Talk:Metro: Last Light

Gamerzines

Has this source been confirmed somehow as unreliable? I'm not familiar with the site myself, but it seemed to not be self-published and I didn't see any problems with it. -- Fyrefly (talk) 21:48, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Possible cancellation

I haven't heard anything about Last Light being cancelled, as it seems to have a rather large following. Additionally, it's emerged that THQ is going to be selling off its franchises one by one, so I'm just gonna remove the cancelled speculation.

Aaaand now it's been undone. DarkLight748, can you please provide some sort of reason to keep it? It's just speculation, which doesn't lend much to the article. Mrajr (talk) 01:09, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Sorry I thought I was removing it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DarkLight748 (talk • contribs) 01:46, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Good news fans of the game Metro!!! I pm'd the facebook account of Deep Silver who purchased the rights to Metro: Last Night from the floundering THQ who dropped MLT a little while ago.

Here's their reply:

10:54pm Kelly Shaw "I read a little while ago that Deep Silver purchased the rights to Metro: Last Night... Has there been any updates to this title??"

4:25pm Deep Silver "Hi Kelly! It's true, we're publishing Metro: Last Light now. We've been working hard to make the transition from THQ to Deep Silver as smooth as possible for 4A Games, and we'll have more news about this soon The game will definitely still be released!"

There's no ETA yet on when they hope to release the game, but I did ask them to update all the socalial media accounts and the main website to let all the fans know that this game is not going to just fade away now there its under new ownership so hopefully we'll hear something soon. :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.252.44.240 (talk) 13:02, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Problem in the article regarding the acquisition by Deep Silver

From what I understand the Intellectual Property right remained at 4A Games and Deep Silver only got the publishing rights, not the Intellectual Property rights. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 101.98.174.166 (talk) 08:35, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

written like an advertisement

This article is written in a fashion that, if I recall correctly, is against Wikipedia policy. In particular, it reads very much like an advertisement, especially the "Synopsis and Features" section. This should be fixed and a more objective viewpoint offered to the reader. 184.78.155.105 (talk) 10:52, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Metro: Last Light. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20130714194753/http://www.gamersgate.com:80/DLC-MLLRM/metro-last-light-ranger-mode-dlc to http://www.gamersgate.com/DLC-MLLRM/metro-last-light-ranger-mode-dlc

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• 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.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 19:40, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Metro: Last Light/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Cognissonance (talk · contribs) 13:57, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

Will get to this review shortly. Skimming the article, I noticed that sources 2, 7, 53, 84 and 85 don't cite the website they're from. Some sources are also missing wikilinks. Just a few minor inconsistencies I would take care of. Cognissonance (talk) 13:57, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

Gameplay

• "the game makes use of audio and visuals cues" — Fix grammar: "the game makes use of audio and visual cues".

Development

• "The game's lead developer was 4A Games, based in Ukraine. The game was developed by more than 80 people" — There are some undesirable repetitions here. Perhaps make it its own sentence: "The Ukraine-based lead developer 4A Games made the game with a team of more than 80 people".
• "the team decided to keep the feature in Last Light but to improve" — The second "to" is not necessary.

Release

• "being victims over the game's release.of any uncertainty" reads like a mess. Replace with "being misled by the game's uncertain release".
• "Both Ubisoft, Clearlake, and Koch Media, who were originally set to distribute the title" — Ubisoft is not mentioned in the VG247 citation, which would explain the inaccurate use of "Both"; Clearlake is mentioned in the following Gamasutra source. "who were" should be replaced with "the latter of which was", referring to Koch Media.

Downloadable content

• Sources 56 and 57 are duplicates of each other. Remove 56, since it is missing parameters.
• Source 58 is missing the first= last= date= accessdate= parameters.
• Can Coin-Op TV (source 59) and RealGamerNewz (source 60) be replaced?
• GameTrailers (source 61) merely goes to its YouTube homepage. This needs to be repaired.
• "within 60 days of the release of the" can be simplified with "within 60 days of releasing".
• Xbox360Achievements.org (source 62) doesn't strike me as reliable.
• I'm not too sure about Steamprices.com (source 66). Can it be replaced?

Redux version

• The announcement is not mentioned in the cited source. Remove or find a source to confirm it.
• CBS Interactive should be removed as publisher from source 68.
• "Last Light Redux was released as DRM-free games" — Fix grammar: "Last Light Redux was released as a DRM-free game".

Reception

Critical reception

• "multiple flashback scene" — Fix grammar: "multiple flashback scenes".

Overall

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism):

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

6. It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

7. Overall: The article has some issues with references, grammar and prose. Putting the article on hold until they are addressed.

   Pass/Fail:

   @AdrianGamer: Cognissonance (talk) 18:11, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

@Cognissonance:: Thanks for the review! I think I have fixed all the issues. AdrianGamer (talk) 14:51, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism):

   Pass/Fail:

   @AdrianGamer: Everything looks great. Cognissonance (talk) 15:23, 18 October 2016 (UTC)