Megami Tensei LN Canonicity

[Agnaa]

I don't really see how it could be any more canon for supplementary material.

It could be more canon if it was published by the company. It could be more canon if the company ever promoted it. It could be more canon if the company or anyone affiliated with it ever called it canon. It could be more canon if she was hired by the company to write it, rather than being given the rights to the property with no plan and using those rights to write an LN later.

If any of those things were true, I wouldn't have an issue with it.

 

[Dr._whiteee]

Is this what you mean by Tsumi no Batsu? Because that wiki page says that was published by ASCII Media Works, and looking at the wikipedia pages for ASCII Media Works and Atlus, I can't find a connection between the two that implies they're the same company.

Yeah, did you read the cover? It says Jump Comics, and has Atlus on it.
https://myanimelist.net/manga/4574/Persona__Tsumi_to_Batsu

This is why Tsumi no Batsu is actually primary canon.

The wiki may be referencing the 2011 reprints.

My bad, I didn't know the timeline at play.

The rights were given to her due to her being independently contracted for storyboarding for the world of the DDS: Avatar Tuner game.

Now I'm getting really confused. This sounds like from the start, before either of them planned to have her write LNs for it, she was given the authority to be able to write LNs without Atlus' input. Which would mean it's no longer tertiary canon, because it's not really an official adaptation then. It sounds like it's not like they could've taken the rights back, even if they wanted to.

No? I'm not quite sure how you came to that conclusion. Yu's contract for storyboarding included Atlus allowing her to expand upon the story present in the Primary canon while not being constricted to the game narrative, this being the only reason Satomi (from Atlus) got involved with the process, and eventually finished once Yu left. Which is why many of the plot elements remain the same as well as the setting, narrative, etc. She delves deeper into the plot, characters, and lore of the games which she couldn't add for the game itself.

Idk why you keep acting like Atlus literally ok'ing her via contract to use their IP is some sort of blemish on it being canon. She literally wrote the plot of the game.

Just because two separate authors have legal rights to write in a setting, does not mean they each intend for their settings to be canon to each other.

You'd have to reach mighty far to claim that for this case.

Yu is the storyboarder credit for the primary canon game.
Legally allowed to expand upon her own work in the games being a part of the contract for writing the game.
Western publisher publicly claims it to be set in the SMT world.

If Atlus had a problem with her expanding upon their IP, it would have been addressed in her contract. From yu's own words, she had permission, as the storyboarder of the game itself, to expand upon the media. Given that Atlus has secondary and tertiary media from other different publishers and authors not even contracted directly as an Atlus employee, let alone the actual storyboarder for the game it is adapting, you'd be pressed to legitimately make the case they aren't connected.

Yes, and Yu Goddai was only allowed to make these novels due to stipulations in her contract with ATLUS. Which means her rights fall under an employee of the parent company employing her. Meaning under Japanese law, they are the primary author of the content which is what Ultima explained earlier.

I don't understand what your point with this is. Especially when I was responding to your claim that Atlus was a co-author of the novel, by saying that Atlus wasn't...

What? Yu wrote the story. Using Atlus' setting and product. Yu is the author in the sense that she created the plot and story, atlus funded it and supplied the already existing IP of the megami tensei franchise. By Japan Law, Atlus is the primary author because Yu was contracted under them. But she still is very much the primary in the sense of "from what mind the plot of the game stemmed from". Which is why she retained storyboarding credit despite leaving the project and had it in her contract prior to leaving that she could use their IP to expand upon based on what was in the game.

Because you are trying to establish that the games treat the novels as canon, by using the novels treating the game as canon as evidence.

What?
I literally already explained to you how MT treats canon. Across the board. Then I explained why this scenario is even more evidenced as canon given that the person who actually storyboarded to plot of the primary canon source, and had legal rights over the material with Atlus permission, expanded upon the verse as a whole.

How could I expect a game to reference stuff in the novels that were created using it as a basis and years into the future? This is a very odd argument.

You also sidestepped the fact that yu utilized an ATLUS-only characters such as Gale, who is solely their IP and nothing she had to do with in her work with them.

Her being allowed to write more doesn't tell us what the games consider to be canon. Her being allowed to write more and writing that the novels consider the games to be canon does not mean that the games consider the novels to be canon.

Yes it does because she is the person who made the plot. Which is why Atlus put it in her contract in the first place. I don't understand how you don't see the point here. And we already went over how "Megami Tensei" treats canon for the verse, a point you conceded on and (no offense here) clearly aren't knowledgeable on.
From the Canon page.

The generally agreed-upon definition is that the work by the original author and creator of the fictional setting is canonical, unless the author or the copyright holder declares otherwise. Few other exceptions are also possible and should be noted on the verse page.

The primary canon is the source material first released (with few possible exceptions), with the other author works being secondary canon.

When different source materials give different versions of the same feat, and by that they contradict each other in the depiction of the feat, the primary canon takes precedence over the secondary canon.

If the feat is correctly depicted over multiple canons any of these can be used to judge the feat. Should different results be reached by judging the feat through multiple canons, the result of the primary canon will have priority.

So

Yu is the creator of the fictional setting.
Atlus did not declare that she couldn't or that works would be divorced from the MT Intellectual property, but instead legally allowed her to expand on the subject matter present in the game that she created.

And this is a straight adaption with an overwhelming amount of the novel directly crossing over to the games and the general outline of the plot. Not some new work created using the verse in name only.

You could say that a statement in tertiary canon explaining that a character's existence erasure also erases the victim's soul/concept, and spin it as if it's just a clarification and totally not a new feat. But that's just digging for a loophole. I am wholly against letting cosmological descriptions bypass these checks.

False equivalence. The analogy you propose would indicate the the EE coming from the novel would dictate some inherent quality of ontology that differentiates the two feats. In your case the tertiary canon would be adding soul and conceptual qualities of being to the attack. That's completely different than tertiary canon literally lining up with the cosmology for the unconscious across dozens of MT IP, and adding a single detail, which overall is arbitrary to the ontological level but happens to be of use to battle boards trying to tier stuff. Utlima's analogy already covered this.

EDIT: More importantly, it doesn't just say "Entirely new feats aren't allowed", it says "Entirely new feats aren't allowed. Details added to existing fight scenes when the primary canon is text-based can be accepted." This should make it abundantly clear that cosmological details aren't allowed. And it should make it abundantly clear that, as a visual-based medium is the primary canon while a text-based medium is the tertiary canon, no expansions on any details would be allowed.

Except look at what you quoted. This clearly says "feats" and "fight scenes". The whole point of this section is to settle discrepancies on differences between explicit and observable phenomena.

A character having a building level explosion be turned into a mountain busting explosion is a problem because they are two different interpretations of a discrete event and obviously point to different levels of power.

The case here is about the level of ontological existence of something. Prior to this many arguments for 1-A MT were available...the ratings aren't hard caps and MT was already tier 1, it just didn't have specifiers about the ontology of the verse that could solidly satisfy 1-A as cleanly (but still had supporting evidence). The description of the unconscious depicted in the novels is literally based on the Nirvana in the games, and exactly the same as other MT games depict, with the exception of one line of description.

I don't really see why you are calling it a "brand new feat". It's literally just filling in the needed description for us battleboarders, while also being otherwise 100% the same as described across all of MT.

 

[Dr._whiteee]

I don't really see how it could be any more canon for supplementary material.

It could be more canon if it was published by the company.

Which would be cool if we were arguing primary canon but we aren't. Atlus also cosigned it's publishing.

It could be more canon if the company ever promoted it

I mean I don't find this point particularly viable as there are many factors that could effect this (such as the near decade gap between the sources) and doesn't mean much on it's own.

It could be more canon if the company or anyone affiliated with it ever called it canon.

The company legally ok'd it to use their setting and IP. The person who made the primary canon of the material used for the adaption in question, is also the person authoring said adaption.

It could be more canon if she was hired by the company to write it,

She technically was given that they negotiated her ability to do this using their IP and the elements that she added to the story of the game based on her storyboarding credits.

rather than being given the rights to the property with no plan and using those rights to write an LN later.

