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

[Rolder50]

Odd that I can't edit on mobile. :/

There's also the Mandervillian race that travels the stars inside host bodies if you count that as a "ship". We know they did this before the Endsinger as well so they probably predate Meteion all together.

I usually don't consider anything that happens in the Manderville quests as anything even close to canon.

[Xirean]

I usually don't consider anything that happens in the Manderville quests as anything even close to canon.

Why? It's in the game.

[OgruMogru]

Why? It's in the game?

Unfortunately >.>

[BRVV]

Yes but I think it's reasonable to assume that if someone is going into a situation with a negative preconception, they are significantly less likely to produce positive interactions. The way I phrased was reactionary because I felt you were being insulting and I respond to insults with dismissiveness, but what I am saying at the root is that your signature seems like a self fulfilling prophecy. That's not an attack on you as a person.

I skimmed through 30+ pages and a lot you posted had writing i would deem insulting. Not against me but i see it just like you and thought you were unable to write a post without insults. It seems i was wrong Sry to assume. In my defense i have seen things here...

But they aren't. You took a handful of quotes from early in the conversation when I honestly did not have a firm handle on what the takes ITT were (there ended being a lot, so many that I hit the post limit, which is why I was wary of your questions as bait).

So you not knowing all the takes yet excuses you being mean? I didn't know you hit the post limit. I'm not keeping track of everyones amount of posts.

Feeling like posts are trolling isn't anger and also, again, that was earlier in the topic and at the time I was seeing 'genocide genocide genocide' and it felt like lazy trolling, sure. It took a bit to get dialogue going that was focused on other elements of the story that are relevant. Yes, the idea no one would have believed Venat is just an opinion etc. (assuming the Elpis visit is the actual history) but I didn't say or imply in any way that it was a dev statement, lore, a side story, etc. I'm not closing off room for other opinions-- maybe the Elpis visit really is the true history of Eorzea, I just find it stupid. The player who likes that isn't stupid.

And you are free to think that. My impression was that you never acknowledged the fact that Venat should be called out for genocide / omnicide. You even moved the goalpost to the fact that it's just a video game. What this ignores is that the scions are somehow very against Garleans slaugthering others. We don't they get a free pass?

I think taking a sarcastic comment and turning it up to 11 as "antisocial psychopath" is a stretch. It's less about people disagreeing with me and more that I truly think part of what drives the criticism about EW (particularly the fact this thread won't die) is that people are often bothered when other people enjoy something they don't. It leads to a need to "expose the truth" etc. Although just to be clear, the onus is on me here as I was reckless with some of my commentary and unprepared for people to have genuine takes based on what I had already seen so far and the OP.

Yeah that happens. People being negative and trying to convince everyone it's bad is also a thing... a normalized take these times it seems. I didn't see this here, at least in what i read. This topic does from time to time slow down immensely. The funny thing is new posters writing stuff along the lines of "You are all just haters! EW was the best game ever!!!" seems to be the only thing making this topic hot again. And no i didn't mean you. There was however a poster who i almost quoted there. Months ago...

This is true but I'm not certain a TV show running for 10 years has as much collective dialogue as XIV. Between all those quests? Also TV shows don't have to account for a player experiencing each segment, which can affect the storytelling method chosen. Either way I'm not saying "have zero expectations", I'm saying "regarding the time travel, they don't want to explain it bc it won't make sense". And it won't because everyone has their own interpretation of it that they don't want to clamp down on. No matter where they clamp down there will be some logical inconsistency somewhere for someone.

FFXIV does not have alternate versions of dialog except for little <insertRace>, <insertGender> and <YouDidTheRaids> segments. So they don't have to keep a compley tree alive. Which is understandable. I am not taking dialog from some random ARR quest and pointing out how it doesn't make sense with an ShB Emmet speach or something like that. The MSQ however should make sense. I also believe the time travel rules should be made clear. With so much being vague, anything can happen. Which often results in: nothing matters.

