For the Limit Break conversation, also consider that your limit break meter goes up the more abilities you use. The more Aether you expend. Less aether, more access to Dynamis.
You also gain limit break by healing from the brink of death. By overcoming adversity you literally become more like beings that can stand up against the face of death.
@@pletter64 Absolutely. It's such a small but fantastic little bit of lore sprinkled in. They didn't have to give any sort of explanation for it. Just hand waved it as a game mechanic. But there's just so much care in every detail
16:51 That gasp perfectly encapsulates how I felt during this. "She was with us the entire time. She was with us when we suffered, and she suffered the entire time."
as soon as Zodiark was released Fandaniel had us in checkmate. 1. Zenos eats Zodiark and the shield falls? Final Days 2. Zenos eats Zodiark but the shield stays? We are forced to kill Zenos (or he kills himself) and cause the Final Days 3. Fandaniel eats Zodiark and the shield falls? Final Days 4. Fandaniel eats Zodiark and the shield stays? We are forced to kill Fandaniel (or he kills himself) and cause the Final Days 5. Zodiark breaks free and without a heart goes on a rampage? We are forced to kill him 6. Zodiark breaks free and starts sucking up all the aether? We are forced to kill him
Emet lost Hythlodaeus and Azem walked away from the convocation. Lost his two best friends and was left with an amnesiac (Elidibus) and a raving madman (Lahabrea) for centuries No wonder he turned out like he did. Grief and despair over time will wear down anyone, especially when you're alone. And you were part right. She took two hits... the first was the loss of the 13th shard, I would presume and the second was sheilding you from Ultima. (Im guessing that because it was two hits she took, not 7 and Lahabrea said himself that she was weakened shielding her champion). As for Zodiark. It wasn't that he was evil, he was nessicary.... but it was the ancients desire to abuse his power to remake the world which she wanted to prevent. Remember the scene where we first learned of Venat, they wanted to sacrifice more lives to make things how they were and bring back those who had been sacrificed the first time. She wanted to take the proverbial crutch away so that mankind could learn to live through the suffering and find meaning.
The first stoop in Emet's posture comes the moment he's said goodbye to Hythlodaeus. What a fantastic bit of continuity. This cutscene sure did a helluva job driving home the guilt trip on anyone who had started to doubt Hydaelyn. I mean, Elpis in general pretty much spelled out we were worrying about nothing, but that really puts the shame on it. I mean, I was literally ready to fight her over Minfilia - like playing 3.2, if Minfilia had said "I'd like to come home now", it would have been time to explain that to mommy crystal. But here it's laid out just how hard she was working to guide the world through to where we could finally face Meteion. Zodiark isn't evil, I agree. Zodiark isn't even a character; Zodiark is a tool. In fact, if you get down to defining the cosmology as two opposing viewpoints - about the nature and direction of the world, about the worth and purpose of mankind - it's always been Venat and Hades, not Hydaelyn and Zodiark.
@@jaesaces not quite. Venat already believes mankind is fit to exist. Her "trials" were meant to strengthen us so that we could eventually deal with the final days without falling to despair. If the point was to determine our fitness to exist, the loporrits' original purpose wouldn't have been to help us escape the star.
"Thou must live, die, and know" Knowing now that all memories return once the soul is cleansed in the Aetherial Sea, that line makes more sense now, huh?
For real, even though Emet gets a lot of kudos, I really love Venat. Her love for all her friends, family and people was the highlight of her story. The cutscene where she walks through and gets progressively more injured just wrecked me. I still can’t believe it’s the same VA who played Aveline in Dragon Age 2. ❤️🔥
I just had a thought, and it's put much into fresh new perspective for me. When we begin our journey in FFXIV, Hydaelyn tells us to 'vanquish the darkness'. Given Zodiark is associated with dark-aspected aether, we just naturally attribute her request to 'vanquish Zodiark and the Ascians'. But what if she REALLY meant 'vanquish the darkness that lurks at the edge of the universe' - referencing Meteion and the weight of all that negative emotion weighing on her? Or even 'vanquish the darkness that lurks within you', given during that cutscene, she encourages us to, in effect, try and find 'light everlasting'. To live, to suffer... but to find joy and happiness all the same.
To be fair, the story of the ascian changed with 2.0 so it was probably more literal then but it does take excellent ability to write a story that changes the words to fit like that
It is said in the story, that after the callamity the source was tilting dangerously towards darkness (which makes sense because in the wake of the calamity there was a lot of chaos and darkness is associated with change and instability, whereas light is associated with stasis and stability). So to prevent a premature rejoining you had to restore balance. Elidibus said this at the end of Shadowbringers. So it kind of makes sense for Hydaelyn to lead us on that journey. But the metaphorical meaning of being a beacon of hope in a desparate world is of course just as valid an interpretation, probably both are correct. It could have been reinterpreted a bit when they fleshed out the overarching story more, but I don't think majorly considering how Answers was already written back then.
It breaks my heart to even try to comprehend just how much Hydaelyn has suffered in the tens of thousands of years between the days of the ancients and the present
As do Emet, at least Venat know beforehand and had time to prepare herself. To Emet, he just lost everything he hold dear without time to prepare and without knowing why. His best friend sacrificed himself to Zodiark, another best friend left him, her teacher and also a close friend "betray" him and sunder the world, his home and kin broken
In my opinion, the best cutscene I ever witnessed in gaming. Its message is way too real. It made me contemplate my life & subsequently wrecks me every time I hear Venat's speech... Yeah, life is suffering. But life is also enduring that suffering & learning to live with it... BTW I loved your speech about Hermes & limit breaks.
It's an argument about existentialism vs nihilism We can either lose hope and accept that we are meaningless animals in a meaningless universe, or we can rise above the dispair and use our free wills to forge our own meanings to life
Thy Life is a Riddle, to bear Rapture and Sorrow. To Listen, to suffer... to entrust unto tomorrow. In one fleeting moment, from the land doth life flow... In the same fleeting moment... though must live. Die. And KNOW.
I really love you left the interpretation and discussion in the video, thank you for that! It's always interesting to hear the thoughts different people have about these scenes and characters; and it would have been lost otherwise in the livestream VODs, thank you!
Amon himself was from the Allagan empire and I bring this up because when I think of his personal nihilism I believe they were the stepping stones that may have triggered the roots of Hermes. I'm reminded of the earlier cutscene where the echo showed us a memory of his, recalling when was being praised for turning a man's head into a bull. The Allagan he was speaking to was thoroughly entertained by the poor man's anguish and calls for help. This complete disregard of another life, among the many other atrocities the empire committed, I think made the stepping stones to his descent. Amon I believe had plans of his own, as he bore a grudge against the Ascians. Emet had approached him and said his beloved Emperor would fall, by their hands planning. I believe he wanted everything to end, but also targeted Zodiark because he was the beloved icon for the Ascians.
