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

[Turtledeluxe]

The future wasn't certain. That's kinda the point. Venat didn't know if she could reach the outcome she sought or not. All she could do was use the knowledge she was given to try for it, and that is precisely what she did. Obviously the narrative took the direction of her being successful, but from an in-universe perspective nothing was over til it was over. Things could've gone awry at any time.

So in the case of the attack, we tell her what she does. In the case of Emet, we don't. Got it. I don't subscribe to your single timeline theory anyway, but you don't seem to be able to make it make sense. That's considering you're in denial that Elidibus spells out that fate can't be changed. And no I didn't take out context, he does tell you that your actions won't affect the future. In that sense with Shadowbringers, we weren't coming at that story from a future point of that world but another. So it's not comparable at all. You cannot say it works just like 5.0 because we don't have access to the future of 5.0 as we did with 6.0 when we visited Elpis.

And my point is that, you cannot cite the same specific assign intention to the sundering if by your own logic it's all just a gamble. Maybe this time, she was just trying to sunder Zodiark, or the local area, and not the entire world. Maybe this time she didn't want to create reflections. Or does something exist that distinguishes what the other possibilities she was accounting for here? Is there a resource for what we told her and what we didn't? Since she was accounting for Emet not surviving (and by extension everything going differently as a result of her attack)? And yes, that's even if you use her words at the end of the trial, because the way she explains it makes her seem disappointed, not pleased. That's even if you use the JP quote by the way because "what's done is done" can also be interpreted as reisignation and/or regret.

What lore are you referring to that she didn't know what her attack would do? We literally tell her what she does. The walk cutscene, while not a literal retelling of events, shows her doing it deliberately. Also on the mention of not everyone dying; you're right there were THREE survivors from the entire planet. It's also worth noting that the use of the term genocide is not reliant on the effectiveness of said genocide. Not everyone has to be dead for us to call it what it is.

Which reminds me you can keep throwing around the word genocide, intention always matters.

[Lunaxia]

So in the case of the attack, we tell her what she does. In the case of Emet, we don't. Got it. I don't subscribe to your single timeline theory anyway, but you don't seem to be able to make it make sense. That's considering you're in denial that Elidibus spells out that fate can't be changed. And no I didn't take out context, he does tell you that your actions won't affect the future.

We tell her everything, but we can't tell her the exact details of how everything came to pass, because we don't know either. All she could do was try her best to set up the circumstances that would seemingly permit our future to happen, so in that respect, there was always going to be some unavoidable risk involved.

And when Elidibus says "you cannot affect change", he isn't saying we are incapable of doing so - he's saying that we can't if we want our future (the present as is) to come to pass, and to that end, for the timeline to stay as is.

Yet even should you manage to interact with others, you will be unable to effect meaningful change. For the reality you wish to save—the reality to which you must return—exists as a result of the Final Days. You cannot reshape the past to undo the tragedies of the present. Cannot unmake the sorrow and suffering fated to come.

So he's saying even if you want to help, you can't, because if you throw everything off balance by trying to change things, you risk jeopardising the current world we're going back in the past to save in the first place.

You cannot say it works just like 5.0 because we don't have access to the future of 5.0 as we did with 6.0 when we visited Elpis.

??? It is the same, we're just G'raha in this scenario. Only we want to preserve our future, whereas G'raha wanted to do the opposite and undo theirs.

Maybe this time, she was just trying to sunder Zodiark, or the local area, and not the entire world. Maybe this time she didn't want to create reflections. Or does something exist that distinguishes what the other possibilities she was accounting for here?

Nope, everything had to proceed as it did in our world's past, otherwise we wouldn't exist to be able to battle Meteion. Everything had to happen the way it originally did, including the Sundering, the shards and the Ascians going about their shenanigans with Calamities, for the outcome that she believed the most in to be able to happen.

