: The exact same way Viacom, which owns Paramount, gives
: permission to authors of Star Trek stories to publish
: their books, while it is obviously clear that Star
: Trek Canon includes none of what is published by some
: authors and ONLY what it officially produces. The
: Technical Manuals are absolutely identical in
: representation to the Myth Manuals. The Game is only
: what we see in TV or Movies, which is of purest canon.
: The books BASED on Star Trek themselves will have
: similar insignias of Paramount or Viacom, a rather
: identical paradigm.
For the purposes of story analysis, I would ignore any Star Trek publications that were not created at least in part by the original creative team.
Of course, Star Trek doesn't really have a unified creative team. Which is why I'm not on a Star Trek story forum.
: Of course! If Bungie were to have authorized it like a
: Star Trek Technical Manual, it would then have had
: control over the finished product. It clearly didn't.
So it wasn't authorized because Bungie didn't have control over the finished product...and Bungie didn't have control over the finished product because it wasn't authorized.
: Actually, you sound like you are the one defending it so
: faithfully.
I can state the circumstances under which I would reject GURPS--if no Bungie employees were credited, if Bungie representatives did not tout it as a resource for Myth history. I would not require a personal statement of rejection from a Bungie employee.
: Right, but every case is isolated. I understand what your
: saying, but it obviously didn't apply, or Bungie would
: have taken greater care.
Again, this is religious doctrine. No matter what GURPS does, it should have done it better or it's not canon. GURPS' only real surprise--the Deceiver's survival--is in the exactly the same area as the contradiction in the Bungie games themselves.
: Yes, just as all those Star Trek novels are based on Star
: Trek, a product of Viacom-Paramount. Viacom had to
: license those authors with the right to BASE material
: from their products too. Nothing is said in them that
: they're in any way true to the real story, of which is
: only evident in the productions, just as only Myth the
: game has any evidence.
Star Trek novels do not credit the original creative team with contributions and testing--because, again, Star Trek is known a priori to have no unified creative team, which is why rigorous story analysis is impossible.
And Viacom-Paramount has control over the products it licenses too--you can't ask for a Star Trek novel license and then write hardcore porn. It's just that Paramount doesn't *care* as much about story consistency as Bungie. We know about Bungie's commitment to story consistency. They've demonstrated it over close to a decade now. A number of minor mistakes in GURPS--and a possible major mistake at the same story point where the Bungie games themselves are possibly erroneous--does not justify ignoring this.
: Yes, it's a shame he didn't write a word of GURPS Myth.
Actually, GURPS contains a number of quotes from Myth, most likely written by him. Of course, we can only verify the ones we actually saw in-game--but to believe that Seabolt maliciously inserted a few extras in exactly the same writing style and format is highly irrational, IMO.
In any event, writing a word of GURPS Myth certainly wouldn't be the job of any Bungie employee. They're not professional writers. Seabolt writes the book under any circumstances. He just takes info from people like Rob.
: And Viacom buying Paramount? Another network getting
: control of a TV Show, like Buffy, that used to be on
: another channel, Buffy now being on UPN? Hands were
: changed, yet the stories remained perfectly intact and
: still have their own historical canon.
Completely different. The hands that changed were those of the legal owners, not those of the creative team. (If the creative team changed also, then no, I wouldn't consider the new stuff canon.) The fact that Halo is produced by Microsoft rather than Bungie Software does not remove it from the Marathon universe, because the Microsoft employees who are creating Halo are largely the same people who, as Bungie Software, created Marathon. It's the creative team that matters.
: Yes, which makes it seem strange to me that you like
: GURPS.
The GURPS team included some of the same contributing minds as did the original Myth. MJ does not.
: Clarify further.
As I asked you. Why are you interested in story analysis? Why are you on this forum?
I'm interested in story analysis because I wish to reconstruct a conceptual world, as envisioned by a certain artist or group of artists. In order for this reconstruction process to be at all possible, we must be certain that the conceptual world is largely self-consistent. We must be able to say "Since fact A tells us that statement B is correct, all other facts should be interpreted under the assumption that B is in fact correct." Otherwise any theory we produce falls essentially under fan fiction--a nice story which sheds no light on the "true" nature of the world considered.
Now if we want the world to be self-consistent, then we must be sure that its contributors are able to make it so. The degree of their ability determines the "canon level" of their various products. Since the creators are human, inconsistencies will creep into even the most reliable product; still, we can make relative quality assessments.
Myth TFL, Myth II and Tales are likely to be most self-consistent, because their creators worked closely together for years and were easily able to point out and resolve any disagreements betweent their individual world-views.
GURPS Myth and Chimera involve a new set of creators who did not work for a long time with the old, so their self-consistency is necessarily less. However, a number of the original creators are known to have worked on these products, and the final products were considered by the original creators to be worthy of public praise and direct sale, so we may infer that most contradictions and disagreements were resolved.
Myth III's creators did not at any time work with the original creators, nor have the original creators praised its story or sold it (although this is moot, since they can't.) However, should Myth III's creators have the design docs, they will most likely attempt to remain consistent with all the aspects of the original world which are written therein, should they not conflict with the objective of good gameplay (as with Soulless).
That's how I see these things. Now, please, tell me where you're coming from?
: Right, but we never see it in the story itself. However,
: Bungie also gave us many multiplayer meshes. I believe
: one of them has Brigands and Myrkridia. Therefore, we
: can see, as what with Bungie's presentation, how these
: two match up.
: Therefore, we can't make up our own parameters of the
: levels we make. They can be fun and demonstrate how
: they were designed, but they're nothing beyond that.
I disagree--there are inconsistencies between multiplayer Myth and solo Myth, hence we shouldn't look to the former to explain the latter unless we're already accepting of some scripted simulations--but we'll leave it at that.
: It just says she was defeated and left behind. This could
: mean anything, though it would seem to contradict M2 a
: bit
mb. Besides, this topic is moot.
Shiver "lingered in defeat," and her body was a pile of ashes. I think the meaning's clear, especially when coupled with her M2 flavor.
And we left the original topic days ago. Can't stop now!
--SiliconDream
