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

[Eisi]

Writers do things that dont always make sense. My favorite novel series has its fair share of moments.where the author brain farted resulting in one or more characters brain farting in some manner.

Absolutely, but I think that Elpis is a particularly egregious example. Endwalker as a whole really suffered from brainfarts. There were nice moments though, I love Urianger's quest and the little drinking episode with him, Y'sh and Thancred for example. Big fan of Garlemald as well up until In from the Cold, which ruined it. Ultima Thule was definitely a highlight as well.

I think the writers just did not care about their story anymore and wanted to close the book and move on more than anything. There's such a lack of love that even the major decision to tell this very high-concept storyline in but a single expansion betrays. So while I want to cut the writers some slack, to me this storyline wasn't an overall success that suffered from some minor issues that you can nitpick if you like. No, I can't help but feel that their heart wasn't in it for the most part. And it's a shame really, I am disappointed myself and get why others are as well.

But it's important to move on. I like to think that that is Endwalker's greatest message. You move on in spite of it and accept that things have turned out this way. I just wish it wasn't so meta .

[Theodric]

Venat's alteration was star-wide and predicated on survival. Was it horrible? Sure. Is it genocide? Not really. Especially given that it's possible to restore her world and people, which is something that does not apply to humans or Earth.

We are discussing the Ancients, specifically. The Sundering benefits those who come at the expense of the Ancients, rather than those who existed prior to it. You are speaking of precisely what serves to benefit the game's protagonists, which is very much the following trope in play:

https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.p...nteredMorality

With a generous helping of this thrown in for good measure:

https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/BrokenAesop

Venat's actions in no way benefited the Ancients as they no longer exist and as mentioned in my previous post, Venat does not consider herself to be part of 'mankind' when it comes to the Sundered, she specifically frames herself as the last of her kind.

Furthermore, you are claiming that because it is technically possible for the Ancients to be restored that the Sundering does not equal genocide but that does not hold up under scrutiny, because both the Sundering and the Rejoinings not only come at the expense of every being currently existing on Etheirys at the time but as has been pointed out many times already, the term genocide is specifically used in the setting to describe acts along those lines.I have described both the Sundering and Rejoinings as such as you can see here:

Many cases of genocide have been framed as a matter of necessity and survival. It doesn't cease to be an act of genocide solely because there are those who stand to benefit from the atrocity in question. Given that the ancients no longer exist as a species it isn't really up for debate as to whether it qualifies as such because it fulfills the criteria of the definition.

Certainly, the Rejoinings are considered to be an act of genocide and those are a matter of reversing the consequences of Venat's actions. (Though I'd add that even the Rejoinings are something that Venat has an indirect hand in given that she knowingly left room for Emet-Selch to be spared despite being well aware of what that would result in...)

It's not framed as merciful. You say it goes in a circle but that's because we end up with this extreme language that is misleading. It's portrayed as extreme, perhaps even arrogant, the total opposite of "merciful".

What extreme language? Calling out the consequences of the action is not 'extreme language'. This is simply a case of certain individuals not liking it when the same rules established for everybody else in the setting are applied to the supposed 'good guys'.

Venat, as Hydaelyn, referring to her actions in such terms is a step in the right direction - but it is meaningless when the protagonists then proceed to gush over her and conjure forth excuses as to why it supposedly 'had to' happen. We already know that they would never accept it happening to their loved ones, so there is absolutely no reason for anybody else to accept it happening to them in turn.

They literally have creation magic and originated mankind (or one of them did, anyway) -- that's pretty deity like to me. You say you follow lots of relevant media, but it's quite common in Japanese media to find pondering about the origin of existence or humanity as part of the overall narrative. And yes, there are stories about utter destruction that people find despicable and that's a huge component of the story-- XIV is not of them (with this specific plotline, that is).

Once again, that is deflection. A story can present whatever arguments it so wishes on any given number of subjects but the writers pondering things - and deliberately leaving things vague and open to interpretation - does not equal a necessity for those engaging with the media to agree with the conclusions.

