Talk:Portal (video game)/Archive 4

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5 Archive 6

What happens when you die?

Currently the article mentions what happens when you die by telling you what DOESN'T happen. This is the current snippet I am referring to... 

 "suffering enough damage in a short time frame will kill the player, 
 but the player cannot die from repeated exposure to small amounts of damage. 
 Unlike the main Half-Life series, the screen doesn't retain the red 
 transparency over the player's view upon death."

OK so what does happen? It doesn't have a red transparency when you die. Does it fade to black? A positive explanation of what happens is needed instead of an example of what does not happen. I've never played so I don't really know.--68.188.157.172 (talk) 16:21, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

It turns back to normal coloring. I have no idea why someone would have thought that last sentence was relevant, as it isn't; it just compares a totally trivial detail of Portal to Half-Life, and serves no purpose. I've removed it. Xihr (talk) 04:51, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

It probably doesn't need to be mentioned in the article, but if type the 'impulse 101' cheat into the console, you get a health counter similar to HL2. It shows that around 1 second after taking damage, your health regenerates incredibly quickly (back to full in around 2 seconds). --210.56.68.131 (talk) 07:37, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

custom levels?

i think that custom levels or at least some places where to look should be included in the main article. but i guess i get why not too maybe a page with custom levels ?

some custom portal levels:

and when i added that to the main article and it was removed in 2 seconds i didn't know i wasn't supposed to. but it can't hurt sugesting it here, can it? --robin —Preceding comment was added at 17:05, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

It fails a couple issues: they are not appropriate external links as they are fan-created work and nor do they add any significant understanding to the page. Additionally, links of individual levels is certainly not appropriate as this is more WP:GAMECRUFT. We have noted that the game can be modded and thus new maps are available, and provided a reference of one map repository (which may even be too much). --MASEM 17:38, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

well, take then, for example, http://thinkingwithportals.com which is a notable site, with many users, including mappers, that gets 10 times as many hits as the site that somehow is allowed to be listed as a "reference" in this article... (reference 36, portalmaps.net)... so why does portalmaps.net get to have a revered spot in the page, and not thinking with portals or one of the other much more popular modding and mapping sites? There are less than a dozen very good sites for the portal community, and i would have to say there is ample room in this wikipedia entry to list them. I also think it would be very helpful to any players who are interested in exploring the game further. -Dave —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dkliman (talk • contribs) 22:25, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

it could be worth its own page. but not here. its advatising and being a bit of a game gide(58.105.113.25 (talk) 06:30, 3 January 2008 (UTC))

Let me add one note: *if*, later on, the concept of custom maps on Portal received independent coverage, then links to articles (not gaming sites) that discussed it would be appropriate. (ie: NYT does an article on custom maps for games in general) I don't ever see links to website that *have* custom maps ever passing muster here. Pharmboy (talk) 14:36, 3 January 2008 (UTC)


I tried to add links into the article for 5 completely unrelated portal mapping sites. I feel that the third party maps are now representing more than 80% of potential game play for this game, and thus are an important component of the game for somebody to know about.

I do not know why there can be an entry that is basically advertising for a video game--while being called informational, which it is, while at the same time information about mapping sites are called mere advertising and therefore unnecessary.

I would like to know where you draw the line. so if some user somewhere creates a map for portal that is significant and by itself is quite a work of art, it does not rise to the level of something that ought to be covered in wikipedia? I have already seen third party maps that i have found that have improved greatly on the basic game.

I fear that the majority of users will not ever learn about these maps. as of this writing, there are a few hundred quite good maps i know about and at least a handful of masterpieces that any portal player ought to know about. how else, besides random chance on a search engine, are users going to know about this work besides through this site? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dkliman (talk • contribs) 19:56, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

The line is drawn at notability, and notability is defined by reliable, third-party sources. If you can find a source (reliable source, this means a major publication or a well-known website, definately not a forum) that talks about custom maps in portal, then maybe they can be included, otherwise, they just aren't notable enough. If people come to wikipedia expecting to find links to custom maps, then they don't really understand what wikipedia is about. Mad031683 (talk) 00:01, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
well, take then, for example, http://thinkingwithportals.com which is a notable site, with many users, including mappers, that gets 10 times as many hits as the site that somehow is allowed to be listed as a "reference" in this article... (reference 36, portalmaps.net)... so why does portalmaps.net get to have a revered spot in the page, and not thinking with portals or one of the other much more popular modding and mapping sites? There are less than a dozen very good sites for the portal community, and i would have to say there is ample room in this wikipedia entry to list them. I also think it would be very helpful to any players who are interested in exploring the game further. dkliman (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 22:30, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
You already make that argument above, and it is answered above. Repeating an argument doesn't make it stronger. Pharmboy (talk) 00:58, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
Notability is also defined by popularity, not just "reliable third party sources". If you disagree, then you should also delete articles on various internet memes and/or viral videos that currently exist. Simply listing (or creating a section) for the most popular maps/websites only adds to the information available to readers. The only way third party sources come in is to verify popularity of said website. 71.215.218.220 (talk) 21:11, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
I've not really bee following this, but I'll should point out that you can't prove popularity without "reliable third party sources" either. Also keep in mind that Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Rehevkor (talk) 21:22, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
I admit I wasn't too clear, but I did say that "the only way third party sources come in is to verify popularity". 71.215.218.220 (talk) 21:55, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Aperture Science information is an outright fabrication

