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

[Carin-Eri]

"Stop talking about it. "

That's not what I said.

But, like it or not, this thread has become hundreds of pages of the same arguments over and over again. I mean, there are 113 posts that contain the word 'genocide' alone.

[Turtledeluxe]

When he says the timelines could have diverged, he is confirming that they didn't. So the past and present being unified implies here that time became deterministic either due to the player or Venat following the events. Elidibus comments on this exact thing-- that a lack of meaningful change leads to the fated events. I clearly said in my post you can believe she lacks agency or you can believe she has total agency, but if she does it means she risks destroying the future we know to exist since the past and present have become unified. It isn't just "oh some magic timeline forms where we still result in the reflections and Venat is a hero". This is why your post is so long because you are avoiding it. You are focusing on everything Yoshi P said except for the fact that the past and present became unified, which conveniently works out for (again) preserving the timeline. Her preserving the timeline makes logical sense, saving Emet makes logical sense, based on the information she has.

I don't know you read their own answers and regard Venat as more than a tragic figure unless again, you get into headcanon. Originally you were all attacking me for implying the Elpis visit may have spawned an alternate timeline, now you're demanding it.

Saying you want another Venat in an AU is your opinion and I have no comment on it. If you think the resources and time spent to make an experience like that would be worth it for the main MSQ that's up to you. I'm not sure about that.

And again I don't even like that it's the same timeline, I think it's stupid. But pretending it isn't what he's saying is a waste of time. It's exactly what he said, he just gave his own reasons for why the timeline stayed the same which are headcanon bc he, like you, cannot come up with a good and practical reason for the timeline to diverge.

As far as Venat, I will also say they provide context surrounding what she did and imply her decision was "very Ancient like huh" which indicates to me, you're supposed to be viewing it as uncomfortable. But they also lend credibility to Y'Shtola's theory and its up to you to decide if it justifies. They're implying there it was a roadblock. They also mention that the disposition of many people who desired to avoid suffering was an existential threat.

I actually think with this is I don't have anything else to say. The writers make everything clear here imo. You have to decide if certain elements are justified. As for why the game and people of Eorzea treat Hydaelyn well, I imagine it's because they give her the benefit of the doubt that she did what she could and made the best decision she could. Assuming she gave no information at all, did nothing, let it all unfold to become a light God is just a take you can have.

[Xirean]

I don't know you read their own answers and regard Venat as more than a tragic figure unless again, you get into headcanon. Originally you were all attacking me for implying the Elpis visit may have spawned an alternate timeline, now you're demanding it.

False. We were attacking the idea you presented that the WoL wasn't in Elpis "because they are a sundered being", that the WoL is Azem or living through Azems memories when it's factually stated in the source material that Azem is not in Elpis at the time, and the idea that it wasn't time travel but instead time viewing, which is a term you refused to use for reasons...

Also on the notion of the timelines being a loop and therefore not being allowed to be changed. We had just came off an expansion with one of its main selling lines being "If history must be unwritten, let it be unwritten."

[Eisi]

I think it's childish to assume the writers either wouldn't believe that Venat's actions would constitute genocide or that they would condone that action. But that's the point, the story is not that deep, the writers didn't think about it that much (also incidentally a Yoshi-P quote: "We didn't think players would think about it that deeply" with regards to the Elpis timeloop). And they show their hand constantly in the story, disengaging you and yanking you out of a state of immersion.

It's a Kingdom Hearts level story that needs to exist so that the game has a story. There is not much the writers had to say beyond "everything will be fine, we are here for you during Covid". No more, no less.

