A Penny for Your Opinion?

by Matthew Furrow

In reply to Dan Highwind's "Opinions, and wow, more opinions!" editorial (originally a rebuttal to Wisdom's "For the love of God, let the horse die"):

I feel I must take a side on this issue, as I have attempted to argue very similar points to Wisdom's in past. Wisdom argued that "favoritism does not equal merit" for a game. In other words, if you want to measure a game's worth in a meaningful manner (i.e. objectively), your subjective opinion is irrelevant. You and I both may have loved Final Fantasy I when it came out, but this means absolutely nothing in a serious argument over Final Fantasy I's superiority or inferiority versus Final Fantasy VII.

Dan Highwind, instead of addressing Wisdom's point about subjectivity versus objectivity, simply constructed a strawman out of his argument. Mr. Highwind quotes Wisdom: you "can't judge a game's merit on how excited you were to play it." He then goes on to claim, however, this statement "means all the games that are good in my book don't count," and that "I guess there are no really good games out there. Seeing as how each and every game by itself is judged by the person who plays it and by how excited they are not only to play it, but to experience it, this means that no game is good (according to Wisdom)."

Mr. Highwind is misrepresenting Wisdom's argument, attempting subtly to juggle subjective versus objective merit, in an attempt to discredit his/her points. While Wisdom was pointing out that subjective appreciation does not equal objective value, Mr. Highwind perverted this argument by suggesting that Wisdom actually meant that no game can subjectively be considered good, or be enjoyed! Mr. Highwind neatly omitted Wisdom's statement that his/her argument "isn't to say that [Final Fantasy IV, Chrono Trigger, and other old games] are not excellent games in themselves, but it's idiotic to say that they're better games." Wisdom wasn't contending that the subjective quality of games can't be judged. He/she wasn't suggesting that you can't enjoy them, or that they weren't comparatively good games back in their day. Wisdom merely pointed out that your opinion is totally irrelevant to a meaningful discussion of a game's merit. You could really, really have LOVED Final Fantasy I when it came out, but this doesn't make it objectively a better game than Final Fantasy VII. Wisdom eloquently made a point I've tried to make in past--that nostalgia does not equate to quality.

Mr. Highwind went on to suggest that the difference in quality between Final Fantasies VII and I is because of the "huge difference in the hardware that these games run on." I couldn't agree more. Unless I misconstrue his argument, however, Mr. Highwind seems to be attempting to imply that Final Fantasy I is somehow better than Final Fantasy VII because the former had less to work with. Why should this be so? Being made for an 8-bit system doesn't make Final Fantasy I better than Final Fantasy VII. You can make excuses for the difference in technology all you like, but the fundamental fact remains that Final Fantasy VII is superior in plot, characterization, graphics, music, and every aspect I can think of in a game (save, perhaps, difficulty--which essentially means, you have to waste more time levelling up your characters in FFI than in FFVII).

Finally, the crux of Mr. Highwind's criticism of Wisdom. He writes: "So let me get this straight: Wisdom says that Wildfire is entitled to his/her own opinion, yes? Then why does Wisdom say that it gives no merit to an argument? Not to mention that Wisdom expresses his opinion throughout this entire editorial! I think I smell a contradiction! If Wildfire's opinions are not valid in an argument, then why are Wisdom's? According to Wisdom, his own argument is no more valid than Wildfire's. What's up with that?"

My reply is simple: opinions are NOT valid in an argument. Imagine if I wrote a history paper and argued, "Abraham Lincoln began his presidency as a moderate reformer toward slavery, but the course of events during the Civil War caused him to align himself with the radicals by late 1862--because I think so." Imagine a debate over which game was better, Final Fantasy VII or Final Fantasy I. If both sides just offered their opinions, the 'debate' would be meaningless.

The big difference between Wisdom and Mr. Highwind (and Wildfire) is that Wisdom presents reasoned, factual arguments and NOT personal opinion. Wisdom did not write "Final Fantasy VII is better than Final Fantasy I, because I enjoyed it more." To do so would be an attempt to measure a game's worth subjectively, as Mr. Highwind and Wildfire have done. In attempting to debate the value of a game, Wisdom was obviously attempting to analyse the objective merits of games--things that most people, though not all, will agree on as good features. Wisdom was not presenting opinion when he wrote "favouritism does not equal merit." He was illustrating a simple fact: that objective merit is not determined by subjective sentiment (especially not when that sentiment is several years old and veiled in a cloud of nostalgia and fuzzy, idealized memories).

Mr. Highwind writes: "editorials are essentially someone trying to persuade others to agree with his/her own opinion! You can't say that someone's opinion is not valid just because they liked a certain game that you found to be crap." Although it is true that editorials are about convincing people to change their opinions, an effective editorial will change someone's mind through sound argument, objective evidence, and logic--not through simple statement of opinion. Any number of people can opine all they like. Wisdom's point, and mine, is that opinion means nothing in a meaningful debate (which must, by definition, be objective). Nobody is saying that your subjective appreciate of Chrono Trigger or Final Fantasy IV is 'crap.' We are merely arguing that an attempt to convince us that Final Fantasy IV is a better game than Final Fantasy VII is an attempt at an objective argument over each game's merits--and that your opinion doesn't mean a thing in such an argument.

I have one last, unrelated, exception to Dan Highwind's editorial: his statement that "Unlike books, games are universal." Please pause for a moment to consider this statement. I have read the Lord of the Rings trilogy by J.R.R. Tolkien approximately five times during my life. Once was at age nine or ten; the second time, I was 12; the third, at 15; the fourth, at 17; and the fifth, at 18. Each and every time I read the books, I enjoyed them. When I was older, I picked up more on the characterization, Tolkien's mastery of language, and other subtle features that I just didn't notice when I was nine. The only novels which are not 'universal' are children's stories. Take any good novel 'written for' an adult, and you will be able to enjoy it regardless of how old you are. Compare this to computer games, which have approximately one percent of the depth, replayability, and flexibility of a good book. How many times can you play Final Fantasy VI over again until there is nothing new to it? As my junior-high English teacher was fond of repeating: "A good book is like an onion. Every time you read it, there is a new layer to peel away and enjoy."

Matthew Furrow mfurrow@mail.md

Original Editorial: Opinions, and wow, more opinions!