Who knew the 6.15 Omega Quests… (Spoilers)

[Havenchild]

I don't believe that comfort leads to destruction, nor that pain is necessary to feel joy. I think they would have gotten on just fine if Venat hadn't decided to take the agency of every single one of the Ancients and instead told them why the Final Days were happening so they could fix them.

Edit to add: Before you bring up the Plenty, I again point out that what caused their destruction was not their level of comfort, but two other things. Their immortality, and their hive mind. I am not saying conflict is unnecessary, but conflict can be handled with negotiation and debate, which is how the Ancients dealt with such typically. The hive mind mostly, I feel. Without any way to have differences in order to have such debates, life gets boring. It isn't strife that adds flavor to life, or pain, it's the differences in mindsets.

Ancient society may have survived the Final Days but mankinds destruction would have been written in stone down the line with their current trajectory. Yoshi-P / Ichigawa confirmed in interview that their society would have lead to something akin to the final location of The Dead Ends dungeon so you can't suddenly disregard that even if you feel it's not relevant. The way the amaurotines were heading, they would have by default, created something they couldn't unmake that leads to their own destruction or continually experiementing on every avenue of life till they had nothing left to question (cause they technically had the resources and time to do this)

Technically the cycle of permenant life and death already existing on Etheirys post Hydaelyn sundering prevents them having enough time to unlock immoratalilty canon wise. Already took them generations to unlock a very basic one way time travel.

[tokinokanatae]

Ancient society may have survived the Final Days but mankinds destruction would have been written in stone down the line with their current trajectory. Yoshi-P / Ichigawa confirmed in interview that their society would have lead to something akin to the final location of The Dead Ends dungeon so you can't suddenly disregard that even if you feel it's not relevant. The way the amaurotines were heading, they would have by default, created something they couldn't unmake that leads to their own destruction or continually experiementing on every avenue of life till they had nothing left to question (cause they technically had the resources and time to do this)

For all the focus the Plenty gets as a possible ending, it's strange to me that people forget that Venat has made it more likely that the other two "dead ends" could occur at some point in the future of Etheirys, even if the Plenty is less likely (or has been completely averted). Whether Etheirys dies to plague, bomb, or suicide monster--or something else entirely--Venat did not forestall the ending in and of itself.

[Lauront]

The kindest thing this set of quests did was clarify whether or not Venat was misleading her followers. It seems very likely at this point she wasn't. (I really have to laugh, though. Sundering is so "imprecise and difficult" it can leave holes for specific people to escape and create simulations of real people that only have the memories Venat approves of?)

It seems to me your objection is less, "the story would make no sense" and more "Venat would be no better or worse than Hermes and Emet-Selch," but that's already clear from these side quests. The reason her plan worked wasn't because it was a good plan or the best plan, it was because after she set the process in motion, countless people other than her made it work. It was a miracle that she had very little direct hand in.

It does raise some questions though as to what is going on below.

Given that Yoshi referenced the below scene in the same Q&A as he said she devoured their souls (meaning it was in his recent memory), I have to wonder if they just did not think the answer through properly? To me it makes no huge difference, but there is a tension between her followers knowing what would happen in full and the expectation expressed below that they would miss her as their leader (suggesting they'd persist beyond the Sundering):



FR version for comparison:



One could fill in the gaps but at this point they should address this. Perhaps something for another Q&A!

Is the end the Plenty faced really a special kind of terrible compared to the first two Dead Ends? Is monstrosities pleading with survivors for death to end their suffering and people being blown to bits by bombs somehow better than a creature that offers peaceful death when requested? Endwalker points out that everything must end eventually. If that's the case, I know which ending of the three I'd prefer.

At the end of the day, it comes down as well to a lack of forward planning. Address the question of what do we even do when we reach X goal and eliminate all strife (apparently, not existential angst/ennui)? The ancients always had the yardstick of what they saw as the best interests of the star (and by extension themselves and their creations given the symbiosis they perceived in it), and if a fate such as the Plenty loomed and threatened them, I see very little reason to think they'd not adjust their path; one of the Amaurotine shades even contemplates this possibility, so one would suspect this would no doubt strike up debate in their society had Venat been upfront about the reasons for her actions. The Plenty is at best a shoddy caricature of "Perfection" with shoddy caricature strawmen dressed so as to resemble the ancients. This is not compelling to me.

Literally 99% of the WoL’s successes/wins in the story is due to happenstance and luck though…

To me it's like trying to say you not being born a hyena or a vulture, but rather a human, is the only reason you're a good person. Happenstance and luck. Meanwhile, the Amaurot sidequests hint at them taking measures to suppress their worst instincts and act in a way they regarded as virtuous. For a society of individuals with such great innate powers, they had potential for corrupt/more dismal uses of these powers. With Ishikawa going as far as to attribute Hermes's inherent positive expectations of the answers he'd find in space to him living in a paradise, and based on what circumstantial evidence we have, one the ancients strove over time to build, I'm afraid it's a bit uncharitable to just write it off to happenstance and luck. Their powers are such that they could've turned their world into a hellscape through acting more like some mythological deities if they so wished - but they didn't and instead strove to create life.

