Inconsistencies with the sundering (Spoilers)

[MikkoAkure]

You already said yourself that the second half of the same cutscene is metaphorical. I don't know how you can't see that it extends to the whole thing.

Venat walks through ruined Amaurot telling of the events back then as scenes she describes unfold around her happening directly with her narration despite the fact they could not have happened all close together like that. Then you have things like monsters killing people while Venat just watches, seconds before Hytholodeus parts from Emet-Selch and calmly walks past the same monster that just ate somebody and the monster doesn't even notice him. After the sword scene is another walking scene with events happening around her again like the first half of the cutscene, all to the same music and the same pace of the narration.

It makes zero sense for this to be presented as a writer's take on true events and to think that it is, you'd have to be super dense.


I would have rather had a cutscene that goes over the restoration of Etheirys and the actual battle, but they went with a super condensed metaphorical version for the art and to push the angle she went with on clipping the wings of the Ancients. I disagree with it, but it doesn't mean that the writers randomly had brain fungus and forgot the whole lore of the game that Shadowbringers brought up just for this one cutscene and then went back to the rest of the game fitting with the real events right after. There is no conspiracy they're trying to cover up, just a cutscene that apparently went over your head.

[PeaTearGriffin]

You already said yourself that the second half of the same cutscene is metaphorical. I don't know how you can't see that it extends to the whole thing.

Venat walks through ruined Amaurot telling of the events back then as scenes she describes unfold around her happening directly with her narration despite the fact they could not have happened all close together like that. Then you have things like monsters killing people while Venat just watches, seconds before Hytholodeus parts from Emet-Selch and calmly walks past the same monster that just ate somebody and the monster doesn't even notice him. After the sword scene is another walking scene with events happening around her again like the first half of the cutscene, all to the same music and the same pace of the narration.

It makes zero sense for this to be presented as a writer's take on true events and to think that it is, you'd have to be super dense.


I would have rather had a cutscene that goes over the restoration of Etheirys and the actual battle, but they went with a super condensed metaphorical version for the art and to push the angle she went with on clipping the wings of the Ancients. I disagree with it, but it doesn't mean that the writers randomly had brain fungus and forgot the whole lore of the game that Shadowbringers brought up just for this one cutscene and then went back to the rest of the game fitting with the real events right after. There is no conspiracy they're trying to cover up, just a cutscene that apparently went over your head.

Look, people want to defend this cutscene by saying its not a retcon because it's just a metaphor. Show me what part of this cutscene accurately portrays, literally or metaphorically, the events of the sundering from shadowbringers.

What is the metaphor for etheirys being restored to its habitable state? What is the metaphor for the major battle between hydaelyn and zodiark that sunders etheirys?

[Coratanni]

Look, people want to defend this cutscene by saying its not a retcon because it's just a metaphor. Show me what part of this cutscene accurately portrays, literally or metaphorically, the events of the sundering from shadowbringers.

What is the metaphor for etheirys being restored to its habitable state? What is the metaphor for the major battle between hydaelyn and zodiark that sunders etheirys?

I'm in awe, that there are people who really think that cutscene was a retcon. There were wayyyy too many inconsistencies in it, for it to be anything other than metaphorical and just a visual spectacle.

[kpxmanifesto]

I'm in awe, that there are people who really think that cutscene was a retcon. There were wayyyy too many inconsistencies in it, for it to be anything other than metaphorical and just a visual spectacle.

The OP has a point though. The story writer is telling us through this metaphorical cutscene that the cause of the sundering was different from how Emet-Selch said it happened in ShB. If the story wasn't retconned then we would know that the sundering was actually because of a battle between Zodiark and Hydaelyn, but we didn't see that mentioned at all in EW MSQ

[MikkoAkure]

The OP has a point though. The story writer is telling us through this metaphorical cutscene that the cause of the sundering was different from how Emet-Selch said it happened in ShB. If the story wasn't retconned then we would know that the sundering was actually because of a battle between Zodiark and Hydaelyn, but we didn't see that mentioned at all in EW MSQ

The first Tales from the Dawn restates the ShB reason for the Sundering. It's almost as if events can have more than 1 reason for happening.

[kpxmanifesto]

The first Tales from the Dawn restates the ShB reason for the Sundering. It's almost as if events can have more than 1 reason for happening.

So a double retcon? They messed up the cutscene by forgetting to show the metaphor for the great battle between Zodiark and Hydaelyn, and then they have to write more lore after the game was finished to reconcile the two diverged stories? That's just plain carelessness.

Isn't that poor story telling? You know, having to have the creators of the story explain things outside of the story themselves?

Looks like they did this twice now. Once with the Live Letter and now with Tales of the dawn.

[AmiableApkallu]

Look, people want to defend this cutscene by saying its not a retcon because it's just a metaphor. Show me what part of this cutscene accurately portrays, literally or metaphorically, the events of the sundering from shadowbringers.

What is the metaphor for etheirys being restored to its habitable state? What is the metaphor for the major battle between hydaelyn and zodiark that sunders etheirys?

I might say it's neither retcon nor metaphor.

You have the story of the Sundering as told by ShB Emet-Selch, who has no memories of Meteion.

You have the story of the Sundering as told by EW Venat/Hydaelyn, who does remember Meteion.

These are the stories that they've each been telling themselves, to remind themselves of why they've been carrying their burdens for thousands of years. And to paraphrase an old saying, there are three sides to the story: Team Zodiark's, Team Hydaelyn's, and The Truth.

[Raven2014]

I might say it's neither retcon nor metaphor.

You have the story of the Sundering as told by ShB Emet-Selch, who has no memories of Meteion.

You have the story of the Sundering as told by EW Venat/Hydaelyn, who does remember Meteion.

These are the stories that they've each been telling themselves, to remind themselves of why they've been carrying their burdens for thousands of years. And to paraphrase an old saying, there are three sides to the story: Team Zodiark's, Team Hydaelyn's, and The Truth.

This is something that I noticed a lot of people tend to forget, and I've seen it happened across different media too. Manga's forums are usually especially hot about it. For some reason people tend to take whatever a character say earlier in a story as the gospel and ultimate truth, and thus claim anything that happened later as reton, lie, inconsistency .etc. Often forgetting that as a player we're given an omnipotent POV of multiple layers that NPCs don't have. A NPC is not necessary lying, their story is simply their truth, but that does not mean it's the universal truth.

Usually, the objective truth - if existed, would be narrated in general form through an invisible DM, but you risk breaking the 4th wall with it and you will be essentially told how to see the world the way the writers want you to. So instead of that, FF14's narrative is told through the actual characters, and you decide which version you agree more or attempt to reconcile different view and find your own version of the truth.

Even if a story point appears to be opaque or murky, it could very well be on purpose to provoke debate among the player readership, which for the most part is always a good thing. Comparing to writer make thing absolutely black and white, with crystal clear interpretation leaving no room for debate which would make thing boring IMO.