Talk:Limbo (video game)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Featured article Limbo (video game) is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so.
Main Page trophy This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on May 13, 2012.
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject Denmark (Rated FA-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Denmark, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Denmark on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Featured article FA  This article has been rated as FA-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Video games (Rated FA-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Video games, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of video games on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Featured article FA  This article has been rated as FA-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the Indie task force.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the Xbox task force.
 
WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors
WikiProject icon A version of this article was copyedited by SMasters, a member of the Guild of Copy Editors, on Sept 25, 2010. The Guild welcomes all editors with a good grasp of English and Wikipedia's policies and guidelines to help in the drive to improve articles. Visit our project page if you're interested in joining! If you have questions, please direct them to our talk page.
 

RE: Inception spoiler[edit]

Had I gone to an article on the film in question, an article related to the film in question, or about someone involved in the film in question and seen a spoiler, fair enough.

In this case, the spoiler for the film was in an article about a video game that has absolutely nothing to do with the film in any way, shape, or form. The only reason it's there is because one editor (and the reviewer his source links to) believes that the game's plot and the movie's plot have some resonance or inspired each other, despite that being technically impossible.

If I wander into the article on the Sixth Sense and find out Bruce Willis is a ghost, I have no reason to be pissed off. If I'm reading an article about door knobs and the article mentions how a door knob was used to foreshadow the fact that Bruce Willis is a ghost in the Sixth Sense... that's just a WP:DICK move. Some common sense, please.

I'm not the only editor that has removed this because of the clearly nonsensical spoiler for an unrelated film. The editor who loves to spoil this film has reverted it several times. I've removed it one more time with an edit summary that points to this discussion. If the editor reverts it again, I won't revert it, but I should think that an independent admin should apply WP:3RV and make a decision on whether it's appropriate to spoil a film for people who aren't reading anything related to the film on the Wikipedia. harrysaxon (talk) 06:13, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Exactly what is being spoiled by this text here? ...and has been suggested to be similar to the movie Inception, released just before Limbo's debut, where the ending begs the viewer to come up with their own conclusion of what they have seen. I haven't seen the movie, but knowing the pre-release information about it, I can tell that it is going to be a confusing story. Furthermore, it is a third-party source that is making the comparison; it is not be introduced in an OR manner, thus completely appropriate.
I can appreciate the idea that if we fully explain out the ending of a completely unrelated movie here, then likely that's an issue, but a vague hand-wave at a film that screams to have multiples levels simply by pre-release and the director himself is not a surprise is nowhere near the same level of detail, and certainly not the type of thing to worry about. --MASEM (t) 13:29, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
If the comparison has been sourced to a reliable publication, then it should not be removed. Removing information from articles on the bases that it is a "spoiler" is not permitted. Besides, the overwhelming majority of plot details can't be verified as being spoilers anyways. —Farix (t | c) 14:07, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
