Devil May Cry - About PoC

[KLOL506]

I am not in support of scaling based on deleted comment, and it seems that there are serious concerns about the authenticity of certain scans. I disagree for now.

Would you be kind enough to elaborate exactly on what these concerns are?

 

[SYPHe5D]

I am not in support of scaling based on deleted comment, and it seems that there are serious concerns about the authenticity of certain scans. I disagree for now.

Okay but one small issue, we didn’t bring up scans in this thread only some one making a joke about it who had also agreed on keeping poc’s stuff.

 

[KLOL506]

Okay but one small issue, we didn’t bring up scans in this thread only some one making a joke about it who had also agreed on keeping poc’s stuff.

Kinda what I'm thinking right now. Nobody posted scans anywhere here.

You wanna discuss legitimacy? That can be left for another thread, but not today.

 

[Georredannea15]

Yeah, I agree for now.

I don't particularly care about PoC, but our Canon standards seem to indicate in this case that tertiary canon (of I would argue this falls into) can be used as long as it is not contradicted nor essentially retconned. Usage of these elements should still be okay here.

That said, our canon standards have no guidelines in regards to "deleted" elements, and thus this situation falls in a gray area. Even so, I believe we do have some form of precedent when it comes to other mobile games, most notably gachas with limited events, and despite these events/info not being easily accessible in-game once "removed", they are still acknowledged in our files (again, as long as these aren't retconned or contradicted)

Thus, I would personally argue the elements from PoC should still be viable for use.

I would like to point out one more thing, it is not enough for this that secondary and tertiary canon sources not to contradict the primary canon source, secondary and tertiary canon sources must also be supported by the first canon, this is an important detail. If not supported, the wiki does not use them, I wanted to add this too.

 

[Tony_di_bugalu]

While I agree that we shouldn't use deleted content (events that never show again, forums, twits, etc) the wiki doesn't treat material that way and examples of that are Destiny and LoL.

If you disagree I recommend making a thread to implement guidelines otherwise staff pretty much allows this as seen in the thread linked in the OP.

Regarding canocity, it hasn't changed the game is as canon as DMC5 despite being a shit tier game.

And finally about the authenticity of the scans. We had users play and get the scans we used during the previous PoC era... Literally the only reason we used them is because we know they are legit and even recorded them. Authenticity is not a problem unless someone is talking about scans that were never implemented/used/shown.

 

[Georredannea15]

I noticed something. Whether or not the sources are deleted is not my issue at the moment, but is the content of the PoC (i.e. the content of the tertiary canon) supported by the primary canon, i.e. the main game? Because at this point, it is not enough for these sources not to contradict each other, and the contents in the tertiary canon must also be supported by the primary canon.

If what is sources in the tertiary canon is not supported by the first canon, it cannot be used (yes, I just realized I explained it above, I'm stupid.)

 

[KLOL506]

PoC is considered Primary Canon as per the interviews and the opening intro of the game.

 

[Deagonx]

Primary Canon as per the interviews and the opening intro of the game.

What do you mean by this?

 

[LephyrTheRevanchist]

What do you mean by this?

PoC is officially accepted as part of primary canon on the site.

 

[Deagonx]

PoC is officially accepted as part of primary canon on the site.

The site as in our wiki?

 

[LephyrTheRevanchist]

The site as in our wiki?

Yeah.

 

[Mad_Dog_of_Fujiwara]

PoC is officially accepted as part of primary canon on the site.

Is there a basic summary of the reasoning somewhere?

 

[Deagonx]

Yeah.

Okay. Georr is questioning why that is. KLOL's comment is that it's supported by the interviews and intro, I am wondering what exactly that entailed.

 

[KLOL506]

It was accepted as canon in this CRT which included the interviews. Primary canon BTW.

The intro itself states the game starts immediately after DMC3's ending as per the latest updated version.

 

[Georredannea15]

Okay. Georr is questioning why that is. KLOL's comment is that it's supported by the interviews and intro, I am wondering what exactly that entailed.

Yeah i talked to him, I just thought PoC wasn't primary canon for a moment.

 

[LephyrTheRevanchist]

Okay. Georr is questioning why that is. KLOL's comment is that it's supported by the interviews and intro, I am wondering what exactly that entailed.

