Zenos: The Big Bad (The Feedback Thread, Part 1)

[_Koneko_]

i actually like zenos and fandaniel every villain so far have been buuhuu listen to my sob story i don't get how people like hades despite the fact that his murdered millions/billions and trying to use his own twisted logic that he don't view people as people is some psychopath levels of morally twisted he literally has 0 redeeming qualities

at least zenos is true to his nature in that his a monster who lives only for the hunt and the whole world can burn for all he cares sometimes simple is fine ...

[Mansion]

i actually like zenos and fandaniel every villain so far have been buuhuu listen to my sob story i don't get how people like hades despite the fact that his murdered millions/billions and trying to use his own twisted logic that he don't view people as people is some psychopath levels of morally twisted he literally has 0 redeeming qualities

at least zenos is true to his nature in that his a monster who lives only for the hunt and the whole world can burn for all he cares sometimes simple is fine ...

For me, Zenos has more of a timing problem than a character problem. He has been around for too long, doing little to nothing, which weighs down his interest.
When we inevitable beat him for good in 6.0, in my opinion there are two options. He has a great monologue about his motives and whatver (which would be underwhelming), or he accepts his defeat and dies silently (which would "save" a bit of his character, but wouldn't take off the problems I 've had with him since 4.3).

It would take a LOT of creative writing to save his character in my eyes. And it's not that I don't trust the writers to pull out that effort, I just don't expect it. For me Fandaniel will be the big 6.0 focus, and Zenos might end up being a pawn.

[MoofiaBossVal]

I suspect another reason why Zenos (his personality and motivations aside) seems to be disliked is that he ruins the player's powerfantasy. He has two unwinnable battles and you never beat him in a 1v1 duel. People also seemed to have disliked Ran'jit for similar reasons, as he had two unwinnable fights and a third fight that ends in a draw. This seems to be a trend across games. People also disliked Takumi in Fire Emblem Fates because he didn't suck up to the player from the get-go unlike all of the other characters.

I do think that the unwinnable boss fights in FFXIV could have been better designed (rather than the player doing comfortably fine until they wither the boss down to 80% HP before the boss one shots the player, which feels like cheating, instead have the boss deal a constant barrage of high damage so that after like 2 or 3 minutes, the player has popped all of their cooldowns and can't outheal or out DPS the boss, so the player eventually dies but at least managed to get the boss down to like 30 or 20% HP).

[Bright-Flower]

I suspect another reason why Zenos (his personality and motivations aside) seems to be disliked is that he ruins the player's powerfantasy. He has two unwinnable battles and you never beat him in a 1v1 duel. People also seemed to have disliked Ran'jit for similar reasons, as he had two unwinnable fights and a third fight that ends in a draw. This seems to be a trend across games. People also disliked Takumi in Fire Emblem Fates because he didn't suck up to the player from the get-go unlike all of the other characters.

I do think that the unwinnable boss fights in FFXIV could have been better designed (rather than the player doing comfortably fine until they wither the boss down to 80% HP before the boss one shots the player, which feels like cheating, instead have the boss deal a constant barrage of high damage so that after like 2 or 3 minutes, the player has popped all of their cooldowns and can't outheal or out DPS the boss, so the player eventually dies but at least managed to get the boss down to like 30 or 20% HP).

My issue with Zenos' unwinnable fights isn't that he beats us. I'm fine with that. WHere it's an issue is that we're able to fight him in the end for no apparant reason than 'we leveled' up and same with Ran'jit.

Maybe some players are upset that Zenos beat us but that doesn't account for all the other rasons people don't like him. Nor do I think that Takumi being disliked was solely down to him not sucking up to the player. Those are oversimplifications that just try to dismiss why people don't like the character as if the only reason someone couldn't is because they hurt the player's pride in some way.

Some people just have different tastes.

