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)


 * Having looked into this further, I would also like to point users towards similar discussions which have taken place within the past 5 years regarding the validity of VR and similar experinces on pages Talk: The Edge of Time (video game) and Talk: The Saviour of Time (video game). I'm struggling to understand why we view the webcam game Don't Blink as valid, yet it seems that (by the current rules of the wiki) all current and future VR games are/will likely be considered invalid. It seems particularly inconsistent that we are able to have a page for Human (Don't Blink), yet are unable to have a page for Civilian (The Lonely Assassins). To avoid this popping up time and time again in the future, as it has within the last few years, I think a discussion on the subject now would be the best course of action. 66 Seconds ☎  23:35, 28 March 2021 (UTC)


 * Well… It would if we had a Forum, but we don't, so we're kind of stuck.


 * That being said, as I've said already, the reason for The Lonely Assassins's invalidity is just the "variability" of the storytelling; the fact that you can unlock different bits of dialgue from Osgood from one playthrough to another. Not that it's told in the first-person POV. In fact I see no objection to the creation of Civilian (The Lonely Assassins) — only, as an invalid character page. Scrooge MacDuck ☎  23:42, 28 March 2021 (UTC)


 * Why should some slight variations in dialogue be important when we're dealing with a franchise where time can literally be rewritten? Is Flip-Flop an invalid source for having varying versions of the narrative? Very little of what happens is actually influenced by the players decisions, those minor dialogue choices are in flux, but the overall narrative is set in stone. SaiyamanMS ☎  09:02, 29 March 2021 (UTC)


 * I guess because the premise of Flip-Flop is that there's time travel involved, and here, there's no evidence of that..? I dunno; it seems very silly that "variability" in a story from a franchise as convoluted and contradictory as Doctor Who should be grounds for invalidty. These points I believe are also relevent to the virtually undiscussed Decide Your Destiny type narratives that two admins decided to completely invalidate across the board about a decade ago without any input from the community. 📯 📂 09:09, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
 * @SaiyamanMS, that is a fair argument, but Tardis:You are bound by current policy applies. Please let's have you, Epsilon and User:66 Seconds save all proposals of changing that policy for a forum thread. It is out of bounds of what can be discussed on a talk page like this.


 * Although to give you the official justification for the current system, it's very simple and much as Epsilon said — it is an inherent part of the story of Flip-Flop that all the possible paths are equally true within the DWU due to timey-wimey shenanigans. Absent authorial quotes to this effect, it would technically be speculation to say the same of The Lonely Assassin or any other game. Scrooge MacDuck ☎  09:13, 29 March 2021 (UTC)


 * Just my final two cents on this, because as Scrooge MacDuck above, this issue extends far beyond this talk page. Doctor Who is a multi-media franchise, which means this should equally be a wiki for TV episodes, books, audio stories and video games. Video game wikis can't just invalidate whole games because of "variability"; the nature of a video game is that the experience varies from player to player. One player's character might die while completing an objective in Shadows of the Vashta Nerada; another player's might not. We don't invalidate the whole game because of a varied playing experience. Most often on video game wikis the objectives in a game are treated as canon; one player might complete them, another might not - but the objectives are how the games is supposed to be played. That should apply here. To invalidate a game because of some slight variations in dialogue seems ridiculous to me. 66 Seconds ☎  23:53, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
 * For the record, this is the case. The possibility in most video games of failing halfway through, so long as it's just presented as a 'GAME OVER' rather than an alternative ending, is not counted as part of the "variability". Rather, issues are when there's actual narrative content that doesn't show up on every playthrough — like a hidden cutscene that only plays under a specific set of circumstances — or when there is no clear way to determine which version is supposed to be the true one — like in Worlds in Time where the various levels don't have a set order. Scrooge MacDuck ☎  00:00, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

The Human Character
If you collect all the pages from the in-game Journal of Improbable Things, you see this page regarding the mobile phone. This is an obvious tie-in to Maze Theory's The Lonely Assassins. It is pretty clear to me that the journal is absolute in-universe given the page talking about the pages being scattered across the time loop, and being edited by Emer and the Thirteenth Doctor.

So my question is, is this enough to make the human character from The Edge of Reality (and of course The Edge of Time) the same as the human character from The Lonely Assassins? StevieGLiverpool ☎  19:21, 31 July 2023 (UTC)


 * Although I never managed to find all the collectables in The Edge of Reality, I did play through that game and The Lonely Assassins, but I didn't really get the impression these are the same characters.
 * For one, The Edge of Reality is set in circa 2018, while The Lonely Assassins was in 2021(?); in TEoR, you meet multiple incarnations of the Doctor, however in The Lonely Assassins, you've never heard of the Doctor before. Just that in of itself feels like the two "yous" are meant to be separate. 19:28, 31 July 2023 (UTC)


 * Although reading that journal page does imply that you in TEoR goes on to participate in TLA, so I'm not sure. TEoR does seem to imply it, while TLA does not. 19:30, 31 July 2023 (UTC)