Jump to content

Talk:Portal (video game)/Archive 5

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1←Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5Archive 6

Physics of Portal

i was disappointed that there was no mention of how portals would theoretically work or if their even possible. For example, by creating an endless fall (one portal directly over another) you violate conservation of mass and energy. the energy it takes to lift something is the kinetic energy of when the object falls, but with portals it takes no energy to lift something to a point of higher gravitational potential. also on the "aperture science" website it says that portals are "some sort of ad hoc quantum tunnel through space time". if you are connecting two arbitrary points through a tunnel in space of nominal length then space itself must be bent in such a manor as to connect those points. since space is bent by mass (or energy) the ashpd must have an incredible energy source. if we be having any physicists in the house please speak up and justify the portal gun so we can keep our dreams of easy commutes alive.

"the ashpd must have an incredible energy source" -- we've had singularities in hl2, nuclear fish in fallout 3... they're games, they don't need to adhere to common physics, even in the game it states portals are not affected by physics. If it were not for the scientific theme it'd just be more magic. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.105.8.88 (talk) 20:58, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
It's not here because it's original research.  Xihr  07:56, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
well can we at least link to wormholes somewhere as a portal is essentially a wormhole. for example when talking about the properties of portals in the game (under game play "distinct portal ends, orange and blue. Neither is specifically an entrance or exit; all objects that travel through the one portal will exit through the other.") can we say some thing like "portals behave similar to wormholes" and then link wormholes. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.250.26.194 (talk) 01:32, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
That's not necessarily the method in which they work. It could also work via means of quantum teleportation via quantum entanglement. Most of Half-Life's teleportation is based on theories about quantum teleportation. Check the wikipedia article on it. - Neveos —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.142.130.33 (talk) 06:10, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
It's based on our everyday's understanding of portals "enters here - exits there" not quantum mechanics, because it's developed for people with everyday's understanding of physics. Portal is not a scientific experiment, it's a game about one. In code it's as simple as changing two variables - position and momentum (a bit more perhaps but still far from any theory about teleportation). Though i agree that this same fact (not resembling real physics) should be mentioned in the article. --78.130.136.38 (talk) 21:29, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

I vote that we not discuss this in the talk page or mention this in the article. I have seen many talks on Portal physics (such as this one) drag on and on about the Second Law of Thermodynamics, a mysterious "Portal Force", bending gravity, infinitely thin cutting tools, frames of reference, the speed of light, infinitely falling magnets in a solenoid, and many other things. The science behind it all is never mentioned, and thus Wikipedia should also not mention it. If you would like to discuss the physics of Portal, you should probably take it to another website. --Theusernameiwantedisalreadyinuse (talk) 22:33, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Rat Man as Character

This was excised from the article pending some consensus:

A third character is neither named nor shown in the game, but is referred to as the Rat Man by developers and the player community. He is responsible for the scrawled rantings and litter of canned beans and water found hideouts through the chinks of the facility test chambers. In the later game the player comes across pictogram hints that resemble the facility icons, but cruder and smeared in a red substance; these are also attributed to the Rat Man.

According to the the definition of character, the Rat Man is more clearly a character than Chell is. The Rat Man does communicate, exhibits a personality and drives the narrative. Developer comments reveal that the Rat Man is a character whose intended role was enhanced by reducing his exposure even to the point of removing face to face contact with him.

Chell on the other hand, could be more accurately called a player avatar. She simply has an appearance that distinguishes her from the environment and identifies her as having anthropomorphic capabilities. Like Gordon Freeman, she says nothing, permitting any player to assume that her words would echo their own, but unlike Gordon Freeman, no other character responds in any way that suggests she has spoken or reacted in character. She has no distinct expression, makes no choices and performs no actions that alter the narrative. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.81.77.13 (talk) 15:02, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

