On Themis [6.4 SPOILER]

[SannaR]

I just noticed an opportunity I missed before for WIFECHAT, the only topic that truly matters, so:

I get what Sanna is saying broadly, I think - and it's true that, and a part of my appreciation reflects that, a lot of the times, the motives for an "evil mother" figure is going to be directly, intrinsically tied to her motherhood, always painted as the core of her identity, whether in a negative or positive way. But Athena's actual reasons and motives for being evil weren't actually tied up in Erich himself - her cruelty towards him is in purely treating him as a mere method, completely incidental, disposal, and irrelevant to her internal world one way or another, which is also linked to the lack of where you'd normally see things like, yes, "womb symbolism" and the like. (Instead, Athena gets poison/parasite symbolism in Abyssos, which is absolutely awesome and I could freak out about it in an absolutely embarrassing way.)

In other words: yes, indeed. My wife is, in fact, perfect.

Yes that's was what I was aiming at. As a lot of the time if a woman wants a butt load of power even if said power isn't going to be used for bad stuff the "agreement with the devil" normally ends up with her needing to give up the ability to have a kid as most often adoption is never given any thought. But then why should she when that deal also made her a cold hearted, emotionless, Scrooge at the start of the book type of person. Or they also take away her beauty cause for whatever dumb reason beauty is tied into a woman's want for having kids. So, when Athena got power and had a kid and her emotional state was always like that? I went good they didn't go that route and then went oh damn I like her wings.

[SannaR]

I mean, there's no "one easy trick" to solve this kind of thing universally, but as a whole I think there can be more of an awareness and an effort to be upfront with, and then understanding of, in turn, if someone clarifies after being challenged or argued with "I'm not talking about the worldbuilding, I'm talking about the writing and the decisions of the writers" or "I'm not talking about the writing decisions or necessarily the quality, I'm just trying to make sense of it on a worldbuilding level," and trying to let things go in peace after that. Yes, there can be some overlap in terms of someone thinking "well, I don't think the worldbuilding explanation works on a writing level..." but there are times when it's appropriate to know when to take a step back, and I'm including myself in needing to make an effort to be self-aware and respect needing to meet people where they're at, if that's what you want to do.

Some of the sources of growing resentment, I think, absolutely comes from the feeling of being willfully misunderstood, or being deliberate reductiveness in the treatment of your perspective or what you're having an issue with to the point of misrepresentation or calling your stance invalid altogether, ala:



And so it goes.

Aye hopefully going further people will have enough sense to communicate as good as they can where they're coming from without starting from a place of nastiness. I do feel that sometimes there is an overlap of where a person is coming from. Just as there tends to be overlaps of things or characters people enjoy or don't. I always find it to be a good thing when one realizes that they need to take a step back or not engage at all or trying to find middle ground if there is any to be had.

[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.

[Lunaxia]

[taps] Is this thing still on? Forum access there? Okay, good! Before it runs out, then -

<butterfly meme pose> "Is this a challenge?" <laughs nervously in "this post is even longer">

It would appear I met my match! (And I actually have no problem with long posts myself, but my own experience has taught not everyone feels that way so I frequently feel obligated to offer a word of warning, hah.)

I was aiming to highlight that “jumping in here”-ness by...

In that case, I admit I feel a little more justified in my disgruntlement in my original response lol, because my impression that you did originally unite several very different perspectives and assigned to them the same basic rebuttal when they're different trains of thought entirely (very, very loosely connected by a single thread of "I feel like the Ancients got screwed over") and didn't merit that association was the correct one. I do now acknowledge you weren't directly responding to my or necessarily any other given poster's thoughts with your original counter points, and they were a general address... but I think it remains that you did dismiss the more valid reasoning that was very much already there in favour of responding to a more abstract and unfavourable sort that the posters were not out of line for objecting was making something of a distortion of the primary visible agruments being put forward. It already being a sensitive issue due to other camps needing far less incentive to stop taking contrasting view points seriously, maybe the strength of the response becomes a little clearer to understand, but it is a wariness that can be abrasive and confusing for those who genuinely did not come with such intent - which in the event that was true, was why I wanted to explain in the first place. Anyway, you've clarified and explained your side to me, so it's settled as far as I'm concerned.