Neither party foresaw Yu not adjusting to Tokyo and having other circumstances pop up though. You can't just sidestep over "the company literally let her expand upon her own plot by allowing the copyright protected material to be used.".

If any of those things were true, I wouldn't have an issue with it.

Yeah but you seem to be ignoring the larger context of how MT operates, Yu's actual involvement in the primary canon of the source in question, and the contractual agreements between both parties indicating the relationship at hand. It is literally Atlus ok'ing her to expand upon the universe found within the game as the person who wrote the plot. I don't think you have made a case for why that evidence is weak enough to remove the ratings or supplied a positive argument satisfying it not being canon.

 

[Milly_Rocking_Bandit]

Hmmm, is there evidence that point to this?

As mentioned, if the LN is a adaptation of a game(s), then it will qualify as secondary canon rather than tertiary canon as at that point, the OP’s argument can been refuted in that way as such.

It’s in the afterword, in the first comment.

 

[Agnaa]

Copying this to the top since the argument could be ended right here:

Which would be cool if we were arguing primary canon but we aren't. Atlus also cosigned it's publishing.

Could you elaborate on this? Because if so I'd be fine with treating it as canon.

Yeah, did you read the cover? It says Jump Comics, and has Atlus on it.

jfc I'm dumb, my bad.

Idk why you keep acting like Atlus literally ok'ing her via contract to use their IP is some sort of blemish on it being canon. She literally wrote the plot of the game.

Because that makes them no longer have creative control on what she makes. And as she didn't finish working on the plot of the game, she no longer had creative control over what they made.

If Atlus had a problem with her expanding upon their IP, it would have been addressed in her contract. From yu's own words, she had permission, as the storyboarder of the game itself, to expand upon the media. Given that Atlus has secondary and tertiary media from other different publishers and authors not even contracted directly as an Atlus employee, let alone the actual storyboarder for the game it is adapting, you'd be pressed to legitimately make the case they aren't connected.

Because of the pre-commitment in the contract, they lost the ability to address problems with the exact ways she expands upon their IP. When hiring/contracting publishers/authors to create other works for them, they're still in control of that. If you just give everyone else the rights to expand on your work (i.e. by making it public domain) that doesn't make everyone else's works canon, basically I think creative control of the primary entity is the main factor, not IP rights, as IP rights alone fail in many areas.

What?
I literally already explained to you how MT treats canon. Across the board. Then I explained why this scenario is even more evidenced as canon given that the person who actually storyboarded to plot of the primary canon source, and had legal rights over the material with Atlus permission, expanded upon the verse as a whole.

...And I was literally responding to you using the western LN publisher's blurb as evidence. There's other places where you gave other evidence, but that's not what I was responding to there.

How could I expect a game to reference stuff in the novels that were created using it as a basis and years into the future? This is a very odd argument.

By any later game referencing stuff in the novels. By the company itself promoting the novels. By the company or any affiliates declaring that the novels are canon.

You also sidestepped the fact that yu utilized an ATLUS-only characters such as Gale, who is solely their IP and nothing she had to do with in her work with them.

I just don't see the relevance. What the novel incorporates and treats as canon isn't an affirmation of what the game incorporates and treats as canon.

Yu is the creator of the fictional setting.
Atlus did not declare that she couldn't or that works would be divorced from the MT Intellectual property, but instead legally allowed her to expand on the subject matter present in the game that she created.

And this is a straight adaption with an overwhelming amount of the novel directly crossing over to the games and the general outline of the plot. Not some new work created using the verse in name only.

It is still not secondary canon. Yu is not the "original author" of the Megami Tensei canon, Atlus is. And, as you say, it is an adaptation, and one not overseen by Atlas, which is something we explicitly cosider tertiary canon.

False equivalence. The analogy you propose would indicate the the EE coming from the novel would dictate some inherent quality of ontology that differentiates the two feats. In your case the tertiary canon would be adding soul and conceptual qualities of being to the attack. That's completely different than tertiary canon literally lining up with the cosmology for the unconscious across dozens of MT IP, and adding a single detail, which overall is arbitrary to the ontological level but happens to be of use to battle boards trying to tier stuff. Utlima's analogy already covered this.

Ahh so when abilities are added, that's "adding qualities" and thus a feat. But when you go from 1-C to 1-A, that's "adding a single arbitrary detail", and thus not a feat. Funny how it works out so that literally nothing is allowed except the one thing you're defending. I'd call something like that a loophole.

Except look at what you quoted. This clearly says "feats" and "fight scenes". The whole point of this section is to settle discrepancies on differences between explicit and observable phenomena.

No, the point of that section is to tell you what things can be taken from tertiary canon. It tells you what you cannot use, and it tells you what you can use. And the only thing you can use, are clarifications on fight scenes when moving from text-based media to visual-based media.

I don't really see why you are calling it a "brand new feat". It's literally just filling in the needed description for us battleboarders, while also being otherwise 100% the same as described across all of MT.

Because that added line is new.

Which would be cool if we were arguing primary canon but we aren't. Atlus also cosigned it's publishing.

Could you elaborate on this? Because if so I'd be fine with treating it as canon.

 

[HammerStrikes219]

It’s in the afterword, in the first comment.

Alright and thanks.

 

[Executor_N0]

I don't really have a lot of knowledge on the Megami Tensei Series (I tried to enter more on it, but I ended up in one of the worst of my University periods this time), but since this is about canon, just a bit of my opinion on that.

First of all, although it's clear that our Canon page is based on the definition of canon that is mostly used on fictional work, when we start talking about Japanese products, the situation changes a lot. Other than some use of Canon/Orthodox to talk about a work that has a main creator (Like a manga series) that puts that creator as super important (Like the Saint Seiya series for ND and other Kurumada works), that really isn't used that much, unless the fanbase around that work really wants to ask about canon, that ends up just being due to the western fanbase or the Japanese fanbase being influenced by those standards.

Most of the time, the big point about the consistency between different works, mainly in adaptations, is if the Sekaikan (World-view) is the same as the core work and what that adaptation will try to do that (Normally, just retell the stories outside of the bounds of the source material). As I said before, when it's about a work that has at least a core idea of "that is the main work and it ignores other material" it makes sense to just apply the standards, but in materials where said things were never stated or implied, it makes a lot of hard to work to just apply that.

My favorite example about this is Digimon, because you basically will never have any staff statement about our concept of Canon (At best Canon has been said by a single ex-staff member, because a western fan asked if something was canon or not), but the tons of statements about Sekaikan (World-view) or Settei (Settings) and also surprised about all the different ways that the staff thinks of what are the different Sekaikan, but the different meanings that Sekaikan has for each of them. This, of course, isn't exclusive to Digimon. I can really show some interviews with different developers for different games with each of them having a different view of what Sekaikan even is.

The point is that in such franchises where the "standard concept of canon" was never applied before and its focus is much more on the Sekaikan, then all that matters in the work are the Sekaikan implications, not even things like continuity. Again Digimon is a great example of this because we have a tons of works with different themes (Some very heavy on fourth-wall breaking) and even contradictory continuities, but that doesn't matter for the world because the focus on them is on the expansion of the Sekaikan, not on continuity.

Therefore, if we are talking about a franchise that focuses on Sekaikan, or at least a work that focuses on that, first that continuity or inconsistent events doesn’t matter. The point is the expansion of the worldview and that is all that matters. For that it would be good to know what are the common statements about the focus on Sekaikan by the different staff of the franchise, if they tried to explain different Sekaikan in a certain way and so on. If there’s enough information to explain how it’s the constant idea (Or even the inconsistent Idea in cases like the Digimon series), a lot of what was said about this novel seems good enough to apply in relation to the settings. For example:

Were you familiar with the original Digital Devil Story books by Aya Nishitani that spawned the Megami Tensei video game series?

I haven’t read Nishitani’s work, but I was aware of it, along with some of the other strange offshoots of the Megami Tensei franchise. Quantum Devil Saga is an interesting case, actually, because of its unusual and hard-to-explain origins. Essentially, the books are Yu Godai’s take on her own story, originally used as the basis for the two Digital Devil Saga games, redone without any of the unique restrictions that a story needs to be subjected to in order to make it a playable video game narrative. She has mentioned, however, that being a fan of the Megami Tensei franchise was part of what drew her to accept the offer to work on Digital Devil Saga in the first place, so I guess in a sense it all comes full circle.

