Sundering stuff established in the Q&A

[Lyth]

I think that time travel can work extremely well in a video game storyline if it's the central theme. It creates that Link to the Past style 'Light World/Dark World' exploration where you alter events in one time to see what the downstream effect is on another. The fun around that is part of what made Chrono Trigger so successful. Radiant Historia is another example of time travel done well, in that it lets you explore all the possible outcomes of the decision tree.

MMOs tend to struggle a bit with this because they tend to be designed to run on rails. It was a risky move, but it turned out alright in the end because the plot is focused around a single gimmick. I think that if they want to really delve into the 'what if' mechanic seriously, it would be better done in a side story like a Relic questline. You could 'uncover the history' of your legendary weapon by exploring a Radiant Historia styled storybook to unlock nodes (and perhaps associated stat points).

[Kozh]

So you agree then that they aren’t doing this for their own benefit unlike the Ancients.

If you actually paid attention to what I said, you'll now my answer for this since you already asked the same question before.

Which would be exactly what she desires no? Offering a better future for others and then committing to fighting for tomorrow?

Only come to this because the writers want everything to workout for the good guys. Again, do you know the concept of debating a philosophical/"what if" argument?

Yeah they just had to sacrifice their children, it totally needed to happen. It’s not like they were doing so only out of selfish desire to avoid suffering at the cost of other human lives.

It is selfish, but that's not my main point of the argument, ever since the few previous posts. But go on, keep moving the goalpost, will you?

Wait, I’m sorry where did the Ironworks crew stand to benefit from succeeding in changing the timeline? Tell me exactly what those individuals would have gained. They wouldn’t, they’d either be dead or left adrift.

I was talking about their ability and having the means to dodge/defy their fate. Whether individual fate, or humankind's fate as a whole. They couldn't stand seeing their world being ravaged by calamity, they couldn't stand to see the Ascian wins. So by risking everyone who doesn't know or want to do the time travel plan, they keep on with their plan for hundreds of years harnessing out-of-world technologies which, frankly, could be used to save and rebuild their own civilization instead.

I really don't want to use a real world example for this, so if you still can't understand my point... gg I guess. I would rather teach my dog calculus then attempting to re-explain it to you.

Lacking Lahabrea or Elidibus at his side, Emets next steps are a lot less set in stone. Perhaps Venat would have sought him out as the two last Unsundered (were literally shown he can be practical and swap positions when he needs to in Elpis)

I know she made stupid decision, but that would be the biggest idiotic plan she would have had. Before sundering, I sort of can see a Emet listen to her, even though this is still quite unbelievable. After sundering, after his home is destroyed and he lost two of his best friends? After Venat become his nemesis? Especially without any proof whatsoever (since the biggest proof would be Elpis's researchers testimony and Echo at Elpis location), there's no way he would listen.

Or if he still tries to enact the Ardor there’d be only one Unsundered to contend with and thus his death/regaining memories would happen sooner and much more simply.

How would that work if the WoL never went back in time? he wouldn't have those memories. And this is also assuming that hydaelyn have enough strength to kill him.

Either way, Hydaelyn would gain an ally and the two could work together to prepare the Sundered.

Prepare how? The only thing making them stronger is by rejoining, whether it's physical matter (dense soul) or mentally (despair from calamities).

I disagree with it because I don’t think her statements or actions match with that idea. Take this line for example.

Except this is within the context that she's talking about meteion, as her previous dialogue says she looking for a way to safeguard the future of the star. What exactly the real threat for the future that she deemed it's necessary to do sundering? Yep, Meteion. If it's only the matter of preventing rejoining, she wouldn't gamble sparing emet selch in the first place for whatever reason.

Not knowing the future creates more than a gamble, it makes every decision, including the decision not to act, a potential timeline failing moment. The risk gets exponentially higher with every event, every intervention, which makes her efforts to intervene in the Rejoinings unwise at best and downright playing in traffic levels of risk at worst. Committing to the Rejoinings would work, if she knew the events that needed to occur to cause them at the right time. Not knowing that, and believing the timeline is malleable, means one wrong call in one era with regards to one actor results in the end of all things...
Agreed! There’s a very real cost to her power, one that runs dangerously close to depleting her entirely. Which makes it even more baffling that she would waste strength offering crystals or blessing to those who she would believe are doomed. Doing so would be a needless waste of resources in this case and potentially lead to a disaster. Unless of course she was making a real effort to stop the Rejoinings, but was forced to ration her strength.

