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

[jameseoakes]

@HollowedDoll

Edit: To all those talking about a world of "constant suffering and misery", have you never had a single joyful moment in your lives? Like...seriously how are none of you getting this?

Sure there are bad moments in life. Just like there are good moments. Such as when you are having fun with your friends, moments with your loved ones, etc.

Those of you that keep throwing up this argument, you really don't understand. A life of joy and happiness and nothing else, isn't a life at all.

You can't appreciate the happy or joyful moments in your life, if that is ALL you have in your life. You become bored of it.

I'd trade being a bit bored to live in a world where people don't starve or freeze to death. I don't think you need suffering to enjoy life especially as that as that suffering often leads to despair

[CrownySuccubus]

Edit: To all those talking about a world of "constant suffering and misery", have you never had a single joyful moment in your lives? Like...seriously how are none of you getting this?

Sure there are bad moments in life. Just like there are good moments. Such as when you are having fun with your friends, moments with your loved ones, etc.

Those of you that keep throwing up this argument, you really don't understand. A life of joy and happiness and nothing else, isn't a life at all.

You can't appreciate the happy or joyful moments in your life, if that is ALL you have in your life. You become bored of it.

You, like the story, are making the mistake of blending "coping" and "happiness" as the same thing.

They are not.

If I (hypothetically) murdered your family right now, you may one day get over it and learn to move on and forge a better life through the ashes. That is very possible. But that is you coping with tragedy. Trying to conflate the two is the same type of logic that sociopaths and social darwinists use. "I'm going to make your life hell, and if you survive, you'll thank me for it." "Sorry, having 3 hot meals a day is making you too soft, so I burned your house down and stole all of your money. Now go in the harsh wilderness and hunt, so you can savor every meal."

[Theodric]

I'd argue that the various caricature worlds were extremely far removed from any realistic trajectory and served as little more than a heavy handed way in which to undo the nuance and consequences of Shadowbringers.

'Venat had no choice' is suggesting that genocide is alright. That sometimes there's a good reason to partake of genocide. By that logic, the Rejoinings are entirely acceptable - except the story doesn't pretend that they are. Funny, that.

[Nilroreo]

Venat had no choice' is suggesting that genocide is alright. That sometimes there's a good reason to partake of genocide. By that logic, the Rejoinings are entirely acceptable - except the story doesn't pretend that they are. Funny, that.

In hindsight, I probably should've seen something like this coming back when Urianger and G'raha were discussing the plan to rewrite history. Not once throughout that cutscene does it ever cross their minds the collateral damage that would ensue, but instead they frame the act as an honorable sacrifice by the Ironworks, as if to imply they're the only ones expected to be negatively affected by it.

Somewhere along the way, the devs deemed it essential that we perceive the Wol and any of their close associates as nothing less than infallible. Any tragedies perpetrated by someone on our side going forward can no longer be considered acts of cruelty as long as we believe our actions to be just. The total obliteration of future hypothetical civilizations can and will be justified as long as we stand to benefit from them, and any victims of said tragedy will either never be addressed in or outside the game, or inevitably be flanderized into a one dimensional hivemind nation bound for self termination. The line between hero and villain is getting sharper.

Hey! We're not all bad

/pet

[Valfreyja]

The total obliteration of future hypothetical civilizations

So, what you're saying is that before taking any action in the world of the present, those involved should sit down and consider what effects it could have on civilizations that -might- exist someday, somewhere, and how said action will affect them.

That makes for a gripping story. We can go back to the ARR days where we have 5 or 6 quests where we run back and forth to get tidbits of dialogue discussing the ramifications of our potential actions on civilizations that may or may not exist a few hundred to a few thousand years from now.

But padding and story bloat is always good. I remember ARR quite fondly for all it had.

[PawPaw]

So, what you're saying is that before taking any action in the world of the present, those involved should sit down and consider what effects it could have on civilizations that -might- exist someday, somewhere, and how said action will affect them.

I really can't tell if this is a serious question. When deciding on whether or not to implement Time Travel to undo history, then yes. I think it's fair to ask that some time be taken to consider how this may affect civilizations of the future. You're trying to make it sound as though the poster suggested that we sit down and discuss every mundane point of action that we do in the game before we do it, but that is a misrepresentation of her statement.

[Valfreyja]

I really can't tell if this is a serious question. When deciding on whether or not to implement Time Travel to undo history, then yes. I think it's fair to ask that some time be taken to consider how this may affect civilizations of the future. You're trying to make it sound as though the poster suggested that we sit down and discuss every mundane point of action that we do in the game before we do it, but that is a misrepresentation of her statement.

