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

[Brinne]

I think what it comes down to, for me, is that I really can't buy that the aspects of Endwalker that cross into "oh god what is this?" territory stem from anything actually fundamentally based in cultural expression or exploring themes. Again, I think the bulk of FFXIV and its messaging actually stands starkly at odds with the Venat Strangeness, which is part of what adds to the Titanic-levels of uncomfortable dissonance.

It's not really about culture, and it's not even about themes. Goal number one was to make you like Hydaelyn. It's that simple and that crass. Earlier plot points they established, while winging it with no real plan in mind, made it so that Hydaelyn destroyed the world and the Ancient society that the audience ended up way more in love with and sympathetic to than most of the team had expected. So if you need to be made to like Hydaelyn after that, well, she NEEDS to have a "good reason" to have killed all of those people. What would be a "good reason" to kill the Ancients? Well... we established they were good people with a good society, so what if they were... too good? And what if being too good... was bad!?

So in the end, the route they hit upon to make Hydaelyn sympathetic and worthy of your support was making it so the Ancients were "bad" for being "too good," and thus we end up with "suffering good, bettering societal conditions bad, bam, Hydaelyn justified. Now look at how hard it was for her to kill all those people."

I honestly think, at this point, it's that simple - and it bears out with the sort of baffled "look we were kinda just winging this, okay?" tone the writers have taken when pressed further about the story. I would not say "theme" in the sense EW tried to pursue was a strong point - or even seemed to be a primary concern - for FFXIV up until Shadowbringers, which seems to have been largely Ishikawa's individual effort that largely slipped under Yoshida's notice, given his confusion to its reception.

EDIT:

They literally went out of their way to show that the denizens of Elpis treated most of their creations tenderly and with respect and affection. Like... why? Why undercut the points you're trying to make so much? Why undercut it at every turn? They were inches away from nailing it completely if they just chose not to include a few lines of dialogue or change the portrayal of certain characters just a little bit.

I just remember how, even in the midst of Hermes's angry rants, he still mentions that the Ancients go out of their way to make it quick and painless for the creations they put down. He's just still upset that they have to die to begin with. You'd think this would be the setup for an FFIX-ish theme where the antagonist learns to cope with and accept death, and that argument could have been made if Venat hadn't essentially taken his side, lmao.

The FFX talk is also interesting, especially when you consider FFX was voted as the most beloved Final Fantasy game of all time in Japan.

[CrownySuccubus]

(snip)

I mean, this talk is basically backing up my point that the writers chose to try to portray Venat as "good" or "justified" in her genocide is with the "they couldn't accept suffering/death" card.

"Not being able to accept suffering/death is bad" is literally the main motivation of the villain of FFIII, two villains in FFIX, several villains in FFX, and the final antagonist of the FFXIII trilogy, and so on. Also, main villain of the very first FF sought immortality, the main villain of FFIV wanted to prolong his society at the expense of the Earth, and the villain of FFVI thought life was meaningless because death is inevitable.

Where they failed is by not making the Ancients or their society bad enough to justify it. Then, they even tried to throw in a few dead planets to double down on "See?! This is what THEY would have been like!"

[Brinne]

I mean, my fundamental objection would be the very premise, especially after Shadowbringers (not that it wouldn't be bad anywhere, but Shadowbringers explicitly went out of its way to humanize these people - they're hardly LotR orcs or such), of trying to "justify" the genocide to begin with. When you're asking "how do you justify this genocide?" in seriousness, I think it's likely you're already probably heading down the wrong path, as far as storytelling goes.

And of course, I'm sure we'd agree that the idea of "the Ancients can't accept death" gets very tripped up in the particulars of the storyline, such as their ritual ABOUT "accepting death" having the expectation of being met with horror from the audience, or Venat's motivation centering around her being unable to accept the possible end of her world, in the far future.

[linayar]

When you're asking "how do you justify this genocide?" in seriousness, I think it's likely you're already probably heading down the wrong path, as far as storytelling goes.

I don't think the story is trying to justify genocide.

Yoshida said that the current playable races are descendants of the Ancients, their current forms did not take shape until afterward, meaning the Ancients were not killed in the sundering.

That's why Venat speaks of mankind's future, meaning she sees both the unsundered Ancients and their sundered descendants as being the same people.

[Brinne]

I don't think the story is trying to justify genocide.

Yoshida said that the current playable races are descendants of the Ancients, their current forms did not take shape until afterward, meaning the Ancients were not killed in the sundering.

That's why Venat speaks of mankind's future, meaning she sees both the unsundered Ancients and their sundered descendants as being the same people.

I'm not really interested in rehashing this for about the millionth time in the thread, so all I will say is:

You can interpret things how you like, and the story is obviously consciously avoiding saying outright that Venat "killed" the Ancients to soften her actions, but it's probably going to be a long and difficult road to come anywhere close to convincing me that destroying an individual's body, soul, memories, history, culture, civilization, relationships, and reducing the lifespan of what is left to a tiny fraction of what it once was is meaningfully different from "killing."

