Tired of Zenos (spoilers)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Edax

Zod is fleshed out enough that he can exist without the protagonist, since he already does that in the start of the movie.

---

I don't remember the movie much, but even if act 1 is all about Zod and regardless of how fleshed out he is, the movie is not just act 1 and Zod is not the protagonist. The story can be more than simply be about the protagonist, but the protagonist is still the protagonist.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Edax

Not really. As badly written as Zod was Man of Steel, if he killed Superman, he would still terraform Earth and remake Krypton. Yes the world ends for humanity as Earth gets terraformed, but Zod has an end goal to achieve that is beyond "Kill Superman" because he wants to save his people. It would continue a plotline from Act 1 of that movie about the fate of Krypton.

---

This is why I said "End of all things" instead of just "apocalyptic". From what we can tell the goal of the Telophoroi isn't to end the world to remake something else as in the Man of Steel example (That was the Unsundered's goal and why we were fighting them). What we look to be facing in EW is a full on "destroy everything so absolutely nothing is left" type apocalypse. There can be nothing after that because that's the point of it. The question is why or if we're a being misled.

That said your point was more of Zenos' personal story and if he did kill the WoL there is a story still left. Simply put, what happens to the hunter without the hunt? How would Zenos respond to the emptiness that would almost certainly follow the death of his most beloved enemy? Imagine if we were actually killed, only to be somehow resurrected later by Zenos so he could have his hunt again.

I don't really feel having a villain whose motivation is centred on the protagonist is innately a bad thing, especially here when said protagonist is pretty much our only vehicle for interacting with that story. If the WoL dies permanently, our involvement in the story is over, regardless of if it would continue.

A story that continues without the audience is ultimately pointless. That's where Man of Steel differs. It's a movie so it doesn't need Superman to involve the audience, it can continue without him. FFXIV can't really do that without becoming an different product to the one advertised.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by linayar

I don't remember the movie much, but even if act 1 is all about Zod and regardless of how fleshed out he is, the movie is not just act 1 and Zod is not the protagonist. The story can be more than simply be about the protagonist, but the protagonist is still the protagonist.

---

The reason I made the Edax test "Can the Antagonist progress the story if they destroy the Protagonist? If not, then the Antagonist is poorly written." is because often the antagonist isn't fleshed out enough to exist without the protagonist. In the sequel to Man of Steel, you have Lex Luther, whose every action revolves around Superman in some way. If Superman were to drop dead, the story could not continue because Lex Luther has no established motivation outside of Superman. Maybe he creates Doomsday anyway, but we wouldn't know why. Or maybe he decided to harass Batman, but we wouldn't know why.

Also there are movies like Pitch Black where the Protagonist does indeed die and the Antagonist does indeed take over. It is because both character undergo and arc so that end point is the protagonist sacrificing herself for redemption of her actions and the antagonist taking her place and saving everyone. The point of a well written antagonist is that they should have motives outside of the protagonist, otherwise the story breaks if the protagonist dies. If the protagonist cannot die for the sake of the story, than in a meta sense there are no stakes. Nidhogg would still function as a villain because his character has motivations to continue the Dragonsong War, entirely independent of whether the protagonist lives or dies. You could not say the same about Zenos, the moment the protagonist dies, you wouldn't have the first clue what Zenos would do because he has no motivation outside of the Warrior of Light.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Edax

The reason I made the Edax test "Can the Antagonist progress the story if they destroy the Protagonist? If not, then the Antagonist is poorly written." is because often the antagonist isn't fleshed out enough to exist without the protagonist. In the sequel to Man of Steel, you have Lex Luther, whose every action revolves around Superman in some way. If Superman were to drop dead, the story could not continue because Lex Luther has no established motivation outside of Superman. Maybe he creates Doomsday anyway, but we wouldn't know why. Or maybe he decided to harass Batman, but we wouldn't know why.

