Asunto Rawa: Noticias Frescas, El último mensaje de Rawa a The Lyst [ Outline ] · Standard · Linear+

[cosmodelia]

Bueno, aprovechamos que hemos conseguido un mensaje de hoy mismo de Rawa sobre el asunto de la licencia artística para abrir un topic específico para hablar de este tema. A ver qué os parece...

From: "Richard A. Watson"
Date: Tue Nov 5, 2002 11:19:04 AM US/Pacific
To: The Lyst
Subject: Re: [TL] Artistic License
Reply-To: rawa@cyan.com

on 11/2/02 6:12 PM, Ahsirakh the D'ni at davidngisdumb@hotmail.com
wrote:

> There is a thread on MYSTcommunity over Cyan's use of Artistic
License
> as a
> reason to dismiss theories put forward by the games (e.g. Trap
Books).

Very interesting thread. I found the "RAWA at the top of people I
dislike"
type comments especially heart-warming.

Feel free to dislike "artistic license" all you want. I know I do.
The
fact is that as long as there are technical, financial, game-play,
and/or
time restrictions in making the games, there will be differences
between the
back story and what we are able to portray in the games, (yes,
unfortunately, even Mudpie to some extent).

don't like the way we've handled it? Sure you can do better? Go for it.
You'll end up facing the same kinds of decisions and making the same
kinds
of compromises, especially if you attempt to tell any kind of story
across
multiple media. I sincerely wish you the best of luck.

Seriously, I almost certainly dislike the changes we've had to make
more
than any of you (which is why the RAWA therapy jar got started on the
Riven
Lyst in the first place), and I have fought very hard to keep "Artistic
license" to a minimum in Riven and later projects, so you'll have to
excuse
me if I get a bit uptight when I take the time to explain an instance
where
we've had to compromise and then end up taking flak for it. Shooting
the
messenger isn't going to get you anywhere. It certainly isn't going to
change our minds.

For the record, since this was one of the debates in the thread, the
back
story is "top dog" as far as we're concerned. It always will be.
don't
like it? Sorry, it's not negotiable. We have no intention of changing
the
back story to match the limitations we face in making the games.

In every instance I can think of, my explanations have only tried to
put
things back to where they were originally intended. They were not
changes
made "after the fact" or because "we changed our minds."

The one folks most complain about is the Trap Books. I can understand
that,
but whether you like it or not, whether you agree with our decisions or
not,
those were _always_ complete Ages (like the Prison Books in the novels)
in
the back story, but that wasn't feasible to do in Myst. Period. We
even
stated that these were complete Ages on our very first website - years
before my post on the issue. This wasn't something that was changed
later. I
merely attempted to clarify this to those who were still wanting to
know
where Sirrus and Achenar got their food if they were "stuck between
Ages".

As for the "RAWA doesn't know what he's talking about" theory. you're
probably right. that's why I say, (usually referring to some article
that
was just printed with incorrect information) "don't believe everything
you
read." Then I add, "Especially if it's from me." to be clear that I
don't
make any claims of infallibility either.

But don't think that I'm just making things up and posting them on a
whim.
And don't think that you'd get any different answers from Rand himself.
Unfortunately for those who'd like to comfort themselves with this
view,
Rand and I are in complete synch about these issues 99.9% of the time.
(No,
that .1% doesn't give you a loop hole for the Trap Books; Rand says
they
were artistic license too.) I also always have him read any potentially
controversial posts before I send them to be absolutely sure that my
understanding of things matches his (this post is not an exception).

