Forum:The LEGO Dimensions Conundrum, Reconsidered: Difference between revisions

Forum:The LEGO Dimensions Conundrum, Reconsidered (edit)

Revision as of 20:22, 5 September 2024

46,663 bytes added , 5 September

→‎LEGO Dimensions coverage discussion

Aquanafrahudy

Trusted

6,338

edits

@@ Line 13: / Line 13: @@
 : (I don't have much opinion on the topic of this thread, but I'd like to say that autocomplete will be added back very soon.) [[User:Bongolium500|<span title="aka Bongolium500">Bongo50</span>]] [[User talk:Bongolium500|☎]] 20:33, 28 February 2024 (UTC)
 ::So as it's been discussed, I've been working on an OP for this topic for a while now. The truth is that the minor alterations I wanted to make were able to be rushed, so since we're having this discussion right now... Here's my OP for it! (Apologies if there are any minor typos or errors) [[User:OttselSpy25|OttselSpy25]] [[User talk:OttselSpy25|<span title="Talk to me">☎</span>]] 20:38, 28 February 2024 (UTC)
+:::In light of this refocusing of the discussion, I have taken the liberty of re-naming the thread to something which makes it clear that we are relitigating something we already ruled upon a long time ago, and also to remove the [[T:CANON|misguided usage of the word "canon"]]. (This said with no offence to the original poster, the effort ''is'' appreciated!) --[[User:Scrooge MacDuck|Scrooge MacDuck]] [[User talk:Scrooge MacDuck|<span title="Talk to me">☎</span>]] 20:44, 28 February 2024 (UTC)
 == Reopening Post ==
@@ Line 529: / Line 530: @@
 == ''LEGO Dimensions'' coverage discussion ==
 : ''Note: This section is exclusively for discussing how to go about covering ''LEGO Dimensions'', regardless of if it is valid or non-valid. Please do not discuss if the title passes rule 4 in this section.''
-''to be added''
+Personally, I think that covering the main game and the level packs featuring clearly "[[DWU]]" content is "obvious", but that's just me, probably one of the biggest contributors to crossover pages on this site. I, again personally, also think that any levels intended to be in-continuity with the main game should be covered (might be all of them?) - stuff like ''Sonic Dimensions'' using the vortex and ''A Book and a Bad Guy'' featuring [[Batman]], [[Gandalf]], and [[Wyldstyle]] in cameo appearances at the end (if I remember correctly from when I was younger).
+In addition, I think the promo material for the game should, at least in some cases, be covered as effectively an extension of the main game - stuff like "''[[Does it Come in Black? (webcast)|Does it Come in Black?]]''" or even something like ''[[w:c:teen-titans-go:Team Building|Team Building]]'' - which often makes use of elements of the game, or at least the general idea of these characters interacting (specifically, ''these versions of'' these characters).
+I ''can'' see how these could be controversial, but I think we should cover as much as it feasible. (All adventure worlds? Might be a bit much, but I can see an argument for them, depending on how diagetic the portals on [[Vorton]] are) [[User:Cookieboy 2005|Cookieboy 2005]] [[User talk:Cookieboy 2005|<span title="Talk to me">☎</span>]] 21:30, 28 February 2024 (UTC)
+:Okay, reading through this and rereading [[Forum:Revisiting fiction with branching elements and historical policy therein]], I think we have to ''at least'' do Phase 8. I'm not sure Phase 9 is necessary, but if we're doing validity I don't see a way around Phase 8.
+::Only information which tangibly exists within the source is Wikifiable and thus potentially valid. For example, in a video game, a pre-set cutscene or element which may or may not play depending on your choice can be cited, but not the detail of actions which a player-character might undertake moment-to-moment.
+:All of this seems to qualify under this standard. I don't see a clear demarcation here. If we had restricted our ruling in that thread, been more cautious... Maybe. But otherwise, if we're going to have validity, I think the entire thing becomes valid - it's all wikifiable. [[User:Najawin|Najawin]] [[User talk:Najawin|<span title="Talk to me">☎</span>]] 02:56, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
+:: I concur, Phase 8 is the option that (looks, to me, at least, to) at minimum lines up with current policy and precedent for coverage. - [[User:CodeAndGin|<span style="color:green" title="CodeAndGin">CodeAndGin</span>]] | [[User_talk:CodeAndGin|<span title="Talk to me">🗨</span>]] |  14:26, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
+Ottel, may I make a request? Would you mind making condensed, "TL;DR" versions of the coverage phases? Just to make it that little more accessible. [[User:WaltK|WaltK]] [[User talk:WaltK|<span title="Talk to me">☎</span>]] 18:51, 15 March 2024 (UTC)
+: Well, if my jargon is too advanced, here's a simple rundown.
+: Phase 1 would only cover the segments, cutscenes, and levels that feature the Doctor. Phase 8 would cover the entire game and some DLC, even during levels without the Doctor or DWU elements. This is the reality of covering a crossover which the Doctor isn't in 100% of the time - it would probably mean a bunch of pages that cover things like ''Harry Potter'' characters without a direct link to the Doctor within the text. But covering just small portions of the game would be very hard.
