Forum:Temporary forums/Legacy validity

Forums → Archive index → Panopticon archives → Temporary forums/Legacy validity

This thread has been archived.

Please create a new thread on the new forums if you want to talk about this topic some more.
Please DO NOT add to this discussion.

File:Doctor Who Legacy Game - Doctor Who

Doctor Who Legacy trailer. A very quick sample on what the game was about/its mechanics

Proposal

Meet Legacy

Doctor Who: Legacy was a match-3 game which launched at the end of 2013, and spanned over all corners of Doctor Who. It's storyline started with the Eleventh Doctor, and its original storyline by doing pseudo-sequels of series 7, then ran backwards through the show's history (until they gave up on the idea and started jumping all over the place, from the First Doctor's era, to Titan Comics' output, Engines of War and some Doctor Who exhibition content).

Doctors and Companions/Allies from all over the universe and history joined forces to defeat Enemies that threatened the very existence of the universe. First it was the Sontarans, then Zygons, and at last... the Master(s). Spread over four chapters, this game has had a non-branching narrative, yet it has remained {{invalid}} on this wiki basically since its launching. Why? Well, let's dig a bit deep on this Wiki's relation to this game.

Why I wanted to be the one to open this discussion

First off, let me just do a sidestep explaining why opening this discussion is a bit of a memory lane for me: a Doctor Who: Legacy validity Thread/Forum was one of the reason that drew me into Tardis, all the way back in 2014/15. Back then, I was one of the most regular editors of the game's wiki, and later became one of its admin. So, when I say I have a broad knowledge of the games in-and-outs, please do believe me :p

I used to follow newsletter, AdiposeTV lives, was on top of new updates to the game, and followed closely the edits made and preserved to this day on the wiki. But all of this is not a vanity post on how I'm an expert to the game; instead, its a bit of context on why I propose overturning the previous decision(s) on invalidating this game, even if we don't have access to the actual discussions right now. Here's my recollection on the most-often-used arguments to keep Legacy invalid, and why I think these should be disregarded:

"We already have a wiki covering this game, so why should we?"

Clean and simple, there are not one but two reasons why:

1. The Doctor Who: Legacy Wiki and Tardis Wiki have two completely different approaches of coverage. DWLW delves into the gameplay mechanics, character statistics, and level breakdowns. Tardis is an attempt at a "in-universe biography" of the characters of the DWU. Notice how they're not in direct confrontation? In fact, by validating Legacy, we'd be complementing the coverage of the game
2. "Sister wikis" have, historically, been a failure. There's simply not enough of a community to maintain the level of traffic that Tardis has (see the wikis for SJA, Vienna and Faction Paradox for further examples). Not only that, the game is now out of the stores (and I'll elaborate on that later), meaning Wiki traffic has dropped from... a handful of people (there were only ever around.... 6-10 regular editors at a time) to zero. By allowing Tardis editors to tackle on Legacy, we're allowing it to be properly documented by a reachable audience.

"But this game is just retelling the TV stories"

Alright, even if it was true: this isn't something original, or worthy of deeming something invalid. Look at the hundreds of novelisations, audio adaptations of TV stories, The Lost Stories and Novel Adaptations. Hell, look at Human Nature TV story (are we about to invalidate that on the basis that its an adaptation? surely not!).

However, this is none of our concern, because to say these are adaptations are blatantly wrong. The levels that "tie" itself the closes to the original stories are giving them sequels, of sorts. Take a look at the dialogue from Nightmare in Silver: Closed for Business, the first level after the game's tutorial:

Eleventh Doctor: And another adventure begins!

Jenny Flint: Are we really on the moon?

Eleventh Doctor: No, Jenny, this is an intergalactic amusement park. I stopped a war here once. We need to go back through my timeline, find and stop the Sontarans... and close any paradoxes that they've managed to create. This seemed like a good place to start.

Jenny Flint: A war? Here? We'll do what we can to stop it. Just point us in the right direction, Doctor.

