Inconsistencies with the sundering (Spoilers)

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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