Forum:Temporary forums/Legacy validity: Difference between revisions

← Older edit

Forum:Temporary forums/Legacy validity (view source)

Revision as of 05:02, 12 May 2023

20,951 bytes added , 12 May 2023

m

SV7 moved page Tardis:Forum:Temporary forums/Archive/Legacy validity to Forum:Temporary forums/Legacy validity: Bot: Moved page

SV7

Tech, Bots, Bureaucrats, emailconfirmed, Administrators

228,839

edits

@@ Line 1: / Line 1: @@
-{{retitle|{{SUBPAGENAME}}}}[[Category:Temporary forums]]
+{{retitle|{{SUBPAGENAME}}}}
+{{archive}}[[Category:Inclusion debates|{{SUBPAGENAME}}]]
 <div class="tech">
 {{first pic|Doctor Who Legacy Game - Doctor Who|Doctor Who Legacy trailer. A very quick sample on what the game was about/its mechanics}}
@@ Line 101: / Line 102: @@
 == Discussion ==
+=== Support/opposition to the game's validity ===
 I fully '''support''' the validity of ''Legacy'', ''Sonic Adventure'', ''Bigger on the Inside'', etc. [[User:Pluto2|Pluto2]][[User talk:Pluto2|<span title="talk to me">☎</span>]] 21:44, 5 March 2023 (UTC)
@@ Line 117: / Line 119: @@
 I'm not disputing anything said in the post. I fully believe that OS12 reported the discussion as best they could recall it. (And I fully expect that the reasoning was something ridiculous like that.) It's a procedural qualm. I don't feel comfortable validating ''any'' video game given our extensive discussion of them and continued rejection of them, with all of that discussion taking place in the now gone forums. Other discussions have made me uncomfortable on procedural grounds, but this is just a bit too much for me to support. Again, I think I'm the only person who will feel this way. And I expect that it will be ignored. [[User:Najawin|Najawin]] [[User talk:Najawin|<span title="Talk to me">☎</span>]] 22:42, 5 March 2023 (UTC)
-: I do agree that the lack of any archive of the old Thread:#### system is really a pain, and makes it harder for us to run the site effectively. But at some point, that isn't ''our fault'', and we can't wait around for a proper archive because they likely are never going to come. It's been years since we lost that part of the site, and we can't just refuse to debate any topic which we also talked about between 2012 and 2020. I really do understand that the circumstances aren't ideal, but I disagree that these topics should be discounted. [[User:OttselSpy25|OS25]][[User Talk:OttselSpy25|🤙☎️]] 23:11, 5 March 2023 (UTC)
+: I do agree that the lack of any archive of the old Thread:#### system is really a pain, and makes it harder for us to keep the site running effectively. But at some point, that isn't ''our fault'', and we can't wait around for a proper archive because it's likely never going to come. It's been years since we lost that part of the site, and we can't just refuse to debate any topic which we also talked about between 2012 and 2020. I really do understand that the circumstances aren't ideal, but I disagree that these topics should be discounted. [[User:OttselSpy25|OS25]][[User Talk:OttselSpy25|🤙☎️]] 23:11, 5 March 2023 (UTC)
+:: I agree with OS25's comment above. Also I '''support''' the validity of ''Legacy'', ''Sonic Adventure'', and ''Bigger on the Inside'', along with a further discussion of ''Legacy Kids'' sometime later. [[User:Time God Eon|Time God Eon]] [[User talk:Time God Eon|<span title="Talk to me">☎</span>]] 23:24, 5 March 2023 (UTC)
+:::First, let me start by saying that I do ultimately want this story to become valid. However, I remember a good bit of the previous discussions about video games, and I do share Najawin's apprehensions that we're getting ahead of ourselves unless we're considering this a fresh start and disregarding video game precedent. Under what I recall to be our current policy, pretty much any degree of variability in the narrative has been ruled to make a story invalid. As an example, [[The Lonely Assassins (video game)|The Lonely Assassins]] was ruled invalid, despite having a very linear narrative, because there were dialogue options (which were entirely inconsequential to the game) which made what each character said variable.
+:::While the plot and dialogue of the game are fixed, which characters are present at any given point are not. You collect characters as you go in the game, with the narrative being that they are joining the TARDIS team, and any characters who have dialogue are guaranteed to join, but others are "rare drops," making whether or not they are present at any given point variable. Additionally, characters such as [[Cinder]] join in side stories, and it's unclear when those take place relative to the main story, so we can't just assume that each rare drop joins at the earliest possible time.
