What's the point with that quite lackluster story in Endwalker?

I do find myself wondering why Yoshi-P never thought to seek clarification as to why Emet-Selch was so popular...

I suspect that by doing so, he would have been forewarned of the pitfalls to avoid. Another problem is the desperation to make almost every antagonist and villain tragic and sad. It worked for Emet-Selch but that was due his circumstances being so compelling. He was forced to do bad things because his loved ones were wiped out for dubious reasons. Hermes...basically threw a fit and decided to risk the extinction of all life but then we're meant to believe that he did it because he...loved all life? That just doesn't fit. If the game was more honest about him being unhinged and having snapped rather than having a point then that'd be a bit different. Though we still get attempts to try and pretend as if what he did was in any way acceptable.

A good test, I suspect, would be to propose the actions of such a character to be inflicted upon the Scions, City State leaders and all of their loved ones.

Would they accept what Venat and Hermes did being inflicted upon them? No? Then it's probably not an act to glorify then, is it?

As I said earlier, if hermes was literally bombarded with planets worth of despair or like mentally mutilated for what he percieves as a impossibly long time, it would at least "work" in the sense he is having a massive psychotic break, but it doesnt because its more a tantrum as you say

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rulakir

[*]The gaslighting with him is eerily similar to Venat. We're told he has a "pure" and "noble" soul, yet he acts in contradiction to this. He may have moments where he expresses a seemingly sincere desire to change society, but beneath that appears to be a deep seated resentment towards others not thinking and feeling the way he does. (This seems to be a theme of EW that if people aren't behaving the way you want it's okay to force that behavior through violence.)

---

To me it almost seems like Ishikawa is suggesting that the goodness of the society surrounding him coloured his perceptions, i.e. resulted in him going on his search for answers in space with a positive mindset, not realising how unique Etheirys was in some respects (and this frame of mind collapses when he doesn't hear what he wants, triggering the worse aspects of his persona); we see in a more debauched environment, someone like Amon could emerge. Whatever one thinks of it, the story is putting forward the notion that his inherent soul propensity is to a kind of dissatisfaction with his surrounding society (and the concept of purpose when confronted with finality or death), which in Allagan society manifested more clearly in its uglier aspects.

I don't think the narrative re-framing for him in the Omega quest helped his case at all, really, but perhaps it is a case of Ishikawa testing the waters to see "well, if we try show some positive aspects to his actions would this sway anyone?". However, his 'test' is so far divorced from even what the Omicrons ruthlessly aspired to that it's not really possible to transplant this logic to him (and as Rulakir said, you cannot in the same breath dismiss this aspect of the Rejoinings, which in the end Venat made use of to bring her plan to fruition.) As was said before, it is a spite-driven execution of all life. Crowny's explanation of the differing meaning of "purity" in this context across cultures at least helps make sense of some of the words being used to describe him.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Theodric

I do find myself wondering why Yoshi-P never thought to seek clarification as to why Emet-Selch was so popular...

I suspect that by doing so, he would have been forewarned of the pitfalls to avoid. Another problem is the desperation to make almost every antagonist and villain tragic and sad. It worked for Emet-Selch but that was due his circumstances being so compelling. He was forced to do bad things because his loved ones were wiped out for dubious reasons. Hermes...basically threw a fit and decided to risk the extinction of all life but then we're meant to believe that he did it because he...loved all life? That just doesn't fit. If the game was more honest about him being unhinged and having snapped rather than having a point then that'd be a bit different. Though we still get attempts to try and pretend as if what he did was in any way acceptable.

A good test, I suspect, would be to propose the actions of such a character to be inflicted upon the Scions, City State leaders and all of their loved ones.

Would they accept what Venat and Hermes did being inflicted upon them? No? Then it's probably not an act to glorify then, is it?

---

His story is one where you could sort of see a society like that of the Allagans resulting in such a viewpoint (still wouldn't justify condemning his people and the rest of existence to death), but they then go try force this in the context of a society which they portray in virtually all aspects as paradisaical (yeah, with some flaws, but again... relatively speaking, it is), and only mildly dubious in one aspect, and even then, there were others who shared his views, so he could've worked with them using his influence to change things if he was genuinely that unhappy with them. So in the end it just comes across as a rather ridiculous temper tantrum. I don't care for him to be justified as a character, so I am happy with it remaining that way.

Just somewhat veering off the current topic briefly after going through some Shadowbringers content, as I'm feeling more and more like there really was a bait-and-switch somewhere here.

After several expansions of Hydaelyn being worshipped as this holy goddess figure and the Ascians reviled as evil villains, we're suddenly confronted with a story that makes a point of emphasising light does not equal good, and darkness evil. It is highlighted to us that Hydaelyn is at best too distracted and at worst too callous or disinterested to care for a reflection falling into ruin (at the hands of the element over which she by and far holds the most sway.) We are presented with the mechanics of tempering and how to fix it, post 6.0 rather pointedly so, alongside the information that Hydaelyn and Zodiark are a form of primal, and that the latter has already enforced a manner of tempering upon his people. They make a point of thoroughly humanising the villains, at the very least making their motives far more sympathetic, and their seemingly malevolent dark god is revealed to have been their saviour who saved the world and continues to protect it from destruction even now (how quickly is that brushed off in Endwalker.) We are invited to question why we've never been told about this entire, incredibly significant period of history, and later, at some point post one of the patches, the Scions even speculate as to the cause of Hydaelyn's silence during Shadowbringers, and allude to the possibility of our own tempering. Overall, not only are we given more than significant cause to question our preconceptions of we know but we are actively encouraged to do so, particularly regarding our impression of Hydaelyn and what we know of her, all during an expansion that explicitly states that light is little more than an element as prone to destruction as any other...

