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

[Kyohei]

It's not released yet, the link to pre-order that someone posted says it'll be on the 17th.

It is also something that works better when planned from the very beginning not years after much of the story has been told as is the usual case in games.

Indeed.

[KageTokage]

I think a lot of my disappointment was the result of the time travel in the MSQ. Any game I have played that decides to use time travel ends up going through contortions to resolve character interactions past, present and future. For me the end result is a bunch of loose ends that don't really seem to fit when tied together to close out the plot line. There are better ways for the protagonist and supporting characters to learn from the past without resorting to time travel and cheap plot devices.

I think one of things that bugs me is that even with the time travel, they still could've avoided most of the issues it ended up creating by just having Venat/Hydaelyn get her memories wiped too.

The causal loop dictated that our future would come to pass no matter what, so doing this would simply absolve her of having withheld the foreknowledge of the tragedies to come. The Sundering working to give us a fighting chance against Meteion could've been a happy coincidence and chance observation from the second coming of the Final Days instead of some grand plan, and she would still have Meteion's coordinates to give us had we simply reminded her about it. It would have made her whole arc more satisfying to me if she had caused the Sundering just because she thought stopping Zodiark and the sacrifices was a decision for the greater good simply in the moment, then grappled with the weight of that choice for countless millennia to finally see that an alternative to abandoning Etheriys to its fate had finally come to light thanks to the strength of man's will.

The only thing that would actually need to be changed is how we end up bringing up the matter of Elpis to Elidibus, since she wouldn't be able to use the flower to guide us to that key word. Perhaps we could've just had an Echo vision of Fandaniel pondering over the deeper meaning of his inherited memories from Hermes shortly after his transition to being an Ascian.

[Kyohei]

I think one of things that bugs me is that even with the time travel, they still could've avoided most of the issues it ended up creating by just having Venat/Hydaelyn get her memories wiped too.

The causal loop dictated that our future would come to pass no matter what, so doing this would simply absolve her of having withheld the foreknowledge of the tragedies to come. The Sundering working to give us a fighting chance against Meteion could've been a a happy coincidence instead of some grand plan, and she would still have Meteion's coordinates to give us had we simply reminded her about it.

The only thing that would actually need to be changed is how we end up bringing up the matter of Elpis to Elidibus, since she wouldn't be able to use the flower to guide us to that key word. Perhaps we could've just had an Echo vision of Fandaniel pondering over the deeper meaning of his inherited memories from Hermes shortly after his transition to being an Ascian.

Can't deny any of this but they wanted to push the that the WoL trusts Hydaelyn again and bond them to be to the same side once more. This was achieved through her giving the flower as guidance. A simple echo vision maybe could not have had the same impact of her being guide to hope for the characters (and a part of the playerbase).
Since a good part of players actually ended up liking Hydaelyn it wasn't such a bad choice, regardless of how we may find that it backfired on her depiction more than anything.

What I personally find strange is to use a close loop and advocate for a hope message at the same time. For me a close loop has a fatalistic connotation by nature because whatever you do, fate will no be changed.

[Brinne]

What are your thoughts on his scenes in Ultima Thule?

My feelings about that scene basically reflect on my feelings on Endwalker in general: some really good stuff there that I truly enjoyed, but meanwhile, almost everything associated with Venat and the insecurity of her writing - in urging us to like her, see her as benevolent, and get on board with the "everyone had good intentions and wanted to save the world and once they understand that they can all unite behind you!" uplifting tone of Endwalker - felt disingenuous and agitating.

I think it's important, if you're approaching a character in an authentic way and allow them to be interesting, to allow them to be hated for things they have a right to be hated for. Like I said, I love Emet-Selch as a character, but never once have I had issue with people like G'raha or Thancred hating his guts, or for someone like Tiamat to loathe the Ascians and want to see them burnt to the ground. They have a right to feel that way given how they've been impacted by Emet-Selch's actions, have no obligation to be worried about his feelings, and that that is allowed makes every character involved better and more sympathetic. Even if they're all good people in their own ways, not everyone can and should necessarily like and approve of one another, or else there's a level of strange, plastic insincerity to their individual emotions that emerges - and the feeling of everyone becoming a weird conglomerate.