The problem is that in the game that is presented to the player, there is no mention of the Rat Man (it was later determined to be named that from developer interviews). So we cannot attribute the writings to this name. Secondly, there is no mention in-game or from developers that all the messages and what is left behind are from the same character; it could have been the result of multiple previous test subjects over the years. Thus, it is impossible state that there is just one character behind these works. We do mention the Rat Man character as part of the development and that was dropped, but because there is no evidence in-game for the character, we have to leave the writings on the wall attributed to a nameless benefactor. --MASEM 15:17, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
Looking at the consistency of the scrawling style and content, it could not be assumed to be more than one person (unless that one person were replicated over multiple testing iterations, but that's spec for another thread.) Also, the developers intended it to be one character from the beginning, presented it as a single character, and referred to it as a single character long after scrapping any appearance of an 3D representation of him. The Rat Man is more of a character than Godot, and Chell is far less of a character. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.81.77.13 (talk) 15:48, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
But Godot is at least mentioned by name, and from inference of the other characters in the play, some aspect of his character is revealed. Here, in the context of the game only there is no name for whomever left the writings on the wall, despite that developers called this character Rat Man in later interviews. And to presume that it is one person based on the handwriting is original research. All we can say is that these writings exists, and that developers stated that the Rat Man was to be a character to have left them, but to connect those points is too much original research. --MASEM 15:54, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
A name isn't a requirement for a character, if that were the case it would further define Chell as 'non-character', since her name is only ever given by developer statements. And OR isn't required for evidence supported by all previously acquired research -- the recorded statements show that it was intended to be one character and the signs exhibited reflect that.
Someone had suggested debating this as 'character as graffiti' but this doesn't seem to apply. In System Shock practically every character was revealed through recordings and remnants. If you believe that there must be a line drawn at some point, then that line would be wholly subjective, because the definition of character doesn't draw such a line. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.81.77.13 (talk) 16:04, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
Describing as a "character" the nameless existence of occasional graffiti with which the player has no interaction with, no dialogue, and no physical presence, is tenuous at best. Whilst from a purely literary point of view, I suppose this may qualify as a character, from a gameplay point-of-view, this label really is a misnomer. Oli Filth(talk|contribs) 19:11, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
Changing the medium doesn't change the definition, especially when speaking of an interactive medium; character may be integral to plot but only incidental to gameplay supported by plot. The gameplay purpose of leaving directional cues could've been fulfilled by level layout or lighting, GLaDOS's clues, or even scripted happenstance. Don't confuse this with the plot purpose, which was to reinforce indications of GLaDOS danger and to show a possibility that she could be circumvented.
And namelessness is no disqualification for a character; the name of a relevant character may be irrelevant to the story. Chell is one example and GLaDOS herself could easily be another; playing through without seeing the slideshow or glimpsing the metal paneling in her upper construct would have no story impact. 97.81.77.13 (talk) 20:47, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
Hold on, does 'get consensus' mean 'get stonewalled with half-considered dismissive rebuttal'? I don't see why my revision rates this disrespect. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.81.77.13 (talk) 15:22, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
  • The achievement in Portal:Still Alive "Rat's Tale: Find all the Rat Man dens." should lend credence to including rat man as a character. –xeno (talk) 21:09, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
    • I disagree that he should be mentioned as a character - but I do agree that at least substantiates a mention in the main plot as whom left the writings. --MASEM 21:14, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

"Windows via Steam"

The infobox says that one of the platforms Portal is available on is "Windows via Steam". To me that sounds like one must have Steam in order to play the game. Is that true? I'm not very familiar with Steam - I also thought it was a place to buy and download games from. I have seen Portal at Walmart, so that's why I'm confused by this. --Eruhildo (talk) 03:42, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes you must install and run Portal Via Steam. The retail copies simply contain Game Cache Files (Compressed Game Data used by Steam.), and a Serial Key so you can register your copy on steam. Portal's achievements are tied to the Steam Community too. --FrostedBitesCereal (talk) 06:09, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
I see - suspected as much. Thanks for that, it clears up a lot for me. --Eruhildo (talk) 04:16, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Seriously...

I just edited a passage which contained the following sentence: These objects ("Aperture Science Weighted Storage Cubes" or the "Weighted Companion Cube") can be used to hold down large buttons to open doors or activate moving platforms (these platforms being called "Aperture Science Unstationary Scaffolds"), but barriers (known as "Aperture Science Material Emancipation Grids" or "fizzlers," as described by the developer commentary) at the end of each test chamber or within certain test chambers prevent the player character from carrying such objects beyond them (due to them emancipating them when attempting to take the objects through them). This was a single sentence, yes. I suspect we end up with language like this due to 48 successive people editing a bit of the sentence without looking at the whole. So here's my tip: when you edit a paragraph, try reading it aloud, and if your face turns blue at some point there is probably something wrong with a sentence... Mezigue (talk) 22:04, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

36 years prior

In the James H. Schmitz short story "The Lion Game", Telzey Amberdon gets trapped in a series of rooms and other spaces connected via portals. The portals may be visible or camoflaged as parts of walls, floors and other surfaces. It bears many similarities to the game Portal, predating this game by 36 years. Such portals are used (as an ordinary means of transport) in several other stories set in the author's "Federation of the Hub" series of short stories. The four anthologies of these stories are free to download from http://baencd.thefifthimperium.com/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bizzybody (talk • contribs) 03:48, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

It's a Black Forest cake because Kim Swift says so, if you're a chef and of another opinion, discuss it please.

