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

[Rulakir]

When?

I didn't choose a single positive option for Hermes, so it's based on what I recall from streamers. I know if you choose "Next time, we will find the answer together." at the end of the Aitiascope he says: "You have every right to hate me. For the fool I was, for the monster I became. But I will not beg forgiveness. The tale of Hermes - the man who knew so much, yet understood so little - ends here."

If anything, the pre-Sundering cutscene showed that most Ancients had become horribly unhinged by the Final Days.

That cutscene wasn't an accurate depiction of events and it was from Venat's biased POV. Even if we were to take it at face value, the Final Days was an apocalypse. Sauntering in and telling people they're not handling their trauma and grief the way you think they should is next levels of tone-deafness.

[CrownySuccubus]

I didn't choose a single positive option for Hermes, so it's based on what I recall from streamers. I know if you choose "Next time, we will find the answer together." at the end of the Aitiascope he says: "You have every right to hate me. For the fool I was, for the monster I became. But I will not beg forgiveness. The tale of Hermes - the man who knew so much, yet understood so little - ends here."

Yeah, that's not an apology. That's the OPPOSITE of an apology. That's "Okay, yeah, I fucked up, and I was way dumber than I thought. But I'm not gonna ask for forgiveness. YOLO, brah!"

That cutscene wasn't an accurate depiction of events and it was from Venat's biased POV. Even if we were to take it at face value, the Final Days was an apocalypse. Sauntering in and telling people they're not handling their trauma and grief the way you think they should is next levels of tone-deafness.

Not sure where you're getting the "this was from Venat's POV" argument from. This was a vision of their own timeline's history given to the WOL -- we have no reason not to trust it as events that happened. And if we do, then that throws literally everything about it into question.

But yes, Venat's counterargument was stupid. But, assuming we're going to trust that this is what happened, the Ancients were too far gone. Again, if we're questioning the integrity of the scene, then literally none of it matters.

[Rulakir]

Not sure where you're getting the "this was from Venat's POV" argument from. This was a vision of their own timeline's history given to the WOL -- we have no reason not to trust it as events that happened. And if we do, then that throws literally everything about it into question.

Nothing about that scene follows events as we know them. There was no group of people who sacrificed themselves for Venat to become Hydaelyn and there was no grand battle between Hydaelyn and Zodiark. The sundering also happened after the world had been restored via the second sacrifice (which Venat made no attempt to stop), the Final Days is still occurring in the background when she approaches the group of strawmen who are begging Zodiark to restore their world.

I shouldn't even say it's Venat's POV beyond her low opinion of her brethren because none of that cutscene is accurate to history as we know it. I've heard it called a montage, an abridged version, etc. Whatever it is, it was not literal and certainly not meant to be taken as such.

[Brinne]

That montage is why I'm sometimes willing to go as far as to use "propaganda" in regards to the apologism. A deliberately emotionally stirring, abstracted, "symbolic" version of events meant to justify a violent act where none of the events depicted actually happened as shown.

With that in mind, even putting aside "lol apologism propaganda" hot takes, I've always thought that presentation was at least "cowardly" on a narrative level by relying on faceless strawmen as Venat's opposition and what "forced" her to do the Sundering, making irrational arguments that none of the actual named Ancient characters we know would make. Can't believe these guys, representative of Ancients in general, were so far gone they just forced poor Venat's hand, etc, etc. Try to mentally replace Emet-Selch or Themis in that scene, debating Venat, and boy does it fall apart fast.

[CrownySuccubus]

Yeah, Occam's Razor suggests that that scene was yet another retcon, along side Venat's "faction" sundering the world to keep Zodiark in check, and Tempering being an intentional defect of the Ascian's design instead of what primals inherently do.

Because if this was Venat's own self-propaganda, the "I did this with the blessings of other like-minded Ancients who believed their brothers had gone too far" would have helped her case.

But yeah, the entire scene was just stupid. Like you said, it throws the Ancients under the bus to make Venat "right". If Elpis had done its job properly and actually made the Ancients feel "scary", like intended, that scene wouldn't have been necessary. But no, they had to try one last time to drive in the "Ancients bad" nail and it "succeeded" only by way of character assassination.

