32,969
edits
Talk:Prince Froggy: Difference between revisions
→Comments
Waluigi Time (talk | contribs) |
|||
| Line 126: | Line 126: | ||
:::In terms of accuracy to the information shown in-game, I don't know how the minds behind the game can possibly be called "fallible" when ''they're the ones who created the game''. The concept of "the world 3 fort boss is actually just a regular enemy with a twist" came from ''them'', and the English localisers (who didn't create the game) just added some more "lore" on top of that. {{User:Koopa con Carne/Sig}} 19:29, April 6, 2023 (EDT)<br>Edit: Though, I can't help but wonder how far we should default to the lang-of-origin argument. As a hypothetical, Nintendo of Japan says that Baby Mario is just a young Mario, while Nintendo of America for some reason decides to consistently promote Baby Mario across English media as a wholly distinct character; say, Mario's son. Given that this is an American website and it is written in English, which narrative would the wiki choose as a matter of course? Perhaps not directly relevant to the current discussion, but thinking in logical extremes can help one detect problems with a given idea or rhetoric past a certain point. {{User:Koopa con Carne/Sig}} 19:40, April 6, 2023 (EDT) | :::In terms of accuracy to the information shown in-game, I don't know how the minds behind the game can possibly be called "fallible" when ''they're the ones who created the game''. The concept of "the world 3 fort boss is actually just a regular enemy with a twist" came from ''them'', and the English localisers (who didn't create the game) just added some more "lore" on top of that. {{User:Koopa con Carne/Sig}} 19:29, April 6, 2023 (EDT)<br>Edit: Though, I can't help but wonder how far we should default to the lang-of-origin argument. As a hypothetical, Nintendo of Japan says that Baby Mario is just a young Mario, while Nintendo of America for some reason decides to consistently promote Baby Mario across English media as a wholly distinct character; say, Mario's son. Given that this is an American website and it is written in English, which narrative would the wiki choose as a matter of course? Perhaps not directly relevant to the current discussion, but thinking in logical extremes can help one detect problems with a given idea or rhetoric past a certain point. {{User:Koopa con Carne/Sig}} 19:40, April 6, 2023 (EDT) | ||
::::When I say "developers aren't infallible" that's referring moreso to multi-game subjects i.e. giving a returning thing the wrong name, so not as relevant in this specific conversation. --{{User:Waluigi Time/sig}} 19:52, April 6, 2023 (EDT) | ::::When I say "developers aren't infallible" that's referring moreso to multi-game subjects i.e. giving a returning thing the wrong name, so not as relevant in this specific conversation. --{{User:Waluigi Time/sig}} 19:52, April 6, 2023 (EDT) | ||
:::::Regarding "creator intent" or the assumption that they actually know what the hell they're doing regarding naming and organizing enemies: they don't. People are working off an incorrect assumed premise. In reality: developers in general know/appreciate/care way less about "lore" consistency than a lot of wiki editors think. They work on a job for money not to passionately invest in a dream project like us fans are doing when editing a wiki on our whims. Most developers don't care about Mario the way wiki editors do. They go to their jobs, name their frog enemy whatever, name their boss frog the same thing because it looks like the enemy. They shrug and then punch out and then leave their job, deposit a check, and completely forget about this character and don't care how much sense it makes according to other naming schemes after the weekend is over. The localizers come along and go "hey maybe we can give this character a name" and then they also do this, shrug, punch out, deposit a check and leave their job and then forget about this character and don't care how much sense it makes according to other naming schemes after the weekend is over.<br> | |||
:::::So? When it's our call to organize information it is fine to exercise a level of discretion. Naming is still important, but if a naming scheme is confusing due to a contradicting obscure Japan guidebook that relies on an early developer build and is not meticulously reviewed by Nintendo the same way MarioWiki editors pore through everything, and leads to a result that seems baffling, it's not a good idea to rely on it. | |||
:::::Developers are not involved. They most certainly have way less of an idea than you do regarding the identities of these pixelated globs. Chances are very good that this lengthy debate would stun them. {{User:Mario/sig}} 20:11, April 6, 2023 (EDT) | |||