...only for the story to ultimately go "hah, nevermind", handwave... quite literally all of that, and revert back to making Hydaelyn an unbridled and questionable force of goodness and light, may you ever walk in the light of the crystal, my child, and so on and so on. Every single primal tempers and leaves lasting consequences in some form or another, except magically for Hydaelyn.

It just doesn't make sense. I really can't help but feel there was an original, different direction somewhere that was discarded to tie up the ending more neatly. The more I think on it, the more Hydaelyn's portrayal just doesn't seem to match Ishikawa's style of storytelling at all, either, and the more of SHB I go back to the more confident I am something went awry somewhere.

I was discussing that with some friends yesterday. It also seeps over into Zodiark's presentation, but additionally in how Hydaelyn keeps referencing the darkness, though switching contexts so that it now means Meteion. This sort of reversion to the old "darkness bad" rhetoric is just mind-boggling following an expansion that set out to undo this preconception.

Also, by walking back on the tempering aspect of Primals which you mention, I think they missed out on a fantastic way to avoid making her evil whilst also committing her to a cause that would put her at odds with the protagonists. It need not be "hard" tempering like what we saw with the beast tribes, as that is down to flawed rites, but they could have had her being the heart for so long truly dedicate her to the Primal's purpose, and to that end, make use of tempering to fight her crusade. Both Ardbert and Minfilia had clues pointing to use of tempering, but these must've been dropped. We'd discussed possible clues of them rewriting this aspect of the story earlier in the thread, but I guess we'll never really know unless they come out and admit it.

I don't get where people are seeing the "reversion" to "Darkness is Bad". Because the game never says that.

More accurately, the game treats Hydaelyn as unquestionably heroic, and Zodiark as completely irrelevant. Which is its own kind of terrible, but it doesn't treat him as bad or evil. At best, you could say it treats the Ancients as bad or "evil" for overrelying on him.


As I've mentioned elsewhere, there DOES come a point where a "subversive trope" becomes so widespread that it stops being subversive and becomes the new dominant trope. I was actually groaning during Shadowbringers during every twist that hinted that "Hydaelyn is actually evil" because at this point, I've played about 20,000 RPGs where the end goal becomes "Kill God with the Power of Friendship". To put my own spin on something Theodric said before, I've come to the point where I prefer to see "gods" and "deities" in stories presented as actual nuanced characters and not just "Big Goods" to be obeyed and "Big Bads" to be slayed.

So personally, while I'm glad they didn't go with the "Hydaelyn is the evil antagonist" trope, they actually messed that up, too, because Endwalker's moral lesson is so warped and contrasting to my own ethics that in trying to paint Hydaelyn as "good", the story wrapped around to making her one of the bad guys without admitting that she's one of the bad guys. And instead of "Kill God with the Power of Friendship", we got "Kill Literal Oblivion Itself with the Power of Friendship".

I guess I could've phrased myself more clearly. What I am getting at is the way that Hydaelyn/Venat keep associating Meteion/Endsinger and the despair she brings with darkness. Not so much Zodiark, but on reflection, you'd have to forgive players who aren't as attentive to the lore as we are, for perhaps being confused when confronted with "The Eternal Darkness" within "The Dark Inside". This is not helped by Hydaelyn's codex later being added and referring to him rather uncharitably as the manifestation of an "ill-fated wish". Part of the issue is they're using the term in different contexts - one to refer to a type of energy, which Zodiark is made up of, and the other to signify negative concepts. By contrast, you have the pristine and angelic "Divine Light". With Zodiark I was getting more at his appearance, and it is relevant to bring it up in that context as well, because even though darkness-aspected beings tend to have a more demonic guise, it felt they went overboard with it in a way that wasn't really consistent with his statues or much of what we know about Amaurotine society. I did not dislike it, but it strongly pushed in the "big bad demon" direction, especially with the tentacles. With the codex in mind, I couldn't help but think they are trying to re-cast him as the embodiment of something bad, only moving the needle from darkness being inherently bad, to using the term to signify despair, and pushing him as the pathway towards the ancients' doom (the over-reliance, as you put it.)

And yes, on this:

Quote:

---

I've come to the point where I prefer to see "gods" and "deities" in stories presented as actual nuanced characters and not just "Big Goods" to be obeyed and "Big Bads" to be slayed.

---

I am in firm agreement. Mostly because I do not like the whole "punch god" trope of JRPGs.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lauront

i.e. resulted in him going on his search for answers in space with a positive mindset

---

The impression I got was he was seeking confirmation bias in the cosmos. Particularly when you factor in that he was breaking all the rules because he knew this experiment of his would never pass the necessary protocols. His question of what gives their life meaning wasn't all Meteion was tasked with learning, though that's all he tells Emet who is able to point out the flaws based on that alone. Maybe it's too much time on the forums :P, but given his dissatisfaction with Ancient society I felt he was looking for evidence to show them that, "See? Other people aren't like this!"