Eleventh Doctor: We'll need more help, and I have a good idea of where to find some.

Does this look like a retelling of Nightmare in Silver to anyone? Not for me!

In fact, let's look at the opening dialogue of the tutorial:

- Cardiff, 16th October 1978.

The TARDIS materializes on St. Mary Street. The Doctor and Vastra walk out, finding the street deserted.

The Eleventh Doctor: ...And that's why you never play chess with a Time Lord. Ah... Late 1970's Cardiff. A lovely time in a lovely place! What adventure awaits us here, I wonder?

Madame Vastra: Is this what the humans call the Dark Ages, Doctor?

The Eleventh Doctor: No, that was over 100 years ago, but it is unusually dim, isn't it?

The Doctor waves his Sonic Screwdriver about. Vastra looks up at the sky.

The Eleventh Doctor: Gloomy at mid-day, high levels of radiation, the smell of boiled cabbage...

Madame Vastra: A Sontaran battle fleet! Doctor, is the Earth being invaded?

Does this look like any television stories to you? I can't recall such an event happening elsewhere. This, once and for all, proves that Legacy provides us an original story.

"Oh, but the narrative of the game is branching! Branching narratives are invalid by default!"

... it's not. Plain and simple, it's not. This misconception is born (somewhat understandably) from the fact that the player is allowed to build a team of Doctor + 5 allies to play each level. However, as I tried explaining time and time again on the original forums, this is a gameplay aspect, not a narrative/story aspect of the game. If you play the games a hundred times with a hundred different combinations of teams, you will ALWAYS experience the same cutscenes, said by the same characters, in the same order, every. single. time.

"But gameplay and cutscenes can't be separated, they're one and the same!"

Well, of course they can, and that is the very intent of the game designers. If they wanted them to be one single thing, they'd have designed the game to display the cutscenes with whatver characters you selected to play during that level. Since they didn't, it's more than clear that the story is meant to be the same for every player.

"But then the story doesn't match the gameplay. How are the Eleventh Doctor and Amy on the cutscene while you're playing with the Tenth Doctor and Martha?"

File:Doctor Who Legacy - Bigger on the Inside Chapter 1 Simple: because, within the story game, all of these characters are meant to be together travelling in the TARDIS together. It's a massive, long-spanning, Multi-Doctor Event. Think The Day of the Doctor (TV story), multiply it by The Five Doctors (TV story) and elevate it to The Power of the Doctor (TV story) (sorry, sorry, this math pun was just waiting to be made). But seriously, the very narrative of this game is that a massive paradox is threatening to destroy the universe, and only by uniting all of the Doctors and their allies they'll be able to stop the threats. So, if you see 11 on a cutscene and you're playing with 10, it's because the narrative allows for it

And, even if you go back to play a level with 10 before he joins the story: this is the nature of a videogame like this, we can't discount how a video game works when playing OR covering it!

Sonic Adventure and Bigger on the Inside

The War Doctor and Asmuth fight with three Temporal Weapon Daleks. (Bigger on the Inside)

Alright, I haven't mentioned these two tidbids so far, because they're even less troublesome than Legacy itself. These two premium packs were later additions to the game, presenting two smaller scale storylines that took place during the main games storyline. And why do I say they're less trouble? Simple:

1. Stories taking place within each other are no news. For one, look at Sara Kingdom/Appearances to see how many stories fit right into The Daleks' Master Plan. This is the same principle here.
2. Bigger on the Inside takes the extra mile to have pre-set teams. Not only the storyline is the same for everyone, but with them, the playable characters remain the same as well. (but, as I pointed out above, this isn't/shouldn't really be a defining factor on validity. Gameplay mechanics should not trump written storylines.)
3. Just in case someone points out the different character/art style of these packs: it's an artistic choice, to differentiate the levels from the main game (and the Pixel style is also justified in-story)

Doctor Who: Legacy Kids

Another premium pack, which features minimal dialogue, but also has pre-set teams (so no branching anything. To be quite honest, all levels here present a very small narrative, but having very small narratives never stopped us before. However, some levels feature no dialogue at all, even if they have pre-set teams. Coverage of this pack is one I'm most open to have a longer discussion, because even I'm not sure how to beast deal with it. Each level is contained within itself, and there's no overarching narrative.

