On Themis [6.4 SPOILER]

[Iscah]

I guess we'll just have to disagree then? Cause to me because the writers chose to write it that way it's how they want to have their world be in that type of setting. That I'll assume part of the reason that they chose to write it that was is due to needing the earlier bits match up with the later bits as best they can. That they I hope unintentionally shot themselves in the foot by not having an idea of how they wanted a faction in their game to be until some time in Stormblood. So that once they actually had an idea they had to try and make it look like it jived with the worldbuilding they had already done.

This. So much of the Ascians' story was written with the ending already set in stone by the earlier parts of the game. The end result had to be the Sundering; the writers had no choice but to come up with something that reached that result. I don't think they did the best possible job that could be done, and they had some weird philosophical takes on things, but it's part of the setting now whether we like it or not.

[Brinne]

This. So much of the Ascians' story was written with the ending already set in stone by the earlier parts of the game. The end result had to be the Sundering; the writers had no choice but to come up with something that reached that result. I don't think they did the best possible job that could be done, and they had some weird philosophical takes on things, but it's part of the setting now whether we like it or not.

Right, I don't think this is actually an unfair or unreasonable position at all, and I actually largely agree (because again, this is actually stepping into an exegetic conversation.) I've said many times I don't think the clumsy handling of the Sundering was done out of deliberate malice or anything like that, more like a series of fumbles that was handled extremely badly and reflected certain priorities over others on the part of the creative team.

But I also think this is a bit of an (unintentional) misrepresentation, again - I don't think anyone here is disputing the fact that the Sundering had to happen, narratively, and I've enjoyed a lot of discussion from different people about how the writers ended up in this corner due to approaching things in a backwards way and making things up as they go. However, I think how the Sundering was handled on a storytelling perspective, granting that the fact of it had to have happened, is still a fair topic of discussion. It is perfectly okay for me to be interested in discussing that aspect further and for anyone else to not be interested in it. I shouldn't force anyone into it who doesn't want to have it, and other people, I think, shouldn't feel the need to jump in, lash out and say it's stupid and pointless for me to want to talk about it with others who do too.

There might also be some disagreement about "if we can build a tentative agreement that it was clumsy and we all have to live with it now, how do we as fans handle it going forward?" The approach to some seems to be to rationalize it in order to continue enjoying the game as best they can (please correct me if I'm the one misrepresenting here), and some who feel better about voicing their dissatisfaction with "how it was handled" in a way they hope reaches the writers in the official forums in hopes that either they don't do this so much going forward, or maybe in hopes that future content that touches on it might help reduce the dissonance, and some weirdoes who just like going in-depth with this kind of thing with others - or anyone might have some mish-mash of any of those - but again, I think we can all be allowed those ideas on "how to approach a part of the game we're not really crazy about" while respecting one anothers' choices about it, as long as it doesn't devolve into harassment or abuse?

[redheadturk]

Right, I don't think this is actually an unfair or unreasonable position at all, and I actually largely agree (because again, this is actually stepping into an exegetic conversation.) I've said many times I don't think the clumsy handling of the Sundering was done out of deliberate malice or anything like that, more like a series of fumbles that was handled extremely badly and reflected certain priorities over others on the part of the creative team.

But I also think this is a bit of an (unintentional) misrepresentation, again - I don't think anyone here is disputing the fact that the Sundering had to happen, narratively, and I've enjoyed a lot of discussion from different people about how the writers ended up in this corner due to approaching things in a backwards way and making things up as they go. However, I think how the Sundering was handled on a storytelling perspective, granting that the fact of it had to have happened, is still a fair topic of discussion. It is perfectly okay for me to be interested in discussing that aspect further and for anyone else to not be interested in it. I shouldn't force anyone into it who doesn't want to have it, and other people, I think, shouldn't feel the need to jump in, lash out and say it's stupid and pointless for me to want to talk about it with others who do too.

There might also be some disagreement about "if we can build a tentative agreement that it was clumsy and we all have to live with it now, how do we as fans handle it going forward?" The approach to some seems to be to rationalize it in order to continue enjoying the game as best they can (please correct me if I'm the one misrepresenting here), and some who feel better about voicing their dissatisfaction with "how it was handled" in a way they hope reaches the writers in the official forums in hopes that either they don't do this so much going forward, or maybe in hopes that future content that touches on it might help reduce the dissonance, and some weirdoes who just like going in-depth with this kind of thing with others - or anyone might have some mish-mash of any of those - but again, I think we can all be allowed those ideas on "how to approach a part of the game we're not really crazy about" while respecting one anothers' choices about it, as long as it doesn't devolve into harassment or abuse?

For me if they had allowed an AU like they did with G'raha where the Ancients survived in another timeline, even if we never got to interact with said timeline, I would have been a lot more at ease with the decisions the devs made in order to reconcile past worldbuilding with present. The way they went about it [making the sundering intentional, making it so Venat remembered the cause] really just put a bad taste in the mouths of Ancient fans and made Venat look like a monster.

[Turnintino]

[making the sundering intentional, making it so Venat remembered the cause]

This was definitely one of my biggest gripes when I was first playing through the Elpis storyline. I thought the memory eraser was an incredibly cheap contrivance, but I could've accepted it for what it was if Venat hadn't escaped its effect. When she did, the entire premise of the memory eraser's last minute introduction seemed almost pointless to me, because giving Hydaelyn that foreknowledge appeared to me to be as damning as it would've been to allow Emet and co. to escape with the same thing, imo, at least with past expansions in mind. But the writers wanted to give Hydaelyn more agency in the storyline than I think she really needed in order to pull off their game plan for EW, and that call retroactively makes her past behavior seem almost nonsensical in hindsight -- at least paired with her characterization. And the results are... what they are.

All that isn't to say that I think the popular discourse surrounding her wouldn't exist if she'd just been allowed to remain ignorant. The act of the Sundering is, was, and will remain controversial, but they wrote themselves into that corner, and it is what it is. But had she remained ignorant, the way she arrived at that tragic conclusion probably would've made it at least a little easier for her current critics to understand, even if they still wouldn't necessarily agree. I understand the intent of the narrative as it exists, but whether or not any of us like or accept it, it's at least pretty damn plain that it required more time and nuance than its present execution, and I don't think it had to be that way.

More than anything, I guess, it just surprises me that Yoshi and the writers couldn't seem to foresee the issues that even this one decision created, but here we are lol.