Endwalker Story sucked and it's time to admit it

[Theodric]

The game has never really shied away from depicting gruesome events in as much detail as they can get away when accounting for the age rating. With that said, it is a pretty strange decision not to show the Sundering or the battle between Hydaelyn and Zodiark in explicit detail. Much in the same way as how the Sundering is never explicitly called a genocide despite fitting every definition of such in the same way the Rejoinings do.

I'd also correct the misinterpretation that Venat had 'no other choice' and that the Sundering was the 'only option available to her'. In Pandaemonium we see yet again that she was a highly respected figure and that it was perfectly possible for the Ancients to show memories to one another in order to share vital information. Coincidentally, the more we learn about the Ancients the more we see that not only were they completely undeserving of the genocidal campaign inflicted upon them but that Venat never intended to give them a fair chance in the first place and outright lied and deflected at every turn.

[thegreatonemal]

The game has never really shied away from depicting gruesome events in as much detail as they can get away when accounting for the age rating. With that said, it is a pretty strange decision not to show the Sundering or the battle between Hydaelyn and Zodiark in explicit detail. Much in the same way as how the Sundering is never explicitly called a genocide despite fitting every definition of such in the same way the Rejoinings do.

I'd also correct the misinterpretation that Venat had 'no other choice' and that the Sundering was the 'only option available to her'. In Pandaemonium we see yet again that she was a highly respected figure and that it was perfectly possible for the Ancients to show memories to one another in order to share vital information. Coincidentally, the more we learn about the Ancients the more we see that not only were they completely undeserving of the genocidal campaign inflicted upon them but that Venat never intended to give them a fair chance in the first place and outright lied and deflected at every turn.

Just going to ignore her faction trying to convince the Convocation and being rebuked are you?

[Cleretic]

I'd also correct the misinterpretation that Venat had 'no other choice' and that the Sundering was the 'only option available to her'. In Pandaemonium we see yet again that she was a highly respected figure and that it was perfectly possible for the Ancients to show memories to one another in order to share vital information.

I see this argument a lot, as if Venat's whole problem was 'but nobody would believe me'. That wasn't the problem, the problem was that she felt they couldn't handle the truth; that if Hermes knew he'd refuse to help with the necessary defenses (which Hermes himself agrees with), that if someone like Emet knew they'd tell him (which... you know, he would), and that a whole bunch of average citizens would react to that whole 'hey the apocalypse is coming' information poorly (which we know they do).

Ironically, Venat's problem is the exact reverse of struggling to get people to believe her: Venat is so positively regarded, and the Ancients so suited to checking the veracity of an assertion, that anyone she tells would immediately understand the truth and that the truth is terrifying. That game changes once the Convocation are tempered and won't listen even if they are approached (as the poster above me pointed out), but not in a way that makes things any better.

But if this is where this thread is going, I'm gonna go ahead and ollie out, because this mono-argument has been tedious for all but one of the months in which it's been held, and you and yours haven't listened to these points the last seventeen times they were made either.

[Theodric]

I see this argument a lot, as if Venat's whole problem was 'but nobody would believe me'. That wasn't the problem, the problem was that she felt they couldn't handle the truth; that if Hermes knew he'd refuse to help with the necessary defenses (which Hermes himself agrees with), that if someone like Emet knew they'd tell him (which... you know, he would), and that a whole bunch of average citizens would react to that whole 'hey the apocalypse is coming' information poorly (which we know they do).

Ironically, Venat's problem is the exact reverse of struggling to get people to believe her: Venat is so positively regarded, and the Ancients so suited to checking the veracity of an assertion, that anyone she tells would immediately understand the truth and that the truth is terrifying. That game changes once the Convocation are tempered and won't listen even if they are approached (as the poster above me pointed out), but not in a way that makes things any better.

But if this is where this thread is going, I'm gonna go ahead and ollie out, because this mono-argument has been tedious for all but one of the months in which it's been held, and you haven't listened to these points the last seventeen times they were made either.

Thordan also believed the people of Ishgard could not handle the truth regarding the Dragonsong War yet he was ultimately proven wrong and the conflict - despite lasting a thousand years - drew to a close.

It isn't a controversial opinion to suggest that genocide is not an appropriate alternative to having difficult conversations. We even see with Garlemald that the people there, bitter enemies to those who ventured there to help out, are treated with dignity and respect and are not just wiped out even if it would have been the easiest solution and prevented further problems in the future.

What you seem to be asking for is for people to just shrug and accept genocide of innocent men, women and children as a necessity when viable alternatives existed. Though you're correct on one thing at least, this debate has certainly been had many times in the past and will no doubt continue well into the future. I do believe that numerous posters have provided sources to counter the points raised in favour of genocide being a necessity, though.

[Lyth]

We also just found out in Pandaemonium that the Speaker of the Convocation was a murderer who misappropriated a public institution for his own personal benefit. The Convocation has been pretty hit or miss so far when it comes to reliability.

I'm honestly not sure how many times and ways "Endwalker sucks!" can be repeated. 8 months isn't long enough to find out, evidently.

You'd be amazed at how long one person can nurse a grudge. It's not even about the game or its story, at its core.