Georr is talking about my point regarding tertiary canon as per our standards. I personally find PoC tertiary canon, but officially on the wiki, is considered primary.

Edit: Ninja'd

 

[Mad_Dog_of_Fujiwara]

It was accepted as canon in this CRT which included the interviews. Primary canon BTW.

The intro itself states the game starts immediately after DMC3's ending as per the latest updated version.

All of that just sounds like textbook tertiary canon to me, but this isn't the point of this thread so I'll save it for later.

 

[Random-Helper323]

What's this about it needing to be supported by other canon? As in all details have to appear twice, or references to the events? It seems there are a few things which don't do either of those things which are still used on the Wiki, like the God of War comics and novels, much of the Star Wars EU, Bleach's CFYOW novel, etc. If it is about similarities, then there are definitely some overlaps in the lore in Peak of Combat and existing lore, with the names, binding of fates, Pluto, etc. It was clearly made with a good amount of understanding of DMC's existing lore, and clearly aimed to build on things that had already been mentioned. The only major lore detail that it uniquely added that wasn't alluded to prior was the nine-dimensional souls, as far as I can tell. And weird dimensional stuff is definitely present throughout DMC.

 

[LephyrTheRevanchist]

What's this about it needing to be supported by other canon? As in all details have to appear twice, or references to the events? It seems there are a few things which don't do either of those things which are still used on the Wiki, like the God of War comics and novels, much of the Star Wars EU, Bleach's CFYOW novel, etc. If it is about similarities, then there are definitely some overlaps in the lore in Peak of Combat and existing lore, with the names, binding of fates, Pluto, etc. It was clearly made with a good amount of understanding of DMC's existing lore, and clearly aimed to build on things that had already been mentioned. The only major lore detail that it uniquely added that wasn't alluded to prior was the nine-dimensional souls, as far as I can tell. And weird dimensional stuff is definitely present throughout DMC.

Read our canon standards. Whataboutism is not an argument.

This isn't even part of this thread.

Peeps, read the OP. This is about whether PoC stuff that isn't accessible anymore in-game can still be used for our profiles as long as they don't contradict stuff from the game.

Me bringing up the fact I believe it's tertiary was for the purpose of showing how our rules don't disallow the usage of these things, even in the worst case scenario.

 

[Random-Helper323]

Read our canon standards. Whataboutism is not an argument.

This isn't even part of this thread.

Peeps, read the OP. This is about whether PoC stuff that isn't accessible anymore in-game can still be used for our profiles as long as they don't contradict stuff from the game.

Me bringing up the fact I believe it's tertiary was for the purpose of showing how our rules don't disallow the usage of these things, even in the worst case scenario.

I was just asking. Calm down. My bringing up examples is more a matter of precedent than whataboutism. And from what I can tell opponents of the verse are arguing that it needs extra support in addition to being canon, that's what I was responding to.

 

[LephyrTheRevanchist]

I was just asking. Calm down. My bringing up examples is more a matter of precedent than whataboutism. And from what I can tell opponents of the verse are arguing that it needs extra support in addition to being canon, that's what I was responding to.

I am calm. Don't mistake straightforwardness with exasperation.

No one has truly made an argument here, besides clarification about our canon standards (born out of a misunderstanding in the first place).

 

[Random-Helper323]

I am calm. Don't mistake straightforwardness with exasperation.

Okay, what you intend as straightforwardness is read on my end as passive-aggressiveness, but you have every reason to be on edge here, so okay.

No one has truly made an argument here, besides clarification about our canon standards (born out of a misunderstanding in the first place).

Someone above said it needed support from other canon and seems to be disregarding it as non-canon for that reason.

It seems as if it's still canon, regardless. So it should still be usable.

 

[LephyrTheRevanchist]

Someone above said it needed support from other canon and seems to be disregarding it as non-canon for that reason.

Because those are our standards for tertiary canon. As I have explained, PoC ain't tertiary canon (as of now, on the site), thus said discussion was unneeded.

 

[KLOL506]

Someone above said it needed support from other canon and seems to be disregarding it as non-canon for that reason.

He didn't know until I and Tony talked to him, so it's all good.

