Would Endwalker have been better if we never visited Elpis at all?

[PawPaw]

Well, that's not true at all. One of the big plot points of Elpis was what the unsundered did once they were "done" and have completed their duty. They specifically chose to die. Only the "odd" ones did not. How come this fact keeps getting ignored like the connection between the ancients and the Plenty is out of nowhere? This is why people keep asking if those with questions are paying attention. Death as their ending was a constant. And the fact they chose to die rather than see their work flourish after completion is a massive part of their culture. The Plenty shows what happens with the ancients have finished their work. It's incredibly on the nose. But it's like these points are being ignored because some people don't want to accept the message behind it. The argument has constantly been "it's bad written because I disagree with the message." Which is basically a rejection of the story because it offends your beliefs and blaming the writers because of it. Hubris and pride.

Who is ignoring the fact that they can choose to return to the star when they feel they have completed their work? I think it's one of the parts of their society that is admirable. Unlike the denizens of the Plenty, the Ancients didn't try to eliminate all things that made them sad, they didn't try to escape death. The vast majority accepted life as finite and chose to start again when they felt they had done all that could be done to better their star. The people of the Plenty could not do this because they had eliminated death in their fear, and that is why Ra-La was created. The only thing that the Plenty and the Ancient world had in common was that they both wore robes and masks, one of the funnier attempts by the writers to draw some parallels.

[jameseoakes]

And that's a core belief that you have. So someone with that belief will, of course, take issue with a story that preaches the opposite. That is not an example of bad writing, it's just disagreeing with the message. There's plenty of bad writing examples you can poke at. But disagreeing with the message of the story is not an example of the writings doing their job badly.

The way it tells it is terrible it spends no meaningful time on it, it sets up a terrible time loop sets up some dross characters to drive the narrative and then gaslights it's audience. Tell me how this was well written how it sets up Venats actions in any good sense, it's not well written if you have to believe that suffering is a universal good, which I think is a monstrous ideology to hold and honestly I'll take it with pride that I think story of Venat is one of a hellish monster fit to be the true villain of the story

[BubblyBoar]

I'm not going to keep repeating myself. if you can't see the through line here, I can't help you at all. I could explain it over and over and over again until I'm blue in the face and you just won't accept anything I say because you're not really here to discuss, just yell your opinion until people think you are right. And you know what? That's fine, have at it.

The way it tells it is terrible it spends no meaningful time on it, it sets up a terrible time loop sets up some dross characters to drive the narrative and then gaslights it's audience. Tell me how this was well written how it sets up Venats actions in any good sense

I'll say it for the millionth time, when was I ever bringing up Venat and her actions other than asking why people keep asking me about her?

[AziraSyuren]

Absolutely not. Emet-Selch pretty much hard carried the expansion (again) and his characterization in Elpis was vital for that.

[Rulakir]

I think most of the issues are the writing is for it is bad. Endwalker does a terrible job addressing this, the ancients seemed a pretty driven and motivated people so the idea of them ending up as the Plenty seems remote, they even wrote it so the plenty was happy until Meition came.

I found The Plenty to be so fundamentally different from the Ancients that aside from the masks and robes I never would have made any connection between them. We're talking about a culture who would've had to have moved away from believing returning to the star was beautiful and to be celebrated to believing immortality was the way to go. This is a foundational shift that likely would've taken millennia, which leads me to believe that the Sundering was some sort of extremely premature overreaction on Venat's part.

It also completely ignores how the souls of the Ancients were altered by having experienced the Final Days. At best, I could be talked into accepting The Plenty as their fate before them, but certainly not after when we've seen the experience of it was so detrimental even a shooting star to a sundered soul is enough to relive the trauma and grief.

WoL should've been like "I understand where you're coming from but you're no longer worthy to hold the light."

I desperately wanted a dialog option of, "I don't approve of what you've done, but you've left me no choice but to see this through," at a minimum.

I've seen the phrases "genocide apologist" and "genocide sympathizer" among others used in many threads, and that needs to stop. It's manipulative and serves only to garner a negative response from those reading your post.

Sincerely, how should I frame it when Yoshi-P himself has referred to the rejoinings as "mass murder"? The Final Days and Sundering were worse, so... mass murder apologism? I actually hate using the word genocide, but it's the language of the playerbase.

[jameseoakes]

I'm not going to keep repeating myself. if you can't see the through line here, I can't help you at all. I could explain it over and over and over again until I'm blue in the face and you just won't accept anything I say because you're not really here to discuss, just yell your opinion until people think you are right. And you know what? That's fine, have at it.





I'll say it for the millionth time, when was I ever bringing up Venat and her actions other than asking why people keep asking me about her?

