Would Endwalker have been better if we never visited Elpis at all?

[Xirean]

The OP asked if we felt Elpis was necessary and in the narrative that was told, the connection with Meteion that we met and connected with by way of Elpis was necessary. She was part of the hivemind of the Meteia but we help her start to remember the part that is our Meteion. The Dead Ends felt a lot less like she was trying to convince us and more that she was trying to convince herself. And then after we broke her free from the hivemind Endsinger, that connection with us helped her understand what hope was and release it into the universe.

If we had come to that point as a stranger instead of a friend, she would have reacted much differently.

Eh, throw in some echo vision we give her that we saw of Hermes. Honestly a random stranger pulling out the Elpis flowers at the end would have a bit more WTF factor to it imo. Either way, I'm not concerned about Meteion; I'm concerned about bad time loops, genocide justification and being denied seeing a really cool Primal fight.

[Nethereal]

Honestly it would've been fine if they kept the warrior of light consistent.

"You kill people, regardless of the reason we can never have peace until you're gone."

"Oh it's okay mommy Venat you were just doing what was best for the world."

WoL should've been like "I understand where you're coming from but you're no longer worthy to hold the light."

[Aniya_Estlihn]

Edit: My opinion on OP's question is that the narrative would have been no different with or without Elpis inclusion. The events that took place there had already occurred by the point we were in the narrative, so it didn't matter.

3. Venat becoming the Jesus Christ figure who decided to flip the universal table and sunder the universe, destroying everything and locking what we were told was basically "the devil" for 10 years in the same reality that our characters were in

Friend, with all due respect, no.
Venat sundered Etheirys exclusively.

The sundering did not effect anything out of the star's direct influence; likely only those things within the veil of aether Zodiark used to shield the star from Dynamis (although this is speculation on my part), and the Shards/reflections exist within paradoxical pocket dimensions.

This is why Midgardsormr and his brood are so incredibly strong and aether rich compared to the sundered life of Etheirys— they are whole, unsundered beings.

Further: how could she sunder the entire known universe when she used only a fraction of a fraction of the population of Etheriys remaining to perform the act, when Zodiark needed half of an entire super earth to stop the final days? A much smaller act than the impossibly herculean task of sundering an entire plane of existence on a universal scale.

No, it was just the planet and nothing more.

Also:

i would also suggest splitting meteion and the endsinger into 2 separate characters and have meteion and endsinger

They were. The Meteia created the nest where they gathered the souls of the dead, said souls became the Endsinger alongside the other Meteia. Which is why when we encounter it they when confronting you alone they say "as we did, as we died." Indicating it is the amalgamation of the dead souls that the Meteia collected and stored in the Dead Sun to end the cycle of death and rebirth in the universe. It is highly likely that the Endsinger did not exist up until that point and was created as desperation move to confront us physical after we overturned the Meteia's power over Ultima Thule.


------

Oh and another note, I'm not going to jump into the major debates here, because wow that's a horrible life decision, but... as a writer I have to ask that people quit using coercive and manipulative verbiage and phrasing to get their point across.

I've seen the phrases "genocide apologist" and "genocide sympathizer" among others used in many threads, and that needs to stop. It's manipulative and serves only to garner a negative response from those reading your post. Many of the arguments, debates and vitriol in these threads can be avoided if people opt to use neutral, non-accusatory language intended to encourage debate, rather than thinly veiled and or subtle insults and criticisms of one's personal, individual character over their opinion of a fake, fantasy, non-important video game narrative.

Debate and discussion is a two way street and if one starts with a bad faith argument or accusation before even stating their point, then that individual has already indicated that they do not want to discuss anything and only wish prove that they have the moral high ground.

[PawPaw]

And even after being said so by the dev team, people still reject it because they full heartily believe that the unsundered world was a better one.

What was said by the dev team? That Venat believed that this is "probably" what would happen to them "if they continued as they were"? You are speaking as though this statement is some damning, objective end to the matter but the fact remains that everything that was done to their society was done based on the subjective thought process of a single person. As stated by the devs. The devs even ask you to think about this person's right to make that decision for mankind; comparing it to another well-known antagonist's mindset in the game.

No one is making anything up or refusing to come to terms with it. They're pointing out the blatant contradictions and inconsistencies in the story and why it all falls apart with even the smallest bit of examination. The devs inability to be firm and decisive on any points also does not help the story in any way, with them making statements like

"Whatever you would be doing is what X would be doing"
"We *think* that's what would have happened"
"We'll allow you to come to your own conclusions about that"

In response to very pertinent lore questions.
Brilliant.

[TaleraRistain]

Eh, throw in some echo vision we give her that we saw of Hermes. Honestly a random stranger pulling out the Elpis flowers at the end would have a bit more WTF factor to it imo. Either way, I'm not concerned about Meteion; I'm concerned about bad time loops, genocide justification and being denied seeing a really cool Primal fight.

I guess it depends on how one interprets the Op's question. I took it that the cause of the Final Days remained the same, but we learned about it another way. And that's the question I was answering to the OP. I think going to Elpis and meeting Meteion and connecting with her was essential to that 6.0 storyline and resolution.