Fan Area, Expert Levels/Expert Levels Season 2, Challenge Levels and (Tie ins to the TV-)Season 8/9

These six packs/areas of the game were 100% gameplay-based, and contained no narrative whatsoever. For these, I'd say that the most sensible thing to do is to write a real-world/not-valid overview page, without trying to force it into any in-universe sections of articles (as the developers themselves weren't trying to tell a story anyway).

The elephant in the room: the game is no longer available to download

Now, I won't be bitter about our choices of the past, but briefly: this is only a problem because we refused to cover this game while it was still available. Still, not all is lost! Remember how I mentioned the DWL Wiki thrived on having the level breakdowns? All of the game's dialogue was transcripted by one of the wiki's most regular users/later-admins, User:Felicityk (well, among other people, I suppose, but I remember this was one of the activities she did quite often when new level dropped). Anyway, she and I kept our eyes open to ensure the dialogue was being properly transcribed without typos/vandalism tarnishing it.

This means that, while the game is not playable (well, actually.... if you happen to have it downloaded before it was taken of stores, it is!), it's still possible to wikify it using a trustable source! This is almost our novelisation/audio releases equivalent for the missing episodes.

Summary/Concluding my long essay

So, all in all, I think I've done a pretty good job in describing the game's mechanics and what could and could not be covered by us. Muy proposal is:

Only narrative/dialogues come into play

When covering The Adventure Games, we don't say "Amy took five steps to the left, waited a few seconds and then started walking again, took seven steps forward and activated a lever. She was killed dozens of times by a Dalek, when the player lost the game. Somehow, she magically came back to life every time." We cover the plot, from A --> B, which all players experience alike. That is what we should do: cover the narrative/storyline elements and all else is ignored. Matching of gems, usage of the power-ups, different skin/outfits, characters which are unlockable but don't appear within the dialogue, etc are to be covered only in a real-world fashion, as a game overview, not in the in-universe bits. We add to biographies whatever the game tells us and nothing else.

Where does it leave us page/linkage wise

• Legacy (video game) becomes a valid source, and covers: "Chapter 1: The Sontaran Threat", "Chapter 2: "Enter... the Zygons", "Chapter 3: The Rise of the Master" and "Chapter 4: Betrayal and Redemption"
• Bigger on the Inside (video game) and Sonic Adventure (video game) do what we're already doing, but without {{invalid}}
• Fan Area, Expert Levels/Expert Levels Season 2, Challenge Levels and (Tie ins to the TV-)Season 8/9: no pages do themselves, and we only "cover" it from a real world perspective in a game-overview page, perhaps at Doctor Who: Legacy.
• Doctor Who: Legacy Kids (would get one of the two treatments above, depending on later discussion)

Now, I'll leave the floor for you all to discuss. OncomingStorm12th ☎ 21:20, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

Discussion

Support/opposition to the game's validity

I fully support the validity of Legacy, Sonic Adventure, Bigger on the Inside, etc. Pluto2☎ 21:44, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

I overwhelmingly support the validity of all three of the discussed stories.

This wiki has long had a phobia of any and all video games, and I am happy to see even one story discussed. I think us forming an understanding about the separation between gameplay mechanics and story is very important! Excellent OP OS12, look forwards to seeing more input on this debate. OS25🤙☎️ 21:48, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

I support the validity of the three stories. Legacy Kids can wait. MrThermomanPreacher ☎ 21:54, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

I fully support its inclusion. As other have said legacy kids can wait for nowAnastasia Cousins ☎ 22:11, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

