FFXIV Spoiler thread

[Ghost of Cow]

All other courses shown in game lead, or are heavily alluded to lead toward oblivion either to Meteion or nihilistic self destruction. It's not an accident that the summoners of Ra-La in The Dead Ends wore masks and robes and wielded a form of creation magic. One way or another the ancients were doomed.

I think this part of why the Endwalker story just fell so flat for me. This idea that older civilizations - the Ancients specifically - were just doomed as a matter of fact.

We're just told that this must be, we must accept it, there's no reasoning with it because it simply is. Because it happened to others, because the Ancients were too perfect, or something. But if we replace them with people that are imperfect, that are weak, that are somehow "lesser", that we'll somehow be immune to such ends.

Nevermind that this already doesn't make much sense, as it doesn't protect the "lesser" people from ruin in all the other ways they could bring it about. War, plague, famine, invasion, and so on. All things that also brought ruin to other worlds and which the "lesser" people are only even more susceptible to than the Ancients were. Nor are the "lesser" people somehow immune to hubris, pride, despair, ennui, and so on.

Nor do we have any reason to believe that - without some outside attack - the Ancients were going to meet said ruin in the first place. Or at least any sooner than any other mortal race would meet it. We're simply told that it must be because it must be. Even though the concept of a creation running amok and causing destruction isn't an issue that would be unique to their civilization at all.

The entire concept goes back to this weird eco-terrorist, eugenics, whatever kind of comic book villain nonsense where the bad guy wants to save, help, or empower humanity by destroying the "comfortable civilization" or removing our conveniences or other things that make life too easy, or make us too powerful, or something. Yet we're supposed to nod in agreement and act as if that character is the good guy in this case.

- - - Updated - - -

It's a fucking conceit to carry the idea that our challenges and struggles give us strength. Whether or not it was conveyed well or right, the implication is that on a long enough timeline the Ancients would encounter the situation we see in the third part of the Dead Ends or something similar.

Who wouldn't experience ultimate ruin "on a long enough timeline" though?

Even our imperfect, struggling world has really only been saved from it by time travel shenanigans because we're just as susceptible to various forms of ruin as any other "more perfect" one.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not opposed to "conceptual" stories in this sense. Struggle leads to evolution, etc etc. It just didn't work well in this case, partly due to the presentation but partly because - up to now - XIV has always had a more grounded, literal story that revolved around tangible people and places and events. That has always been when the story was at it's best, when it leaned on the strengths of it's characters, nations, their conflicts, and so on.

Well, "grounded" relatively speaking, of course. It's still a fantasy story. But for example, when Ishgard and Nidhogg were at war we saw a lot of the development through Estinien and his experience. Through the suffering and death on both sides of the war. Through Estinien's understanding that Nidhogg's loss mirrored his own and that it was a never ending cycle. Through the challenges on both sides of accepting peace with one another and the rocky road ahead.

The idea - the moral, the lesson, etc - may have been "war is bad" but we saw it happening before our eyes. Through the people and places and events as they unfolded. They didn't just say, "Hey, you guys, war is bad and also here's George the manifestation of war so go beat him up and things will be ok."

[Thoughtcrime]

I think this part of why the Endwalker story just fell so flat for me. This idea that older civilizations - the Ancients specifically - were just doomed as a matter of fact.

We're just told that this must be, we must accept it, there's no reasoning with it because it simply is. Because it happened to others, because the Ancients were too perfect, or something. But if we replace them with people that are imperfect, that are weak, that are somehow "lesser", that we'll somehow be immune to such ends.

Nevermind that this already doesn't make much sense, as it doesn't protect the "lesser" people from ruin in all the other ways they could bring it about. War, plague, famine, invasion, and so on. All things that also brought ruin to other worlds and which the "lesser" people are only even more susceptible to than the Ancients were. Nor are the "lesser" people somehow immune to hubris, pride, despair, ennui, and so on.

Nor do we have any reason to believe that - without some outside attack - the Ancients were going to meet said ruin in the first place. Or at least any sooner than any other mortal race would meet it. We're simply told that it must be because it must be. Even though the concept of a creation running amok and causing destruction isn't an issue that would be unique to their civilization at all.