Well also remember the whole when you DIE the memory wipe undoes on the actual soul so the "reborn" Hermes as Amon was already primed of insanity from nightmares of the final days
I think the events depicted were just metaphorical. They didn't all happen within a few minutes of each other. We know that Hythlo was part of the initial sacrifice to create Zodiark. Some time passed after that, enough for a second sacrifice to restore life to the planet. Hyd was probably summoned about that time, then the battles started. Emet said that they fought a war before the world was actually sundered.
Precisely. I saw someone else mention it and I agree completely; that whole sequence is directed as if it were a stageplay. And I think that goes a long way into making it concise while still flowing well and having the impact it needs.
If you want to go deeper into the similarities between worlds. The ones I would point out is that the Warrior of Light fight is literally the Warrior of Light from the original FF. Before now you have met Matoya, an FF1 character, Krile Baldesion is from FF5 and and as is her grandfather Galuf mentioned beforehand. There are other major details with how the story and design of Shadowbringers is to FF: Mystic Quest. FF: Mystic Quest is a world being destroyed by a light glow, and your job is to bring the crystals together to bring the world's Ether back into balance. (Mystic Quest was my first game.) To relate to Tactics and XII (XII is a sequel of tactics and is recent enough to the tactics world that you can talk to and get missions from the otherworld children from Tactics Advance), and those self-same otherworld children appear in FFXIV's Ivalice quest line! But here's a thinker for everyone. The Warriors of Light Dungeon just before the Shadowbringers trial. The thing they all had in common was that they all had classes from previous games.
I thought it was literally supposed to represent his friend, Azem. The hooded figure is shrouded for us, but Emet sees it (or sees the soul). The wiki page for the warrior of light even states as much.
While I got the impression that dynamis was something that WoL had used at some points during FFXIV, I wasn't really able to wrap my head around the concept enough to figure out when these instances using it would've taken place or how it concretely manifests. The theory of Limit Breaks being a manifestation of it sounds really plausible though, considering that canonically dungeons and such are meant to be life-threatening places that would've pushed WoL to their limits and beyond. Though now that I'm writing this, I just realized that this begs one interesting question regarding our fight with Elidibus in 5.3. When he transformed, he said this: "If you would usher in the end, then with my all shall I oppose you... As the avatar of those mortal heroes who fought unfalteringly, in *all their imperfection!* As the Warrior of Light incarnate!" And during the fight, he employs a Limit Break of his own against us. So by "all their imperfection", did Elidibus also imply the comparatively lesser Aether they had? If Limit Breaks are in fact a manifestation of dynamis, did he really use it against us in that fight?
its possible that when he absorbed the people he summoned that they gave him access to limit breaks seeing as it would be their shattered pieces of soul that would have easy access to dynamis.
I just realised, some of the masks of the souls that make up Zodiark are red. Does that mean... some of the convocation sacrificed themselves to become Zodiark, and allowed their chosen successors to take their seats? I could see Lahabrea's son taking his seat, and his fanaticism stemming from wanting to bring his father back.
I'm proud to say I never doubted Hydaelyn. Things didn't add up to me when it came to Emet telling us that Zodiark and Hydaelyn were Primals, as we had known them to that point, because Hydaelyn's followers didn't have tempering effects and neither did Zodiark's followers. We came to learn why that was. As for us being the Primal/Eikon killer, what was the main reason for us killing Primals? The main reason for killing Primals was because of their tempering abilities. That was part of the reason for killing Primals in the first place, especially after what happened when we initially faced Ifrit. It wasn't until later that we learned about he damage they could possibly cause through the Primal Leviathan.
Yeeeah no. Zodiark has done some tempering. Emet-Selch even admits to you in your face with absolute lucidity that he was tempered. The effect? No shadow. Hydaelyn never tempered anyone because she wants mankind to be able to evolve and stand on their own feet. Also, we're told pretty early how dangerous Primals are and why they need to be destroyed. Aside from the cycle brought about by enthrallment, them simply existing causes their body to steadily drain aether from their surroundings just to maintain their form
@@kaihedgie1747 Sorry, but you're wrong. Zodiark was summoned without the tempering effect. We learn that the Ascians added in the tempering effect later on. You need to go back and rewatch quite a few cutscenes and refresh yourself on the story.
@@Lunzatis_Palemoon "Zodiark was summoned without the tempering effect" Emet-Selch flatout tells you he was tempered when you talk to him after the Exarch's briefing of Rak'tika. Or did you not know you could talk to him at all?
@@Lunzatis_Palemoon They added the tempering effects to the older patterns like Ifrit which we find out in the short stories Azem wanted to "borrow" to stave off a volcano eruption. The lopurrits just rolled back the version number to an older build on the primals
It's confirmed in the game itself that Zodiark was capable of tempering because it was such an immense power compared to everything else created at the time, for the sake of their world. But that compared to the Amaurotines, the tempering were at most like a tug of a thread tied to a finger.
This cutscene was so deep & very well written. Your expressions with the ancients was exactly how I/we all felt. What makes it hit even harder is how we can all view both sides, on one we can be like the ancients wishing to have things back where problems didn't appear/exist at the time refusing to accept the current reality, on the other we are like Venat, knowing problems exist all the time & accepting them in order to move foward & try to create a better tomorrow. The only thing that confuses me about this cutscene (If someone has any idea) is how did emet, Laha & Elidibus escape the sundering (especially emet seeing how close in the vicinity he was to Venat. Not even Azem got away and who knows what we were doing at the time.
I assume it's because the Ascians were tempered (or a similar effect, at least) by Zodiark, and thus protected from the actions of Hydaelyn during the sundering.
@@crimson_shadow3591 but only 3 escaped unsandered the others like Fandaniel, Logrif etc were sundered ... an alternate explanation would be that because we told Venat it influenced the result of the sundering, ... could have even been subconscious
35:56 I'd like to add to this theory and point out how Dalmasca exists on the Source, but ISN'T part of Ivalice (ff12) which, to me, is confirmation that the multiverse theory is 100% true. Having said that, I hope we see a restored Zanarkand from FF10 ^_^ Blitzball would be an incredible time killing hobby for 14!
I hope the Multiverse theory is validated, I'd love to see ff14 in a future expantion traverse the multiverse and interact will the universe of ff8, or any of the other ff games
I love this cutscene, but what I don't like about it is that it's a little too open to interpretation, not because that's necessarily a bad thing, but because it causes people to complain about plotholes or Venat being evil based on things they took literally that were meant to be metaphorical. Like, nobody really believes that Venat literally walked past a guy being eaten, then passed Emet and Hythlodaeus having their last chat and, saw Hermes crying on the streets and then proceeded to murder a group of ancients for not agreeing with her, right? It's a sort of metaphorical summation of events as they transpired from her viewpoint and how they affected the most important players.