I have played through Portal twice: once normally and once with Developer's commentary. I have personally explored aperturescience.com and I think I have squeezed all possible information out of it. Very little information in the Aperture Science section article can be found in either. 216.106.101.223 (talk) 03:51, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

  • Those are the best sources for info, but not the only ones. It is also covered in HL2/E2 somewhat. The section does border on OR in some areas (it is correct, but not cited), but if you check all the citations on the page, you will find the info from interviews, etc. Pharmboy (talk) 15:00, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Portal: First Slice

Valve have released an extended demo of Portal called Portal: Slice to anyone with an Nvidea card: http://www.steampowered.com/v/index.php?area=news&client=1&id=1398&appid=400. Do you think that's worth noting in the article?--Bisected8 (talk) 16:28, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Yeah. The second part of Portal, called Portal: First Slice. Should this article be added further info about this? Since this game is getting more and more popular among Nvidia users which they are able to download the demo for free from Steam. Darrencomp (talk) 17:38, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
This is not a "second part". It is an extended demo. Users who already have the full edition of Portal get no benefit from First Slice. - SigmaEpsilon → ΣΕ 18:04, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, i think it should be included.
here's another link someone could use as a source
http://blog.wired.com/games/2008/01/portal-first-sl.html
Spirallingspirit (talk) 19:41, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Agree put it in! Compwhiz II(Talk)(Contribs) 20:14, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Android factoid

Hey I was wondering if it be ok to add this little factoid, When Chell makes it to the first chamber with turrets GLaDOS says "Due to mandatory scheduled maintenance the appropriate chamber for this testing sequence is currently unavailable. It has been replaced by a live fire course designed for military androids, the enrichment center apologizes for the inconvenience and wishes you the best of luck." Then later after completing the test chamber she congratulates you with "Well done, Android. The enrichment center once again reminds you that android hell is a real place that you will be sent to at the first sign of defiance." It seems to me that a lot of people don't catch this. Though I know GlaDOS is not a reliable source of information I think this is a very interesting bit of dialog that fits in well with some other things she says as well as Chell's certain unique abilities. It would make sense that if Chell was an android that GlaDOS might actually indeed have an electronic copy of her mind on back up files so that she may download it into a blank android, thus all the previous test subjects could actually be incarnations of Chell. Not only that but if Chell was a "Military Android" it would also explain her unnatural healing ability along with her amazing logical thought processes and ability to think in three dimensions despite having no former experience. I think if you consider the facts it is quite possible that Chell might be some type of android, yet most articles do not mention this possibility.71.102.47.47 (talk) 07:39, 12 January 2008 (UTC)Cryha

My theory has always been that Chell is some form of AI, or Cybernetic hybrid, etc. 1) Aperture Science Laboratories (ASL) made two things: the portal gun (shower curtains), and artificial intelligence systems. 2) If you are testing a portal gun, why would you have all sorts of problem solving mazes, there are much more controlled ways to test a device...could it possibly be the tests are not for the gun, but you? 3) Why would ASL be testing military androids in the same facility? Maybe because they also test general problem solving androids too (Chell) 4) When we face GlaDOS we know the round pods house some sort of abilities, or maybe established neural nets which have difference aspects of personality. Could these be previous subjects that developed certain qualities that were then added into GlaDOS 5) We have a cake surrounded by lots of these similar pods, which seem to be previous test subjects, possibly meaning cake is some pre-programmed goal that satisfies the desires of the AI (possibly to keep the non-active AI pods from going insane while alone). 6) after the tests GlaDos tried to incinerate you, but she promised you the cake. Maybe upon incineration of your body your AI is placed back inside a pod in the cake room. 65.201.251.2 (talk) 17:21, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
Everybody catches this - there's already sections on this article's talk page here and here discussing it. General consensus is that it's just GLaDOS getting confused and giving Chell a speech meant for androids. It's not mentioned in the article because no reliable sources have talked about it. --McGeddon (talk) 10:37, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
Im pretty certain that chell wasnt an android and all, but the weird thing is, the Aperature Science or even portal never mentioned anything about making androids. Perhaps a trick by Glados? Or a fact not taken into account.--71.116.36.80 (talk) 03:46, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
It says the course was designed for military androids, the game never says who made the androids. Not to mention that the course might not have been made for androids at all and it was just part of the test. I've got several thousand other possibilities, but this post is already too forum-like. Mad031683 (talk) 19:36, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

I think it was some humor implying that GlaDOS thought the firing would kill Chell, so she thought the only thing that could get through was an android. 71.163.117.33 (talk) 00:08, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

I thought it was a generic recording played at the end of the chamber each time, and that the humor came from reinforcing the idea that this course was clearly not made for humans, once again showing the reckless endangerment of Chell's life brought forth by GLaDOS--Techercizer (talk) 15:04, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Bottom line: GLaDOS is not a reliable source(WP:RS).--TONO459 (talk) 17:27, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

