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

[Theodric]

I didn't hate Zodiark's design, though I did raise an eyebrow at how little effort the writers put into reinforcing the idea that Zodiark was the one who did more than Hydaelyn to save Etheirys in both the past and the present...

It's kind of amusing, really - if not for stealing credit from the Ancients and Zodiark there really isn't much that Venat is responsible for that isn't an act of sabotage. In the end, it all came down to a small handful of individuals (one of whom already existed back in the Ancient world...) which were given every possible advantage all whilst being told that they were so brave and special because they endured a tiny fraction of the 'suffering' that the Ancients were subjected to.

I guess we'll see what they do with a Zodiark codex entry assuming they even bother to write one.

[AziraSyuren]

My main issue with "Light/Dark are two sides of the same coin" stories is what I said before: it almost always leads to false equivocating, and also survivorship biasing. Sure, it's possible to avoid these pitfalls, but just like the narrative problems created by clones and time travel, that becomes harder to do the more your story relies on it. And Endwalker is the perfect demonstration of that.

False equivocating leads to apologism like "It's okay that this terrible thing happened, because it enabled this other good thing, despite being in no way necessary, equal or related". And survivorship bias leads to stuff like, "We're glad that the bad stuff happened, because the outcome benefitted everybody who survived it".

Both of these flaws are the basic root of almost everyone's problems with Endwalker's story.

It's because of this that my favorite portrayal of the light/darkness dynamic is honestly Kingdom Hearts, specifically in BBS, where Xehanort (the main bad guy for the uninitiated) tries to go "light and darkness are two sides of the same coin and equally good/bad" only to later show that no, darkness is fucking evil and bad in literally all cases but one and he was explicitly lying out of his ass.

It was a pretty clever subversion of the equivalence.

[Theodric]

Given that plenty of people prefer the aesthetics of darkness to the aesthetics of light, tying darkness to 'evil' at every turn risks becomes rather stale quite quickly. Perhaps now that the self proclaimed 'supreme deity' is out of the picture the game will be a bit bolder in terms of allowing the aesthetics tied to darkness to be at the forefront more often in a positive capacity.

I couldn't get into Kingdom Hearts, personally - I though the story was even more contrived than Endwalker.

[AziraSyuren]

Given that plenty of people prefer the aesthetics of darkness to the aesthetics of light, tying darkness to 'evil' at every turn risks becomes rather stale quite quickly. Perhaps now that the self proclaimed 'supreme deity' is out of the picture the game will be a bit bolder in terms of allowing the aesthetics tied to darkness to be at the forefront more often in a positive capacity.

I couldn't get into Kingdom Hearts, personally - I though the story was even more contrived than Endwalker.

It's definitely pretty stale in KH but we're way too late into the series to try to subvert it. It helps a lot that one of the main characters is the only known person in the history of the universe to use darkness without being corrupted by it.

KH's plot is definitely extremely contrived and it's a series you mostly enjoy for the aesthetics and characters rather then the story itself. It's much closer to its Disney origins than Final Fantasy ones in that regard. You're not going to get anything particularly thought-provoking unless you dig 8000 layers deep and make interpretations of the story that would cause even Carl Jung to blush.

[Lucida3b]

The only detail that wasnt really symbolic seems to be the face features on zodiark being a mask. (talking bout the cave painting)

Honestly my headcanon is that zodiark looks a lot less demonic if he was complete with elidibus as his core, apparently the ancients are sooo unable to comprehend sadness or dark things. Yet they envisioned THAT?

This is us talking past each other.

"Venat was right" is today's "Emet-Selch was right", which was itself that day's "Nidhogg was right". It's an attempt to contextualize a new morality by adding quote-unquote "nuance" to previously-established morality. In order for Venat to be correct, the Ancients had to be thrown under the bus. "But mommy had a good reason for the genocide, and she felt really bad about it" is their attempt at creating a moral relativism.

I have to disagree here, the difference between emet and venat is massive due to simply the fact that the story takes great pains to say "you can sympathize and understand, but what he is doing is terribly terribly horrifying and wrong" . They say flat out say he has murdered millions.

And This has led to a realization, what sours many people isnt a characters evil deeds, it's how the narrative treats the deeds. Emet's narrative was very honest and blunt, Venat's is very manipulative narrative wise. (also notice how the worst characters retroactively fuck with other character arcs?)

Or to use wow, sylvanys was evil for all of wow but she was liked because the narrative before... legion? was blunt on her, it didnt mince words on her, but when the narrative started twisting and warping to suit the writers favoritism people started to hate her quite quickly.

[CrownySuccubus]

I have to disagree here, the difference between emet and venat is massive due to simply the fact that the story takes great pains to say "you can sympathize and understand, but what he is doing is terribly terribly horrifying and wrong" . They say flat out say he has murdered millions.

And This has led to a realization, what sours many people isnt a characters evil deeds, it's how the narrative treats the deeds. Emet's narrative was very honest and blunt, Venat's is very manipulative narrative wise. (also notice how the worst characters retroactively fuck with other character arcs?)

Or to use wow, sylvanys was evil for all of wow but she was liked because the narrative before... legion? was blunt on her, it didnt mince words on her, but when the narrative started twisting and warping to suit the writers favoritism people started to hate her quite quickly.

Not really seeing the disagreement -- you're simply adding to the point that one "Moral nuance" attempt worked and another did not because the writers chose to throw other characters under the bus.

Endwalker was the victim of "forgone conclusions". We already know that Hydadelyn sundered the world, so that had to happen no matter what. We already know that the Ancients lost 75% of the population during the Final Days, so that had to happen no matter what. Their big mistake was introducing time travel and having us explain to these characters exactly what was going to happen beforehand. That gave Venat the power and means to fight for a different outcome but she just--- doesn't. And then the story has to bend over backwards trying to justify why.