As I said before, she also need to prevent a complete rejoining. And considering she knew about the First and roughly how long till it took the WoL to exist; she had, albeit a wild, guess on how things will played out. For all we know, she might also monitor the WoL souls and reincarnations in every era, see if it match with the story she got. Hence why all her actions are considered a gamble. Her complete inaction would mean she let rejoining happen a lot quicker, and her complete intervention would mean rejoining not happening/happen too late, both of them will cause the timeline to go awry. Speaking of her power, blessing a person actually doesn't take to much of her power (only a sliver), it's the rejoinings AND her directly shielding the WoL that caused her strength to diminished this much. The crystal she bestowed upon people is still a bit unclear if it's her own power, or if it's the manifest of that big-ass crystal sitting behind her (aka the true mothercrystal) as we got several ones not from hydaelyn.

Why did he say “another interpretation” Kozh? Why distinguish between the two at all. Saying they can be compatible doesn’t answer that. If he thinks they are the same, why make the distinction.

Because while it's his personal interpretation, the other possibility is also one he deemed "worthy" to give to us as explanation from the devs, because he's not the one/only one who write (or has input on) the story. And watching the interview again, just like veloran said, his first sentence refers to the question, which is about the "why no time branch", while sentence after that is a follow up. I would ask back, if he thinks that scenario is impossible, why brought it up in the first place.

“My interpretation” vs “another interpretation” means he believes one and not the other. This is how language works.

No, that's not how it works, "explicitly" would be if he directly said "I disagree with that". Believing one scenario and not the other doesn't necessarily means he disagree that it's what happen in the story. Because we could say: "oh, my interpretation is character A died, but I could see otherwise".

Oh I know. But I certainly was being sarcastic.

More like insult in a thinly veiled sarcasm.

Anyway, I know being patronising is your only mode, but can you at least try to keep it down a bit? And do me a favor by not using my name that much, because it feels patronising coming from you, and frankly, feels uncomfortable af.

[EaraGrace]

If you actually paid attention to what I said, you'll now my answer for this since you already asked the same question before.

It’s a simple question, perhaps my feeble mind just can’t parse your nuanced answer. A simple yes or no would clear things up.

Only come to this because the writers want everything to workout for the good guys. Again, do you know the concept of debating a philosophical/"what if" argument?

The what if has to be based on some form of premise yes? You can’t just hand wave the parts you don’t like and then cast judgement on it.

It is selfish, but that's not my main point of the argument, ever since the few previous posts. But go on, keep moving the goalpost, will you?

My point if you actually tried to understand where I’m coming from is that the Ironworks weren’t being selfish and the Ancients were. Thus why one is morally acceptable and the other isn’t.

I was talking about their ability and having the means to dodge/defy their fate. Whether individual fate, or humankind's fate as a whole. They couldn't stand seeing their world being ravaged by calamity, they couldn't stand to see the Ascian wins. So by risking everyone who doesn't know or want to do the time travel plan, they keep on with their plan for hundreds of years harnessing out-of-world technologies which, frankly, could be used to save and rebuild their own civilization instead.

They desired a different future for others. “For those we can yet save” and all. While you do have a sliver of a truth in that turning away from present circumstances was wrong, the fact remains that they’re actions were done out of a desire to see others not suffer, not to alleviate their own.

I really don't want to use a real world example for this, so if you still can't understand my point... gg I guess. I would rather teach my dog calculus then attempting to re-explain it to you.

Given your responses so far, it’s clear you often try and fail to explain things you don’t understand. You have my sympathies.

I know she made stupid decision, but that would be the biggest idiotic plan she would have had. Before sundering, I sort of can see a Emet listen to her, even though this is still quite unbelievable. After sundering, after his home is destroyed and he lost two of his best friends? After Venat become his nemesis? Especially without any proof whatsoever (since the biggest proof would be Elpis's researchers testimony and Echo at Elpis location), there's no way he would listen.

Then there would be only one Unsundered vs Hydaelyn. Much better odds than facing three Unsundered, and when Emet falls he’ll remember the events of Elpis and change sides like he did in Endwalker.

How would that work if the WoL never went back in time? he wouldn't have those memories. And this is also assuming that hydaelyn have enough strength to kill him.

The world doesn’t retroactively change due to alterations to the timeline. Emet and Venats memories wouldn’t just disappear, Emet would still have memories of us in Elpis even though we technically would never exist. The 8UC proves that.

Prepare how? The only thing making them stronger is by rejoining, whether it's physical matter (dense soul) or mentally (despair from calamities).

The Sundering and it’s consequences alone we’re enough. Despair existed without the Rejoinings and the physical side of things isn’t insurmountable. Ardbert despite being only 1/14 of Azems souls still fought and won against primals, still held his own against us. It’s a slight disadvantage sure, but not one that couldn’t be overcome.