Also there are movies like Pitch Black where the Protagonist does indeed die and the Antagonist does indeed take over. It is because both character undergo and arc so that end point is the protagonist sacrificing herself for redemption of her actions and the antagonist taking her place and saving everyone. The point of a well written antagonist is that they should have motives outside of the protagonist, otherwise the story breaks if the protagonist dies. If the protagonist cannot die for the sake of the story, than in a meta sense there are no stakes. Nidhogg would still function as a villain because his character has motivations to continue the Dragonsong War, entirely independent of whether the protagonist lives or dies. You could not say the same about Zenos, the moment the protagonist dies, you wouldn't have the first clue what Zenos would do because he has no motivation outside of the Warrior of Light.

---

I would argue that the point of a well written antagonist is to serve the plot, just like a well written protagonist.

If the protagonist is meant to die for the antagonist to take over and continue the story, then the antagonist should be developed in such a way to make that transition seamless and cohesive. Otherwise, a what-if scenario is irrelevant if that scenario was never the point of the story.

In a video game story like FFXIV, especially an MMORPG where our character is different from one player to another and the WoL itself is a generic representation of the player character, that scenario is completely irrelevant. There is no way for Zenos to continue the story unless the game ends and they make a sequel (or the game can continue and they make a spin-off story) in another format (a book or a single-player game or whatnot). In that case, they would and still could (in 5.5 and 6.0) develop Zenos in that way.

EDIT: As far as knowing what would Zenos do if the protagonist die, that would depend on how Zenos feels about the death. If Zenos was the one who killed the protagonist after a good battle, then he might be satisfied and kill himself after having known such bliss. Otherwise, if he felt disappointed in the fight, he might continue to search for a worthy opponent or die in despair. If someone else were to kill the protagonist, then Zenos would try to kill that person for ruining his moment or to see if that person is a worthy replacement.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by linayar

In that case, they would and still could (in 5.5 and 6.0) develop Zenos in that way.

---

Of they can. The problem is that all Zenos is in an obstruction to the WoL and nothing more. He's not fleshed out, he's not interesting, his motivations aren't related to the plot and his character arc stopped long ago. Sure they can keep him poorly written, no one is saying otherwise, but there should be more to an antagonist than just being a waste of time to stretch out the story. Manufactured conflict is less interesting that an organic conflict that occurs naturally.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Edax

Of they can. The problem is that all Zenos is in an obstruction to the WoL and nothing more. He's not fleshed out, he's not interesting, his motivations aren't related to the plot and his character arc stopped long ago. Sure they can keep him poorly written, no one is saying otherwise, but there should be more to an antagonist than just being a waste of time to stretch out the story. Manufactured conflict is less interesting that an organic conflict that occurs naturally.

---

Every fiction is manufactured conflict. You don't get to decide that Zenos's motivation is a waste of time or whatever because that's his motivation and the WoL doesn't get to choose who they face (outside of the player choosing not to do side quests) as they embarked on adventuring in Eorzea and beyond.

Regardless, this current conflict still occurs naturally. You have Zenos, who already resigned himself to die only to find himself alive by chance due to Ascian interference. You have Fandaniel, who exists as well due to Ascian interference and finds himself without the supervision of the Unsundered. And you have the WoL, who continues to be great, defeating enemies again and again. You put them all in the same world and of course conflict would happen by nature.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by linayar

Every fiction is manufactured conflict.

---

No. Conflict can occur naturally in fiction. Not everything must be contrived in fiction. It is up to the caliber of the writing to not making everything coincidental and artificial. When characters are well enough written, the story writes itself.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by linayar

You don't get to decide that Zenos's motivation is a waste of time or whatever because that's his motivation and the WoL doesn't get to choose who they face (outside of the player choosing not to do side quests) as they embarked on adventuring in Eorzea and beyond.

---

Zeno's motivation isn't related to the story. He's as motivated to fight the WoL as the poacher NPCs in the Shroud. Yes the WoL doesn't get to choose who they face, the writer does. Which is why I'm discussing the writing.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by linayar

Regardless, this current conflict still occurs naturally. You have Zenos, who already resigned himself to die only to find himself alive by chance due to Ascian interference. You have Fandaniel, who exists as well due to Ascian interference and finds himself without the supervision of the Unsundered. And you have the WoL, who continues to be great, defeating enemies again and again. You put them all in the same world and of course conflict would happen by nature.

