Talk:Lara Croft and the Guardian of Light

Article

Here is a quite long article about LCGoL, got it from facebook: [1] (this artilce talks about the games environment)--TudorTulok (talk) 18:20, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Other external articles for this article, talking about the fact that the game is not part of the main series: [2], [3], [4] --TudorTulok (talk) 11:30, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

DLC

Here are some sources about the game's DLC. [5][6][7] I would add this information myself, but I am unfamiliar with this citation style. Fezmar9 (talk) 00:35, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

I've added the part about the co-op online being delayed until the PC/PlayStation release. Thanks. Mike Allen 02:57, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

But wouldn't the information about the downloadable content make a good addition to the release section? Featured game articles like Halo 3 and Call of Duty 4 have this information. Although there is nothing specific, these sources announce that five content packs will be released between October and December, three of the packs will feature new puzzles and two will have new characters. Fezmar9 (talk) 04:39, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

No it wouldn't. LOL, actually I had already included the info about the delay in online gameplay before you posted those links--which is what I thought the links you provided where about without looking at them. I didn't even read about the DLC. But yes, they would fit nicely in the release section. Thanks for posting back calling out my ignorance. Mike Allen 05:01, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Btw, when posting a reference, all you need to do is add the url between tags. Someone will come along and format them into citation templates. Mike Allen 05:05, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Yea, I was a little confused why you only commented on the co-op delay. And I am familiar with citations and sources in general. I have just never seen a style like this before where the meat of the citation template was at the end of the article, and ref id's were used in the body. I just didn't want to mess it up and thought I would leave that up to one of the primary editors. Fezmar9 (talk) 05:58, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Oh, that's "list-defined references". Even if you add the refs in the body, it will still render like the rest. So no broken article. Mike Allen 06:36, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

I added a brief bit about the content packs to the article. All of the sources also have some odd quote about how Crystal Dynamics believes that DLC, for this release, stands for "Downloadable Lara Croft." At first I was thinking this might make an interest addition to the article, but now I believe it might be best to wait and see what the content packs are to better understand the meaning of the quote. Fezmar9 (talk) 04:14, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Reception

I believe that an average score of 88.21 merits critical acclaim. Many people including myself have edited that reception section and until now, no one has had a problem with it. Even if Wiki rules state that critical acclaim should be for 90 or above, I believe that some leeway ought to be introduced. It's practically 90, and many of the reviews were actually over 90 - as in 9.1. Seeing as most of the people reading the section didn't have any argument with it, I think majority rules and the "critical acclaim" should stand. Saying that it was well received just doesn't do the game justice I'm afraid.

To be fair, I really like the game as well, but the fact remains that there are standards that have to be followed. It's a great game, but if the standard is bent for one it has to be bent for all. Also, the scores posted were old, and looking again the aggregate scores are 86.36% and 85/100, which is further from the threshold. Again, it's a great game, but its a matter of protocol, and it has to be followed. --Teancum (talk) 17:48, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

I agree with you in a way. I accept that critical acclaim is probably too kind, but I also think that "well received" is not kind enough. Therefore, I have changed it to "very well received", which I think is fair and in the middle of what we were putting. In truth, it has actually been very well received. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.219.90.178 (talk) 10:43, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

I'd agree with that - "very well received" it is, then. That phrasing also works well since most critics rated it 70 or above. I'll probably add that fact to the prose later. --Teancum (talk) 12:07, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

"System requirements" table

I've uncollapsed the "System requirements" table. It's not that long and the text is not very appealing collapsed. Mike Allen 01:21, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

That's really the issue, with higher resolution or widescreen monitors it will throw off the balance of the article, pushing the reviews template down further. --Teancum (talk) 01:44, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Ok thanks. :) Mike Allen 21:26, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Isometric viewpoint?

I have not played the game but the screenshot shows a scene that definitely does not use isometric projection. --Jvs.cz (talk) 13:33, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

The prose states it uses a fixed camera in a manner similar to isometric video games. --Teancum (talk) 15:21, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Thank you. However, 'isometric' is mentioned three times in the article, and two of those places should also be reworded, to say 'close to isometric'. --Jvs.cz (talk) 10:26, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Feel free to make the change. I don't edit this article anymore, it's just on my watchlist. --Teancum (talk) 12:44, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Lara Croft and the Guardian of Light. 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/20100918065519/http://xboxlive.ign.com/articles/112/1120887p1.html to http://xboxlive.ign.com/articles/112/1120887p1.html
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.1up.com/do/reviewPage?cId=3180881
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100818132937/http://xboxlive.ign.com/articles/111/1112531p1.html to http://xboxlive.ign.com/articles/111/1112531p1.html

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) 03:06, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Lara Croft and the Guardian of Light. 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/20100614234140/http://uk.videogames.games.yahoo.com/e2/lara-croft-and-the-guardian-of-light-f63fe2.html to http://uk.videogames.games.yahoo.com/e2/lara-croft-and-the-guardian-of-light-f63fe2.html

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) 08:29, 12 January 2018 (UTC)