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

[CrownySuccubus]

I'm glad they didn't go with that tired old "The God/Goddess of Light was the evil one all along" cliche. I've honestly lost count of the number of anime and videogames which have used that "twist", to the point that it felt refreshing to me that Venat was actually sincere. I have a lot of issues with the story and, by extension, Venat's portrayal but her not being mustache-twirlingly evil all along ain't one of them.

[KizuyaKatogami]

What’s funny is she kind of is that evil trope in all but the game clarifying her as it. Lies to the main cast? Check. Keeps secrets about how she was actually the one behind fracturing the world,ruining it and everyone on it? Check.Has some pity point sequence that ends up just showing how evil she is? Check.

[SpectrePhantasia]

In the hypothetical of Hydaelyn being a more antagonistic force, I don't think she would be any more 'evil' than Emet-selch would be; just a person who believed her course of action was for the best, no matter the sacrifices that it would take to get to that point. That's already how she is portrayed in the narrative, but unlike with Emet, she faces no consequences, nor criticism from people who aren't antagonists that we promptly slay (like Emet). Characters who have done much much less than Venat have earned the protest and ire of the Scions, but you will find absolutely none of that here, because the story doesn't want to be about different perspectives anymore, it wants to be about one perspective. Venat isn't destroying our world, just someone else's, so it doesn't matter.

It's actually rather easy to reframe her mindset and values into an antagonist and have it work far better than that we got, in my opinion. Like for example, look at the future tense. Venat believes that a society that has mitigated most of its suffering through advancement and progression will inevitably become too weak-willed to endure tragedy and will be destroyed. What happens when a Sundered society reaches such a precipice, where they have unraveled the knowledge of the world that was taken from them once more, and reach new heights of comfort? Perhaps then it is time to flip the board again, reset them over and over, so that they will always have something to struggle towards, but never actually reach it? She proclaims her faith in mankind, but never gives them the autonomy to decide their fate for themselves, such was the flaw that led to the Sundering to begin with, as was acknowledged by the devs. I see in that a person who genuinely wants the best for the star and those living upon it, but isn't willing to surrender it for fear the tragedy she bore witness to would be repeated.

I don't know what people are imagining when they see others say they wanted something more antagonistic out of her, but I don't think anyone means some cackling traitor character. I wanted the kind of flawed, idealistic recklessness that would suit a character capable of performing an act such as what she did. Someone who you can understand, but criticize for the genuinely horrible thing that she did. Instead we doled out pats on the back, and it only ever was about how she felt about it, not the countless others whose lives she destroyed.

Alphinaud once said in Shadowbringers that living in a Rejoined world would be against his beliefs, saying, "But what value is there in surviving when all our history, all our struggles will be erased? I cannot conscience such an act." I'm sure the irony of that statement is not lost on just me. That he had no words for Venat on that front astounded me.

[CrownySuccubus]

I don't know what people are imagining when they see others say they wanted something more antagonistic out of her, but I don't think anyone means some cackling traitor character. I wanted the kind of flawed, idealistic recklessness that would suit a character capable of performing an act such as what she did. Someone who you can understand, but criticize for the genuinely horrible thing that she did. Instead we doled out pats on the back, and it only ever was about how she felt about it, not the countless others whose lives she destroyed.

What I'm referring to is when the god-like entity themselves are held up within the story as the embodiment of how that story's morals do not work. For example, Bhunivelze sought a "perfect" world where he was in complete control forever and there would be no death or suffering. He kills his mother Mwynn because of this obsession with control, and then he obsesses over finding her in the Unseen World because he thinks she's the one that created Death. The moral lesson of the FFXIII trilogy is similar to that of FFXIV: death is inevitable and free will is more powerful than control. Bhunivelze was wrong, but his ignorance of how the universe works (by FFXIII's narrative logic) is what makes him an obstacle and a threat.

That ignorance is what Hydaelyn lacks. We can gnash our teeth about how ridiculous the notion of "you need suffering to overcome despair" is, but in the end, Hydaelyn's belief is the correct one as far as the story is concerned. What I "liked" (well, more like didn't ruin the story more for me) is that we aren't suddenly treated to an 11th Hour realization where everything Hydaelyn believes is revealed to either be a lie, a delusion, or arrogance. I liked the fact that the story committed to Hydaelyn being the entity with the closest understanding of the universe's morality, even if I personally find that morality fallacious and the actions she took to prove it horrific.

Again, I'm just tired of the end of Japanese Fantasy plots being "FU God(s)! We mortals who have only lived for 0.000000000001% of your lifespans know way more than you and thus through the sheer force of hope and willpower, we can undo everything you've been planning since the dawn of creation!"

But sure, when we look at the meta-narrative and think critically about the story's message, Hydaelyn is pretty similar to most "God was the villain all along stories".

