onan's forum posts

#1 Posted by onan (1283 posts) -

He's always had brittle bone disease, not sure where you got the "legs only" thing. Probably an assumption from him calling himself a cripple.

It's been handled oddly a lot, but no worse than in the last minute of ME3 (spoilers, obviously) when after the Normandy crash-lands on an uninhabited planet, dude is the first person walking out of the ship. Every bone in his body should have been turned to dust in a crash like that.

#2 Posted by onan (1283 posts) -

It seems like the only time locations are used as concepts are when they're an actual part of the shared game experience, such as the Lava Stage. Using "mountains" as a concept would only really apply to if you can see mountains in the distance (or as a gameplay mechanic), ideally if it wasn't just used for window dressing. Not a video game example, but Mount Fuji is a location, while 36 Views of Mount Fuji uses Mount Fuji as a concept.

Even then I don't think that really merits twinning the entry as both a concept and a location, with very few exceptions such as the Lava Level one, where a location becomes a concept because it has also become a gaming cliche. A good rule of thumb might be "if your character is there, it's a location."

#3 Posted by onan (1283 posts) -

@Hailinel: I got that, I just didn't know why you were pro-combining. Now I do.

And to clarify, the image wasn't meant to be sarcastic, it was meant to be illustrative with a well known example of how names and appearances literally defined characters until at least the 16-bit era. Mario and Luigi functioned identically and even looked identically. The only difference was a color scheme and a name above the score.

So yes, "These are video games." If The Super Mario Bros series had ended with the first one, Luigi would still warrant his own page based on that alone because that's how games rolled back then.

#4 Posted by onan (1283 posts) -

@Hailinel said:

Your point being that these are video games? What difference does that make? Appearance is only part of what a character is, no matter the medium.

Switching a few colors around on Mario gave us a completely different character.

Correct me if I'm wrong here, but this request post you made was to combine Satan pages based on the fact that the SMT Satan shares a name and general demonic appearance with the generic Satan page, no?

Appearance and name make all of the difference in a medium where, for the first 25 years or so, that's all you had to go on: A handful of pixels you could count and a name in a printed manual or game title.

If you're going to make the argument that the SMT Alice is unique because she doesn't explicitly say she's Lewis Carroll's Alice, then why wouldn't you afford the SMT Satan that same benefit of the doubt? Especially since Lucifer is treated as a separate character in that universe, and the SMT incarnation has 22 games under his belt. That version would appear to be distinctive enough to warrant his own page. If Atlus had transliterated it back to English as "Seitan" it wouldn't even be up for debate (much like YHVH), because despite the very clear inspirations, the mythological figure of the main article generally doesn't allow teenagers to summon him for battle like a pokemon.

I understand you're following the wiki rules and rules are law, but laws change or have exceptions when and where they make sense as issues crop up during enforcement. This may be one of those cases that bears further investigation or revisiting.

@LordAndrew said:

@onan said:

On the complete flipside, (Wind Waker spoilers) Tetra gets lumped in on Zelda's page when 1) She isn't actually Zelda, just a re-incarnation or descendant or something

Every version of Zelda except the one in Skyward Sword is a "re-incarnation or descendant or something" of the original Zelda. That's what makes the character Zelda.

How is that a single character, though? I understand lumping them in for the earlier titles when she was the damsel in distress with similar sprites, but Tetra is a tough talking pirate who shares no traits, appearance, or name with the original zelda or the general image of Zelda other than lineage. Maybe Zelda is a surname and all descendants fill the same role, but then we should also merge the Dig Dug and Mr. Driller pages, since they're essentially the same character in the same way Tetra and prototypical Zelda are. Can't think of another gaming example off the top of my head, but it's more like saying Dan Ketch and Johnny Blaze are the same character because they both turn into Ghost Rider, or that Spawn and Medieval Spawn are the same character.

I get that as it currently stands, character pages just lump in every single interpretation of a character and just list them all, after all that's what this thread is all about with the Satan thing. It all stems back to the earlier mention of the Public Domain characters, though. If there were a way implemented to handle those elegantly (since the current way is far from ideal), I'd imagine these other things would just fall into line. I just find it odd that truly minor characters with minimal contributions to a game that may only appear once or twice can get fully fleshed out personal pages, while fully fleshed-out but ultimately derivative characters get short-shrift by becoming a paragraph under something else in the existing organizational system.

Anyway, I've said my piece and we're going off on a bit of a tangent.

In summary: "I personally believe the current organizational system regarding this leaves a lot to be desired." I've voiced my opinion on the matter and I'll leave it at that.

#5 Posted by onan (1283 posts) -

@Hailinel said:

Except SMT Alice has no stated connection to the Alice of Lewis Carroll. There is nothing in her description as a Persona nor in her original appearances in games like SMT I & II that in any way refer to her as the storybook character. The only direct reference that I'm aware of didn't even come until Strange Journey, when she's involved in a sidequest about locating the Hare of Inaba, which she immediately begins torturing when you help her find it. Otherwise, she's just a young girl with an appearance and name that match the Lewis Carroll character, but she is not the Lewis Carroll character.