[Kesey]

I suspect another reason why Zenos (his personality and motivations aside) seems to be disliked is that he ruins the player's powerfantasy. He has two unwinnable battles and you never beat him in a 1v1 duel. People also seemed to have disliked Ran'jit for similar reasons, as he had two unwinnable fights and a third fight that ends in a draw. This seems to be a trend across games. People also disliked Takumi in Fire Emblem Fates because he didn't suck up to the player from the get-go unlike all of the other characters.

I do think that the unwinnable boss fights in FFXIV could have been better designed (rather than the player doing comfortably fine until they wither the boss down to 80% HP before the boss one shots the player, which feels like cheating, instead have the boss deal a constant barrage of high damage so that after like 2 or 3 minutes, the player has popped all of their cooldowns and can't outheal or out DPS the boss, so the player eventually dies but at least managed to get the boss down to like 30 or 20% HP).

The player does almost beat Zenos possessed by Elidibus in 4.55, the only reason they were about to lose was being called by the Crystal Exarch. Zenos plus Ascian powers kind of shows that human Zenos can't hope to match us, unless he has a trick up his sleeve. I know there is a lot of speculation between the job being announced this weekend and the possibility that Zenos will use that job (and I agree there is a huge chance this is true) but we should also consider that Zenos has an object or weapon that will make him more powerful. I thought it was funny in Shadowbringers when Zenos expelled Elidibus from his body and we never got to see him wield his power to eject him. And Fandaniel's offer of subservience seemed too easy from the moment he was introduced to Zenos (even though it's clear Fandaniel has a bigger plan in play, but why not approach him as equals for an alliance? Fandaniel is an Ascian this makes no sense even with a betrayal plot).

[Rosenstrauch]

I find myself in the weird position of actively disliking Zenos partly because he exists in his current state for the sake of the player's power fantasy. He's utterly obsessed with the player and, in his own twisted fashion, everything he's done since his revival has been for the singular purpose of reuniting with you and expressing his love for you.

This kind of thing is a common complaint I have with self-insert stories. I prefer characters to be characters, not satellites revolving around the player's existence. I hold similar disdain for post-2.55 Haurchefant, post-3.0 Aymeric, and post 5.0-Exarch... especially that last one, because of the way the story was bent to accommodate him where it hadn't with the other two. Haurchefant died heroically, and Aymeric is committed to his work in Ishgard's government. The Exarch cut himself free from such fetters as mortality and responsibility, while also taking over the life of another character (who happens to be his past self) just to live out his fantasy of being the player's sidekick.

… not gonna lie, I'm also not the biggest fan of the whole "You were an ancient superhero, among the best and brightest minds of that age, idolized by all, and the long lost best friend and companion of the antagonists" thing Shadowbringers ended up having, either. It feels less like it was introduced to give more complexity and nuance to the story, and more like it was added to reinforce the notion that the player is more special than everyone else. Not helping matters is that the reveal came directly after 5.2 showing that the player wasn't as special as they'd been lead to believe, and thus far hasn't come up since. But it can lead to an interesting story, if the writers are willing to explore it further.

I guess that's where I sit when it comes to Zenos in general. I liked him in 4.0, and was satisfied with the way he went out. But then they brought him back, and while that could've led to an interesting story, or at least the setup for one... thus far, I don't think it has. Mostly it just feels like he's there for fanservice. Like the writers didn't think an ugly old man like Varis or a newcomer like Fandaniel could carry the story as antagonists.

[Cilia]

Having had more time to collect my thoughts -

The issue with Zenos is that he doesn't fit the mold of what a lot of the fanbase has decided a XIV villain antagonist "should" be. Certain cross-sections of players have decided that villains antagonists in this game must be both sympathetic and tragic; Zenos fits the latter (no matter how much some people want to deny it) but not the former, so he has been deemed "badly written." (The point of Stormblood, that being "villains are products of their society," just seems to go completely unacknowledged as it pertains to Zenos.)

That said he did overstay his welcome a bit by surviving his own suicide to menace us another day, but... ehh, let's see where this goes.