I noticed an edit by 69.95.83.226 changing Black Forest cake to German Chocolate cake. Now that I'm not a chef, but that GameTrailers episode 106, reference #35, sits there for a reason. The proof in question is at 7:10. 79.165.91.41 (talk) 19:21, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Aus Rating

What is the officail game rating in australia? Instores, the packaging says it is MA 15+ Ristricted, but other sources say it is only M. There is no real reason why it should be MA 15+ anyway. 61.68.129.51 (talk) 00:53, 30 September 2008 (UTC) MiC

Non-violent

I have just undone the incorrect removal of the categorization of this game as a non-violent FPS. While it is true that there is blood and even a health-bar, I disagree that it is a violent game. Portal comes as a spiritual successor to the non-violent puzzle game, Narbacular Drop. Puzzle games of this sort are almost universally considered non-violent despite the fact that falling from heights may hurt the player or hazards may cause the player to bleed. The presence of blood is not what defines a game as violent. To quote from the link provided, "Violence is the exertion of force so as to injure or abuse." Non-violent games are games where the player does not exert force so as to injure or abuse. By this definition as well as the majority of other classificatory schemes, Portal is not violent. Even when the player is injured by the environment, he regains health immediately. For this reason I have restored the categorization.
Here are some reliable references to support my argument that the game is non-violent: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6. I would include them in the article, but categorization does not require referencing.
If this categorization is disputed, let's work it out in talk first. -Thibbs (talk) 18:27, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Just because the playable character is non violent does not mean this is not a violent video game: the player can be shot to death, blown up by rocket-propelled grenades and be dropped into molten hot magma. That's pretty violent, in my opinion. Not something I'd want my young children playing, in any case. Another issue I didn't bother bringing up earlier is this particular category was deleted in a CFD not too long ago: was there a DRV before it was re-created? –xeno (talk) 18:34, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
As I said before, just because a game's environment can cause a player damage doesn't mean that it's considered a violent game. I have provided 6 reliable sources that corroborate my categorization. Do you have any sources to back up your interpretation? Remember, despite an editor's personal beliefs "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth." -Thibbs (talk) 20:01, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
That would be a different category, "Category:Video games whose main character is non-violent". As it stands this category is too vague anyway (paintball is violent imo, it can injure - ever played? huge welts!), I've half a mind to delete it as G4 (though wouldn't because I'm now "involved") or send it to CFD again. In any case, the lead-in of this article does not describe it as a first person "shooter" so the category doesn't fit here in that regard either. –xeno (talk) 20:04, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
Unless you can back up your edit it was improper to make. I don't dispute that it would fit under [[Category:Video games whose main character is non-violent]], however that is beside the point. The six sources I have provided all indicate that this is a non-violent FPS (RSes exist for all of those paintball games as well). I see no sources reliable or otherwise to indicate that this is a violent game. The VG infobox lists it as a FPS under "Genre." There is no requirement that categorization must be supported by reference in the lede. Do you have any more convincing arguments? -Thibbs (talk) 20:17, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
"For most of the game GLaDOS appears to be an emotionless computer voice ... her true nature comes out as incredibly violent ..." The genre says first-person, not first-person shooter... –xeno (talk) 20:22, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
The source you have provided discusses the personality of a character in the game and does not characterize the gameplay at all. Non-violent video games may contain violent characters. Remember Sirrus and Achenar from Myst? The fact that the words "first person" are linked to "first person shooter" greatly undermines your statement, and regardless there is no requirement that categorization must be supported by reference in the lede. I'm trying to assume good faith here, but these appear to be nothing more than straw man arguments. -Thibbs (talk) 20:30, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
I just don't think that a video game wherein you can be shot at and killed can be classified as non-violent. Not so sure about the reliability of your sources either. Anyways, CFD'ing the category since it never had a DRV. See Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2008_October_6#Category:Non-violent_first-person_shooters. It's also tough to find sources to counter your argument because it's a self-evident statement. –xeno (talk) 20:33, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
ESRB ? –xeno (talk) 20:46, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Portal Electronic Arts Teen Blood, Mild Violence Windows PC, Xbox 360, PlayStation 3

