Inconsistencies with the sundering (Spoilers)

[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.

[Raven2014]

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.

So because people have a different take of opinion than your own version is simply making excuse? You know what's this called? It's called gaslighting.

I and plenty of other people don't buy though.

Sure, you do you. But ... I can also point of the popularity of that scene to show you plenty of people think highly of it. So ... tell me, what make you and your version somehow more valid or superior?

Are you a certified story connoisseurs?

Are you an Oscar winning screen writer?

Or a perhaps a top sell author?

Or are you just an average gamer like ... the rest of the people who have a different take on the story than yours?

[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.

[PeaTearGriffin]

So because people have a different take of opinion than your own version is simply making excuse? You know what's this called? It's called gaslighting.

Sure, you do you. But ... I can also point of the popularity of that scene to show you plenty of people think highly of it. So ... tell me, what make you and your version somehow more valid or superior?

Are you a certified story connoisseurs?

Are you an Oscar winning screen writer?

Or a perhaps a top sell author?

Or are you just an average gamer like ... the rest of the people who have a different take on the story than yours?

I'm making a direct accusation. That's not gaslighting... This is gaslighting: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gaslighting

So ... tell me, what make you and your version somehow more valid or superior?

I didn't say that either. Now you're just being snippy because I disagreed with you. Try again.

[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.

[Raven2014]

I'm making a direct accusation.

I didn't say that either. Now you're just being snippy because I disagreed with you. Try again.

So ... you admit the opinion that not align with your is merely "making accuse". While presenting yours, and say you're not claim it as more valid/superior, despite "directly accusing" the opposition as just making excuse ...

Eh ... feel like telling me exactly what you're doing then? And I may need an Oxford definition of what you're doing to be convinced otherwise. In the mean time, this is what I'm using: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duck_test

[PeaTearGriffin]

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.

I can agree at least that was metaphorical. But that walk down the hallway doesn't retcon the story from shadowbringers.

[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.

[PeaTearGriffin]

So ... you admit the opinion that not align with your is merely "making accuse". While presenting yours, and say you're not claim it as more valid/superior, despite "directly accusing" the opposition as just making excuse ...

Eh ... feel like telling me exactly what you're doing then? And I may need an Oxford definition of what you're doing to be convinced otherwise. In the mean time, this is what I'm using: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duck_test

You're aren't furthering the discussion here. You're just attacking me because I disagree with your take on the story.

[MikkoAkure]

I can agree at least that was metaphorical. But that walk down the hallway doesn't retcon the story from shadowbringers.

It's literally the same cutscene. She narrates over the whole thing and is walking the whole time except for the pause in the summoning sequence. We also see Hythlodeus there even though we know in EW that he got sacrificed to Zodiark and thus should not be walking around. That scene happens right as she's talking about those sacrificed to Zodiark and he says his goodbyes to Emet-Selch. Unless you expect that the writers want us to believe that he was Zodiark'd 1 minute before Hydaelyn was summoned.