Let me go a little bit more into detail here. The story is written with the end in mind first and then everything up to that point is done so that it fits without much regard for characters or the like. What was the end goal for the Elpis timeloop? So that the previously unknown character Venat/Hydaelyn would share a bond with your WoL that spanned the ages. That's why it's not an alternate timeline. That's why she had to retain her memories. That's why Kairos was invented, a literal mindwipe device that exists just so the timeloop roughly makes sense even though it shouldn't even exist based on the Crystal Tower's prior function in Shadowbringers. So it's not like they wrote Venat's character beyond "I love the land and the people and I want them to be free". They didn't ask "What would such a person do in this situation" or "how with these parameters in mind would the story organically evolve from here". They asked "how can we make it so that the world evolved the exact same way it did, that she did everything that was established prior with the whole sundering the world thing and now simultaneous sharing of that new knowledge and bond with you". And since there's no good answer for that they had to give us bad answers that crumble under scrutiny - they should have arrived at the conclusion that the timeloop was a bad idea, but that's not how they operate. They had to have a timeloop and so they made it happen against all logic.

Why do you think Fandaniel claps before Zenos can kill a character in Garlemald? Well because they wanted to have a hype duel with the WoL and Zenos at the end of the storyline. And had Zenos killed for example our friend Alphinaud it would have never been hype. It's not that complicated. Also major character deaths are in general not appreciated in the writer's staff, I think that's pretty obvious since Y'shtola was sliced in half by Zenos at the beginning of Stormblood. Again, just think of the writers as having clearly defined goals first and then trying to write the characters and plotlines that lead there so as to fit those goals later with varying degrees of success.

So take the story for what it is and use your knowledge to tell better stories yourself. Or worse/equally as bad stories. The best thing the story can do for you is inspire you not just in spite of, but because of all it's shortcomings. That is the true message of Endwalker for me personally.

[BRVV]

After reviewing developer statements I found an excerpt where Yoshi P answered the question about time travel directly. He indicated that what happens with Elpis a closed loop, but suggested to form your own theories after pausing for a second. I think they could be saving it for later due to the reflections being untraveled. But based on his comments these are my two cases atm:

- The loop is self-sustaining, always happened and always will happen.

The problem with assigning agency to Venat in this case is that she doesn't have a choice. It's a fate vs free will situation. It also possibly puts some accountability on the player for causing the summoning of Hydaelyn in the first place as we gave her the idea when we created this loop. Technically it means we created our MSQ timeline altogether as we affected the future by visiting the past. You can't have your cake and it eat it, too. Elidibus statements about time in the game also push us toward this idea. Although small changes are tolerable, meaningful change cannot occur because what happens in the timeline has happened and will always happen.

The timeline being a loop with no beginning and no end pulls the moral question you mention here... but you only apply it to Venat? If all is fate and nothing can change it than we the player are also having no choice. Same goes for all murderers by the way. You might not want to operate on that logic. Funny thing: If we excuse everything with that logic than we could kill Venat and trash her reputation, using fate as the excuse aswell.

- If meaningful change were to occur i.e the final days are averted it creates a paradox where the player may never come to exist.

This necessitates that the Elpis visit is an alternate time and there is some original timeline where non informed Venat acted, and this is the Venat the game could be reflecting. All of the hints about people remembering the player and even the Morbol thing work with the alternate timeline idea because it's possible that those are the effects of our actions being observed before we actually caused them. This is moreso what I was theorizing because i think the original events happened in an original past where we were Azem. Additionally XIV already uses this type of time travel in other cases (with multiple alter alternate timelines in fact).

In your idea Venat did the sundering in the original timeline i suppose. If so then she was totally responsible for it. Not even the fate excuse can help her now. The fact you defend her makes no sense with the form of time travel you favor.

And you may ask well why does everyone love Hydaelyn yet the time travel affected all these other things like Argos etc? Because as I have have said it seems like the alternate timeline gets conjoined into the MSQ original timeline very late in the game.

So you need 2 headcanons to make this work.

So if dark Venat exists, her future got closed off by the conjoing. And before someone tells me this can't happen-- it has already happened in the game (G'raha mentions at some point a future of a timeline being closed off related to the 8UC).

You're welcome to your opinion but it's not exactly clear. We need more information. And when and if the devs do decide to clarify I'm highly doubtful they're going to lean into a scenario where Venat is some kind of problematic killer.

