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

[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.

[Teraq]

Wow look at the time, it's link the discord o' clock! If you, lurker or poster, want to seek some solace to unload how you really feel about Endwalker's masterclass in story telling without being told you simply didn't get its deep themes you moron, then you're welcome to drop by and say hello. I swear we're not all Ancientaboos, and I realize this may sound like suspiciously specific denial, but it's actually true.
https://discord.gg/5xyG6HF9

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.

First of all, might be just me, but, yes, he is a Tumblr sexyman, unarguably, but I bristle at that because it's often used to dismiss arguments made by anyone who is a fan of Ascians and Ancients in general. I have written genuine long effort posts about the moral dissonance of Endwalker VS Shadowbringers and my disappointment with the story finale only to have some Reddit clowns tell me to go back to Tumblr and ship my fWoL with Emet who totally DiD nOtHiNg wRoNg. I feel like it's backlash against his status as the clearly most popular character from the game, which doesn't really stem from how badly we all want to get railed by the guy, but rather from, as you pointed out, him being genuinely a well-written and entertaining villain – which Hermes indeed isn't, by most sane metrics. As for Venat, well, I would have loved for her to be a well-written and entertaining villain of the well-intentioned extremist anti-villain sort, but, yeah, I guess that didn't work out.

But anyway, to me the comparison between Venat and Emet feels disingenuous, for the very simple reason that Emet is properly identified as a villain and antagonist throughout, whereas Hydaelyn, while you are initially able to express doubt towards her, is largely (not entirely, of course) painted as a fundamentally good person who did the hard and cruel but ultimately right thing, and she faces very little to no opposition over the atrocity she has committed, if only because her position as the single person in history who knew everything about Meteion and the Final Days (and the reason for that is another very convoluted can of worms) gives her additional justification. And the minion being named Herois stands out rather egregiously as well. You might not have paid much attention to it, but yeah I cringed hard enough to give my face some permanent wrinkles…

I'd say it's more about presentation and how they stand in the overall story of the full arc rather than the character's morality in Endwalker itself. It feels like Hydaelyn directly committing a very unambiguous genocide, and then indirectly approving of the Ascians' for the sake of closing the time loop, along with blatantly lying through her teeth for literal millenia, are brushed away far too lightly for how enormous it all is. The game, meanwhile, makes sure you don't forget Ascians killed everyone on a Shard + however many casualties a calamity resulted in on the Source every time a rejoining happened (though, I'd say I am being far too kind here in saying the game talks of Ascians, because the truth is that it is far too often Emet-Selch and Emet-Selch alone that is mentioned… but I digress).

It's not all black and white IMO, but it certainly feels more slanted toward highly contrasted monochrome rather than a grey landscape. Especially coming after Shadowbringers, and I suspect this is why a lot of us here are pissed about Endwalker. Had it come on its own, it wouldn't have been as bad. But since we have Shadowbringers to compare it to, Endwalker stands out as a real step backwards in terms of nuanced conflict. Because ultimately, what little gray morality Endwalker had in characters like Venat and Hermes (and yes, I would say Hermes is presented rather positively as a whole) comes at the price of dehumanizing the Ancients; as in, they both committed great evils, yes, but it was against Ancients, and that society was a pretty cold and callous dystopia of Stepford smilers pretending everything is fine in their perfect paradise and deserving of their fall, innit? Boy, I sure am feeling like a bored hubristic immortal wizard today, I think I'm gonna go create then kill a bunch of cute animals because playing god is just what I do! I'm a doomed dead end anyway, and there's nothing I could ever do against the Dynamis apocalypse because I'm such an emotionally shallow womanchild who's going to kill herself out of boredom anyway – or because the evil oppressive amaurotian society is forcing me to conform to their suicide cult. As it does!
Like, you might think I'm sarcastically exaggerating the negative portrayal here, but I regret to inform you I have actually seen these arguments made against Ancients in the past year, and how could I truly blame these people when part of it is what the game not-so-subtly implies? Sure, so the evil oppressive society forcing people to kill themselves to conform is a deranged headcanon (not that this stops certain people…), but then the game also features "Happiness was on Etheirys all along, but it was not always so" as an answer you can give Meteion. And… well. I don't think I've ever ranted about that particular middle finger, but give me a break here, by the time I reached that point in the game my eyes had glazed over and I was staring through my screen – and then it hit me with Zenos! Let me out, 6.0, please.
Anyway, yeah, dehumanizing the Ancients. I don't think I need to explain why this severely diminishes the impact of the Unsundered's story and thus Shadowbringers. That was what made Shadowbringers morally grey. And so, for Endwalker to undo that… I would call its characters, individually, morally grey, but its place in the story arc as a whole itself? Absolutely not.

