Greedy for Gold?

by Mistress Nightshadow 

Is going for gold a good thing?

Well, I've been looking over a few things recently... Ok, so the Olympics are still in my mind, and the Paraolympics are going on around me still... But here's something I'd like you to consider. I'll get around to explaining what THIS has to do with RPGs, or indeed any gaming industry, after I show something.

As you very well know, the Olympics is about competition, about going that extra mile further, putting that extra time in. It's full of idealism about competing, humanity, being there and...

Who am I really kidding? Everyone knows that to just about everyone it's the amount of gold that a country brings home is really what they head out for.

Did I say something that might have disturbed you? Shaking your head in denial saying that it really isn't just about the gold? Maybe not for me or you personally it isn't, but trust me, when you walked around Stadium Australia and around the other venues, all the spectators came there to see their country win GOLD at a particular event. Not to come second or third, but just for the GOLD. First place. They wouldn't settle for anything less. In fact, I recall within the Australian commentry at certain events [which weren't, oddly enough, shown live to the public. I found out it was within the Media sections only.] saying that it was a truly dissapointing time, that it showed that they didn't try hard enough, and the athlete in question had come second in the archery.

In fact, one particular person put the whole real mentality of the Olympics of almost everyone who went into Sydney in a blunt, but damned accurate manner. "We're all greedy for gold. Really. Silver and Bronze? #^$* that, that doesn't mean anything! We want the Gold!"

Maybe striving for that first place is really a priority, I couldn't say. But then think about how much seperates first place and last place on any given event. Maybe a second, 10 centmetres, a single point. Think about how much pressure that athletes have to go through by their coaches, their friends and family, their team mates.... and the media and public. Particularly if they're exppected to win almost by default. Think about the fact that they're all expected to win... then realise there can only be one winner. Think about it if they somehow can't meet all those overhyped expectations and they fail to meet them exactly how their supporters and the media want them to.

Trust me, I saw plenty of people say how crap Cathy Freeman was when she didn't qualify in the 200 metre final [I believe she came sixth or so, and first was like two seconds away] and generally saying how much of a pathetic athlete she was... and just the day before, she was glorfied as one of Australia's biggest sporting legends when she managed to win the 400 metre. I had to deal with some of them personally, they were sports journalists and professional photographers, the people who knew sport inside out.

Another was the 'thorpedo', Ian Thorpe, being critized to the point of extinction when he didn't quite get gold in all the events he competed in... he missed one particular event... and he got silver. And he won four gold before that point I think. And yet, they thought he screwed up royally enough to say he was one of the world's worst athletes.

You'll never be able to confirm this, because journalistts are smart enough not to put that into their papers, nor reveal to anyone else their opinions unless in the presence of their collegues. Working as a serviceperson at the official photo processing centre at the Olympics can get you hearing a lot of stuff.

Would you think this is fair? After all they put in, after going so far, and performing so well, and just because they didn't do what the media want them to, they're seen as worthless?

What has this got to do with I want to say? Well, I went to the local newsagency and I saw an Australian gaming magazine, and since it had FFIX all over the front, saying how good it was, I decided to pick it up and flick through it. it had an eight page section on Final fantasy IX. Fair enough. Just past that were two import reviews of games we're not going to see. They were Chrono Cross and Valkyrie Profile. They scored very well indeed... A 93 and 91 respectively... but reading through them quickly found that 'they're just not good enough'. The reviewer advised that 'It isn't worth the money to import either of these two games.' and that 'We won't be missing them, FFIX will be far better than they'll ever be.'

Here's something to consider. No matter how good FFIX will be, it's only going to be seperated at most by 7%... and no game in the history of the magazine has ever cleared 96%, even supposedly perfect ones [They made a note of it once I believe]. That would leave them a meer 3% for it to gain more than Chron cross and 5% for Valkyrie Profile. Not much is it? I couldn't see how FFIX could ever be seen better than any other game by more than the slimmest of margins.

Contradictory? Maybe. Maybe it's the fact that within the RPG industry, that this 'only number one will do, screw the rest, even though they're very good rivals, they're not worth anything' mentality is settting in. It all started with expectations spectators placed on them... and how those expectations biased others in the arena, even though they may be just as good... and how the slimmest of margins can be expanded into canyons.

Think about the 'losers' of any given arena... they don't often lose by much. Do they deserve to be ground into dust for not quite being as 'good' as the one seen as the best? I think not.

Well, if you think that RPGs might indeed be heading this way, that I'm using this as a covert way to attack FFIX, or you think I've become too influenced by the Olympics, drop me a line at nightshadow_007@angelfire.com. I'd like to hear what you have to say about it.

Oh yes, and I am looking forward to FFIX... Well, at least I don't have to worry about importing an RPG for a while yet!