+: On top of that, there's the discussion about how much of the game is "fiction" and not just gameplay elements with no impact on the story. [[User:OttselSpy25|OttselSpy25]] [[User talk:OttselSpy25|<span title="Talk to me">☎</span>]] 23:36, 17 March 2024 (UTC)
+Before I get into my post proper, I'll note that while browsing the ''LEGO Dimensions'' Wiki to help make sense of this issue I discovered two more levels which feature the Doctor. These are ''[[w:c:lego-dimensions:Ghostbusting!|Ghostbusting!]]'' and the [[w:c:lego-dimensions:Mission: Impossible (Level)|''Mission: Impossible'' level]], which would both slot into Phase 4 and any later phase incorporating Phase 4 according to Ottsel's theory of coverage.
+With that out of the way, okay. I've been aware of this thread since it was being drafted but it's taken me until now to comment because this is a complex issue and my opinions on it have changed over time. My current preference would be to go with Phase 4, using {{tlx|NCmaterial}} to cover other sections of the game where relevant e.g. at [[Lord Vortech]] for his role in the over-arching plot. I'd consider Phase 4 to be minimum acceptable amount of coverage for ''LEGO Dimensions'' because every level encompassed by Phase 4 features an incontrovertible [[Doctor Who universe|''Doctor Who'' universe]] element, whether that be the ''[[Valiant (aircraft carrier)|Valiant]] or a [[Dalek]].
+The reason why I've been somewhat conflicted when coming to this opinion is I don't believe there to be any reason rooted in [[T:VS]] that we shouldn't be going with Phase 8. However, I have concerns Phase 8 will be detrimental to the Wiki if we choose to enact it. ''LEGO Dimensions'' is a massive game even outside of the 13 or so levels we'd cover with Phase 4 and, simply put, I just don't see the point in Tardis covering all that content when it doesn't connect to ''Doctor Who'' in any tangible way. I'd maybe feel differently if we were the only ones well-placed to provide coverage of the game but there already exists a fairly comprehensive ''LEGO Dimensions'' Wiki to cover all the non-''Doctor Who'' bits. This is also a matter of Tardis Wiki editors' resources; to be frank I think what we're likely to end up with in most cases is stubbier or non-existent versions of another wiki's articles and I don't believe accomplishing such a thing would be productive.
+With that said, only covering Phase 4 would be a bad thing when it comes to making sense of certain characters' involvement in other non-''Doctor Who'' levels. This is why I think utilising {{tlx|NCmaterial}} (in conjunction with {{tlx|cite source}} which allows attribution to specific levels) is a good middle ground. This, in effect, will allow Phase 8-esque for characters who appear in Phase 4 levels while preventing the Wiki from being bombarded with articles for characters and concepts entirely divorced from anything in Phase 4. To provide some examples, the aforementioned [[Lord Vortech]], plus [[Batman]], [[Wyldstyle]] and [[Gandalf]] would probably be the most Phase 8-esque and cover great swathes of the game to contextualise the bits of the wider plot seen in the ''Doctor Who'' levels. Meanwhile, pages for the Ghostbusters team seen in ''Ghostbusting!'' would have coverage for the entire Story Pack DLC (of which ''Ghostbusting!'' is the second chapter of six).
+Hopefully all that makes sense. To summarise, we probably should be covering Phase 8 (i.e. the entire game) by a strict letter-of-the-law reading of [[T:VS]] but I think the uniqueness of ''LEGO Dimensions'' as a piece of media (at least one within the Wiki's remit) merits some consideration towards carving out a bespoke ruling which would allow us to enact Phase 4 instead. {{tlx|NCmaterial}} and {{tlx|cite source}} are both innovations since the original forum thread on ''LEGO Dimensions'' which would aid in this approach. --[[User:Borisashton|Borisashton]] [[User talk:Borisashton|<span title="Talk to me">☎</span>]] 00:00, 24 March 2024 (UTC)
+: Personally, I don't see it being all that detrimental covering the rest of the game, especially with it all being segmented as alternate universes. In any case, there's one thing I want wrapped up before this forum closes: coverage of the tie-ins. In particular, the gameplay footage seen in {{cs|Endless Awesome (webcast)}} and {{cs|Supergirl Meets E.T. (webcast)}} (or any other promo videos I forgot). Despite my prior coverage, I'm not too sure the gameplay shown in those warrants coverage (other than that which is explicitly shown diagetically, like the bit with [[the Riddler]]). [[User:Cookieboy 2005|Cookieboy 2005]] [[User talk:Cookieboy 2005|<span title="Talk to me">☎</span>]] 23:04, 1 May 2024 (UTC)
+::I don't really see the value in covering things that appear in gameplay footage seen in trailers. To me, the relevant part of a trailer is the content unique to it.
+::Phase 8 makes sense (although, personally, I like the idea of Phase 7), but I feel like there are some ways in which it could make more sense than others. Covering literally everything on a single behemoth page would make parsing the Doctor Who parts difficult in a way that, if we went with Phase 4, things wouldn't be so difficult. Based on the precedent of games like ''[[The Christmas Trap (video game)|The Christmas Trap]]'' and ''[[Bigger on the Inside (video game)|Bigger on the Inside]]'', we see the value of covering separate commercial add-ons to prior bigger video games on separate pages. We could have [[Lego Dimensions (series)]] for the wider franchise and [[Lego Dimensions (video game)]] for the baseline, no-frills game. At the very least, I think that the Lego Doctor Who world and ''The Dalek Extermination of Earth'' should get separate (video game) pages from the main Lego Dimensions game, because ''The Dalek Extermination'' was content only accessible with purchase of the Twelfth Doctor figure and the Doctor Who world could be accessed by purchasing either the Doctor or the Cyberman. Distinct commercial content. This principle would extend to the add-ons such as the Fantastic Beasts level pack - cover them as distinct entities.
