File talk:CTHa Rahi 2.png

Spider Crab

Sorry, guys... Mr. Pain-In-The-Neck is back!

I question this file's placement on the Unnamed Rahi gallery as a generic mutated sea creature. Looking at this file, I'm very certain that this Rahi is supposed to be a Spider Crab (or, to rephrase that and avoid accusations of "speculation", this Rahi is modeled after the primary model of the 8925 Barraki Deepsea Patrol set, which just happens to be called the Spider Crab in canon). Therefore, I propose moving this file over to the main Rahi gallery and list its two online game appearances on the Spider Crab article (as non-canon appearances, of course).

I brought this up a few years ago, but because there was an unfortunate lack of reference pictures available at the time, I was unable to prove my case. While I don't know if any reference photos of 8925 for this purpose available now, I took matters into my own hands and recreated the model in LEGO Digital Designer (originally for the Eurobricks "Official LEGO Sets made in LDD" index, but repurposed here). Here is a bird's-eye view of the model, and here is an additional screenshot with the transparent bricks recolored opaque.

Compare these images with the picture of this Rahi while considering the artstyle of the Toa Mahri online games. Note the colors and shapes (and keep in mind that, since the Takanuva and Bordakh staffs are currently not available in LEGO Digital Designer, their shapes won't match up exactly in these pictures). And, remember that all other Rahi that appear in these two Toa Mahri games have set counterparts, as noted on the Unnamed Rahi gallery.

It's clear to me that this Rahi is the same as the Spider Crab. However, rather than making these edits myself and potentially upsetting a lot of people leading to these edits getting reverted immediately, I'm posting my argument here and seeking approval first. --PeabodySam (talk) 20:04, 16 May 2015 (CEST)

Now that you've pointed it out, I agree with you. I'm not a staff member, though, so my opinion doesn't count for all that much. --Angel Bob (talk) 20:51, 16 May 2015 (CEST)

The thing with the online games is that they always repurpose sets and models from that current year without identifying them, or occasionally even labeling them as something different entirely for the purposes of the game. I'm certain you're right that the in-game enemy was based on the Spider Crab, but the file likely only ever identified it as a generic Rahi, or not even at all. -- Dorek _Talk 22:31, 16 May 2015 (CEST)

If this was an instance of a specific character being used as a generic model (e.g. Tanma in The Legend Reborn) or a model used in an instance where it is clearly being used for a different purpose in a different context (e.g. the Archives Mole in Journey of Takanuva), then I'd definitely be inclined to agree with you. I doubt the creators of the game made a conscious decision to use the Spider Crab specifically, as opposed to simply using the model of a recently-released set.

However, Occam's Razor is often important to keep in mind. The Spider Crab is, essentially, a generic sea creature that lives in the ocean surrounding Mahri Nui and is commanded by the Barraki to antagonize the good guys, i.e. Toa Mahri. In these games, this "unnamed Rahi" is a generic sea creature that lives in the ocean surrounding Mahri Nui and is commanded by the Barraki to antagonize the good guys, i.e. Toa Mahri. This is not a specific character or being used in a different context. It's the exact same thing, just unnamed in one medium and named in another. Which is simpler? To assume that the creators of this game deliberately chose to make a Rahi that looks just like the Spider Crab but is not actually the Spider Crab, or to assume that the creators used a Rahi which they left unnamed but is called the Spider Crab in canon?

To use a similar example, the articles for Fikou, Nui-Rama, and Nui-Jaga all list non-canon appearances in BIONICLE: Matoran Adventures. However, that game never identifies any Rahi by name (Muaka and Kuma-Nui excluded) and, judging by the sprite names on this wiki (which may or may not be accurate), may refer to them internally as a generic "bug", "dragonfly", and "scorpion", respectively. Should we remove mention of Matoran Adventures from these articles on the grounds that we don't know for sure whether or not Argonaut Games deliberately chose to use Fikou, Nui-Rama, and Nui-Jaga specifically? --PeabodySam (talk) 00:08, 17 May 2015 (CEST)

So... any thoughts? --PeabodySam (talk) 18:24, 26 May 2015 (CEST)

Not one. The Matoran Adventures example is probably not the greatest since aside from the description itself (which should probably be changed) none of the files are labeled as such, and in some cases only bear a passing resemblance to the Rahi comparison in question anyway (although Kuma Nui is likely identified as such by game guides or whatever; maybe the other ones are too, since Tales of the Tohunga had one that specifically called the creatures out).