Quote:

---

I don't think the narrative re-framing for him in the Omega quest helped his case at all, really, but perhaps it is a case of Ishikawa testing the waters to see "well, if we try show some positive aspects to his actions would this sway anyone?"

---

The problem with 'testing the waters' is that it feels like they're still not getting it. People generally aren't okay with civilizations being wiped out regardless of the reason and regardless of if it resulted in a net positive in the future. It's troubling that either Hermes or Venat continue to be framed in this way. Apparently, the writers/devs aren't okay with civilizations being wiped out either - as long as they're sundered. Rejoinings are still consistently portrayed as wholly wrong and the people responsible for them as enemies to mankind. I just don't understand the dissonance here. The Final Days, in particular, wasn't meant to strengthen anyone. Hermes knew he was passing down an execution sentence. Maybe that wasn't Ishikawa's intention, but it does make me wonder if she actually played through the Elpis section of the game and saw the Hermes we were presented with, not the one inside her head. I particularly don't like that it seems to be the unsundered singled out to be greenlit for genocide, repeatedly. It's wrong for everyone else but them, apparently.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lunaxia

It just doesn't make sense. I really can't help but feel there was an original, different direction somewhere that was discarded to tie up the ending more neatly. The more I think on it, the more Hydaelyn's portrayal just doesn't seem to match Ishikawa's style of storytelling at all, either, and the more of SHB I go back to the more confident I am something went awry somewhere.

---

The more I think about it, the more I feel like the characters of Hermes and Venat are redundant. It makes me wonder if Brinne was onto something with her conspiracy theory that Meteion was originally going to be Venat's creation. At the core, they both serve the same purpose with minor variations. I can't even say the framing of either is that different anymore either. Hermes went from being presented as an antagonist to being the 'first step for mankind' and the Final Days somehow beneficial?!

I agree that nuance was completely stripped away in EW and I felt strong-armed through the narrative. Something I mentioned in another thread is that on this side of the screen I was angry or sad while my character has 3 different dialog options to express how happy they were. The disconnect this time was so extreme that even the excuse of roleplaying the WoL doesn't work for me. Hydaelyn I highly suspect was meant to be the antagonist of EW, but either 1) they decided she had to be good, 2) they were subverting expectations, or 3) both.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rulakir

The impression I got was he was seeking confirmation bias in the cosmos. Particularly when you factor in that he was breaking all the rules because he knew this experiment of his would never pass the necessary protocols. His question of what gives their life meaning wasn't all Meteion was tasked with learning, though that's all he tells Emet who is able to point out the flaws based on that alone. Maybe it's too much time on the forums :P, but given his dissatisfaction with Ancient society I felt he was looking for evidence to show them that, "See? Other people aren't like this!"

---

Based on what the writers have said, this was meant to be an allegory for Twitter. They said something like "Hermes wasn't strong enough to come up with the answers for himself, so he resorted to relying on the answers of others".

So, one way of putting it is that Hermes was struggling with depression and disillusionment, invented Twitter to ask if other people felt the same way, and then literally the entirely of Twitter responded back to him with copy-pasted posts from r/Blackpill.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rulakir

Apparently, the writers/devs aren't okay with civilizations being wiped out either - as long as they're sundered.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rulakir

Hermes went from being presented as an antagonist to being the 'first step for mankind' and the Final Days somehow beneficial?!

---

See my earlier statement about Buddhist parallels and the notion that "gods" have to lose their divinity and learn to become enlightened through suffering.

I could even further elaborate with points about Japanese Zen Buddhism's particular views on death, impermanence and the end of eras....but that would be going way off the rails for the moment.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rulakir

The more I think about it, the more I feel like the characters of Hermes and Venat are redundant. It makes me wonder if Brinne was onto something with her conspiracy theory that Meteion was originally going to be Venat's creation

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rulakir

Hydaelyn I highly suspect was meant to be the antagonist of EW, but either 1) they decided she had to be good, 2) they were subverting expectations, or 3) both.

---

That was almost certainly it. In ShB, you can see the seeds being set for a "Venat/Hyd was the bad guy all along" twist, but my guess is that some people (whether it was writers or fans who felt similarly to me) did NOT want to go down this well-worn cliche for the billionth time. Even most of EW starts with the Scions questioning Hydaelyn or saying that she can't be trusted, up until the moment you meet Venat in Elpis, after which, her morality is never questioned again.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lauront

I am in firm agreement. Mostly because I do not like the whole "punch god" trope of JRPGs.

---

Agreed. The Witcher 3 satisfied me on that front since there's at least two very powerful entities that Geralt of Rivia has to deal with on their terms simply because if he does not play along then he'll be snuffed out of existence.

I can't say I care much for this game's attempts to try and portray people's self insert characters as the most talented, most important and super powerful thing ever. It bores me to tears. When I immerse myself in a fantasy setting I like to explore. I enjoy role playing in settings that take themselves more seriously, too. Usually as a noble, soldier, merchant or something equally 'down to earth'.

