A GAME BASED ON HISTORICAL PERSON OR TIME PERIOD

Reading up on the different indigenous tribes I tried a break away from having a monolithic view of them and view them individually as separate groups of people and Nations. Depending on the region there could be decades if not a century of animosity between the settlers and whatever tribes in the region. Also during that time. These tribes were not a broken people.American Collective perspectives where very different. If you grew up in the environment in the area that Jackson did particularly any place I was considered the frontier West. You had friends that got killed vibrating tribes. That was a fact of life Life shootings are in Chicago. What got Jackson involved fighting the creeks in the first place. Was the massacre of Fort Minh killed over 400.people many of them were women and children. You also the point perspective many of the tribes are inter mixing both with marriage and culturally by this point. So there was a lot of being guidance killing among the different tribes either from ancient feuds or them siding with the wrong people.

Also Jackson literally grew up with both Wars both as it practically a child and then when he was a general with the very real threat of the Spanish and the English arming the different indigenous tribes. Now if you are government that's a security risk if you live in those areas that's an existential threat.

I don't judge America harshly for how we fought the different tribes because the brutality was quite equal between both of us. Both when it came to the burning of villages and the massacre of civilians everyone did both side pretty actively. Even the removal acts I can see the utility in them. Which was this one during that time. You want the tribes far away from you for security reasons another which is more vital is that you can't stop watching expansion they knew it then. We didn't have the Armed Forces to stop squatters from coming and breaking treaties. And it was at least City choice and not many good options to have the tribes move away versus having another War. At least that's was the justification for the people that were pushing the Removal Act and if that is the case. To stop conflict then their choices ethical. Not the execution of that this is one of the great sins of American history. Least from the categorical imperative that was Jackson's justification and of that was his reasoning personally as well then he was in the right.

That's just one way of looking at though. And I would damn well not as all jocks enough to slow as he was a social climber he was a glory Hound, he was foolishly hot temper at times and sometimes far too stubborn for his own good where do you think the jackass comes from the Democratic Party. Simultaneously he was completely duty-bound he would give up absolute power as easily as he had it. He was utterly giving and compassionate to his friends and supported them in all endeavors that were in his power. Love his wife like no other.

Simultaneously Jackson's view westward expansion wasn't just his perspective that was the country's perspective going back before we were even a nation and amplify by Jefferson. You got to remember to the end of the Removal Act was a bill passed to Congress. This is a popular perspective of the American people. For the great sin of the Trail of Tears that falls on Van Buren the generals and soldiers in charge and Chief Ross himself for allowing his people to get into a position in the first place. America's greatest sin with the Native American tribes was not our Warfare or even necessarily our policies it was how we had the incredibly nasty habit of constantly breaking/ignoring treaties.

Guys this is another thing that perspective all the Southeastern tribes that wreaks the Chickasaw the Cherokee xcetera especially the ones that quote on quote got civilized we're slaveholding societies they were involved in the slave trade the plantation system and cattle slavery. These tribes are still invested all Five Civilized Tribes side with the Confederacy in the Civil War.

Also Jackson was the first person to the push for inclusiveness in any type of political conversation. For he did plush for all male suffrage.

Let me give you an example of how Jackson's full of contradictions. Is a man that built his wealth on land speculation, along with some other Mercantile interests, concluding dabbling with the slave trade in his youth. Like his counterparts Chief Ross. But simultaneously when he was in command of New Orleans he raised two color battalions of the free men. When the Louisiana legislature told them they are scared for their lives because he was arming black men he told them to shove it and he didn't care what their skin color was. The kicker is too is he gave them the Bounty you give to every regular. Which I'm not mistaken it's like a hundred and fourth dollar 125 acres of land.

If you want even get more personal and silly he helped many of his younger friends of lope with their significant others when their parents is disapproved. Which damaged quite a few of his friendships least with their parents. Things a man that would duel you over insulting his wife. He has the social economic background of a Backcountry cracker does able to go and make himself a Country Gentleman, Annalise when he was alive an American hero of that no one would talk poorly about unless you were his direct political rival.

You also understand the cultural view of him up and told like the last 40 years especially when he was alive Jackson was viewed by the American public of ending the War of 1812 because they got the news of the Battle of New Orleans and the Treaty of Ghent within days of each other. and this was a depressing War Frost the capital burned and we lost quite few major battle. I want to be out of line to saying Jackson was the best American general in the War of 1812 but that's an incredibly low bar. Where is still lives with his Charisma and his will and his ability knowing when to fight and when to hold the line. And keep his army actually organized and together.

