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

[Xirean]

The situation is a loop and the idea of Hydaelyn exists because it's a paradox with no visible start. That's perfectly fine, the issue there is that Zodiark does not have to be fated. If the convocation is properly warned then they don't have to make him. This is the main issue I take with Venat and the idea that we can't change the timeline. The moment it was hinted that she wouldn't catch Emet up to speed on what he forgot because they might need Hermes I wanted to scream at the screen. Zodiark isn't a permanent solution and I don't think many would argue otherwise. He was the best of a bad situation. Which is why the argument has been "If you inform the convocation of the danger completely then they can probably come up with a better solution." What was Venat doing before the final days started? If it wasn't preparing the convocation for what she knew was coming in this time loop, then I blame her for Zodiark and everything after.

[Turtledeluxe]

The situation is a loop and the idea of Hydaelyn exists because it's a paradox with no visible start. That's perfectly fine, the issue there is that Zodiark does not have to be fated. If the convocation is properly warned then they don't have to make him. This is the main issue I take with Venat and the idea that we can't change the timeline. The moment it was hinted that she wouldn't catch Emet up to speed on what he forgot because they might need Hermes I wanted to scream at the screen. Zodiark isn't a permanent solution and I don't think many would argue otherwise. He was the best of a bad situation. Which is why the argument has been "If you inform the convocation of the danger completely then they can probably come up with a better solution." What was Venat doing before the final days started? If it wasn't preparing the convocation for what she knew was coming in this time loop, then I blame her for Zodiark and everything after.

Where is your evidence that they would not summon Zodiark if warned?

Also didn't you kind of admit a false premise here. What evidence do we have she wasn't preparing? She mentions preparing as soon as we tell her. Stopping Hermes is preparing. She fails. She mentions preparing after we leave. She fails. So you're assuming Venat's behavior here based on what?

Which, it's fine that is your opinion. I'm just asking the same questions you ask.

[Theodric]

I don't think it particularly matters what framing is used in regards to Venat. Her actions led to the purposeful genocide of her own species through a twisted form of racial replacement and eugenics.

Though as the many sources linked throughout this very thread showcase, Venat was fully aware of the consequences of her actions and went ahead with them anyway. The attempt to take agency away from her is little more than a rather blatant attempt to try and downplay the consequences of her actions.

It's alright, really. Nobody here is going to think any less of someone who is fond of Venat just because she engaged in atrocities. Much in the same way that someone can enjoy Garrosh and Sylvanas from World of Warcraft or Wesker from the Resident Evil franchise whilst still acknowledging the blood that stains their hands.

Though if one's enjoyment of a character stems from them being branded overwhelmingly correct and never criticised or held accountable for even the most reprehensible of actions then I imagine that's where a lot of people start raising eyebrows.

Thankfully after the false accusations of 'sexism' I think it's safe to suggest that certain posters will say and do anything in order to move the goalposts away from accountability for Venat. The latest buzzword, it seems, is now 'agency'.

[Turtledeluxe]

Some people are just unfamiliar with sarcasm and need to grow up. The latest buzzword is genocide. And I've already dismantled that. Also being fond of the story of EW =/= being fond of Venat or atrocities. Strawman doesn't work here.

It's fine to dislike Venat, but when you have to rely on shock value, poor arguments, theories derived from side stories, etc it just makes you look silly. Haters keep confusing themselves with critics or analysts.

[Nayukhuut]

Some people are just unfamiliar with sarcasm and need to grow up. The latest buzzword is genocide. And I've already dismantled that. Also being fond of the story of EW =/= being fond of Venat or atrocities. Strawman doesn't work here.

You haven't, though. You may think you have, but Venat's actions are pretty textbook. She deliberately caused an action that wiped out an entire people down to their culture and even history. That is pretty textbook.

It's okay to like characters who do bad things. Heck, it's even okay for the heroes of stories to do bad things. In this case Venat certainly committed an awful act, and even if it was for the greater good (this is still debatable to me), it still resulted in the loss of an entire people who had thoughts, feelings, and ambitions before she wiped them off the face of the map.

