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

[aveyond-dreams]

I wonder how people would feel about Venat if she were physically ugly.

I mean there were people who said that she must be good because she has a soothing voice so with an outlook that superficial maybe then they'd actually be able to connect the dots and see her as the villain she objectively is.

[Eisi]

I mean there were people who said that she must be good because she has a soothing voice so with an outlook that superficial maybe then they'd actually be able to connect the dots and see her as the villain she objectively is.

I mean it's pretty clear that the writers intended for her to be a tragic hero based on the way she was portrayed. They just botched the narrative and inadvertently made her villainous by implication. It's the nonsense plot that ruins her, not the way she was portrayed.

Having Venat be an explicit villain wouldn't have fixed Endwalker.

By the way Aveyond, the story in FFXIV has always been bad, including Heavensward. Haurchefant's death was complete bullcrap not just logistically but in terms of how it tries to pull at our heartstrings for a character nobody gave much of a damn about just because they weren't willing to sacrifice someone of actual import. The resurrection of Nanamo and every single scion after the bloody banquet deflated all sense of danger there could possibly exist going further. The Warriors of Darkness are portrayed as sadistic jerks until they become tragically misunderstood. Every single long-standing character's death in this game has been a prolonged, explicit noble slomo sacrifice, Moenbryda (not that long-standing but whatever), Papalymo, Haurchefant, Ysayle, Minfilia, nobody you know for more than a few hours just gets bloody taken out.

You hate Endwalker not just because it's trash on its own (which it is). You hate it because it's a grand finale that didn't retroactively make the bs that came before worth it. It's final season of Game of Thrones syndrome where people pretend that the show hadn't already been absolute bullcrap in season 5.

The last time FFXIV's story was good was in the end of eorzea cutscene.

Italics part is a little bit of a joke.

[Solarra]

Changing the subject slightly -
The short story about Venat and the Watcher was interesting and again, I think it failed to convey what the writers intended.

The fact that Venat reveals her face to the Watcher for no good reason was probably meant to show her as a free spirit who defied stuffy old convention. However, in the Ancients' society the wearing of masks was explicitly (iirc) adopted in an attempt to prevent prejudice or people using their looks to advantage.

So, here we have a very pretty young woman approaching a lonely scholar who she has no interest in personally and revealing her face to him. The fact that she only seemed to visit the Watcher on occasions when she needed something, made her come across as either scheming or completely insensitive to his feelings, neither of which is a good look. The watcher is clearly smitten by Venat both for her intellect and her looks, but I felt that if he'd had any close friends (which doesn't seem to be the case), they'd have been trying to alert him to the fact that he was being used.

For the record, I don't 'hate' Venat, but I do feel she's probably one of the worst-written heroes I've come across in FF. There is nothing particularly heroic about her actions in causing the sundering and I feel her treatment of the Watcher is pretty callous. That could have made her into an interesting character, except that similar to Hermes, the game constantly ignores her flaws and pushes us into expressing unquestioning approval of her motives and actions.

[KageTokage]

That could have made her into an interesting character, except that similar to Hermes, the game constantly ignores her flaws and pushes us into expressing unquestioning approval of her motives and actions.

I still find it particularly grating how we're harboring doubt and distrust of her all the way up until we get the talk from the Watcher post-Zodiark, then it just kinda vanishes even when he basically states "Why yes, she was lying, but she had good reasons."...which literally no one actually questions and just accepts; even Thancred who could've reasonably have had some beefs for reasons pertaining to both Minfilia and Ryne.

The prior story has also gotten us accustomed to thinking that the life of a friend is something too valuable to be sacrificed for any reason...yet she's willing to convince the Watcher and her followers to give their lives up for a cause that they didn't even fully understand, whilst "our" Azem couldn't stomach sacrificing lives even for a cause that was as the story described quite literally the only option they had left to them.