I'm for removing the information, not on the grounds that it's a spoiler, but on the grounds that it's an arbitrary comparison. Of 'all' the films with vague endings, why pick Inception? Why don't we also say. "Like Memento, the game features a male main character overcoming obstacles, and like Casablanca, the game is in black and white." These all seem to carry as much weight as the Inception line. --Goodbye Galaxy (talk) 13:47, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
Because the source that made the comparison, Ars Technica, used Inception, which was out in theaters when Limbo came out. Yes, they clearly could have used any other film with interpretative endings like Memento or Blade Runner, or whatever, but the timing is very likely why they discussed the connection between those two. Since making this connection is original research, we have to go with what the sources provide, and that's the Inception connection. --MASEM (t) 13:49, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
I guess my point is that it's not a notable comparison. For sake of argument, let's assume the paper had made the other arbitrary comparisons that I made. We certainly wouldn't include those, right? I think we should keep the fact that Ars Technica thinks the ending is open-ended and left to the viewer to come up with their own interpretations, but remove all reference to Inception. --Goodbye Galaxy (talk) 15:52, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
Actually I would include them if the source made such connections. (We can't claim connection without a source ourselves, that's clearly WP:OR). It shows it is an element not limited to video games and provides an example of how this artistic element has been used elsewhere. --MASEM (t) 15:58, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
You keep mentioning original research, when that's not the issue here, even slightly. It's not Wikipedia policy to include EVERY piece of information provided by sources. We have to edit the information that sources provide down to what's notable. Judgment calls are necessary. --Goodbye Galaxy (talk) 15:49, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
No, but at the same time, any connection of video games to more mainstream media in a positive light is a good thing to include. We could simply say "Limbo has an ending that is open for interpretation", but the question this begs is - is this common? have other works done this? Pointing out one example seems completely in line, particularly when it is for a critically acclaimed movie like Inception. Now, if the source didn't mention Inception, and simply left it at that line, we ourselves could not inject examples into this; that would be OR (and why it comes up). --MASEM (t) 15:56, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
Seriously, why are you so obsessed with having this reference in the article? So Ars Technica compared the game to the movie. BFD. Ars Technica is hardly fricking Francois Truffaut in the realm of film criticism. It's a totally arbitrary comparison, and no matter how you feel about how "spoilery" it is, there's no need whatsoever to give anything even remotely spoilery about an unrelated movie in an article about a video game. This is a pet reference of yours that you clearly intend to force down other people's throats, no matter how many disagree with you. Exactly how many editors are supporting your crusade to include a reference to the ending of a movie in an article about a video game? Where are your supporters insisting it should be kept? So far, I see one person in support of keeping the reference, two on this talk page who are against, and others who are clearly against it by past reverts. You do know what "consensus" means, right? harrysaxon (talk) 07:56, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
The point of the statement is that the game has been compared to (at least) one open-ended movie. Rarely are video games put on the same self as critical creative works like books and films (the field is generally compared only within itself), and when such comparisons are made by a secondary source, they should be taken.
That said, it seems the critical problem here is the mention of Inception, regardless if the information is a spoiler or not (WP:SPOILER suggests there's no issue and that inclusion is favored, but let's presently ignore that for now). I've been able to find a few other sources to generalize the statement that it no longer needs to mention Inception, just open-ended works w/o example. It keeps the core argument without tripping any spoiler problems. --MASEM (t) 15:10, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Removed unreferenced claim about price[edit]