I think this is where my procedural qualms hit their limit. We have so much prior discussion on video games in the deleted forums that I'm not comfortable supporting any attempts to validate video games without looking at those discussions and seeing if/where they went wrong. I'm opposed (though I strongly suspect that I would support when I saw those older threads). With that said, I fully expect to be the only person to feel this way. Najawin ☎ 22:22, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

As someone who was a participant in the Legacy validity discussion in...2016, I believe it was?...the basis for it being ruled invalid was the claim that you could not separate the gameplay from the story. Which, as OS12 has outlined above, is patently wrong, considering the game itself does so. Pluto2☎ 22:32, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

I'm not disputing anything said in the post. I fully believe that OS12 reported the discussion as best they could recall it. (And I fully expect that the reasoning was something ridiculous like that.) It's a procedural qualm. I don't feel comfortable validating any video game given our extensive discussion of them and continued rejection of them, with all of that discussion taking place in the now gone forums. Other discussions have made me uncomfortable on procedural grounds, but this is just a bit too much for me to support. Again, I think I'm the only person who will feel this way. And I expect that it will be ignored. Najawin ☎ 22:42, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

I do agree that the lack of any archive of the old Thread:#### system is really a pain, and makes it harder for us to keep the site running effectively. But at some point, that isn't our fault, and we can't wait around for a proper archive because it's likely never going to come. It's been years since we lost that part of the site, and we can't just refuse to debate any topic which we also talked about between 2012 and 2020. I really do understand that the circumstances aren't ideal, but I disagree that these topics should be discounted. OS25🤙☎️ 23:11, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

I agree with OS25's comment above. Also I support the validity of Legacy, Sonic Adventure, and Bigger on the Inside, along with a further discussion of Legacy Kids sometime later. Time God Eon ☎ 23:24, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

First, let me start by saying that I do ultimately want this story to become valid. However, I remember a good bit of the previous discussions about video games, and I do share Najawin's apprehensions that we're getting ahead of ourselves unless we're considering this a fresh start and disregarding video game precedent. Under what I recall to be our current policy, pretty much any degree of variability in the narrative has been ruled to make a story invalid. As an example, The Lonely Assassins was ruled invalid, despite having a very linear narrative, because there were dialogue options (which were entirely inconsequential to the game) which made what each character said variable.

While the plot and dialogue of the game are fixed, which characters are present at any given point are not. You collect characters as you go in the game, with the narrative being that they are joining the TARDIS team, and any characters who have dialogue are guaranteed to join, but others are "rare drops," making whether or not they are present at any given point variable. Additionally, characters such as Cinder join in side stories, and it's unclear when those take place relative to the main story, so we can't just assume that each rare drop joins at the earliest possible time.

There also comes a point in Chapter Three where the TARDIS team explicitly splits up. While it is clear which Doctors lead each group, it's unclear who goes with which Doctor (I don't believe there's anything in the gameplay preventing you from using the same companions with each group, despite this narrative).

All this is to say that I do not believe this story can be considered valid under current policy of what is required for a video game to be valid. That being said, I really want that policy to be overturned and have for a long time. But, if that's what we're doing, we should do so deliberately and openly and also consider what we're changing the policy to. This is not a small change and will affect a good number of other stories. Schreibenheimer ☎ 15:16, 6 March 2023 (UTC)

Not only do I support making these games valid, but I think a lot of the points made here can also be applied to other games of this nature. WaltK ☎ 18:02, 6 March 2023 (UTC)

User:Schreibenheimer: thanks for raising these point about our current practice on video games. Yes, I guess the idea is that this spearheads a shift in the way we cover games on this wiki. I didn't elaborate it too much on the OP itself because well... it was getting big enough as it is (but that is mostly what I meant whenever I brought up that "gameplay and narrative can and should be split, because that's how the game was designed".

I suppose this also answers your point on, say, rare drops and Cinder only being achievable outside the main story: both of these are teambuilding, and therefore fall into the gameplay aspects. On Cinder, we'd only mention the events of Bigger on the Inside, because that's where she appears on cutscenes; the majority of Legacy itself wouldn't be mentioned, except perhaps for giving context to BotI itself (in a similar way that we'd mention the Flux on Fugitive Doctor while discussing Once, Upon Time: it contextualizes the adventure, even if she wasn't there for the main part of the event).