---

There should be no conflict if Zenos has resigned himself to die. None of this is natural. Even in undeath, Zenos' character has not undergone any change, there really isn't anything stopping him from committing suicide yet again.

Zenos and Yotsuyu are both characters that I wouldn't have 'too' much issue with if they had stayed dead. (Zenos coming back to life and Yotsuyu 'never found the body' to come back with amnesia.)

However, while I didn't care for Zenos in the past, there is a chance this could turn me around. I didn't like Emet-Selch in the SB patches but 5.0 made him one of my favorite FF antagonists of all time. 5.2 and 5.3 took Elidibus from being boreing to being, if not quite as good as Emet-Selch, at least enjoying him a good deal. So it's possible 6.0 will turn me around on zenos.

Part of my issue, though certainly not the only thing I didn't like, with him in 4.0 was he was a poor choice of antagonist for that expansion. In an expansion about about rebellion, inspiring hope against the empire, fighting for liberty etc...the antagonist was bored of his job and the plot in general. An antagonist only focused on the protagonist can work, but Zenos would have worked better as a recurring rival type or a 'dragon' to another 'big bad' to use tv tropes terms. Having the primary antagonist not interested in the war or the greater stakes of the plot IMO was a misstep. Imagine if Thordan didn't really care about the Dragonsong War or Ishgard and was only interested in showing up the WOL or something. Or if Emet-Selch had no personal investment in the Shadowbringers plot and just wanted to mess with our heads.

In 6.0, if whatever Zenos and Fandaniel's plan turns out to be is something that Zenos has an investment in, something he wants to bring about, that may end up suiting him better than the war story in 4.0 did.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Edax

No. Conflict can occur naturally in fiction. Not everything must be contrived in fiction. It is up to the caliber of the writing to not making everything coincidental and artificial. When characters are well enough written, the story writes itself.


Zeno's motivation isn't related to the story. He's as motivated to fight the WoL as the poacher NPCs in the Shroud. Yes the WoL doesn't get to choose who they face, the writer does. Which is why I'm discussing the writing.



There should be no conflict if Zenos has resigned himself to die. None of this is natural. Even in undeath, Zenos' character has not undergone any change, there really isn't anything stopping him from committing suicide yet again.

---

He was resigned himself to die, but he was mad that somebody took his body. Then he found out about the WoL and Hydaelyn/Zodiark/Ascian and now he has further purpose in life. It's natural that, as you continue living, you can find more things to look forward to and you begin making more plans.

Zenos is also a legitimate sociopathic scumbag whom everyone I ever played with in Ala Mhigo looked forward to tearing his head off and I look forward to actually killing him in 6.0. I don't want to feel sorry for this clown, I want to destroy him. Also hopefully get to slay "Asahi" as well. I have always loved remorseless sickening villains who think they're above God and loved when they died horrible but completely deserved deaths, sometimes fates far worse.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by EgilTheStressedMage

Zenos is also a legitimate sociopathic scumbag whom everyone I ever played with in Ala Mhigo looked forward to tearing his head off and I look forward to actually killing him in 6.0. I don't want to feel sorry for this clown, I want to destroy him. Also hopefully get to slay "Asahi" as well. I have always loved remorseless sickening villains who think they're above God and loved when they died horrible but completely deserved deaths, sometimes fates far worse.

---

An irredeemable evil villain can be fun at times. I like Kefka, the Emperor from Star Wars etc. But Zenos just never had any appeal for me. Not every villain needs a sympathetic motive, but he never felt legitimately threatening becuase of how his boss fights were handled/lack of consequences for losing to him and his personality is just kind of dull IMO.

Without any sense of actual danger that bad things might actually happen because of him or an interesting personality etc I just had nothing to latch onto.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by EgilTheStressedMage

Zenos is also a legitimate sociopathic scumbag whom everyone I ever played with in Ala Mhigo looked forward to tearing his head off and I look forward to actually killing him in 6.0. I don't want to feel sorry for this clown, I want to destroy him. Also hopefully get to slay "Asahi" as well. I have always loved remorseless sickening villains who think they're above God and loved when they died horrible but completely deserved deaths, sometimes fates far worse.

