Just ignore them. They feel the need to express themselves in the face of criticism, and they're more than at liberty to do so, but it's just a waste of energy engaging with it at this point. Let them say their piece and move on.Quote:
Originally Posted by Kaoru_Nagisa
Perfectly valid interpretation and reaction, really. It's an odd thing to say, and I'm being pretty generous in light of how much they tried to hammer home what a good guy he was at heart in Elpis. He does call himself a megalomaniacal madman, and the story more or less admits he has infiltrated, raised up and crushed what we can only assume to be countless civilisations - Allag and Garlemald simply being the mightiest - which there's something a little more... sinister about than the other, more simplistic wanton destructive methods employed by the Ascians. Honestly, I don't know if I actually agree with the game's implied message that any good-hearted person would be driven to such acts by what he went through, but none of us could even imagine the reality of living that long, so who knows?Quote:
Originally Posted by Midareyukki
Oh, absolutely, with all the subtlety of a brick through the window, but I still find it interesting to dissect the meaning behind... and what they were hoping to gain from it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Kazhar
-
11-07-2022, 01:41 PMLunaxia
-
11-07-2022, 07:12 PMSpectrePhantasia
Been a while since I've posted so I thought I'd give renewed input on the topic of Emet's revised characterization between expansions.
Just looking at Emet-selch's writing in Shadowbringers compared to Endwalker tells me that the devs didn't know what they had when they created him. The Emet-selch of Shadowbringers was an incredibly complex villain, whose inner turmoil between his moral compass and duty have resulted in a hollow bitter shell of a man, who has absolutely nothing left, but his dream of yesterday. He's watched society crumble from the greatest of heights through violence and death on a scale he'd have scarcely thought possible, and every time small inklings of hope crawl into his heart, smidgens of sympathy for the remnants of his people, like in his son, they betray him with their frailty, and in his mind, prove him right all over again. At the core of it all though, he was tired. Tired of hurting people and tired of his burden's weight. He was a wonderfully contradictory man who in the end, deserved condemnation as a result of the terrible tragedies he was responsible for, but also respect in knowing that he was only ever doing it for the people that he loved.
And then Endwalker proceeded to do a fine job of butchering this conflict so completely and utterly that even almost a full year later I'm not over it. For the record, I absolutely love Emet-selch, and enjoyed Endwalkers fanservice of him for what it was, but the fact of the matter is, everything about him that made him compelling and complex was cast aside in favor of making him a grumbly tsundere. If it were simply in the past, it would be one thing, but not only is the severity of his actions largely handwaved with the Warrior of Light's clear reverence of him, (though compared to what Venat got imo it was paltry) he is never given the room to be the character he used to be and was little more than a dev mouthpiece to tease new areas.
Perhaps in a misguided attempt to convey a feeling of 'unity' the plot tries its absolute hardest to make you forget about the inevitable conflict between the Ascians and Hydaelyn. They were broadly wrong and she was broadly right, but you're never going to see this conflict from the past in full, that would be impossible; because then you would have to confront the numerous layers of grey in the whole situation, and that was simply unthinkable for the sterile portrayals of morality here. That's why the disparities in Emet-selch were so noticeable. His whole character hinges on that bent morality. Never in Endwalker does Emet-selch oppose Venat or her methods directly, despite her being the person responsible for his thousands of years of misery. In the end it becomes a simple, dumbed-down tale of general hope vs general despair and anything deeper than that doesn't matter.
Very unfortunate conclusion to what was extremely well written build-up. -
11-07-2022, 09:21 PMMagiusNecros
I think they fucked over Emet Selch and Hydaelyn in the writing department. The OG Hydaelyn and ShB Emet Selch were amazing. The plot took a nosedive in Endwalker.
-
11-07-2022, 09:31 PMLelila38
They should have allowed Hydaelyn to act as a well-meaning antagonist. All it would have taken was for the scions to call her out on her crimes and the disparity between what was shown and what was perceived by many would have been resolved.
She would have made a great antagonist on par, if not better than Yunalesca from X. -
11-08-2022, 06:13 AMBrinne
For what it's worth, Emet's 'ideals' line made perfect sense to me in his last scene and I was extremely happy it was there after deeply mixed feelings regarding the rest of the sequence, which was otherwise felt like a full concession to Venat and the Sundered that left a pretty horrible taste in my mouth. No, Emet doesn't have any regrets about doing everything in his power to save the Ancients, and he shouldn't, because they deserved to be saved, deserved to be loved and remembered, and deserved have someone fighting to save them. If he had to choose between our world and the Ancient world, he would still choose the Ancient world, would always choose the Ancient world, and that is a completely valid choice. IIRC, my impression of the JP line felt less like he was implying that our victory was the 'correct' outcome and more simply the 'outcome' that happened, the way the coin wound up dropping - and he simply didn't intend to attempt to overturn it after you and he had settled it, was all. We've always known that Emet found what he's "had" to do to save the Ancients regrettable in many ways, and if he thought a less cruel option was viable would have been happy to take it - but that doesn't mean he regrets the principle of going above and beyond everything he could do for their sake, if that makes any sense.
So I personally really didn't feel any dissonance there, or connected it to the specific atrocities he committed in service to those ideals and goals - rather more like a "oh thank god, they didn't COMPLETELY forget why Shadowbringers's conflict was compelling and heartbreaking. Well, maybe they're trying to, but at least they threw in that piece of lip service to it, I guess."
(I will also point out that in Elpis, while, yes, Emet called his future self a megalomaniacal madman, what truly horrified and disgusted him was the notion that he gave up at the end. His tantrum wasn't actually about horror at the methods he resorted to - it was about him putting together the pieces of how ShB Emet in some ways lost, or at least created the possibility of his loss, because he'd simply gotten too tired and worn down from it all - and no! he would never give up trying to save his people, no matter what, no matter how much it hurt him, never!)
I've said it before, but I think in terms of his personality in a vacuum, just who he is and what kind of person he is in and of himself, Emet's characterization in EW was actually fantastic and endearing - it's easy for me to see the links between how he acts there and how he acts in ShB, after millennia of heartbreak and disillusionment. I even found it validating in that it was clear to me that Emet in ShB was written as a fundamentally deeply kind-hearted, but emotionally uncomfortable and insecure person in expression - he's practically flailing when he's attempting to connect with the Scions, and once you realize it was in many ways an actually earnest but deeply awkward attempt, yep, there's the cutesy EW Emet, easily, just in a far more dire context with far more dire stakes. I think not having the understanding that Emet is very much a fundamentally kind person who hates seeing others in pain robs you of a lot of appreciation for his Shadowbringers arc and everything that was happening with him there, so in some ways I liked how they hammered in that aspect of who he is. But I will also say I definitely noticed the hilarious sidestepping of Solus in the Garlemald section or where its history was concerned, and objectively, the choice to focus on Varis as the Big Nationalist Emperor Symbol is very funny and transparent considering that in-universe Varis led the Empire for all of, what, a year, as opposed to the Founding Father?
And, yes, Emet being used as a mouthpiece to boost up Venat and the EW narrative and themes. Everyone was a victim of that, of course, but with Emet it feels even more egregious because he was such an incredibly written character (and the Fan Favorite) otherwise. -
11-08-2022, 07:30 AMMagiusNecrosHydaelyn should of never been written as an antagonist to begin with. It would have been better if the villains were trying to flip the script and appear sympathetic only to reveal they were the big bad all along and misled the heroes.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lelila38
All this build up of Zodiark as this big evil and the xpac was rushed out the door with Zodiark being a weak Primal with an Entelechy being given powercreep and routinely defeated shortly after.
Weak anime finale IMO. -
11-08-2022, 09:02 AMStriker44Remember that it goes this long because EW is also one of the most popular and loved expansions. Every single expansion in the game's history has had the echo chamber of negativity on this forum trash it. Usually the conversation peters out because there aren't many people defending it. This xpac is the exception. Many people in this thread also post about how much they enjoyed EW.Quote:
Originally Posted by jamjeeshoul77
Actually, it can mean that, just like you personally not enjoying it doesn't mean it has any "severe problems" either. That is likewise a purely personal opinion which others can completely disagree with. The "many" you speak of by the way, are quite simply non-existent. This forum contains the most absurdly minuscule few compared to the hundreds of thousands of players. Please don't claim to speak for any of them.Quote:
Good for you if you enjoyed it. Genuinely, I'm happy for people who can still enjoy the game in some way. But just because you enjoyed it doesn't mean it is free of severe problems, nor does it negate the disappointment and frustration many felt when playing through it or thinking on it after the 'magic' wore off.
-
11-08-2022, 09:14 AMKageTokage
I'm disinclined to call it a "purely personal opinion" when people are generally mirroring discontent with the same elements of the story.
Though I won't deny that the people who dislike it are also an extreme minority...which beggars the question of why others feel the need to constantly defend their positive takes/opinions like we're somehow endangering them just by existing. -
11-08-2022, 10:00 AMMidareyukkiIt's not people's faults that others happen to agree, is it? Hell, almost no one I know in-game interacts with the forums whatsoever, and they too share my concerns and complains sometimes. Obviously not all of them, and never to the same extent. Often they're more understanding, sometimes less. Speaking for myself... well... I speak for myself, not what other people want to hear. It's easy to assume that everything is an echo chamber when sentiments happen to be so similar. Not everyone liked the Loporrits, but others did, for example. And that's okay. But saying that criticisms are mirrored? Well... what do you want to hear?Quote:
Originally Posted by KageTokage
I don't think Hydaelyn is a problem. At all.
The burger scene is overfocused, it's really not a big deal, nor does it say anything about G'raha.
Hermes is an intresting character. I split him from Amon, and consider the two characters separate as much as I consider Gaia and Ascian Gaia to be separate.
Meteion is adorable and tragic.
And odds are you'll find people with a similar mindset as well. People who might think that the stuff I "excuse" are problematic, and the stuff I find poorly executed to not be so. I just find that to be natural. -
11-08-2022, 01:11 PMKaoru_NagisaOh look. You're still here.Quote:
Originally Posted by Striker44
Yawn. -
11-08-2022, 01:13 PMAtelier-BagurThe OG Hydaelyn? What on earth are you talking about?Quote:
Originally Posted by MagiusNecros
-
11-08-2022, 01:22 PMKageTokage
I think "OG" as in before we really knew any deeper details about her and the situation was made out to be a very black and white sort of conflict.