Except this is within the context that she's talking about meteion, as her previous dialogue says she looking for a way to safeguard the future of the star. What exactly the real threat for the future that she deemed it's necessary to do sundering? Yep, Meteion. If it's only the matter of preventing rejoining, she wouldn't gamble sparing emet selch in the first place for whatever reason.

Ok wait you’re explanation makes no sense in the context of the rest of your argument. If she’s looking for a solution to Meteion, and failing, then that necessarily means she’s not following the timeline we laid out as in that case we’d be the only option to fight Meteion. There’d be no need to search, no need for the Rejoinings, no need for Unsundered. If you’re arguing that the Rejoinings were useful for reasons other than resulting in our timeline, then Yoshi Ps statement wouldn’t actually support your claim, and you’d be arguing against the interpretations he made, as well as the lyrics to Flow.

Do you see the issue?

As I said before, she also need to prevent a complete rejoining. And considering she knew about the First and roughly how long till it took the WoL to exist; she had, albeit a wild, guess on how things will played out. For all we know, she might also monitor the WoL souls and reincarnations in every era, see if it match with the story she got. Hence why all her actions are considered a gamble.

See I don’t actually disagree with this.

Her complete inaction would mean she let rejoining happen a lot quicker, and her complete intervention would mean rejoining not happening/happen too late, both of them will cause the timeline to go awry.

Which creates the big problem. How do you know when to act and when not too? How do you decide when, where, and how to intervene? She doesn’t know what caused the first several Rejoinings, nor the role she played in acting against them, as we don’t. Hell, she likely doesn’t even know how Ardbert and co. got their crystals, as we only learn they got them through very specific circumstances through the role quests. It’s not just a a gamble in these cases, it’s insanity.

Speaking of her power, blessing a person actually doesn't take to much of her power (only a sliver), it's the rejoinings AND her directly shielding the WoL that caused her strength to diminished this much.

Even a tiny bit of power would be both invaluable and potentially timeline changing. By the end she was burning through her own soul just to talk with us, potentially putting the entire plan at risk. Why would she squander in a tiny amount of power knowing that they are doomed and not even being sure if intervening is the right call?

The crystal she bestowed upon people is still a bit unclear if it's her own power, or if it's the manifest of that big-ass crystal sitting behind her (aka the true mothercrystal) as we got several ones not from hydaelyn.

Midgard makes it clear that the crystals are draining her herself, as that’s why it strips us of the blessing. Not to mention if Hydaelyn was willing to use the Mothercrystal like that then her own refusal to use it for our fight makes no sense.

Because while it's his personal interpretation, the other possibility is also one he deemed "worthy" to give to us as explanation from the devs, because he's not the one/only one who write (or has input on) the story. And watching the interview again, just like veloran said, his first sentence refers to the question, which is about the "why no time branch", while sentence after that is a follow up. I would ask back, if he thinks that scenario is impossible, why brought it up in the first place.

I think he left it up to the players to discuss and debate, as he said he was going to. My point, as it was from the start, was that his own interpretation (which is not canon) did not have her maintaining the timeline, but another interpretation can be that she did. My issue with the initial argument was that it portrayed him as saying “I think she did maintain the timeline,” which is false.

No, that's not how it works, "explicitly" would be if he directly said "I disagree with that". Believing one scenario and not the other doesn't necessarily means he disagree that it's what happen in the story. Because we could say: "oh, my interpretation is character A died, but I could see otherwise".

He explicitly separates those interpretations, yes.

More like insult in a thinly veiled sarcasm.

Anyway, I know being patronising is your only mode, but can you at least try to keep it down a bit? And do me a favor by not using my name that much, because it feels patronising coming from you, and frankly, feels uncomfortable af.

Okay friend

[MikkoAkure]

Recent Famitsu interview with Yoshi-P, Oda, and Ishikawa shed some light on their thoughts on Ascians and Ancients and I thought I'd put it here instead of opening the 40th thread on the subject. Translated by u/Mkillerby on Reddit.

Yoshida: Even back during ARR, HW and SB, it was said “we don’t have detailed lore yet for what the Ascians’ goals are, so let’s just have them be doing bad stuff in the background.”

Ishikawa: Its easy to think we planned it out in advance, but in truth thats wrong, the original Ascian lore we had only went as far as “looks like they’re doing bad stuff”.

Ishikawa: When I was writing Hermes, I thought he’d be a character 80% of people would hate, 20% of people would love. But even for the people who love him, you recognize his complexities and emptiness… But personally I really, really love him. He himself made a huge mistake... but that mistake made him the foundation for everything that came after.

Interviewer: Without Hermes, this story itself couldn’t have happened.

Ishikawa: Without him, the world might have become like what we saw in the 3rd area of the Dead Ends dungeon.

Interviewer: Where “Ra-la” appears, right?