I will quote another poster who eloquently portrayed thoughts I share on the matter:

If all that mattered in storytelling was "intent," there's no point to any further flourish to telling a story beyond providing a bullet list outline of what the "intent" is and nothing to talk about. Hydaelyn is good because we're told she's good, the end. Look, I don't think anybody is questioning that the intent was that Hydaelyn be seen as a good person, and that the entire weight of the game is asking/expecting you to sympathize with her and be on her side. That's... kind of the whole problem. That's why a lot of people get so virulent and wordy about this, because they're aware they're arguing against the intentions of the text, but attempting to point out how it doesn't work regardless. But I can't really be on board with a line of thought that puts forth "ignore what she actually did, ignore her reasons, ignore everything you actually saw and experienced onscreen if you have to - because Word of God says it's good when Hydaelyn does it, she's good. Now stop talking about it."

Execution matters. What actually gets put down in writing, or on the screen, regardless of "intent," matters. Discerning for ourselves via discussion and critical analysis (well, at least that's what happens ideally) what a text is actually concretely saying by pointing out the reality of the picture it paints is not remotely an uncommon thing when discussing stories. I don't think there's a conspiracy happening about what the writers are trying to say, but I do think if one cares about a story, it can be worthwhile to examine what it does, how it does it, and how intention and execution don't necessarily match up. One hopes that the writer-audience feedback loop exists in part to indicate where a disconnect happens within those gaps, and enables a team of writers openly asking for constant feedback to keep it in mind going forward - which we've already seen to some extent with the development of the Omega quests, for instance. Otherwise, some people (weirdoes like me) like discussing and talking about nuances in writing and pinning down specific aspects that work and don't work for them for its own sake, because how storytelling works is interesting to us. You don't have to have the same interest, and that's okay! I have zero interest in tons of the topics discussing other aspects of the game, myself.

This, though, I would specifically disagree with - a framing of "the Ancients died because of a terrible, unplanned, unintentional tragedy" is very different from "the Ancients died because one person (righteously, the story argues) deliberately murdered them." Tragedy versus murder are not the same results to me. The story is not saying the same thing as far as the thematics of what it means to be "worthy to live" at the end of Shadowbringers versus the end of Endwalker - it rather ends up saying the opposite, in fact, because of that distinction between unintentional tragedy we universally have to make peace with the likes of, and a deliberate, narrative-justified murder for a believed greater good. "Bad things sometimes happen for no reason, even to good people" is not the same result to me as "some populations just need to die because they're not good enough."

Endwalker doesn't hold together rather well under scrutiny and there are many different reasons for that. We can agree or disagree with what those reasons are, precisely, but at the end of the day none of it changes that there is now a strange insistence that everything Venat did should be exclusively viewed through a very specific lens. That isn't how people typically engage with any form of media that prides itself on telling a story and this game is actively advertised as being story driven.

Granted, the game has certainly attracted a lot of players who are somewhat obsessive with insisting that you have to like or dislike specific individuals within the cast but even that isn't something anyone has an obligation to do. Especially when it is a product sold to players from many different countries, cultures, belief systems, backgrounds and life experiences.

Whether intentional or otherwise, this the story that the writers ultimately went with and that is after they took the time to delay the expansion and rewrite it...after also making the decision to squeeze two separate expansions into one.

[Lady_Silvermoon]

Venat's alteration was star-wide and predicated on survival. Was it horrible? Sure. Is it genocide? Not really. Especially given that it's possible to restore her world and people, which is something that does not apply to humans or Earth. If we put all the culpability on Venat entirely, even then, there's a difference between someone who is Sundering knowing it isn't a true end vs someone who is engineering birth rate declining, guaranteeing an end. Venat understands that souls still exist within the star post death and understands the nature of forms when it comes to sundering. She even left open the possibility for rejoinings to occur. So is it like your gene example? Not really.


It's not framed as merciful. You say it goes in a circle but that's because we end up with this extreme language that is misleading. It's portrayed as extreme, perhaps even arrogant, the total opposite of "merciful".



They literally have creation magic and originated mankind (or one of them did, anyway) -- that's pretty deity like to me. You say you follow lots of relevant media, but it's quite common in Japanese media to find pondering about the origin of existence or humanity as part of the overall narrative. And yes, there are stories about utter destruction that people find despicable and that's a huge component of the story-- XIV is not of them (with this specific plotline, that is).



Exactly.

