Talk:Doctor Who: Worlds Apart

T: OFF REL violating
T:OFF REL states that games must be out of their Testing/Beta period before coverage of them can begin. Their website clearly denotes in their 'roadmap' section that not only does their closed beta not begin until the end of the year, they've not even begun their alpha phase. This is far too early for coverage. JDPManjoume ☎  16:59, 6 April 2021 (UTC)
 * I dunno. It seems to me like this doesn't have any kind of narrative component, and arguably not much in the way of non-narrative fiction either. T:OFF REL, as highlighted in its opening sentence, concerns itself with things that pass Rule 1.

{{quote|Since Doctor Who and its various spinoffs are released globally, it's important to try to define which of the various regional releases of a story mark the point at which we can freely write about that story.|T:OFF REL (emphasis mine})}}
 * I think it's broadly been interpreted to also apply to things like reference books. But I'm honestly not sure if it was ever meant to apply to non-fictional merchandise, which is more what I'd call this kind of trading-cards game. Is there a precedent on T:OFF REL applying to, I dunno, action figures? Scrooge MacDuck ☎  19:15, 6 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Ah, I see - fair point. I wonder if there is any clarification to be had somewhere as to whether or not there is a narrative to Worlds Apart? The line on the game page refers to the player being an unknown Time Lord trying to build up their reputation...
 * As such if without a narrative, I can't find any such ruling on figures... admittedly the current lack of access of Threads impedes me on that, so someone more familiar with action figure rulings would have to chime in. I do note that Worlds in Time had its page removed until after it was out of its beta phase, and I cannot recollect there being a narrative as such but instead puzzles set in varying locations (happy to be corrected if wrong). The decision on that is archived here: https://tardis.fandom.com/wiki/Forum:When_using_information_from_Doctor_Who:_Worlds_in_Time - Would that be fairly applicable here?

JDPManjoume ☎  20:25, 6 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Not having played it, I couldn't tell you if that's accurate, but the inclusion debate(s? there may have been more than one) on Worlds in Time took it as read that it was a narrative video game, with the game ultimately being excluded simply because you could play the different levels in any order meaning it was technically one of these "multiple-choice stories" we disallow. Scrooge MacDuck ☎  20:31, 6 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Indeed, but the archived thread I linked is from just prior to WiT's beta release in Dec. 2011 whereas based on the page history, the decision to rule WiT as invalid seems to have come in Oct. 2012 - about six months after its official release. At that point, it was deemed by CzechOut to have been an OFF REL violation when it was not clear yet that the stories would fit within the 'multiple branches' vein. Thus, I am now questioning whether that situation - regardless of later further rulings on validity - would possibly play a part in deciding this? Or do we need further clarification from somewhere about Worlds Apart and the nature of its narrative? JDPManjoume ☎  21:36, 6 April 2021 (UTC)