I'd rather they have just doubled down on that approach rather then inject some moral greyness into the matter in ShB, then skirt around it as much as possible in EW. -
11-08-2022, 02:07 PMMagiusNecrosCorrect. Venat and Hydaelyn feel like 2 different characters. The grey morality really kills all they built up and threw all their eggs in one basket with the Ancients.Quote:
Originally Posted by KageTokage
They took this Paragon of "purity" and turned it into a character that in their own idealism destroyed their own world to delay it's complete destruction and imparted perpetual suffering as the denizens just reward.
More curious is if Hydaelyn was the heart or core of Eorzea what pray tell was the heart of Etheirys?
Shadowbringers was building up to some pretty big stuff in a intricate way but a lot of it just became a lot of throwaway material for a quick and lazy resolution.
You see this all over the place in Endwalker with it's myriad of pacing issues.
But given how they threw away Garlemald so quickly this isn't that much of a surprise to me. -
11-08-2022, 02:18 PMKageTokageThere's a bunch of dialogue in various places like a Sharlayan scholar desiring "the truth that lies at the heart of our star" and that weird prophecy from Studium that's making me hopeful there's still some big secrets about the nature of the world itself that will come to light but...it's hard to say if that's going to be a thing until 6.5 and the 7.x preview starts painting a more clear picture of the future.Quote:
Originally Posted by MagiusNecros
-
11-08-2022, 04:48 PMLunaxiaMy overall impression is I think you're being very charitable towards Emet here.Quote:
Originally Posted by Brinne
"He shouldn't" have any regrets in particular is quite a powerful phrase to use, considering "everything in his power" included global genocide and mass destruction, and though I often see people casually handwave his litany of misdeeds and shelving them under something as romantic as "doing his duty" or "love for his people", I not only think it's a bit idealistic, but also a disservice to his character. Emet may have struggled with the weight of the responsibility he was carrying, and would have rather not had to do any of it, but he was not some hapless thrall at the mercy of his master's bidding either. The truth is Emet willfully did some terrible, awful things, caused immense amounts of suffering in those that deep down he did come to see as living beings in some approximation, and more than that, he frequently did not care.
He would feel pangs of empathy or good will for those who became meaningful to him, for sure, but he was so full of arrogance, rage and despair that he discarded them the moment they disappointed him and used it as fuel and justification to commit more atrocities. His reactions to Garlemald nearly collapsing in on itself, to Black Rose, to our turning into a Sin Eater and potentially slaughtering innocent civilians are not those of a man tormented by remorse and sympathy. He knew Black Rose especially had the potential to kill thousands, and applauds Varis for it. That's not really what I'd call a "kind person who hates seeing others in pain", and both past and present Emet seem to agree, calling him "twisted" and a megalomaniac both.Quote:
I think not having the understanding that Emet is very much a fundamentally kind person who hates seeing others in pain
I do get where you're coming from, but I'm countering that you can't separate what those "ideals" ultimately resulted in from the possibly noble origin whence they came, and for the same reasons you found it refreshing to refer back to, I found it a very strange declaration to make at that point in the story, after an interlude intent on showing Emet as a sort of hero. What is it you're trying to make me think about him here? Do you think what he did is so minor that the grand scope of his story somehow covers or excuses it? That's more or less what I was trying to make sense of in my discussion with Midare (hence the focus on the "madman" comment, which was more trying to read the writers' own intended perception of him than anything else.) I can't pin what they were going for, and subsequently I just found his overall portrayal a little disappointing after ShB, as nice as it was to see him. I really loved bitter, tormented, agonised Emet, hardened-but-not-really but so consumed by resentment he refused to allow himself to see it - he was such a brilliant character, I didn't find the hard fallback on what a terrific guy he once was to be as delightful as everyone else did, and if that was their attempt to sort of... acknowledge what had gone on, it was too little too late at that point, and felt a bit awkward.
For those acquainted with it, the "Through His Eyes" sidestory was the Emet I'd always hoped to see. Cantankerous, serious, a little distant and self-involved, even self-deprecating - facets of his true self that appeared through the cracks in the facade as ShB progressed - but with that begrudging undercurrent of duty and compassion that makes his character so endearing. He was fun in EW, but it felt very on the nose and more of a caricature of what he once was - they tried too hard to make him out as a good guy at times, and combined with their own apparent confusion on where we stand with him and what he did, that lost a lot of what made him appealing, at least in my mind. -
11-08-2022, 11:02 PMBrinneNo, you can't separate Emet's ideals from what he did, but if we're referring back to his character as it existed in the context of Shadowbringers positively - Shadowbringers also didn't portrayal Emet as exceptional in that regard, but rather, roughly morally equivalent to everyone else put in a position of having to make that "x person versus y person" decision. The three major non-Scion figures who carried the themes, featured in Shadowbringers, were Ardbert, Emet, and the Exarch, and they were all parallels who all made roughly the same choice in resorting to destruction and death or erasure for others to save the people they "chose" in a position where they saw no alternative to having to make that "choice," right or wrong.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lunaxia
The discussion about the Exarch's decisions in regards to the future timeline tend to get a bit contentious regarding even the premises, but Ardbert at minimum is a person who made the same choice Emet did - knowing the stakes, killing and destroying others for a chance to save the world and the people he felt responsible for and loved, and the story also notably has Ardbert's arc revolve around, and come to terms with, that he should NOT feel self-loathing for or regret the feeling behind those actions. He sees that, indeed, the people on the First he was willing to kill and torment others to help, did desperately wish to live - he wasn't wrong. Ardbert's "mistake," like Emet, is not framed around his "atrocities," but his conviction that he had to carry his weight alone, the suffering that came from an obsession with one's responsibility to save those depending on him, which drove him into place where he was willing to do terrible things - even almost sadistically, at points.
What Shadowbringers has to say about what "twisted" people like Ardbert and Emet does not revolve around commentary around the atrocities or the moral obligation or necessity to condemn their (terrible) actions, but rather examining the emotional context from which otherwise remarkably "good" people like them end up being driven to that twisted state. And what the writing points to as the context that caused this is the solitude, the loneliness, the burden. Ardbert explicitly remarks upon this in the Ladder scene, going as far as to say that what he himself has been through - which was enough to push him to being willing to end another world - paled in comparison to Emet's circumstances.
I don't think you could argue the story is suggesting that Ardbert's actions in HW are a reflection of something just morally wrong about him from the get-go, that the takeaway about Ardbert is that he didn't care about the harm he was doing, that Ardbert as someone who also engaged on a campaign of atrocities and mass murder is not someone who deserved our comradery and compassion once we were on the same page and shared the same goal of saving as many people as we still could. It never pressed Ardbert to fully renounce his HW decisions or his reasons for doing so - it actually supported him in that regard, putting the actions they resulted in aside. And Ardbert never stopped, was never convinced to stop, would have never stopped - until a viable alternative appeared in the form of Minfilia that would help him achieve his goals and "ideals" of saving the First. We still do not condemn him, even though we did try to stop him - the narrative instead recognizes his arc and resolves it by highlighting him as a person who desperately needed help to find a non-destructive means to achieve his true goal of saving people. In that way, Ardbert's presence and arc reinforces what Shadowbringers is broadly also trying to do with Emet-Selch - Ardbert is literally "the same as you." Just as Alisaie remarks once she understands Emet that, in his position, she would likely do the same thing he did, even fully knowing it's probably futile. As Urianger and Alphinaud both try to appeal to Emet on the grounds of "we are the same as you, we want the same thing, we are driven by the same motives." The same way Shadowbringers does indeed, long before Endwalker, textually refers to Emet, in the aftermath, more than once, as a hero.
The difference, I think, is if your understanding of Emet's Shadowbringers positioning in terms of the theme frames him as "a tragic villain," someone who had sympathetic origins but has nonetheless "fallen" and "gone too far" who must subsequently be put down, so to speak, or if it was that - whether you agree or not - it frames him as "the same as you" and "a fellow hero." Or to put it another way, whether you see the burden of Shadowbringers's themes as being moreso growth on Emet's part ("he has to realize he's wrong!") versus our part ("we have to realize our opposition are also people, not so different from us!") With the former in both cases, it's probably natural to be confused when Endwalker echoes that positioning at the end after EW otherwise makes hay about how necessary and "for the greater good" it was that Emet's people be killed; with the latter, yes, it is, again, a "thank god Shadowbringers isn't ENTIRELY forgotten" callback.
So I see Emet's "I have no regrets about loving the Ancients, choosing them, and trying to save them over your world" as not really being any different from Ardbert finally snapping out of his funk in Shadowbringers by declaring "our people want to live, I don't regret wanting to save them." I don't really conflate Ardbert's triumph in that regard with him seeing nothing to regret about being, say, fundamentally largely responsible for the death of Ga-Bu's family or tormenting him into tempered madness.
For what it's worth, when I emphasize Emet's kindness, it's not to put forth him as a soft figure that we should all feel sorry for, or anything like that, per se. It's more that it's basically necessary to understand his emotional logic and what's primarily driving his actions throughout Shadowbringers, and what actually makes him capable of spewing such bile as people quote and taking such horrific action. Emet is someone constantly at war with himself and self-sabotaging throughout Shadowbringers, arguing one position in one scene, and then arguing something contrary in the next. It's incredibly well-written, and fascinating, but I think understanding it necessitates seeing how much of his attempts to connect with the WoL and Scions was in earnest, and then immediately beating himself up and lashing out from self-reproach for daring to think or hope an alternative way, a better way, than the Ascians' cruel methods were possible. It's not, as I read it, a matter of his "being willing to discard people once they disappointed him/out of his arrogance" from the perspective of understanding what was driving him. (the result, of course, is the same for his victims, who have every right to hate him regardless.) It's a matter of him being unable to discard, to his own frustration, that fundamental instinct of kindness towards those he sees, even after millennia of having every reason to shut off that instinct, and with the pressure of every Ancient's life on the line.
Emet's Shadowbringers arc only happened because his instinctive kindness and empathy as an individual person was in a cagematch to his devotion and duty to his people, and we saw the depth of the devotion and duty - so the kindness has to be a match for it to cause the destructive spiral he crashed down. As Ishikawa said, his downfall was ultimately caused by his kindness. When Emet lashes out and calls us not really people, not alive, no big deal to kill, that is NOT his "ideals" as we and the narrative are talking about them - those are his coping mechanisms because he's too kind to keep pressing on with what he "has" to do without lying to himself.
