Inconsistencies with the sundering (Spoilers)

[Raven2014]

To quote a few real life pilots about Top Gun 2's plot, here is the realistic rewritten of the story:

- Maverick died 5min into the movie at march 10. *('cause only in Holywood someone would survive that).
- Scene skip to the destroyer launch a bunch of cruise missile and destroy the target without the need of any planes. 'Cause that exactly how the Pentagon would handle that mission in real life.
- The end.

But then, that kind of realism doesn't make a movie.


About the sunder scene: it's called stage play, and the one saw is a well executed one. You definitely won't pull off something like that without some professional training. Does that mean everyone like it? Of course not. But at the same time I don't think "realism" is a valid criticism either. You can compare two plays and debate which one is better. But for example, saying a play is better made into a movie isn't a valid comparison. After all, a Shakespeare play doesn't share the same goal as a Hollywood action flick.



And the last part about why the Ancient doesn't fight. They always say you need both a will and a mean. At the on set, the Ancient lacked both. I don't think reaching Endsinger is an issue, but even if they face her ... then what? While it's true the sundering thin out the aether, I would think the main, or at least the other half of the reason was to train the mentality that can accept suffering. The former is the "mean", the latter is the "will". It is within reason to say they can get around the "mean" part given how advance and powerful the ancient were, but they would never achieve the "will" due to the nature of their society. It's a battle they certainly could have fought, and one that they would definitely lose.

[PeaTearGriffin]

To quote a few real life pilots about Top Gun 2's plot, here is the realistic rewritten of the story:

- Maverick died 5min into the movie at march 10. *('cause only in Holywood someone would survive that).
- Scene skip to the destroyer launch a bunch of cruise missile and destroy the target without the need of any planes. 'Cause that exactly how the Pentagon would handle that mission in real life.
- The end.

But then, that kind of realism doesn't make a movie.

Here's top gun 2's plot written in the same style as endwalker:

Tom cruise blows up all the fighter jets because he believes that the F-18s make the mission too easy to accomplish. He thinks everyone should fight a ground war to make people understand true pain and suffering and what it really means to be a soldier in a war. The movie is emotional, fantastic, and full of exciting fight sequences but leaves the audience thinking: "why on earth did he choose this method of fighting the enemy?"

About the sunder scene: it's called stage play, and the one saw is a well executed one. You definitely won't pull off something like that without some professional training. Does that mean everyone like it? Of course not. But at the same time I don't think "realism" is a valid criticism either. You can compare two plays and debate which one is better. But for example, saying a play is better made into a movie isn't a valid comparison. After all, a Shakespeare play doesn't share the same goal as a Hollywood action flick.

I don't think anybody here is asking for total realism. What some people are asking is for square enix to not retcon the story from shadowbringers. Some people may see the sundering cutscene as metaphorical/symbolic but other people see it as a continuity error. You can make a cutscene symbolic or metaphorical and not have it change the story.

And the last part about why the Ancient doesn't fight. They always say you need both a will and a mean. At the on set, the Ancient lacked both. I don't think reaching Endsinger is an issue, but even if they face her ... then what? While it's true the sundering thin out the aether, I would think the main, or at least the other half of the reason was to train the mentality that can accept suffering. The former is the "mean", the latter is the "will". It is within reason to say they can get around the "mean" part given how advance and powerful the ancient were, but they would never achieve the "will" due to the nature of their society. It's a battle they certainly could have fought, and one that they would definitely lose.

I know, all I'm saying is imagine an alternate ending where the ancients do have the will to fight. I don't think it's beyond reason for the ancients to muster the will to destroy meteion to secure the safety of their people.

[Raven2014]

I don't think anybody here is asking for total realism. What some people are asking is for square enix to not retcon the story from shadowbringers. Some people may see the sundering cutscene as metaphorical/symbolic but other people see it as a continuity error. You can make a cutscene symbolic or metaphorical and not have it change the story.