I also disagree with the notion that because the main cast is Sundered, they obviously cannot criticize Hydaelyn/Venat because if she hadn't done what she did, they wouldn't exist. I feel like this is a non-argument, frankly. Calling out your parents for the horrible stuff they've done only to then have someone tell you "well you wouldn't be here without them now WOULD YOU" is… at best snark in bad faith. I expect the protagonists of this boring shōnen fantasy to stand up for their moral principles, because I've never really been given the impression (not intentionally on the writers' part it seems, at least) that they would be selfish bastards. I, as the main hero of this story, would absolutely have called her out on her decisions, and to me it is absurd that "well she made you!!" would even weigh in the balance here. I don't believe this is a out-of-universe-player PoV VS in-universe-player-character PoV thing either – I'm not sure what knowledge we've gleaned from the omniscient narrator that our character wouldn't be aware of. Even the fact that Hydaelyn is responsible for the Unsundered's unsundering is hinted at by Emet in his UT dialogue, though I suppose this comes a little late to accuse Hydaelyn of anything as she is gone forever by then (lmao bye). To be frank, had I actually been my WoL, I would have asked about this far sooner – or indeed, at all – because, to me, it is such a foundational aspect of the universe's lore it is inimaginable nobody would have cared to ask Hydaelyn, but I guess this shows how different my priorities are from the writers', huh?
And then we have Y'shtola, the person who handwaves away Hydaelyn's doubts about literally deleting her entire species with "well, Dynamis!", who if anything should have been more empathetic to the Ancients given that she has literally spent an untold amount of time browsing Anamnesis Anyder. As a whole, I entirely expected these likely-morally-good scholars to reasonably question the "supreme deity" and her shady deeds, no matter how well-intentioned she was.

Yoshida said he wasn't aware of people paying that close attention to details (in reference to the Shadow hunter scene....zooming in on the masks and people able to potentially identify them) but going on that I'll assume small details don't matter.

Wise choice. That Q&A really was something of a nail in the coffin, wasn't it?

Also, I'm still pissed about that particular tidbit. A mask that looks like a lion? Just like Nabriales's mask looked like a scorpion, Igeyorhm's like a bow and arrow pointing down, Mitron's like a pair of bull horns, Elidibus's like a snake's face with huge fangs and sensory pits and Loghrif's like the ribbed motif of a ram's horns? (I'm drawing a bit of a blank on Emet's, but I guess the two arcs represent twins, and Lahabrea's looks more like a Bombo than a fish, but I'm giving him a pass because he was the first to be designed.) Could it be that this lion mask might be foreshadowing for Fandangle Dingobills being Leo, as anyone who ever gave a damn about Ascians was well aware of?

Why, of course not! SIKE lmao

Still salty he was an Ascian in name only, too. In a better timeline, I would have got my mad scientist sundered Fandaniel looking like Hermes wearing proper Ascian robes and a lion mask, and he would have looked damn fine pulling it off, too.

I'm so mad at Endwalker, for multiple reasons.

That being said, I really like Hades as a character, but...that's Elidibus's spot. He was the white rabbit motif we had in ARR, the ascian following us should have been him. The only thing is that the whole friendship with Hades, but then again, that could have been Elidibus.

YEP ^^^^^^^^^^^^ THIS ^^^^^^^^^^^^^ and it isn't even my shameless bias speaking (Themis finalfantasyxiv please call me). A lot of what Emet did was what an emissary or mediator might have done. Showing us their side and getting us to understand them. Even the friendship argument doesn't hold up this well because Pandaemonium literally establishes him as a friend of Azem too, enough that they were going on covert ops together (I won't comment on the fact that Elidibus's notion of "covert" entailed him walking through the front door of a highly restricted facility wearing the Ancient equivalent of Groucho glasses and moustache. God, Ancients were so good and benevolent and trusting, they didn't deserve any of this).

But here's the thing: Elidibus wasn't Ishikawa's Original Character Do Not Steal. Nevermind him being the longest standing antagonist, or that he was the best positioned for the role that ultimately fell to Emet, or that she literally made him Zodiark too only to casually toss that away and not invite him to the finale of the arc he was supposedly one half of (even though he was still alive after 5.3!). Dude killed himself to save the world – again – in spite of what he might feel for the Sundered defeating his hopes and dreams, and all he got for his trouble was being completely ignored by the MSQ and not even featuring on the final artwork, because Endwalker is terribly myopic about its scope.

Have you heard? I'm mad at Endwalker.

Does moderation truly exist on this forum?

The fact that a troll account ,purposely made as an attack on Theodric – and right around the same time as a certain someone accused Theodric of having alts too, curious – and whose entire purpose is making a bad faith caricature of Endwalker critics, is still allowed to post, in spite of my dozen reports explaining the entire context of why it's nothing more than a troll account, should answer that.

post right above mine

based, server name checks out