Talk:Life Is Strange (video game)

GameRankings

I'm not sure if this happens very often in Wikipedia, but I would like to THANK the writer of the "Reception" section for using GameRankings.com as a source along with MetaCritic. MetaCritic has had some serious discrepancies in review scores (professional vs user scores) and GameRankings has been a much more consistent source of aggregate video game rankings. So, great job on doing your research to determine the most unbiased review scores possible.

In these times, Wikipedia being extremely defective in multiple ways (such as making it impossible to view any part of any article of media without the chance of having that media spoiled), it's good to see a shiver of light from those who work hard to make the internet a better place. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.100.90.194 (talk) 22:12, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

@74.100.90.194, you might be interested in reading Wikipedia's policies regarding spoilers. In a nutshell, we don't really care about spoilers here. We are trying to create an encyclopedia. That said, on behalf of whichever Wikipedian decided to use GameRankings, you are welcome. :) We are always happy to hear from readers. Zell Faze (talk) 17:02, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 24 May 2015

Wanting to add an interview with Dontnod's co-director regarding Season 2, which he stated is a possibility. http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/2015-03-18-publishers-wanted-life-is-stranges-main-character-to-be-a-guy-qtes-added Orodruinia (talk) 00:44, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

Already done There is already a link to this interview, it is the 28th item underneath the references section as of this revision. Altamel (talk) 03:45, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

The article does not mention the possibility of a sequel or second Season, which the developers made clear was a possibility. I think it's worth noting somewhere in the article as part of the same source.Orodruinia (talk) 03:54, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

The material—"we have ideas"—is too weak to warrant its inclusion in the article. Once a second season is greenlit, that would be the turning point. Glitchygirl (talk) 14:16, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

Article Errors

This article is riddled with errors, such as the pool where the campus security, not the police, investigate the disturbance. I scarcely know where to begin. — Preceding unsigned comment added by GlassDeviant (talk • contribs) 02:09, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

The Arcadia Police Department were the ones who found Chloe's vehicle at the school, and one of the officers called David Madsen about it the following day. Please tell me where the article is "riddled with errors". It can't be in other places than the plot, since everywhere else has been thoroughly sourced. Glitchygirl (talk) 16:53, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

GlassDeviant, it makes sense to me now. The police must have arrived after the campus security, taken a statement from someone who could describe Chloe's car, leading to the officer's call to David. Sorry for the mistake. Glitchygirl (talk) 14:59, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

Release dates and plot summaries of Ep4 and Ep5 that i found a couple of days ago.

A couple of days ago, I found that you guys added the released date of both Episode 4 and 5, July 10th and August 23rd and added the plot summary with "Spoilers" but you added them in the "Written by" section instead of the plot summary for some reason. But the next day, I couldn't find them. Were they legit or not? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Leo8Skylar (talk • contribs) 22:36, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

Those edits were unsourced and as a result, yes, illegitimate. Glitchygirl (talk) 00:46, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

Kate's Suicide

I wonder if it might be worth mentioning in the plot section that there is a possibility that Kate can die. Its a pretty important plot point and we seem to just gloss over it a little bit, without spelling out explicitly that her death is a possibility.

I also think it might be worth noting under the reception section that many reviewers found Episode 2 to be a lot heavier than Episode 1. I'll try to find a source for that later and add it to the article if nobody has any objections. Zell Faze (talk) 17:04, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

Second bit I see nothing wrong with, first bit: You contradicted yourself saying is there a way to mention the possibility of her death without mentioning the possibility of her death. Unless I'm reading that wrong. Either way, the plot section should be things that definitely happen no matter what you choose to do, like saving SPOILER in episode 3.--Ditto51 (My Talk Page) 17:30, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

Zell Faze, about the reception section, I'd be all for that as long as you cross reference to 2 different sources to justify the plural. Also, that leads to doing the same for the rest of the episodes later, since it already reads like an overview; focusing on only episodes 1 and 2 would stand out too much without it. About the plot, Ditto51 is right. It shouldn't cover every moment of the story. I wrote it to have the most general through-line as possible. Glitchygirl (talk) 19:44, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

@Ditto51: Sorry for the confusion. I mean that we should state it explicitly. Currently we use the following phrasing: "At this point, she has the opportunity to convince Kate to get down from the roof and come with her." I believe that this should be changed to something like: "At this point, she has the opportunity to convince Kate to get down from the roof and come with her. If she fails to do this Kate jumps and dies."