She is the whole cause of the sundering it was all her, if your talking about that you are talking about her....

[BubblyBoar]

Then clearly you haven't read anything I wrote because I've been talking about the ancients and their time period, not the sundering. I did say the sundering was less terrible than the Final Days because a single world compared to the universe is a vastly different scale. I also said that that Venat did doesn't mean the sundered don't have a right to exist after it has been done. Neither of these things defend or support what Venat did. Are you sure you are quoting the right person?

[Lauront]

I disagree that a good chunk of the playerbase does not understand the story as evidenced by the mountain of accolades EW has received everywhere but here. I think a good chunk of those that browse and post on these forums didn't get the story, as evidenced by the mountain of complaints and even hate it has received here. (Though it's possible some are just trolling.)

It's probably pointless to mention this but I'll do it again anyway: There are those that post here that understood the story very well and simply thought it was bad, cliched, whatever. To those posters, my comment of not understanding the story is not directed at you. But if you fall into that category and get defensive anyway, then that's on you.

I can acknowledge, however, that the retort "you didn't get it" has been used dismissively and condescendingly. Which isn't right either.

I think we simply have a disagreement about how clearly understood EW's story was. Yes, EW certainly received many accolades, but I'd question how reflective that is of a story being clear - especially with one where it is aiming for an emotional gutpunch, which it did achieve for a lot of people. It's also a case, perhaps, that people more receptive to the theme may be less likely to question it, but I don't think that's all that is at play here, and I have seen people who initially enjoyed it and then later began stewing on some points, considering whether they were as well made as they initially thought.

The sites on which it did receive such accolades don't represent much less of a minority than this, be it Metacritic or Reddit. I browse Reddit fairly frequently and I have come across some absolute whopper misunderstandings of the story, including from those who like it. There were also critical comments on a number of JP sites. It isn't so much that people can't see what they're trying to do with the Plenty visual parallel. That is abundantly clear. It's that the overall message is condensing so many disparate themes at once and then throwing memory wipes and a time loop in with these, and doing so in the space of the latter third of the expansion while on top of this introducing the ultimate villain and a new form of energy all at once. This is a recipe for muddled understandings, and not just in the sense of "well what are the writers trying to say", but also in the sense of "are they really trying to say this"? I'll go back to the point that it almost comes across that the races wiped out by despair almost had it coming/were constitutionally unfit to exist for not having the "right" attitude to "suffering" (and as others have remarked, it often verges on confusing questions of its inevitability with its necessity or desirability) and this is a very controversial message to push, so it is natural to ask if this was intended or not and if so, are they attempting to justify it?

Anyway in spite of our past interactions perhaps being a bit prickly, your acknowledgement is appreciated.

[jameseoakes]

I found The Plenty to be so fundamentally different from the Ancients that aside from the masks and robes I never would have made any connection between them. We're talking about a culture who would've had to have moved away from believing returning to the star was beautiful and to be celebrated to believing immortality was the way to go. This is a foundational shift that likely would've taken millennia, which leads me to believe that the Sundering was some sort of extremely premature overreaction on Venat's part.

It also completely ignores how the souls of the Ancients were altered by having experienced the Final Days. At best, I could be talked into accepting The Plenty as their fate before them, but certainly not after when we've seen the experience of it was so detrimental even a shooting star to a sundered soul is enough to relive the trauma and grief.

None of the Thule races seemed to have had any effort put into making them, though the race on the plenty are odd as they were happy until Meition came and convinced them there was no point to anything so they embraced death...which doesn't tie that well with the ancients.

[redheadturk]

Well, that's not true at all. One of the big plot points of Elpis was what the unsundered did once they were "done" and have completed their duty. They specifically chose to die. Only the "odd" ones did not. How come this fact keeps getting ignored like the connection between the ancients and the Plenty is out of nowhere? This is why people keep asking if those with questions are paying attention. Death as their ending was a constant. And the fact they chose to die rather than see their work flourish after completion is a massive part of their culture. The Plenty shows what happens with the ancients have finished their work. It's incredibly on the nose. But it's like these points are being ignored because some people don't want to accept the message behind it. The argument has constantly been "it's bad written because I disagree with the message." Which is basically a rejection of the story because it offends your beliefs and blaming the writers because of it. Hubris and pride.





When did I say anything about what Venat said or did? I was specifically mentioning what the devs said about the Plenty and the Unsundered. Not once have I said that Venat did the righteous thing or that she absolutely should have done what she did.

Them returning to the star is something along the lines of assisted suicide, which is something I actually support wholeheartedly. What is wrong with refusing to linger once your work is done? What is wrong with not taking up space and resources when you decide you are done with life, as long as it is done at your own volition? I don't see a gods damn thing wrong with it personally.