What's the point with that quite lackluster story in Endwalker?

[Turtledeluxe]

The premise of the argument that Venat wasn't faced with tempering and didn't do anything is visually represented in Game and disproves the argument. We see in the infamous "walk" sequence a roundabout portrayal of the situation where the Ascians were unwilling to focus on anything other than summoning. As far as tempering, you can't say "she had access to the futurre information" only when it's convenient for your trolling. If she knew tempering was going to occur at any time, obviously her response would be based on that. Her reasons for sundering are boiled down to stopping Zodiark but obviously that isn't just a personal grudge-- it's because of how he affects people and what he represents. That's what you're glossing over to make some weird argument about EW.

[Absimiliard]

The premise of the argument that Venat wasn't faced with tempering and didn't do anything is visually represented in Game and disproves the argument. We see in the infamous "walk" sequence a roundabout portrayal of the situation where the Ascians were unwilling to get them to focus on anything other than summoning. As far as tempering, you can't say "she had access to the futurre information" only when it's convenient for your trolling. If she knew tempering was going to occur at any time, obviously her response would be based on that. Her reasons for sundering are boiled down to stopping Zodiark but obviously that isn't just a personal grudge-- it's because of how he affects people and what he represents. That's what you're glossing over to make some weird argument about EW.

Aight. I'm just gonna say it. I normally try to maintain some degree of civility, but this is getting old. Thus far you've seemed insistent on misrepresenting a rather large number of things, ranging from what the game tells us to the comments and intent of other posters. You've displayed a propensity for clipping specific components of what others have said rather than including enough for the original context to be present, after which you then either reply to a point that was never made, accuse that poster of something, or simply try to reframe the initial comment (sans any of its original context) as something else entirely.

My dude, people are allowed to have opinions. They're allowed to look at a textbook case of omnicide and go, "you know, I think that's messed up." People are also allowed to analyze a character's actions or lack thereof and conclude for themselves whether or not there was justification for whatever it was they did or did not do. This doesn't mean they're asking to have the story changed or whatever it else you've inferred over the course of this discussion. It means they're choosing to draw conclusions based on the information they've been given, and in this case those conclusions for the most part manifest as a simple question of, "wait, why is this atrocity near-totally glossed over?" Their conclusions about the story are obviously different from yours. This does not invalidate their thoughts on the matter. For that matter, their thoughts on the matter don't invalidate your thoughts on the matter. So relax. This thread isn't some personal attack on the game or its writers, and it's certainly not an attack on a fictional character. It's people sharing their thoughts. Continue voicing your disagreement with other posters if you wish, but do it honestly and respectfully.

[Turtledeluxe]

My dude, people allowed to have opinions. They're allowed to look at omnicide and go, "you know, I think that's messed up." People are also allowed to analyze a character's actions or inactions and conclude for themselves whether or not there was justification for whatever it was they did or did not do.

Alright, I'm just going to say it. It's fine if you think casually throwing around the term genocide makes you edgy. It's fine if you want have a unique take on EW. As I said the issue is that edgy takes have storytelling implications. My analysis of the storytelling implications is also just an opinion.

Also EW has been out for over a year. The fact several of you still think it's shocking or interesting to label everything genocide and put out "what if Zodiark was right" theories (which I know that isn't what you're saying and it's hilarious you are triggered by it) is frankly a bit cringey so sorry if I come across as dismissive.

Genocide isn't absent context. You are welcome to analyze a character but people know what they're doing when they use the term and then have the audacity to play moral superiority over a technicality "well that's what it is!!". Then when people call you out it's "hey man everyone can have opinions". It seems like you're crying wolf and want total autonomy to just say whatever.

[Swordsman]

Aight. I'm just gonna say it. I normally try to maintain some degree of civility, but this is getting old. Thus far you've seemed insistent on misrepresenting a rather large number of things, ranging from what the game tells us to the comments and intent of other posters. You've displayed a propensity for clipping specific components of what others have said, after which you then either reply to a point that was never made, accuse that poster of something, or simply try to reframe the initial comment (sans any of its original context) as something else entirely.

Alright, I'll take this a step further and say this. I think the guy you're arguing with is a Titanman alt. There's no way his arguments were made in good faith. A majority of the things he's saying have some kind of passive-aggressive comment inserted in it.

[Theodric]

The premise of the argument that Venat wasn't faced with tempering and didn't do anything is visually represented in Game and disproves the argument. We see in the infamous "walk" sequence a roundabout portrayal of the situation where the Ascians were unwilling to focus on anything other than summoning. As far as tempering, you can't say "she had access to the futurre information" only when it's convenient for your trolling. If she knew tempering was going to occur at any time, obviously her response would be based on that. Her reasons for sundering are boiled down to stopping Zodiark but obviously that isn't just a personal grudge-- it's because of how he affects people and what he represents. That's what you're glossing over to make some weird argument about EW.