[Heroman3003]

Honestly, the endless discourse over "Who is most most justified in their genocides - Emet Selch, Venat or Hermes" really is incapsulated well in that one Alpha and Omega post-EW quest, where when given option you can choose which of three was "justified", or say that they were all justified in their own ways or... Say that all three were wrong. Hydaelyn is not supposed to be 100% sympathetic, she is only portrayed so because she is our ally. Same with how Emet Selch is not supposed to be fully villanous in EW, but he is portrayed negatively due to being an enemy. Hell, even the most evil character in the game - Zenos - is given a somewhat more sympathetic light purely for joining our side for a time. Gaius Baelsar is forgiven despite his countless crimes because he helps us fight a common foe. Etc, etc. Game's portrayal of characters primarily revolves around "us vs them", not around how good or bad or morally grey they are. Throughout the game we had allies good, allies evil and allies grey. Hydaelyn/Venat is meant to be a grey ally. Not evil villain, not hero who did no wrong. I think the portrayals of her as either pure good or pure evil are ignoring good chunks of her character. Such as the fact that she herself recognizes that what she's done is NOT good, yet she sees it as necessary evil. Same for the other two - Emet Selch and Hermes. All did what they believed for the best, despite knowing full well that what they did was horrible. All three of these characters are meant to be grey; and leave player drawing their own conclusions on whose philosophy they align with more. The game never presents true 'right' option for this specific conundrum, because the intent is to show there isn't one. And yet Hydaelyn will be looked on favorably, because ultimately, she was a guide and a protector for us and our allies, Hermes will be looked on as a man who wanted to find meaning and failed, and Emet Selch will be looked as a respectable enemy who fought for what he truly believed in until the very end. Because from perspective of our protagonist and our side of the story, thats what they were. Thats why their portrayals are the way they are. Not the 'they are portrayed good because writers are trying to make them appear good' nonsense.

[Fiel_Tana]

Hydaelyn/Venat is meant to be a grey ally. Not evil villain, not hero who did no wrong. I think the portrayals of her as either pure good or pure evil are ignoring good chunks of her character.

Yet the game declares her a "Herois" and gives our WoL no chance to question her or what she did after we learnt how the final days actually came about.

They may have meant to make her morally grey (and tbh, I'm not sure what their intentions were), but it's one of the many cases in EW where what is shown (events in game) is not what is told (by NPC's or our own WoL). That's where the disconnect many of us are feeling comes from regarding that character.

[Graeham]

So, here we have a very pretty young woman approaching a lonely scholar who she has no interest in personally and revealing her face to him. The fact that she only seemed to visit the Watcher on occasions when she needed something, made her come across as either scheming or completely insensitive to his feelings, neither of which is a good look. The watcher is clearly smitten by Venat both for her intellect and her looks, but I felt that if he'd had any close friends (which doesn't seem to be the case), they'd have been trying to alert him to the fact that he was being used.

Is the good point. In traditional masculine No Shadow God society is responsible of female chara to hide the sexuality with the mask and sack cloth to stop the accident seducing of the male chara. Otherwise is overcome by the lust and chara he can not think. Is the sneaky trick of the Miranda. Venar by take off the mask is deliberate to tempting the male into sin. It is truth in the theocracy of No Shadow God.

Yet the game declares her a "Herois" and gives our WoL no chance to question her or what she did after we learnt how the final days actually came about.

We can not stand it. They call her herois. HeRoIs. What is word herois mean. Why is ghost writer use hard word from other language. Where is guild google translator.

[Heroman3003]

Yet the game declares her a "Herois" and gives our WoL no chance to question her or what she did after we learnt how the final days actually came about.

They may have meant to make her morally grey (and tbh, I'm not sure what their intentions were), but it's one of the many cases in EW where what is shown (events in game) is not what is told (by NPC's or our own WoL). That's where the disconnect many of us are feeling comes from regarding that character.

The game doesn't give us chance to question many characters. The only times we can actively ask things is when its relevant to immedeate plot, not some grander scheme of things. As for Herois, idk, I never pay mind to spoiler minion names as something relevant. Might as well be referring to her past Azem role. I don't think that part is attempt of agenda-pushing. As for disconnect, it is expected and is only natural because what is shown is shown from neutral perspective of "player looks at what happens", and what is told is told from perspective of one, clear, biased side for which there is a good and a bad that may not be entirely moral in grander cosmic scheme.

I simply feel like pointing out that any interpretation of Venat that paints her as purely heroic or purely villanous is contradictory to what we *see* in the game regarding her and Hydaelyn, and same applies to Hermes and to character who stands right on same level as those two, but does not get that level of critique because he was lucky enough to be game's first proper tumblr sexyman and first well-written and well-explored villain - Emet Selch.

[AwesomeJr44]

The game doesn't give us chance to question many characters.

This is not necessarily a good thing.

[Heroman3003]

This is not necessarily a good thing.

It's not, I agree. But it is a fact of the writing, and I dont think its fair to leverage that as example of 'proof' of bias towards/against certain characters precisely because of it.