On the other hand, in a vacuum, I don't think Emet's attitude there necessarily has to be seen as out-of-character, or overall ruins the character for me, because I can identify that once again he's being driven mostly by his kindness. He's there to support the WoL, who is in pretty rough shape emotionally at the time, first and foremost, so no - given the circumstances, he's not going to take the chance to harp on about how the WoL's prime benefactor slaughtered everyone he loved and erased them from history for extremely dubious reasons. Nothing would come of that at that point. The thread of kindness and concern guiding him also comes very through clearly when he falters upon seeing the WoL sad about his departure and takes that long moment to cheer them up again before departing. He doesn't want the WoL to feel bad, and he can acknowledge that he agrees with Venat at least that WoL is an amazing person - WoL also won over Emet by the end of Shadowbringers, after all.

But as part of the overall picture relentlessly pushing that framing of Venat on us? Yes, it was tiresome, and I wasn't much into the "oh, you scamp" tone when Emet noted how very deeply Venat had screwed him over in particular. I was glad, at least, he fairly brusquely flipped Hydaelyn off and rejected her "apology" to him altogether.

[Rulakir]

He's there to support the WoL, who is in pretty rough shape emotionally at the time, first and foremost, so no - given the circumstances, he's not going to take the chance to harp on about how the WoL's prime benefactor slaughtered everyone he loved and erased them from history for extremely dubious reasons. Nothing would come of that at that point.

My first thought was not the time or place. I guess since the WoL is supposed to like if not love Venat at that point it wouldn't have gone over well. I understand it, but I don't like it. I felt the anguish when Hades said during his trial that the WoL was using the power that destroyed their world. The journey afterward of learning how much he loved Azem only for Venat to tear her protege asunder and be lost to him forever (while keeping him in tact to mourn the loss indefinitely). Hythlodaeus is still whole. Azem's the only one of the trio who is theoretically permanently gone short of eventually rejoining with their other shards, which the writers don't seem interested in doing after placing so much importance on being sundered and interacting with dynamis making for a superior race of people.

The thread of kindness and concern guiding him also comes very through clearly when he falters upon seeing the WoL sad about his departure and takes that long moment to cheer them up again before departing. He doesn't want the WoL to feel bad, and he can acknowledge that he agrees with Venat at least that WoL is an amazing person - WoL also won over Emet by the end of Shadowbringers, after all.

That scene is heartbreaking. Hell, any scene with Emet is.

But as part of the overall picture relentlessly pushing that framing of Venat on us? Yes, it was tiresome, and I wasn't much into the "oh, you scamp" tone when Emet noted how very deeply Venat had screwed him over in particular. I was glad, at least, he fairly brusquely flipped Hydaelyn off and rejected her "apology" to him altogether.

Thanks for the perspective. I still feel that his character was manipulated like every other NPC to be positive towards Venat. There was absolutely no need to commend her for anything as far as I'm concerned let alone make a declaration of respect on her behalf. That's what seemed egregiously out of character to me. He doesn't have to bash her in the presence of the WoL, but he sure as Hell doesn't have to do the opposite either. It especially didn't make sense given it was sandwiched between his comments about the burden he had to bear and not suffering to live by her magic. Not to mention him saying his ideals were inviolate.

[DevonEllwood]

But as part of the overall picture relentlessly pushing that framing of Venat on us? Yes, it was tiresome, and I wasn't much into the "oh, you scamp" tone when Emet noted how very deeply Venat had screwed him over in particular. I was glad, at least, he fairly brusquely flipped Hydaelyn off and rejected her "apology" to him altogether.

The way I saw that is that Hades was trying to tell the WoL what they needed to hear at the time and that's withholding his own judgement on Venat. His weird statement that included the title of his own theme just solidifies his attitude. He is justifiably angry and rejecting her "apology" was just the icing on the cake.

that being said, I am extremely glad that Yoshida doesn't want the characters to be reincarnated. I don't like the whole "spiritual successor" as it feels extremely cheap. If we are going to have characters like a previous character, then use the character.

