Talk:The Lonely Assassins (video game)

Validity
Could this not be classed as a valid source? Having player the game, I would argue that unlike Attack of the Graske, choices made by the player in this game don't change any aspect of the story. The player themselves is simply referred to as "civilian", with no real personalisation. It would appear that the main choices which can be made here are in deciding what to text to Osgood, though this is merely to gain information rather than having any effect on the storyline itself. Osgood talking to the audience member is just a case of breaking the fourth wall, as the Twelfth Doctor did in the valid Before the Flood. As a puzzle game, I feel this should be considered just as valid, if not more valid, than games like The Eternity Clock or Blood of the Cybermen for example, in which players take control of characters themselves. 66 Seconds ☎  00:08, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
 * With respect to video games, that's not quite how it works. The idea is that if the playing experience (i.e. the story) is different for different people, it can't be a valid source, similar to stage plays having potentially minor variations that make it impossible to have one straightforward story. In this specific case, you yourself stated that any player can text different things to Osgood, therefore the story will not be the same for every player. Shambala108 ☎  00:16, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Though it's worth mentioning, we aren't valid sources. How we experience the game should not be remotely relevant to the coverage of video games, because with no other source on the Wiki do we acknowledge anything more than what is presented within a source. 📯 📂 01:20, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
 * @Epsilon: well, yes, if it was just a matter of what we type being variable, without it affecting the gameplay in any way whatsoever, I think that would be fine. But that's not what's going on here. Obviously, depending on what you text, Osgood's answers will vary also. Under current policy, if that's true, then it cannot be a valid source. Scrooge MacDuck ☎  03:36, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Oh, I'm not disputing that. I'm simply questioning why stories that have "us" as the main character on this Wiki seem to be invalid because of the fact that we're being treated as some sort of source.
 * It's much bigger than just this one story, and I think that it applies to many more stories, so perhaps it's more suited to a Forum thread. 📯 📂 13:55, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your responses. I very much agree with Epsilon the Eternal that we need a forum discussion on this subject. With evolving technology, we are going to see far more stories in the future where the audience is part of the story, whether that be in games similar to this one, VR experiences or immersive events. Looking at Talk: The Runaway (video game), which holds similar rationale for validity/invalidity as this, we were pointed to Forum:Doctor Who: Worlds in Time, but that forum hasn't been updated since 2012 - before VR technology was widely available. I very much feel that to discount these experiences because "the player cannot be considered a part of the DWU", as stated on that forum, will be detrimental to the wiki as these technologies continue to evolve. I understand the issues surrounding character creation and personalisation, but in cases such as this and The Runaway, where the player takes on a set role in the story I do feel we need to look again. I indeed stated above that players choose the set responses they text to Osgood, though as stated previously these don't change the overall story, but are used to obtain further information in the same way one might talk to an NPC in any other video game.


 * Maybe we need to step back and look into how similar wikis do things; the Harry Potter wiki for example uses information derived Harry Potter: Hogwarts Mystery as a valid source for their pages. Hogwarts Mystery is a game in which the player creates their own character and takes on the role of a Hogwarts student, making there own choices as they progress through the game. That game offers a far more personalised experience than this one, yet they use that as a source for their articles while we choose to ignore this one. As a wiki focused on a multi-media franchise, it is my opinion that we need to take another look at video games and VR experiences, or we risk compromising the factual integrity of the wiki as a whole. 66 Seconds ☎  18:32, 28 March 2021 (UTC)