Inconsistencies with the sundering (Spoilers)

[Raven2014]

You're aren't furthering the discussion here. You're just attacking me because I disagree with your take on the story.

I have been adding and just presenting my view in the priors posts, and while it was a stark different than yours, I never made any accusation. But when you say "people are just making excuse" for disagreeing with you, that pretty much kill off the interest right there. I mean ... what's the point of discussing thing with someone who already readily dismissing your opinion as "excuse"? Same thing like I can talk about how people like/hate the game all days, but the moment people throw out accusation like "you're just a whitenight/fanboy/bootlicker" there is really no point in continuing. This is like insulting someone and accusing them of taking offend. That's not how you would entice someone to further your discussion.

If you want to blame someone for derailing your discussion, you should blame your own choice of wording. Or at the very least, even if you want to blame me, you need to blame yourself first.

[PeaTearGriffin]

It's literally the same cutscene. She narrates over the whole thing and is walking the whole time except for the pause in the summoning sequence.

Yes, I know. Just because the end of the cutscene was metaphorical that doesn't mean the entire cutscene has to be. Even still, that metaphorical walk down the smoky hallway still doesn't retcon anything from shadowbringers. A cutscene can be metaphorical and not retell a different version of events.

We also see Hythlodeus there even though we know in EW that he got sacrificed to Zodiark and thus should not be walking around. That scene happens right as she's talking about those sacrificed to Zodiark. Unless you expect that the writers want us to believe that he was Zodiark'd 1 minute before Hydaelyn was summoned.

This is also another continuity error, thank you for pointing that out. This really only drives home the point how careless the writers were.

[PeaTearGriffin]

I have been adding and just presenting my view in the priors posts, and while it was a stark different than yours, I never made any accusation.

You just called me a gaslighter...

So because people have a different take of opinion than your own version is simply making excuse? You know what's this called? It's called gaslighting.

So ... tell me, what make you and your version somehow more valid or superior

You're also putting words in my mouth because I never said my alternate fan theories were more valid or superior.

Anyhow I'm done speaking with you about this. You've done nothing but be confrontational ever since I told you my opinion about the story, and now I'm going to block you.

[Aniya_Estlihn]

I brought this up earlier and someone said that it still makes sense because blasphemies still appear even after the endsinger died, and that sin eaters still exist on the first.

There are inconsistencies, but when media released after Endwalker continues to affirm what was established before 6.0 as canon, you really don't have a leg to stand upon. I'm encouraging you to quit looking so deep into what is clearly just a poorly directed scene that is placed in a portion of the story where it doesn't belong.

People expected a 1-for-1 retelling of the Final Days and Sundering; I did too but accepted that they wanted to go with the vague nonsense metaphorical bs as Ishikawa has done many times, and instead got an intellectual experiment of a scene with little to no narrative value and now said people; e.g. you, are grasping at straws and trying to affirm their delusional interpretation by asserting that a nonsensical, symbolic scene with no value to the narrative has anymore value than being a nonsensical, symbolic scene.

Even your examples of these so-called inconsistencies make no sense:

Terminus Beasts appear because the role quests canonically take place at the time they are introduced in the MSQ, as does every quest that exists in the game. They also still remain from those who turned, which like in the First, the entire world was afflicted—that's potentially millions who fell to despair and turned into Terminus beast and they aren't just going to "go away."

Likewise, Sin Eaters exist on the First because while we ended the Everlasting Light, there is an entire world that was swallowed by a flood of a light wherein all the inhabitants were turned—human and beast alike. Norvrandt has a few eaters remaining, but the Empty; aka the entire world outside of it, is still a bleached wasteland that will take centuries to be restored and Sin Eaters will be as plentiful as there was life in the First.

This means that despite the fact we go to Norvrandt: the First's Eorzea, the First's Gyr Abania, Othard, Ilsabard, Thavnair, Meracydia, The New World, Sharlayan and variant of everything else we know on the source had all the inhabitants turned by the flood. Said lands are likely still teeming with sin eaters and will be for a lo ng time. Ending the flood doesn't stop their existence.

It is poor writing, but not in the way you think and continue to assert it is.

You don't like the writing in Endwalker, that's fine, I don't either, but asserting utter nonsense to try and criticize their poor decisions and use of metaphorical storytelling is just... well, its silly. You are genuinely making no sense.

[MikkoAkure]

Yes, I know. Just because the end of the cutscene was metaphorical that doesn't mean the entire cutscene has to be. Even still, that metaphorical walk down the smoky hallway still doesn't retcon anything from shadowbringers. A cutscene can be metaphorical and not retell a different version of events.



This is also another continuity error, thank you for pointing that out. This really only drives home the point how careless the writers were.

Schrodinger's Cutscene... It's simultaneously metaphorical and inaccurate unless player "Weebpolice" decides which one agrees with his point at any moment of time.


I really don't understand how you can look at this and think it's not metaphorical. Especially the part with Hythlodeus. He has his whole thing with Emet-Selch right as she's narrating about sacrifices.

You said in your OP that you just watched someone else play Endwalker and it's difficult talking about the story with someone who hasn't even experienced it and is getting everything second hand. I didn't agree with the whole idea of having a cinematic cutscene that condenses the events of the Final Days/Sundering, but your take on it feels like someone who came to class without their homework and copied someone else's who just rushed through the material.


But sure. Somehow the writers make a fully retconned cutscene at the height of a story, say it's metaphorical to cover-up their inadequacies, and 1 guy on the forums who hasn't even played the expansion uncovers the truth that it's not a metaphor after all despite admitting that half of the cutscene is indeed metaphorical.

