Who knew the 6.15 Omega Quests… (Spoilers)

[CrownySuccubus]

^ Exactly that.

[Brinne]

Cookingway equates "progress" with "pursuit of perfection" and concludes that the solution is to "be content with what we have".

You know, I've always wondered where Endwalker draws the line in terms of "when do we make life too good and when is it bad to keep trying to make things better, necessitating a Great Reset and inflicting widespread suffering" but I guess Cookingway outlines it right there! Continuing to seek to eliminate negativity after "fulfilling the basic requirements for survival" is folly. Message understood, returning to caves.

[Rulakir]

Plus, if that's the case, then the calamities were a good thing. Mankind apparently needs to be periodically set back every time they reach a certain level of advancement to ensure the species continues, apparently.

[Brinne]

Plus, if that's the case, then the calamities were a good thing. Mankind apparently needs to be periodically set back every time they reach a certain level of advancement to ensure the species continues, apparently.

I mean, we do have Hydaelyn belting out Answers to the CG of the Seventh Umbral Calamity setting the world on fire, so...

[Theodric]

Each to their own, I guess, though if someone figured out how to reliably cure cancer and prevent it from ever killing anyone ever again then I would readily consider that to be a good thing and a step forward for all of humanity. It wouldn't be without consequences - since a healthy population is going to grow over time - but that can be mitigated by looking at new ways to sustain the ever growing population such as improving the yield of planted crops and looking at space travel to begin the process of settling on other planets.

All of which is even easier in a fantasy setting than it would be in the real world - and even then it's hard to buy into the game's desperate caricatures of fallen civilisations when we know full well that even the likes of the Allagan Empire had people pushing against the stagnation and decadence even during its collapse.

The story doesn't treat everyone in Limsa as a pirate. It doesn't portray everyone in Gridania as a zealot devoted utterly to the Elementals. It doesn't portray everyone in Ala Mhigo as rabidly devoted to Rhalgr.

It doesn't take these nations and state that some exaggerated element of their society is going to cause their demise and so they all need to die. What problems exist are dealt with one way or another - but never at the expense of their entire society. So it certainly is strange that the game decided to do a complete turnaround and decide that, actually, sometimes there is a 'good reason' for genocide and that there was 'no other way'.

(Other than the numerous easily identified 'other ways' established elsewhere in the narrative or by, y'know, simply having Venat speak of her concerns instead of immediately writing off the Ancients in their entirety!)

If nothing else, I think the story needed to have the stones to more clearly outline that the choice made was to sacrifice the Unsundered in favour of the Sundered. Not because they deserved it or had it coming. The game desperately tries to disguise that fact through fluffy language and epic music but it cannot hide the reality that is the consequences.

It's a shame, too, since I'd have found Venat to be one of the most compelling characters in a Final Fantasy game to date if not for the weird attempts to excuse what she did as a 'necessity'.

[CrownySuccubus]

You know, I've always wondered where Endwalker draws the line in terms of "when do we make life too good and when is it bad to keep trying to make things better, necessitating a Great Reset and inflicting widespread suffering" but I guess Cookingway outlines it right there! Continuing to seek to eliminate negativity after "fulfilling the basic requirements for survival" is folly. Message understood, returning to caves.

It’s a very common reaction for people of any given era to think “Society isn’t going in the direction I want, so it’s better to burn it all to the ground and start over.” One of the reasons I can’t get with dharmic philosophies is because that mindset is often codified and preached whereas constant cycles of progress and collapse are “natural” and thus a good thing.

[Lauront]

You know, I've always wondered where Endwalker draws the line in terms of "when do we make life too good and when is it bad to keep trying to make things better, necessitating a Great Reset and inflicting widespread suffering" but I guess Cookingway outlines it right there! Continuing to seek to eliminate negativity after "fulfilling the basic requirements for survival" is folly. Message understood, returning to caves.