Personally I think it was a proper memory, she was already injured before she saw the guy being eaten, hythlo was a sacrifice to summon zodiark so she couldn't stop their chat and him leaving, don't think she murdered the guys I think she summoned hydaelyn at that point
@@bahumut01 I don't think it makes any sense for it to be literal. Stuff is all out of alignment. It might be partially literal, but I feel like part of it is also just heavily summarized. Like the group of Amaurotines at the end wasn't just a random bunch, it was meant to represent the overwhelming consensus of their people. It was also not Venat that sundered their world but Hydaelyn, and when she did so, it was implied she faced Zodiark directly, rather than just barging into a group of people and sundering them.
@@Zakjuh > not Venat that sundered their world Exactly. I see this as the point she realized how far she would actually have to go. Venat knew she sundered the world, but didn't know why. These people in their obstinate refusal to see anything but more sacrifices to bring back the world they want gave her the answer for the "Why I would have done such a thing" question. As Amaurotines were, they could not move past their suffering. They never needed to deal with it before. They would *always* be susceptible to the oblivion sent from Meteion and the Meteia. As sundered creation, their life was suffering. Yet they still found hope and happiness where they could. Some were actually able to move past the despair, even it others gave into it.
Despite everything that transpired (saw the whole main story through-out endwalker) I still have sympathy for Hermes in the world unsundered. He quite literally had no one to turn to so he had to create someone that would understand him.
@Krimson KB Hermes and nihilism ... In my opinion Hermes cared to much for life, and the other Amouratines didn't. Herme's didn't think nothing had meaning, he believed that everything had meaning but was carelessly discarded when it was decided that the creation wouldn't fit into the greater world and would be unmade. When Emet-Selch carelessly said "Who are you to decide whether we live or die," *THAT* prompted Hermes to put humanity to the test. He saw the Amourattines deciding the life of countless creatures that were found lacking. So, if humanity was lacking, by the Amouratines own belief, they should be discarded as well correct?
"In my opinion" -- proceeds with not stating an opinion but offering a take. Sorry for arsing you about that, it's just that I feel that the dilution of the definition of what "opinions" are has been responsible for a lot of anti-intellectualism these last couple of decades. Just for the record: Opinions are neither takes nor assertions. An opinion is something along the lines of "I think Venat did the right thing."
@@GrahamChapman Meh, quickly typing it out... Saying it's an opinion gets the point across that it was my view on events, not something written in stone. I think it easily falls on the opinion side though, as there are multiple view points on the same set of events depicted to us. My thinking that Herme's held more value to life than what credit many are giving him is an opinion. It sure isn't universally accepted, just like "Venat did the right thing" isn't. People really wanted to hate on Hermes at the end of Ktisis Hyperboreia for his actions. And realistically, there is no difference between an opinion and take in this context. It comes down to semantics and what works best semantically in a given statement "Give me your take on XYZ" vs. "Give me your opinion on XYZ"; "My take is..." vs "My opinion is..." I don't think we'll ever get anything in stone on this specific view point. Unless the developers come back with their thoughts while doing development and building out the characters. Or maybe a Side Story that delves into it more in the future... So really, it's more a debate exercise and delving into philosophy if one so wishes.
@@jmstover I'm making a distinction here because an opinion empathically _isn't_ just something that "there are multiple view points" on or something that "isn't universally accepted" and your conflation of "opinions" and that your take "easily falls on the opinion side" is an example of the problem with the steadily diluted definition of what constitutes as "opinions"... Or, if you want me to put it in more concrete terms; no, you thinking that Hermes held more value to life than what credit many are giving him is, in fact, not an expression of an opinion, that is your take/your interpretation of Hermes' value in regards to life. Furthermore, _there is,_ in fact, an important distinction between an opinion and a take in this context. You can argue that it's just about semantics, but then I really gotta ask you who taught you that kind of "Give me your take on XYZ" = "Give me your opinion on XYZ" rhetoric in the first place, and what agenda they might've had, because that is the precise kinda appeals to wishy-washy semantics rhetoric that I've seen a lot of anti-intellectuals employ as they seek to undermine universally accepted scientific facts. In the case of a general example, it's how "What is your take on the theory of evolution" turned into "Evolution occurring being a fact is just your opinion." Just be better than this in the future, okay?
@@GrahamChapman > steadily diluted definition of what constitutes as "opinions Here's the thing. You aren't giving a definition of what you're looking at, you're just saying my interpretation of a view point isn't my opinion on the view point shown, but my take on the view point shown. For the past 40 years I've had everyone use take/opinion interchangeably except in a pure pedantic situation where you had to specify that "take" is what *you* yourself gained from the viewing, not what your impression of the viewing was. What you took from that scene, music, etc... and incorporated into how you see the world around you. That would be your take. So, my "take" for this interaction with Hermes would be: Even if you create a life yourself, that life still holds a value and shouldn't be thrown away. My opinion is: Hermes held more value to life than what he's being given credit for, but was a lost cause in a civilization that only saw the overall picture of the Star, not the individual life that existed on the Star. There's enough given for me to infer that opinion (and others a different view on it), but the "take" is more on how I would see it apply to life in general. Not every scene that I have an opinion on, would I actually have a "take" on just because they're more.... story driven? Only apply to the story being told and not applicable to life in general (or I'm not smart enough to generalize it into some "life lesson" thing)? Like... I'm sure that some folks could take the Raubahn scene of him loosing his arm and apply that to some life lesson.... I can't, but I can have an opinion of how losing his arm could be read into the story differently than just "Ilberd cut him good." > turned into "Evolution occurring being a fact is just your opinion." No, that is people being intellectually dishonest to promote that their view is just as valid as any other, even if it's actually not valid at all. Opinions are like ass holes right? So, because I don't want to believe something I'm going to call it an opinion and believe the opposite.... We'll ignore the mountain of evidence that points against what I'm saying.