I don't want the game to be from Jackson's perspective though. I wanted to be from the perspectives of people that were close to him specially and his young youth his mother his brothers his cousin's that he grew up with that were like his brothers. Because he got to remember up until when Jackson move to Tennessee for all intensive purposes he was just an invisible of history that should have died 10 different ways before that. The perspective of his mother and brother to be interesting particularly, considering Jackson was the youngest. Hr literally had the archetypical attitude of a stereotypical Shōnen hero. Culturally an image why since we have the round the view we have of Jackson ranges of a older grade haired man dressed as a general or as the politician being the president. With steel blue eyes and being tall and slender twist like a Hickory Stick. Not the Jackson when he was a child nor when he was courting his future wife. And the whole situation with his wife is not for a atome game. And another interesting perspective is his wife for she loved him the most pain when he was gone she had intense abandonment issues, from her previous marriage. But she's also the one that manage the plantation she was the Lady of the Hermitage. Which is something is rarely talked about not just with her but many other of the earlier presidentials wives. From Washington, Jefferson and Madison. All the major slaveholders. But the thing is many of them are hardly home their wives where the one that managed the estate.

Another even wild and mention two is Jackson had three adopted Sons. Two of them were indigenous. Sadly one died young a new one only in his teens. The interesting one about the one in his teens is he literally picked him up during the creek campaign. He wanted to get him into West Point that just got established, so you can attend with his brother. That didn't happen because Adams as president and had a grudge against Jackson. And the poor boy died at 16 of tuberculosis. That definitely could have been an interesting perspective if you lived considering he grew up and a major Planters household on top of the fact is own people we're also invested in the slave trade heavily. Along with his conflicted loyalties as he would get older. And I wonder if you would have face racism in the West Point. And what I mean by that is America had a very complex view of the tribes they are all for cultural assimilation on top of the fact he was Jackson ward/son. In the American mind Jackson was legendary war hero they were no way going to go to hard on him that respect.

But yeah I'm considering designing game from the perspective of his family and his early life and his wife throughout his career up until her death.

The entire Early Republic period is vastly intersting. You can easily make a game about one of the men under his command the free men that were in the City of New Orleans the English during The Invasion, one of the tribes fighting on our one of the tribes fighting on the English or the American side. You can talk about the craziness of the Second Great Awakening a fusion of religious Zeal with romanticism. The market Revolution.

Also his anger against the banks was a fusion of his personal fear bankruptcy, an incredibly ironic perspective of how the institution stops social mobility and enslaves Men. Trust me it's deeply ironic considering he is a slave owner. Well that was the contradictory position of many Americans. Look up his speeches about the banks it would give the American left a hard on.

author=Desertopa

author=Gourd_Clae
On the note of "knowing the plot in advance" though, that could be a fun way to play with themes of disenfranchisement or insignificance of man. Not the most feel-good of themes but then a lot of history isn't.

It might be, but it seems to me like the sort of thing which would be really tricky to do well. Like, Final Fantasy XIII is extremely linear, with much more limited ability for the player to influence the flow of the game than in most RPGs, and it reinforces the themes of predestination and finding meaning in what you do even if you have no choice in the matter. But the fact that it reinforced the narrative's themes didn't stop it from pissing off a lot of players and not being very fun in my opinion.

So it's the sort of thing that seems to me like an interesting idea, but maybe difficult to actually make into something enjoyable.

The thing is Jackson doesn't come from one of the older first families of Virginia and Maryland. We literally have a hard time knowing anything about his father who is a really invisible to history where we really don't even know who he was before he came to the colonies. Same for his brothers and mother all we know about them are little information he told us about them and some small oral tradition among the family of his cousins. Jackson himself was invisible of history especially for the first 21 years of his life. He was incredibly lucky not to be another casualty of the revolution dying in a prisoner of smallpox and his Wounds.

So there's a lot of wiggle room to flesh out the personalities and what type of people his siblings are and his mother. It's also opportunity to presenting Jackson in a way that he's never really See has. Scared scrawny redheaded powerless boy,least at the height of the revolution in the Carolinas backcountry.


So I'm wondering if I presented from the perspective of his Mother Elizabeth. From the decision to leave northern Ireland with her husband, to her fateful choice to care for the wounded and sick in prison ships. Should I make it like princess maker or feel like in a Otome, or bit of both. When you send on chores and errands show the doing the work?

author=Desertopa
Historical fact rather than fiction starring real people strikes be as a bad use of the medium, because you're using an interactive framework to convey events which won't vary with player choice, where the player is probably already going to know a lot of the plot in advance. I don't think it'd be playing to the strengths of video games. You'd probably end up with a lot of railroading, with a lot of players specifically trying to avert the historical events they know would occur in an accurate depiction, which would be bad for getting players invested in the narrative.

The game I'm currently working on is actually also inspired by a history book from around the same time period, but the setting and narrative are purely fictional, and I think it makes for a better way to convey the elements that inspired it in video game form.

You are a brave fellow for both going to such an interesting place but potentially an incredibly dark one.