Essentially, Emet in Shadowbringers - consistent with his deep kindness but also awkwardness and difficulty dealing with it in EW - is going through a constant cycle of: too kind and empathetic to not see the pain and suffering others are experiencing and feel for them, but then too kind and empathetic to be able to bear being the one responsible for it, so he lies to himself and tries to emotionally partition himself into the role of sadistic villain instead. But then once again too kind and empathetic to not see past those lies and how others around him are suffering and in pain, but then too kind and empathetic to bear--etc, etc, etc, until he explodes. And the EW personality is consistent with that - except, of course, in EW the stakes are much lighter, and unlike ShB (and consistent with where ShB points as the true issue here), he wasn't "alone" - he had Hythlodaeus and Azem there to balance him out and help him navigate that turmoil and difficulty with coming to terms with himself, down to similar mannerisms. Compare Emet's unease with Hermes's suffering at the beginning of their interview, leading to him giving in and breaking policy to allow the WoL to attend in order to comfort him - with Emet's unease at seeing the party's distress over Y'shtola, leading to him giving in and helping them save her. -
11-09-2022, 12:35 AMAtelier-BagurI still dont see where the problem is here. Considering the aeons of time they had that helped developed her character, its literally how they handle pre-sundered Emet Selch and current Emet Selch or pre sundered Lahabrea over current Lahabrea or pre sunderer Themis over current Elidibus. Are we just neglecting the amount of time they spent living their lives after the sunder? Do you not think any person would had time to develop themselves into the people we known in the current timeline?Quote:
Originally Posted by KageTokage
Why is every other Ancient getting a free pass with this nonsense critique yet Venat somehow is singled out by the community? -
11-09-2022, 08:33 AMKageTokage
Some people expected to like her more post-development, but ended up liking her less.
That's all there is to it. It has nothing do with the other Ancients getting a "free pass" because the additional context we got behind them in the past changed nothing about what we know of them in the present and mostly just served to make us feel worse about the fate they were eventually thrust into.
In Venat's case, it changed everything and was very much a "your mileage may vary" sort of situation...as the past several hundred pages can attest to. -
11-09-2022, 09:52 AMAtelier-BagurI still fail to see how "different" her character was between Venat and Hydaelyn. Unlike literally every other Ancient, she was probably the most level-headed and consistent Ancient between her time in the Unsundered World and current timeline. Everybody else turned into, as Emet-Selch puts it "megalomaniacal madmen" heck you could even start to see give into that during the one scene with the Convocation in their desperation.Quote:
Originally Posted by KageTokage
-
11-09-2022, 10:14 AMjameseoakesI think that's the problem, the sundering/the aftermarth seems to have driven the unsundered ascians insane, where as Venat was able to betray and unmake her own civilisation and apparently isn't affect at allQuote:
Originally Posted by Atelier-Bagur
-
11-09-2022, 10:24 AMKageTokage
Venat/Hydaelyn didn't change, but the perception of her did with the additional context behind her actions.
The breaking point for me personally was the suggestion that she let the unsundered escape on purpose despite knowing full well the misery they'd bring to the shards/Source and the despair they themselves would endure over the millenia.
Of course, none of that actually matters if you operate under the belief that preserving the future is more important then anything else or that there technically never were other options/possibilities due to time being a closed circle and what not...which is partly why I wish they never even opted for the causal loop in the first place.
I'd have been totally okay with her making the decisions she did if it was with no foreknowledge whatsoever and the current state of things came about strictly by chance. -
11-09-2022, 10:51 AMAtelier-BagurThe Ancients were very meticulous and obsessed with their perfect utopia that it gave into a somewhat unhealthy culture where people played god, putting a lot more value into the work of developing their civilization for the benefit of the star and in a weird way undervaluing their own lives by encouraging one to "die" after they fulfilled their purpose. This kind of thinking is what would have eventually gave pass to their own self-destruction, based on the examples of other civilizations we've come across at Ultima Thule such as the Niburun, The Omicrons and the Ea where their own paradises developed their flavor of nihilism. To me the Ancients were well on their way to that path. Venat gave the impression that she didnt necessarily agree with a lot of her people's ways, which is why she was the rare case of a Convocation member still being alive even though she fulfilled her purpose and gave up her seat. Factor that with her own free spirit, something that she shares with our Azem, it makes sense why she was one of the few Ancients whom didnt gave into despair like the rest of the Ancients during the Final Days.Quote:
Originally Posted by jameseoakes
-
11-09-2022, 10:52 AMLunaxiaYet that's what I disagree with. I understand the parallels they were trying to create between the characters, but the message I took away from that was "everyone is a hero in their own story", even when it's flagrantly clear they've more than lost sight of who they are or what once drove them - not that Emet was merely the most unfortunate of the lot and that we would have acted the same way were we in that position. I can get behind the notion that we would likewise do what we could for those we loved, but I don't readily believe that the WoL, the Scions and what have you would all be faced with an inevitable slow decline into ruthless destruction and tyranny when confronted with the same scenario. Now, I will admit it has been some time since I familiarised myself with Ardbert's story prior to the First, so correct me if I'm wrong, but was he not something of a cornered animal at that point in terms of what he had to do? I don't recall him being "sadistic" but desperate and flailing, and I don't know if you can comfortably compare antagonising beastmen to usher in a calamity under the manipulation of a third party to save a world from complete erasure to the systematic, flat out mass genocide the Ascians employed to rejoin a world long since gone with no real guarantee of the end result. The element of a "yours or mine" choice is similar to be sure, but circumstances and semantics matter here. If we do follow the train of thought the writers intended to equate these figures under the banner of "fighting to save those they love", it's a bit of a whitewash. Understanding that Emet's suffering led him to those actions is one thing, but excusing genuinely sadistic terrorism towards the Source and its shards with his turmoil and "well, we'd probably do the same thing" is... odd, and it isn't what I would I call a hero. Somewhere, the wheels fell off quite spectacularly, and though I don't mind the game referring to him as such from the point of view of the Ancients and the Ascians, I think a little more attention needs to be called to what it brought about, or at least examined more - which they did pay some lipservice to with the Omega quest, to be fair, with it pointing out that Omega saw the impact of what Emet wrought and questions whether or not this affects what you believe. But I can't help but think they're too afraid to, so we stick to rhetoric that any poor, lonely hero would follow such a road under the circumstances. Truthfully, I struggle to believe the Ancients themselves as they were portrayed would be comfortable with what they did regardless of if it meant their survival - a conflict I had hoped we might come up against in some form, but alas.Quote:
Originally Posted by Brinne
For me, it comes down to that I simply reject removing too much of Emet's agency in the choices he makes and what that means for his character by saying it was inevitable because of what he had been through, or citing that he had once been a good person. In fact, the shows of kindness, as you call it, should only make him more accountable - he still has the capacity for empathy and benevolence, but actively chooses to pursue denial and inflict suffering to achieve his vision. Were he apathetic, disdainful and disconnected from the get-go, I might accept this interpretation a little more readily, but in my eyes it makes his behaviour less excusable.Quote:
The difference, I think, is if your understanding of Emet's Shadowbringers positioning...
(The fundamental kindness of slaughtering a chunk of the population with a lethal bioweapon?) By arrogance, I mean his racial arrogance that the Ancients are inherently superior and more deserving of life. I think that drove his behaviour far more than many people like to think. He is cordial to those that may potentially be of importance to his goals, but once his original view is reaffirmed it's quickly thrown out the window. "Kindness" in general is just not the word I would use in such a scenario (remarking on Ishikawa's use of the term, as well) and implies something I don't think it should - retaining some capacity for humanity/ empathy would be better, perhaps? You can psychoanalyse his behaviour endlessly to make him all the more tragic (and I'm not saying it's baseless), but a deal of his anger comes from daring to believe these sub-humans were worthy of consideration, and whether or not he beats himself up for it, the "trial" and subsequent "punishment" he sets upon them - declaring them unworthy of life for failing to meet his standards - is messed up regardless. Was Hermes not lambasted for doing something similar?Quote:
For what it's worth, when I emphasize Emet's kindness... fundamental instinct of kindness towards those he sees, even after millennia of having every reason to shut off that instinct, and with the pressure of every Ancient's life on the line.
I'm going to disagree here and say we threw a spanner in his works through the luck of our being Azem - an Ancient, someone he loved, someone who mattered amidst the rabble. I think we invoked some small semblance of the person he once was, and we saw a more vulnerable and human side of Emet than has likely been revealed for a while, but when we did not measure up, we became expendable just like all the rest. He was capable of kindness, but the habit of attributing this to him as a defining personality trait after the flashbacks we see of him prior to ShB - and what we see once we disappoint him - seems too optimistic. Emet, deep down, knew the futility of what he was trying to do, he had lost the will go on, the years of isolation and disappointment wearing on him, and he wanted out, and it was more this that I think drove his inner turmoil - the desire to relinquish his duty but being so tired, in every sense of the word - more than reasons to do with empathy towards mortals or his better nature.Quote:
Emet's Shadowbringers arc only happened because his instinctive kindness and empathy as an individual person was in a cagematch to his devotion and duty to his people, and we saw the depth of the devotion and duty - so the kindness has to be a match for it to cause the destructive spiral he crashed down. As Ishikawa said, his downfall was ultimately caused by his kindness. When Emet lashes out and calls us not really people, not alive, no big deal to kill, that is NOT his "ideals" as we and the narrative are talking about them - those are his coping mechanisms because he's too kind to keep pressing on with what he "has" to do without lying to himself.
I don't want to sound like a stuck record, but gestures vaguely to Garlemald and the entirety of Stormblood. It's very tempting to push Emet into the realm of this self-destructive, tormented soul, but his kindness did not stop him waging war and staging conquests, rebellions, instigating war crimes, permitting Dalamud's fall, manipulating a ravaged and beaten down nation into doing his bidding and making himself not only leader but an unquestioned, deity-like figure the Garleans were expected to exclusively pay reverence to as you would a divinity - and that's what we know he did. He extends his hand to us to better achieve his desired ends, he deigns to save Y'shtola to better cement our trust in him, he places some hope in us because we were once Azem and show some promise of release from what he's been stuck with, and while his feelings and ability to sympathise certainly coloured his decisions - I won't deny his condolences were genuine in that part of the story - by that point there was little in the way of kindness about it and the majority of it was self-serving in some way or another, and he didn't trouble himself to withdraw it the moment he became disillusioned.Quote:
Essentially, Emet in Shadowbringers - consistent with his deep kindness ... leading to him giving in and helping them save her.
