fleshed them out in Elpis sidequests, so much so that some of the EW MSQ stuff seems like caricatures by comparison, ending up in service of propping up the sundered (but only if you squint enough.)

Even though I'm not in the least bit on the progressive spectrum, I can agree with many if not most of the points you articulated. There is something deeply wrong to me in destroying one's own society entirely just because said person dislikes certain aspects of it or deems it "necessary".

The societies which would, on an on-going basis, meet her "test", if we were to take it literally, are not particularly appealing ones to me, either.

[Atelier-Bagur]

Alright Im gonna again bring this point up because Im seeing yet again many people condemning Venats actions against the Ancients and its getting a little bloated imo.

Just one simple question and Im just interested to see people's answers to this.

If Venat didnt sunder the world and allowed the Convocation to summon Zodiark....what would that have accomplished?

The Ancients were stubborn in their ways to a fault and desperate to seek their salvation they sought to sacrifice their own kind to summon a primal that ultimately wouldnt have save their star from total annihilation from Meteion's Song of Oblivion.

Those sacrificed souls wouldve been consumed for literally nothing. And thanks to how we've seen Zodiark behave I doubt he wouldve just stopped consuming more souls to preserve himself. Forget the morality and ethics about the premise.

Just again... seriously answer me this question. If Venat didnt stop the Convovaction from their summoning, what wouldve that ultimately accomplished?

[Lauront]

No offence, but are we even playing the same story? Summoning Zodiark is integral to her plan...