Who knew the 6.15 Omega Quests… (Spoilers)

[EaraGrace]

"You surpassed my expectations. You surpassed me." doesn't mean that she didn't expect you to surpass her?

She developed the entire moon plan, even if she hoped it wouldn't be necessary she clearly did think it likely enough to create an entire race to do it.

You are making unjustified logical leaps. We know her whole plan rested on us succeeding. We know that from the moment the Sundering occurred she was waiting for humanity to come and defeat her. None of that makes sense if we believe, as you do, that she never expected us to win. The Sundering would be pointless, her faith in us pointless, all of the sacrifices pointless. As she says to Alisaie when asked if their only option was to flee:

Far from it my child.

Venat's level of importance to the story far exceeds any other character in 14. Every decision she made is fundamental to the state of the world as it is.

And the Ascians aren't also?!

And this is exactly why Venat doesn't get that sympathy, because she was always presented as our ally, and never extended the same level of empathy as Emet-Selch did, arguably for her own people in the Ancients, her enemies in the Ascians, and for the sundered.

Emet killed himself rather than live longer by Venats magic. Venat meanwhile empathized with the Convocation even as she worked against them. To say she didn't extend the same level of empathy as Emet, whose care for us was contingent on a subjective and ultimately meaningless test, is ridiculous.

That's a little strange, considering the very stringent moral positions you've taken before, like insisting that you'd never kill an innocent person to save someone you loved. That's morally reprehensible, but you would also be complicit in genocides because Venat is wholly right?

Yep, I would never kill an innocent in exchange for the life of someone I care about. My moral consideration isn't contingent on whether I find them personally appealing. Pulling the trolley lever in order to avert the death of all life in exchange for saving those we can? I will every single time.

You gonna continue to try to tell me what my moral system is Veloran?

And as I responded in November last year,

As I've outlined numerous times before, in terms of her actions Venat is fundamentally the same as Emet-Selch.

So treat her as Emet then. I don't remember this level of backlash to him do you? There was some for sure, but the lore forums could at least discuss anything without it reverting to that topic.

So what, to your mind, is the reason I single Venat out "excessively" in my "level of anger," beyond any other character?

You believe you have an objective reason to dislike the narrative surrounding her, one that exists regardless of subjective tastes. As you say:

Now, someone is obviously allowed to still like Venat and state: "these things didn't particularly bother me, personally." On a subjective level, that's fine. I have characters and situations I feel similarly to - where I say "mmhm, your perspective is totally valid and probably correct based on the actual text, although I can't really personally get super worked up about it." But that doesn't mean that there is not discussion to be had about what objectively exists in the text and building criticism based on that - otherwise all discussion of any story, anywhere, would be ultimately pointless.

Yes. And I am trying to communicate that a person seeing dissonance within the narrative in regards to Venat and seeing her as breaking the game's story is valid and has citable textual basis. That is the reason why I try to make an effort to refer to the text and textual events as being poorly constructed and contradictory to one another in regards to the Ancients and Venat. This isn't about "I don't like Venat because I don't like her attitude/aesthetic or that she hurt my favorite characters, so I'm going to reach for any justification possible to dislike her." (Her attitude and aesthetic is great, by the way, and people should honestly hurt my favorite characters more. Do it!) This is about "oh god, she broke the entire story, the intended values of the story, and the heroism of the protagonists, on which the heroic fantasy of the entire game hinges upon."

I obviously disagree with that. But truthfully, relitigating this will be just us engaging in the same arguments we have both already heard. We can go through it again, if you want to.

You may not intend it, but it's basically poisoning the well.

Ok, let me ask you something. Why do you think I feel like the well was poisoned long before this conversation?

Cool! I'm glad we can find common ground in this. Personally speaking (because I am not a hive mind with other people in A Certain Thread), I don't think the minion and Codex description are that big a deal either way. Do I think as they exist in the game they're dumb? Well, yeah - probably similarly to how you feel about the description of Hades EX. Do I think they need to be changed or the game is ruined forever? Eh. Not really. Seems a relatively minor thing to get super hung up on.

Others would disagree and argue that they have objective reasons to demand its change.