[Turtledeluxe]

We tell her everything, but we can't tell her the exact details of how everything came to pass

And the entire premise of the this conversation that has spanned needless pages now is that she knowingly committed genocide down the very details. So what you're establishing is that she didn't, which is what I've been saying. She expended her energy on an attack to bring down Zodiark because there was no other choice but to divide his power and conquer. Even if she had clues about the future, her and her followers failed to solve the problem in time as the walkng sequence (which is clearly an abstraction representative of days, weeks, months of interactions between Venat and others) shows us. She didn't really know exactly what the sundering would result in as far as what exact state it would leave humanity in it because how would the WoL tell her all of that? Finally and most importantly, the game doesn't frame her as perfect nor does it frame her solution as unquestionable. You're supposed to question it because who was really right in the conflict-- the group who wanted a tempered future that rendered the earth a false paradise or the group whose solution was to splinter their power in a reckless attack that went far beyond merely weakening humanity? And that's assuming you subscribe to the "we revised history to be one timeline" take, which I don't. But even if you do, the story makes sense and Venat isn't some genocidal maniac. Emet is, Yotsuyu is, Durante is, Zenos is. Venat is not. It's worth noting as well that the game confirms Hydaelyn was summoned exactly the same as Zodiark-- which means she had a heart and other people on her side (most likely a significant number of people).

So he's saying even if you want to help, you can't, because if you throw everything off balance by trying to change things, you risk jeopardising the current world we're going back in the past to save in the first place.

In the very next quote you are saying Graha wanted to undo their future. I'm not how you can reconcile your own interpretation of this statement with what you said there. So, is some magic rule governing our time travel that Graha is not subject to? You're just misintrepreting what's being said. Time travel, in FFXIV, doesn't change reality. The variables can change, but it cannot be meaningful change,the result will be the same. Whether Graha travels back to the First or not, it would've theoretically been Flooded and eventually saved. Whether we travel to Elpis or not, the Final Days are bound to be instigated where they will affect our current reality. That's what he is saying. He's not just saying "you can't help".

N

ope, everything had to proceed as it did in our world's past, otherwise we wouldn't exist to be able to battle Meteion. Everything had to happen the way it originally did, including the Sundering, the shards and the Ascians going about their shenanigans with Calamities, for the outcome that she believed the most in to be able to happen.

Exactly, I'm glad we agree.

That pretty much sums up my thoughts overall on why the rhetoric about genocide is so bizarre and why the story, even if you believe in a single timeline, actually does make sense. It is believable? Maybe not. That's not what people have been arguing. What actually doesn't make sense, is how the time loop affects the rest of the game prior to EW with respect to Hydaelyn.

[Nayukhuut]

That pretty much sums up my thoughts overall on why the rhetoric about genocide is so bizarre and why the story, even if you believe in a single timeline, actually does make sense. It is believable? Maybe not. That's not what people have been arguing. What actually doesn't make sense, is how the time loop affects the rest of the game prior to EW with respect to Hydaelyn.

How is people wanting to call her out bizarre? It doesn't matter if her actions brought the world we live in. It doesn't even matter if we LIKE the world we live in. What matters is that her actions ended up killing entire worlds full of people that did not want to die. We can appreciate what we have now, but still say that Venat was wrong to toy with the lives of so many. An awful act is still an awful act, even if a supposed hero does it.

[Turtledeluxe]

How is people wanting to call her out bizarre? It doesn't matter if her actions brought the world we live in. It doesn't even matter if we LIKE the world we live in. What matters is that her actions ended up killing entire worlds full of people that did not want to die. We can appreciate what we have now, but still say that Venat was wrong to toy with the lives of so many. An awful act is still an awful act, even if a supposed hero does it.

It wasn't world's full of people and many of them did want to die, by literally serving a summon who recurring called for sacrifices and tempered the rest. I wouldn't call being permanently tempered living. It's bizarre because you're either being obtuse or just don't realize that Zodiark was only a good solution for people who were content permanently serving and sacrificing for him in order to act as a shield against the Final Days.

And I keep having to remind everyone-- Hydaelyn was a group effort. So it's not the awful act of Venat, it's the awful act of a collective. And it isnt awful because as I keep saying, the force required to injure Zodiark had the byproduct of sundering. Its not "Venat plotted to send humans back to the dark ages". If anything your hyper focus on Venat seems very odd. I don't notice anyone calling out or making threads about the myriad other genocidal people in the story who are also framed as heros at particular points or even have redemption arcs. I think the real issue you have is deeper than that.

Venat doesn't even really get a redemption arc. It's a confession and then we kill her.