The entire concept goes back to this weird eco-terrorist, eugenics, whatever kind of comic book villain nonsense where the bad guy wants to save, help, or empower humanity by destroying the "comfortable civilization" or removing our conveniences or other things that make life too easy, or make us too powerful, or something. Yet we're supposed to nod in agreement and act as if that character is the good guy in this case.

There were many reflections on perfection and their inherent flaws shown throughout the final act, I think the writers did a better job of setting up the themes of Endwalker than "Just because" and for me it's a bit of a disservice to sell them so short. Conquerors with nothing left to conquer, scientists and philosophers with nothing left to question, children that never had to grow up, hedonists and suicidal nihilists. The story was littered with metaphors for the methods people use to find meaning in their lives (or don't) and displayed their shortcomings. It may have been heavy handed in places, it may not have worked for you and I get that but those thematic motifs are there and the story is being told loud and clear, whether it lands for you personally and whether it rings true to you is another matter entirely but for me the intent mostly shone through considering I'm getting a translation of the original writing of Ishikawa.

The ancients represented the innocence and ignorance of a childhood without end, despite all their power they were unaware of or chose to ignore the suffering inherent to reality. They never grew up because they never had to grow up and when that innocence was lost they were psychologically ill-equipped to deal with it. Instead of coming to terms with reality the majority rejected it and sought to regress to infancy and ignorance under the auspice of Zodiark's protection. It wasn't so much the sacrifices as it was this regression that Venat and her followers stood against, seeing it for the existential threat and unrealistic goal that it was.

Venat: "Suffering exists, and we cannot pretend otherwise. No civilization, however great, could eliminate it. If we would live, we must accept it as our constant companion. Let us not seek to forget this tragedy. Let us carry it in our hearts, that we may grow stronger and know true happiness."

"No paradise is without it's shadows. If we cannot accept this truth and learn from our pain, then our plight shall be repeated."

This acceptance of reality was rejected by the ancients:

"We can't accept it! We won't accept it! It will be ours again; a world free of sorrow!"

And what did they sacrifice and pray for?

"O mighty Zodiark,god born of our boundless faith! We bid you hear our prayer! Accept this offering of lives and deliver unto us the lives we once had. Deliver unto us the days of old. The days when the star was a font of love, and we knew naught but bliss."

They were doomed because of their inability to contend with the reality of suffering, they were doomed because the nature of their powers and their psychological shortcomings left them vulnerable to Meteion's influence, they were doomed because their only answer was to retreat into infancy until their plight was repeated, they were doomed because even if they got what they wanted and lived in their paradise they would have known that it's existence and their lives were a hollow lie and walked the path toward nihilism and self destruction. The inevitability of their end was their entire point for being in the story.

In every scenario presented the eternally reborn souls of Etheirys would have been extinguished. It was her desperate last resort and a dangerous gamble but through the act of sundering Venat provided the one path shown to preserve the cycle of rebirth into the future, perhaps indefinitely. It wasn't a guarantee, it was just a hope on the potential of mankind to find a way forward.

[GreenJesus]

I think this part of why the Endwalker story just fell so flat for me. This idea that older civilizations - the Ancients specifically - were just doomed as a matter of fact.

We're just told that this must be, we must accept it, there's no reasoning with it because it simply is. Because it happened to others, because the Ancients were too perfect, or something. But if we replace them with people that are imperfect, that are weak, that are somehow "lesser", that we'll somehow be immune to such ends.

Nevermind that this already doesn't make much sense, as it doesn't protect the "lesser" people from ruin in all the other ways they could bring it about. War, plague, famine, invasion, and so on. All things that also brought ruin to other worlds and which the "lesser" people are only even more susceptible to than the Ancients were. Nor are the "lesser" people somehow immune to hubris, pride, despair, ennui, and so on.

Nor do we have any reason to believe that - without some outside attack - the Ancients were going to meet said ruin in the first place. Or at least any sooner than any other mortal race would meet it. We're simply told that it must be because it must be. Even though the concept of a creation running amok and causing destruction isn't an issue that would be unique to their civilization at all.

The entire concept goes back to this weird eco-terrorist, eugenics, whatever kind of comic book villain nonsense where the bad guy wants to save, help, or empower humanity by destroying the "comfortable civilization" or removing our conveniences or other things that make life too easy, or make us too powerful, or something. Yet we're supposed to nod in agreement and act as if that character is the good guy in this case.

