Sovereign Reality (WIP w/ Demo)


*arches an eyebrow* Fascinating.

I like it so far. :smiley:

Can’t say if I saw typos, I tend to get too involved… :-S

But did I mention I like it? :smiley:


Very interesting so far. Just thought I’d share a bug(?) I got under relationships. Yamada appears on there twice, the second and fourth ones down.

Also, I agree! Romance with AIs would be interesting, as the MC or with one of the testers! Besides that, have you considered having where AIs can join you on adventures/quests/whatever as companions/part of the party?


Have same bug with Yamada.
Cory: 59%
Yamada: 56%
Lorana: 59%
Yamada: 50%
Unknown…: 56%


@Shoelip AI religion is definitely something that I wanted to get into, I just haven’t yet. In fact, they shouldn’t be speaking English at all unless Sovereign implanted the original settlers of Anreal with a bunch of English-speaking AIs. In my book, the world is different (a more complete simulation) and the AIs are allowed to develop their own language and culture over 20,000 simulated years, so the main characters have to learn the language in order to understand what’s going on. Even if they did speak English starting out, the culture would completely change (because humans didn’t do so well at first; they had to be “helped” along by Sovereign).

“If you create the world over again, one thing that would change is the story about an apple and a talking snake.” I believe religion that isn’t based off of something we know would be either completely unique or archetypal in one way or another. There’s really only a few options; atheistic, paganism, monotheism, polytheism, spirit-worshiping, etc. because there actually IS magic (something our world unfortunately doesn’t have.) I had an entirely unique culture for the AIs in “The Hand of Sovereign” but it doesn’t quite work in this world (it’s a different VR), so I have to come up with something else.

About other NPCs, yes, there will be several others and some you can romance. It will be a little morally questionable, since they aren’t “real” and don’t have “real” bodies you could ever interact with. You also don’t know how “advanced” they really are. Could they be programmed to fall in love with you? If so, is that using the game how it was meant, or is it taking advantage? You’ll have to decide for yourself.

@JTAL Thanks! I guess that’s a good sign! My problem is that I wanted to get into the meat of the story, but I couldn’t just throw you in, so I made a series of “introductions.” It seems slow to me, playing it over and over, but I hope it isn’t as boring as I think.

@Outrageous and @Draakon Thanks! Actually that’s something I’m aware of. The fourth Yamada should be Aurelius (not sure why it’s showing Yamada) and the fifth one is a clone of Yamada as a placeholder for another relationship. EDIT: Actually, the fourth one should be “Talia” I had just forgotten to change it. The fifth one is Aurelius. I’ll patch it with the next update.

I might actually create another page and have complete relationships for all 11 Alpha-Testers and perhaps another one for AIs/NPCs, kind of like Community College Heroes has several relationships. Romancing other Alpha-testers (companions) and NPCs is going to be possible, but it’s not the main focus of the game. Because I want the game to be open, “one-night-standing” will probably also be an option, but just be careful who you stand up, or you might make enemies.

Thanks for all the feedback! Really helpful!


@CitizenShawn – Certainly was not boring to me. But then, I suppose I tend to love that part of most games! For instance, I wished they had kept the longer childhood in Fallout 3 that was originally made.

I suppose you got a bit tired of it, running through it over and over, but I don’t think players will think so. :slight_smile: (Can of course only really speak for myself)


Found a typo. When you choose your gender, the third option says “I try avoid labels”. Should be a “to” in between try and avoid.


I found an error - on the name selection screen, if you choose ‘Piper’, your name shows up as ‘Jennifer.’

I like this game a lot so far, it looks really promising!


@JTAL Glad to hear it!

@MSox99 Thanks, should be fixed now! 1 point!

@DioBrando Thanks! Oversight on my part! Should be fixed now.


Yeah, I can’t access it. Right after the opening post about my first flight, I get the error result is undefined.


Sorry @FallingCups, I made an error with capitalization. It should work now!


@CitizenShawn In the relationships section, Aurelius isn’t broken. It just shows Unknown until you actually MEET him.

At least, that’s how it worked for me, anyway.