The simple fact that you're passing it off as 'trolling' says it all, really. I don't think you're coming here in good faith...but that aside, we've presented our case and compiled ample sources to back up our talking points and so the onus is now on you to provide textual or developer commentary evidence of your stance, since simply referring to a scene by name won't cut it as you do not seem able to accurately represent what is actually being depicted. Even the cutscene that you are alluding to does not refer to tempering, so much as the attitude of the strawman ancients to despair, and that is also discussed as part of her motives in the Q&A, whereas tempering is not brought up at all.

The developers have confirmed - per the story clarification Q&A that took place shortly after Endwalker's launch - that Venat can be read as trying to maintain the timeline for the Sundered's future, so plus the AU split for the 8UC timeline based on G'raha's actions, that also shows there was the potential to affect meaningful change, and so in addition to what Absimiliard has already said, Elidibus's words don't matter as we are already aware that it is possible.

Q: I don’t really understand why the Warrior of Light messing around in Elpis didn’t create any alternate timelines. What happened?

A: Well, I think the most important thing is that you can come up with your own theories for this one. In my personal interpretation however is that the timelines were always the same. Another interpretation you can have is that maybe Venat worked really hard behind the scenes to ensure the timeline didn’t go awry. Therefore the Warrior of Light was always acting in accordance with this plan of Venat so the timeline that we are aware of didn’t change when we went back to the affected. I personally think that when we went to Mare Lamentorum and we first met Argos and Argos really took to us when we were able to ride it, that's basically the proof that at that point, the timeline is going accordingly. We are adding all these stuff to New Game+ in 6.1 so if you’re interested in this I suggest you replay it and think about these questions when you’re playing it.

This is consistent with:

Q: I am interested to know how unsundered Ascians such as Lahabrea, Elidibus and Emet-Selch avoided being kicked into 14 pieces by Hydaelyn.

A: As you think back to the text towards the end Emet-Selch did imply that Venat let him live unsundered. In fact Venat did intentionally leave a tiny floor in her Sundering attack - a crack that Emet-Selch can wiggle through. Sort of like…yes it was a powerful attack but intentionally chose to do it in this fashion. So we said this in the actual game as well which is when Hydaelyn did the attack, it was a really strong one. It was delivered at the limit of her power so she couldn’t really fine tune it. So as intentional as this was when she did that big massive light attack that sundered the world, she couldn’t guarantee that Emet-Selch would live and she was kind of making a gamble. In fact what happened was, at the time that Hydaelyn performed the sundering, Emet-Selch was with Lahabrea and Elidibus (the time he was already out of being Zodiark core so he’s a little bit different than his original but nevertheless he was there) so they ended up joining forces, and escaped to the rift without being Sundered. You may recall if you read Tales of the Shadows that Elidibus, when he came out of Zodiark he ended up losing some of his memories as well as some parts of himself and that’s sort of the point in Patch 5.3 and when he “dies” you sort of know that he lost a lot in the process as well just like Emet-Selch. So yeah, basically they worked together at that time and escaped being Sundered.

It's wild seeing the EXACT same arguments as 800+ pages ago. No change, no deviation, just the same stuff on both sides. I have to admit, I'm impressed that you all are able to keep it up for this long.

An unfortunate consequence of what happens when a setting ties so much of its story to a handful of characters and lacks much in the way of content with staying power along the lines of Eureka, Bozja and Ishgard reconstruction.

[Turtledeluxe]

The simple fact that you're passing it off as 'trolling' says it all, really.

It's confusing to me that you're aware of the shakiness of the time travel in the game. It's hard to keep track between the critics ITT of who realize that and who doesn't. It's not really made especially clear and the way you interpret it can shift your opinion on the story entirely.

The reason I use the word trolling is because it's hard to take anyone seriously who applies genocide to what's happened with Venat, and even Zodiark. On top of that, you're making a moral demand of the player and, in a way, making it personal. It's hard not to be dismissive of it, it's hard not to call it trolling. Hope that make sense. I just don't feel like EW is asking you to answer than moral question in that way-- the story has components already, such as Venat's final words, that communicate to the player what happened with humanity is tragic and all the parties involved feel their own way about it (even Emet) that spans the range of guilt. Whether you're talking about the summoning or the sundering-- boiling it down to genocide is reductive and unhelpful. EW isn't asking that question, you are, to stir up a "bad faith" debate I am uninterested in.

I also don't care if you think Venat is a bad character-- what I have an issue with is thinking Venat working to undo the future in her own time by making the case against Hermes openly and possibly undoing Meteion (I'm not even sure what's being argued here really) just sounds again, not realistic, given that it's an MMO about your player.....I'm not even disagreeing that the story as is doesn't make a *ton* of sense here. But I think it's the result of many different writers trying very hard to loop back the end to ARR with all these other plot threads they created. Because stop and think-- how much longer would we have dwelled on Elpis and Elpis problems if the story became about their timeline.... and the lesson of the game would be that you can just time travel to solve your problems.....huh???

