Template talk:Valve

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
WikiProject Video games (Rated Template-class)
WikiProject iconThis template 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.
 Template  This template does not require a rating on the project's quality scale.


For the second time I have removed Team Fortress from the list of Valve games. Team Fortress is not valve owned. Valve simply hired the original TF developers to work on a TF port for the half life engine.

It was my understanding that the information on Wikipedia was to be accurate and consistent, and yet here I am having to make the same change after some douche bag reversed my change.

Two Quotes from Team Fortress Page:

Team Fortress is a team and class based online multiplayer computer game modification based on id Software's Quake. Team Fortress was designed and written by Australians Robin Walker, John Cook, and Ian Caughley in 1996.

The original Team Fortress was written as an add-on modification ('mod', alternately 'TC' for total conversion) for id Software's Quake and released as freeware on August 24, 1996. The first release for QuakeWorld (v2.0) came on December 22, 1996. It was sufficiently successful that Walker, Cook and Caughley formed Team Fortress Software to develop Team Fortress 2 as a commercial mod for Quake II. Team Fortress 2 for Quake II was never fully developed and released. Walker and Cook later joined game developer Valve Software and released a port for Valve's Half-Life engine (Goldsrc) called Team Fortress Classic, which closely followed the gameplay, classes, and maps of the original. In 2007, a completely revised Team Fortress 2 was released as a stand-alone retail game for Valve's Source engine.

Note how nowhere in these quotes does it say that Team Fortress is a Valve owned game. So please, do your research before reverting other peoples changes.

Frustrating, very frustrating.

  • All of your arguments are unpersuasive and deemed moot, as this template is not for Valve owned games. It's for Valve developed games. Your quotes evidence that Valve did, indeed, help develop TF. So the next question is, what percentage of a game needs to be developed by Valve in order for it to qualify as being "Valve developed"? Also note that just because a game uses the Valve source engine does not inherently mean it was developed by Valve.Mojodaddy (talk) 21:18, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Turtle Rock Studios[edit]

Valve now own Turtle Rock Studios, would anyone else be in favour of adding this information somewhere in the template?--Greg Moroney (talk) 13:37, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

This template is for games developed my Valve - information about aquired studios isn't necessary here, instead it belongs on the main Valve page - and somebody has already taken care of it. Now, if you mean that Turtle Rock's games should be added, then there's no need. The only projects that Turtle Rock worked on before being acquired were ports and maps of/for Valve-owned games that are already on this list. Left 4 Dead was started after the merger and is already listed here. --Magus05 (talk) 08:19, 17 February 2008 (UTC)


Why are we placing Portal under Half Life? It's not part of the Half Life series. Sure, it takes place in the same universe - but so do Call of Duty and Brothers in Arms - and I don't think they are part of the same series, now are they? In addition - Portal looks to take place a great deal of time after Half Life. In Half Life, teleportation is brand new and just being discovered. In Portal, it's been so refined that it can be fit into a small handheld device. It's obvious that a great deal of time has taken place between the two, and the ties to each other are so insignificant.

Stuff included under Half Life is all about Gordan Freeman and his effect on the world around him. Portal doesn't fit this description. Even the terrible Gearbox Half Life's took place simultaneous to the original Half Life. Portal doesn't involve the same events, characters, or even time period - it should be seperate. --Magus05 (talk) 22:00, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

