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

[Theodric]

I do find myself wondering why Yoshi-P never thought to seek clarification as to why Emet-Selch was so popular...

I suspect that by doing so, he would have been forewarned of the pitfalls to avoid. Another problem is the desperation to make almost every antagonist and villain tragic and sad. It worked for Emet-Selch but that was due his circumstances being so compelling. He was forced to do bad things because his loved ones were wiped out for dubious reasons. Hermes...basically threw a fit and decided to risk the extinction of all life but then we're meant to believe that he did it because he...loved all life? That just doesn't fit. If the game was more honest about him being unhinged and having snapped rather than having a point then that'd be a bit different. Though we still get attempts to try and pretend as if what he did was in any way acceptable.

A good test, I suspect, would be to propose the actions of such a character to be inflicted upon the Scions, City State leaders and all of their loved ones.

Would they accept what Venat and Hermes did being inflicted upon them? No? Then it's probably not an act to glorify then, is it?

[Lucida3b]

As I said earlier, if hermes was literally bombarded with planets worth of despair or like mentally mutilated for what he percieves as a impossibly long time, it would at least "work" in the sense he is having a massive psychotic break, but it doesnt because its more a tantrum as you say

[Lauront]

[*]The gaslighting with him is eerily similar to Venat. We're told he has a "pure" and "noble" soul, yet he acts in contradiction to this. He may have moments where he expresses a seemingly sincere desire to change society, but beneath that appears to be a deep seated resentment towards others not thinking and feeling the way he does. (This seems to be a theme of EW that if people aren't behaving the way you want it's okay to force that behavior through violence.)

To me it almost seems like Ishikawa is suggesting that the goodness of the society surrounding him coloured his perceptions, i.e. resulted in him going on his search for answers in space with a positive mindset, not realising how unique Etheirys was in some respects (and this frame of mind collapses when he doesn't hear what he wants, triggering the worse aspects of his persona); we see in a more debauched environment, someone like Amon could emerge. Whatever one thinks of it, the story is putting forward the notion that his inherent soul propensity is to a kind of dissatisfaction with his surrounding society (and the concept of purpose when confronted with finality or death), which in Allagan society manifested more clearly in its uglier aspects.

I don't think the narrative re-framing for him in the Omega quest helped his case at all, really, but perhaps it is a case of Ishikawa testing the waters to see "well, if we try show some positive aspects to his actions would this sway anyone?". However, his 'test' is so far divorced from even what the Omicrons ruthlessly aspired to that it's not really possible to transplant this logic to him (and as Rulakir said, you cannot in the same breath dismiss this aspect of the Rejoinings, which in the end Venat made use of to bring her plan to fruition.) As was said before, it is a spite-driven execution of all life. Crowny's explanation of the differing meaning of "purity" in this context across cultures at least helps make sense of some of the words being used to describe him.

I do find myself wondering why Yoshi-P never thought to seek clarification as to why Emet-Selch was so popular...

I suspect that by doing so, he would have been forewarned of the pitfalls to avoid. Another problem is the desperation to make almost every antagonist and villain tragic and sad. It worked for Emet-Selch but that was due his circumstances being so compelling. He was forced to do bad things because his loved ones were wiped out for dubious reasons. Hermes...basically threw a fit and decided to risk the extinction of all life but then we're meant to believe that he did it because he...loved all life? That just doesn't fit. If the game was more honest about him being unhinged and having snapped rather than having a point then that'd be a bit different. Though we still get attempts to try and pretend as if what he did was in any way acceptable.

A good test, I suspect, would be to propose the actions of such a character to be inflicted upon the Scions, City State leaders and all of their loved ones.

Would they accept what Venat and Hermes did being inflicted upon them? No? Then it's probably not an act to glorify then, is it?

His story is one where you could sort of see a society like that of the Allagans resulting in such a viewpoint (still wouldn't justify condemning his people and the rest of existence to death), but they then go try force this in the context of a society which they portray in virtually all aspects as paradisaical (yeah, with some flaws, but again... relatively speaking, it is), and only mildly dubious in one aspect, and even then, there were others who shared his views, so he could've worked with them using his influence to change things if he was genuinely that unhappy with them. So in the end it just comes across as a rather ridiculous temper tantrum. I don't care for him to be justified as a character, so I am happy with it remaining that way.

