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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Brinne

So, uh, not necessarily out of character, really?

---

Can't argue with this, her ego is the size of the star itself.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Brinne

EDIT: There is something sort of darkly hilarious about Venat's rationale about dynamis and one's chances against Meteion, since they have her state she's heard of dynamis but is certainly no expert - and is certainly no expert on the finer points of Meteion's design, either. Self-assured indeed!

---

Yep! So happens I know a couple of guys who were present for Hermes' explanation of Meteion and how she works. They might have been helpful. Sadly they had their memories wiped and there appears to be no way of retrieving them. Zero. Zilch. Nada.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Brinne

She immediately comes to the conclusion, with zero doubts, that all of the decisions of her future self must have had a reason, and that reason must be for good cause and be logically sound, but they just didn't understand it yet.

---

Yup, I picked up on that as well - particularly the part where she thinks she (and not Elidibus) is responsible for sending you back. Rather than asking whodunnit.

Emet did have this to say after all: Listen to yourself. Are you seriously entertaining the notion that you are a messianic figure in some far-fetched tale?

This is why I wish Ishikawa would talk about Venat.

I read another comment saying if you didn't like Hermes then you lack empathy and have never experienced depression. It's so galling.

It's almost like they stem from people who themselves lack the empathy to understand why some players might dislike him. ;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rulakir

I read another comment saying if you didn't like Hermes then you lack empathy and have never experienced depression. It's so galling.

---

Such is the common method of operation for psychopaths, narcissists and abusers, unfortunately. Which is what I readily consider such individuals to be. I have plenty of sympathy for anyone who has experienced depression - it isn't pleasant, no matter the severity. With that said, I draw a firm line in the sand when there's attempts to gatekeep depression. It's particularly weird when it's based on a reaction to a fictional character in a videogame of all things.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rulakir

This is why I wish Ishikawa would talk about Venat.

I read another comment saying if you didn't like Hermes then you lack empathy and have never experienced depression. It's so galling.

---

Honestly, especially after the Q&A, where Ishikawa discussed Hermes in contexts where Venat would be a more natural fit, and her still apparently not really having anything to say about the latter - it makes me wonder if originally Hermes and Hydaelyn were actually a single character. You know, named Hydaelyn. But then I'd assume that the rest of the team protested against having Hydaelyn be so obviously "bad," so the concept was split into two. I think it would make a lot of things fit - the weird overlap with their attitudes and actions towards Ancient society, just with one portrayed negatively and the other positively - the "mother" motif - who actually has a "daughter" figure as the story turned out? The "protest against sacrifices" reasoning originally presented in ShB fits more with Hermes's MO, going as far as his long rant of "do you think it right we sacrifice all these lives?" - whereas it just feels weirdly dropped with Venat herself. And why is Flow, as per Ishikawa, also associated with Meteion, and "accepting death"? Where would that fit in with a Venat -> WoL POV?

Obviously just spitballing, though.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Brinne

EDIT: There is something sort of darkly hilarious about Venat's rationale about dynamis and one's chances against Meteion, since they have her state she's heard of dynamis but is certainly no expert - and is certainly no expert on the finer points of Meteion's design, either. Self-assured indeed!

---

Sorry I keep quoting you but it's because you keep bringing up points I thought about in some ways.
Letting alone her not telling the story of everything that happened because of whatever she thought were good reasons not to. Why exactly did she not instil the idea of researching dynamis? She didn't have to explain everything to do that. She's again, one of the most experienced ancient, she travelled the world many times, was a former Convocation member, contributed thoroughly to creation studies and whatnot. If Hermes could find about another energy, in all honesty she could've as well.
Of course we know she didn't find it herself, but in the eyes of ancients who regarded her with admiration she's the kind of person that could very well find unexpected thing such as this.
So, what exactly stopped her from launching the idea of dynamis and make ancients all over the world research it? Or at least those interested in the subject, which I am sure would be many considering how eager they were to learn new things.

Oh, yes we know what stopped it actually.
The lack of preparation writers had about this whole subject pulled out of pretty much nowhere. It really can't be helped, if you create a plot device (dynamis) to explain another plot device (sundering) and another (why Venat/Hydaelyn is the best ever!) and so on, the overall plot becomes filled with holes repaired with bandaids.

Also, I do believe Endwalker suffered double "chosen one" syndrome as well.
The first one being Venat who of course was the only one able to save her planet, her alone had to decide for it to be successful other peasants couldn't so why bother telling too much.
Other one being Hermes, who thought himself the only one able to turn the flower black and also decided to judge whether mankind was fit to exist or not. That being said, it was kind of his job to evaluate things, so we can see it as an occupational hazard (coupled with other issues already brought up).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Brinne

Honestly, especially after the Q&A, where Ishikawa discussed Hermes in contexts where Venat would be a more natural fit, and her still apparently not really having anything to say about the latter - it makes me wonder if originally Hermes and Hydaelyn were actually a single character. You know, named Hydaelyn. But then I'd assume that the rest of the team protested against having Hydaelyn be so obviously "bad," so the concept was split into two. I think it would make a lot of things fit - the weird overlap with their attitudes and actions towards Ancient society, just with one portrayed negatively and the other positively - the "mother" motif - who actually has a "daughter" figure as the story turned out? The "protest against sacrifices" reasoning originally presented in ShB fits more with Hermes's MO, going as far as his long rant of "do you think it right we sacrifice all these lives?" - whereas it just feels weirdly dropped with Venat herself. And why is Flow, as per Ishikawa, also associated with Meteion, and "accepting death"? Where would that fit in with a Venat -> WoL POV?

Obviously just spitballing, though.

---

I do think it's a possibility. Theodric had mooted something similar to me when doing that part of the MSQ, in that it seemed either it was a plot point that was meant for her but ditched or that they were working together more closely on the initial writing. But yes, firmly in the realm of spitballing and impossible to say for sure unless the writers were to come out and say it.

Remember when Hermes tried to unironically draw a parallel between the worthiness of the lives of all of humanity and the lives of his rabid fire-dogs that had to be put down because they tried to murder everything they saw?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kyohei

Sorry I keep quoting you but it's because you keep bringing up points I thought about in some ways.

---

Oh, no worries and no need to apologize! Shocking though it may be, I wouldn't be here if I didn't enjoy discussion, lmao.

I actually enjoyed your earlier post re: Y'shtola and the Ea, and it reflected my general feelings about that scene - I wasn't a fan of the judgmental tone and the lack of empathy. The only "sacrifice" scene I felt was actually touching with G'raha's, in fact - because he did extend an understanding hand toward the Omicron, rather than that overture of "you failed" that colored the others - whatever the flavor text the Scions gave later about not being judgmental may be.

It's just that it's sort of funny that, in one context, Endwalker looks at a situation where someone says: "Continuing to reach for betterment will eventually lead to your ruin." "I don't care!" and it's framed as heroic; but in another one, it's misguided and used as a logical basis for wiping them out. Protagonist centric morality sure is something. It might be misguided to hope a heroic fantasy MMORPG would try to avoid it - but Shadowbringers gave me hope in that regard! I can't help it! It was so good and filled to the brim with genuine understanding and empathy!