This article is written in
British English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, travelled, centre, defence, artefact, analyse) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other
varieties of English. According to the
relevant style guide, this should not be changed without
broad consensus.
The text of the entry was: Did you know ... that the video game Life Is Strange was originally going to be called What If but was retitled due to the
film of the same name?
This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following
WikiProjects:
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Photography, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
photography on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PhotographyWikipedia:WikiProject PhotographyTemplate:WikiProject PhotographyPhotography articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Science Fiction, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
science fiction on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Science FictionWikipedia:WikiProject Science FictionTemplate:WikiProject Science Fictionscience fiction articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Time, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
Time on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.TimeWikipedia:WikiProject TimeTemplate:WikiProject TimeTime articles
This article is of interest to WikiProject LGBT studies, which tries to ensure comprehensive and factual coverage of all
LGBT-related issues on Wikipedia. For more information, or to get involved, please visit the
project page or contribute to the
discussion.LGBT studiesWikipedia:WikiProject LGBT studiesTemplate:WikiProject LGBT studiesLGBT articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Video games, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
video games on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Video gamesWikipedia:WikiProject Video gamesTemplate:WikiProject Video gamesvideo game articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Oregon, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the
U.S. state of
Oregon on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.OregonWikipedia:WikiProject OregonTemplate:WikiProject OregonOregon articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject 2010s, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
2010s on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.2010sWikipedia:WikiProject 2010sTemplate:WikiProject 2010s2010s articles
This article has been rated as Low-importance on the
importance scale.
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)reply
@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)reply
Semi-protected edit request on 24 May 2015
This
edit request to
Life Is Strange has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
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)reply
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)reply
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)reply
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)reply
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)reply
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)reply
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)reply
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)reply
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 (
MyTalkPage)
17:30, 14 July 2015 (UTC)reply
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)reply
@
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)reply
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)reply
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.
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.
Cognissonance (
talk)
16:23, 23 July 2015 (UTC)reply
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)reply
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)reply
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.
Cognissonance (
talk)
18:07, 24 July 2015 (UTC)reply
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.
Cognissonance (
talk)
18:19, 24 July 2015 (UTC)reply
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)reply
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.
Cognissonance (
talk)
21:08, 24 July 2015 (UTC)reply
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)reply
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)reply
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)reply
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)reply
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.[1] 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." This is just something I wanted to address since this topic is based on the reception.
JustinMoss96 (
talk)
04:38, 17 August 2015 (UTC)reply
On the grounds that we can't tally up each episode's review scores to get "universal acclaim" (as you quite correctly say), the fact that all but 2 Metacritic reviews do point to "generally favourable reviews" should take precedent, even though I am aware that "universal" is just another word for "general".
Cognissonance (
talk)
19:56, 17 August 2015 (UTC)reply
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 (
MyTalkPage)
21:37, 24 July 2015 (UTC)reply
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)reply
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.
Cognissonance (
talk)
11:06, 25 July 2015 (UTC)reply
This
edit request to
Life Is Strange has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
Simple grammatical touch ups. Under "Plot", change:
It takes place during the week of 7 October 2013 told from the point of view of Maxine Caulfield (Hannah Telle), a 12th grade student of the fictional Blackwell Academy in Arcadia Bay, Oregon.
to:
Life is Strange takes place during the week of 7 October 2013, and is told from the perspective of Maxine Caulfield (Hannah Telle), a 12th grade student of the fictional Blackwell Academy in Arcadia Bay, Oregon.
136.181.195.25 (
talk)
19:31, 15 September 2015 (UTC)reply
I see no important reason why the table should stay. The sources for the writers can be moved to the infobox, the note can be moved down to Reception, the release dates are already in the infobox, and should there be a physical release, that's where that release date would be as well. The only things left are the summaries, which serve only one purpose, and I'm not sure of the degree to which they are warranted when we have the Plot section. Please give me your thoughts.
Cognissonance (
talk)
21:37, 31 October 2015 (UTC)reply
@
Cognissonance: I wouldn't call it unnecessary, but i think it should be merged with "release". I actually think more episodic games should have episode tables. I tried merging it, bu every time i do, my browser crashes.