Yes the writers are portraying mass murderers as innocent. That's the problem. You seem to just adapt all their views. Makes me hope you never read problematic texts.

Just saying "you didn't see it" "play the game" isn't an argument for all of the reasons I just said. Arguing about Venat's actions really in any case is entirely pointless, even without director clarification. Because frankly if some original Venat does exist, then you are an Ascian apologist because their solutions involved planned and detailed instances of massacres following the summoning. They were basically planning a harvest. Not to mention they wanted to eternally avoid suffering, which is naive and dangerous. If original Venat doesn't exist and it's always dark Venat, she had no choice bc of how linear time works in that case.

You are allowed to kill people if they become evil later? I find that problematic. Maybe all those the Ascians want to kill are evil? No sense in going that route either.

When he says the timelines could have diverged, he is confirming that they didn't. So the past and present being unified implies here that time became deterministic either due to the player or Venat following the events. Elidibus comments on this exact thing-- that a lack of meaningful change leads to the fated events.

Can you quote that? Elidibus is a character, who doesn't need to be correct. He said we couldn't change anything. We arrived invisible. I thought that is what he meant. Elidibus simply didn't account for Emmet to make us visible. Elidibus was also suprised about suddenly remembering us in the past.

I clearly said in my post you can believe she lacks agency or you can believe she has total agency, but if she does it means she risks destroying the future we know to exist since the past and present have become unified. It isn't just "oh some magic timeline forms where we still result in the reflections and Venat is a hero". This is why your post is so long because you are avoiding it. You are focusing on everything Yoshi P said except for the fact that the past and present became unified, which conveniently works out for (again) preserving the timeline. Her preserving the timeline makes logical sense, saving Emet makes logical sense, based on the information she has.

Yeah why should anyone try to change this timeline? Rejoinings, death by primals, waging wars but hey if the paying MC dies we have to act!

I don't know you read their own answers and regard Venat as more than a tragic figure unless again, you get into headcanon. Originally you were all attacking me for implying the Elpis visit may have spawned an alternate timeline, now you're demanding it.

We simply think of it as a closed loop. Without beginning or end. The fact you seem to need to make up your "alternate timeline" headcanon and claim its ShB time travel when we were told it works differently is your own problem. Just because you can't wrap your head around a closed loop doesn't mean it can not exist in media.

Saying you want another Venat in an AU is your opinion and I have no comment on it. If you think the resources and time spent to make an experience like that would be worth it for the main MSQ that's up to you. I'm not sure about that.

Don't know what you are responding to here. Seems to be your strawman.

And again I don't even like that it's the same timeline, I think it's stupid. But pretending it isn't what he's saying is a waste of time. It's exactly what he said, he just gave his own reasons for why the timeline stayed the same which are headcanon bc he, like you, cannot come up with a good and practical reason for the timeline to diverge.

One timeline (not counting the ShB time travel). One loop. No divergence. Not that hard.

As far as Venat, I will also say they provide context surrounding what she did and imply her decision was "very Ancient like huh" which indicates to me, you're supposed to be viewing it as uncomfortable. But they also lend credibility to Y'Shtola's theory and its up to you to decide if it justifies. They're implying there it was a roadblock. They also mention that the disposition of many people who desired to avoid suffering was an existential threat.

Yes those characters claim there was no other choice. The garleans also said that about murder and the ascians. If it's members of the party i guess it counts? I find it wild that in a story that clearly pulls out retcons and new ways to use magic to solve any problem we are given a "they just had to die" - kind of explanation.

I actually think with this is I don't have anything else to say. The writers make everything clear here imo. You have to decide if certain elements are justified. As for why the game and people of Eorzea treat Hydaelyn well, I imagine it's because they give her the benefit of the doubt that she did what she could and made the best decision she could. Assuming she gave no information at all, did nothing, let it all unfold to become a light God is just a take you can have.

Can't critic because author's intend?

