# Talk:The Operative: No One Lives Forever

Later releases of the game had an M rating. Can anyone contribute the differences between the two versions? Brittany Ka (talk) 17:49, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

This review is transcluded from Talk:The Operative: No One Lives Forever/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Ashliveslove (talk · contribs) 18:54, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Started reviewing the article. First of all I must say, this one is has a layout much perfect I've ever seen in other games. Will review and comment back if found any problems. ASHUIND 18:54, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
Comment


### Plot
There is still a clean-up tag regarding the plot if the article, please consider improving the plot section. ASHUIND 19:03, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
Hello, thanks for doing the review. I tried making the more plot more concise. It is now 3528 character less then it was. Do you think the clean-up tag can be removed now? --Mondotta (talk) 20:39, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
Yes you can remove the plot tag now. It balances with the other section. ASHUIND 18:51, 19 November 2011 (UTC)
Plot tag removed. --Mondotta (talk) 18:07, 20 November 2011 (UTC)


### Music
See if you can find an image for soundtrack, so that you can put in the soundtrack info box into music section. ASHUIND 18:56, 19 November 2011 (UTC)
I've decided against an infobox for the album for the following reasons:
It would add a bit of clutter to the page.
It doesn't really have its own album cover.
The infobox wouldn't give a lot of extra information (its release date is the same as the game's, its length is noted in the track listings, there is no available information about its producer or label, etc.)
--Mondotta (talk) 23:50, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
Your second track is overlapping with the track list, consider moving it in section above.ASHUIND 18:56, 19 November 2011 (UTC)
Good idea, I've combined the two Listen templates. --Mondotta (talk) 23:50, 20 November 2011 (UTC)


### Final Analysis
It is reasonably well written.
a (prose):  b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists): 
Not much concerns here. ASHUIND 06:47, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (references):  b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR): 
No such concerns here. Article has been searched thoroughly for such references. ASHUIND 06:47, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects):  b (focused): 
All such aspects have been covered. ASHUIND 06:47, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias: 
Fine here.

It is stable.
No edit wars, etc.: 

It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales):  b (appropriate use with suitable captions): 
All images are proper till the review date and well captioned. ASHUIND 06:47, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Overall:
Pass/Fail: 

Keep up the good quality of Article. Don't let it delisted.
Regards.
ASHUIND 06:47, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

I have started removing unncessary details and shortening the plot section of the article, in an effort to make it more concise. Nonetheless, even though the plot was highly detailed, I found that it was very well-written. Therefore, for archival purposes, and because it might be useful for some people, I have included the longer plot summary below:

--Mondotta (talk) 16:21, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Recently, Darkness2005 made several edits to the article, without giving any edit summaries. I don't agree with many of the changes (such as removal of content from the lead and the infobox), and asked for his reasons on his talk page. --Mondotta (talk) 16:47, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

I have reverted most of the changes. --Mondotta (talk) 03:49, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Does anyone know who presently owns the rights to the game and if there are any plans to release it so it works properly on modern machines? Garth M (talk) 09:51, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

Sadly, no one knows. Among the parties who could possibly own the rights, no one seems to be able to find them. Unless they suddenly turn up somewhere, it might well be that No One Lives Forever will never be re-released. Until 2095 that is, when its copyright lapses–but not if there will have been further copyright term extensions by then, of course, which I would highly expect. Unfortunately, that's the state of the media industries these days: conglomerates, which are managed so sloppily that they don't even know what copyrights they own anymore, lobbying politics to further obliterate the public's rights from copyright legislation. 89.217.23.123 (talk) 14:49, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

Cancelled trademark application!:
http://pastebin.com/h4n75kkt  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.180.207.162 (talk) 15:53, 23 June 2016 (UTC) 

We already have a source that affirms they got the trademark on NOLF and its sequels, and we know they want to remaster this, just that copyrights are limited factor. --MASEM (t) 16:18, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

In 2017, both the original game and the sequel were made available with fan-made patches at the No One Lives Forever Revival Project.https://www.rockpapershotgun.com/2017/07/05/no-one-will-sell-no-one-lives-forever-so-lets-download-it/ The link is to a media report of this, not to a copyright violation site. Mere linking to a media discussion of a murky copyright situation is not against Wikipedia rules.Oathed (talk) 17:18, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

Its not a "murky" situation. We know from the work that Night Dive studios has done that the copyright is still owned by somebody, just that who truly owns it is not clear and of the three possible owners, the companies haven't bothered to make the effort to resolve it. But that means the copyright still exists, and as copyright can be enforced at any time we must presume it is fully valid, so per WP:ELNO linking to knowing copyright violations like that is disallowed. --Masem (t) 17:26, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

I think this article should title "No One Lives Forever: The Operative". This would be consistent with the title of the sequel and usually referred to as the "No One Lives Forever" and not "The Operative". MR.RockGamer17 (talk) 23:53, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

I am concerned that this article no longer meets the good article criteria. Some of my concerns are outlined below:

There are numerous uncited statements throughout the article, including entire paragraphs.
The Plot section is too long: the yellow banner indicating so has been at the top of the article since 2022.
Is anyone interested in addressing the above concerns, or should this go to WP:GAR? Z1720 (talk) 22:52, 3 January 2025 (UTC)


### The Operative: No One Lives Forever