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

[Absimiliard]

I've never actually heard of the term myself, so I'm one of the people in that camp, lol. On preliminary research, it seems a fairly neutral term typically relating to human extinction in some form. It may not be the best fit here, though, since it appears to describe scenarios that occur passively or indirectly as a result of human action rather than actively requiring a perpetrator. You could say what Venat did resulted in in the omnicide of Etheriys, but not that she committed it, I think?

I believe it's one of those terms that can work with or without a perpetrator. The term really seems to be a catch-all for extinction level events with a discernible and presumably non-natural cause. I grabbed this little tidbit fram Merriam-Webster's:
"As our understanding grows, so does the horror. What we face now is not merely slaughter or genocide, but "omnicide," the obliteration of all humans and all living species.—Penney Kome and Patrick Crean"

For our purposes here, I'm of the opinion Venat would indeed qualify as a perpetrator of omnicide. I'm certain plenty of others disagree, but that's kinda my take on it. While it can be argued the shredded up constituent aetherial and physical matter of the world's inhabitants ultimately coalesced into new beings, the simple reality is that those are not the same people or creatures they were. Those people are gone forever, as are all of the old world's other inhabitants. It's certainly extinction of a sort. My own personal philosophy leads me to feel this is in fact worse than simply being killed in the conventional sense, but that's a different discussion entirely.

[Nayukhuut]

I believe it's one of those terms that can work with or without a perpetrator. The term really seems to be a catch-all for extinction level events with a discernible and presumably non-natural cause. I grabbed this little tidbit fram Merriam-Webster's:
"As our understanding grows, so does the horror. What we face now is not merely slaughter or genocide, but "omnicide," the obliteration of all humans and all living species.—Penney Kome and Patrick Crean"

For our purposes here, I'm of the opinion Venat would indeed qualify as a perpetrator of omnicide. I'm certain plenty of others disagree, but that's kinda my take on it. While it can be argued the shredded up constituent aetherial and physical matter of the world's inhabitants ultimately coalesced into new beings, the simple reality is that those are not the same people or creatures they were. Those people are gone forever, as are all of the old world's other inhabitants. It's certainly extinction of a sort. My own personal philosophy leads me to feel this is in fact worse than simply being killed in the conventional sense, but that's a different discussion entirely.

I had been using genocide, but I agree with you, omnicide is more fitting. I just never really considered the word, but I had been previously arguing that not only did she wipe out the Ancients, but all life on the planet, so it fits. I know the game wants me to view Venat in a positive light, but I just can't.

It colours basically everything her lore touches in game, sadly. For example, after the revelation that the Twelve were just more chess pieces put into place to manipulate the world into what she decided it should be/keep it in the broken state she put it in, I really just wish that I could elect not to have a patron deity.

[Lunaxia]

Honey, you're talking about a game that doesn't even keep itself free of allusions to Nazi Germany/Imperial Japan.

Parts of the game I'm also not especially fond of in the way that they're handled, coincidentally, and I've said as much before. And after talking about these topics with other players who have been affected by the history behind these references and who struggle with the way these depictions have been utilised in the game, it's a point of view I very much stand by.

The word, genocide, that you are afraid to use was created by one of those victims, and your fear to use it to identify an act that fits its definition is far from tasteful.

Oh, yes, petrified. Not at all finding it embarrassing to think it's a worthwhile argument to be so adamant in forcing other people to use a word they refrain from out of respect for other people including those victims, in relation to Final Fantasy, than just respecting someone else's decision to do so.

Genocide is not a word that was made for one specific people. It was made to hold those who perpetrated it accountable under international law. Go read up on it.

...and as such is still commonly associated with the hideous crime it was created to help prosecute, keeping such comparisons a foregone conclusion.

You will never be free from it, no matter how much you try to namby pansy around it.

And there it is. How did I predict several posts ago that this is what it inevitably boils down to? The very idea of being conscious of someone else's response when it comes to a potentially difficult topic seems to provoke a reaction that brings to mind dousing the Witch from Oz in water in some people. But I'll continue to "namby pansy" my way around other people's feelings regardless of your strange desire to control that, and you feel free to use whatever terminology you see fit for your own purposes.

I believe it's one of those terms that can work with...

I'd have to see it actually being used to vouch for correct grammatical usage, but it's somewhat tricky when very, very few people including the most maniacal villains would actually opt for such an outcome, lol. In fact, I struggle thinking of anyone outside of a JRPG setting who would... it's not really a trope over here. Or perhaps it is, I don't actually read sci-fi.