This is one place that I feel that one’s preferred lore factions...

If I'm being honest, that argument isn't unfathomable to me. I do personally feel the scene smacks more than a little of fanservice to appeal to fans of that part of the story, and ironically I do think Emet-Selch (poor Hyth, what did he do?!) got the kid gloves treatment at least insofar as his role in Garlemald over the course of EW, to the point it became a little hilarious how they would flat out try to avoid naming him over the course of the Ilsabard segment (though admittedly the end of the world was not the place to throw it in his face, either.) I understand why other players enjoyed the ending, of course, and I understand what the writers wanted to achieve with it, but like many other aspects of the story, I don't believe that makes it a good choice, just as with Eli. I'm not saying Emet should been ignored completely or forced to sit in the corner and think about what he's done; I just think it's the entire scenario combined with, as you so succinctly put it, that bizarre "campy anime energy" that altogether felt like this weird, awkward mishmash of conflicting story beats rolled together into one pot to make something moving! Because we're all Working Together! that for some wound up necessitating a dismissal of too much of what had come before. Unmitigated cheese isn't everyone's bag, and I'd argue that in regards to climactic endings, it wasn't typically SE's bag either, which is the driving force behind what made the ending (amongst other writing choices in EW) a little harder to swallow for some. Endwalker's tonal dissonance (or lack thereof, depending on your point of view) is a lengthy and controversial enough topic on its own, though.

I think my experience of the story forces me to see a (small) distinction...

I actually agree with you on pretty much all those points regarding Emet's character, and in particular the idea of his standards being intentionally impossible to meet from the outset was one I've long harboured. It's like as not just nitpicking over semantics than any genuine disagreement, though I'm a little unclear about "his willingness to acknowledge"; what exactly are you referring to there?

This is where we diverge quite a bit in terms of interpretation/perception/perspective.

By road to recovery, I mean more from a practical perspective than an emotional one. The world had begun to flourish, the Final Days had been averted, their numbers could have increased given time - what I mean to say is, as a race, they were not immediately physically doomed to die out, or anything like that.

And ahhh... [angrystitch.gif] To be frank, I have a lot of problems with that scene to begin with, not least because it diverges significantly from what we've been told prior by just about everyone outside of Venat, and it inevitably becomes a sticking point in these arguments as your personal interpretation of it is what the justification for the Sundering effectively hinges (or fails to hinge) on. As far as I'm concerned, we already knew the world had recovered to some degree; we knew there was an ongoing debate on both sides as to how to proceed. We knew there was a considerable amount of time between Zodiark's summoning and Hydaelyn's, and how the battle of Hydaelyn and Zodiark played out over several days. So the sudden framing of it into a case of Venat being surrounded by Zodiark fanatics incapable of handling their grief amidst the wreckage of the Final Days was inexplicable to me. Who even were those people? Weren't the Convocation the ones who summoned Zodiark to begin with? Why was it so one-sided in terms of putting forth both sides of the schism? What did they hope to gain from all of this these changes and omissions and not emphasising more on what happened here, if it wasn't what I feel it was - which is wedging Venat further in beween a rock and a hard place than the story had previously ever suggested, in order to make her actions feel more "comfortable" by comparison? I know what the writers are hoping I'll take away from that scene, but contradicting themselves to point the narrative in what feels a rather singular direction isn't doing a very good job of selling the reasoning behind all of this (Endsinger was coming! They couldn't handle it! They had no choice! etc.) that they're trying to, and the need for that reframing of events gave me cause to think, personally, that they may have realised Venat's actions did not feel particularly sympathetic enough without it. And that's where they lost me.

Some players argue symbolism or simplification, to be sure, and that's one way to look at it, but it felt so clumsy for what I'm accustomed to from the story and hit just the right set of notes to push a particular perception that I can't really bring myself to agree with it, and even if I were to, I'd still feel unsatisfied for the basic reason it was done pretty poorly and quickly for such a pivotal plot point. A miss across the board, as it were.