@@jmstover Oh, you need definitions to work with? That's fine, I suppose I can give you some of those: An opinion is a declaration of a personal/subjective judgement pertaining to something. (E.g., "In my opinion, dark chocolate is better than white chocolate.") A take is a personal/subjective interpretation or understanding of something. (E.g., "My take on this is that white chocolate, though sweeter than the more bitter dark chocolate, has less nutritional value.") An assertion is the declaration of facts as understood or known by someone. (E.g., "I assert that dark chocolate, being high in antioxidants and flavanols, is healthier than white chocolate, which substitutes much of the chocolate's nutrients with milk and sugar.") There are plenty of words that plenty of people use incorrectly for far longer than just 40 years -- sometimes they never learn but keep using the words incorrectly their entire lives -- so that argument was honestly just inane. (Examples of words people tend not to know the actual definitions of: conservative, socialist, punk, ironic, literally, translucent, nubile, egregious, wherefore, inconceivable... yes, that last one is just a Princess Bride reference.) But that is not an argument for continuing to use them incorrectly. While your examples of "take" and "opinion" help elucidate what your definition of "take" and "opinion" is, it does not defend your understanding of what the definition of takes and/or opinions are and, in fact, falls blatantly short in the latter case on account of the fact that your "opinion" lacks the judgement necessary to qualify. If you had said that you found Hermes' value of life superior to that of other Ascians, who seemed more apathetic towards life as a concept, _then_ it would've been an opinion. (Tbh, I'd say that your "take" example came closer to being an opinion than your "opinion" example did.) Best case scenario I could give you that your "opinion" on Hermes' in this case is an assertion, but I'd honestly still personally describe it as more of a "take." And if you want examples of other opinion angles of Raubahn losing his arm other than "Ilberd cut him good" then how about "That was a horrible thing for Ilberd to do"? And in regards to the evolution example: You're looking at what anti-intellectuals and the intellectually dishonest are doing, but you're not looking at it from a systemic perspective so on that subject I'd honestly just recommend you to keep doing what you're already doing but deepening and widening your perspectives... Diluting definitions has been a frightfully effective card in their game for a long, long time and has taken many different forms. (Anti-science proponents conflating "opinion" and "knowledge that isn't 100% certain" in order to promote their agendas -- I'd recommend checking out the movie "Don't Look Up" if you haven't already, it's a great movie about exactly this; Christian bakers claiming that _they_ are the ones being subjected to hate and discrimination if they're not allowed to discriminate against homosexual customers; racists claiming that teaching CRT is teaching children to be racist towards white people, etc.) But this is sorta getting into the deep end of the pool and I'm not exactly an educator about this sorta stuff, so, y'know...
Speaking about Hermis nihilism I don't think few days memory whipe means much, yes information deleted is important, but it doesn't change his personality metion information just enforcis his personality. Just look at Emet-selch even after 12000 years his core personality is still the same.
The fake event he imposed upon himself did have a big impact He still cares deeply for life other than man, so having Meteion - his magnum opus, his hope and dream, his determination for the answer, and not 1, but all of them, "died", all because of his (in the Ancients' moral code) misguided way of thinking, is an unbearable guilt to him. Every time he thinks about the question he asked, he would be reminded of Meteia death, all because he bade them to go search for his answer. That guilt made him abandon his search for the answer and instead join the Convocation to atone.
It should have been obvious if people paid attention, that Zodiark was never going to be the big bad. Something created the final days for the Ancients that caused them to summon him. We were going to HAVE to face what that was, at some point. I've known this for over 6 years.
Eh no it might have been the next expac as part of the new chapter since all we were told was this was the final chapter of Zodiark and Hydaelyn's book
I assume you did look into the evolution of the "limit break" video? Once I saw it (after I finished EW) I noticed the emotional charge that the LB has imbued into it.
0:50 Very long game. 10,000+ years long game. 2:00 Would explain why the summoners of Hydaelyn were so few in number. 6:48 Brace yourself, KB. 8:30 Hyth is heading off to sacrifice his life to summon Zodiark, and Emet has to just watch and let him go. That whole speech of Venat's from 10:00 was pretty much her begging her people to be able to meet the despair herself, or she would have no choice but to Sunder them. 14:35 She had already become Hydaelyn! 18:24 And she did. That hit me hard.
So what I've gathered after Elpis: F#$% Hermes pre-87 Dungeon... F#$% Amon... Man, the Fandaniel line must be cursed if Hermes and Amon were chosen to take the title... Poor Venat... Poor Meteion...
the answers where not what we thought they where and the hurt is so much for us now you are so right about dynimas i think in futher games they will use it against or with aether in a bigger way since 14 explained it all
Ever since this cutscene and the rest she has been my wifu lol as Azem I carry her minion whichever adventure I’ll go (I have thousands of hours of stuff to do starting from Omni 90)
I more see her as a big sister I mean the disgruntled how our previous incarnation kicked her ass within a week of meeting when Venat thought she was going to whip "us" in shape
I will be honest 5.0 was doubt but not full on against. 5.2 turned me against her fully until Elpis. Soul PTSD was not okay in my mind and willingly doing so as well as conversations with her potentially being an automated message? All faith was gone until this moment
Also something that still bugs me when I think about it. Besides stable time loops are bull and how the hell does the start of the loop start which MATTERS ON SOMETHING OF THIS SCALE COMPARED TO ALEXANDER. Hydaelyn knows of meteion and the rest of the planets. Where the hell are you to flee in her backup plan?
@@tabuukiller13 Somewhere. There’s always somewhere. We could find an untouched world, or repopulate a dead one. Even if fleeing is not a favorable option, it’s still an option.
@@acgearsandarms1343 Considering Meteions plan there's not exactly going to be any untouched worlds, and considering htey will be a lot less aetherically dense....
@@acgearsandarms1343 Exactly. There were worlds that were still habitable, but all life was dead on them. The Sharlayans were looking at long term teraforming/rebuilding of dead soil. Even Hydaelyn says fleeing is one of 2 paths. It's just that fleeing would have been the "easier" to accomplish of the two if man wasn't up to the challenge of facing Meteion should Zodiark fall before man is able to stand and face them. It doesn't mean fleeing was the best option, but it was an option that she gave the people.
@@tabuukiller13 Like I said, fleeing isn’t a favorable option, but still an option. If it came to it, they would have to flee again. They had a list of potential places to resettle. Admittedly I don’t like this since it’s not a long term solution, but it’s still better than nothing.
![Thou Must Live, Die, and Know | FFXIV Endwalker Reactions [Part 14]](/img/n.gif)
For the Limit Break conversation, also consider that your limit break meter goes up the more abilities you use. The more Aether you expend. Less aether, more access to Dynamis.
You also gain limit break by healing from the brink of death. By overcoming adversity you literally become more like beings that can stand up against the face of death.
@@pletter64 Absolutely. It's such a small but fantastic little bit of lore sprinkled in. They didn't have to give any sort of explanation for it. Just hand waved it as a game mechanic. But there's just so much care in every detail
Along with dancer and bard storylines, arguably warriors power. Dynamis can be tracked to a couple things really
@@pletter64 they tweaked that a bit.
Let me also remind you that WoL in 5.3 uses Limit Break.
Primals are Aether, so its a big exception to Limit Breaks being Dynamis.
16:51 That gasp perfectly encapsulates how I felt during this. "She was with us the entire time. She was with us when we suffered, and she suffered the entire time."
as soon as Zodiark was released Fandaniel had us in checkmate.
