In response to Stephen Gohan's Hyper Conservative Editorial

by Adam Lisbon

After reading Stephan Gohan's Editorial, I must say that I am insulted, disgusted and rather angered. Indeed, the Colorado shooting is indeed horrible and is something that cannot be ignored. But to blame video games entirely for this is insane, illogical, and unreasonable. I would like to make an augment against each of the points he made and then add a few more of my own thoughts.

Why did it happen, well according to Stephen:

"The cause is simpler than you might think: console-based role-playing games, and their characteristics."

First of all, it is NOT, in any way possible this simple. The fact of the matter is is that Video Games are the LEAST violent popular entertainment medium. Let's compare Final Fantasy VII and the movie industry. First, The American population comes in droves to go see movies. Americans are tried and true movie goers, and what are overall the most commonly seen movies? Action movies. The American public is wild about them. Action movies are loaded with blood, shooting, things blowing up, and cursing, otherwise they wouldn't be action movies. Final Fantasy VII and almost every other RPG is censored. "Shit," and "damn," were as severe as Final Fantasy VII got, Sony probably won't go beyond that. Blood is even RARER than curses are in RPG's, whenever you see a character bleed in an RPG, it's like someone spilled some red paint, nothing graphic, or even close to. Even in the Final Fantasy VII ending, there was blood on Sephiroth's face, no cuts or gashes, just blood, you didn't even SEE him get cut. The point here is that RPG's are not as violent as Stephen makes them out to be. These things are not going to inspire a massive slaughter like in Colorado by themselves. The Movie industry is far more influential than the Video Game industry is. As well as violent magazines and other forms of media.

The next problem according to Stephen is Realism:

"The plain fact is, realistic graphics and mV make us subconsciously identify the game with reality itself whether we realize it or not..."

"Images of explosions, gunfire and death that look overly realistic can and will subliminally influence just about anyone to commit murderous acts, if too much exposure results. Indeed, FF7 alone was responsible for much death and malicious impulses in our society."

Final Fantasy VII's graphics are NOT realistic. Do people look anything like how they are presented in Final Fantasy VII's FMV? No. When Aeris was killed and had the Sword go through her stomach, did anyone see ANY blood, no, not very realistic. When Sephiroth was turned into pixie dust in a ray of light, was that realistic? No. Final Fantasy VII IS realistic when compared to other video games, but not when you compare it to real life. As for the second quote, people are exposed to realistic violence every day. How many people become mass murders in our society as a result of this, not many as many as we think. I will continue my point with yet another one of Stephen's quote:

"Therefore, it is logical to conclude that all FMV should be wiped from future RPGs, and that graphics should be no more advanced than 16-bit."

This will never happen, and the reason why is that it isn't profitable. RPG companies like Square make games like these because people play them and want to play MORE of them, therefore, recessing back to earlier trends is unprofitable. I personally would love to see more "classical" RPG's, but we all have to be realistic, the industry is moving in a direction it can't turn back from without destroying itself.

"Realism is evil."

This is probably the worst defense ever. Many famous works of literature are based on reality, The Grapes of Wrath, Catcher in the Rye, and many others, are they evil, no, they are praised as great accomplishments. Same as with the movie Saving Private Ryan. So why is it evil when realism is in a video game?

Then there is character development, Stephen accuses character development as another evil:

"This has become a scourge among RPGs that rapidly spoil RPG players, turning them into sloth-like plot freaks who care nothing about gameplay and only want to be told a story or shown a movie, like babies."

Okay, Stephen is entitled to prefer solid gameplay over a deep plot, there is nothing wrong with that. But when you start insulting others because of different tastes, you are being prejudice, and unfair. People want to be told stories when they play an RPG, that's why they play games like Final Fantasy VII and Xenogears in the first place, they would also like solid gameplay too. But on a list of Priorities, most RPG goers rank a good plot above gameplay, this is why Companies like Square make games with storylines, people like them. They aren't lazy, fighting a battle requires just as much effort as understanding a good plot. People have even complained about how easy the games are in large masses. Stephen also feels that character development is evil:

"Predefined character stories, especially as realistic as recent games, only add to the subconscious idea of the player that these characters are real and can be seen as role models, and are to be emulated in society."