[Nayukhuut]

It wasn't world's full of people and many of them did want to die, by literally serving a summon who recurring called for sacrifices and tempered the rest. I wouldn't call being permanently tempered living. It's bizarre because you're either being obtuse or just don't realize that Zodiark was only a good solution for people who were content permanently serving and sacrificing for him in order to act as a shield against the Final Days.

And I keep having to remind everyone-- Hyaelyn was a group effort. So it's not the awful act of Venat, it's the awful act of a collective. And it isnt awful because as I keep saying, the force required to injure Zodiark had the byproduct of sundering. Its not "Venat plotted to send humans back to the dark ages". If anything your hyper focus on Venat seems very odd. I don't notice anyone calling out or making threads about the myriad other genocidal people in the story who are also framed as heros at particular points or even have redemption arcs. I think the real issue you have is deeper than that.

Venat doesn't even really get a redemption arc. It's a confession and then we kill her.

We don't call out the other mass murderers because the story is happy to call them out for us. All we are asking is that it actually do the same to Venat. Her scene before we kill her wasn't that. It was basically her saying "I have done something awful" and us comforting her for it. I don't want to comfort her, I want to agree with her that she did something awful.

As for many of them not wanting or wanting to die, while it's kinda awful that you do not considered Tempered people living as we have shown that Tempering is reversible, what about the innocent people on the Shards who had to die before wee got to the point where her plan might work? She knew about them. They certainly did not want to die.

And yes, I am aware of her followers and I do not care for them other. A small group who all decided that they knew better for the world and then planned to force their will on it. Now the Twelve are forever soured in my mind too since they are all just based on Venat followers, and creations of Venat herself. The reason I do not mention them, though, is that Venat never entirely told them what was up. They followed her like good little sheep and she led them to their doom.

That said, I am not sure arguing with you has much of a point since you basically keep trying to argue that even the most vile things are okay and should never be questioned so long as they lead to an outcome we like. Which is a valid viewpoint, I suppose. It is just not one I can agree with. I figure that we can acknowledge the world we live in now, while still calling out Venat for being a crap person.

[Turtledeluxe]

We don't call out the other mass murderers because the story is happy to call them out for us. All we are asking is that it actually do the same to Venat. Her scene before we kill her wasn't that. It was basically her saying "I have done something awful" and us comforting her for it. I don't want to comfort her, I want to agree with her that she did something awful.

The game does call her out but in less impactful ways (such as by asking if she's justified directly and killing her), most likely because of the nostalgia associated with her from before they decided to turn her into an arrogant Ancient. I think the MMORPG element played a role in this decision to be totally honest. I think it's a little disingenuous though to suggest the game never tries to bait you into thinking Hydaelyn is either evil or making a mistake though-- it does it more and more as the game ages.

As for many of them not wanting or wanting to die, while it's kinda awful that you do not considered Tempered people living as we have shown that Tempering is reversible, what about the innocent people on the Shards who had to die before we got to the point where her plan might work? She knew about them. They certainly did not want to die.

I'm not sure what you're talking about. The entire tragedy of Zodiark is the massive sacrifice that had to be made. That means voluntary death. As far as people who supported his continued existence, that's pretty similar to desiring death because they had no idea tempering was reversible. And if Emet's dialogue is anything to go by, they were pretty intoxicated by him. It's not like his effects would extend to the Convocation and that's it. He would inevitably continue tempering. As far as Venat's sundering, you guys really need to get over it. The entire point of the conflict is that it's tragic and no one was right.

Your outrage entirely hinges on the game condoning her or your not having a dialogue box saying "I hate you". Is it really that serious???? The game doesn't totally condone her and they forgot your text box.

The story isn't about me and my moral pandering or ego stroking. I'd also note not only are you kind of morally judgy but not everyone interpreted the story they way you did. Most people interpreted Venat's walk through the Final Days as the original act as it happened (without the Elpis visit) so it's not viewed as "mass murder". And you may think "wow that's crazy"but did you even watch the scene...? Venat is clearly relaying what happens as though she is taken aback but willing to continue on..and to elaborate what I mean by surprised is that she knew she was sundering but I don't think she anticipated the state it put humanity in and/or prepared for the weight of the consequences.

And tbh I'm not entirely sure if the walk abstraction is a reference to the original timeline or the modified Elpis timeline, because we don't know if the MSQ is operating on a single timeline (with a time loop) or if the Elpis visit is a seperate, deviant timeline we just leave.