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

[Rilifane]

It isn't necessarily Venat that's the problem to most of the character's detractors. Omnicide is a very common trope in video games, after all. The real issue is a combination of the narrative treating the act far too lightly and the characters within said narrative being perfectly fine with all of it. What we, the players, were expected to feel about that character does not, in the opinion of many, line up with what we were shown. The omnicide, all the deceptions, withholding so much key information from the Convocation, not bothering to tell the people she sacrificed to become Hydaelyn their souls would be consumed, etc. would all be considered highly dubious actions individually, but she was written to do all these things and more.

Venat is fine. The fact the character's rather horrendous actions are just hand waved... well, that's questionable at best. To top it off, there's a portion of the player-base that just wants to outright deny the character as having committed any wrongdoing. As you might imagine, these rather outspoken individuals have managed to rather thoroughly stoke the ire people that aren't so keen on calling Venat a hero. Tends to make the debates devolve into pointless arguments and wildly unfounded suppositions.

That's exactly my issue with it. It was handwaved away and the player was made to treat her as mummy dearest and expected to feel fine with it, same with other characters.

Omnicide is a trope I don't have a problem with. When Thanos did the snap, it was a good solution from a purely pragmatic point of view. Universe getting a bit stuffy? Delete half the population, make it random so everyone has an equal chance, the populations will rebuild to fit their decreased size - you even had some people stating how it was terrible but they can't deny the benefits, e.g. getting jobs and houses easier.
But it was an absolute shit solution from a moral standpoint, especially if you also want to factor in what would be justified for who gets chosen to get atomized. Nobody handwaved that away even if you are able to see the practical benefit of it and naturally, his opponents would've rather looked for better solutions (which many of them did on a small scale like Stark inventing clean, basically unlimited energy).

And if it had been treated more like this, I would've been fine with it.
You can see the benefit of something while simultaneously criticizing its flaws, be they of practical or moral nature.

Tl;dr: Omnicide in fiction is fine, just don't sugarcoat it.

[Brinne]

That's exactly my issue with it. It was handwaved away and the player was made to treat her as mummy dearest and expected to feel fine with it, same with other characters.

Omnicide is a trope I don't have a problem with. When Thanos did the snap, it was a good solution from a purely pragmatic point of view. Universe getting a bit stuffy? Delete half the population, make it random so everyone has an equal chance, the populations will rebuild to fit their decreased size - you even had some people stating how it was terrible but they can't deny the benefits, e.g. getting jobs and houses easier.
But it was an absolute shit solution from a moral standpoint, especially if you also want to factor in what would be justified for who gets chosen to get atomized. Nobody handwaved that away even if you are able to see the practical benefit of it and naturally, his opponents would've rather looked for better solutions (which many of them did on a small scale like Stark inventing clean, basically unlimited energy).

I've said this a few times, but I'm certain that I would have absolutely loved Venat and held her as one of my absolute top favorite characters had the framing and presentation alone been different and less dissonant. Generally, I love ruthless, ideologically-driven women, and my umbrella for nuance within is decently wide. I will marry both Athena and Fordola, and nobody will bother me about it.