765,429
edits
Forum:Doctor Who: Worlds in Time: Difference between revisions
From Tardis Wiki, the free Doctor Who reference
m
Robot: Automated text replacement (-Attack of the Graske +Attack of the Graske (video game))
(→Do we cover RPGs or not?: excising a bit to put into a new thread so that this thread is a little more manageable. bit is going to forum:Dimensions in Time) |
m (Robot: Automated text replacement (-Attack of the Graske +Attack of the Graske (video game))) |
||
| Line 27: | Line 27: | ||
Well this how canocity usually works in regards to MMOs. For starters, all the quests are clearly canon and aren't in anyway differed by the outcome. As for the players involvement, seeing as their gender and race is changaable, they can be simply referred to as 'an unknown traveller', 'spacer', 'unidentified companion' etc. which you can see acknowledges they exist but doesn't describe their appearance. --[[User:Victory93|Victory93]] <sup>[[User talk:Victory93|talk to me]]</sup> 01:42, March 4, 2012 (UTC) | Well this how canocity usually works in regards to MMOs. For starters, all the quests are clearly canon and aren't in anyway differed by the outcome. As for the players involvement, seeing as their gender and race is changaable, they can be simply referred to as 'an unknown traveller', 'spacer', 'unidentified companion' etc. which you can see acknowledges they exist but doesn't describe their appearance. --[[User:Victory93|Victory93]] <sup>[[User talk:Victory93|talk to me]]</sup> 01:42, March 4, 2012 (UTC) | ||
:::As this is the first DW MMO, there is no "usually". And we, as a community, kinda avoided the issue when we were first confronted with it on ''[[Attack of the Graske]]'', the first new game following the creation of the wiki. We've never ''really'' settled the question of how games "work" as narratives. Sure, we can have pages about games ''as products''. But given that different outcomes are possible, games don't quite work the same way that non-interactive narratives do. The problem is compounded, it seems to me, by an MMO, since you've got other players interacting with you, subtly changing the way that you experience the narrative. And, if it's like other MMos, you're probably not ''forced'' to do certain quests, so do all quests count, or only the ones necessary to advancing the plot? | :::As this is the first DW MMO, there is no "usually". And we, as a community, kinda avoided the issue when we were first confronted with it on ''[[Attack of the Graske (video game)|Attack of the Graske]]'', the first new game following the creation of the wiki. We've never ''really'' settled the question of how games "work" as narratives. Sure, we can have pages about games ''as products''. But given that different outcomes are possible, games don't quite work the same way that non-interactive narratives do. The problem is compounded, it seems to me, by an MMO, since you've got other players interacting with you, subtly changing the way that you experience the narrative. And, if it's like other MMos, you're probably not ''forced'' to do certain quests, so do all quests count, or only the ones necessary to advancing the plot? | ||
:::I remember, too, that one big problem of ''Graske'', that surely applies to this MMO, is that they have straight-up first person perspectives. I'm not sure about a lot of things having to do with games, but one thing I'm ''absolutely'' sure about is that the player cannot be considered a part of the DWU. For instance, in ''Star Wars: The Old Republic'' (that is, the original Xbox game), the player was playing ''a character'' within the GFFA. That's fine. We can write about that character. But in ''Graske'', you're blatantly, explicitly playing yourself. The Doctor is talking ''to you'', not a character you're controlling. I don't know how it works in DW:WIT, but if you're playing yourself (that is, if you get to actually name your character) then writing about the game is going to be very difficult, if not impossible. Your solutions of "unknown traveller", "spacer", "unidentified companion" are far too flimsy a disguise for the word "me", and don't work, as far as I'm concerned. The editors of this wiki are not resident in the DWU. {{user:CzechOut/Sig}} <span style="{{User:CzechOut/TimeFormat}}">02:24: Sun 04 Mar 2012 </span> | :::I