Endwalker Story sucked and it's time to admit it

[Lurina]

I think I'm the one who kicked off the latest argument, and I wish people wouldn't reduce these conversations to pro- vs. anti-Venat.

I think Venat is cool. I think the writing choices surrounding her (and a lot of EW) are absolutely inscrutable. I don't want them to make her into a villain, I want them to quit making those choices so I can stop being incredibly distracted by by the setting's weird moral compass. I'll quit moaning when they quit doing it.

[AwesomeJr44]

I don't (want) them to make her into a villain

They already did in all but name, some just choose to live in blissful ignorance.

[Lurina]

They already did in all but name, some just choose to live in blissful ignorance.

You're mistaking awkward writing for deliberate intent. The tone makes it obvious the writers did not want Venat to come across as a villain - Yoshi-P literally said "she's not a villain" in the liveletter Q&A.

It's not helpful to think of these disagreements as diegetic. The issue isn't that players aren't on the same page, the issue is that the writers seem like they aren't. You can even see this quite clearly in a couple of the post-EW interviews - Ishikawa thinks of the story as a subjective piece where no one is really right and wrong, while Yoshi-P sees it as a more straightforward heroic fantasy. Peas are getting mixed with porridge.

[Hurlstone]

You're mistaking awkward writing for deliberate intent. The tone makes it obvious the writers did not want Venat to come across as a villain - Yoshi-P literally said "she's not a villain" in the liveletter Q&A.

It's not helpful to think of these disagreements as diegetic. The issue isn't that players aren't on the same page, the issue is that the writers seem like they aren't. You can even see this quite clearly in a couple of the post-EW interviews - Ishikawa thinks of the story as a subjective piece where no one is really right and wrong, while Yoshi-P sees it as a more straightforward heroic fantasy. Peas are getting mixed with porridge.

Thats an interesting way of putting it. I can certainly see elements of both viewpoints in the story. While I do think the story tries to show that what Vanet did was horrible and a last ditch “lives of the many out weight the lives of the few” effort, it obviously dose side with her in the end and does not critique her as much as it probably should. At the same time, side quests like the Omega one do try and make the player think a little more about who really was right in the end. Its a shame its hidden in a side quest.

[Lurina]

Thats an interesting way of putting it. I can certainly see elements of both viewpoints in the story. While I do think the story tries to show that what Vanet did was horrible and a last ditch “lives of the many out weight the lives of the few” effort, it obviously dose side with her in the end and does not critique her as much as it probably should. At the same time, side quests like the Omega one does try and make the player think a little more about who really was right in the end. Its a shame its hidden in a side quest.

The reason for this is that the Omega side quest was wholly written by Ishikawa, while EW at large is obviously a collab. (This isn't speculation, to be clear - these are both confirmed.)

Ishikawa was also the one who created the original Final Days and Hydaelyn vs. Zodiark scenario, probably with the same mindset. I feel like a lot of these problems come from EW trying to bend that stuff to fit more morally straightforward story they wanted to tell, and not really being able to deal with the wrinkles this creates.

[Hurlstone]

The reason for this is that the Omega side quest was wholly written by Ishikawa, while EW at large is obviously a collab. (This isn't speculation, to be clear - these are both confirmed.)

Thats cool to know, thanks! I must try and look up more behind the scenes stuff in regards to the games writing proses. I have read some interviews with her before and they have always been fascinating.

[AwesomeJr44]

You're mistaking awkward writing for deliberate intent. The tone makes it obvious the writers did not want Venat to come across as a villain - Yoshi-P literally said "she's not a villain" in the liveletter Q&A.

It doesn't matter what they intended, it's what they did and what we got that matters. (Which is ironic because that's true for Venat herself too) The writers clearly wanted her to be a messiah figure, but they wrote her as a genocidal maniac who glorifies suffering for the sake of it. I believe you when you say that the writers aren't on the same page as their writing, they wrote this evil character and portrayed her a tragic hero and expected people to buy it. Thus she is indeed a villain in all but name, and a lot of people bought the lie, hook line and sinker.

[Iscah]

I believe you when you say that the writers aren't on the same page as their writing, they wrote this evil character and portrayed her a tragic hero and expected people to buy it. Thus she is indeed a villain in all but name, and a lot of people bought the lie, hook line and sinker.

But they didn't intend to "sell you a lie". They intended for her to be a tragic heroine. They did a bad job on the details but it's still what they intended, and other parts of the story reflect that portrayal.

So, going forward in the story, you have the choice to accept their intent (and not scrutinise the details) or focus on an interpretation that might be "more accurate" but at the cost of being at odds with what the writers think they wrote and thus will refer back to.

[Lurina]

But they didn't intend to "sell you a lie". They intended for her to be a tragic heroine. They did a bad job on the details but it's still what they intended, and other parts of the story reflect that portrayal.

So, going forward in the story, you have the choice to accept their intent (and not scrutinise the details) or focus on an interpretation that might be "more accurate" but at the cost of being at odds with what the writers think they wrote and thus will refer back to.

I think what makes all strange is that the usual response from writers who put out something which doesn't quite come out the way they intended (and since pretty much every public discussion about Venat on any platform gets some degree of derailment along these lines, I think it's reasonable to say it didn't, at least not completely) is to self-correct, so that at least that dissonance doesn't linger going forward. And a lot of post-EW content, like the Omega quest and Pandaemonium, does feel like self-correction to some degree.

But then you have things like this short story that don't, and just double down on the vibe of the original in one way or the other. So it all feels very discordant...

If I might get a little conspiratorial, it feels like a lot of the writers are still kind of dying on hills for their take on the story without really considering how they will impact the broader picture. So in one corner you have Ishikawa writing the Nier Reincarnation story that portrays the Sundering in basically the most horrific light possible, while in the other you have stuff like this - probably written by Yoshi-P or someone on the same page as him - that's basically treating Venat like a saint. Ishikawa obviously doesn't think of Venat in such simple terms as "tragic heroine" and so feels comfortable injecting even more ambiguity, but the core narrative voice is insistent in spite of her contributions.

It feels like we're listening to two different songs being played at the same time. In isolation, both songs are fine, and if we parse them that way it's possible to enjoy them. But if we try to treat them as one melody, the result is bizarre.

[Listrella]

I think what makes all strange is that the usual response from writers who put out something which doesn't quite come out the way they intended (and since pretty much every public discussion about Venat on any platform gets some degree of derailment along these lines, I think it's reasonable to say it didn't) is to self-correct, so that at least that dissonance doesn't linger going forward. And a lot of post-EW content, like the Omega quest and Pandaemonium, does feel like self-correction to some degree.

But then you have things like this short story that don't, and just double down on the vibe of the original in one way or the other. So it all feels very discordant...

If I might get a little conspiratorial, it feels like a lot of the writers are kind of dying on hills for their take on the story without really considering how they will impact the broader picture. So in one corner you have Ishikawa writing the Nier Reincarnation story that portrays the Sundering in basically the most horrific light possible, while in the other you have stuff like this - probably written by Yoshi-P or someone on the same page as him - that's basically treating Venat like a saint. Ishikawa obviously doesn't think of Venat as a "tragic heroine" and so feels comfortable injecting all this ambiguity, but the core narrative voice is insistent in spite of her contributions.

It feels like we're listening to two different songs being played at the same time. In isolation, both songs are fine, and if we parse them that way it's possible to enjoy them. But if we try to treat them as one melody, the result is bizarre.

what the hell has nier reincarnation got to do with this? that's a completely different series, just because nier had a crossover here doesn't mean reincarnation relates to ff14 in any way.