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

[CrownySuccubus]

On the other, there's a portion of vocal players who insist that the player is obligated to dislike certain characters and factions. If they don't? Then they're attacked and accused of all manner of horrid things. It's very bizarre to me.

Wait...are you talking about the people who supposedly hate on other players for liking or wanting to side with the Garleans?

Than why did she even write him?

There's a difference between "not liking" a character and "loving to hate" a character.

Ishikawa and crew were probably hoping for the latter, but instead got the former.

[jameseoakes]

Wait...are you talking about the people who supposedly hate on other players for liking or wanting to side with the Garleans?



There's a difference between not liking to character and "loving to hate" a character.

Ishikawa and crew were probably hoping for the latter, but instead got the former.

I still don't get how they thought he would go down well

[Brinne]

Than why did she even write him?

This might sound weird, but a writer's perspective is going to be a little different from a general audience's perspective. I have no problem understanding Ishikawa on this level, personally.

For example: when I'm constructing story ideas (regardless of if they actually get written, I'm your classic lazy procrastinator), I find a pattern that a lot of my protagonists struggle with a flaw of Passivity. I am fully aware that, generally, most audiences find this repulsive as a character trait and most characters that explore it get a pretty large hatedom if their media catches on. But the writer's heart wants what it wants, and I still love the characters I've formed around that idea and wouldn't compromise them.

Or, for the aforementioned "my favorite character of all time," when details were first revealed about them in the story, there was so much hate directed toward them in the fanbase because a lot of their psychology wasn't necessarily something a general audience could immediately relate to - but for those of us who could, it became so meaningful to us that there may have been multiple weeks-long exchanges of fifteen-page essays obsessing over this character. The author obviously poured a ton of heart and soul into that character and their nuance, because they felt it was something worth exploring and sharing, regardless of if a majority of people would find it "likable."

It's not really as simple as "if you think people won't like this character, then change them." Especially since I would imagine Ishikawa figured, mostly correctly, that liking or hating Hermes wasn't going to be a make-it-or-break-it aspect for most people in the overall story.

[Theodric]

Wait...are you talking about the people who supposedly hate on other players for liking or wanting to side with the Garleans?

Yes - though there is no 'supposedly' in many cases. There's a handful of posters - particularly on the lore forum - who have actively stalked and harassed some of those who have expressed a fondness for the game's antagonists. Usually only in the case of the Ascians and Garleans.

In at least one case, a certain poster uses the exact same name across multiple sites where FFXIV talk occurs and actively tries to police/stalk anyone who...likes the 'wrong' thing in a video game?

As I said, it's all very bizarre to me.

[jameseoakes]

This might sound weird, but a writer's perspective is going to be a little different from a general audience's perspective. I have no problem understanding Ishikawa on this level, personally.

For example: when I'm constructing story ideas (regardless of if they actually get written, I'm your classic lazy procrastinator), I find a pattern that a lot of my protagonists struggle with a flaw of Passivity. I am fully aware that, generally, most audiences find this repulsive as a character trait and most characters that explore it get a pretty large hatedom if their media catches on. But the writer's heart wants what it wants, and I still love the characters I've formed around that idea and wouldn't compromise them.

Or, for the aforementioned "my favorite character of all time," when details were first revealed about them in the story, there was so much hate directed toward them in the fanbase because a lot of their psychology wasn't necessarily something a general audience could immediately relate to - but for those of us who could, it became so meaningful to us that there may have been multiple weeks-long exchanges of fifteen-page essays obsessing over this character. The author obviously poured a ton of heart and soul into that character and their nuance, because they felt it was something worth exploring and sharing, regardless of if a majority of people would find it "likable."

It's not really as simple as "if you think people won't like this character, then change them."

I think the problem is, is that the story seems to expect us to like him but then he's nothing but a slimy creep which makes some of the bits feel really bad

[YukikoKurosawa]

The story really seems to be trying to push a characterisation that's almost come out of nowhere on the player character and I find it really jarring as it just kills my immersion and I am finding the supporting cast friendships increasingly forced, I feel like I am being used by Y'stola and not that we are team mates

This happened the moment ShB established that "actually the player character (who is supposed to be a blank slate with no official backstory or personality) is the reincarnation of a super awesome and powerful convocation member who was all about adventuring and stuff that's why you're character is became an adventurer", which breaks the entire point of having a blank slate character in an RPG : not having an established backstory or personality.

And now they are quite blatantly forcing this "adventurer at heart" persona onto us , one's own personal RP for their character be damned.

[CrownySuccubus]

I still don't get how they thought he would go down well

Because like Teraq said, they tried every single shallow, surface-level form of "sympathy" they could think of, and failed to think about how it didn't make sense.

