The Defence

by Michael Harnest

**Author's Note: Sheesh, rough crowd. But I'm still staying in the kitchen; I said it, I meant it, I'll defend it. With such a vast array of opinions directed at me, coming from many different sources, I can think of no better way to present my defence than to just print the varying editorial titles and comment on their content. I suggest you read their editorial before reading my comments as it will make things more clear. And just so you know, my responses may appear lighthearted and perhaps not serious. Well, I had four good editorials slam me, so I think it is good that I approach the thing with a little sense of humour. I do not want this to become a vengeful war; we are all, if you remember, on the same side.

Here goes:

Michael Harnest ........ (Grrrrr!!!!) By The Dark Lord

First off, I never thought I would see my name in an editorial title, no matter how condescending the context, never mind that it is the title in its entirety (don't count the sound effects and let me have my dream, okay?).

Anyway, I would say there was quite the revolution. Japanese PlayStation sales to Final Fantasy VII sales were nearly one to one. Yes Final Fantasy VI sold quite well in Japan, but not one to one with the Super Nintendo, respectively, to be sure. On a side note, the Christian Revolution was not when Christianity hovered in Rome, but when it spread throughout the rest of Europe and the world.

Have you noticed an increase of role-playing elements in non-role-playing games? What about the hoards of role-playing games being released just this summer, as opposed to the two a year we saw pre-1997? In Japan, and North America, gaming magazines gave Final Fantasy VII perfect scores across the board, and many labelled it the greatest game ever made. Yes, in Japan, Final Fantasy VI was praised, and role-playing games produced wonderful gaming bliss for the public, but Final Fantasy VII still upped the ante a hell of a lot.

Your quote: "The [J]apanese FFVII sold more than five times as many copies as the U.S. one." My point in this rebuttal: Exactly what you said. Your primary argument is that Final Fantasy VII's impact was only large in North America, and since this only constitutes 30% (100 - 70 = 30) of the gaming industry, compared to Japan's 70%, it did not really impact the industry as a whole. Well, even in Japan it made the critics go gaga, it broke sales records, and it unleashed from the business games from other genres containing elements generally associated with role-playing games. Over here, it is still vehemently discussed today, three years later, and it has mainstream-ized role-playing games (and guess what, North America is big and important in the world. Do you honestly believe that making such an enormous breakthrough in a continent with a population of over 300 million people is NOT revolutionary, or impactful to an industry based in Japan? HELLO!!! Picture this: A Japanese executive realizing he just increased his market by 300 million people. Ever seen a picture of the Joker? I bet you he would look a little like that!)

Comparing Apples and Oranges to RPGs By kris wolfe

First off, I do not believe it is fair to assume that I go around categorizing video games, and labelling them, and putting them in various lists. I also think it is unfair to assume that I now play games with the notion of comparing them to Final Fantasy VII; I do not dislike games because they may not be quite as good as Final Fantasy VII. I believe you are too quick to judge.

"So what if the game they're playing isn't as good as FF7? That doesn't mean it's BAD. It doesn't mean it's not fun or that it's going to make their life worse in some way. It is entirely possible for something to not be #1 and still be good." When did I ever tell anyone that Final Fantasy VI would make their life worse? My platform was never to "bash" Final Fantasy VI, I believe it to be an integral step in Final Fantasy VII's success. It was, rather, to prove the grandeur of Final Fantasy VII (note the editorial's title). I will assume that by saying that your essay was a "semi-rebuttal" in the introduction you intended for these kinds of points to fall under the "semi" part. I never proclaimed myself as a Final Fantasy VI-hater, but a Final Fantasy VII-lover.

As for your arguments that actually do rebut me: You say that the gaming market was not as large during Final Fantasy VI's release as it is now. If you look at it, between Final Fantasy VI's release (where you state there was a small audience) and now (where you state there is a large one), is Final Fantasy VII's release. Yes, right in the middle. Which would lead one to assume something: That Final Fantasy VII was a major part the in the bringing about of the current industry boom. Final Fantasy VII was a hugely important step, and arguably the greatest, in the video gaming renaissance we are still feeling heavy reverberations from. (Maybe you should read The Dark Lord's rebuttal referred to above, seeing as he believes the video gaming world, and inclusively role-playing games, have always been enormous and North America's current contribution is unimportant seeing as it is just a small, insignificant speck in the world. You guys can fight out how big the gaming industry was 1994, I find it too amusing that two articles disagreeing whole-heartedly with me, can also disagree with each other)

A Rebuttal To Final Fantasy VII's Grandeur by Mike Duran

Again, let me say it, and let yourself believe it: Final Fantasy VII sold extremely well in Japan. Yes, the increase form Final Fantasy VI sales to Final Fantasy VII sales was larger in North America, but it broke records in Japan, too. Final Fantasy VI was adored heavily on ye olde island of love, from its over-populated shores to Mt. Fuji, but Final Fantasy VII's was adored all the more. I enjoy rhetoric: Do you believe that Final Fantasy VII did not vastly outsell Final Fantasy VI in Japan? It did.