1. Zenos eats Zodiark and the shield falls? Final Days
2. Zenos eats Zodiark but the shield stays? We are forced to kill Zenos (or he kills himself) and cause the Final Days
3. Fandaniel eats Zodiark and the shield falls? Final Days
4. Fandaniel eats Zodiark and the shield stays? We are forced to kill Fandaniel (or he kills himself) and cause the Final Days
5. Zodiark breaks free and without a heart goes on a rampage? We are forced to kill him
6. Zodiark breaks free and starts sucking up all the aether? We are forced to kill him
Emet lost Hythlodaeus and Azem walked away from the convocation. Lost his two best friends and was left with an amnesiac (Elidibus) and a raving madman (Lahabrea) for centuries No wonder he turned out like he did. Grief and despair over time will wear down anyone, especially when you're alone.
And you were part right. She took two hits... the first was the loss of the 13th shard, I would presume and the second was sheilding you from Ultima. (Im guessing that because it was two hits she took, not 7 and Lahabrea said himself that she was weakened shielding her champion).
As for Zodiark. It wasn't that he was evil, he was nessicary.... but it was the ancients desire to abuse his power to remake the world which she wanted to prevent. Remember the scene where we first learned of Venat, they wanted to sacrifice more lives to make things how they were and bring back those who had been sacrificed the first time. She wanted to take the proverbial crutch away so that mankind could learn to live through the suffering and find meaning.
The first stoop in Emet's posture comes the moment he's said goodbye to Hythlodaeus. What a fantastic bit of continuity.
This cutscene sure did a helluva job driving home the guilt trip on anyone who had started to doubt Hydaelyn. I mean, Elpis in general pretty much spelled out we were worrying about nothing, but that really puts the shame on it. I mean, I was literally ready to fight her over Minfilia - like playing 3.2, if Minfilia had said "I'd like to come home now", it would have been time to explain that to mommy crystal. But here it's laid out just how hard she was working to guide the world through to where we could finally face Meteion.
Zodiark isn't evil, I agree. Zodiark isn't even a character; Zodiark is a tool. In fact, if you get down to defining the cosmology as two opposing viewpoints - about the nature and direction of the world, about the worth and purpose of mankind - it's always been Venat and Hades, not Hydaelyn and Zodiark.
Venat, Hades, and Hermes are all parallels of each other. All three subject humanity to their trial to pass judgement on their fitness to exist.
@@jaesaces not quite. Venat already believes mankind is fit to exist. Her "trials" were meant to strengthen us so that we could eventually deal with the final days without falling to despair. If the point was to determine our fitness to exist, the loporrits' original purpose wouldn't have been to help us escape the star.
@@darthfinality She believes we are, just like Emet believes we are not. But they still trial us to prove our worthiness.
"Thou must live, die, and know"
Knowing now that all memories return once the soul is cleansed in the Aetherial Sea, that line makes more sense now, huh?
For real, even though Emet gets a lot of kudos, I really love Venat. Her love for all her friends, family and people was the highlight of her story. The cutscene where she walks through and gets progressively more injured just wrecked me. I still can’t believe it’s the same VA who played Aveline in Dragon Age 2. ❤️🔥
I just had a thought, and it's put much into fresh new perspective for me.
When we begin our journey in FFXIV, Hydaelyn tells us to 'vanquish the darkness'. Given Zodiark is associated with dark-aspected aether, we just naturally attribute her request to 'vanquish Zodiark and the Ascians'.
But what if she REALLY meant 'vanquish the darkness that lurks at the edge of the universe' - referencing Meteion and the weight of all that negative emotion weighing on her? Or even 'vanquish the darkness that lurks within you', given during that cutscene, she encourages us to, in effect, try and find 'light everlasting'. To live, to suffer... but to find joy and happiness all the same.
To be fair, the story of the ascian changed with 2.0 so it was probably more literal then but it does take excellent ability to write a story that changes the words to fit like that
It is said in the story, that after the callamity the source was tilting dangerously towards darkness (which makes sense because in the wake of the calamity there was a lot of chaos and darkness is associated with change and instability, whereas light is associated with stasis and stability). So to prevent a premature rejoining you had to restore balance. Elidibus said this at the end of Shadowbringers. So it kind of makes sense for Hydaelyn to lead us on that journey. But the metaphorical meaning of being a beacon of hope in a desparate world is of course just as valid an interpretation, probably both are correct. It could have been reinterpreted a bit when they fleshed out the overarching story more, but I don't think majorly considering how Answers was already written back then.
It breaks my heart to even try to comprehend just how much Hydaelyn has suffered in the tens of thousands of years between the days of the ancients and the present
As do Emet, at least Venat know beforehand and had time to prepare herself. To Emet, he just lost everything he hold dear without time to prepare and without knowing why.
His best friend sacrificed himself to Zodiark, another best friend left him, her teacher and also a close friend "betray" him and sunder the world, his home and kin broken
In my opinion, the best cutscene I ever witnessed in gaming. Its message is way too real. It made me contemplate my life & subsequently wrecks me every time I hear Venat's speech... Yeah, life is suffering. But life is also enduring that suffering & learning to live with it...
BTW I loved your speech about Hermes & limit breaks.
It's an argument about existentialism vs nihilism
We can either lose hope and accept that we are meaningless animals in a meaningless universe, or we can rise above the dispair and use our free wills to forge our own meanings to life
@@recjr7685 Exactly!
"No more shall man have wings to bear him to paradise. Hence forth he shall walk!"
Best line ever!
I love the big setup to all of this in Elpis as well; all the quest names WERE the lyrics to Answers.
11:26 And right there she basically turns part of Answers into what she's saying, "Now open your eyes, while our plight is repeated!"
Thy Life is a Riddle, to bear Rapture and Sorrow.
To Listen, to suffer... to entrust unto tomorrow.
In one fleeting moment, from the land doth life flow...
In the same fleeting moment... though must live. Die. And KNOW.
WoW: Zovaal was playing 5d chess
FFXIV: Amon actually playing 5d chess.
It hurts, man...it hurts real bad...
I was dumb to have ever doubted our Crystal Mom - she really had our back all this time. ;w;
I really love you left the interpretation and discussion in the video, thank you for that! It's always interesting to hear the thoughts different people have about these scenes and characters; and it would have been lost otherwise in the livestream VODs, thank you!
Amon himself was from the Allagan empire and I bring this up because when I think of his personal nihilism I believe they were the stepping stones that may have triggered the roots of Hermes. I'm reminded of the earlier cutscene where the echo showed us a memory of his, recalling when was being praised for turning a man's head into a bull. The Allagan he was speaking to was thoroughly entertained by the poor man's anguish and calls for help. This complete disregard of another life, among the many other atrocities the empire committed, I think made the stepping stones to his descent.
Amon I believe had plans of his own, as he bore a grudge against the Ascians. Emet had approached him and said his beloved Emperor would fall, by their hands planning. I believe he wanted everything to end, but also targeted Zodiark because he was the beloved icon for the Ascians.
