Talk:Life Is Strange: Before the Storm

Article Title

It's actually officially Life is Strange: Before the Storm, with a non-capitalized I. Please someone correct that. You can check it on the official website for the game. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Meyerliane (talk • contribs) 20:39, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

• I don't think there is a way where you can edit an article's main title. If there is, I wouldn't know how to do it. Maybe someone else could help. But yes, you are right, 'Is' in the game's title does not have a capitalized I. - Lwilsher02 12:30, 26 August 2017 (UTC)
• So I have found out how to move the page. Would we need to though? Lwilsher02 17:58, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

"Is" with a capital I is grammatically correct. Verbs (in this case, Is = "to be") are capitalised in titles. Cognissonance (talk) 13:25, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

You are right that according to convention it should be capitalized, but since it's the title of a work of entertainment I think creative liberty takes over. Interestingly, the first game has the capitalization right within the game but is very inconsistent about its use in storefronts and social media. I'm not even sure the publisher is aware of this. 81.82.196.81 (talk) 10:38, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

The title is inconsistent. Some stores have it with lowercase 'is', some with uppercase. The end credits display the title as Life Is Strange. However, I believe the trademark is considered official, and that's all caps. Wikipedia asks to use capitalization convention even when a non-standard use is considered official, so regardless, the 'is' has to remain capitalized. Fredvdp (talk) 17:00, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

Photo Uploading

I want to upload a picture featuring the deluxe edition of L.I.S: Before the Storm Deluxe Edition but I am worried about copyright claims. What should I do? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lwilsher02 (talk • contribs) 18:21, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

@Lwilsher02: So, unless the picture is free (meaning the creator of the picture released it under a free license), it needs to significantly contribute to the reader's understanding of the topic. For most game articles, this means that in addition to any free images (such as photos of dev team members), we can just include one picture of the standard cover art and one screenshot of typical gameplay. Unless the look of the the deluxe edition has been discussed a lot by reliable sources, I do not think it would warrant the addition of a new non-free image.--IDV^talk 20:40, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

Official

Hi @Helper201,

Please explain: what does the word "official" add? Are there any unofficial prequels out there, to make a distinction? That's why it's fluff, an unnecessary additional description. soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 04:33, 6 July 2017 (UTC) soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 04:33, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

• Agreed - if nothing else is said it's assumed it's an official prequel, so the only time you would use it would be if you're comparing it to some unofficial fan work.--IDV^talk 08:29, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

It just makes clear that its official and not fan made or otherwise. Its hardly a big deal to include it, its not like its whole paragraph, its one word. Helper201 (talk) 17:28, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

@Helper201, that's reverse logic: if there's an unofficial game, then we would point that out. If it's not a big deal either, let's take it out. We don't need this kind of unambiguously phrasing. soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 18:37, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

Unofficial titles aren't always pointed out, even if they should be. It's not reverse logic, as I'm not the one making a big deal out of it. Also "unambiguously phrasing" makes no sense. I think what is currently there is clear. Helper201 (talk) 18:44, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

@Helper201, those are two separate things.

• Reverse logic: having to make clear it is official, when there would be no question regardless of its status
• A big deal: me apparently starting this discussion about the word "official".

There's no connection between the two things. It is unnecessarily unambiguous because we're stating the obvious, it's something that doesn't need to be clarified. Take a look at WP:VG/FC, which is the best work done on video game articles. This is a rhetorical question: would unnecessary words like "official" be used in those? soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 19:46, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

Facts Repeated

Ok, so, in the infobox to the side of the article, we have the release dates for the episodes shown there but we also have a table that is doing the exact same thing. Would it be better to just have it all in the infobox or would we need both the table and the infobox showing them? And would it be necessary to have "Farewell" listed as one of the episodes even though it is DLC? - Lwilsher02 12:41, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

@Lwilsher02: Per Talk:Life Is Strange (video game)/GA1, an episodic release should have an episodes table, and DLC information belongs in the body. Cognissonance (talk) 18:38, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Life Is Strange: Before the Storm/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Freikorp (talk · contribs) 23:16, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

1. Is it reasonably well written?

   "James reveals that the woman they saw him kissing was Rachel's biological mother" - now I'm confused; so does Rachel have a non-biological mother, presumably the woman whom James is cheating on? How does Rachel not know who her biological mother is?

   She was adopted, and this being a story twist, I don't know how to clarify other than specifying with "biological".

   Solved the problem. Cognissonance (talk) 14:48, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

   "the developer's proprietary StoryForge tools" - what does this mean? As in, what do StoryForge tools do?

   I added the abstract functions of StoryForge, as going too much into detail would be redundant IMO.

   "criticised plotholes" - can you give me an example of a plothole? I think the article could benefit from mentioning one

   Critics avoided spoilers, so quotes like "logic holes big enough to drive Chloe's truck through" only amount to general statements.

   "Most Touching Moment" - can you indicate what this moment was?

   Done.

2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

   A. Has an appropriate reference section:

   B. Citation to reliable sources where necessary:

   C. No original research:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. Major aspects:

   B. Focused:

4. Is it neutral?

   Fair representation without bias:

5. Is it stable?

   No edit wars, etc:

6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?

   A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:

   B. Images are provided if possible and are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail: Fantastic work on this article. Looking forward to passing it once minor issues are addressed. Freikorp (talk) 13:43, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

   @Freikorp: Thank you very much. I've responded to your concerns above. Cognissonance (talk) 14:38, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

   I'm very happy with your changes. Passing this now. Well done. Freikorp (talk) 23:32, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

Bonu episode: Farewell

This episode's plot should be included as far as i'm concerned — Preceding unsigned comment added by Drumerwritter (talk • contribs) 22:26, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

Undoing an edit with a clear edit summary for no good reason.

I'm not sure how to tag a user as it's been many years since I've edited Wikipedia, so if someone could do it for me that would be great, or maybe the editor concerned might consider reading the talk page before throwing another incorrect revert out.

The Metro source states that the third episode was the least compelling of the three, not that Chloe and Rachel's relationship was the least compelling aspect of the story.

I explained this in my edit summary however the edit was undone without any comment or message on my talk page, not sure if the editor concerned assumed they could just do whatever because I'm editing from an IP?

Here's the paragraph from the Metro article that clearly states that the "least compelling" comment was in reference to the episode as a whole, not the relationship as explained in the wiki page:

In story terms the most interesting part of the game has been watching Chloe’s relationship with Rachel evolve. But while we’re not going to be churlish enough to drop this third episode’s score any lower than the others, we have to admit that overall it is the least compelling. Partly because the first hour or two is simply spent dealing with the aftermath of the last episode, and partly because the story’s ending is limited by having to tie-in to the beginning of the first Life Is Strange. https://metro.co.uk/2017/12/20/life-is-strange-before-the-storm-episode-3-review-hell-is-empty-7173599/

Not sure how you can get "Metro saw the relationship between Rachel and Chloe as the least compelling aspect" from a paragraph that clearly states it was the most interesting part... 86.3.102.123 (talk) 04:27, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

Bonus episode reception

I have just added a paragraph about Farewell's reception, which I would like to keep as notable websites have reviewed it. Previously, I had added a Metacritic score for Farewell, however I was kindly notified that this was previously disputed by @Cognissonance:. I don't have much of an opinion on the topic, but the MC score is more fitting now that there is a paragraph below in my opinion. IgelRM (talk) 23:26, 6 March 2021 (UTC)