On Venat's Role in the Story

[Lurina]

Do you have a source on that? Unless we’re having completely different readings of the same source, I don’t remember anything about Hydaelyn ever being given the possibility of being the villain. I do remember an interview where it was said that we shouldn’t take Emet-Selch at face value and to wait until we have Hydaelyn’s story, even if that didn’t exactly pay off.

You're kinda quoting the interview out of context here. The team is talking about how they made most of these core decisions at a residential in the winter after the release of Shadowbringers, and came up with the outline of stuff like Meteion during that event.

Ishikawa: After Shadowbringers released, around the end of 2019, Image Studio [note: the CGI studio within Square Enix that produces the high-quality cinematics in various SE game] had to be provided with storyboards. In autumn and winter of that year, we went on a residential together in order to decide the main points of the story for the next expansion. But the problem was… we’re used to the writing process, and so feeling that “here and here are the remaining parts of the story we have to talk about, so let’s accept the rest”, the residential went very smoothly. I was in charge of filling in the details of the story elements, but when I looked at the structure of the content again, I thought “this might be okay for just another expansion, but if this is labelled the ‘finale’ is it really okay?” So I reworked the story from the plot outline. The end result was ready 2 days before the deadline.

Interviewer: In the plot at that point, were elements such as Meteion already included?

Ishikawa: The name Meteion wasn’t there yet, but the base form of what she became had been decided.

They're saying the same thing about deciding who the final boss should be. At the residential they realized that no one particularly wanted it to be Hydaelyn or Zodiark, but nevertheless they hadn't made any firm plans prior to that point, meaning the idea of it being one of the two was definitely on the table in theory while ShB was being written.

Edit: Actually, re-reading this, they could not be talking about last bosses at all? But it seems like they're still saying that which one would be antagonistic wasn't clear. I remember it being more explicit - I need to read the actual interview again and not just cite these reddit notes. I think there was another which also touched on the topic briefly more recently, where they discuss when they conceived the Final Days and Amaurot concepts...

------ Oda explains that the devs seek to balance delivering on players’ expectations and also having unexpected developments. Players were already expecting to fight Hydaelyn and Zodiark, so it was debated among the devs whether to deliver the fights straightforwardly, or have a surprise development where one of them would take over the other and fight you. In the end, the team decided to go for the straightforward route, and the last boss would be something unexpected.

Yoshida: At the residential no one thought Hydaelyn or Zodiark should be the last boss.

It has always been presented canonically as intentional. Provide IN GAME evidence otherwise as behind the scenes is irrelevant

I can't prove a negative. They never discuss the intentionality of the Sundering in Shadowbringers as it pertains to anything other than Zodiark at all.

[Talonk]

Well what i don't understand is how we got a mural from the ruins of amaurot depicting this great fight and I dont even remember venat sitting there and telling us oh that was just emets point of view his story is not true Yada Yada Yada. Instead we got something contradicting the story of shadowbringers retelling of the events with no explanation of it being strictly stated lore wise by character. We just get a metaphoric view of venat walking up to people and saying I sunder you and then we see the walk. It feels rushed and lazy to the point that I think the devs don't want us to know what happened and leave it all to the players speculation. And with that I believe that is the reason why we have quite a few anti-venat people.

[MikkoAkure]

You're kinda quoting the interview out of context here. The team is talking about how they made most of these core decisions at a residential in the winter after the release of Shadowbringers, and came up with the outline of stuff like Meteion during that event.

The way you said “Oda said at the time ShB finished” was telling me you were referencing the same interview I quoted, unless you have a different one.

Clarification edit: They didn’t have it during 5.0, but figured out the core of the backstory right after.

They're saying the same thing about deciding who the final boss should be. At the residential they realized that no one particularly wanted it to be Hydaelyn or Zodiark, but nevertheless they hadn't made any firm plans prior to that point, meaning the idea of it being one of the two was definitely on the table in theory while ShB was being written.

Edit: Actually, re-reading this, they could not be talking about last bosses at all? But it seems like they're still saying that which one would be antagonistic wasn't clear. I remember it being more explicit - I need to read the actual interview again and not just cite these reddit notes. I think there was another which also touched on the topic briefly more recently, where they discuss when they conceived the Final Days and Amaurot concepts...

They’re not talking about the final boss being between Hydaelyn and Zodiark. They’re talking about player expectations and making something completely unexpected with one taking over the body of the other to fight us for some reason, and they chose not to do that and to do everything straightforward.

Nothing about “villain” or potential motivations was revealed. Players were expecting to fight both of them and they talked about how to deliver that. At least that’s how I took that part of the interview.

But they did say that neither was going to be the final boss.


I just wish we could have a direct interview with the English community where the words aren’t translated through a journalist. More is revealed when it’s transcribed with the lines of what each said but a lot of news sites I find interviews on have it framed as a news article with bits of quotes pasted in the middle.

[FireMage]

I can't prove a negative. They never discuss the intentionality of the Sundering in Shadowbringers as it pertains to anything other than Zodiark at all.

First off, yes you can. Second that wasn't asking you to do that. Third go find something that says in game that the Sundering was unintentional

[dragoelete]

First off, yes you can. Second that wasn't asking you to do that. Third go find something that says in game that the Sundering was unintentional

i think it should be the opposite find something pre EW that has stated specifically it was intentional cause i can find none. its always been vague they just say the sundering happened never wether or not it was intentional till EW.

[Lurina]

Oh god, I wasn't expecting epistemology. I was just trying to make a quick clarification while people yelled at each other. Ahhhhhhhhh. I should just let it go. Why can't I let it go.

First off, yes you can. Second that wasn't asking you to do that. Third go find something that says in game that the Sundering was unintentional

I'm not saying that the game says the Sundering was unintentional. I'm saying it never clarifies one way or another during 5.0.

This is Russell's teapot. How do you expect me to prove ShB doesn't say something? I can't make a citation for the absence of information. Do you want me to quote every single line in the expansion, say 'nope; no star-Sundering intentionality clarification here' until I'm finished?

The burden of proof is on people making a positive claim. Where do you think it says it is intentional?

[FireMage]

So basically since enough exposition wasn't given there's no contradiction and therefore there's no retcon...

Thanks for proving me right you two

[Lurina]

So basically since enough exposition wasn't given there's no contradiction and therefore there's no retcon...

Thanks for proving me right you two

I wasn't saying there was a retcon! I was responding to you saying it was explicitly intentional!

I have to leave.

[FireMage]

I wasn't saying there was a retcon! I was responding to you saying it was explicitly intentional!

I have to leave.

Which was in response to me correcting the trolling necrobumper crying wolf on nonexistent retcons. If you aren't going to keep up, then be quiet

[Talonk]

Which was in response to me correcting the trolling necrobumper crying wolf on nonexistent retcons. If you aren't going to keep up, then be quiet

Man you love getting reported huh? I have plenty of posts that you could have discussed with me but you choose to insult instead of talk on subject.