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

[FirstGearFirstGear]

You aren't really discussing with nuance when you brush aside omnicide as "demanding understandable justice". You are also ignoring a lot of the nuance that the writers gave Venat's actions. She does not immediately declare "Eff it" and sunder the world, she attempted to convince the Ancients to reject Zodiark and rebuild their civilization. Her long walk is not a peaceful and triumphant parade, it's a miserable slog where she is surrounded by the suffering she caused and tortured for her actions. "Answers" is not a anthem of victory, it's a dirge grappling with the cruelty that we are born destined to suffer and die. CBU3 absolutely did not declare that Hydaelyn = Totally Good and ignore any other perspective.

At the same time, it is impossible to ignore that the Sundering, however horrifying it was in the short term, did lead to good. It created vibrant worlds filled with life. And while that life struggled and suffered, it still endured and thrived. 99.99% of the characters the WoL meets wouldn't exist if Hydaelyn hadnt done what she did. She does not absolve herself of responsibility for the life, she fights for it, even at ruinous personal cost.

Venat's decision is sunder the world was a brutal one, and the writers don't shy away from that. But to declare it was universally evil isn't nuance. It's declaring that the only life that matters in the setting are Ancients enslaved to Zodiark.

[Brinne]

You aren't really discussing with nuance when you brush aside omnicide as "demanding understandable justice".

To be clear, I think the Rejoinings are as unacceptable and worthy as condemnation as the Sundering. I also think that the surviving victims of Hydaelyn's omnicide have the right to be outraged and demand justice against her for it. I also think the specific form that demand for justice took was an ugly, horrifying one that people also had every right to oppose, due to it involving mass amounts of people uninvolved with and not knowing the truth. If I worded that in a way that wasn't strong enough for you, okay, but that's where I stand. If you disagree with the idea that the surviving Ancients had a right to hold grievance to what was done to them, period, that what originally happened to the Ancients was an incredible injustice - then we're at a fundamental impasse.

You are also ignoring a lot of the nuance that the writers gave Venat's actions. She does not immediately declare "Eff it" and sunder the world, she attempted to convince the Ancients to reject Zodiark and rebuild their civilization.

This is a hell of a euphemism for "refused to, in full knowledge, tell them the truth about why anything happened, recited 'suffering good, so you should leave your loved ones to be tormented in purgatory forever and reject the one solution that saved the world', then murdered every single human being in retaliation because the majority didn't agree with her ideology while also willingly murdering every other life on the planet in the crossfire, still never telling a single person the truth or what the consequences would be."

Her long walk is not a peaceful and triumphant parade, it's a miserable slog where she is surrounded by the suffering she caused and tortured for her actions.

...in a way meant to inspire sympathy and awe for her "strength" and "iron will" as she Keeps Walking while uttering inspirational lines and instructions to the living that we are obviously meant to listen to, follow, and think of as noble, heroic, and cutting to great human truths. (This is obvious given the reception that the WoL gives her, and then the Scions give to her, after she repeats her "life is suffering and suffering will make you strong" creed, but even putting that aside--do you really think that sequence was designed to allow room for anyone to leave reacting, in line with the narrative, with "wow, Venat did a fucked up thing I can't say is good or bad!" No. That sequence is designed for the playerbase to go "she's so cool and strong and just like me!" The height of the manipulation was directly paralleling her tortured walk with our tortured walk. If she's meant to be seen as 'rightfully tortured' for the horrors she caused, what are we to make of the alignment with the WoL's 'tortured walk' when hit with the light? Because it's not about righteous, deserved torture. It's meant to be a portrayal of 'heroic strength.' Her endurance of other peoples' suffering was written to show off her own fortitude to continue even though the suffering of others was so clearly terrible for her to endure.)

"Answers" is not a anthem of victory, it's a dirge grappling with the cruelty that we are born destined to suffer and die.

Answers was retconned to be a creed to live by. We are meant to be inspired by its command to "live, die, and know" as a heartening, grim, but noble answer to the question of "why do we suffer?" Answers is not a song of mourning, the end. Answers is supposed to be right.

CBU3 absolutely did not declare that Hydaelyn = Totally Good and ignore any other perspective.

This is true! ...in the Omega quests, and pretty much nowhere else. Where else, after her motivations are revealed, is a Hydaelyn =/= Good perspective put forth?

At the same time, it is impossible to ignore that the Sundering, however horrifying it was in the short term, did lead to good. It created vibrant worlds filled with life. And while that life struggled and suffered, it still endured and thrived. 99.99% of the characters the WoL meets wouldn't exist if Hydaelyn hadnt done what she did.

I mean, I'm sure what you're saying is what the game meant for us to take from it. However, that just means that we return to, once again: genocide isn't necessarily evil if it works! Genocide isn't necessarily evil if it benefits us! Genocide isn't necessarily evil if the person committing it really believes it's for the greater good! Now add: genocide can create good results overall if you think of the act as only being horrifying in the short term!

She does not absolve herself of responsibility for the life, she fights for it, even at ruinous personal cost.

This is one of those things that sounds good as an outline, or as the general intent of the writing of the character, but then falls apart almost immediately when you actually look closely at the text of her actions. She takes responsibility for the life and fights for it - except for those seven worlds she wrote off when she decided to deliberately spare the Ascians as part of her plan to adhere to the timeline. She takes responsibility for the life and fights for it - as long as it's on the Source, and Sharlayan-approved. Everyone else is expendable and left to die. We're not even going to try to have an exit plan to save the people of the Shards.

But Yoshida can say in an interview that, gosh, she really agonized over all of this, and that just clears up everything. I'm not referring specifically to what you're saying here, to be clear - I'm saying it in a general way as reflecting on the shakiness and laziness or thoughtlessness of how this story and their intent was delivered in a way that did worse than undermine what they were trying to get across.

Venat's decision is sunder the world was a brutal one, and the writers don't shy away from that.

Abstracting it as much as possible and having no major NPC besides the toy robot beetle in a sidequest question it or call it out is pretty much textbook "shying away from it."

But to declare it was universally evil isn't nuance. It's declaring that the only life that matters in the setting are Ancients enslaved to Zodiark.

Hm. Nah.