Love it. Can’t wait to see more.


good game


@CitizenShawn I’m not sure what you think it means, but “Paganism” is traditionally just a general term for all non-abrahamic religions. It is sometimes used to refer to any less popular non-abrahamic religions in recent times, but that’s just because it’s kind of insulting in the same way that calling all non-European people “coloreds” would be. Kind of off topic, but it seems like you might appreciate the info.

Now, about the relationships with NPCs being morally questionable… well, maybe, but this once again gets into some seriously deep philosophical stuff… I mean, isn’t the whole problem that using the game as it was meant is inherently taking advantage of the NPCs? If how the game is meant to work is the first morally questionable thing to begin with, then how is going against it inherently morally questionable? But sure, they might be coded specifically to be forced to fall in love with PCs… in that case, it again seems that the creators are morally compromised. If the NPC is truly intelligent then they should be capable of metacognition. That is, they should be able to think about thought. They should be able to be aware of the fact that they just can’t control themselves sometimes. That they’ve just fallen head over heels in love with the player for no reason. Of course if it’s really love then it at least starts as a pleasurable emotion. If the PC doesn’t know about the fact that the NPC is coded this way, and they think of the NPCs as AI people, then what is really the problem is treating them like people? Of course if the PC knows or suspects that the NPC might be specifically coded to fall in love with them, then it does become a lot less clear, but only because the PC is basically in a lose lose situation morally. On the one hand they can reject the NPC, which would cause them immense suffering and just be completely unfair to them. If the PC reciprocates then they’re causing the NPC pleasure, but it’s kind of like they’re taking advantage of them. So you either cause even more harm by washing your hands of responsibility, or you cause whatever the opposite is of harm, but at the expense of being clearly kind of exploitative. Of course this problem never would have existed if it hadn’t been created by the game designers in the first place. Also relevant, did the designers go into the game after the fact and tamper with specific characters to make them fall in love with PCs, or was this a “gene” put into the NPCs at the start of the world? Do these NPCs procreate, live and die like humans do? All of those things would have huge unpredictable effect on the culture of the world if they were different.

Another thing to think about is that if they’re truly intelligent on the same level of humans then they should be capable of learning and changing.


@Shoelip, I think you’re getting what I’m trying to say.

But first, by paganism I meant traditional Anglo-Saxon beliefs, where there are gods but also fairies and sprites and whatever, with harvest rituals, etc. I didn’t mean to pin any label on any religion in particular, just the “style.”

And as for NPCs falling in love with the PCs, they probably aren’t programmed that way at all. The only way a player would THINK that they are programmed to “love” would be in like a brothel or something, I guess. But those kinds of places popped up on their own, with no help from Sovereign.

If the player believed the NPCs to be in control of their emotions, then it would be a little easier to make a decision. If the player believed the NPCs were just crude AIs programmed to do a few specific things, it would be a little more, as you say, lose-lose situation, but I think I owe it to the gamers to be able to make a bad decision and still complete the game.


Hm… well, if they aren’t capable of love, then are they really sentient on the same level as humans? I mean, animals are capable of love. It’s a very simple emotion. What do you call it when a soldier’s dog attempts to physically merge themselves into into their master’s body after the human returns from a long deployment while practically screaming “NEVER LEAVE ME AGAIN”?

Of course I agree that having the freedom to make bad decisions is a good thing in a game like this. I just wanted to discuss the idea that having a relationship with an NPC is somehow immoral.


I’m not saying the AIs aren’t capable of love, I’m saying they’re not programmed by sovereign to love unconditionally like a prostitute or generic ‘love interest’ or something; they can fall in love on their own, but it’s going to be realistic.


@CitizenShawn Lol, I don’t think a prostitute is in love with their clients… That’s kinda the point of prostitution. :stuck_out_tongue:

But now I’m confused about your original post. If you’re saying that they aren’t programmed to fall in love with players in some inhumanly different way then what was it you meant about it being morally ambiguous? Just that the player might think they are programmed to fall in love in some inhumanly unusual way?


So essentially the AIs are artificially intelligent. Surprise. They have emotions, they are conscious, they can love. But they’re digital. They’re fake. So if your character has a problem with that, then there’s an immorality problem. If not, then it’s just “love” and that’s that.

Sovereign made them, but they also made them with free will. Whether your player thinks they have free will or not is up to you.


Ah, I see where the confusion comes from now. I wouldn’t have defined that as related to morality, and I assumed you wouldn’t either.