/r/ffxivdiscussion: Has FFXIV had any major retcons or plot holes in the story?

[Theodric]

The terminology isn't incorrect, as the consequences of the Sundering fit the very definition of the word. The term itself is also used within the setting both before and after the Sundering took place as Zavos so kindly pointed out.

Since there is no opposition to the use of the term genocide being used to describe the consequences of some of the Garlean or Ascian actions it does not make much sense to avoid using the term to correctly describe the consequences of Venat's actions.

This is little more than a rather paper thin and transparent attempt to avoid acknowledging the consequences of Venat's deliberate actions. As it stands, not all of us are driven by a desire to fawn over the pretty mother goddess figure that floats down from the sky and declares that the player character is a brave little spark and that she loves them.

We are instead discussing how the story fits together as a whole, rather than what exclusively benefits the game's protagonists.

As mentioned earlier, though, ample evidence has already been presented in both video and text form.

Here is one of my earlier posts addressing one of the very same posters in this thread with numerous sources dismantling the misinformation presented to deflect away from Venat's accountability:

What do you mean? She could see the WoL right in front of her. She had their direct testimony, gleaned both from the Ascians and their very existence as a person. She knew it would yield a species that would be aetherically less dense, and what shape it'd take more or less. Plus we know from both her own mouth when questioned by Y'shtola and from the dev Q&A that she deliberately sundered them to bring about this result, i.e. she believed they'd wield dynamis more easily this way and feared that her own people would become like the Nibirun because she believed they couldn't change.



Nope:



See: https://ffxiv.gamerescape.com/wiki/B...rface#Dialogue

Other sources add to this, like the dev Q&A on why her summoning consumed her followers souls (well, aside from the little wrinkle that is the "fragments" of their souls in Myths...)



It kind of does in the MSQ. It's not until the Omega quest that her decision is meaningfully questioned in any capacity. The MSQ presentation does not bother to question her logic at any point, and the codex doubles down on it as tragic but necessary and paints her actions as nothing other than benevolent.



Citation needed. Only the Convocation was tempered - a problem she knew how to shield from and could've prevented, if it mattered, by giving them the knowledge to avert the need to summon Zodiark. Both the dev Q&A and her own words in 5.2, and her short story in Tales from the Dawn, point to what she believed was her people's ability to adapt to the despair they had experienced as the cause, not tempering. You keep bringing tempering up but really, you're really just making it up at this point.



Putting aside the word "maniac", her actions are nonetheless genocidal and the intent is there for this. Her actions come at the expense of the ancients' existence and furthermore rely on the Rejoinings taking place at least up to the 8UC for the sake of maintaining timeline consistency. You're trying to argue from the fact that she wasn't 100% confident if her methods would work to her aims being fuzzy, but that's really not how it's framed. Her aims are clear and pretty unambiguous, and frankly admitted to when questioned by Y'shtola, and also by Yoshi P in the Q&A.



Who can say? The writers have never really divulged the basis for how time travel works in the setting. We can only infer from the few instances we see and there's still question marks around that, to which the only answer so far is what Yoshi gave.



Meanwhile the 8UC timeline existing as an independent forked timeline in its own right. Go read it here. https://na.finalfantasyxiv.com/lodes.../#sidestory_08



Yes, welcome to the club! We have been critical about how EW employed time travel in this thread since day one. Go look at the tags in the thread even. It does not, however, mean that what the writers wrote is not what they intend to be canon, regardless of how little sense it makes. And that is, that she is intending for the timeline from which you appeared in Elpis to remain consistent with the recollection you gave her, leading her to declare in EW that a conjunction of timelines has now been seeded. This is further supported by the devs' own words on how this can be interpreted, and her deliberate decision to try spare Emet-Selch.

At this point, I have to question, as have others, whether for someone who so vehemently argues their corner whether you've actually gone through the story, because there's a lot of misunderstandings that crop up in your posts. For instance, you keep hinging your words on what Elidibus said, but as the dev Q&A and her own words in EW make clear, it is Venat who is acting towards maintaining the timeline, which implies as a corollary that if she did not, it could deviate. Again, so far you've been reluctant to provide any sources for anything you say, and you come to very strange misinterpretations of the sources being provided.

Does it all make sense? Nope, but whether it does or not they're setting this out as how things went down, and on that basis, Venat is assigned a lot of agency and somehow, in spite of all the gaps in her knowledge, is aiming towards a timeline convergence. You don't have to like it or consider it logical - I certainly don't - but that is the level of agency she is being assigned. And on that basis, she is open to criticism. It doesn't really matter if in some other timeline, some hypothetical Venat made a greater effort to salvage her people, as all we have are her words that she'd make such efforts, and no tangible proof, so we are ultimately judging her based on what we do at least know. And that Venat is one who decided not to give her people the full picture and to proceed with the Sundering as an "answer" to Endsinger. It's possible to both criticise the weirdness of how they resorted to time travel, and to criticise the parties involved on the basis of what they chose to make canon as, whatever its faults, it's what we're stuck with.