CFDing it despite the admitted conflict of interest? Hmm... Are you sure that's wise? Well I'll go ahead and weigh in there I guess since this discussion is going nowhere. In the meanwhile, unless you have any better arguments than that my RSes aren't reliable enough, would it be acceptable to you to reintroduce the category in question to this article? -Thibbs (talk) 20:47, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
Nominating something for a discussion is not a COI, nor is it a misuse of admin tools (none are used). if I were to delete it outright, then yes. Thanks for your concern, though. Feel free to re-introduce the category, I only removed it the one time (but you're 2 to 1 on this and keep 3RR in mind). Comments on the ESRB's stance on this? –xeno (talk) 20:49, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
My apologies. Last I knew CFD stood for "Categories for Deletion." They appear to have changed its name since 2006. Regardless, there is a strong appearance of COI due to the fact that the discussion at CFD is just shy of an explicit call for deletion and you are distinctly "involved" by this point. Anyway I realize I'm currently 2 to 1 here, but I'm sure you're aware that Wikipedia is not a democracy. Your ESRB source does seem to mildly support your view. Any thoughts on the sources I provided? If you are interested I could provide more. -Thibbs (talk) 21:06, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
For the record I am not acting here in the capacity of an admin, these are just my opinions. This is why I've called for wider discussion - and I don't necessarily think the category needs to be deleted (though it does meet G4) - just appropriately refined. Commented regarding the same at the CFD. –xeno (talk) 02:06, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
Comment: I have not played this game myself, as I'm essentially only interested in games from the 90's and modern freeware ones that resemble them. In fact, I didn't even register the screenshot as a screenshot at first; I did not realize that modern game graphics had gotten that detailed. Anyway: I agree that just because the main character is nonviolent, doesn't mean that the game itself is nonviolent. There are a whole lot of games out there where you play the role of a helpless babe-in-the-woods type of character with no weapons and no way of defending yourself, but yet you have to navigate through an environment filled with tons and tons of enemies and death traps. Some of these games are essentially for masochists who like the idea of playing a game so impossible that just getting through a few screens alive is enough to give that person something to brag about to hundreds of other gamers who couldnt even make it that far. Other times, though, it's just the way the game sets itself up, and isnt meant to be particularly frustrating. e.g. every modern HP computer comes with a game called Crystal where you play the part of a girl who is constantly on the run from centurions with swords and stuff, just trying to mind your own business before they stab you. It's not a particularly challenging game, and when you do get hit the 'death sequence' is humorous rather than gory, so that it could be acceptable to a broad age range of computer players, but I personally (and this is just my opinion) wouldnt call it non-violent because it does have violence. I could see a valid argument for it being considered nonviolent on the basis that when you play it, you are going to identify yourself with the girl and not the centurions, and no one's going to play it just to see the girl get stabbed (as that would get boring extremely quickly). But still, it's not nonviolent in the strictest sense, not the sense that children's games like Chex Quest and my favorite HURL are. Maybe the analogy I made up on the other page would work: assuming you had all the necessary materials, is this something that you could do in real life without hurting anyone (including yourself)? In other words, if you were one of those stereotypical gamers who plays a game and then tries to emulate it in real life, would you be able to do it safely? If a game involves avoiding death traps I would put it in the "dangerous sports" category with things like hang gliding. Thus, it would not be safe for a hypothetical dumb kid who wants to live out every video game in real life.

