Tired of Zenos (spoilers)

[MarsAstro]

Also Ishikawa’s whole shtick seems to just be sob stories and no consequences for the protagonists which...gets boring fast. I really hope she changes her storytelling a bit for 6.0.

I wouldn't say that's her shtick, it's just been a thing in Shadowbringers, since the focus has been on making the Ascians more sympathetic. She also didn't single-handedly write Shadowbringers, and she's previously written other stories for the game that are entirely different.

Idk, they had depth before. If anything she kind of ruined Elidibus in 5.3. Emet was fine but she tried to repeat the same sob story gimmick with elidibus and it just fell flat and felt incredibly rushed (probably because it was).

Could you explain how you feel Ascians had depth before? Before Shadowbringers I never really saw any motivation for their actions beyond "we like chaos and want to bring our evil god back", which didn't seem too deep to me.
I'm not really sure how you feel Elidibus was a repeat of Emet-Selch either, they felt like fundamentally different characters with different motivations to me. Sure, they both had sad stories, but otherwise they were completely different. Emet-Selch was motivated by his memories of happier days, Elidibus couldn't remember who he was or why he was doing what he was doing. They couldn't have been much more different in their motivations and story arcs as far as I'm concerned.

I'd love for you to elaborate, if you're up for it, I want to understand where you're coming from.

[Lauront]

I wouldn't say that's her shtick, it's just been a thing in Shadowbringers, since the focus has been on making the Ascians more sympathetic. She also didn't single-handedly write Shadowbringers, and she's previously written other stories for the game that are entirely different.



Could you explain how you feel Ascians had depth before? Before Shadowbringers I never really saw any motivation for their actions beyond "we like chaos and want to bring our evil god back", which didn't seem too deep to me.
I'm not really sure how you feel Elidibus was a repeat of Emet-Selch either, they felt like fundamentally different characters with different motivations to me. Sure, they both had sad stories, but otherwise they were completely different. Emet-Selch was motivated by his memories of happier days, Elidibus couldn't remember who he was or why he was doing what he was doing. They couldn't have been much more different in their motivations and story arcs as far as I'm concerned.

I'd love for you to elaborate, if you're up for it, I want to understand where you're coming from.

He's getting at the many points that made Elidibus intriguing in contrast to the rest, e.g. his more peaceful approach; his focus on the balance between light and dark; Nabriales restraining himself from harming Minfilia because it would displease Elidibus. The fact that he would sometimes work at odds with the other Ascians to achieve their goals, and course-correct them when he felt they went astray. And this all on top of the fact that he was Zodiark's Emissary. There were plenty of points that suggested more depth to the Ascians before we got SHB, because the mere fact that Zodiark's Emissary distinguished himself thus from the other Ascians suggested there was a bigger picture unfolding which we weren't privy to. He flatlined a bit towards the later half of SB and obviously there were plenty of ways they could've resolved these points, particularly regarding the balance between light and dark. I also found Lahabrea's Praetorium speech intriguing, FWIW, and I had hoped they'd tie in the way in which he considered Hydaelyn to be a parasite to Elidibus's "balance" schtick. I'm keen to see how they handle him, if he actually appears in the raid - he deserves a proper encounter and fulfillment of his story.

So he's basically referring to the Elidibus before 5.3. His more amicable approach and suggestion of deeper knowledge led many - myself included - to think he would be the one to play Emet's role. Emet's introduction and the way they handled the latter half of SB sort of limited their options, I suppose.

Also he could recall who he was but it's the why's and wherefore's that fell away as time went on. It was a deliberate choice, because he didn't want painful memories to deter him from such an important duty. Nonetheless, it's a 5.3 artefact. I don't think the way they dealt with it in 5.3 was bad, per se (for example I was concerned they'd turn him into some cackling villain), but I'm not also thrilled by the execution, and not particularly convinced by the memory loss approach; up to 5.2 I was still enjoying the show. The story they went with in the Amaurot gauntlet was an importation in some ways of the messaging of the DRK quests into the MSQ - not a bad thing, but I think they would've been better served by utilising the approach they took in Emet's short story to explain their perspective on the sundered life forms and the pain seeing their people reduced to such forms caused them, since Elidibus shared this perspective. I also found the whole way they finally dealt with the balance theme a bit weak, and they could've done more, e.g. explain how the presence of one or the other of the "eldest" of Primals in the Aetherial Sea affects it, how the sundered state of the world impacts it, and so on, and taken it in that direction.

Granted, if they give Fandaniel a compelling backstory, don't let Zenos hog the spotlight and "surprise" me with how they deal with Zodiark and Hydaelyn regarding the Zenodiark thing everyone expects, I'll be pleased. I thought that at least the moonshot of the derplander emulating Elidibus's form - presumably picking up on the theme of salvation which he embodied - showed promise.

Ishikawa is a good writer, but adopting the same approach to sympathy building across more antagonists will get old quickly for me. I am a person who is more interested in setting lore than feelz, and I want Fandaniel at the least to deliver on the former, if nothing else. Applying such an approach to Zenos would disappoint me even more, particularly after Yoshi has said they don't do half-measures when it comes to sympathetic vs unsympathetic characters, and he specifically names Zenos as an example of the latter. So I am not taking a blind faith approach in her writing ability to "improve" him.

JeuxOnline: In a previous interview, you said it was quite challenging to create realistic villains from one expansion to another. Ran’jit & Solus are great in that way: they look very strong, fearsome & crazy. How do you manage to keep getting inspired and make charismatic bad guys for the story not to be redundant?

Naoki Yoshida: That is a very difficult question to answer. So when making the villain characters, what the dev team tries to keep in mind is that they have to stand out, either by being really hateful and the players really hate them or still kinda loveable in a way. So for example Zenos is some sort of entity of ultimate Evil. [spoiler]But for Emet-Selch, he just wants to restore his world, that he believes is the best world.[spoiler]. So each time we create a new villain, we try to put them on either end of the scale, either complete evil or with having their own belief, their own goal. Having someone in-between is quite half-baked and is something the dev team wants to avoid.