- - - Updated - - -



Who wouldn't experience ultimate ruin "on a long enough timeline" though?

Even our imperfect, struggling world has really only been saved from it by time travel shenanigans because we're just as susceptible to various forms of ruin as any other "more perfect" one.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not opposed to "conceptual" stories in this sense. Struggle leads to evolution, etc etc. It just didn't work well in this case, partly due to the presentation but partly because - up to now - XIV has always had a more grounded, literal story that revolved around tangible people and places and events. That has always been when the story was at it's best, when it leaned on the strengths of it's characters, nations, their conflicts, and so on.

Well, "grounded" relatively speaking, of course. It's still a fantasy story. But for example, when Ishgard and Nidhogg were at war we saw a lot of the development through Estinien and his experience. Through the suffering and death on both sides of the war. Through Estinien's understanding that Nidhogg's loss mirrored his own and that it was a never ending cycle. Through the challenges on both sides of accepting peace with one another and the rocky road ahead.

The idea - the moral, the lesson, etc - may have been "war is bad" but we saw it happening before our eyes. Through the people and places and events as they unfolded. They didn't just say, "Hey, you guys, war is bad and also here's George the manifestation of war so go beat him up and things will be ok."

The warrior of light is a bit biased, because if he lets the ancients live, then his/her world won't exist. If you want everything you hold dear to still exist, then you have to cause the sundering of Elpis. But yeh, it does feel a bit weird that Venat didn't try harder to save her planet before the calamity happened. She just basically let it happen and didn't tell anyone.

[Vakir]

@Ghost of Cow

Regarding the comparison to HW, didn't we see it, though? Hermes was out of his mind, but he wasn't entirely off base that the Ancients were extremely judgmental of constructs relative to what they could do for them and being extremely cavalier about life itself. We get a sense that there is very real arrogance attached to the level of power that this society has and the intent to create a paradise is a lofty one in any context.

But that doesn't even come out of nowhere when you look at Shadowbringers. The recreation of Amarout is extremely idealized even when you consider it as the mental construct of someone who views it as ideal, but you're still taking entire concepts given life and throwing them into a queue at the DMV. One quest has, if I'm not mistaken, a children's toy that can murder you.

While all the Amaurotians we talk to are for the most part extremely sweet to us - because they see us as one of them - it's deliberately supposed to be a very cold and clinical impression of a bureaucracy. Major Terry Gilliam Brazil vibes. And while it is objectively a good thing to have Socratic dialogues or debates about ideas, logic is held up as such an extreme pillar in ShB that it juxtaposes the idea of emotions EW introduces - and at that time we're not aware of the (ironically skyward) underbelly where we're euthanizing inconveniences all willy nilly and acting as the primary judges of entire concepts.

You're right that it's not to say that everything doesn't die eventually on a long enough timeline, they pretty much say as much. But as a manic as hell philosopher once said, "No one man should have all that power." Playing God and demanding answers to existential questions with the level of power the Ancients had was part of the problem and it wasn't just that eventually they died themselves, but that they assisted in starting the dissolution of existence. Hermes may have made it happen, but it was in response to a thankless, miserable job based on a destructive and arrogant ethos.

But let's backtrack to ShB, which is almost universally agreed to be a better story and the catalyst that made us love the Ancients in the first place. Even IF we disqualify what we learned about Hermes, Meteion, and the why of Venat sundering, the existence of creation magic warping everything to shit is its own evidence of its instability. We'd have the mystery retained, but the themes remain the same - an ancient and enlightened civilization brought low by their own fears as a metaphor for collective shortcomings and inability to reconcile with them. Whether that's because it was Lavos playing the brown note or the real reason of "because a collective of bird girls got depression," does the end conclusion really change at all?

Like, is that really a takeaway people anticipated? "Let's keep the paradise named after a satire and have them retain their ability to shape as they will...but rEsPoNsIbLy?"

No. The point is they're fucking dead and the tragedy of that is the point. We love Emet-Selch because of that and a vision of Amarout managing to salvage itself undermines that. And his motive in ShB and personal flippant nature towards anyone not of his own reflects what the darker aspects of the Ancients showed themselves to be in EW.