---

You don't need to feel sorry for the Emperor either in Return of the Jedi, but he has motivations outside of Skywalker. He has a rebellion to crush and an Empire to run, he needs the Death Star to keep galaxy in line and it's not finished yet. The Emperor doesn't just exist to give Luke an obstacle, he's independent of the protagonist.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Edax

You don't need to feel sorry for the Emperor either in Return of the Jedi, but he has motivations outside of Skywalker. He has a rebellion to crush and an Empire to run, he needs the Death Star to keep galaxy in line and it's not finished yet. The Emperor doesn't just exist to give Luke an obstacle, he's independent of the protagonist.

---

Yeah, but he doesn't need to be like that. As the emperor, he could've ruled better and not have a rebellion in the first place. He is evil just to serve the plot, and if he is not evil, then he wouldn't exist as a character, just like Zenos serves the plot with his obsession with the WoL.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Edax

You don't need to feel sorry for the Emperor either in Return of the Jedi, but he has motivations outside of Skywalker. He has a rebellion to crush and an Empire to run, he needs the Death Star to keep galaxy in line and it's not finished yet. The Emperor doesn't just exist to give Luke an obstacle, he's independent of the protagonist.

---

I think Zeno's motivations would work better for a side antagonist. A 'dragon' or 'rival' type etc more than the big bad. Like Grynwaht in Stormblood but not played for comic relief up until the last fight.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by linayar

Yeah, but he doesn't need to be like that. As the emperor, he could've ruled better and not have a rebellion in the first place. He is evil just to serve the plot, and if he is not evil, then he wouldn't exist as a character, just like Zenos serves the plot with his obsession with the WoL.

---

Even if the Emperor was not evil, he would still be the antagonist. Even non-evil Emperors get rebelled against, that's just how the world works. Not everyone wants to live under an autocracy, even if it isn't evil.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bright-Flower

I think Zeno's motivations would work better for a side antagonist. A 'dragon' or 'rival' type etc more than the big bad. Like Grynwaht in Stormblood but not played for comic relief up until the last fight.

---

I kind of agree. Having a Boba Fett type character that doesn't care about the main conflict can add a little bit of flavor to the world. But if you make him the main villain it get's weird, it would feel like they were fighting for the sake of having an action scene.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Edax

Even if the Emperor was not evil, he would still be the antagonist. Even non-evil Emperors get rebelled against, that's just how the world works. Not everyone wants to live under an autocracy, even if it isn't evil.

---

He may have a rebellion, but that would be a different story as the rebels would be evil and Luke would be either evil or join the Empire instead.

(Now I wish Star Wars was like that where Anakin was always good in the prequel, Jedi truly corrupt in evil way, and Luke and maybe Leia too joining their father.)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by linayar

He may have a rebellion, but that would be a different story as the rebels would be evil and Luke would be either evil or join the Empire instead.

(Now I wish Star Wars was like that where Anakin was always good in the prequel, Jedi truly corrupt in evil way, and Luke and maybe Leia too joining their father.)

---

That's not neccessarily true either. It doesn't have to be black or white, good or evil.

At this point, I think the only thing about Zenos that could hold my interest is finding out what compelled him to return after he took his own life. It could be as simple as him realizing he could, and I'd be pretty disappointed if that were the case, but otherwise it's a mystery that could be used for further story development elsewhere.

Otherwise, he's just Discount Sephiroth—a loser who came back from the dead because he's obsessed with the guy who beat him that one time.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by linayar

He may have a rebellion, but that would be a different story as the rebels would be evil and Luke would be either evil or join the Empire instead.

(Now I wish Star Wars was like that where Anakin was always good in the prequel, Jedi truly corrupt in evil way, and Luke and maybe Leia too joining their father.)

---

No the rebels wouldn't have to be evil. Not wanting to be under an autocracy doesn't make you evil. Not every conflict needs to be lumped into a good side and evil side. For instance in an Eastern style story like Princess Mononoke, it's human outcasts fighting with the animals of the forest, both have their motivations to fight but neither side is righteous or evil.

