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

[Teraq]

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.

[Brinne]

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.

[Lauront]

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.

[tokinokanatae]

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?

[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.

[Rulakir]

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.

[Lauront]

^Seconded.

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:

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...

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.

[KageTokage]

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.

[ReynTime]

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

[Brinne]

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...