I don't really think you're in a position to be insulting others here over being obtuse. But Zodiark did not temper anyone but the Convocation, and even that was presented as a side effect without much follow up at the time. He was resorted to as a summoning because they had run out of other available sources of aether because of the Final Days eating away at their star. This is why people say it was within her hands whether or not they resorted to summoning him, because if they had been warned earlier of the nature of the problem, a different solution could have been devised. But you're still framing this in a misleading way that's not even consistent with the story's own way of presenting it.



She had more knowledge than her combined group. This is also covered in her short story:



That aside, I don't think any here would disagree that her entire group should share some of the blame, but we have to consider how much they knew compared to her.



Must've been absent for most of ARR, HW, SB and SHB, then. But then again, the story does not shy away from criticising those characters, even where it presents their motives as sympathetic, so this is a rather moot point.



From the story's position (or even the way you tried to frame it), what is there to redeem? Even in the Omega story, the Watcher is hoping for validation of her and her group's ideological view through the Sundered. In the end, she herself insists on the fight, knowing the cost, because she sees it as a test she wants to administer.

Source: https://forum.square-enix.com/ffxiv/...=1#post6365959

So please do not move the goalposts and pretend as if this tiresome song and dance has not been repeated many times over, or does not escalate as a consequence of basic details of the story being ignored in order to prop up cRyStAl MoMmY. There are many more posts within that thread also providing these sources as well as within other threads. You will likely want to follow the hyperlink to the post in question to make it easier to read and see the quotes as intended, since the formatting of a post is altered after quoting it.

[Turtledeluxe]

Just saying "No Zavos" and collecting posts from old threads is not an argument.

There's no bodily harm. Their forms still very much exist-- as humanity (and consciousness very much exists). She altered THE group (not A group) because whether you're talking about THE star or THE mankind, she wasn't selective.

Also acknowledging its roots with the Holocaust just makes one sound even more insane and insensitive. Please go and tell some actual victims that you regard stories about demigods being reformed into humanity as comparable to their experience.

[NanaWiloh]

Also dont we think its about time to bury this discussion?? As there is nothing left to say on the matter that others have not already stated.

[Lady_Silvermoon]

Just saying "No Zavos" and collecting posts from old threads is not an argument.

There's no bodily harm. Their forms still very much exist-- as humanity (and consciousness very much exists). She altered THE group (not A group) because whether you're talking about THE star or THE mankind, she wasn't selective.

Also acknowledging its roots with the Holocaust just makes one sound even more insane and insensitive. Please go and tell some actual victims that you regard stories about demigods being reformed into humanity as comparable to their experience.

No bodily harm? Their genes are so degraded by her actions that the gaps get filled in with cat ears and bunny tails. Like you get that's why the new races exist right? Because she mutilated the Ancients so bad they picked up animal genes to fill in the gaps.

Also, their lifespan was shortened from thousands of years to a hundred, tops.

Also, their ability to use magic was significantly reduced to the point where they no longer live in a post-scarcity society and must fight like animals to survive.

The only way I can imagine you'd argue they "were not harmed" is that you view your existence as the "default" and so they were simply "brought down to the default." But perhaps to really grasp what happened to them, imagine if your default was "brought down." Imagine someone turned you into a cockroach erasing your memories, history, culture and family ties and then within a year you died of the natural causes of a cockroach.

Would you be arguing someone who did that to you did not harm you?

Also dont we think its about time to bury this discussion?? As there is nothing left to say on the matter that others have not already stated.

How? How do you see people celebrating the eradication of a species due to their inherent inferiority and just pimp shrug? I can't. What she did was one of the worst atrocities I've ever seen put into a story, and people can't even agree it was bad actually.

[jameseoakes]

Just saying "No Zavos" and collecting posts from old threads is not an argument.

There's no bodily harm. Their forms still very much exist-- as humanity (and consciousness very much exists). She altered THE group (not A group) because whether you're talking about THE star or THE mankind, she wasn't selective.

Violently remaking a race into a new kind of life lacking the traits that made them what they are and creating a fake pantheon to compel a new culture on them is a pretty horrific and lets not forget there souls where some damaged in the process they changed into divergent races to cope with the damage.

[Theodric]

Just saying "No Zavos" and collecting posts from old threads is not an argument.

