Endwalker story doubt: spoiler alert

[RyuDragnier]

People are surprised Venat was brought up in a talk about a plan set up by Venat? I'm sure I'm misreading things because of the fact that I'm tired and need to sleep, but somebody please tell me that I'm reading that wrong.

[Lunaxia]

People are surprised Venat was brought up in a talk about a plan set up by Venat? I'm sure I'm misreading things because of the fact that I'm tired and need to sleep, but somebody please tell me that I'm reading that wrong.

I think they may be taking issue with focusing on the defence of Venat herself rather than the logic of her actions and the parameters involved...? Which the other poster likely did as a pre-emptive measure against a "why Venat was wrong" discussion, which has the tendency to go down various rabbit holes on its own.

[Cleretic]

You want to play this game? Sure.

Let's ignore that the plan resulted in: A) the star died and those souls in lifestream gets eaten by meteion, and B) the remaining shards are left behind.

First of all: it is entirely possible that Venat actually did have plans for this if the escape plan were to go through, we were told very little about the plan because, again, it never actually reached a point of 'reality' where it had to exist as more than a vague one-sentence brief. We can't really say if she did or didn't, and it's entirely possible we never will and we just have to live with that. Granted, in a little over a week we'll have a chance to learn what the shards have a moon for, so that part might be covered. But let's first accept the possibility that she did have a contingency plan for this before discussing the currently-assumed situation that she didn't.

When you're figuring out an emergency escape plan, there's a significant element of 'you take what you can get'. Yeah, it sucks that the Lifestream will be lost and the shards can't be saved (providing, again, that is in fact the case), but far worse would be to not have an escape for anyone at all. If the best you can do is an escape pod for specifically the living on the Source, then that's what we have, and we hope they do the best they can with it.

Now, did they do the best they could? A little hard to tell, but I would say the failure point if they didn't is actually more on Sharlayan. They probably could've stood to hustle a little faster, get more than two nations partially evacuated. Granted, to be as fair to them as I'm requesting you be fair to Venat, they didn't know how much time they had, but they also should've either worked to study how to judge that (which we know was possible to track at least at one point) or gone with a worst-case scenario assumption that they'd be hit early, neither of which they seemed to do. Isolationism was definitely the wrong response for them to have; Sevestre likely caused more damage than any other single person to the chances of that plan saving everyone it could've.

I think they may be taking issue with focusing on the defence of Venat herself rather than the logic of her actions and the parameters involved...? Which the other poster likely did as a pre-emptive measure against a "why Venat was wrong" discussion, which has the tendency to go down various rabbit holes on its own.

Yeah, I am extremely conscious that this argument of 'the escape plan was actually bad' feels an awful lot like it's just being used as a new angle to say 'Venat Bad' right now, which is a ridiculously tedious argument around here.

Of course the escape plan wasn't perfect; hell, the fact it had flaws was a notable plot beat, the realization that it doesn't cover other shards was kinda the main flag that they need something better. I'd hesitate to call it a 'bad plan' because the nature of something like this kinda has to be judged in relation to other options, and in this case there kind of aren't any; the escape plan is, literally, better than nothing, and 'nothing' is all the other evacuation options available.

And the kicker on all this: I don't really like Venat that much. This isn't me 'defending my favorite', Venat is in competition as my least favorite new major character in Endwalker (to figure that out we need to answer questions like 'does Erenville count as major' and 'does Real Hythlodaeus count as new'). I'm 'defending' her here because the moon escape plan is her plan, so we kinda have to factor in her perspective, goals, and constraints and realize that any evidence she couldn't have had aren't really valid stones to throw.

[Lunaxia]

Yeah, I am extremely conscious that this argument...

My bad, then. I was vaguely recollecting posts I've seen from you before where you seemed quite a vocal supporter of hers.

And I mean, I can sympathise with that. I do get a bit annoyed when it feels as if people are bending over backwards to avoid calling a spade a spade because it involves characters/ plot elements they're fond of, no matter who or what it is, but at the same time it is a rocky road with regards to discussing Venat since it's hard to discuss any one of her actions in a vacuum. How you perceive anything she does is inevitably tied to your overall view on the story (and yes, the sundering), and that really is a discussion that's been done to death. I am inclined to counter she has sufficient enough evidence to be aware of Meteion's intentions, though, and by escaping those that remain are more or less being condemned to a life of pursual and survival, as is any planet they encounter - and that maybe the only way to justify that is "what else can be done?" Overall, I think it's fair to say that it's a pretty tragic plan, given what was originally sacrificed and what more it means would be lost for it to come to fruition.

(Also, do I sense someone else who wasn't satisfied with Real Hythlodaeus...? Do they exist?)