[Theodric]

On top of that, you're making a moral demand of the player and, in a way, making it personal.

Nope, I am doing neither of those things. I am simply critical of the fact that the story is pushing a genocide – feel free to substitute in whatever term you prefer – as necessary and, as a solution to Endsinger, as a good thing. But I am making no demand of anyone, so much as pointing out things for what they are. Even if I did not use the term, and used terms like “mass slaughter and enforced regression through magic”, I am sure you would claim the same thing, because these are still frightful actions. But it’s a massive leap of logic to think I’m making a moral “demand” on you in relation to interpreting a video game story. The term is already used in game to discuss less destructive actions in game. Maybe you want a word with the writers over that?

Whether you're talking about the summoning or the sundering-- boiling it down to genocide is reductive and unhelpful. EW isn't asking that question, you are, to stir up a "bad faith" debate I am uninterested in.

If the story simply presented it as the writers did in the Q&A, as a tragic event which you’re free to come to your conclusions about, I might agree. But it doesn’t. It pushes Venat’s actions as necessary and frames them in an unabashedly positive light, e.g. in the Codex. In other language versions, such as JP, she doesn’t even apologise for her course of action so much as say what’s done is done. At the end of the day, it doesn’t matter what question Endwalker thinks it’s asking, what matters is what message it is ultimately sending, whether the writers realise this or not. I am well within my rights to point out that the game is deviating from its usual preachy tone in not calling this out for Venat. The writers clearly realised it was an issue enough to bring in the Omega side quests. I just think that it was too little, too late.

Because stop and think-- how much longer would we have dwelled on Elpis and Elpis problems if the story became about their timeline.... and the lesson of the game would be that you can just time travel to solve your problems.....huh???

What you are describing now is down to how the story was ultimately written. There’s many ways to address this, as others brought up, but for me it would be sufficient to do so through including some open criticism of Venat in the MSQ, not propping her up via the codex, more clearly present the Sundering instead of stylised cutscenes with ancient strawmen and shoving the actual aftermath into a crossover for NieR, and leaving the inference of an AU for Panda, much as they did with the short story covering the 8UC, An Unpromised Tomorrow. None of that would require massive effort or rewrites.

and the lesson of the game would be that you can just time travel to solve your problems.....huh???

Is that not exactly what happened during the course of SHB and EW both, though? The Warrior of Light travels back in time to solve a problem that has no answer in the present during Endwalker. The same happens again with Pandaemonium. And that is not to mention the myriads of other plot devices appearing through the course of each expansion, like Cid’s solution to the Void… so I can’t really make much sense of this objection.

[Turtledeluxe]

story is pushing a genocide

You are though, because you and others are very pushy about "call it genocide or nothing at all". Ypu know the reason you're asking for that isn't due to textbook definitions, it's because you want people to conform to your view. As far as the game, it doesn't really paint Venat as a flawless character nor does it suggest the sundering is perfect. Yes the game has general overtones of the guardians of light (which has a positive connotation) and yes traditionally Hydaelyn was viewed as the savior of the star-- the entire point of Shadowbringers and Endwalker was revealing that being a savior is significantly more complicated than that and perhapsyou maybe even get your hands very dirty in the process. Things are not black and white as you are painting them in real life or in the game. Yes the game has other instances where maybe it's asking you to make a moral decision, that is not relevant to the sundering.

I'm fine with JP version with her actions being regarded as necessary. We will never agree on this because you and others have elected the interpretation of the story that imo, makes no sense and doesn't work on any level. Which is to say, you seem to think the trip to Elpis offerred some chance to change the future. I don't agree. I think the Elpis trip resulted in a time convergence where everyone got on the same page in the present time (Venat specifically calls this out). The past timeline still occurred-- past Venat did not have the information and no amount of Elpis visits is going to change that. We also don't agree that she "did nothing to stop it". The walk seq. clearly shows us she made attempts to convince people to not summon, and they ignored her. We literally worked with her to try to apprehend Hermes and it failed.

story was ultimately written.

I've already said the story isn't ideal but I attribute it to being nearly impossible given how big the story is and how many plot threads had to be resolved, how gameplay has to be involved given it's a game, etc. For example we could've discovered the secrets of Elpis through a scroll, no time travel. Makes more sense, takes less effort, solves lots of problems, but it's boring and doesn't serve the gameplay. Yes the story has missed opportunities as with the Nier crossover.

Is that not exactly what happened during the course of SHB and EW both, though?

I'm so glad you asked because yes, to a degree this is true. But to clarify, there's a huge difference between solving some problems (ie now we know how to reach Meteion, now we know what dynamis is , etc ) and being equipped to deal with the future vs knowing the future and just preventing it. What if we apprehended Hermes? What if Venat stopped him? What would that even mean for the present time of the game? It creates all sorts of problems and for what? So you can regard Venat as more logical?