I'm sure some people will make a quip along the lines of 'why r u playin a FF game then' to which I would simply reply that what we've been getting in the latter half of the game's active development is not necessarily what was present to such a jarring degree in earlier expansions.

Which is, I suppose, another way of saying that if ARR was in the style of EW then I likely never would have bothered investing in this game in the first place. :p

I just want some genuine loss and danger. Some meaningful stakes. I'd even take losing a competition during a seasonal event at this point. Please? It's just so predictable at this point.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lauront

I guess I could've phrased myself more clearly. What I am getting at is the way that Hydaelyn/Venat keep associating Meteion/Endsinger and the despair she brings with darkness. Not so much Zodiark, but on reflection, you'd have to forgive players who aren't as attentive to the lore as we are, for perhaps being confused when confronted with "The Eternal Darkness" within "The Dark Inside".

---

yo is this where I bring up the fact that the trial is merely called "The Martyrs' Crater" in French orrr

https://i.imgur.com/6d6kTAG.jpg

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CrownySuccubus

See my earlier statement about Buddhist parallels and the notion that "gods" have to lose their divinity and learn to become enlightened through suffering.

---

I believe they focused too much on themes and not enough on whether or not the story was enjoyable. It's a video game, it's supposed to be entertaining. Regarding the time loop, did no one stop to think how unsatisfying it might feel to the player to be sent back in time and be unable to save the Ancients? Did they not think that people might not want to watch their favorite character(s) suffer and die a second time? Did they not think that making the WoL inadvertently responsible for some of these events (particularly giving Venat the idea for the sundering) would be problematic?

Elpis was basically just a snuff film. What's to like about that? It was cruel bait because up until Meteion starts giving her report you think you're going to be able to save them. (No, I don't care that Elidibus said we couldn't change anything. Not following an expansion where an AU was created to save the WoL's life.)

I honestly don't know how they could have written a more unsatisfying conclusion and while the Omega quest chain was an improvement, it still wasn't cathartic enough. This isn't even addressing the copious amount of lore that we were denied due to this rush job to be done with the Ancients. Weren't we supposed to have all our questions answered in EW? Instead, there's more than ever and there's only been one Q&A with Yoshi-P visibly disinterested in discussing the lore.

They can keep their themes. I wanted a good story and I didn't get one.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Teraq

yo is this where I bring up the fact that the trial is merely called "The Martyrs' Crater" in French orrr

https://i.imgur.com/6d6kTAG.jpg

---

I really should switch versions fully. :D Another to file under the "why does this difference even exist" folder.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rulakir

Elpis was basically just a snuff film. What's to like about that? It was cruel bait because up until Meteion starts giving her report you think you're going to be able to save them. (No, I don't care that Elidibus said we couldn't change anything. Not following an expansion where an AU was created to save the WoL's life.)

---

Elidibus said that, thinking we'd end up an intangible ghost, just able to witness, but unable to interact with anything. From the point we were discovered and given enough aether to take form, everything was possible. At least I perceived it that way.

If we're still unable to change the outcome, even cause it, that's incredibly frustrating.
They should have let us stay ghost.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lelila38

Elidibus said that, thinking we'd end up an intangible ghost, just able to witness, but unable to interact with anything. From the point we were discovered and given enough aether to take form, everything was possible. At least I perceived it that way.

If we're still unable to change the outcome, even cause it, that's incredibly frustrating.
They should have let us stay ghost.

---

100% agreed. When he said we couldn't change anything my major question was "Why not?" then the area loads and I'm a time ghost. I was perfectly ready to just follow around as a little specter and observe the tragedy knowing full well there is nothing I could do about it. It would make the whole scenario much more digestible. The moment I can be perceived, everything changes. Also the gatherer quests prove that the WoL can take objects from their back to the present. So now I'm wondering, why can't we just do what we did in ShB and put some of our Elpis friends in some auricite. They could even just snap their fingers and make a creation that would let us carry their body almost like Capsule Corp stuff.

Re: Wanting Hydaelyn to turn out to be an antagonist, I very much resent the assumption (not that anyone here has outright accused anyone of this, but I wanted to make this clear) that all of us who did wanted her to be a 100% cackling villain. Personally no, because that would come out of completely nowhere. I envisioned her as perfectly benevolent, in an overbearing mother kind of way, genuinely wanting the best for the planet and mankind according to her beliefs. She just, you know. Committed genocide for it then lied about it for 12,000 years – and perhaps she was not right to think it had been the only way in the first place. And we had just found that out, alongside the fact that she was a Primal, which was treated rather ominously – remember when it was the Wham Line of the ShB launch trailer?...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lunaxia

...only for the story to ultimately go "hah, nevermind", handwave... quite literally all of that, and revert back to making Hydaelyn an unbridled and questionable force of goodness and light, may you ever walk in the light of the crystal, my child, and so on and so on. Every single primal tempers and leaves lasting consequences in some form or another, except magically for Hydaelyn.

---

...and it had zero consequence on the plot at all. Hydaelyn tempering would have been very interesting to talk about and deal with, and the fact that it's handwaved away right at the end of 6.0 with no concern about it earlier rubbed me the wrong way.