[Yarathir]

Can I say something about the Thou Must Live, Die and Know cutscene?

I love it, I really think it's cool and touching. But I can't help but feel that to most people, it's going to be a little confusing if they take it completely at face value.

We see Venat walking around, observing the ruination wrought by the Final Days. This part isn't too bad yet. But then she watches on as a Dynamismonster spawns and eats one of her people?

She continues walking, passing by Emet-Selch and Hythlodaeus, who similarly, apart from Emet's anger and sorrow over Hythlodaeus' farewell in order to be sacrificed to Zodiark, seem calm while everything around them burns.

Then Hermes is next, just standing there, not knowing how to process the events.

While this is going on, Venat narrates that they summoned Zodiark, and in so doing covered the planet in a shroud of aether and forestalled the Final Days. Yet, as we pan towards the next shot in the ruined building, we see a group of Amaurotines planning to sacrifice more lives. Venat verbally tussles with them for a bit, trying to convince them to stop sacrificing people and trying to go back to their gilded, seemingly "flawless and carefree" past until they turn around and ignore her presence, pleading for Zodiark to accept their offer of lives.

During all of this, Amaurot is still on fire and Dynamis monstrosities are still flying around lasering the place into rubble, even though considering the events within the temple, this should be at least after the first sacrifice, and what Venat does later clarifies that it's in fact after the second sacrifice, when they planned to nourish life on Etheirys (including, heavily implied, sentient lives. New ancients or other types of intelligent humanoid civilizations) and Venat objected, sundering the world. And we do see her presumably sundering the world, as she pretty much announces it. Yet she's not looking like Hydaelyn, nor does she, if she was still Venat, have her posse of Amaurotines with her that, like her, believed Zodiark had to be bound and their third sacrifice stopped.

In other words, the cutscene is symbolic and jumbles several different periods of time from the Final Days and its aftermath together for the sake of selling the drama better, and in a more concise package. And it does this well, but it also leaves it open to misinterpretation, especially if somebody with a passing knowledge of the events takes it at complete face value.

[Lane]

I think this part of why the Endwalker story just fell so flat for me. This idea that older civilizations - the Ancients specifically - were just doomed as a matter of fact.

Same. I don't find this an acceptable excuse either. It's the same premise as Minority Report and supposedly Mass Effect. I've never played the latter, but someone on the forums said they have villains called Reapers who exist to "purge" civilizations they determine are getting too close to destroying themselves. Point being, Venat's actions in other mediums are portrayed as villainous using that reasoning, so it's surprising to see anyone defend it at all. I'm reminded of a quote from a (fictional) man who murdered his wife, "She would've died anyway! ...in another 40 years or so."

Nevermind that this already doesn't make much sense, as it doesn't protect the "lesser" people from ruin in all the other ways they could bring it about. War, plague, famine, invasion, and so on. All things that also brought ruin to other worlds and which the "lesser" people are only even more susceptible to than the Ancients were. Nor are the "lesser" people somehow immune to hubris, pride, despair, ennui, and so on.

I often see the last phase of the Dead Ends mentioned, but the second phase was arguably implied to be Garlemald had they been successful, so the Source itself was perilously close to being 'doomed' even without the Final Days.

The Ancients having to face a crisis together with context could have had meaningful change both in their mindset and how their society moved forward. It's disappointing Venat never gave them that chance, instead choosing the Hermes' (again, villain) path of leaving everyone in ignorance and expecting them to be able to handle an apocalypse 'appropriately'.

[Cthulhu 2020]

Point being, Venat's actions in other mediums are portrayed as villainous using that reasoning, so it's surprising to see anyone defend it at all.

There's literally no equivalent to Venat's actions. They were done in response to Lord Zodiark. There is no comparing what Venat did in any other story or medium.

Again, I don't get how this point is lost on people. Zodiark was going to continuously demand lives until the ancients went extinct. You may say "There must have been some other way" but the reality is, the Zodiark faction summoned Zodiark which was the path to THE END. No possible recourse. If they hadn't summoned Zodiark? Sure, there might have been other ways. But they summoned Zodiark, and the possible outcomes were extinction or sundering.

