Talk:Dalek Attack (video game)

Validity?

Based on Thread:161867, shouldn't this game be ruled invalid? Shambala108 ☎ 03:57, May 22, 2019 (UTC)

To be more specific, the page states:

Player 1 could choose from a selection of the Second Doctor, Fourth Doctor and Seventh Doctor and were all "armed" with a sonic screwdriver, each representing a decade of the show. (DWM 197) Certain game port only have the Seventh Doctor.
Player 2 could choose from Ace or the Brigadier.

Given that Legacy (video game) was ruled invalid for specifically that kind of reasoning, I can't see how this game could be considered valid. Shambala108 ☎ 04:00, May 22, 2019 (UTC)

This would best be discussed in an inclusion debate, no? But for my money, the difference with Legacy is that it's the Seventh Doctor and Ace who are featured in the cutscenes, no matter what the player chooses. Thus, in the vocabulary of video game storytelling, it's clear that it's "meant" to be Seven and Ace, and the possibility of using other Doctors or companions is a "bonus" not affecting the storytelling. --Scrooge MacDuck ☎ 10:44, October 20, 2019 (UTC)

Thing is, there isn't really any discussion to be had. It's long been established that video games where different characters can be used are not valid, for the same reasoning stage plays and Decide Your Destiny books are not valid: there isn't a single narrative that is shared by all. And we don't separate cut scenes from gameplay when considering the story. So by that existing policy, this story is invalid. Shambala108 ☎ 22:52, October 23, 2019 (UTC)

There obviously is a discussion; we're having it right now (which is in fact highly irregular). The policy isn't that "video games where different characters can be used" in the abstract are invalid, or else there's something missing at T:VS. The policy is that stories with branching or optional narratives aren't valid. Most video games where you can pick different characters during the gameplay have this affect the narrative, but this isn't the case with this one. So that rule-of-thumb application of policy oughtn't apply here. --Scrooge MacDuck ☎ 22:59, October 23, 2019 (UTC)