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

[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?

[Absimiliard]

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

I might briefly note the sundering did not actually split its victims up into new life the way many people seem to think. It tore them apart spiritually, aetherially, and physically before haphazardly reconstituting what remained into wholly new entities, per NieR Re[in]carnation's very much canon crossover event. These unfortunate beings weren't even sapient at first, incapable of even the most rudimentary of communication. About the only thing they could do was exist in a state of absolute agony until however much time passed. Even the ascians could not communicate with them despite their innate ability to speak with anything that possesses a soul. Gives you a pretty good idea of the kind of shape the sundered were in.

It's also worth pointing out how similar this is to the way life in general works in the setting. A creature dies, and its soul returns to the lifestream for X amount of time wherein it will either be broken down into raw aether for a new soul to form or sent back to reincarnate as it was, albeit without memories of its previous life. The physical component... well, I should think that one is fairly self-explanatory. Anyway, does this process mean people on Etheirys that die aren't really dead? After all, everyone born is comprised of the spiritual and physical remnants of people and things that preceded them.

[Turtledeluxe]

Idk the Nier event seems to indicate it was an attack so powerful that it resulted in the state of man. So that's another strike against it, possibly not being deliberate, which is something I've mentioned time and time again. Nice for that to be confirmed by the Nier crossover. It definitely can't definitively be called genocide.

[Vahlnir]

Idk the Nier event seems to indicate it was an attack so powerful that it resulted in the state of man. So that's another strike against it, possibly not being deliberate, which is something I've mentioned time and time again. Nice for that to be confirmed by the Nier crossover. It definitely can't definitively be called genocide.

Even as a Nier fan, the Nier crossover "story" made little to no sense whatsoever in the end, and that includes the weekly quests following the raids. You can't really use that for much of a basis for anything. It was very much its own thing with little to no consequence to the game world itself. It's a shame though. They had the potential to continue the Automata story from its secret ending, and that is where I thought it was going to go when I completed the first raid. Yoko Taro considers just about everything related to his games canon, no matter how outrageous. The 2nd raid set up...well, something, and I was actually kind of excited to see how it would end. The result? "Here's a final tribute in the form of a giant tower. PS, BUY NIER REPLICANT!" The end. Tragic. It was very clear that Yoko Taro couldn't have cared any less about it even if he tried. He doesn't even like FF XIV.

[Absimiliard]

Idk the Nier event seems to indicate it was an attack so powerful that it resulted in the state of man. So that's another strike against it, possibly not being deliberate, which is something I've mentioned time and time again. Nice for that to be confirmed by the Nier crossover. It definitely can't definitively be called genocide.

You uh... might wanna go play the game, my dude.

It was very clear that Yoko Taro couldn't have cared any less about it even if he tried. He doesn't even like FF XIV.

If memory serves, the Re[in]carnation side of the crossover involved extensive input from FFXIV's writers. In any case, it's considered reliable insofar as the information it provided about things in FFXIV are concerned.

Yoko Taro's team probably had more creative control over the NieR raids in FFXIV, ironically.

where else could I find proof that people have no idea what "context" means, and argue for two years over things the vast majority of the playerbase accepted as "necessary means to a cause that can widely be seen as pretty nice : life".

Different interpretations and values notwithstanding, I believe part of the disconnect stems from some people, myself included, thinking more deeply about the story than what the devs accounted for. In fact, I believe Yoshi-P even said as much at one point. It's not even really about Venat for a lot of the naysayers. It's more about how poorly things stand up to scrutiny. It's in human nature to value that which is shown over that which is told. For my part, I look at the story, specifically Venat's part in it for the sake of our discussion here, and I see a character that wasn't selfless or pure. I see a character that unilaterally decided on a course of action for an entire world and its inhabitants based on information about the future gained from a time traveler. A character so headstrong as to believe her way was the only way, and she confirmed this for herself by subjecting her people to a test they had no chance of passing without the information she withheld. This? This I'm fine with. Sometimes people are like that. I am not bothered by Venat's nature or even the actions she took. The story is what it is.

