Inconsistencies with the sundering (Spoilers)

[PeaTearGriffin]

I've been watching a friend stream his playthrough of endwalker and I cannot for the life of me see how Venat sundering all the ancients makes sense. They were able to successfully stop the final days by having Zodiark create a shield of aether to protect etheirys and forestall the final days. Wouldn't sundering etheirys and zodiark into 14 separate shards (the source and its 13 reflections) theoretically give each shard only 1/14th of zodiark's aether which might not be enough aether to stop meteion's attack? Sure you can say that each shard had less aether making dynamis more available for the inhabitants to use against the dynamis wielded by meteion, but how much positive dynamis would people on an individual shard expect to have just after having experienced the initial onset of the final days and then having their world suddenly sundered into pieces?


Also there are more inconsistencies between the way shadowbringers and endwalker illustrate the sundering. In shadowbringers we see the cutscene with Emet Selch telling us that after order was restored the sundering happened when Hydaelyn battles Zodiark, but in endwalker we see the cutscene with venat in amaurot during the final days walking around and then sundering the world before zodiark even restored order and also without even having to fight zodiark. What also struck me as odd was that during that same cutscene venat says that they were able to forestall the final days by summoning zodiark, but blasphemies are still popping up everywhere and killing the ancients. Also isn't venat already supposed to be hydaelyn at this point? From the looks of it, she looks just like plain venat walking around but then she has the ability to sunder?... Why exactly did the writers suddenly decide to retell a different version of events in endwalker? It seems like an accidental and careless retcon.


Also why the heck weren't Elidibus, Lahabrea, and Emet Selch sundered? Is that explained in the game later at all?

[SannaR]

The walk scene is metaphorical and symbolic. It's not explained in the game how those three escaped the sundering. That's answered in a Q&A session during one of the live Letters after 6.0 came out. Blasphemies still popped up after we defeated the Endsinger. Heck there's still a few Sin eaters floating around on the 1st. It's how those things work and again that walk wasn't a one for one shot of how everything went down.

[Kazhar]

Also why the heck weren't Elidibus, Lahabrea, and Emet Selch sundered? Is that explained in the game later at all?

It wasn't explained in game, but in a Live Letter. (Part LXVIII)

Q: I’d be interested to know how the unsundered Ascians (Lahabrea, Elidibus, and Emet-Selch) avoided being kicked into fourteen pieces by Hydaelyn.

A: As Emet-Selch implied towards the end of the 6.0 main scenario (“So, here I am Venat. I suppose you needed me to tie it all together…”), Venat had purposefully allowed him to survive. The attack intentionally left something like an opening which Emet-Selch could just barely wriggle through. With that said, with the limit of Hydaelyn’s full power behind the attack, fine-tuning wasn’t possible and whether or not he would actually survive was somewhat of a gamble. In the end, Emet-Selch, with the help of Lahabrea (who happened to be nearby) and Elidibus (who had fallen from Zodiark’s core), was able to evade the attack by temporarily escaping to a rift between dimensions.

[NekoMataMata]

It wasn't explained in game, but in a Live Letter. (Part LXVIII)

Isn't that poor story telling? You know, having to have the creators of the story explain things outside of the story themselves?

[Atelier-Bagur]

Isn't that poor story telling? You know, having to have the creators of the story explain things outside of the story themselves?

I mean...we didnt really need to go into the details of everything. That question always bothered me really. I always assumed just like in any story that the bad guys were just quick thinkers, strong and successfully adapted to the situation. This is being selective I know, but outside sources for extra context and information isnt required to understand the plot so those LL were fans ask stuff like this always seem like the devs try to think fast and come up with a response. If it aint the FFXIV lore master and designer, Banri Oda or even Ishikawa directly answering these questions, I'm taking the info with a grain of salt.

[AwesomeJr44]

Isn't that poor story telling? You know, having to have the creators of the story explain things outside of the story themselves?

Yes. Yes it is.

It's the same type of bad writing that happened in Star Wars 9 where Palpatine's return required reading outside material to be explained properly.

[PeaTearGriffin]

Isn't that poor story telling? You know, having to have the creators of the story explain things outside of the story themselves?

I'm not going to defend square enix on this one because it's definitely a detail they overlooked.

[MikkoAkure]

Wouldn't sundering etheirys and zodiark into 14 separate shards (the source and its 13 reflections) theoretically give each shard only 1/14th of zodiark's aether which might not be enough aether to stop meteion's attack?

Apparently it didn't have an effect on Meteion's attack, considering nothing happened for thousands of years.

in endwalker we see the cutscene with venat in amaurot during the final days walking around and then sundering the world before zodiark even restored order and also without even having to fight zodiark.

This scene is more "cinematic" than actual canon. Not sure why they decided to show things this way, but it's not how it went down. It was a stylistic approach to condense the lore into 1 cutscene that didn't involve a bunch of Ancients bickering after an indeterminate amount of time that could've been weeks to many, many years for all we know. I don't agree with that approach, but it's whatever.

Also why the heck weren't Elidibus, Lahabrea, and Emet Selch sundered? Is that explained in the game later at all?

It is explained later but the explanation will still make you go "huh?".


Anyway,

Splitting Zodiark up seemed to be the more immediate goal with the less aether-rich future sundered inhabitants being able to actually stop Meteion was a bonus. At least that's how I took it.

[Deveryn]

The story's not over yet, so we'll probably get an answer to that last question by 6.5.

[PeaTearGriffin]

The walk scene is metaphorical and symbolic.

If this is square enix's rationale I don't think it's a very good one. Cutscenes can still be metaphorical and symbolic without changing how events play out.

Apparently it didn't have an effect on Meteion's attack, considering nothing happened for thousands of years.

And that's the strange part. I think many people would figure that 1/14th the aether would be less effective at repelling meteion because this game does establish that having more or less aether makes a difference in this universe, but the final days/sundering event kind of ignores that rule and shows that an individual shard is just as good at repelling an attack from meteion as unsundered etheirys.

Maybe meteion just stopped trying after the ancients defended against her the first time around, but that wouldn't make sense either because as soon as the protagonist kills zodiark in the endwalker msq, a second final days begins to happen immediately which suggests that meteion was always constantly there.

The story's not over yet, so we'll probably get an answer to that last question by 6.5.

I certainly hope so because thats a loose end that needs tying up.