Elpis in general was just a disaster of writing. All of the flaws that exist in EW can be traced back to the decision to go there and then come up with some sort of plot device (Memory-Wiping Tech that only Hermes knows about/can use! How convenient!) to justify why the rest of FFXIV still happens.

[Rulakir]

Can't believe these guys, representative of Ancients in general, were so far gone they just forced poor Venat's hand, etc, etc. Try to mentally replace Emet-Selch or Themis in that scene, debating Venat, and boy does it fall apart fast.

It completely ignores that "no small number" were against the 3rd sacrifice too. I can't help but be reminded of Sodom and Gomorrah where Lot pleaded with God if he could find just 10 righteous people would he spare destroying the cities. Venat apparently had a lot more than that and it wasn't enough for her.

Plus, the sundering happening after Elidibus had exited Zodiark to mediate is also a bad look. I can understand it from a strategic point, what better time to go after Zodiark than when he's sans pilot, but it's also implied they were in the middle of negotiations when she went on the attack. It lends further credence to the belief that it didn't matter what any of the Ancients did, she'd already determined they needed to be 'reset' for their own good.

It's also why The Plenty irritates me because it's based on the premise that the events at Elpis didn't happen. The Ancients were never going to be the same after the Final Days no matter how hard they tried and we'll likely never know what would have happened had Venat simply been honest with everyone. They built up Ancient society as one that thrived on debate, yet both Venat and Hermes make executive decisions for the whole race with the writers claiming it's just a very Ancient thing to do.

[Brinne]

Because if this was Venat's own self-propaganda, the "I did this with the blessings of other like-minded Ancients who believed their brothers had gone too far" would have helped her case.

Ah, but if we had seen/been reminded that Venat had a number of supporters among the Ancients, that would have undermined her argument that the Ancients as a race were just incapable of change, all of them just too far gone. And it wouldn't have allowed us the tragic, powerful imagery of her standing all alone against the world and then wading by herself through its mire and plague.

It's less a retcon--the Q&A brought up Hydaelyn having a faction again, IIRC--but it is a very, very deliberately manipulative presentation. Hence, "propaganda" that I can't help but be, uh, pretty grossed out by.

Plus, the sundering happening after Elidibus had exited Zodiark to mediate is also a bad look. I can understand it from a strategic point, what better time to go after Zodiark than when he's sans pilot, but it's also implied they were in the middle of negotiations when she went on the attack.

JUSTICE FOR TH--[gunshot]

[CrownySuccubus]

It completely ignores that "no small number" were against the 3rd sacrifice too. I can't help but be reminded of Sodom and Gomorrah where Lot pleaded with God if he could find just 10 righteous people would he spare destroying the cities.

To be fair, I find God's methodology there to be stupid, also, but I digress.

I think Venat's faction (if it can truly be called that) was in a pretty hefty minority that would not have been able to stop the third wave of sacrifices. Again, I wish the story had shown us that 1) Venat had told someone (ANYONE) about the truth but they simply ignored it and 2) the faction came to a consensus together rather than Venat making the decision all by herself. But as Brinne said, they declined doing that because the image wasn't emotional enough.

Just bad writing through and thorugh.

[Brinne]

I would say I have two layers of objections to the writing approach to the Ancients in EW: the first is the very premise of "sometimes enacting the annihilation of an entire race of people is, in fact, justified and for the greater good!" is not where I wanted this to go to begin with. That is the biggest level of Do Not Want, Oh God, No Thank You, I Loved Shadowbringers For Specifically Not Doing This, Why.

But hell, if we're going there, the second layer on top of that that is: well, we sure went there, and the execution was terrible. "Unconvincing" would be a generous description of it on several levels. So between the two, the dissonance reaches critical mass, I lose my mind, start making awkward walls of text on forums I was certain I'd never post in, and meanwhile succumb to the wholesale yearning of narrative junk food for the very rare piece of lore worldbuilding I truly fell in love with, along with the characters within. We'd better be able to do something for poor Themis or I may actually evolve into a ravenous three-headed monster whose only purpose is chaos and destruction.

[Syln]

Story enjoyer here, take my like since i'm too lazy to make an appraisal topic :3