This is, at least for me, a perfect example of being exactly a work that still uses the same Sekaikan, but uses a different medium that can show different parts of the Sekaikan that couldn't be shown otherwise. It wouldn't even matter if they were different characters, had a different story or even if the story was contradictory to the source material, as long as the Sekaikan is consistent, that works.

The only problem is that it seems to be a statement from the translator, so for some people it would be better to have a more "first-party" source. Of course, considering if the franchise is shown to work, or at least consider the adaptations, in that way. If that is the case, since it's simply a better explanation of the worldview, I have no reasons to think that it shouldn't be used.

 

[Dr._whiteee]

Could you elaborate on this? Because if so I'd be fine with treating it as canon.

I did in that very post. Atlus allowed her rights to novelize the setting, characters, plot, etc., of the game. Written into a contract and signed.

Because that makes them no longer have creative control on what she makes. And as she didn't finish working on the plot of the game, she no longer had creative control over what they made.

Because she made the plot. The contract did not allow for her to go bat crazy and do whatever. That's the whole point of a contract. It explicitly allowed her to expand on the general elements already found in the game.

No. Yu is the one who made the plot. The co-author's role was only to help Yu condense her original outline into a narrative befitting a video game. Yu's proposal for the game's plot and elements was made up before she was even an employee and was what Atlus hired her based on. All the team did was wrap up the kinks involved in putting that into a game narrative and the other aspects of the game no related to plot.

Because of the pre-commitment in the contract, they lost the ability to address problems with the exact ways she expands upon their IP.

No they didn't. This is an assumption on your part. Yu specifically stated that the contract allowed her to expand the story present in the game in a manner not confined by the style of video game narrative.

When hiring/contracting publishers/authors to create other works for them, they're still in control of that. If you just give everyone else the rights to expand on your work (i.e. by making it public domain) that doesn't make everyone else's works canon,

This isn't what happened though. You're assuming the contract literally said "have at it!" and let her do whatever. That isn't what the contract entailed. This logic is clearly invalid given the context of this case with Yu literally being an ex atlus employee, grafting the plot of the primary source, and and gaining rights to expand on the elements she added to the game.

Once again, with much less involved parties having added secondary and tertiary to MT canon as it stands.

basically I think creative control of the primary entity is the main factor, not IP rights, as IP rights alone fail in many areas.

Yes but you sort of made up this scenario in your head, which granted, could apply to other instances, is completely void of any relevance in this case with the facts we have.

...And I was literally responding to you using the western LN publisher's blurb as evidence. There's other places where you gave other evidence, but that's not what I was responding to there.

I'm confused then. Please reitrate your stance on the Western Publishing company's description of the product being void.

By any later game referencing stuff in the novels. By the company itself promoting the novels. By the company or any affiliates declaring that the novels are canon.

What? The novels came out after both of the two games in the Digital Devil Saga were written and her adaption only has to do with the Avatar Tuner version that she wrote for primary canon.

See this is where I think your lack of knowledge on Megami Tensei is hindering understanding between us. Atlus does not declare things canon or not canon. Everything from databook, novels, light novels, mobile games, etc are canon. The only time this changes is when there are strong contradictions present in a story such as with Persona 3's manga adaptation. The company is not going to come out and call something canon. The whole point of Megami tensei is that the observer affect dictates reality based on human observation, and infinities possibilities are the result of this, each leading to parallel universes and alternate timelines for each product of the game.

Yu stands in her own regard being an actual Atlus employee, with contractual rights, and being the author for the story of the primary source she adapted.

I just don't see the relevance. What the novel incorporates and treats as canon isn't an affirmation of what the game incorporates and treats as canon.

Because trademark is a thing. You seem to think that companies can make claims about other companies IP's, lie about the nature of contracts with a company, and utilize IP of other entities as they please.

Using an element that is strictly from Atlus obviously outlines her express written consent to adapt the MT world, and not have it be some random side story that is in no way connected to the already voluminous MT canon.

It is still not secondary canon. Yu is not the "original author" of the Megami Tensei canon, Atlus is. And, as you say, it is an adaptation, and one not overseen by Atlas, which is something we explicitly cosider tertiary canon.

She is explicitly the creator of the fictional setting. She doesn't need to be the author of all of MT. The primary source in question is DDS: Avatar tuner, which is what she is responsible for authoring. And this was done as an employee of Atlus.

You don't know that it wasn't overseen so idk why you are claiming that.

Atlus clearly outlined her ability to expand upon the canon so right there is there ok.

Yu is the author of the plot...What would Atlus need to supervise?

Ahh so when abilities are added, that's "adding qualities" and thus a feat. But when you go from 1-C to 1-A, that's "adding a single arbitrary detail", and thus not a feat. Funny how it works out so that literally nothing is allowed except the one thing you're defending. I'd call something like that a loophole.

Yes. Once again tiers are what can be most evidenced. I already discussed several 1-A supporting evidence that MT has a whole. So it could be argued that 1-A was a thing, 1-C just happened to be the most evidenced rating at the time. Not sure why you are acting like the ratings are fixed and can't be updated with evidence or new arguments.

And yes, if your argument is "adding a new feat" than the detail would have to discuss completely different elements separate from other portrayals.

Ultima already outlined the rules for 1-A to you.

However, do note that a character can qualify for this rating even if their verse does not have an infinitely-layered or equivalent cosmology, as long as it is either stated, shown or left very obvious that the character in question already bypasses the very nature of such structures altogether, in a way that simply "stacking" more of them logically would not allow one to reach their level of power / size.[3]

The description of "outside of the concept of dimensions" didn't need to be present. The description of the unconscious realm shared across the whole of MT already have varying levels of evidence, but we certainly weren't going to ignore the much more direct evidence when presented with it.

No, the point of that section is to tell you what things can be taken from tertiary canon. It tells you what you cannot use, and it tells you what you can use. And the only thing you can use, are clarifications on fight scenes when moving from text-based media to visual-based media.

That is literally not what the page says though. It is quite specific in referencing "fight scenes" and "feats", neither of which are relevant here.

Because that added line is new.

Refer to Ultima's shirt argument.

 

[LordGriffin1000]

@SomebodyData @Dragonmasterxyz @Celestial_Pegasus @Soldier_Blue @Wokistan @Elizhaa @Qawsedf234 @ByAsura @Sir_Ovens @Ogbunabali @Abstractions @LordGriffin1000

Would any of you be willing to evaluate Agnaa's and Ultima's arguments above please?

My apologies, I don't think my input would be valid in this thread given my lack of knowledge on this verse.

 

[Agnaa]

I did in that very post. Atlus allowed her rights to novelize the setting, characters, plot, etc., of the game. Written into a contract and signed.

Ah, I misunderstood what "cosigning its publishing" meant. I thought you were saying they co-operated with the publisher, both companies pitching into paying for its publishing.

No. Yu is the one who made the plot. The co-author's role was only to help Yu condense her original outline into a narrative befitting a video game. Yu's proposal for the game's plot and elements was made up before she was even an employee and was what Atlus hired her based on. All the team did was wrap up the kinks involved in putting that into a game narrative and the other aspects of the game no related to plot.

And if Atlus decided that "wrapping up the kinks" involved removing the 1-A statement, we should respect that, and not what Yu went off to do afterwards.

This isn't what happened though. You're assuming the contract literally said "have at it!" and let her do whatever. That isn't what the contract entailed.

Could you point me out what indicates that Atlus still retained veto power/creative control over Yu's future works?

I'm confused then. Please reitrate your stance on the Western Publishing company's description of the product being void.

As they are the publisher of the novel, their authority is what lies within the canon of the novel, not over what lies within the canon of the games.

What? The novels came out after both of the two games in the Digital Devil Saga were written and her adaption only has to do with the Avatar Tuner version that she wrote for primary canon.

The novels came out after those two games, which is why I said "any later game" meaning "any later game in the Megami Tensei canon". This may not be likely, which is why I listed it as one of many possible avenues for demonstrating canonicity.

