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

3,994 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

229,566

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 192: / Line 193: @@
 : 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>