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

[Aneshda]

We never made a promise to Venat. She made a promise to our WoL, that's all. There is not a single Cutscene where the WoL made a promise. The same happens with Graha he says always we made a promise / he made a promise to us to visit Ishgard together.
I can't find any Cutscene where our WoL made any promise to him or where he made a promise to us. It is kinda irritating. It is like we read a Book and Page 151 is missing.

[CrownySuccubus]

We never made a promise to Venat. She made a promise to our WoL, that's all. There is not a single Cutscene where the WoL made a promise. The same happens with Graha he says always we made a promise / he made a promise to us to visit Ishgard together.
I can't find any Cutscene where our WoL made any promise to him or where he made a promise to us. It is kinda irritating. It is like we read a Book and Page 151 is missing.

With Graha, just before he "dies" as the Exarch, he begs the WOL to take his younger self with them on adventures, because he wants to be part of their story. I don't remember exactly how the PC reacts, but it's implied from the scene and the WOL rushing off to give the Exarch's memories to Graha later that the WOL "agreed" to do so.

[EaraGrace]

We never made a promise to Venat. She made a promise to our WoL, that's all. There is not a single Cutscene where the WoL made a promise. The same happens with Graha he says always we made a promise / he made a promise to us to visit Ishgard together.
I can't find any Cutscene where our WoL made any promise to him or where he made a promise to us. It is kinda irritating. It is like we read a Book and Page 151 is missing.

Right she’s referring to her promise to us, as she mentions in the quote you posted.

[Aneshda]

With Graha, just before he "dies" as the Exarch, he begs the WOL to take his younger self with them on adventures, because he wants to be part of their story. I don't remember exactly how the PC reacts, but it's implied from the scene and the WOL rushing off to give the Exarch's memories to Graha later that the WOL "agreed" to do so.

Whatever we said in the "past", where he had been the Exarch, that stays in the past, cause I hate Fanboy Graha so much. I wish we could just refuse to do any Adventure with some of the Scions we dislike.

[Erendis]

If only Venat had the same line of thinking as our FF13 protagonists. I guess thats why i just cant take Endwalker seriously. It kind of goes against past ff themes.

Venat herself said "nothing is impossible" and then we got what we got...

[KizuyaKatogami]

Venat herself said "nothing is impossible" and then we got what we got...

“Nothing is impossible.” Meanwhile she thinks it’s impossible for her people to avert their eventual “demise” and she commits mass genocide without telling anyone and keeps it all a secret…Meanwhile Yoshi P “How do you guys like and trust Emet and not Hermes?” It’s just clownery all around i swear.

[KageTokage]

In hindsight, another thing I found...strange is how the Ancients in the post-Elpis cutscene make no direct mention of wanting to bring back those lost in summoning Zodiark; only returning things to the way they once were, which would entail much more then just bringing back the sacrificed.

I feel like they could've easily used that to make the Sundering seem more justified if they entertained the notion of there being a tangible risk that Zodiark would've given in to unrestrained desires to right all the wrongs of the Final Days with potentially disastrous consequences for the star given that he seemed to operate on an "equivalent exchange" principle and could not enact drastic change without sufficient sacrifice. With Elidibus having already separated himself, he was, as Fandaniel put it, "a being of pure instinct, wanting for guidance".

[kpxmanifesto]

In hindsight, another thing I found...strange is how the Ancients in the post-Elpis cutscene make no direct mention of wanting to bring back those lost in summoning Zodiark; only returning things to the way they once were, which would entail much more then just bringing back the sacrificed.

I feel like they could've easily used that to make the Sundering seem more justified if they entertained the notion of there being a tangible risk that Zodiark would've given in to unrestrained desires to right all the wrongs of the Final Days with potentially disastrous consequences for the star given that he seemed to operate on an "equivalent exchange" principle and could not enact drastic change without sufficient sacrifice. With Elidibus having already separated himself, he was, as Fandaniel put it, "a being of pure instinct, wanting for guidance".

Now that's an interesting thought. If summoning zodiark had a chance of causing something to go completely wrong, then that would definitely make the sundering seem almost like an act of saving the ancients from destroying themselves.

[Lauront]

That is her logic at the end of the day, only framed in terms of 'mankind'. Nonetheless, in my view, even such an alternative approach still focuses too much on attempting to justify the erasure of their kind, when the Scions reject Emet-Selch's own approach in doing so. Frankly, if they tried to justify it in that way, I'd probably be even less satisfied with what we got. IMO, the best way to deal with it would have been to simply have it be accidental/prompted by third party manipulation. The post-Elpis scene is weird, because besides being stylised/a flash forward, also seems to be referring to the second stage, given the state of the skies and the fact that it appeared by all indications that they were sacrificing themselves. That stage also happens to be the one that corrected the star to a functioning state.

[CrownySuccubus]

Now that's an interesting thought. If summoning zodiark had a chance of causing something to go completely wrong, then that would definitely make the sundering seem almost like an act of saving the ancients from destroying themselves.

I think they (the writers) had tunnel vision on adding "grey" morality to the original Ancients, in order to contrast what Emet-Selch told us in SHB. Because graying the morality of Hydaelyn and Zodiark worked extremely well to SHB's benefit, so they figured they'd do it again. No, see, the Ancients weren't actually so benevolent that they sacrificed themselves so half their number can live...they just had twisted views about death. Zodiark's summoning wasn't JUST an attempt to save their star, but also an attempt to reclaim the "paradise" they thought they deserved. Just like in SHB, we were supposed to see this as a "no one is right -- every sun has its shadow" theme of moral relativism.

The problem, however, was that in SHB the "true villain" of the entire piece was a nebulous natural disaster. The Final Days at that point could have been a tornado or an earthquake, or space radiation, which makes the gray morality work because it was simply a force beyond control. But EW then not only gave the disaster a name and a face, it then upped the ante by attaching it to mankind's final boss: oblivion. And by doing that, they undid the attempt to create moral gray; because, by definition, anything that fights oblivion is objectively good. There's no other way around it because if oblivion wins, the story is over. The Ancients, unlike Emet Selch, weren't simply "wrong from our protagonist's POV" -- as far as the narrative is concerned, they're just flat out wrong. And, by extension, Venat is narratively right. What she did may not have been pretty or fair, but as far as the story's concerned, it was objectively the correct thing.

This explains why a lot of people liked EW's story up until Elpis. That story thread was the exact moment that any sense of moral gray or relativism was thrown out of the window. After Elpis, you either agree with Venat and the Scions and take the plot's lesson as it was intended...or you disagree with them and the plot starts to make little sense the more you scrutinize it.