See this is where I think your lack of knowledge on Megami Tensei is hindering understanding between us. Atlus does not declare things canon or not canon.

Then we can look at what they promote or have direct involvement in to determine canon.

Yu stands in her own regard being an actual Atlus employee, with contractual rights, and being the author for the story of the primary source she adapted.

She was not an actual Atlus employee at the time of writing. I've already explained why I don't think contractual rights matter. She was the author of the story for a time, before other people came on to iterate on her work, changing it without her input.

Because trademark is a thing. You seem to think that companies can make claims about other companies IP's, lie about the nature of contracts with a company, and utilize IP of other entities as they please.

Huh? We've already established that the contract allows them to do that, that doesn't mean that the western LN publisher decides what the video game company accepts as canon.

She is explicitly the creator of the fictional setting. She doesn't need to be the author of all of MT. The primary source in question is DDS: Avatar tuner, which is what she is responsible for authoring. And this was done as an employee of Atlus.

The fictional setting is MT. That is the verse we are looking at. And she is not the creator of that fictional setting, she is one of the creators for a time.

You don't know that it wasn't overseen so idk why you are claiming that.

You don't know that it was overseen, and since that's a requirement, idk why you'd say it passes that bar.

Yu is the author of the plot...What would Atlus need to supervise?

Whether it fits with their vision of the content of the franchise.

I already discussed several 1-A supporting evidence that MT has a whole. So it could be argued that 1-A was a thing

No it can't be. If it was, there'd be no need for this discussion.

Not sure why you are acting like the ratings are fixed and can't be updated with evidence or new arguments.

They can be, but that new evidence is a new feat.

The description of "outside of the concept of dimensions" didn't need to be present. The description of the unconscious realm shared across the whole of MT already have varying levels of evidence, but we certainly weren't going to ignore the much more direct evidence when presented with it.

If it's not needed, then cool, it'd stay 1-A despite that evidence being removed, and we don't need to have this discussion.

That is literally not what the page says though. It is quite specific in referencing "fight scenes" and "feats", neither of which are relevant here.

It explicitly disallows feats, and explicitly allows clarifications of fight scenes when text-based media is adapted to visual-based media. The thing you are talking about is not the explicitly mentioned allowed thing, on multiple counts, so it is not allowed.

Refer to Ultima's shirt argument.

Refer to my response to it.

 

[Agnaa]

My apologies, I don't think my input would be valid in this thread given my lack of knowledge on this verse.

I don't have knowledge on this verse, you don't need to know much about it to input here.

 

[Bobsican]

Indeed, this is more of a case of whether something fits for our standards or not, any information that would be required regarding the verse itself is already around this thread.

 

[LordGriffin1000]

I don't have knowledge on this verse, you don't need to know much about it to input here.

Indeed, this is more of a case of whether something fits for our standards or not, any information that would be required regarding the verse itself is already around this thread.

Considering some of the comments are talking about the verses cosmology and different events makes me think some knowledge would be needed when evaluating whats Canon.

Regardless, I've looked over the bulk of the comments and will take a neutral stance. I'm leaning towards Agnaa's point of view on this though.

 

[Iamunanimousinthat]

I think this is going to lead to this site having a discussion on large franchises with lots of people working on them, and with several titles and spin offs etc.

 

[y3p_owo]

Question and I think a bit of derailing but is this post trying to debunk 1-A?

 

[TOAAPRESENCE1]

Question and I think a bit of derailing but is this post trying to debunk 1-A?

I think?

 

[Executor_N0]

Indeed, this is more of a case of whether something fits for our standards or not, any information that would be required regarding the verse itself is already around this thread.

That is something that I was wondering what to do because of my future projects related to Digimon, but I assumed that the fact that our page already stated that it's possible to have a franchise working under its own rules of "canon" would be enough to not have to deal with the standards themselves, it's simply that the franchise doesn't follow the standards

The problem with a lot of Japanese franchises (I say this because they are the ones that I work with the most, but is valid to basically any franchise that works in the way that I'll talk about) is that the use of "canon" itself (Or at least the equivalent to that word that has its religious roots) "Seitō" (正統/Orthodox) isn't really common. Instead the words "Sekaikan" (Worldview), "Setei" (Settings) or at best "Kōshiki" (Official/Formula) that although can be used in basically the same way that we think of canon, it's also very common to describe the larger cosmology/rules of the franchise that can be the same even if two works aren't in the same "canon/continuity/universe".

Sometimes that gets explained as a multiverse, sometimes it doesn't. In the end it's not really a big problem as most franchises doesn't really need to connect a lot of stuff from that much of derivative works. And when it does, sometimes we have luck that there's at least a "standard canon" statement (Or at least something similar to that), but there's still cases when vagueness is a part of that and even direct statements of "they are different universes/unrelated in continuity" still isn't enough to say that they aren't related in a "worldview" way, or even just a part of that. The more that you get deep into certain franchises, the more complicated and you get to the point that there so many people working on a franchise, each with their own definition of "Sekaikan" and "Setei" and how all of them connect and that connection is still a big part of the franchise, you can even get crazy while trying to make sense of everything (And that is why I'm taking a lot of time to do my next Digimon project).

With the Megami Tensei series it seems that there's a lot of connection between some works, use of the multiverse and a certain control over how the franchise is used by different people, so I think it's not in that state.

 

[PairusDragonoid]

It dosent, even if here for some nitpick, conveniently ignoring the nature of the work / franchise as such, find the fifth leg of the cat, ignoring a lot of things, QDS is a part of MT even if its his own thing but sharing a lot of concepts, terminology, creatures, etc.

 

[Dr._whiteee]

And if Atlus decided that "wrapping up the kinks" involved removing the 1-A statement, we should respect that, and not what Yu went off to do afterwards.

No one knows what that entailed or if that specific description was in her head. Harly relevant given the idea of nirvana being a transcendental plane devoid of ego is par for the course for the unconscious worlds of MT. And what Yu went off to do afterward was sanctioned by Atlus.

Could you point me out what indicates that Atlus still retained veto power/creative control over Yu's future works?

The fact that they stipulated conditions of the novel to limit her scope of control while still respecting her storyboarding credits as person who made the plot.

As they are the publisher of the novel, their authority is what lies within the canon of the novel, not over what lies within the canon of the games.

This doesn't touch on the relevant point. A publishing company cannot use language like Bento books did when describing a product. That'd be like someone claiming their work takes place within Disney's world system. They'd be sued because you can't make claims like that outside of obvious public use. But this is a direct novelization of the specific story utilizing the same setting, characters, and overarching universe which is mentioned on the novel proper.

The novels came out after those two games, which is why I said "any later game" meaning "any later game in the Megami Tensei canon". This may not be likely, which is why I listed it as one of many possible avenues for demonstrating canonicity.

Yes, and once again, they wouldn't be mentioned in other MT games because DDS is a spin off in of itself. Continuity wise it is parallel to the other games/novels.

What does occur throughout the franchise is the overarching cosmology of the unconscious world and kabbalistic thought. Which is why the description in the novel is nearly identical to other titles cosmology.

Then we can look at what they promote or have direct involvement in to determine canon.

Primary canon.

She was not an actual Atlus employee at the time of writing.

Which is irrelevant because she already had the rights and stipulations form atlus dictating what she could do.

I've already explained why I don't think contractual rights matter.

And that's nonsense. Contractual rights are what determine the actual power over IP. Not really sure why they wouldn't factor in here when secondary canon can be accepted for far less.

She was the author of the story for a time, before other people came on to iterate on her work, changing it without her input.

Ok? She still has storyboarding credits and created the plot. The novels don't care about the other MT games because it's all segmented and connected through overarching themes and deep cosmology.

No, Yu had already started the process of editing her work with Satomi. Not sure why you keep asserting things you are ignorant of. They literally just finished the process that Yu had already been undergoing her whole time at Atlus.

Huh? We've already established that the contract allows them to do that, that doesn't mean that the western LN publisher decides what the video game company accepts as canon.

The western company cannot make claims that would violate copyright. It's that simple. So Yu's contract obviously not only allowed her to use her framework and setting of the game along with characters and plot, but also for SMT to even be mentioned as associated with the work.