Well also remember the whole when you DIE the memory wipe undoes on the actual soul so the "reborn" Hermes as Amon was already primed of insanity from nightmares of the final days
I think the events depicted were just metaphorical. They didn't all happen within a few minutes of each other. We know that Hythlo was part of the initial sacrifice to create Zodiark. Some time passed after that, enough for a second sacrifice to restore life to the planet. Hyd was probably summoned about that time, then the battles started. Emet said that they fought a war before the world was actually sundered.
Precisely. I saw someone else mention it and I agree completely; that whole sequence is directed as if it were a stageplay. And I think that goes a long way into making it concise while still flowing well and having the impact it needs.
If you want to go deeper into the similarities between worlds. The ones I would point out is that the Warrior of Light fight is literally the Warrior of Light from the original FF.
Before now you have met Matoya, an FF1 character, Krile Baldesion is from FF5 and and as is her grandfather Galuf mentioned beforehand. There are other major details with how the story and design of Shadowbringers is to FF: Mystic Quest. FF: Mystic Quest is a world being destroyed by a light glow, and your job is to bring the crystals together to bring the world's Ether back into balance. (Mystic Quest was my first game.)
To relate to Tactics and XII (XII is a sequel of tactics and is recent enough to the tactics world that you can talk to and get missions from the otherworld children from Tactics Advance), and those self-same otherworld children appear in FFXIV's Ivalice quest line!
But here's a thinker for everyone. The Warriors of Light Dungeon just before the Shadowbringers trial. The thing they all had in common was that they all had classes from previous games.
That's who Emet saw briefly when you challenged him as Hades. When the you and the Warrior of Light combined to stand up against him.
Ohhh I thought it was hythlo
I thought it was literally supposed to represent his friend, Azem. The hooded figure is shrouded for us, but Emet sees it (or sees the soul). The wiki page for the warrior of light even states as much.
Hydaelyn basically limit broke all through history.
While I got the impression that dynamis was something that WoL had used at some points during FFXIV, I wasn't really able to wrap my head around the concept enough to figure out when these instances using it would've taken place or how it concretely manifests. The theory of Limit Breaks being a manifestation of it sounds really plausible though, considering that canonically dungeons and such are meant to be life-threatening places that would've pushed WoL to their limits and beyond.
Though now that I'm writing this, I just realized that this begs one interesting question regarding our fight with Elidibus in 5.3. When he transformed, he said this: "If you would usher in the end, then with my all shall I oppose you... As the avatar of those mortal heroes who fought unfalteringly, in *all their imperfection!* As the Warrior of Light incarnate!"
And during the fight, he employs a Limit Break of his own against us. So by "all their imperfection", did Elidibus also imply the comparatively lesser Aether they had? If Limit Breaks are in fact a manifestation of dynamis, did he really use it against us in that fight?
its possible that when he absorbed the people he summoned that they gave him access to limit breaks seeing as it would be their shattered pieces of soul that would have easy access to dynamis.
I just realised, some of the masks of the souls that make up Zodiark are red. Does that mean... some of the convocation sacrificed themselves to become Zodiark, and allowed their chosen successors to take their seats? I could see Lahabrea's son taking his seat, and his fanaticism stemming from wanting to bring his father back.
Had this been HW/SB/ShB length xpac, the main story might have stopped right after this quest... But Yoshi-P pulled a LB4 on us XD
I'm proud to say I never doubted Hydaelyn. Things didn't add up to me when it came to Emet telling us that Zodiark and Hydaelyn were Primals, as we had known them to that point, because Hydaelyn's followers didn't have tempering effects and neither did Zodiark's followers. We came to learn why that was.
As for us being the Primal/Eikon killer, what was the main reason for us killing Primals? The main reason for killing Primals was because of their tempering abilities. That was part of the reason for killing Primals in the first place, especially after what happened when we initially faced Ifrit. It wasn't until later that we learned about he damage they could possibly cause through the Primal Leviathan.
Yeeeah no. Zodiark has done some tempering. Emet-Selch even admits to you in your face with absolute lucidity that he was tempered. The effect? No shadow. Hydaelyn never tempered anyone because she wants mankind to be able to evolve and stand on their own feet. Also, we're told pretty early how dangerous Primals are and why they need to be destroyed. Aside from the cycle brought about by enthrallment, them simply existing causes their body to steadily drain aether from their surroundings just to maintain their form
@@kaihedgie1747 Sorry, but you're wrong. Zodiark was summoned without the tempering effect. We learn that the Ascians added in the tempering effect later on. You need to go back and rewatch quite a few cutscenes and refresh yourself on the story.
@@Lunzatis_Palemoon "Zodiark was summoned without the tempering effect" Emet-Selch flatout tells you he was tempered when you talk to him after the Exarch's briefing of Rak'tika. Or did you not know you could talk to him at all?
@@Lunzatis_Palemoon They added the tempering effects to the older patterns like Ifrit which we find out in the short stories Azem wanted to "borrow" to stave off a volcano eruption. The lopurrits just rolled back the version number to an older build on the primals
It's confirmed in the game itself that Zodiark was capable of tempering because it was such an immense power compared to everything else created at the time, for the sake of their world. But that compared to the Amaurotines, the tempering were at most like a tug of a thread tied to a finger.
fantastic video! your analysis was bang on. great discussion of the ramifications of a powerful cutscene.
This cutscene was so deep & very well written. Your expressions with the ancients was exactly how I/we all felt. What makes it hit even harder is how we can all view both sides, on one we can be like the ancients wishing to have things back where problems didn't appear/exist at the time refusing to accept the current reality, on the other we are like Venat, knowing problems exist all the time & accepting them in order to move foward & try to create a better tomorrow.
The only thing that confuses me about this cutscene (If someone has any idea) is how did emet, Laha & Elidibus escape the sundering (especially emet seeing how close in the vicinity he was to Venat. Not even Azem got away and who knows what we were doing at the time.
I assume it's because the Ascians were tempered (or a similar effect, at least) by Zodiark, and thus protected from the actions of Hydaelyn during the sundering.
@@kedolan4992 That actually makes sense. Never thought of that before
@@crimson_shadow3591 but only 3 escaped unsandered the others like Fandaniel, Logrif etc were sundered ... an alternate explanation would be that because we told Venat it influenced the result of the sundering, ... could have even been subconscious
35:56 I'd like to add to this theory and point out how Dalmasca exists on the Source, but ISN'T part of Ivalice (ff12) which, to me, is confirmation that the multiverse theory is 100% true. Having said that, I hope we see a restored Zanarkand from FF10 ^_^ Blitzball would be an incredible time killing hobby for 14!
Venat - the OG Warrior of Light
Venat is a fantastic antihero. I haven't found characters this compelling in a LONG time
I hope the Multiverse theory is validated, I'd love to see ff14 in a future expantion traverse the multiverse and interact will the universe of ff8, or any of the other ff games
It kinda has that already with the FF15 crossover
@@dylangreen192 and ff11 twice.
