Inconsistencies with the sundering (Spoilers)

[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.

[MikkoAkure]

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.

There’s no need to reconcile and neither contradicts the other. Endwalker gave us new reason for why Venat did what she did in addition to what we knew before from ShB.

I won’t deny the cutscene wasn’t straightforward and was more abstract than most of what we’ve seen in the game before. But if you think there’s retcons going on or giant writing mistakes, then you’re either incredibly dense, looking for a reason to be upset, or both.

[kpxmanifesto]

There’s no need to reconcile and neither contradicts the other. Endwalker gave us new reason for why Venat did what she did in addition to what we knew before from ShB.

I won’t deny the cutscene wasn’t straightforward and was more abstract than most of what we’ve seen in the game before. But if you think there’s retcons going on or giant writing mistakes, then you’re either incredibly dense, looking for a reason to be upset, or both.

Don't sit here and try to deceive people into thinking you didn't already acknowledge that a retcon was present.
You already said:

explaining a new additional reasoning for the Sundering.

You cannot take back what you said, no matter how hard you try. And no, being toxic by saying I'm dense or just looking for a reason to be upset won't help you, lmao.

[Xirean]

Don't sit here and try to deceive people into thinking you didn't already acknowledge that a retcon was present.
You already said:

Real quick can you define retcon so we're all the same page? It seems as though the two of you are using two different working versions of that word.

[kpxmanifesto]

Real quick can you define retcon so we're all the same page? It seems as though the two of you are using two different working versions of that word.

I'm just using the Cambridge definition: "a piece of new information given in a movie, television series, etc. that changes, or gives a different way of understanding, what has gone before. Retcon is short for "Retroactive Continuity." https://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/...english/retcon

ShB says that the sundering happened because of a "great battle between Zodiark and Hydaelyn", the EW metaphorical cutscene fails to mention that battle and says it was done by Venat because of her own personal morals.

[Xirean]

I'm just using the Cambridge definition: "a piece of new information given in a movie, television series, etc. that changes, or gives a different way of understanding, what has gone before. Retcon is short for "Retroactive Continuity." https://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/...english/retcon

ShB says that the sundering happened because of a "great battle between Zodiark and Hydaelyn", the EW metaphorical cutscene fails to mention that battle and says it was done by Venat because of her own personal morals.

Makes more sense. That being said I find that a bit too harsh a definition especially in regards to a thread like this calling out "inconsistencies". We never had information from her perspective about the event. Because of this lack of knowledge we were effectively left with a blank hole. In my opinion, adding information where there previously was none isn't in the spirit of the word "retcon". Does it technically meet that strict definition? Yes, obviously, but I wouldn't really consider it one. Now if we saw events play out one way then saw events play out a different way later from the exact same perspective I would absolutely agree with you.

You can even apply this logic to any other story that doesn't give you all the information at the start. Technically any story that leaves blank spots is technically retconning every time there is a reveal by that definition.

[kpxmanifesto]

Snip

Yeah, sure, I suppose you can have the theory that Venat's perspective of what happened is very different from Emet-Selch's.

If your theory is indeed the case, then does the game's story suddenly carry the assumption that Emet-Selch was actually clueless to what the origin of the Sundering was?

At this point we're just filling in the holes with our own interpretations of how things in the game are because the game itself doesn't make any elaboration on it.

You can even apply this logic to any other story that doesn't give you all the information at the start. Technically any story that leaves blank spots is technically retconning every time there is a reveal by that definition.

New information by itself doesn't create a retcon. If new information changes what was previously established, yes, I'd still consider that a retcon. Twists in movies can be seen as retcons too.

[Xirean]

If your theory is indeed the case, then does the game's story suddenly carry the assumption that Emet-Selch was actually clueless to what the origin of the Sundering was?

That's actually very explicitly the case. I'm not going to defend Elpis or the big cutscene in question (I think they are the weakest point of the entire game), but Emet absolutely had no idea because he was literally robbed of the knowledge. From his perspective the sundering happened as part of the battle. Since we don't get to see a literal telling of events or, very unfortunately, the fight itself, we can't dispute his statement on the when, only the why. The cutscene where the sundering is shown attempts to justify Venat's actions through her own words. Despite this, later when you fight her she states "Against the power of the almighty Zodiark, I had no other alternative" which heavily leans back onto the "it was part of the fight" explanation. I still wouldn't consider that an inconsistency or a retcon. Her justification for her actions are hers and hers alone nor would I be surprised that someone who did what she did would find an internal justification for it.

New information by itself doesn't create a retcon. If new information changes what was previously established, yes, I'd still consider that a retcon. Twists in movies can be seen as retcons too.

So this is where I would have to disagree; not on the raw definition of the word, but on the spirit of the word. People often bring up the word retcon to imply something really bad happened as a result of something being changed; or rather that the change itself is bad. In this instance that's difficult to judge. There was no information present and then we obtained new information. By that logic alone, there was no change. Just filling in the blank. We can decide if we like that new info or not later.

[MikkoAkure]

ShB says that the sundering happened because of a "great battle between Zodiark and Hydaelyn", the EW metaphorical cutscene fails to mention that battle and says it was done by Venat because of her own personal morals.

We already knew since ShB 5.0 MSQ that Hydaelyn objected to the third sacrifice due to her own personal morals and then in 5.2 we find out that Venat summoned Hydaelyn again due to her morals. In “Beneath the Surface”, we’re told Venat didn’t believe Zodiark is a permanent solution and that tracks with what we find out later in Endwalker so there’s still continuity. It was never just left off in ShB that “there was a battle and Sundering happened”.

The battle between Zodiark and Hydaelyn still happens, it’s just not shown in that one weird cutscene.


If we’re going by the “official” definition you provided, then this whole game was retconned in ShB when it was revealed that the Ascians are Ancients. Or when we find out that Zodiark and Hydaelyn are primals. Or when we find out in post-ARR that Ascian powers are also the Echo and later in ShB that it’s due to some soul memory thing. Or in SB when we find out that Emet-Selch was Solus.

There are so many more much larger examples that fit better with the common idea of retcons than this one the thread is about that also definitely fit the definition you provided. I still don’t consider this a retcon and don’t agree with the “official” definition.