Don't forget about ShivaRyne too: that was rather foreboding when it came to Light... Granted, Ryne did have the Echo, but she was only a 1/14 Sundered. That makes it very likely that the Light aether affected her mind with ease it wouldn't have with Venat. But still, though, we then have the Elidibus parallel. Why show us his degenerating into a Zodiark AI in 5.3 then pointedly not do the same with his literal counterpart? I had expected her to have somewhat lost sight of her original goals and reasons (as she didn't have the equivalents of Emet and Lahabrea to stimulate her memory) and have the Light gnaw at her mind. Having forgotten her true name. Wondering what her original self would think of her actions now – was this truly what she had in mind? With no one left anymore to remind her to remind her of who she was and what she wanted anymore, I could have seen this be quite a dark storyline.

But we get... none of this, seemingly? Hydaelyn is just Venat drawn by Amano, and that's it. There are just so many missed opportunities here I feel.

And yeah, how different Zodiark looks from the statue we had always seen of him is weird. The only in-universe explanation that makes sense IMO is that Dark aether naturally made him look more demon-like than they had planned for, just as Light-aspected beings look very angelic. He's very different and didn't have enough snake symbolism IMO. Patch 5.3 fully going with the Zodiac-Convocation stuff as canon had me hoping for that. But you know. That lion mask was definitely a goat and such. Expectations subverted.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CrownySuccubus

(snip)

---

Agree with everything there. And I have to add to the last paragraph: more than Emet/Hythlo/Venat, to me it was the Ancients as a whole whom I have loved since 5.0, and it was always going to be an uphill battle for Endwalker to convince me to like its plot if it revolved around demonizing the Ancients and reducing them all to dumb strawmen. It's like they didn't realize that they really had something interesting in ShB. I'm pretty sure people weren't praising the plot of ShB because of Jeryk, Thaffe and their trolley.

Endwalker really makes it look like the nuanced conflict and grey morality presented in ShB were accidents.

I do believe you bring up very good points about buddhist mythology and how it likely colored the writing – even as someone raised in a secular family in a secular country myself I would probably employ Christian tropes in stories without even realizing it.
I just find it dissonant that we should regard them as gods who deserved the fall from grace and not feel much about it because That's Just How It Is™. The way I saw them in Shadowbringers – and still see them in Elpis, talking to the NPCs and doing random side quests – is that they were very much humans in nearly all aspects, it's just that their biology gave them unique powers that affected how their society and mindset evolved. Hell, personally I related to them as soon as I saw the skyscrapers in my mostly-medieval fantasy setting, and their emphasis on academia, knowledge, research and sharing of ideas just compounded that. One of the local dungeons is the university!

And then Endwalker would tell me these people all deserved to die because [INSERT CONVOLUTED PLOT HERE] and I should feel it was 100% justified and, wow, why are you feeling bad about this? You weren't supposed to like them OH MY GOD!


Addendum for certain people lurking on this topic: I personally don't give much of a shit about what Venat's GigaSimpeus told us in the Omega quest, nor do I care about the question of whether she intentionally omitted to tell her posse about what was going to happen to them. I will say though, that him saying "We are going to miss you" in Anamnesis does point to him thinking they would still be there in any shape while apparently believing Venat's persona would be gone, and um... the opposite ended up happening, basically.
And we still do not know if she ever cared to explain everything about the Final Days, because she only afforded him very select memories. And to be fair, I'm not sure why she would wipe his knowledge of the implications of Meteion and Dynamis if he had been aware of them. Wouldn't it have been beneficial for everyone if at least one creation of Hydaelyn – be it the Watcher or the Loporrits – knew about the source of the Final Days to help the Sundered out? Literally the only explanation I have for her wiping his possible knowledge of things is making shit as convoluted as possible to perpetuate the time loop of the WoL going back in time to seek answers.
And the time loop being an explanation for things is, as we all know, an objective proof of the plot sucking ass, and I will not hear any opposing views on this particular matter, thanks.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rulakir

snip

---

Yeah, when my friend (who had finished EW months before me) giddily asked me what I thought about Elpis (after I had heaped praise on every segment of the story before that), I just stoically said, "Yeah, I didn't like it." His giddiness immediately turned dour as he asked, "The heck didn't you like?" in an accusatory manner. I responded, "I felt like that was the most preventable apocalypse ever, and only happened because everybody -- including "me" -- suddenly decided to take Stupid Pills."

Like Lelila said, when I first got to Elpis, I was like "Oh okay, so we're going to be able to watch what happens, but not change anything. That's a clever twist."

When we talk to Emet and Hyth, I thought, "Oh okay, we're going to see what happened and maybe try to warn them, but nobody's going to believe us. Tragic, but still kinda cool."

But then when we Venat turns up and we just told them everything, red flags started going off in my head. "Oh my God. They're going to contrive some reason for Hermes to hit us with the mind-eraser ray, aren't they?"

And then when that happens, and Venat says, "Oh well, we COULD tell them, but blah blah blah we need Hermes and yadda yadda", my only thought was, "This can't actually be real. I'm watching an actor for a theatrical play who knows that everybody in the theater dies as soon as the play ends decide that playing the exact same role with the exact same script is somehow going to change things. She's deciding NOT to do the ONE THING that will instantly make the future I warned her about not happen."

