No More School!

When you think about it, there always will be differences in the games that are developed, produced, and eventually purchased and played. In almost EVERY aspect of EVERY game, things change. Even if the same root name is passed on, there is always something added to make it different. Using the "Final Fantasy" series as an example, there are at least eleven games, not including imports and emulators, in America with the words, "Final Fantasy", in the title. However, a number or another word and/or number has been added on, "Final Fantasy Legend III" as an extreme example. Characters passed down from one game to the next change, even if the change is very slight, as in the entire series of Link and his adventures. Though few, if any, words come out of the presumed to be mute protagonist, his skills as a human change throughout the series, including weapons, like his hookshot, which did not appear until his first appearance on the Super Nintendo. Before the thought, "The name is the same," passes through the mind, I urge you to keep reading. The living, breathing humans involved in creating a game change, as well. Their attitudes, mindsets, and inspirations change as they develop more games. Their names might remain the same, but they, as PEOPLE, change. So no matter what, if you try to find something about any two games that is the same, chances are that it will only be a name.

I have yet to tie this in to my main point. Please, keep up with me. At this time, I would like to apologize to fellow RPGamers in Europe, Australia, and any other region on earth without properly ported games for not being given the incredible games that were developed in Japan. I would also like to offer my apologies to RPGamers who live in Japan. This might apply to you, but you have more games to choose from.

Back to the point.

"But, what is in a name, anyhow? It's titles the public wants," to quote P. T. Barnum from the musical, Barnum. Even though Barnum was referring to his "Swedish Nightingale," this quote clearly shows where we, as gamers, went wrong. We get so involved in a title that we fail to see what else is out there in the world. Because the world out there continues to change without any individual's assistance, I think that the terms of "New" and "Old School" gamers should be abolished, to put it bluntly. Yes, this has already been discussed, but the previous editorials fail to recognize a few small, yet crucial points, and include contradictions within themselves.

To begin with, editorials in the past have referred to both Old School and New School games and gamers. Even while suggesting that one, universal School be implemented, they somehow manage to bash the School they are supposed to oppose. While seemingly trivial, this truly condescending flaw is much more in-depth than anything else is. It shows that, even though they are willing to acknowledge the other School, they still think that the other School's opinions are stupid and worthless. And the other School responds with comments about the first School's opinions, starting a School War. Pointless arguments lead to pointless wars, and, while I'm not trying to compare something like the Cold War to the gaming industry of the late twentieth and newborn twenty-first centuries, fighting is absolutely worthless. You can only control what goes on in your mind. Allow me to clarify. You can only control what goes on in YOUR mind. Everything else is indirectly affected by what you can or cannot control. It seems obvious, but not too many people know that fighting over something you cannot control is pointless.

Along those lines, I will acknowledge that the fight was begun by one of the so-called "Schools" around the time when RPGs made the crossover onto the Playstation. And, yes, I know there are other consoles like the Dreamcast and whatnot, but the Playstation truly developed, or I should say counter-developed, the two main Schools of RPGs. Pointing fingers and stating your opinions about who started School War will only bring more bouts between the "Schools." To reiterate, I know that the conflict began and was started by one "School," or perhaps both at the same time, but I wonder if this should have any effect on how you play the games you purchase.

Now, in order of appearance in the world as established "Schools," I would like to present some perspectives. Before I continue, I do NOT belong to any of the "Schools." I would, however, belong to a "School" if conventional thought were applied to my life. Alas, to ensure impartiality, I will not divulge such information, even though mentioning this may incite ill thoughts against my declaration of non-declaration. Inferring about which "School" I belong to will do no good to those who wish to read on because I will become Devil's Advocate to both sides. An open mind is needed to read these perspectives. If you don't have an open mind, please do not finish reading.

