Live Letter Thoughts

[redheadturk]

You've asked for more then a Heavensward Approach.

For example, you keep bringing up other games and how they do their storytelling. Thats not asking for a Heavenward approach.
Saying how we should constantly be setting up camps after a dungeon and eating food rations and hunting for food, is not asking for a Heavensward Approach.
Talking about Friction between people, Arguments. Tension between party members as seen on other games, is not asking for a Heavenward Approach

I too want more of a HW approach, darker story where death has meaning. I also want them to take the shb approach, unravel the time loop and allow both Ancient and Sundered to have their happy endings in a separate timeline. There was no reason they couldn't have gone with a branched timeline, which would have satisfied those of us who love the Ancients.

[Zanarkand-Ronso]

I too want more of a HW approach, darker story where death has meaning. I also want them to take the shb approach, unravel the time loop and allow both Ancient and Sundered to have their happy endings in a separate timeline. There was no reason they couldn't have gone with a branched timeline, which would have satisfied those of us who love the Ancients.

Your personal want of something doesnt just wish it into existence. You not being able to ration why something didnt happen the way you think/want, doesnt just make it happen that way.
And again, I have no qualms or arguments against a Darker Story. But thats just not how this story is currently being told. Sorry Fam

GW2's mount system feels insanely better than FXIV's,
I would lose all my mounts, paid included, for that system.. not that I suggest that be the way they do it if they did lol.

Well thats a FLIGHT system. Its naturally better because its a whole mechanic WITH your mounts, instead of just having faster movement speed around a map.

[Anura]

I too want more of a HW approach, darker story where death has meaning. I also want them to take the shb approach, unravel the time loop and allow both Ancient and Sundered to have their happy endings in a separate timeline. There was no reason they couldn't have gone with a branched timeline, which would have satisfied those of us who love the Ancients.

Darker story where death has meaning, but they shouldn't apply it to the ancients. Did I get that right? You want us messing around multiple timelines (as if the time travel we just did wasn't bad enough) just so they can have their happy ending. To me, this feels more like fairytale than a "darker" story. Let's be consistent.

[Theodric]

Darker story where death has meaning, but they shouldn't apply it to the ancients. Did I get that right? You want us messing around multiple timelines (as if the time travel we just did wasn't bad enough) just so they can have their happy ending. To me, this feels more like fairytale than a "darker" story. Let's be consistent.

You realise there's a difference between the extinction of an entire race and one or two samey protagonists dying every now and then...right?

[redheadturk]

Darker story where death has meaning, but they shouldn't apply it to the ancients. Did I get that right? You want us messing around multiple timelines (as if the time travel we just did wasn't bad enough) just so they can have their happy ending. To me, this feels more like fairytale than a "darker" story. Let's be consistent.

What they did to the Ancients is something that if it happened IRL would get a person executed. It's called genocide, and yes, it very well should be rectified.

[Valkyrie_Lenneth]

What they did to the Ancients is something that if it happened IRL would get a person executed. It's called genocide, and yes, it very well should be rectified.

Well, you guys keep using that word, but I don't think it's accurate.


Genocide requires the intent of eradicating a race or ethnicity. The sundering was not meant to do that. It may be the end result, but it was not the intent.

And even then, if you can "rebuild" the ancients via the rejoining, then they aren't eradicated, no? They are simply split.

[Theodric]

Well, you guys keep using that word, but I don't think it's accurate.

It is. As per usual, my advice to you would include the typical suggestion of bookmarking this post. I know some posters really struggle to grasp concepts that have been explained to them many times already.

At any rate, here's the official definition of genocide:



The Sundering fits every single criteria. So...yes, it's an act of genocide. Hide it behind fluffy language all you like though if the protagonists wouldn't accept such a thing happening to their loved ones then there's really no reason for anybody else to either.

[Valkyrie_Lenneth]

It is. As per usual, my advice to you would include the typical suggestion of bookmarking this post. I know some posters really struggle to grasp concepts that have been explained to them many times already.

At any rate, here's the official definition of genocide:



The Sundering fits every single criteria. So...yes, it's an act of genocide. Hide it behind fluffy language all you like though if the protagonists wouldn't accept such a thing happening to their loved ones then there's really no reason for anybody else to either.

You are the most condescending person on here lol.

And I disagree that your definition matches. Venat was not aiming to cause harm, but to save.

gen·o·cide
/ˈjenəˌsīd/
noun
the deliberate killing of a large number of people from a particular nation or ethnic group with the aim of destroying that nation or group

From Oxford.


Also for someone so tied up about it, you didn't seem to care too much when your beloved Garleans wanted to wipe the beast tribes off the planet.

[Knot_D]

Also for someone so tied up about it, you didn't seem to care too much when your beloved Garlean's wanted to wipe the beast tribes off the planet.

They probably gonna blame Venat for the beast tribe genocide

[ZavosEsperian]

So I come to this thread, and I see we have devolved into the genocide talk of whether Venat/Hydaelyn did commit the act itself.

At any rate, here's the official definition of genocide.

This definition above is the one used by, and is adhered to by, nations who signed and ratified the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of
Genocide, where this definition is Article II of that convention. By signatories alone, there are 152 nations on Earth that recognize this as the official definition of genocide by UN Convention.

And I disagree that your definition matches.

The definition you elected to pick seems cherry-picked to back your own argument and is an incomplete definition. Other dictionaries, such as Merriam-Webster, would contradict the definition of genocide you accept, as that definition states "the deliberate and systematic destruction of a racial, political, or cultural group". Note deliberate and systematic destruction does not require killing as an element for this to hold true, as you can destroy a group via re-education and sterilization.

To be more specific in Venat's case, her act via sundering Etherys and its peoples would quantify as genocide, since killing people is not a requirement in committing/perpetrating a genocide by most accepted definitions. What she did irrevocably split the Ancients' souls into smaller fragments and opening them up to life's hardships and suffering. By way of sundering the souls of the Ancients, she deliberately and systematically destroyed the Ancients as a race of people, thus the definition of genocide holds. Venat even admits to doing these acts. While the outcome turned out well for the Universe as a whole, it is still indeed a case of genocide. Whether you believe this to be justified is the part that is open to interpretation.

My own personal opinion on the matter would say no particular party in the story has the right to commit the act of genocide even if the outcome was positive. As such all of these parties would be in the wrong. Emet, Hermes (using the Meteia as the instrument of destruction), and Venat all perpetuated the act of genocide at some point in the story. Any empire that did as the definition from Article II states also committed genocide.

As far as MSQ related stuff is concerned, I'm interested on seeing where the story goes. I do actually want some clarification on Venat between where we encounter her in Elpis up to the point she elects to sunder Etherys. Without that information, it is difficult for me to ascertain all of the things Venat did or did not do up until that point, as I would assume she, as a former bearer of the Seat of Azem, would probably try to avoid the foretold destruction of her people caused by The Final Days and avoid making the decision to sunder Etherys without exhausting all other options.