@Glitchygirl: I recall reading it in multiple places, so I will attempt to hunt those down. Regarding the plot, see above. I think that Kate's death is a major plot point that should be covered on a general outline of the plot. The current wording implies her death is possible, but does not outright say it. Zell Faze (talk) 04:40, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

It is still objectively telling the story. I think Ditto51's argument still stands. All we should ever do is write the narrative, insofar as it represents the big picture, despite the outcomes of the branches. Glitchygirl (talk) 06:46, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

I debated this out with one of my room mates and I was convinced to come around to your point of view. Zell Faze (talk) 04:38, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

Cheers Zell. I'm looking forward to the improvement of the reception section. Glitchygirl (talk) 08:39, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

Sales Figures

I see that LiS recently surpassed 1 million units moved. I haven't been able to find any information on how that breaks down by platform, but if anyone does find that and it turns out to not be 1 million units overall, but 1 million units on PC, then we should add the game to List of best-selling PC games. I suspect it will find its way onto that list eventually.

Thought I'd make sure that this was on everyone's radar over here. Zell Faze (talk) 15:45, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

I doubt they'd announce sales figures of PC copies without mentioning that. A breakdown would be nice, but I don't see much hope in that either. Glitchygirl (talk) 16:23, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

Agreed. Just wanted to make sure that this was on everyone's radar. Perhaps someone will see this here in a couple of years and be able to find numbers. Zell Faze (talk) 19:52, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

Zell Faze, Polygon reads: "[Square Enix] does not provide specific sales breakdowns". Sadface. Glitchygirl (talk) 17:40, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

For shame. Oh well. Zell Faze (talk) 20:27, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

Reception

I figured that talking about this here would be a bit more suitable and logical than editing the "Reception" area again. I added the sentence clarifying the reception for Life is Strange because it was meant to cover the game as a whole, not just specifically each episode. I don't mind the removal since it's not important, but I still wanted to clarify that.

On another note, do you want me to add information on reviews and such throughout the "Reception" area (as in add quotes from major review sites like IGN and GameSpot)? I think that would be informational and beneficial to people visiting the Wiki to see whether or not they should play the game. JustinMoss96 (talk) 13:12, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for taking the discussion to the talk page. First, I would welcome the first edit—Life Is Strange has received universal acclaim from critics—if you could find any sources that say exactly that. I think the sentence would actually be beneficial to the pacing. The second edit though is too similar to the paragraph of each episode. Also, the article is ultimately a European game and uses British English, not American English spelling. Glitchygirl (talk) 18:07, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

I forgot to answer your second note. I envision the first paragraph of the Reception section to be a general overview of the overall response. That's why I added Forbes' mid-season review there. This is built from the fact that the first sentence of the paragraph is wholly based on episode one reviews. And I know of one reliable outlet that's planning a full-season review which will also mark their first numbered rating of the game. Glitchygirl (talk) 18:19, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

I can definitely find sources to support the original edit I made (the second edit that replaced "universal acclaim" with "positive reviews" was only made to adjust the issue another editor had with it, despite the fact that I think there's more evidence supporting the former rather than the latter). I had to go back to see what you were talking about with the "British/American spelling" comment. I accidentally deleted the word "criticised" whenever I was editing it, so I never noticed it was the British spelling of the word. That was my mistake. As for the second note, I see what you're saying. JustinMoss96 (talk) 20:02, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

I've noted at the top of the talk page that this article uses British spelling. Zell Faze (talk) 20:26, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for that. JustinMoss96 (talk) 20:35, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

And also JustinMoss96, please keep this list in mind while picking the sources. They need to be reliable, or fit within a similar spectrum, which is also indicated on the page. The list has proved to be pretty much invaluable to those who edit video game articles. Glitchygirl (talk) 21:08, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

