FFXIV Lore/Analysis - Emet-Selch, the Tragic Villain
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 2 авг 2024
- "The future you seek is not the past we loved. That is why we fought and why I lost. But though you defeated me...my ideals are inviolate. Invincible."
00:00 Me Fanboying over Emet in Endwalker
00:31 Intro
02:38 What Made Emet-Selch Successful?
08:14 Was Emet-Selch a Villain?
12:07 Emet-Selch's Personality
15:20 Emet-Selch Post-Sundering
25:56 Emet-Selch's Biggest Character Flaw
32:11 Emet-Selch's Redemption
36:18 Some Complications Regarding Emet's Character
45:09 Characters Related to Emet-Selch
46:46 Hythlodaeus Analysis
49:39 Azem Analysis
53:22 Symbolism in Emet-Selch's Character Design
58:16 Conclusion
Thumbnail artwork:
store.eu.square-enix-games.co...
Extra resources used in the video (developer commentary):
www.nhk.or.jp/anime/ff/ranking/
/ spoiler_60_famitsu_int...
bookwalker.jp/de824744de-9c82...
• YoshiP talks about EW'...
na.finalfantasyxiv.com/lodest...
• Record: Vestiges of Pa...
www.vg247.com/final-fantasy-1...
• FINAL FANTASY XIV Lett... 
Игры
"You don't have to be evil to be considered a villain. You just have to believe that you are right." -- Yoko Taro, on Drag-On Dragoon/Drakengard 3.
Thank you for this well-made commentary on our mutual friend Hades, holder of the seat of Emet-Selch.
Seeing Emet ranked among the likes of Cloud, Aerith, and Yuna is so awesome. Fully deserved spot
A surprise to be sure, but a welcome one.
I don’t see Emet as purely motived by resentment. There’s also love, for those who he has lost, and for those he can yet save.
It's precisely that love for his people and his friends, those attachments, that caused him to be unable to let go. So you are correct, love was a big factor!
To me, he has always been "for those he had lost" and omitting the part about for those he can yet save. He is willing to throw us away, even seeing one of his dearest friends in us and bonding with us clearly in Shadowbringers.
We are fighting for the memory of those we had lost and for those we can yet save but he's the distillation of someone fighting just for those we have lost.
"They were all right, in their own way," was the only answer I could think of giving.
Fair enough
The talk of how traumatic sundering has been for Emet puts the other two unsundered on a clear picture.
Elidibus was already losing himself due to dying, rebirthing and then separating from Zodiark.
And Lahabrea straight up lost his mind. He became a maniacal madman.
It deffo took a heavy toll on all 3 of them. I can't wait to discuss the other 2 in full once the raid story is finished!!
There evil
On the subject of Emett being "Tempered". Being Tempered by an Elder Primal grants a boost in power and both the hearts of Zodiark and Hydaelyn both desired to save the star, each in their own way andvit is this idea they share with those with thier blessing.
Elder Primals also do not have the brainwashing woven into thier aether like the ritual that summons the lesser primals but it can still happen if an unsundered person is too close to them and thier aether is weak. This is why Hydaelyn opperated via proxies for 10,000 years until our WoL comes into bring.
Ascians can't be "Tempered" like mortals can for the same reason they cannot use Dynamis. Thier aether is too big.
46:00 every second between Emet and Hythlo is just absolute wholesomeness and enjoyment :)))
Hythlo being sacrificed to summon Zodiark broke my heart :
You can definitely say he's a hero of his time that fell from grace. His personality reflects that of a weary man who's still trying to complete a mission, but almost out of steam. And when he's lost, he accepts it, because he isn't in his prime and even if he could win if he were, he accepts the reality of the situation, if not after making one last desperate attempt at victory.
Spot-on assessment!
In Elpis. he alludes to this as well. "Even more so, I invited you there! Invited my doom!"
Aka, the past Emet could not understand why future Emet wanted to suicide by WoL.
I dint see him as a hero of his time.
A story and lesson about a strong feeling of resentment might be why Shadowbringers resonated with so many world of warcraft players.. no matter if they realized it or just their subconsciousness.
A very interesting theory!! It was the wow refugee expansion after all haha
Damn FFXIV is so good it even reflects on the experience of the people who constitute a wave of stuff.
I wouldn't say purely resentment as he even admits he tried to accept people. He offered peace, lived with us and even had children with us. But he is unable to settle. That's when resentment truly takes hold. I believe it's partly due to a reality that he tried to resist, that he lost even the greatest o his friends. Hythlodeus offered himself to Zodiark, Venat become Hydalyn. those people close to his heart were gone, but seeing Azem, the ever confident hero unable to complete a task as simple as holding in Aether. It shattered him. That's when he becomes active in stopping us. That's when he is unable to hold out hope or cope with it any longer. That's when he wants to actually win.
