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

[CrownySuccubus]

I'd say the Ancients were screwed over not because of the nuance that existed where Light and Dark are concerned but more so because of the agency of pretty much every character in the story being sacrificed in the name of trying to push the idea that Venat was 'right'.

This is us talking past each other.

"Venat was right" is today's "Emet-Selch was right", which was itself that day's "Nidhogg was right". It's an attempt to contextualize a new morality by adding quote-unquote "nuance" to previously-established morality. In order for Venat to be correct, the Ancients had to be thrown under the bus. "But mommy had a good reason for the genocide, and she felt really bad about it" is their attempt at creating a moral relativism.

[anhaato]

The problem with the light and dark cliches is that literally every dynamic between them has been done ad nauseam so every possible angle is a cliche. Personally I don’t know how anyone goes into this story NOT expecting to get rpg cliches up the ass. The premise doesn’t matter nearly as much as what they do with it, and they made good stories from those cliche foundations.

[CrownySuccubus]

My main issue with "Light/Dark are two sides of the same coin" stories is what I said before: it almost always leads to false equivocating, and also survivorship biasing. Sure, it's possible to avoid these pitfalls, but just like the narrative problems created by clones and time travel, that becomes harder to do the more your story relies on it. And Endwalker is the perfect demonstration of that.

False equivocating leads to apologism like "It's okay that this terrible thing happened, because it enabled this other good thing, despite being in no way necessary, equal or related". And survivorship bias leads to stuff like, "We're glad that the bad stuff happened, because the outcome benefitted everybody who survived it".

Both of these flaws are the basic root of almost everyone's problems with Endwalker's story.

[AziraSyuren]

My main issue with "Light/Dark are two sides of the same coin" stories is what I said before: it almost always leads to false equivocating, and also survivorship biasing. Sure, it's possible to avoid these pitfalls, but just like the narrative problems created by clones and time travel, that becomes harder to do the more your story relies on it. And Endwalker is the perfect demonstration of that.

False equivocating leads to apologism like "It's okay that this terrible thing happened, because it enabled this other good thing, despite being in no way necessary, equal or related". And survivorship bias leads to stuff like, "We're glad that the bad stuff happened, because the outcome benefitted everybody who survived it".

Both of these flaws are the basic root of almost everyone's problems with Endwalker's story.

It's because of this that my favorite portrayal of the light/darkness dynamic is honestly Kingdom Hearts, specifically in BBS, where Xehanort (the main bad guy for the uninitiated) tries to go "light and darkness are two sides of the same coin and equally good/bad" only to later show that no, darkness is fucking evil and bad in literally all cases but one and he was explicitly lying out of his ass.

It was a pretty clever subversion of the equivalence.

[Rulakir]

Despite ShB showing that excess light can be bad and foes can come in the form of angelic beings, I still felt that Zodiark was undermined by having a 'demonic' appearance especially as we don't have much (if any) experience with dark beings who look monstrous but are good. Hydaelyn, by comparison, being a beautiful angel even if it fit the lore just felt like more visual manipulation compared to Zodiark looking like a Lovecraftian horror.

I was particularly bothered by Y'shtola in Thavnair claiming it was Hydaelyn who had forestalled the Final Days. Anyone who can stand it should NG+ EW to see how Hydaelyn is attributed with the good Zodiark did while the bad things she was responsible for get shouldered off to Hermes/Meteion. I'm not kidding when I say the gaslighting is real. It goes beyond the characters treating her as if she's great and wonderful.

[TaleraRistain]

Despite ShB showing that excess light can be bad and foes can come in the form of angelic beings, I still felt that Zodiark was undermined by having a 'demonic' appearance especially as we don't have much (if any) experience with dark beings who look monstrous but are good. Hydaelyn, by comparison, being a beautiful angel even if it fit the lore just felt like more visual manipulation compared to Zodiark looking like a Lovecraftian horror.

I just felt their looks fit with their elemental aspects. As you said, we just had an expansion that put up a giant neon sign of "Looks can be deceiving". It's also possible part of his look is because Elidibus isn't there.

I also think back to Yoshi-P's comments before EW along the lines that things weren't as black and white as we thought. And I felt there was a lot of grey in Endwalker and with Emet in Shadowbringers. There's no great evil setting out to hurt people just to hurt or be cruel. There's flawed humans taking actions they think will help or fix things.

[OhNooo]

Despite ShB showing that excess light can be bad and foes can come in the form of angelic beings, I still felt that Zodiark was undermined by having a 'demonic' appearance especially as we don't have much (if any) experience with dark beings who look monstrous but are good. Hydaelyn, by comparison, being a beautiful angel even if it fit the lore just felt like more visual manipulation compared to Zodiark looking like a Lovecraftian horror.

If they wanted to subvert expectations, they could have made Zodiark look angelic and Hydaelyn look demonic.
ETA: that would definitely bring home the point that looks can be deceiving

[Rulakir]

If they wanted to subvert expectations, they could have made Zodiark look angelic and Hydaelyn look demonic.
ETA: that would definitely bring home the point that looks can be deceiving

I thought Zodiark might be darkly beautiful, like some kind of gothic prince (which instead is sort of in Pandemonium :P). I figured he was the will of the star that was seeking salvation, surely his appearance would reflect that. I also stupidly thought the box art for EW was based on the layperson's interpretation of Hydaelyn and Zodiark based on stories only to find out later that Yoshi-P took great pains to copy their appearances in game.

[Skyborne]

I thought Zodiark might be darkly beautiful, like some kind of gothic prince (which instead is sort of in Pandemonium :P). I figured he was the will of the star that was seeking salvation, surely his appearance would reflect that. I also stupidly thought the box art for EW was based on the layperson's interpretation of Hydaelyn and Zodiark based on stories only to find out later that Yoshi-P took great pains to copy their appearances in game.

I kind of figured they would resemble the 'elementals on steroids' like in the statues or their depictions on the wall murals, but I suppose that was just symbolic...

Also, daily reminder of this Convocation stone image from ShB

Notice anything? The writers either:
A. biased Endwalker to be in favor of a certain mother dearest's perspective and failed to acknowledge it like they did with ShB, and doubled down on it
or
B. completely retconned the ancient/convocation's motives in Endwalker and didn't acknowledge it

Big doubt they will say anything about it at this point and seem done with it. But I'm not! I will sit here and take a Nidhogg nap.