Sorry for the long ramble-stream. I think all we need to do is agree on this one question: "Is a game where you can get hurt, but you can't hurt anyone else best classified as violent or nonviolent?Soap Talk/Contributions 22:51, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
  • The category could serve a purpose, I just don't think that it applies to this particular game. I renominated the category because it was recreated with DRV, so it's merits needed to be discussed. The original deletion seemed to be more of a default position, especially since it wasn't defended. @Thibbs, as far as your sources, I don't think it goes far enough to put this game into a category as broad as the one that you're putting it in. As I said above, I'm not necessarily interested in having the category deleted, but it does need to be refined. Because a few reviewers call a game "non-violent" (in the sense that you are not performing violent acts) does not mean it is not a violent video game. This is the simplist interpretation of the category which you've placed this game into, which is why I removed it. The ESRB seems to think there is at least "mild violence" in this video game. –xeno (talk) 02:02, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
Well as long as we're all ranting...
I think that the definition of the category "non-violent video game" (FPS or anything else) can have broader or narrower applications. There is also an argument that there are different definitions of non-violence. I agree that some FPSes like the paintball games do seem a little violent considering they use guns and high-velocity ammunition, however it's also clear that it's a de-violenced version of real war. I have even heard the term non-violent used to describe games like Descent where you're only attacking non-sentient robots after all. This all seems to support the contention that there is too much ambiguity in the term to be useful, however that is an overly facile assessment. A number of game players are interested in non-violent games for reasons of religious-perspective, moral outlook, or other personal reasons. In the past there have been strong reactions to violence in video games such as Doom and Wolfenstein (as I'm sure we all realize) which has led to public outcry and from thence to the creation of non-violent games. Most recently there has been an upsurge in the fundamentalist Christian population and this has similarly prompted game developers to market for these people. I think the category is useful and I would suggest that it requires a main article to accompany it. The main article would be the place to reference the characterization of individual FPSes as non-violent FPS. I think the category was improperly deleted before, and there is improper bias against it from a number of directions (I accept your claim that you are not acting administratively, xeno, and I appreciate that). Most recently it has been tagged for speedy deletion in reaction to the CFD.
Anyway, I believe that as long as something can be cited with reliable sources then it is a valid viewpoint and should be included on Wikipedia despite the personal qualms of individual editors. This is, after all, one of the cornerstones of Wikipedia. No editor owns wikipedia, and wikipedia is not supposed to selectively filter viewpoints that exist. In all probability I imagine the category will soon be deleted thanks in great part to xeno's quick action, however I disagree fundamentally with the whole procedure that was used to hack it out of the project and should it be deleted I will endeavor to re-introduce it (going through the appropriate channels this time unlike some previous editors). Ultimately I believe that the category is a good one, that a mainspace article will be able to properly break the topic down and describe the different interpretations of what it means to be a non-violent FPS, and that with proper sourcing the alleged ambiguities will vanish. Any thoughts on this? -Thibbs (talk) 16:38, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
I nominated for the category for discussion, not deletion: as a "de facto" DRV as you said there. I still disagree that Portal can be described as "non-violent first person shooter" (I don't even think it can be described as a "shooter" though I suppose you do shoot the portals...) but it could be described as a "First person shooter where the playable character is non-violent" but that category seems too narrow. I also think that we should work into the article some mention of these viewpoints that do paint the game's main character as essential nonviolentbut there is violence in the game. Turrets, that shoot bullets, that kill the main character. That. is. violent. Full stop. –xeno (talk) 20:47, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
Heck, one of your sources even agrees with this While your character can be the subject of violence, you never perform that violence. . Doesn't fit in the category you've put it in. –xeno (talk) 21:23, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
I know you nominated it for discussion. It needs to be discussed considering there was no DRV. I think that from an objective viewpoint there is the appearance here that you have nominated it solely to have it deleted thereby eliminating the problem you perceive of this article being categorized as a non-violent game. However, you have stated that you do not seek its deletion. I take you at your word because I assuming good faith and I know appearances can be deceiving. As far as Portal is concerned, and as I have expressed numerous times at the CFD/"DRV", I strongly believe that reliably sourcing of a designation (to meet WP:V) validates it and this verifiability provides a non-ambiguous criteria for such a designation. This comports with Category Guideline #7, a wikipedia editing guideline. Nobody has yet discussed this proposal, but I believe it clearly accords most closely with wikipolicy. Does it sound reasonable to you? -Thibbs (talk) 21:39, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
No, I still think it's a miscategorization. Game reviewers are not held to such strict standards of precision, so they may throw around terms like "non-violent" (referring to the non-violent nature of the main character, but not clarifying what they mean) while ignoring the very real and self-evident violence in the game. –xeno (talk) 21:44, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
This is your personal opinion and thus WP:OR. It has no place in Wikipedia which is based on Verifiability. -Thibbs (talk) 21:47, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
I think this dynamic (the essentially non-violent main character) deserves a mention in the article but it doesn't fit in the category as named. It's tough to find sources that state that the turrets shooting at and killing Chell is violent - because it's pretty self-evident. But to be honest, I don't really care that much, which is why I haven't removed it a 2nd time. –xeno (talk) 21:49, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
Re-reading your prior argument, it appears clear to me that you're confusing "criteria for inclusion" with "inclusion" itself. Putting Portal aside for a moment, do you agree with my proposed verifiability criterion? As far as Portal is concerned, it would of course be subject to the same standards as the rest of the articles on Wiki. Your arguments that it's tough to find sources for your POV suggest that it is OR. You have repeatedly claimed that it is self-evident. I'm afraid that's not how sourced reporting works.-Thibbs (talk) 14:48, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
Your sources certainly deserve a mention in the article itself (have at it), but it doesn't fit into the category as named. Since we're arguing in circles, I've sought further inupt from WT:WPVG and I'm done here. cheers, –xeno (talk) 17:09, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
I agree this discussion is proving fruitless. I would recommend that we keep this discussion confined to the CfD until that issue is sorted out. If the decision is delete then this is all moot and if the decision is keep then we can return to talk here. All new opinions from WPVG, please enter your opinions at the CfD. Thank you. -Thibbs (talk) 18:40, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