I disagree on the time travel and clamping down. If i would be shown evidence in game, the MSQ preverably, that contradicts my assumptions about how the time travel works, i am completely willing to change my view. My whole point of view of it is made by what i see as the most logical conclusion to the vague (sometimes implied) rules i have been given by the game. It is very much possible i am completely wrong with what the writers intended.

[Turtledeluxe]

I disagree on the time travel and clamping down. If i would be shown evidence in game, the MSQ preverably, that contradicts my assumptions about how the time travel works, i am completely willing to change my view. My whole point of view of it is made by what i see as the most logical conclusion to the vague (sometimes implied) rules i have been given by the game. It is very much possible i am completely wrong with what the writers intended.

This is why I made the statement about people not being open minded, because it did not come across to me as though the "critical camp" of the timeline element in EW had any interest in entertaining other possibilities, but were more interested in pushing "Venat is genocidal" for shock value. I still have issues with labeling it genocidal because it's not exactly clear what Venat may have done in the past to work against Meteion, the abstraction shows that the pro Zodiark crowd was unwilling to change course, Venat herself says there was no alternative (could she have injurd Zodiark without sundering? it is unclear), and they were on a very short timetable as people were already dying. Even further than that, Venat solving problems in the past could possibly eliminate all life on the reflections by avoiding the sundering, which is also genocide and breaks the game. As such, the OP suggestion is also genocide, so it's a hypocritical solution, and I did not think people were talking about genocide were taking it seriously based on this. I would also note the way people are using the definition without regard to circumstance in general-- this idea that "well a large group was killed, so, genocide". If someone slips and falls onto a nuclear button and launches a nuclear assault on a large nation, are they genocidal? I would argue they're not. Yes it is a given Venat did not slip and fall onto the sundering nor was she completely ignorant of what she was doing, but it's not clear how much she knew what she was doing either and what other options she had available. That's why I am not willing to say anything other than "perhaps she was genocidal"-- I don't have enough information.

And again even if she knew exactly what was doing with the sundering and how it would create a devastated world of death where everyone was 1/12 of themselves, how is eliminating the future a solution to that problem?

[Lunaxia]

This is why I made the statement about people not being open minded, because it did not come across to me as though the "critical camp" of the timeline element in EW had any interest in entertaining other possibilities, but were more interested in pushing "Venat is genocidal" for shock value.

For what's it worth, this illustrates the point I was trying to make several pages back about the problems with using "genocide" in this context. Because it *is* such a powerful word that is infinitely more complex than its bare-bones dictionary definition would suggest, and with so much to unpack behind the general use and IRL application of the term, at absolute best it is highly simplistic to apply it to Venat's situation on the basis of "she wiped out an entire race", and at first impression it genuinely does sound like a statement made to cause a stir than it is to make a point. People who already struggle to conceive of the notion that Venat Did Bad here are quickly going to be alienated and assume it's a troll attempt, trying to equate something laden with the history and typical intent that genocide has to this particular situation and character, to the extent that it'll like as not be a permanent point of contention with both sides refusing to move past the issue of its usage.

If your main point is that Venat committed genocide, well, then I suppose it's not really a problem and that's your argument to make. If your point is highlighting the hypocrisy in the story and the flaws in its portrayal of Venat, that's when I suggest you're perhaps shooting yourself in the foot before you've even begun. That's the best way I can hope to explain it, anyway. Perhaps I've misunderstood that intention with some people here from the beginning.

I'd go through the past few pages to see where the discussion has gone since, but I think I'd need a bottle of gin for that and unfortunately I don't actually drink.

[Xirean]

If you think the use-age of the word genocide to describe the act of genocide is only for shock value or for trolling then you are entering the conversation in a disingenuous mindset from the start. When the game describes events that can only be termed as genocide and you refuse to call it genocide because it's too harsh a term then what good is the term? What is the purpose of labeling actions if the moment we attempt to use the correct word to label said action we are deemed as not being serious for one reason or another. To make a frustrating point clear, I'm in no way using the term genocide for shock value. I'm using it to describe the exact events that took place in the story because that's simply what happened. Quite frankly to say otherwise just feels like being a contrarian just for the lols. I understand that people have different perceptions and interpretations of events, but quite frankly when I'm told rather blatantly that someone just made up an explanation for things that are already explained and am expected to take that seriously I have to wonder, what are you even doing? It genuinely comes off as "yeah I didn't like or understand what was happening so I just decided something else happened instead". If that feels harsh, rude, or downplaying your interpretation I'm sorry, but that is very much how it reads. I'm more than willing to have a discussion about the events of the story and explore other avenues of interpretation, but I need sources for that.