Also, regards of "when some of the side stories take place within the main story" are important, but not for whether we validate the story or not. There are dozens upon dozens of valid stories without clear placements in a character's chronology (hell, there are several stories that don't logically fit anywhere in said character's chronology.

All of which to say: yes, validating Legacy would force us to reflect on how we cover video games in general, and it's about time we did so, imo. OncomingStorm12th ☎ 01:20, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

Adding a ps, this time towards User:Najawin (and I say this not as an admin per-se, but as a genuine sentiment): look, I know it's disappointing we don't have the Lost Forums to do research/counterargument, and I would love if they were available for us to do so. But that's the key work: if. We have been without them for over two years now, and their return is not a matter of "when", but of "if". I'm aware this is the first step in a potentially Big Change on the Wiki, and it's scary to do so without being able to compare and contrast with our present/past. But that's what these Temporary Forums were designed for. If we can't make changes because we're holding on to the past OR to hopes that they will return.... we're doomed to stay stagnated.

Now, of course, you have full rights to oppose this and any other threads you desire on this grounds, but you do see the perspective of other people who are less... willing to wait around and see if we'll ever get them back? Anyway, back to Legacy discussion. OncomingStorm12th ☎ 01:25, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

I absolutely see why others might disagree. I very much expected to be the only dissent. And, again, it was due to the magnitude of the specific change given the amount of prior discussion. Najawin ☎ 03:04, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

I support validity for Legacy et al, but we may need to look at interactive media as a whole, including such other oddballs as Attack of the Graske. bwburke94 (talk) 09:35, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

I am drafting a forum posts on that for April/May. I think Legacy stands on its own as an exception to the problem. OS25🤙☎️ 20:35, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

Firstly, thank you OncomingStorm12th for raising this and putting your points across so eloquently. Having played Legacy, I wholeheartedly agree and support your proposal. I hope that the points raised here will lead to the validation of further video games in the future. I too have long disapproved of our current interactive policy, with games such as The Lonely Assassins and Attack of the Graske - previously mentioned here - resigned to invalidation based on branching storylines and the player's role in the narrative. The current policy is very much of its time, and doesn't account for the huge advances in interactive storytelling, most notably within the last decade, but also since the turn of the century. I've said it before, I'll say it again here: by ignoring interactive media, we are compromising the factual integrity of the wiki as a whole. I'm very glad to hear OS25 is preparing a post on that subject for the coming months; it's been a long time coming and I can't wait to offer my support. But enough from me for now - that's for another time. 66 Seconds ☎ 12:19, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

I completely support this proposal. Not really got more to add. Danniesen ☎ 11:19, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

This is a very well put together argument. Having attempted to play Legacy once and not getting into it, I thought the wiki was spot on in not covering it because of the plethora of team combinations, but personally I'm convinced. I know I'm very far down in messages but I think this VERY much applies to Infinity even MORE because there's nothing about Infinity that'd deem it invalid as per the old Legacy reasons. There's no branching, and even the gameplay doesn't insinuate something. But as mentioned above I think this is very much a discussion to be had for video games as a whole because they are VERY unfairly stricken down by arbitrary rules. If it wasn't obvious I fully support the validity of Legacy, as I would with most Doctor Who video games. StevieGLiverpool ☎ 09:20, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

I support this. Danniesen ☎ 11:19, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

I have remembered one additional aspect to the original invalidity decision that we have not addressed: the belief that the game has a self-insert type player character, which has also previously been suspect for validity. Going over to the Legacy wiki, I would advise anyone interested to read the dialogue in the Tutorial (which is also the start of the plot of the game, for those unfamiliar).