In the header was a line reading "Limbo's high price for short length was universally flagged by reviewers as a deterrent for potential players."

Blatant opinion trying to blanket everyone into agreeing with them by saying 'universally'.

This is specially sourced in the reception section, and covered in fact by a whole article from Gamasutra. --MASEM (t) 12:39, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Reception section is way too long.[edit]

It's basically half the article. I'd suggest paring down a LOT of the information, and possibly splitting the section up into Reception, Sales, and Awards. --Goodbye Galaxy (talk) 17:56, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Well, there's only one para for sales and awards, so the split there is unnecessary.
As for the rest - this game had a lot of discussion about it more than most other games ever get. There are three main points hit: price/length, art, and story, and it's necessary to spell out these to understand the praise it got. --MASEM (t) 18:13, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

GA Review[edit]

This review is transcluded from Talk:Limbo (video game)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: J Milburn (talk) 15:00, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Just completed the game, and I'd love to review the article. Just staking my claim; I will do the actual review this evening. :) J Milburn (talk) 15:00, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria


Well, I absolutely adored the game, so doing this little review can be my way of saying thanks.

  1. Is it reasonably well written?
    A. Prose quality:
    See list below.
    B. MoS compliance:
  2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
    A. References to sources:
    B. Citation of 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 copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:
    The images are both legit, but I am pondering. Have you tried contacting Playdead to request the release of images? If not, I'd quite like to give it a bash- my experiences have shown me (though I've never tried with videogames) that these smaller companies may be willing to release promotional material under a free license.
    B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
  7. Overall:
    Pass or Fail:


  • Seeing as this was developed in Europe, would British English not be best?
    • If so, dates should be [Day] [Month] [Year]
    • "utilizing" > "utilising"
    • "grayscale" > "greyscale"
    • "three to six hours of gameplay for $15," - regardless of the Britain/America thing, other currencies would be good.
  • "independent Danish Playdead Studios, its premiere title," doesn't read that well. Could it be rephrased?
  • "physics", "player character" and other terms may not be that accessible to non-gamers- links, perhaps?
  • "who awakes in" awakens?
  • "Other interpretations"- a little repetative
  • "traps are not apparent until the player has actually triggered the trap" Repetition
  • "causing the boy to be killed" passive voice?
  • "these deaths" Again, a little repetative
  • "includes Achievements" Why the caps?
  • "deaths of the boy" That's an odd phrase
  • "From Limbo' inception" Typo?
  • "From Limbo' inception, the game was set by Patti to have a specific mood and art style as set by an early trailer made in 2006 for the game, to use only two additional controls, jumping and grabbing, outside of the normal movement controls, and to present no tutorial text to the player." That sentence could do with splitting
  • "chose to ignore outside advice" Who was this advice from?
  • "their vision according to Patti" their vision according to Patti, or their vision, according to Patti?
  • "freelancers at various stages of development." repetition
  • "deaths entertaining to" Is "entertaining" really the right word?
  • "within the final game" repetition (and shortly after that- "the game the game the game")
  • "response of Limbo's short" to its short length, surely?
  • "to quantity the length of a game" Can quantity be used as a verb?
  • "that seems only applied to video games" seems to be?
  • "film noir" is sometime italicised, sometimes not
  • "or by showing human figures across a chasm that, once crossed, have disappeared." A little clumsy
  • "Through these elements, Limbo is said to combine to two disparate genres, horror fiction and platform games, that has otherwise not been tried before." Rephrase?
  • "been consider an art game" considered?
  • "the player comes into contact with" > "with whom the player comes into contact"

It'd be great to get this to GA and hopefully FA beyond. I have some more thoughts on what would need to be done to prepare this for FA once you have finished with this, and would love to help out. J Milburn (talk) 18:25, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Most of the prose elements noted above fixed. I've converted the article to UK dating/spelling per that suggestion. Of all the prose things I do note that "entertaining" is the word used with the deaths, I've quoted and cited the speaker to make it clear we (WP) is not introducing this aspect to it. As for images, at least for VG, it is generally difficult to get publishers (who usually control release of such material after the fact) to release such into free content (this would be true of the game's "cover"). Mind you, as one is a pre-release image, there's a chance since this may not be in MS's control. I can try to contact them about freeing up the images, but I would not expect this to happen any time soon (nor do I necessarily see it as an impediment to GA or even FA - the image is still appropriate and necessary to include in the article, getting it free would be a bonus). --MASEM (t) 19:02, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
No, I completely agree that the fact the images are being used under the NFCC shouldn't stop this being promoted. I wasn't aware that the copyright would probably belong to the distributor- surely the game itself (and so, for instance, screenshots) would still belong to Playdead? In any case, I am happy to promote this to GA status now. Things I would look into for taking this to FA are-
  • The lead could do with an expansion.
  • The rather long reception section could perhaps be split up a little, if possible. Perhaps, for instance, more on the reaction to/interpretations of the plot could be moved to the plot section.
  • Copyediting generally would be a good thing.
  • Ordering the inline citations so they are in numerical order would be helpful.
  • The reliability of some sources could be called into question later- I'm happy with them for now.
  • The very short paragraph about achievements could do with expansion/merging somewhere.
  • Questions about the rating may come up- do we have any sources that discuss why it was given such a high rating?
  • Writing an article about Playdead would be a nice touch.
  • Are some of the categories not redundant?
  • There seems something slightly odd about the last paragraph beginning with "prior to its release"
If you do take this to FAC, please do let me know and I'll come and offer another review. In the mean time, I'm gonna drop Playdead an email and see if they're willing/able to release anything. J Milburn (talk) 19:27, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Can some reference of Limbo be made to Lotte Reiniger?[edit]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lotte_Reiniger

Limbo actually reminds me more of Lotte's films than "Film Noir". Just watch a few of them and you'll agree.