To quote him again:

While I have myself thought of him as depressed or neurodivergent, I fully agree that this didn't seem to be the intention at all. Both YoshiP and Ishikawa are pushing him as judging humanity in a "fair" which presumably implies rationality. The reason why I do headcanon him as depressed (as his Ancient self anyway) is so I can make sense of him, because I swear this character ping-pongs uncomfortably between extremes.
He cares a LOOOOOoooot (too much) about bad concepts like the unstable charybdis and the murder wolves, but he doesn't bother mourning the alkonosts they murdered? Meteion obviously wants to shield his fragile psyche from her sisters' report and is in extreme distress but he doesn't do anything to abort the entire thing?
He snaps (holes himself up into Ktisis), then he unsnaps (seems about ready to hand himself and Meteion in after the fight), then he snaps again (KAIROS), and then he... unsnaps again, as we are told he fought against the Final Days in earnest even though he resents humanity so much??? I'm sorry, but I don't believe wiping his memories of the last couple of days would suddenly not make him an edgy, resentful militant vegan. Am I supposed to believe his OMG-I-CANNOT-COPE-WITH-DEATH-IN-ANYWAY self would support the idea of Zodiark? The first, the second, and most egregiously of all, the infamous third sacrifice (which we have so little concrete information on, it regularly makes Venat supporters go on tangents even though it really is beside the point as far as her motivations go). I suppose Hermes, of all people, going with the third sacrifice is like... the single strongest headcanon evidence for the stupid Zodiark tempering having any effect at all on a character lmao.

Teraq is completely right. They wrote Hermes to be a character who "feels all the feels", but put almost no effort into thinking about how little sense it makes to hate that things have to die, but think that the killers' lives and opinions are more valid than the victims. He LOOOOOOVES life, but sides more with the alkohosts than what they murdered, and then sympathizes more with Meteion than the countless trillions she intends to murder.

There's a handful of posters - particularly on the lore forum - who have actively stalked and harassed some of those who have expressed a fondness for the game's antagonists. Usually only in the case of the Ascians and Garleans..

You once argued that the terms "stalking" and "harassing" is incorrectly used to refer to any type of legitimate criticism.

So, in the interest of making sure this isn't one of those cases, do you have links?

[Teraq]

There's a difference between "not liking" a character and "loving to hate" a character.

Ishikawa and crew were probably hoping for the latter, but instead got the former.

mfw the ridiculous saturday morning cartoon villain of the Weapon trial storyline genuinely entertained me more than Hermes

Also, BOY this throws me back to my Kuja-loving days some 17 years ago. I'd argue he's the "meaning of life and death" villain done right, with extra theatrics to boot.

[Rulakir]

The story really seems to be trying to push a characterisation that's almost come out of nowhere on the player character and I find it really jarring as it just kills my immersion and I am finding the supporting cast friendships increasingly forced, I feel like I am being used by Y'stola and not that we are team mates

The lack of nuance and diverse dialog options in EW was particularly immersion breaking for me. I'm used to the game strong arming me in certain directions, but not on this scale. I'm forced to like Minfilia, as an example, but she's not responsible for sundering my original self, condemning my two Ancient BFFs, wiping out the Ancients as a race, and then grooming my WoL to be her champion with deceit that ultimately leads up to my killing people my OG self loved. (Seriously, she is the most sadistic antagonist, especially if you take into account she essentially used Emet's love for Azem against him to further her ideological agenda.) There were many times throughout EW my character was happy/pleased and I'm on the other side of the screen angry and sobbing. It was a huge level of disconnect.

Then on top of this they give my character a personality that's not only nothing like my own, but I'd argue inconsistent with the WoL's character development throughout the game. Now I just assume we're going to become a traveling murder hobo, that seems to be what they have in mind.

Very good point, and it's a reason why I personally didn't care this much for the DRK quests.

I liked those. D: Esteem is as close as I'm ever going to get to how I envision my WoL. (I'm catching up on posts, so will address Hermes in another reply.)

[Lauront]

Than why did she even write him?

If the character stimulates you to think about things in a certain way, or gets a certain reaction out of you, they can act as a useful writing tool in that way. I am no writer, and I can't say I am a huge fan of him or even the intended (?) messaging behind him (other than "grow up and stop being so self-centered if you want your one-sided best and first ever hostage friend to notice you"), but I appreciated Zenos in that sense in EW. I think she was aiming to prompt some 'deep thinking' with Hermes but he was under-developed, the civilisational backgrop against which they were trying to demonstrate these points was poorly suited to it and so it came across as relentlessly pretentious and self-indulgent. At least in my eyes.