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

So, with the first story arc concluding with shaming those who decide to not just roll over and die in response to the attempted genocide of their people what are your bets for the next story?

My prediction is that, under Alphinaud's leadership, each nation will be pressured into joining a new organisation known as the Etheirys Economic Forum. Despite widely considered out of touch by the very people that the organisation claims to represent criticism of any of Alphinaud's policies is branded 'misinformation' and the player character is sent to threaten or quietly eliminate anyone who poses a threat to Alphinaud's ultimate goal.

Naturally, due to the sheer scale of the efforts to unite the world under one banner resources are strained but never fear, for even as G'raha sits around eating burgers and Y'shtola indulges in fine wine...the average citizen is stripped of any and all assets that they own, locked up in a small box-like home and force fed insects as they clap and cheer on command to re-runs of the latest speech regarding a 'better tomorrow'.

At some point an antagonist who values freedom is introduced to the story. Seeking to restore society to a point where regular people were allowed to own belongings and consume something other than insects as part of their daily diet, the character succeeds at liberating a handful of nations before ultimately being confronted and put down at Alphinaud's command.

In an interview released shortly after the patch in question, Yoshi-P laments the fact that players sympathise with the character who values freedom over the character seeking to enforce his vision for a 'better tomorrow'.

The comment on Garlemald originally having a bigger focus reminds me of the NA fanfest I attended back when SHB was annoucned. There was a slide shown to us that said we would "take the fight to Garlemald!" and then nothing really came of it lol

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Theodric

Well, that's disappointing. So as expected we did miss out on a Garlemald focused expansion. The way in which Hermes is described is utterly bizarre as well. I also note that they're being entirely non-committal to the idea of the Ancients being fated to follow the path shown within the Dead Ends. They keep using the term 'might have' instead of 'would have' which, of course, means it would not be a certainty.

Ishikawa, at least, seems to 'get it'. I can't say I'm fond of Yoshi-P's takes on many fronts in that interview. No, Hermes and Venat seeking to inflict genocide upon their own race isn't the same as Emet-Selch seeking to reverse that genocide when it was inflicted upon his people with no forewarning. Nor is it a fair 'test' in any rational, logical capacity. Especially when we know that the Ancients and beings forged through Creation magic are most certainly not the same.

I'm losing count of how many times Yoshi-P confessed to 'crying' over something in the game. Moenbryda had closure back in ARR and not everybody even liked her, so pushing her to the forefront yet again felt strange to me. I like Jullus, though I'm tired of this 'everybody's crying and screaming over every little thing' approach to the game's story.

I'm still not seeing why we missed out on a Garlemald focused expansion. We could have then gotten proper closure for that aspect of the story and then had the Hydaelyn and Zodiark/Ancients arcs conclude in the following expansion.

Meh.

---

Indeed. To say I was unimpressed is an understatement. Ishikawa at least articulates the reasons as to why it shouldn't really be "surprising" to Yoshi-P that people don't resonate with Hermes in the way they do with Emet-Selch. He introduces some strawman reason for forgiving Emet-Selch, that I have seen very few people invoke. No, the reason people find him sympathetic is his people survived the Final Days, only to see their world and existences torn apart and with him and two others with absolutely no understanding of why this was done, left to clean up this mess through gruelling methods. Moreover, they credit Hermes with providing knowledge of the Plenty - great, now how about the part where, through his spite-driven test, he tries to obscure all knowledge of this knowing what Meteion would proceed to do? The fact that this could've been spun out into two separate expansions is very much evident. By the sounds of it a lot of re-writes were involved.

This doesn't exactly instil much confidence in FF16 or the story going forward, since the problem appears to be less so Ishikawa, more so Yoshi.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fiel_Tana

No matter how I try to understand at her motives I can't come up with any logical reason for why she did what she did. The story sure doesn't show us her thoughts during it at all so we have people saying everything from "ancients can't interact with dynamis" (which is shown in the story multiple times to be untrue), "people need to grow strong through suffering" (universally, causing suffering is NOT seen as heroic), "eventually they would have become like the plenty so it had to be done"(?), "people needed to learn to not live in the past" (??!?), "Ancients are just like that!"(??!??) to "well our world wouldn't exist had she not done that so she made the right choice" (bad, bad take imo).

None of those truly make sense within the story. It feels like major questions of the arc were entirely ignored.

---

Pardon my self quote.

Now that I've read that Famitsu interview it seems to make more sense why these questions weren't answered. For a Hydaelyn / Zodiark arc finale, the team don't mention them much at all other than the fights. Hydaelyn & Zodiark don't seem to have been the focus of the team at all. Playing through that was clear with Zodiark's part but I had really hoped Hydaelyn's story would be more fleshed out but I guess that's not what they had in mind?