As I said, it might very well be and probably is a Spider Crab; give me a filename that backs that up, and I'll change this filename. -- Dorek _Talk 18:36, 26 May 2015 (CEST)

Having played Matoran Adventures, I can confirm that the Muaka and Kuma-Nui are the only two Rahi identified in-game. Yet, on this wiki, the game's article links to Fikou, Nui-Jaga, and Nui-Rama, which all link back to the game. And with good reason; given the game's date of release and simplistic art style, it does not take a logical leap to come to the conclusion that these in-game Rahi represent their respective Rahi. Not even the various breeds of Bohrok are identified by name, yet we have no problem identifying the Bohrok in this screenshot as a Pahrak. Hence why I used that game as an example.

But if not Matoran Adventures, then let's take a look at the game in which this particular Rahi appears: Command Toa Hahli. The article specifically mentions and links to articles for Protosteel Talons, Cordak Blaster, Ignika, each Barraki by name, and Sea Squid. The game itself identifies none of these by name, and I honestly doubt that the game files contain any mention of "protosteel" or specifically refer to the Barraki's projectiles as "sea squid". On one hand, if we keep those names and continue to leave this Rahi unnamed, then we're just splitting hairs and the rules for playing the speculation card become completely arbitrary. On the other hand, we could remove all those names... but then, in an overzealous effort to avoid any possible ounce of speculation, we end up with an article that isn't very informative.

Hence, Occam's Razor: often, the simplest explanation is the best. And here, it's simplest to assume that what you see is what you get. Another famous saying is, "If it looks like a duck..."

And if you have no further thoughts, then what about the rest of the community that reads or edits BS01? --PeabodySam (talk) 04:24, 27 May 2015 (CEST)

As much as you might love citing Occam's Razor, BIONICLE is incredibly notorious for having complicated answers to what would otherwise be simple observations, both in meta terms and in-universe. Krakua definitely wears a Hau, after all. -- Dorek _Talk 04:40, 27 May 2015 (CEST)

Of course, of course. But, that's an instance where the creator's intentions are clearly stated because they are different. Just because Krakua is different, should we doubt whether or not Zemya is really wearing a Hau until Templar tells us that this is what they specifically intended? Should be worried that this isn't actually an Ussal because Miramax told us that this isn't an Ash Bear? Or should we assume that, since Templar didn't explicitly state that Zemya's mask isn't a Hau or that Miramax didn't explicitly state that the crab isn't an Ussal, that they are indeed a Hau and an Ussal? Because that's what we're currently doing, and it's what Occam's Razor says makes the most sense. --PeabodySam (talk) 04:55, 27 May 2015 (CEST)

Dorek, that's a terribly flimsy argument. You're telling me that, based on Greg's precedent, we should just assume that any seemingly simple connection is incorrect, and there is, in fact, some needlessly overcomplicated explanation for why those two things aren't linked. That's so against a logical approach to things that it hurts my mind to even try and consider it. --Angel Bob (talk) 05:00, 27 May 2015 (CEST)

(Was Greg the one who invented the Krakua? I never remember if that was part of the original contestant's entry or not).

My point was that there often ARE needlessly overcomplicated explanations for why things are or are not linked, so just saying "this explanation makes the most sense" by itself is not evidence. It's a good argument, but only an argument.

In terms of the Templar argument, not the greatest, because A. Kanohi are often based on SHAPES and these are powerless Kanohi therefore only shapes, and B. since these were the only Kanohi to exist at that time period, it couldn't have been anything else. In terms of this game, and others, there's ample examples (lolrhyme) of creatures resembling others but not being exactly or specifically that creature, a trend that continued after this game.