Again, I really really don't get why understanding this point is hard. You literally have to pretend pertinent information in the story doesn't exist for the Venat "WAH WAH GENOCIDE IN THESE OTHER MEDIUMS WAS EVIL" to make sense. The only way you can possibly see Hydaelyn's actions as NOT better than the alternative is if you are missing key information, or just choose to ignore that the Zodiark faction wanted everyone to die to forestall the final days so they could live in paradise.

- - - Updated - - -

Let me also drop some realization on peeps: Even if you think the ancients should have brained up a space ship and gone to face meteion, it was already established that the ancients were helpless in a realm made of pure Dynamis, i.e. Meteion's nest. They couldn't have stopped her even if they did figure out a way to get to her.

[starstationprofm]

Endwalker and Shadowbringers had fantastic stories.

ARR was terrible.

HW and SB were passable but not that good.

- - - Updated - - -

There's literally no equivalent to Venat's actions. They were done in response to Lord Zodiark. There is no comparing what Venat did in any other story or medium.

Again, I don't get how this point is lost on people. Zodiark was going to continuously demand lives until the ancients went extinct. You may say "There must have been some other way" but the reality is, the Zodiark faction summoned Zodiark which was the path to THE END. No possible recourse. If they hadn't summoned Zodiark? Sure, there might have been other ways. But they summoned Zodiark, and the possible outcomes were extinction or sundering.

Again, I really really don't get why understanding this point is hard. You literally have to pretend pertinent information in the story doesn't exist for the Venat "WAH WAH GENOCIDE IN THESE OTHER MEDIUMS WAS EVIL" to make sense. The only way you can possibly see Hydaelyn's actions as NOT better than the alternative is if you are missing key information, or just choose to ignore that the Zodiark faction wanted everyone to die to forestall the final days so they could live in paradise.

- - - Updated - - -

Let me also drop some realization on peeps: Even if you think the ancients should have brained up a space ship and gone to face meteion, it was already established that the ancients were helpless in a realm made of pure Dynamis, i.e. Meteion's nest. They couldn't have stopped her even if they did figure out a way to get to her.

Huh? Why? Is there any proof Zodiark would ask for more and more sacrifices until every life was gone?

it was already established that the ancients were helpless in a realm made of pure Dynamis, i.e. Meteion's nest. They couldn't have stopped her even if they did figure out a way to get to her.

But Hythlodaeus and Emet Selch save your bacon in that realm of pure Dynamis. Elidibus and the WoL have been using Dyanmis through the series ( that's what Limit Breaks are ) and Zenos uses it too to save your life at the end of EW. ( admittedly this is just a theory, not confirmed )

And as strong as Emet was, he was only one of 14. You telling me the whole Convocation would've lost?

If the 8/14 WoL and the Scions and Zenos stopped the Endsinger, why can't a 14/14 WoL and 13 other Convocation members do it?

[Yarathir]

But Hythlodaeus and Emet Selch save your bacon in that realm of pure Dynamis. Elidibus and the WoL have been using Dyanmis through the series ( that's what Limit Breaks are ) and Zenos uses it too to save your life at the end of EW. ( admittedly this is just a theory, not confirmed )

And as strong as Emet was, he was only one of 14. You telling me the whole Convocation would've lost?

Hythlodaeus and Emet used creation magics to summon Elpis flowers that "gauged" how much Hope (positive Dynamis) there was present in Ultima Thule. It had the added benefit of making Meteion remember Hermes' words, but in no way were either of them interacting with Dynamis.

Elidibus used the power of Warriors of Light throughout time and space for his purposes. He can't actually do it himself.

The WoL is sundered and so is Zenos, which is exactly why they can interact with and battle Dynamis and none of the unsundered Ancients could.

If the 8/14 WoL and the Scions and Zenos stopped the Endsinger, why can't a 14/14 WoL and 13 other Convocation members do it?

Because of the mechanics of Dynamis. The Ancients were extremely aether dense beings. This gave them the ability to do some of the things they did and presumably also gave them long lifespans. They could not perceive or interact with dynamis because of this. The WoL, Zenos and all characters of the present are sundered souls, meaning that by the time of the 7th rejoining, their souls are about half as aether-dense as their progenitors and thus are able to work with dynamis and even invoke it. (see: Limit Break)

It's also why the WoL could hear Meteion in Elpis when she went haywire where nobody else could.