I feel duped tbh. One of the things I loved about this game was the attention to detail and how the stories wove through each other. It seems the reason Yoshi was so surprised in the Live Letter that players paid attention to details like the Ascian masks Gaius had... was simply that the creators didn't think in that depth of detail? ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ I thought it odd and a bit upsetting at the time, but huffed so much copium I'd almost convinced myself he just couldn't give us more details because *spoilers*.

They seem more interested in Hermes and whether he was a good or bad guy... what? Am I the only one that really didn't connect to that character either way? And how is what he did good?! I understand his depression, I understand feeling different than everyone else, I understand his moral dilemma about the creations, I understand wanting an answer about the meaning of life. I don't understand how he went from point A (killing creations is wrong) to point B (destroy all life in the universe) nor how that could be considered "the first step for humanity".

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rokke

The comment on Garlemald originally having a bigger focus reminds me of the NA fanfest I attended back when SHB was annoucned. There was a slide shown to us that said we would "take the fight to Garlemald!" and then nothing really came of it lol

---

When I got to Garlemald and saw the ruins of the city with its highways and cars and train stations and architecture, I was devastated that I'd never gotten to see this country when it was whole. I would have loved to have actually spent some meaningful time there before it all went to shit.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PawPaw

She really wants me to believe that it's the latter but I'm sorry, I clearly have a vastly different set of morals than this team does. At no point would my brain ever stop to ponder on the rights and wrongs of destroying a world and its people. Emet did it and it was wrong then also. I completely understand why he did it and feel terrible about what he's had to suffer through, and the fact that he was set up to become a murderer; but that doesn't make it not wrong. No, what Hermes did is not up for f*%!ing debate, it's wrong. And trying to pass it off as questionably correct because he's your FaVoRiTe is disingenuous.

---

At least Ishikawa seems aware from the outset that Hermes would be hated by most of the audience and understands why that is. It's Yoshi's commentary I find perplexing, and it's like he either doesn't grasp why the two characters are disanalogous and it isn't all about some "test", or he's trying to influence people to take a more favourable interpretation of Hermes for whatever reason.

At this point it just seems like anyone who enjoyed the story elements of ARR and HW is being thrown under the bus. The finale didn't feel like a proper ending on many fronts and where the game seemed to reward attention to detail it now seems to neglect players who bother to dig beneath the surface and pay attention to the subtle elements.

I'm not sure where they're getting their feedback from, either. People have been doing deep dives into the game's lore for quite some time yet now it seems like any feedback they do get is heavily filtered and entirely limited to what people are posting on Twitter and Reddit. Most of the 'fanservice' certainly reflects that sort of style, too.

Honestly, it was the Garleans and Ascians who hooked me the most back in the days of ARR and HW. I wanted to see where their respective stories would go and the game opted to handle both in a very strange manner.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PawPaw

When I got to Garlemald and saw the ruins of the city with its highways and cars and train stations and architecture, I was devastated that I'd never gotten to see this country when it was whole. I would have loved to have actually spent some meaningful time there before it all went to shit.

---

Easy fix. We go to the Crystal Tower Tower of Zot and talk to the soul of Elidibus Varis who uses their Ancient Anima power to hurl us back in time so we can see what pre-sundered destroyed Elpis Garlemald looked like. There we could talk to Venat Zenos and convince them that sundering Etheirys helping destroy Garlemald was the best Answer way to be friends with the WoL.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ixon

Easy fix. We go to the Crystal Tower Tower of Zot and talk to the soul of Elidibus Varis who uses their Ancient Anima power to hurl us back in time so we can see what pre-sundered destroyed Elpis Garlemald looked like. There we could talk to Venat Zenos and convince them that sundering Etheirys helping destroy Garlemald was the best Answer way to be friends with the WoL.

---

Hey, they got people to believe that it worked once flawlessly! What could possibly go wrong?!

Most of Ishikawa's responses seem based, she even says she wrote Hermes figuring 80% of people would hate him. It also confirmed whatever she wrote originally wasn't accepted by the others and she had to rewrite it barely making it under the deadline. Granted, no details were given, but I had a feeling that was the case all throughout EW.

The main thing that bothers me is acting like Hermes (and I assume Venat by extension) ended up being a boon to humanity. There just isn't any evidence of this at all. The sundered still couldn't handle the Final Days and we went from the Ancient society to one in which wars are frequent, there's sex trafficking, and a myriad of other ills that didn't exist before because the Ancients might have gone the way of The Plenty? This was an absolute regression by every metric possible.