I know, all I'm saying is imagine an alternate ending where the ancients do have the will to fight. I don't think it's beyond reason for the ancients to muster the will to destroy meteion to secure the safety of their people.

I don't see it retconning anything, it just focus on answering a different answer. You want to see a cinematic implementation of the conflict mentioned in ShB, but this scene isn't about that. The scene is not about the civil wars or conflict between the 2 ancient factions, but about the reason for it. The short dialogue is meant to show why Venat decided she had no choice but sundering the ancient, not to show your the epic power struggle between her and Zoc (which is what the ShB portion was about).

In fact, that's pretty much the answer to your 2nd quote as well. The will to fight is not what is needed. You're pitching a civilization who had know nothing but a blissful paradise existence against an entity that had seen despair on countless world, they can not win. The Ancient can't fight because they didn't know who their enemy was, and Venat didn't disclose it because precisely what happened in that CS. It showed that she did not make an arbitrary decision, and tried to convince them to change. But once she saw the Ancient would rather die to get back their old paradise instead of accepting the reality, she know her people had no hope in winning that battle. Had she let them know about Metion, it could very well be the Ancient gonna march right to their demise in their omnipoten ignorance/arrogant.

It's also why the most meaningful interaction (for me) when the Scion met Hydaelyn was Alise's answer to her question "are you ready?". In which Alise reply was "sure, no problem, we beat her up and win for sure ... is what the old me would say. But do we actually have a chance?". The maturity in Alise's answer (who used to be the most cocky of the Scion) symbolize the growth Hyadaelyn was seeking in humanity. The agony and acceptance of your own powerlessness, the pain of fear and uncertainty, yet despite that still find the courage to forge ahead is what separate the current humanity and the Ancient.

[PeaTearGriffin]

I don't see it retconning anything, it just focus on answering a different answer. You want to see a cinematic implementation of the conflict mentioned in ShB, but this scene isn't about that. The scene is not about the civil wars or conflict between the 2 ancient factions, but about the reason for it. The short dialogue is meant to show why Venat decided she had no choice but sundering the ancient, not to show your the epic power struggle between her and Zoc (which is what the ShB portion was about).

Of course there are people that don't see it as a retcon because there's the excuse that the cutscene was metaphorical and symbolic. I and plenty of other people don't buy though. It seems like the developers created a continuity error and use this excuse to sweep it under the rug.

In fact, that's pretty much the answer to your 2nd quote as well. The will to fight is not what is needed. You're pitching a civilization who had know nothing but a blissful paradise existence against an entity that had seen despair on countless world, they can not win.

This I don't agree with because the ancients had a lot of things going for them. They were a technologically advanced civilization very dedicated to science, and we also know that aether nullifies dynamis because Hermes says to the Wol, Venat, Emet, and Hythlodaeus in one of the cutscenes on Elpis: "As you know, Aether, in essence, negates dynamis." So to say that the ancients cannot win under any circumstance and that the sundering was the only choice seems like a cop out to me.

It's also why the most meaningful interaction (for me) when the Scion met Hydaelyn was Alise's answer to her question "are you ready?". In which Alise reply was "sure, no problem, we beat her up and win for sure ... is what the old me would say. But do we actually have a chance?". The maturity in Alise's answer (who used to be the most cocky of the Scion) symbolize the growth Hyadaelyn was seeking in humanity. The agony and acceptance of your own powerlessness, the pain of fear and uncertainty, yet despite that still find the courage to forge ahead is what separate the current humanity and the Ancient.

I understand that some people like the narrative that the game pushes: that humanity is courageous and resilient and can overcome any obstacle with determination and willpower. But to me, that message lost its impact once I realized that humanity was created at the expense of the ancients and that the decision to do so was made without consulting anybody else. It was a very selfish decision to make. This is honestly why I like shadowbringer's version of the story better where the sundering happened because of a huge battle between zodiark and hydaelyn.

[Aniya_Estlihn]

Of course there are people that don't see it as a retcon because there's the excuse that the cutscene was metaphorical and symbolic. I and plenty of other people don't buy though. It seems like the developers created a continuity error and use this excuse to sweep it under the rug.