Yes, it's deffo an appealing part of his character that despite everything, he nevertheless was willing to give these people a chance!
But while his willingness to try is commendable, it is diminished a lot by the fact that he isn't being open-minded about it. Now, this is of course understandable, he's so traumatized that the option to lower his standards simply doesn't exist for him. Which is a common theme with Emet-Selch. For a lot of his actions, we can really understand why he feels that way.
In spite of this understanding, I would nevertheless argue that his attempts to accept the sundered people were poor at best.
To use an analogy that I just cooked up on the spot (so not the most thought out thing but eh): imagine if I played XIV for the first time, and I went in with only negative connotations beforehand, and I would be overly critical of ANY flaw I could find while not acknowledging any of its positives, and the moment I found a single flaw I'd be like "wow, this game is garbage"
That's essentially how I view Emet-Selch trying to see merit in the sundered people.
@@imacuttlefish6832 Oh i completely agree. The part that really characterizes him in his outburst is how he compared the ancient's eternal peace to our tendency to fight. Every kind word he gives us has an undertone of thinking we are lesser.
He only become malicious after our failure though. Half of shadowbringers feels like he's trying to lose and even at the end it feels like he wanted us to confront him at his home able to hold the light like Azem would be. It feels like he's grasping at straws and puts his trust in us to measure up to something we couldn't be. After losing he accepts that we are the future for his people and his past is gone. That's why he chooses to leave at the end of endwalker. He accepts this isn't his world.
He's my favorite Villain though he can certainly be called an Anti-Villain as well
@@ThePhantomThiefDarkM Aye, you can deffo sense the desperation. When he says "Long have I awaited one who might brave a path of lesser tragedy.", he's for sure referring to Azem, and holding out hope that maybe the WoL, despite their fragmented state, might be able to pull that off. But in the end, it's a complete pipe dream, and as you said, when the WoL cannot contain the Lightwarden essence, that's when he realizes it.
@@imacuttlefish6832 His every expectation is too high and he's desperate for anything to measure up. It makes him such a tragic villain. Great analysis though.
34:22 I'm glad they gave him a turtleneck... Ascian necks are disturbingly long.
The Amaroutine banter is so good. Venat talking to Emet-Selch at 49:57. Venat could have easily said to 'smile more' instead she says to 'frown less,' lol. It's that kind of slapstick that made them all so loveable. For high-tier beings, they were very down to earth and relatable.
Emet-Selch's character destroyed my heart. Imagining him spending thousands of years old sad and lonely hurts my heart. And can you imagine the trauma of being the cause of all the previous incarnations of Azem. He was killing a fragmented version of his friend over and over to "fix" the world. He was entirely in the wrong, but I felt so much compassion for him. I just wanted to give him a hug and hook him up with the best sundered therapist that he'd obviously shoot down, because sundered, lol.
I knew we had to stop him, but I didn't enjoy it at all, especially hearing his final words. I finished Shadowbringers last month and his and the ancients' story with the calamity broke me. I would listen to the Amaurot dungeon music and quietly cry (and I typically have trouble crying, save for the occasional tear or two) But with Emet's story (and Elidibus' final words) had me ugly crying.
I can imagine waking up in the lifetream feeling pissed at his missing memories regained, knowing what happened on Elpis. I guess that was why he helped us during the Seat of Sacrifice. Such a well written character!
Oh man, I'd feel so bad for the therapist that has to somehow unfold Emet-Selch's trauma xD
Thanks for sharing this! It's reaffirming to hear that even people who play this story so many years after its release, still thoroughly enjoy it.
Emmet's tale could have been written as the protagonist. last champion of his people standing, looking to rebuild what was lost.
I suppose in a way, we do see that in the Nier crossover story, where he's the one narrating it all!
(edit: or, well, it's more like it's narrated from his pov, not directly by him, but you get the idea)
Emet-Selch is so good. I understood him at shadowbringers, but i loved him at the end of endwalker. Glad you waited
I think the influence of Tempering on Emet's actions is minor, but it *is* there. I think it's what keeps him really tethered to the past - the *idealized* one. We kinda see this during the Sundering scene with the other Ancients: They straight-up refused to acknowledge the terrible thing that happened and would rather trap themselves in the beautiful memories and innocence of their past. That's how Tempering itself works - it puts the soul into stasis and prevents the formation of new memories.