I'm disappointed by Yoshi-P's responses and it's making me think he's the reason for some of the Saturday Morning Cartoon feeling of the story. It seems like both Ishikawa and Oda would go darker if they could. That's just my impression though, I could be wrong.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by aveyond-dreams

They literally had us fight the Knights of the Round from FFVII in Heavensward. The response was overwhelmingly positive at the time. Doubtless the same would have occurred if we fought Varis in the form of Anima, who was more respected as an antagonist than Thordan ever was.

---

I enjoy the references as well, I just prefer to see more content original to XIV with unique models.

Anima did kind of feel wasted as a dungeon boss instead of as a trial though.

Given Ishikawa rewrote the story without input like the retreat version had, I’d say Endwalker is closer to what she imagined than what Yoshi P or the rest of the team initially conceived of.

And let’s not get it twisted. Ishikawa firmly agrees that Hermes helped lay the foundation for the world that comes later, and even goes far enough to say it’s not simple whether he and Meteion are good or bad. Referring to what Hermes did as a mistake and not an evil act is telling I think.

Ultimately the writers can say whatever they so wish, but it isn't unreasonable for people to suggest that seeking to destroy all of existence isn't an act worthy of sympathy in the same way as someone striving to do whatever is necessary in order to protect and preserve their loved ones and civilisation.

Ishikawa, at least, is leaving things open to personal interpretation whereas Yoshi-P seems to be struggling to grasp why Venat and Hermes did not go down as well as Emet-Selch in terms of inducing sympathy and fondness.

Maybe, just maybe, most of us wouldn't be willing to let our loved ones be murdered by a pair of deranged nutters wanting to enforce a 'test' and wipe out not only everyone we care about but any sign of memory of our existence and society.

I think that it would made for a very touching scene to see a bewildered, desperate mother wrap her hands around Venat's neck and strangle the life from her when told that Venat intended to murder her family and erase all knowledge of their existence.

...but of course, being the cowardly little wretch that she is, Venat didn't even have the stones to inform anyone of Meteion's existence or what her proposed 'solution' entailed.

Indeed. Yoshi can find it as "surprising" as he likes. We're not going to be gaslit into seeing Hermes in the same way.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by EaraGrace

Given Ishikawa rewrote the story without input like the retreat version had, I’d say Endwalker is closer to what she imagined than what Yoshi P or the rest of the team initially conceived of.

---

I don't know how you come to this conclusion. What she presented at the "residential" wasn't accepted, so she rewrote it to be something the others would accept. Sounds like the opposite of telling the story she wanted to tell.

Quote:

---

And let’s not get it twisted. Ishikawa firmly agrees that Hermes helped lay the foundation for the world that comes later, and even goes far enough to say it’s not simple whether he and Meteion are good or bad. Referring to what Hermes did as a mistake and not an evil act is telling I think.

---

Obviously everything had to happen the way it did for the current game world to exist, I don't believe anyone has ever argued that. I've never believed Metetion was evil, she was a faulty creation given a misguided mission and ended up corrupted.

As for Hermes, most people (even those who loved his character) thought he suffered from some form of mental illness. What Ishikawa had in mind is not what was conveyed in the game. It was about as "evil" and a "mistake" as a postal shooter.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Theodric

At this point it just seems like anyone who enjoyed the story elements of ARR and HW is being thrown under the bus. The finale didn't feel like a proper ending on many fronts and where the game seemed to reward attention to detail it now seems to neglect players who bother to dig beneath the surface and pay attention to the subtle elements.

I'm not sure where they're getting their feedback from, either. People have been doing deep dives into the game's lore for quite some time yet now it seems like any feedback they do get is heavily filtered and entirely limited to what people are posting on Twitter and Reddit. Most of the 'fanservice' certainly reflects that sort of style, too.

Honestly, it was the Garleans and Ascians who hooked me the most back in the days of ARR and HW. I wanted to see where their respective stories would go and the game opted to handle both in a very strange manner.

---

Genuinely asking here. What WAS that first drew you to the Garleans and Ascians in ARR and in HW? IMO they were your everyday typical jrpg saturday morning cartoon villians till the got more fleshed out during Stormblood with the Garleans and Shadowbringers with the Ascians...or specifically Emet-Selch and Elidibus. I mean personally, they were fine in general back anyway, wasnt honestly expecting them much but was very surprised to understand them more in the later expansions which is where a lot of people got hooked into them it seems.

Once again this interviews proves the whole ancient plot line was hamfisted and ruined the plots setup by the pre-ShB expansions.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rulakir

Most of Ishikawa's responses seem based, she even says she wrote Hermes figuring 80% of people would hate him. It also confirmed whatever she wrote originally wasn't accepted by the others and she had to rewrite it barely making it under the deadline. Granted, no details were given, but I had a feeling that was the case all throughout EW.