The fictional setting is MT. That is the verse we are looking at. And she is not the creator of that fictional setting, she is one of the creators for a time.

Yes, and MT is a huge Eastern franchise with it's own definitions for what is canon which is literally the most loose shit. Sonic the hedgehog, Guts, etc are all canon. Everything Atlus touched is pretty much canon or anything they allow to be published.

All that matters is DDS. Not every single megami game that has been through dozens of separate storyboarders working in complete isolation of each other.

Yu was the original creator of the primary canon's narrative and plot. Check.
Yu directly got permission to expand her work in a novelization with terms laid out for what she could and could not do. check.

That once again touches upon the creator of the fictional setting of the DDS universe, and directly proves the copyright holders gave her permission to work with the copyrighted material.

You don't know that it was overseen, and since that's a requirement, idk why you'd say it passes that bar.

Because the copyright holders gave express permission to expand the work, and the work was created by the person who literally wrote the primary canon in question. Those are two factors you aren't addressing.

Whether it fits with their vision of the content of the franchise.

She literally wrote the game in question. They paid her to write said story. It's literally her vision. So much so, that Atlus gave her rights to expand that vision while not constrained by the game medium.

We are going in circles here tbh.

No it can't be. If it was, there'd be no need for this discussion.

This is just an assertion. I clearly explained the situation for you.

They can be, but that new evidence is a new feat.

It's not a feat.

If it's not needed, then cool, it'd stay 1-A despite that evidence being removed, and we don't need to have this discussion.

Not really. Because it's canon.

And 1-A wasn't tried without that evidence but objectively speaking there is more than enough to at least make a case and this is a consistent portrayal across the board which is also touched upon on the canon page.

It explicitly disallows feats, and explicitly allows clarifications of fight scenes when text-based media is adapted to visual-based media. The thing you are talking about is not the explicitly mentioned allowed thing, on multiple counts, so it is not allowed.

What? We aren't talking about a feat or a fight scene. It's clarification about cosmology.

Refer to my response to it.

I did and I didn't find it satisfactory.

Tbh, we are gonna keep looping. So I am fine with letting you continue with Ultima. I will stick around to answer questions, provide scans, or clarification to anyone with questions, or if something needs clarifying.

 

[Agnaa]

The fact that they stipulated conditions of the novel to limit her scope of control while still respecting her storyboarding credits as person who made the plot.

I didn't know that they stipulated conditions of the novel, could you elaborate on that?

This doesn't touch on the relevant point. A publishing company cannot use language like Bento books did when describing a product. That'd be like someone claiming their work takes place within Disney's world system. They'd be sued because you can't make claims like that outside of obvious public use. But this is a direct novelization of the specific story utilizing the same setting, characters, and overarching universe which is mentioned on the novel proper.

I think the issue with that Disney comparison is the copyright (the ability to write those characters and features of the world in the first place), which is resolved through the contract giving Yu the rights to use those things. I don't think that legal stuff has anything to do with the canon of the games.

Primary canon.

I don't understand the implication of you saying this. Are you saying that "promotion/direct involvement" only establishes primary canon, but that you're not trying to establish primary canon? Because I think that's needed for secondary canon as well, and that this book lands at tertiary canon, and the usability of its feats should be determined according to our rules for tertiary canon.

And that's nonsense. Contractual rights are what determine the actual power over IP. Not really sure why they wouldn't factor in here when secondary canon can be accepted for far less.

Because public domain works give everyone power over IP, but don't give everyone power over canon. Someone who was contracted to make a manga adaptation could say that a certain novel isn't canon, but that wouldn't matter, since their authority only lies with the manga adaptation; the novel author would be the one with authority over canon.

Ok? She still has storyboarding credits and created the plot.

"Other people worked on it after her"

"She still worked on it"

"But other people came on after her and changed her work"

"She still did a lot"

"Other people made changes to what she did"

"But she still has credits"

This is going nowhere...

No, Yu had already started the process of editing her work with Satomi. Not sure why you keep asserting things you are ignorant of. They literally just finished the process that Yu had already been undergoing her whole time at Atlus.

Wait, why would sources say she had to leave partway through if she kept working there and finished her job? I'm not asserting things from nothing, I'm asserting things from stuff y'all either claimed or haven't taken issue with before.

The western company cannot make claims that would violate copyright. It's that simple. So Yu's contract obviously not only allowed her to use her framework and setting of the game along with characters and plot, but also for SMT to even be mentioned as associated with the work.

It'd be pretty strange if she was allowed to use the framework, setting, characters, and plot, but not allowed to utter the words "Megami Tensei". This doesn't demonstrate that the novel is canon to the games tho.

All that matters is DDS.

VSBW does not have DDS-exclusive profiles. They have profiles for the entire Megami Tensei series, taking into account all of that franchise. DDS is a part of it, not the entirety of it. You cannot say that only DDS matters.

Because the copyright holders gave express permission to expand the work, and the work was created by the person who literally wrote the primary canon in question. Those are two factors you aren't addressing.

They gave express permission to expand the work before they knew what that expansion would be, and seemingly didn't oversee it to make sure that it kept with their vision of the franchise's content. The person partially wrote one spinoff from the primary canon in question.

This is just an assertion. I clearly explained the situation for you.

I said "You need the LN to be canon for 1-A to be a thing", how is that "just an assertion"? wtf, like I said, if you think it would manage to be 1-A without it, try it.

And 1-A wasn't tried without that evidence but objectively speaking there is more than enough to at least make a case and this is a consistent portrayal across the board which is also touched upon on the canon page.

Ultima told me that the LN statement is the primary evidence, that everything else is supporting evidence. From other statements earlier in the thread it sounded like others felt the same way. Sounds to me like it wouldn't stand on its own without it.

What? We aren't talking about a feat or a fight scene. It's clarification about cosmology.

It said that THE ONLY THING THAT WAS ALLOWED were clarifications on fight scenes when going from a text-based medium to a visual medium. Your response that "It's a clarification on cosmology, not a fight scene" is exactly my point. It is not a fight scene. It is not moving from text to visual. So it is not allowed to be used.

Tbh, we are gonna keep looping. So I am fine with letting you continue with Ultima. I will stick around to answer questions, provide scans, or clarification to anyone with questions, or if something needs clarifying.

Fair enough.

 

[Milly_Rocking_Bandit]

Question and I think a bit of derailing but is this post trying to debunk 1-A?

I think?

No. It’s about the validity of the novel.

 

[y3p_owo]

No. It’s about the validity of the novel.

Oh ok. Thanks for clarifying that to me.

 

[Ultima_Reality]

I don't really have a lot of knowledge on the Megami Tensei Series (I tried to enter more on it, but I ended up in one of the worst of my University periods this time), but since this is about canon, just a bit of my opinion on that.

First of all, although it's clear that our Canon page is based on the definition of canon that is mostly used on fictional work, when we start talking about Japanese products, the situation changes a lot. Other than some use of Canon/Orthodox to talk about a work that has a main creator (Like a manga series) that puts that creator as super important (Like the Saint Seiya series for ND and other Kurumada works), that really isn't used that much, unless the fanbase around that work really wants to ask about canon, that ends up just being due to the western fanbase or the Japanese fanbase being influenced by those standards.

Most of the time, the big point about the consistency between different works, mainly in adaptations, is if the Sekaikan (World-view) is the same as the core work and what that adaptation will try to do that (Normally, just retell the stories outside of the bounds of the source material). As I said before, when it's about a work that has at least a core idea of "that is the main work and it ignores other material" it makes sense to just apply the standards, but in materials where said things were never stated or implied, it makes a lot of hard to work to just apply that.

My favorite example about this is Digimon, because you basically will never have any staff statement about our concept of Canon (At best Canon has been said by a single ex-staff member, because a western fan asked if something was canon or not), but the tons of statements about Sekaikan (World-view) or Settei (Settings) and also surprised about all the different ways that the staff thinks of what are the different Sekaikan, but the different meanings that Sekaikan has for each of them. This, of course, isn't exclusive to Digimon. I can really show some interviews with different developers for different games with each of them having a different view of what Sekaikan even is.