To follow on from this, you argue further on that it's uncharacteristic of the game to push any one given stance, but I think that is exactly what they did do here - I also agree whole-heartedly it is not (or was not) characteristic of FFXIV to do so, and it's that point of conflict which is exactly where my issues with EW stem from, and why - to circle back into a very convenient and neat little loop to the original topic of the thread - the necessity to bring even the "villains" towards this line of thinking felt all the more gratuituous and frustrating. So much of Endwalker is used to uphold what to my view is a very nebulous argument, to deliver on what they likely hoped would be an uplifting and heartfelt conclusion to the saga, but in their mission to do this, they sacrificed too much and prevented key parts of the story from being able to truly work - or at least feel like something I could buy into.

From my perspective, ... and we have the ancients, whose souls already entered into a cycle of death and rebirth as different people before Venat split them into 14-shorter-lived copies doing the same thing much more rapidly because she understood it to be the only path towards Meteion’s defeat.

I mean! That's a very generous interpretation of the events of the game, Moose. I could counter that those killed by the Rejoinings were simply thrown into the recycle of rebirth ahead of their time for a greater purpose and they'll just reborn into better versions of themselves anyway, but we both know that's not a fair or accurate judgement. As Shadowbringers took pains to tell us, a life lost is still a life lost, a life that deserved to live, and a culture lost is just that also, and that goes for both sides of the coin in regards to Venat and the Ascians. Even if you were to make an argument for Venat in terms of the Endsinger battle, that cost still shouldn't be dismissed or mitigated, and it goes back to my issue with the very confusing leniency with which the writers (and groups of players) treat the erasure of the Ancients in contrast to other races and scenarios.

And the real tragedy there...

There is a lot to say on the subject of the G word in the context of this discussion, but on that I'd invite you to check out other threads still ongoing that discuss this in more detail: not because I disagree with you, but because they touch on the subject in a far more concise and eloquent way than I could manage, and you might find some common ground with other like-minded posters there.

Also:

(Avoid Twitter.)

(I need no encouragement on that one, have no fear.)

And Brinne, you have far more patience than I could ever hope to have.

[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.

[Moomba33]

I wasn't too bothered by Elpis on my playthrough of Endwalker. I guess I went in expecting it to be like visiting Zeal in Chrono Trigger-we would see the cause of their fall but ultimately be unable to do anything about it. I did find the memory wipe scene to be weird and contrived at the time.

After reading all the endless discussions on it I can see why people were uncomfortable with it. I think a lot of the ideas brought up like making Venat get memory wiped and the sundering be unintentional would make it less awkward. Perhaps SE thought if they went that direction it would make Venat too innocent when they wanted the conflict to be grey.

[Brinne]

I went good they didn't go that route and then went oh damn I like her wings.

Her wings are marvelous, aren't they? I'm actually a huge fan of Athena's design in general - I love how mundane it is, how she was built out of generic character creator assets, asides from the eyes. Even her body language is "plain" and to the point, memey-head-tilt aside. When we were playing Abyssos, my friend described her as a "mousy librarian"-looking type when she was first revealed. It's perfect.

She is perfect.

And Brinne, you have far more patience than I could ever hope to have.

I've kind of gotten accustomed to the idea that the way I process stories and characters can be a little weird to some people in fandom, so if someone seems likely to be genuinely unused to that mode of thinking as opposed to operating out of bad faith, I... I try, at least! (I probably do not always succeed.) Well. I... try to try?

Good thoughts, by the way, even if I don't have much of anything to add at this point!

Perhaps SE thought if they went that direction it would make Venat too innocent when they wanted the conflict to be grey.

Given the in-universe writing around Venat - the presentation of her flashback montage, accompanied by Answers, and her 'journey' post-Sundering paralleled directly with the Warrior of Light themselves, the way other characters talk about her, the dialogue options provided, things like her minion description, and even things like, in Q&A, Yoshi-P mentioning that one of the goals was to "show she wasn't a bad guy," my impression is honestly the opposite.

