How, first, can you say that all of media is to just make money? To say such a thing for all areas of the media would be a lie; it is false. How then, can a teacher go about their business and not enjoy it? How can a Stephen Spielberg go about diresting his movies and not enjoy such a thing? It is obvious that they, and computer game companies, enjoy their works. They do it for themselves and they do it for the benefit of their fellow people. They wish to share their works, their thoughts, to and for themselves and the people around them.

Say that a craftsman makes a stool, and the man who bought it is uncomfortable with it, will he not mend it? He does this both for the benefit of himself (his conscience) and for his client. He does, however, expect a payment for his labor, and requires his client a good credit, so he may be as sure to receive that payment. In this case, Square and it's divisions are the craftsman, and it's game-players the client. And this grand petition is the client's good credit. How can Square turn down remaking the game when their profit is guaranteed to be moderate, if not great? They can, however, turn it down, but they would also be turning down an offer of great profit.

How can you say that such an action is out of greed, when the stool has been bought not yet complete? It is true that the craftsman must sell his product at one point, but why choose to do it uncomplete? It would be a recommendation that Square repair the unfinished stool while working on other stools as well, so they may not lose a profit. And they would, most certainly, gain a large profit from both the remake and the value of the original would soar. More than that, however, it would mean that Square took a different path with their plot, for once, and succeded tremendously.

To say that "If she had been ressurected, then she would commit suicide before the end" is forcing an image upon the reader. Who knows? Square tried to make a game. They have failed. They have, instead, gone far beyond the limits of a game.

Yes, this quote is unquestionably true. Not even the already famous Zelda 64 can stand up to this game. But, as said before, it has gotten far beyond the realms of gamehood. For all those of you who have played it, you know this. You know it's world, it's history, and, to you, it is real. It's people, it's history, and it's places all do exist, to those who have played this game. What game did you last play where you actually saw it's world as real? I should say that there are only a couple handful's of games where this is true. Most likely less, now. Yet Final Fantasy VII is at the very top of those handfull's.

Yes, I must say that in Final Fantasy VII Aeris dies. We know that. But the world of Final Fantasy VII is alive--still now, and is the only world who's history can truelly be altered. And it is the only world who has no destiny of it's self. And to say that if she was ressurected mere hours after hear killing, how can you truelly say that her death would have been, then, nothing? How can you see Jesus' ressurection as deeming his death on the Cross as a nothing? Lastly, Aeris Gainsborough's death was not intentionally done by her, or of naturally causes. She was killed. There is a difference between death and kill. A death is of naturally causes. Killing is by the opposite. Aeris Gainsborough was killed. She did not die.

So then, you can never go about your business freely--not if you enjoyed the game as much as I did, and the next person. Or loved it as much as I or the next person did. Or grieve about the tragedy as much as I and the next person did. But we can do something about it without destroying the maker. We can ask the craftsman to repair our unfinished stool that we know not how to mend ourselves.