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

[AziraSyuren]

Like, I'm sorry. I don't like Venat/Hydaelyn's logic, either, but you guys are starting to go too far with the torches-and-pitchfork mob now.

It's a case of disappointment stinging worse than low expectations.

I think the emotional response to Hermes vs Venat, in terms of anger and culpability, gets a bit more complex when Hermes's contribution to the "murder" essentially revolved around an impulse moment of psychotic breakdown. He did not consciously intend to end up in that position, and his response to Meteion's report, and Emet's reaction to it, seemed to be something of a snap decision. (Once again, Amon is a bit of a different story, of course.) There's room to speculate on how things may have turned out if he hadn't (in very cowardly fashion) wiped his own memory and had time to cool his head, along with, ideally, mental and emotionally support.

Venat could be seen as far more deliberate and premeditative.

I think there's a lot of cause to believe that Venat snapped in much the same way. It doesn't excuse her actions, but That Cutscene and the dialogue after the fight with Hyedalyn made it look like it was a spur of the moment decision, or at least one born of desperation.

[Brinne]

I think there's a lot of cause to believe that Venat snapped in much the same way. It doesn't excuse her actions, but That Cutscene and the dialogue after the fight with Hyedalyn made it look like it was a spur of the moment decision, or at least one born of desperation.

I think you could have that reading regarding the Sundering itself; it's a little more difficult with her decision to essentially allow Hermes's test to play out.

EDIT:

It's a case of disappointment stinging worse than low expectations.

Yeah. Lurina made a post way back when about how it's fundamentally the dissonance that makes people completely lose their minds. (Like me!)

[tokinokanatae]

Hermes is a villain, though. To do ill-thought out, reckless things (that are acknowledged as evil by the narrative) is a villain's bread and butter.

Venat is the weird "non-villain" that watches the man modifying his car in the way you described and goes, "ah, what a wonderful test of the bystanders' reflexes!"

[CrownySuccubus]

Hermes is a villain, though. To do ill-thought out, reckless things (that are acknowledged as evil by the narrative) is a villain's bread and butter.

Venat is the weird "non-villain" that watches the man modifying his car in the way you described and goes, "ah, what a wonderful test of the bystanders' reflexes!"

She did try to stop him initially, though. But again, I will never defend the point where she just gave up and decided "Welp. Guess I don't need to tell anybody about it." And I do agree that the Sundering was probably a last-ditch decision on her part, but (again) I don't agree with the logic.

[Rulakir]

The fact that Meteion could commune with the dead was disturbing. I can't imagine why Hermes would give her the ability to do that, especially as he did not hold the belief that death was "beautiful" as the others did. Despite my hatred of his character, depending on the dialog options you choose, he does express regret and apologizes for his actions. Venat's not sorry for anything and would do it again, and did if you consider she changed nothing after hearing about the future.

I thought for sure the fact that they chose the name Venat for her spoke volumes based on the character of the same name from FFXII, who was only morally grey if you're feeling generous but definitely presented as an antagonist. It's another reason why I think the gaslighting surrounding her character came after the fact and likely due to someone's insistence that Hydaelyn had to be portrayed/viewed favorably.

As far as her being the main antagonist, it's because for all intents and purposes the Final Days was averted. Mankind had passed Hermes' test and were trying to get back to normal. Her belief that they needed to be able to interact with dynamis was only part of the equation. Mankind had failed her test. It was also premeditated. Not only did she know since Elpis that she was responsible for sundering the world, she gathered people to her cause possibly under false pretenses to help her become Hydaelyn as we saw in the Anyder cutscene in ShB. Everything that happened after that point was a result of the sundering, not the Final Days. I'm not saying that eventually the Ancients wouldn't have had to address Meteion, but they had at least 12k years to figure something out and that was with Zodiark at substantially diminished power.

[CrownySuccubus]

Despite my hatred of his character, depending on the dialog options you choose, he does express regret and apologizes for his actions.

When?

The guy literally continues trying to kill you and keeps mocking you about the coming apocalypse right until you kill him as Amon within the goddamn afterlife. Yeah, Amon didn't see himself as Hermes entirely, but he sure as hell saw himself as Hermes when he asked "Was this the answer I was searching for?" In the end, it was still all about himself.

Also, even if Hermes himself was sorry about his actions right at the end, this changes nothing because he still got to live with his erased memories and get everything he wanted.

As far as her being the main antagonist, it's because for all intents and purposes the Final Days was averted. Mankind had passed Hermes' test and were trying to get back to normal.