I know. I've been editing video game articles (as well as others) for about two years now, so I've visited that page enough to have it memorized by now *insert random "haha" comment here*. I appreciate it though. JustinMoss96 (talk) 08:03, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

My mistake. I made the assumption based on your reddish hue. Glitchygirl (talk) 12:45, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

Fair assumption. This is a new-ish Wiki profile I'm using (I've had it for a while, but I didn't move over to this one until recently). I don't exactly do enough on Wikipedia to really worry about my own account, but I'll often make edits to pages that might need a bit more information (with exceptions here and there like this one, but like with this one, I only do minor edits to pages that are already well-maintained). JustinMoss96 (talk) 15:08, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

Essentially, I don't focus on my own account; I focus on giving essential or at least somewhat essential information on articles. I have too many accounts online (especially on social media sites) to really worry about my own personal account. I just make edits, give sources for those edits, and leave. JustinMoss96 (talk) 15:24, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

Zell Faze, Ditto51 and JustinMoss96—two reliable sources (Kotaku, VG247) have covered the game's receptive success for July on YouTube and August on Tumblr. I wonder if these are at all worth having. After all, it can either be written as two consecutive milestones, or argued as undue weight. I'd like your thoughts on the matter. Glitchygirl (talk) 14:03, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

I think it honestly depends on whether or not it's had a major influence on the game's success as a whole. For example, Five Nights at Freddy's was strongly influenced by Let's Play videos on YouTube. Thus, it needs to be mentioned. I think it can be argued that Life is Strange has also seen this success due to the popularity on social media in general, but there would need to be sources to confirm that statement as a whole since those two links only mention YouTube and Tumblr. In regards to that, however, I think if you feel like it's enough evidence to suggest that the game's popularity has been largely influenced by YouTube and Tumblr, then it should be mentioned. JustinMoss96 (talk) 04:06, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

I wanted to make this point before, but I felt this would cause too much conflict. Review scores on Metacritic only refer to the episodes individually, not the series as a whole. In fact, the game as a whole hasn't been reviewed by critics since it's not entirely out yet. My point is that while the episodes may not have scores indicating "universal acclaim," the episodes individually do not reflect the game as a whole, so the positive or acclaim status shouldn't be reflected as such either. If a credible source says it's critically acclaimed, that's a lot more informational to base the game's status off of than scores for each episode individually. For example, The Walking Dead only received one episode with higher than a 90 on Metacritic, and that was only for the PC edition of the episode. However, there's no argument that The Walking Dead was a critically acclaimed game since it received enough praise to be considered as such. This was reflected both before and after every episode was released. Life is Strange has easily seen enough praise both from critics and audiences to warrant "critical acclaim" or "universal acclaim." I honestly think that it should at least be edited as such until further evidence proves otherwise. This is just something I wanted to address since this topic is based on the reception. JustinMoss96 (talk) 04:38, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

Type of English used.

Since the game is set in America, and uses American English, surely the article itself should be in American English and not English English? Just wondering what the thought was behind doing the article in English English other than that was how it was started and then it just stuck.--Ditto51 (My Talk Page) 21:37, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

Life Is Strange is being developed in France by a French studio. It is ultimately a European game that happens to be set in the US. Glitchygirl (talk) 23:18, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

I do think it is a question worth discussing though. My opinion is to keep using British English, but as someone who types primarily in British English.... I am willing to adjust to whatever everyone else wants. Zell Faze (talk) 01:28, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

Because there are no specifications to how one should nationalise a game article, I base it on how a film article would be, while taking into account the differences between them—in a film article, the basis comes from where it was filmed; in a game article, I think the type of English should be based on wherever it was developed. Glitchygirl (talk) 11:06, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

Okay, I was just seeing if there was a reason behind it, otherwise I would have changed it to match the setting of the game.--Ditto51 (My Talk Page) 12:09, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

I think that this falls pretty well under WP:RETAIN. If there was a strong national tie to the topic, then I figure we should follow that, but I don't see this game becoming national pride for anywhere anytime soon. Zell Faze (talk) 00:19, 28 July 2015 (UTC)