230,341
edits
User:SOTO/Forum Archive/Inclusion debates/@comment-4028641-20151007072528: Difference between revisions
From Tardis Wiki, the free Doctor Who reference
User:SOTO/Forum Archive/Inclusion debates/@comment-4028641-20151007072528 (edit)
Revision as of 14:37, 27 April 2023
, 27 April 2023Bot: Automated text replacement (-'''User:(SOTO/Forum Archive)/(.*?)/\@comment-([\d\.]+)-(\d+)'''\n([\s\S]*)\[\[Category:SOTO archive posts\]\] +\5\2/\4-\3, -'''User:(SOTO/Forum Archive)/(.*?)/\@comment-(.*?)'''([\s\S]*) ?\{\{retitle\|///(.*?)\}\} +{{retitle|\2/\5}}\n'''User:\1/\2/@comment-\3'''\4)
(Bot: Automated import of articles) |
m (Bot: Automated text replacement (-'''User:(SOTO/Forum Archive)/(.*?)/\@comment-([\d\.]+)-(\d+)'''\n([\s\S]*)\[\[Category:SOTO archive posts\]\] +\5/-, -'''User:(SOTO/Forum Archive)/(.*?)/\@comment-(.*?)'''([\s\S]*) ?\{\{retitle\|///(.*?)\}\} +{{retitle|\2/\5}}\n'''User:\1/\2/@comment-\3'''\4)) |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{retitle|Inclusion debates/Reopening Video Game discussions}} | |||
I've been looking over the old video game pages for the original bunch, and I was a little baffled by how incosistent our decisions based off of them were. Some stories, such as ''[[The First Adventure]]'' and ''[[Doctor Who and the Warlord]]'', are listed as valid sources for pages, whilst others (such as ''[[Doctor Who and the Mines of Terror]]'') are invalid for seemingly inconsistent reasons. | I've been looking over the old video game pages for the original bunch, and I was a little baffled by how incosistent our decisions based off of them were. Some stories, such as ''[[The First Adventure]]'' and ''[[Doctor Who and the Warlord]]'', are listed as valid sources for pages, whilst others (such as ''[[Doctor Who and the Mines of Terror]]'') are invalid for seemingly inconsistent reasons. | ||
| Line 8: | Line 8: | ||
According to what I understand, the logic in making the ''MoT'' invalid was that it had too little narrative information within the game to write stories on... Yet I can find information about that game's story easily, whilst the other two games are much more vague. In the case of ''TFA'', I can't find much info on what the in-universe story for all the levels are, besides "save the companion." It's a little hard to place at any point or to fully justify any of the levels -- who are you playing as? Are you the Doctor in all levels, or a friend, or yourself as another companion? It's entirely clear. A bigger issue is ''DWatWl'', which (according to what I can tell) is a story where your character doesn't have a name, and which I can't find much info on narratively. If the game has different path ways or is even a slight role playing game, we have decided on the site to remove them from the pool of valid stories. | According to what I understand, the logic in making the ''MoT'' invalid was that it had too little narrative information within the game to write stories on... Yet I can find information about that game's story easily, whilst the other two games are much more vague. In the case of ''TFA'', I can't find much info on what the in-universe story for all the levels are, besides "save the companion." It's a little hard to place at any point or to fully justify any of the levels -- who are you playing as? Are you the Doctor in all levels, or a friend, or yourself as another companion? It's entirely clear. A bigger issue is ''DWatWl'', which (according to what I can tell) is a story where your character doesn't have a name, and which I can't find much info on narratively. If the game has different path ways or is even a slight role playing game, we have decided on the site to remove them from the pool of valid stories. | ||
Anyone have any takes on these three stories based on our modern policies? | Anyone have any takes on these three stories based on our modern policies? | ||
<noinclude>[[Category:SOTO archive posts]]</noinclude> | <noinclude>[[Category:SOTO archive posts|Inclusion debates/20151007072528-4028641]]</noinclude> | ||