[Katchii]

I think this part of why the Endwalker story just fell so flat for me. This idea that older civilizations - the Ancients specifically - were just doomed as a matter of fact.

That was the conclusion Meteion and Hermes came to, not everyone else. This is exactly what WE are fighting against.

But for the Ancients specifically, they WERE doomed. They had no way to combat Dynamis, and therefore no way to defend against Meteion. With no way for them to defend against or combat Dynamis, which Meteion was hell bent on bringing to bear against Etheirys they were doomed to fall to her.

We're just told that this must be, we must accept it, there's no reasoning with it because it simply is. Because it happened to others, because the Ancients were too perfect, or something. But if we replace them with people that are imperfect, that are weak, that are somehow "lesser", that we'll somehow be immune to such ends.

Weaker beings could affect Dynamis and therefore defend against and combat Meteion. That was the part of the point of the sundering.

The game goes over all of this....

[Yarathir]

That was the conclusion Meteion and Hermes came to, not everyone else. This is exactly what WE are fighting against.

But for the Ancients specifically, they WERE doomed. They had no way to combat Dynamis, and therefore no way to defend against Meteion. With no way for them to defend against or combat Dynamis, which Meteion was hell bent on bringing to bear against Etheirys they were doomed to fall to her.



Weaker beings could affect Dynamis and therefore defend against and combat Meteion. That was the part of the point of the sundering.

The game goes over all of this....

Furthermore, it was the only way Venat knew to stop Zodiark because he was by far the more powerful Primal.

[Ghost of Cow]

HW and SB were passable but not that good.

Oh snap, we bout to fight up in here.

[dope_danny]

People have noticed that after beating the story you can talk to the watch on the moon who mentions rain and healing and after that everytime it rains in a zone where there was a tower its not replaced by a rainbow which are part of the weather system but usually extremely rare but this even follows the snow in dravania. Just one more of those little touches.

[Thoughtcrime]

Same. I don't find this an acceptable excuse either. It's the same premise as Minority Report and supposedly Mass Effect. I've never played the latter, but someone on the forums said they have villains called Reapers who exist to "purge" civilizations they determine are getting too close to destroying themselves. Point being, Venat's actions in other mediums are portrayed as villainous using that reasoning, so it's surprising to see anyone defend it at all. I'm reminded of a quote from a (fictional) man who murdered his wife, "She would've died anyway! ...in another 40 years or so."

I only vaguely remember Minority Report so I can't speak to that. However, it's not really analogous to the Reaper situation since Bioware had specifically spent a large portion of both Mass Effect 2 & 3 dedicated to Shepherd allying themself to various AIs and ending a centuries long AI / creator conflict through reconciliation as well as specifically developing an AI/human romantic relationship (EDI, Joker) only to have that all utterly disregarded in the last 15 minutes with an exposition dumping hologram declaring that it was literally impossible for organics and AIs to get along and there was no alternative. If your entire premise requires X to be true, it's a bad idea to spend an inordinate amount of time showing that X is very often false.

Endwalker didn't do that at all, the messaging on the themes conveyed were consistent even if it's delivery didn't quite hit the mark for everyone. That many, many people seem to have reached broadly similar interpretations and share similar reactions tells me that the intent behind the story was successful. You can't please everyone though.

I often see the last phase of the Dead Ends mentioned, but the second phase was arguably implied to be Garlemald had they been successful, so the Source itself was perilously close to being 'doomed' even without the Final Days.

But whose fault would that be? Venat's? Let's not forget who founded the empire, and for what purpose? Let's also not forget who reopened and completed development of Black Rose, and for what purpose? Can a person be blamed for the failure of their efforts if a conspiracy of hostile agents is actively working to undo them? That doesn't seem remotely rational or just.

The Ancients having to face a crisis together with context could have had meaningful change both in their mindset and how their society moved forward.

It could, we don't know and we never will. If the writers themselves decide to address this then maybe it can be explained why she didn't but until that happens we only have what we're actually shown and our own interpretations. But it must be said that in an ongoing work of fiction, or really anywhere in life it's quite shaky ground to hinge your point on one detail if the overwhelming body of evidence is to the contrary, especially since the character herself broaches this point when the warrior of light explains the situation in Elpis.