The main thing that bothers me is acting like Hermes (and I assume Venat by extension) ended up being a boon to humanity. There just isn't any evidence of this at all. The sundered still couldn't handle the Final Days and we went from the Ancient society to one in which wars are frequent, there's sex trafficking, and a myriad of other ills that didn't exist before because the Ancients might have gone the way of The Plenty? This was an absolute regression by every metric possible.

---

It's not even plausible because he tries to hide the truth of it all in the process of administering his 'test' and actively thwarts knowledge of it. So whatever supposed side-benefit there is, it's no thanks to his own efforts.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Atelier-Bagur

Genuinely asking here. What WAS that first drew you to the Garleans and Ascians in ARR and in HW? IMO they were your everyday typical jrpg saturday morning cartoon villians till the got more fleshed out during Stormblood with the Garleans and Shadowbringers with the Ascians...or specifically Emet-Selch and Elidibus. I mean personally, they were fine in general back anyway, wasnt honestly expecting them much but was very surprised to understand them more in the later expansions which is where a lot of people got hooked into them it seems.

---

They had an interesting and enjoyable presence whenever they appeared on screen and I liked their aesthetics. I figured that they'd eventually turn out to have deeper reasons for doing what they were doing - and in the case of the Garleans, that was evident as soon as the first lore book was released and revealed their backstory and motives. In a world where everything revolved around aether the idea of a race being unable to readily make use of it proved to be pretty fascinating to me. It was more relatable than a bunch of stuck up, self proclaimed 'heroes' who were granted special favours and empowered so that they, conveniently, could eventually get whatever result they wanted at the end of each day.

Back then, pretty much every nation and character was portrayed in a rather morally grey light. The game has since hastily retconned and resolved many of the original problems that plagued the various City States and made the leader figures and Scions see the player character as something other than a useful, powerful tool...but up until that point, the player character was ordered around with very little care or respect for their own desires or well being.

If that isn't enough, then my favourite Final Fantasy game happens to be Final Fantasy XII and the Garlean designs are heavily influenced by that, with a bit of Roman and Russian influence thrown in for good measure. I've long been fond of Roman history - especially living in Europe, where there's still plenty of signs of their contributions to everything from architecture to the arts. All of my interactions with Russians have been positive, too, over the years.Furthermore, much like how many wars happen due to complicated geopolitical events...so too is that the case in fictional fantasy settings. War sucks, but I don't see territorial disputes as 'good' and 'evil' - particularly not when Eorzea itself only prospers in large part as a consequence of the own wars that it, itself, waged throughout its existence. The Eorzeans were fully justified in seeking to fight off invaders stepping foot on their own soil but I daresay that the way in which Ul'dah chose to zombify a rival nation was far more chilling than how the Garleans handled things!

All in all, I like darker themes in the stories I invest in. Characters and factions who do whatever is necessary in order to survive resonate with me far more than those who lecture others endlessly on complicated moral issues whilst enjoying numerous plot devices that, conveniently, ensure that they never have to resort to the same desperate measures as those they are criticising.

This and the Matsuno interview has me a little worried. Given how misleading the lead up to ShB and EW was, I am wondering if the FF16 trailer is also misleading and if it is actually just going to be another JRPG adventure romp. Yoshida is the producer after all and can theoretically veto anything not to his tastes. If so, that would would be rather disappointing given that FF15 - flawed as it was - at least had balls. My only hope is that FF16 is being directed by Hiroshi Takai, who did The Last Remnant, which did at least have some grit. We shall see...

As for FFXIV 7.0, at this point I am hoping that it is actually just a generic adventure romp in a new land. It's clear we're never going to get anything serious like war or the occupation of countries again, and I don't think the team can handle grandiose themes like the fate of the universe or the nature of mankind or themes such as "despair" very well, so perhaps something less ambitious would work better for this project.

I see thanks for the insight! Although I do personally feel like some of these interpretations on the Garleans are absolute based. Then again so are my mines lol.

Its mostly down to the fact that the Garleans still decided to have this oppressive regime wanting to conquer other lands, stripping them of their freedoms and culture just for the sake of culling out primal worship. Like at the end of the day I stopped caring for reasoning with their motives. I appreciated that they it was there and certain story content such as the conversation Varis before Grimlyt Dark, Gaius and the Sorrow of Werlyt, the Bozja stuff along with Endwalker's Garlemald nicely offered me a bit more of their perspective and it was interesting but....they instigated a war, wanting to invade other lands. Im sorry but Im not gonna go "oh poor them" when they're causing more suffering than the beast tribes and their primal summoning alone. There was nothing that was "morally grey" about that. I might even say those motives were just as bad as the recent reveals of the Jailer's motives in WoW where "yeah I'm gonna dominate the universe just to prevent a bigger threat...from dominating...the universe. Like seriously what!?" Ive seen this kind of backstory for villians numerous times in other jrpgs that Ive grown numb to them and just accepted it but didnt care.

