Disclaimer: The opinions expressed within this column are those of the participants and the moderator, and do not neccessarily reflect those of the GIA. There is coarse language and potentially offensive material afoot. I live in a house made of cheese. Don't say we didn't warn you.

Well, I think the first thing I should address in my introduction is the notion that these latest columns have just been a way for the GIA to take a dig at what's regarded as its closest competition. And now that the cat is effectively out of the bag about the history behind the GIA and RPGamer's staff members, I can understand why this could be seen as the case. When we've run into each other in person at trade shows and the like, we haven't exactly gotten into fisticuffs; in fact, the conversations were entirely civil. But to be sure, we've had our disagreements in the past; I guess the RPG community is smaller than you'd expect in that regard. However, in Chris's defense, I think that one media group bringing to attention potentially unfair or ridiculous journalistic practices of another is not only unheard of, but to be expected. Sort of the media equivalent of checks and balances. As an example, ABC has a news show hosted by Barabara Walters with a segment that I believe is called "Give Me a Break." In a recent episode, the anchor of this segment ridiculed several competing news sources for the absurd non-stories they put in their news tickers along the bottom of the screne for the sake of filling space.

Of course, I probably should have researched the name of this show, but I guess you could just say that I'm lazy. Either that, or you could accuse me of hating you. Of course, that assertion wouldn't do much to explain the new puppy, your shiny Jaguar in our garage, or the cruise to the Bahamas we're taking in December, paid for entirely out of my pockets. Or how I "bought" your freedom by emptying an entire clip into your pimp at close range. But you could certainly blame of not loving you, fine. Just be that way.

At any rate, I think that whenever some business entity or person reaches a certain measure of stature, it's fair game when it comes to pointing out issues of character. For the sake of example, I'll contrast two recent stories.

The first comes from my experience here at home: recently Mister Kirwan, president of the Ohio State University, was under fire for his involvement in a company accused of shady business dealings. Even though it's clear that he was never a participant in the underhandedness that was afoot, I believe it was not only acceptable for the news media in the area to bring the issue to readers' attention, but also the duty of the media. Most people would tend to agree. Conversely, we have the example of Kent Braithwaite. For his questionable actions, he got off with a humorous article, and nothing more.

The difference? Perceived level of respectability. On one hand, the president of a major university was involved in an organization of questionable business tactics. For this he was taken to task. Mister Braithwaite is a relatively unknown author. The dichotomy is evident. So I have to wonder: is gaming still the goofy author in the eyes of gamers? Is gaming not important enough a format to deserve the high levels of scrutiny that, say, ABC news would be subject to? It's something to think about.

Of course his letter was biased; as a letters column, Double Agent is about biases and opinions. If we DAs picked apart every reader who wrote in based on the impetus behind their viewpoints, not only would this column be about as exciting as breathing, people would too afraid to write in lest they have their characters attacked needlessly. Unlike reviews, it's a given that this section is entirely opinion-driven, and no measure of trust is implied. Hence the disclaimer at the top of every column.

Nice attempt to beat us at our own game, though. I always appreciate well-planned condescension.

Good question, Pendy. Unfortunately, I fear my response may disappoint you. Using my amazing powers of perception, I'm going to guess that you're a big DW fan, which is fine. The series, including this latest title, certainly has its strong points, and I can understand why people would enjoy the games. The thing is, many of the elements in DWVII are, in my mind, hold-overs from a previous era that I could really do without. Should I find enough time and cash to play the game, I may do it, but that would be strictly academic; a FF fanatic's foray into the world of DQ.

To elucidate, I'll begin with something most people who've read my columns know already: I hate random encounters. What's more, I'm kind of tired of the type of battle system DQVII uses. I'm willing to try an innovative system that may not be as painstakingly polished as DQVII's for the sake of trying something new. In that respect, it's more because I'm jaded than anything else. Also, I'm a big fan of strong, cohesive narrative in my RPGs; DQVII sounds too much like several loosely related fetch-quests for my tastes. Obviously these are my personal thoughts, and anyone is perfectly welcome to disagree with them. Still, buying a game with features that don't appeal to me, cash I oughtn't spend, just because it's popular seems kind of silly.