+:::There also comes a point in Chapter Three where the TARDIS team explicitly splits up. While it is clear which Doctors lead each group, it's unclear who goes with which Doctor (I don't believe there's anything in the gameplay preventing you from using the same companions with each group, despite this narrative).
+:::All this is to say that I do not believe this story can be considered valid under current policy of what is required for a video game to be valid. That being said, I '''really''' want that policy to be overturned and have for a long time. But, if that's what we're doing, we should do so deliberately and openly and also consider what we're changing the policy ''to''. This is not a small change and will affect a good number of other stories. [[User:Schreibenheimer|Schreibenheimer]] [[User talk:Schreibenheimer|<span title="Talk to me">☎</span>]] 15:16, 6 March 2023 (UTC)
+Not only do I '''support''' making these games valid, but I think a lot of the points made here can also be applied to other games of this nature. [[User:WaltK|WaltK]] [[User talk:WaltK|<span title="Talk to me">☎</span>]] 18:02, 6 March 2023 (UTC)
+: [[User:Schreibenheimer]]: thanks for raising these point about our current practice on video games. Yes, I guess the idea is that this spearheads a shift in the way we cover games on this wiki. I didn't elaborate it ''too much'' on the OP itself because well... it was getting big enough as it is (but that is mostly what I meant whenever I brought up that "gameplay and narrative can and should be split, because that's how the game was designed".
+: I suppose this also answers your point on, say, rare drops and Cinder only being achievable outside the main story: both of these are teambuilding, and therefore fall into the ''gameplay'' aspects. On [[Cinder]], we'd only mention the events of ''[[Bigger on the Inside (video game)|Bigger on the Inside]]'', because that's where she appears on ''cutscenes''; the majority of ''Legacy'' itself wouldn't be mentioned, except perhaps for giving context to ''BotI'' itself (in a similar way that we'd mention [[the Flux]] on [[Fugitive Doctor]] while discussing ''[[Once, Upon Time (TV story)|Once, Upon Time]]'': it contextualizes the adventure, even if she wasn't there for the main part of the event).
+: Also, regards of "''when'' some of the side stories take place within the main story" ''are'' important, but not for '''whether''' we validate the story or not. There are dozens upon dozens of valid stories without clear placements in a character's chronology (hell, there are several stories that ''don't'' logically fit anywhere in said character's chronology.
+: All of which to say: yes, validating ''Legacy'' would force us to reflect on how we cover video games in general, and it's about time we did so, imo. [[User:OncomingStorm12th|OncomingStorm12th]] [[User talk:OncomingStorm12th|<span title="Talk to me">☎</span>]] 01:20, 7 March 2023 (UTC)
+:: Adding a ps, this time towards [[User:Najawin]] (and I say this not as an admin per-se, but as a genuine sentiment): look, I know it's disappointing we don't have the Lost Forums to do research/counterargument, and I would '''love''' if they were available for us to do so. But that's the key work: '''if'''. We have been without them for over two years now, and their return is not a matter of "when", but of "if". I'm aware this is the first step in a potentially Big Change on the Wiki, and it's scary to do so without being able to compare and contrast with our present/past. But ''that's what these Temporary Forums were designed for''. If we can't make changes because we're holding on to the past OR to hopes that they will return.... we're doomed to stay stagnated.
+:: Now, of course, you have full rights to oppose this and any other threads you desire on this grounds, but you do see the perspective of other people who are less... willing to wait around and see ''if'' we'll ever get them back? Anyway, back to ''Legacy'' discussion. [[User:OncomingStorm12th|OncomingStorm12th]] [[User talk:OncomingStorm12th|<span title="Talk to me">☎</span>]] 01:25, 7 March 2023 (UTC)
+:::I '''''absolutely''''' see why others might disagree. I very much expected to be the only dissent. And, again, it was due to the magnitude of the specific change given the amount of prior discussion. [[User:Najawin|Najawin]] [[User talk:Najawin|<span title="Talk to me">☎</span>]] 03:04, 7 March 2023 (UTC)
+: I '''support''' validity for ''Legacy'' et al, but we may need to look at interactive media as a whole, including such other oddballs as ''[[Attack of the Graske (video game)|Attack of the Graske]]''. [[User:Bwburke94|bwburke94]] ([[User talk:Bwburke94|talk]]) 09:35, 7 March 2023 (UTC)