Also, they should have left the Final Days as some sort of tragic phenomenon instead of giving it a villainous face with motives and a point to prove. That change instantly made any person that the narrative says is ineffectual against said villain "wrong" (ie, the Ancients) and any person that the narrative says is effective "right" (ie, Venat and the Scions). Thus, destroying the moral nuance they were originally going for.

[ZeraSkiratea]

Personally, i still disagree that the game tried to make hydelin unconditionally "good"
Heck, she herself admits that what she did caused countless suffering, bred sorrow and hate.
Just because the end result is good, and the other "viable" option would have most likely failed, dosnt mean the one who took the first option is inherently 100% good.


It was a choice between basically confirmed extinction only DELAYED by sacrifices(feeding zodiark), and the chance of non extinction in a future that requires sacrifices now(aka the sundering itself).
Booth options are inherently similiar in theory just the timespan fo the sacrifices, and the method in which they are used majorly differd



The ancients had a (near) perfect world, after that world was ruined, their first response wasnt to fix it themself, or discover what happend..


It was directly to sacrifice more people to get it "fixed" for them.


Venat knew what happend, and her response was, after seeing the Ancients wanted to sacrifice life to "fix" the shit they are partially responsible in causing , decided(not alone, she had followers who agreed with her) that if sacrifices will be made, sacrifices shall be made... Just that her sacrifices was everyones soul being sunderd and split instantly instead of a "few" being sacrificed every so often.

[MicahZerrshia]

Just that her sacrifices was everyones soul being sunderd and split instantly instead of a "few" being sacrificed every so often.

I think ppl always forget that the "sacrifices" to zodiark were A: completely voluntary and B: reversable. The souls of those who empowered Zodiarc were still completely intact, we saw this first hand on the moon. Their aether was needed to summon him but the end goal was to bring them back after a more permanent power source was found. Emet did nothing but harp on that point in ShB.

Hydaelyn sacrificed everyone herself, without consulting them, in a way that was simply not reversable unless the reflections, worlds, and cultures were completely destroyed in favor for another. All because she felt she knew what was better for the millions/billions/trillions (we don't know pop numbers) of people than anyone else and instead of bringing all this knowledge to those who could possibly fix things, decided "nah, I got this" and then made the world shatter. I think there is a word for that...

And logically speaking, if the ancients had the willingness to sacrifice themselves for the good of the planet, I am sure a better solution could have been found, even if it required them to take a hit to their livelihood. Venat simply had a narcissistic personality peppered with a savior complex and it ended up getting the world and everyone/thing in it shattered, then spent millennia after gaslighting her way through to a solution that really benefited no one but her ego.

[Xirean]

I think ppl always forget that the "sacrifices" to zodiark were A: completely voluntary and B: reversable. The souls of those who empowered Zodiarc were still completely intact, we saw this first hand on the moon. Their aether was needed to summon him but the end goal was to bring them back after a more permanent power source was found. Emet did nothing but harp on that point in ShB.

Hydaelyn sacrificed everyone herself, without consulting them, in a way that was simply not reversable unless the reflections, worlds, and cultures were completely destroyed in favor for another. All because she felt she knew what was better for the millions/billions/trillions (we don't know pop numbers) of people than anyone else and instead of bringing all this knowledge to those who could possibly fix things, decided "nah, I got this" and then made the world shatter. I think there is a word for that...

And logically speaking, if the ancients had the willingness to sacrifice themselves for the good of the planet, I am sure a better solution could have been found, even if it required them to take a hit to their livelihood. Venat simply had a narcissistic personality peppered with a savior complex and it ended up getting the world and everyone/thing in it shattered, then spent millennia after gaslighting her way through to a solution that really benefited no one but her ego.

This is a good example of some of the problems with the Elpis story line. If they wanted to show that Zodiark was a problem then why not have him go on a rampage when Elidibus left him? Say Venat is good or at least not evil? Make the sundering of the star an accident. It really feels like the writers discounted the possibility of things occurring not on purpose. Every action required intention, but they forgot that intention has a much easier tie to morality questions.

[ZeraSkiratea]

I think ppl always forget that the "sacrifices" to zodiark were A: completely voluntary and B: reversable. The souls of those who empowered Zodiarc were still completely intact, we saw this first hand on the moon. Their aether was needed to summon him but the end goal was to bring them back after a more permanent power source was found. Emet did nothing but harp on that point in ShB.

It is if not outright stated, at least HEAVIYL implied that they intended to sacrifice the new races and species that sprung forth after the second sacrifice for the third and beyond, not themself(or atleast not themself exclusivly)

And logically speaking, if the ancients had the willingness to sacrifice themselves for the good of the planet, I am sure a better solution could have been found, even if it required them to take a hit to their livelihood. Venat simply had a narcissistic personality peppered with a savior complex and it ended up getting the world and everyone/thing in it shattered, then spent millennia after gaslighting her way through to a solution that really benefited no one but her ego.

Yes, Yes what Venat did was Genocide in some definition i am not here to argue that, noone should deny that.
BUT it is pretty much spelled out(if not at least implied heavily) that, no the ancients would NOT have discoverd a way to fight Meteion, they would not have reached ultima Thule and Confronted the Endisinger. They would NOT have made it this far.
Their reaction to experience true wide scale suffering for the first time(or at least first time in a LONG LONG WHILE) was to run away, to look away and sacrifice more of their number to make the catastrophy as if it never happend.
They tried to escape, heck Emet selch and the unsunderd still tried to escape after they got sunderd, to the point where they planned to sacrifice more lives(lives they found "beneath" them) to bring back those they lost