In fairness, if you'd ever told me that two of my favorite franchises would involve farming and stealing cars, respectively, about 3 years ago, I would have been incredulous to put it mildly. So there's a definite chance that despite my leeriness, I would end up getting a kick out of DQVII. Until I actually sit down with it, I'll hold concrete judgements.

Wow, that's a pretty harsh judgement. To RPGamer's defense, I would point out that the number of people reading this column who also visit that site are in small number in comparison to the number of readers RPGamer has. And the number of people who consider it that big a deal are even smaller.

Besides, most people who visit RPGamer seem to do so more for the "RPG community" aspect than anything else. I'd imagine they think it's neat that members of a site they enjoy had a hand in the work on a title like DWVII.

This actually brings up some points that I wanted to address in today's column. Like this letter, several people mentioned yesterday that the man who wrote the DQVII review was in no way involved with the copy editing, so it's really not an issue. To sound confrontational, in my typical manner, I disagree with that logic.

By joining the ranks of a media outlet, you accept that you've become a smaller part of a larger machine. With fan sites, sure, the site is its members. However, should a site or publication reach the point of being considered "professional" grade, the name recognition of the site itself far overshadows that of the individuals. People recognize Time Magazine, but the average person would be hard-pressed to name many of the editors currently employed by the publication. As such, the actions of a member of a media outlet are considered by most to be indicative of the whole. There are exceptions to this, particularly editorial sections and letters sections, but that's the general truth of the matter.

As it stands, RPGamer staffers have clearly built a strong relationship between Enix and RPGamer as an entity. Witness the DWVII banner, the contests, etcetera. And you can bet that internally, Enix America says that they've got a business agreement with RPGamer, not with Mikel Tidwell, or whomever may have handled the PR in this situation. If, after coming to an agreement with RPGamer, an Enix staffer sees a scathing review written of their recent flagship release, it's conceivable that the site's dedication to Enix and the business agreement they share will be questioned. In other words, people don't say "Staffer X gave Game Y a horrible review," they say "Site Q gave Game Y a horrible review."

I'm sure that Mikel Tidwell in no way influenced the grade of the DQVII review, nor did he edit out any negative comments found within. But the crux of the matter is that, for all readers know, he could have, and it certainly would have been beneficial to RPGamer to do so, given their business agreements. Further, readers have to wonder if the only reason influence wasn't asserted is because the review was satisfactorialy positive. It all comes back to disclosure: if RPGamer had nothing to hide, why was this never mentioned?

I hate picking on RPGamer about this, given the history between our two sites, as I'm sure this sort of thing happens all the time at other media outlets. I'm also sure RPGamer simply felt it wasn't important enough to mention, and no ill intent was involved; I'm just pointing out the way this lack of disclosure could be eskewed.

Of course, the GIA could also be accused of the same when it comes to contests and advertising agreements, which is just the point: any media organization could be. Which is exactly why we've always tried to offer full disclosure, coupled with fair, in-depth reviews. All we can do is try to win your trust.

It's good to see that I've built up a respectable legacy that will live on even when the day of my ultimate retirement arrives. You limey bastard.

An interesting question you propose, Codifer. And one that ensures I won't have to think of atopic by my lazy self. Thanks!

At any rate, why are gamers so able to see the best elements in several games and envision these being combined, when developers can't seem to do the same? Are developer incompetent or lazy? Or maybe they do all have these grand aspirations, only to have them thwarted by deadlines, investment limitations, and the like. So, readers, what do you think? Why do games fall short? And will any game ever be able to aspire to this sort of perfection?

Closing comments:

Well, you have your mission, men. So mail me already. Be a do-er, not a... not do-er.

-Drew Cosner, master of this aster