 

[Georredannea15]

Someone above said it needed support from other canon and seems to be disregarding it as non-canon for that reason.

I thought PoC was the tertiary canon, that's why I expressed it.

Of course you can argue about PoC being primary or tertiary canon, there were already people who wanted to address that later, but if that's what you're talking about, that's resolved.

 

[Sevil Natas]

I am not in support of scaling based on deleted comment, and it seems that there are serious concerns about the authenticity of certain scans. I disagree for now.

whether some scans are real or not isnt in the scope of this thread. read the proposals carefully next time

so the proposals of this thread are as follows:
anything in Devil May Cry- Peak of Combat should be usable in vs profiles as long as it's

1. in or was in the main chinese version. this extends to the previous 1.0 version
2. it isn't directly retconned in later updates. and by retcon I mean directly or indirectly contradicted by the game itself. simply being removed doesn't mean it's a retcon

we're not adding anything to any profile here. we're just setting a precedent on what should be usable in the games scaling, naturally we're not gonna use stuff that was obviously fabricated

also please elaborate on why you dont support using deleted content. as i explained in the OP stuff that was removed out of technical reasons, like in limited time games modes & updates, have no reason to be excluded out of the narrative just for that.. & there's Q&A thread that supports that aswell

 

[Fixxed]

Put me in disagreement with this

I dont think deleted content still can be use even there are no contradiction with the naration, but by default logic if they delete it that mean they not need that or it just some "error" or some mistake

I dont know if this relevant but in here , we even not use scan that is valid but already have no source or in other word "have been deleted"

So yeah i dont think some deleted content can be use

 

[LephyrTheRevanchist]

Put me in disagreement with this

I dont think deleted content still can be use even there are no contradiction with the naration, but by default logic if they delete it that mean they not need that or it just some "error" or some mistake

What about limited time events? Should they be considered "errors" or some such? Because these are common tactics employed by mobile games. Ad has been noted, we also have precedent such as Destiny and LoL.

We also have another precedent, which I can advocate for more effectively, which is D&D. This profile is based largely on a long deleted web enhancement for the game originally published by Wizards of the Coast back in 2003-ish. The article got completely deleted by the change of editions in 2008, from 3e to 4e.

Though, it is to be noted, WotC themselves provided archives of these articles for a couple of years (2009 fully til they were deleted again sometime in 2013). These has since been deleted also, though large amount of content from said archives are still recognized in the editions since (the character Meepo in itself appeared once more in 5e). So it follows our guidelines that, as long as the information is still recognized and not contradicted, they should be fine to use.

 

[CloverDragon03]

I was actually gonna say pretty much what Lephyr said. I wouldn’t consider deleted content from stuff like limited-time events to be deleted due to being some kind of “error”

I know a thing or two about this stuff, I play Dragon Ball Z: Dokkan Battle

 

[Fixxed]

What about limited time events? Should they be considered "errors" or some such? Because these are common tactics employed by mobile games. Ad has been noted, we also have precedent such as Destiny and LoL.

We also have another precedent, which I can advocate for more effectively, which is D&D. This profile is based largely on a long deleted web enhancement for the game originally published by Wizards of the Coast back in 2003-ish. The article got completely deleted by the change of editions in 2008, from 3e to 4e.

Though, it is to be noted, WotC themselves provided archives of these articles for a couple of years (2009 fully til they were deleted again sometime in 2013). These has since been deleted also, though large amount of content from said archives are still recognized in the editions since (the character Meepo in itself appeared once more in 5e). So it follows our guidelines that, as long as the information is still recognized and not contradicted, they should be fine to use.

Is that a limited time event that same as some mmorpg game or literally being deleted??

What i see this is update version from 1.0 to 2.0, soo if there are no that content in 2.0 version, i think it being literally deleted because they dont need that content

 

[LephyrTheRevanchist]

Is that a limited time event that same as some mmorpg game or literally being deleted??

