Inconsistencies with the sundering (Spoilers)

[MikkoAkure]

Good, so you people understand that the game presents a retcon to us with this cutscene. A retcon is defined as: "a piece of new information that imposes a different interpretation on previously described events."

It's crazy the amount of mental gymnastics some of you guys are using just to avoid admitting that the story writers messed up by creating a retcon.

It's not a retcon. A retcon means that previous events would be wrong, and they're not. The scene is never presented as "this is how it actually went down". It's just meant to be a cinematic narration by Venat of the Final Days and explaining a new additional reasoning for the Sundering. The scene itself isn't similar to anything we've had before or since so I won't deny that it's jarring, but at this point after it's been explained to you, you're just doubling-down on being wrong in order to keep pushing a conspiracy theory.

If you honestly believe that a scene where Hytholdeus and a man-eating monster calmly pass each other in the street is meant to be taken as literal events, then there's no hope for you.

[Anvaire]

I agree it is a massive inconsistency. Especially given the short story where Zodiark Spits out primal Elidibus to help reconcile the conflict. Its insuinuated within the story that order has been restored and a long time has passed since the summoning of Zodiark. The issue with the endwalker portrayal is that Amaurot is still a flaming ruin, when there are multiple instances to suggest that life had been restored long enough for the new life to flourish to a level where they could be used to swap out the original sacrificed souls.

my understanding is that the events go something like this:

Final Days begins > Amaurot debate involving themselves > bring samples back to Amaurot to study> Final days reach Amaurot > Zodiark Summoned as last desparate act > Zodiark weaves aetheric shield which stops the final Days > Ancients turn attention to restoration > unknown time passes and life has returned to normal > Ancients still unhappy with loss of those sacrificed to Zodiark > Split appears in populous - some support sacrificing the new life to restore the others, some do not > Elidius withdraws from Zodiark to find reconciliation > Meeting with Hydealyn and her disciples > Hydealyn sunders Etheirys and seals Zodiark away.

There is some things i have assumed in this, based on things we learn from side quests in amaurot. Ultimately though, the depiction of the sundering in Endwalker falls too soon in the timeline. If it is taken as not being a metaphor then the timeline is shortened somewhat :

Final Days > Zodiark Summoned > Zodiark creates shield > Ancients try to sacrifice non ancient lifeforms > Elidibus splits from Zodiark > Hyealyn Sunders.

I think the key issue is we dont know if the lives Hydealyn wanted to save were newly created arcane constructs who later developed souls, or existing people who lived on etheirys outside of the ancients.

The side quests in Amaurot leave it very unclear if the settlements outside of Amaurot are populated by the ancients or different races entirely. If the second route is true (bare in mind both are part conjecture) then the sacrifices are likely other races less magically inclined, which makes sense given the ancients view themselves as "stewards of the star." - this could also be true if there are only ancients though. Which is why i still think the original plot of events is most likely true and Endwalker mucked up the metorphical depiction of the sundering / reconned prior info to make Vanet seem less like a genocidal maniac*. (*Just my view of her actions. not saying she is or isn't.)

[PeaTearGriffin]

explaining a new additional reasoning for the Sundering.

You're actually defining a retcon now. Thank you for acknowledging that the cutscene changes what was previously told in shadowbringers.


I'm going to keep this is as simple as possible.


"Retroactive continuity, or retcon for short, is a literary device in which facts in the world of a fictional work which have been established through the narrative itself are adjusted, ignored, supplemented, or contradicted by a subsequently published work which recontextualizes or breaks continuity with the former.[2]"


sauce: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Retroactive_continuity

[MikkoAkure]

You're actually defining a retcon now. Thank you for acknowledging that the cutscene changes what was previously told in shadowbringers.


I'm going to keep this is as simple as possible.


"Retroactive continuity, or retcon for short, is a literary device in which facts in the world of a fictional work which have been established through the narrative itself are adjusted, ignored, supplemented, or contradicted by a subsequently published work which recontextualizes or breaks continuity with the former.[2]"


sauce: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Retroactive_continuity

You're going at this as if the writers completely ignored or changed world events, which is not true.

The cutscene does not in any way at all contradict the events of how we were told the Sundering went down if you don't take the cutscene literally, which has been my point this whole time.

It is never meant to be literal. They certainly could have made it clearer that it's not a literal telling of events, but they didn't. But there's still no way that all of the events of that cutscene could have happened that close to one another even if it were supposed to be a "new literal version". Or that Venat would just calmly walk through all that, Emet-Selch and Hythlodeus ignore everything that's going on around them as the latter and a monster calmly walk past each other, etc.