Best cutscene ever
I love this cutscene, but what I don't like about it is that it's a little too open to interpretation, not because that's necessarily a bad thing, but because it causes people to complain about plotholes or Venat being evil based on things they took literally that were meant to be metaphorical.
Like, nobody really believes that Venat literally walked past a guy being eaten, then passed Emet and Hythlodaeus having their last chat and, saw Hermes crying on the streets and then proceeded to murder a group of ancients for not agreeing with her, right? It's a sort of metaphorical summation of events as they transpired from her viewpoint and how they affected the most important players.
Personally I think it was a proper memory, she was already injured before she saw the guy being eaten, hythlo was a sacrifice to summon zodiark so she couldn't stop their chat and him leaving, don't think she murdered the guys I think she summoned hydaelyn at that point
@@bahumut01 I don't think it makes any sense for it to be literal. Stuff is all out of alignment. It might be partially literal, but I feel like part of it is also just heavily summarized.
Like the group of Amaurotines at the end wasn't just a random bunch, it was meant to represent the overwhelming consensus of their people. It was also not Venat that sundered their world but Hydaelyn, and when she did so, it was implied she faced Zodiark directly, rather than just barging into a group of people and sundering them.
@@Zakjuh
> not Venat that sundered their world
Exactly. I see this as the point she realized how far she would actually have to go. Venat knew she sundered the world, but didn't know why. These people in their obstinate refusal to see anything but more sacrifices to bring back the world they want gave her the answer for the "Why I would have done such a thing" question.
As Amaurotines were, they could not move past their suffering. They never needed to deal with it before. They would *always* be susceptible to the oblivion sent from Meteion and the Meteia.
As sundered creation, their life was suffering. Yet they still found hope and happiness where they could. Some were actually able to move past the despair, even it others gave into it.
Despite everything that transpired (saw the whole main story through-out endwalker) I still have sympathy for Hermes in the world unsundered. He quite literally had no one to turn to so he had to create someone that would understand him.
What he did was wrong, but it is understandable. That's what makes him a well-written and tragic character.
Remember venat speech when the song flow hits your gonna feel it more
For the Multiverse theory you had; You literally described the Dissidia Final Fantasy plot
I can honestly say that I never had any doubts about Hydaelyn.
I believe you on the Multiverse of FF!
@Krimson KB
Hermes and nihilism ... In my opinion Hermes cared to much for life, and the other Amouratines didn't. Herme's didn't think nothing had meaning, he believed that everything had meaning but was carelessly discarded when it was decided that the creation wouldn't fit into the greater world and would be unmade.
When Emet-Selch carelessly said "Who are you to decide whether we live or die," *THAT* prompted Hermes to put humanity to the test. He saw the Amourattines deciding the life of countless creatures that were found lacking. So, if humanity was lacking, by the Amouratines own belief, they should be discarded as well correct?
"In my opinion" -- proceeds with not stating an opinion but offering a take.
Sorry for arsing you about that, it's just that I feel that the dilution of the definition of what "opinions" are has been responsible for a lot of anti-intellectualism these last couple of decades. Just for the record: Opinions are neither takes nor assertions. An opinion is something along the lines of "I think Venat did the right thing."
@@GrahamChapman
Meh, quickly typing it out... Saying it's an opinion gets the point across that it was my view on events, not something written in stone.
I think it easily falls on the opinion side though, as there are multiple view points on the same set of events depicted to us.
My thinking that Herme's held more value to life than what credit many are giving him is an opinion. It sure isn't universally accepted, just like "Venat did the right thing" isn't. People really wanted to hate on Hermes at the end of Ktisis Hyperboreia for his actions.
And realistically, there is no difference between an opinion and take in this context. It comes down to semantics and what works best semantically in a given statement "Give me your take on XYZ" vs. "Give me your opinion on XYZ"; "My take is..." vs "My opinion is..."
I don't think we'll ever get anything in stone on this specific view point. Unless the developers come back with their thoughts while doing development and building out the characters. Or maybe a Side Story that delves into it more in the future... So really, it's more a debate exercise and delving into philosophy if one so wishes.
@@jmstover I'm making a distinction here because an opinion empathically _isn't_ just something that "there are multiple view points" on or something that "isn't universally accepted" and your conflation of "opinions" and that your take "easily falls on the opinion side" is an example of the problem with the steadily diluted definition of what constitutes as "opinions"... Or, if you want me to put it in more concrete terms; no, you thinking that Hermes held more value to life than what credit many are giving him is, in fact, not an expression of an opinion, that is your take/your interpretation of Hermes' value in regards to life.
Furthermore, _there is,_ in fact, an important distinction between an opinion and a take in this context. You can argue that it's just about semantics, but then I really gotta ask you who taught you that kind of "Give me your take on XYZ" = "Give me your opinion on XYZ" rhetoric in the first place, and what agenda they might've had, because that is the precise kinda appeals to wishy-washy semantics rhetoric that I've seen a lot of anti-intellectuals employ as they seek to undermine universally accepted scientific facts. In the case of a general example, it's how "What is your take on the theory of evolution" turned into "Evolution occurring being a fact is just your opinion."
Just be better than this in the future, okay?
@@GrahamChapman
> steadily diluted definition of what constitutes as "opinions
Here's the thing. You aren't giving a definition of what you're looking at, you're just saying my interpretation of a view point isn't my opinion on the view point shown, but my take on the view point shown.
For the past 40 years I've had everyone use take/opinion interchangeably except in a pure pedantic situation where you had to specify that "take" is what *you* yourself gained from the viewing, not what your impression of the viewing was. What you took from that scene, music, etc... and incorporated into how you see the world around you. That would be your take.
So, my "take" for this interaction with Hermes would be: Even if you create a life yourself, that life still holds a value and shouldn't be thrown away.
My opinion is: Hermes held more value to life than what he's being given credit for, but was a lost cause in a civilization that only saw the overall picture of the Star, not the individual life that existed on the Star.
There's enough given for me to infer that opinion (and others a different view on it), but the "take" is more on how I would see it apply to life in general. Not every scene that I have an opinion on, would I actually have a "take" on just because they're more.... story driven? Only apply to the story being told and not applicable to life in general (or I'm not smart enough to generalize it into some "life lesson" thing)? Like... I'm sure that some folks could take the
Raubahn scene of him loosing his arm and apply that to some life lesson.... I can't, but I can have an opinion of how losing his arm could be read into the story differently than just "Ilberd cut him good."
> turned into "Evolution occurring being a fact is just your opinion."
No, that is people being intellectually dishonest to promote that their view is just as valid as any other, even if it's actually not valid at all. Opinions are like ass holes right? So, because I don't want to believe something I'm going to call it an opinion and believe the opposite.... We'll ignore the mountain of evidence that points against what I'm saying.
