About Editorials!

by The Blessed God of Death 

The editorials section on RPGamer is the place for debates on anything and everything RPG. Over the couple of years that Iāve actually followed the sections of RPGamer Iāve never ceased to be amazed by many of the things that Iāve seen discussed there. It ranged from FINAL FANTASY VII (VIII) SUCKS, to how RPGās affect family life, and even violence in video games. All of these are worthy debates (with the possible exception of the first) but among it all Iāve noticed something that should be avoided. It seems some people are simply missing the point. Most obvious are the various rebuttals to the editorial Frustration Factor, by Mistress Nightshadow.

Unfortunately as I type this...I lack all the source material I need. At this point I can only read Frustration Factor: The Resolution as written by Boomerang. I recall an earlier rebuttal as well (but who knows with me, Iāve played too many games and my brains probably rotted by now) but since both editorials made approximately the same mistake, one will server as well as both.

As I said in the first paragraph, people are missing the point. Boomerangās editorial is a rather valid argument. However, it comes up short of completely sound as he misses the point. In her editorial...Mistress Nightshadow suggested an example of Pokemon being more violent than Final Fantasy 8. However, it is not difficult to tell that it was chosen not because she believed it, but merely for its level of absurdity. It shows that by simplification to its basic root the FUNDAMENTL PREMIS of Pokemon is worse than the FUNDAMENTAL PREMIS of Final Fantasy 8. The reason for it was to show how absurd those she was speaking out against are. It was a call to the censors to see the inherent evil underneath, when everyone knows full well that there is no inherent evil. Her point was that NIETHER GAME SHOULD BE CENSORED, and not that Pokemon is worse than Final Fantasy 8, perhaps she should have mentioned somewhere it was a sarcastic comment, but she probably thought the over all tone of the editorial would do that for her.

Later in the said editorial by Boomerang, he claims that the example is Īsillyā and then states that Īthe entire article has this sarcastic and ridiculous flavor to itā. Duh! That, my friend, was the POINT. If an editorial looks sarcastic sounds sarcastic, and smells sarcastic (er...something seems wrong there) then it IS sarcastic. Then after that he claims that is was not good because no one will listen to someone who is being sarcastic and uses Īsillyā examples. What I think he misses is that this was not meant to be read by anyone other than those who enjoy coming to RPGamer, and enjoy video games. Its target audience is comprised of people who think the EXACT SAME THING. It wasnāt written to change the mind of someone, who is pro-censorship, a gaming website is the wrong place to actually advocate something like that. She was simply giving us a highly sarcastic, and very amusing (to me at least who owns a sense of humor, pick one up friend it will do you good) look at the idiots who are running our nation. I see Boomerangās point about serious debate, but this editorial was not meant for a forum of serious debate, and it did not anticipate anyone on this forum to disagree. It exited to vent anger and amuse us, while maliciously poking fun at the establishment, which in my book is always a good thing. I think from now on, before rebutting an argument and calling someone Īsillyā you should really try to figure out what an editorial is saying, and then look at who it will be read by. Then you wonāt waste time misunderstanding it and thus leaving an editorial full of some otherwise very good points seeming somewhat lacking.

Now I feel better, and I am relatively sure I escaped that one without hurting anyoneās feelings. Now if you disagree for some reason, feel free to rebut me, but why not try dropping me a line as first, that way I can be sure and tell you whether or not you are missing the point.