I prefer nuance to outright villainy. Though if I'm going to have to stomach the latter, then I at least want charisma and entertainment. It's like Joffrey and Ramsay from Game of Thrones. Sure, they had very few - if any - redeeming qualities, but they were amusing to watch in their own right. Zenos' contribution to the plot outside of the base Stormblood MSQ has been less than satisfying. He's literally spent most of his time sitting around complaining about being bored as other, more interesting characters have been sidelined for his sake.

That he has inexplicably become the focus of both Garlemald's story and the Ascian story feels undeserved, as if he were simply put there to wrap up both as quickly as possible. It doesn't help that he's hardly threatening in any way to me. If he actually killed someone close to the Warrior of Light in an effort to enrage him and get a good fight? At least that'd make sense. Yet he hasn't and likely won't because the story has, of late, been very averse to lasting consequences and threat unless it's either a throwaway character or a sympathetic antagonist being killed off.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Nothv13

That's not neccessarily true either. It doesn't have to be black or white, good or evil.

---

I prefer if it is. I don't trust writers trying to overcomplicate their narrative in terms of morality because usually I'll just disagree with their point of view anyway and end up seeing everybody as evil and it's not fun rooting for the least worst of the bads. It's why I hate the force alignment options in SWTOR.

And just to be clear, I think Emet is an evil character. Just because he is evil, it doesn't mean I cannot understand his reasoning, but also doesn't mean he is gray.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Edax

No the rebels wouldn't have to be evil. Not wanting to be under an autocracy doesn't make you evil. Not every conflict needs to be lumped into a good side and evil side. For instance in an Eastern style story like Princess Mononoke, it's human outcasts fighting with the animals of the forest, both have their motivations to fight but neither side is righteous or evil.

---

When you create a conflict unnecessarily, then you are evil regardless of your reasoning. If you do not wish to be under a certain form of government, you work within the system to secede from the empire (assuming you are part of a political entity with the same view of government) or you (individually) leave the empire.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Theodric

I prefer nuance to outright villainy. Though if I'm going to have to stomach the latter, then I at least want charisma and entertainment. It's like Joffrey and Ramsay from Game of Thrones. Sure, they had very few - if any - redeeming qualities, but they were amusing to watch in their own right. Zenos' contribution to the plot outside of the base Stormblood MSQ has been less than satisfying. He's literally spent most of his time sitting around complaining about being bored as other, more interesting characters have been sidelined for his sake.

That he has inexplicably become the focus of both Garlemald's story and the Ascian story feels undeserved, as if he were simply put there to wrap up both as quickly as possible. It doesn't help that he's hardly threatening in any way to me. If he actually killed someone close to the Warrior of Light in an effort to enrage him and get a good fight? At least that'd make sense. Yet he hasn't and likely won't because the story has, of late, been very averse to lasting consequences and threat unless it's either a throwaway character or a sympathetic antagonist being killed off.

---

Part of my issue with him in 4.0 is the lack of consequences for losing to him.

In the attack on RR one named character I can remember dies, but Fordola killed him not Zenos. The attack was even Fordola's idea from what I remember.

Then he beats the WOL and injures Yshtola. The former isn't important because he gets bored and has his forces withdraw and the rebels, while bruised, don't even have to fall back from their base afterwards. And Ysthola's injury is just a means of having the plot focus on other characters for a bit and not anything serious.

Then in Doma, we expose our presence in Othard to attack him and fail. But....not only does nothing bad happen other than bruising our egos, but it plays out in our favor. Because it leads to Grynwaht showing up in the Steppe jus tin time to help us rally the Xaela against the Empire. I don't think anyone really calls you and Yugiri out for doing it seriously.

I'm not saying he needs to kill half the Scions or something but when losing to him doesn't really matter, it's hard to fear it happening again in the future. And the actual boss fights against him in these two instances feel slow and tedious because of his inflated health bar. The fights aren't difficult, it doesn't feel like we're scrambling to hold our own against a superior foe. It's just an easy fight with an arbitrary 'okay you lose now' cutscene put in. So for me at least, it doesn't get the emotional impact of feeling outmatched they were probably aiming for and the fights may as well have just been cutscenes of him beating us if that's all they were going to amount to anyway.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Theodric

He's literally spent most of his time sitting around complaining about being bored as other, more interesting characters have been sidelined for his sake.

