Endwalker Story sucked and it's time to admit 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.

[Rulakir]

Plus to be fair how many of you anti-Venat people would stay out of a thread tittled '"Endwalker Story is Amazing and its time to admit it."?

I can only speak for myself, but I have no interest in gush fests over EW. Matter of fact, I was quite annoyed when the "lackluster" thread started attracting the same lore forum people we were trying to avoid because apparently we couldn't have even one thread to just commiserate amongst ourselves. I wasn't looking for or interested in debate, I wanted to have discussions with other like-minded people. Then we get accused of being an echo chamber which, by the way, is the stupidest thing ever. Nobody is required to have constant exposure to opposing views, that's not how anything in the world works and if any of us tried that BS in a positivity thread we'd be rightfully laughed at.

[Hurlstone]

The quality of a story is objective. You can like a bad story if you so choose, but that choice does not make that story of a higher quality. If I write a book series of four books, and in my last one I trash everything that came before and repeatedly try to force my readers to agree with me and like a certain character that I do, that's bad storytelling objectively. You can like my story, but it is not good. The same is true in reverse. For example, Lord of the Rings (both the books and the movies) is an objectively amazing series that is very high quality. There are still plenty of people who don't like it for one reason or another. Them not liking Lord of the Rings does not make it a bad series. You can have your opinion on whether you LIKED or DISLIKED Endwalker or LotR, but your opinion does not define its quality as that is objective.

Who decides what the rules for storytelling and art are though? If you ask four different writers what makes a good story and structure, you could very well get four different answers. In the same way that four professional reviewers can give totally different opinions to one film. How can a community of countless voices decide what is and is not objective elements of a MMO video game story? There are many voices in this debate, and the vast majority will not be free of any biases. At best, and this is stretching it a little, the Endwalker reaction seems to be split, even here where negative voices get to shine more the pendulum dose not sway in one direction alone. You can argue that its devise for sure and I would agree, but I really do not think you can say it is objectively bad.

[Lauront]

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 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.

The problem, in my eyes, is that they have pushed it in a direction where they feel compelled to try justify what she did to the ancients, while handing her near complete control (meaning desperation is out the window as an excuse), which means either demonising/dehumanising the ancients in some facet, or pushing the act as an inevitability, but then putting in all these loopholes that bring that into question, whilst doubling down on playing up her virtues, so it ends up seeming like one huge argument from authority (as well as love-bombing) - and I think that makes it exceedingly difficult to separate her out as a person, even if I'd rather do that myself, as I am not particularly driven by a desire for her to be vilified, as such.

The discussions about her narrative treatment etc. are pretty much well rehearsed at this point, but I'm less bothered about them singing her praises and more so hoping they will not succumb to the temptation to lapse back into knocking the ancients down to try justify her (or Hermes, for that matter.) I'd be happier if they were simply clearer that she decided to favour the WoL and their timeline for her own ideological reasons/attachment, rather than hinging it on pragmatic concerns that wither under scrutiny (and come across as lacking, given the weight of the act in question) while beating around the bush when it comes to what the sundering did in practice. But really, my bigger issue is with the reasoning they used to try justify the end of the ancients (and various other civilisations) and presentation of this as necessary and/or good, and in the case of the ancients it feels particularly egregious. The Omega quest walked it back a bit, and I hope it means they've realised that the story as written in EW had some unsavoury implications that are best off not repeated through future writing.

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.

Yeah, I'd agree with that, and I think it explains some of the rift in the storytelling, e.g. when compared to the Omega quest, or Pandaemonium. I'd be inclined to question his comments in the Q&A given who he is comparing her to there, but either way it doesn't change what the intent was. Ishikawa did seem to broach the topic more on the basis of open questions put to the player (and tbh, so did Yoshi in older interviews... that seems to have faded somewhat.) Her actions are ones that would typically be cast as villainous given the measure of control she had over them and the nature of the act, and I do think that's why so many (conflicting) aspects were layered over it to justify the act. It wasn't even necessary as I think there were compelling ways to write her as doing what she believed was best without also trying to more objectively justify the act, but it seems like it all got swallowed up with the conflicting approaches, not helped by compressing storylines meant to last across a further 1-2 expansions into this one.

[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.

[AwesomeJr44]

Who decides what the rules for storytelling and art are though?

Logic and common sense. If your story does not make logical sense within its own universe, it is not a good story. If you set something up in a certain way, and then retcon it, that is bad storytelling. If you show one thing and tell a completely different thing, that is bad storytelling. If you make a race of people or a particular person, only to then tear them down and paint them as awful since the dawn of time when they clearly weren't until a grand total of 5 minutes ago (if at all), that's bad storytelling. (I mentioned RWBY earlier and cartoon villain Ironwood fits this last one well)

If a story does any of these, you have encountered bad storytelling. These are not the only storytelling rules, but they are some of the basics, and Endwalker breaks all of these. Endwalker is not a good story. It is objectively pretty bad. You can like it, and you have the right to do so, but if you wanna say it is a GOOD story, you are lying.

[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.