You can change it on the page itself if you want, I really don't care enough one way or the other to revert it (although if some other editor later changes it back citing the lack of proof, well, there you go). But I'm not going to change the filename because if it wasn't identified one way or the other in the actual files (please, I implore you, go dig through the files and prove me wrong) then there's no justification to assume based on its looks, because looks have, could, and probably will again at some point in the future, deceive people. -- Dorek _Talk 05:21, 27 May 2015 (CEST)

And exceptions to the rule (such as Krakua's Kanohi) are not evidence either. They are, after all, exceptions.

I personally couldn't care less about the filename of this image, since it's not that important to the wiki. It's the content of the wiki articles themselves that I'm interested in, and I'll take it that your stance on changing said content to reflect this discussion is a solid "meh". In that case, I'll go ahead with it.

But... if the edits are undone due to "lack of proof", then do expect that a landslide will occur. If we can't say that this is a Spider Crab unless the game files say so, then we can't say anything that is not directly stated by the game files, whether it's the name of Hahli's weapon or the name of the Barraki's squid-shaped projectiles. We'll need someone to do extensive file-diving just to verify every last little detail, or else reach out directly to the game developers to quiz them on some obscure trivia from a game they made eight years ago. And, surely, we've got better things to do with our time than that. --PeabodySam (talk) 05:43, 27 May 2015 (CEST)

He says, forgetting we did exactly that last year with Templar :U

And the fact that, y'know, the game is ABOUT Hahli means that it's not a "logical leap" to assume that it's Hahli, because we're told that outright. What we're not told is that this is a Spider Crab, and given previous and future history of games to identify creatures as generic names or even call them something else, I don't particularly see why it matters so incredibly much that this HAS to be identified as a Spider Crab, when it feasibly might not be one at all anyway.

Also filenames are actually pretty important, but whatever. This is a hilarious non-issue. Thanks G1, you've done us all proud. -- Dorek _Talk 09:09, 27 May 2015 (CEST)

"Hilarious". That's one word to describe it. Because what I'm seeing here is an issue greater than whether or not this silly little Rahi is or isn't a Spider Crab. What I'm seeing here is, once again, evidence that this wiki's rules on what is or isn't speculation are completely arbitrary.

You keep referring to a history of BIONICLE games that use a model for a specific Rahi but identify them as something else. It may have been five years since the end of G1, but I don't remember any of these, and you have yet to name a single example.

Wait, you mean like how BIONICLE Heroes used what are very obviously Bohrok but identified them in-game as Bohrok-Kal? Oh, but BS01 ignores that and calls them Bohrok anyway. Okay, then, how about the time Voya Nui Online Game used Hoi but called them Shore Turtles instead? Never mind, BS01 says that "Shore Turtle" is the canon post-lawsuit name for Hoi. So...

I also find it "hilarious" how you said it's not a logical leap to assume that a game about Hahli stars Hahli. That's the one thing I did not comment on because it's our one given in an entire game of things that aren't identified. What isn't identified? The names of Hahli's weapons, the name of that mask with the Vitruvian Man, the names of the humanoid enemies, the name of said humanoid enemies' squid-shaped projectiles, and the name of a particular marine Rahi with six legs and tentacles. Yet, all those things were identified on the article... except one. Can you blame me for trying to maintain a bit of consistency within these apparently-arbitrary hair-splitting rules?

Regardless, I got what I came for, and that was approval (or, at least, a statement of indifference) to make these edits. Good day to you, old chap. --PeabodySam (talk) 16:33, 27 May 2015 (CEST)

You think we made up Shore Turtle? Mmkay...

And all of those ARE examples of things that can and will be erroneous; the Bohrok-Kal is probably what we consider a typo (never played the game, don't know the specific instance, and should probably be noted somewhere anyway if it hasn't been), the aforementioned Adventures game doesn't actually call out some of the Rahi, so that should probably be changed. The Skakdi in the tower defense game aren't all Nektann even of they use the same model (the same goes for any "horde" character in 2009 and 2010, really, in a variety of media).

Hero Factory often used clone enemies of what were specific villains in their, or in the case of generic creatures, actually used a model but called it something else (Waspix, and I can't remember what the "boss" version was... flying lizard or something?).

Regardless, maybe there does need to be some grander sweeping changes of our video game articles; since I've never played a lot of them, I'm not really the person for it. If you can get past the fixation on this one particular thing, I'd love some input. 20:12, 27 May 2015 (CEST)