---

Zenos is the one who's been sidelined, that's why he is bored and waiting. Even now, Fandaniel has taken more of the spotlight than Zenos.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bright-Flower

Part of my issue with him in 4.0 is the lack of consequences for losing to him.

In the attack on RR one named character I can remember dies, but Fordola killed him not Zenos. The attack was even Fordola's idea from what I remember.

Then he beats the WOL and injures Yshtola. The former isn't important because he gets bored and has his forces withdraw and the rebels, while bruised, don't even have to fall back from their base afterwards. And Ysthola's injury is just a means of having the plot focus on other characters for a bit and not anything serious.

Then in Doma, we expose our presence in Othard to attack him and fail. But....not only does nothing bad happen other than bruising our egos, but it plays out in our favor. Because it leads to Grynwaht showing up in the Steppe jus tin time to help us rally the Xaela against the Empire. I don't think anyone really calls you and Yugiri out for doing it seriously.

I'm not saying he needs to kill half the Scions or something but when losing to him doesn't really matter, it's hard to fear it happening again in the future. And the actual boss fights against him in these two instances feel slow and tedious because of his inflated health bar. The fights aren't difficult, it doesn't feel like we're scrambling to hold our own against a superior foe. It's just an easy fight with an arbitrary 'okay you lose now' cutscene put in. So for me at least, it doesn't get the emotional impact of feeling outmatched they were probably aiming for and the fights may as well have just been cutscenes of him beating us if that's all they were going to amount to anyway.

---

It'd be nice if any of the big villains/antagonists lately inflicted some consequences on those facing them. I suspect we might see some in 6.0, because both Zenos and Fandaniel are being put forth as irredeemable (therefore loss of sympathy is a non issue) and they have an excess supply of NPCs few people care about, so easy way to score some deaths and claim those are consequences, even if they're minor. Anyway, I agree with all that. I don't really care for him as a foe. Fandaniel could be interesting, because of his hidden story, but Zenos is lacking by comparison and, while there's some mysteries surrounding him, he personally does little to intrigue me.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MoofiaBossVal

I like Zenos.

I'm tired of the mantra that "villains must be DEEP or complicated". I'm tired of the victimization of evil where villains have to have tragic backstories or be sympathetic.

---

Agreed. There's nothing wrong with the occasional complex villain, like Emit Selch. (Sinestro during the Geoff Johns era of Green Lantern is another well done example) But for the most part I don't want a villain I'm supposed to empathize with or feel sorry for. Zenos: Mad dog that just needs to be put down.

I don't like Zenos. He's boring and tunnel-visioned. Him being in EW is one of the very few disappointing things I have in that expansion. We'll just have to see what he has in store there, but if giving my opinion right now, he should have stayed dead.

With any luck, he'll be the stepping stone to the actual end boss/threat. :D

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by linayar

When you create a conflict unnecessarily, then you are evil regardless of your reasoning.

---

And who is the arbiter of what conflict is unnecessary or not? Were the animals wrong to aggressively defend the forest? Were the humans wrong to try to make a living in the forest to defend themselves? And who truly started this conflict in Princess Mononoke? Who is the evil party in the conflict?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by linayar

I prefer if it is. I don't trust writers trying to overcomplicate their narrative in terms of morality because usually I'll just disagree with their point of view anyway and end up seeing everybody as evil and it's not fun rooting for the least worst of the bads..

---

Just because you disagree with their viewpoint does not mean you should automatically see them as evil.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ransom

Agreed. There's nothing wrong with the occasional complex villain, like Emit Selch. (Sinestro during the Geoff Johns era of Green Lantern is another well done example) But for the most part I don't want a villain I'm supposed to empathize with or feel sorry for. Zenos: Mad dog that just needs to be put down.