If the idea is that the story connected to Elpis wasn't the answer to the Final Days at all, well, the sky's the limit there.

[BubblyBoar]

I think most of the issues are the writing is for it is bad. Endwalker does a terrible job addressing this, the ancients seemed a pretty driven and motivated people so the idea of them ending up as the Plenty seems remote, they even wrote it so the plenty was happy until Meition came. If the writers had have spent time building this as an arc it might have worked but as it is it's a mess filled with lot of deeply unsettling themes on festishing suffering but then not following up on that as the the game then demonises the societies more driven by that.

Well, that's not true at all. One of the big plot points of Elpis was what the unsundered did once they were "done" and have completed their duty. They specifically chose to die. Only the "odd" ones did not. How come this fact keeps getting ignored like the connection between the ancients and the Plenty is out of nowhere? This is why people keep asking if those with questions are paying attention. Death as their ending was a constant. And the fact they chose to die rather than see their work flourish after completion is a massive part of their culture. The Plenty shows what happens with the ancients have finished their work. It's incredibly on the nose. But it's like these points are being ignored because some people don't want to accept the message behind it. The argument has constantly been "it's bad written because I disagree with the message." Which is basically a rejection of the story because it offends your beliefs and blaming the writers because of it. Hubris and pride.

Stuff

When did I say anything about what Venat said or did? I was specifically mentioning what the devs said about the Plenty and the Unsundered. Not once have I said that Venat did the righteous thing or that she absolutely should have done what she did.

[Lauront]

What was said by the dev team? That Venat believed that this is "probably" what would happen to them "if they continued as they were"? You are speaking as though this statement is some damning, objective end to the matter but the fact remains that everything that was done to their society was done based on the subjective thought process of a single person. As stated by the devs. The devs even ask you to think about this person's right to make that decision for mankind; comparing it to another well-known antagonist's mindset in the game.

No one is making anything up or refusing to come to terms with it. They're pointing out the blatant contradictions and inconsistencies in the story and why it all falls apart with even the smallest bit of examination. The devs inability to be firm and decisive on any points also does not help the story in any way, with them making statements like

"Whatever you would be doing is what X would be doing"
"We *think* that's what would have happened"
"We'll allow you to come to your own conclusions about that"

In response to very pertinent lore questions.
Brilliant.

Or my all time fave:

As far as the story is concerned, I don’t have an exact figure in mind or an exact imagining of how long it has been since 1.0. If I go down that rabbit hole I’d never stop thinking how old here, like I don’t know I don’t wanna think about it. It’s better not to think about it. So just feel, or vibe. Hear, feel, think…perhaps?

One to do with passage of time but still funny and relevant to any number of them!

[jameseoakes]

Well, that's not true at all. One of the big plot points of Elpis was what the unsundered did once they were "done" and have completed their duty. They specifically chose to die. Only the "odd" ones did not. How come this fact keeps getting ignored like the connection between the ancients and the Plenty is out of nowhere? This is why people keep asking if those with questions are paying attention. Death as their ending was a constant. And the fact they chose to die rather than see their work flourish after completion is a massive part of their culture. The Plenty shows what happens with the ancients have finished their work. It's incredibly on the nose. But it's like these points are being ignored because some people don't want to accept the message behind it. The argument has constantly been "it's bad written because I disagree with the message." Which is basically a rejection of the story because it offends your beliefs and blaming the writers because of it. Hubris and pride.

They chose to die with the lifes work complete I don't see why that's such an issue. I'd take the fate of the plenty over a world with suffering. Also don't mock me like that, your post is extremely rude and there no need for that.

I don't believe that suffering is some kind of uplifting force that when exposed to makes people better, it breaks most people as this games story in the past has taken time to explore.

[Lium]

Alright, I'll phrase it another way: if a good chunk of the playerbase is not understanding this story, which is trying to push a very controversial conclusion, then who is at fault here? The playerbase, or the writers for not making their material clear enough to stand on its own? This is the conclusion of a 10 year arc, with plenty of work going into it to supposedly make sure it comes out clear.

I disagree that a good chunk of the playerbase does not understand the story as evidenced by the mountain of accolades EW has received everywhere but here. I think a good chunk of those that browse and post on these forums didn't get the story, as evidenced by the mountain of complaints and even hate it has received here. (Though it's possible some are just trolling.)

It's probably pointless to mention this but I'll do it again anyway: There are those that post here that understood the story very well and simply thought it was bad, cliched, whatever. To those posters, my comment of not understanding the story is not directed at you. But if you fall into that category and get defensive anyway, then that's on you.

I can acknowledge, however, that the retort "you didn't get it" has been used dismissively and condescendingly. Which isn't right either.

[BubblyBoar]

They chose to die with the lifes work complete I don't see why that's such an issue. I'd take the fate of the plenty over a world with suffering. Also don't mock me like that, your post is extremely rude and there no need for that

And that's a core belief that you have. So someone with that belief will, of course, take issue with a story that preaches the opposite. That is not an example of bad writing, it's just disagreeing with the message. There's plenty of bad writing examples you can poke at. But disagreeing with the message of the story is not an example of the writings doing their job badly.