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

[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.