Feedback for your begging

by Brett Smith

You usually have great ideas, but your editorial about editorials was really off the mark. Merriam-Webster online ( defines editorial (noun) as: "a newspaper or magazine article that gives the opinions of the editors or publishers; also : an expression of opinion that resembles such an article <a television editorial>."

The first editorial you cite as being a good one -- Dan Crislip's -- is not an editorial at all. There is absolutely no reason why it could not have been posted on the front page of RPGamer as a news bit, rather than an editorial.

Michael Harnest's interpretation of Final Fantasy VII's ending certainly was argumentative -- he argues a point: that the ending of Final Fantasy VII should be interpreted as depicting the end of humankind. Sure, he points out things that other people missed, but any decent editorial will have evidence to back up the opinion it expresses. Saying that his editorial educates rather than debates is grossly incorrect; consider the fact that I wrote an editorial which interpreted Final Fantasy VII's ending entirely another way.

What you really ought to be speaking out against -- and I would agree with you wholeheartedly if you did -- is the simple rehash that frequently appears on RPGamer's editorials. That is, old-schol/new-school debates which bring absolutely nothing new to any argument, and simply rehash the same thing that's been said plenty before. These editorials are often lacking in evidence to back them up. They just say something for the heck of saying it. Yes, they're boring. That's because they're not well-written, though, not because editorials ought not to be opinionated.

Yes, the editorials on RPGamer, on the whole, could probably use some improvement. Taking the opinion out of them is not going to solve that at all, however. Then all you have is rehashed news. News, in itself, is boring -- the opinions around it are interesting.

<- Back
© 1998-2017 RPGamer All Rights Reserved
Privacy Policy