Lucia Black (
talk)
15:16, 22 December 2015 (UTC)reply
Just a typical
WP:VG layout, really. The release section discusses things in terms of development so makes sense to be a subsection. I wouldn't say there's any guideline that insists on it though. Just that typically, there are Gameplay, Synopsis (Sometimes as Plot, depending on if there's any other subsections or not), Development, Reception, References and External Links as the top level sections. --
ferret (
talk)
19:38, 22 December 2015 (UTC)reply
Just to follow up, this was just my thoughts on typical sections. Adrian has already GA reviewed this so it clearly "works" and isn't a problem. --
ferret (
talk)
19:45, 22 December 2015 (UTC)reply
Done
Perhaps we can gain a consensus on hwo to organize it. There are a few articles as well that are GA. My main issue with them, is that its just a table that doesn't have much of a prose. In fact, it tries to be more story-related. I think the benefit of the Chapters/Episodes table is due to them revealing release dates. So it sounds like a "release history" section. And although its acceptable to being GA, i can would think modifying it to be a release history section would only enhance the article.
Lucia Black (
talk) 20:20, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
It just makes perfect sense to combine both Episodes and "releases" because essentially that's what the episode list is doing.
Lucia Black (
talk)
20:26, 22 December 2015 (UTC)reply
I have just modified 2 external links on
Life Is Strange. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit
this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).
If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with
this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with
this tool.
Isn't the title actually stylized as "Life is Strange" (with the "is" uncapped)? The official site and Steam lists it as so.
Jeandeve (
talk)
13:01, 23 July 2017 (UTC)reply
Per
MOS:CT: "The following words should be capitalized in English-language titles: [...] Every
verb, including forms of to be (Be, Am, Is, Are, Was, Were, Been)"; "Is" is a verb, so it is capitalized, regardless of Square Enix's preferred stylizaition. We also would not indicate this seperately (in the way "Life Is Strange (stylized as Life is Strange)", becuase that would not serve any improvement to the article, and it is not extraordinary enough for attribution (per
WP:TITLETM).
Lordtobi (
✉)
13:10, 23 July 2017 (UTC)reply
Does that mean biohazard 4 should be capitalized?
Resident Evil 4 I know it's not a verb, it's a bit unclear why some things can be stylized and some can't. Also, I don't care about attribution, but I don't see how it's damaging or not improving the article.
Jeandeve (
talk)
03:20, 25 July 2017 (UTC)reply
"Biohazard 4" has been fixed, nouns are also covered in the above. Regarding stylization indivation, from our point of view, there isn't any: We basically take the common name for the game and adapt it to our guidelines, if there was an extraordinary stylization to it visible on the cover, which exceeds "just lower-case" or "just upper-case", we can include it in the article if it serves a good point. "Life is Strange" is simply the way Square Enix typed it out in text, unnotable for this publication, and also would not serve any point; see my example above, it just looks disguting and literally has just one letter changed in case. Furthermore, "Life is Strange" is not actually the stylization per norm, as the cover, which we go off for such things, says "LIFE IS STRANGE" (though this is also not a notable stylization either). This should accurately summarize the way it is usually done, and I could bet there is a concrete guideline on this, though I was not so far able to find any. Do you have any specific cases you would like to ask about, though?
Lordtobi (
✉)
19:14, 25 July 2017 (UTC)reply
Pardon me, "disgusting"? Anyway, it's cool. Thank you very much for the insight. I'll let you know if get curious about anything else.
Jeandeve (
talk)
00:13, 26 July 2017 (UTC)reply
In the game itself, the proper form with capitalized "Is" is used in the end credits. The branding of the game is very inconsistent. The game uses lowercase 'i' on Steam, but the DLC episodes, with the exception of Episode 3, use the uppercase. On the Humble Store it's capitalized everywhere.
81.82.196.81 (
talk)
10:41, 7 March 2018 (UTC)reply
I have just modified 9 external links on
Life Is Strange. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit
this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).
If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with
this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with
this tool.
I have just modified 2 external links on
Life Is Strange. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit
this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).
If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with
this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with
this tool.
This sentence: “…and confront the fact that Max brought the storm into existence by saving Chloe from being shot…”
This is presented as a fact, but it isn't sourced. I thought the game kind of does not answer the question.
Chloe herself seems to believe this during the endgame at the lighthouse, based on how often Max had to save her life. This is the Fate/Destiny hypothesis, which does not explain the other weird phenomena such as the odd snow, dead animals, eclipse and double moon, since none of those targeted Chloe. However Warren thinks the weird phenomena, including the storm are caused by Max' time time travel abuse. This is the DO NOT MESS WITH TIME hypothesis. In the end, when you save Chloe, you do not get to see whether Fate/Destiny keeps escalating against Chloe (which would lend strong credence to the Fate/Destiny hypothesis). If you sacrifice Chloe, the storm does not seem to appear, but Max also seems to no longer use her time-travel power. This means that in that ending it is unclear which of the hypotheses holds true.