I am posting links to older posts as all of this information has been sent to you already by both myself and various other posters and you have proven to be mistaken on many fronts when it comes to aspects of the story and narrative with a strange habit of pretending otherwise when provided with actual sources.

There's no bodily harm. Their forms still very much exist-- as humanity (and consciousness very much exists). She altered THE group (not A group) because whether you're talking about THE star or THE mankind, she wasn't selective.

That simply isn't true. The Sundered exist at the expense of the Ancients as a consequence of the Sundering. A horrific act which combined the destruction of the Ancients, Dynamis focused eugenics and racial replacement. None of it is pleasant, certainly, though I see no reason to beat around the bush and pretend otherwise. Furthermore, Venat refers to herself as the 'last of her kind' when confronted within the Aetheriel Sea so even she does not view the Sundered as an extension of her own species.

The Ancients no longer exist as a culture, society or species. Every aspect of their being was destroyed in the Sundering. We also know from the Scions own words that they, themselves, would not allow their loved ones to be wiped out in a similar manner. In fact, there are a large number of examples where they say as much to anyone attempting to 'improve' or forcibly wipe out/evolve the Sundered. Did you not play through the Sage quests where the villain in the story is opposed for attempting to do that very same thing? It does not suddenly become acceptable just because the 'right' targets are being wiped out.

Also acknowledging its roots with the Holocaust just makes one sound even more insane and insensitive. Please go and tell some actual victims that you regard stories about demigods being reformed into humanity as comparable to their experience.

I'm not quite sure what you're getting at there because I have neither brought up the Holocaust specifically and neither is it the exclusive act of genocide to take place throughout human history. Once again, the term genocide is being used because it is a term that the characters in the setting also use. You are free to contact Square Enix to inform them that it is incentive to refer to the Rejoinings as an act of genocide if you care so much, though something tells me that you do not and are simply attempting to poison the well.

It also strikes me as a rather hypocritical and feigned concern as in another recent thread you brought up current day and previous real world horrific events involving genocide in order to make a point which again, is not something I myself did:

"No one cares" is not an argument. You're dismissed. Sena is not in any way a hypocrite because a. YES minority groups absolutely matter. You obviously have no clue what you are talking about. "Women" is not a small sub group that lacks representation. Trans women are. B. Trans women are women. In the same way Gaia apples are a type of apple. Learn it fast, quick, and don't quote me again. You clearly lack the capability to understand basic concepts. If a recipe calls for Gaia apples, you can't use "apple". If a recipe calls for "apple," you can use Gaia apples.

"People are people" lmao. Yes let's go back through history and just tell everyone that. Read a book or something, wow.

Why don't we just head over to Israel right now, or travel back in time to WWII. The Civil War. Hiroshima. "Don't worry guys, people are people!".

I also forgot to mention Sena did not call for anyone to be ousted. In fact she dissented from her peers by asking for the VA to voluntarily step down in a sign of solidarity and they declined. This is why your post is so incredibly dangerous-- not only do you not acknowledge the existence of minority groups but you also didn't actually read the tweets and made up your own version colored by bigotry...which btw, your targeting of a trans person is one of the exact reasons they're a protected minority lmaoo.

For the record, I do not believe that it is even necessarily a bad thing to draw comparisons to real world history so long as some tact is being deployed. It is not exactly a secret that FFXIV heavily draws upon certain real world countries, cultures and historical events in order to tell a story inspired by real world history. In the context of what is being discussed, however, I'm not sure how much more I can stress that the term genocide is used within the game itself and that the way in which the Ancients were wiped out and replaced is very similar to the consequences of certain real world events. The only difference is that magic is involved but again, so is that the case with the Rejoinings and that certainly doesn't lead to the term suddenly not being applicable.

[Turtledeluxe]

No bodily harm? Their genes are so degraded by her actions that the gaps get filled in with cat ears and bunny tails. Like you get that's why the new races exist right? Because she mutilated the Ancients so bad they picked up animal genes to fill in the gaps.

Also, their lifespan was shortened from thousands of years to a hundred, tops.

Also, their ability to use magic was significantly reduced to the point where they no longer live in a post-scarcity society and must fight like animals to survive.

The only way I can imagine you'd argue they "were not harmed" is that you view your existence as the "default" and so they were simply "brought down to the default." But perhaps to really grasp what happened to them, imagine if your default was "brought down." Imagine someone turned you into a cockroach erasing your memories, history, culture and family ties and then within a year you died of the natural causes of a cockroach.

Would you be arguing someone who did that to you did not harm you?