[Xirean]

Where is your evidence that they would not summon Zodiark if warned?

Also didn't you kind of admit a false premise here. What evidence do we have she wasn't preparing? She mentions preparing as soon as we tell her. Stopping Hermes is preparing. She fails. She mentions preparing after we leave. She fails. So you're assuming Venat's behavior here based on what?

Which, it's fine that is your opinion. I'm just asking the same questions you ask.

First off I don't need to source if they will or won't summon Zodiark after being informed. I don't think they would but that's not the point. The point is them getting the chance to try something else by having both more time and information. If that is shown to be the case and it still ends in failure, ok. That's fine. They had the chance to try which is all I want.

If for whatever reason you think there are no other things they could try then I would direct you to the existence of Meteion. She is an Ancient creation that can interact with and manipulate dynamis. Because she exists at all that means there is the potential for something else like her to be created with a different function. Which of course might fail and that's ok. At least they had the chance to try. This is what is meant by Venat having the only agency in the situation. Because she is the only one afforded a choice to make.

Also I find it rather hilarious that you suddenly ask for a source when your go to source has effectively been "Yoshi P said I could make it up."

Also also you didn't dismantle anything about the use of the word genocide in this conversation. Your opinion is that I'm using it for shock value. Clearly you won't accept that I'm not doing that, but that's not a dismantle.

[Turtledeluxe]

You haven't, though. You may think you have, but Venat's actions are pretty textbook. She deliberately caused an action that wiped out an entire people down to their culture and even history. That is pretty textbook.

It's okay to like characters who do bad things. Heck, it's even okay for the heroes of stories to do bad things. In this case Venat certainly committed an awful act, and even if it was for the greater good (this is still debatable to me), it still resulted in the loss of an entire people who had thoughts, feelings, and ambitions before she wiped them off the face of the map.

I did. What you just typed isn't really genocide. The sundering is employed because of Zodiark, tempering, philosophies, etc. It isn't just because Venat has something against mankind at large. Just because it affects mankind at large doesn't make it genocide. I'm just going to be nice here, think whatever you want man.

[Theodric]

I think these excellent panels from Attack on Titan showcase the Venat situation rather well:





It also isn't 'shock value' to draw attention to the consequences of a particular character's actions. That certain posters cannot refute the evidence and sources provided to them without resorting to bizarre insinuations of everyone not mindlessly lapping up the story as 'haters' says it all, really. I must admit, I don't really pay much heed to such phrases myself.

As it happens, a lot of people in this thread are pretty intimately familiar with the game's established lore but their utmost priority isn't bending over backwards to run damage control for Venat.

A lot of us here are actually pretty fine with antagonists and protagonists alike doing terrible things. Though when there's little to no acknowledgement of the cost of the actions in question then it simply comes across as performative and lacking in tact. I don't think it is unfair to suggest that if a writer seeks to embrace heavy themes then care should be taken when engaging them.

Certainly, during the previous Fan Fest the new lead localiser acknowledged a need to 'do better' in regards to how certain elements of the game could stand to be handled with more dignity. Who knows? Perhaps she was referring to Venat's horrific actions, at least in part.

[Xirean]

I did. What you just typed isn't really genocide. The sundering is employed because of Zodiark, tempering, philosophies, etc. It isn't just because Venat has something against mankind at large. Just because it affects mankind at large doesn't make it genocide. I'm just going to be nice here, think whatever you want man.

Why don't you explain what would need to happen for you specifically to accept the use of the term genocide in this context?

[Xeronia]

Holy heck we hit 900 pages? It has been a journey hasn't it?

As for the current topic I too would love to stop talking about Venat/timelines as it is clearly going nowhere. Personally my opinion remains largely unchanged and the writing of all of Endwalker has been as the title suggests lackluster and the patch content may have made that go from lackluster to terrible after Zero and how little I cared for her with how much the plot pushed the idea friendship and basically converted her into a scion instantly.