Rewritten MSQ - Garlemald and EW

[redheadturk]

I doubt my comment will sway the tide, but genuinely don't get this mentality.

The Sundering is a morally murky activity, fine. I doubt many people would contest that. Yoshi-P and the writers don't contest that. But I don't get the point of acting like Hydaelyn is a supervillain who only cares about herself and nothing else. For goodness' sake, Primals made from the Ascian's machinations (including Ramuh) talk about her as if she's a good person. Midgardsormr vouches for her acts of kidness. She saves the Warrior of Light from death at least twice in the opening arc of the game. And that's with the expectation that one day they are going to kill her for the sake of a better world once they're strong enough.

It's fine to not like her, especially for the Sundering, but at least dislike her as presented in the game, not based on some caricature that resulted from twisting the lore to fit fanfiction.

Sundering was more than "morally murky". It was straight up genocide, there is no murky about that, it's immoral.

[Jojoya]

Sundering was more than "morally murky". It was straight up genocide, there is no murky about that, it's immoral.

Except we know not everyone died.

How is it genocide when there are survivors?

How would allowing the Ancients proceed to performing the third sacrifice not be equally reprehensible if not more so? They weren't going to just exterminate one new life form - they were intent on exterminating them all for the sake of people who were already dead and unable to return to life if what Sri Lakshmi said in Stormblood is true.

Tellin Emet wtf was going on so he could, ya know, create a better solution that addressed the Meteion problem?

What makes you think Emet would have had a better solution when he admitted that the methods the Ancients used could not have defeated Meteion?

[redheadturk]

Except we know not everyone died.

How is it genocide when there are survivors?

How would allowing the Ancients proceed to performing the third sacrifice not be equally reprehensible if not more so? They weren't going to just exterminate one new life form - they were intent on exterminating them all for the sake of people who were already dead and unable to return to life if what Sri Lakshmi said in Stormblood is true.


What makes you think Emet would have had a better solution when he admitted that the methods the Ancients used could not have defeated Meteion?

English version was quite vague, the French and German versions are much clearer in that he meant that they could not have gotten to Ultima Thule in and of itself through their methods, which was true. Because they didn't, ya know, know what the true cause was, because Venat withheld that information from them which she should not have done.

As to the rest of your spew, 3 survivors does not make it "not a genocide" when the remainder of their culture was gone with no way to revive it with mankind as they were. That is the very definition of a genocide.

[EgilTheStressedMage]

You know they really could have gone with having the WoL be fully capable of speech so that the only thing they controlled was their name. LaTale is an mmo where you are playing an adventurer who has full lines of dialogue and barely any meaningful choices (only one I know of is after you get the third job and go to an npc and answer right, haven't dared to answer wrong yet lol) from start to whatever is the current finish. I'm sure they could have had voice acting and swapped out pronouns and race for when they needed to address the WoL. If not that, then something like in Baten Kaitos where you are the Guardian Spirit and the correct choices will lead to getting better cards and finishers in battle while your partner does all the talking. The problem is they are creating a character over an mmo one where these two were established from the start, but with the former having different stories attached to their creation (I think, it's been a while since I started on anything that wasn't the starting four, I know Card Master had one and so did Demigod) and the latter remaining the same. In that case they should have went with what LaTale did, except not die twice and be on it's deathbed a third time over fourteen friggin years because Actoz doesn't know what they're doing (but the gameplay is far superior to XIV in the sense that you have almost full mobility, it's like an old school Sega Genesis hack and slash but you can fly across the screen with certain skill combos on several if not all the classes).

A less wordy example would be FFX's Tidus but with significantly less WHEEZE-tier voice acting. Probably should have just said that lol.

[anhaato]

If you have more than 3k characters to post you can edit them in after posting, so you don't have to spam the thread like this. Anyways, your arguments are so stereotypical of Venat simps who close their ears to basic story facts that contradict the narrative of her being some benevolent goddess that I almost feel like you're "one of us" on a troll account. Like, your argument and understanding of the story is so hilariously bad. Even the devs have openly contradicted your claims in a past q&a.

[Enkidoh]

If you have more than 3k characters to post you can edit them in after posting, so you don't have to spam the thread like this. Anyways, your arguments are so stereotypical of Venat simps who close their ears to basic story facts that contradict the narrative of her being some benevolent goddess that I almost feel like you're "one of us" on a troll account. Like, your argument and understanding of the story is so hilariously bad. Even the devs have openly contradicted your claims in a past q&a.

Okay, it's perfectly fine and reasonable to disagree with the story, and regard Venat as more antagonistic than she actually was (the morality of her actions really are subjective), but resorting to calling those who disagree with such ideas "Venat simps" really isn't a way of putting forward such arguements in a good light.

[Renathras]

...