Not really. If anything, the pre-Sundering cutscene showed that most Ancients had become horribly unhinged by the Final Days. Sacrificing other lives to revive their people aside, they were now twice as determined to live their lives as a paradise, and their disregard for non-Ancient lives was more pronounced than ever.

Doesn't excuse what Venat did, but this "And then all was well" narrative just isn't true.

EDITING to reply to below so I don't use up my daily post allowances:

I think you can also understand how someone who has a history with certain forms of abuse would find Venat's approach to murder far more personally disturbing, and thus prompting more outrage, versus Hermes's. (Not that Hermes wasn't abusive to Meteion. Oh boy, is that a can of worms.)

By the same token, I hope you can understand how someone who has suffered at the hands of privileged idiots who ignored various rules and warnings that are put into place for a reason would not give a damn about how premeditated Hermes' actions were before Ktisis. And then, after Ktisis, how someone who may be the victim of gaslighting, assaulted in a manner that they can't remember said assault, or may have lost loved ones due to one person's selfishness (for example, the millions of people who have died from COVID because of other peoples' stupidity) can see how evil Hermes was.

[Rulakir]

When?

I didn't choose a single positive option for Hermes, so it's based on what I recall from streamers. I know if you choose "Next time, we will find the answer together." at the end of the Aitiascope he says: "You have every right to hate me. For the fool I was, for the monster I became. But I will not beg forgiveness. The tale of Hermes - the man who knew so much, yet understood so little - ends here."

If anything, the pre-Sundering cutscene showed that most Ancients had become horribly unhinged by the Final Days.

That cutscene wasn't an accurate depiction of events and it was from Venat's biased POV. Even if we were to take it at face value, the Final Days was an apocalypse. Sauntering in and telling people they're not handling their trauma and grief the way you think they should is next levels of tone-deafness.

[CrownySuccubus]

I didn't choose a single positive option for Hermes, so it's based on what I recall from streamers. I know if you choose "Next time, we will find the answer together." at the end of the Aitiascope he says: "You have every right to hate me. For the fool I was, for the monster I became. But I will not beg forgiveness. The tale of Hermes - the man who knew so much, yet understood so little - ends here."

Yeah, that's not an apology. That's the OPPOSITE of an apology. That's "Okay, yeah, I fucked up, and I was way dumber than I thought. But I'm not gonna ask for forgiveness. YOLO, brah!"

That cutscene wasn't an accurate depiction of events and it was from Venat's biased POV. Even if we were to take it at face value, the Final Days was an apocalypse. Sauntering in and telling people they're not handling their trauma and grief the way you think they should is next levels of tone-deafness.

Not sure where you're getting the "this was from Venat's POV" argument from. This was a vision of their own timeline's history given to the WOL -- we have no reason not to trust it as events that happened. And if we do, then that throws literally everything about it into question.

But yes, Venat's counterargument was stupid. But, assuming we're going to trust that this is what happened, the Ancients were too far gone. Again, if we're questioning the integrity of the scene, then literally none of it matters.

[Rulakir]

Not sure where you're getting the "this was from Venat's POV" argument from. This was a vision of their own timeline's history given to the WOL -- we have no reason not to trust it as events that happened. And if we do, then that throws literally everything about it into question.

Nothing about that scene follows events as we know them. There was no group of people who sacrificed themselves for Venat to become Hydaelyn and there was no grand battle between Hydaelyn and Zodiark. The sundering also happened after the world had been restored via the second sacrifice (which Venat made no attempt to stop), the Final Days is still occurring in the background when she approaches the group of strawmen who are begging Zodiark to restore their world.

I shouldn't even say it's Venat's POV beyond her low opinion of her brethren because none of that cutscene is accurate to history as we know it. I've heard it called a montage, an abridged version, etc. Whatever it is, it was not literal and certainly not meant to be taken as such.

[VictorTheed]

To be fair, I find God's methodology there to be stupid, also, but I digress.

You and God have more in common then u might think, I'm sure after he read your comment he had the same thought about your methodology as well.
.

Back on topic, I enjoyed EW but I wished the Garlemald section had alot more badassery fight scenes to it instead of it being a peace core mission, I mean it's Garlemald, not the salvation army.

But that guy blowing his brains out was pretty bad ass, he was a cool Legatus or whatever his title was, I would have liked to seen more of him, but overall I'm happy we got to finally go to Garlemald.