[PeaTearGriffin]

Schrodinger's Cutscene... It's simultaneously metaphorical and inaccurate unless player "Weebpolice" decides which one agrees with his point at any moment of time.

Sure lets just do away with any kind nuance that this argument may contain. It's either completely black or completely white. There's no in between. Nope, not at all.

I really don't understand how you can look at this and think it's not metaphorical.

You know what? I'll entertain this notion for a second. Let's say that this cutscene is in fact metaphorical.

In this metaphorical cutscene, what is the metaphor for etheirys being restored to its habitable state? Also, what is the metaphor for the major battle between hydaelyn and zodiark that sunders etheirys?

You said in your OP that you just watched someone else play Endwalker and it's difficult talking about the story with someone who hasn't even experienced it and is getting everything second hand. I didn't agree with the whole idea of having a cinematic cutscene that condenses the events of the Final Days/Sundering, but your take on it feels like someone who came to class without their homework and copied someone else's who just rushed through the material. But sure. Somehow the writers make a fully retconned cutscene at the height of a story, say it's metaphorical to cover-up their inadequacies, and 1 guy on the forums who hasn't even played the expansion uncovers the truth that it's not a metaphor after all despite admitting that half of the cutscene is indeed metaphorical.

Handwaving this away in attempt to dismiss this isn't going to prove anything.

[kpxmanifesto]

They have literally said it is symbolic, and we have a Lodestone story released after Endwalker featuring Venat and the Watcher at the time shortly before the Sundering—which is still canon to Endwalker. It wasn't retconned, it was a cinematic representation of Venat's guilt and burden presented through cutscene form. It's a scene meant to make us feel bad for her and that's all it is.

Yeah, I'd probably say this cut scene was indeed metaphorical. It would make no sense otherwise. It might not seem like the best reasoning to have a cut scene made in such a manner but in the end, it is what it is.

[PeaTearGriffin]

There are inconsistencies, but when media released after Endwalker continues to affirm what was established before 6.0 as canon, you really don't have a leg to stand upon. I'm encouraging you to quit looking so deep into what is clearly just a poorly directed scene that is placed in a portion of the story where it doesn't belong.

Yes, but that doesn't mean the cutscene was not an accidental retcon. If they released media after endwalker affirming what was established before 6.0 as canon, that just means they didn't double down on their accidental retcon and instead chose to stick with what was established before 6.0.

Even your examples of these so-called inconsistencies make no sense:

I know. I've already acknowledged this. That's why I said "someone said that it still makes sense because blasphemies still appear even after the endsinger died, and that sin eaters still exist on the first."

But I'll ask you the same question I asked the commenter above. If you're so convinced this cutscene is a metaphor, then show me the metaphor.

In this metaphorical cutscene, what is the metaphor for etheirys being restored to its habitable state? Also, what is the metaphor for the major battle between hydaelyn and zodiark that sunders etheirys?

[MikkoAkure]

You already said yourself that the second half of the same cutscene is metaphorical. I don't know how you can't see that it extends to the whole thing.

Venat walks through ruined Amaurot telling of the events back then as scenes she describes unfold around her happening directly with her narration despite the fact they could not have happened all close together like that. Then you have things like monsters killing people while Venat just watches, seconds before Hytholodeus parts from Emet-Selch and calmly walks past the same monster that just ate somebody and the monster doesn't even notice him. After the sword scene is another walking scene with events happening around her again like the first half of the cutscene, all to the same music and the same pace of the narration.

It makes zero sense for this to be presented as a writer's take on true events and to think that it is, you'd have to be super dense.


I would have rather had a cutscene that goes over the restoration of Etheirys and the actual battle, but they went with a super condensed metaphorical version for the art and to push the angle she went with on clipping the wings of the Ancients. I disagree with it, but it doesn't mean that the writers randomly had brain fungus and forgot the whole lore of the game that Shadowbringers brought up just for this one cutscene and then went back to the rest of the game fitting with the real events right after. There is no conspiracy they're trying to cover up, just a cutscene that apparently went over your head.

[PeaTearGriffin]

You already said yourself that the second half of the same cutscene is metaphorical. I don't know how you can't see that it extends to the whole thing.

Venat walks through ruined Amaurot telling of the events back then as scenes she describes unfold around her happening directly with her narration despite the fact they could not have happened all close together like that. Then you have things like monsters killing people while Venat just watches, seconds before Hytholodeus parts from Emet-Selch and calmly walks past the same monster that just ate somebody and the monster doesn't even notice him. After the sword scene is another walking scene with events happening around her again like the first half of the cutscene, all to the same music and the same pace of the narration.

It makes zero sense for this to be presented as a writer's take on true events and to think that it is, you'd have to be super dense.


I would have rather had a cutscene that goes over the restoration of Etheirys and the actual battle, but they went with a super condensed metaphorical version for the art and to push the angle she went with on clipping the wings of the Ancients. I disagree with it, but it doesn't mean that the writers randomly had brain fungus and forgot the whole lore of the game that Shadowbringers brought up just for this one cutscene and then went back to the rest of the game fitting with the real events right after. There is no conspiracy they're trying to cover up, just a cutscene that apparently went over your head.

Look, people want to defend this cutscene by saying its not a retcon because it's just a metaphor. Show me what part of this cutscene accurately portrays, literally or metaphorically, the events of the sundering from shadowbringers.

What is the metaphor for etheirys being restored to its habitable state? What is the metaphor for the major battle between hydaelyn and zodiark that sunders etheirys?