+::The question from this structure would be: how to cover character/vehicle interactions? The DC Comics character Cyborg, for example, makes a comment if he's near the playable Cyberman, so would that mean we should have a page for the individual commercial release of the Cyborg Fun Pack? Maybe this is just autism speaking, but I see the value in that. But I would also see the value in a page called [Lego Dimensions character and vehicle interactions] or [Lego Dimensions (video game)/character and vehicle interactions], with a chart of all the ones relevant to Doctor Who. [[User:TheChampionOfTime|TheChampionOfTime]] [[User talk:TheChampionOfTime|<span title="Talk to me">☎</span>]] 16:18, 3 May 2024 (UTC)
+As somebody who doesn't want to spend ages analysing the OP to find my answer, which phase would best describe the following: covering all episodes of the main story, plus any DLC episodes that tie directly into said story (the ''Portal'', ''Midway Arcade'', and ''Sonic'' episodes, according to the LD wiki). [[User:WaltK|WaltK]] [[User talk:WaltK|<span title="Talk to me">☎</span>]] 18:26, 24 August 2024 (UTC)
+: The above had reminded me that this discussion hasn’t concluded yet - I don’t recall my exact points earlier but my stance is that I think the whole game should probably be covered, but definitely tie-ins to the main story and ones that have DWU elements (the TARDIS travel thingies, even if we don’t consider them inherently relevant outside of the following, do feature an image of the TARDIS). [[User:Cookieboy 2005|Cookieboy 2005]] [[User talk:Cookieboy 2005|<span title="Talk to me">☎</span>]] 18:42, 24 August 2024 (UTC)
+The more I think about this, the more I feel that my ideal coverage for this game also happens to be the coverage that we probably will never be able to get... Which is that we really should cover ''most everything''... But with some level of discretion. Like, ideally we cover all the broad strokes and important characters on their own pages, but with a level of... Dude, come on. We don't need Harry Potter's page to be every single detail of his use in the game, we don't need a page on every member of the Goonies... We ''should'' be able to just go "Oh, let's cover this DW easter egg" and leave it at that.
+The issue is that any sense of "Dude, come on" is the antithesis to Tardis Wiki rules and precedent. So while covering just the relevant chunks ''would'' make the site better, allowing these random fringe LEGO character pages would just end up being a big mess in my head. [[User:OttselSpy25|OttselSpy25]] [[User talk:OttselSpy25|<span title="Talk to me">☎</span>]] 17:18, 5 September 2024 (UTC)
+:Always nice to see you around OS25. And I get where you're coming from. But even without [[Talk:Howling Halls/Archive 1]] and everything after setting very strong precedent the other way, I do think there are Sorites style concerns here. [[User:Najawin|Najawin]] [[User talk:Najawin|<span title="Talk to me">☎</span>]] 17:45, 5 September 2024 (UTC)
+:: (written before Najawin's post) Well, this is a forum thread in the Panopticon, it does ''have'' the power to change policy. Perhaps enshrining a sort of "Dude, come on," clause into [[T:VS]], if you will, wouldn't be such a bad idea. Ultimately, our validity rules should have some semblance of common sense to them, otherwise, well, we find ourselves in all sorts of various ridiculous states of affairs.
+::(in response to Najawin) Could you elaborate on your concerns? {{User:Aquanafrahudy/Sig}} 17:52, 5 September 2024 (UTC)
+:::Adapted from the general Sorites the argument would run something like, "We clearly agree that object (1) should be covered, and object (2) is only marginally different from (1). So (2) should be covered. To generalize, if (n+1) is marginally different from (n), we should cover (n+1). We cover (1). Thus, by induction, 'we should cover all things'." The bit in single quotes there is a little problematic, because we don't have '''a clean''' induction step, there isn't just one path to take over induction and a guarantee that there will never be non-marginal differences.
+:::But the "dude c'mon" argument is supposed to be a way to step back and look at big picture differences in a way that this argument says we just ''can't''. (In the Sorites as it's generally discussed the argument runs something like "if we have a heap of sand and we remove one grain, it's still a heap, so do this repeatedly, therefore one grain of sand is a heap". "Dude, c'mon.") So I'm just skeptical that we can ever draw these boundaries with any consistency or clarity, even if on the big picture we think it looks ridiculous. Yeah, Doctor Men looks ridiculous. Dimensions in Time looks ridiculous. Curse of Fatal Death looks ridiculous. The Noodle stuff look ridiculous. (I say these things with all the love in the world. You know that's how it looks to outsiders.) But finding clear demarcations to keep them out and other stuff in? I just don't buy it. [[User:Najawin|Najawin]] [[User talk:Najawin|<span title="Talk to me">☎</span>]] 20:11, 5 September 2024 (UTC)
+:::: Oh, fair enough, that seems sensible. {{User:Aquanafrahudy/Sig}} 20:22, 5 September 2024 (UTC)
 == ''LEGO Dimensions'' validity discussion ==
 : ''Note: This section is exclusively for discussing the validity of ''LEGO Dimensions'', specifically if it passes Rule 4. To discuss extent of coverage, see section above.''