[Lunaxia]

If you think the use-age of the word genocide to describe the act of genocide is only for shock value or for trolling then you are entering the conversation in a disingenuous mindset from the start.

This is honestly ridiculous, and I've repeated myself about five times over why that isn't the case and the issue of individual perceptions. If you foist all responsibility for the way you explain yourself and how you come across on other people, you'll struggle to be taken seriously.

When the game describes events that can only be termed as genocide and you refuse to call it genocide because it's too harsh a term then what good is the term?

To be used in instances outside of a fantasy video game where applicable and isn't used in reference to discussing the bad writing surrounding immortal demi-gods and giant intergalactic harbingers of despair, I imagine.

To make a frustrating point clear, I'm in no way using the term genocide for shock value. I'm using it to describe the exact events that took place in the story because that's simply what happened.

I'm not sure how many times I can say "in your view" without it losing all meaning. Yes, you can tell me you're not using it for shock value, but that's not much good if that's not the impression it gives to others. That's where I'm saying it might be worth pausing to consider what you're saying before assuming it's down to everyone thinking the worst of you or the absolute best of Venat.

I understand that people have different perceptions and interpretations of events

Okay, and that's really all I'm saying, so why are you arguing the point so much and doubling down as if your view is an automatic fact that should be immediately accepted as such, otherwise the person is being "disingenuous"?

but quite frankly when I'm told rather blatantly that someone just made up an explanation for things that are already explained and am expected to take that seriously I have to wonder, what are you even doing?

That's an issue with that poster, and not actually related to what I'm talking about.

I'll reiterate - use whatever terminology you like, but ask yourself what the point of these pages of arguing, debating, going back-and-forth and engaging with other posters is for, for you personally, and what battles you want to actually spend your time fighting. That's it.

I'm not interested in having this discussion further, and I'm stepping back from the thread. I've seen some ugly sides to some posters I rather regret, and rather than foster any more ill will in a place I've previously found some enjoyment and relief in frequenting in the past, I'll leave it here, considering Endwalker is reaching its end anyway. May Dawntrail be a happier experience for most of you than this one has been, and you derive from this thread whatever you hope to find until then.

[Turtledeluxe]

I want to consider the actual definition of genocide. Says here:

"Genocide is the deliberate, organized destruction of racial or ethnic groups by a government or its agents. It can involve..."

Nothing about the post bothered me but I can't agree it's not being used for shock value. How does it even fit the criteria aside from the fact lots of people died? It may have been deliberate but it wasn't particularly organized, Venat isn't a government agent or anything comparable, and she wasn't targeting a group based on their race or ethnicity but rather their attitude and solutions to the Final Days. So honestly how is it genocide? A better term would maybe be a massacre.

And even then massacres don't usually beget new life. I'm not quite sure we have a suitable word for what it is except a sundering. Maybe that's why the game calls it that, actually.

And I'm not being sarcastic. They're technically not humans ...is it even appropriate to apply human terms to them that don't function on a level that accounts for the fantasy element? I'm not sure you're supposed to be looking at it from a human perspective but maybe as a sort of mythological occurrence since they're akin to progenitor gods. You can't really sunder a human soul...or maybe you can XIV doesn't make it clear if the Shards can theoretically be further divided.

Also nothing in the game calls it anything close to genocide. No dev has ever called it genocide. I'm not sure what you are implying as far as other people being in denial to be completely honest. It is interesting that you need sources because I'm not aware of any source that confirms what happened in genocide. Could you provide that or is it coming from your..gasp..interpretation?