@@jmstover Oh, you need definitions to work with? That's fine, I suppose I can give you some of those: An opinion is a declaration of a personal/subjective judgement pertaining to something. (E.g., "In my opinion, dark chocolate is better than white chocolate.") A take is a personal/subjective interpretation or understanding of something. (E.g., "My take on this is that white chocolate, though sweeter than the more bitter dark chocolate, has less nutritional value.") An assertion is the declaration of facts as understood or known by someone. (E.g., "I assert that dark chocolate, being high in antioxidants and flavanols, is healthier than white chocolate, which substitutes much of the chocolate's nutrients with milk and sugar.")
There are plenty of words that plenty of people use incorrectly for far longer than just 40 years -- sometimes they never learn but keep using the words incorrectly their entire lives -- so that argument was honestly just inane. (Examples of words people tend not to know the actual definitions of: conservative, socialist, punk, ironic, literally, translucent, nubile, egregious, wherefore, inconceivable... yes, that last one is just a Princess Bride reference.) But that is not an argument for continuing to use them incorrectly.
While your examples of "take" and "opinion" help elucidate what your definition of "take" and "opinion" is, it does not defend your understanding of what the definition of takes and/or opinions are and, in fact, falls blatantly short in the latter case on account of the fact that your "opinion" lacks the judgement necessary to qualify. If you had said that you found Hermes' value of life superior to that of other Ascians, who seemed more apathetic towards life as a concept, _then_ it would've been an opinion. (Tbh, I'd say that your "take" example came closer to being an opinion than your "opinion" example did.)
Best case scenario I could give you that your "opinion" on Hermes' in this case is an assertion, but I'd honestly still personally describe it as more of a "take." And if you want examples of other opinion angles of Raubahn losing his arm other than "Ilberd cut him good" then how about "That was a horrible thing for Ilberd to do"?
And in regards to the evolution example: You're looking at what anti-intellectuals and the intellectually dishonest are doing, but you're not looking at it from a systemic perspective so on that subject I'd honestly just recommend you to keep doing what you're already doing but deepening and widening your perspectives... Diluting definitions has been a frightfully effective card in their game for a long, long time and has taken many different forms. (Anti-science proponents conflating "opinion" and "knowledge that isn't 100% certain" in order to promote their agendas -- I'd recommend checking out the movie "Don't Look Up" if you haven't already, it's a great movie about exactly this; Christian bakers claiming that _they_ are the ones being subjected to hate and discrimination if they're not allowed to discriminate against homosexual customers; racists claiming that teaching CRT is teaching children to be racist towards white people, etc.) But this is sorta getting into the deep end of the pool and I'm not exactly an educator about this sorta stuff, so, y'know...
Speaking about Hermis nihilism I don't think few days memory whipe means much, yes information deleted is important, but it doesn't change his personality metion information just enforcis his personality. Just look at Emet-selch even after 12000 years his core personality is still the same.
The fake event he imposed upon himself did have a big impact
He still cares deeply for life other than man, so having Meteion - his magnum opus, his hope and dream, his determination for the answer, and not 1, but all of them, "died", all because of his (in the Ancients' moral code) misguided way of thinking, is an unbearable guilt to him.
Every time he thinks about the question he asked, he would be reminded of Meteia death, all because he bade them to go search for his answer.
That guilt made him abandon his search for the answer and instead join the Convocation to atone.
It should have been obvious if people paid attention, that Zodiark was never going to be the big bad. Something created the final days for the Ancients that caused them to summon him. We were going to HAVE to face what that was, at some point. I've known this for over 6 years.
Eh no it might have been the next expac as part of the new chapter since all we were told was this was the final chapter of Zodiark and Hydaelyn's book
I assume you did look into the evolution of the "limit break" video? Once I saw it (after I finished EW) I noticed the emotional charge that the LB has imbued into it.
0:50 Very long game. 10,000+ years long game.
2:00 Would explain why the summoners of Hydaelyn were so few in number.
6:48 Brace yourself, KB.
8:30 Hyth is heading off to sacrifice his life to summon Zodiark, and Emet has to just watch and let him go.
That whole speech of Venat's from 10:00 was pretty much her begging her people to be able to meet the despair herself, or she would have no choice but to Sunder them.
14:35 She had already become Hydaelyn!
18:24 And she did. That hit me hard.
So what I've gathered after Elpis:
F#$% Hermes pre-87 Dungeon...
F#$% Amon...
Man, the Fandaniel line must be cursed if Hermes and Amon were chosen to take the title...
Poor Venat...
Poor Meteion...
the answers where not what we thought they where and the hurt is so much for us now you are so right about dynimas i think in futher games they will use it against or with aether in a bigger way since 14 explained it all
Ever since this cutscene and the rest she has been my wifu lol as Azem I carry her minion whichever adventure I’ll go (I have thousands of hours of stuff to do starting from Omni 90)
I more see her as a big sister I mean the disgruntled how our previous incarnation kicked her ass within a week of meeting when Venat thought she was going to whip "us" in shape
"In the end, death clams us all" eh?....
Is that intro song "Carnage Rules"? Been meaning to ask, it sounds REAL familiar.
I will be honest 5.0 was doubt but not full on against. 5.2 turned me against her fully until Elpis. Soul PTSD was not okay in my mind and willingly doing so as well as conversations with her potentially being an automated message? All faith was gone until this moment
Also something that still bugs me when I think about it. Besides stable time loops are bull and how the hell does the start of the loop start which MATTERS ON SOMETHING OF THIS SCALE COMPARED TO ALEXANDER. Hydaelyn knows of meteion and the rest of the planets. Where the hell are you to flee in her backup plan?
@@tabuukiller13 Somewhere. There’s always somewhere. We could find an untouched world, or repopulate a dead one. Even if fleeing is not a favorable option, it’s still an option.
@@acgearsandarms1343 Considering Meteions plan there's not exactly going to be any untouched worlds, and considering htey will be a lot less aetherically dense....
@@acgearsandarms1343
Exactly. There were worlds that were still habitable, but all life was dead on them. The Sharlayans were looking at long term teraforming/rebuilding of dead soil. Even Hydaelyn says fleeing is one of 2 paths. It's just that fleeing would have been the "easier" to accomplish of the two if man wasn't up to the challenge of facing Meteion should Zodiark fall before man is able to stand and face them.
It doesn't mean fleeing was the best option, but it was an option that she gave the people.
@@tabuukiller13 Like I said, fleeing isn’t a favorable option, but still an option. If it came to it, they would have to flee again. They had a list of potential places to resettle. Admittedly I don’t like this since it’s not a long term solution, but it’s still better than nothing.
Remember. This is a weeb game.
And?
Yup this is a game with full of feeling of people