[Rulakir]

It's actually rather easy to reframe her mindset and values into an antagonist and have it work far better than that we got, in my opinion.

Venat/Hydaeyln turned out to be much worse than I had anticipated and I went into EW figuring she was going to be an antagonist similar to Emet, as you said. "Matter of perspective" and all that. I thought the sundering of more than just Zodiark was going to turn out to be accidental. Instead, it was not only intentional but with knowledge of the future!

Her "love" for mankind is shallow. She doesn't care that her actions result in the destruction of souls and there's little evidence she cared about the life on the shards beyond every rejoining making her task of keeping Zodiark imprisoned more difficult. Going through Thavnair a second time I was outraged because all of those people who were turned into blasphemies were permanently destroyed and that was the fault of the sundering having made mankind fatally susceptible to dynamis. As Vrtra said, "they are undeserving of such condemnation."

Venat is a co-conspirator with Hermes, who is framed as a villain (sympathetic or not). The only difference is the copious amount of narrative gaslighting regarding her character. She is practically the walking definition of "the road to Hell is paved with good intentions". This is the same woman who ended the WoL's first incarnation, more than likely without consent, and would have no qualms whatsoever with doing it again if she thought it would produce her desired result. Venat is ruthless AF on a Biblical scale.

Alphinaud once said in Shadowbringers that living in a Rejoined world would be against his beliefs, saying, "But what value is there in surviving when all our history, all our struggles will be erased? I cannot conscience such an act." I'm sure the irony of that statement is not lost on just me. That he had no words for Venat on that front astounded me.

I saved a screenshot of him saying that too. Neither the WoL or the Scions had any reason to trust Hydaelyn given what they knew of her, yet do so implicitly and with unprecedented amounts of hypocrisy based on statements such as that one. Another exchange in ShB that sticks out to me is this one:

Y'shtola: From a purely Ascian standpoint, it could be said that what you seek to do is only logical. But that would be to ignore the immeasurable destruction wrought with each Rejoining. You have murdered millions. And this we cannot condone.
Emet-Selch: By your fragmented existence, you continue to give rise to tragedies far crueler than any calamity.

He's not wrong and the Scions never once bring up this same point to Hydaelyn. The irony is that it's the sundering that has resulted in all of mankind's woes, not the Final Days. Those were averted by Zodiark. Everything that's happened since falls squarely on Venat's shoulders. She is, in my mind, the main antagonist of the series, bane to both unsundered and sundered, who despite being gifted with omniscience by the WoL uses it not for the betterment of anyone, but to the detriment of all.

But, you know, she's pretty, and has a nice voice, and thinks the WoL is cool, so it's whatever.

[CrownySuccubus]

He's not wrong and the Scions never once bring up this same point to Hydaelyn. The irony is that it's the sundering that has resulted in all of mankind's woes, not the Final Days. Those were averted by Zodiark. Everything that's happened since falls squarely on Venat's shoulders. She is, in my mind, the main antagonist of the series, bane to both unsundered and sundered, who despite being gifted with omniscience by the WoL uses it not for the betterment of anyone, but to the detriment of all.

But, you know, she's pretty, and has a nice voice, and thinks the WoL is cool, so it's whatever.

I find this to be incredibly unfair.

Hermes and Meteion are the unquestionably the villains here. I can go for Hydaelyn being a secondary "evil", given that she effectively played by Hermes' rules and did not choose to inform her fellow Ancients of what happened, but I will never see her as the "main" villain. The society of the Ancients is gone because of Hermes. Zodiark was, at best, a band-aid that would not last (and, it seems, was actually making things worse, in terms of the Ancients becoming more delusional about their "paradise").

I will never agree with Hydaelyn's arguments or her methods, but saying she's the main villain is, in my opinion, just not true. At best, I can agree that she shares blame and culpability with the other players across the chessboard: Hermes and Meteion.

[Caurcas]

Because we don't need another poorly paced exposition speech in an expansion with too many exposition speeches to begin with.

[SpectrePhantasia]

If you don't like exposition, I think you're playing the wrong game.

[Lauront]

If you don't like exposition, I think you're playing the wrong game.

Ordinarily I would side on the "enough with the alphirants" side of the debate, but if they're going to rake everyone else through the coals with long-winded speeches, she may as well get one too, especially when her own actions are at the root of all this, and for once I might even agree with the brat.

He's not wrong and the Scions never once bring up this same point to Hydaelyn. The irony is that it's the sundering that has resulted in all of mankind's woes, not the Final Days. Those were averted by Zodiark. Everything that's happened since falls squarely on Venat's shoulders. She is, in my mind, the main antagonist of the series, bane to both unsundered and sundered, who despite being gifted with omniscience by the WoL uses it not for the betterment of anyone, but to the detriment of all.

Agreed.

[Caurcas]

Exposition is fine. Having hour long blocks of cutscenes where your character gets talked at is not.