[PawPaw]

For all the focus the Plenty gets as a possible ending, it's strange to me that people forget that Venat has made it more likely that the other two "dead ends" could occur at some point in the future of Etheirys, even if the Plenty is less likely (or has been completely averted). Whether Etheirys dies to plague, bomb, or suicide monster--or something else entirely--Venat did not forestall the ending in and of itself.

Not to mention that once the Source goes, any remaining reflections will go as well. So when the end comes, and it certainly will as the Sundered absolutely love finding new ways of blowing each other up, it will truly be the end of everything.

[Lauront]

I'm...confused as to who/what you're referring to by that.

If it was in reference to that third round of sacrifices to be offered to Zodiark, we have virtually no context behind what they were and one has to remember that the Sundering affected all life negatively. Even if she truly had done it with the intent of protecting lives as opposed to subjecting mankind to her own trial, she irreparably damaged every being upon Etheriys in the process, though the Ancients seem to have gotten the worst of it due to being considerably denser in aether then any of their creations.

If you wish to tap into the mindset here, perhaps this will help:

the anti-sundering people are like spoilt rich kids who got their credit cards cut off by their parents. without the sundering, humanity would not have gone through the trials necessary to understand that suffering is part of life and accept it / rise above it instead of crying to Zodiark like those ancient losers in the post 87 flashback.

sometimes rich parents need to cut off their kids' financial supply to teach them how to go through the struggles of life.

[tokinokanatae]

Please note, this is being posted on behalf of Brinne.

She's having trouble with logging into the forums at the moment, but had things to say before the conversation drifted too far into irrelevancy. Anything beyond this point is her.

And they came to the Sundering decision, with a heavy heart--Venat knew that was the plan that worked in one timeline, but that also wasn't evidence that she could communicate to others, so they had to have come to and agreed to it through independent thought.

If you think they had a better option, you'd better have a damn good piece of evidence for it. You can argue with decent grounding that they might not have needed to take the fight to Meteion anyway, Zodiark would've held up indefinitely, but you can't argue that there was any other way to take that swing. Even Emet-Selch disagreed with you about that from beyond the grave.

I'm sorry, no. If someone is unironically asserting "actually, genocide is the only/best way", or to put it another way - "hey, turns out that sometimes genocide IS justifiable," the burden of proof is on THEM, whether it be a poster on the forums, or the game itself. That many people didn't feel that the game satisfied the enormous burden of proof this claim demands is the core of many of their issues. It is, like, THE classic apologism technique for all manner of atrocities to insist "but there was no other way! I had no choice!"

We have a responsibility to interrogate that, and reject it, IRL, and I'm certainly not going to give it a pass here just because the writing put words in several characters' mouths to try to force that angle. Venat (and Emet-Selch, for that matter) sincerely believing that as characters is one thing - to assert that that is factually correct is another matter entirely.

If Venat was not taking the best option, then the story no longer functions as intended. It is no longer people making different but valid and internally justifiable moral decisions, and frankly, I don't even know what the story IS anymore if not that. So you can't throw 'she had better options' without significant proof that said better options existed, not just to overcome the story's own evidence and testimonies, but also to provide an alternative definition for what this story is.

If you don't have that evidence, then any alternatives you draw up are fanfiction. I can appreciate some good fanfiction, but we should recognize it for what it is.

"The premise of this story is reliant on the idea that under the circumstances genocide was necessary, therefore we must not challenge that premise" is not the compelling argument you think it is. I would posit that if a story is truly reliant on a premise like that, it deserves to fall apart. Fortunately, the writers have shown they're willing to re-examine the story as far as that goes, even if, as what is fundamentally a consumer product, the game is not going to harshly villify a character as popular as Venat.

But on the topic itself: I've felt for a while that I've said all I've had to really say about my issues with 6.0 as a whole, but I really needed to voice my sincere appreciation for this quest.

I absolutely loved it. I loved it so much that I basically immediately ran here to voice my love for it (only to be frustrated at my inability to log in because I had been away from home for a couple of weeks, lol.) If 6.0 had this framing/thematic approach all along, I would have been able to unabashedly love Endwalker. Yes, being able to voice our opinion on Venat and the others' actions was important, but probably even MORE important for me was the first part of the quest - when Omega was investigating "why did some succumb to the Song of Oblivion and not others?"