So, yeah. To summarise the best I can, while I can understand the premise that the writers were trying to make Emet out as a tragic hero and a cautionary tale should such misfortune happen to us, I'm also not letting go of the fact that we spent an entire zone in the remnants of an empire famed for hideous racism, imperial conquest and human experimentation that he created and nominated himself the supreme ruler of, and that they could scarcely bring themselves to remind us of that fact while, as you pointed out, simultaneously making Varis its figurehead despite his short-lived tenure as Emperor in his stead. There is a reason for that, and I believe it has to do with the fact it makes that original message pretty tenuous when the blatant reality of what it actually means is put right in front of you. -
11-09-2022, 02:36 PMBrinneMm, yeah, I think it might be worth refreshing on HW Ardbert and Crew’s antics, up to and including his sinister smirks and jeers as he plots murder and destruction, and his friends laughing and gloating over nearly murdering Alisaie in her brother’s face.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lunaxia
It also seems weird to me to be a little dismissive of the deliberate suffering they were causing, and that he was more of a “cornered animal” in his situation compared to the surviving Ancients upon seeing the destruction and mutilation (as they understood it) of the remains of their world. “Antagonizing beastmen” is a strange turn of phrase to lighten his actions compared to the rhetoric used for the Ascians – frankly, Ardbert and Crew’s actions actually mirror Emet and the Ascians’ disturbingly well – simply on a smaller scale and on a smaller timeframe, for now, due to happenstance. To put it bluntly, Ardbert was deliberately targeting, killing, and manipulating oppressed, vulnerable populations with the aim of driving them into such despair and desperation that they would fall into extremism and self-destruction that it would lead to a Calamity (“genocide,” in non-sanitized terms) and widespread, untold death across the Source. They did this “systemically,” too, going from tribe to tribe. If Ardbert and crew were “under the manipulation of a third party,” then so too were the Ascians, as we now know they were unwittingly operating under Venat’s roadmap of the timeline leading to the WoL the entire time.
A point is also made that Ardbert and crew actually do know the full stakes of what they’re doing. They’re not being “misled” by the Ascians in terms of what they’re fighting for – Alisaie and Urianger have a whole exchange about how they’re fully aware that causing the Rejoining will still result in the death of their world, just that some form of its existence will continue in the Rejoined Source, rather than the complete oblivion by the Flood of Light, so it’s easy to argue in a lot of ways his goal was less justifiable than Emet’s. Emet, though the hope was faint, was fighting with the hope to concretely save people and allow them to live the lives that were stolen from them. Ardbert was way beyond that point, fighting for something even more vague and ill-defined on behalf of his beloved people. And once again, you never actually convince him to stop, or that he was wrong. The culmination of his arc is him coming to the conclusion that he wasn’t wrong, at least in his driving feeling of fighting to save the people of the First. In the scope of Heavensward, he only relents when figures from our side concede and go "you're right, your world needs to be saved, and we're going to help you do it so that you don't need to destroy ours."
This, at least, isn’t really accurate – the narrative suggests, and Yoshida explicates in interviews, that Emet has tried again and again, with “pure/earnest intent,” to believe in Sundered humanity and see them as worthy – but he was betrayed by them as a result so many times that he eventually simply gave up. We are not his first attempt to extend a chance to the Sundered. Us being Azem is, rather, cited as the what moved him to try one last time after he’d already been thoroughly burnt out, against his better instincts.Quote:
I'm going to disagree here and say we threw a spanner in his works through the luck of our being Azem - an Ancient, someone he loved, someone who mattered amidst the rabble. I think we invoked some small semblance of the person he once was, and we saw a more vulnerable and human side of Emet than has likely been revealed for a while, but when we did not measure up, we became expendable just like all the rest. He was capable of kindness, but the habit of attributing this to him as a defining personality trait after the flashbacks we see of him prior to ShB - and what we see once we disappoint him - seems too optimistic. Emet, deep down, knew the futility of what he was trying to do, he had lost the will go on, the years of isolation and disappointment wearing on him, and he wanted out, and it was more this that I think drove his inner turmoil - the desire to relinquish his duty but being so tired, in every sense of the word - more than reasons to do with empathy towards mortals or his better nature.
One thing I’d like to clarify is that when I refer to “kindness” in Emet’s case in particular, I don’t intend it as an evaluation of his character as such – more like an internal impulse that spurs reaction on his part due to feeling. The fact that he feels these instincts of kindness are what spurs his manic behavior that probably in many ways results in more cruelty than there would have otherwise, because it creates that element of overcompensation, of trying to prove something to himself, to resolve his internal dissonance. I’m not trying to argue that he’s a good person because he’s kind, rather, pointing that that specific aspect of his personality was always a key factor in what led him to do what he did in the way that he did it, for better and for worse, for himself and for others.
In that way, Endwalker highlighting “kindness” as his key trait as a person, divorced from his circumstances and duties and trauma, felt perfectly consistent to me and was already something I as a reader had picked up on from Shadowbringers alone. I was happy to see it reinforced, as the core factor behind much of his strange behavior, as opposed to something more straightforwardly connected to malice such as “arrogance.” Even back in Shadowbringers, this reading was far more compelling and interesting to me. “Kindness” in and of itself does not necessarily lead to a more benevolent outcome; when “kindness” is an irrepressible impulse in someone put in a position where they see no alternative to killing and tormenting others, it actually can and often does lead to incredibly ugly places. This is why a support network is so important, and Emet going so badly off the rails is attributed to being his isolation from his loved ones more than anything else.
I think there’s sort of a fundamental difference here in the disbelief of “there’s simply no way you could describe anyone who took the actions Emet did as ‘kind’” – whereas my reading has always been more “yes, I can see how an excess of kindness can actually be a destructive trait when certain types of extreme pressure are applied, and it’s really interesting character work.” I also think it’s totally fair to not really buy into Shadowbringers’s thesis – it’s just that I would point out that then, however, you can’t really indicate that as a gap between Shadowbringers as a good narrative and Endwalker as a failure of that narrative, at least in this particular case. (I think Endwalker was a failure of Shadowbringers’s narrative in a million other ways, of course.)
It’s just that Shadowbringers’s thesis has never been “regardless of how sympathetic his position, Emet-Selch is Wrong” and has always explicitly been “if you wind up in Emet-Selch’s position, you WILL end up like him, so don’t end up in his position (of being alone.)” I’m not sure there’s a lot to debate with a basic disagreement of “no, I don’t buy that premise,” although I think the added context of how long Emet-Selch has been doing this, how often it’s been implied/stated he’s earnestly tried to reach out to the Sundered and been betrayed, and therefore how hard his soul has been ground down for so long helps as a factor in understanding it. Ardbert may not have reached the sheer levels of depravity or numbers of victims Emet-Selch did, but Ardbert also had less time grinding away at his personal mission of saving the First – after millennia at it in isolation, well, who knows what Ardbert might have become, had we (or rather, Urianger) not gone out of our way to give him another way out? -
11-09-2022, 05:46 PMjameseoakesI'd say she did give into despair though as she gave up on her own people and the sundering seems to be more about her not liking how her civilisation works than anything else given how fast she is to give up on it. I find the fact she could scour her own race from existence and seemly not be affect by really disturbingQuote:
Originally Posted by Atelier-Bagur
-
11-10-2022, 02:14 AMLunaxiaSome of the First still survived in some measure, but they were against the clock and rapidly running out of time before it fell completely, is what I meant by that - they were trying to wildly course-correct a mistake they had made before they lost everything, which I think bears remembering. In terms of the beastmen, as I said, I don't think I've properly played through their arc in HW since it was released and vaguely recalled the Gnath and battling Ravana vis a vis something to do with hastening summonings (I did look up their scenes, but the vast majority of clips I could find focused on the confrontation prior to their being sent back to the First by Minfilia.) If they were going through the tribes and slaughtering the beastmen as you say, and I have little reason to doubt you, then I'm not especially inclined to defend them for it, and if they were "smirking and jeering" over the said killing of innocents, then that's just as bizarre a character divergence to me as it is proclaiming the supportive progenitor of a would-be bio-terrorist is actually a kind but tormented man, deep, deep (deep) down. But your primary defence of the Emet and the Ascians here is resting a great deal on whataboutism concerning Ardbert and co., when I've never really thought much of the characters or their writing, nor been especially sympathetic towards Ardbert himself, and I don't find the comparisons carry. Equating Venat especially "permitting", if you like, the Ascians to go about their schemes because it works for her with Elidibus telling Ardbert the sole way to save some semblance of his home is to wreak havoc on the Source for instance just doesn't work in my eyes - ShB even shows Emet paying heed to the idea there may be other ways to bring about what they desire, but ultimately he doesn't find them worth exploring because we disappoint him. You're trying to impress upon me the seriousness of what Ardbert did and call his reasoning "vague and ill-defined", while in the same breath telling me that Emet, who has done far, far more, on a much more calculated, terrible scale, arguably had more of a right to do that on the very shaky premise that everything would have gone back to normal, the Rejoining would have been wholly succesful, the Ancients would have even been resurrected, and that they were not a lost cause at that point or that their resurrection was even viable - we merely take Emet's word alone on this, who is so hell-bent on miring himself in denial and self-deception he is an incredibly unreliable narrator.Quote:
Originally Posted by Brinne
I think Emet approached the Sundered with the intention to be open to the possibility of their proving him wrong, but again, you're over-romanticising him and his story when it conflicts with what we've actually seen. Emet, at heart, from the very beginning, has looked down upon the Sundered, and views them as weak, feeble and foolish, and though he claims we are free to prove otherwise, because of his views, the Sundered were effectively doomed to fail from day one. His standards are impossible to meet, for they cannot overcome such perceived weaknesses as the limits of their mortality (which we see with his son) nor the constitution of their bodies or souls (the WoL.) It isn't a case of Emet just wanting to believe, but the Sundered cruelly betrayed him over and over; Emet is so filled with grief and contempt that he cannot and will not accept the Sundered regardless of their merits or flaws, as they will always be a pale reflection of the "perfection" that once was. He has burned himself out, because he cannot accept the way things are. It will never be good enough for him, and he ultimately come to terms with this and admits it himself.Quote:
This, at least, isn’t really accurate – the narrative suggests, and Yoshida explicates in interviews, that Emet has tried again and again, with “pure/earnest intent,” to believe in Sundered humanity...
That's more or less what I was explaining earlier, wherein Emet channels his frustration over his disappointment into justifying and perpetuating more misdeeds, but I take a decidedly less favourable slant on it, haha.Quote:
The fact that he feels these instincts of kindness are what spurs his manic behavior that probably in many ways results in more cruelty [...]