+:: I am drafting a forum posts on that for April/May. I think ''Legacy'' stands on its own as an exception to the problem. [[User:OttselSpy25|OS25]][[User Talk:OttselSpy25|🤙☎️]] 20:35, 8 March 2023 (UTC)
+::: Firstly, thank you [[User:OncomingStorm12th|OncomingStorm12th]] for raising this and putting your points across so eloquently. Having played ''Legacy'', I wholeheartedly agree and '''support''' your proposal. I hope that the points raised here will lead to the validation of further video games in the future. I too have long disapproved of our current interactive policy, with games such as ''[[The Lonely Assassins (video game)|The Lonely Assassins]]'' and ''[[Attack of the Graske (video game)|Attack of the Graske]]'' - previously mentioned here - resigned to invalidation based on branching storylines and the player's role in the narrative. The current policy is very much of its time, and doesn't account for the huge advances in interactive storytelling, most notably within the last decade, but also since the turn of the century. I've said it before, I'll say it again here: by ignoring interactive media, we are compromising the factual integrity of the wiki as a whole. I'm very glad to hear [[User:OttselSpy25|OS25]] is preparing a post on that subject for the coming months; it's been a long time coming and I can't wait to offer my support. But enough from me for now - that's for another time. [[User:66 Seconds|66 Seconds]] [[User talk:66 Seconds|<span title="Talk to me">☎</span>]] 12:19, 12 March 2023 (UTC)
+::::: I completely support this proposal. Not really got more to add. [[User:Danniesen|Danniesen]] [[User talk:Danniesen|<span title="Talk to me">☎</span>]] 11:19, 17 March 2023 (UTC)
+: This is a very well put together argument. Having attempted to play ''Legacy'' once and not getting into it, I thought the wiki was spot on in not covering it because of the plethora of team combinations, but personally I'm convinced. I know I'm very far down in messages but I think this VERY much applies to ''[[Infinity (video game)|Infinity]]'' even MORE because there's nothing about Infinity that'd deem it invalid as per the old ''Legacy'' reasons. There's no branching, and even the gameplay doesn't insinuate something. But as mentioned above I think this is very much a discussion to be had for video games as a whole because they are VERY unfairly stricken down by arbitrary rules. If it wasn't obvious I fully '''support''' the validity of ''Legacy'', as I would with most Doctor Who video games. [[User:StevieGLiverpool|StevieGLiverpool]] [[User talk:StevieGLiverpool|<span title="Talk to me">☎</span>]] 09:20, 17 March 2023 (UTC)
+:: I support this. [[User:Danniesen|Danniesen]] [[User talk:Danniesen|<span title="Talk to me">☎</span>]] 11:19, 17 March 2023 (UTC)
+::: I have remembered one additional aspect to the original invalidity decision that we have not addressed: the belief that the game has a self-insert type player character, which has also previously been suspect for validity. Going over to the Legacy wiki, I would advise anyone interested to read the dialogue in the [https://dwlegacy.fandom.com/wiki/Tutorial Tutorial] (which is also the start of the plot of the game, for those unfamiliar).
+::: The Doctor does clearly address the player as a person present during the Tutorial; that is very hard to dispute. However, there is no suggestion that you, in-narrative, are controlling the party's actions or even contributing in any way at all. The dialogue actually suggests the opposite: the Doctor says that it's three Sontarans against the two of them (the Doctor and Vastra), with no mention of the player. In fact, beyond the aforementioned moment, there is never a mention of the player again in the entire game.
+::: Personally, I would not consider this player to be a traditional "player character," who controls the plot of the video game and would interpret this as something most akin to the end of [[The Daleks' Master Plan (TV story)|"The Feast of Steven"]], a small fourth-wall break that does not justify invalidation. But I felt it would not be in good faith to not bring this up as it was part of the previous thread. If anyone ''does'' have a problem with this aspect of the story, feel free to say something. [[User:Schreibenheimer|Schreibenheimer]] [[User talk:Schreibenheimer|<span title="Talk to me">☎</span>]] 18:16, 20 March 2023 (UTC)
+::::Sorry for the double post, but I was reviewing the script and came across something that I wasn't previously aware of: a number of characters who are not guaranteed drops, such as Amy, River, and Martha, have dialogue. Does anyone know if the dialogue remains the same regardless of whether you've recruited optional characters or not? [[User:Schreibenheimer|Schreibenheimer]] [[User talk:Schreibenheimer|<span title="Talk to me">☎</span>]] 19:24, 20 March 2023 (UTC)