Both. I can also provide another example from D&D with literal limited events that were since both discontinued and deleted, yet would still qualify for our standards (Living Greyhawk campaign, from 2000 to 2007, officially held by WotC during their Living RPG days, effectively shutdown the organization and accessing said data is extremely difficult, as many of these events were done globally and not that well documented, yet were largely still recognized to happen among the various Dragon and Dungeon Magazines of the time, with information that expanded existing pieces of lore that we still use on our files, such as the Demogorgon profile with its Savage Tide campaign)

What i see this is update version from 1.0 to 2.0, soo if there are no that content in 2.0 version, i think it being literally deleted because they dont need that content

I believe @Sevil Natas can provide scans of usage of multiple things from 1.0 still being recognized in 2.0, thus satisfying the requirement of it "not being contradicted".

 

[Fixxed]

Both. I can also provide another example from D&D with literal limited events that were since both discontinued and deleted, yet would still qualify for our standards (Living Greyhawk campaign, from 2000 to 2007, officially held by WotC during their Living RPG days, effectively shutdown the organization and accessing said data is extremely difficult, as many of these events were done globally and not that well documented, yet were largely still recognized to happen among the various Dragon and Dungeon Magazines of the time, with information that expanded existing pieces of lore that we still use on our files, such as the Demogorgon profile with its Savage Tide campaign)


I believe @Sevil Natas can provide scans of usage of multiple things from 1.0 still being recognized in 2.0, thus satisfying the requirement of it "not being contradicted".

What you mean by both??? Basically i say is that being deleted because it limited time event, or literally being deleted??? Because i dont think the version of 1.0 is limited time event

I dont mean for "not being contradicted". I mean if it literally being deletes by the developer even if it not contradicted why we still use thaf scan??? The developer themself delete that content from the canon game, even if that not contradicted with the game it self, it not right if we use the content that already being delete

 

[GilverTheProtoAngelo]

Your disagreement is noted.

 

[LephyrTheRevanchist]

What you mean by both??? Basically i say is that being deleted because it limited time event, or literally being deleted??? Because i dont think the version of 1.0 is limited time event

That it applies to both cases. If the information is still recognized and wasn't contradicted, fine to use (and currently aligns with both our standards and precedent set by these standards, as far as I can see)

 

[Serlock_Holmes]

If stuff that were before are still in the game then there is no reason not to accept them. If however in the new version they are not in and they were in the old one for all intents and purposes they literally don't exist. It's nothing like a limited event because it was something that was made to be in the game and now it's not. Basically limited events are like that by their nature. Here the whole game changed and those parts whichever those are were deleted. So if they are not present anymore there is zero reason to use them as they don't exist in any form in the game.

 

[SYPHe5D]

Okay Holmes tho one small issue, standards say otherwise but your disagreement is noted.

 

[Serlock_Holmes]

I think it's currently falling into a bit of a grey area? A staff thread is propably needed for this.

I would like some clarification whether the stuff deleted were main game stuff or event stuff.

 

[LephyrTheRevanchist]

Okay Holmes tho one small issue, standards say otherwise but your disagreement is noted.

The standards support his point. If there's literally zero mention of stuff from 1.0 (which is why I'm suggesting for Sevii to bring scans of the contrary), then they would effectively be retconned out.

That's why I brought up our tertiary canon standards. They need to still be acknowledged in some way.

 

[Serlock_Holmes]

The standards support his point. If there's literally zero mention of stuff from 1.0 (which is why I'm suggesting for Sevii to bring scans of the contrary), then they would effectively be retconned out.

That's why I brought up our tertiary canon standards. They need to still be acknowledged in some way.

Lephyr help me understand if you have read more because I don't have that much time. The stuff this thread intends to include is main story stuff that are just not there anymore or just stuff that were there to support an event and now are not? In the first case without knowing the standards to my mind it's much more logical to not include stuff that are still there. Basically stuff that were main story back then and now are not are considered to not exist for all intents and purposes beyond maybe giving some small clarifications but big stuff like new people, areas and items I don't think should be in. If it was an event that fits in the timeline of the games but it was just limited and now over and it is for sure canon I see no reason not to include it.

 

[SYPHe5D]

The standards support his point. If there's literally zero mention of stuff from 1.0 (which is why I'm suggesting for Sevii to bring scans of the contrary), then they would effectively be retconned out.

That's why I brought up our tertiary canon standards. They need to still be acknowledged in some way.

I see, well gotta wait for sevil to respond then.