The point is that in such franchises where the "standard concept of canon" was never applied before and its focus is much more on the Sekaikan, then all that matters in the work are the Sekaikan implications, not even things like continuity. Again Digimon is a great example of this because we have a tons of works with different themes (Some very heavy on fourth-wall breaking) and even contradictory continuities, but that doesn't matter for the world because the focus on them is on the expansion of the Sekaikan, not on continuity.

Therefore, if we are talking about a franchise that focuses on Sekaikan, or at least a work that focuses on that, first that continuity or inconsistent events doesn’t matter. The point is the expansion of the worldview and that is all that matters. For that it would be good to know what are the common statements about the focus on Sekaikan by the different staff of the franchise, if they tried to explain different Sekaikan in a certain way and so on. If there’s enough information to explain how it’s the constant idea (Or even the inconsistent Idea in cases like the Digimon series), a lot of what was said about this novel seems good enough to apply in relation to the settings. For example:

This is, at least for me, a perfect example of being exactly a work that still uses the same Sekaikan, but uses a different medium that can show different parts of the Sekaikan that couldn't be shown otherwise. It wouldn't even matter if they were different characters, had a different story or even if the story was contradictory to the source material, as long as the Sekaikan is consistent, that works.

The only problem is that it seems to be a statement from the translator, so for some people it would be better to have a more "first-party" source. Of course, considering if the franchise is shown to work, or at least consider the adaptations, in that way. If that is the case, since it's simply a better explanation of the worldview, I have no reasons to think that it shouldn't be used.

That was oddly informative, and while I am a bit uncertain on a few aspects of it, under those premises I am fairly sure Megami Tensei is a more-or-less standard example of a franchise that abides by what you described. For example, take this section of an interview, where Kazuma Kaneko takes his time to explain his view on what "Megami Tensei" is:

What does Megami Tensei mean to you?

Q: What position does DDS occupy among the Megami Tensei titles?
A: It’s an exception. The title has the same abbreviation as the series’ origin, Digital Devil Story, but in itself it has the subtitle “Avatar Tuner”, as the meaning behind the story. That is why I consider it on a separate line.
The ones that I think are really part of the series are Shin Megami Tensei I, II and III or so, with Devil Summoner and Persona each being independent series. However, it’s beyond doubt that each of them has the spirit of Megaten.

Q: The familiar demon fusion system is missing as well now.
A: I did think in the past that it would be nice if the system of the original Shin Megami Tensei let you eat your enemies. Eating your enemies will make you stronger. Isn’t this a type of “fusion” too? I wanted to do this one day and we decided to use it for DDS’s system, since it’s the main theme as well. The fans might be surprised there is no fusion, but they would be able to see it under a different form. That would be nice.

Q: You mentioned earlier “the spirit of Megaten”. What is your definition of Megami Tensei?
A: I don’t know whether this is the definition of Megaten or not, but compared to it, popular RPGs have got a lot of “babyface”-like facets and even if Megaten won a challenge, it wouldn’t be an actual victory; but I think this “heel” role is what is specific of this series.
I did say “heel”, but the main point is that it’s “dark”. Not actually “gloomy”, but able to say its story in a straightforward manner, show it with no dishonesty, both the good parts, and the bad parts. The actual lack of a conclusion means not saying or showing many things, but leaving the player room to reflect about the game. This is what I believe Megaten is. [wrestling terms: babyface = “hero”; heel = “antagonist”]

Q: Do you also have a “dark” side?
A: I believe so. I guess I’m intuitively unable to make “babyface”-like things. I’ve wanted to do adult-like things ever since childhood. I hated childish things. I’m sure there are people who feel the same; I don’t do it satisfy my ego or because I’m displeased…there are times when I simply choose the “rock” way.

Q: So is this the meaning of Megami Tensei to you?
A: Yes. It’s a way of expressing many familiar things we should think about every time.

Note here that he also refers to Shin Megami Tensei, Digital Devil Saga, Devil Summoner and Persona as each being independent series, which are largely tied together by underlying themes and ideas regarding stories. And this can probably be seen with how the games often have characters crossing over with no real regard for continuity or context, like with the Demi-Fiend's boss battle in Digital Devil Saga 1. In other interviews, you'll also frequently see him talking about certain details and tidbits as universal aspects that blend through all of the aforementioned series (Such as the design of a certain demon and the lore justification for them being that way)

We have more signs of that in even earlier interviews, too, in which the developers make reference to demons being summoned from Atziluth, a concept that back then had only ever been present in the original Digital Devil Story light novels in which the series was based on, and by extension on the first two ''Megami Tensei'' games, which the first Shin Megami Tensei themselves function as remakes of:

Shin Megami Tensei – 1992 Developer Interviews - shmuplations.com

Shin Megami Tensei – 1992 Developer Interviews These interviews from the GSLA cover the conception, development and post-release thoughts of several key members behind the SFC version of Shin Megami Tensei, the cataclysmic demon-negotiation RPG that would amass a hardcore following, spawn a...

shmuplations.com

On the difference between magic and summoning

Magic in the world of Shin Megami Tensei is the physical manifestation of the caster’s spirit energy, while summoning is the process of transporting powerful demons from the world of Atziluth to our own. While casting fire magic and summoning a salamander will produce the same result, only certain people possess the ability to use magic, whereas anyone who can run the summoning program on a computer can summon a demon.

As for the specific use of the term "worldview," you look at this interview for a fanbook about Strange Journey:

In the original brane cosmology, the universe as we perceive it is said to be a brane (membrane) space-time that borders a higher bulk (independent region), isn't it? Compared to the worldview of the past series, the worldview of "SJ" that you have just described is quite science-fiction-like and difficult to understand.

I think there is a way to interpret the aforementioned relationship between "Brane" and "Bulk" by replacing it with the worldview of the Kabbalah, which has been used extensively in the previous "Shin Megami Tensei" games. The bulk is the Tree of Life (the entire world), the branes are each of the Sefirot (Malkuth, Yesod, etc.), the real world (the real world brane) is the material world (World of Assiah), the Schwarzwelt (the Information Dimension brane) is the immaterial world (World of Atziluth), and so on.

And on the matter of statements regarding Quantum Devil Saga that are sourced from a "first-party" source, as you put it, there is this, from the novels' author:

It started back in 2000, when Kadokawa Shoten asked if I would like to do the story for a video game. The request had come from Atlus, the makers of the well-known “Megami Tensei” series, and they were looking for someone to write the original story and scenario for a new title related to the series. As a long-time “Megami Tensei” fan myself, I gladly accepted the offer.
What I turned in was a proposal for Digital Devil Saga, which this novel is ultimately based on. Thankfully, they liked the proposal I submitted, and so I wound up temporarily living in Tokyo, having a number of talks with the Atlus team, and gradually refining the project.

Before long, I came to realize that novels and game scenarios were more different than I’d expected. The biggest difference is that, in a game scenario, you need to allow room for the player to impact the story, which is a fundamentally different way of doing things than in novels, where in general, the story unfolds from the main character’s perspective. Ultimately, I needed to work together with Atlus’ own scenario writer if I was going to get things done right. Figuring that elements like worldview, characters, and episodic progression were things both forms had in common, I wrote a story that could be workable as both a game and a novel. In order to establish the world and the setting, to develop a general sense of the story and the main characters, and to get the right atmosphere across, I wrote up the first part of the game (up to about the first boss battle) as a simple, short piece of fiction.

After that, due to a number of reasons, such as not adjusting well to life in Tokyo and declining health, I wound up having to leave the team, but I was able to continue working on what I had been writing (as the initial contract allowed for publication of a novel version of what I wrote).

So, make of that what you will.

It explicitly disallows feats, and explicitly allows clarifications of fight scenes when text-based media is adapted to visual-based media. The thing you are talking about is not the explicitly mentioned allowed thing, on multiple counts, so it is not allowed.

Refer to Ultima's shirt argument.

Refer to my response to it.