-''to be added''
+More to come, to note that in addition to Thread:176459 at [[User:SOTO/Forum Archive/Inclusion debates 1]], people should probably read Thread:211485 at [[User:SOTO/Forum Archive/Inclusion debates 2]] as well. (The Lego Batman thread.) Not quite as relevant, but still of some use. [[User:Najawin|Najawin]] [[User talk:Najawin|<span title="Talk to me">☎</span>]] 20:57, 28 February 2024 (UTC)
+:One more, still working my way through these threads, but I will say, as a note, that I'm very convinced that if we adopt some form of R2bp, as we've been gesturing towards for the last year, I don't see a way in which ''Lego Batman'' can be guaranteed to be the end of the slippery slope if we let it be valid, per the evidence presented in the old threads. I think there's a very good chance that we'd have to let in ''Ninjago'' and ''LM2'', depending on what happens in the forthcoming movies in the franchise. (Indeed, I think we might just immediately have to let in ''LM2'' due to the presence of Alfred.) This wouldn't extend to the original ''LM'', but these three alone would already have "real world bleed" that we'd have to really handle delicately. (As we handle all metafiction delicately.) That subject is messier than I think it's being portrayed. [[User:Najawin|Najawin]] [[User talk:Najawin|<span title="Talk to me">☎</span>]] 23:02, 28 February 2024 (UTC)
+::Okay. I'm... Not sure about validity. (As a very minor note, I think the frustration Moffat has is about being asked about canon, not about being at the panel, per se. But it doesn't change things at all. Not least of which because he's only one of the relevant creatives here, and not the most relevant imo.) Per the original thread, you yourself reference at least one point towards the Lego-ness being diegetic:
+:::''Jack Harkness: "Is it just me, or does everyone look pretty shiny today? And I don't think that it's any moisturizer."''
+::I'm unsure as to any others, but there's at least one here within the DWU content itself. As far as authorial intent is concerned, the original thread has two relevant quotes not mentioned here.
+:::What’s the secret to the franchise’s appeal? Look at Lego Gandalf. He has maize-yellow skin, a squat squared-off torso, and a ridiculous waddling gate. “But he truly believes that he is the Gandalf, just like Buzz Lightyear believes that he’s an actual a Space Ranger,” says Burton. -[https://archive.ph/wya8p Wired]
+::Note that this article says as well
+:::Ultimately, Burton says, the big design constraints with Lego Dimensions weren’t the licensing hurdles—they were the limits of real-life Lego toys. The Lego Batmobile has to move the way it would if it were actually made of Legos.<br>
+:::“We’ve always tried to be very honest to the brick,” says Burton.
+::And notes that Burton was one of the people who pushed for ''Doctor Who'', because he wanted a Lego TARDIS. A second quote mentioned in the thread is
+:::"As with the other IPs, I think it might be better categorized as 'inspired by' the original IP (or in the same vein as) instead of 'being canonical,'" a Valve spokesperson told [https://www.polygon.com/2015/9/29/9413805/lego-dimensions-portal-isnt-canon Polygon].
+::This quote is of ''particular'' relevance, because the Portal level pack level is very much so a "Portal 3", a third interaction between the relevant parties, with explicit references to this fact, and references to the prior events. It's no mere retelling. It's a new, original story, if a small one. Obviously this doesn't have direct bearing on the DWU work. But in the older threads there were occasionally claims that only DW was treated in this way. And not only is this false, but one of the other franchises where this is the case has explicit comments from its IP owner suggesting they don't consider it canonical. Again. We don't have that from the BBC. But this, combined with the statements from Wired, do give me pause as to what people actually thought. At the very least it seems murky. (With all due respect to OS25, I have to bring up [[T:NO SELF REF]] here as to his email exchange. I'm 100% sure it's accurate, I don't think it impacts my analysis here, my conclusion is that this is really, really murky, not obviously wrong, and I think one person thinking this should be DWU is in accordance with the idea that there's conflicting authorial intent. But, procedurally, should we even be considering that email exchange? I mean this without a hint of malice, I assure you.)
+::The trailer is really worrying, I gotta say. Especially given the larger issues with the Lego Movies more generally. I think the quotes I've given push the needle back towards invalidity given that, but, I mean, wow, this is a messy one. [[User:Najawin|Najawin]] [[User talk:Najawin|<span title="Talk to me">☎</span>]] 03:50, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
+::: If you're referring to {{cs|Endless Awesome (webcast)}}, that's probably not meant to be taken very seriously - when trailers were validated, I specifically left that one as invalid while validating stuff like {{cs|New Adventures Await! (webcast)}}. (I will also note that I ''personally'' think the game should be valid, but obviously that's just my opinion) [[User:Cookieboy 2005|Cookieboy 2005]] [[User talk:Cookieboy 2005|<span title="Talk to me">☎</span>]] 11:36, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
+:::: @Najawin: Well hold on. This quote from Jack seems predicated on "Jack is momentarily noticing that everything is made of bricks ''in contrast to how it usually is''", so it seems if taken at face value to be in line with "this is the real DWU which has temporarily been turned into plastic somehow", more than "this is an alternate DWU where everything is made of bricks and always was", no? (I would read it as more of a fourth-wall joke than anything — not unlike if the first appearance of a black-and-white monster in the colour era had the Doctor quipping "huh, is it me or do you look… brighter?" — but the point is the same however seriously you take the line.)
