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

[Absimiliard]

And even then massacres don't usually beget new life. I'm not quite sure we have a a suitable word for what it is except a sundering. Maybe that's why the game calls it that, actually.

I might briefly note the sundering did not actually split its victims up into new life the way many people seem to think. It tore them apart spiritually, aetherially, and physically before haphazardly reconstituting what remained into wholly new entities, per NieR Re[in]carnation's very much canon crossover event. These unfortunate beings weren't even sapient at first, incapable of even the most rudimentary of communication. About the only thing they could do was exist in a state of absolute agony until however much time passed. Even the ascians could not communicate with them despite their innate ability to speak with anything that possesses a soul. Gives you a pretty good idea of the kind of shape the sundered were in.

It's also worth pointing out how similar this is to the way life in general works in the setting. A creature dies, and its soul returns to the lifestream for X amount of time wherein it will either be broken down into raw aether for a new soul to form or sent back to reincarnate as it was, albeit without memories of its previous life. The physical component... well, I should think that one is fairly self-explanatory. Anyway, does this process mean people on Etheirys that die aren't really dead? After all, everyone born is comprised of the spiritual and physical remnants of people and things that preceded them.

[Turtledeluxe]

Idk the Nier event seems to indicate it was an attack so powerful that it resulted in the state of man. So that's another strike against it, possibly not being deliberate, which is something I've mentioned time and time again. Nice for that to be confirmed by the Nier crossover. It definitely can't definitively be called genocide.

[Vahlnir]

Idk the Nier event seems to indicate it was an attack so powerful that it resulted in the state of man. So that's another strike against it, possibly not being deliberate, which is something I've mentioned time and time again. Nice for that to be confirmed by the Nier crossover. It definitely can't definitively be called genocide.

Even as a Nier fan, the Nier crossover "story" made little to no sense whatsoever in the end, and that includes the weekly quests following the raids. You can't really use that for much of a basis for anything. It was very much its own thing with little to no consequence to the game world itself. It's a shame though. They had the potential to continue the Automata story from its secret ending, and that is where I thought it was going to go when I completed the first raid. Yoko Taro considers just about everything related to his games canon, no matter how outrageous. The 2nd raid set up...well, something, and I was actually kind of excited to see how it would end. The result? "Here's a final tribute in the form of a giant tower. PS, BUY NIER REPLICANT!" The end. Tragic. It was very clear that Yoko Taro couldn't have cared any less about it even if he tried. He doesn't even like FF XIV.

[stenovrain]

You know what is even more annoying with all that? Venat's dialogue near the end of Elpis even mentions that we might end up finding our world very different when we are speaking to her before we leave. It gave me hope that the Venat, this time, might have been able to find a better solution, and that perhaps maybe a splinter timeline could have existed where the Ancients got a chance. She mentions not giving up on her species, but then does exactly that. I get that one of them is just general character being hopeful stuff, but the part about maybe finding our world being different gave me some sort of hope that maybe we would find a secret pocket of Ancients or something. There was nothing though.

Edit: And yes, I get that both lines were just platitudes that meant nothing, but at the time I was still hoping that somehow all these people I had come to quite like would be given a chance, even if it wasn't in my timeline.

Yeah, storytelling wide this is textbook lazy writing, because a story shouldn't have "platitudes that mean nothing." I thought the writers must know what Chekhov's Gun means but apparently they don't.

[Nayukhuut]

Idk the Nier event seems to indicate it was an attack so powerful that it resulted in the state of man. So that's another strike against it, possibly not being deliberate, which is something I've mentioned time and time again. Nice for that to be confirmed by the Nier crossover. It definitely can't definitively be called genocide.

It can though. She deliberately performed the Sundering attack, having prior knowledge of what would happen when she did. Maybe she didn't know EVERYTHING that would happen, but she knew it would create an entirely new species of man, and leave her species behind. Though I have to admit that I do quite prefer the term omnicide after seeing it a few pages back. It makes more sense as not only did she Sunder the Ancients, but all life on the planet.

Even if for some reason she had no idea that her attacks would wipe out everything on the planet (since she remembers us, I will hold this is not the case), her actions still resulted in the unintentional death and change of every life currently existing. The fact that it might have been an mistake originally shouldn't absolve her of her crimes. Whether mistake or intentional (and I still hold that it is intentional), she still should be held accountable for the death she caused. Yet the story holds her in quite high light.