However despite this, I still enjoy the Garleans for just being villians; which was way Stormblood was a fave expansion of mines because we got to see more of them and how they were oppressing other people. Im a FF nerd (played all the mainline games) and my personal interest with them were due to how Garlean and Legatus armors looked like the Archadian Judge armor from FFXII (which Im so happy to find another person liking that game!) But yeah.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rulakir

I don't know how you come to this conclusion. What she presented at the "residential" wasn't accepted, so she rewrote it to be something the others would accept. Sounds like the opposite of telling the story she wanted to tell.

---

Quote:

---

Yoshida: During the residential, the core parts of the story were listed, but after that Ishikawa said ‘we didn’t reach agreement, so I rewrote it.” As a result, when we compared the story decided on at the residential, and the rewrite Ishikawa presented, we thought “it was the right choice to rework this”.

---

That sounds to me like they went with Ishikawas version no? The residential one would be the one with all the others offering ideas, her rewrite was hers alone. The last line is the one I’m focusing on.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rulakir

Obviously everything had to happen the way it did for the current game world to exist, I don't believe anyone has ever argued that. I've never believed Metetion was evil, she was a faulty creation given a misguided mission and ended up corrupted.

As for Hermes, most people (even those who loved his character) thought he suffered from some form of mental illness. What Ishikawa had in mind is not what was conveyed in the game. It was about as "evil" and a "mistake" as a postal shooter.

---

Then you disagree with Ishikawa, as was my point. She’s very clear, saying he’s both her favorite character who isn’t simply evil, and that he was motivated by fairness in juxtaposition to Emet who was motivated by emotion.

https://i.imgur.com/cEffiBG.png

Also just to add that last point I made, I'm going to disagree with the idea that they "retconned" the Garleans or such in later expansions. Like literally Gaius spelled out the Empire's motivations back in ARR, in fact he had multiple speeches about it; unless many of us took the Prae run snoozefest seriously lol.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by EaraGrace

Then you disagree with Ishikawa, as was my point. She’s very clear, saying he’s both her favorite character who isn’t simply evil, and that he was motivated by fairness in juxtaposition to Emet who was motivated by emotion.

---

No, I said her vision is not what was conveyed in the game.

Not gonna lie, I had kinda forgotten by the final scenes in Endwalker that Emet was directly or indirectly responsible for the deaths of thousand across multiple fractions. Which I guess thinking on it kinda again leads me more to thinking Zodiark was in fact tempering the unsundered given Emets higher regard for life(even familiars) in Elpis. So either Emet had homicidal tendencies all along, or Zodiark did have some form of self-being outside of just being a tool or vesel that forced the unsundered to reform him by any means necessary. Not that there is any proof of that in what we currently have, but it was just a though that crossed my mind.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Atelier-Bagur

Genuinely asking here. What WAS that first drew you to the Garleans and Ascians in ARR and in HW? IMO they were your everyday typical jrpg saturday morning cartoon villians till the got more fleshed out during Stormblood with the Garleans and Shadowbringers with the Ascians...or specifically Emet-Selch and Elidibus. I mean personally, they were fine in general back anyway, wasnt honestly expecting them much but was very surprised to understand them more in the later expansions which is where a lot of people got hooked into them it seems.

---

I realise you didn't ask me, but if I may give my PoV as someone who's always appreciated Ascians back in ARR and HW: honestly... I'm just a villain-group-dynamic person. On top of usually preferring the manipulative-ish villains who act from the shadows. I was intrigued in 2.0, then even more so when I found out there were a whole group of them with actual different names and personal goals. Elidibus was my favorite (and still is, I'm so sorry Emet), apparently baby-sitting the whole terrible lot of them, a fact which honestly just got funnier now that we know he was just babby compared to the rest. I'm terribly sad Nabriales was such a one-hit wonder because I really wanted to see more of his hotheaded obnoxious and womanizing antics that seemingly aggroed Elidibus by the past – much like Fandaniel sort of implied he did, himself. The game teased me with some Pashtarot and Altima that never happened, though I made note of the fact that they were indeed all based on the FFXII zodiac – that was fuel for headcanons and other unseen dynamics, after all. Igeyorhm being responsible for the Void because she girlboss'd the Thirteenth? Interesting and woefully under-utilised. Then, while not actually an Ascian, we got Unukalhai, and yeah wow talk about under-exploitation here too, but at least I got to make jokes about how my favorite Ascian should finally come and pick up his kid. Stormblood patches storyline? Oh I was all over that one. I even loved Asahi (you did read that correctly indeed) and found Emet-Selch in 4.4 and 4.5 fun already! Also because I loved the idea of Varis stuck in the middle of two Unsundered. The two masks on Gaius's belt? More teasing, and there was no way Gaius would ever definitely take care of Ascian paragons like this, so it looked like we might get to know them in the inevitable Garlemald expansion.