+:::: But in any event, I'm mostly stepping in with my admin hat on to say '''yes, we can admit the evidence of the e-mail, come on'''. If you want to be extremely technical about it, there is an argument that we technically can't "believe" Ottsel's account of his original email…?… But this does not disqualify him from making statements about ''somebody else'' said, so the reply, which is what we care about, is kosher. More broadly there would be no procedural quibbles whatsoever to be had if Ottsel reached out to a serious online documentary resource e.g. the blog of a trusted fandom historian, and reposted the email there; and I think it would be very silly to demand that extra step when we all agree that it's a straightforwardly possible chain of events. T:WIKIFY OWN ultimately exists as a policy on sourcing ''personal details'' in situations where the interested party has an incentive to lie due to the nature of showbiz e.g. actors giving their height or their birthday inaccurately. A Wiki user reporting on the results of asking policy-related questions to a wholly-unrelated DWU creative, ''about the work and their intentions with it rather than the DWU creative themself'', simply is not the intended use-case. --[[User:Scrooge MacDuck|Scrooge MacDuck]] [[User talk:Scrooge MacDuck|<span title="Talk to me">☎</span>]] 11:37, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
+[[User:Cookieboy 2005]] - I'm referring to the Joe McHale trailer, and it's existence in the game in the "mystery dimension". That's a gnarly issue (in the original usage of the term). Especially combined with the statements I found about authorial intent above. Saying that you try to stay true to the brick in the game? That's... That's a real problem given everything else. Again, any one of these isn't much, but together they constitute a pattern, imo, that even if some people involved think this is just Doctor Who with a LEGO gloss, (and thank you for clearing that up Scrooge) others involved, other very relevant people, think this is a LEGO version of Doctor Who.
+As for the Captain Jack issue, I mean, this isn't ''completely'' untrue, but there's the fourth wall breaking nature of the various LEGO properties. I don't think we can guarantee that it's saying (realDWU->made of Bricks) rather than (thought they were real DWU->noticed they weren't). Especially, once again, the comments cited. Either way, it's a reference towards the LEGO gloss being diegetic. (And to clarify my disposition here, I'd really, really like the various LEGO stuff to be valid. I find it hilarious. But these comments are really deeply worrying to me. And I'd still have probably supported validity even still, until I found the "true to the brick" one, and then OS25 mentioned the trailer. Those two were just enough to make me think this is probably invalid, in conjunction with the other issues.) [[User:Najawin|Najawin]] [[User talk:Najawin|<span title="Talk to me">☎</span>]] 20:12, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
+:To me, the Jack line seems to confirm that this story takes place inside the continuity of the regular DWU. If Jack can make a fourth wall joke on the art style of this story looking unique - that itself implies that this is not a Jack from an alternate universe where everything has always looked like LEGO. If anything it kind of adds credit to the theory of it all just being a filter for the audience. Captain Jack, indeed, was not born a LEGO man in this reality, his noticing the filter does not discredit the story. Imagine if in a [[Roger Langridge]] comic someone remarked "Everything looks very abstract today."
+: To think this was evidence of the art style being diegetic, you'd have to argue that the entire LEGO DWU portions take place within a splinter universe created in the moment before the gameplay started - that some force copied the DWU to another reality and turned everything LEGO the instant the gameplay starts, while the characters maintained their direct memories from the prime universe. And I just don't see any particular evidence that said reading of events is accurate to the intention itself. [[User:OttselSpy25|OttselSpy25]] [[User talk:OttselSpy25|<span title="Talk to me">☎</span>]] 22:46, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
+::Or, alternatively, we have the (thought they were real DWU->noticed they weren't) option, which is in complete accordance with that line, and lines up as well with the Wired quote. I don't think there's a definitive reading here, let me be clear. But it's not as cut and dry as you're saying imo. [[User:Najawin|Najawin]] [[User talk:Najawin|<span title="Talk to me">☎</span>]] 23:08, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
+:::That Captain Jack quote should not be taken as anything more than a cheeky wink-nudge to the audience. We know it's a meta joke, but in-universe it's just "Jack thinks everybody looks extra shiny today for some unelaborated-upon reason". [[User:WaltK|WaltK]] [[User talk:WaltK|<span title="Talk to me">☎</span>]] 20:41, 6 March 2024 (UTC)
+:::: I'm curious what the issue @Najawin has with the "true to the brick" thing exactly is. I understand that line from a game development and art direction perspective; They made a game using LEGO as the specifically licenced art style, they wanted it to look and feel as close to real LEGO as they could, before having to take liberties for game design reasons (Because if they didn't, what would be the point in making it a LEGO game in the first place, and not just a brand mashup game in a different stylised art style that didn't have physical, brick based limitations?). - [[User:CodeAndGin|<span style="color:green" title="CodeAndGin">CodeAndGin</span>]] | [[User_talk:CodeAndGin|<span title="Talk to me">🗨</span>]] |  14:26, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
+Alright, coming back to this. I think we're talking a bit at cross purposes here with the Captain Jack thing. OS25 says
+:a big problem with saying "Oh, well this is a copy of the Doctor's universe made out of LEGO" is that we have no in-universe proof of that being the perspective of the actual citizens of the universe
+and
+:And we have direct confirmation from someone who worked on the title that in the Doctor Who universe, the LEGO art style is just that.
