Forum:Doctor Who: Worlds in Time: Difference between revisions

:The reason there's no article is that it's not been [[T:OFF REL|officially released]].  As far as we can tell, you're playing a ''beta'' or preview version, which means the game is therefore ineligible for an article. See [[Forum:When using information from Doctor Who: Worlds in Time|this thread]] for more. {{user:CzechOut/Sig}}&nbsp;<span style="{{User:CzechOut/TimeFormat}}">14:54: Tue&nbsp;21 Feb 2012&nbsp;</span>

:We're going to need to have a discussion on what "counts" in this game and what doesn't, anyway.  We've never had to deal with an MMORPG, and it brings up a number of issues over what parts of the story happen canonically and which don't.  Obviously, different players will have different experiences in such a game.  So does your run through the game reveal the canonical "truth" of the game?  It's an interesting question that Wookieepedia have to deal with on a regular basis, but which our particular fandom never has.  {{user:CzechOut/Sig}}&nbsp;<span style="{{User:CzechOut/TimeFormat}}">02:41: Thu&nbsp;23 Feb 2012&nbsp;</span>

:Yes, indeedy.  Restored to the point of the last substantive edit.  {{user:CzechOut/Sig}}&nbsp;<span style="{{User:CzechOut/TimeFormat}}">22:14: Wed&nbsp;14 Mar 2012&nbsp;</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}}&nbsp;<span style="{{User:CzechOut/TimeFormat}}">02:24: Sun&nbsp;04 Mar 2012&nbsp;</span>

:::::Not sure how that would work.  Let's say there's an Ice Warrior in the game. How would we talk about the Ice Warrior without describing his opposition (you)? What does the Ice Warrior do in the game, if not oppose you?  What happens to him, if not that which you do to him?  {{user:CzechOut/Sig}}&nbsp;<span style="{{User:CzechOut/TimeFormat}}">13:59: Sun&nbsp;04 Mar 2012&nbsp;</span>

::*[[Companion (Worlds in Time)]] has been deleted.  That doesn't even rise to the level of discussion, I don't think, since that's just another way of saying "you", and "you" aren't a part of the DWU.  Moreover, the multiplayer aspect absolutely complicates the writing of the article to an essentially unworkable degree.  In order for the narrative of this game to work at all on this wiki, it has to be relatable from the point of view of the Doctor.  Which means, fo course, that this game really can't be written up on this wiki.  I don't see how you tell any of the story without referring to the player, and the player isn't playing — as is the case in many ''Star Wars'' and ''Star Trek'' games, or even ''[[The Adventure Games]]'' — a named, established character in the fictional universe.  Every player is playing ''a different'' character that they have themselves named.  That just doesn't work for us narratively.  {{user:CzechOut/Sig}}&nbsp;<span style="{{User:CzechOut/TimeFormat}}">16:45: Fri&nbsp;23 Mar 2012&nbsp;</span>

:Name (Worlds in Time).  We probably need to have a broader discussion about consistent use of the term "Doctor Who" when it's naming something in its franchise.  Sometimes, it seems, we want to put "Doctor Who: <name>" and sometimes we don't.  I've never particularly understood why we ''ever'' do so.  The whole article should probably be at just ''Worlds in Time (video game)'', but maybe someone has a compelling argument for keeping the ''Doctor Who:'' on the front?  For the purposes of disambiguation, though, there's absolutely no use in the prepending ''Doctor Who:''  {{user:CzechOut/Sig}}&nbsp;<span style="{{User:CzechOut/TimeFormat}}">21:59: Sun&nbsp;18 Mar 2012&nbsp;</span>

At the present moment, I think it advisable to simply create a real world list called [[List of NPCs in Worlds in Time]] and chart the information there.  I really don't think we should be treating any of them as legitimately in-universe.  {{user:CzechOut/Sig}}&nbsp;<span style="{{User:CzechOut/TimeFormat}}">15:39: Fri&nbsp;23 Mar 2012&nbsp;</span>

::::And then there's the vexed question of describing their relationship to the Doctor.  Or, worse, what their room aboard the TARDIS looks like.  It's an ''awfully'' important part of WIT, that room, yet it'll be as individualised as the person playing the game.  Because, again, "the companion" is ''you''.  It has no back story, no life prior to or after this game, no relationships of any kind.  The Doctor merely welcomes it — ''you'' — on board and starts telling you what to do.  There's no narrative there, no character, ''nothing'' to write about from an in-universe perspective.  {{user:CzechOut/Sig}}&nbsp;<span style="{{User:CzechOut/TimeFormat}}">17:35: Fri&nbsp;23 Mar 2012&nbsp;</span>

:''Worlds in Time'' is a role-playing game.  Sure it's a ''massive, multiplayer online'' RPG, but it's still an RPG.  And RPGs were thrown out ''years'' ago.  I don't think we can write up ''anything'' about the game in an in-universe way.  [[User:Tangerineduel|Tangerineduel]], is that how you'd interpret that part of [[T:CAN]]?  {{user:CzechOut/Sig}}&nbsp;<span style="{{User:CzechOut/TimeFormat}}">18:49: Fri&nbsp;23 Mar 2012&nbsp;</span>

::*The origin of the ban on the FASA game has eluded me, as well.  [[Forum:We need a policy on videogames|I asked for its origins a couple a years ago]] and got nada.  Searches lead me nowhere.  Nevertheless, I wasn't asking because I disagreed with the ban, only cause I wanted clariy.  RPGs ''should'' be banned.  Any game which centrally has a character ''you created'' and uses items ''you created'' is fanfic.  [[T:NO FANFIC]] therefore applies.  {{user:CzechOut/Sig}}&nbsp;<span style="{{User:CzechOut/TimeFormat}}">20:24: Fri&nbsp;23 Mar 2012&nbsp;</span>