All throughout, they'd always felt like the true, cosmic menace of the overarching plot. While I also appreciate the Garleans (honestly, yes, I just default to villains. I kind of ... always have) and Nero was a definite highlight of ARR–SB to me, they were the more mundane antagonists, and while I don't usually have a preference between cosmic and "mundane" villains, the fact that the backgroundplot featured an actual crystal Goddess of Light and other assorted gods pointed towards the Ascians having a lot to do with the wider, multiple-expansion plot and I was really curious about that. So really, to me it was just a matter of time until we inevitably learned so much more about their backstory – I would say anticipation of things happening was a large factor in my preferences. (Hence my reaction, in part, to Endwalker: I feel it didn't live up to a lot of that, and as far as we know it's kind of over for this plot.)

I'm a simple woman, just throw at me a group of villains interacting with and kind of hating each other, have them manipulate people and orchestrate things behind the scenes and make them look cool and I've already bitten the bait, I'm pathetic ngl

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ixon

Not gonna lie, I had kinda forgotten by the final scenes in Endwalker that Emet was directly or indirectly responsible for the deaths of thousand across multiple fractions. Which I guess thinking on it kinda again leads me more to thinking Zodiark was in fact tempering the unsundered given Emets higher regard for life(even familiars) in Elpis. So either Emet had homicidal tendencies all along, or Zodiark did have some form of self-being outside of just being a tool or vesel that forced the unsundered to reform him by any means necessary. Not that there is any proof of that in what we currently have, but it was just a though that crossed my mind.

---

Honestly, I wholly dislike the notion of Ascian tempering being anything more than a slight pull towards Zodiark, and to me the Unsundered (not just Emet in particular) approving the destruction of 7–9 planets (depending if you count the Void and the 8th Calamity or not) while they were all three very respectable people in human life is exactly what I like: people are capable of terrible, terrible things, especially if they've figured it was the only way to bring back their loved ones and set right something they perceive as very wrong – and as members of the Convocation they would probably feel a huge responsibility resting solely on their shoulders. If you'd made this any sort of mind control, I would just stop caring. I mean, the "oh my god what have I DONE" mind control plot is interesting on its own, but it isn't my thing. I'm more into bastards who perfectly know what they are doing.*

*I trust people in this thread to know this, but just in case... I mean in fiction.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Teraq

...

---

Pretty much the same. While I'm glad they developed Emet/Elidibus/soon Lahabrea/Mitron/Loghrif/Fandanny, it kind of miffed me that Emet-Selch became 'the' only Ascian that mattered, and we never saw the group dynamic ever again. I suppose 13 was just too ambitious a number. Reminds me of some interview where they stated they wrote 'Seven Great Wyrms' because it sounded cool. Maybe we'll get something with Azdaja...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Skyborne

Pretty much the same. While I'm glad they developed Emet/Elidibus/soon Lahabrea/Mitron/Loghrif/Fandanny, it kind of miffed me that Emet-Selch became 'the' only Ascian that mattered, and we never saw the group dynamic ever again. I suppose 13 was just too ambitious a number.

---

I was almost going to mention that my personal unpopular opinion about Ascians is that as soon as Emet-Selch entered the stage, the Ascian plot became the Emet-Selch plot. I'm thankful for getting my little crumb of Eli, but... yeah... I mean no disrespect to Emet, he's a fantastic character. But. You know?

I was talking about ARR/HW/SB so I didn't mention Mitron and Loghrif, but you should have seen my face during the Elpis aether current quest tbh. I will be FOREVER thankful that whoever wrote the Eden storyline actually had Gaia empathise with him...her?..them. I can't emphasise enough how much I love that their final dialogue was so soft and amiable, and I'm not typically a shipper.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Teraq

Honestly, I wholly dislike the notion of Ascian tempering being anything more than a slight pull towards Zodiark, and to me the Unsundered (not just Emet in particular) approving the destruction of 7–9 planets (depending if you count the Void and the 8th Calamity or not) while they were all three very respectable people in human life is exactly what I like: people are capable of terrible, terrible things, especially if they've figured it was the only way to bring back their loved ones and set right something they perceive as very wrong – and as members of the Convocation they would probably feel a huge responsibility resting solely on their shoulders. If you'd made this any sort of mind control, I would just stop caring. I mean, the "oh my god what have I DONE" mind control plot is interesting on its own, but it isn't my thing. I'm more into bastards!

