What's the point with that quite lackluster story in Endwalker?

[Absimiliard]

They had major issues writing the story of Endwalker.

When Yoshi P. mentioned how he didn't think that people would think about the story that deeply with regards to time travel, I was heartbroken. We do. And the writers should too, I think they do, they must know, maybe it was badly managed.

Have you done the FFXIV content in NieR Re[in]carnation? It gives a look from just pre-sundering all the way through to the post-sundering world from the perspective of a third-party narrator, albeit one that occasionally tells us what Emet-Selch is thinking or feeling at a moment, or even what he and the other unsundered are seeing. The fact it's coming from the narrator - which I'll note NieR does not make use of the unreliable narrator - and backed up with accompanying by art, another thing NieR always presents at face value, only serves to further reinforce the narrative dissonance. The crossover content in both games is canon.

The scenes in Re[in]carnation tell the story of a people destroyed beyond the ability to even communicate. This is noteworthy because unsundered, like their echo-possessing sundered counterparts, are able to communicate with any living thing that is capable of communication at all. We're also given to understand they were reduced to little more than tattered (and tortured; the JP localization strongly alludes to all of them being in searing agony, though this is curiously absent from the EN version) blobs for a time before they took on their new forms and began rebuilding.

[Eisi]

Have you done the FFXIV content in NieR Re[in]carnation? It gives a look from just pre-sundering all the way through to the post-sundering world from the perspective of a third-party narrator, albeit one that occasionally tells us what Emet-Selch is thinking or feeling at a moment, or even what he and the other unsundered are seeing. The fact it's coming from the narrator - which I'll note NieR does not make use of the unreliable narrator - and backed up with accompanying by art, another thing NieR always presents at face value, only serves to further reinforce the narrative dissonance. The crossover content in both games is canon.

The scenes in Re[in]carnation tell the story of a people destroyed beyond the ability to even communicate. This is noteworthy because unsundered, like their echo-possessing sundered counterparts, are able to communicate with any living thing that is capable of communication at all. We're also given to understand they were reduced to little more than tattered (and tortured; the JP localization strongly alludes to all of them being in searing agony, though this is curiously absent from the EN version) blobs for a time before they took on their new forms and began rebuilding.

No I haven't! It didn't even know it was a thing. I will check it out though, it sounds interesting.

[Heroman3003]

Honestly, the endless discourse over "Who is most most justified in their genocides - Emet Selch, Venat or Hermes" really is incapsulated well in that one Alpha and Omega post-EW quest, where when given option you can choose which of three was "justified", or say that they were all justified in their own ways or... Say that all three were wrong. Hydaelyn is not supposed to be 100% sympathetic, she is only portrayed so because she is our ally. Same with how Emet Selch is not supposed to be fully villanous in EW, but he is portrayed negatively due to being an enemy. Hell, even the most evil character in the game - Zenos - is given a somewhat more sympathetic light purely for joining our side for a time. Gaius Baelsar is forgiven despite his countless crimes because he helps us fight a common foe. Etc, etc. Game's portrayal of characters primarily revolves around "us vs them", not around how good or bad or morally grey they are. Throughout the game we had allies good, allies evil and allies grey. Hydaelyn/Venat is meant to be a grey ally. Not evil villain, not hero who did no wrong. I think the portrayals of her as either pure good or pure evil are ignoring good chunks of her character. Such as the fact that she herself recognizes that what she's done is NOT good, yet she sees it as necessary evil. Same for the other two - Emet Selch and Hermes. All did what they believed for the best, despite knowing full well that what they did was horrible. All three of these characters are meant to be grey; and leave player drawing their own conclusions on whose philosophy they align with more. The game never presents true 'right' option for this specific conundrum, because the intent is to show there isn't one. And yet Hydaelyn will be looked on favorably, because ultimately, she was a guide and a protector for us and our allies, Hermes will be looked on as a man who wanted to find meaning and failed, and Emet Selch will be looked as a respectable enemy who fought for what he truly believed in until the very end. Because from perspective of our protagonist and our side of the story, thats what they were. Thats why their portrayals are the way they are. Not the 'they are portrayed good because writers are trying to make them appear good' nonsense.

[Fiel_Tana]

Hydaelyn/Venat is meant to be a grey ally. Not evil villain, not hero who did no wrong. I think the portrayals of her as either pure good or pure evil are ignoring good chunks of her character.

