FANDOM


Relevance?Edit

I understand that American McGee's Alice (and AMR) is based heavily upon the lore of the Wonderland novels by Lewis Carroll, but for all intents and purposes this is not needed on the wiki. This is about the game series, which is very, very different from the books. ЙураYuriKaslov - Sig image 16:18, December 9, 2011 (UTC)

I agree, and I'm not totally certain that we need each character's article to include a summary of what they did in the books. However, I'm not sure where to draw the line, as some of the events of the books are directly referenced within the games.{{SUBST:KrytenKoroSig}} 19:19, December 9, 2011 (UTC)
On the contrary side, American McGee's Alice is an extension of Lewis's books. Alice already visited Wonderland twice before AMA. The events that did happen in the first two novels did canonically happen, did they not? So there's no good in deleting things from Alice in Wonderland and Through The Looking Glass. Imo, we should keep the Alice in Wonderland/Through The Looking Glass articles, as well character histories. However, if a character has never been introduced in the games, e.g. Lion and Unicorn, then I think we can delete those. —AlexShepherd 03:17, December 10, 2011 (UTC)
Yet could we not as easily have links to the wikipedia article where necessary? Or should we extend this wiki to cover the entirety of the wonderland books? ЙураYuriKaslov - Sig image 04:49, December 10, 2011 (UTC)
Not the "entirety" of the Alice books, just what is related to AMA and AMR should be kept. There's no point in deleting this wiki's articles on the books when we already have them, plus at the bottom, it shows you which characters were featured in McGee's series and which ones were not. That's pretty useful, isn't it? Plus if we did delete the articles for the books, our "literature" category would only look even more empty. —AlexShepherd 01:30, December 11, 2011 (UTC)
Eh. I still think it should be deleted. If there is a legitimate Alice in Wonderland wiki (the closest I can see is This wiki, which is sorta dilapidated) we could just do an inter-wiki link. Also, one could just compare a list of characters in AMA and AMR and a list of characters from Alice's books to tell which characters are and are not in both. I truly don't see the point of keeping them here. It's like having pages on the Battlefield wiki for the manufacturers of the weapons (which we don't).
As for the literature category: does it really matter if it looks slightly empty? It doesn't affect the functionality of the wiki in any way. ЙураYuriKaslov - Sig image 05:24, December 11, 2011 (UTC)

I think to even say that AMA/AMR are "heavily based" on Lewis' books is an understatement in itself. The games are a continuation of the Alice books. If you've read them, you'd know how much the games nod to them. AMA is basically "what would happen if Alice's family died in a fire after the events of Through The Looking-Glass"? This is what I mean by it's a continuation/extension/sequel. AMA is not "what would happen if Alice's original visits to Wonderland were much darker in nature?" (a common misconception about the series) If there was a chronology of events, this is what it'd look like:

  • Alice's Adventures in Wonderland - Alice's first visit to Wonderland
  • Through the Looking Glass - Alice's second visit to Wonderland (a mirror image of it)
  • American McGee's Alice - Alice's third visit to Wonderland, and its inhabitants are transformed due to her mental state
  • Alice: Madness Returns - Alice's fourth visit to Wonderland

The other Alice wikis articles are still kind of incomplete and lacking in their articles for the books, so doing an interwiki link wouldn't be of much benefit... Comparing Alice (a series based on storytelling and literature) to Battlefield (a shoot-em-up series) is very different. If the manufacturers were actually referenced in the series multiple times, yeah, you could have pages for them and explain the references. However, with Alice, the amount of references to the books is, well, "out the ass" since they're a continuation of them. To ask if Through the Looking Glass is even relevant to the Alice games is absurd. I'd understand if it was something totally unrelated like "The Looking Glass Wars", but Lewis Carroll's books are the "base" of the series and without them, McGee's sequels to them wouldn't exist. —AlexShepherd 20:22, December 11, 2011 (UTC)

Also, at one point in time, I had a similar perspective about it when I was talking to Toxilicks, but I've changed my mind. Since then, I've been looking more into the Alice series, and also watched the 2010 film. The games must have hundreds of references to the books. For example, when I first saw "paint the rose red" in the game, I had no idea what it meant, but now I do. Now I see the benefit in having articles for the books. —AlexShepherd 20:43, December 11, 2011 (UTC)