---

I agree that the gentle tug notion seems the most accurate; The One Ring in Lord of the Rings comes to mind. Whispers and nudges here and there. There was also probably some god superiority complex to us, referring to us as "flawed creations" at one point if I recall, not to mention seeing 1/13th of a friend or someone you used to know for a couple thousand years probably isn't going to make sane a person. I'd like to think with some sort of optimism that perhaps this sort of flaws in characters could be applied to Hermes and especially Venat. Not to go all #TeamVenat, but the more I think about it, the more the sundering seemed like a gamble on the future, one that she was even so unsure of that she had the ark in the moon created so the people of Etheirys could hypothetically just run away(though I think everybody knew it wouldn't come to that) if we could not stop The Final Days. Though again this is more twisting theories to try and support the last minute, duct tape and a dream, story that was finished.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Teraq

Honestly, I wholly dislike the notion of Ascian tempering being anything more than a slight pull towards Zodiark, and to me the Unsundered (not just Emet in particular) approving the destruction of 7–9 planets (depending if you count the Void and the 8th Calamity or not) while they were all three very respectable people in human life is exactly what I like: people are capable of terrible, terrible things, especially if they've figured it was the only way to bring back their loved ones and set right something they perceive as very wrong – and as members of the Convocation they would probably feel a huge responsibility resting solely on their shoulders. If you'd made this any sort of mind control, I would just stop caring. I mean, the "oh my god what have I DONE" mind control plot is interesting on its own, but it isn't my thing. I'm more into bastards who perfectly know what they are doing.*

*I trust people in this thread to know this, but just in case... I mean in fiction.

---

^This. I'm also not keen on mind control overwriting their own motives as a plot device. Given all the lore developments during SHB and EW, we can say tempering has been demoted to explaining the state of some Ascians, like Lahabrea, and is not there to overwrite their own motives.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lauront

It's not even plausible because he tries to hide the truth of it all in the process of administering his 'test' and actively thwarts knowledge of it. So whatever supposed side-benefit there is, it's no thanks to his own efforts.

---

Not to mention... since we've told him about the Final Days in our timeline and the cataclysmic consequences it had, he absolutely knew how his little "test" was going to end. And in my interpretation of Hermes, that was exactly his point.

While I can't say I really mourn the loss of a Garlemald expansion (Garlemald and its outcome as presented in the game basically worked perfectly for me), I do think it's kind of funny that amidst all this in-depth discussion about the story and Hermes in particular - his judgment of mankind, and how what he did was extremely horrible but ultimately did lead to the world where we are now, by introducing suffering - Venat doesn't come up in the conversation? W-which character were we talking about, again?

Yoshida's responses don't really surprise me. Immediately post-ShB, in interviews, he seemed pretty confused about why so many people adored ShB, too. I do think he's earnest in his attempts to understand, and when he recognizes the fanbase strongly responding to something he tries to roll with it - but that understanding is not something that really comes intuitively to him. He's a Matsuno fanboy, after all! (Hey, kinda same, friend.) And I do think you can see how that reflects in the way he sort of processes stories, versus someone like Ishikawa, who is a bit more honed in on emotional nuance.

I'm not someone who is particularly driven by sentimentality in stories, preferring a focus on world-building, compelling character motivations and logical cohesion, and I very much like Matsuno's style, and yet even so, I have to say, it's not difficult for me to grasp where the differences between why people like the characters lie, because it's quite easy to identify that the "test", whether administered "impartially" or not, is a red herring when comparing the characters' broader motives and goals, which are put front and centre in both expansions and set them apart. You can glean this from an understanding of psychology even if not at a visceral level. So both characters administering a "test" (Hades in a more reactive sense, to see if something approximating his people could emerge out of the sundered), is neither here nor there to me, and it's not down to emotional reasons even. There's different ways to arrive at the same conclusion, so I guess Ishikawa manages this by explaining the emotional aspect of it to him, but still, I find his surprise surprising... hopefully he gets it now. :p

I think it depends on how you see characters in and of themselves. To some people--and perhaps Yoshi-P is one of them--characters are "good characters" or "bad characters" depending on how well they play their role in the plot. To someone like that, Emet-Selch's wishy-washy emotional state where he vacillates between trying to connect with the party and rage that they presume a connection with him might make him seem like a lesser villain as compared to someone like Hermes who is presented in such a way that his motivations for his actions are easily understandable and digestible to a player--whether you think they justifiable or not.

I do think it's interesting that Venat seems to have not come up in any meaningful way, but I also understand why they might want to avoid the topic. Venat as a benevolent force pretty much falls apart the second you have to concretely answer: did she attempt to warn people about Meteion directly?

I suppose, but when he has stated in prior interviews that Emet-Selch is a character intended to render the Ascians understandable and more sympathetic to the players, surely him achieving that is the character playing his role to perfection? Plus Yoshi is angling it around the topic of forgiveness, so I'd say it ties perhaps a bit less into how thoroughgoing a villain Emet-Selch portrayed.