RAWA

___ _ __ _____ _______________________ _____ __________________ _____
/ /| Richard A. Watson /| mailto:rawa@cyan.com /|
_/ | D'ni Historian | http://www.cyan.com |
C Y A N _|/_ _______________________ _|/_ __________________ _|/_

********************Quick Links*******************
Lyst Page: http://www.TheLysts.com
FAQ's: http://www.thelysts.com/lystfaqs.shtml
LMC: http://www.thelysts.com/lmc.shtml
Admin Contacts:
Aquila: Admin@TheLysts.com
Kha'tie: Moderator@TheLysts.com
**************************************************

[CoolWind]

Y aquí está la segunda parte (de momento en inglés) :

Date: Thu, 07 Nov 2002 13:42:48 -0800
From: "Richard A. Watson"
Subject: Re: [TL] Artistic License


on 11/6/02 5:59 PM, Ahsirakh the D'ni at davidngisdumb@hotmail.com wrote:

> I never for a moment, when I first emailed this to the Lyst, had a grudge
> against RAWA for saying Trap Books didn't exist.

I also want to be clear that my response was not intended to be a personal
attack against you (or anyone else who responded to the thread). I tried to
stick to the facts. I am not trying to attack you with this post either.

> It is the use of Artistic License that irks me. I would have preferred,
> perhaps, RAWA saying, "You know, we found new evidence during our
> exploration in D'ni that made us realize Trap Books don't EXIST!!!" I'm fine
> with that, people make mistakes.

There are definitely times that this happens, and when it happens, we
attempt to EXPLAIN it exactly as you've suggested. One example that comes to
mind is when people ask how the rocket ship can link you to Selenitic since
you don't actually touch the Book.

Our response (this was also in that early FAQ) is that Atrus' journals
described that the Selenitic Linking Book didn't function properly and
needed additional equipment to work. The machinery in the spaceship is our
attempt at portraying that.

After "further study", we realized that this wouldn't work, so in Riven, we
"fixed" this problem. Gehn's power pedestals basically serve the same
purpose while allowing you to still touch the Book.


But there is a big difference, to us at least, between information that is
changed because of "new" information (i.e. we realize later that we made a
mistake or just wish we could go back and change something, e.g. The video
monitor in the spaceship), and compromises that we have made for one reason
or another that deviated FROM how we wanted things to be in the first place.

It sounds like that distinction is not one that is important to some.
that's ok, but there are others to whom that distinction is important, and
since Rand and I happen to fall INTO this 2nd category, I'll continue to try
to keep that distinction clear.

> "Ha! I know the whole story,"

I'm sorry if I come across that arrogantly. It has never been my intention
to poke fun at those who ask questions or to gloat about HAVING access to
more of the back story than you do.

> "but because it's inconvenient, we'll change it!"

that's a pretty unfair statement, don'tcha think? We go out of our way to
do the "inconvenient" nearly every day. We'll even give "highly improbable"
a shot most of the time. The compromises we're talking about here were not
merely "inconvenient", they literally may have been the difference between
Myst being made and not being made at all.

> I don't mind, really, if RAWA makes Atrus a Space Pirate, Catherine a
> Podiatrist, and Yeesha possessed by the spirit of Carmen Miranda.

I'll keep that in mind.

> it would be better if they say, "Oops! we've found a diary of Atrus' that
> tells us that Atrus is in fact a Space Pirate, Ca..."



> This is because all of us, including Cyan, is continually trying to find out
> more info about the D'ni themselves.

you're right. we're very up front about that fact that we're still learning
about the D'ni too. However, there is a difference between learning new
things/making new discoveries/disproving old theories/progressive
revelation/etc. and clarifying what our original conceptions were. Again,
if that distinction isn't important to you, that's ok, but it's important to
us.

> So why don't they use it to their advantage, instead of saying, "We know
> everything, but you see, it's not convenient!" A simple mention that new
> discoveries have been made is sufficient.

We have never said nor intentionally implied that we know everything. Just
to be sure I've beaten this dead horse completely INTO the ground, these are
two different issues. Mistakes and changes made later are handled exactly
that way whenever possible. Compromises to our original vision are not.



Hope that helps,

RAWA


___ _ __ _____ _______________________ _____ __________________ _____
/ /| Richard A. Watson /| mailto:rawa@cyan.com /|
_/ | D'ni Historian | http://www.cyan.com |
C Y A N _|/_ _______________________ _|/_ __________________ _|/_