[Lunaxia]

Just somewhat veering off the current topic briefly after going through some Shadowbringers content, as I'm feeling more and more like there really was a bait-and-switch somewhere here.

After several expansions of Hydaelyn being worshipped as this holy goddess figure and the Ascians reviled as evil villains, we're suddenly confronted with a story that makes a point of emphasising light does not equal good, and darkness evil. It is highlighted to us that Hydaelyn is at best too distracted and at worst too callous or disinterested to care for a reflection falling into ruin (at the hands of the element over which she by and far holds the most sway.) We are presented with the mechanics of tempering and how to fix it, post 6.0 rather pointedly so, alongside the information that Hydaelyn and Zodiark are a form of primal, and that the latter has already enforced a manner of tempering upon his people. They make a point of thoroughly humanising the villains, at the very least making their motives far more sympathetic, and their seemingly malevolent dark god is revealed to have been their saviour who saved the world and continues to protect it from destruction even now (how quickly is that brushed off in Endwalker.) We are invited to question why we've never been told about this entire, incredibly significant period of history, and later, at some point post one of the patches, the Scions even speculate as to the cause of Hydaelyn's silence during Shadowbringers, and allude to the possibility of our own tempering. Overall, not only are we given more than significant cause to question our preconceptions of we know but we are actively encouraged to do so, particularly regarding our impression of Hydaelyn and what we know of her, all during an expansion that explicitly states that light is little more than an element as prone to destruction as any other...

...only for the story to ultimately go "hah, nevermind", handwave... quite literally all of that, and revert back to making Hydaelyn an unbridled and questionable force of goodness and light, may you ever walk in the light of the crystal, my child, and so on and so on. Every single primal tempers and leaves lasting consequences in some form or another, except magically for Hydaelyn.

It just doesn't make sense. I really can't help but feel there was an original, different direction somewhere that was discarded to tie up the ending more neatly. The more I think on it, the more Hydaelyn's portrayal just doesn't seem to match Ishikawa's style of storytelling at all, either, and the more of SHB I go back to the more confident I am something went awry somewhere.

[Lauront]

I was discussing that with some friends yesterday. It also seeps over into Zodiark's presentation, but additionally in how Hydaelyn keeps referencing the darkness, though switching contexts so that it now means Meteion. This sort of reversion to the old "darkness bad" rhetoric is just mind-boggling following an expansion that set out to undo this preconception.

Also, by walking back on the tempering aspect of Primals which you mention, I think they missed out on a fantastic way to avoid making her evil whilst also committing her to a cause that would put her at odds with the protagonists. It need not be "hard" tempering like what we saw with the beast tribes, as that is down to flawed rites, but they could have had her being the heart for so long truly dedicate her to the Primal's purpose, and to that end, make use of tempering to fight her crusade. Both Ardbert and Minfilia had clues pointing to use of tempering, but these must've been dropped. We'd discussed possible clues of them rewriting this aspect of the story earlier in the thread, but I guess we'll never really know unless they come out and admit it.

[CrownySuccubus]

I don't get where people are seeing the "reversion" to "Darkness is Bad". Because the game never says that.

More accurately, the game treats Hydaelyn as unquestionably heroic, and Zodiark as completely irrelevant. Which is its own kind of terrible, but it doesn't treat him as bad or evil. At best, you could say it treats the Ancients as bad or "evil" for overrelying on him.


As I've mentioned elsewhere, there DOES come a point where a "subversive trope" becomes so widespread that it stops being subversive and becomes the new dominant trope. I was actually groaning during Shadowbringers during every twist that hinted that "Hydaelyn is actually evil" because at this point, I've played about 20,000 RPGs where the end goal becomes "Kill God with the Power of Friendship". To put my own spin on something Theodric said before, I've come to the point where I prefer to see "gods" and "deities" in stories presented as actual nuanced characters and not just "Big Goods" to be obeyed and "Big Bads" to be slayed.

