Thread: [6.0 - 6.4 Spoilers] An interesting video detailing Venat's polarizing reception

Originally Posted by Absimiliard

Frankly, I can't wrap my head around how people look at the complete destruction of an entire species as not controversial. Just the mere concept of taking all those people and effectively killing them. Yeah, their biological matter and souls weren't entirely eradicated, but their identities were stripped away by the Sundering process and all the building blocks that comprised them instead went on to become wholly distinct organisms. That is in many ways worse than just being outright dead. Then there's the matter of how things went in the time period immediate following the Sundering, which we're lead to believe was positively horrific for all involved.

Whether or not it was justified is an entirely separate matter.

The thing there is that 'controversial' can be taken in two fundamentally different ways with characters like Venat and Emet.

1. 'This character stands for and acted on things that aren't inherently agreeable and cause split emotional responses as people have different reactions to them. This is both true and intentional for Emet and Venat, and are a huge partof their joint popularity; neither would be nearly as popular if Emet were just a sassy boy with depression, and Venat was just a nice wine mom. Even Harchefant's popularity is falling off over time.

2. That a character actually has a split response among the fanbase in terms of 'like' or 'don't like', to the point of significant divides. FFXIV doesn't actually have many of these on a large scale, and the best I can think of (for VERY different reasons) are Lyse and Hildibrand.

I'd prefer to use the term 'polarizing', because neither is actually, by dictionary definition, 'controversial'; none of those characters caused controversies.

These are entirely separate definitions, and one doesn't inherently cause the other. Again, Emet and Venat are two of the most popular characters in the game, in very large part because of their emotionally and morally complex stories and deeds. (Granted, this isn't exactly a perfectly repeatable formula; Ysayle didn't exactly see the same bump, and I have some largely unrelated thoughts on why.) And on the other side of that coin, the reasons Lyse and Hildibrand get hate is in no way related to their views and actions, that range from ineffectual to nonexistent. I think using terms like 'controversial' or 'polarizing' relating to Venat (doesn't really happen around Emet) is basically an attempt to conflate the two as the same, when they absolutely aren't.

You're allowed to not be okay with what Venat did, just as I'm not okay with what Emet did, and we don't have invalid opinions in thinking such. But this doesn't make these characters a failure, and it's wrong to approach them as if they did; it makes them successful. Nor does it make them unpopular; the thing I saw in that Twitter and Reddit dive, far more than actual dislike, were people talking about that part of Venat as a big reason why they like her.

Originally Posted by Cleretic

You're allowed to not be okay with what Venat did, just as I'm not okay with what Emet did, and we don't have invalid opinions in thinking such. But this doesn't make these characters a failure, and it's wrong to approach them as if they did; it makes them successful. Nor does it make them unpopular; the thing I saw in that Twitter and Reddit dive, far more than actual dislike, were people talking about that part of Venat as a big reason why they like her.

I don't think I can truthfully say my position on the matter has much to do with being "not okay" with Venat's actions or those of Emet-Selch. It is after all just a story, and I do think both characters were written adequately in their respective roles. Both had their perceived justifications, and both found themselves in what most would consider impossible positions. Neither really had a means to bring about an end that would satisfy everyone. Both of them also have an unfathomable amount of blood on their hands. Neither of them were, in my opinion, "good." They were flawed people whose actions lead to flawed outcomes. In other words, they're both guilty as can be of omnicide.

What I'm not overly fond of is the lack of in-game negative response to the truth of what she did. It's the sort of thing the Scions would normally find positively revolting, but they seemed quite willing to just overlook it. The closest thing we really see to it being called out proper is in one of our responses to Omega on the matter. Quite frankly, I don't think I would have even become embroiled in the numerous conversations on the subject were it not for this particular thing. It just didn't jive with me for whatever reason. "What's good for the goose is good for the gander," as they say.

Ultimately, I suppose I can attribute some of it to the impression I was left with by Endwalker; that the writers tried to walk back some of the "morally grey" ShB brought to the table. I like nuance, intrigue, and moral quandaries with no right answer. I've got no particular need to feel like my character is "right" in a given situation, and I definitely don't mind if it sometimes turns out their actions have horrible consequences. Sometimes doing what you think is right turns out be the opposite, and sometimes you find out the person or entity you believed in is just as flawed and broken as you are. Hell, sometimes you wind up just being flat out wrong and get a bunch of people killed -- or, for an example that befits the topic at hand, realize your story about the future was in part the inspiration for what transpired on Venat's end. It's fine for bad things to happen in fiction, but if they do, I'd much prefer to see the resulting social and/or emotional fallout. Consequences and emotional substance are very important parts of a story to me.