Then, the rest of EW happened with the "Blah blah people need suffering", "Perfection is bad", "Struggle makes you strong" nonsense we've talked about here, and I was tuning out half the dialogue.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Teraq

snip

---

Yeah, everything about that philosophical trapping has a very "fatalist" outlook to it; basically, X is inevitable, so we should fully embrace it and bend over backwards to explain why it's really a GOOD thing.

One of the reasons I staunchly disagree with Zen Buddhism (and, to an extent, the modern Japanese culture that has been built atop it) is its adherence to tradition and the status quo. EW makes the argument multiple times that trying to improve the world, trying to improve your life, and trying to strive for "perfection" is actually a bad thing, and thus everyone should just accept their lot in life.

The flaw with this argument should be obvious: where is the magical line where progress should be halted? Should human beings go back to sleeping on rocks and hunting for our meals? Should we surrender all medical progress and go back to letting diabetics who need insulin to live die without it?

The usual cop-out answer to this is "Of course not. But we should strengthen our society to be ready for the inevitable moment that we DO lose these comforts." And sure, that COULD and probably WILL happen at some point in humanity's future, but....so what? How exactly do I prepare for a world in which my relative, who has survived on insulin for 40 years, dies because the apocalypse made finding that medicine impossible? By not giving it to them?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CrownySuccubus

His giddiness immediately turned dour as he asked, "The heck didn't you like?" in an accusatory manner.

---

The average EW non-enjoyer experience...

Quote:

---

How exactly do I prepare for a world in which my relative, who has survived on insulin for 40 years, dies because the apocalypse made finding that medicine impossible? By not giving it to them?

---

have you tried telling their pancreas to forge ahead

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Teraq

have you tried telling their pancreas to forge ahead

---

LOL

I'm going straight to Hell for how hard I laughed at that...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CrownySuccubus

The flaw with this argument should be obvious: where is the magical line where progress should be halted? Should human beings go back to sleeping on rocks and hunting for our meals? Should we surrender all medical progress and go back to letting diabetics who need insulin to live die without it?

---

Yeah that's been a lot of my problem with Venat, the suffering she inflicts is very uneven and petty and doesn't really seem to be about character building most of it is just people leading intentionally short painful lives and the people that care about them being broken by the grief. the game kept pushing that love angle but Venat is so abusive with it, and she doesn't seem to actually care for anyone....she's just horrible

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CrownySuccubus

The usual cop-out answer to this is "Of course not. But we should strengthen our society to be ready for the inevitable moment that we DO lose these comforts." And sure, that COULD and probably WILL happen at some point in humanity's future, but....so what? How exactly do I prepare for a world in which my relative, who has survived on insulin for 40 years, dies because the apocalypse made finding that medicine impossible? By not giving it to them?

---

I also find it odd that the culture that most seem to meet this ideology is the Garleans and the game has spent most of it time demonising there culture and the brutality there suffering caused them to turn to.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Teraq

Re: Wanting Hydaelyn to turn out to be an antagonist

---

I thought she'd be an antagonist in the same way Emet was. Sympathetic motivations, but someone who needed to be stopped. I'd say it almost worked out that way except for the fact she is commended while he is vilified.

Quote:

---

And the time loop being an explanation for things is, as we all know, an objective proof of the plot sucking ass, and I will not hear any opposing views on this particular matter, thanks.

---

This.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CrownySuccubus

"Oh my God. They're going to contrive some reason for Hermes to hit us with the mind-eraser ray, aren't they?"

---

Similar experience. Once they busted out Kairos I just started sobbing. Not the kind that Ishikawa would want either because it was out of anger that the writers would do this. Then when Venat gave every excuse in the book why she wasn't going to do anything differently I tapped out, no longer interested in the story. Quoting Brinne because this accurately described my reaction during the infamous cutscene as well:

"The fury of one friend in particular over the montage sequence was based around how it was contorting itself to uplift the struggles of Venat as a tragic individual, asking us to focus on her perspective and how much the Sundering was hurting her, and used everyone she had killed and subjected to suffering as narrative accessories for her noble torment."

It was repugnant. The fact that my WoL canonically loves Venat is so galling to me. There is no reality in which I would ever speak fondly of her.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jameseoakes

Yeah that's been a lot of my problem with Venat, the suffering she inflicts is very uneven and petty and doesn't really seem to be about character building most of it is just people leading intentionally short painful lives and the people that care about them being broken by the grief. the game kept pushing that love angle but Venat is so abusive with it, and she doesn't seem to actually care for anyone....she's just horrible

---

Venat's "love" for mankind feels a lot like an abusive parent who "accepts" their child while doing nothing to actually show that love.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Teraq

have you tried telling their pancreas to forge ahead

---

oh shit i gotta get right on that, how did i never think of trying this

edit: as someone who has unironically looked up a number of "surviving the zombie apocalypse as an insulin-dependent diabetic" thinkpieces which all essentially have the conclusion as "you don't," can't believe they've all been debunked by this post's, and 6.0's, insightful genius

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rulakir

I thought she'd be an antagonist in the same way Emet was. Sympathetic motivations, but someone who needed to be stopped. I'd say it almost worked out that way except for the fact she is commended while he is vilified.

