Talk:Life Is Strange (video game)/Archive 1

Archive 1

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. Cognissonance (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. Cognissonance (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. Cognissonance (talk) 14:59, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

Article is still in error and states definitively that Chloe and Max must evade David Madsen after the pool sequence. Depending on player choices in Episode 2 David Madsen may have lost his job as head of Blackwell's security. In this eventuality Chloe and Max must evade an unnamed and previously unseen member of Blackwell's security team.

There are at least two security guards looking for Max and Chloe in this part of the game. One guard approaches from the far side of the pool prompting Chloe and Max to head back through the lockers and into the vending machine area. When they attempt to leave this way another guard, possibly David (depending on player choice), blocks that exit and Max and Chloe retreat back to the lockers where they attempt to hide. This second guard (David?) remains outside the locker room guarding the exit while the first guard (definitely not David) searches for Max and Chloe in the locker room. The evasion game mechanic is played out against the non-David guard. Jaiotu (talk) 10:21, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

Fixed. Jaiotu (talk) 07:45, 12 April 2021 (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. Cognissonance (talk) 00:46, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

So, The episode 5 edit was right after all. Who made these edits? Leo8Skylar (talk) 20:20, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

It doesn't matter, we only include what can be reliably sourced, the edits were not accompained by a source and thus were reverted.--Ditto51 (My Talk Page) 20:36, 21 October 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. Cognissonance (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."

@Cognissonance: 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. Cognissonance (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. Cognissonance (talk) 08:39, 20 July 2015 (UTC)