Here's Lotte's "Hansel and Gretel"

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KxkIGXVwZTM

I'm positive the maker of "Limbo" must've seen these films! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.230.160.228 (talk) 12:43, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Appears to be German expressionism, which as been stated as an influence and clearly reminded several reviews of that style. That specific director doesn't seem to be connected, but more the entire genre of expressionism. --MASEM (t) 12:49, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
Actually, my bad. Different thing on a second read. Fortunately I found a german Cnet article that makes the connection. Will add to the reception. --MASEM (t) 13:20, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for adding Lotte. I'm quite familiar with the other references, and I doubt Tim Burton really was of any influence. I'm not trying to debate it, I just think
"Limbo" is really pure Lotte. I never saw Tim Burton make a silhouette film. Everything in Lotte's films were done in Limbo, including the faded backgrounds. Just
watch "Hansel and Gretel" and you'll see: It's total Limbo!
I would suspect - but can't prove of course - that the mostly-EU developer will likely be more influenced by the German artist than the American one, but unfortunately the connection is just not there. I am surprised that no American reviewer made that connection since as soon as I youtube'd some of the videos it was clearly comparable. If you can find more reliable sources with translations, that would help, though I don't think we need to really add more. --MASEM (t) 02:47, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

note for myself mostly[edit]

I would like to try to include these point [1] but I need to verify the validity of the facebook account and see how they best fit in. --MASEM (t) 23:07, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Copyedit[edit]

Greetings from the Guild of Copy Editors. I have started a full copyedit of this article, and am up to "Reception", however, I have to stop now, and will continue tomorrow. Cheers. - S Masters (talk) 09:59, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

  • Full copyedit has been completed. - S Masters (talk) 05:34, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Comments:

  • " Others consider if both or either the boy and his sister are dead, the implications of change in setting as the boy travels through the game, and the similarities and differences between the final screen of the game and the main menu." - This sentence appears to be incomplete. In its current state, it does not make sense. - S Masters (talk) 05:34, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
    • I've tried to resolve the sentence using a bit more explicit punctuation. --MASEM (t) 16:50, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

I tried to copyedit a bit as well by removing some obsolete commas and adding one, removing some obsolete words and reformulating some in more plain language. Hekerui (talk) 13:37, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

plagiarism[edit]

should something about this be added i.e http://www.crunchgear.com/2008/06/12/coincidence-video-game-caught-stealing-content-from-oblivion-other-popular-games/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.212.222.13 (talk) 09:58, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Different game: Limbo_of_the_Lost#Plagiarism. Jujutacular talk 10:19, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Duh[edit]

Quote from the article:

"The decision to provide little information to the player was an initial challenge in creating the game. Early playtesters would have no idea of how to solve certain puzzles. To improve this, they created scenarios before troublesome spots that highlighted the appropriate actions; for example, when they found players did not think about pulling a boat onto shore to use as a platform to reach a higher ledge, they presented the player with a box-pulling puzzle earlier to demonstrate the pulling mechanics."