I can answer this with personal experience, I have NEVER in my life seen anyone emulate an RPG character, not once, I have never heard it on the news, nor have I ever seen little children imitating RPG characters. Chances are, most of you haven't either. There aren't even Halloween costumes of RPG characters. I HAVE seen people imitate Mortal Kombat. Is Mortal Kombat an RPG? No, in fact, Mortal Kombat has fizzled out in popularity. The characters in fighting games have a lot less character development and are imitated even MORE than there emotional counterparts. So go blame the makers of Mortal Combat and other fighters for corrupting the minds of the masses, not RPG's. This is one of the more "troublesome" parts of Stephen's editorial:

"I study advertising and its effects on the mind, and these predefined character personalities are nothing more than a very subtle form of advertising. What do they advertise? Violence, mass murder and going against the will of God by destroying his own servants, the angels. That's right, how many times has an angel been the final boss of a FF game? At least twice. I assure you, this is a sick joke created by selfish atheists who are making fun of Christianity."

Okay now this is the ramblings of someone who is a radical. Characters in RPG's do not "advertise" violence and mass murder. The "good guys" in RPG's do resort to violence every now and then, but so does Bugs Bunny. As for mass murder The "good guys" never advocate mass murder. The "bad guys" do commit mass murder, BUT, you never watch it happen in any stretch of the imagination, a game like that would never be released in America.

Now going against the will of God. First of all, everyone should know right now that there is no superior religion, that includes Christianity. As for Final Fantasy bosses looking like angels, this is absurd, most people don't know this, but angels and demons look the same. The concept of Horns and men in red was created in the superstitious Middle Ages. The Bible even says that demons are angels that strayed from the light of God. So therefore, Square isn't offending anybody, it just shows that Square has done its research.

Now about the Atheists. Atheists are just like anybody else, they just don't believe in God, Bhudda, Allah, Brahman, etc. A sick joke? Atheists don't believe in any supernatural being because they feel there is lacking proof of a deity. There are good atheists, there are bad atheists. The same applies to people of all backgrounds. Christians mercilessly slaughtered Native Americans, stole their land, and continued to do so for over a hundred years, who's selfish? I also acknowledge that there are many Christians who respect others regardless of their personal beliefs, but Stephen is not one of them, based on what I have read in his editorial.

Now here's where Stephen Ego is clearly having a rush:

"If character story and development is left to the imagination alone, the ideas will remain in the players head (being forged by the player himself, of course) and won't be strong enough to influence him to commit murder or anything. That is why it is so essential that RPGs go back to the old ways of the player creating his own character from his own mind, and eliminate predefined character personalities as soon as possible. I fail to see how that many people can disagree with me here, whether or not they're willing to admit it right now. Think it over, people. Just think."

What Stephen fails to see is that people play video games for the well developed plots and well developed characters. It's why the video game industry is making more money than ever, because it is giving its fans what they want. And I mean the majority of fans, not the small group of people who are incapable of supporting the video game industry if they were the targeted audience.

Now Stephen also attack women in RPG's:

"Female roles in RPGs. I'll only touch briefly on this topic. Females shouldn't be given roles that men are supposed to have. Tifa is an example of this. Women should be kept as healers or magic users and not be scantily clothed, or it sets a bad example for society. Women shouldn't be beating things up..."

This is ignorance in its purest form. Listen Stephen, society is changing, women have been dressing in slutty clothes way before Final Fantasy I, let alone Final Fantasy VII. Women are supposed to be treated as equals in our society now. The fact that you can't recognize that a women is capable of being strong shows that you are ignorant. There are many strong women today. There are plenty of women that can kick your ass, my ass, and plenty of other men. Then there is Stephen's point about how most gamers are men, not women:

"This may anger some female game players, but hey, just how many girls play games? Not many. So their opinion, while I guess it should still be considered, is far less important. If I'm wrong, let's see them tell me I'm wrong, right here."

Okay, now, men clearly play more video games then men, we all know it, but most guys are tired of the stereotypical weak magic using women and the strong warrior man. It's boring, it's unoriginal, it's old. I'm telling Stephen right here that he's wrong, whether I'm a women or not. So Stephen has not only angered female players, he's probably angered male players like myself as well.

My final point is that look at the nation of Japan, the Japanese have way more violent, television, videogames, and movies. Are the Japanese a society of murderers? No, Japan is the safest place to live in the world in terms of being a victim of violence.

Finally there is Stephen's closing paragraph, which is highly egotistical:

"That's really it. I know a great many of you are secretly with me and ashamed to admit it, so speak out. And for those of you against me, I dare you to even try and rebut every single one of my points. It may seem easy, but in the end I doubt you'll get far."

Secretly with you? Ashamed? Not likely, people wouldn't play the video games of today if "a great many of them were like you," Stephen. You've dared me to try and rebut your points and I have practically torn your editorial apart to do so. Folks, this kind of attitude is no different from the attitude of those kids who caused the Colorado shootings, it's just on the opposite end of the moral spectrum. If you want to let me know what you think, e-mail me at my address Temjirim@aol.com

Original Editorial: Why RPGs Should be Severely Censored and Devoid of Character Development