It's a cool interpretation and yeah, we could infer that maybe Emet's fondness for the ancients could be explained by Zodiark's tempering making him overly nostalgic (even if realistically he already has plenty reasons to be that nostalgic haha)
The exact effects of Zodiark's tempering are a bit hard to describe using our conventional understanding of tempering, cos of the unique circumstances surrounding it. The first primal to be summoned, the most powerful primal to be summoned, it wasn't created with the intent to temper unlike most primals, and then we have of course the fact that the ancients may potentially be affected differently due to their differing physiology/soul.
@@imacuttlefish6832 I think Tempering in Emet's case is an allegory for a time before his tragedy, when he himself was whole and undamaged. I could be wrong, but I believe those who are severely affected by trauma desire a return to their past before it happened as a sort of coping mechanism. The present and future becomes terribly scary because it's so unknown and potentially dangerous. More pain could be waiting for him. So, he, like the other Ancients, desired the bliss of ignorance and innocence before the trauma and thought Zodiark could give it to them. But, as they sacrificed more and more, they couldn't escape the truth of what happened. They refused to see it.
It's interesting, now that I think about it, that during the Sundering scene, Venat is one of the few unmasked Ancients, and she's the one most comfortable dealing with the trauma of what happened. Hythlodaeus and Emet are similarly unmasked. Hythlodaeus seems as accepting of the tragedy and fate as Venat is, but we can see the raw hurt Emet endures with the whole thing. From then on, he basically wears the mask of another person's body.
thank you for this
Thanks :D it's always great to hear other perspectives, so I'm glad to have been able to provide that for ya!
Excellent analysis!! Perfect timing too ive been playing through endwalker again and been having Emet-Selch feels. He is a great character and deserves understanding.
Thank you!
I hope you enjoyed the replay. Endwalker definitely makes his character even better!
Didnt the Moon Rabbits say something along the lines of "the primals only tempered people because of the people who summoned them imperfect/sundered version of creation magicks." Hence why when they summoned the primals to be used as fuel they did not temper anyone.
They did indeed. Emet-Selch does nevertheless state in optional dialogue (shown at 39:02) that he was tempered. Theres some discussion about that contradiction in the narrative in one fhe comments here. I basically chose to go with Emet's account because... well, it's an analysis of Emet's character so it made sense to bring it up.
One of the best videos I've seen on RUclips!
There is a difference, however, between a villain and an antagonist, and I would proffer that Emet is an antagonist. As for his resentment, IMHO, it was *rightful* resentment. Venat, if she had *not* resolved to fulfill the timeloop, if she had bothered to *share what she knew* with Emet, could have avoided the genocide she committed.
Ah, I'm glad someone brought this up! When writing the script, I did give it some thought as to whether or not I want to make that distinction. Aye, Emet-Selch's specific role in the narrative is that he's the primary antagonist. Antagonist generally refers to a character's role in the plot, but "villain" is kind of a more generic term, that often just refers to someone who does evil things
(like BBEG in dnd)
But as with many things, the two get used interchangeably mainly because "villain" makes more sense for the layman, which is why I ended up just calling Emet-Selch a villain. In that sense, I feel the distinction would have been superficial so I cut it out altogether.
I hope my reasoning made sense. Solid observation, in any case!
@@imacuttlefish6832 All good! It's just with the fact that people instantly equate villain with evil, I thought it was wise to make the distinction. Emet did some evil *things* certainly, but he was not an evil man in and of himself, in fact I would proffer that he was a *good* man driven to evil acts by understandable motivations.
I was bothered by EW's handling of Venat in the narrative as well, tbh. She did some very evil things with good motivations as well, as in the wilfull genocide of her own people, and yet she is painted as good and pure, with the act of genocide just being painted over. It hits as a narrative dissonance that simplifies the story more than it needed to be.
@@JohnSears1970 I don't want to write a wall of text here so all I'll say is: yes, you raise a valid point, though I have my own take on that and many other things regarding Venat. Perhaps if I'm feeling not lazy I'll get on it and have a video about her hahah
@@imacuttlefish6832 Please do! I have been shouted down by some portions of the community over my anger with the way Venat was handled, and it made me literally *hate* her to encounter that. It isn't a nice feeling.
And honestly, if they had allowed a branching timeline so the Ancients got their happiness too I think their handling of Venat would have been much more palatable, but the combination of enforcing a timeloop and whitewashing the shit she did really sat wrong with me.
@@JohnSears1970 she actually admits and knows that her actions caused more pain, death, and hardship. She is full of sorrow for the decisions she made. I may not agree with all her decisions but I don't envy her the choices she made. I can't say one way or the other if I would have made a different decision in het shoes and if I'm being honest, i likely would have done the same if the people could not be reasoned with.
*IF YOU HAVEN'T PLAYED FFVII/FFIX:*
These segments could be considered spoilers so if you aren't certain, skip them:
Final Fantasy IX from 33:26 to 33:31
Final Fantasy VII from 39:37 to 39:46
Thanks, can you pin this?