In reference to my previous arguments and your response to them: I should note that the statement doesn't really exist in a vacuum and is just an appendage of a "feat" underlying it, with the latter in turn not being a new addition at all. In short, it just refers to the general act of attaining Nirvana, and more specifically, to what Serph, the protagonist, goes through once his ego dissolves into the unconscious world. For the matter, here is the specific wording used:

In Sera’s case, he was blocked by the shell, and the blast was contained within the EGG. But as for me, I continued to expand further and farther than him, expanding beyond the boundaries of this dimension. For a quantum-based being, just the normal 3 dimensions were far too small, and nothing more than the lowest, most basic tier dimensions. Or possibly, what I had done was expand beyond even the concept of “dimension” and into an unknown space. I didn’t fully understand it myself—or rather, it’s just that I lacked the words to explain it.

It was just like how Sera could only describe his communication with god using rough, imprecise language. I, having had existence itself converge within my three dimensional, physical body, could only use words and concepts from the 3-dimensional world. Anymore than that would be go beyond the abilities of my hardware—this physical world, bound by the laws of physics.

The former, of course, is a thing that already happens in the game, and, if you want to extend it further, has always been a thing since Shin Megami Tensei I, and the latter is brought up often in Persona.

So, yeah, it's not a "brand new feat" by any means. It's just a statement that details the exact scale of an already existing feat, which ties into what I already spoke about Quantum Devil Saga's nature (That being an expansion of the same world done in a medium where there are fewer restraints and more detailed exposition is possible). For this, I'd also point out another thing from the canon page:

Any changes based on tertiary canon will only be accepted if they are not contradicted by any instances of another canon, with regards to either the character power-scale, or logical inconsistencies (and plot holes).

This already makes it implicit that changes in regards to a character's power-scale are allowed to be based on tertiary canon if they do not contradict other canons, since we wouldn't really demand that aspect to not be contradicted if we didn't permit the analysis of things that have the potential to contradict it in the first place.

 

[Agnaa]

So, yeah, it's not a "brand new feat" by any means. It's just a statement that details the exact scale of an already existing feat

As the page says, details added to already existing feats can only be accepted for when the primary canon is text based, and the tertiary canon is visual based. I don't know why y'all keep ignoring that.

And, although I'm less certain on this, as far as I'm aware, any details added to feats would have to be done in a corresponding scene, not in an entirely new scene. Does the scene that quote comes from in the book have a corresponding scene in the game with closely similar dialogue?

Essentially, an anime showing someone getting punched into a wall, making the destruction shown visually, would be considered valid. While an anime adding an entirely new scene where scientists are analyzing that punch describing the speed and joule values for it would not be valid.

This already makes it implicit that changes in regards to a character's power-scale are allowed to be based on tertiary canon if they do not contradict other canons, since we wouldn't really demand that aspect to not be contradicted if we didn't permit the analysis of things that have the potential to contradict it in the first place.

No, that is a disqualifying factor for the changes whose qualifying factors were outlined a single point above.

For example, if the anime's added visuals in a scene showed a scene from a book where someone getting punched into a mountain, and included visuals of the mountain exploding in the process, while in the books the character was repeatedly shown to cap off at small-building level, that would be considered both a contradiction to the character's power-scale and a logical inconsistency, and thus would be disregarded.

 

[HammerStrikes219]

As the page says, details added to already existing feats can only be accepted for when the primary canon is text based, and the tertiary canon is visual based. I don't know why y'all keep ignoring that.

Strangely I do find it odd to being specific on primary canon is text based and tertiary canon being visual based.

As canon should technically been case by case as there are verses when the primary canon is video games and any materials that is text based like comics and so on being treated as secondary canon especially if it is in the same continuity as that of the games.

Gears of War being one such case, but I digress on that matter.

 

[TOAAPRESENCE1]

No. It’s about the validity of the novel.

Which would affect the 1-A tier no?

 

[Agnaa]

Strangely I do find it odd to being specific on primary canon is text based and tertiary canon being visual based.

As canon should technically been case by case as there are verses when the primary canon is video games and any materials that is text based like comics and so on being treated as secondary canon especially if it is in the same continuity as that of the games.

Gears of War being one such case, but I digress on that matter.

It's just that purely-text descriptions don't give us anything to pixel scale off of, we generally have to make a loooot of assumptions. Comics/manga are in the middle, having visuals to pixel-scale off of but we still need to assume timeframes. Anything audio-visual (including most games) gives us both.

Although, admittedly, for non-calc things text-based media tends to have the most explicit feats, as abilities actually need to be described rather than shown and assumed.

Which would affect the 1-A tier no?

Probably, but some people seem to believe 1-A would be fine without it. idk, I'm not interested in evaluating that.

 

[TOAAPRESENCE1]

Got it, thanks for the clarification

 

[HammerStrikes219]

It's just that purely-text descriptions don't give us anything to pixel scale off of, we generally have to make a loooot of assumptions. Comics/manga are in the middle, having visuals to pixel-scale off of but we still need to assume timeframes. Anything audio-visual (including most games) gives us both.

Although, admittedly, for non-calc things text-based media tends to have the most explicit feats, as abilities actually need to be described rather than shown and assumed.

Yeah, the comics and manga being in the middle is fair as they are both visual and text based.

Edit: As well as other games too.

Now that is out of the way, I am still neutral overall given how this is going on.

 

[KageSakaDark]

Question. Is there any real contradictions to really invalidate the source?

 

[Agnaa]

Question. Is there any real contradictions to really invalidate the source?

While it is kind of an adaptation of the game with a fair few differences, there's nothing that can't be handwaved by assuming it takes place in an alternate timeline (as the series heavily features multiverse shenanigans).

 

[ZAMIR890]

but I support what yuri says that using multiverse mischief argument is very peresp

 

[KageSakaDark]

The contradictions are what really determines if this can be considered for the verse or not. This is a bit of a mess to sort through with how megaten is structured. I am neutral for now.

 

[Milly_Rocking_Bandit]

Question. Is there any real contradictions to really invalidate the source?

No, there isn’t. Information as already proven to be beyond dimensions in a completely unrelated entry.

 

[AKM sama]

I was asked to input here. From what Agnaa has told me prior to writing this comment, here is what I understood:

1. The author started working on a story that was going to be a game.
2. The author left that work midway.
3. Other authors came in and completed it, and released the game.
4. Later, the original author continued her own take on her original work and published a LN 7 years later.

If both sources are separate, then I don't think new information coming 7 years later should be retroactively used for the game, when the author is not the one who got to finish the original product. It is possible that the other authors who came in made the game in their own view and that does not have to align with the author's original view. The original view that came out 7 years later with possibly more new information.

Essentially, the books are Yu Godai’s take on her own story, originally used as the basis for the two Digital Devil Saga games, redone without any of the unique restrictions that a story needs to be subjected to in order to make it a playable video game narrative.

This statement leads me more to believe towards that scenario, since it makes clear that the books are Godai's take on her own original work, redone with more creative liberties since she is not limited in scope by the game.

So, given all of the above, I'd argue that the 1-A statement from the novel would indeed qualify as "an added detail," and as something which in no way contradicts the primary material.

I am guessing you are treating the novel as secondary/tertiary canon and the game as primary canon? I can explain "an added detail to a pre-existing feat" by giving examples.

A character launches an attack on the planet Venus in the primary source, but the primary source (being a text based media, i.e. book/manga/comic) does not depict the time it took for the attack to reach Venus and exactly how much damage it did to the planet. The secondary source (being a movie/anime/cartoon) depicted the time it took for the attack to reach Venus and also the level of destruction caused to the planet in an added scene. In these scenarios, you can use the secondary source. This comes under "description" regarding the feat and this consideration is given mainly to text-based media which might have limitations in depicting some feats.

A game is not like that. It doesn't have limitations regarding what it can depict. They could have easily added the same statement in the game. And in this specific case, it is not just added detail to a feat. It is entirely new information. From what I know, this new information establishes a realm as 1-A. This is added information, which probably supports both sources being separate even more.

Take note that I know nothing about the verse in question. My notes above regarding canonicity and details regarding a feat come from the perspective of analyzing a general case and context may or may not be different for any particular case.

 

[ZAMIR890]

I agree akm sama this is not just explaining a feat or explaining it is creating a kingdom or a new part of the cosmology that the game does not have

 

[Milly_Rocking_Bandit]

Will respond soon.