I've never taken issue with the idea of pointing out Emet's compassionate streak in Endwalker, what bothered me was the way they batter you to death with it, particularly in the blatantly expositional chat with Hythlodaeus, while conveniently skating over all the things he did that may make some people stop and go, "hey, wait a minute -". The writing lost a lot of nuance there in their rush to assure us what a good, self-effacing guy he was, to the point it became near enough comedic fodder. I did enjoy his exchanges with Hermes though, and his attempts to connect with him despite struggling to understand where he was coming from. I think they illustrated his better side quite well without the need for Metetion to tumble in in her genki girl way and guilt-trip him into it.Quote:
In that way, Endwalker highlighting “kindness” as his key trait as a person, divorced from his circumstances and duties and trauma, felt perfectly consistent to me and was already something I as a reader had picked up on from Shadowbringers alone.
I can agree with that, but I still resolutely take issue with the word "kindness" and applying it to him in the way that it has been - but if we're more or less talking about the same thing in terms of "Emet's ability to feel slowly destroyed him" then we're on the same page. His inability to assume that type of disconnect that Elidibus and Lahabrea appeared to take took its toll, at times made him act more maliciously (which I don't excuse), and also made him suffer (which I can sympathise with.)Quote:
I think there’s sort of a fundamental difference here in the disbelief of “there’s simply no way you could describe anyone who took the actions Emet did as ‘kind’” – whereas my reading has always been more “yes, I can see how an excess of kindness can actually be a destructive trait when certain types of extreme pressure are applied, and it’s really interesting character work.” I also think it’s totally fair to not really buy into Shadowbringers’s thesis – it’s just that I would point out that then, however, you can’t really indicate that as a gap between Shadowbringers as a good narrative and Endwalker as a failure of that narrative, at least in this particular case. (I think Endwalker was a failure of Shadowbringers’s narrative in a million other ways, of course.)
The way I see it is, ShB landed with its writing, an interesting cast, its goal in creating a sympathetic, complex antagonist, and the overarching message of dispelling concepts of black and white morality and what is "good" vs "evil" , and I can applaud what it did well while not agreeing with the antagonist's actions or the subtle implication that his turmoil made them excusable. EW, on the other hand, failed in just about every metric including writing, characterisation, tying together the plot coherently and what it was trying to convey. I'm not saying it was a black void of enjoyment - it certainly had good moments - but as ShB had niggles during an altogether enjoyable experience, EW had some highlights during what was overall a disappointment.
There's an element of that that's true, and I said as such a few pages back. We can never really know - but in that same vein, I don't appreciate the story supposing that we do.Quote:
After millennia at it in isolation, well, who knows what Ardbert might have become, had we (or rather, Urianger) not gone out of our way to give him another way out?
-
11-10-2022, 05:11 AMBrinne
What I'm getting at with the Ardbert comparisons is not a personal attempt on my part to defend either Ardbert or Emet, to clarify - it's my attempt to demonstrate that FFXIV's writing (and Ishikawa's especially, as she's responsible for both the Warriors of Darkness arc in Heavensward and, obviously, all of Shadowbringers) has been consistent in regards to the capacity for twisted villainy and cruelty from the origins of what it portrays as not just kind, good people - but exceptionally kind, good people, with, again, the thesis that this IS the inevitable road a "hero" will wind up on under certain conditions (solitude, the agony and desperation of feeling solely responsible for protecting those around them.) In terms of Ishikawa's writing, this is also very consistent with how she approached the tenor of the Dark Knight quests. That the Warrior of Light themselves, out of their life of goodwill and having to inflict violence on some in defense of others, inevitably nurtures a subconscious darker half full of bile, hate, and resentment, and that can only be partially-mollified or at least kept in check by having a strong support network around them.
It's an Ishikawa thing not remotely specific to Endwalker, but it's been almost shockingly consistent in terms of how she approached the topic. For my part, I would say I fall on the side of appreciating it more than disliking it, and it overlaps with some of my own pet thematic fixations (which mostly has to do with rejecting Othering and protagonist-isms - I personally prioritize the sentiment of "the Ancients as a people deserved to be loved, validated and saved, and acknowledged as being so rather than discarded as necessary fodder for the 'greater good', even if their survival was sadly not the outcome as things turned out" over "Emet needs to be condemned for his methods" for that reason), but "the burden of solo heroism without sufficient emotional support from others will inevitably drive a person into a pile of twisted, self-loathing destruction" also isn't specifically something I feel strongly for, either. But it's pretty clear what the text has been getting at, and not very subtly, on a variety of fronts on the subject.
I think your reading of this is a totally valid interpretation based on the text itself, but it's also explicit it's not the writer intent or interpretation at this point. I think it's very fair to point out the ways Emet trying to position himself (to himself, even) as more reasonable than he was really prepared to be due to a variety of his own shortcomings (and he's such a complex and nuanced character that it's GOOD that there are so many layers and cracks you can reach into to show the myriad of ways and levels he continued to betray himself), but since you mentioned in your posts not being sure where the writers were coming from in regards to his character and its treatment in Endwalker, their thought has always been, yeah, his attempts were in good faith and in earnest, even in regards to the unseen non-Azem figures he's reached out to throughout history. This isn't an Endwalker-exclusive pivot. Yoshida was giving the quotes about Emet's "pure-hearted" intentions all along back during the Shadowbringers era. As mentioned, at least going from translated interviews, "his kindness was his downfall" is Ishikawa's terms and framing.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lunaxia
That being said, I completely sympathize with and root for your right to go "okay, if that is the writer's intent, then I think that's stupid and wrong and undermined by the nuances of what they actually wrote." While I'm not wholly there in regards to this aspect of Emet-Selch (though he is complicated, self-sabotaging on pretty much every level, and his resentment and bitterness is also a huge driving force that can't be dismissed - not to mention it's a hell of an ask for others to reasonably understand him even when/if he is trying to be earnest because he's so outright nonsensically stupid and backwards about expressing it, in both the past and the present - but you're not wrong that I overall skew pretty sympathetic to him; part of that is that I think it's "easier" and thus more emotionally tempting for "our group" to write off his attempts to reach out as empty from the beginning, rather than daring to engage), that's basically how I feel about Venat and the Sundering myself. I see your intent there and it's bad in both thought and execution, writers.
All of this, for sure, I can nod along with and happily shake hands on, haha!Quote:
The way I see it is, ShB landed with its writing, an interesting cast, its goal in creating a sympathetic, complex antagonist, and the overarching message of dispelling concepts of black and white morality and what is "good" vs "evil" , and I can applaud what it did well while not agreeing with the antagonist's actions or the subtle implication that his turmoil made them excusable. EW, on the other hand, failed in just about every metric including writing, characterisation, tying together the plot coherently and what it was trying to convey. I'm not saying it was a black void of enjoyment - it certainly had good moments - but as ShB had niggles during an altogether enjoyable experience, EW had some highlights during what was overall a disappointment.
(And yes, Emet and Hermes's interactions were insanely good. One of my favorite parts of Elpis and of both characters.) -
11-10-2022, 09:27 AMLunaxiaI will definitely agree there's a strong precedent for the "solitude and isolation will leave you a terrible, broken human being" narrative, and I noticed that initially with Yotsuyu and Ysayle, though on my part I'm not sure I'm thrilled with their (continued) take on it. I said this in my analysis of Endwalker, but I always found the message that life is a meaningless void and you're better off dead than without a support network behind you to be a pretty dreadful one, considering how often these circumstances are beyond our control, and I was dismayed how traumatised and isolated characters are are frequently seen as wounded animals that need putting out of their misery. Which is why for all my emphasis on his past actions, I'm not actually saying I want Emet condemned and forever scorned as a villain for what he did, because what he went through was an absolute tragedy, but something closer to what we wish for with Venat - a more open and appraising look at his character outside of what the story tells us we should think.Quote:
Originally Posted by Brinne
This also ties in to why I don't really find it totally viable to compare Ardbert with Emet, since I see the latter as more on par with Venat in terms of the scale of his actions. If you look at it from their mindset, to Ardbert's mind, he was causing destruction to save something of his world after he brought about its near total annihilation, but the Source would live on and eventually recover - Emet, on the other hand, wanted nothing less than the erasure of Sundered life and history completely. So it's sort of, yes, you're right in they did both did terrible things for what they perceived as doing the right thing, and the writers no doubt wanted to continue that isolated narrative with them, but do I think that their implying Ardbert had justification for his actions is also giving something of a pass to Emet? Not quite.
Do you not think? I would have said the writers did intend for Emet to be setting himself up for inevitable disappointment, even if that wasn't his conscious intent. JP translations can be a little tricky since the vocabulary employed often carries different nuances to what we would first assume, but when they talk about pure-hearted intentions I see that as their saying he truly wasn't deceiving you, and he was genuinely receptive to being proven wrong - but that could simply never happen due to Emet's own distorted thinking, though he didn't realise that himself. I think that really came through in Through His Eyes - even his child, possibly the Sundered figure most in with a chance of getting close to Emet and breaking through his barriers, was simply not enough to able to tear down those biases and change his mind. In the end, he was unable to accept our mortality as anything other than a weakness, as opposed to a fundamental part of life, and rather than taking anything meaningful from it, losing his son only embittered him further. At that point, you have the sense of fighting a battle already lost.Quote:
I think your reading of this is a totally valid interpretation based on the text itself, but it's also explicit it's not the writer intent or interpretation at this point.
Ironically, I lean the other way - seeing the fans be extraordinarily sympathetic towards him (the "Emet-Selch was right all along!" faction in equal parts amuses and concerns me) made me want to rip the bandaid off the darker parts of Emet's character and view him critically, because honestly, he is such an endearing and enjoyable character it's admittedly incredibly tempting to view him in this broken, tragic light, and I've even been guilty of it myself in the past. But after revisiting the story since the saga finished (I suppose I was waiting for the end of the story before really jumping into a character analysis) I don't believe it's quite accurate to do so. But I understand why so many do.Quote:
That being said, I completely sympathize with...
There were a few times in Elpis the arrow really did hit the bullseye, and it was so good and so terrible (and I mean that in a positive way, if that makes sense) - like when Emet broods outside after the meeting and wonders what it must be like to grieve something so intently, I was just strangled crying noises.Quote:
All of this, for sure, I can nod along with and happily shake hands on, haha!
(And yes, Emet and Hermes's interactions were insanely good. One of my favorite parts of Elpis and of both characters.)