+But we have specific confirmation from the cofounder of the alternative - it doesn't matter whether or not the characters seem themselves as LEGO, they ''are'' LEGO regardless. Their belief otherwise is part of the joke, as it were. But even putting that to the side, the premise is ''false''. We ''do'' have evidence (proof is for alcohol and algebra) that the denizens of the game, even those not from the LEGO Movie dimension, sometimes reference their own LEGO-ness.
+As for the "true to the brick thing", this is not how the quote is portrayed in the article, no, they're specifically talking about a ''vehicle's movement'' corresponding to a LEGO product. That's not just an art style. That's matching the ''physics engine'' of the game to how LEGO is supposed to behave, or the specific physics properties of the object insofar as it interacts with that engine. That's a qualitatively different sort of thing than just an art style. Now, that's not a direct quote, I admit. It's context the reporter provides for the "true to the brick" thing. So they could just be making it up. But I just don't see how that quote isn't worrying. [[User:Najawin|Najawin]] [[User talk:Najawin|<span title="Talk to me">☎</span>]] 09:28, 15 March 2024 (UTC)
+::I think that's a narrow conception of "art-style". I could imagine a pastiche of 60s ''Who'' which boasted of taking specific pains to deliberately imitate the flaws of old-fashioned special effects with their fancy CGI; which wouldn't mean that they intend the Dalek spaceship to be actually diegetically made of cardboard in a way the characters would notice. (Didn't Lance Parkin deliberately plot ''[[The Dying Days (novel)|The Dying Days]]'' in such a way that each scene could have been filmed with a specific, realistic number of Ice Warrior extras in rubber suits?) I think limiting vehicle movements to things which could be achieved if this really were a stop-motion brickfilm can very easily be understood in those terms, and doesn't particularly move my needle with regards to whether the brickiness is textual.
+::As regards the "that's the joke" quote from "the cofounder", hang on — is it, in actual fact, about ''LEGO Dimensions'', or is it about the broader franchise? Because I would definitely say that a quote about the specific authorial intent on this story in particular would trump broad corporate directives for our purposes. Maybe the authorial intent on this story didn't match the project bible. We don't believe in canon, we'd accept that. --[[User:Scrooge MacDuck|Scrooge MacDuck]] [[User talk:Scrooge MacDuck|<span title="Talk to me">☎</span>]] 13:02, 15 March 2024 (UTC)
+:::I can see the reasoning there, but let me ask this question. If we're ''only'' considering parts of the video game, not external paratext, and the designers wished to communicate to us that the characters were made of a specific substance but weren't necessarily aware of it, how could they show this to you? What things ''within the game'' would move your needle for the specific hypothesis that we're discussing here and now? If there aren't any, well, I'm not convinced you should be having this discussion, it's just a red herring. It just seems like we're focusing on an area where you'll never be convinced. Other people might be convinced in this area, but for you, if there aren't any, no matter what they do it's just art style. For me, well, aside from visual identification and the physics, I don't see much else that can be done here except for the audio of the game. Maybe parts of the gameplay, but I think that's broadly a wash.
+:::Jon Burton is not only the cofounder of the studio, [https://www.mobygames.com/game/78912/lego-dimensions/credits/playstation-4/ he was] one of the three story writers, one of nine dialogue writers (along with Sharples), and was listed as multiple other types of directors. This isn't a matter of people following the franchise bible or not, it's a matter of someone intimately involved in the project expressing a view about the nature of one of the characters that is diametrically opposed to the argument OS25 is presenting. Now you '''''could''''' interpret that quote as ''specifically'' applying to the past game of LEGO Lord of the Rings and not the current iteration of LEGO Gandalf as he appears in LEGO Dimensions, but this seems very difficult to do, given that any IU evidence that characters don't seem to comprehend their LEGO-ness is simply not in conflict with this statement ''at all''. [[User:Najawin|Najawin]] [[User talk:Najawin|<span title="Talk to me">☎</span>]] 21:00, 15 March 2024 (UTC)
+:::: That's all fine on paper, except that we have some clear statement that the ''Doctor Who'' sections of the game were treated with different gravity and intent than the other segments. Again - it's a difficult standard to point to evidence of UniKitty believing herself to be made out of LEGO when in the text the ''LEGO Movie'' universe explicitly is said to operate with different internal logic than every other universe in the series. This is not an opinion, it's one of the main elements of the game that Wildstyle is not the same as the other characters on her team. (Given the name drop of Gandalf here, it's important to remember that Gandalf and Batman can not "master build" in this game. The reason is that they are not LEGO Gandalf and LEGO Batman, they are versions of Gandalf and Batman from universes that have no understanding of what a "LEGO" might be.)
+:::: Given that the multiverse story element was used to justify each dimension having different internal logic, it is entirely valid that the designers intended that the ''Doctor Who'' dimension just be the regular DWU with a "filter" on top. This on top of Moffat's refusal to declare it non-canon is very important information - and I don't think bringing out more general quotes discussing stuff like GLaDOS debunks that. [[User:OttselSpy25|OttselSpy25]] [[User talk:OttselSpy25|<span title="Talk to me">☎</span>]] 23:41, 17 March 2024 (UTC)
+: The reason is that they are not LEGO Gandalf and LEGO Batman, they are versions of Gandalf and Batman from universes that have no understanding of what a "LEGO" might be.