[Xirean]

This will be a lengthy post. My apologies in advance.

My understanding of the current discussion is that people are under the impression that these 3 characters may not be all the same person.

Hydaelyn on the boat ride to Sharlayan

Venat in Elpis

Hydaelyn before trial

I would first like to state that on it's own, this is a fair assumption to make. In any story where time travel is a plot tool it's good to be skeptical of such things. So let's discuss that with specifics.

Recap

Starting with the boat version, she is the Hydaelyn we know from ARR up until we speak with Elidibus in the Crystal Tower during EW. She has an accusation against her from Emet-Selch and a lot of suspicion from the WoL, especially during the boat scene.
She is the reason the WoL did not die when facing the Ultima Weapon and Lahabrea.
We know that she, through the body of Minfilia, stopped the flood of light on the first.
There's also the question of why did she deny Ardbert's sacrifice while accepting his friends when stopping said flood.

Next there is Venat whom the WoL meets in Elpis. She directly calls the WoL out as being from the future and asks them a lot of questions about that future. She is also very confused about the WoL's tale of Hydaelyn and the actions that Venat supposedly took as her. Additionally she lands a spell on a fleeing Meteion.

Lastly there is Hydaelyn in the Aetherial Sea. She is aware that the WoL once journeyed to Elpis and remembers them. After being questioned by Y'shtola about the reason for the sundering to create beings who could manipulate dyanamis she admits this to be true. Notably in the same dialogue box she states "There was no kindness or justice in the tragedy I wrought." and that the sundering of the world was her only recourse against Zodiark.

So, are they all the same person? Setting the nature of 2 being a primal aside there's a few things we can draw upon. First I would like to compare the worlds the WoL leaves behind and returns to. To my knowledge there is no change; no additional or missing structures, no mention of there being more or less Calamities. Zenos is still biding his time for his rematch against the WoL while being bound to a voidsent with the same appearance as before. All 3 unsundered as well as Fandaniel remain dead and Zodiark is still destroyed putting The Source in the exact same Final Days state the WoL left it in. There's even a special dialogue from Alisae if you completed the Binding Coils of Bahamut which means the world the WoL has returned to also responds to prior quest progression. To be clear, none of this is definitive proof that the WoL has returned to the same world and thus the same Hydaelyn. It is however indistinguishable from the world they departed from.


We do however have some quotes from Hydaelyn in the Aetherial Sea that potentially ties her to Elpis Venat.

This still doesn't prove they are the same person, but it does prove that this Hydaelyn remembers a WoL from Elpis. Does this confirm that this Hydaelyn was told the same things as the Venat we spoke to? No. That being said the information above lends credit to the argument that they are all the same person. Without some authorial statement or a view from a higher perspective in game we likely won't have solid confirmation that they are the same person. There's quite a few story moves that could invalidate this in an instant, such as an incursion from another timeline; though that seems unlikely, especially considering we are supposed to be done with this arc of the story.

I would like to note with this that we still have access to Elpis as an explore-able map and can therefore get new quests there any patch. This permanent access to Elpis is what I interpret to be the meaning of "conjunction between your time and mine". It is very possible that a split timeline could still occur and maybe that is some sort of backup plan later down the road. Who knows? That possibility though does cause me to believe that Elpis Venat has the potential to not become the Hydaelyn we know or potentially even at all. I'm left to conclude that the Elpis timeline is set to loop and replay the exact same events, eventually sending its own WoL back to another Elpis to begin the cycle again; unless something new comes along and messes with that time loop. I hold this view only because we appear to have permanent access. Although the Pandaemonium raid quests seem to present the WoL's arrivals in Elpis as a rare thing.

Additionally, this is all my justification for my theory that Hydaelyn purposefully held Ardbert back and put him in a state of purgatory with the explicit intent to merge with the WoL. During ShB it was and unknown element of the story and EW has provided an answer, though unconfirmed, but an answer none the less.

If you find this explanation disagreeable, please explain.

Edit: Apparently I forgot to include the second set of quotes from Hydaelyn to support the argument. I have added them now.