Live Letter Thoughts

[Jeeqbit]

In any case it wasn't her that preserved anyone's souls, that was the function of Zodiark whose summoners' souls weren't consumed by him like Hydaelyn did hers.

I meant the souls that she sundered still continued to live. They would die but they would live again, which is how we still live.

Had the final sacrifice of plant and animal life come to fruition, they likely would've been able to escape their predicament.

Zodiark uses their aether to create plant and animal life. Their aether is now gone. To restore them, the plant and animal life needs to be reclaimed. The question is if this would actually have happened or if it was just wishful thinking and Zodiark just wanted the aether.

We have to remember that Zodiark was created with a desire to recruit others to their cause, so they were tempered (Emet-Selch admits this). Primals as we have known them want more aether.

If everyone was in fact tempered by Zodiark, then maybe Venat thought of a way not to be such as her blessing spell.

The echo existed in that era, so she was more than capable of proving herself true to anyone.

True. But even seeing again what happened, he was barely convinced the first time and perhaps that swayed her not to, even if it was a wrong decision because the context might have changed his behavior against us.

Venat's backup plan of sending them out in space without the protection of Zodiark almost assuredly putting them directly within Meteion's reach.

The intended vessel (the Moon), houses Zodiark, which could be construed as protection. Meteion might have been unaware of the change in location and not sending waves in that direction.

Do you see why people have taken issue with the way in which this story was constructed and the ways in which it attempts to justify its plot points?

I could complain about it and nitpick it such as with the echo plothole in Elpis, but it's not my story, it's SE's and I just focus on finding a way to enjoy it and accepting when they subvert my expectations.

• Garlemald, subverted expectation, because we all had thought of a Garlean expansion.
• Zenos, subverted expectation because he was built up as the main villain of EW in the trailer.

[dapperfaffer]

We don't want a giant retcon of the lore, we just want some people in game to give a shit that Hydaelyn effectively erased an entire planet's worth of people. Instead, we get to cover it up.

On this point, its relative to the actions of the 2 sides. The Ancients were already on the way to exterminating themselves through sacrifice to Zodiark, so while Hypocralyn effectively did the same thing with the sundering, the remnants or 'echos' of the ancients still exist in the life that was created in formation of the shards. Without Hmmdalyns actions the scions don't exist. Which is reflected by Y'shotlas admonishment of Emet and his attempt to rejoin the shards back into the being the Source. She accepts that they are gone, and now she exists - so they the new entities in existence - must forge ahead to continue life.

[FatalFatalis]

I have no idea what is happening in this thread. I just think what they showed us was good, but we shall see how it turns out.

[Zanarkand-Ronso]

I have no idea what is happening in this thread. I just think what they showed us was good, but we shall see how it turns out.

[Jojoya]

This is a disingenuous way to phrase it. It's been made very clear that the Ancients sacrificed themselves to summon Zodiark and that they did so willingly, the story never supports that they were forced nor brainwashed into it. Whether the Convocation could be still considered responsible for their sacrifice is an interesting question, but it's certainly not as clear cut as the way you say it.

A lot of this conversation comes about only because the writer decided this is the way things should happen and didn't pour over possible consequences like players are.

What was made clear was that the Amaurotines had a belief that death renewed life so self-sacrifice was revered. No mention was made of the other societies with their own autonomous governments we know had existed on Etheirys thanks to the 5.0 side quest. Can we be certain that they also sacrificed themselves willingly, or is that just something being told to us by a member of the Amaurotine ruling class who held the belief and had a difficult time giving due consideration to others who didn't share that belief? You know, the same guy that had told us that he decided we weren't truly alive so it wouldn't be murder to kill us. Was all that something overlooked by the writer in creating the story?

If Venat's plan hinged on the Convocation summoning Zodiark, why would she remain silent instead of speaking with them? The WoL was told in Elpis that while their actions on Elpis would not change the WoL's past, they could change the future of the Amaurotine-era Etheirys. You would think that Venat would have done everything possible to make certain her plan had all the i's dotted and t's crossed. Was that also overlooked by the writer?

Then there's Argos, which is the supposed proof our timelines truly did converge. Did it not strike anyone else as weird that while Argos refused to carry us at first despite Venat's request, it had no problem immediately carrying Y'shtola, Thancred and Urianger at the Watcher's request? Again, perhaps another detail overlooked by the writer.

Again, it's a story. What happens in the story is all fiction created for the writer's purpose. You guys are allowing yourselves to get too worked up over it. There's a big difference between saying "Venat is evil" and saying "I don't think the writer did a good job of convincing me that I should view Venat favorably".

One thing that makes me very curious: assuming these were actual events and not a writer's imagination, what do you think would have happened to Etheirys if Venat had simply stepped aside and done nothing at all?

You didn't major in Literature, did you? :P

You're right. As much as I love to read, I got tired of being told by instructors that there's only a single way to interpret a given piece of literature and so crossed that out on my list of possible majors. I loved those occasions I could find statements by the author that it was up to the individual reader to decide the meaning and still I'd be told I was wrong (despite one of those statements actually being included in the author's preface to the book of his short stories).