Nidhogg is another sympathetic villain, with the same "wouldn't we do the same?" thoughts about him. Gaius could also be seen as sympathetic given his characterization in Stormblood and Shadowbringers.
I think the difference is, Nidhogg was more of a force of nature. The true villain was Thordan, and Nidhogg was used as an obstacle. An dangerous example of what the cycle of violence does to people. Excellently written but not nearly as present as Emet, who's more of a temporary party member at points.
Yep, that was more or less my thought process when I said "But he's the first one where being sympathetic was the focus". Thank you for elaborating on that!
Nidhogg was finally a villain. A villian isn't free from being a victim.
Even tho thordan did what he did, Nidhogg killed generations (millions of souls who literally did nothing)
This really was excellent l, Baker.
I like the part where you comment despite him admitting he was wrong but he still felt his way was the right way. He didn't have to relent his beliefs just because his execution was inappropriate.
This as been my favorite look back I have seen so far.
I appreciate it!!
Yeah, it really mirrors the scene where he first introduces himself to the party. He wanted to see if the two parties could come to better understand one another. That's pretty much what transpired. Not only did we end up understanding the Ascians better, but he too was able to see the merits in the sundered people. Him gracefully accepting defeat and holding true to his ideals to the end is really the cherry on top there!
this awesome! you deserve more views
I appreciate it friend!! Perhaps one day
I loved your analysis and it has been a very entertaining watch!
Emet-Selch is my favorite character in this game and the main reason why I fell in love with Shadowbringers expansion and it’s story. He manages to be a very human and relatable character while still fulfilling his role as a powerful and menacing villain perfectly, all while stealing every scene he is in. I agree that him not having much influence/tempering from Zodiark is a better interpretation, as it gives him more agency and nuance.
It would be interesting to see your analysis of the other prominent ancient characters you mentioned in the end, especially Venat. Personally, I found her presentation as a hero in Endwalker story rather undeserved considering she committed what amounts to mass genocide and her reasons for why she had to do it not holding up to any scrutiny when examined. Emet was far too quick to concede that his people wouldn’t have been able to deal with Meteion(if that’s what he was conceding at all, he might have been talking about the ascians and rejoining, and I’ve been told that this line in other languages was more relating to setting foot in Ultima Thule)
Glad you were able to enjoy my thoughts on your favourite character!
I also appreciate the interest a lot!! I was going to talk about Venat a bit later, but now I rly feel like going for it sooner heheh
Omgggg can't wait to watch this!
It's worth mentioning that tiamat was tempered by bahamut when she summoned her lost partner as a primal and that the tempering effect was less extreme on her than it was on others. It was speculated that it might have been because of how she viewed Bahamut as an equal rather than as a god or a figure of authority such as a father or a king like the dragons of meracydia would have viewed Bahamut. Tiamat was tempered but had enough sense left in her to be concerned that if she was freed she could be a risk or at least if she came face to face with Bahamut again the tempering could be more severe.
the situation might be similar in Emet-selch's case. Zodiark was absolutely described by him as a god but first and foremost Zodiark was the greatest creation his people ever conceived of and his people were ones who created life seemingly as a hobby. Not only that Zodiark was intended to be a tool. the dynamic is very different to the creator/s already believing themselves to be subservient to the creation as has been the case with other primal summonings.
there would have been some influence i think. Perhaps some of the desire to save his people with a plan that had so many hole in it. Could have been part needing to believe in something in order to just carry on like was said in the video and it could also have been in part zoriark's influence obfuscating some thoughts that might have otherwise led Emet to be more critical.
Aye, it's deffo possible that his judgement may have been clouded by Zodiark in some way. Solid observation!
@Angelic Gamer They had the power of Creation. The Ancients' downfall wasn't that they couldn't deal with Meteion, it was that they did not know what they were dealing with. A half dozen or so Aether thinned familiars infused with hope and joy would have done just as well in Ultima Thul as we did.
Absolutely wrong
If you think the Ancients downfall was because of solely due to Meteion and that defeating her would fix anything, you probably missed the whole point of Ultima Thul. Or even the Dead Ends dungeon which condenses and repeats the message for you
@@zerosuitfalcon All cultures die eventually. But a defeat of Meteion would have bought them *millennia* more of existence, considering how long they had a stable post scarcity society *prior* to that point. And a Plenty ending would be much better than the one they got.
Very true! And Venat is chill about the whole situation because she was lucky to keep her memory of why and what. Everyone else have no idea of what is causing the 'End of Days'. She gathered her cult following and let them, and only them know of the coming doom. She even tried to get Azem in on it. -Azem never replyed to her request.
