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

[CrownySuccubus]

I don't think a rejoining is going to happen. It's definitely not impossible, but one of Japan's chief cultural philosophies is Mono no Aware: "All things end/die."

Culturally speaking, they don't believe in any sense of permanence -- not even the afterlife is eternal. Even their kami will die someday. They have always viewed death and mortality as a good thing, especially when Zen Buddhism (the type of Buddhism practiced by samurai) became the reigning religion in the country.

I clearly made no mention that they weren't there. That's just you putting words in my mouth. I'll say it again: I'm just saying that they're not anywhere near the level of elaboration as you make it out to be. That's way different than saying "just because they did the themes BADLY does not mean the themes were not there."

You're right. It's NOT hard. Because as I said, the themes are NOT elaborate. I never said they were elaborate. My first reply to you literally said, "I don't really think I said anything elaborate." I flat out called the story high school in theming. I repeat: nothing about the story is elaborate, but the themes (as bad and lacking as they are) are still there.

You're right. You didn't say that. In fact nobody did. This is a textbook example of a red herring. Why resort to that? Why be disingenuous?

What are you talking about? When I said that you and I have been agreeing about the story all along, you acted like I was lying. What are you even on about?

Also you say "so yet again, it seems you are finally agreeing with what I said from the beginning." If you say that I'm agreeing with you then that gives legitimacy to my previous statement that "I don't think the writers were anywhere near the level of elaboration as you make it out to be" because I have not changed my stance.


But, I'm done here. Everything I bring up, you're just going to go back and try to say that what I meant was different or what you meant was different or you'll just resort to using a logical fallacy. Have a good day.

Again, I NEVER SAID THE WRITERS DID ANYTHING ELABORATE. All I did was describe how they attempted to make the Ancients morally-grey. We have proof that everything I said that they tried was, in fact, true. I never said that 1) it was elaborate, 2) it was successful, 3) it was good, 4) fans agreed with or liked it.

You are still agreeing with me on every point but just being contrarian for no good reason.

[Lauront]

Words cannot express how much I hate the concept of the sundering. I was "the world and everyone on it is incomplete" before we heard that from Emet and firmly #TeamRejoin

Similarly here.

Interesting, so that was as recent as 5.0.

Indeed - I believe it was from the Japanese fanfest. It's still preserved here.

[PawPaw]

Death is a needed just as much as life is.

I don't think anyone said that it wasn't. There was death before the Sundering, just not in the mass quantities that it occurs in now. Splitting the world into 14 and introducing forced mortality, disease and strife has caused almost the most death in the universe. Second only to the Hermes/Meteion duo if it is correct that Meteion "helped" many a civilization across the threshold of despair which led to their ends.

Edit: Not to mention creating 7 throwaway worlds that you knew would have to be destroyed in order to craft your perfect little "spark" of the future.

[Fiel_Tana]

As stated, the sundering is already responsible for the deaths of trillions. Even if the remaining ones were combined right now it wouldn't come close. I often wonder of the two who has the higher death count, Venat or Meteion.

I'd say Venat's death count is higher by far if she didn't tell anyone about Meteion (and that seems to be the case in the story) since that makes her ultimately responsible for any deaths caused by Meteion during those 12,000 years. Even if she'd told the ancients, the unsundered Ascians, any of the WoLs and / or anyone along the way and it turned out nothing could have been done, I'd feel that Meteion's death count would be higher than Venat's because at least she would have tried instead of waiting for her 'chosen one'.

[KizuyaKatogami]

Death is a needed just as much as life is.

Mass death isn’t needed though. People need to realize, the sundered world is unnatural. It isn’t the norm in this game setting. The ancient world is what is considered natural, so while it may seek unnatural to us because of the real world, in the game setting that isnt the case. The sundering wasn’t a natural event. Dying to illness isn’t a natural thing.

[NanaWiloh]

I don't think anyone said that it wasn't. There was death before the Sundering, just not in the mass quantities that it occurs in now. Splitting the world into 14 and introducing forced mortality, disease and strife has caused almost the most death in the universe. Second only to the Hermes/Meteion duo if it is correct that Meteion "helped" many a civilization across the threshold of despair which led to their ends.

Edit: Not to mention creating 7 throwaway worlds that you knew would have to be destroyed in order to craft your perfect little "spark" of the future.

More life =more death nothing new..

[CrownySuccubus]

I'd say Venat's death count is higher by far if she didn't tell anyone about Meteion (and that seems to be the case in the story) since that makes her ultimately responsible for any deaths caused by Meteion during those 12,000 years. Even if she'd told the ancients, the unsundered Ascians, any of the WoLs and / or anyone along the way and it turned out nothing could have been done, I'd feel that Meteion's death count would be higher than Venat's because at least she would have tried instead of waiting for her 'chosen one'.

Completely agree with you. I told a friend of mine while playing Endwalker that my biggest criticism of the Elpis storyline was that "It felt like everything that happens for the next 12,000 years would have been preventable if the characters were competent."

Mass death isn’t needed though. People need to realize, the sundered world is unnatural. It isn’t the norm in this game setting. The ancient world is what is considered natural, so while it may seek unnatural to us because of the real world, in the game setting that isnt the case. The sundering wasn’t a natural event. Dying to illness isn’t a natural thing.

Was this always the case, or did they simply learn how to eliminate disease through science?

Venat's "mankind was spared suffering for a short time" statement makes me believe that the Ancients might have been more mortal and vulnerable once.

[PawPaw]

More life =more death nothing new..

The robbing of the ability to choose when you die, plus the introduction of brief lifespans, disease, war and strife is what=more death. Even if there were 14 worlds full of Ancients with the ability to decide when they wished to return to the star you still wouldn't have the numbers incurred by the wanton destruction and forced aftermath of the Sundering.

[NanaWiloh]

Mass death isn’t needed though. People need to realize, the sundered world is unnatural. It isn’t the norm in this game setting. The ancient world is what is considered natural, so while it may seek unnatural to us because of the real world, in the game setting that isnt the case. The sundering wasn’t a natural event. Dying to illness isn’t a natural thing.

O.o *facepalms*

[CrownySuccubus]

O.o *facepalms*

I don't know, dude. Kizuya's making sense to me.

Just because death is inevitable doesn't mean it isn't delayable. Personally, I rather enjoy that humans have a life expectancy higher than 30 these days.