So personally, while I'm glad they didn't go with the "Hydaelyn is the evil antagonist" trope, they actually messed that up, too, because Endwalker's moral lesson is so warped and contrasting to my own ethics that in trying to paint Hydaelyn as "good", the story wrapped around to making her one of the bad guys without admitting that she's one of the bad guys. And instead of "Kill God with the Power of Friendship", we got "Kill Literal Oblivion Itself with the Power of Friendship".

[Lauront]

I guess I could've phrased myself more clearly. What I am getting at is the way that Hydaelyn/Venat keep associating Meteion/Endsinger and the despair she brings with darkness. Not so much Zodiark, but on reflection, you'd have to forgive players who aren't as attentive to the lore as we are, for perhaps being confused when confronted with "The Eternal Darkness" within "The Dark Inside". This is not helped by Hydaelyn's codex later being added and referring to him rather uncharitably as the manifestation of an "ill-fated wish". Part of the issue is they're using the term in different contexts - one to refer to a type of energy, which Zodiark is made up of, and the other to signify negative concepts. By contrast, you have the pristine and angelic "Divine Light". With Zodiark I was getting more at his appearance, and it is relevant to bring it up in that context as well, because even though darkness-aspected beings tend to have a more demonic guise, it felt they went overboard with it in a way that wasn't really consistent with his statues or much of what we know about Amaurotine society. I did not dislike it, but it strongly pushed in the "big bad demon" direction, especially with the tentacles. With the codex in mind, I couldn't help but think they are trying to re-cast him as the embodiment of something bad, only moving the needle from darkness being inherently bad, to using the term to signify despair, and pushing him as the pathway towards the ancients' doom (the over-reliance, as you put it.)

And yes, on this:

I've come to the point where I prefer to see "gods" and "deities" in stories presented as actual nuanced characters and not just "Big Goods" to be obeyed and "Big Bads" to be slayed.

I am in firm agreement. Mostly because I do not like the whole "punch god" trope of JRPGs.

[Rulakir]

i.e. resulted in him going on his search for answers in space with a positive mindset

The impression I got was he was seeking confirmation bias in the cosmos. Particularly when you factor in that he was breaking all the rules because he knew this experiment of his would never pass the necessary protocols. His question of what gives their life meaning wasn't all Meteion was tasked with learning, though that's all he tells Emet who is able to point out the flaws based on that alone. Maybe it's too much time on the forums :P, but given his dissatisfaction with Ancient society I felt he was looking for evidence to show them that, "See? Other people aren't like this!"

I don't think the narrative re-framing for him in the Omega quest helped his case at all, really, but perhaps it is a case of Ishikawa testing the waters to see "well, if we try show some positive aspects to his actions would this sway anyone?"

The problem with 'testing the waters' is that it feels like they're still not getting it. People generally aren't okay with civilizations being wiped out regardless of the reason and regardless of if it resulted in a net positive in the future. It's troubling that either Hermes or Venat continue to be framed in this way. Apparently, the writers/devs aren't okay with civilizations being wiped out either - as long as they're sundered. Rejoinings are still consistently portrayed as wholly wrong and the people responsible for them as enemies to mankind. I just don't understand the dissonance here. The Final Days, in particular, wasn't meant to strengthen anyone. Hermes knew he was passing down an execution sentence. Maybe that wasn't Ishikawa's intention, but it does make me wonder if she actually played through the Elpis section of the game and saw the Hermes we were presented with, not the one inside her head. I particularly don't like that it seems to be the unsundered singled out to be greenlit for genocide, repeatedly. It's wrong for everyone else but them, apparently.

It just doesn't make sense. I really can't help but feel there was an original, different direction somewhere that was discarded to tie up the ending more neatly. The more I think on it, the more Hydaelyn's portrayal just doesn't seem to match Ishikawa's style of storytelling at all, either, and the more of SHB I go back to the more confident I am something went awry somewhere.