[Thenightvortex]

I see this argument a lot, as if Venat's whole problem was 'but nobody would believe me'. That wasn't the problem, the problem was that she felt they couldn't handle the truth; that if Hermes knew he'd refuse to help with the necessary defenses (which Hermes himself agrees with), that if someone like Emet knew they'd tell him (which... you know, he would), and that a whole bunch of average citizens would react to that whole 'hey the apocalypse is coming' information poorly (which we know they do).

Ironically, Venat's problem is the exact reverse of struggling to get people to believe her: Venat is so positively regarded, and the Ancients so suited to checking the veracity of an assertion, that anyone she tells would immediately understand the truth and that the truth is terrifying. That game changes once the Convocation are tempered and won't listen even if they are approached (as the poster above me pointed out), but not in a way that makes things any better.

But if this is where this thread is going, I'm gonna go ahead and ollie out, because this mono-argument has been tedious for all but one of the months in which it's been held, and you and yours haven't listened to these points the last seventeen times they were made either.

Too many feelings on her part, not enough practice. Her thoughts and doubts are not a good reason for not trying. Had the convocation known, they could either look for other dynamis experts, shouldn’t be too hard considering their combined influence and connections, or forced Hermes to help(ain’t that hard for 13 to overpower one man). Regarding the citizens reacting…Well, yes, hearing that the doom is approaching soon would be terrifying. But you know what is even more terrifying? Having that doom suddenly appear at your doorstep without any forewarning amidst a seemingly normal day.

She never gave them a fair chance because of her feelings, that’s immoral.

[thegreatonemal]

Thordan also believed the people of Ishgard could not handle the truth regarding the Dragonsong War yet he was ultimately proven wrong and the conflict - despite lasting a thousand years - drew to a close.

It isn't a controversial opinion to suggest that genocide is not an appropriate alternative to having difficult conversations. We even see with Garlemald that the people there, bitter enemies to those who ventured there to help out, are treated with dignity and respect and are not just wiped out even if it would have been the easiest solution and prevented further problems in the future.

What you seem to be asking for is for people to just shrug and accept genocide of innocent men, women and children as a necessity when viable alternatives existed. Though you're correct on one thing at least, this debate has certainly been had many times in the past and will no doubt continue well into the future. I do believe that numerous posters have provided sources to counter the points raised in favour of genocide being a necessity, though.

You left out that part where we killed him and the conflict between those who wanted to change and those who wanted to keep the status quo had a fight and one side won over the other.
It was a last resort, all other options had failed so they fought and the only way to defeat Zodiark was the sundering.

You and yours have yet to provide that. Just a bunch of speculation that really isn't supported by the story nor the characters and their motivations.

[redheadturk]

We also just found out in Pandaemonium that the Speaker of the Convocation was a murderer who misappropriated a public institution for his own personal benefit. The Convocation has been pretty hit or miss so far when it comes to reliability.

You'd be amazed at how long one person can nurse a grudge. It's not even about the game or its story, at its core.

I would very much argue that the murder of Athena was a justified homicide, considering that she was experimenting on their son without the consent of either said son or his father. I would gladly murder my wife to protect my child in his shoes.

[tokinokanatae]

You left out that part where we killed him and the conflict between those who wanted to change and those who wanted to keep the status quo had a fight and one side won over the other.

There were a lot of Ishgardians that reacted badly to the truth about the Dragonsong War. People that had suffered loss, gone through unimaginable pain over a lie that those in power had perpetuated. Some of them even translated that grief into horrible action, like attempted assassination or deliberately disrupting peace talks.

Yet, curiously, at no point is the “solution” to these people’s outpouring of pain the murder of every man, woman, and child in Ishgard. The solution wasn’t even to murder the opposition. Funny, that.

EDIT: These conversations tend to be extremely circular, so let me provide you with a different thought experiment.

Let us say Aymeric and his friends (us included) wound up being a minority in the Dragonsong War aftermath. The majority of Ishgardians are unable to move past the collective psychic wounds immediately after the revelation, and they decide their course of action will be to summon Thordan as a primal. No arguing of the foolishness of this course of action can dissuade the people of Ishgard from this path.

Do you think the Warrior of Light would then kill every single Ishgardian? Would that be the solution the game would put forth for this situation—and would they have our character enact it?

[Theodric]

I would very much argue that the murder of Athena was a justified homicide, considering that she was experimenting on their son without the consent of either said son or his father. I would gladly murder my wife to protect my child in his shoes.

This.

Seems like a pretty strange thing to be hung up on given the kill count of the likes of Aymeric who technically murdered many dragons and Ishgardians loyal to his father, Hien who technically murdered many Garleans and Domans alike who were loyal to Yotsuyu and the Empire or the numerous other characters who we regularly interact with who have been given reason to end another life or even many lives.

Furthermore, I am not saying that they were wrong to kill those people. It made sense given the circumstances!

Though it's quite interesting, really. Not only are the people arguing from such a position on record of wanting to move on from discussing the 'Amaurotians' (despite participating in each and every thread related to them) but they almost seem to frame things in such a way as to suggest that no matter what the Ancients do they are wrong, even if it's a matter of self defense.

I suppose it makes sense if the intention is to try and desperately justify Venat's genocidal campaign at any cost though. At least we've moved on from the bizarre conspiracy theories about us all being alts of one another, though. That's a step in the right direction at least.