Developer intent or Game content? Which is more canon?

[Invadergray]

This isn't a poll question, I just want to have it open for discussion. I got into a heated debate with somebody over the character Aeris from Final Fantasy VII (Note: I want to keep this about the bigger issue not about this particular game). He said the proper name of the character is "Aerith" because the developers stated the intent was for it to be a play on the word "Earth." My take on it was the gaming community, particularly die hard FF fans, continued to call her Aeris because that was what was in the actual game. I thought the actual content of the game, what was presented to the community, was canon regardless of the original intent.

So do you think a developer or writer's idea or concept can override established gaming culture? If Miyamoto came out and said the hero of the Zelda games was supposed to be named "Rink" because of what a huge hockey fan he is (maybe bad example but roll with it ) and each subsequent game featured that name, would we accept it?

A good counterargument to my position would be the F.E.A.R. expansions which were quickly declared non-canon before F.E.A.R. 2 and tossed in a bin. Though those were made by other developers so... is the argument really the same?

That's my two bits. I really want to know what the rest of you think, because maybe I'm wrong. Which ruling takes priority? Which is more canon? This is an issue I'm really interested in so put your opinion in full, just please keep it civilized.

 

[Thaluikhain]

Oh, that's an interesting question.

Hard to say...we all say "that's not canon" to things which don't fit, even if they are depicted, but that's usually cause they clash with something else.

If the intent was reasonably clear, and makes sense in relation to everything else that was depicted, then maybe, but that's still mostly things that are depicted fighting with other things that are depicted.

 

[OutcastBOS]

I say whatever the creator of the series says, goes. Within reason of course. I've always liked when developers listen to fans input and go "Hey, why not? That sounds reasonable, that really DID happen!"

 

[jthwilliams]

Developer intent for 2 reason.


1. If the game is open at all it is impossible for them to have everyone's actions be canon.
2. When they make the next game they are going to base it off their intent. So you can either accept their intent as canon or just get upset.


I'm actually a fan of a book series where this argument comes up all the time, the dresden files by Jim Butch, amoung fans. They'll say, but it happened like x in the first book, now in book 7 it is happening like z. Some fans go crazy and drop the series. Others, make up huge back stories as to why x in book 1 and z in book 7 is consistant. Me, I'm like hell, I like the author and I enjoy the book, He can take the occassional muguffen without killing it for me.

 

[Amondren]

Dev intent think of it this way FPS's where you can't see your own legs.

 

[Joseph Alexander]

dev intent, granted they sometimes fuck up like in the case of red shirt kid at blizzcon correcting the lore writers.

 

[Invadergray]

Developer intent for 2 reason.


1. If the game is open at all it is impossible for them to have everyone's actions be canon.
2. When they make the next game they are going to base it off their intent. So you can either accept their intent as canon or just get upset.


I'm actually a fan of a book series where this argument comes up all the time, the dresden files by Jim Butch, amoung fans. They'll say, but it happened like x in the first book, now in book 7 it is happening like z. Some fans go crazy and drop the series. Others, make up huge back stories as to why x in book 1 and z in book 7 is consistant. Me, I'm like hell, I like the author and I enjoy the book, He can take the occassion muguffen without killing it for me.

A good point with a series. Particularly one as evolutionary as final fantasy. But do you feel the same goes for a standalone game? What if a developer retroactively changes something generally accepted due to original intent. Is that still canon?

 

[jthwilliams]

Developer intent for 2 reason.


1. If the game is open at all it is impossible for them to have everyone's actions be canon.
2. When they make the next game they are going to base it off their intent. So you can either accept their intent as canon or just get upset.


I'm actually a fan of a book series where this argument comes up all the time, the dresden files by Jim Butch, amoung fans. They'll say, but it happened like x in the first book, now in book 7 it is happening like z. Some fans go crazy and drop the series. Others, make up huge back stories as to why x in book 1 and z in book 7 is consistant. Me, I'm like hell, I like the author and I enjoy the book, He can take the occassion muguffen without killing it for me.

A good point with a series. Particularly one as evolutionary as final fantasy. But do you feel the same goes for a standalone game? What if a developer retroactively changes something generally accepted due to original intent. Is that still canon?

So, this is going to sound a bit like a flip flop, but... once a game and/or book has been released and is in the hands of the fans. Developer/author intent doesn't matter any more (unless there is a update, second part of the game, sequel, etc. ) Once you have the game, your individual inturpitation has much more impact on how you experience the game. If that is different then how the developer intended you to feel/understand it, Then FU developer, my experience is what it is.


That being said, I think it can be very cool to find out what the developer intended and explore why I read it a different way. However, I don't think you could say their intent is either more important or more correct (canon if you will) then my experience.

 

[Zeh Don]

If it's in the game, it's cannon. Otherwise, honestly, why put it in the fucking game?

Blizzard are the most obvious example, but not the worst.
For example, in order to re-use Warcraft III's plotline for Starcraft II, Starcraft: Brood War was made non-cannon. An entire retail release. Gone. Didn't happen.
And what amazing story line did we get in return for such a massive re-write?
"FRIEND RAYNOOOR, I BRING TIDINGS OF DOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOM"
*shakes head*

The game content should represent the cannon... otherwise why am I buying the fucking game?

'Oh, Half-life 2: Episode 1 and 2? Yeah, non-cannon. Didn't happen. They were more of a "what if?". Sorry. NO! WAIT!! AHAHA!! They were actually dreams. GORDON'S DREAMS!! YES!!! Haha! He wasn't really awake after the end of Half-life 2!'

No.

 

[Sixcess]

In the end game content is what we experience, and that will likely stay with us longer than some behind the scenes talk of what the developer intended. Particularly if the developer doesn't make their intentions clear until long after everyone has had time to form their own impression.

Exhibit A: Metroid: Other M. Like it or not, the Samus of Other M is the 'canon' Samus, according to the creator, but it's so at odds with the perception that fans have built up of her over the lifetime of the series that it'll probably end up being declared non-canon.

 

[Pearwood]

Starcraft: Brood War was made non-cannon. An entire retail release.

What? No it wasn't. Virtually everything that came up in Brood War was at least mentioned in SC2.

On topic I don't really care about developer intention, it's all down to what's actually in the game.

Wait what? Using Warcraft 3's plot? Warcraft 3 used Starcraft 1's plot, SC2 is at least new.