I say there's been a ban in place for four years or more, and that this game only confirms the difficulty of considering an RPG as canon.  Our lives would simply be easier if we classed RPGs outside our remit entirely, put up an {{tl|notdwu}} flag on ''WIT'' and work on hammering out a video game policy to better establish what's in, what's out, and why. {{user:CzechOut/Sig}}&nbsp;<span style="{{User:CzechOut/TimeFormat}}">20:53: Fri&nbsp;23 Mar 2012&nbsp;</span>

:::::::To me, it's more that it's a lack of ''consistent'' narrative. See, if I go into WIT with friends who are roleplayers, we can make a story that isn't there if you just play alone.  The fact that you can make your character talk means you will never, ever have the same experience as another player.  Imagine that I'm playing a militaristic Silurian and my friend is playing a speciest human.  If we're ''really'' roleplaying, as the game allows, we'll be at each other's throats between trying to solve the little puzzles.  If I'm alone, the computer may not randomly asssign a human to my party, so that whole narrative element is gone.  What I'm saying is that RPGs '''encourage and ''allow for''''' fanfic, which [[T:NO FANFIC|is clearly not allowed]].  But maybe, you say, you can just ignore all the in-game communication.  It's a huge part of the game, but fine.  Let's throw it out.  You're still left with the possibility that if you're playing with someone else, they might ''intentionally'' choose not to help you out, which changes your perception of progress in the game.  More than that, you don't have to choose the missions (called rather stupidly "interventions") in a particular order, by and large.  Which means for you, the game may progress from intervention a, to intervention d, to invervention c.  For someone else, it might go in alphabetical order.  Thus your "plot" is scrambled. I think that to include a particular story, i must be a story that progresses in the same way for everyone experiencing it.  {{user:CzechOut/Sig}}&nbsp;<span style="{{User:CzechOut/TimeFormat}}">20:04: Thu&nbsp;29 Mar 2012&nbsp;</span>

::'''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.'''  {{user:CzechOut/Sig}}&nbsp;<span style="{{User:CzechOut/TimeFormat}}">19:51: Thu&nbsp;29 Mar 2012&nbsp;</span>

::'''Moreover, you're totally misrepresenting what's actually happening at WP.'''  They don't actually have an article on "a spacer" or "a Jedi Knight".  Their article on [[starwars:spacer|spacer]] is talking about the generic term, not its applicability in a particular game.  If you look at WP, they don't try to cover the character the player plays in their MMOs, like ''Star Wars Galaxies''. They're a very broad church over there, but even '''they''' don't attempt articles on player-named, player-created characters, as are the norm in MMOs.  What they ''do'' have is articles on LucasArts-named characters that the player plays.  That's fine.  We've got  much less of a problem with games like ''City of the Daleks'' where you're playing the Doctor or Amy, and there's a more-or-less set story you're trying to get through.  An open-ended MMO, RPG or Decide Your Destiny experience requires greater discussion.  How do we know which is supposed to be the course of events that is "correct" and which is "failed"?  How do we know whom the events happened to if they happened to millions of different players around the world, all playing unique characters?  This is what makes this whole question so difficult.  And unfortunately the ''Star Wars'' example doesn't really help us as much as it might appear at first glance. {{user:CzechOut/Sig}}&nbsp;<span style="{{User:CzechOut/TimeFormat}}">23:31: Thu&nbsp;29 Mar 2012&nbsp;</span>

::::They don't ''touch'' the main PC of ''Star Wars Galaxies'', however.  That's a ''much'' closer analogy to the player of ''WIT''.  And there's a very technical reason for the existence of that article. You need to have [[starwars:Unidentified Havoc Squad commander|Unidentified Havoc Squad commander]] so that you can write about the NPCs in his command, all of whom have a lot of solid canonical information that Wookieepedians want to cover.  The player in WIT has ''nothing'' like that kind of narrative importance.  Seriously, the WIT player is very, very, ''very'' close to the player in ''Attack of the Graske'', and is about as far removed from a LucasArts character as you can get and still call it a video game.  {{user:CzechOut/Sig}}&nbsp;<span style="{{User:CzechOut/TimeFormat}}">01:06: Mon&nbsp;02 Apr 2012&nbsp;</span>

So, again, forgetting any other considerations, without trying to make comparisons with this story or that other franchise,  what are the '''merits''' for allowing RPG-based material on the wiki?  {{user:CzechOut/Sig}}&nbsp;<span style="{{User:CzechOut/TimeFormat}}">23:56: Thu&nbsp;29 Mar 2012&nbsp;</span>

::So your rule hinges on various different editors interpreting a vague adverb?  Doesn't immediately strike me as the wisest course of action.  It's much clearer just to say "no RPGs, no MMOs, no MMORPGs, no [[DYD]], no [[FYF]], no game in which you are playing a character that has no name or one that you have yourself named."  {{user:CzechOut/Sig}}&nbsp;<span style="{{User:CzechOut/TimeFormat}}">01:15: Mon&nbsp;02 Apr 2012&nbsp;</span>

::::But you've again gone to an argument to try to keep WIT around without answering the first question.  We ''first'' need to know, "Do we cover RPGs (and therefore MMOs and MMORPGs) here"?  You don't seem prepared to just say "no" to that.  Why?  What is it about RPGs you're trying to hold on to? {{user:CzechOut/Sig}}&nbsp;<span style="{{User:CzechOut/TimeFormat}}">14:15: Mon&nbsp;02 Apr 2012&nbsp;</span>