 

[Executor_N0]

A game is not like that. It doesn't have limitations regarding what it can depict. They could have easily added the same statement in the game. And in this specific case, it is not just added detail to a feat. It is entirely new information. From what I know, this new information establishes a realm as 1-A. This is added information, which probably supports both sources being separate even more.

Take note that I know nothing about the verse in question. My notes above regarding canonicity and details regarding a feat come from the perspective of analyzing a general case and context may or may not be different for any particular case.

This is wrong in so many levels, even more in relation to derivative works based on the Sekaikan/Worldview.

It's wrong to think that a game doesn't have that limitations, it has. A lot, for many reasons. A game can have a different pacing from the book in the same scene, giving the book a lot more space and time to describe what is happening there. This is like having a novel adaptation from the anime and thinking that nothing new should be added to the novel because the anime has both the dialogue and image, there's a lot more that written text can give, even more when we take in consideration what different authors can do in different spaces or even the same author, and I say that because I have great examples of that happening, even more with Sekaikan-based franchises.

In fact, the whole consequence of having a well-detailed sekaikan and that details from it can't be really expressed in the material that the Sekaikan was created for is whyat sometimes it's needed sequels in the same medium or adaptations into different media to really be able to express that Sekaikan. As explained by various game developers, the idea of a deeper Sekaikan that can't be really shown in the game is well-kwnon by game developers, as explained by Masaaki Kukino in "The Untold History of Japanese Game Developers"

MK: I see. I’m going to think about it! But I think if we were to make the game using modern 3D technology, the result would be just an ordinary title. The way we worked 20 years ago, drawing all the images by hand and developing the sekaikan, I think that may still hold interest. But making the game with today’s technology would just yield an ordinary, run-of-the-mill game.

JS: Sekaikan! There’s been discussion in English circles on the importance of that word. It has deep layers of meaning; the atmosphere, world lore, world view, the background behind things.

MK: Yes. The word sekaikan includes everything, it’s the magic that attracts players into the world of that arcade game. How can we get players immersed in the world, using the surroundings? So probably it’s very hard to explain that in English. The sekaikan is the most essential part of any game. Because that represents the entire attraction the title might have. When people play games, they only have a limited space and time. For example if you think about films, if you go to a movie theatre you are there sharing the same thing with other people, all present in that space. You are surrounded by a certain world in your imagination. That way people can be attracted to something more easily, and become absorbed much more easily. But when it comes to home console games, and arcade games, all we have is just the screen. The world we would like to express to the players, is represented by the limited space of that screen. It might be small, tiny even. By moving one’s eyes [to the side] the player might suddenly be faced with day-to-day life. On the screen we’re trying to express non-daily life. Sekaikan is the key to attract the player, get them absorbed, totally immersed in the new environment and value system, the surroundings represented in the world of that game by that screen.

And as explained in the dictionary of the book in the same series "Sekaikan: World view or setting - it's a nebulous word that carries multiple layers of meaning; it goes beyond simple "lore" within a game, an includes things not automatically apparent to players" or "This ties in to the meaning of sekaikan, which incorporates things outside the player's view" and there are a lot more examples of how that is used in different franchises.

This doesn't really has a lot to do with the Megami Tensei series, but since your explanation seemed to be more about a greater idea rather than Megami Tensei specific, it's really wrong.

In fact a cosmology detail from a narrator that gives more information in a scene that happens in a game, where the game cutescene is more interested in showing the reaction of the character in what they are experiencing when reaching Nirvana and the book gives more details in words of how that works is the very definition of having the same Sekaikan and the book giving more details about that. It's like, the very reason from a pure narrative point of view for why that would happen.

Also, I noticed how a lot of people thinking of this being a "1-A feat when the original games makes no mention of that", and that is just the wrong mindset when it's talking about something fiting or not the Sekaikan. The series uses those concepts and is full of references of metaphysicial transcence over the limited physical world, it's just that our definition of 1-A is so restrict because of works that misuses said concepts that a work needs a lot of direct mentions of that to it to make sense. MT has other scenes that can imply 1-A, but it's just vague enough that you can interpretate as something smaller, it just happens that a book whose focus is exactly in having a lot of detail gives enough detail about said place that it can finally fit under our limited standards. In the end this is just a discussion about Sekaikan that has 1-A consequences rather than really about 1-A.

 

[ZAMIR890]

This is wrong in so many levels, even more in relation to derivative works based on the Sekaikan/Worldview.

It's wrong to think that a game doesn't have that limitations, it has. A lot, for many reasons. A game can have a different pacing from the book in the same scene, giving the book a lot more space and time to describe what is happening there. This is like having a novel adaptation from the anime and thinking that nothing new should be added to the novel because the anime has both the dialogue and image, there's a lot more that written text can give, even more when we take in consideration what different authors can do in different spaces or even the same author, and I say that because I have great examples of that happening, even more with Sekaikan-based franchises.

In fact, the whole consequence of having a well-detailed sekaikan and that details from it can't be really expressed in the material that the Sekaikan was created for is whyat sometimes it's needed sequels in the same medium or adaptations into different media to really be able to express that Sekaikan. As explained by various game developers, the idea of a deeper Sekaikan that can't be really shown in the game is well-kwnon by game developers, as explained by Masaaki Kukino in "The Untold History of Japanese Game Developers"



And as explained in the dictionary of the book in the same series "Sekaikan: World view or setting - it's a nebulous word that carries multiple layers of meaning; it goes beyond simple "lore" within a game, an includes things not automatically apparent to players" or "This ties in to the meaning of sekaikan, which incorporates things outside the player's view" and there are a lot more examples of how that is used in different franchises.

This doesn't really has a lot to do with the Megami Tensei series, but since your explanation seemed to be more about a greater idea rather than Megami Tensei specific, it's really wrong.

In fact a cosmology detail from a narrator that gives more information in a scene that happens in a game, where the game cutescene is more interested in showing the reaction of the character in what they are experiencing when reaching Nirvana and the book gives more details in words of how that works is the very definition of having the same Sekaikan and the book giving more details about that. It's like, the very reason from a pure narrative point of view for why that would happen.

Also, I noticed how a lot of people thinking of this being a "1-A feat when the original games makes no mention of that", and that is just the wrong mindset when it's talking about something fiting or not the Sekaikan. The series uses those concepts and is full of references of metaphysicial transcence over the limited physical world, it's just that our definition of 1-A is so restrict because of works that misuses said concepts that a work needs a lot of direct mentions of that to it to make sense. MT has other scenes that can imply 1-A, but it's just vague enough that you can interpretate as something smaller, it just happens that a book whose focus is exactly in having a lot of detail gives enough detail about said place that it can finally fit under our limited standards. In the end this is just a discussion about Sekaikan that has 1-A consequences rather than really about 1-A.

If I could show the other works of 1A that I do not know about the novel, but here is that there are seven years of difference, they are not better explaining a feat, it is giving a new context that the game does not have apart from what is shown or what the visualized of the play

 

[Executor_N0]

If I could show the other works of 1A that I do not know about the novel, but here is that there are seven years of difference, they are not better explaining a feat, it is giving a new context that the game does not have apart from what is shown or what the visualized of the play

It's a problem even to call that a feat, it's too much on the mindset of looking for feats and things like that when this all about just the worldview of the series and just happens that fits under what we consider 1-A, the validity of the expasion of the worldview in the novel in relation to the game has in theory nothing to do with 1-A or not, it just has to do if it can fit, be considered "acceptable" under the greater context of the franchise or consistent with the other definitions of the cosmology in the franchise. 1-A in itself has little to nothing to do with this unless the whole focus on this discussion is about not wanting a series to be under a certain part of this Wiki's system. At least in my opinion it first comes understanding the worldview and greater cosmology of the series and how that fits under our system (Or not fit) is just a consequence of having a good grasp of the worldview first.

The "feat" does happen in the game, we are shown the character reaching Nirvana and understanding its state as one with the world and being able to experience many realities beyond their own. All that the novel gives is put more detail about the metaphysical nature of said experience, with includes the place being maybe beyond the very concept of dimensions and not just "a higher dimension". And that is really what is to be expected from a book that gives more detail about the sekaikan, give more details about how the world works, even if that happens in a way that needs to change the continuity from the original work just to show more possibilities.