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

Forum:The LEGO Dimensions Conundrum, Reconsidered (edit)

Revision as of 20:22, 5 September 2024

6,985 bytes added , 5 September

→‎LEGO Dimensions coverage discussion

Aquanafrahudy

Trusted

6,338

edits

@@ Line 567: / Line 567: @@
 ::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 ==
@@ Line 653: / Line 673: @@
 ::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)