These are video games. Appearance and name literally define something like half of the "characters" in this database.

On the complete flipside, (Wind Waker spoilers) Tetra gets lumped in on Zelda's page when 1) She isn't actually Zelda, just a re-incarnation or descendant or something, and 2) she's got her own look, personality, and name. There are more than a few entries on here where if you drill down deep enough into a game's fiction, ultimately one character is technically also another character so they're merged as an entry, and honestly, that's kind of messed up too. Like the thing with Tetra, the search hit itself is a massive spoiler that presents itself in the search field. (Classic example, try looking for a certain character from Deadly Premonition. Or don't, if you haven't beaten the game or watched the endurance runs yet.)

My point is that sharing an appearance and a name with another character isn't really a good justification for merging or maintaining separate pages. Back on topic, I haven't played any of these, but hypothetically Satan from the upcoming South Park game will almost certainly be different from the Satan portrayed in Dante's Inferno. I'm all for a Satan concept and individual entries where the character isn't completely trivial in the context of the game. I just doubt an overhaul like that will get approved (and that's a shame).

#6 Posted by onan (1283 posts) -

@Hailinel: Hey, I agree with you 110%, I feel they should be separate, but I'm giving use cases as to why things shouldn't be collapsed down into one parent entry when it's pretty clear these characters based on mythological, historical, or literary sources are not ultimately the same thing and shouldn't necessarily be merged.

Bringing it a little closer to home, you're the #1 contributor to the SMT version of Alice, which for all intents and purposes should share a page with American McGee's Alice and Disney's Alice since they're all clearly based on Lewis Carroll's Alice.

Again, not saying they should be merged, just saying it's far too subjective and something that should instead be addressed by wiki rules regarding these public domain characters instead of a gut feeling of if a character is actually divergent enough from the source material to warrant their own page.

#7 Posted by onan (1283 posts) -

@Hailinel said:

A character like Goku that's only inspired by Wukong and not actually Wukong is not the same as two figures that are the same character.

I've seen a lot of both, either completely different characters having the same name and being lumped together, or the exact same character with different names treated differently.

In this case, "Son Goku" is "Sun Wukong" in the transliterated Japanese. Same dude, same name. Rides a cloud, has a monkey's tail, becomes superpowerful due to martial arts, hangs out with a monk, etc. It's the exact same base character that eventually diverged when he grew into his own character. Sort of like what they did with all the Greek gods in the God of War series. Also exactly the same thing they did with Diablo, which is why I don't think we're looking to merge with Satan in this case even though they probably should since it's just "Devil" in Spanish.

#8 Posted by onan (1283 posts) -

@Mento said:

I'm liking the public domain character page idea. The issue seems to be that there are all these famous literary and mythological figures that so many game developers are using as a basis for their own unique characters with the same name and many of the same traits. If we simply make a page for that universally acknowledged figure that exists outside of games and then include every interpretation with its differences in that page somewhere, that might a start. If, as Praxis says, it might make those pages cluttered and inadequate in scope.

But what could be ideal, and probably wildly impractical right now, are sub-pages for series-unique character interpretations. Like how regular games might (or already do? I haven't used seaserpent's wiki tools much) have sub-pages for their DLC (and perhaps their portable versions, since someone was griping about how divergent they can sometimes be a while ago). When it comes to the list that tells you how many games have "Satan" in it, the main page would include all instances of both his "classic" interpretation and that of all his game-specific interpretations, with each of the sub-pages just listing the games featuring their respective interpretation alone. Maybe put it in the code that when a game is added to one of the sub-pages would instantly add it to the core page's master list too.

I dunno how far along that sub-page implementation is, but it sounded like one of the big new features they were planning to introduce. It'd give editors ample room to just go hog wild if they wanted to write a thousand words about the James Woods Disney Hades (and why wouldn't they? It's James Woods) without making the core page look too busy and oddly lopsided towards that specific version of the character.

Agreed. Otherwise You'd have to merge the Goku page, the Son Goku page, the Son Gokuu page, the Monkey page, the Wukong, the Monkey King page, and every other character based on the character Sun Wukong, the Monkey King in Journey to the West. (Wait, THAT doesn't have a concept page?)

Really, mythology, literature, all of these game characters based on these historical characters are trying to parlay the zeitgeist, the cultural touchstone into something more for their game interpretation. As far as games go, these characters are all concepts that never actually appear in a game because they're not game characters. As soon as any sort of character building happens at all, they cease to be just a reference to something outside of the game. Public domain characters should be concepts so they can be attached to the derivative characters appropriate (i.e. not as a "related character"). It would be a huge mess initially (the Dynasty Warriors characters alone... yikes) but is ultimately a way better direction to go in.

#9 Posted by onan (1283 posts) -

@runcrash said:

This is the second Kickstarter i've backed. The first was Double Fine Adventure.

I'm in for $150. I'm not rich by any means, but how often is one afforded the opportunity to get their name in the credits of the sequel to one of his top ten favorite games of all time? I couldn't pass that up.

#10 Posted by onan (1283 posts) -

For all their effort, they couldn't make the Impossible possible.