Talk:The Saviour of Time (video game)

Users with Skype?

Anyone with Skype accounts who can check out this game? I can't do it, as I don't have Skype. --DCLM ☎ 17:06, May 3, 2017 (UTC)

I've done the first chapter, which is currently the only one which has been released. StevieGLiverpool ☎ 17:07, May 3, 2017 (UTC)

Then you're able to add information to the plot, references and story notes. --DCLM ☎ 17:24, May 3, 2017 (UTC)

... If he wants to. no one on this site has to do anything. OS25 (Talk) 18:55, May 3, 2017 (UTC)

Did I say that? You're acting really defensive lately. --DCLM ☎ 19:05, May 3, 2017 (UTC)

Valid or invalid?

I haven't played it yet, but someone can tell me why this is not valid? – The preceding unsigned comment was added by Jeanscs (talk • contribs) .

Well, it should be kept in mind that the story is currently invalid without a proper discussion. This means that it could be over-turned with proper community consensus.

Basically the main advertised appeal of TSoT is that you can get the Doctor to go on "tangents," which gives off a sort of "I'm talking to the Doctor" sort of feel. For the most part, the plot is set-in-stone. You can't find a new ending by going south instead of north, and everything is already set-in-stone no matter how you play it. However, each time you might unlock different easter-egg types of dialogue. We know the entire plot of the game, we just can't say that the Doctor goes on a tangent about River every single time.

However, this doesn't mean that the game has to be invalid. One could argue that many other stories, such as The Eternity Clock, have much more heavy instances of dialogue that you don't have to or can't unlock every-single-time. Half of the content in TEC is easter-egg-based, such as the pages to River's diary.

It would really be up to a community discussion on how we view this story, although at the best it's safest to keep the page marked as invalid. OS25 (Talk) 04:01, May 8, 2017 (UTC)

Makes sense, I personally don't see why it needs to be invalid. StevieGLiverpool ☎ 20:23, May 10, 2017 (UTC)

One thing that certainly weighs against it is that the main character is basically you. It was agreed in the debate on Attack of the Graske that this was often a point against similar video games. OS25 (Talk) 20:39, May 10, 2017 (UTC)

And if the case was that this video game was to be valid, the article would also have to be rearranged, with a lot of the dialogue going on various pages too, and a lot of the new stuff, characters, people etc... mentioned here would need their own pages too. --DCLM ☎ 07:37, May 11, 2017 (UTC)

Indeed. Personally I think it would be best to try to write about this story the best we can as it is now, with a debate coming long after all six episodes are released. OS25 (Talk) 07:47, May 11, 2017 (UTC)

Will agree to that last point, we should see when it's finished before actually talking about it. As for page making I personally wouldn't mind making some as long as I'm confident in the rules behind them. StevieGLiverpool ☎ 18:47, May 11, 2017 (UTC)

Now that all parts are out, what does everyone think? StevieGLiverpool ☎ 17:53, June 5, 2017 (UTC)

As OttselSpy25 knows from having participated in them, over the years there has really been a lot of suggestions that this or that non-linear first-person game should be valid. To quote from a recently closed thread on the same topic (though not from its closing argument), all stories with multiple endings, or indeed mushy middles, are invalid. Well, this is a case of a mushy middle. It's all good and dandy to talk about the differences being confined to the dialogue. But this game is almost exclusively dialogue, infinitely variable (and not very smartly written and executed) dialogue. Worse than that, dialogue that is sometimes skipped as a matter of bug. The page clearly states that for one of the tasks, if you do not solve it fast enough, the Doctor solves it for you. This is not an "Easter-egg" difference. This is the matter of who saved the world, so to say. Plus, are you really proposing to make valid a game where the Doctor can potentially be tricked into answering "yes" or "no" to an arbitrary question? And then we'll be editing pages based on screenshots with these yes/no answers to questions invented by Skype users? Forgive me but I fear that way leads to madness, as they say on Big Finish podcast. Amorkuz ☎ 22:47, June 5, 2017 (UTC)

Other than the "solve it fast enough" issue I don't see anything wrong with the other differences, by typing about what you know is certain, such as "The Doctor asks how you are" but not writing what "you" say in response, though I may be missing something or merely being bias because I enjoyed it a lot. StevieGLiverpool ☎ 10:48, June 6, 2017 (UTC)

I like your optimism, but the forums decided long ago that 1) "find your path" books are invalid and 2) any game that has multiple choice at all is a "find your path" game. I think that it's been debated so many times that it would be hard to get a large group of people to universally undo the decision, and I doubt few people on this site feel like going into this debate every time a video game comes out.

I agree that we should be able to cover video games as you described (using the "Accounts" rule) but I think that half-a-decades worth of precedent is strongly against such an idea. OS25 (Talk) 12:17, June 6, 2017 (UTC)

So... in short terms, the game is considered invalid? :) --DCLM ☎ 12:34, June 6, 2017 (UTC)

Pretty sure invalid. Should I still make pages for all those that lack it then? Or is there really no need? StevieGLiverpool ☎ 14:35, June 6, 2017 (UTC)

Images and videos

I think we should use some of the pictures and videos (if possible) in the article that the Bot sends to the user via Skype. --DCLM ☎ 00:31, May 22, 2017 (UTC)