The more I think about it, the more I feel like the characters of Hermes and Venat are redundant. It makes me wonder if Brinne was onto something with her conspiracy theory that Meteion was originally going to be Venat's creation. At the core, they both serve the same purpose with minor variations. I can't even say the framing of either is that different anymore either. Hermes went from being presented as an antagonist to being the 'first step for mankind' and the Final Days somehow beneficial?!

I agree that nuance was completely stripped away in EW and I felt strong-armed through the narrative. Something I mentioned in another thread is that on this side of the screen I was angry or sad while my character has 3 different dialog options to express how happy they were. The disconnect this time was so extreme that even the excuse of roleplaying the WoL doesn't work for me. Hydaelyn I highly suspect was meant to be the antagonist of EW, but either 1) they decided she had to be good, 2) they were subverting expectations, or 3) both.

[CrownySuccubus]

The impression I got was he was seeking confirmation bias in the cosmos. Particularly when you factor in that he was breaking all the rules because he knew this experiment of his would never pass the necessary protocols. His question of what gives their life meaning wasn't all Meteion was tasked with learning, though that's all he tells Emet who is able to point out the flaws based on that alone. Maybe it's too much time on the forums :P, but given his dissatisfaction with Ancient society I felt he was looking for evidence to show them that, "See? Other people aren't like this!"

Based on what the writers have said, this was meant to be an allegory for Twitter. They said something like "Hermes wasn't strong enough to come up with the answers for himself, so he resorted to relying on the answers of others".

So, one way of putting it is that Hermes was struggling with depression and disillusionment, invented Twitter to ask if other people felt the same way, and then literally the entirely of Twitter responded back to him with copy-pasted posts from r/Blackpill.

Apparently, the writers/devs aren't okay with civilizations being wiped out either - as long as they're sundered.

Hermes went from being presented as an antagonist to being the 'first step for mankind' and the Final Days somehow beneficial?!

See my earlier statement about Buddhist parallels and the notion that "gods" have to lose their divinity and learn to become enlightened through suffering.

I could even further elaborate with points about Japanese Zen Buddhism's particular views on death, impermanence and the end of eras....but that would be going way off the rails for the moment.

The more I think about it, the more I feel like the characters of Hermes and Venat are redundant. It makes me wonder if Brinne was onto something with her conspiracy theory that Meteion was originally going to be Venat's creation

Hydaelyn I highly suspect was meant to be the antagonist of EW, but either 1) they decided she had to be good, 2) they were subverting expectations, or 3) both.

That was almost certainly it. In ShB, you can see the seeds being set for a "Venat/Hyd was the bad guy all along" twist, but my guess is that some people (whether it was writers or fans who felt similarly to me) did NOT want to go down this well-worn cliche for the billionth time. Even most of EW starts with the Scions questioning Hydaelyn or saying that she can't be trusted, up until the moment you meet Venat in Elpis, after which, her morality is never questioned again.

[Theodric]

I am in firm agreement. Mostly because I do not like the whole "punch god" trope of JRPGs.

Agreed. The Witcher 3 satisfied me on that front since there's at least two very powerful entities that Geralt of Rivia has to deal with on their terms simply because if he does not play along then he'll be snuffed out of existence.

I can't say I care much for this game's attempts to try and portray people's self insert characters as the most talented, most important and super powerful thing ever. It bores me to tears. When I immerse myself in a fantasy setting I like to explore. I enjoy role playing in settings that take themselves more seriously, too. Usually as a noble, soldier, merchant or something equally 'down to earth'.

I'm sure some people will make a quip along the lines of 'why r u playin a FF game then' to which I would simply reply that what we've been getting in the latter half of the game's active development is not necessarily what was present to such a jarring degree in earlier expansions.

Which is, I suppose, another way of saying that if ARR was in the style of EW then I likely never would have bothered investing in this game in the first place.

I just want some genuine loss and danger. Some meaningful stakes. I'd even take losing a competition during a seasonal event at this point. Please? It's just so predictable at this point.