---

This is my big problem, there seems to be no reason why Venat is viewed so differently....she's as bad a Emet but we in my opinion rightful condemn and stop his actions but we praise her actions....

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jameseoakes

I also find it odd that the culture that most seem to meet this ideology is the Garleans and the game has spent most of it time demonising there culture and the brutality there suffering caused them to turn to.

---

Probably because it's easy to find parallels to the Garleans and Imperial Japan (and other fascist regimes, to be frank). A people that were destroyed by outside forces, rose from said destruction stronger by being better at playing by the rules everyone else forced them into, only to then see themselves as the "one true" ethnic group destined to "unify" all the rest under their banner.

Also, remember that the entire point of EW is that ALL ideologies will eventually fail. Every. Single. One. No exceptions. The second section of the Dead Ends was specifically crafted to show what would have happened to Eitherys if the Garleans had won.

I think a lot of people mistaken believe that EW claims "All ideologies will fail, except Venat's which is the correct one".

More accurately, it says:

"We already see how those other ideologies failed, so let's not repeat them. Instead, we need to go somewhere different."

"But won't that different way also eventually fail?"

"Yeah. But it'll be on our own, unique terms."

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Xirean

Venat's "love" for mankind feels a lot like an abusive parent who "accepts" their child while doing nothing to actually show that love.

---

Yeah my opinion exactly, though I'd say she only accepts them if they deal with things the correct way if not they're dead to her (If they can't deal with suffering right they don't deserve her love and deserve there fate)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jameseoakes

This is my big problem, there seems to be no reason why Venat is viewed so differently....she's as bad a Emet but we in my opinion rightful condemn and stop his actions but we praise her actions....

---

She's worse actually. Every bad thing that he and other Ascians do falls onto her. She knew they would do those things and specifically set them up to do those things. Every rejoining is a bad thing that the Ascians did that she allowed to happen.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jameseoakes

Yeah that's been a lot of my problem with Venat, the suffering she inflicts is very uneven and petty and doesn't really seem to be about character building most of it is just people leading intentionally short painful lives and the people that care about them being broken by the grief. the game kept pushing that love angle but Venat is so abusive with it, and she doesn't seem to actually care for anyone....she's just horrible

---

The insistence on the "love" angle was another part of what made Venat's writing so insecure, and the sense that deep down, it knew that what it was trying was shaky and didn't work. And the hard overcompensation on it - especially because the technique of "NPC loves the WoL = popular NPC" has usually been very effective up until this point - led to a lot of us making connections towards the absolute cliches of abuse rhetoric and victim-blaming. Which I'm sure never occurred to the writers, but here we are.

Quote:

---

I also find it odd that the culture that most seem to meet this ideology is the Garleans and the game has spent most of it time demonising there culture and the brutality there suffering caused them to turn to.

---

The single member of present day humanity who embodies Venat's ideology and methods most is unironically Ilberd Feare.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CrownySuccubus

Also, remember that the entire point of EW is that ALL ideologies will eventually fail. Every. Single. One. No exceptions. The second section of the Dead Ends was specifically crafted to show what would have happened to Eitherys if the Garleans had won.
"

---

I think that all Venat really did was put Eitherys on that parth, the people she made are petty and cruel and she's pushed that trait as that's what suffering breeds. I don't see how they've done anything to not make that the eventual fate when at some point things get out of hand (Xande almost did that)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rulakir

Not Thordan? Replaying HW I noticed quite a few similarities.

---

It's really odd that the villains suit Venats ideology far better than any of the protagonists....

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Brinne

The single member of present day humanity who embodies Venat's ideology and methods most is unironically Ilberd Feare.

---

Not Thordan? Replaying HW I noticed quite a few similarities.

She definitely overlaps heavily with both! But I think Thordan lacked the judgmental factor towards the Ishgardian people specifically that Ilberd and Venat shared, and his focused was defense of his perception of his nation from an outside threat. Ilberd thought the Ala Mhigans were weak and ruthlessly, actively sacrificed them en masse for the "greater good." He also managed to ultimately achieve everything he wanted, too, which is hilarious.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jameseoakes

It's really odd that the villains suit Venats ideology far better than any of the protagonists....

---

As I said, the problem with the ideology always comes down to: "At what magical point do you draw the line?"

That's why, in fiction which adheres to this philosophy, the difference between hero and villain is "The line that least inconveniences the main characters/audience/players."

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CrownySuccubus

"Yeah. But it'll be on our own, unique terms."

---

By Forging Ahead.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CrownySuccubus

Yeah, everything about that philosophical trapping has a very "fatalist" outlook to it

---

I am eagerly awaiting for them to turn fate into the final (?) big bad. They already have the asset models in 7R, after all.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Xirean

Venat's "love" for mankind feels a lot like an abusive parent who "accepts" their child while doing nothing to actually show that love.

