Possibly Controversial idea (The Youth of Andrew Jackson)

I could say the same thing for Obama and having to Collateral Damage of innocent human lives when he drone strikes them. Like at 16 year old American citizen that just happened apparently have the wrong father. But you can be an American citizen then if you happen to be Muslim habeas corpus does not exist for you just drone bombing if your outside the country. The Jacksons compelling character because they are a walking contradiction of this country. But honestly you are doing as much as fact checking as I am damn Going Google Scholar checking out samt academic search engines. And when you study history at all you have to understand the minds of the people that was contemporary during their time… I going back to work a temporary perspective we can judge Obama bout that action cuz he knew about it you know they are going for eating go through any of the proper procedure. And if the fence you can push it off like this since the Cold War from the Phoenix project of the sixties to overthrow some Chile installing military dictatorship. America’s a nation is a living breathing contradiction since its birth. And all of them have an incredibly interesting narrative and many times atrociously tragic and the Triumph that we do have in this country just makes it even more so.

Does that change the fact that CoG has told you several times that they won’t host your game?

Only if I’m glorifying it precisely and if I do make this it’s going to be through stages and that people that see this Persona a different perspective. From the people close to him to his enemies. I will glorify nothing I will show about the pain and suffering he caused many and the elevation and Rise he did for some. but I will also give a lens appropriate for the era of each person depending on their perspective. And yes I will give appropriate research. Hell I can just do something like and divided we fall or as you see in the pillar Earth series. Will focus on a group of characters of the generations with all this going on in the background. God damn this is still in the drawing period. I’m figuring out how to approach this. So unless you’re willing to give good advice take your comments somewhere else.

But it’s not what your game is about, but how and what you present, in an interactive medium.

You’re either whitewashing by choosing to have these acts “in the background” as you say, or you’re glorifying by putting them in as choices or eventualities. You can’t win doing a historical game of this type on or around such a character.

I’m sorry, but this topic is not at present locked to me. I am allowed as a consumer to voice my opinions on anything that can and will be provided by this company. Several other users have already done the same.


The thing is good sir I would allow for multiple perspective that play one may view it necessary and other and will see its destructive actions. Which will make their perspective mute from the point view of the player. Nobody viewed what they did it’s glorious. They had to justify to themselves so it was the best choice at the time. Even wrestling with the mortal ambiguity and the horrible nature of it.

Seems like this already has a very linear story to follow and it would have to be since it’s based on real events. Other people already pointed out that it’s kind of hard to get interested when so much is already pre-determined for you. Not that this wouldn’t be something that people might play, but are you sure this would be the right platform for your concept?

##I’m not a sir, nor a ma’am.

You see, that seems like glorification. Humanisation of historical racists and killers; these people “didn’t want” to do this, had to justify it to themselves.

Honestly? They probably did not care about these acts. They seemed natural because of the idea at the time. Good, and moral, even.

This is exactly my point. It is not that I wouldn’t play a game about Andrew Jackson, just not one in this particular medium. It doesn’t allow much room for outside viewing or a neutral perspective.


I’d have to see the details of what was said to see if that’s us stating something different. There’s a lot of lines all over the places of what could make us reject something or not. It’s also noteworthy we might (might) publish something that we wouldn’t want discussed on the forums. Some forum topics get really heated, specifically regarding erotica, and as such we’d have to keep things nice here.

As a second note, it’s also possible we said ‘iOS probably won’t publish it’ which is now distinctly separate from ‘we won’t publish it’. As a third note, it’s also possible (if you heard it second hand) that some one said ‘no erotica’ when we said ‘not that erotica’ (which is almost certainly glorifying rape).

@cyanide To give the absolute benefit of the doubt, not everyone gets the difference between the reply to post button and the reply to thread button. I’d recommend muting threads.

@Rogar As @Laguz mentioned, you seem to miss the point w/r/t publication. Saying genocide is ‘horrible, but the best choice’ is exactly the justification we would not publish. Turning it from what it was, which is to say or horrific crime against all humanity and an abandonment of all morality for the sake of material gain, into some kind of ‘noble sacrifice’ is glorification.


Regarding the controversy part, wouldn’t it’d be easier to do it the Esrb way, show your planned most controversial parts so that way you can get a good idea of people’s response first? I feel like the conversation is going in circles without actual writing to critique and even if it is seen as upsetting, this is a forum, you’ll have help making it more acceptable. Plus it’ll show how much choice you’ll allow.

Though now I’m confused about COG standards, couldn’t we join the KKK, drink children, and be a slave owner in Choice of Vampire?

Anyway, did Jackson even do anything really controversial before his presidency?


No, I told you that if you write this game, you will glorify Jackson’s genocide, and then, when you do, we won’t publish it.

I can see how my earlier post may have given you the wrong impression, because I only said that “I don’t know how” you could avoid glorifying Jackson’s genocide when writing this game, and that you “probably” won’t succeed in avoiding glorification.

If you actually think that Jackson’s genocide was morally ambiguous, then I know you will fail.

“… so you’re telling me there’s a chance!”


I need to do anything about a research first. On all perspectives. And get the feeling of the mindset contemporary to that day. Now before answer your question how he dealt with the creeks and the red sticks wasn’t anything controversial in his day. There was a little more controversy of how he dealt with mutineers. Honestly he was known for being controversial before his presidency was his invasion of Florida. I need you three search I need to figure out how can I approach this. But I need to figure out how to approach this before I get burn at the stake here. I think I’m going to go and stick with a different perspective of people that where close to him one way or other.