Yet the game declares her a "Herois" and gives our WoL no chance to question her or what she did after we learnt how the final days actually came about.

They may have meant to make her morally grey (and tbh, I'm not sure what their intentions were), but it's one of the many cases in EW where what is shown (events in game) is not what is told (by NPC's or our own WoL). That's where the disconnect many of us are feeling comes from regarding that character.

[Graeham]

So, here we have a very pretty young woman approaching a lonely scholar who she has no interest in personally and revealing her face to him. The fact that she only seemed to visit the Watcher on occasions when she needed something, made her come across as either scheming or completely insensitive to his feelings, neither of which is a good look. The watcher is clearly smitten by Venat both for her intellect and her looks, but I felt that if he'd had any close friends (which doesn't seem to be the case), they'd have been trying to alert him to the fact that he was being used.

Is the good point. In traditional masculine No Shadow God society is responsible of female chara to hide the sexuality with the mask and sack cloth to stop the accident seducing of the male chara. Otherwise is overcome by the lust and chara he can not think. Is the sneaky trick of the Miranda. Venar by take off the mask is deliberate to tempting the male into sin. It is truth in the theocracy of No Shadow God.

Yet the game declares her a "Herois" and gives our WoL no chance to question her or what she did after we learnt how the final days actually came about.

We can not stand it. They call her herois. HeRoIs. What is word herois mean. Why is ghost writer use hard word from other language. Where is guild google translator.

[Heroman3003]

Yet the game declares her a "Herois" and gives our WoL no chance to question her or what she did after we learnt how the final days actually came about.

They may have meant to make her morally grey (and tbh, I'm not sure what their intentions were), but it's one of the many cases in EW where what is shown (events in game) is not what is told (by NPC's or our own WoL). That's where the disconnect many of us are feeling comes from regarding that character.

The game doesn't give us chance to question many characters. The only times we can actively ask things is when its relevant to immedeate plot, not some grander scheme of things. As for Herois, idk, I never pay mind to spoiler minion names as something relevant. Might as well be referring to her past Azem role. I don't think that part is attempt of agenda-pushing. As for disconnect, it is expected and is only natural because what is shown is shown from neutral perspective of "player looks at what happens", and what is told is told from perspective of one, clear, biased side for which there is a good and a bad that may not be entirely moral in grander cosmic scheme.

I simply feel like pointing out that any interpretation of Venat that paints her as purely heroic or purely villanous is contradictory to what we *see* in the game regarding her and Hydaelyn, and same applies to Hermes and to character who stands right on same level as those two, but does not get that level of critique because he was lucky enough to be game's first proper tumblr sexyman and first well-written and well-explored villain - Emet Selch.

[AwesomeJr44]

The game doesn't give us chance to question many characters.

This is not necessarily a good thing.

[Heroman3003]

This is not necessarily a good thing.

It's not, I agree. But it is a fact of the writing, and I dont think its fair to leverage that as example of 'proof' of bias towards/against certain characters precisely because of it.

[Fiel_Tana]

So you're saying we are to ignore ALL the writing that doesn't support your theory that the writers intend Venat to be a morally grey character? The writing, which includes NPC reactions and dialogue, WoL reactions, item names (including minions) etc., all of which are positive towards Venat after we learn her part in the final days.

I wish they had presented her as a truly morally grey character, I love stories that can pull that off! It's the main reason I enjoyed how Emet Selch was written in ShB. The writers in EW however fawn over how heroic Venat/Hydaelyn is at every chance and make our WoL participate. It's uncomfortable (at best) for those of us that do not agree.

[Dzonathan]

I'm just going to say this:

Venat killed off her own civilization, just like Meteion tried to.
Venat was against Ancients worshipping Zodiark as a god, but became a god named Hydaelyn to be worshipped by lesser races.
Venat was against sacrifice of lesser races, but let 7 rejoinings happen.
Venat placed her hopes in lesser races, WoL (6 times rejoined, therefore closer to Ascians than mortals) fulfilled her hopes, not lesser races.

I dunno man.

From where I'm standing Venat is full of shite and she "won" only because my WoLie couldn't scream foul on her hippie ass.

You can spew intentions crap all you want at me, but that's not what defines a person. What defines a person is their actions and results.