[Skyborne]

This reminded me of a ridiculous comment I saw on Reddit calling Elpis a slaughterhouse. I thought, wow, must be nice to be so ignorant of what truly happens in slaughterhouses or in animal testing. Elpis was an absolute paradise for all creatures by comparison. Truly a horror show.

Or that one shade in Amaurot who talks about what an honor and a responsbility creation magic is, and how he wants to improve himself and the world around him. Noooo, stop! You're supposed to be the MUH HUBRIS MUH DECADANCE stereotype who falls in order to make me feel better about myself!

I just remember how, even in the midst of Hermes's angry rants, he still mentions that the Ancients go out of their way to make it quick and painless for the creations they put down. He's just still upset that they have to die to begin with. You'd think this would be the setup for an FFIX-ish theme where the antagonist learns to cope with and accept death, and that argument could have been made if Venat hadn't essentially taken his side, lmao.

The FFX talk is also interesting, especially when you consider FFX was voted as the most beloved Final Fantasy game of all time in Japan.

You could probably liken Hermes' breakdown to something along the lines of Kuja destroying Terra in his tantrum as he's taunted with his eventual death... also, if FFX were written like 14, the main crew would all nod and agree with Yunalesca (who is 100% objectively right and the one hope of mankind). Yuna dies, the status quo is preserved for the Good of All. Lulu stops everyone every ten minutes to lecture. Also, Kimahri's ears are missing beneath his wig.

To play devil's advocate, I don't think this would be the case.

FF games have a fetish for "last time, the good guys could only 'seal' the villain away, but this time, these heroes are going for broke and either the villain dies or we all die". Which is, basically, what Venat did. She decided sealing the Final Days wasn't good enough and that the objectively good thing was to sunder the world so that there was even the smallest chance killing Meteion was possible.

At least, that's the story's logic anyway. Still would've been smarter to tell people Meteion existed.

True, just going for the tone of making us love a certain character who would be antagonistic in any other context. Feelings are the most important thing, after all!

[CrownySuccubus]

also, if FFX were written like 14, the main crew would all nod and agree with Yunalesca (who is 100% objectively right and the one hope of mankind). Yuna dies, the status quo is preserved for the Good of All. Lulu stops everyone every ten minutes to lecture. Also, Kimahri's ears are missing beneath his wig.

To play devil's advocate, I don't think this would be the case.

FF games have a fetish for "last time, the good guys could only 'seal' the villain away, but this time, these heroes are going for broke and either the villain dies or we all die". Which is, basically, what Venat did. She decided sealing the Final Days wasn't good enough and that the objectively good thing was to sunder the world so that there was even the smallest chance killing Meteion was possible.

At least, that's the story's logic anyway. Still would've been smarter to tell people Meteion existed.

[AziraSyuren]

So in the end, the route they hit upon to make Hydaelyn sympathetic and worthy of your support was making it so the Ancients were "bad" for being "too good," and thus we end up with "suffering good, bettering societal conditions bad, bam, Hydaelyn justified. Now look at how hard it was for her to kill all those people."

I honestly think, at this point, it's that simple - and it bears out with the sort of baffled "look we were kinda just winging this, okay?" tone the writers have taken when pressed further about the story. I would not say "theme" in the sense EW tried to pursue was a strong point - or even seemed to be a primary concern - for FFXIV up until Shadowbringers, which seems to have been largely Ishikawa's individual effort that largely slipped under Yoshida's notice, given his confusion to its reception.

I feel as though a lot of this dissonance was born from the writers trying WAY too hard to make every character except Zenos and Fandaniel (guess who I feel as though are the high points of the story) morally justified in their own way without considerations for cases in where the morality is 100% incompatible, i.e. Venat's actions aren't morally justifiable precisely because the Ancients' actions WERE. Almost every character is either morally or logically justified for their actions, or not entirely morally culpable for them, like Meteion- and arguably Zodiark and Hydaelyn themselves, depending on how much individuality was lost in the process of becoming a primal (it doesn't seem consistent)- as they were just following their programming.

Even Garlemald, who I don't feel like the story makes any yikesy apologetics for, can easily point to the actions of the Alliance in both past and present for reasons why they've either done such atrocities or refuse to play along with their attempts to help. In their case, even the contradictory morality is 100% resolved because the story doesn't bother (unless you take the words said at complete face value) painting them as correct so much as entirely understandable. But when it comes to Venat, the story goes through great lengths to attempt to paint both her and the Ancients as correct even though the story makes very little effort to justify Venat's actions relative to how unbelievably heinous they are, and much more importantly, how little the Ancients actually did wrong.

I mean, shit, they could've leaned much harder on the supposed flaws in Ancient society and portrayed them as heinous in their own right and they wouldn't have had to justify the Sundering nearly as much as they did(n't).

TI don't remember Emet-Selch confirming actual memory wipes for the Ancients. Does that have anything to do with Elidibus's memory as well?

They were literally stripped of their identities and split into 14 different parts. The idea that they were still themselves is an unfathomable stretch.