+::::: Schreibenheimer, perfect pointing out of the "Feast of Steven"-like fourth-wall-break. It's something very quick, very non-intrusive, and unless we also plan on invalidating that First Doctor serial, then this should be no reason to invalidate the game as well :p
+::::: As for your second question, no, the dialogue doesn't change whatsoever, even if you don't have these characters. The dialogue never, ever, changes, under no circumstances. [[User:OncomingStorm12th|OncomingStorm12th]] [[User talk:OncomingStorm12th|<span title="Talk to me">☎</span>]] 22:47, 20 March 2023 (UTC)
+=== How to deal with linking to game, if we start to cover it as valid ===
+I've decided to split the discussion of this topic in two, because most of the posts above were, so far, a "yes/no" in regards of supporting the game's validity. A week into this discussion, I want to discuss on ''how'' we'll do our coverage (specially linkage) '''''if''''' the thread is closed in favor of validity.
+Linking directly to ([[GAME]]: ''[[Legacy (video game)|Legacy]]'') is obviously not specific enough for the majority of its content. It'd be akin to linking something that happened in the Big Finish ''Doctor Who'' Main Range as simply ([[AUDIO]]: ''[[Main Range]]''). It's simply too broad 99% of the time. Now, for anything that happens in the ''[[Bigger on the Inside (video game)|Bigger on the Inside]]'' and the ''[[Sonic Adventure (video game)|Sonic Adventure]]'' level packs, it's simple and intuitive enough: ([[GAME]]: ''[[Bigger on the Inside (video game)|Bigger on the Inside]]'') and ([[GAME]]: ''[[Sonic Adventure (video game)|Sonic Adventure]]'').
+My biggest worry here is the main storyline. Luckily, we were given 4 chapters names which split most of the storyline: ''The Sontaran Threat'', ''Enter... the Zygons!'', ''The Rise of the Master'' and ''Betrayal and Redemption''. I think linking to them, like ([[GAME]]: "Betrayal and Redemption") is already a huge improvement over ([[GAME]]: ''[[Legacy (video game)|Legacy]]''). However, my main questions are:
+# '''Do we give each of these chapters separate pages?''' Unlike ''BotI'' and ''SA'', giving each of these a separate page doesn't feel quite right, so I'd say no. Redirects to [[Legacy (video game)]] probably sufice, imo.
+# '''What do we actually link to?''' [[The Sontaran Threat (video game)]] also doesn't feel quite right. Simply [[The Sontaran Threat]]? [[The Sontaran Threat (chapter)]]? Solutions 2 and 3 seem like an equivalent to [[The Cave of Skulls]] redirecting to the third episode of the ''[[An Unearthly Child (TV story)|An Unearthly Child]]'' serial
+## If we ''do'' go down to the "episode in a serial" route (aka, linking to [[The Sontaran Threat]], akin to [[The Cave of Skulls]]), that would put us at ([[GAME]]: "[[The Sontaran Threat]]") instead of ([[GAME]]: ''[[The Sontaran Threat]]''), right?
+# '''Lastly: do we want to go as far as creating individual redirects/link to individual levels instead of chapters?''' I was initially pro-doing this, but given that, say, only 13/48 levels of "The Sontaran Threat" actually have dialogue, I'm not too sure we need this level of specificity.
+Anyway, just throwing some more fuel for thought and discussion. [[User:OncomingStorm12th|OncomingStorm12th]] [[User talk:OncomingStorm12th|<span title="Talk to me">☎</span>]] 21:36, 12 March 2023 (UTC)
+:I'd say we absolutely do not give pages to individual levels. As you mentioned not all of them actually have any story to them. As for the chapters, I'd be fine with giving them individual pages if that's what the majority decides on but I'd rather link to them the same way as an episode of a serial. [[User:Time God Eon|Time God Eon]] [[User talk:Time God Eon|<span title="T]]
+::I '''support''' validation of ''Legacy'' and linking to it like parts of a serial. [[User:Cousin Ettolrhc|Cousin Ettolrhc]] [[User talk:Cousin Ettolrhc|<span title="Talk to me">☎</span>]] 05:55, 14 March 2023 (UTC)
+::: I think this plan makes a lot of sense, treating the game like a four-part serial is smart. I do wish we had precedent for having both the serial and episode in the citation, like ([[GAME]]: ''[[Legacy (video game)|Legacy: The Sontaran Threat]]'') but really we just have never done that. Just saying (GAME: ''The Sontaran Threat'') is good enough. [[User:OttselSpy25|OS25]][[User Talk:OttselSpy25|🤙☎️]] 06:51, 14 March 2023 (UTC)
+:::: I'm currently working on [[Template:Cite source|a template]] that could work quite well here. I will be proposing its adoption in a thread at somepoint soon. [[User:Bongolium500|<span title="aka Bongolium500">Bongo50</span>]] [[User talk:Bongolium500|<span title="talk to me">☎</span>]] 13:58, 14 March 2023 (UTC)