Supposing it's all true, I must ask myself why I would do what I did. Why would I feel I had no recourse but to oppose the Fourteen and create this Hydaelyn? Circumstances change of course but it would not have been an easy decision regardless. No, there must have been a reason. One compelling enough to force me to take such drastic measures.

If people are interpreting Venat's actions as malicious then that is clearly not the writers intention so it's apropos to bear that in mind when viewing such perceived missteps in the narrative and consider that since the writers have already preempted the problem it may just be something to be further explored in the future.

It's not for me to write the story but I'll just throw something off the cuff, perhaps Venat and her allies concluded (we don't know that she didn't tell anyone) that the existence of a being as powerful as Zodiark was necessary to hold off Meteion and protect Etheirys until a solution could be found, and that warning the convocation would have caused them to not summon Zodiark in the first place; thus dooming them to Meteion far sooner. That scenario is also not without it's problems but honestly in fiction, especially when time travel and alternate realities are involved it is essentially impossible for there not to be narrative issues, paradoxes or threads that just don't make rational sense. We're not dealing with history, sometimes in fiction the best we can do is just suspend disbelief and try to interpret the writers intent.

[Ghost of Cow]

If people are interpreting Venat's actions as malicious then that is clearly not the writers intention so it's apropos to bear that in mind when viewing such perceived missteps in the narrative and consider that since the writers have already preempted the problem it may just be something to be further explored in the future.

Well, that's the crux the debate.

A lot of the arguments have revolved around the fact that the narrative presents Venat as good, so her actions must be good. Players are - of course - entitled to disagree with this point.

Depending on the writers perspective, any number of characters doing any number of abhorrent things could be presented as a "good guy". That doesn't stop a reader from saying, "The fuck they are, this shit is horrible."

[Doffen]

The cat man butler did it.

[GreenJesus]

That was the conclusion Meteion and Hermes came to, not everyone else. This is exactly what WE are fighting against.

But for the Ancients specifically, they WERE doomed. They had no way to combat Dynamis, and therefore no way to defend against Meteion. With no way for them to defend against or combat Dynamis, which Meteion was hell bent on bringing to bear against Etheirys they were doomed to fall to her.



Weaker beings could affect Dynamis and therefore defend against and combat Meteion. That was the part of the point of the sundering.

The game goes over all of this....

So what would happen if we just went back in time again and killed Meteion and Hermes before they went crazy? Would they have still fallen?

[Ghost of Cow]

So what would happen if we just went back in time again and killed Meteion and Hermes before they went crazy? Would they have still fallen?

We couldn't change history when we went back in time. For reasons.

Even in the spots where our very actions were necessary for the future to happen the way it did, we couldn't actually change anything. Again, for reasons.

It's why stories should just avoid most time travel and such. I swear most of the fan theories pre-EW regarding "the sound" and the Final Days and such made more sense than what actually happened.

Edit: But yeah, to your broader point the fact that it was a single, external force - essentially an invader/attacker - that brought about this end makes the story less compelling. Nothing about the ancients society or life caused their doom. Nothing about their way of life was unsustainable. All the tales and stories and supposed "lessons" we see over the course of the story just fall flat because the ancients didn't fall due to any of that. They were attacked by an outside force and then destroyed by one of their own.

[GreenJesus]

We couldn't change history when we went back in time. For reasons.

Even in the spots where our very actions were necessary for the future to happen the way it did, we couldn't actually change anything. Again, for reasons.

It's why stories should just avoid most time travel and such. I swear most of the fan theories pre-EW regarding "the sound" and the Final Days and such made more sense than what actually happened.

Edit: But yeah, to your broader point the fact that it was a single, external force - essentially an invader/attacker - that brought about this end makes the story less compelling. Nothing about the ancients society or life caused their doom. Nothing about their way of life was unsustainable. All the tales and stories and supposed "lessons" we see over the course of the story just fall flat because the ancients didn't fall due to any of that. They were attacked by an outside force and then destroyed by one of their own.

That's what doesn't make sense. Venat wouldn't have done what she did unless we were there. So obviously we changed the future.

[Ghost of Cow]

That's what doesn't make sense. Venat wouldn't have done what she did unless we were there. So obviously we changed the future.

Oh no, because you see that past was actually our present, and since it was all part of a closed loop the actions we took were all preordained.

Something something timey wimey loopy doopy.