And again, though I've finally understood Venat (thanks Brinne) I still hate the scions. I realized that other than Estinien, the scions are generally privileged, all come from sharlayan and I don't feel should represent humanity in the game. The twins even come from a rich family. Estinien literally walked in the shoes of his enemy and got to know him and shared his pain. The most important thing is we got to see that and we were there with him.G'raha Tia's story was only in writing and we don't even know how long he stayed in the calamity world before he was shipped off to the past. We don't see it, we are just told, this happens.

And since Fandaniel was brought up again recently...he's my second favorite character, or could have been if Hermes was just a bit different. I honestly thought the direction they were going for with him was him being against how society functions to make the people what they are. Someone who wanted the world to burn and change the status quo. I almost got that, and when I got to Elpis I thought it would still be the case, that he was just hiding his feelings. Then I saw him dangling fro ma tree branch and I almost said aloud "this is Fandaniel??". His angle about the treatment of life did not work for me. I find it especially ironic that we failed his question and he got as bad a death as Venat, while Hades and friend got a very dodgy explanation by Yoshida and they're both still there.

I still like Fandaniel though and he's been in some of the fumiest scenes in the game, which makes me ask, was the dinner scene supposed to be funny? Is Square Enix just good at making unintentionally funny scenes. I found Horsefart's death extremely goofy and I have seen multiple streamers laugh at cabbage kicking.

[Teraq]

And since Fandaniel was brought up again recently...he's my second favorite character, or could have been if Hermes was just a bit different. I honestly thought the direction they were going for with him was him being against how society functions to make the people what they are. Someone who wanted the world to burn and change the status quo. I almost got that, and when I got to Elpis I thought it would still be the case, that he was just hiding his feelings. Then I saw him dangling fro ma tree branch and I almost said aloud "this is Fandaniel??". His angle about the treatment of life did not work for me. I find it especially ironic that we failed his question and he got as bad a death as Venat, while Hades and friend got a very dodgy explanation by Yoshida and they're both still there.

I still like Fandaniel though and he's been in some of the fumiest scenes in the game, which makes me ask, was the dinner scene supposed to be funny? Is Square Enix just good at making unintentionally funny scenes. I found Horsefart's death extremely goofy and I have seen multiple streamers laugh at cabbage kicking.

Honestly Fandaniel brightened my day whenever he appeared ever since 5.3. I think I just enjoyed my mental picture of a Joker-like, watch-the-world-burn Ascian finally set loose and making absolutely ghastly creations like the goddamned towers made of flesh from a dismembered corpse... better than what his whole character actually turned out to be. The gross flesh walls, the horrifying mass zombification of Garlemald, the creepy and weirdly amusing dinner date as you are incapacitated... I loved it honestly, I thought he had a real horror vibe going on that we didn't have in other villains so far (along with the Final Days when they actually matter – I absolutely loved the scene where it starts low-key, and I love its "musical theme").

One way I can enjoy Hermes is if I project that Fandaniel onto him, very deep inside of him, stifled by the society and culture he lived in. Like you though, the "but what is the meaning of life and death" angle did not work me, and the whole animal rights thing, while IMO an actually justified question to raise for debate in Ancient society, just grated on me because of how much the game seemed to be taking his side at the expanse of Ancients as a whole (also, real talk: I am arachnophobic and will irrationally not tolerate any damned eight-legged fiend in my bedroom; I have a good friend who always goes "NOOOoooOOO WHY WOULD YOU KILL SUCH A NOBLE ANIMAL" and while I know she's semi-joking, it still kind of annoys me... Hermes just reminded me of that lol). I was just... tired of him really quick. I became more engrossed when he finally let the villain inside him shine, but then, you know. The plot happened. The time loop plot. The Kairos plot. Venat actually complying with the conditions of his insane test and the game apparently telling me this is the right thing to do because Ancients just kinda sorta totally sucked and she's a hero, and, honestly, just everything Venat. Damn it. You're hired, Danny.

