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

[Absimiliard]

And regressed them back to a state of sub-human intelligence and capability (talking post-Sundering here, not a swipe at mortals, lol), leaving them to rebuild mankind and civilisation all over again while instilling herself as their guiding figure, and all of the hardship and suffering that entails. All of which is what I'm referring to when I say a direct conflation of IRL events with what happens in game is a bit of a false equivalency to make - and it's not to her benefit.

I can see where you're coming from given some people feel some kind of way about some rather nasty historical events, but I don't think most people using the term in relation to this are trying to make any kind of comparison to prior atrocities. I believe they are using it only with the textbook definition in mind, nothing more. Doesn't mean people won't make the connection on their own after reading the word, but you get what I'm saying. Regardless, I still don't find the term appropriate based on its definition.

Genocide I can understand, but I'm not certain if omnicide would necessarily fall under the same umbrella. As it stands, the term has not been applied to any event in real life. Nor could it be, because it would mean we were all dead. It has, however, been used in fiction on a number of occasions.

As an aside, have you played NieR Re[in]carnation by chance? If not, it might be worth taking a peek at the lore they hid away over there as part of the crossover event. It ties in nicely with what you said about the state of mortals immediately post-sundering, though I suspect you already have given how you described what they were reduced to.

[Lunaxia]

I can see where you're coming from given some people feel some kind of way about some rather nasty historical events, but I don't think most people using the term in relation to this are trying to make any kind of comparison to prior atrocities. I believe they are using it only with the textbook definition in mind, nothing more. Doesn't mean people won't make the connection on their own after reading the word, but you get what I'm saying. Regardless, I still don't find the term appropriate based on its definition.

When I say IRL events, I mean the basic idea of what those words are actually taken to mean in our world, including why they happen and the motives behind them. It's nearly impossible to divorce the implications of such terms and where they came from, from the words themselves - well, you can try to in the context of an argument, but it's not a standard you can impose on other people or assume will be readily accepted, and you will be inviting a comparison to actual historical events should you choose to use them, even if that's not your intention.

As an aside, have you played NieR Re[in]carnation by chance? If not, it might be worth taking a peek at the lore they hid away over there as part of the crossover event. It ties in nicely with what you said about the state of mortals immediately post-sundering, though I suspect you already have given how you described what they were reduced to.

I have! It certainly would have lent a different tone to the events of the game if they'd bothered to throw that in there from the beginning. It's genuinely fascinating they chose to even make that a thing, when they had Endwalker play out the way they did. I wonder if it was planned when the story's future still lay in a different direction to what we wound up getting?

[Absimiliard]

When I say IRL events, I mean the basic idea of what those words are actually taken to mean in our world, including why they happen and the motives behind them. It's nearly impossible to divorce the implications of such terms and where they came from, from the words themselves - well, you can try to in the context of an argument, but it's not a standard you can impose on other people or assume will be readily accepted, and you will be inviting a comparison to actual historical events should you choose to use them, even if that's not your intention.

Genuine question. I'm obviously well aware of what genocide is often taken to mean, but where does omnicide enter into it? As it stands, I don't believe I've ever seen the term applied to anything that wasn't a planet getting glassed in some SciFi setting or as a preamble to some post-apocalyptic settings. I don't think most people even realize it is a word.

I have! It certainly would have lent a different tone to the events of the game if they'd bothered to throw that in there from the beginning. It's genuinely fascinating they chose to even make that a thing, when they had Endwalker play out the way they did. I wonder if it was planned when the story's future still lay in a different direction to what we wound up getting?

I too have long wondered that. My suspicion was as yours seemingly is; the story had a different planned direction. I might be misremembering, but I believe the developers (or at least Yoshi-P) at some point mentioned wanting to make Endwalker lighter after the complete disaster that was everything from the year 2019 onward. If nothing else, we can pretty handily infer it based on the stark contrast between what ShB was setting up and what Endwalker delivered. The only term I can think of to do it justice is tonal whiplash.

I also considered the possibility it was sequestered away in NieR Re[in]carnation as a means of revealing the truth of the sundering without it affecting people's view of the story or characters in Endwalker proper. The FFXIV team's side of the crossover happened in late May of 2022, if memory serves. We were several months into Endwalker by then.

[Lunaxia]

Euphemism:

Okay, well, you keep fighting the good fight defending the victims of these crimes by insisting what a character did in a video game is an adequate parallel to what they went through, and I'm going to be over here keeping my debates free of allusions to the Nazi regime and the horrors involved in the event some people may find it somewhat distasteful. Enjoy.

Genuine question. I'm obviously well aware of what genocide is often taken to mean, but where does omnicide enter into it?

I've never actually heard of the term myself, so I'm one of the people in that camp, lol. On preliminary research, it seems a fairly neutral term typically relating to human extinction in some form. It may not be the best fit here, though, since it appears to describe scenarios that occur passively or indirectly as a result of human action rather than actively requiring a perpetrator. You could say what Venat did resulted in in the omnicide of Etheriys, but not that she committed it, I think?

I too have long wondered that. My suspicion was as yours seemingly is; the story had a different planned direction...

I'm pretty sure I remember something along those lines too, that the impact of the difficulty and hardship of the past few years had also given them cause to reconsider. And you know, it's a nice intention! ...I just wish they'd thought to do it properly and not rushed it and compromised on the quality of the story to do so. They wanted to deliver something comforting and uplifting, which I can appreciate, but I don't think they realise that to a lot of people, a really good story can have just that effect without having to contain an artificial inspirational message.

also consider the possibility it was sequestered away in NieR Re[in]carnation as a means of revealing the truth of the sundering without it affecting people's view of the story or characters in Endwalker proper. The FFXIV team's side of the crossover happened in late May of 2022, if memory serves. We were several months into Endwalker by then.

