Talk:Portal (video game)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Featured article Portal (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 July 5, 2009.
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject Video games (Rated FA-class, High-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.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the Valve task force.
 
WikiProject Science Fiction (Rated FA-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Science Fiction, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of science fiction 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 Internet culture (Rated FA-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Internet culture, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of internet culture 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.
 

Portal and Goffman[edit]

Tenuous connection, to say the least.

I agree! Is there any evidence Valve intended this or is it just some random person reading too much into it? --93.97.95.107 (talk) 02:15, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

Valve likely had no idea, however, given that we're talking about an academic's assessment of the work, that person compares it to Goffman, and that makes it reliable to express that person's opinion of it. We're not claiming Valve did that on purpose. --MASEM (t) 03:12, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

Reference to Narbacular Drop on the lead[edit]

I don't see how it is relevant. It is already included on the Development/concept section, where it should be. On the lead, it seems to serve only to add unnecessary extend to the paragraph. Also, the sentences aren't even well connected:

This gameplay element is based on a similar concept from the game Narbacular Drop; many of the team members from the DigiPen Institute of Technology who worked on Narbacular Drop were hired by Valve for the creation of Portal.

I find it unusual and unnecessary. If Portal's gameplay mechanics is so similar to that of the referred video game, why is there a section with diagrams explaining it to the reader? I find myself with two options: 1) the gameplay mechanics aren't so similar to the point that a reference to this other game is of relevance on the lead paragraph, or 2) the gameplay mechanics are indeed very similar but the referred video game isn't known well enough for most readers to get a better picture of what Portal is about only by mere reference to Narbacular Drop. In any case, the my conclusion is that such reference is unnecessary on the lead.

Seneika (talk) 14:38, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

The fact that Valve brought in a student project to flesh out to a full game in of itself is part of what made Portal impressive, and to not note this in the lead is not appropriate. No, we don't need a diagram to compare, as really the main mechanic - gameplay wise - was the use of portals, but NB didn't have the concept of flinging or the like. But more importantly, it is the actual programming of the portals and the means of achieving their visual effect that is the core of the team's work, and you don't need images to describe. --MASEM (t) 14:48, 7 November 2013 (UTC)
Fair enough. Perhaps you could modify what is being said there because what you just told me is not -by any way- what is written there (no student project mentioned). My previous conclusion follows from what is written there right now. I stand for my pov that it is better suited for the development section. Every piece of work is always based on previous work and, most times, everyone doing something also did something before somewhere else. If, on the case at hand, it is not strictly necessary (as a relevant peculiarity of this project - by which it is known -, say) to tell that on the lead then I say it shouldn't be there. About it is the actual programming..., well, again, development section. Seneika (talk) 15:20, 7 November 2013 (UTC)
The details of what was brought into Portal from ND are appropriate for the development section. As this factor is a major part of why Portal exists, it is appropriate for summarizing in the lead (which is what our leads are supposed to do). As for the student project, this is implied by mentioning DigiPen, which is a well-established school for the industry. --MASEM (t) 15:37, 7 November 2013 (UTC)
Nothing is implied as you say. A work carried on a research institute could be both a product of the students plus the researchers or a work of the researchers alone. I don't see the point in keeping it there. Your argument is weak. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Seneika (talkcontribs) 15:28, 17 November 2013 (UTC)
It's common knowledge that Digipen's student projects are student projects; it is not a research institution. --MASEM (t) 15:41, 17 November 2013 (UTC)
This is supposed to be an encyclopedia. There is no room for common knowledge. But I'm talking about the relevance of the subject on the article's lead. You haven't shown any satisfying arguments about why it is strictly needed or even relevant there. I could enumerate a dozen factors which are a major part of why Portal exists. None of them strictly relevant there. As is the one you're defending. Seneika (talk) 15:50, 17 November 2013 (UTC)
Given that nearly all major news sources on Portal talk about Digipen and the student project that created Portal, it makes no sense not to include it. It's a major part of the game's developed and thus summarized in the lead appropriately (the lead is meant to summarize the major points of the article). --MASEM (t) 15:53, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

Removed section regarding timeline/sequence of events[edit]

Pretext:

Roughly thirteen years later, work on GLaDOS was completed and the untested AI was activated during the company's first ever bring-your-daughter-to-work day in May 2000.[19] Immediately after activation, the facility was flooded with deadly neurotoxin by the AI.