Do we even know if they had genes? These are not humans-- they are humanoids. If the game explains their constitution beyond form and soul, I am not aware of that. They were not turned into cockroaches, they were turned into what we would conventionally call humans. Someone mentioned when Alphinaud talks about genocide in game, but notice he's calling out the targeting of a group of humans.

Taking away magic or even the way lifespans decrease here are fictional concepts, so making it 1:1 with reality is (I suppose) an interesting ethical analysis. Ultimately though when you kill someone in reality, there's no mechanism to reconstitute them or commune with their souls. I'm not saying what happened isn't tragic, I'm just saying it isn't a genocide. There may be a word for it, but due to this being a fictional story about not humans, I am unsure what it would be. Moreover, the game is arguing it was inherent to survival. The Ancients don't even refer to their own massacres as genocide-- and I'm not talking about the initial voluntary participants. They had later plans to sacrifice lesser beings to Zodiark as well. I wouldn't exactly call that genocide either because it lacks any political or ethical context-- Zodiark needs fuel that's inherent to survival (from their perspective). So is sacrificing those lesser beings genocide? I am unsure.

[Turtledeluxe]

For the record, I do not believe that it is even necessarily a bad thing to draw comparisons to real world history so long as some tact is being deployed. It is not exactly a secret that FFXIV heavily draws upon certain real world countries, cultures and historical events in order to tell a story inspired by real world history. In the context of what is being discussed, however, I'm not sure how much more I can stress that the term genocide is used within the game itself and that the way in which the Ancients were wiped out and replaced is very similar to the consequences of certain real world events. The only difference is that magic is involved but again, so is that the case with the Rejoinings and that certainly doesn't lead to the term suddenly not being applicable.

I don't see any arguments to respond to but this is completely not comparable. We are talking about a human voice actor in that thread and someone was trying to say that minorities do not exist. That's incredibly dangerous when you're talking about real people. That isn't about fictional characters.

And the voice actor is part of a minority group, hence why i said dismissed. They are wrong. Certain discussions are two way on the forum, but that point is just not one of them. It's not negotiable.

Also the Holocaust point was brought up by someone you quoted. Alphinaud mentions it, when talking about the targeting of a group of humans.

[NanaWiloh]

How? How do you see people celebrating the eradication of a species due to their inherent inferiority and just pimp shrug? I can't. What she did was one of the worst atrocities I've ever seen put into a story, and people can't even agree it was bad actually.

I limit my emotional and moral investment in stories, As it ruins the story for me if I dont.

[Lady_Silvermoon]

Do we even know if they had genes? These are not humans-- they are humanoids. If the game explains their constitution beyond form and soul, I am not aware of that. They were not turned into cockroaches, they were turned into what we would conventionally call humans. Someone mentioned when Alphinaud talks about genocide in game, but notice he's calling out the targeting of a group of humans.

Taking away magic or even the way lifespans decrease here are fictional concepts, so making it 1:1 with reality is (I suppose) an interesting ethical analysis. Ultimately though when you kill someone in reality, there's no mechanism to reconstitute them or commune with their souls. I'm not saying what happened isn't tragic, I'm just saying it isn't a genocide. There may be a word for it, but due to this being a fictional story about not humans, I am unsure what it would be. Moreover, the game is arguing it was inherent to survival. The Ancients don't even refer to their own massacres as genocide-- and I'm not talking about the initial voluntary participants. They had later plans to sacrifice lesser beings to Zodiark as well. I wouldn't exactly call that genocide either because it lacks any political or ethical context-- Zodiark needs fuel that's inherent to survival (from their perspective). So is sacrificing those lesser beings genocide? I am unsure.

Arguing their morals don't apply to us because their world is fictional seems like a huge dismissal of the point of fiction. I mean aren't we taking these situations out of our real world to examine them in a way that does not impact us personally? To see from a different perspective? After all, that's what upsets me so much about how Venat is treated, the game has sold people on the notion that sometimes inferior people need to die so that the strong may survive and if you think that moral won't carry over into the real world, again, I have to wonder have you never heard of fiction before? FF14 has always used it's tales to push moral philosophies, to make us think. What gets under my skin about EW is it made way too many people think it's okay to kill someone and take all their resources if you believe you can make better use of them. No. That's bad actually.

I limit my emotional and moral investment in stories, As it ruins the story for me if I dont.

FF14 used to be the game I played to relax. Then it suddenly decided my character's existence would be built on a billion human sacrifices and I'd just need to be okay with that. And I simply don't know how to be. I wish there was some explanation that meant I was misunderstanding the narrative and nothing I believe happened actually happened, but no, that does not seem to be the case. The case seems to be I just need to be cool with my existence being built on mass genocide.