Inconsistencies with the sundering (Spoilers)

[Aniya_Estlihn]

Of course there are people that don't see it as a retcon because there's the excuse that the cutscene was metaphorical and symbolic. I and plenty of other people don't buy though. It seems like the developers created a continuity error and use this excuse to sweep it under the rug.

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.

Ask yourself questions about what is shown, if it makes sense (90% of it doesn't):
Did Emet-Selch stand in the midst of Amaurot while the Final Days was happening and Hythlodaeus ran off to become part of Zodiark? Absolutely not. Emet-Selch was probably stuck with the Convocation preparing for Zodiark's summoning, as it was their doing. He and Hermes, now Fandaniel, were also shown without their masks—a major taboo in Amaurot, espescially for those of the Convocation.

Was a group of random yay-hoos unassociated to the Convocation the people who sacrificed others to Zodiark? Like the scene implied? No. The convocation made those decisions, the populace was like sheep to the slaughter underneath their control and guidance, they had no choice in the matter.

Further, its established even in 6.X that Venat had followers, many followers. Those followers and she of who chose to sacrifice half the remaining population to create Hydaelyn (revealed in 5.2). It wasn't a decision she herself made and the revelation in Myths of a Realm and through the Lodestone story with the Watcher confirm that this is still the case.

There are so many inconsistencies and nonsense depictions in that scene that its actually hilarious when you look at what's going on. Honestly, how anyone can take it seriously and think it is a continuity error genuinely confuses me.

None of what happened in that scene made sense, the Final Days was stopped before the sundering happened, the scene shows it going on concurrently even though what we're supposedly witnessing there is the second set of sacrifices which was what brought life back to the planet.

That right there was the dead giveaway that the scene was worthless, cinematic drivel that was meant to make us feel bad for Venat/Hydaelyn and nothing more.

Its a bad, poorly written scene that served no narrative purpose other than to try and make us feel bad for Hydaelyn and that's all it was.

You need to understand that our visit to Elpis changed nothing, it had already happened by the time we had gone there, which is why its a loop.
Everything happened the way we already knew it had because everything was already pre-ordained to take place.

For Endwalker's narrative to even work, nothing could change, that was the whole point. Meaning we always had gone to Elpis, we were always Hydaelyn's inspiration, she always knew about the future, and she always chose to remain silent despite the information she knew.

I figure the reasoning was: "Well the players already know all this pre-established information, so there's no need to have that represented in the scene as they won't question it," which is, often a direction they do go with the narrative. Why suddenly people think its different here is beyond me. lol

Its paradoxical and frankly silly, but its the direction they went with.

[PeaTearGriffin]

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.

I know they said it was symbolic and I don't buy that. Do you really think they're just going to say: "uh yeahhh... we didn't really pay attention to the story we created in shadowbringers so we accidentally retconned it." Of course not because that would throw their story writers under the bus by implying they were careless and did a sloppy job. You can choose to believe them but I certainly don't.

None of what happened in that scene made sense, the Final Days was stopped before the sundering happened, the scene shows it going on concurrently even though what we're supposedly witnessing there is the second set of sacrifices which was what brought life back to the planet.

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.

It seems like you're well aware that square is creating all these continuity errors and inconsistencies but you suddenly believe them when they say that one of the most important cutscenes in the game isn't an accidental retcon and is just a metaphorical cutscene? If you believe that, it's ok. But I personally don't. There's a pattern of carelessness here on the writer's part.

I'm going to start using that excuse from now on. If I accidentally retell a story incorrectly and someone calls me out on it, I'm going to say I was speaking metaphorically. What an excuse.

[MikkoAkure]

I'm going to start using that excuse from now on. If I accidentally retell a story incorrectly and someone calls me out on it, I'm going to say I was speaking metaphorically. What an excuse.

So... do you also think the writers meant that Venat canonically walked down a hallway of smoke covered in blood while sundered beings who don't exist yet loitered around her?

If your take on this whole thing is that the writers forgot the lore and made it up for one scene at the climax of a decade of story and then later said "oh it's symbolic" as a cover-up, then there really is nothing more to talk about with you.

[PeaTearGriffin]

So... do you also think the writers meant that Venat canonically walked down a hallway of smoke covered in blood while sundered beings who don't exist yet loitered around her?

If your take on this whole thing is that the writers forgot the lore and made it up for one scene at the climax of a decade of story and then later said "oh it's symbolic" as a cover-up, then there really is nothing more to talk about with you.

I can agree at least that was metaphorical. But that walk down the hallway doesn't retcon the story from shadowbringers.

[MikkoAkure]

I can agree at least that was metaphorical. But that walk down the hallway doesn't retcon the story from shadowbringers.

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. 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 and he says his goodbyes to Emet-Selch. Unless you expect that the writers want us to believe that he was Zodiark'd 1 minute before Hydaelyn was summoned.

[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.

[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.

[Boblawblah]

I know they said it was symbolic and I don't buy that. Do you really think they're just going to say: "uh yeahhh... we didn't really pay attention to the story we created in shadowbringers so we accidentally retconned it." Of course not because that would throw their story writers under the bus by implying they were careless and did a sloppy job. You can choose to believe them but I certainly don't.

So we've established that you don't believe the authors of the story are writing the story as they say they're writing the story. Okay..well, you're definitely free to do that.

You know, you were better at trolling lalas, now you're more like a snarkier version of who you know. it's not as entertaining.

[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.