Inconsistencies with the sundering (Spoilers)

[kpxmanifesto]

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.

A very powerful and capable sorcerer so talented that he’s elected to the Convocation of the Fourteen, able enough to avoid being sundered himself (which is another inconsistency that the OP mentioned), but suddenly can’t identify what’s happening or what’s going on? If that’s the logic that some people want to go with then I guess it is what it is.

"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.

Well, this is certainly an interesting interpretation of that quote, but to be honest I just don’t see this as Hydaelyn talking about a direct battle with Zodiark. For all we know she could be speaking about how she sundered everyone before Zodiark was summoned because if Zodiark were to be summoned then it would already be too late.

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.

The change was controversial, which is why we see plenty of posts on the forums of people expressing their discontent with the events surrounding the sundering. Labelling something as a retcon can also be used to call out a writer for changing the story around in a way that's more convenient for the writer, which is exactly what I think happened with EW.

Retcons can be used by writers to handwave away details that are a nuisance to work with, and a somewhat knowledgeable writer can disguise a retcon through "newly received information" or some other "unexpected occurrence" that changes details of the story. Yoshi P already admitted to doing this for parts of the story during the Endwalker Q and A session: "when you're making this world you'll just sort of sometimes ignore things that are inconvenient" (4:25:35). https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WRpdIL7_NII

I believe the OP already mentioned this, but it seems that the retconning of ShB's story was a thinly veiled attempt to make things more convenient for the development team. Maybe the painstaking process of creating a detailed metaphorical or literal cutscene that showed a battle between Zodiark and Hydaelyn would have taken too much out of the allotted time for developing the game, so they just changed the story around a bit to show that the Sundering was something she did by herself.

Remember that the release of EW was already delayed for two weeks because Yoshi P wanted to edit the cutscenes on Ultima Thule, and they were already behind schedule and on crunch time. Could you imagine how much more of a delay it would’ve been if they had to create a cutscene (metaphorical or not) where Zodiark battles Hydaelyn?

What’s more is that it almost seems like SE tried to gloss it over by writing the Tales of the Dawn entry that reconciles both ShB’s and EW’s version of the Sundering. It’s almost as if the writers thought: “Hopefully people will forgive and forget that we didn’t include the bit about the battle between Hydaelyn and Zodiark in the EW MSQ if we write it here.”

[kpxmanifesto]

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

And that's why the OP is calling it a retcon. Such a crucial and definitive moment in the game and the writer forgets or refuses to add that in?

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.

This is a textbook example of Reductio ad Absurdum. It's not going to work here.

[Xirean]

A very powerful and capable sorcerer so talented that he’s elected to the Convocation of the Fourteen, able enough to avoid being sundered himself (which is another inconsistency that the OP mentioned), but suddenly can’t identify what’s happening or what’s going on? If that’s the logic that some people want to go with then I guess it is what it is.

He literally doesn't and that is simply the text of the story. All we know that he knows is that Hydaelyn sundered the world and very likely that she is Venat (I don't know for certain of that knowledge). We know that he doesn't know why, which is the main discussion point of this thread. All of that knowledge he could have had or inferred was stolen from him by the memory wipe.

Emet, Lahabrea, and Elidibus avoiding the sundering was explicitly stated to be purposeful by Venat from an interview with Yoshi P post EW launch. If you have other information to contradict that then I would like to see it and would probably agree that it is a retcon.

Really the only issue I'm seeing here is people refusing to accept that character motivations can be fleshed out and given nuance after you know what actions were taken. If that's a problem then I don't know what to tell you. Also just because we didn't see the fight doesn't mean the fight didn't occur and it's kinda sad that it needs to be said. Almost as sad as the fight not being shown honestly, it would have been epic.

I'm not a fan of the cutscene we got while leaving Elpis. But I can recognize that it's not literal. Aside from us being given new information about the final days (which was going to happen anyway) and Venat's specific motivations, I don't see the retcon. We had blank spaces and the writers filled them in.

[MikkoAkure]

And that's why the OP is calling it a retcon. Such a crucial and definitive moment in the game and the writer forgets or refuses to add that in?

And what I was saying is that it makes much more sense that the devs decided to make a weird stylistic choice to throw in this abstract cutscene at the climax of a decade-long story in an effort to be cinematic. Rather than the writers either straight-up forgetting their own story but only at this specific part, or a conspiracy theory that they purposefully simplified things to make it easier on the devs and then backpedaled later on with a “double retcon”.

This is a textbook example of Reductio ad Absurdum. It's not going to work here.

No, I was just listing things that actually make more sense as retcons than this that fit the definition you provided, but no one really argues or complains about as being retcons. Calling things out with discourse buzzwords doesn’t suddenly make you right.

My point is that something being a retcon is more subjective than “anything and everything that fits a specific dictionary definition”. I don’t see reveals as retcons and there’s nothing in this that contradicts with information that we knew before, unless you take the cutscene as literal as the OP does.


As I said before, Hydaelyn/Venat was already said to have done what she did due to her personal morals back in Shadowbringers. Then in 5.2, she and her people mention Zodiark not being a permanent solution which connects directly to the motives we learn about at the end of Elpis so there’s still been continuity this whole time and no contradictions.