Hermes figures a way to deal with the 'symptoms' by summoning Zodiark but not cure the disease. This whole tragic event takes its toll on the whole world and in every individual psyche. People are desperate to find sense in all the madness but ofc Venat utter no word to truly help her people but fulfil a madwoman’s will of becoming a primal. She walks up to a gathering of desperate people in the ruins of the capitol, Amaurot and ask them to accept and embrace the unimaginable pain and suffering that has fallen upon them and move on. As any person having to live in an apocalyptic world would find Venat crazy and understand that she truly does not have the intention to help since she has not shown her face until now. The people she asked want to go back to praising Zodiark because the primal helped them in crisis but ofc with a great cost.
She does not like the answer she is given and sunders the world and kill everyone but 3 people. Venat is evil and she deserves no praise. She created a future in which she is in control and supreme.
@@majesticmagpie4108 how is she in control in that future, though? She becomes extremely weak, ephemerally so. There is also another thing... We are dealing with timetravel shenanigans, meaning, much like with Alexander, WoL->Ventat->Hydaelin->WoL is a stable time-loop. She was cursed with knowledge of a fact she could never divulge, lest she fracture the future, split the timelines or any other equally apocalyptic scenarios because the future NEEDS to happen, as she would never have known if the WoL never told her, and, if the End Days somehow stopped, the WoL would have never told her in the first place, while Meteion rising was an event outside the influence of the WoL. As a result, there was no way to stop the Final Days, as, should the WoL's tidings of doom be prevented by interfering with the End Days, they would be invalidated, thus removing her knowledge of what transpired in the first place, leading the End Days to happening regardless. She probably also undestood that the Ancients fundamentally could never stop the Endsinger, simply by virtue of being beings with no dynamis, thus unable to affect any change in a place like Ultima Thule, which simply overwhelms it by sheer quantity, paired with lack of ambient Aether.
TL/DR: The past was beyond salvation by the means through which the knowledge of it eventually reached Venat, shattering the time-loop removing the means of preventing the disaster, while the Ancients would have been powerless to stop Meteion regardless, as they had no way of using dynamis (and being complacent). Venat dooming them all to weakness and war gave them the fighting chance for the future, since the past was doomed beyond salvation regardless.
P.S. It is also worth mentioning the ultimate fate of the Ancients is very well presented in the Dead Ends dungeon, as the other perfect civilization who, having achieved perfection, chose mass extinction for lack of purpose. The signs were already there, what with the Ancients belief that once your duty ends, you should "return to the aetherial sea". In a perfect society, there is no need for improvement and no need for maintenance, as that is why it is perfect. As a result, a people driven solely by purpose would choose willing extinction, as they no longer had a "duty".
Amazing video. Emet-Selch is one of my all time favourite videogame characters and this deep dive really shows how much time and effort you put on your videos.
I do have one question tho. What is the Hairstyle on the Viera and how do I get my dirty little goblin hands on it?
Thanks!! As for the hairstyle, it may or may not be illegal content
My biggest hope for Pandaemonium? Is that this is a mechanism to give us an alternate timeline where the Sundering never happens and the Ancients get their opportunity to *live* happily too. They deserve it, IMHO. That way, for those who don't like the ancients and don't want that, they can just not do the raids and be happy with the EW story as it is. For those of us who love the Ancients and want them alive and happy too, we do the raids and get what *we* want as well.
Idk how to feel about that personally. Wouldn't it lessen the impact of the ancients' tragedy? That was kind of the whole idea behind their story.
But I can also see the desire to have a happier ending. I loved the Return to Ivalice quest ending in XIV; since it was basically a "what if FFT had a happy ending?"
@@imacuttlefish6832 To me it would be righting the *wrong* Venat did to them, thus making her character much less divisive and more palatable, at least to me. I'd rather a lessened impact of the tragedy and a sense of things being right and fair in the end.
@@JohnSears1970 Life isn't fair nor can it be quantified to a subjective perspective of right or wrong, by any means. Life is what it is, in all it's complexity.
I'm responding to a past version of you who may have changed how they see the world from 10 months ago. Am I truly capable of influencing the you from back then who may be different from the version of you in the now?
Emet can't let go of attachments. So he basically has the same flaw as Darth Vader who many consider to be the best villain of all time. Though Emet was more resentful, and Vader was more Angry he could not save those he loved.
Love this so much!!! Where did the art in the preview picture come from, it's lovely.
It's from the Shadowbringers vinyl set! I'll update the description, thanks for mentioning it!
(Fully agree btw, it's fantastic)
Haurchefant - cries in best friend
If you were to undertake a long undertaking of a retelling of the FFXIV story I'd def watch it. I'm honestly looking for one to show a friend because I think she would enjoy it but just absolutely does not have the time to sink into the game. But having a story in the background.