This is utterly pointless. Providing little information is what almost all oldschool games do, most of them being about discovering and then mastering the rules. Of course playtesters will have no idea how to solve certain puzzles. The point of testing is to evaluate this. And the device of presenting game mechanics earlier in a simpler or more obvious setting is as old as, at least, Zelda, to pick the most obvious example. This is all like saying Picasso used paint to make paintings. I am going to delete this. Palpalpalpal (talk) 22:42, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Most oldschool games were poorly designed without any proper testing. That is not an indication of how today's games are designed. The audience has also shifted their expectations. Teaching game mechanics is old, but too many modern games fail even at that. I agree the passage is a little too long, but it certainly contains some notable info. How about:
"Puzzle design proved challenging, as little information about the puzzles held back the playtesters who could not solve certain puzzles. This was solved by introducing the player to the necessary game mechanics prior to the puzzle."
—  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 22:57, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Old Zelda games were not poorly designed, and are not ignored by today's game designers. Don't modern Zelda games use the same principles? The latest I played was Windwaker, and it surely does. I don't know about "proper" testing, as I don't believe the quality of game or level design has improved, nor the cost of testing gone down (since the 16-bit era). If the point is that Limbo's designers put the easy puzzles as an afterthought, I suggest this:

"Early playtesting revealed that puzzles were too obscure, which lead designers to add small simple puzzles designed to teach the game mechanics to the player before he needs them (a feature common in puzzle-solving games). For example, when they found players did not think about pulling a boat onto shore to use as a platform to reach a higher ledge, they presented the player with a box-pulling puzzle earlier to demonstrate the pulling mechanics."

Still, I believe this is what ordinary happens after testing, provided testing is performed soon enough. These considerations are relevant to an article on game design in general, not to any specific game (unless the game pioneered or revolutionized the method). It's a bit like saying the testers complained that the music was too loud, so the volume was turned down. Palpalpalpal (talk) 09:54, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Most games do take a different approach. In earlier games, you had a hefty instruction manual so there were no in-game instructions, expecting you to have read that booklet from cover to cover before you got to the controller. With the death of the instruction manual, nearly every modern game's first 10 minutes are strictly tutorial - controls, your HUD, etc. Valve's a bit more abstract but even does similar approaches with Portal 2. Limbo's approach was purposefully different: they didn't want any tutorial-style messages or explaination for how the game worked. But when they saw that players, for example, didn't get the boat puzzle because they had no idea that you could pull things (something non-obvious in a normal platformer), they had to add a box pulling puzzle to the start. That is rather unique and non-standard. --MASEM (t) 13:06, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

PC version[edit]

Masem, you have done an excellent job keeping this article updated. Kudos! I came here wondering if any sources have mentioned that there are any differences between the PC version and the console version. --Laser brain (talk) 15:09, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

I think the only diff (outside of, of course, higher res/etc.) is one additional easter egg, mentioned in the dev section about the ports. --MASEM (t) 15:11, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
It's strangely addicting. I turn the lights off and play it for hours at a clip. That is, when I drag myself away from Battlefield 3 and Civ 5. --Laser brain (talk) 15:13, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

BBFC[edit]

Are you sure it's 12 from BBFC? 86.146.192.201 (talk) 18:20, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Edge - The Making of: Limbo[edit]

Issue 245 (October 2012) of Edge contains a Making Of article on Limbo. The development section is pretty comprehensive already, but there are some new things you might find interesting. If you're too cheap to buy the magazine, you can email me for a scan. - hahnchen 01:09, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

This article is now online at http://www.edge-online.com/features/the-making-of-limbo/ - hahnchen 02:15, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

Monochromatic[edit]

"Monochromatic black and white" is a tautology. In plain language, you're using a qualifying adjective that that doesn't add any qualification. No, "monochromatic" does not mean the same thing as "black and white", but "black and white" is a kind of monochrome. There's no such thing as as a black and white image that is not monochrome, so that extra adjective makes the sentence more complicated. It's a very simple style issue. --Isaac Rabinovitch (talk) 19:05, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