Just because we get one confusing cutscene, additional fuel for her to do what she already does added to her already existing list of personal excuses for the Sundering, and no Hydaelyn-Zodiark beat down like we should have had means that there’s a retcon.

[Raven2014]

And that's why the OP is calling it a retcon. Such a crucial and definitive moment in the game and the writer forgets or refuses to add that in?

Because it's probably not a "moment"? Given the time line, that civil war could have lasted for decades if not more before a victor was decided, it's not like Hydalin came into being, meet Zodiak on the field the war concluded before dinner.


The OP calling it a retcon doesn't make it a retcon, and no thing he had said so far can be constituted as "proof". The issue is he probably had never seen this sort of story telling before and thus refuse to acknowledge it. What he wants is an Hollywood rendition of the civil, where you basically travel back in time and "live" in the moment, to see thing happens exactly how it is. What he wants is a re-creation direct by a movie director. What we get is a "stage play" directed by playwright. And they're both valid form of story telling.


For example, let's say the true story is about a war between two countries. And there are tons of political/social/ideal reason for the war. Then the two armies meet each others on the field with hundred thousand soldier, and one army won, the war concluded. And the kings leading their respect army actually never cross sword with one another.

- You can tell this story Hollywood style by recreating all the critical meetings, using CGI to recreate the battles .etc. (ala LOTR style). This is what you get if you watch the story adaption in a Movie theater.

- Now let's say a "playwright" want to adapt this story, but with only at most a dozen actors. Not for a movie, but to play it on a stage in Broadway. So during that battle, instead of the hundred thousands of army, instead of show all the strategic/tactical and cool factor, you will most likely see two "avatars" represent their respective side on the stage (probably the kings), that would come blow to blow while delivering "dramatic lines" to explain the their motivation (despite they never actually see each other in the real story). Instead of two armies clashing, you probably see the two king trade blade in sword play (again, despite they never face each other in the real story). And the "victory" will be likely symbolized by one king strike down the other king with his own sword - which again, something that doesn't happen.


So if the "play" is recton to you, then it is your choice. But I also gonna say, if you call that a recton, then it's because you never really watch a play before. What happen in FF14 during that scene while is a well written scene, but it's not exactly something rare or new to anyone who somewhat familiar with playwright. It's not recton, it's called adaption that depends on the medium of choice. And a 1 to 1 recreation is not the only form of story telling that can exist or the only one that's valid.

[kpxmanifesto]

Unfortunately, I don't really have the time to read everyone’s responses, but I’ll at least break down my reasoning for why I’m siding with OP. I’ve posted something like this earlier in this same thread too, but I’ll post it again, so nobody has to check through all the pages.

During the Letter from the Producer LIVE Part LXVIII, Yoshi P just seemed kind of unprepared to answer the fans' questions about EW's lore. He was stumbling a lot when answering questions or outright deflecting them, and it wasn't a very satisfying Q and A session for people either seeking answers to unresolved storylines or trying to fill plot holes.

He'd make comments like "I didn't actually imagine anybody would ask this" (3:40:57) or "wow you guys are paying close attention to this game!" (3:45:55). Like, dude this game is renowned for its story. Why is the guy so surprised that fans are looking for closure and want to ask questions that tie up loose ends?

He would also deflect some of the questions by saying things like "when you're making this world you'll just sort of sometimes ignore things that are inconvenient" (4:25:35) and "I think you guys can come up with your own theories for this one" (4:08:49).

The overall vibe just felt really off, and Yoshi P looked visibly uncomfortable as he struggled to answer fans' questions about the lore, moving around nervously, looking straight up at the ceiling, grimacing, etc. He was pretty much in damage control mode for the entire duration of answering questions related to the MSQ.

After seeing his attitude during the Q and A session it became clear to me why the game retcons itself and produces continuity errors like the ones OP mentioned. The dev team just has a habit of, as Yoshi P would put it: “ignoring things that are inconvenient.”

You can watch the whole thing here at: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WRpdIL7_NII

Anyways, I’m out of time for today as there’s other things in life that need tending to. Thanks everyone for engaging with me in this conversation. Have a good day.

[PeaTearGriffin]

After seeing his attitude during the Q and A session it became clear to me why the game retcons itself and produces continuity errors like the ones OP mentioned. The dev team just has a habit of, as Yoshi P would put it: “ignoring things that are inconvenient.”

That would explain this horrendous cutscene in endwalker that retcons what emet selch said in shadowbringers. Of course square enix tried to save it by rewriting the story to include both of the explanations from shadowbringers and endwalker in Tales of the Dawn, but it's too late and the damage has already been done.

[Pratini]

Calling the Venat cutscene "horrendous".

You all need to touch grass it's just a video game.

[kpxmanifesto]

but it's too late and the damage has already been done.

Oh, for sure. My friends that played through MSQ are still under the impression that Venat just did the sundering all by herself and that it was not the result of the conflict between Hydaelyn and Zodiark. I had to link them to the Tales of the Dawn webpage which I didn't even know existed until someone else posted it in this thread.

[R041]

Calling the Venat cutscene "horrendous".

You all need to touch grass it's just a video game.

Checking your char and it's only 6mo old with that amount of progress? Looks like you need to touch some of that grass too. lol