Quick question what is that chest piece your wearing I've seen it. A few times but I don't know the name of it.
I think I played multiple characters here but if you mean my miqo'te, if it's the brown looking one, that's "Cryptlurker's Corselet of Scouting", obtained from Eulmore for poetics
Man, I'm loving the video so far but I really wish you didn't mention spoilers from other ff games like 9 and 7. Really without warning just talking about how the villains are and who they are... I've only just started ff9 so it's really put me in guard on who to look out for now.
Mostly it is because you don't expect to hear about other games in this video unless you give prior warning
My apologies on that. When I wrote the script, I thought I was being vague enough, but when you drew attention to it, I do see that I could have said it with less detail still. I normally try to avoid spoilers for other games (I do mention them but I try to be as vague as possible). I'll try to be more careful about it in the future. I appreciate the feedback!!
And I hope I didn't ruin your FFIX experience. It's one of my faves so I would definitely do a disservice by ruining it for someone else.
@@imacuttlefish6832 I'm hoping I will forget the name of the villain by the time I continue and reach that point, as I am on a break from it atm. So hopefully it's all cool =)
@@stars-and-clouds Well, if it makes you feel any better. What I described there is not actually the main point of what happens. Im sorta only telling a tangential point and without the actual main point, that info is misleading. So when you go armed with only this knowledge, it's likely that you simply end up getting trolled rather than actually predict what's going on.
I nevertheless made a comment and pinned it just to potentially warn people (best I can do at this stage), cos I'm very much a spoiler sensitive person myself. For example, I don't watch patch trailers or launch trailers in XIV cos I want to go into the patch without *any* knowledge about the story. So I really relate to wanting to experience games fresh.
I’ve wondered about the hole of the 13th in Emet’s plan. It was a mistake. How was he going to fix it so that it could be rejoined if he’s already left it “broken” unable to be rejoined for so long?
Just hope it works out! haha
I guess utilize the Flood of Light on the First to counter the Thirteenth’s Darkness somehow?
we got that minion now tho
villain =/= antagonist. hero =/= protagonist. These are different words that mean different things goddamn
I appreciate the correction and indeed it's a valid point! BUT you have to bear in mind that for the layman, said distinctions are more or less redundant, "villain" is a simple and more commonly used word that gets the point across much easier. Had I used "antagonist", I then would have had to explain both terms, which would have essentially been filler because the distinction isn't ultimately required for any of the points brought up in the video. I hope that clears it up :)
There's another comment here with the same observation where I further explain my thought process, if you want to see more.
You could play a little game, if you like: every time I say villain, you simply CTRL+V the word antagonist :D
No it does not. Villian =Antagonist, Protagonst=hero.
While I like the english VO and they did a pretty good work with Emet's lines, I still prefer the Japanese VO for him, I feel it portrays his inner anguish a lot more and when he snaps at us you can hear the bitterness in his voice :D All in all, Emet is one of my most loved villains, compelling, relatable and most importantly believable! Funny is that if you put yourself in his shoes, you can easily understand his motivations and desperation to bring back his own people.
That's a pre dangerous comment lol, I hope we don't get some sort of war over English vs Japanese voices
@@imacuttlefish6832 Why would it be dangerous? I like both VOs and everybody has their own preference and that's all good, as it should be. FF14 players are really chill when it comes to which VOs they like I find.
@@setakh I've seen a lot of bickering about it over the years personally
@@imacuttlefish6832hm, I see. Maybe I was lucky so far but most of the time in my FCs and in-game when I discussed this it was nearly always a chill thing :)
You know, theres a plot hole I never see anyone address in the terms of Emet and the other unsundered: how are they unsundered? I had hoped pandaemonium would shed light since it involved the other two unsundered, but no dice.
It actually is addressed, but outside of the game.
They went into it in the Endwalker Q&A stream.
(side note: I hate how many things they address in this stream, instead of putting that info in the game, or at the very least in side stories, instead of a bloody Q&A stream...)
The answer is basically that Lahabrea and Elidibus happened to be hanging out with Emet at the time, and Emet's mastery over the lifestream allowed them to escape into the rift and escape the sundering.
Venat basically knew Emet would have to survive so she was pre much just hoping Emet would find a way to avoid it, and they seem to sorta imply that she deliberately allowed some kind of a loophole in the attack for Emet...?
Here's the full question and response (timestamped):
ruclips.net/video/N2TWmsce_eg/видео.html
And yes, I agree, I was really hoping to see the sundering from Lahabrea's and/or Elidibus's pov in the Pandemonium story.