As for Venat, seconded - I presume they also felt that the Q&A had covered her in enough depth without wanting to draw more attention to her as a character.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tokinokanatae

compared to someone like Hermes who is presented in such a way that his motivations for his actions are easily understandable and digestible to a player

---

I'm at the point I'm just going to throw my hands up at EW. Hermes made no sense to me outside the context of being mentally unwell. Not depression, psychotic. Venat was equally not understandable being someone who laments that the Final Days will destroy everything she holds dear, insists she believes nothing is impossible, is told the grim reality that exists as a result of the past, then decides that her Etheirys is expendable, that the Ancients changing is impossible, and that the future we describe to her is exactly what she wants.

I've had to rely on other player interpretations to flesh out these two characters who, based solely on what we're presented with in game, come across as twisted individuals. Even then, I can't say I find their motivations understandable or easy to digest.

^Seconded.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rulakir

No, I said her vision is not what was conveyed in the game.

---

To add to this, I also don't see where she's saying he's not evil there. Perhaps she may think so, but equally she says this:

Quote:

---

Ishikawa: For example, is what Hermes did wrong? Or was it the first step for humanity? Is what Meteion did wrong, or was it the people who gave Meteion her despair in the wrong? In that case was it wrong to hold on to that despair? For these questions, we made it so players can give their own answers.

---

...and...

Quote:

---

Interviewer: Hermes and Meteion are characters that have had different responses among players.

Ishikawa: When I was writing Hermes, I thought he’d be a character 80% of people would hate, 20% of people would love. But even for the people who love him, you recognise his complexities and emptiness… But personally I really, really love him. He himself made a huge mistake... but that mistake made him the foundation for everything that came after.

Interviewer: Without Hermes, this story itself couldn’t have happened.

Ishikawa: Without him, the world might have become like what we saw in the 3rd area of the Dead Ends dungeon.

Interviewer: Where “Ra-la” appears, right?

Ishikawa: Right. “Ra-la’s” world (laughs). Hermes' mistake is like the first “wound” the people of Eitherys bear. Whether people think this was a mistake, or part of becoming stronger, will differ.

---

Very much leaving it to player interpretation, much as they had done with Emet-Selch. Yoshi only went out of his way to make such a claim with Venat, and even then, she is framed in a similar light as SHB Emet-Selch. If we're honest, how one views her own actions should thus be taken in a similar light, i.e. it will be down to player interpretation/views. The writers have taken the path of presenting a story/theme and then leaving it to player judgement, and can't really dictate how we view a character or not at the end of the day. They can only explain what they sought to portray.

Yeah...I couldn't really understand Fandaniel who concludes that "life is meaningless because everything you do won't matter once you're dead", despite that even in the Ancient world, they wouldn't choose to end their lives until they felt they left their mark on the world and society and "fulfilled their duty". They aggressively stress throughout the whole of XIV's story that it's the legacies people leave that's part of what makes life meaningful.

Hermes likewise comes across as awkward when others specifically acknowledge that he's not alone in the way he feels to try to bring him comfort, but rather then gather those who share his feelings to try to make a difference, he decides to condemn his people on a whim.

Ishikawa talking as if there is any grey morality being portrayed in her story yet the game clearly picks the choices for you.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lauront

I suppose, but when he has stated in prior interviews that Emet-Selch is a character intended to render the Ascians understandable and more sympathetic to the players, surely him achieving that is the character playing his role to perfection? Plus Yoshi is angling it around the topic of forgiveness, so I'd say it ties perhaps a bit less into how thoroughgoing a villain Emet-Selch portrayed.

As for Venat, seconded - I presume they also felt that the Q&A had covered her in enough depth without wanting to draw more attention to her as a character.

---

As I recall, Yoshida said they intended for Shadowbringers to flesh out the motives of the Ascians, but it was Ishikawa specifically who wanted to "humanize" them, and also her who had the idea to have Emet travel with the party so the player would grow attached to him and give more weight to his perspective. Yoshida was actually skeptical of that at first. And he was definitely pretty baffled about the overwhelming response to him in the space immediately after Shadowbringers - I recall him having a tone along the lines of "okay, but, he's killed so many people...?" and "I'm surprised so many people took him at his word?" and wondering if the giant Talos scene was the reason so many people were praising Shadowbringers's story? He did come around to Emet later, and that the majority of the playerbase liked him and wanted to honor his wishes, but there was definitely a learning curve involved.

I'm not being really serious, but a friend joked that with the approach to Venat post-game, she wouldn't be surprised if they just quietly saved the Ancients in an alternate timeline in a Lodestone sidestory and basically never speak of Venat again. I-it maybe doesn't feel entirely implausible at this point...