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

[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.

[Lunaxia]

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.

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.

[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???

[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.

[Vyrerus]

Opting not to use words

Euphemism:
1) the substitution of a mild, indirect, or vague expression for one thought to be offensive, harsh, or blunt
2) the substitution of an agreeable or inoffensive expression for one that may offend or suggest something unpleasant

You are avoiding using the term genocide because you find it unpleasant, as it does not muddy the waters of discussion whatsoever, and never seemed to muddy the waters of discussion when used to describe actions of the Garlean Empire or the Ascians in prior expansions and years past forum discussions.

You are doing the opposite of being open when you refrain from calling The Sundering what it was. I'm sure you think you're being impartial, and winning folks over who don't agree with my line of thought, but you're not. They aren't disagreeing from a place of logic or rationale, but from a place of feelings. In fact, that is entirely what the Sundering metaphor scene is predicated upon.

Genocide itself is older than its own modern, universal term. That was my point. With not every language having a precise word for it. We do now. Use it.

The man who coined the term was himself a Polish born Jew by the name of Raphael Lemkin. Again, by shying away from the actual term, you are granting more power to the perpetrators of it, than you are to victims.

Like you know why Raphael Lemkin coined the term and then campaigned for the Genocide Convention?

Because the crime itself was not universally recognized. He had to invent a term and then campaign for it to even feel like he was getting close to justice done for the atrocities that went on in The Holocaust.

Like do you see how your insistence on denying the term's use is a microcosm of the very issue he campaigned against?

[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?

[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.

[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.