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

[Turtledeluxe]

I recommend you go back and watch that scene again. You're omitting a lot of context to support your point.

"Even if you interact with others, you cannot affect meaningful change."

[Absimiliard]

"Even if you interact with others, you cannot affect meaningful change."

Once again omitting surrounding context.

[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.

[Boblawblah]

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.

[Absimiliard]

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.

The thought had occurred to me as well. If not him, then one of the Titanmen copycats we occasionally see rise from the depths. Either way, I've kept engaging in full knowledge it was almost definitely a troll. Why? Well, see the post below.

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.

You cannot possibly comprehend the levels of boredom I operate at.

[Lunaxia]

I respect your decision not to use the term but there is enough there for me to use it as all the crucial elements for it are met by her actions.

That's your preogative. I just come here to discuss and hopefully convey what I think and feel about the story, and to that end I'm mindful of the words I use and what they may mean to other people when I'm making a point.

Actually it does..

Except I've outright called the actions of both Venat and the Ascians murder, killing and death on multiple occasions, so that doesn't work here. Opting not to use words with charged historical undertones when it is not necessary to not muddy the waters of the discussion is not employing euphemisms. I've been very open and vocal about what she did, the double standards and hypocrisy that are rife in Endwalker's story and the tragedy that was the Sundering on many occasions, and I like to think I've earned some credit to not have it immediately assume my choices revolve around defending or shielding her from criticism. I don't use those terms for the Ascians either, and you would know that were you not so quick to jump to conclusions. This is part of what prevents other people from actually taking the point you're trying to make seriously.

And highlighting the recency of the term hardly helps your case here, given that it was coined to actually describe some of the events I would prefer to keep out of the discussion, and makes dividing that particular word from its origins even more tenuous.

[Absimiliard]

Opting not to use words with charged historical undertones when it is not necessary to not muddy the waters of the discussion is not employing euphemisms.

I've found the term omnicide far more accurately captures the crime. She did not single out a particular race, religion, nation, creed, or ethnic group. She killed everything and everyone on the entire planet except herself, Zodiark, the three unsundered, and a few of her creations. The eradication of all life on a world is outside the scope of genocide as a term.

[Turtledeluxe]

It's amazing when people who s post that hard accuse people of being alts.

Especially when you're quoting someone who is being far more gracious than me in pointing out the aggressiveness of your trolling.

[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.