[Cleretic]

My bad, then. I was vaguely recollecting posts I've seen from you before where you seemed quite a vocal supporter of hers.

I would overall say that in those situations I wasn't defending Venat so much as I was defending 'the story as it was given to us'; my view on a lot of critique and analysis is essentially that while I don't have any issue with how you feel about a story, we should discuss it on the story's terms, and not misrepresent it. And without wanting to revive, relitigate or psychoanalyze that argument, I feel like there was a lot of people who were grossly misrepresenting the argument solely to make Venat look bad, because they either disagreed with her or disliked Endwalker, and wanted to declare their stance to be objectively right instead of merely opinion. I know the feeling and I've fallen into it myself, but discussion doesn't get anywhere by letting that sort of misrepresentation stand.

My view on Venat is that she and the Convocation were faced with a difficult situation with no right answers with the End of Days, and both took the side and actions that they personally believed in; while I think Venat made the choice I morally agree with, I understand and sympathize with the Convocation making their own decision, even if I would not do the same. And that, of course, the entire conversation has an odd shadow of 'it happened in the distant past' over it; in the time after that point, the Convocation became the Ascians and became very much morally reprehensible, while Venat ultimately proved to have been factually right in what had to be done to both create, and defend, the world within the game that I'm actually attached to.

...but that despite all of that, I don't really like Venat because I don't find her very interesting as a character. The events set into motion by and occurring around her are very interesting, but when she's actually the focus of scenes I just don't find her particularly compelling. That's partly because all those scenes take place in the Ancient world I also don't find that interesting, but... I mean hey, Hermes, Lahabrea and so far Athena all found ways to make me interested in them despite their surroundings.


And yeah, while it's largley unrelated, I don't like Real Hythlodaeus. He's sort of a personification of everything I don't like about how Endwalker depicted the Ancient world: Amaurot in Shadowbringers laid a groundwork of weird, unknowable but still in some way friendly and personable godlike beings living in a world that was at the same time very welcoming but too foreign to truly feel at home in, and while I had a lot of issues with how Shadowbringers handled it that meant I didn't really enjoy it then, that's a conceptual seed that I could've been into if fleshed out. But then Endwalker came along and just went 'oh no the Ancients are all pretty humans living in a world with no stakes', and suddenly I was so off-board with them that I could never get back on board. And Fake Hyth vs. Real Hyth was the same; Fake Hyth was definitely friendly but completely inscrutible, it was impossible to get an idea of his actual tone or feelings, nor to get an idea of what sort of person he was, and how much of that is influenced by him being a figment of Emet's memory. ...But then Real Hyth turns up and oh no, he's just a completely bland, no-sharp-edges Hot Guy with no opinions who only exists to make you go 'he seems nice, Elpis is nice'. He's so noncommittally bland as a character that I actually kinda get mad about him; like, they could've made this character interesting, and deliberately chose not to.

[Lunaxia]

I would overall say that in those situations I wasn't defending Venat so much as I was defending 'the story as it was given to us'...

Thanks for the explanation. I'm of a fairly different mindset on more than a few points, but it's both interesting and helpful to see the reasoning behind the opposing view and how other players choose to interpret the story and why. I can certainly understand where you're coming from.

And yeah, while it's largley unrelated...

I see! Funnily enough, while I loved the concept of Amaurot in ShB, my take on Real Hyth is actually more or less the same. Found him incredibly appealing as a character in his original incarnation despite his minor role for the intrigue and ambiguity that surrounded him, as well as his possible potential as a foil to Emet, and was let down to find they'd decided to strip away everything that made him compelling in the first place and turn him into a conventionally attractive, unassuming fan service-style character. To this day I still feel a strange sort of dissonance when I look at him, like my brain can't quite accept that's the design they decided to go with, lol. It's sort of a blasphemy to admit though, even in more critical circles, so I'm always a little surprised to come across someone else who also feels differently.

I have a different read on Hythlodaeus.

You're entitled to your own view of him, but I think describing him as "wanting to die and wanting his friends to die" is a misread of what he's saying. I'd say it's more his wanting them to live a long and happy life together, so that they can return to the star one day feeling fulfilled and at peace alongside the ones they love - which is a natural given for the Ancients, they're not completely immortal, even if they're not far off - rather than anything dark or sinister.

[Tehmon]

Thanks for the explanation. I'm of a fairly different mindset on more than a few points, but it's both interesting and helpful to see the reasoning behind the opposing view and how other players choose to interpret the story and why. I can certainly understand where you're coming from.



