Gee-Gee said:
F0X said:
Long story short: I think "No true Scotsman" is opinion-based, regardless how much actual truth it employs. I can use the same twisted logic to say that Galaxy isn't a "proper" 3D Mario game, because no true 3D Mario game has spherical platforms. No true Scotsman implies that there exists a rigid formula that a game must adhere to, and in my opinion, the only people qualified to establish any legitimate, factual boundaries... are the people who have creative control over the franchise. It's known as "Word of God", in storytelling circles.
|
Well, putting your and my views on "No true Scotsman" together, we come to the conclusion that being able to recognize something as a "proper" game is important (as was the case for Wand of Gamelon), but can also be misused (as would be the case for calling Galaxy not a proper 3D Mario due to the use of spheroids).
|
And since it can be misused, I tend to go by Word of God. Word of God says that Wand of Gamelon isn't canon. It exists, but not a part of the official Zelda series, because Nintendo refuses to acknowledge it. That's all, folks.
Am I willing to bend on this point? Sure. Like I said, I find this whole thing to be opinion-based, and everyone has opinions on things. I don't treat Metroid: Other M like a "proper" Metroid even if it's officially part of the series, for example. Yet, I wouldn't go out and claim that it isn't a "true" Metroid game, because I know that different fans have different expectations of the franchise and purism. I agree with you - there's a right way to go about this.
Perhaps then, if a total fan consensus is achieved, a game could be a de facto valid example of "no true Scotsman", because all but a few think that the game is a legitimate entry. Whether or not they're wrong doesn't really matter, because the game will be treated differently regardless. I can't think of any examples, though. The game would have to be pretty darn different, and pretty darn bad, I'd expect.