+But this first clause is '''''precisely''''' wrong. They ''are'' LEGO Gandalf and Batman, namely, LEGO Gandalf and Batman from LEGO universes where the LEGO inhabitants ''believe they are not LEGO''; they believe they're Batman and Gandalf from the original properties completely. This is what the Burton quote illustrates! They're not LEGO Movie Batman and Gandalf, of course. But this is a different statement. They're still LEGO! I also once again direct you back to the Portal issue when you're insisting that the ''Doctor Who'' sections were treated with different gravity. This is true here ''as well'', and we know that this is irrelevant here. I get that you don't like this comparison, but it's sufficient to show that extra care to a section, not simply redoing something that previously existed, doesn't entail that there was intent for it to "count". You need more than that. And the Sharples quote could be that! But I think the Burton quotes and the Mystery Dimension are more than enough to make this very very messy as far as intent is concerned. Is it enough to get R4 disqualification? I dunno. It is for me. But everyone has their own standards. [[User:Najawin|Najawin]] [[User talk:Najawin|<span title="Talk to me">☎</span>]] 01:54, 19 March 2024 (UTC)
+:: I've been on the fence about adding to this discussion as I feel that, before I could give an entirely informed opinion on the matter. It's hard, as I don’t expact this discussion to be reopened but I'll never be able to contribute now. I've been considering watching a playthrough, but without actually interacting with the game I don't feel that I could understand the material. (Damn you devs for never making a 3DS or Switch port!) {{User:Epsilon the Eternal/signature}} 23:54, 1 May 2024 (UTC)
+:::Switch doesn't really do many peripherals, does it? Labo, I guess. Just wouldn't be possible on 3ds. [[User:Najawin|Najawin]] [[User talk:Najawin|<span title="Talk to me">☎</span>]] 00:11, 2 May 2024 (UTC)
+:::: Idk, the 3DS was often pushed to its limits and it did have its number of toys-to-life ports. (Even if half of them were technically entirely new games that served as sidequels to the main versions.) {{User:Epsilon the Eternal/signature}} 00:42, 2 May 2024 (UTC)
+::::: It doesn't help that accessing every possible piece of the content the game has to offer requires quite the financial investment. What's that? You ''didn't'' purchase this one minifig because it's from a franchise that doesn't interest you? Boy that's too bad, now you can't access the one piece of ''Doctor Who''-related content that's hidden away in the DLC pack it came with. Whoop-de-doo. [[User:WaltK|WaltK]] [[User talk:WaltK|<span title="Talk to me">☎</span>]] 20:13, 2 May 2024 (UTC)
+Going back to Najawin's second-last post and the LEGO-ness of Gandalf and Batman, it's worth noting that they're specifically the versions of the characters from the previous LEGO video games, seen at the beginning of ''Dimensions'' to be pulled directly from cutscenes in their previous games. When these main characters reference their universes, we are to understand that we have seen these universes previously in those games, but the other crossover characters only have the context of the media they originate from; when the Doctor says something about Victorian London and facing Weng-Chiang there, that's a reference to the TV show and not some layer in between because there isn't any LEGO retelling of that. Continuity is paid attention to in areas such as Davros meeting the Twelfth Doctor for the first or the Twelfth Doctor saying he shouldn't be able to go to Trenzalore. They're LEGO characters, but they have continuity of consciousness with the live action characters, as others have noted with regards to the Jack Harkness line. The game is set in a "Dimension Crisis" which in-universe has altered, shrunken, and spliced the universes affected (i.e. turned them into easily traversable open worlds which highlight the famous locations of a franchise), so we could take Jack's line to mean that LEGO-fication was part of that process for the Whoniverse.
+There's more meat on the bones of that Comic Con interview in regards to this. The interviewer asks the actors, "Do you consider them to be the same characters you play in the show or are they different?" Peter Capaldi responds, "Absolutely. To me it's the Doctor, that's who I'm playing. It's a different technique, because obviously you don't have my expressive face there... so obviously the voice is a bit more over-the-top, but they did ask for more."
+Perhaps a thing to focus on is the instances of ''classic Lego video game humour'' in the Doctor Who content. Normally in Lego games, scenes are recreated from famous movies and visual comedy is inserted into the otherwise serious narrative. Such as, for example, Lego Gandalf playing with the TARDIS controls and briefly transforming into Gandalf the White; that's a visual gag consistent with his home universe of the Lego ''Lord of the Rings'' video game. This is present in ''The Dalek Extermination of Earth'' with the scenes on the Dalek ship, where we see Daleks skateboarding and playing ball and other non-Dalek things. This is notable because I don't think any other Doctor Who element gets this jokey treatment, and there is an in-universe reason for this: the Daleks are a new batch created from the population of Earth in the year 2025 (uh oh, that's coming up) and this seems to be part of their personality.
+Additionally, regarding Portal, a popular franchise composed of only two video games is clearly different to the sprawling mess of ''Doctor Who''. Canon has a defined meaning relational to a central authority with that franchise, whereas ''Doctor Who''{{'}}s central authoritative author said that this was as canon as everything else (a statement which has some weight given that Moffat described some ''Who'' as being in [[Virgin reality#Behind the scenes|a separate continuity to his show]]). [[User:TheChampionOfTime|TheChampionOfTime]] [[User talk:TheChampionOfTime|<span title="Talk to me">☎</span>]] 15:53, 3 May 2024 (UTC)
+:Once more, you're advancing a hypothesis that's very difficult to hold, given the evidence. Maintaining that LEGO Batman + LEGO Gandalf + Wyldstyle are all from native LEGO dimensions, and the other characters come from their original IPs doesn't really line up with the statement about Portal. And, again, I understand you dislike the comparison, I really do. But the comparison is relevant because people are trying to make general arguments that, if successful, would entail, or would seem to entail, things ''about the Portal levels that we know to be false.'' Thus your arguments must fail. One person's modus ponens and all that.