That's what the Xaela have been trying to tell those foolish Raen all along! Leave so you can escape the constant state of brutal, bloody and, above all else, glorious tribal warfare and hopefully advance as a civilisation? Nope, that way lies death, by suicide, possibly assisted by a supreme deity. Maybe not any time soon, but it'll happen, eventually! The luminosity setting of a brighter tomorrow only goes so far, though we won't tell you where the cut-off point lies triggering the sundering alarm bell.

(Let's just hope the Xaela don't end up forging ahead a bit too much, to Dead End 2...)

Plus, if that's the case, then the calamities were a good thing. Mankind apparently needs to be periodically set back every time they reach a certain level of advancement to ensure the species continues, apparently.

It was strange that the Omega quest didn't make a point of this, since they can be viewed through such a lens given the plot.

[AwesomeJr44]

if someone figured out how to reliably cure cancer and prevent it from ever killing anyone ever again then I would readily consider that to be a good thing and a step forward for all of humanity.

This is the normal human being response to someone curing cancer or preventing people from killing each other. Anyone who unironically glorifies suffering and thinks that the mitigation of said suffering is bad is probably a psychopath or a sociopath. Meaning Venat is probably at least one of those lol

[CrownySuccubus]

This is the normal human being response to someone curing cancer or preventing people from killing each other. Anyone who unironically glorifies suffering and thinks that the mitigation of said suffering is bad is probably a psychopath or a sociopath. Meaning Venat is probably at least one of those lol

Sadly, you don't have to be a psychopath or a sociopath to glorify or celebrate the suffering of yourself or others. For example, there's a lot of mainstream worldviews which readily see forcing oneself or others to struggle, suffer or even die as being good and any attempt to lessen or stop them as being inherently bad. The argument usually goes "A real X is strong, and anyone who isn't is just a [p-word]" or "People from [x group] are just lazy because of Y progress and don't know what real work/struggle is like" or "I suffered from X back in my day, and I turned out fine and/or became better for it!".

Again, you can mad lib whatever specific group/philosophy you like, but I'm betting that everybody here has heard at least one line from that from a perfectly "normal', functioning member of society.

The point is, it's an easy thing to convince yourself of.

[EaraGrace]

You know, I've always wondered where Endwalker draws the line in terms of "when do we make life too good and when is it bad to keep trying to make things better, necessitating a Great Reset and inflicting widespread suffering" but I guess Cookingway outlines it right there! Continuing to seek to eliminate negativity after "fulfilling the basic requirements for survival" is folly. Message understood, returning to caves.

It’s bad when the choice you have is between killing yourself or letting go of paradise.. Which is what happens when there’s nothing left to build, nothing new to experience and nowhere that brings you joy. Live long enough and everything will lose its luster. What does a dog do when it’s caught the car?

Cookingway equates "progress" with "pursuit of perfection" and concludes that the solution is to "be content with what we have".

Again, the problem with Endwalker is that it wants to conclude that both Meaning 1 "Perfection is impossible" and Meaning 2 "Perfection is inherently bad" are the same thing. The theme of the game is a massive Perfect Solution Fallacy: "perfection is impossible, so don't bother".

You’re misrepresenting their statement. They don’t equate perfection with progress, they say that living beings incorrectly associate perfection with progress, and in so doing create their own demise.

Further, Cookingway then immediately states that perfection is impossible, ala the “immaculate carrot.” How is it logical to interpret Cookingways message as saying perfection is possible and bad, when he directly states that perfection is a paradox?

Once again, Endwalkers message is only contradictory if you believe that a group of civilizations that killed themselves because of the worlds they made can be called “perfect.”

Sadly, you don't have to be a psychopath or a sociopath to glorify or celebrate the suffering of yourself or others. For example, there's a lot of mainstream worldviews which readily see forcing oneself or others to struggle, suffer or even die as being good and any attempt to lessen or stop them as being inherently bad.

I don’t have to see struggle as a good thing and still believe it necessary for good to flourish. Winning at a competition only feels good if you know you could’ve lost. Is losing a bad thing? I’d say so.