For what it's worth, the crystal game I was referring to before (called "Crystal Maze") earned an E ("everyone") from the ESRB. So the potential for the main character to be stabbed to death doesn't preclude a game from being listed as an E by the ESRB. (But again, if you've played the game, you can probably agree with me that it's not a very bloody death.) Soap Talk/Contributions 21:05, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

  • For the record the CfD was successfully completed today and Category non-violent first-person shooters was deleted by administrative decision of User:Good Olfactory. Compromises were discussed but ultimately it was the opinion of editors that the concept of violence was inherently subjective as applied to video games and that reliable sources (ESRB, etc) were insufficient to prove or disprove violence as these sources represented nothing more than the opinions of raters/reviewers, marketers, and members of the gaming community and opinions are incapable of objectivity despite reliable sourcing.
    • Personally I disagree that the requirement of objectivity should extend as far as the content of the reliable sources themselves and would have preferred some sort of equal face-time presentation of conflicting sources as I believe nearly all sources to be biased in some manner, however I will not seek any further action as my views are clearly in the minority. -Thibbs (talk) 13:50, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
      • I believe the closure hinged upon this sentence from WP:CLN: Unless it is self-evident and uncontroversial that something belongs in a category, it should not be put into a category, so his closure was firmly rooted in category guideline. The sources that discuss Portal's (relative) non-violence would still make a great addition to the article, but cannot help to prop up the category. –xeno (talk) 14:01, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

This should probably not be included as a violent video game, because the main object of the game is to make it through puzzles, not cause harm to others. Granted, there is blood, and you "kill" the turrets, but that does not necessarily make Portal a violent video game. Hk37 (talk) 18:16, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

I think they're calling violent because of using console commands to spawn HL2 enemies (npc_spawn npc_zombie) and HL2 weapons (impulse 101) because the zombies cam be literally blown off their legs. And there is blood in the non-console game. When the turret shoots you, blood ends up on the floor and wall. Type "god" in the console and stand in front of a turret in chamber 16. See what I mean? But up at the top it was true that just some simple images of blood splatters will not make the game violent. But I don't have HL2 yet I can use the console to spawn those guns and enemies. Of course, not every Portal player knows the console even exists. But you can still get a gruesome experience when using HL2 weapons and HL2 enemies. See what I'm saying here? Maybe Valve old ESRB about the console. Get it? (to respond make a steam account dont worry some games are free so u can just get some if u want an account for a reason. so when im online, well, when my computer is on, send me a message. steam has a built in IM-er. Here's a free game example: Peggle EXTREME) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.199.75.242 (talk) 14:19, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

blog.wired.com a reliable source? and Portal: Prelude

Information on Portal: Prelude has just been added to the article with a blog.wired.com source under that claim that it is reliable. This this the case? Blogs are generally not considered reliable (WP:SPS) although is the Wired blog considered professional (As per Wikipedia:Verifiability#cite_note-4? I'm not too familiar with the site. Rehevkor ✉ 15:51, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Reliability of blogs from professional, normally reliable sites comes from the editor of the blog itself; in this case Earnest Cavalli is pretty reputable, so it's a usable source. (I'm also feeling a bit of pressure from the portal prelude people that when I removed mention of the game the first time (as at that point it was "oh cool, more portal maps" and a large-ass quote from the developers, instead of what seems to be significant interest in this product), they had a comment on their site that pointed at me specifically for removing it. I've been looking for ways to include it, and now with release and coverage appearing in reliable sources, it's worthwhile to include. --MASEM 16:05, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

I think it's important enough to add to the article, but wanted others' opinions before doing so. Portal has had quite a few different map-packs released in the past, which aren't important enough to mention. But released yesterday, was Portal Prelude a large mod with new maps, and its own storyline. See www.portalprelude.com to check it out, and add it to the article if you agree that it's worthy. Meekil (talk) 14:05, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

It's already in there (under reception). --MASEM 14:08, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
I think it's important enough to add Portal Prelude to the article, but in a different place then under "Critical Reception" I wanted others' opinions before moving it. Portal has had quite a few different map-packs released in the past, which aren't important enough to mention on their own. But, released yesterday, Portal Prelude is a large mod with new maps, and its own storyline. I think it should have its own section. See www.portalprelude.com to check it out. Meekil (talk) 14:13, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
It's a user mod, unless it starts getting significantly critical reviews, it is just that, part of the expansion of the game that people have been able to do. The flash portal version (the only other notable mod) doesn't have any more than it needs to. --MASEM 14:18, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
Would it fit better under "Franchise" ? –xeno (talk) 14:19, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
Not really, it's not an official work and thus would be improperly placed there. --MASEM 14:21, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Portal: Prelude

