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

[Brinne]

What I'm getting at with the Ardbert comparisons is not a personal attempt on my part to defend either Ardbert or Emet, to clarify - it's my attempt to demonstrate that FFXIV's writing (and Ishikawa's especially, as she's responsible for both the Warriors of Darkness arc in Heavensward and, obviously, all of Shadowbringers) has been consistent in regards to the capacity for twisted villainy and cruelty from the origins of what it portrays as not just kind, good people - but exceptionally kind, good people, with, again, the thesis that this IS the inevitable road a "hero" will wind up on under certain conditions (solitude, the agony and desperation of feeling solely responsible for protecting those around them.) In terms of Ishikawa's writing, this is also very consistent with how she approached the tenor of the Dark Knight quests. That the Warrior of Light themselves, out of their life of goodwill and having to inflict violence on some in defense of others, inevitably nurtures a subconscious darker half full of bile, hate, and resentment, and that can only be partially-mollified or at least kept in check by having a strong support network around them.

It's an Ishikawa thing not remotely specific to Endwalker, but it's been almost shockingly consistent in terms of how she approached the topic. For my part, I would say I fall on the side of appreciating it more than disliking it, and it overlaps with some of my own pet thematic fixations (which mostly has to do with rejecting Othering and protagonist-isms - I personally prioritize the sentiment of "the Ancients as a people deserved to be loved, validated and saved, and acknowledged as being so rather than discarded as necessary fodder for the 'greater good', even if their survival was sadly not the outcome as things turned out" over "Emet needs to be condemned for his methods" for that reason), but "the burden of solo heroism without sufficient emotional support from others will inevitably drive a person into a pile of twisted, self-loathing destruction" also isn't specifically something I feel strongly for, either. But it's pretty clear what the text has been getting at, and not very subtly, on a variety of fronts on the subject.

I think Emet approached the Sundered with the intention to be open to the possibility of their proving him wrong, but again, you're over-romanticising him and his story when it conflicts with what we've actually seen. Emet, at heart, from the very beginning, has looked down upon the Sundered, and views them as weak, feeble and foolish, and though he claims we are free to prove otherwise, because of his views, the Sundered were effectively doomed to fail from day one. His standards are impossible to meet, for they cannot overcome such perceived weaknesses as the limits of their mortality (which we see with his son) nor the constitution of their bodies or souls (the WoL.) It isn't a case of Emet just wanting to believe, but the Sundered cruelly betrayed him over and over; Emet is so filled with grief and contempt that he cannot and will not accept the Sundered regardless of their merits or flaws, as they will always be a pale reflection of the "perfection" that once was. He has burned himself out, because he cannot accept the way things are. It will never be good enough for him, and he ultimately come to terms with this and admits it himself.

I think your reading of this is a totally valid interpretation based on the text itself, but it's also explicit it's not the writer intent or interpretation at this point. I think it's very fair to point out the ways Emet trying to position himself (to himself, even) as more reasonable than he was really prepared to be due to a variety of his own shortcomings (and he's such a complex and nuanced character that it's GOOD that there are so many layers and cracks you can reach into to show the myriad of ways and levels he continued to betray himself), but since you mentioned in your posts not being sure where the writers were coming from in regards to his character and its treatment in Endwalker, their thought has always been, yeah, his attempts were in good faith and in earnest, even in regards to the unseen non-Azem figures he's reached out to throughout history. This isn't an Endwalker-exclusive pivot. Yoshida was giving the quotes about Emet's "pure-hearted" intentions all along back during the Shadowbringers era. As mentioned, at least going from translated interviews, "his kindness was his downfall" is Ishikawa's terms and framing.

That being said, I completely sympathize with and root for your right to go "okay, if that is the writer's intent, then I think that's stupid and wrong and undermined by the nuances of what they actually wrote." While I'm not wholly there in regards to this aspect of Emet-Selch (though he is complicated, self-sabotaging on pretty much every level, and his resentment and bitterness is also a huge driving force that can't be dismissed - not to mention it's a hell of an ask for others to reasonably understand him even when/if he is trying to be earnest because he's so outright nonsensically stupid and backwards about expressing it, in both the past and the present - but you're not wrong that I overall skew pretty sympathetic to him; part of that is that I think it's "easier" and thus more emotionally tempting for "our group" to write off his attempts to reach out as empty from the beginning, rather than daring to engage), that's basically how I feel about Venat and the Sundering myself. I see your intent there and it's bad in both thought and execution, writers.

The way I see it is, ShB landed with its writing, an interesting cast, its goal in creating a sympathetic, complex antagonist, and the overarching message of dispelling concepts of black and white morality and what is "good" vs "evil" , and I can applaud what it did well while not agreeing with the antagonist's actions or the subtle implication that his turmoil made them excusable. EW, on the other hand, failed in just about every metric including writing, characterisation, tying together the plot coherently and what it was trying to convey. I'm not saying it was a black void of enjoyment - it certainly had good moments - but as ShB had niggles during an altogether enjoyable experience, EW had some highlights during what was overall a disappointment.

All of this, for sure, I can nod along with and happily shake hands on, haha!

(And yes, Emet and Hermes's interactions were insanely good. One of my favorite parts of Elpis and of both characters.)