Endwalker is the most controversial expansion

[EaraGrace]

The problem with Endwalker was that it attached a causal loop to one of the most fundamental far-reaching events in the game's lore that shaped the world and the motivations of several characters in ways both direct and indirect.

It also left a very ugly question hanging in the air of just how much Venat/Hydaelyn knew was going to happen and just let it happen because "the future said so", and makes some instances where she claims have been trying to prevent tragedy (Such as with the First and the flood of light) feel like she was going through the motions because it had to happen in order to maintain the loop.

I feel like it cheapened a lot of the decisions made by various characters in general. IE, the context for Emet-Selch saving us from Elidibus was no longer just a matter of him having been convinced to place faith in us and the sundered; nope, he already knew us personally beforehand and that we were to be instrumental in stopping the Final Days.

I think I’ve made my feelings on the “she made sure things happened as we described” reading clear elsewhere so I’m gonna let that bear lie. What I will ask however is why is the ambiguity really a problem? It isn’t necessary to understand to make sense of the plot, as having several wildly different interpretations that all can work shows that it’s not a requirement for the story. It’s not a failure of the writing when it’s meant to be up for interpretation then, which given Yoshi Ps comments it seems it was meant to be. So what’s the issue?

[Iscah]

I am hoping that the Sundering might not be relevant to any further plot points, and we can ignore it and pretend it happened some other way if we don't like how the authors wrote it.

I just think it doesn't line up with what we were previously told, and they may have been too fixated on trying to make it match the lyrics of "Answers" (a song written for a different setting years ago) over anything else more concrete they wrote in the meanwhile.

[Rokke]

I think I’ve made my feelings on the “she made sure things happened as we described” reading clear elsewhere so I’m gonna let that bear lie. What I will ask however is why is the ambiguity really a problem? It isn’t necessary to understand to make sense of the plot, as having several wildly different interpretations that all can work shows that it’s not a requirement for the story. It’s not a failure of the writing when it’s meant to be up for interpretation then, which given Yoshi Ps comments it seems it was meant to be. So what’s the issue?

What ambiguity is there? We have a time loop or we don't. Supposed ambiguity isn't the issue, revealing the time line to be predestined all along is the issue.

[KurohNeko]

No, it does not work. Or try to answer this question: who invented the name "Hydaelyn" in the game?


Cheers

More than likely the people after the sundering, and or Vanet herself. They never answered however the world used to be called Ethyris, then it became known as Hydaelyn after the summoning. You could say the same for Zodriak, it was more than likely herself, and she has interacted with people making her will known and probably told them. Doesn't break the time travel. Is that your only argument for how it's "broken" when it took me 5 seconds to give a plausible answer.

[Theodric]

I am hoping that the Sundering might not be relevant to any further plot points, and we can ignore it and pretend it happened some other way if we don't like how the authors wrote it.

I just think it doesn't line up with what we were previously told, and they may have been too fixated on trying to make it match the lyrics of "Answers" (a song written for a different setting years ago) over anything else more concrete they wrote in the meanwhile.

Trying to tie both the Crystal Tower and Answers to everything really does seem to be the common thread that compromised a lot of the story. I don't even think they did a great job making Answers relevant because the song is - like Dragonsong - largely about Hydaelyn lamenting the state of the Sundered world and the behaviour of the people residing within it. Which doesn't make a whole lot of sense now that we know that the Sundering was intentional and that Venat had knowledge of what it would be like.

Having Venat lose her memories alongside the others in Elpis and/or making the Sundering an accidental consequence of binding Zodiark would have made her come across as a lot more authentic and tragic.

If nothing else I do hope that the game is less preachy moving forward now that is has firmly embraced a broken aesop and 'rules for thee but not for me' approach to morality. The writers should be letting people draw their own conclusions about such things, arguably.

[Aluja89]

If the entirety of the Elpis story arc was presented through Echo flashbacks, that would be a huge amount of time spent watching a plot that does not involve us.

I think it was quite clever to have us directly go there, though it should have wrapped up more neatly with everyone including Venat losing their memory of us. (Meteion still needs to remember us, but she leaves before the wipe goes off.)

Also, I'm not sure why you're describing Alexander as a "static time loop" and Endwalker as a "linear timeline" as if those are different things. Both are equally stable time loops which by nature take place along a linear timeline.

I've previously put a lot of thought into resolving the mismatch between Alexander and Shadowbringers (which I don't think is full multiverse, just a single rare split only possible because a time traveller broke their own past), and Endwalker is consistent with the theory I had worked out for those earlier events.

I'll spare you the full essay this time, but the linear timeline along which a stable loop forms does not need to be the only timeline in existence. The Elpis time loop only involves our branch of the split timeline, and doesn't need to involve the Eighth Calamity timeline at all because what we did at Elpis remains part of the other timeline's history.

Sorry, I forgot the term so I used the closest possible word.

The problem is that Alexander created a constant loop so it could finally be defeated by the WoL. But in EW it's contrived and predetermined taking away all the meaning.

[EaraGrace]

What ambiguity is there? We have a time loop or we don't. Supposed ambiguity isn't the issue, revealing the time line to be predestined all along is the issue.

Fundamentally it’s a difference of whether the timeline was only capable of being changed by acting irrationally or if it was intentionally set up to play out the way it did. Think of it like a stream flowing down a hill versus flowing down a carefully dug creek.

And once again I don’t think the timeline being casual determinist is an issue, and if it is then unfortunately there’s some bad news for folks about our own existence.

[Lustre]

Endwalker msq sucked. I feel there shouldve been something inbetween shb and ew. They tried to do too much, tried to wrap things up too hastily, and left a trail of plotholes in their wake. I wonder why they seemed so eager to tie things up. 5.4 and 5.5 felt strangely paced after 5.3.

[YukikoKurosawa]

They could've just kept us with the transparent looking bodies and let us walk around and observe things as it happened.

This is what I initially assumed was going to be happening, that we'd just observe the events but not be able to interact with or be seen by anyone there. We'd find the info we were searching for eventually then return to the present day.

But of course if we had a boring plot like that we wouldn't have had all these POGGERS twitch reactions to getting to meet and hang out with past-Emet. We need those pog twitch reaction moments ofc. Time paradoxes in our writing? Who cares, we need le ebin react worthy moments in our serious story.

[Larirawiel]

More than likely the people after the sundering, and or Vanet herself.

It cannot be. You tell Venat in the past, that she will become Hydaelyn.


Cheers