Thankfully there's My Queen Aisara. Look at her, trading eggs and breast meat of Elpis birds for bicolor gemstones in plain view of her unhinged vegan ornithologist boss and still not having ended up dead in a ditch yet. Absolutely based. She's obviously the one bringing the exotic meat of animals that don't officially exist to boomer barbecues in Amaurot.

What I personally find strange is to use a close loop and advocate for a hope message at the same time. For me a close loop has a fatalistic connotation by nature because whatever you do, fate will no be changed.

Hope isn't for you if you're an Ancient, sorry! That's just how it is. Dynamis! Better luck next time.

I don't have high hopes for Pandaemonium.

I really should take this advice. Right before EW came out, I had tried some "lower your expectations by writing out the worst predictions you can think of" therapy with a friend. It almost worked, but then the plot threw Crystal Tower Babbydibus at me and gave me an Unsundered zone, all of which just revealed themselves to be fanservice gone horribly wrong.

He doesn't have to bash her in the presence of the WoL, but he sure as Hell doesn't have to do the opposite either. It especially didn't make sense given it was sandwiched between his comments about the burden he had to bear and not suffering to live by her magic. Not to mention him saying his ideals were inviolate.

I felt exactly the same: like he was saying one thing then the other.

Also, the path for Endwalker redemption as far as I'm concerned absolutely has to feature some good Venat bashing. Preferably by Elidibus because I'm awfully and terribly biased, but I'll take Emet, Alphinaud, the Ghost of The Bread and my own WoL too.

Yes, Emet fussing about Hermes and offering him a seat on the highest governance in the world because he felt really bad for him is pretty dumb. But then again, literally every single thing he did in Shadowbringers in terms of reaching out to us was also pretty dumb, and led directly to his own demise. As Ishikawa said, his kindness is his downfall - pretty consistently, it turns out.

It also makes Elidibus's approach, of abstaining from drawing memories, seem pretty logical, since it allowed him to focus solely on completion of his task, and prevent sentimentality or nostalgia from interrupting it.

For this reason, I would have loved to see a post-SoS Emet/Elidibus confrontation. Or really, more Emet/Elidibus at all, given how opposite they were in their personalities yet still respected each other as colleagues – but still, after 12,000 years, they've also probably had enough of each other a little bit too.

I can't lie, one of the best moments in recent MSQ for me was in 5.2 when Alphinaud metaphorically extended a hand by repeating Emet's last words that made us all cry – and how Elidibus reacted to that. Ice cold. The absolute mad lad. I almost stood up and clapped.

[EaraGrace]

As for Emet-Selch, it was always clear to me that he cared more than he let on. I don't think, for example, that it was a coincidence that he sought to empower the very people who suffered the most amongst the Sundered as a consequence of the Sundering.

Apologies, but if I may.











Whatever impulse motivated his choice at the beginning, did not save them from his machinations later. Zenos may have subjected them to horrors unimaginable, but Emet built them up so they would fall. Wounded lions meant to be devoured by vengeful hyenas.

[Teraq]

Whatever impulse motivated his choice at the beginning, did not save them from his machinations later. Zenos may have subjected them to horrors unimaginable, but Emet built them up so they would fall. Wounded lions meant to be devoured by vengeful hyenas.

Exactly – to me it's always come across as him picking Garlemald because they were underdogs, yes, but for the express purpose of exploiting these underdogs' resentment.

And I find it quite satisfying. After all, I don't shy away from identifying as an Ascian fan, not an Ancient fan first and foremost.

[Yencat]

Exactly – to me it's always come across as him picking Garlemald because they were underdogs, yes, but for the express purpose of exploiting these underdogs' resentment.

And I find it quite satisfying. After all, I don't shy away from identifying as an Ascian fan, not an Ancient fan first and foremost.

Yeah, it's also kind of his M.O. isn't it? He took a more "hands-on" approach with Garlemald but considering how resentful they must have been of magic and magic users he couldn't exactly be the wizard behind the curtain he would've been with Allag or Eulmore. Across 12000 years and all the shards there must have been many more we don't know about either.

It'd be a little cheesy and out of character if he randomly took actual pity on this one nation that's still around for us to interact with, I think.