1 Like

do you know what he said his justification was? That he could not stop the wave expansion. Now he does have a lot of blame and expansions nature during the time. Because he didn’t courage it at least he didn’t stop it. And since he couldn’t stop the expansion of settlers they were going to have to move not to spark conflict. From what I read it’s most likely Jackson making Stab at Ross. Mind you are removal policy wasn’t something new the time of Jackson it one of the tragic sin of American history. But what you have in your mind as soon as he gave the order they just went down and did. One he was out of office two they had o grace period. Three still need to sign a treaty and that did happen. Who was by the minority peace faction within their tribe. You could blame them for sealing their fate as much as Jackson and Ross. You can blame Jackson for pushing at and he deserves it, there’s some blame on Ross to his indecisiveness cost his people’s their lives.

@Rogar – you’re probably going to fail. The most likely outcome of the story you’re sketching here is going to be (inadvertent) glorification of a genocide. But you knew that already.

Emphasizing that (like the FAQ says) I don’t speak for COG: I still believe an exploration of Jackson could be tremendously valuable and illuminating, especially given our current political moment in the US. I definitely don’t agree that this is the wrong medium for it, despite some IF-specific pitfalls.

And it looks like you’ve got a vision too strong to be quenched by multiple COG statements that there’s a 99% chance or greater that they’re not going to publish it.

So can I suggest that you start working on it and come back to this thread when you’ve got a draft that you’re happy to share – one long enough to give a sense of the game’s arc, tone, etc?

Otherwise I think we’re just going to keep repeating disagreements about the concept and clashes over points of history that may well end up not being relevant to the game (depending on how you decide to write it).


Thank you for the advice and I appreciate it greatly I need to do the research regardless. But that in itself could take months if not a year or two especially being a full-time student, and writing even longer. If not this medium what would you recommend.

If the game is done in the right way, it could help educate people about Jackson’s horrors. That would be a difficult line to walk, but it’s doable.

I don’t think it automatically trivializes the issue merely because it’s adapted into interactive fiction, no more than any fiction trivializes horrible parts of history. And isn’t that the strength of interactive fiction: that you can see the consequences for your actions? A reader who knew nothing of Jackson before reading it could become educated about the trail of tears because of the game.

It’s important that the awful parts of our history aren’t ignored just because they’re uncomfortable.

EDIT: that said, it does appear that OP has no intention of portraying Jackson is his honest, and terrible, light. Although possible to write this game in a way that is not offensive, I doubt that would occur in this case.


One I take that insult. And two it require more research to get multiple angles. He has every reason to be hated today for his actions but we forgot when he was alive and even after his death he loved by the American people, He was the Hero of New Orleans and Champion of the Common Man, As much he was Sharp Knife and Point Arrow to the Tribe of the South West. Look at Richard the lionheart he makes Jackson look tame in comparison and he’s still romanticize today. Again if I’m going to do this it will focus on people that were around him and you play from their perspectives. Be, close friend protege, Slave or Cherokee. by the time I have it’s ready with the proper research it could be years from now. And this post be long forgotten.

There’s a great podcast called Hardcore History, by Dan Carlin. One series in particular, Wrath of the Khans, details the many centuries on Mongol conquest on the world.

The first episode of that series begins with Carlin explaining the difficulty in discussing a controversial historical figure without mentioning the horrible parts of their life, the impossibility of accurately portraying one part of their life while ignoring another. For any gruesome figure in history, the terrible and the not-terrible are invariably intertwined. You can’t focus on one part and ignore the other.

I highly recommend you listen to that podcast before you even consider doing an Andrew Jackson related story.


I shall David I shall!

Would you please tell me whether the game covers all the places he was in, which can been seen from this map?

Source: Tours by Andrew Jackson

1 Like

I was mostly at least if I was going to write the first game which I’m still on fence. I was gonna focus on his early life right before he leaves for the Cumberland. So most likely would be focused in the Waxhaw region and the Carolinas. The game would be focused on his relationship with his siblings his family the development of him view world active during this time period.

Now I did research on the more lets it awkward things he did particularly both his involvement in slavery which is something that literally grew out of a combination of him being a social climber and a slave society. A few key moments in his life I could point out that really in the bed of these perspectives. I want to comes to the indigenous population combined with his mother and his own experience coming to us own in Tennessee in the wars to different tribes in better perspective of the indigenous population being Rocky allies at best and always difficult neighbors. Course that’s obviously the white males perspectives if you grew up in a region. Now the thing is when he did the removal act it was he want to expand Americans outward two to prevent conflict with the Cherokee. And that something we need to remember this wasn’t an executive order this was a popular piece of legislation and if I held the American government works is that we delegate authority’s to members of Congress so as Americans for whatever the outcome of that bill particular this case removal all say we share the burden of the sin of it fail attempt that was popular two with a majority of Americans. Why because it directly benefited them particularly a few of the poor Class. Also removal policy is them selves was incredibly common American foreign-policy you were doing it at least as a country illegally back to Washington. And that remove passes very huge American history for the fact that extended the cotton kingdom immensely causing huge controversy over how the states join the union. How he dealt with the notification crisis set the precedent for future President dealing secession.

1 Like