Posted under General
With post #3836733, a new exciting discussion pops up:
Should prototype kal'tsit be tagged together with it's arknights counterpart?
The name pretty much confirms they're the same character now, but i would be against this idea since the design is partially different, and maybe the character too. Either making separate character tags or not tagging the character would be better imo.
I don't think the fact she wasn't originally created for AK should really matter. It's still pretty clearly the exact same character, with some alterations made to fit her into AK. She was even playable and had the Mon5tr summon at one point during development.
On a sidenote, should her wiki list her as a "Medic class character"? That seems a bit misleading given that she's not currently playable and realistically could be designated as a Supporter if she were.
pwnagemaster said:
I don't know why she shouldn't be tagged with both. Early character art is still character art. If I had to make an analogy, it would be like saying alpha Minecraft can't be called Minecraft anymore because the visuals and mechanics are different from the current version.
I would agree with that statement, but this artwork was made 5 years ago. And as far as i know, Arknights started development 2 years ago.
She was made for something unrelated to Arknights (Pixiv Fantasia). To give an extreme example, it's like adding Final Fantasy XIV tags to most NieR_(series) posts, because it's characters and locations play a decent role in it.
Mysterious_Uploader said:
I would agree with that statement, but this artwork was made 5 years ago. And as far as i know, Arknights started development 2 years ago.
The number I was given by someone in the unofficial Arknights discord was 4 years, and this was back before AK had even released in China. I never looked into confirming it, though.
Edit: Went and looked for the old comment, November of last year the CN release had been leaked 4-5 years prior. The game has been at least in the planning phases for a good while.
Updated
blindVigil said:
The number I was given by someone in the unofficial Arknights discord was 4 years, and this was back before AK had even released in China. I never looked into confirming it, though.
Edit: Went and looked for the old comment, November of last year the CN release had been leaked 4-5 years prior. The game has been at least in the planning phases for a good while.
That sounds pretty unreasonable, especially given lowlight's involvement with GFL.
According to someone who has ties with lowlight, development started after lowlight left GFL's dev team after an internal dispute, so around two years and a half ago. Maybe the idea was there from even before, though.
Well anyways, i guess the most reasonable thing to do at this point is to add kal'tsit tag but not arknights? Or alternatively make a kal'tsit_(pixiv_fantasia) tag.
Kal'tsit isn't the only Lowlight character in Arknights that has to be considered if a decision is made. W is suspected to having had her design reused from a scrapped AR Team member (nicknamed Mk18 CQBR/Mod 0 due to that being the gun she uses; also note the proto-Doctor), likely to have been the sister doll of M4 SOPMOD II due to shared characteristics (even being paired with SOPMOD on a signboard drawn for a SOPMOD fan, leading to some saying she was supposed to be M4 SOPMOD I).
Outside of Lowlight, Kyouka Hatori had similarly reused one of their previous designs for 12F, seen here. Though not uploaded here, it is another example to consider.
Having "*_(prototype)" character tags might be reasonable, though one has to consider the practicality of it.
Updated
It could be useful to differentiate between official and "unofficial" art, or at least art made outside of Arknights's scope. I think tagging pre-arknights artworks with the character tag could definitely cause confusion. (Throwback to the time post #2669457 was uploaded and was tagged as drawn by ZUN, making news circulate about an official Gensokyo map.)
Mysterious_Uploader said:
It could be useful to differentiate between official and "unofficial" art, or at least art made outside of Arknights's scope. I think tagging pre-arknights artworks with the character tag could definitely cause confusion. (Throwback to the time post #2669457 was uploaded and was tagged as drawn by ZUN, making news circulate about an official Gensokyo map.)
That's a completely different situation, though. That was a fan creating and uploading something with zero input from the original creator, and a series of mistags confusing people as to who actually created it. It was never official or in anyway related to Zun.
This issue with Kal'tsit is a character that was created prior to Arknights, but was then coopted into the game during development. She was made by the official artist, she shares the same name, the same Familiar(Mon5tr), and despite some changes in appearance is still physically recognizable as the character she is now.
There is no confusion of who made the art, it's the same artist, it's just an old design, the fact she at one point appeared ingame with the familiar could mean the artist originally pitched the PF design and the devs accepted it, which would technically make it official, despite her appearance having been altered since then.
I don't see any problem with tagging it kal'tsit but not arknights if people feel maintaining the distinction is important, but then I could see people constantly adding the arknights tag and/or removing the pixiv fantasia tag, in which case I would suggest renaming Kal'tsit to Kal'tsit_(arknights) and tagging the pre-arknights version as kal'tsit_(pixiv_fantasia).
I think there's gonna be confusion no matter what you do, but at least with separate tags the wikis can provide clarity.
That is not done with Pokémon species at least:
But then again, prototype human characters from Pokémon get their regular human tags:
Updated
blindVigil said:
There is no confusion of who made the art, it's the same artist, it's just an old design, the fact she at one point appeared ingame with the familiar could mean the artist originally pitched the PF design and the devs accepted it, which would technically make it official, despite her appearance having been altered since then.
(Lowlight is the lead dev, jsyk)
My main problem is the proto design also having a description of the character, and that some people may take it as official.
I don't see any problem with tagging it kal'tsit but not arknights if people feel maintaining the distinction is important, but then I could see people constantly adding the arknights tag and/or removing the pixiv fantasia tag, in which case I would suggest renaming Kal'tsit to Kal'tsit_(arknights) and tagging the pre-arknights version as kal'tsit_(pixiv_fantasia).
Yep, that's what i was thinking could happen too.
I'm going forward with making **_(pixiv_fantasia) tags for the various characters.
Are we only talking about one post here? If so, wouldn't this be solved by a comment explaining all of the potential points of confusion that people are worried about? That seems like less work than creating a plethora of single-use tags, and more effective at controlling misunderstandings.
feline_lump said:
Are we only talking about one post here? If so, wouldn't this be solved by a comment explaining all of the potential points of confusion that people are worried about? That seems like less work than creating a plethora of single-use tags, and more effective at controlling misunderstandings.
There's 5 pixiv fantasia Kal'tsit posts currently, and I assume if anyone drew fanart specifically of the PF version they would also be tagged kal'tsit_(pixiv_fantasia).
Side question, is it worth making a tag for Mon5tr?
blindVigil said:
There's 5 pixiv fantasia Kal'tsit posts currently, and I assume if anyone drew fanart specifically of the PF version they would also be tagged kal'tsit_(pixiv_fantasia).
Pixiv Fantasia tends not to lend itself to fanart, so I think any interest in these posts would in fact come from Arknights fans. They should be able to find out that these posts are of an old design and not an unrelated character, but that the information in these posts is non-canon to Arknights. That could come from wiki entries on two split tags, or kal'tsit + prototype and a comment on the main character sheet.
In other words, most of the issue here is a documentation problem, not a tagging problem. The tagging system alone can't provide guidance if a specific character is poorly understood.
blindVigil said:
Is it worth making a tag for Mon5tr?
There's to be said that Mon5tr was renamed as Mon3tr, and i'm pretty sure it would be confusing.
I definitely think a Mon3tr tag could be used, he(?) appears in a fair bunch of posts.
@feline_lump , thanks for the explaination. I didn't know that a prototype tag existed. I don't know if it fits exactly the character though.