---

Not every villain needs to be sympathetic or have a relatable motive. But Zenos just has nothing for me to latch onto. It's all relative, but Kefka, the Emperor, many iterations of the Joker etc have a level of entertainment to them that makes them interesting even if they're not complicated or sympathetic. Zenos personality wise IMO is just kind of boring. And because he never really struggles with anything his parts of the story also tend to be dull or predictable. For example the whole thing of him trying to get his body back, could have been great if he had to be strategic, find ways to manipulate and work his way toward his true body. But he never has to. He just effortlessly makes his way to the capital, beats Elidibus and forces him to abandon Zenos' body and flee, and gets what he wants with no real effort. The only time I can recall him having to actually work and struggle for something was in his short story, not even in game.

Zenos was a terrible bad guy, he was impressing by his relentless power during Stormblood's MSQ, but in the end, with his selfish aim to have fun in front of a powerful enemy, and making a complete mockery of the symbolism of the sacred katana of the samurai spirit, just by the fact that he had 3 of them. No need for 2 swords for the samurai's code. The nito style (2 swords) invented by Miyamoto Musashi was considered dishonourable before he was later taken as a national hero.

His end was +/- epic by his fighting, and he committed suicide instead of assuming. And SE thought he was too cool, as a villain let's make him come back thanks to the scenarium. He transcends death thanks to a technological copy of the power of the WoL.

And here he is as the headliner for Endwalker, it doesn't hype me at all, and even less with the other old joker type cheap joker, having as appearance and body that of Stormblood's worst second villain...

It's really not great. SE showed us that he was able to make cool baddies with great ideals for their races in Shadowbringer, but here...

No hype, although I'm curious to know what the WoL is going to do on the moon !

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Naoki34

Zenos was a terrible bad guy, he was impressing by his relentless power during Stormblood's MSQ, but in the end, with his selfish aim to have fun in front of a powerful enemy, and making a complete mockery of the symbolism of the sacred katana of the samurai spirit, just by the fact that he had 3 of them. No need for 2 swords for the samurai's code. The nito style (2 swords) invented by Miyamoto Musashi was considered dishonourable before he was later taken as a national hero.

His end was +/- epic by his fighting, and he committed suicide instead of assuming. And SE thought he was too cool, as a villain let's make him come back thanks to the scenarium. He transcends death thanks to a technological copy of the power of the WoL.

And here he is as the headliner for Endwalker, it doesn't hype me at all, and even less with the other old joker type cheap joker, having as appearance and body that of Stormblood's worst second villain...

It's really not great. SE showed us that he was able to make cool baddies with great ideals for their races in Shadowbringer, but here...

No hype, although I'm curious to know what the WoL is going to do on the moon !

---

Him making a mockery of something like the Katana is fits him though. It is literally just a tool to him. It has no meaning to him beyond that. It fails him, hence he breaks it to find another better tool.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Edax

And who is the arbiter of what conflict is unnecessary or not? Were the animals wrong to aggressively defend the forest? Were the humans wrong to try to make a living in the forest to defend themselves? And who truly started this conflict in Princess Mononoke? Who is the evil party in the conflict?

---

That would depend on the story. I am only responding to you saying they are rebelling just because they don't like a form of government that you say is not ruled by an evil person. That means the rebellion is unnecessary.

Quote:

---

Just because you disagree with their viewpoint does not mean you should automatically see them as evil.

---

It's not a matter of disagreeing. It's a matter of the conflict they are causing.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by linayar

That would depend on the story. I am only responding to you saying they are rebelling just because they don't like a form of government that you say is not ruled by an evil person. That means the rebellion is unnecessary.

---

Velvet Revolutions are extremely rare, working within the system to overthrow an autocracy is not exactly realistic. Conflict is often the best option out of many bad options. That does not mean the conflict is evil.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Edax

Velvet Revolutions are extremely rare, working within the system to overthrow an autocracy is not exactly realistic. Conflict is often the best option out of many bad options. That does not mean the conflict is evil.