-
11-10-2022, 10:33 AMBrinneI think we're actually vibing on similar wavelengths here in terms of what we usually want from texts like this - there are totally ways to scrutinize the "don't let yourself be in Emet-Selch/Ardbert's positions [of being alone]" thesis because then, okay sure, that's all well and good to tell to us/the WoL, surrounded by friends, but then what about the people who don't have any say about it? Even in the text, you can easily argue that Emet-Selch and Ardbert themselves had no choice in the matter, that their positions of solitude are largely the result of things done to them and it's absurd to hold them responsible for their original pain and loss that left them isolated and thus launched onto their downward spirals - so what, exactly, were they supposed to have done, under this premise? And you're right that there's a callousness and something disturbing about a story drawing a line as far as "if you're too traumatized in this particular way, then you're broken and need to be put down." (Elidibus stands out to me in this regard, but Yotsuyu and Ysayle too in concert, for sure.) That does need to be critically examined and called out for being potentially troubling and callous for people who are vulnerable. I am 1000000% with you on there. The narrative not being sensitive enough to "the people who are left behind" by its feel-good platitudes are one of the myriad of issues I have with EW, where it became too egregious for me to ignore.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lunaxia
But like I said, one of my own pet thematic fixations is breaking down heroic essentialism or, sort of, protagonist-centric entitlement, so I also enjoy the challenging aspect of "they are the same as us and we hold the same potential for ugliness within us if the shoe was on the other foot" and therefore, the urging of empathy, compassion, and offering a different path whenever possible. Again, the solution to Ardbert isn't actually to forcefully put him down, it was to recognize his need and the worthiness of his cause and those he wanted to save, even beyond any possible grudge that could be held for his methods in achieving it - and thus reach out a hand to help him fulfill his cause in a different, non-destructive way. We weren't able to reach a similar accord with Emet-Selch in terms of "look, neither of us actually want to destroy each other, let's find a way to save both of our worlds," but it meant a lot to me that the Warrior of Light still responded to him with empathy and with recognition of him as a fellow hero in terms of what they were fundamentally both fighting for and suffering for.
So mileage may vary, but in terms of my personal complex about "Othering," the making hay about "if you don't have a proper support system you're effed" sucks in a lot of ways (and I'm happy to beat it down with you in steel-toed boots), but I liked the sort of sense of "but this principle also applies equally to you, these antagonists are the same as you but with worse fortunes and contexts - you're simply lucky, not exceptional, and need to appreciate that" in this regard towards us as the vaguely entitled-by-virtue-of-playing-the-heroes player characters.
Just for kicks (because I don't think these particulars are the most important thing to this discussion, lol) to further clarify what was going on with Ardbert and company, they weren't fighting to preserve what was left of the First, or Norvrandt. They were fighting to cause a Rejoining, aka, killing what was left of the First by merging it with the Source, but at least some semblence of the First's existence would continue on through being a part of the Source, as opposed to presumed complete obliteration to a Flood of Light. The First and all of its history would still be destroyed. They knew they were not actually fighting to save any actual lives, but were still willing to torture and mass murder people on the Source for it. Ardbert was indeed driven by a sense of responsibility from the guilt of causing it, but that sense of "responsibility" is also something emphasized with Emet-Selch. To stop what he was doing would be a complete betrayal of his people, consigning them to either continuing to remain in purgatory within Zodiark or as shattered pieces condemned to an existence of suffering, death, and never reclaiming their true selves or history through the Shards. His entire dilemma is being caught between two forms of unacceptable cruelty. It might be a case of us just disagreeing here, but I don't think it's a wide leap at all to compare the two in terms of "tragic hero who we are meant to sympathize with and see ourselves in, driven to horrific action out of desperation. We oppose them because the cost of them saving their loves ones is our loved ones, but we still feel for their desperation and that they're fighting for people who do deserve salvation as much as our own in-groups."Quote:
This also ties in to why I don't really find it totally viable to compare Ardbert with Emet, since I see the latter as more on par with Venat in terms of the scale of his actions. If you look at it from their mindset, to Ardbert's mind, he was causing destruction to save something of his world after he brought about its near total annihilation, but the Source would live on and eventually recover - Emet, on the other hand, wanted nothing less than the erasure of Sundered life and history completely. So it's sort of, yes, you're right in they did both did terrible things for what they perceived as doing the right thing, and the writers no doubt wanted to continue that isolated narrative with them, but do I think that their implying Ardbert had justification for his actions is also giving something of a pass to Emet? Not quite.
Mm, you're getting into really textured character analysis here, and I would say I don't even disagree with you when looking at the nuances of his character this closely - I'm not sure if I'd put stock into any significant real chance about Emet being able to bring himself to abandon the Ancients. But speaking broadly in terms of his intent and what the writers are describing, that he believed himself to be earnest, made an effort to be earnest - even if that was also largely him lying to himself in another convoluted means to cope and navigate the dissonance ripping him apart - because of an instinctual revulsion to "having" to be cruel and thus needing to pad himself with further justification, then we're probably roughly on the same page about it. Basically, his depth of feeling as a person, and being unable to shut it off, meant he couldn't move forward without resorting to kind of cowardly mental gymnastics that ended in the dehumanization of others. Emet-Selch is a good character!Quote:
Do you not think? I would have said the writers did intend for Emet to be setting himself up for inevitable disappointment, even if that wasn't his conscious intent.
I mean, I think your voice is a very needed one in this regard! I totally get being cautious - and tired of - the feeling of romanticizing or looking for excuses for destructive, vile figures at the expense of their victims (or being used to blunt necessary action to stop them). That (very real) issue can exist in complicated conversation with the simultaneous need to not deny others their humanity, even if they are your Opposition, but it does get tricky sometimes. I've just gotten too frustrated from my own subjective encounters with people coming from the other direction (Emet-Selch was always a bad man who just needs to be put down, there's no need to think too hard about anything he was saying or feeling, and the Ancients he loved were probably just bad people who brought it on themselves too, no need for further self-reflection here, Good Triumphs!)Quote:
Ironically, I lean the other way - seeing the fans be extraordinarily sympathetic towards him (the "Emet-Selch was right all along!" faction in equal parts amuses and concerns me) made me want to rip the bandaid off the darker parts of Emet's character and view him critically, because honestly, he is such an endearing and enjoyable character it's admittedly incredibly tempting to view him in this broken, tragic light, and I've even been guilty of it myself in the past. But after revisiting the story since the saga finished (I suppose I was waiting for the end of the story before really jumping into a character analysis) I don't believe it's quite accurate to do so. But I understand why so many do.
I think we honestly probably think along similar lines in the desire to be cautious of and challenge the "easy" impulses when it comes to reading the narratives - your criticism of Emet is more along the lines of recognizing him as a fan favorite, so it's a sense of people going "I really like him, therefore, he must not be That Bad/must be Good Somehow" which does often deserve to be challenged. I'm a bit more stuck on a (probably Western-informed) perspective of challenging "Well, I'm the heroic protagonist, therefore, those opposed to me must be my enemy for some necessarily Righteously Justified and Good reason, and I WILL work backwards by whatever means necessary to maintain that comfortable equilibrium for myself." EW's weird and disturbing approach to the Ancient narrative, all to prop up the species players are more aligned with, has made me all the more salty in this regard.
That Hermes-as-Amon was still bitter enough about Emet-Selch to seethe about him from afar in that last encounter in the Aitiascope was just pure Chef's Kiss. The absolute disconnect between those two, the complete breakdown of communication as a result of the personal weaknesses of both, was a total delight. Watching a trainwreck in slow, largely well-meaning motion. It ruled.Quote:
There were a few times in Elpis the arrow really did hit the bullseye, and it was so good and so terrible (and I mean that in a positive way, if that makes sense) - like when Emet broods outside after the meeting and wonders what it must be like to grieve something so intently, I was just strangled crying noises.
-
11-11-2022, 07:20 AMLunaxiaI'm relieved to hear someone else actually feels similar, because of all the view points I've heard for and against EW, I've never seen this actually addressed, and it was one of the things that bothered me the most about it. I was completely flummoxed by the outpouring of people following the game's release proclaiming how it made them feel better, or helped their depression, or that they found it uplifting and inspirational, because my first thought on finishing it was if you're struggling or have ever struggled with feelings of loneliness or isolation during a difficult time in your life, EW was frustrating at best and almost, I dare to use the word triggering, at worst? That element of "haha, well, we sure are lucky to have one another, so let's make sure we don't lose that!" and generously helping various folk find meaning in their life via reconnecting with their community completely ignores the reality that often we really don't have a choice in the matter, to say nothing of those who are actively rejected or abused despite their best efforts. "Reach out for help when you're struggling" is one thing to preach, but to suggest that you cannot hope to survive adversity alone - or that your life only holds worth in relation to other people (which is especially "ahhh!") is ridiculously short-sighted, and yes, really quite callous to those unfortunate enough to not automatically have that going for them.Quote:
Originally Posted by Brinne
I completely agree! And if it comes down to the moustache-twirling villains of yesteryear's ARR or having complex, relatable antagonists, there's no contest. In the end, I did truly want to help Emet, and I understood the motives that drove him and the tragedy of what he had to bear - but I also liked how they didn't handle him with kid gloves, and the out-and-out disdain and distrust the Scions had for him all the while giving him that chance, because they had every right to feel that way. I loved the dynamic of "I don't like you and you don't like me, but let's try to co-operate" and the fascinating exchanges it led to, the way it challenged their previously held view points, and even the grudging impression you can tell Emet left on them all by the off-hand remarks they make about him later. It goes back again to why I think casting him in an excessively sympathetic light and excusing him to the extent some do is a negative thing - because it loses a lot of what made the original scenario so interesting.Quote:
But like I said, one of my own pet thematic fixations is...
Really, the best way I guess I can put it is, while I can appreciate they want us to look at these characters from the standpoint of "what might happen when you're faced with a terrible situation and desperate to save your loved ones", and see how they deal with the cruel hand dealt to them (alongside the commentary of the importance of support, etc.), I don't think how the story ultimately comes to view the the actions of one is any comment on how we're meant to perceive the actions of the other. The initial situations are similar, but the outcomes are not, the difference in scale and external factors too extreme to be comparable. So I don't think the parallels are intended to stretch that far, and maybe that's where we disagree. To me, it's more like "here's three people at the same starting point, and here's how their respective journeys play out", rather than "well Ardbert winds up being treated empathetically and embraced despite what he did, so this must be applicable to how they want us to view Emet." I feel like on some level the writers at least know that the bus left that station for him too long ago, whereas Ardbert was not yet at that point. But as a commentary on where he or we could end up? Sure. But I just can't imagine taking in Emet to the degree we did Ardbert, because too much has happened with the Ascians and the Sundered, whereas Ardbert, being in a more immediately desperate situation and without that chasm of spite, resentment and suffering inflicted throughout the ages to cross... is possible to do that with, despite doing bad things. That's the best way I can hope to describe it, I think.Quote:
Just for kicks (because I don't think these particulars are the most important thing to this discussion, lol) to further clarify what was going on with Ardbert and company, they weren't fighting to preserve what was left of the First, or Norvrandt.