You can't both argue it's not worth fighting over and continue to fight with every fiber of your being that wiping out a race for being "weak" and replacing it with a "stronger" race isn't genocide. Pick a side. Either this doesn't matter to you or it does matter to you and you strongly feel that murdering every man, woman and child on a planet and using their parts to make a different species can somehow be seen as "not that bad."

Still lost on how, but I really hate when people pretend something is not worth discussing while discussing it for days. I have no shame in admitting I care about what they wrote and why I care. If you didn't care, then you wouldn't be countering our detailed explanation of how and why her actions were genocidal with a 'nuh uh.'

[Eisi]

Even with the terrible writing, just mind wiping her too and having the Sundering be an attempted nerf that turned into reducing the population to monke would have worked. But having her do everything she did with full knowledge of the consequences to produce the WoL, there is no explanation for that except she was written to be an anti-villain.

No, the explanation is that the writers wanted her and you to share a bond and a plan to rectify the fact that used to be an unknown force of good without much of a relationship to you. They wanted to retroactively make all the moments where she was just a bland voice speaking to you matter. That's why she couldn't lose her memory. The entire story makes sense once you realize that the writers wanted certain things to be and then just hammered the leadup into shape just so that it could somehow work.

[TheMightyMollusk]

A couple of minor plot holes I just remembered.

-During the Coerthas segment of ARR, when we confront the false Inquisitor, he uses dragon blood to transform. Lord Drillemont immediately calls it out as a glamour, and when the fight's over, the Inquisitor changes back into his original elezen form. At no other point does it work that way; later changes are entirely physical and permanent. This is probably just early weirdness from the writers not having ironed out exactly how it would work yet, but it still counts.

-In the new solo version of the Steps of Faith, Lucia will use Grand Hoplon (paladin's Passage of Arms in all but name) to defend against Vishap's fire breath. As a Garlean, she's incapable of magic, so.....how? Did she have some magitek device hidden in her shield to enable it? It's not addressed. Minor plot hole, but still there.

[Turtledeluxe]

Absolutely, but I think that Elpis is a particularly egregious example. Endwalker as a whole really suffered from brainfarts. There were nice moments though, I love Urianger's quest and the little drinking episode with him, Y'sh and Thancred for example. Big fan of Garlemald as well up until In from the Cold, which ruined it. Ultima Thule was definitely a highlight as well.

I think the writers just did not care about their story anymore and wanted to close the book and move on more than anything. There's such a lack of love that even the major decision to tell this very high-concept storyline in but a single expansion betrays. So while I want to cut the writers some slack, to me this storyline wasn't an overall success that suffered from some minor issues that you can nitpick if you like. No, I can't help but feel that their heart wasn't in it for the most part. And it's a shame really, I am disappointed myself and get why others are as well.

But it's important to move on. I like to think that that is Endwalker's greatest message. You move on in spite of it and accept that things have turned out this way. I just wish it wasn't so meta .

I thought Elpis was well executed for the most part. The problem begins when they introduce Kairos and make the Elpis visit canon. What an abomination of a plot device. And for what? So they could retcon the narrative so that the WoL was in the past, which by extension gave fuel to the "Venat is genocidal" narrative.

You can't both argue it's not worth fighting over and continue to fight with every fiber of your being that wiping out a race for being "weak" and replacing it with a "stronger" race isn't genocide. Pick a side. Either this doesn't matter to you or it does matter to you and you strongly feel that murdering every man, woman and child on a planet and using their parts to make a different species can somehow be seen as "not that bad."

Still lost on how, but I really hate when people pretend something is not worth discussing while discussing it for days. I have no shame in admitting I care about what they wrote and why I care. If you didn't care, then you wouldn't be countering our detailed explanation of how and why her actions were genocidal with a 'nuh uh.'