[Turtledeluxe]

False.

Not false. You fiercely argued for single timeline theory and you don't like that now it is confirmed, I'm pointing out problems it creates with regards to the whining in the thread about justifying Venat. It doesn't make it impossible, but they opted for time theory here that makes it complicated to address and can barely offer solid reasoning for why our single timeline didn't diverge.

I think it's childish to assume the writers either wouldn't believe that Venat's actions would constitute genocide or that they would condone that action. But that's the point, the story is not that deep, the writers didn't think about it that much (also incidentally a Yoshi-P quote: "We didn't think players would think about it that deeply" with regards to the Elpis timeloop). And they show their hand constantly in the story, disengaging you and yanking you out of a state of immersion.

Exactly.

[Xirean]

Not false. You fiercely argued for single timeline theory and you don't like that now it is confirmed, I'm pointing out problems it creates with regards to the whining in the thread about justifying Venat. It doesn't make it impossible, but they opted for time theory here that makes it complicated to address and can barely offer solid reasoning for why our single timeline didn't diverge.

Do you not understand the difference between understanding how the story actually works and suggesting ideas for how it should work? We are on a time loop, which you consistently seemed to not understand. Proof was provided to show you how it actually does work so that you could understand the frustration of those in this thread and why many of us desire it to work differently than has been shown in the story.

[Turtledeluxe]

but you only apply it to Venat? If all is fate and nothing can change it than we the player are also having no choice.

So no, her culpability doesn't matter. No one's does except Hermes and WoL.

and on genocide being a motivating factor:

I find it odd people do that in relation to Venat, again it seems so specific, no one will call me out for saying it's case by case with the Ascians and Ancients I am sure.

Please stop making assumptions and pulling quotes from posts at different points in time without regard. I understand it's a forum and it tracks posts but views can evolve as I find my own information, plus I'm responding to 6, 7 people at a time. I'm not trying to make you feel badly but this particular trait is very predictable, as you can see I was ready for the accusation. Notice how I'm asking you to not do things like this, I'm not asking you to just stop posting altogether.

In your idea Venat did the sundering in the original timeline i suppose.

Yes, finally someone who understands. I was originally saying there was an original history where uninformed Venat acted and were just Azem (hence "we could not exist in Elpis IN THAT og time because we are the sundered Azem"). This still raises the moral question at the end of the day but ultimately for me, the Ancient conflict is an alternative between two crap situations. And the Zodiark one, per the logic in the game, would have theoretically led to extinction. EW is pushing this idea to leaning into one extreme (literally due to the darkness being unbalanced and threatening the star) and philosophically (that life shouldn't include suffering or adversity) results in this situation where either humanity comes to a permanent end by star collapse or a quiet one where life loses all meaning. It seems extreme but as I have said before they're making a social commentary here-- that cultures who minmaxed themselves into a state of perfection ultimately fell to rumination, that adversity is part of what gives life its flavor and meaning.

So you need 2 headcanons to make this work.

I mean you're commenting on views I had before I knew it was confirmed we were dealing with a single timeline but go off.

Yes the writers are portraying mass murderers as innocent. That's the problem.

I disagree because Ancients are basically gods (imo), Primals certainly are (even capitalized He and She in the story for Zodiark/Hydaelyn). It's a mythological story, not one about governments and ethnicity. It's not about turning Ancient's into a preferred thing for fun but enacting the only possible method for them to interact with Dyanmis. Headcanon is believing there was some other way.

if the paying MC dies we have to act!

Umm yes.

Don't know what you are responding to here. Seems to be your strawman.

Mhmm

If we’re presented with a Venat in an AU who made the effort, successful or not, I will commend that Venat for it.

Do better.

Yes those characters claim there was no other choice. The garleans also said that about murder and the ascians.

Whataboutism

Can't critic because author's intend?

Strawman try reading the sentence again.

[Turtledeluxe]

Do you not understand the difference between understanding how the story actually works and suggesting ideas for how it should work?