No, once again, absolutely not. "I would probably do the same in that situation" is NOT the same thing as "I think that action is correct." It is a concession that under extreme emotional pressure and trauma, it is understandable and human to make certain harmful decisions or adopt certain harmful mindsets. What Alisaie is saying is that if she had ALSO endured losses and tragedy on the level of Emet-Selch, she can't honestly say she'd do any better.

If one of the world's greatest heroes says "I wouldn't do differently" I take that as a pretty serious statement, especially if the narrative also frames him in similarly glowing ways. If I said "I'd do similarly" when talking about a historical figure I wouldn't be able to claim that I simply empathize no?

[Rulakir]

I don't have the time to dedicate as much as I'd like to this topic at the moment, I just wanted to throw this quote into the ring because Venat did remind me a lot of Thordan.



I thought Thordan's goals had noble intent, but the execution was problematic and that's why we had to stop him. The difference is with Venat no one was able to stop her, she was allowed to make herself a god, reshape the world in her image, and the only 3 people who could remember what she did (and were in a position to do anything about it) are routinely dismissed (how convenient to disregard victim testimony) because they're Ascians (who only exist due to Hydaelyn).

Emet killed himself rather than live longer by Venats magic.

EN localizers making things unnecessarily confusing since 5.0! Neither Emet or Hyth are "alive". Hydaelyn's boost allowed the WoL to give their souls form when they were summoned, but it's not like they were resurrected. Emet (even in EN) says they're "half-faded souls of the dead". So, they didn't kill themselves, their souls simply returned to the aetherial sea.

[EaraGrace]

EN localizers making things unnecessarily confusing since 5.0! Neither Emet or Hyth are "alive". Hydaelyn's boost allowed the WoL to give their souls form when they were summoned, but it's not like they were resurrected. Emet (even in EN) says they're "half-faded souls of the dead". So, they didn't kill themselves, their souls simply returned to the aetherial sea.

Oh god this is definition of splitting hairs. They could’ve hung out longer but choose not to because Emet didn’t like that it was Venats magic that sustained him. Distinction with little difference.

[Iscah]

EN localizers making things unnecessarily confusing since 5.0! Neither Emet or Hyth are "alive". Hydaelyn's boost allowed the WoL to give their souls form when they were summoned, but it's not like they were resurrected. Emet (even in EN) says they're "half-faded souls of the dead". So, they didn't kill themselves, their souls simply returned to the aetherial sea.

So did the English script fail to clarify that they weren't truly resurrected, or make it clear by having Emet state it in a different line?

I've meant to respond to this specific claim when I saw you post it before, but the discussion moved past it.

Just because it doesn't say in the exact same line between Japanese and English that they're only half-alive, the fact is still conveyed within that scene, and that's all it needs.

[Rulakir]

So did the English script fail to clarify that they weren't truly resurrected, or make it clear by having Emet state it in a different line?

It's more that the Mothercrystal cutscene clarifies what Hydaelyn adds to the Azem crystal and what that will allow it to do, so when the UT cutscene comes up you're already aware that Emet and Hyth weren't resurrected they were merely called from the aetherial sea and given form.

The forces I have control over as Hydaelyn are those of stagnation, of calmness. That which steadies life, you could say it like that.
Combined with the power of Azem you should be able to call that which is hidden and give form to it. But it is limited.
Even those who don't even have a body anymore will answer your call...just like the souls in the Aetherial Sea.
But you need to be aware of one thing. Azem's art is not simple magic. Rather, it is based on your own will that will only take form once you carry a heartfelt wish within you.

Emet is also a lot more direct when he answers Meteion saying, "I'm just a dead man on the verge of disappearing." But, like I said, even in EN he says he's a "half-faded soul of the dead" so there's already acknowledgment he hasn't been resurrected there. His saying that he doesn't wish to live again/kept alive by Hydaelyn's magic is a consistent line, but without the previous context can be confusing. It's why I wanted to clarify that he didn't 'kill himself', he was and is already dead throughout that whole sequence. He just chose not to remain there any longer than necessary. (May be splitting hairs for some, but I've seen plenty of people confused by this!)