Does anyone have a source for this?
20:41, 19 March 2018 (UTC)
Making a "overall" page?
I was wondering, with LiS 2 coming out in September if we ever wanted to think about making a Life is Strange (Franchise) type page? By then that'll be 4 games in the series that could have blurbs about them on the page rather than half a sentence mentions at the bottom. Just an idea. QueerFilmNerdtalk17:16, 27 June 2018 (UTC)reply
I would suggest possibly partway through LiS 2, with LiS 1, BtS, and the one that came out yesterday, they're getting a good section of games that could turn into a larger franchise. Even then I think the 4 games could fit a franchise/series page, also possibly waiting on word if they want to continue after LiS 2 is done. I definitely think it's something we should look at soon. QueerFilmNerdtalk19:17, 27 June 2018 (UTC)reply
last time I brought something up like this, I was told there ends to be info about it as a series. Not just the individual titles. I think we can hold off for a little while until more info is added. LIS2 and the spin off should get some attention first.
Blue Pumpkin Pie (
talk)
19:29, 27 June 2018 (UTC)reply
We should definitely have an article about the franchise/series, but as
Blue Pumpkin Pie said - let's wait. With the Dust comic book coming out, and more info on LIS2 coming in August, I think we should wait at least until then, if not after the first LIS2 episode.
byteflushTalk21:55, 27 June 2018 (UTC)reply
Yeah, that completely makes sense, definitely wait for more information about the comics and LiS 2, and with the stand alone just released. Would it be too early to start a draft? Or should we wait? QueerFilmNerdtalk22:24, 27 June 2018 (UTC)reply
I fear that a series article could turn out as a long plot summary of all four games, given that is practically no content that wiuld make the series, outside its individual games, anywhere near notable. Some video game guidelines (I'm not sure which ones but I'll let you know when I remember) state that there need to be at least three major installments to justify a series page; since we treat BTS as a spinoff, that is not the case. Essential information like how the brand developed across multiple games is also not (yet) available.
Lordtobi (
✉)
05:57, 28 June 2018 (UTC)reply
On plot and gameplay additions I made
To avoid edit warring:
On gameplay, the section omits the optional photographs and the ability to repeat segments of episodes to get those. It omits that decisions are tracked and compared against other players It also omits that some story info is conveyed by SMS that get recorded in the diary as well as hints to the optional photographs. These can be sourced. They are not essential elements of the game, but at least it gives breadth to what the game has.
On plot, I had not played the game prior to this weekend save for maybe the first 30 min or so. It was always on my back shelf, but I was watching this article for purposes of protecting vandalism, etc. So I had read the synopsis here well before. So I marathoned the game over the weekend, and while the current synopsis is not wrong, it is vague (especially when trying to discuss the time manipulation/travel aspects) and misses some of the key issues which come up in the reception aspects (eg Victoria/Vortex Club bullying towards Kate). We definitely don't want play by play, and want to smooth over the decision points and not get into those if we can help it, but what I tried to write was to fill in gaps in information that beg questions if you haven't played the game. (The current summary doesn't mention that Max had moved out of Arcadia and only recently returned - this is why she had no idea who was being shot at in the bathroom at the start, she didn't recognize Chloe despite being childhood friends). We also do give allowances on plot length when it comes to time-travel plots since they cannot be readily told in a linear fashion. --
Masem (
t)
05:54, 3 October 2018 (UTC)reply
MaximumMadnessStixon, I doubt the comic is notable enough for a standalone page. The content you provided here previouslay also also had no sources attached. Please make sure to provide sources for any comic sources.
Lordtobi (
✉)
13:13, 4 December 2018 (UTC)reply
The comic has been since confirmed to be ongoing, with the second story-arc currently in release. Do you think there will ever be a point when a separate page should be made? (Perhaps if it runs for a few years or is confirmed to?) Or should it is just stay as a mention in the legacy section? (I updated the comic's page just a bit to be safe, although it is still set to redirect to the legacy section of this page.)
MaximumMadnessStixon (
talk)
21:22, 12 June 2019 (UTC)reply
This article needs serious reworking. It does not have a list of games section like any other video game franchise page on Wikipedia, and it lists the entire Franchise under the First Game. The series has expanded beyond the first game and has multiple developers across platforms now. This page should reflect that. -
Splinemath (
talk)
13:20, 30 December 2019 (UTC)reply