The Doctor does clearly address the player as a person present during the Tutorial; that is very hard to dispute. However, there is no suggestion that you, in-narrative, are controlling the party's actions or even contributing in any way at all. The dialogue actually suggests the opposite: the Doctor says that it's three Sontarans against the two of them (the Doctor and Vastra), with no mention of the player. In fact, beyond the aforementioned moment, there is never a mention of the player again in the entire game.

Personally, I would not consider this player to be a traditional "player character," who controls the plot of the video game and would interpret this as something most akin to the end of "The Feast of Steven", a small fourth-wall break that does not justify invalidation. But I felt it would not be in good faith to not bring this up as it was part of the previous thread. If anyone does have a problem with this aspect of the story, feel free to say something. Schreibenheimer ☎ 18:16, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

Sorry for the double post, but I was reviewing the script and came across something that I wasn't previously aware of: a number of characters who are not guaranteed drops, such as Amy, River, and Martha, have dialogue. Does anyone know if the dialogue remains the same regardless of whether you've recruited optional characters or not? Schreibenheimer ☎ 19:24, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

Schreibenheimer, perfect pointing out of the "Feast of Steven"-like fourth-wall-break. It's something very quick, very non-intrusive, and unless we also plan on invalidating that First Doctor serial, then this should be no reason to invalidate the game as well :p

As for your second question, no, the dialogue doesn't change whatsoever, even if you don't have these characters. The dialogue never, ever, changes, under no circumstances. OncomingStorm12th ☎ 22:47, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

How to deal with linking to game, if we start to cover it as valid

I've decided to split the discussion of this topic in two, because most of the posts above were, so far, a "yes/no" in regards of supporting the game's validity. A week into this discussion, I want to discuss on how we'll do our coverage (specially linkage) if the thread is closed in favor of validity.

Linking directly to (GAME: Legacy) is obviously not specific enough for the majority of its content. It'd be akin to linking something that happened in the Big Finish Doctor Who Main Range as simply (AUDIO: Main Range). It's simply too broad 99% of the time. Now, for anything that happens in the Bigger on the Inside and the Sonic Adventure level packs, it's simple and intuitive enough: (GAME: Bigger on the Inside) and (GAME: Sonic Adventure).

My biggest worry here is the main storyline. Luckily, we were given 4 chapters names which split most of the storyline: The Sontaran Threat, Enter... the Zygons!, The Rise of the Master and Betrayal and Redemption. I think linking to them, like (GAME: "Betrayal and Redemption") is already a huge improvement over (GAME: Legacy). However, my main questions are:

1. Do we give each of these chapters separate pages? Unlike BotI and SA, giving each of these a separate page doesn't feel quite right, so I'd say no. Redirects to Legacy (video game) probably sufice, imo.
2. What do we actually link to? The Sontaran Threat (video game) also doesn't feel quite right. Simply The Sontaran Threat? The Sontaran Threat (chapter)? Solutions 2 and 3 seem like an equivalent to The Cave of Skulls redirecting to the third episode of the An Unearthly Child serial
   1. If we do go down to the "episode in a serial" route (aka, linking to The Sontaran Threat, akin to The Cave of Skulls), that would put us at (GAME: "The Sontaran Threat") instead of (GAME: The Sontaran Threat), right?
3. Lastly: do we want to go as far as creating individual redirects/link to individual levels instead of chapters? I was initially pro-doing this, but given that, say, only 13/48 levels of "The Sontaran Threat" actually have dialogue, I'm not too sure we need this level of specificity.