They have literally said it is symbolic, and we have a Lodestone story released after Endwalker featuring Venat and the Watcher at the time shortly before the Sundering—which is still canon to Endwalker. It wasn't retconned, it was a cinematic representation of Venat's guilt and burden presented through cutscene form. It's a scene meant to make us feel bad for her and that's all it is.

Ask yourself questions about what is shown, if it makes sense (90% of it doesn't):
Did Emet-Selch stand in the midst of Amaurot while the Final Days was happening and Hythlodaeus ran off to become part of Zodiark? Absolutely not. Emet-Selch was probably stuck with the Convocation preparing for Zodiark's summoning, as it was their doing. He and Hermes, now Fandaniel, were also shown without their masks—a major taboo in Amaurot, espescially for those of the Convocation.

Was a group of random yay-hoos unassociated to the Convocation the people who sacrificed others to Zodiark? Like the scene implied? No. The convocation made those decisions, the populace was like sheep to the slaughter underneath their control and guidance, they had no choice in the matter.

Further, its established even in 6.X that Venat had followers, many followers. Those followers and she of who chose to sacrifice half the remaining population to create Hydaelyn (revealed in 5.2). It wasn't a decision she herself made and the revelation in Myths of a Realm and through the Lodestone story with the Watcher confirm that this is still the case.

There are so many inconsistencies and nonsense depictions in that scene that its actually hilarious when you look at what's going on. Honestly, how anyone can take it seriously and think it is a continuity error genuinely confuses me.

None of what happened in that scene made sense, the Final Days was stopped before the sundering happened, the scene shows it going on concurrently even though what we're supposedly witnessing there is the second set of sacrifices which was what brought life back to the planet.

That right there was the dead giveaway that the scene was worthless, cinematic drivel that was meant to make us feel bad for Venat/Hydaelyn and nothing more.

Its a bad, poorly written scene that served no narrative purpose other than to try and make us feel bad for Hydaelyn and that's all it was.

You need to understand that our visit to Elpis changed nothing, it had already happened by the time we had gone there, which is why its a loop.
Everything happened the way we already knew it had because everything was already pre-ordained to take place.

For Endwalker's narrative to even work, nothing could change, that was the whole point. Meaning we always had gone to Elpis, we were always Hydaelyn's inspiration, she always knew about the future, and she always chose to remain silent despite the information she knew.

I figure the reasoning was: "Well the players already know all this pre-established information, so there's no need to have that represented in the scene as they won't question it," which is, often a direction they do go with the narrative. Why suddenly people think its different here is beyond me. lol

Its paradoxical and frankly silly, but its the direction they went with.

[PeaTearGriffin]

They have literally said it is symbolic, and we have a Lodestone story released after Endwalker featuring Venat and the Watcher at the time shortly before the Sundering—which is still canon to Endwalker. It wasn't retconned, it was a cinematic representation of Venat's guilt and burden presented through cutscene form. It's a scene meant to make us feel bad for her and that's all it is.

I know they said it was symbolic and I don't buy that. Do you really think they're just going to say: "uh yeahhh... we didn't really pay attention to the story we created in shadowbringers so we accidentally retconned it." Of course not because that would throw their story writers under the bus by implying they were careless and did a sloppy job. You can choose to believe them but I certainly don't.

None of what happened in that scene made sense, the Final Days was stopped before the sundering happened, the scene shows it going on concurrently even though what we're supposedly witnessing there is the second set of sacrifices which was what brought life back to the planet.

I brought this up earlier and someone said that it still makes sense because blasphemies still appear even after the endsinger died, and that sin eaters still exist on the first.

It seems like you're well aware that square is creating all these continuity errors and inconsistencies but you suddenly believe them when they say that one of the most important cutscenes in the game isn't an accidental retcon and is just a metaphorical cutscene? If you believe that, it's ok. But I personally don't. There's a pattern of carelessness here on the writer's part.