remember, too, that one big problem of ''Graske'', that surely applies to this MMO, is that they have straight-up first person perspectives. I'm not sure about a lot of things having to do with games, but one thing I'm ''absolutely'' sure about is that the player cannot be considered a part of the DWU. For instance, in ''Star Wars: The Old Republic'' (that is, the original Xbox game), the player was playing ''a character'' within the GFFA. That's fine. We can write about that character. But in ''Graske'', you're blatantly, explicitly playing yourself. The Doctor is talking ''to you'', not a character you're controlling. I don't know how it works in DW:WIT, but if you're playing yourself (that is, if you get to actually name your character) then writing about the game is going to be very difficult, if not impossible. Your solutions of "unknown traveller", "spacer", "unidentified companion" are far too flimsy a disguise for the word "me", and don't work, as far as I'm concerned. The editors of this wiki are not resident in the DWU. {{user:CzechOut/Sig}} <span style="{{User:CzechOut/TimeFormat}}">02:24: Sun 04 Mar 2012 </span> | ||
| Line 146: | Line 146: | ||
::::: Lemme put it this way, what if the "companion" had looked like [[:File:Companion.jpg|this the hole game]] instead of just first off? Well, then It would be exactly the same. No difference in plot occurs through the changes the player makes in the game. All the player can change is what he looks like and (in a very limited way) what order he takes. (I.e. you CAN go and do [[New Earth]] or the clockwork planet before finishing Earth, but it doesn't affect either narrative. [[User:OttselSpy25|OS25]] ([[User Talk:OttselSpy25|talk to me, baby.]]) 16:14, March 24, 2012 (UTC) | ::::: Lemme put it this way, what if the "companion" had looked like [[:File:Companion.jpg|this the hole game]] instead of just first off? Well, then It would be exactly the same. No difference in plot occurs through the changes the player makes in the game. All the player can change is what he looks like and (in a very limited way) what order he takes. (I.e. you CAN go and do [[New Earth]] or the clockwork planet before finishing Earth, but it doesn't affect either narrative. [[User:OttselSpy25|OS25]] ([[User Talk:OttselSpy25|talk to me, baby.]]) 16:14, March 24, 2012 (UTC) | ||
::::: As [[Douglas Adams]] once said, "And another thing..." I notice we thoughtlessly cover [[VG]]: ''[[Attack of the Graske]]'', despite it being '''WORSE''' at what you guys claim then this is. Now, Czech argues that the "companion" in the game is just another way of saying "you," "you're" helping the Doctor. I don't see it that way. He's not talking to "you," he's talking to "you're character." This is not the case of ''Attach...'', in that, he is literally telling you that YOU'RE helping him. From your couch, through your TV. No character, no cover-up, just "YOU need to help me... remote control..." So, why is ''Graske'' episode not up to question but ''WIT'' is? I digress. [[User:OttselSpy25|OS25]] ([[User Talk:OttselSpy25|talk to me, baby.]]) 23:34, March 28, 2012 (UTC) | ::::: As [[Douglas Adams]] once said, "And another thing..." I notice we thoughtlessly cover [[VG]]: ''[[Attack of the Graske (video game)|Attack of the Graske]]'', despite it being '''WORSE''' at what you guys claim then this is. Now, Czech argues that the "companion" in the game is just another way of saying "you," "you're" helping the Doctor. I don't see it that way. He's not talking to "you," he's talking to "you're character." This is not the case of ''Attach...'', in that, he is literally telling you that YOU'RE helping him. From your couch, through your TV. No character, no cover-up, just "YOU need to help me... remote control..." So, why is ''Graske'' episode not up to question but ''WIT'' is? I digress. [[User:OttselSpy25|OS25]] ([[User Talk:OttselSpy25|talk to me, baby.]]) 23:34, March 28, 2012 (UTC) | ||