I never said it wasn't worth discussing-- I said I'm generally not particularly interested in ethics analysis when it comes to origin stories or god stories, whether they're fictional or whether it's one I'm reading IRL. You probably don't perceive it an origin story-- yet Venat's actions are what, in this universe, leads to Earth and humanity equivalents. I also cited Yoshi P-- is he implying it isn't worth discussing with that statement? No, he's implying that Ancients were capable of arrogance and extreme behavior, which is something many gods are traditionally known for. They can be known to be wise, all knowing even, and kind...yet they have moments where they make highly irrational and emotional decisions, perhaps even decisions they have no business making. If Venat's actions are meant to be taken so seriously and used as a moral reference, why did he joke about it instead of saying something more thoughtful? Yoshi P happily talks about themes in his stories and what he hopes you take it from it-- I just don't get the vibe that he was making some kind of moral statement with the story of the Ancients, like "oh Venat did it, so it's ok and I should do that if I have a problem with a race". Which, in her case it wasn't "a race" it was "THE race", which is why it's not genocide. It was a reality-altering event that had the effect of sundering the Ancients, among many other things.

[Lady_Silvermoon]

No, the explanation is that the writers wanted her and you to share a bond and a plan to rectify the fact that used to be an unknown force of good without much of a relationship to you. They wanted to retroactively make all the moments where she was just a bland voice speaking to you matter. That's why she couldn't lose her memory. The entire story makes sense once you realize that the writers wanted certain things to be and then just hammered the leadup into shape just so that it could somehow work.

All I can do is hope they did not actually think that the majority of the playerbase would be flattered that she thought we were so awesome she was willing to burn babies in their crib to bring us into being. But given almost every person who has suffered unspeakably so that we could exist has been dragged out their coffin to assure us they are glad for it, I can't entirely dismiss your reading which just makes me fall deeper into despair. What were they thinking?

I wish we could get some sort of EW autopsy where they explain how this happened and how they will ensure it never happens again.

[Eisi]

What were they thinking?

This is a bottomless abyss, m'lady. They weren't thinking. I'll say it again: Don't think about the story more than the writers did.

[Lady_Silvermoon]

This is a bottomless abyss, m'lady. They weren't thinking. I'll say it again: Don't think about the story more than the writers did.

I will do my best to forget. But it might take a few well-placed brain bleeds to wipe from my memory what all they made my character responsible for. I'm banking on future stories helping me forget the horror show that is EW, but the trust is gone. I have a feeling DT will just be worse or even more of the same would be terrible at this point.

[Turtledeluxe]

We are discussing the Ancients, specifically. The Sundering benefits those who come at the expense of the Ancients, rather than those who existed prior to it.

It targets all of reality. Yes, you can isolate this as an attack on the Ancients to engineer them for selfish reasons, but that isn't what it is, ultimately.

Venat's actions in no way benefited the Ancients as they no longer exist

Which is why I said it resulted in consciousness continuing. That's a general goal. It is preferable to it being eliminated, whether directly by the Final Days or indirectly by subjugating the star to an aether consuming Primal. It didn't benefit the Ancients, but it also didn't totally destroy them or their potential to exist as would occur IRL. Now, Venat could have been wrong-- there could have been some alternative path. But the game does not explore this. You probably think it's because they want protag centered morality-- I think it's because of their own statements about how time works here.

come at the expense of every being currently existing on Etheirys

Ok, let's just say the Ancients were totally and completely eliminated. Where is genocide used to describe a global-scale elimination of everyone and everything on Earth? That completely contradicts real world application of it, actually.

What extreme language? - but it is meaningless when the protagonists then proceed to gush over her

This kind of extreme language-- gushing? Where? Even the voice acting in this scene doesn't sound warm constantly-- I wouldn't even say the majority of the time. Also you continuously don't acknowledge that we excitedly and unironically defeat her knowing the consequences (that she will return to the star). I'd say the scene comes across as rather solemn, at least when it comes to the Scions. If anyone is gushing it's Venat, over them.

that is deflection

But you deflected first by comparing it to random manga where bad things/genocide happens and characters rebel against it. That may happen, but XIV is not a story about that. Intent is not the end all be all of criticism of writing, I don't think anyone has said that. My view of the story is based on the game's dialogue (of the English translation) and developer statements (that I've seen anyway). With respect to the Elpis visit, it's hard to proceed because the way they wrote it indicates to me that we are supposed to regard the Zodiark conflict and the Sundering as fated events, regardless of the agency the visit seemingly gives any character, not even just Venat.

I don't think the idea Venat is genocidal shouldn't exist at all, else I would not have mentioned it in my post and perpetuated its existence. I don't think people should stop talking about, I just respond to people who quote me.