That's the thing. Time Travel wasn't taken to undo history.

Time Travel was undertaken in order to try to figure out if people from Elpis could help understand what was going on with the Final Days.

You didn't go back to undo anything.

People are trying to act like the WoL going back in time was to change what happened. And that isn't what the story is. The WoL went back in time because they always did.

That's how it was portrayed and there is really no changing that fact now, no matter how hard people want to argue.

The WoL was present for the trigger of the Final Days. They played a role in it. Just like Hermes, Meteion, Venat, and Emet Selch all played their roles. None of them are solely responsible for it. Each of them had a part in it.

I meant future expansions. Civilizations that might currently exist in Meracydia, the new world, other shards etc.

But how are we threatening those civilizations? By what actions are we putting them at risk?

[Nilroreo]

So, what you're saying is that before taking any action in the world of the present, those involved should sit down and consider what effects it could have on civilizations that -might- exist someday, somewhere, and how said action will affect them.

That makes for a gripping story. We can go back to the ARR days where we have 5 or 6 quests where we run back and forth to get tidbits of dialogue discussing the ramifications of our potential actions on civilizations that may or may not exist a few hundred to a few thousand years from now.

But padding and story bloat is always good. I remember ARR quite fondly for all it had.

I meant future expansions. Civilizations that might currently exist in Meracydia, the new world, other shards etc.

[TaleraRistain]

It's fine if people want to have different opinions but it's not debating in good faith to throw "headcanon" at an idea that's based on what was said by the people who wrote the story.

https://novacrystallis.com/2022/02/f...dmap-detailed/

- Was Venat sundering the star truly the only way to save it? Yoshida consulted with Ishikawa, and says as Y’shtola theorized that the Ancients were so dense in aether that they could not control dynamis.
- Other Ancients concluded that Zodiark was the solution to Meteion’s song of oblivion, but Venat concluded that they could not change as a people and would be their own undoing.
- In The Dead Ends, the Da’la boss may have been a similar fate awaiting the Ancients in a different future. For that reason, she chose to sunder the star and dilute aether so that mankind could control dynamis and silence the song of oblivion.
- Venat herself concludes that this is not a moral or just decision and deeply agonizes over it. People have a lot of feelings about this.
- It was that decision, to sunder humanity so that they could control dynamis and kill the Endsinger that said that “Venat is really an Ancient, huh.” A parallel to Emet’s decision and judgment of humanity at the end of Shadowbringers.
- Hermes erases his own memory to, on his terms, judge humanity’s worth. That’s what ties Venat, Emet-Selch, and Hermes together.
- Emet-Selch is popular, but Yoshida agrees with Alphinaud telling him “what right does he have to do that?” If you go back and look at these parallels you might find them interesting.

[CrownySuccubus]

It's fine if people want to have different opinions but it's not debating in good faith to throw "headcanon" at an idea that's based on what was said by the people who wrote the story.

I'm sorry, but writers will say anything to make their stories sound deeper than they actually were. In addition, just because they intended one thing when they wrote it doesn't mean they executed it properly.

Was Venat sundering the star truly the only way to save it? Yoshida consulted with Ishikawa, and says as Y’shtola theorized that the Ancients were so dense in aether that they could not control dynamis.

Except they can create things that can. The very fact that Meteion exists proves this.

- In The Dead Ends, the Da’la boss may have been a similar fate awaiting the Ancients in a different future. For that reason, she chose to sunder the star and dilute aether so that mankind could control dynamis and silence the song of oblivion.

The Plenty, as we call it, is its own can of nonsense. An advanced, massively intelligent species that killed themselves because they're too perfect? Right. Sure.

- Venat herself concludes that this is not a moral or just decision and deeply agonizes over it. People have a lot of feelings about this.

"Don't you realize that this hurts me more than it hurts you?!"

- It was that decision, to sunder humanity so that they could control dynamis and kill the Endsinger that said that “Venat is really an Ancient, huh.” A parallel to Emet’s decision and judgment of humanity at the end of Shadowbringers.

Either Venat had more sense than the rest of the Ancients and was right to Sunder them, or she was just another Ancient no better than the rest of them and decided that she alone knew what was right. You can't have it both ways.

- Hermes erases his own memory to, on his terms, judge humanity’s worth. That’s what ties Venat, Emet-Selch, and Hermes together.

Okay, but why though?

Venat decided to accept Hermes' game on his terms and play existential chess with millions of lives at stake.