Quote Originally Posted by Lauront View Post
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.

Quote Originally Posted by Lunaxia View Post
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.