+:Secondly, this is not what others have noted with the Jack Harkness line, this is simply false.
+:And finally, I don't know that it's quite ''relevant'' what Capaldi says here. My contention has never been that every person involved didn't intend for the work to count. Certainly I don't believe that. My contention is that the R4 intent has been far more messy than people are portraying it as, and I think there's a substantial bit of evidence that the people primarily working on the game itself think of the game writ large as being fully LEGO based. Surely in the past we've had R4 discussions where ''some'' of the people involved thought their work counted and some didn't, and still taken the latter R4 intent to be sufficient to disqualify it. (Shalka springs to mind, see [[User:CzechOut]]'s comments at [[Thread:207499]] in [[User:SOTO/Forum Archive/Inclusion debates 1]].) [[User:Najawin|Najawin]] [[User talk:Najawin|<span title="Talk to me">☎</span>]] 18:52, 3 May 2024 (UTC)
+::What I should have said about Portal is: the quote that you're talking about comes from a Valve spokesperson and is thus ultimately irrelevant to this conversation. Like, realistically, canon has a very different meaning for that franchise and it makes sense that the people behind Portal would say that about a game that isn't even playable on PC, and they're licensees so their statement doesn't make sense to apply to other properties in the game, no more than Steven Moffat could declare the Simpsons levels un-canon to the Simpsons. As this is a statement from the people behind the Portal property, all it tells us is that Lego Dimensions is officially not canon to the Portal games, not that the Portal games are non-canon to Lego Dimensions. "Dimensions" are fictional concepts in their own right, and I think it's a leap to say that because the Lego Portal Dimension is not considered by its licensees to be part of their official continuity that the Lego Dimension is therefore itself a discrete continuity, because that border is uni-directional and the statement 'that game is not canon to our series' does not equate to 'that game is in a separate universe in the multiverse". I think that all the multiverse content of this game confuses the conversation, when in truth we could compare this situation to the fact that [[Dimensions in Time (TV story)|Dimensions in Time]] being non-canon to ''[[EastEnders (series)|EastEnders]]'' shouldn't have a bearing on its relation to ''Doctor Who''.
+::Since we're talking about the intent of the people making this thing, the Burton interview is far more relevant, but as I said in my previous post his talk about the comedy of Lego Gandalf is just as much in reference to the ''Lego Lord of the Rings'' as it is to ''Lego Dimensions''. Burton is talking about the Lego games franchise in general as a parody franchise, and that the parody is about more than the fact that its all Lego. They've always had gags and goofs. The fact that we can see many examples of what their version of parody is means that some of the franchises in Lego Dimensions stand out due to their relative lack of this ''classic Lego video game humour''. The main characters of Lego Dimensions stand out from the worlds they interact with because they originate from previously established Lego universes while the other worlds were established in non-Lego media. [[User:TheChampionOfTime|TheChampionOfTime]] [[User talk:TheChampionOfTime|<span title="Talk to me">☎</span>]] 01:55, 4 May 2024 (UTC)
+:::I would agree that the Portal statement is in no way definitive proof that we should view LEGO Dimensions as a whole as being "non canonical" for every franchise. (Or taking it as a statement of R4 intent for this discussion, etc etc.) That's not why it's useful. It's a statement that serves as a refutation of ''specific arguments'' that people are bringing up. If the arguments that people make are successful, they would entail that the Portal level should to be taken in a way that we know the creators very explicitly did not intend to take it. So '''''those arguments must fail'''''. (''This doesn't mean their conclusion is incorrect'', '''nor does it even suggest to us that their conclusion is incorrect''', just that the reasoning can't be valid, so we can't listen to the arguments at all.) It doesn't move the needle on its own here, it just prevents other things from moving the needle.
+::::The main characters of Lego Dimensions stand out from the worlds they interact with because they originate from previously established Lego universes while the other worlds were established in non-Lego media.
+:::There's an issue here, well, two. You've set up a dilemma, in how you've portrayed "[originating in] previously established Lego universes" and "[being] established in non-Lego media", as being exclusive and/or all-encompassing. Gandalf only originates from a previously established Lego universe insofar as ''LEGO Gandalf'' does. But then, if we frame the issue in this way, focusing on the LEGO iteration of the character, it's not clear that any of the other characters ''do'' originate in non-LEGO media. To say so is question begging. And if we instead interpret LEGO Gandalf and LEGO Batman as also belonging to the second camp, of being established in non-LEGO media, the distinction you're trying to draw evaporates, the claim is simply false. So either your argument fails or it's circular. Viciously so.
+:::I note as well that I think your reading of the dimension crisis is completely incompatible with both the mystery dimension, trailer, and the ''second'' Burton quote, where he specifies that they've tried to be true to the brick. (Now, I am taking Wired's interpretation of that to be correct, and if you disagree, ultimately I find that to be reasonable. But ''given'' that interpretation, I think it's incompatible.) [[User:Najawin|Najawin]] [[User talk:Najawin|<span title="Talk to me">☎</span>]] 02:36, 4 May 2024 (UTC)