Do people on these forums only complain endlessly?

[Theodric]

If you don't care to understand why people disagree with you, then fair enough. Stick to your little group here, feeling superior. It IS extreme language for most people imo.

I admittedly do not feel inclined to pay much heed to people disagreeing with me based on inconsistently applied concepts, nor do I feel compelled to 'stick to my little group'. As I stated in my previous post, by all means feel free to agree to disagree. That you see someone referring to the consequences of Venat's actions as genocide, which is readily applicable, as an 'extreme stance' is not something I'm going to censor. It certainly doesn't stop people from - quite rightly - referring to the Rejoinings as genocide.

[Hurlstone]

I do think there are folk who will use such wording less as accurate descriptions of events and more to try and make others look bad, even akin to support such actions in real life. Such as describing Hydaelyn as ‘Murder Mommy’ etc. In the end it really is silly/stupid to try and say that someone being a fan of a villain is a supporter of their actions/ideology. Is everyone with a Darth Vader figure a supporter of child murder? Anyone who has read a Punisher comic a psychopath?

[Theodric]

I do think there are folk who will use such wording less as accurate descriptions of events and more to try and make others look bad, even akin to support such actions in real life. Such as describing Hydaelyn as ‘Murder Mommy’ etc. In the end it really is silly/stupid to try and say that someone being a fan of a villain is a supporter of their actions/ideology. Is everyone with a Darth Vader figure a supporter of child murder? Anyone who has read a Punisher comic a psychopath?

I think the difference is that when Venat is criticised, it's Venat being criticised...whereas often when Emet-Selch or the Garleans are criticised the attacks are more personal and consist of calling people 'misogynists', 'fascists', 'racists' and 'genocide apologists'. All of which has happened repeatedly over the years that this game has existed - and yet when a tiny bit of pushback is embraced that pushback is falsely amplified into 'both sides' or the worst atrocity ever committed on the internet.

"Endwalker is badly written because it didn't go the way I wanted it to. Also, I love the genocidal mass murderer."

...and the thread itself also opened up with this. If we're describing the Ascians in such terms then they'd technically be correct. Though so, too, are they an apt descriptor when applied to Venat.

[LordGiggles]

If you don't care to understand why people disagree with you, then fair enough. Stick to your little group here, feeling superior. It IS extreme language for most people imo.

I agree it's a pretty extreme term, but considering the actions in question are pretty extreme I don't really see the issue? Wiping out an entire species is genocide really no matter how you put it, justified or otherwise. Any other language you could use would really just be posting a definition of genocide.

Like "forcefully destroyed the bodies and personalities of millions of people because x,y,z" applied to a particular group of people is just genocide.

[Teraq]

If you don't care to understand why people disagree with you, then fair enough. Stick to your little group here, feeling superior. It IS extreme language for most people imo.

See the OP building a nice little strawman to insult people:

"Endwalker is badly written because it didn't go the way I wanted it to. Also, I love the genocidal mass murderer."

I could be massively disingenuous and intellectually dishonest and say WELL ACTUALLYYYy it isn't genocide, because first of all it is a very heavy word to use that does not befit a purely fictional story, and secondly nobody on the Shards died because it was simply a rejoining of souls, a quasi-mythological, abstract event that I as a mere human living in the real world cannot properly compute or relate to, and besides, Ardbert has rejoined with us and he's still speaking to us, therefore he is not dead, and therefore nobody died. The Unsundered have simply been put into an impossible situation, by a third party who never informed them of her motives or of the real threat, of having to uphold their duty and responsibilities to their people as members of the highest governmental authority on the planet to save their relatives and loved ones.

Except, no. The Ascians are absolutely genociding Sundered humanity, the game calls this out and the protagonists resist it (though not before Alisaie says she wouldn't know how she would act in their position), as is their right. Nobody disagrees with this. I love Ascians because I've loved villains for as long as I can remember, and I've never felt as bizarrely attacked for it as I have in the FFXIV fandom. My favorite characters are not a reflect of my real world politics, I don't know about anyone else, but I am a left-voting feminist, as I know some other Ascian/Garlean fans are.

