Originally Posted by
Cleretic
I feel like at this point some people are coming at the story itself antagonistically. Like, it's not even a 'these things stand out as not making sense' or 'I'm not sure I agree with the angle here' sometimes, but rather just outright trying to declare that the story is wrong about itself and tearing it down. 'This story is bad because I think Emet-Selch should've been able to explode everyone's heads' isn't really a useful argument.
You've gotta engage with the story as a story. That means recognizing, in this case, that the events of Ktisis happen as they are; that everyone there except for Hermes is weakened (presumably because he has some form of ID badge or something), and so while they can best him, they have to be a little smarter than that. There's no winning anything by just saying 'I think Emet-Selch should have been able to snap his fingers and solve everything'; you have to accept the road the story is going down, and the fences they put up to get everything there. Disagree with the end destination, sure, but don't go 'I think we should have driven through that paddock of cows'.