The ultimate conclusion of "it's basically arbitrary and impossible to construct any logical or objective reason for it" was basically ideal and perfect. A rejection of the framing of one's ability to not succumb to despair as being attributed to "fortitude," or "strength," or "weakness," or any other Social Darwinist garbage - in favor of something far more honest and far, far more compassionate. Endwalker's MSQ hinted at this angle at a few points - which is part of why the theming often felt conflicted and confused with itself - but to have it very clearly laid out in stark text was extremely cathartic, to say the least. If Endwalker was fighting with itself over these ideas, I hope that - and it does seem that - this is essentially the final word on the issue from here on out.

In my self-indulgent, "everything caters to my whims" fantasy world, would it go further? Of course. To assert that and refuse to judge is inherently a refutation of Venat's actions and worldview. If there is no way someone to identify or solve the magic factor that leads one to be able to overcome despair - if that factor essentially doesn't exist in any meaningful way - then that means attempts to forcefully engineer it are nonsense and amount to pointless, misguided cruelty. But I never expected, realistically and in good faith, for the game to actually "turn on" Venat to that degree. People who are interested in questioning the text are still provided the dots to connect the line for themselves.

And to be honest, I was surprised that the questline went as far as to have the Watcher, of all people, very, very gently assert that Venat was wrong to try to erase history. The basic framing of all of the major Ancients as, while having good intent, being equivalent in taking absolutely horrific actions that need to be questioned, is far better than the previous thread that Venat was objectively correct and everyone else just needed to fall in line. (I do still think the idea that 'oh, the Ancients in general were just Like That' is ridiculous and terrible, but for the individuals in question - sure.)

But I do want to express my thanks and gratitude for this questline, and for obviously listening to those who had problems with Endwalker's writing. As I've said before, I've loved this game for almost ten years, want to continue loving it, and never wanted to feel like I had to post on these forums or else my head would explode. This was a wonderful step in the right direction. Is this alone enough to "make up" for the dissonance and unease from 6.0? Probably not, but if the story continues this line of thoughtfulness, it's well on the way there, for me - and I hope the writers can see the positive reception to these quests and take it to heart.

[Lauront]

Yep, heartily agree on the point that it dispelled there being some "essential something" about facing off despair that all those ancient civilisations lacked, and good riddance to that premise. I do hope we're seeing some course-correction, what with Yoshida's comments on Y'shtola and oddly placed but welcome depiction of the Sundering in the Nier mobile game crossover as well, but time will tell.

[EaraGrace]

I don't believe that comfort leads to destruction, nor that pain is necessary to feel joy. I think they would have gotten on just fine if Venat hadn't decided to take the agency of every single one of the Ancients and instead told them why the Final Days were happening so they could fix them.

Edit to add: Before you bring up the Plenty, I again point out that what caused their destruction was not their level of comfort, but two other things. Their immortality, and their hive mind. I am not saying conflict is unnecessary, but conflict can be handled with negotiation and debate, which is how the Ancients dealt with such typically. The hive mind mostly, I feel. Without any way to have differences in order to have such debates, life gets boring. It isn't strife that adds flavor to life, or pain, it's the differences in mindsets.

Their end is not ascribed to those things, it was their desire to eliminate sorrow that did so. Meteion says this verbatim.

Farther still existed a star without strife. Where none remembered life’s trials, or it’s joys. What it’s people had gained from ease, they lost to apathy.

Is the end the Plenty faced really a special kind of terrible compared to the first two Dead Ends? Is monstrosities pleading with survivors for death to end their suffering and people being blown to bits by bombs somehow better than a creature that offers peaceful death when requested? Endwalker points out that everything must end eventually. If that's the case, I know which ending of the three I'd prefer.

Or maybe not self destructing is the best option?

And I would remind those in this thread that Omegas comments do not disprove the necessity of the Sundering.

By sundering the world, she ultimately guided your kind to victory, yet in doing so caused irreparable damage to its individual members.

People will undoubtedly focus on the second half of the statement and not the first of course.

[redheadturk]

Their end is not ascribed to those things, it was their desire to eliminate sorrow that did so. Meteion says this verbatim.





Or maybe not self destructing is the best option?

And I would remind those in this thread that Omegas comments do not disprove the necessity of the Sundering.



People will undoubtedly focus on the second half of the statement and not the first of course.

And how did they "eliminate sorrow?" Hive mind. I don't believe joy loses its savor without sorrow, though sorrow is a fact of life regardless. Also, I trust Meiteion's word about as much as I trust Varis'. Aka, not a whit.

[EaraGrace]

And how did they "eliminate sorrow?" Hive mind. I don't believe joy loses its savor without sorrow, though sorrow is a fact of life regardless. Also, I trust Meiteion's word about as much as I trust Varis'. Aka, not a whit.

Are we really going to have to post the Q and A answer again? Like I get what you’re saying but it seems pretty clear cut given everything said in game and out.