Also possible! Perhaps Ishikawa's storyteller side got the better of her and she added in thinking it couldn't hurt at that point to provide some more of her intended background, since I believe she was the one behind that part of the crossover in the first place, and Emet was her character, after all.

[Vyrerus]

Okay, well, you keep fighting the good fight defending the victims of these crimes by insisting what a character did in a video game is an adequate parallel to what they went through, and I'm going to be over here keeping my debates free of allusions to the Nazi regime and the horrors involved in the event some people may find it somewhat distasteful. Enjoy.

Honey, you're talking about a game that doesn't even keep itself free of allusions to Nazi Germany/Imperial Japan.

The word, genocide, that you are afraid to use was created by one of those victims, and your fear to use it to identify an act that fits its definition is far from tasteful.

Genocide is not a word that was made for one specific people. It was made to hold those who perpetrated it accountable under international law. Go read up on it.

And for the record, I didn't invite the term into FFXIV discussions. FFXIV's scriptwriters did. You will never be free from it, no matter how much you try to namby pansy around it.

[Lunaxia]

Honey, you're talking about a game that doesn't even keep itself free of allusions to Nazi Germany/Imperial Japan.

Parts of the game I'm also not especially fond of in the way that they're handled, coincidentally, and I've said as much before. And after talking about these topics with other players who have been affected by the history behind these references and who struggle with the way these depictions have been utilised in the game, it's a point of view I very much stand by.

The word, genocide, that you are afraid to use was created by one of those victims, and your fear to use it to identify an act that fits its definition is far from tasteful.

Oh, yes, petrified. Not at all finding it embarrassing to think it's a worthwhile argument to be so adamant in forcing other people to use a word they refrain from out of respect for other people including those victims, in relation to Final Fantasy, than just respecting someone else's decision to do so.

Genocide is not a word that was made for one specific people. It was made to hold those who perpetrated it accountable under international law. Go read up on it.

...and as such is still commonly associated with the hideous crime it was created to help prosecute, keeping such comparisons a foregone conclusion.

You will never be free from it, no matter how much you try to namby pansy around it.

And there it is. How did I predict several posts ago that this is what it inevitably boils down to? The very idea of being conscious of someone else's response when it comes to a potentially difficult topic seems to provoke a reaction that brings to mind dousing the Witch from Oz in water in some people. But I'll continue to "namby pansy" my way around other people's feelings regardless of your strange desire to control that, and you feel free to use whatever terminology you see fit for your own purposes.

I believe it's one of those terms that can work with...

I'd have to see it actually being used to vouch for correct grammatical usage, but it's somewhat tricky when very, very few people including the most maniacal villains would actually opt for such an outcome, lol. In fact, I struggle thinking of anyone outside of a JRPG setting who would... it's not really a trope over here. Or perhaps it is, I don't actually read sci-fi.

[Absimiliard]

I've never actually heard of the term myself, so I'm one of the people in that camp, lol. On preliminary research, it seems a fairly neutral term typically relating to human extinction in some form. It may not be the best fit here, though, since it appears to describe scenarios that occur passively or indirectly as a result of human action rather than actively requiring a perpetrator. You could say what Venat did resulted in in the omnicide of Etheriys, but not that she committed it, I think?

I believe it's one of those terms that can work with or without a perpetrator. The term really seems to be a catch-all for extinction level events with a discernible and presumably non-natural cause. I grabbed this little tidbit fram Merriam-Webster's:
"As our understanding grows, so does the horror. What we face now is not merely slaughter or genocide, but "omnicide," the obliteration of all humans and all living species.—Penney Kome and Patrick Crean"

For our purposes here, I'm of the opinion Venat would indeed qualify as a perpetrator of omnicide. I'm certain plenty of others disagree, but that's kinda my take on it. While it can be argued the shredded up constituent aetherial and physical matter of the world's inhabitants ultimately coalesced into new beings, the simple reality is that those are not the same people or creatures they were. Those people are gone forever, as are all of the old world's other inhabitants. It's certainly extinction of a sort. My own personal philosophy leads me to feel this is in fact worse than simply being killed in the conventional sense, but that's a different discussion entirely.

[Nayukhuut]

I believe it's one of those terms that can work with or without a perpetrator. The term really seems to be a catch-all for extinction level events with a discernible and presumably non-natural cause. I grabbed this little tidbit fram Merriam-Webster's:
"As our understanding grows, so does the horror. What we face now is not merely slaughter or genocide, but "omnicide," the obliteration of all humans and all living species.—Penney Kome and Patrick Crean"

For our purposes here, I'm of the opinion Venat would indeed qualify as a perpetrator of omnicide. I'm certain plenty of others disagree, but that's kinda my take on it. While it can be argued the shredded up constituent aetherial and physical matter of the world's inhabitants ultimately coalesced into new beings, the simple reality is that those are not the same people or creatures they were. Those people are gone forever, as are all of the old world's other inhabitants. It's certainly extinction of a sort. My own personal philosophy leads me to feel this is in fact worse than simply being killed in the conventional sense, but that's a different discussion entirely.

I had been using genocide, but I agree with you, omnicide is more fitting. I just never really considered the word, but I had been previously arguing that not only did she wipe out the Ancients, but all life on the planet, so it fits. I know the game wants me to view Venat in a positive light, but I just can't.

It colours basically everything her lore touches in game, sadly. For example, after the revelation that the Twelve were just more chess pieces put into place to manipulate the world into what she decided it should be/keep it in the broken state she put it in, I really just wish that I could elect not to have a patron deity.