GameSpy article JAF1970 (talk) 18:53, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Portal Prelude. It needs expansion. --SkyWalker (talk) 13:55, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
Is there really enough notable info out there on this to justify a separate article? Rehevkor ✉ 15:36, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
I've looked and not seen anything. I had AFD'd it before (it was kept), and I'll wait a bit more but I think Prelude's time has come and gone, and whatever information that's out there is already there. --MASEM 16:39, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
Wow Masem. You sound like some one who delights deleting stuff. Seriously people like you are going to destroy Wikipedia.
Ignoring comments by Masem. There is a video by MTV Germany. The mod is pretty much notable. --SkyWalker (talk) 19:29, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
There's rather too much hostility towards Masem here. Inducing a naming and shaming on the PP website? A little immature I think. Might wanna reign it in a bit before you make it an assume. Anyhoo. What we're trying to say is notability isn't an issue, it's just that there is little (beyond fancruft) that could go towards a fleshed out article and could easily be merged into the main Portal article. Rehevkor ✉ 19:43, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
I don't want to get into details. Calling it immature?. Hmm.. Well iam ok with the merge but the problem is that the Portal: Prelude was added to this article before but Masem here decided to remove it and readding it would be same. Someone would delete. Nothing is certain. So i think a separate article and enough information would make it valid. Prelude is getting lot of attention from everywhere. --SkyWalker (talk) 20:03, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
If it is, I don't see it. I'm not dismissing the few articles it has gotten, but that's it, a few articles. An article on its own as Rehevkor points out has little chance of being expanded. Also, please note the history here: Before Prelude was released, a huge section was added with quote from the creators; given that it's a user mod and the sources only came from the Prelude site, that was no emphasis of notability, so removing it made sense. Then it came out, and a few notable sites (Wired for one) mentioned it; at that point I readded it now that it could be sourced to secondary sources. I don't plan on removing it again - its established what it needs, and can only be added to. --MASEM 20:17, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
I will talk to you later. For now iam going to sleep. It is 2:20 am here. Good night.--SkyWalker (talk) 20:25, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

How many levels?

The article says the game is rather short, but unless I missed something, it doesn't say how many levels it has. Or would that be too gameguidish? – sgeureka t•c 06:36, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

It's not a very useful measure, since levels have different meanings and durations between different games and even within any given game.

Also, there are 20 "test chambers", but at least 3 post-escape levels. Hk37 (talk) 17:53, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

To be more specific, there are 19 chambers that require thinking. The first level is an introduction and it's only difficulty is trying to figure out why the hell someone's talking to you from the sky, or if you're completely incompetent, how to pick up one of the metal boxes. You obtain the portal device in chamber 2, and the upgraded version in testchamber 11. As for the escape bits, there's some at the end of the last chamber, then (names obtained via the console) there are 3 levels after that: escape_00, escape_01 and escape_02. The last level, escape_02, features the large room with the turret crannys and the glados area. Contrary to what GLaDOS says, there is actually only one possible path.
Whoo hoo I ranted. Anyhow, portal levels are not very comparable to most games because the longest one takes about 1/2 hour at most, while with most games level time ranges from 15 minutes to 2 hours. Subject15837 (talk) 00:09, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Non-violent Videogame?

It says this is anonviolent video game. There's evena linka t the bottom of the page. This is a violent videogame. In the 16th map, (or is it the 17th?) there'sa bunch of turrets. In every level, you can blast off a wall from the portals and kill your self. There's fire, there's dangerous liquid that kills you instantly, there's energy balls, there's GLaDOS. This IS a VIOLENT videogame.--70.190.36.152 (talk) 15:45, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Have a look at Nonviolent_video_game#Non-violent_first_person_shooters. It doesn't have to be absolutely free of harm to be a non-violent game. -- MacAddct1984 (talk • contribs) 19:10, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
Also, a couple discussions up there's a lengthy talk on this already -- MacAddct1984 (talk • contribs) 02:09, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
And don't forget you murdered your faithful companion cube. -mattbuck (Talk) 02:20, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
LoL! --62.226.57.223 (talk) 14:12, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
Please don't laugh about the untimely death of my only friend...my cube...she was weighty...157.174.221.168 (talk) 20:48, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
Don't worry! Just do this http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=e5QveX3-1O8&feature=related !81.157.182.30 (talk) 18:27, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Kim Swift introduction

Kim Swift is mentioned twice as 'Swift' before being introduced as project lead Kim Smith later on. Should this be fixed?