:Don't mistake "having a page" for "what we cover". We're on a multi-year saga to define the scope of the wiki. As with the issues expressed at [[Forum:BBV and canon policy]]. we start from a position where the wiki wasn't policed and was covering everything that ''vaguely'' had an association with the DWU to firming up the borders a bit. [[User:Tangerineduel|Tangerineduel]], [[User:Revanvolatrelundar|Revanvolatrelundar]] and I have been trying to actively prune the wiki for a while now, and we've deleted scores of articles, while at the same time redacting hundreds more. It's a ''process'', so you can't use the argument "You've got somethign on ''Attack of the Graske'' so that means you must have something on ''Worlds in Time'' | :Don't mistake "having a page" for "what we cover". We're on a multi-year saga to define the scope of the wiki. As with the issues expressed at [[Forum:BBV and canon policy]]. we start from a position where the wiki wasn't policed and was covering everything that ''vaguely'' had an association with the DWU to firming up the borders a bit. [[User:Tangerineduel|Tangerineduel]], [[User:Revanvolatrelundar|Revanvolatrelundar]] and I have been trying to actively prune the wiki for a while now, and we've deleted scores of articles, while at the same time redacting hundreds more. It's a ''process'', so you can't use the argument "You've got somethign on ''Attack of the Graske'' so that means you must have something on ''Worlds in Time'' | ||
| Line 162: | Line 162: | ||
::Well, frankly, I never saw a reason to ban them. The way I see it, if there is still a recognizable plot, we can still include that on the wiki. I once more refer to [[Search for the Doctor]]. Despite being (what I think is but I have been told once that I'm wrong) a role-playing game, we still include it on the wikia. Why? Because in theory, every alternate page still sticks to the same basic narrative: The Doctor, Sarah's descendant, K9, and friends must stop Omega. The way I see it, if a story can still be written in a way that it NEVER varies due to direction, I should be canon. (This ''MAY'' make [[Attack of the Graske]] a bit questionable, but the "happy" ending IS the ending the game designers wanted you to choose) However, if a plot varies dramatically, even possibly resulting in the Doctor's death and regeneration into the same form (As I believe a FASA book does) then it shouldn't be canon. And [[User:Tybort]] is right, your rule '''WOULD''' make most video games non-cannon, which is particularly bad idea. | ::Well, frankly, I never saw a reason to ban them. The way I see it, if there is still a recognizable plot, we can still include that on the wiki. I once more refer to [[Search for the Doctor]]. Despite being (what I think is but I have been told once that I'm wrong) a role-playing game, we still include it on the wikia. Why? Because in theory, every alternate page still sticks to the same basic narrative: The Doctor, Sarah's descendant, K9, and friends must stop Omega. The way I see it, if a story can still be written in a way that it NEVER varies due to direction, I should be canon. (This ''MAY'' make [[Attack of the Graske (video game)|Attack of the Graske]] a bit questionable, but the "happy" ending IS the ending the game designers wanted you to choose) However, if a plot varies dramatically, even possibly resulting in the Doctor's death and regeneration into the same form (As I believe a FASA book does) then it shouldn't be canon. And [[User:Tybort]] is right, your rule '''WOULD''' make most video games non-cannon, which is particularly bad idea. | ||
:: And I'm sorry to come back to this, but [[worlds in time]] does not fit the criteria of "Only those narratives with a consistent narrative, experienced in the same way for all those that consume that narrative, may be considered a valid source for the writing of articles," because THE ONLY THING THAT CHANGES IN EACH LEVEL FOR EACH DIFFERENT PERSON IS WHO YOU ARE. The plot doesn't change differently because of who are what you are, even to the point of confusion. One Silurian you meet claims to be the last Silurian, even if YOU'RE playing a Silurian. | :: And I'm sorry to come back to this, but [[worlds in time]] does not fit the criteria of "Only those narratives with a consistent narrative, experienced in the same way for all those that consume that narrative, may be considered a valid source for the writing of articles," because THE ONLY THING THAT CHANGES IN EACH LEVEL FOR EACH DIFFERENT PERSON IS WHO YOU ARE. The plot doesn't change differently because of who are what you are, even to the point of confusion. One Silurian you meet claims to be the last Silurian, even if YOU'RE playing a Silurian. | ||