"In addition - Portal looks to take place a great deal of time after Half Life. In Half Life, teleportation is brand new and just being discovered. In Portal, it's been so refined that it can be fit into a small handheld device. It's obvious that a great deal of time has taken place between the two..."
This argument is highly speculative, and flies in the face of most hard information from Valve on the subject. It could just as easily be argued that Aperture Science and Black Mesa were developing teleportation technology concurrently, and Aperture was far ahead. Developer commentary and in-game clues place the game "squarely within the Half-Life universe" (quoting said commentary). Thing is, no one knows where Portal goes in terms of time period - but the connections between the two are nigh impossible to ignore. What is obvious is that Aperture Science is going to play a big role plot-wise in the next Half-Life episode. Portal therefore represents a very major piece of backstory at the very least, and should not be treated as a separate entity. Fedallah (talk) 23:45, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
Until Episode 3 is released or we can confirm that Portal has any significance in the story of Half-Life, then this isn't verifiable and is based on speculation and original research. There are some that believe that Marathon and Halo are set in the same Universe - but I wouldn't call Halo Marathon, nor would I call Marathon Halo. Not until there is hard evidence, that is. --Magus05 (talk) 00:23, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
How is this insufficient? Fedallah (talk) 01:10, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
So according to you, Dead Or Alive and Ninja Gaiden are the same series since they are set in the same universe. As are Tekken and Death By Degree's. Oh, and Luigi's Mansion would be a Mario Bros game. SpiderMan and Daredevil are the same, too. Being set in the same universe isn't enough to connect something. As I originally stated, World War 2 games are not all part of the same series even though they all deal with the same universe and story. This is original research. --Magus05 (talk) 01:33, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
We're not talking about the Dead Or Alive/Ninja Gaiden connection, or any of those by that matter. This is Portal and the Half Life series. Other stuff exists. And the Marathon/Halo connection has been stated false by Bungie. I think we should stay on topic. And note that wikipedia works on consensus.
Also this statement you made is original research: "Portal looks to take place a great deal of time after Half Life. In Half Life, teleportation is brand new and just being discovered. In Portal, it's been so refined that it can be fit into a small handheld device. It's obvious that a great deal of time has taken place between the two, and the ties to each other are so insignificant." TH1RT3EN talkcontribs 06:11, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
My statement about Portal is original research - just like all other original research used to state that Portal is a part of Half-Life. And no shit we aren't talking about Dead or Alive or Ninja Gaiden - You are missing the point. You claim that Portal is part of the Half-Life series since it takes place in the same universe - ALL of the examples I listed (and there are more - I can assure you of that) take place in the same universe - but guess what? They aren't part of the same series.
By the way, I am on topic. I used real life logical examples to prove my point - and you made a pitiful attempt to dodge them. How about you stay on topic and try and give some evidence to the contrary?
And yes, wikipedia works on consensus - but only as long as the consensus is logical and verifiable. As Stephen Colbert said, "the population of African elephants has tripled in the past six months". Until there is evidence that the story in Portal is relevant to the story in Half Life 2, Portal doesn't belong grouped with the Half Life series. --Magus05 (talk) 08:09, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
The image I already posted above is not strong enough for you? I even modified the title to 'universe', so as to better satisfy your argument, but apparently compromise isn't something you're real big on. The only 'real life logical examples' you use are from other games by other developers that are not relevant to the discussion at hand. There's also this real life logical example from the game itself, which I'm not sure you've played: http://i153.photobucket.com/albums/s220/themanclaw/escape_020002.jpg
You could just leave it alone and go with the consensus on this one. Or you can get all worked up over the placement of a few bytes of text, like you're doing now. Give it a good hard think before you decide! Fedallah (talk) 09:15, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
No, the image you posted is not enough. There is a company called Aperture science that exists in Half Life and Portal. But that doesn't link the stories of the two together. Regardless of whether or not my examples are from other games is irrelevant - it's the same situation. And by saying that Portal is a part of Half-Life, through the use of a screenshot - is a form of original research. By saying that Portal is a Half-Life game, you also agree that Dead Or Alive is a Ninja Gaiden game, and that just simply isn't true. Changing it to say "universe" isn't a logical option since the Template is designed to specifically to list Valve games by series. And why would I just "leave it alone"? I don't want to purposely leave false/libelous content on here if I know about it. How about you give a good hard "think" about why a single link between 2 games makes them part of the same series. If Valve in some way says that the story in Portal is at all relevant to the story in Half Life, then by all means, Portal deserves to be grouped with Half Life. But not until then. Oh, and I don't know what consensus you are talking about. So far, there are 3 of us involved in this - not much of a "consensus" in my book. Not to mention that you should be temporarily banned for constantly reverting a page and for the constant posting of original research.--Magus05 (talk) 10:05, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
Question: is there any way you could compromise on this? If so, how? I'm not being facetious here, I really would like to know (so that we can all go worry about more important things). Also: don't threaten to ban me unless you can back it up. If you want to go speak with an admin that's fine, I'd be happy to talk to them. Until then - give it a rest. You've violated 3RR as much as anyone else here, and your claim of original research is dubious to say the very least. Fedallah (talk) 16:46, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
Magus05, can you be civil? If you believe we should be banned then talk to an administrator. That said, by grouping Portal with the Half Life series, we could just be stating that the game is related to the series. All of your examples are related, same as this. If it would make you feel better, we could change the group title to Half-Life series and related games, or something similar, such as Fedallah's Half-Life universe; there is no rule to what the group title's must be. TH1RT3EN talkcontribs 18:39, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
Well I give up. I wasn't aware that Portal involved Gordan Freeman in some way. If Portal is going to be listed with Half-Life, then I'll put a break so that it's on its own line. The first line is the Black Mesa story arc, the second is the City 17 (and escape from) arc, and the third line is the unknown arc which is currently not connected by anything other than the name of a company. Also, how about putting a footnote saying something to the effect of "Takes place in the Half-Life universe, but isn't necessarily part of the Half-Life series." I'm not quite sure how to do that in a table format like this. If another Portal comes out and doesn't tie the games into the Half-Life story arc, then they deserve to be moved to their own section. If it does, then by all means it completely deserves to be kept with the other Half-Life games. --Magus05 (talk) 22:56, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
We already had this discussion a couple months ago on this same article, yet all the text has disappeared. We decided on a seperate section for Portal games, and everybody was happy. Why was this reverted, and what happened to the original discussion? And since we are working on consensus, I agree entirely with Magus, though he's been a bit brash. An obvious solution would be a section for Half-Life games which are not, as of yet, part of the main HL storyline, such as Deathmatch, Lost Coast, Portal etc. (talk) 19:59, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Gunman Chronicles[edit]

What's Gunman Chronicles doing in the template? It has been developed by Rewolf, not Valve. Although Rewolf apparently licensed the Half-Life engine (how else could they have released this standalone), but that's the only connection with Valve afaik. Other games using one of Valve's game engines aren't there either. E.g. Dark Messiah Might and Magic, Vampire: The Masquerade - Bloodlines. --Pizzahut2 (talk) 20:15, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree and have removed it from the template. (talk) 04:33, 15 August 2008 (UTC)