+: Oh, [[User:Time God Eon|Time God Eon]], I absolutely think it's overkill to give individual pages to levels; at most (but, again, even then I don't think its too necessary) I mused whether we should '''link/cite to redirects''' at <nowiki>([[GAME]]: "[[Nightmare in Silver: Closed for Business (level)|Nightmare in Silver: Closed for Business]]" or the mentioned above ([[GAME]]: "[[Nightmare in Silver: Closed for Business (level)|Legacy: Nightmare in Silver: Closed for Business]]"</nowiki>). Anyway, probably, the wisest path is linking to just the chapters.
+: Then, if we are likening them to parts of a serial, they should not get individual pages per current policy, which I'm fine with [[User:OncomingStorm12th|OncomingStorm12th]] [[User talk:OncomingStorm12th|<span title="Talk to me">☎</span>]] 18:01, 14 March 2023 (UTC)
+== Conclusion ==
+<div class="tech">
+:"''Here we are again, engaged in the Founding Conflict. There is no greater battle than this: the battle between Tardis Wiki and video games.''"
+That's how many in this discussion seem to have perceived this proposal. A strong undercurrent to this discussion has been a broader dissatisfaction with the current policies with regards to coverage of video games. But while I do agree we are overdue a discussion on this topic, it should not drown out the basic fact that '''''[[Legacy (video game)|Legacy]]'' passes our ''current'' standards, exacting as they are, with flying colours'''. It's simply no less linear than archetypal valid games such as ''[[The Adventure Games]]''.
+We might have qualms about separation of game-play and narrative when the game-play seems to sort of constitute fiction in its own right, with characters running about, especially-recorded lines that aren't part of the cutscenes, etc. The purpose of this thread is not to question that precedent in itself; for the time being, it [[T:BOUND|still applies]] for cases such as ''[[LEGO Dimensions (video game)|LEGO Dimensions]]'' where whole chunks of optional narrative are apparently available in the gameplay, complete with extra characters who have a place in the diegesis, but whom you may or may not meet. But here, no such issue applies. The discrepancies between cutscenes and gameplay are so stark that the oddities of the game mechanics should be understood as no more "part of the story" than a random ad run in-between two pages of a comic story. As [[User:OncomingStorm12th]] put it:
+{{simplequote|If they wanted them to be one single thing, they'd have designed the game to display the cutscenes with whatver characters you selected to play during that level. Since they didn't, it's more than clear that the story is meant to be the same for every player.|User:OncomingStorm12th}}
+As such, I am happy to resolve this along the lines already spelled out with great clarity at [[#Where does it leave us page/linkage wise]] above. As stated there and agreed by consensus later on, ''Legacy Kids'' should be left to its own discussion and not validated for the time being.
+I want to address two final things:
+* [[User:Najawin]]'s procedural concerns. He spoke of expecting them to be "ignored", so I do want to make it clear that they have been noticed and considered. My answer is something I have said in the past: '''nothing is set in stone'''. If in six months the Old Forums' archives are returned to us, and they turn out to indeed contain non-discussed evidence that would warrant reopening this debate, there is nothing stopping us from reopening it, and, if necessary, invalidating ''Legacy'' back again! I doubt it, but ''that'' is the proper way to deal with ''any'' situation where we suspect some additional evidence could maybe exist somewhere out there, but can't be reached for the time being. That is the entire reason for the existence of the principle that you can relitigate old threads if new evidence is found. I see no reason it should not apply with regards to material from the Old Forums.
+* As regards citing chapters, their bespoke titles do indeed justify applying the precedent of Hartnell serials and citing individual chapters via redirects. '''As a stylistic reminder, the proper way to cite a serial is "([[TV]]: "[[The Cave of Skulls]])", as distinct from "([[TV]]: ''[[An Unearthly Child (TV story)|An Unearthly Child]]'')"; accordingly something like this should be cited to "([[GAME]]: "[[The Sontaran Threat]]"), not "([[GAME]]: ''[[The Sontaran Threat]]'')" or any variation thereupon. This will handily convey that we are citing a part of a whole, without having to repeat the title of the whole every time.
+As always, thanks to everyone who participated in this discussion. [[User:Scrooge MacDuck|'''Scrooge MacDuck''']] [[User_talk:Scrooge MacDuck|⊕]] 16:27, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
+</div>