@Imacuttlefish thanks for that. It does make sense, but it is also a bit disappointing. I thought since Laha pretty much self sundered he would have some ideas about it. Combine with Emet-Selch's magic I assumed that might explain it. Or even using Elidibus since he's the core of Zodiark might have had some insight.
I love to hate Emet-Selch. Getting to know him in EW content did not change my mind. It's very simple. I have no time or patience with those who cannot accept reality. He and the other two unsundered could not accept the reality that they had lost their words so they planned, plottted, schemed and scammed into killing billions so they would not have to accept what was. I understand him better, but it in no way changes my mind about him. Brilliant people tend to accept reality, no matter how unpalatable, no matter how traumatized. It's how so many make it through horrors we do not know.
Yep I deffo see how that could be one of his biggest flaws.
I do want to provide a counter-argument to the last take though. About brilliant people accepting reality. It actually seems to be kind of the opposite. To me it often seems that these intellectuals think of the world not as it is but as what it "ought" to be, so in that sense, if we think of Emet-Selch as an intellectual, it's quite fitting even.
@@imacuttlefish6832 truly brilliant people may have their heads in the clouds at time, but they do perceive and accept reality as it is, not as others tell them it is, and especially when all of the evidence points to accepting anything else is pure madness. The fact that the unsundered did what they did to Elidibus is Exhibit A on that. He didn't WANT to be Hermes. He didn't want to work to go back, he just wanted oblivion so he would not have to deal with reality. If that does not prove my point nothing will. He saw reality and he was quite mad.
I think maybe the spoiler warning came a bit too late. Mentioning it whilst the reveal that he's not completely out of the story after his defeat in ShB probably wasn't the ideal move
Ehh, I don't think so. Both the launch trailer and the Endwalker cinematic trailer reveal that he's narrating things. Funnily enough, the sole reason I have a surprised expression to this was because I did not watch the launch trailer.
Seeing that he narrates the entry into the first zone doesn't really reveal anything about his involvement in the XIV story, even the dialogue is hella ominous
In modern day storytelling, I don’t think we can say Villain and Antagonist is the same thing. I would say the distinction is someone who is unjustified evil is a Villain.
One thing I dislike about the debate is that there isn’t enough discussion about how the Ancients were better people. There is plenty of discussion that we “don’t really know” but that’s just choosing a side. If true; which we discovered it is true, then preventing that is an immoral act.
As for Emet stacking the deck, how is that different than a parent putting something their child isn’t supposed to have in reach just to test her child to see if they’d behave?
Villain and antagonist are indeed different terms from a literary pov, and I go over in the video why I chose to use "villain", it's because I'm a fan of keeping things simple.
I honestly find it pre arbitrary to try and distinguish between different terms, most people will understand what I mean when I say "villain" or "bad guy", or any such term, it means that's the main guy opposing us in the story that we need to take down, in order for the heroes to win.
So when I call Emet-Selch a villain or a bad guy, that in itself provides no commentary as to how "evil" I see him as, it's simply me establishing his role in the narrative.
@@imacuttlefish6832 I think it’s okay to clarify what you actually mean; that’s a good thing actually, but it’s not arbitrary. The two different terms have different nuances. Someone can oppose you, but that doesn’t make them evil or wrong.
Emet-Selch was certainly not temperd by Zodiark. Livingway explains that the original summoning spells don't contain any tempering elements when she is talking about summoning primals as fuel. Tempering was an element the Ascians included to cause chaos and keep the world divided.
So if you check at 39:02, as I am explaining it, I provide in-game dialogue (with a source) of Emet-Selch himself stating they were tempered.
I did note the Loporrit comment as I played Endwalker and had a thorough chat about it with a friend of mine. We came to the conclusion that it's either a retcon and they forgot about Emet's dialogue (it's optional, so they may have only checked mandatory dialogue when double checking the lore), or we can infer that Zodiark's summoning was unique, whether that be the size, the fact that it was the first time such a summoning was made, or someone intentionally did bake tempering into him, or some other factor.
So it depends on your interpretation on whether the two accounts contradict each other or if there is just something we don't know.
edit: though according to Emet's comment, it does seem to heavily imply that it was indeed Zodiark's sheer power which resulted in the tempering.
@@imacuttlefish6832 I agree that while the content of the comment was recent that would be the way to read it but in hindsight with the full story revealed I take it to mean something slightly different.
The line, "There is no resisting such power." I think the tempering he is refering to is the massive temptation to use Zodiarks power to bring back those who were lost in his summoning and to restore the land how it was before the final days. Before that point they had never known suffering and like a person who just lost a loved one, they would give anything and do anything to get them back.