[Swordsman]

I've been sort of tracking the conversation for the past few pages and I'll weigh in on it. I don't think merely using the word "genocide" in regards to an event in a video game is insensitive.

If a specific IRL event was referenced and had a comparison made to it like: "oh yeah, the Sundering was the Ancients' version of the Holocaust," then I would say that's inappropriate and going too far. But to just say the Sundering was genocide doesn't seem distasteful to me.

Just my 2 cents.

[Turtledeluxe]

story is pushing a genocide

You are though, because you and others are very pushy about "call it genocide or nothing at all". Ypu know the reason you're asking for that isn't due to textbook definitions, it's because you want people to conform to your view. As far as the game, it doesn't really paint Venat as a flawless character nor does it suggest the sundering is perfect. Yes the game has general overtones of the guardians of light (which has a positive connotation) and yes traditionally Hydaelyn was viewed as the savior of the star-- the entire point of Shadowbringers and Endwalker was revealing that being a savior is significantly more complicated than that and perhapsyou maybe even get your hands very dirty in the process. Things are not black and white as you are painting them in real life or in the game. Yes the game has other instances where maybe it's asking you to make a moral decision, that is not relevant to the sundering.

I'm fine with JP version with her actions being regarded as necessary. We will never agree on this because you and others have elected the interpretation of the story that imo, makes no sense and doesn't work on any level. Which is to say, you seem to think the trip to Elpis offerred some chance to change the future. I don't agree. I think the Elpis trip resulted in a time convergence where everyone got on the same page in the present time (Venat specifically calls this out). The past timeline still occurred-- past Venat did not have the information and no amount of Elpis visits is going to change that. We also don't agree that she "did nothing to stop it". The walk seq. clearly shows us she made attempts to convince people to not summon, and they ignored her. We literally worked with her to try to apprehend Hermes and it failed.

story was ultimately written.

I've already said the story isn't ideal but I attribute it to being nearly impossible given how big the story is and how many plot threads had to be resolved, how gameplay has to be involved given it's a game, etc. For example we could've discovered the secrets of Elpis through a scroll, no time travel. Makes more sense, takes less effort, solves lots of problems, but it's boring and doesn't serve the gameplay. Yes the story has missed opportunities as with the Nier crossover.

Is that not exactly what happened during the course of SHB and EW both, though?

I'm so glad you asked because yes, to a degree this is true. But to clarify, there's a huge difference between solving some problems (ie now we know how to reach Meteion, now we know what dynamis is , etc ) and being equipped to deal with the future vs knowing the future and just preventing it. What if we apprehended Hermes? What if Venat stopped him? What would that even mean for the present time of the game? It creates all sorts of problems and for what? So you can regard Venat as more logical?

[Lunaxia]

If a specific IRL event was referenced and had a comparison made to it like: "oh yeah, the Sundering was the Ancients' version of the Holocaust," then I would say that's inappropriate and going too far. But to just say the Sundering was genocide doesn't seem distasteful to me.

Just my 2 cents.

The thing is, though, is that by throwing around words like genocide, eugenics, extermination, racial cleansing, and so on, that's arguably what you are doing - you're just taking a step back from actually referring to the events where these things similarly occurred in tandem, and share the common feature of being associated with, by name. I'll even allow it's being done unwittingly or without that intention, but to other people it's a very clear inference to make that you are seemingly bringing to the table, and that's what I'm wary of and what I personally object to, because like you, I find it inappropriate, and others do too. This is what I mean when I talk about keeping other people's points of view in mind, and encourage taking a minute to think about what you may be implying with what you're saying, and what it may suggest to other people.

[Swordsman]

The thing is, though, is that by throwing around words like genocide, eugenics, extermination, racial cleansing, and so on, that's arguably what you are doing - you're just taking a step back from actually referring to the events where these things similarly occurred in tandem, and share the common feature of being associated with, by name.

You may feel that way, but I and several others don't. This is an argument born from emotion and feelings, and I don't think there's any definitively right or wrong answer here.

[Lunaxia]

You may feel that way, but I and several others don't. This is an argument born from emotion and feelings, and I don't think there's any definitively right or wrong answer here.

I wasn't the one insisting otherwise, or commanding somebody to use a term they're not comfortable with. I was merely explaining my personal preferences on the matter and how the argument may present to to other people. What you do with that is entirely up to you.

[Swordsman]

I wasn't the one insisting otherwise, or commanding somebody to use a term they're not comfortable with.

Nobody said you did. Thanks for sharing your opinion otherwise.

[Theodric]

As an aside, I just noticed that we hit 888 pages. Nice.