Your next point is a stronger one. You say that sales do not matter, and use Mortal Kombat versus Final Fantasy VI as an example. I am going to try and lay this out straight: Sales REALLY matter. Sales indicate a connection with the audience. All games reach for a connection; they all have a target. Sales determine how successful a producer is with a game in hitting its target. In the case of Mortal Kombat, the intended connection was to satisfy a "ton of hyperactive pre-teens want[ing] the cheap thrill of seeing guts and blood," as you stated. The connection was successful: Pre-teens liked the fatalities, and they got their fix, so sales boosted. Final Fantasy VI, no doubt the greater game, did not make as successful a connection with video gamers. So what validates me calling Final Fantasy VI the greater game if I hold sales so importantly? Final Fantasy VI's intentions were far superiour: To affect its audience with theme. So let us say that Mortal Kombat aimed for a five and got a seven, whereas Final Fantasy VI aimed for a ten and got a nine. Do you see how that works? (Sorry for the sarcasm and condescension that may seem to accompany that line, I really do not want to sound like an ass).

Now, the Final Fantasy VI versus Final Fantasy VII debate is entirely different. You can justify the comparison of sales because they both aim for ten; They both strive to offer an adventure, to portray love, and to direct heavy themes. In the end, Final Fantasy VII creates a more detailed world, one where you can feel the oppression of the people in every one you talk to. It uses a larger array of colours, and is more effective with respect to artistic expression. This may appear to be opinion, but does it not have to be true? If effectively producing these characteristics in both of the games was the intent of the producer, and sales measure the success of hitting its target, does that not suggest that Final Fantasy VII was more successful in its aim of pursuing these characteristics. A well-scripted story, a fun game interface, pleasing visuals, an insistent musical score, in short a good game, will no doubt produce good sales. My argument is merely the logical reverse: Good sales suggest a well-scripted story and so on. In that case, the greater sales, the greater these aspects; hence, the greater the sales, the greater the game.

RE: Final Fantasy VII's Grandeur by Mike White

I find it to be kind of freakish that I, named Mike myself, have been rebutted by two people born with the very same name, this being the second of the two. Then again, it could be three: The Dark Lord could very well be named Mike as well, although I assume it is something more along the lines of Satan or Lucifer. Hey Dark Lord, love the horns.

Umm...

Anyway. The second paragraph of my editorial is primarily arguing that Final Fantasy VII's success cannot be credited to the marketing behind the game, nor the hype. Well, Mike White's argument is that Final Fantasy VII's success should be, in part, credited to its hype, thus Final Fantasy VII outsold Final Fantasy VI because of this, and not necessarily its quality. At least there was not another argument that Final Fantasy VII DID NOT outsell Final Fantasy VI in Japan (let me remind you again that it did).

I believe that my discussion of the role played by Final Fantasy VII's hype in my original essay was apt, so I am going to simply reprint it in hopes that you will all apply it to this editorial.

From "Final Fantasy VII's Grandeur":
"Simply put, the success that Final Fantasy VII came upon could not have happened by accident; or by luck; or by good marketing. Marketing cannot produce a good product, only good hype surrounding it. The analogy has been offered that The Lost World's sales dimmed after the hype had grown over. If Final Fantasy VII's total sales were based on its hype, its extensive marketing, and its graphics (to further the analogy, The Lost World boasted the same sort of visual splendour, or "eye candy"), they would not have reached their astronomical height. One thing is for certain: Hype dies fast. The instant that something proves to be consistently unworthy of its hype, it collapses: Marketing can start a fire, but not successfully keep it going. The hoopla surrounding a hockey prospect's talent only lasts through the first series of games. If he proves an unskilled player, all of the hype in the world surrounding his talent will not keep him on the team. In Japan, the ratio of PlayStations sold to copies of Final Fantasy VII sold is nearly one to one: Nearly every single person who owns a PlayStation has a copy of Final Fantasy VII. This does not happen by accident, or by luck, and cannot be credited merely to the result of good marketing. Final Fantasy VII made a large, positive impact due its content, not by superficial means."

My Conclusion

I have never written in first person before, I always believed it cheapened an argument. Making it personal reduced the expressed thoughts to coming from one person; using third person presented it as fact. Perhaps I changed it this time because I got zero (count that, ZERO!) editorials in support of me, and four in opposition, so it is all really just me talking. Then again, I am right. I may be alone, but I am right.

**Author's grammatical suggestion to all editorial writers: "RPG's" is wrong unless you are referring to ownership ("... this RPG's graphics ...."). "RPGs" would be the correct acronym for "role-playing games". Remember: 's = ownership, s = plural.