They were trying to make Venat as "white" as possible, but one of the main strategies they were relying on, by way of having her keep her and only her keep her memories, was to give her this close relationship to "you" that spanned eons, and establish that she was largely doing this all out of love for you in hopes that would win her over to players and establish her benevolent intent.

This is a strategy that is generally wildly successful with most NPCs - people loved Haurchefant, G'raha, and even to a degree, Emet-Selch himself because they all adored you and that moved people and made them want to respond to that affection. I would say that by and large it succeeded with Venat, too. However, the simultaneous backlash that accompanied Venat because they genuinely did not think through the other implications of her keeping her memories, yet nothing changing, was something they probably didn't see coming. (Similarly, I really doubt they thought through the full implications when they wrote in Emet alluding to Venat deliberately allowing the Unsundered to escape in order to conjoin the timelines.)

And then when it did, in response they threw together the Omega side-quest as quickly as possible in time for 6.15, lmao. Which hey, I did appreciate for what it was.

[Lunaxia]

She is perfect.

On Athena, I have to admit - and I hasten to add with nothing whatsoever against anyone who does enjoy her and/ or her character model - I couldn't help but laugh when I saw her phase change and how they attempted to engineer in elements of the eldritch abomination concept I'd hoped for but in the most inoffensive and unobtrusive manner to her original design as possible so as not to mar her appearance and turn her into something potentially [gasps] off-putting.

Women can't escape the constraints of societal standards of beauty even when ascending to a higher plane of godhood in a fit of delusional narcissistic grandeur! Alas!

(And I think you're very successful at that, you're too modest!) Oh, and thanks - I inevitably feel like I'm repeating myself or what's already been reiterated all too often for what comes down to the same fundamental points, but if it potentially opens up a worthwhile discussion, then it's served a good purpose.

[Brinne]

On Athena, I have to admit - and I hasten to add with nothing whatsoever against anyone who does enjoy her and/ or her character model - I couldn't help but laugh when I saw her phase change and how they attempted to engineer in elements of the eldritch abomination concept I'd hoped for but in the most inoffensive and unobtrusive manner to her original design as possible so as not to mar her appearance and turn her into something potentially [gasps] off-putting.

Women can't escape the constraints of societal standards of beauty even when ascending to a higher plane of godhood in a fit of delusional narcissistic grandeur! Alas!

(And I think you're very successful at that, you're too modest!)

Okay, I have to admit I actually didn't mind her regular boss model because it felt like another note of "...so are they doing the Parallel on purpose, or...?"

That being said, when her Savage form was revealed, I was totally: "Ah yes, there's my girl!" (Yes, it did still keep her "beautiful" form unchanged, granted. But boy were those some. Additions. Listen, I enjoyed joking about the hilarious implications of her preferences since P8 with poor Hephaistos, so at least her phase change revolving around that felt, ah, consistent.)

[Lunaxia]

Okay, I have to admit I actually didn't mind her regular boss model because it felt like another note of "...so are they doing the Parallel on purpose, or...?"

That being said, when her Savage form was revealed, I was totally: "Ah yes, there's my girl!" (Yes, it did still keep her "beautiful" form unchanged, granted. But boy were those some. Additions. Listen, I enjoyed joking about the hilarious implications of her preferences since P8 with poor Hephaistos, so at least her phase change revolving around that felt, ah, consistent.)

Hah, inured as I am to depictions of women in media, it never crossed my mind to think it was anything other than a commonality shared by virtue of simply being female and adhering to the unspoken rule that all female boss encounters must emphasise that fact.

Preferences? ...perhaps I'm better off not knowing. (...or perhaps I already somewhat know, but would like to enjoy the ignorance that comes with uncertainty.)

By the way, I am curious, being that you're very much a fan and enjoyed Pandaemonium from that perspective: did you find the resolution to Athena's arc satisfying in terms of how it connected to what had been set up over the course of the previous two tiers? Did you find the disease/ parasite symbolism to be well-utilised?