Yes. Do you care to elaborate? What are you looking for me to say here? To agree that your only issue with my post was that I claimed "we could not exist in Elpis because we are sundered"? I've explained multiple times that what I meant was, there is some original timeline where we did not visit Elpis where we could not have been there because we were the unsundered Azem at that time. It was just a theory.

I can't really decide your position. So people should not have theories or they should? It seems you the other needlessly hostile people ITT can't decide when headcanon is a joke or when it isn't. I guess headcanon is only ok when its applied in a way you deem acceptable and serves your version of the story. Pretending there's an authoritative version of this story, a rigid undeniable interpretation, is top tier nonsense. Stop pedaling it. As far as theories that contradict something established-- well that's part of learning.

Reply bc post limit (omg)

I'm not fighting, I am explaining why, for me, Yoshi P has given enough information for me to confirm that their full intention was to have an Elpis visit that stupidly retcons everything so the WoL played a role in shaping the present and that makes trying to "fix EW" complicated. The WoL cannot really deviate (the MSQ does not have branching paths or scenarios on that scale, this is the MMO constriction) and Venat can't really deviate because the dev team didn't account for the possibility at all and it opens up a whole can of worms. I don't think there's any saving it based on what we know in a way that would be satisfying for the average player. Furthermore people all want to fix it for their own reasons and it's a hassle keeping track. As you or someone else noted, this is something we now very much agree upon but perhaps for different reasons. Some people think I'm absolving Venat when it's not that at all, it's a dumb take that could perhaps make me seem more argumentative than I am. Someone else will be hostile, saying I want the story to be dumb because players are dumb or something and that's not what I'm saying at all. It's just an eternal circle of me reacting to people assuming my motivations and then getting shit on for it when I feel like I have shown an interest in getting an idea of what their intention with Elpis was. I never actually thought a ton about it and originally had a better opinion of it before seeing that statement.

Although it's worth noting I already explained my views on the Ascian conflict in the above post and it's just not that deep for me. The anti Venat camp also imo operates on tons of assumptions and conjecture that (regarding timetables, what she did or didn't do, what options she or others had), to your point, are stated as fact which makes me push back against it even harder. It seems fruitless-- what options did Emet have? What options did Hermes have? We could do this all day with anyone and it honestly seems like a hangup on Venat, hence why I joked about sexism. You can say "well the Ancients summoned Zodiark because Venat didn't tell them" -- I'm not sure what didn't tell them or did tell them, I have no idea if they would have listened, etc. Also it's interesting to me people are so resistant to the idea time is deterministic in this case because the summoning of Zodiark in itself has *nothing* to do with Venat, so you have to explain how it ended up happening again. Was it the only solution that group could come up with or something? Or is just that it was fated to happen? Again what were their options....? The story is pretty dumb so I prefer to think the unified past and present operate in a deterministic sort of way where perhaps they could've acted differently, but the result would have been the same.

Also Elidibus: "Yet even should you be able to interact with others, you will be unable to affect meaningful change. For the reality you wish to save, the reality to which you must return, exists as a result of the Final Days." i.e. the past and present are unified, To me this indicates writer intent to make it all predetermined, but that's just my opinion.

[Xirean]

Yes. Do you care to elaborate? What are you looking for me to say here? To agree that your only issue with my post was that I claimed "we could not exist in Elpis because we are sundered"? I've explained multiple times that what I meant was, there is some original timeline where we did not visit Elpis where we could not have been there because we were the unsundered Azem at that time. It was just a theory.

I'm well aware that theory. Honestly I don't really care about it. The whole point of the discussion for the past several pages was explaining how the time loop system canonicaly works, which you have finally admitted to so thanks for that. What I don't get is why you are still fighting as though there is something to fight about. You yourself said if the timeloop is how it works then you could write a book on how much that sucks. What do you think people have been doing in this thread for the last year? It's essentially a collection of people saying "Hey this kinda sucks. Could the devs make it maybe not suck?"