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. 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)

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. Cognissonance (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. Cognissonance (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. Cognissonance (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. Cognissonance (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. Cognissonance (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. Cognissonance (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. Cognissonance (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)

Your first point convinced me. I don't think it would fit in the article as a means to take inventory. Thanks. Cognissonance (talk) 19:56, 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." This is just something I wanted to address since this topic is based on the reception. JustinMoss96 (talk) 04:38, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

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)

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. Cognissonance (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. Cognissonance (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)

Semi-protected edit request on 15 September 2015

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)

Done Kharkiv07 (T) 00:38, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

Episode 5 release date

The final episode is going to be released on October 20th. (source) If someone could integrate this into the article accordingly, it'd be most appreciated. -- 136.181.195.25 (talk) 14:26, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

Episodes table

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)

@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)

I changed my mind during the GA review. The placement of the table is based on the featured article Tales of Monkey Island. Cognissonance (talk) 15:56, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

I'm positive if we bring it into question for both articles, the chapters/episodes will be moved to a "release" section. Lucia Black (talk) 16:18, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

Following over from WT:VG. I think the format is fine, as King's Quest (2015 video game) is following it as well. However, specific to Life Is Strange, I think the Release section should be bumped to a subsection of Development. -- ferret (talk) 19:14, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

@ferret: That's the second time the release section has been suggested to become a subsection of Development. Is there a specific reason for this? Cognissonance (talk) 19:25, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

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)

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)

 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)

Won Game designer award at the Japan Game Awards

Can someone add it who knows how to do tables? comment added by Texasgoldrush (talk • contribs) 06:26, 24 September 2016 (UTC) The source

 Done

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150110023923/http://www.polygon.com/2015/1/9/7522567/life-is-strange-release to http://www.polygon.com/2015/1/9/7522567/life-is-strange-release
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.gamereactor.eu/news/288154/Life%2Bis%2BStrange%2B-%2B%22Supernatural%2Bthings%2Bmerely%2Bmetaphors%22/

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.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:21, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

Life is Strange

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)

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)

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)

"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)

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)

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)

We, as an encyclopedia, will use the uppercase version per the guidelines outlined above. Lordtobi (✉) 10:45, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

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:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.momenta.online/2016/02/edouard-caplain-on-the-art-behind-life-is-strange/
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.express.co.uk/entertainment/gaming/691827/Life-is-Strange-free-download-PS4-PS3-PlayStation-Plus-Xbox-One-Xbox-360-PC-Mac
• Corrected formatting/usage for https://blog.eu.playstation.com/2017/05/31/killing-floor-2-and-life-is-strange-are-your-playstation-plus-games-for-june/
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.xboxoneuk.com/xbox-one/xbouks-top-20-games-for-under-20
• Corrected formatting/usage for https://blog.us.playstation.com/2017/07/11/discover-the-creators-yoko-taros-favorite-ps4-games/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20161014030338/http://awards.cesa.or.jp/en/press/pdf/160915_02.pdf to http://awards.cesa.or.jp/en/press/pdf/160915_02.pdf
• Corrected formatting/usage for https://www.legendary.com/legendary-digital-studios-partners-with-square-enix-and-dj2-to-adapt-award-winning-episodic-videogame-life-is-strange-into-digital-series/
• Corrected formatting/usage for https://www.destructoid.com/a-new-life-is-strange-game-is-in-the-works-436830.phtml
• Corrected formatting/usage for https://www.polygon.com/e3/2017/6/11/15779506/life-is-strange-prequel-before-the-storm-release-date

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.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:12, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150129222908/http://www.gamerevolution.com/manifesto/juno--donnie-darko--gone-home--life-is-strange-30843 to http://www.gamerevolution.com/manifesto/juno--donnie-darko--gone-home--life-is-strange-30843
• Corrected formatting/usage for https://arstechnica.com/gaming/2015/12/the-best-video-games-of-2015-as-picked-by-the-ars-editors/4/

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.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:41, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

LGBTQ content

I think it's worth creating a section commenting on this game's impact on the LGBTQ community.

Any objections? Comments? — Preceding unsigned comment added by OrangeRat81 (talk • contribs) 13:17, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

Strange “Fact”

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. QueerFilmNerd^talk 17:16, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

I used to ask this a lot too. I would wait until we have more information for the next 2 titles before making a series article.Blue Pumpkin Pie (talk) 17:30, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

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. QueerFilmNerd^talk 19:17, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

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)

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. byteflush _Talk 21:55, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

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? QueerFilmNerd^talk 22:24, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

If you have enough information to make a draft, I don't see why not. I make them all the time and I don't get a lot of knockbackBlue Pumpkin Pie (talk) 22:42, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

I have made a page over at Draft:Life is Strange (series) if anyone wants to chime in. Anyways, the page is here if anyone wants to edit it. QueerFilmNerd^talk 05:14, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

• 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)

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)

Separate Page for Comic?

Now that issue #1 is out and issue #2 has a release date, should a separate page be made for the comic? MaximumMadnessStixon (talk) 01:43, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

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)

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)

Article reference

This article could be useful but I don't know if it's accurate and the domain is blacklisted. IgelRM (talk) 19:59, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

http://web.archive.org/web/20150724062631/ examiner(dot)com/article/square-ceo-says-life-is-strange-was-never-a-risk-talks-dontnod-partnership

See Exampiner's entry on Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources. Certainly it's on the blacklist for a reason. Lordtobi (✉) 07:08, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

List of Games section

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)

Splinemath, this article discusses the first game in the series; this not an article for the entire franchise. Regards, Lordtobi (✉) 13:24, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

That is glaringly obvious. The series needs its own page instead of a redirect to the Legacy section of this one as it currently stands.-Splinemath (talk) 13:31, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Life Is Strange (series) which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 15:35, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Life Is Strange which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 18:51, 11 June 2024 (UTC)