Anyway, just throwing some more fuel for thought and discussion. OncomingStorm12th ☎ 21:36, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

I'd say we absolutely do not give pages to individual levels. As you mentioned not all of them actually have any story to them. As for the chapters, I'd be fine with giving them individual pages if that's what the majority decides on but I'd rather link to them the same way as an episode of a serial. Time God Eon <span title="T

I support validation of Legacy and linking to it like parts of a serial. Cousin Ettolrhc ☎ 05:55, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

I think this plan makes a lot of sense, treating the game like a four-part serial is smart. I do wish we had precedent for having both the serial and episode in the citation, like (GAME: Legacy: The Sontaran Threat) but really we just have never done that. Just saying (GAME: The Sontaran Threat) is good enough. OS25🤙☎️ 06:51, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

I'm currently working on a template that could work quite well here. I will be proposing its adoption in a thread at somepoint soon. Bongo50 ☎ 13:58, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

Oh, Time God Eon, I absolutely think it's overkill to give individual pages to levels; at most (but, again, even then I don't think its too necessary) I mused whether we should link/cite to redirects at ([[GAME]]: "[[Nightmare in Silver: Closed for Business (level)|Nightmare in Silver: Closed for Business]]" or the mentioned above ([[GAME]]: "[[Nightmare in Silver: Closed for Business (level)|Legacy: Nightmare in Silver: Closed for Business]]"). Anyway, probably, the wisest path is linking to just the chapters.

Then, if we are likening them to parts of a serial, they should not get individual pages per current policy, which I'm fine with OncomingStorm12th ☎ 18:01, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

Conclusion

"Here we are again, engaged in the Founding Conflict. There is no greater battle than this: the battle between Tardis Wiki and video games."

That's how many in this discussion seem to have perceived this proposal. A strong undercurrent to this discussion has been a broader dissatisfaction with the current policies with regards to coverage of video games. But while I do agree we are overdue a discussion on this topic, it should not drown out the basic fact that Legacy passes our current standards, exacting as they are, with flying colours. It's simply no less linear than archetypal valid games such as The Adventure Games.

We might have qualms about separation of game-play and narrative when the game-play seems to sort of constitute fiction in its own right, with characters running about, especially-recorded lines that aren't part of the cutscenes, etc. The purpose of this thread is not to question that precedent in itself; for the time being, it still applies for cases such as LEGO Dimensions where whole chunks of optional narrative are apparently available in the gameplay, complete with extra characters who have a place in the diegesis, but whom you may or may not meet. But here, no such issue applies. The discrepancies between cutscenes and gameplay are so stark that the oddities of the game mechanics should be understood as no more "part of the story" than a random ad run in-between two pages of a comic story. As User:OncomingStorm12th put it:

"If they wanted them to be one single thing, they'd have designed the game to display the cutscenes with whatver characters you selected to play during that level. Since they didn't, it's more than clear that the story is meant to be the same for every player."User:OncomingStorm12th

As such, I am happy to resolve this along the lines already spelled out with great clarity at #Where does it leave us page/linkage wise above. As stated there and agreed by consensus later on, Legacy Kids should be left to its own discussion and not validated for the time being.

I want to address two final things:

• User:Najawin's procedural concerns. He spoke of expecting them to be "ignored", so I do want to make it clear that they have been noticed and considered. My answer is something I have said in the past: nothing is set in stone. If in six months the Old Forums' archives are returned to us, and they turn out to indeed contain non-discussed evidence that would warrant reopening this debate, there is nothing stopping us from reopening it, and, if necessary, invalidating Legacy back again! I doubt it, but that is the proper way to deal with any situation where we suspect some additional evidence could maybe exist somewhere out there, but can't be reached for the time being. That is the entire reason for the existence of the principle that you can relitigate old threads if new evidence is found. I see no reason it should not apply with regards to material from the Old Forums.

• As regards citing chapters, their bespoke titles do indeed justify applying the precedent of Hartnell serials and citing individual chapters via redirects. As a stylistic reminder, the proper way to cite a serial is "(TV: "The Cave of Skulls)", as distinct from "(TV: An Unearthly Child)"; accordingly something like this should be cited to "(GAME: "The Sontaran Threat"), not "(GAME: The Sontaran Threat)" or any variation thereupon. This will handily convey that we are citing a part of a whole, without having to repeat the title of the whole every time.

As always, thanks to everyone who participated in this discussion. Scrooge MacDuck ⊕ 16:27, 26 March 2023 (UTC)