---

Yeah. When the system has things stacked against you, playing by the rules those in power lay out for you isn't a good way to free yourself. Take FFXIV for example we don't free ala mhigo and doma by working within Garlemald's corrupt system. In Stormblood the good guys are the proactive ones instigating the conflict to free these provinces, and the empire is more reactionary to what the rebels are doing to maintain an injust status quo.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bright-Flower

An irredeemable evil villain can be fun at times. I like Kefka, the Emperor from Star Wars etc. But Zenos just never had any appeal for me. Not every villain needs a sympathetic motive, but he never felt legitimately threatening becuase of how his boss fights were handled/lack of consequences for losing to him and his personality is just kind of dull IMO.

Without any sense of actual danger that bad things might actually happen because of him or an interesting personality etc I just had nothing to latch onto.

---

The consequences were we couldn't kill him and he kept killing, leaving us alive to pick up the pieces and get more pissed at him as time went on. It's little different than joining a pvp game and getting permadominated by a player who hasn't been outside in the last year and a half. So of course we had to "git gud" or the freak wasn't going to stop.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by EgilTheStressedMage

The consequences were we couldn't kill him and he kept killing, leaving us alive to pick up the pieces and get more pissed at him as time went on. It's little different than joining a pvp game and getting permadominated by a player who hasn't been outside in the last year and a half. So of course we had to "git gud" or the freak wasn't going to stop.

---

If by he 'kept killing' you mean he goes and sits on his throne and doesn't really do much but wait for us to come to him.

And as for the 'git gud' thing that's another thing.

He soundly kicks our asses twice, then suddenly at the end we're able to fight him for no other reason than 'whoops it's climax time time for the WOL to win this one.' At no point did we go out of our way to do anything to become stronger. We didn't do anything to develop a counter to his abilities or a strategy to face him. We were able to beat him for the most boring of reasons: we kept doing the same stuff we'd done all through ARR and HW and our numbers went up.' Even Shinryu falls victim to this. In 3.55 he was such a big deal a character gives his life just to stall it awakening and we risked unleashing Omega rather than fight him ourselves, at the end of 4.0? We just stroll up and kill it like any other primal.

SE, I'm begging you, model swap zenos with a bear and be done with it. His character is best casted as just a really annoying grizzly bear.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bright-Flower

If by he 'kept killing' you mean he goes and sits on his throne and doesn't really do much but wait for us to come to him.

And as for the 'git gud' thing that's another thing.

He soundly kicks our asses twice, then suddenly at the end we're able to fight him for no other reason than 'whoops it's climax time time for the WOL to win this one.' At no point did we go out of our way to do anything to become stronger. We didn't do anything to develop a counter to his abilities or a strategy to face him. We were able to beat him for the most boring of reasons: we kept doing the same stuff we'd done all through ARR and HW and our numbers went up.' Even Shinryu falls victim to this. In 3.55 he was such a big deal a character gives his life just to stall it awakening and we risked unleashing Omega rather than fight him ourselves, at the end of 4.0? We just stroll up and kill it like any other primal.

---

I was talking about through Stormblood. Also keep in mind we wouldn't even be able to get to him without amassing an army of our own to break through the door to Ala Mhigo. The only reason he didn't finish us off is because he was mildly curious about how long we lasted compared to everyone else. I would also remind you that it's literally the job of the WoL to kill primals, and this one was summoned from the dying prayers of Ilberd, his army, and both of Nidhogg's eyes which btw we didn't have access any longer to Hraesvelgr's eyes. Shinryu also could have been greatly wounded by Omega as when we meet the latter he's perfectly fine while FFV monster in a box over there was captured. We would have killed it eventually, but it's hard to take on a level 70 when you're level 63.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Edax

Conflict is often the best option out of many bad options. That does not mean the conflict is evil.

---

Yes, it is, when you default to think it's ok to just overthrow an existing government because you felt like it. That's anarchy.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by linayar

Yes, it is, when you default to think it's ok to just overthrow an existing government because you felt like it. That's anarchy.

---

I just said it is often the best option out of many bad options, I didn't say you default to it. And why is overthrowing an existing government definitively "evil"? And why is anarchy definitively "evil"?
Do you consider the United States definitively "evil" for overthrowing British rule? Is it really all so simple?