Ishikawa: Right. “Ra-la’s” world (laughs). Hermes' mistake is like the first “wound” the people of Eitherys bear. Whether people think this was a mistake, or part of becoming stronger, will differ.

Interviewer: Back in ShB, we were afraid of the Ancients, but in EW with the presence of those two we’re familiar with [ie Emet and Hyltho] they feel friendlier.

Yoshida: When Hermes says he will make judgment on humanity, in a way, its very impartial. Making judgment - this is something Emet-Selch did so many times, and each time killed so many people. Emet-Selch wanted to get back his sundered friends and the people he loved, and with forthright emotions he handed down his final judgment. Looking at it that way, Hermes’ made judgment in an objective way. So it's a bit surprising that we can forgive Emet-Selch’s ‘judgment’ but can’t forgive Hermes’.

Ishikawa: Hermes is impartial, but our hearts can’t get close to him in the way we can with Emet-Selch… Maybe he’s hard to sympathize with.

Yoshida: Right, with Emet-Selch it was easy to put your feelings into his own.

Ishikawa: Wanting to get your friends back is a very straightforward human emotion.

Yoshida: Hermes is a character that is a bit like social media. Although it would have been best to decide the answer on his own, he can’t reach a decision himself and ends up listening to many different opinions.

[sidurgu-12]

So it's a bit surprising that we can forgive Emet-Selch’s ‘judgment’ but can’t forgive Hermes

personally while i do like post sundering emet as a villain i still cant forgive him. besides that the interview confirms what i was thinging throughout elpis and omicron, "if their mission is the continued betterment of the earth, what happens when they reach that goal? willing extinction? or something similar to the omicrons and ea?".

[EaraGrace]

personally while i do like post sundering emet as a villain i still cant forgive him. besides that the interview confirms what i was thinging throughout elpis and omicron, "if their mission is the continued betterment of the earth, what happens when they reach that goal? willing extinction? or something similar to the omicrons and ea?".

Agreed!

[Tehmon]

I understand Emet's reasons and motivations for sure, but I would and will not '' forgive '' him, especially since he doesn't seem too regretful about any of it. MY VALUES *grumpy face* and all that.

I find myself drawn towards Hermes much more than Emet, but perhaps I'm just a contrarian. I honestly love that elpis flower scene, and how he treats us respectfully and as an actual person, not as just a familiar. Our '' bond '' is not based on the color of our soul, either. And better yet, he actually feels regret over feeling the need to eliminate us. That's all I ever wanted from Emet, honestly. But I suppose that would put a dent on his characterization.

[sidurgu-12]

Agreed!

i uh... i forgot he said that lol.

[EaraGrace]

I understand Emet's reasons and motivations for sure, but I would and will not '' forgive '' him, especially since he doesn't seem too regretful about any of it. MY VALUES *grumpy face* and all that.

I find myself drawn towards Hermes much more than Emet, but perhaps I'm just a contrarian. I honestly love that elpis flower scene, and how he treats us respectfully and as an actual person, not as just a familiar. Our '' bond '' is not based on the color of our soul, either. And better yet, he actually feels regret over feeling the need to eliminate us. That's all I ever wanted from Emet, honestly. But I suppose that would put a dent on his characterization.

He seems genuinely happy when he realizes that he’s not alone in feeling that way, though obviously sorry that we’ve suffered as well. Wasn’t ready for the Unsundered form of the jester man to win me over.

i uh... i forgot he said that lol.

It’s VERY blink and you’ll miss lol. I just remember it because I was like

https://youtu.be/ELkgiJD9KuM?t=66

[KizuyaKatogami]

personally while i do like post sundering emet as a villain i still cant forgive him. besides that the interview confirms what i was thinging throughout elpis and omicron, "if their mission is the continued betterment of the earth, what happens when they reach that goal? willing extinction? or something similar to the omicrons and ea?".

We don’t know what they could do tbh. Perhaps once they reached what they saw as perfection for their star, they would move on to the next and work on bettering that one. The same way the sundered went on to fix the first. The problem is we will never know because they weren’t given the chance to defend themselves and were rendered extinct by a psychopath.

As far as Emet goes, i do find it a bit humorous that he says things like he can’t believe people were willing to believe the things Emet said and how biased he was but doesn’t mirror these feelings towards Venat who is essentially the same. But i think there’s a good reason why people can forgive Emet vs Hermes. Emet was doing what he did for his loved ones and his people, the same way Ironworks was willing to erase themselves and their entire timeline. Hermes was doing it because he flew off the deep end. His mental stability was gone at that point, there was no good reason no or what he was doing. He saw himself fit to judge mankind when in reality that’s up to really no one. Both him and Venat suffer from that problem and are both wrong for it.