The removed section:

Events of the first Half-Life game occur shortly thereafter, presumably leaving the facility forgotten by the outside world due to apocalyptic happenings. Wolpaw, in describing the ending of Portal 2, affirmed that the Combine invasion from Half-Life 2 occurred during Portal '​s events.[1]

The first part of this section is saying Half-Life occurs shortly after Portal. Then it says that (either) the 7 hour war and invasion of the combine took place during Portal, or that events from Half-Life 2 take place during portal.

The problems with all of this: First, Eric Wolpaw has previously had his dates declared incorrect by Marc Laidlaw:

On March 24, 2010, an updated and expanded Aperture Science timeline originally given on ApertureScience.com in 2006 and submitted by Erik Wolpaw was published on Game Informer. Several dates were changed, and the last paragraph was expanded with facts suggesting that the Black Mesa Incident had occurred in 1998, the same date as that of Half-Life's release, instead of the original "200-". However Marc Laidlaw dismissed "1998" as the date for the Black Mesa Incident, as the date "200-" given when the first Half-Life was released is the only correct one.[12] It is unknown why Erick Wolpaw made that mistake, and if it was intended or not. For convenience and consistency, that "1998" will always be replaced by "200-" on the wiki, even with the dates pertaining to Aperture Science.

Second, there's a lot of conflicting information here. Various official sources at various points in time have placed Portal as before, during, and after both HL1 and HL2.

Third, and most important, by following that link you'll see that the claims attributed to that link are nowhere to be found. 98.127.104.89 (talk) 04:35, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

You're misreading it: it says that HL1 takes place after GlaDOS kills everyone at Aperture; when Chell is awaken is supposedly after the 7 hr war completed with HL2 (that is, from Gordon's awakening) taking place after Chell destroys Glados. That is, chronologically:
GLADOS activated/kills all --> HL1 --> 7 hr war --> Chell wakes/kills Glados (Portal 1) --> HL2 ----------> Chell brought back awake (Portal 2) . --MASEM (t) 04:43, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
Okay, the first section is understandable. The second section is not, and is completely wrong: "Wolpaw, in describing the ending of Portal 2, affirmed that the Combine invasion from Half-Life 2 occurred during Portal's events" 98.127.104.89 (talk) 04:48, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
Also: The thinly veiled hostility on your edit comment "(and do not remove again until you get consensus)" is uncalled for. I had left a note, had you bothered to read it, right their in my edit, stating if someone left a comment they could readd it. 98.127.104.89 (talk) 04:50, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
Rereading it several times, I see that it's mostly correct, just horribly worded. Problem is the "Combine Invasion" (the 7 hour war) did not take place in HL2, as the sentence says, it was between HL1 and HL2. It would be more correct to change "from Half-Life 2" to "after Half-Life 1". It's a small error, but it completely changes the meaning of the section into "Half-life 2 takes place during Portal 1".98.127.104.89 (talk) 04:57, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
I agree that could be clearer, I'll make the change there. --MASEM (t) 05:14, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

Dead Links[edit]

I've used the Checklinks tool to update the page's dead links. A few notes:

  • Ref 44 (fixed) updated with Wayback, removed deadref parameter.
  • Ref 60 (fixed) updated with Wayback.
  • Ref 113 (fixed) updated with Wayback.
  • Ref 114 (fixed) updated with Wayback.
  • Ref 115 (fixed) updated with Wayback.
  • Ref 116 (fixed) updated with Wayback.
  • Ref 117 (fixed) updated with Wayback.
  • Ref 118 (fixed) updated with Wayback.
  • Ref 121 (not fixed) currently inaccessible on Wayback due to Gamespot's new Robots.txt. This page does not have a WebCite archive, and the archive.today snapshot redirects to the Gamespot homepage. The particular page cited is no longer hosted anywhere on Gamespot.com. If anyone knows of another way of obtaining Gamespot page archives, please message me.
  • Ref 130 (fixed) updated with Wayback.
  • Ref 131 (fixed) updated with Wayback.

Also, just a note on the references' notation: the dating formats seem to switch randomly between YYYY-MM-DD and MONTH, DD YYYY. If anyone has the time or inclination, these need to be standardized to either one or the other. --chrisFjordson (talk) 01:26, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

  1. ^ Stanton, Rich (2011-04-26). "Erik Wolpaw on Portal 2’s ending: "the [spoiler] is probably lurking out there somewhere". PC Gamer. Retrieved 2011-04-26.