The True Meaning of Pong

by Brian Davidson 

Submitted by:	boogaleagoas@yahoo.com (Brian Davidson)
Spelling	2
Grammar	2
Coherency	3.5
Strength of Arguments	4
Presentation	3.5
Originality	2.5
Penalties	0
Total	17.5
Grade

Have you ever watched the pong ball soar gracefully back and forth? The paddle hitting it -- wham! -- just in the nick of time! Pong is a beautiful game, full of symbolism. The ball, as it speeds up and slows down, embodies our hero on his many missions. Striking the paddle and hearing the unique "bong" sound not only brings satisfaction to our ears, but symbolizes the triumphant end of our hero's journey and the beginning of his next. As the ball gains speed, the world grows older, the hero's quest more urgent, and the Savior Paddle even less chance of saving the ball's life.

Take a look at the above paragraph. Take a good look. We've all seen it before, in a different form, of course. Over examination of games, specifically RPGs, is getting to be a problem. I recognize that Pong is no RPG, but the principle still stands. Now don't get me wrong; editorials are great, debate is great, and deep RPGs are great. Give me Xenogears (XG) any day. There are, however, a few things that just bring it over the edge.

First of all, there is the all-too-familiar "war." All opinions, all editorials have faults. No matter how skilled the debater is, no matter what his evidence is, I assure you that there will be at least one fault, however small. When two clearly diametrically opposed points of view, such as the common "everyone dies at the end of Final Fantasy VII (FFVII)" and the "only bad people die at the end of FFVII" come into conflict, one of two things happen. Either the debate goes on in a friendly manner, between two or more people, and in the end, one side wins, or at the very least, the sides agrees to disagree. Believe it or not, some people can do this. More often, however, it escalates into a war. This battle of near-flames between the people representing either side can last a long time and leave horrible gashes in people's feelings. The participants will dive into these minimal faults, trying to expand them and turn their opponants' arguments into nonsense, yet only succeeding in making a fool of themselves. At their core, of course, neither viewpoint is necessarily correct or incorrect. The different people who attempt to use them, however, have the choice of doing it nicely or not so nicely.

Secondly, there is what I term the "crusade." When a person or group of people dive into a game themselves, they sometimes surface with truly unique viewpoints about the game and its philosophical ends. Games are certainly great for this purpose, as they allow a lot of soul-searching and personal thought. When people discover their own interpretations of things, such as believing that it is possible to succeed where Krelian, of XG, failed, and forge their own Deus ex Machina, that is completely their right. I admit that I have some odd philosophies of my own. It's when these people attempt to force their own philosophies onto others that problems arise. I'm not accusing any believes of any particular philosophy of anything, but such things do happen. As I stated above, debate itself is fine. Displaying your own philosophies proudly and even encouraging your friends to consider them is not only acceptable, but encouraged! However, threatening people and blatant arguments are not. In many editorials, the purpose is only to further the author's personal wants, not invite open debate. When someone attempts to literally control what people believe, he or she cannot succeed, simply because he has no right to. No particular philosophy lends itself to this kind of behavior, but just like some of the world's religions (which, mind you, are an entirely different editorial), the authors inflate it. Immanuel Kant has said that people must always be ends, not means. When a person selfishly abuses the privilege of debate, he uses people as means to achieve wider acceptance of his or her thoughts.

Lastly, there are ideas that are simply loony. As I said before, unique ideas are completely fine. When someone gets the idea (based on Xenogears' creation of Id) that it is perfectly acceptable for him to create his own Id and go on power trips - literally killing others - it is not acceptable. This is why we have mental hospitals. Additionally, when someone analyzes a game to a point where it simply loses all value, it is no longer worth it. Be careful when you think about games! Make sure it relaxes you, or you will become so stressed by the game that you may very well find yourself believing that FFVII's use of so-called "Materia" proves that Xenogears' Fei Fong Wong is insane. There is no real, tangible connection between the two, and you end up with something like the paragraph on Pong. Worse yet, you may find that you simply don't enjoy a game anymore, by virtue of having too much of it at once. In an English class once, we were forced to do this kind of interpretation all the time. Deep thought, again, is perfectly acceptable, but drawing supposedly advanced conclusions from nowhere is ridiculous. The books that I expounded upon are no different from RPGs. They have text, plot, character...all of the essentials.

Basically, deep thought and friendly debate is great. Just watch out for ideas that you love so much you might accidentally throw them at someone. We all know the feeling, but some people just don't want to be influenced by you. Learn to live with it and enjoy life. Share your thoughts, but share them wisely. Most of all, just have fun with your game!

Notes:
A very good, and often altogether forgotten point, is the one that the author makes throughout this editorial. Written well, with an opening paragraph designed to catch your interest, it's a treat to see such a peace-making editorial.

While not exactly an argument, nonetheless plenty of SoA points for the way he explains both why tempers get frayed and how we can overcome the situations. A very good editorial, with a very good sentiment.