---

I was looking up a line in Japanese and stumbled across this. Whereas I felt creeped out by this "personal" connection, after my character's hand was more or less narratively forced into helping her with her scheme apparently some people enjoyed it and would've liked more of it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Brinne

The insistence on the "love" angle was another part of what made Venat's writing so insecure, and the sense that deep down, it knew that what it was trying was shaky and didn't work. And the hard overcompensation on it - especially because the technique of "NPC loves the WoL = popular NPC" has usually been very effective up until this point - led to a lot of us making connections towards the absolute cliches of abuse rhetoric and victim-blaming. Which I'm sure never occurred to the writers, but here we are.



The single member of present day humanity who embodies Venat's ideology and methods most is unironically Ilberd Feare.

---

I'm just impressed that they were able to dial it up even further in the Codex entry on her. And I agree, it's why this "Venat is an ancient" explanation Yoshi comes up just fails to convince me. We already had sundered antagonists think and act in very similar ways. The only difference is their narrative treatment and the scale of it. With that said, it appears to have convinced some players who, in spite of everything else we know of them, believe a genocide a day was just in their DNA.

Venat's supposed 'love' hits differently to anyone who has escaped the cycle of abuse that comes with a manipulative parental figure. If you're still deeply enthralled then, yeah, you just sort of accept that there was 'no other way' and that you 'need to suffer for your own good'. The slightest bit of doubt or pushback is seen as completely unreasonable. Then comes the lying, the deflection, the gaslighting.

To really make up for Endwalker the game needs to find a way to retroactively dismantle and address Venat's numerous lies. Y'shtola's book could potentially be that hook - though I won't hold my breath. I just want the Ancients and Zodiark to be properly credited for their good deeds instead of everything being attributed to Hydaelyn through devious misdirection/missing context.

It's just too much of a stretch for the game to have the characters oppose oppression and cruelty at every turn but then turn around and downplay it because it's 'Venat'.

I'd love a storyline involving a crisis of faith where the Scions deal with their 'supreme deity' turning out to be anything but. Depending on how the Twelve are written - and if they end up being authentic deities with no ties to Venat - then they could potentially fill that void.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jameseoakes

It's really odd that the villains suit Venats ideology far better than any of the protagonists....

---

I've joked before that Venat is essentially an amalgamation of every major FFXIV antagonist in either worldview or action, save perhaps Nidhogg. Gaius van "conflict breeds the strong, and only the strong survive" Baelsar from ARR, Ilberd "my people are unacceptably weak and thus I must sacrifice them to shape a greater world/nation" Feare, Thordan "erasing history and truth is actually good if it preserves the world order that benefits my cause" VII, Zenos "we alone determine our own purpose in this empty, meaningless universe, and my purpose is stalking the Spark that is the WoL" yae Galvus, and, of course, Emet "I judge the current state of humanity to be insufficient to rise to the task of protecting the world, therefore I will wipe them out in favor of a better one" Selch and Hermes "we must test humanity to ensure they're worthy of existence by subjecting them to mass death and suffering" Fandaniel.

Well, okay. She probably doesn't overlap much with Nidhogg or Themis, actually. Because Themis is a good boy who did nothing wrong.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Brinne

I've joked before that Venat is essentially an amalgamation of every major FFXIV antagonist in either worldview or action, save perhaps Nidhogg. Gaius van "conflict breeds the strong, and only the strong survive" Baelsar from FFXIV, Ilberd "my people are unacceptably weak and thus I must sacrifice them to shape a greater world/nation" Feare, Thordan "erasing history and truth is actually good if it preserves the world order that benefits my cause" VII, Zenos "we alone determine our own purpose in this empty, meaningless universe, and my purpose is stalking the Spark that is the WoL" yae Galvus, and, of course, Emet "I judge the current state of humanity to be insufficient to rise to the task of protecting the world, therefore I will wipe them out in favor of a better one" Selch and Hermes "we must test humanity to ensure they're worthy of existence by subjecting them to mass death and suffering" Fandaniel.

Well, okay. She probably doesn't overlap much with Nidhogg or Themis, actually. Because Themis is a good boy who did nothing wrong.

---

I mean your take is really spot on

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lauront

I am eagerly awaiting for them to turn fate into the final (?) big bad. They already have the asset models in 7R, after all.

---

I mean, that'll just be a physical embodiment of the time travel plots of 5.0 and 6.0.

"We'll totally fight Fate when it's something inconvenient to us, but completely embrace it when it's a Fate we find agreeable."

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CrownySuccubus

I mean, that'll just be a physical embodiment of the time travel plots of 5.0 and 6.0.

"We'll totally fight Fate when it's something inconvenient to us, but completely embrace it when it's a Fate we find agreeable."

---

That's what worries me about the upcoming 'conflict of values'. Will we actually see the protagonists stick to their supposed 'values' or will they continue to embrace the very things they are supposedly against so long as it benefits them?

I'm fully expecting the side we oppose to be written in such a way as to be pushed into a corner like the Ascians or the Garleans. Forced to do desperate things in order to survive whilst the protagonists have every plot convenience in their favour that allows them to avoid situations where they go too far.

If nothing else, I can't say I'm looking forward to more lectures from the likes of Alphinaud.

I just really hope the game doesn't do a timeloop to have the WoL become Azem. Worst ending possible and the fact it's possible scares me.