The key part of the definition you copied is the last bit. Us learning that Venat wanted to sunder people to fight Meteion added more to what we already know, but didn't change the continuity or events that we learned about in ShB. It's never presented to us as a break because again, it's not a literal cutscene that shows us the actual events of the Sundering and was never at all meant to be taken that way.

Plenty of people who actually played the game understand this and the writers have apparently said as much, so I don't know why you keeping digging down into this, especially since you've never even played it.

[PeaTearGriffin]

You're going at this as if the writers completely ignored or changed world events, which is not true.

You can move the goalposts all you like for the definition of retcon, but like you said already, it's "explaining a new additional reasoning for the Sundering."

A new additional reasoning in the endwalker cutscene that recontextualizes or breaks continuity with how the sundering was described in shadowbringers.

[TaleraRistain]

That's entirely true, but summoning zodiark helped the ancients regain control of their creation magic again. The ancients were an especially advanced civilization very dedicated to science and technology. I really don't think that they would be incapable of creating something that could travel the stars. Even one scientist alone (hermes) was able to create a being all by himself that could reach the end of the universe (meteion).

It's also true that sundered people can't lose control of their creation magic, but they can turn into blasphemies themselves which I don't think is that much better.

They had control over it on Etheirys behind their shield but what do you think would happen when they got out into space where it was mostly dynamis? And they were advanced in science and technology but a lot of that was built on a basis of what their creation magic could do for them. They weren't like the Garleans who had to rely on other means because anything aether-based was not at their disposal.

And we can see from how they wanted to bring the original sacrifices back that once things were stable again they wanted to just get back to the old normal. Why would they go off to find Meteion when they're safe behind their shield and things are back to how they were? In many ways they had much less conviction than the sundered because they didn't have to worry about certain things. It's horrible for someone to turn into a blasphemy but they can resist through strength of will.

[Kazhar]

They had control over it on Etheirys behind their shield but what do you think would happen when they got out into space where it was mostly dynamis? And they were advanced in science and technology but a lot of that was built on a basis of what their creation magic could do for them. They weren't like the Garleans who had to rely on other means because anything aether-based was not at their disposal.

They have at least 12 000 years to create something able to best Meteion. (assuming someone would tell them what threat they're dealing with at last) After all, Meteion herself was created by one of theirs, why should we assume they're absolutely unable to make any breakthrough into Dynamis research if you give them such an absurd amount of time? Our own mankind did a much bigger leap in barely a century.

Why would they go off to find Meteion when they're safe behind their shield and things are back to how they were?

Do you really not know the answer to that question? The community accuse the Ancients of being many things, but I doubt most of them would believe they'd be that stupid.
After the trauma and destruction it caused, it would be silly to not do anything to counter the Apocalypse at their doorstep.

[Striker44]

You can move the goalposts all you like for the definition of retcon, but like you said already, it's "explaining a new additional reasoning for the Sundering."

A new additional reasoning in the endwalker cutscene that recontextualizes or breaks continuity with how the sundering was described in shadowbringers.

You're missing the key point of your own posted definition. No continuity is broken here. If you want an example of a retcon in gaming, take the Warcraft series. In Warcraft 1 and 2, the Orcs were a bloodthirsty race of conquerors. In Warcraft 3, they were suddenly a peaceful, shamanistic race that just happened to have a subset of them drink demon blood and become bloodthirsty conquerors. That breaks continuity by changing the very core of who the entire race is. Nothing similar happened in EW w/ the Sundering. The only place I'd see a retcon on that front would be in ShB, where the Ascians were changed from your typical simple villains to have a more complex backstory.

[Atelier-Bagur]

You can move the goalposts all you like for the definition of retcon, but like you said already, it's "explaining a new additional reasoning for the Sundering."

A new additional reasoning in the endwalker cutscene that recontextualizes or breaks continuity with how the sundering was described in shadowbringers.

Ok. HOW was sundering described in shadowbringers? And please provide dialogue sources

[PeaTearGriffin]

You're missing the key point of your own posted definition. No continuity is broken here. If you want an example of a retcon in gaming, take the Warcraft series. In Warcraft 1 and 2, the Orcs were a bloodthirsty race of conquerors. In Warcraft 3, they were suddenly a peaceful, shamanistic race that just happened to have a subset of them drink demon blood and become bloodthirsty conquerors. That breaks continuity by changing the very core of who the entire race is. Nothing similar happened in EW w/ the Sundering. The only place I'd see a retcon on that front would be in ShB, where the Ascians were changed from your typical simple villains to have a more complex backstory.

Right. Shadowbringers tells one version of events and then endwalker tells a different version of events, but "no continuity is broken." Seeing people jump through all sorts of mental hoops to say that endwalker didn't retcon or break continuity with the story from shadowbringers is getting really old.