He is! And it's what makes picking him apart so fascinating, because the more you delve into it and think about it, the more you see how much is there, and how it explains and throws into a new light the thinking behind what may appear to be conflicting or inexplicable actions at first glance.Quote:
Mm, you're getting into really textured character analysis here...
I've seen enough rants about how people daring to enjoy Emet as a character conflates with a sympathetic view towards fascism myself, so I can understand that! I've also been surprised by the apparent dismissal fans have had towards the Ancients and will never not defend them, because while I can see how Emet can be a divisive figure for some (putting moral policing aside) the mental gymnastics you would have to do to somehow validate our continued existence at the cost of theirs is just... staggering. The most common reason I see is the implication their future would have played out like the Dead Ends, so in some way they deserved their fate - which completely ignores only, you know, the entire argument we rested our case to Emet on; that in spite of the uncertainty and likely eventual doom mortals would face, we still have the right to see that future, and that there is meaning in it, despite its potential transcience.Quote:
I mean, I think your voice is...
I don't know, though, right now I'm daring to be moderately hopeful with the Ancients, seeing the way Pandaemonium is heading. The implications of it reappearing in the present day Aetherial Sea can be discussed and theorised endlessly, but I'm wondering if the writers haven't seen the dismayed reaction to the way their story played out, and that they may have something in the works. We shall see! -
11-13-2022, 11:42 PMBrinne
Sorry for taking a while to reply! I've been enjoying this discussion with you a lot, but Real Life Things happened, as they are wont to do.
Agreed with all of this re: the themes of isolation. It's a blind spot in tons of media, not just FFXIV, of course. I will say that prior to Endwalker, the game - well, primarily Shadowbringers - appealed to me in what felt like its approach being... hm, how to put this: even if they were working within this inherently questionable framing, the feeling of putting the "call for action" within it on the 'fortunate', as opposed to the vulnerable and isolated. With the acknowledgment and understanding that our heroic 'power of friendship' stance is something at least partially allowed to us due to circumstantial luck, that increases our responsibility to empathize with and reach out to those who are less - dare I say, in your vein, lol - privileged.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lunaxia
That's not to say there aren't times accords can't be reached and it still comes down to (regrettable) conflict - like with Emet-Selch - or that there aren't times when there isn't sufficient shared will between both parties to find a different, less violent path - see several Garleans, or Yotsuyu - but we still need to attempt it and err on the side of compassion, I think. And in those cases where things don't work out, the responsibility still falls on us to examine the situation for what it was and as honestly as possible, rather than generalizing one way or the other in terms of 'well, if they remain opposed to me, it's because of some fundamental evil' or 'they're all agency-less poor victims.' When it comes to callous explorations of 'isolation will ruin you,' what really drives me insane is the suggestion that therefore vulnerable, hurting people just be expected to pull themselves up by their emotional bootstraps and if they failed to acquire the power of friendship, it's due to lack of virtue or effort on their part (hence, implicitly, justification why those who are proven to 'put in the effort' have the right to judge, look down on, or abandon them.) FFXIV had enough instances of "hey, WoL, it's actually your job to reach a hand out to these people to help them" that I could mostly roll with it compared to a lot of other stories.
EW did a great job throwing all of the prior relative positivity I felt about how FFXIV handled things out the window, though, of course, lmao. (Well, with some exceptions. I did appreciate the nuance of the Garlemald zone.)
A lot of what Emet has done can be rightfully called out to be vile and heinous, and masses of people have every right to despise him for it. I think that doesn't change that our final confrontation in Amaurot, as the Warrior of Light and de facto representative of the Sundered, came down more to completely valid need versus completely valid need than good versus evil, and it's important to see that clearly (as the "great and terrible thing" it is) instead of huffing on I'm The Hero Putting Down The Evil Fascist Fighting For An Unworthy Cause. Shadowbringers is fairly explicit and textured about urging us to suppress that self-righteous temptation, which is a significant part of the reason I loved it.Quote:
but I also liked how they didn't handle him with kid gloves, and the out-and-out disdain and distrust the Scions had for him all the while giving him that chance,
That being said, I ALSO completely and enthusiastically agree about it being super important that in-universe characters be allowed to hate and dislike Emet! I think that's a really crucial part of what made his portrayal in Shadowbringers work. I love the Ancients and the Ascians, and I was like "good, yes, excellent" when Tiamat and Estinien were basically bonding over "god, EFF those guys" even in a post-Amaurot reveal world based on the atrocities they had inflicted upon dragonkind--because they should. Tiamat loathing them all regardless of their sob story, Estinien not caring about their sob story, is the only thing that makes sense. My favorite aspect of G'raha Tia as a character is honestly how much he loathes Emet-Selch, and every time he expresses or alludes to that loathing, I basically feel only glee about it.
I think one of the fundamental issues in the writing of Endwalker is the disconnect between the purported 'main cast' (the Scions) and the actual core of the plot (the Ancients), but if they had gone out of their way to show the Scions all, in their weird blobby unified EW-way, falling over themselves to cry about Emet-Selch and sympathize with him, I think I would have hated it just about as much as you. Their Ultima Thule commentary was vague and generalized enough and felt more focused on general 'observations' about him and the Ancients to sort of dodge a breaking point in that regard, but I understand if it felt like too much for someone else.
I think we sort of process a 'difference in scale' in terms of Atrocities Committed in different ways that lead to the different evaluations here - though they're probably both valid?Quote:
Really, the best way I guess I can put it is, while I can appreciate...
From the perspective of mostly analyzing the psychology/mindset of the person taking the action, the difference in scale - at least for me - isn't really that big a consideration, and mostly falls under "well, it's just circumstantial and mostly luck that Ardbert only looked to mass murder one world as opposed to seven. Only one was necessary for him. And once you make up your mind that ten, a hundred, a thousand, ten thousand, innocent people are expendable for the sake of your cause or your loved ones, that abusing one vulnerable population, five vulnerable populations, for the greater good is an acceptable cost, increasing the scale if needed is nothing more than feather-push away."
From the perspective of the victims as people, though, of course it makes every difference in the world, and that's a factor that shouldn't be ignored either. Of course when you step away from the mindset of 'what's going on in the brains and intentions of these people who get twisted from exceptionally good/heroic to I Am Ruthless Destroyer Of Worlds?' (and that isn't a fair thing to ask their victims to consider) and more an objective look at history, Ardbert and Crew torturing the Ixal, Gnath, Kobolds, and Amaljaa at minimum - that we know of - is an atrocity that claimed far fewer victims than Emet-Selch doing his thing across multiple nations and worlds over 12,000 years. And this will reflect on, perhaps, the amount of 'work' they're expected to do if they want any measure of forgiveness or understanding.
Oh, fully agreed. I love Emet-Selch, but I'm honestly mostly "shrug, sure, that's legit" in regards to if people like or dislike him as an individual. There are totally valid reasons to dislike him, or any other character. He's pretty despicable in a lot of ways and has an abrasive personality besides. (Not everyone goes for tsunderes?) However, I tend to draw a much harder line with the Ancients, who were good people (and most importantly, people) who did not deserve or earn by any measure what happened to them. They had every single bit as much a "right" to live as we did, and therefore you have the entire tragedy and thrust of Shadowbringers. And it's sort of sad to see how easy it is sometimes for people, still, to go "I don't like X individual or figure of authority within this race or culture, who is trying to advance their interests and well-being as a whole, therefore I must look for ways to denigrate the entire race or culture! Man, Othering for our own benefit is so convenient and definitely has no correlation whatsoever to certain trains of thought that haved moved history in disturbing ways throughout."Quote:
I've seen enough rants about how people daring to enjoy Emet as a character conflates with a sympathetic view towards fascism myself, so I can understand that! I've also been surprised by the apparent dismissal fans have had towards the Ancients and will never not defend them, because while I can see how Emet can be a divisive figure for some
I'm loving Pandaemonium, too, though, and think it was pretty wonderful in regards to its approach to the Ancients - and am crossing fingers with you that they don't drop the ball on it as it continues. -
11-13-2022, 11:55 PMAvenheit
only thing i disliked was zodiarks voice - whiney ol fandan did not fit zodis body
-
11-24-2022, 06:40 AMLunaxia
Haha, no apology necessary (though I am very apologetic for one this late - I didn't think to check after a few days and then life also proceeded to Do Things on my end... don't feel obligated to reply though, I just hate leaving discussions hanging in mid-air and have been enjoying this myself!)
100%, and it did soften me a little towards the Scions where I might otherwise have found them grating - that sort of acknowledgement of the relentless optimism of their cause and ability to effect change being a result of life being extraordinarily kind to them in a way not many others are afforded. That "we know you can't, so we will for you" stance helped shift them away from potentially obnoxious territory to being somewhat endearing - and story-wise, it also served to make those moments when that "privilege" (it's such a handy word!) became tremulous and matters threatened to fall beyond their control all the more effective; seeing them grapple with our potentially turning into a sin eater and coming up against a situation where for once there aren't any answers was not only an integral part of what made the Amaurot portion so good, in my eyes, but a necessity for it to really work. We needed to have that very real vulnerability underscored to put us on Emet's level and truly understand his headspace and where he's coming from, and to put to rest the myth of pure good and evil once and for all to help the writing (and the characters) evolve and mature from that.Quote:
Agreed with all of this re: the themes of isolation. It's a blind spot in tons of media, not just FFXIV, of course. I will say that prior to Endwalker, the game - well, primarily Shadowbringers - appealed to me in what felt like its approach being... hm, how to put this...
...and then Endwalker (I feel as if most of my posts in this thread could be summed up by those three words alone) responded to the resounding success inspired by such good writing by soundly throwing the entire concept in the bin, cladding its heroes in impenetrable plot armor and protecting them from actually having to experience the message it spent the entire previous expansion trying to convey (???)
But exasperation aside, to circle back, I do fully appreciate the villains at least get a more human examination in that respect, even if the conclusion isn't always what I'd necessarily agree with. And Garlemald really was great - though as effective as it was, I can never help but imagine the chapter with Quintus fleshed out into a full arc over the expansion and witnessing all the drama of the various warring factions prior to the Empire's fall, given what we know of their ruling class, and what could have been makes me ache, honestly. It almost makes you want to pick up a pen yourself.