In contrast, you do, however, routinely see people absolve Venat of the fact that she reduced her people to apparently shapeless blobs of aether (could just be Emet's aether vision POV) incapable of coherent speech, deleted or at least severely amputated their memory, drastically reduced their lifespan which you could assimilate to a slow poisoning or cancer diagnosis, took care to wipe their culture out of history enough that we had never heard of it before one of them told us everything, and then lied about it for a dozen thousand years. It doesn't matter that the plot engages in impressive gymnastics via egregious plot devices such as a time loop and a Power Of Friendship we had never heard of before but whose defining characteristic, Ancients being unable to directly interact with it, is quite obviously intended to be justification that she had no choice but to kill them all, as Y'shtola herself so brilliantly points out after the level 89 trial. In fact, the way Endwalker frames the Ancients opposite Good Venat and Hermes (who is portrayed as an antagonist but obviously meant to appear at least slightly sympathetic because CUE CAMERA PANNING TO THE LITTLE INNOCENT HEDGEHOGS), the incredibly unsubtle parallel to The Plenty, alongside the complete absence of anyone calling out Venat on her actions but herself, which is instantly brushed aside by the protagonists… it all looks a little too close to making excuses and apologies for… ah… the unfortunate mass lifespan-shortening of an entire race and erasure of an entire culture and civilisation. Yes, let's call it that.

[Hurlstone]

I think the difference is that when Venat is criticised, it's Venat being criticised...whereas often when Emet-Selch or the Garleans are criticised the attacks are more personal and consist of calling people 'misogynists', 'fascists', 'racists' and 'genocide apologists'. All of which has happened repeatedly over the years that this game has existed - and yet when a tiny bit of pushback is embraced that pushback is falsely amplified into 'both sides' or the worst atrocity ever committed on the internet.

See, I do not entirely agree with that. With Venat's criticisms, I have often also seen things such as insults that her fans are ‘lacking in critical thinking’ or simply apart of a ‘herd mentality/echo chamber.’ along with it. I do not really think there is a misogynistic edge to the criticisms as some say, but the constant referring to her as ‘MuMMy/murder mom’ in a specific way does feel like an attempt to dehumanise or belittle her fans. Sure many of the comments will be genuine criticism and debate on the character and narrative, but its not so black and white. I admit, I have not been as active in the forums long enough to see as much Emet/Ascians hate as other describe, but it sucks that people would do that and such accusations are never called for… but the fact that such personal and aimed criticism has happened is not really a defence to use the same tactics on others just for spite.

Sure perhaps it would be different if we where talking more about real life issues, where such heated debate would be more acceptable and supported, but as you and others have said, in the end this is a video game.

[Boblawblah]

I agree it's a pretty extreme term, but considering the actions in question are pretty extreme I don't really see the issue? Wiping out an entire species is genocide really no matter how you put it, justified or otherwise. Any other language you could use would really just be posting a definition of genocide.

Like "forcefully destroyed the bodies and personalities of millions of people because x,y,z" applied to a particular group of people is just genocide.

So why do most people like Venat then and don't have a problem with her actions? Are we going to jump to saying they just don't care about genocide? Or could it be that they don't see what she did AS genocide, especially given the culture of the Ancients? When you frame the discussion as "it's genocide. period.", it makes it VERY hard to have a rational discussion.

Let me be clear, I can see why someone would argue that what she did was completely insane, and wrong.

Oh, and about the "bitch" comment, that was just an extreme example. I have no desire to "win internet points" as someone mentioned, I'm not sure why I would care, what internet points are available here exactly anyways?

[LordGiggles]

So why do most people like Venat then and don't have a problem with her actions? Are we going to jump to saying they just don't care about genocide? Or could it be that they don't see what she did AS genocide, especially given the culture of the Ancients? When you frame the discussion as "it's genocide. period.", it makes it VERY hard to have a rational discussion.

Let me be clear, I can see why someone would argue that what she did was completely insane, and wrong.

Oh, and about the "bitch" comment, that was just an extreme example. I have no desire to "win internet points" as someone mentioned, I'm not sure why I would care, what internet points are available here exactly anyways?

I have no idea why they didn't have a problem with it (though the wol can say they don't think she was justified in the recent omega quests), but I don't think the scions get to dictate the meaning of an irl word. Particularly when none of them come across as terribly wise (UT alone is decent proof of that). It's fairly objectively a genocide, any discussion of the morality of the sundering needs to start from that base fact. There's just not any real way to view it differently.

The writers generally choosing to frame it as a good thing doesn't change what it is, it just means they/some characters think it was a justified action.

[Jagick]

The concept of "If you don't have anything positive to say, then don't say anything" is something that belongs back in Elementary School. Which is convenient because a lot of the people that get so angry about criticism and feedback seem to have the emotional maturity of a child around that age.

[VelKallor]

which at least didn't push its message in a way that was as badly received as Endwalker's.

Badly received?

*Looks at multiple reviews worldwide which sang Endwalkers praises*

*Looks at Aveyonds's post*

*Laughs*

YOU didnt like it.

A lot of other people..DID.