I can see where the confusion is coming from, but you are incorrect. In art and design (of which game art is a discipline), "monochromatic" refers to art not just in black and white but also grey tones (sometimes called greyscale). This is also known sometimes as grisaille. You can go there and see the examples for yourself. The game Limbo is not in only black and white, it is monochromatic black and white tones, as written. Maybe "monochromatic" could be linked to Grisaille instead, but it is accurate. I can provide citations to art and design references about this topic if you don't want to take my word for it. --Laser brain (talk) 19:19, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
In that case "monochromatic black-and-white" is still wrong. Only instead of being a tautology it's a contradiction. What about "shades of gray"? --Isaac Rabinovitch (talk) 20:35, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
Maybe "monochromatic and black-and-white tones"? Ugh, I don't know. --Laser brain (talk) 19:21, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
Idea: "Rendered using a near-monochromatic palette, similar to grisaille.". --Isaac Rabinovitch (talk) 20:43, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
Works for me. Would like to hear from Masem. --Laser brain (talk) 21:15, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
"Monochromatic black-and-white tones" is not a contradiction. Shades of grey are tones of black and white. It is monochromatic, and it is specifically monochromatic in tones of black and white. Limbo is not "near-monochromatic", it is monochromatic. Jujutacular (talk) 22:46, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
I'm willing to go with whatever terminology you guys feel is appropriate, as long as it's neither contradictory or tautological. If we accept Jujutacula's definition of "monochromatic" then "monochromatic black and white" is not contradictory but it is tautological, just like "grayscale black and white". Can we just say "shades of gray"? It has the advantage of being simple and clear. --Isaac Rabinovitch (talk) 02:15, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
I agree it is tautological. It's like saying "a rectangular square", since "black-and-white tones" is a specific form of monochrome. I would be fine with simply removing "monochromatic" as you originally did. However, I don't think the current wording is all that bad. Just saying "shades of grey" would be slightly off -- this would make me think that they never reach true black or true white, which is incorrect. Jujutacular (talk) 04:10, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
I don't understand why you don't mind a tautology in this instance, but since we have an agreement of sorts, I won't insist on an explanation. Is Laser_brain satisfied with this discussion? --Isaac Rabinovitch (talk) 21:47, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
No, I'm not, because you seemed like you were willing to work with the wording, but then you went back to edit warring your original version. Simply removing "monochromatic" makes the statement incorrect and imprecise. I wish you would get consensus here before making the change. --Laser brain (talk) 02:25, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
Getting a little tired of these accusations. I didn't hear from you, I took that as tacit consent. That's what I said in my edit comment. WP:AGF --Isaac Rabinovitch (talk) 17:31, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
We need more than just "black and white", which can include simply 1-bit black and white all the way through monochoromatic. Since it uses a range of tones between black and white, we need the monochromatic term (which I will note is also often associated with the game too). It is not a tautology as stated. "Monochromatic greyscale" would be but that's not what is being said. --MASEM (t) 01:33, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
^Isaac: This explanation is why I'm okay with the wording as is. The vagueness of these terms leads to it being more complicated than just saying it is tautology. Jujutacular (talk) 01:40, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
I have a bunch of problems with both of your statements, but this argument is already too convoluted. How about "monochromatic tones"? It seems to me that it answers all your objections. OED entry for Monochromatic: "Having or producing one colour... Also: of different shades of grey; black and white." Isaac Rabinovitch (talk) 03:28, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
That might be part of the dictionary definition but its not the primary meaning and without mentioning "black and white' may be mistaken. (Yes, we have images here too , but we have to assume the reader may not see them to understand what "monochromatic black-and-white" is. --MASEM (t) 04:48, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
From what I understand from the article on Monochrome: "Monochrome describes paintings, drawings, design, or photographs in one color or shades of one color". Since Limbo is presented in a range of black-and-white, isn't that an accurate way to describe it? Black and white tones alone suggest, well, just black and white. --Soetermans. T / C 10:43, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
Now that I understand what's meant by "Monochromatic" it does seem clearer than "black and white". Still haven't heard a good defense of "monochromatic black and white". As opposed to "polychrome black and white"? --Isaac Rabinovitch (talk) 17:31, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
I take it back. I just remembered my youth, when I spent too much time staring at a Black-and-white TV.