*minor spoilers for some well-known older games ahead, but they're only the names of the final bosses, and they don't really give away the plot or the ending*

At this point, I would like to play Devil's Advocate first in defense of the "Old School" gamers of America, to settle some differences. I want those who are relatively new to the RPG world to imagine that they have been playing games since they were very little. Perchance, they received their first Nintendo system on their birthdays in 1991, and with it, they were given "The Legend of Zelda," "Dragon Quest," "Crystalis," and "Final Fantasy." They spend every waking moment devouring every single two-dimensional image with their mind's eyes. Jumping for joy when Ganon was crushed, or the Dragon Lord was thwarted, or DYNA was destroyed, or Chaos was sent into oblivion, they began the hunt for other games to add to their collection. Upon finding few games worth purchasing, they made do with what they had. However, feeling thwarted themselves, they upgraded to the next system of playing, a whole new plane of gaming. With the dawn of imports, magazines covering foreign gaming, and the Internet, it was discovered that many Japanese-made video games were prevented from crossing the Pacific Ocean. Again thwarted, the angered players patiently awaited for the new games to come to the shores. Upgrading their hardware again to follow their favorite games or series, they were bombarded with beautifully rendered full-motion videos and images that crossed the threshold into the third dimension. However, they made the mistake of comparing the storylines and development of characters to what they had experienced on the comparatively graphically challenged systems of before. While it was indisputable that what they beheld was awe-inspiring, they felt that there was something else to be desired from the new style of games. They would have enjoyed these games except for one glaringly obnoxious element. New gamers had come along, gamers that had not followed the games as they had, gamers that asked too many questions about too many things, gamers that did not have the gaming experience that they had developed. These gamers were, what the older gamers considered, the plague that would cause a collapse in "deep-hearted, quality gaming."

*no more spoilers*

Now, I would like to switch sides and present a different story to the other side of the proverbial "School" of thought. I want those who call themselves who followed RPGs since their births in America or joined the gaming world prior to the so-called dawning light of the Playstation. I want them to imagine themselves being completely new to the video gaming world. They have never heard of "Chrono Trigger" or "Final Fantasy," or maybe they have played games, but never RPGs. Within the past three or four years, they received their first Playstation console, and even more relatively recent, they are given their very own copy of "The First Door," (not a real video game) the "New School game to end all New School Games before 'Final Fantasy IX.'" They trek through the game, enveloped in the glorious music, surrounded by the brilliant, colorful, and realistic images, yet they deeply enjoy what they believe is a very moving plot. They actually come to tears at the ending sequence from the seemingly flawless resolution to the game's conflicts, not to say that any one else does not cry. Then, some pompous dolts come along who think they hold the answer to all unasked questions from RPGs and their plots. The new gamers tell the older ones that they loved this new game for all the reasons previously stated, and the opposing gamers retort by commenting on the excessively simple plot development toward an infeasible ending accompanied by a buffer of cover-up images. Deeply offended by this unexpected attack, they new gamers offer a rebuttal to their rebuttal, remarking that the games of the past are too complex to enjoy fully. This time, the trained gamers are deeply offended by the remarks. The ensuing battles of words and lack of wit might have proven to last until the unlikely birth of a new style of RPG, in which all gamers could partake of its pleasure.

Regardless, neither group respected the other.

But, enough is enough. That is all a part of history, now. I now propose that the ideas of two or more Schools of RPGamers be abolished and a new "No School" be endorsed. While the idea that there are two generations of RPGamers cannot be avoided or ignored, we probably shouldn't even have one School. The only way this can happen is if we understand where we all come from and respect the opinions of others. We should stop the complaining and just shut up and enjoy the games. When you sit down and think about it, or write about it, you realize how quickly things change. The games have gone from simple fighting arcade games to detailed and eye-candy-like paintings on the screen. Then you realize that they are only marks on a CD, or circuits in a cartridge.

Notes:
A very nice editorial. The author dissects and analyses both points of view, both Schools flawlessly while still remaining neutral. The editorial itself flows very nicely, easy to understand and read except for a couple of points where there's a sense of over-clarification.

Furthermore, it's very pleasant to see a well-argued Schools editorial where the standpoint is truly neutral, with not even unintentional School-bashing. While the desire to abolish both schools isn't an especially new idea, this amount of depth and logic in the argument is. Despite the declaration of non-declaration, it would, maybe, have been a good idea to display which School the author /does/ belong to. It may have put the editorial in a little more perspective, maybe to highlight the author's natural bias and to what extent they've had to change perspective to take a neutral viewpoint.

However, there's very little else I can complain about - it's a very well done, well presented editorial, with very few mistakes and an excellent summing up of the problems of having two different Schools.