[Xirean]

It can though. She deliberately performed the Sundering attack, having prior knowledge of what would happen when she did. Maybe she didn't know EVERYTHING that would happen, but she knew it would create an entirely new species of man, and leave her species behind. Though I have to admit that I do quite prefer the term omnicide after seeing it a few pages back. It makes more sense as not only did she Sunder the Ancients, but all life on the planet.

Even if for some reason she had no idea that her attacks would wipe out everything on the planet (since she remembers us, I will hold this is not the case), her actions still resulted in the unintentional death and change of every life currently existing. The fact that it might have been an mistake originally shouldn't absolve her of her crimes. Whether mistake or intentional (and I still hold that it is intentional), she still should be held accountable for the death she caused. Yet the story holds her in quite high light.

There's actually an argument that she engaged in eugenics as well.




Oh and in case it gets missed on the bigger post edit. I'll post the second set of Venat quotes that further supports the argument that the Elpis visit does take place within the worlds direct history.

[Nayukhuut]

There's actually an argument that she engaged in eugenics as well.




Oh and in case it gets missed on the bigger post edit. I'll post the second set of Venat quotes that further supports the argument that the Elpis visit does take place within the worlds direct history.

Yup, absolutely. If any of the people that the game deemed as villains said/did something like that, the characters in the game would be horrified. Rightfully so, to be clear.

It drives me nuts that she always gets a pass, and and is still being propped up as a benevolent force. I know this is the way the game has decided to go, and I know I can't change that, but goodness I am still allowed to be irked by it.

Edit: And I know she calls herself out, but it is basically that one throwaway line and the rest of the MSQ treats her like she did nothing wrong, constantly calling us her children or her champion, and mentioning her in only positive light. I just would have preferred if the game held her a bit more accountable, and stopped putting her on a pedestal.

[Nayukhuut]

I would also like to point out that she installed the Twelve as gods to watch over the Source and the Shards, and keep them separate and stable. They are no long there now, but they left a machine behind that will keep the Shards apart on the fuel of our prayers. None of the characters talk about this in much of any light other than it being sad the Twelve are gone. No mention of the very terrifying implication that in the future if our society ever becomes atheistic the world stands the chance of destabilisation.

So now, thanks to the story, I can add "peddler of false religion lest untold disasters be plagued upon the planet" to my resume as well.

[ArcaviusGreyashe]

You'd think after two years, you'd be over Venat, but I guess not. She does have a mansion in your heads. And are so convinced by yourselves you think "I did what I had to do to offer the universe a chance" is eugenics and makes Venat the meanest meanie in lore.

Boy, you're fascinating.

[Theodric]

As mentioned many times, Venat's actions fit the definition of genocide, eugenics and racial replacement perfectly. Ample evidence has been provided showcasing that her actions were intentional. The Sundering was no accident but a deliberate act where she had knowledge of the consequences that would transpire - as well as the complete elimination of her species. In addition, she sought to snuff out memories and knowledge of the Ancients and it if not for Emet-Selch approaching the Warrior of Light then the Amaurot reveal would likely never have come to light.

If someone doesn't want to consider Venat's actions to be classified as that, they're free to do so. What's odd is insisting that other people are somehow wrong for calling it what it is or feigning concern about the use of the word only to then use it to describe the consequences of the Ascians. Which certainly fits the definition as well - though with the added baggage of Venat seeking to spare Emet-Selch knowing full well what the consequences of his actions would be.

At the end of the day many of us in this thread are concerned with how the story as a whole fits together - or rather, doesn't - as opposed to placing specific characters atop a pedestal.

Nobody is expecting everything to align perfectly, though it is a very strange decision for a notoriously preachy story to spend a decade insisting that the protagonists find genocide, eugenics and racial replacement to be reprehensible only to be meek and thankful when it happens in a way that benefits themselves.

Sources can be dismissed, too, or pushed as 'egotistical' though at the end of the day most of the sources being provided and the established lore being contradicted is from either Shadowbringers or Endwalker itself.

I also would have thought it went without saying but supporting a character in a video game does not equal supporting the equivalent of their actions in the real world.

It's also hilarious to read the sniping commentary about this thread still being active - one only has to go to the lore forum to see that many so called lore enthusiasts are still outraged by the actions of the Garleans and Ascians as far back as ARR - a decade ago.

Endwalker has only just come to its conclusion (though if we're being technical, there's still one more patch coming in January). So naturally it is going to be actively discussed here in a thread created for the purpose of critical commentary.

Add in posters swooping in to complain about the thread's existence and the cycle continues. Yet many of the formerly active posters here have since departed - save for a handful - with new posters with similar concerns weighing in over time.