The problem I have is with how the narrative frames it. Wiping out all life on a planet, whether well-intentioned or not, is pretty messed up in just about any conceivable sense. It makes sense a lot of characters wouldn't get overly bent out of shape about something that really didn't affect them - we see this play out with people IRL all the time, not being moved by ancient, or even comparatively recent, events that had nothing to do with them. So this is also fine. I find it odd the Scions weren't even slightly bothered by it, but so be it. That's how people roll. What I found myself unable to reconcile specifically with Venat wasn't even Venat herself. We're told we should feel X way about the character and the events surrounding it, but what I saw in the game left me with a very different perception. If you want me to think something was an absolute necessity, then show me that. Don't tell me it and show me a bunch of stuff that'll turn it on its head under even cursory scrutiny.

Like I said, Venat as a character is fine. Her part in the narrative would've worked fine for me with better framing and more showing than telling. I'm well aware the majority disagree with this take, but I kinda don't care. It's my take, and while I am open to having my mind changed, I've yet to see anything that would.

As for people spending a year fighting it out, I might note that most people tend to react very poorly when someone tries to tell them their opinion, whether well-founded or not, is stupid. Not just wrong - stupid. The more you try to tell people they're stupid, a bad person, etc. for having a dissenting opinion, the more they will dig their heels in and keep defending their position. This is doubly true if it's about something they care about. FFXIV is something a lot of us have dumped far too much time and money into. It's something many of us used to thoroughly enjoy. People that care about something will want to be outspoken when they feel it's being harmed, or in the case of a game going in a direction they perceive as bad for its health.

As for me, I've already given up on the game at this point. I know the direction it's going in won't change, and I'm aware I am no longer its target demographic. I really only hang around because I'm keeping some friends' estates from getting demolished while they are off serving, and for the most part I only poke my head in these debates because I am bored out of my mind at work. :P Otherwise, I just comment in suggestion threads and the like in the vain hope at least some measure of the game I used to enjoy so thoroughly can be brought back.

[Nayukhuut]

Idk the Nier event seems to indicate it was an attack so powerful that it resulted in the state of man. So that's another strike against it, possibly not being deliberate, which is something I've mentioned time and time again. Nice for that to be confirmed by the Nier crossover. It definitely can't definitively be called genocide.

It can though. She deliberately performed the Sundering attack, having prior knowledge of what would happen when she did. Maybe she didn't know EVERYTHING that would happen, but she knew it would create an entirely new species of man, and leave her species behind. Though I have to admit that I do quite prefer the term omnicide after seeing it a few pages back. It makes more sense as not only did she Sunder the Ancients, but all life on the planet.

Even if for some reason she had no idea that her attacks would wipe out everything on the planet (since she remembers us, I will hold this is not the case), her actions still resulted in the unintentional death and change of every life currently existing. The fact that it might have been an mistake originally shouldn't absolve her of her crimes. Whether mistake or intentional (and I still hold that it is intentional), she still should be held accountable for the death she caused. Yet the story holds her in quite high light.

[Xirean]

It can though. She deliberately performed the Sundering attack, having prior knowledge of what would happen when she did. Maybe she didn't know EVERYTHING that would happen, but she knew it would create an entirely new species of man, and leave her species behind. Though I have to admit that I do quite prefer the term omnicide after seeing it a few pages back. It makes more sense as not only did she Sunder the Ancients, but all life on the planet.

Even if for some reason she had no idea that her attacks would wipe out everything on the planet (since she remembers us, I will hold this is not the case), her actions still resulted in the unintentional death and change of every life currently existing. The fact that it might have been an mistake originally shouldn't absolve her of her crimes. Whether mistake or intentional (and I still hold that it is intentional), she still should be held accountable for the death she caused. Yet the story holds her in quite high light.

There's actually an argument that she engaged in eugenics as well.




Oh and in case it gets missed on the bigger post edit. I'll post the second set of Venat quotes that further supports the argument that the Elpis visit does take place within the worlds direct history.

[Nayukhuut]

There's actually an argument that she engaged in eugenics as well.




Oh and in case it gets missed on the bigger post edit. I'll post the second set of Venat quotes that further supports the argument that the Elpis visit does take place within the worlds direct history.

Yup, absolutely. If any of the people that the game deemed as villains said/did something like that, the characters in the game would be horrified. Rightfully so, to be clear.

It drives me nuts that she always gets a pass, and and is still being propped up as a benevolent force. I know this is the way the game has decided to go, and I know I can't change that, but goodness I am still allowed to be irked by it.

Edit: And I know she calls herself out, but it is basically that one throwaway line and the rest of the MSQ treats her like she did nothing wrong, constantly calling us her children or her champion, and mentioning her in only positive light. I just would have preferred if the game held her a bit more accountable, and stopped putting her on a pedestal.