I'm going to start using that excuse from now on. If I accidentally retell a story incorrectly and someone calls me out on it, I'm going to say I was speaking metaphorically. What an excuse.

[MikkoAkure]

I'm going to start using that excuse from now on. If I accidentally retell a story incorrectly and someone calls me out on it, I'm going to say I was speaking metaphorically. What an excuse.

So... do you also think the writers meant that Venat canonically walked down a hallway of smoke covered in blood while sundered beings who don't exist yet loitered around her?

If your take on this whole thing is that the writers forgot the lore and made it up for one scene at the climax of a decade of story and then later said "oh it's symbolic" as a cover-up, then there really is nothing more to talk about with you.

[Boblawblah]

I know they said it was symbolic and I don't buy that. Do you really think they're just going to say: "uh yeahhh... we didn't really pay attention to the story we created in shadowbringers so we accidentally retconned it." Of course not because that would throw their story writers under the bus by implying they were careless and did a sloppy job. You can choose to believe them but I certainly don't.

So we've established that you don't believe the authors of the story are writing the story as they say they're writing the story. Okay..well, you're definitely free to do that.

You know, you were better at trolling lalas, now you're more like a snarkier version of who you know. it's not as entertaining.

[Aniya_Estlihn]

I brought this up earlier and someone said that it still makes sense because blasphemies still appear even after the endsinger died, and that sin eaters still exist on the first.

There are inconsistencies, but when media released after Endwalker continues to affirm what was established before 6.0 as canon, you really don't have a leg to stand upon. I'm encouraging you to quit looking so deep into what is clearly just a poorly directed scene that is placed in a portion of the story where it doesn't belong.

People expected a 1-for-1 retelling of the Final Days and Sundering; I did too but accepted that they wanted to go with the vague nonsense metaphorical bs as Ishikawa has done many times, and instead got an intellectual experiment of a scene with little to no narrative value and now said people; e.g. you, are grasping at straws and trying to affirm their delusional interpretation by asserting that a nonsensical, symbolic scene with no value to the narrative has anymore value than being a nonsensical, symbolic scene.

Even your examples of these so-called inconsistencies make no sense:

Terminus Beasts appear because the role quests canonically take place at the time they are introduced in the MSQ, as does every quest that exists in the game. They also still remain from those who turned, which like in the First, the entire world was afflicted—that's potentially millions who fell to despair and turned into Terminus beast and they aren't just going to "go away."

Likewise, Sin Eaters exist on the First because while we ended the Everlasting Light, there is an entire world that was swallowed by a flood of a light wherein all the inhabitants were turned—human and beast alike. Norvrandt has a few eaters remaining, but the Empty; aka the entire world outside of it, is still a bleached wasteland that will take centuries to be restored and Sin Eaters will be as plentiful as there was life in the First.

This means that despite the fact we go to Norvrandt: the First's Eorzea, the First's Gyr Abania, Othard, Ilsabard, Thavnair, Meracydia, The New World, Sharlayan and variant of everything else we know on the source had all the inhabitants turned by the flood. Said lands are likely still teeming with sin eaters and will be for a lo ng time. Ending the flood doesn't stop their existence.

It is poor writing, but not in the way you think and continue to assert it is.

You don't like the writing in Endwalker, that's fine, I don't either, but asserting utter nonsense to try and criticize their poor decisions and use of metaphorical storytelling is just... well, its silly. You are genuinely making no sense.

[kpxmanifesto]

They have literally said it is symbolic, and we have a Lodestone story released after Endwalker featuring Venat and the Watcher at the time shortly before the Sundering—which is still canon to Endwalker. It wasn't retconned, it was a cinematic representation of Venat's guilt and burden presented through cutscene form. It's a scene meant to make us feel bad for her and that's all it is.

Yeah, I'd probably say this cut scene was indeed metaphorical. It would make no sense otherwise. It might not seem like the best reasoning to have a cut scene made in such a manner but in the end, it is what it is.