Inconsistencies with the sundering (Spoilers)

[Atelier-Bagur]

The cutscene starts with Venat telling us, "Even now, I remember standing there. Locked in a moment where the sky is aflame."

The entire cutscene is her telling us a story: her story of the sundering.

It's natural that she tells a different story from Emet-Selch's: She remembers Meteion; he does not. She's motivated by pushing mankind forward; he's motivated by restoring the past. The stories they tell us are the stories that they've each been telling themselves, to remind themselves of why they've been carrying their burdens for thousands of years.

I was just thinking about this. Its not that there's a retcon, its that we have two different perspectives of the sundering.

[PeaTearGriffin]

Yeah, not only should this have been included in the cutscene, but it wouldn't have hurt to expand upon this in Tales of the Dawn too. They spoke about it briefly in Tales, but sadly, it leaves a lot on the table.

I don't understand why square doesn't just come out with something in tales of the dawn that explains things in depth for everyone. There's obviously still some confusion about endwalker's story as we can see from many responses in this thread and the questions that players asked yoship during the Letter from the Producer LIVE Part LXVIII.

[kpxmanifesto]

I don't understand why square doesn't just come out with something in tales of the dawn that explains things in depth for everyone. There's obviously still some confusion about endwalker's story as we can see from many responses in this thread and the questions that players asked yoship during the Letter from the Producer LIVE Part LXVIII.

Probably because coming out with a better written version of the game's story would indirectly be acknowledging that they did a terrible job the first time around.

[Atelier-Bagur]

Probably because coming out with a better written version of the game's story would indirectly be acknowledging that they did a terrible job the first time around.

I still dont understand how people get confused about this story. First we have people being bad about playing this easy game, now we suddenly have people being bad at understanding the story. How amusing

[PeaTearGriffin]

Probably because coming out with a better written version of the game's story would indirectly be acknowledging that they did a terrible job the first time around.

I guess we can't expect too much from a game whose director says things like "when you're making this world you'll just sort of sometimes ignore things that are inconvenient" and "I think you guys can come up with your own theories for this one". At least disney tried to make amends for star wars 9 by explaining how palpatine returned even if it took a writer having to explain it outside of the movie.

[Celine_Aurora]

I still dont understand how people get confused about this story. First we have people being bad about playing this easy game, now we suddenly have people being bad at understanding the story. How amusing

Because the in-game presentation focuses on enabling gameplay progression, not explaining nuance. There's nothing to get confused about, some things - like the full extent of the Venat and Zodiark faction's ideologies are simply left unspoken because a tearjerker movie has more emotional impact for less time and enables the player to go back to playing the MSQ faster.

I'd be wary of being proud of "understanding" this childish plot, or of dismissing players who focused on different aspects of the game. It's not really anything that merits full attention.

[PeaTearGriffin]

I'd be wary of being proud of "understanding" this childish plot

Wow this is going to piss people off. You're a brave soul.

Because the in-game presentation focuses on enabling gameplay progression, not explaining nuance. There's nothing to get confused about

i get where you're coming from in that if there's less dialogue and exposition that would mean there's less for the player to sift through and digest. But some could say that the lack of nuance and leaving things unspoken can add to the confusion too.

[Iscah]

I was just thinking about this. Its not that there's a retcon, its that we have two different perspectives of the sundering.

Being presented with "two perspectives" should still be recognisably the same event from each perspective. The "Tales from the Dawn" quote seems to be a matching second perspective to Emet's account in Shadowbringers, but the post-Elpis cutscene does not resemble the same description of events.

[kpxmanifesto]

I guess we can't expect too much from a game whose director says things like "when you're making this world you'll just sort of sometimes ignore things that are inconvenient" and "I think you guys can come up with your own theories for this one".

They would also have to resolve certain inconsistencies in the game in greater detail that are already difficult to explain, like how you mentioned the inconsistency with Elidibus, Lahabrea, and Emet-Selch not being sundered in your original post. As you can see from what other posters in this thread already pointed out and from the video of the Q and A session, Yoshi P struggled to answer that question and ended up giving a lame reason for it.

Being presented with "two perspectives" should still be recognisably the same event from each perspective. The "Tales from the Dawn" quote seems to be a matching second perspective to Emet's account in Shadowbringers, but the post-Elpis cutscene does not resemble the same description of events.

I'll make an attempt to draw a connection between the symbolic EW cutscene and Emet-Selch's story from ShB.

We see Venat who's presumably already Hydaelyn at this point, so in essence she represents her faction. Then she confronts the room full of Ancients who are summoning Zodiark, which is symbolic of the philosophical clash between those who support Hydaelyn and those who support Zodiark. Then Venat taking out her sword and sundering everyone is symbolic of their battle and the subsequent event where Hydaelyn strikes Zodiark with such force that it tears the world asunder.

Even still, I only arrived at this conclusion by jumping through several mental hoops and giving everything the benefit of a doubt. The "link" that I see between the EW cutscene and Emet's account in ShB is tenuous at best, if there even is one.

[PeaTearGriffin]

We see Venat who's presumably already Hydaelyn at this point, so in essence she represents her faction. Then she confronts the room full of Ancients who are summoning Zodiark, which is symbolic of the philosophical clash between those who support Hydaelyn and those who support Zodiark. Then Venat taking out her sword and sundering everyone is symbolic of their battle and the subsequent event where Hydaelyn strikes Zodiark with such force that it tears the world asunder.

Even still, I only arrived at this conclusion by jumping through several mental hoops and giving everything the benefit of a doubt. The "link" that I see between the EW cutscene and Emet's account in ShB is tenuous at best, if there even is one.

I might need a road map for a few of these aha.