100% spot on analysis. People can question if the Sundering was the best course of action or the moral weight of it, but thinking that Hydaelyn was some uncaring witch of a harpy, reveling in the suffering of others is just insane and matches literally nothing we've ever been told in the MSQ, including the parts where we meet and interact with Venat herself.

Anyways, your arguments are so stereotypical of Venat simps

Objection: Ad hominem fallacy. And a very poor one at that.

Someone explaining why you're wrong isn't a "simp".

who close their ears to basic story facts that contradict the narrative of her being some benevolent goddess that I almost feel like you're "one of us" on a troll account. Like, your argument and understanding of the story is so hilariously bad. Even the devs have openly contradicted your claims in a past q&a.

Dude, where?

All that he said was from the MSQ. It's as canon as it gets. We have ZERO - none, zilch, nada - reason to think the anti-Hydaelyn narrative is true. The CLOSEST you could say is that she was a good person trying to do the right thing and mucked it up because she had no really good options and you think she could have tried a little harder. That's it..

Your arguments and understanding of the story is hilariously bad.

From meeting Venat, the impression we were given was that she was a good soul who wanted to do the right thing. This also goes along with everything else we've ever been told about her.

She's neither villain nor antagonist. She was a good person trapped in a no-win scenario where every option was bad.

[anhaato]

Okay, it's perfectly fine and reasonable to disagree with the story, and regard Venat as more antagonistic than she actually was (the morality of her actions really are subjective), but resorting to calling those who disagree with such ideas "Venat simps" really isn't a way of putting forward such arguements in a good light.

Don't care.

No one's saying you have to like it.

People are saying you don't get to rob other people of something they like just because you don't like it.

Explain how Aveyond is doing that in 20 words or less.

Objection: Ad hominem fallacy. And a very poor one at that.

Someone explaining why you're wrong isn't a "simp".-

Objection: don't care.

Dude, where?

All that he said was from the MSQ. It's as canon as it gets.

Maybe if he had accurately said that the sundering was because of the Plenty, and had nothing to do with the sacrifices because those were coming to an end (what a terrible blood god), then you could say it's "as canon as it gets," but until he stops using arguments that were debunked by the devs themselves, that won't be the case.

We have ZERO - none, zilch, nada - reason to think the anti-Hydaelyn narrative is true. The CLOSEST you could say is that she was a good person trying to do the right thing and mucked it up because she had no really good options and you think she could have tried a little harder. That's it..

She had options. She literally had options. We have been over this ad nauseum. The "anti Hydaelyn narrative" is that her actions - hiding the truth and giving ridiculous excuses for doing so, not attempting to prevent the final days, letting the ancients ruin themselves with the little info they had, giving up faith in her own people, choosing omnicide over a belief that they may end up like the Plenty someday, punishing them for their near-godly creation powers while at the same time ascending to the position of a supreme deity (no more shall man have wings... except meeeeee :3), sparing three who she knew would go on to kill off half of the resulting worlds, creating new worlds of disease (dead ends 1) and war (dead ends 2) (At least they're not the Plenty though, amirite? Better to die screaming than to go out peacefully!), doing everything because of a gamble on one singular person's ability to kill Meteion (who could've been killed long before she became so powerful), and being fully willing to abandon the remaining worlds to their doom should the one singular person fail (and we almost did if it wasn't for Zenos Ex Machina out of nowhere!) - can only be read as antagonistic if you're looking at it through an unbiased lens. The game wants me to believe that this is what a good person does; deciding an entire species is unfit to carry the future of the star and summarily exterminating them (wow, sounds familiar) in favor of someone she didn't even know would succeed. I don't buy it, sorry.

Your arguments and understanding of the story is hilariously bad.

From meeting Venat, the impression we were given was that she was a good soul who wanted to do the right thing. This also goes along with everything else we've ever been told about her.

"BUT THE WRITERS SAID-" oh don't even start with that. They can try to tell us she's a lovely individual all they want, but her actions speak louder than their words. It's bad writing.

She's neither villain nor antagonist. She was a good person trapped in a no-win scenario where every option was bad.

Emet is a person trapped in a no-win scenario where every option was bad. Venat had a good option and a bad option. She chose the bad one, all because she was more enamored with the idea of mankind than the actual individuals that made it up, and because she took Meteion's report to heart in the end.

[Jojoya]

Venat had a good option and a bad option. She chose the bad one, all because she was more enamored with the idea of mankind than the actual individuals that made it up, and because she took Meteion's report to heart in the end.

What was the good option?

What was the guarantee that going with that option was going to create a better result?

[redheadturk]

What was the good option?

What was the guarantee that going with that option was going to create a better result?

Tellin Emet wtf was going on so he could, ya know, create a better solution that addressed the Meteion problem?