As for ruining the power fantasy? Maybe a bit. The PC has won some pivotal battles that shake nations down to their foundations; they've chumped defeated at least two if not three Imperial legatuses. That Zenos could come practically out of nowhere and chump them is unprecedented within the story, especially after the high octane fights against the Knights of the Round and Nidhogg (Full Power). (Same deal for Ran'jit.) That implies Zenos could have chumped the same foes, and if that's the case there's no reason Garlemald should have been unable to conquer pretty much everything. (We know now it's at least partially because the Ascians were deliberately restraining it, but even so it rankles.)

I do have to agree that a lot of people tend to gloss over the fact Emet-Selch (and Elidibus) are responsible for the deaths of millions and complicit in the deaths of millions more, purely because they have sympathetic motives. I don't agree they lack any redeeming qualities, but holding them up on a pedestal is... not really appropriate as far as I'm concerned.

[Theodric]

Why wouldn't it be appropriate, out of curiosity? They're fictional characters. There's no right or wrong character to like or despise. It's entirely down to personal tastes.

[KizuyaKatogami]

I do have to agree that a lot of people tend to gloss over the fact Emet-Selch (and Elidibus) are responsible for the deaths of millions and complicit in the deaths of millions more, purely because they have sympathetic motives. I don't agree they lack any redeeming qualities, but holding them up on a pedestal is... not really appropriate as far as I'm concerned.

Even though the devs stated that the entire situation is a matter of perspective and that some fans might agree with them and some might not? It’s a fictional game. Personally i really like them and enjoy them far more than any of the protags. Besides, it’s the death of millions of sundered lives, not complete people in their eyes.Theyre shattered versions of their own people. In that case though, i suppose people who like and enjoy hydaelyn isn’t appropriate either considering how many people have died due to the sundering she caused hm?

[Cilia]

Let me just preface this by stating "I am fine with agreeing to disagree"; continuing this is your choice.

What it comes down to is my interpretation of Emet-Selch. (I did say "as far as I'm concerned.")

He says that he does not see mortals as "really alive," but this is contradicted at least twice: first when he pulls Y'shtola out of the Lifestream he says that "It's never easy losing the ones we love," and at the ladder leading to upper Kholusia during his chat with the PC muses that "If your heart can be broken, surely mine can as well!" In other words he does recognize the people alive right now are, well, alive, with feelings and desires and reasons to fight... he just doesn't care.

The source of Emet-Selch's beef is that Hydaelyn destroyed their world and erased their history, but he's done so (or been complicit in such) multiple times over.

I don't have issue with his reasons for fighting - they're ultimately the same as everyone else's, for survival and those they care about - but he has the gall to insist that the Ancients were superior not just in terms of power and intellect (the latter of which is already debatable, given the Future Ironworks' accomplishment), but morally, purely on the fact huge chunks of their populace kept offering themselves up as sacrifices. Perhaps that was true back then, but erasing entire worlds, along with the histories and cultures they spawned, blows a gigantic hole in that argument.

So ultimately the Ascians are very arrogant and very hypocritical, as I see it, and neither of those are qualities I particularly care for. They come across very much like traditional fantasy depictions of elves, acting as if they're better than everyone else by virtue of their longevity even though a shorter lifespan (and being weaker) does have its upsides. They are no better or worse than the mortals of here and now (driven home by some of To the Edge's lyrics: "Deep inside, we're nothing more / than scions and sinners") but act as if they are better, even telling themselves lies about how the peoples of here and now aren't really alive so they can kill them without feeling guilty about it.

Being homesick and having a beef with Hydaelyn for what she did is perfectly understandable, but to garb themselves in the cloak of "righteousness" while hypocritically inviting catastrophes similar to the one that destroyed their world upon others, multiple times over... kind of grinds my gears.

"What about Hydaelyn?" Whataboutery, and off topic.

I really don't care what characters other people do and don't like, but I do feel like Emet-Selch's atrocities are often swept under the rug by the people who like him because of his sympathetic motives. Just the same a lot of people don't like Zenos purely because his motivations aren't sympathetic, from what I can see.

I just don't think one is better than the other.