When I say "relevant", I don't mean relevant to the content of the game. I mean relevant to the purpose of this wiki, which is to cover the games. (hell, I call "strategy" pages irrelevant as well because they aren't truly supported within the game, merely a subjective belief. Doesn't mean they're not relevant to the game, just irrelevant to the wiki)
I get that it's a continuation; that's not the issue. In terms of general perspective most wikis tend to focus SOLELY on the content of the games they're concerned with, and not on the precoursers to, or real-life basis of, said game content. (hence my reference to Battlefield).
In response to the "they wouldn't exist without it" argument -- well Battlefield, Call of Duty, Medal of Honor, etc wouldn't exist without World War II, yet there's no article on either wiki about World War II beyond game content (at least not in the same depth as a true encyclopaediac article; just look at w:c:battlefield:World War II and w:c:callofduty:World War II). Yet, like Lewis Carrol's books to Alice, World War II is intrinsic to the existence of those videogames. (I admit it was a bit of a bad example to cite the weapons' manufacturers) It was decided that because the wiki is solely associated with the games that a full history of the war, the countries involved, et cetera are irrelevant to the content of the wiki beyond what is portrayed within the games. ЙураYuriKaslov - Sig image 21:06, December 11, 2011 (UTC)
The purpose of this wiki is to understand AMA/AMR, and if having articles for the books on which the games are based on and showing how they relate to the series, then they should be welcomed. This is what these articles are doing right now, with the hyperlinks and character lists and all.
I think your CoD/Battlefield WW2 point is, well, supporting of what I'm trying to say about keeping the two articles for the books actually. I already said we can delete unrelated articles such as Lion/Unicorn/Duchess' Cook/Garden of Live Flowers (since they're not featured in the games), but I think we should at least keep the article on the books, imo. Would you agree on this? —AlexShepherd 21:37, December 11, 2011 (UTC)
So be it. ЙураYuriKaslov - Sig image 21:47, December 11, 2011 (UTC)
Sorry I missed most of this discussion. To clarify my earlier qualm, it's clear that the events of the books do have a quantifiable existence within the Alice canon. However, it's not clear that all of the events of the books are canon. There's simple stuff like the Queen being someone Alice "once knew and loved", which doesn't quite jive with the books. It isn't quite as bad as being a mere name-drop, like Tiamat in Final Fantasy, but it's not quite "this is a direct and fully continuous sequel to the books". I think we should tone down the summaries of events in the books to what is explicitly known to be applicable from within the released materials for Alice. What Alex seems to be desiring for this material would be better served, I feel, by something like a "References to the original novels in the Alice series" article.
Of course, if I'm wrong and McGee said that "these games are meant to be direct and continuous sequels to the original Alice novels and all events of the novels should be taken as canon to these games", then I apologize.{{SUBST:KrytenKoroSig}} 17:45, December 13, 2011 (UTC)
I don't think there's anything wrong with having chapter summaries. Rather than creating yet another article, I would suggest making a "references" or "discrepancies" section on the novel articles. As well, the articles don't state everything in the books are canon, it just states the games are based on and are a continuation of them.
I'd rather Lewis Caroll's original work not be changed, since history is history. For example, we can't erase the Lion and the Unicorn from Caroll's own work just because they never appear in game. From what I've seen though, the games are extremely faithful to the canon of the books.
Also, the Queen represents something different in each installment. Remember: the characters have transformed due to Alice's mental state (it doesn't have to change what happened in the books). In AMR, it's implied she's an incarnation of either young Alice or Lizzie, so the "once knew and loved" isn't necessarily creating a discrepancy. —AlexShepherd 04:38, December 14, 2011 (UTC)
I'm not sure I'm making myself entirely clear. I'm not suggesting that we misrepresent what the original books were about; rather, I'm suggesting that we assume their events are part of the game canon only where this is made explicit, instead of assuming that any character who appears in the games has exactly the same backstory as in the novels. I mean, it's totally possible that I'm wrong and that McGee has said that the novels are in-canon, but I'd like to see that quote.
A references section on individual pages would also work.{{SUBST:KrytenKoroSig}} 17:26, December 16, 2011 (UTC)