: Why does Myth 3 not have the same standing as the other
: two games? Because its not Bungie?
Well, kinda...just in that it's less likely to have a complex and satisfying story. But mainly, because the other two games were made by one group of people, and Myth 3 will be made by a different group.
: Guys I realy hate to say this but Bungie is out of it as
: far as any new Myth games go. They have gone on to
: other things. This is not nessisaraly a bad thing
: though.
: If GOD (and not the one I go and worship on Sundays)
: takes this in the right direction and exicutes the
: game properly it could be a huge shot in the arm for
: the game. I mean (and this may sound terrable
: depending on how long you have loved and made
: sacrifices to bungie;) a new perspective on things
: could actuly make the story better. Its not like they
: will throw out every thing bungie created. They will
: simply try to make a great backstory for it.
They could start by spelling common units' names correctly. :-)
: It is a faily simple undertakeing (I can say that cause I
: am not going to be doing the work) because Bungie has
: given fairly compleat overview of the timeperiod they
: are working on but left the specifics blank.
Certainly, but plenty of stories have failed at that point. There's lots of games (like the Unreal series) that easily produced reams and reams of "In the year X, A fought B and then declared a truce"--style information. But they didn't put it together into a story worth uncovering, and they didn't make uncovering it into a challenged.
: If the story is good I think it would be a shame to
: dismiss it simply because Bungie did not write it
: themselvs.
As I said, we can analyze it as much as we want--but we should remember that it's different from the earlier games.
Think about what the Asylum is for. Why do we analyze the story? Why do we construct theories and then argue them? Are we just making theories that sound good? Then this is simply a forum for fan fiction--and there's nothing wrong with that, although I wouldn't be too interested in it--but I don't think it's the case.
The Asylum has a criterion for "truth," even if it's not one we attain much of the time; and that's whether our theories match what the developers had in their heads. What determines whether the Deceiver really did survive his battle with Shiver? Well, if we talked to, say, Rob Mclees, and he said, "Yeah, Myrdred died then," the argument would be over. It would be "fact" that Myrdred was dead.
Now, this is the root of the difference between the first two Myths and the third. The world created by the first two Myths and by the comic (and by GURPS if you believe it) is a world created by a single group of people. Every fact in it was created (or validated, in GURPS' case) by this group, and therefore we can believe that there's an overarching "true" Myth reality, the sum of these facts. Bungie imagined this reality as a whole, and made it pretty much consistent, and we can try to view as much of it as possible through our research and theories.
But add in Myth 3, and suddenly we have part of the world which we *know* was created by someone else. And unless Take Two checks with Bungie to make sure everything they write is consistent with what Bungie imagined--and judging by their performance so far, they're probably not--this part of the Mythworld is going to be inconsistent in various ways with the rest. In which case, what standard of truth are our theories aimed at?
Again again, analyzing Myth 3 is very worthwhile, though I suspect the story quality will be closer to Chimera than to the earlier Myths. But when you try to combine all the Myths, and create theories that fit them all, there's no criterion of truth you can use. Because a combined Mythworld from all three games doesn't exist in *anybody's* head or notebook. Because different people made the different games.
And speculating without hoping to find this truth isn't much fun for me.
--SiliconDream