Being closeminded to other opinions is a sure path to stagnation. You don't have to agree but at least listen in case something is said that might give you a different view and give credit when their argument is constructed well.

[Kazhar]

A lot of this conversation comes about only because the writer decided this is the way things should happen and didn't pour over possible consequences like players are.

What was made clear was that the Amaurotines had a belief that death renewed life so self-sacrifice was revered. No mention was made of the other societies with their own autonomous governments we know had existed on Etheirys thanks to the 5.0 side quest. Can we be certain that they also sacrificed themselves willingly, or is that just something being told to us by a member of the Amaurotine ruling class who held the belief and had a difficult time giving due consideration to others who didn't share that belief? You know, the same guy that had told us that he decided we weren't truly alive so it wouldn't be murder to kill us. Was all that something overlooked by the writer in creating the story?

I'm fine with speculation, but this is entirely baseless. It comes from more than one source (not only Emet-Selch, but also Hythlodaeus, the side stories and possibly more) at no point any character disputed the claim. Also, we have no reason to believe Hydaelyn's summoning worked differently and it was told than their summoners too willingly sacrificed themselves too. This isn't even a case of "a writer forgot", it simply didn't happen in the story they told.

Again, it's a story. What happens in the story is all fiction created for the writer's purpose. You guys are allowing yourselves to get too worked up over it. There's a big difference between saying "Venat is evil" and saying "I don't think the writer did a good job of convincing me that I should view Venat favorably".

Well, discussing the merits of the story in a discussion forum is the entire point, so I'm not too sure where you're going with it. Should I just give up trying to make sense of it because "it's so poorly written it's better to not think about it too much"? There are plenty of really great stories I've seen and read I'm able to analyze and discuss for literal years, and sometimes appreciate them even more for it. If Endwalker gets demolished by the smallest of scrutiny, perhaps it just wasn't a good story in the first place.

[Jojoya]

I'm fine with speculation, but this is entirely baseless. It comes from more than one source (not only Emet-Selch, but also Hythlodaeus, the side stories and possibly more) at no point any character disputed the claim. Also, we have no reason to believe Hydaelyn's summoning worked differently and it was told than their summoners too willingly sacrificed themselves too. This isn't even a case of "a writer forgot", it simply didn't happen in the story they told.



Well, discussing the merits of the story in a discussion forum is the entire point, so I'm not too sure where you're going with it. Should I just give up trying to make sense of it because "it's so poorly written it's better to not think about it too much"? There are plenty of really great stories I've seen and read I'm able to analyze and discuss for literal years, and sometimes appreciate them even more for it. If Endwalker gets demolished by the smallest of scrutiny, perhaps it just wasn't a good story in the first place.

Or you could take it to the lore forum that's intended for discussion instead of derailing a thread created for discussion of the Live Letter. Not to say that you're the one responsible or I'm completely innocent of it myself. A lot of people have been derailing the thread all along, including the OP.

As for whether Endwalker was a good story, I'd call it decent but definitely could have been done better. I think the problem is that they smashed what had originally been planned out as 2 expansions worth of story into a single expansion. That ended up cutting out a lot of potential story development that could have made better sense of things. This should have been the Garlemald expansion. Post expansion should have been the moon and set up for the Final Days (with Zodiark as the X.3 trial boss) and 7.0 the Elpis/Ultima Thule expansion.

Still I was well entertained and since I play the game for entertainment, I'm happy enough. I don't expect a MMO story to be on the level of literary classics. MMO stories still have to be adjusted to allow for game play.

[Jettinson]

I have no idea what is happening in this thread. I just think what they showed us was good, but we shall see how it turns out.

Yeah, I do not want to be over hyped but seeing Nanamo directly involved with the dungeon side content got me excited for example.

[TaleraRistain]

This is not a copy paste job. This is to date the sole depiction of the aftermath of the Sundering (canon, written by Ishikawa)

I feel like Ishikawa may have have made a misstep on this one. There's a problem with making anything crossed over into another game canon to the original game in the first place, but it's made more of a problem when it directly contradicts the canon of the original game. And this goes against what Emet himself described to us about the effect of Sundering in Shadowbringers.

I expect for characters to evolve in meaningful ways by way of growth, loss, change, or death.

It's incredibly hard to take this statement seriously when you complain that Estinien lost his "edge" so he's a bad character now. Not that he came from a painful and lonely background and grew and progressed as a person and was able to move past that pain so he could form deep and lasting connections with others in the world. It really does come off as many say that SE didn't write it the way you wanted so it's bad.

[hagare]

It's incredibly hard to take this statement seriously when you complain that Estinien lost his "edge" so he's a bad character now. Not that he came from a painful and lonely background and grew and progressed as a person and was able to move past that pain so he could form deep and lasting connections with others in the world. It really does come off as many say that SE didn't write it the way you wanted so it's bad.

I really like how estinien grew from making meaningful connections. How he's now more relaxed to be able to even make jokes. And how he trusts people more that he willingly sacrificed his life for them in UT.
Not every growth has to come from tragedy.