The primals we fight literally mind control, wheras we see Zodiark is more a husk in need of a controlling heart to function (the same with Hydaelyn with Venat being the heart). Zodiark himself doesn't seem to have any will of his own, it's just a tool to fix a problem.
A hammers a hammer but it can't hammer unless someone wields it. The temptation to weild such power could be described as a tempering, a deep desire, but it's not mind control as we know tempering to be.
@@imacuttlefish6832 One of the things I always wondered, after hearing what Livingway said, is what the lopporits (aether-strong and users of Ancient-level creation magics) define as a 'slight tug'? Also, the tempering of the convocation may have been an unintended side-effect; despite the willing sacrifice of many during the creation of Zodiark, it would make sense there would be those who could not accept why their father/mother/sibling/child would choose to do this, and those being sacrificed would hope, as Zodiark came into being, that those left behind would understand / accept it was necessary. After the sundering, while they were planning rejoinings, it would not be out of character for the three Unsundered to decide that 'tempering' would be a useful tool going forward. But that's just my theory, lol.
@@coderpup4639 Aye, it's a bit problematic when writers do this kind of stuff. In the context of Shadowbringers, his comment made perfect sense, as that was the expansion where we learned that Zodiark/Hydaelyn were primals so yeah him being tempered by Zodiark? That makes sense.
Then Endwalker throws a wrench in there and says oh nevermind tempering is a deliberate flaw snuck in by the Ascians. So now we have recontextualize his dialogue. Even if, as I said, I would imagine it was a genuine oversight but we can nevertheless as players kinda fill in the gaps.
I like your interpretation, although a small gripe I have is that it would be a bit odd for Emet-Selch to not specify that he's referring to tempering in a more abstract sense rather than the literal tempering we are used to, instead of describing it simply as a temptation or whatnot.
In Qitana Ravel, he straight up used the term "primal" to refer to Zodiark/Hydaelyn, and made it clear that they are the same primals we know of, which would establish that he's aware of how he's communicating to us and making things explicit.
So him forgetting that tempering has a completely different context to us (especially when he most likely played a role in teaching people how to summon) would be a little strange. Unless we then assume that he was wanting to be misleading on purpose but I'm not exactly sure what that would serve.
As far as im aware (I could be wrong) Emet-Selch has never told a single lie that we know of? So yeah it is a strange one.
11:55
You’re confusing “Antagonist” and “Protagonist” with “Villain” and “Hero” respectively
Emet-Selch is an antagonist, whether he’s a hero or anti-hero, is based on perspective. His actions, without context, are villainous.
I, however, would argue that such a distinction is simply semantics and that, for the layman, such a distinction is irrelevant.
I always figured the sundering brought people to caveman levels...and only through the rejoinings and introduction of culture and technology by the Ascians did they begin to 'evolve'.
Yeah, the Twelve influenced the cultures indirectly while the Ascians influenced them directly (teaching them summoning, Emet-Selch building empires, pulling strings in the background etc.)
And of course people getting more intelligent after each rejoining probably helped a ton too.
The funny thing is of course that all of these things? Yeah, they only apply in the Source. One can only wonder how much slower people in the reflections progressed. They didn't have the Twelve, nor did they benefit from the rejoinings.
@@imacuttlefish6832 I feel like the reflections must unwittingly benefit in some way, as people on the source are hardly 7 times as intelligent as those on the First. The people of the source aren't taller than those on the First. So I wonder then if the "reflections" aren't still 'reflecting' the Source's changes.
I Dont think the sundering made the people dumber losing your memories doesnt automatically means you are dumb
@@eastbow6053 They did more than lose their memories. They were broken into fragments of what they were before entirely.
Zodiark and Hydaelyn tempering is not and was never a thing...tempering was something the Ascians added to primals on purpose to destroy the people, it wasn't there originally, as Zodiark and Hydaelyn were the "first and strongest primals" they never had this. It's not even a possibility, it's been said in a cutscene in game...not a thing, CONFIRMED.
So if you check at 39:02, as I am explaining it, I provide in-game dialogue (with a source) of Emet-Selch himself stating they were tempered.
I did note the Loporrit comment as I played Endwalker and had a thorough chat about it with a friend of mine. We came to the conclusion that it's either a retcon and they forgot about Emet's dialogue (it's optional, so they may have only checked mandatory dialogue when double checking the lore), or we can infer that Zodiark's summoning was unique, whether that be the size, the fact that it was the first time such a summoning was made, or someone intentionally did bake tempering into him, or some other factor.
So it depends on your interpretation on whether the two accounts contradict each other or if there is just something we don't know.
I had a pre in-depth discussion about this with a few people, in another comment chain under this video. If you want to read more, look for coderpup4639's comment and the replies below it.
He's is a villian not a hero.