I see! Funnily enough, while I loved the concept of Amaurot in ShB, my take on Real Hyth is actually more or less the same. Found him incredibly appealing as a character in his original incarnation despite his minor role for the intrigue and ambiguity that surrounded him, as well as his possible potential as a foil to Emet, and was let down to find they'd decided to strip away everything that made him compelling in the first place and turn him into a conventionally attractive, unassuming fan service-style character. To this day I still feel a strange sort of dissonance when I look at him, like my brain can't quite accept that's the design they decided to go with, lol. It's sort of a blasphemy to admit though, even in more critical circles, so I'm always a little surprised to come across someone else who also feels differently.



You're entitled to your own view of him, but I think describing him as "wanting to die and wanting his friends to die" is a misread of what he's saying.I'd say it's more his wanting them to live a long and happy life together, so that they can return to the star one day feeling fulfilled and at peace alongside the ones they love - which is a natural given for the Ancients, they're not completely immortal, even if they're not far off - rather than anything dark or sinister.

I feel like his goal more than anyone's is to return to the star, rather than doing something for the good of all humanity and then proceeding with the happy joyous suicide. Plus when it comes to death, I think he more than anyone takes it quite lightly, or at least the writers make him the mouthpiece of DEATH IS AWESOME!

If what you say is true, I think his actions would reflect that a bit more.

[Kozh]

I would overall say that in those situations I wasn't defending Venat so much as I was defending 'the story as it was given to us'; my view on a lot of critique and analysis is essentially that while I don't have any issue with how you feel about a story, we should discuss it on the story's terms, and not misrepresent it. And without wanting to revive, relitigate or psychoanalyze that argument, I feel like there was a lot of people who were grossly misrepresenting the argument solely to make Venat look bad, because they either disagreed with her or disliked Endwalker, and wanted to declare their stance to be objectively right instead of merely opinion. I know the feeling and I've fallen into it myself, but discussion doesn't get anywhere by letting that sort of misrepresentation stand.

So tl;dr it's all in your head. You are afraid of the venat-hater boogeyman that you assume people are trying to make Venat looks bad, instead, you know, questioning the story?

You said about not wanting to misrepresent "the story given to us" but has it crossed your minds that sometimes the story just doesn't make sense? Or if it was cheap-written? If no one is allowed to say what a dumb plot it is, then movie/story critics wouldn't exist.

Edit: the lore forum has now become your paradise, free of the evil trancers, you don't need to play victim anymore Cleretic

[Cleretic]

So tl;dr it's all in your head. You are afraid of the venat-hater boogeyman that you assume people are trying to make Venat looks bad, instead, you know, questioning the story?

And you've suddenly made it very clear that you only care about specifically attacking me, not the actual subject of the thread. Otherwise you wouldn't have ignored:

A: Me directly addressing your points,

and B: The posts above you re-railing the topic back to the OP's questions.

It's especially noticeable that you don't even know--or more correctly, don't believe--enough about me to actually make a cogent point about me, because 'you don't want us criticizing the story' doesn't make any goddamn sense coming after two pages of several of us, including myself, criticizing part of the story.

I will happily dress down FFXIV's story for the parts I find that it actually fails at. ARR is overstuffed and underbaked. Stormblood attempting to tell the same story twice just leads to neither story getting the chance to get good. Shadowbringers suffers from the writers not wanting to kill characters as much as they used to (which is valid) but not knowing any way to up the stakes of a scene other than to threaten it. Endwalker has pacing problems that mostly stem from two decent-sized chunks of story where literally nothing happens. I've made two videos about issues that I find two prominent characters' stories face. I'm currently trying to figure out a proper way to discuss how FFXIV's interest in writing a story that caters to how much the general playerbase loves certain characters and playstyles leaves the people who don't share those interests weirdly alienated.

But all of those are parts where the game fails me are related to the story failing to deliver what it's trying to. I see what the game's wanting to do, and I see the things that cause it to not achieve that in the best way it can. That's rather different from arguing that a written-to-be-imperfect plan that didn't even get put into action in the first place would've failed according to information you learned later that the plan-maker and enactors wouldn't have known. That's not genuine and worthwhile criticism that resolving would make the story better; that's nitpicking that's beside the point of that story beat at best, and taking blatant potshots at the plan-maker at worst. And you don't strike me as a nitpicker.

If it's really what you're interested in: congratulations for coming up with a way that the plan that was explicitly described in the story as being flawed, imperfect and wouldn't have worked very well... wouldn't have worked very well. Not that any of that matters, because your real argument is to try to make ad hominem attacks against someone you don't actually understand.

EDIT: For what it's worth and to prevent it getting off scot-free, I don't have any big complaints about Heavensward's story, but think it was just boringly competent throughout. There's not any big problems that don't amount to entirely subjective 'I wish they didn't kill Ysayle', but at the same time, absolutely none of my highlights of the game's story come from Heavensward.