For sure! That was important to me too, and I was glad the journal entry for Shadowbringers especially really drove that home... particularly when that last exchange with Emet was followed up by Alphinaud immediately running up to us and happily proclaiming his death in a way some might consider to be a bit tactless, I was a little concerned about their intention there, but it turned out well enough. Though I really wanted the effects and consequences of that fight to be examined more in the following patches, I was relieved at least that alongside the Scions' celebration, we did have those feelings of ours - and the weight of what we actually did - touched upon.Quote:
A lot of what Emet has done can be rightfully called out to be vile and heinous...
And yes! Conflict between characters is so necessary for any good story (as I think I harped on about many, many pages ago), and after the Scions always having been a tad stale and one-dimensional in that regard, ShB really brought some interesting dynamics to the table - Thancred and Y'shtola, Thancred's issues regarding Minfilia and Ryne, Emet and... just about everyone, including the Exarch - to the point that I genuinely enjoyed having them around for once. Those sorts of disagreements, personality clashes and occasional outright hostilities give the characters humanity and some much needed colour that I know the writers are capable of, when they stop playing it safe - and the Scions above all else still really need that if they insist on making them work long term.
With the Scions and Emet, though, the disconnect between how they reacted to him before and after his death was actually a problem that preceded EW for me - it always felt a little inconsistent and pandering to what they felt the players wanted, and I still believe that had Emet not been such a mesmerising fan favourite, the writers would have dealt with him differently in terms of how he's perceived and treated within the story.
I think that's fairly accurate, and I do get your take on it - examining the fundamental point of "this person is willing to sacrifice innocent lives for their own desired outcome", and the morality and what it means for someone to choose to cross that line is a completely valid thing to do, and not something I actually disagree with. I suppose for the sake of the story, I'm buying into the game's basic premise that "good people do (very) bad things when pushed", and instead look to the circumstances that surround that decision and the "rap sheet", as it were, before making my personal judgement when the game asks me to relate or sympathise with a character. To some degree I have to take that perspective, since the game's inconsistency with how it handles the actions of certain characters depending on who the writers want us to favour or promote as a new ally would make it difficult for me to embrace the story otherwise. Gaius' character, for instance, frequently bothers me - I don't hate him, and I didn't mind him quite so much during the 4.x MSQ, but I ended up spending the majority of the Weapons story "don't know, don't care"-ing through the cutscenes because I neither agreed with nor cared for the sudden, heavy-handed softening of his image that it seemed to me they felt necessitated the introduction of a less than believable lizard family from nowhere to make it work. As with Emet, I don't object to redemption arcs (or even merely "I'm no longer trying to kill you" arcs), or believe previously villainous characters should be permanently blacklisted, but they need to make it believable and leave some room for players to make up their own minds rather than foisting them into artificial situations to dredge up some good will for them.Quote:
I think we sort of process a 'difference in scale' in terms of Atrocities Committed in different ways...
It's certainly a strange position to take, but I give some of the blame to Endwalker for the horribly clumsy and offhand way it tries to justify that thought process with that level 87 cutscene in Amaurot. I'm still a little perplexed that was how they handled the great summoning, and the war between Hydaelyn and Zodiark that supposedly followed. It was so bizarrely rushed for what in any other circumstances would and should have been one of the most pivotal and climactic reveals/ moments of the entire series, and if anything I would have even been tempted to give it a cinematic of some sort (I guess perhaps it wouldn't have been a very good look for Venat, though.) So many strange decisions surrounding this expansion.Quote:
Oh, fully agreed. I love Emet-Selch, but I'm honestly mostly...
I am glad, though (and again confused) that they seem to be doubling back on themselves and putting paid to the argument the Ancients deserved their fate for their inability to handle hardship, with an Ancient-centered storyline surrounding grief, deception, abuse/ manipulation and coping with unbearable emotional turmoil. It's getting increasingly harder to find a leg for Venat's reasoning to stand on... and lately I have actually noticed across several FFXIV communities a small but distinct change in the tide regarding the unanimous claim the story was getting previously. It looks like the myriad inconsistencies in the story are starting to dawn on some people. -
11-24-2022, 12:29 PMKageTokage
The biggest thing I wanted from Endwalker was to see the Sundering actually happen after we learned the reality of all that it did to the world and its inhabitants in the short term.
Having to refer to a collab with an entirely different game just to get a better picture of why Emet-Selch chose to refer to his former brethren as "malformed creatures" was awkward, and I can't help but feel like it was done partly to deflect from the reality of the situation to make Venat look better. -
11-24-2022, 01:04 PMLunaxiaThere should have been so much more from the Ancients in general, from the proposal of Zodiark and his summoning, to the subsequent disagreements and the Sundering. They were chronically short-changed, and you can see in that in just how many people, both those happy and those disappointed with EW, are still hungry for more content surrounding them. For all the build-up Amaurot and the events thereafter inspired, it was a very inadequate conclusion.Quote:
Originally Posted by KageTokage
I'm guessing they thought that it was enough to see the Ascians persevering even in the face of the humans undeniably having come so far as to no longer be justified in what they were perpetuating, and believed it wasn't a necessity to touch upon. But there's no denying that seeing the initial consequences of Venat's decision would have painted them in a much more sympathetic light and her in a much darker one, and they were already jumping through hoops to avoid that as it was. -
11-24-2022, 01:26 PMBrinne
Lunaxia, thanks so much for your reply! I'll answer more in-depth to the degree I'm capable when my brain isn't a pile of slush, but suffice it to say that I mostly agree with you on things at this point, lol.
This is exactly what it was. I continue to Wonder at the complete reversal from Shadowbringers's appeal, through Amaurot, to understanding the Ancients as arguably more human and "like us" in terms of the playerbase than the Sundered and aiming for pathos on that level, to Endwalker's dogged insistence that actually, they're "scary" and culturally alien/Other, therefore inhuman and exist for us to reinforce our own assurance that our version of "humanity" is superior and deserves to exist more. "The Sundered are better!" is not, in fact, any better than "the Ancients are better!" in terms of trying to make the concept of mass annihilation of a population more palatable or okay.Quote:
Originally Posted by KageTokage
One of the things I took from Shadowbringers that I found deeply touching and compelling is that the question/premise of "who is more worthy to live" is inherently a bad one that can only lead to bad things, and that from our perspective of players/representative of the Sundered, as soon as we fall into that pattern of thinking, we lose. That's why the Scions' counterarguments to Emet-Selch weren't even counterarguments on that basis - they basically conceded to him in that framework, but asserted they wanted to live anyway, and had a right to live. The only correct answer to that is "that is and always will be the wrong question," not "it's us, baby! Because Suffering and Dynamis!"
Not that, once again, I think the writers consciously set out to declare "yeah the point of our story is asserting Emet-Selch's rationale was correct, he just got Which Race Was Superior incorrect," per se - somewhere in the crossroads of "make Hydaelyn lovable" and "make the Players feel good" and Yoshida's kinda-weird-from-the-onset take on what Shadowbringers added to the Ascian lore, it just wound up here. I think one of the easiest traps to fall into as a writer that can warp your project is "please like this major/pet character, please please please like them" and if I hadn't been so invested in the story emotionally, it would have been mostly fascinating to see the sheer degree Endwalker fell victim to this, to the point of warping the foundational lore and the moral fabric of most of the cast, but. -
11-26-2022, 04:21 AMLunaxiaThe truth is, Shadowbringers was brilliant, but absolutely terrible for the series overall. The popularity it brought and their desire to hold onto it has turned FFXIV away from everything that made it enjoyable in the first place, and it feels as if they now fear doing anything different that departs from what they consider the "safe" formula in case it goes away. The result is that they took what they mistakenly thought worked from ShB, discarded what actually made it so successful, and streamlined and oversimplified most of the game, right down to the plot and characterisation, to avoid anything even remotely controversial that might turn off players and damage said popularity, before padding the empty space with ooh-ahh visuals and inspirational fluff. What we're left with is something that seems bright and flashy on the surface but lacks any real substance, and a paper-thin story that starts to fall apart under the slightest inspection because of their desperate adherence to what they think fans want to hear. The nuances and complexities of ShB never really stood a chance of coming through, because there's too much potential for division and disagreement - the safest route was reverting back to goodly Mother Hydaelyn, blasting Garlemald off the map, and vaguely handwaving away the Ancients (because it never would have worked anyway, so it's fine!) to remove all of that uncomfortable, potential discourse and make it a feel-good story where good and hope (and their review score) wins the day.Quote:
Originally Posted by Brinne
-
12-04-2022, 02:18 AMLustre
Necro bump for my favourite thread, probably my last on these forums considering my sub runs out soon and I don't really see myself renewing it. Such a shame EW turned out the way it did. From a lacklustre and rushed 6.0, to the plot device laden 6.1 and 6.2 with 0 real stakes and all of the usual power of friendship tropes. If all that awaits us in the future is more scions (yawn) more plot devices (yawn), and more lazy writing in a setting with no teeth then there really is no point. I wish I could stay around but I don't really see things improving. I had hoped the patch content would improve but doesn't seem to be the case. Cc was a flop, criterion was a flop. MSQ is forgettable and island sanctuary was a 1 week right click grind. And that's to say nothing of the myriad of problems relating to gameplay and job design. Have fun waiting for the thin scraps of leftovers SE serve up for us all. Peace out, take care!
-
12-04-2022, 03:18 AMConadrium1) I realize this is a very old post but it’s on the front page so I’m going to reply to it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Millybonk
2) Zodiark has NEVER been evil. He saved the world. The only reason we exist is because his power has been protecting this planet for thousands of years. Hydaelyn was summoned to stop him because the PEOPLE were going to sacrifice the life on the planet to bring their people back. There’s a whole moralistic argument there that can be had about a small minority making decisions for the masses that literally means their demise. Also Zodiark was barely over half strength when we fought him. 6? of the reflections still remain.
3) Ever heard of a paradox? Venat couldn’t stop it. Things had to go exactly as they did, or you wouldn’t have gone to the past and she would know nothing. She suffered for millennia to give us a chance. To fight or flee as our own resolve determined. -
12-04-2022, 03:29 AMStriker44Well, as someone who's absolutely loving FFXIV right now, from both the gameplay and story perspectives, I'm seeing a feast in front of me :) It's rather amusing, though, when people get so sad they feel some deep-seated need to "bump" a thread because they can't stand other people being happy and enjoying something. I've been having a lot of fun exploring the different paths in the variant dungeon, haven't even touched criterion yet (or IS for that matter), because there's just so much to do. It sounds like a good idea you're heading out at least for the time being. Sometimes we get too invested in something and then it inevitably goes south when things don't go exactly the way we want. Stepping back (or away) becomes a healthy decision in times like that.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lustre