Jamo777 (talk) 14:58, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Merger proposal

Portal Prelude has been out for almost two months now, and I just did another google and news.google check and haven't found anything significant to have it warrant its own article (since there's no gameplay differences and minimal plot), though it is perfectly acceptable to bring a few more statements into here to cover it. --MASEM 21:18, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

No one has anything else to say? No objections? Rehevkor ✉ 03:02, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Merge completed, both articles redirected to respective sections now. --Reinoutr (talk) 15:19, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

save the companion cube AKA get the cake!

http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=e5QveX3-1O8&feature=related I know this is only a youtube video but I still think it should be in the article81.157.182.30 (talk) 18:25, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Until there is official recognition by the developers that this Easter Egg is real it should not be added to the article. 68.55.125.227 (talk) 06:53, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

It's a fake, made with noclip and editing — chandler — 08:27, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
How do you know?81.108.233.59 (talk) 17:06, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
It's been floating around for many months. Google around for it.  Xihr  20:40, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Preservation of Directionality

The article states that directionality is not preserved, but this is not true. Directionality is preserved, but it is preserved with respect to the portals, not with the environment. So if a player goes through the portal at an angle, that angle will be preserved when coming out of the other portal. It's basically like going through an open window, where the two sides of the window happen to be in different places. Quanticles (talk) 20:50, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

It's the directionality from the frame of reference of the observer, not the player. --MASEM 21:14, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Voiced by Ellen McLain.

Is it really necessary to mention the fact that GLaDOS is voiced by Ellen McLain five hundred times in one article?

82.95.254.30 (talk) 19:03, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

You mean 5 times? She's a prominent figure, perhaps and most prominent figure in relation to the game. So yes, yes it is. Rehevkor ✉ 21:08, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Actors

I realize that the article gives credit to Ellen McLain and Mike Patton (Ellen as GLaDOS and Mike as the anger core) but only gives very brief mention of Ellen and the turrets, while in the credits of portal it specifically mentions that she voiced GLaDOS and the turrets. A brief addition may be necessary...

In addition, neither in this article nor in the portal credits does it give credit to the voice actors of the curiosity (yellow) core or knowledge (blue) core. Some research or an interview with Valve may be necessary here. Subject15837 (talk) 00:09, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

No criticism on Steam or the misinformation on system requirements?

I just read the criticism section and was surprised not only to see no negative criticism, but the quote "Yahtzee' Croshaw.....can't think of any criticism for it" was used. You mean no one was critical about Steam distribution needing to validate every game online before it can be launched? Or the fact that some computers meeting the system requirements was still not able to run the game due to the fact that a small handful of graphics cards could not process the graphics and this information was made known to the purchaser only after he opened the package and found it on an insert? I have serious doubts about the section on this article which seems to act more as a commercial for the product than an informational article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.83.75.110 (talk) 02:00, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

And can you provide reliable third party sources on this subject? The Yahtzee quote was based from his review/experience of the game, not a view of everyone ever. Rehevkor ✉ 02:07, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
It's already on The Orange Box; I think, so I wouldn't worry about putting it on this article. Kausill (talk) 12:51, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Release date: Oct 9 or 10?

So, the release date on this article is October 9 while The Orange Box, Episode Two and Team Fortress 2 have October 10 listed. As far as I know, these were all released concurrently. The sources for Portal seem to check out while The Orange Box sources just redirect me to Steam's general news page and Episode Two's source actually states the 9th as its release date. However, this page here states that Portal was released on October 10 and this to me seems like the most reliable source. The pages for the other three also say the same. Oh and the source for TF2's Wikipedia also reads the 10th. I guess I could have posted this on any of the talk pages but since Portal is currently the odd man out I thought I'd start here.--Lairor (talk) 11:46, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Ending

I just beat the game. In the article it says "a portal malfunction tears the room apart and transports everything to the surface." but actually playing and seeing this part it looked more like a HoloDeck type thing of the real world, with parts peeling away to reveal lined walls underneath. Maybe someone else could follow-up

Do you mean the outdoor scene is some kind of HoloDeck/simulation, or that the end fight was inside some kind of of HoloDeck/simulation? The ending fight and the outdoors scene can be found on YouTube; I don't interpret it that way. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XqpfhrlDJR0 Xsmasher (talk) 04:06, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

An AI named "GLaDOS"

If you follow the wikilink for AI, the article there doesn't mention this use of the term (an artificial and intelligent character in a game or simulation, I guess). It does mention Intelligent agent. Should this page link to Intelligent agent or should the AI page be updated (or is there a better alternative)? This is not my field. --Northernhenge (talk) 08:27, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Archive 1←Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5Archive 6
Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:Portal_(video_game)/Archive_5&oldid=1088805196"