True, GLaDOS isn't reliable source, but her comments still give away a lot of room for speculation. Two circumstantial and contradictory bits of evidence

  • GLaDOS' finale song reflects emotions of abandonment rather than resentment at a victim getting away; would she harbor these emotions if she believed she would permanently destroy Chell in the fire?
  • GLaDOS' reference to 'take-your-daughter-to-work day', and the Aperture Science website revealing that day to coincide with GLaDOS take-over of the facility isn't necessarily proof that Chell was an abducted daughter. Her form and AI may have been modeled off a daughter who visited that day. Also, GLaDOS makes reference to 'last time you left the building'; she significantly did not say 'last time outside the building' or 'since entering the building'. This suggests Chell had gone and returned sometime after GLaDOS take-over. If this was something GLaDOS expected Chell to remember, she would not have expected compliance through the testing, which she apparently does even while gradually revealing a reckless disregard of Chell's life. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.81.77.13 (talk) 15:39, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Gender of GLaDOS

I noticed that the article uses neuter pronouns "it" and "its" in reference to GLaDOS. Since the in-game audio commentary makes multiple references to GLaDOS as "her," (commentary 095 and 014) I've changed the text of the article to reflect that. Freakified (talk) 16:41, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

I'd only caution that we run into pronoun trouble with this as both characters are female. --MASEM 17:14, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
Normally I wouldn't mind referring to an AI as the gender that they present, but Masem's point is quite salient. xenocidic (talk) 00:22, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
  • GLaDOS is a machine, thus genderless. It could have been voice either masculine or feminine without changing its actions. It would seem that "it" is the proper pronoun and stating that it was voiced as a female seems enough. Anything beyond that is personifying the machine, which it manages to do enough on its own. At the very least, if there is a place to insert gender (ie: one place) then putting "she" in quotes would be called for. Pharmboy (talk) 17:30, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
It seems to me that, when referring to intelligent machines, gendered pronouns are usually used. For example, HAL 9000 is usually referred to as "he" (including on Wikipedia) as are C-3PO and many other sci-fi androids. Freakified (talk) 18:00, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
The voice of GlaDOS is undeniably female. GlaDOS is referred to with female pronouns in the developer commentary. And during an edit just made in the progress of changing one of the feminine pronouns in the article had a comment that slipped and use a feminine pronoun! And, as Freakified points out, such anthropomorphization is practically universal in science fiction, and on Wikipedia's articles about same. Pronoun trouble is a reason to use pronouns carefully -- as should always be done, regardless of the context -- not of using the wrong pronoun. Xihr (talk) 00:27, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
"slipped and use a feminine pronoun!" ;> As I said, I don't really care one way or the other. I actually thought the whole article was already using its, which is why I did the original revert, and then I noticed it mostly was still using "her". anyhow, I made some referential edits to ensure that there is no confusion between Chell and GLaDOS. xenocidic (talk) 00:34, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
Gender identification certainly applies to anything without sexual organs (or conventional sexual organs). For example, God in the Abrahamic religions is referred to as "He" and yet no claim is made that this God has any physical gender, and in Christianity it is stated that 'there is no male or female in the heavens'. Another example, transsexuals and intersexuals who do not have conventional sexual organs, or who have exterior organs that contrast with interior organs are still referred to based on their preferred gender. Terms such as "he" or "she" convey personal gender identification, and have very little to do with sex. It also may be the agenda of a supposed sentient being such as a god (more appropriately, the concept of such a god) or AI such as GLaDOS to be referred to in a gender specific way to make itself seem more real, personified, and at a more relatable level with humans. There is probably significance in that GLaDOS refers to herself as "she". --IronMaidenRocks (talk) 23:00, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
A well-written argument, but I don't think anyone was really "balls-to-the-wall" against using "she" for GLaDOS, as long as it was consistent, and it was clear which "she" was being written about (GLaDOS vs. Chell). xenocidic (talk) 23:03, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Two words: Genetic Lifeform =) 71.163.117.33 (talk) 00:10, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Shooting through existing portals

I'm not sure if this counts, but this video (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nCOUAMu0qAk) shows that you can shoot a portal through another one if you lean through. I think that this disproves the line in the Development section that says that "A key difference in the signature portal mechanic between the two games however is that Portal's "portal gun" cannot create a portal through an existing portal unlike in Narbacular Drop." Any thoughts? —Preceding unsigned comment added by AltGrendel (talk • contribs) 19:47, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

If you're leaning through it so that the gun's poking out the other side, then you aren't shooting "through" it. --McGeddon (talk) 19:56, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
Right. And the portal does not actually form (and eliminate the old portal) until the energy pulse from the portal gun hits the far wall, giving you time to back out of the portal after shooting. --JustaHulk (talk) 07:29, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

The logo for the aperature science center looks almost familar, like i have seen it before. Is it based off a credit card company, chase? Or am i thinking of something else???--71.116.36.80 (talk) 03:49, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

It's an illustration of a camera aperture -- MacAddct  1984 (talk • contribs) 04:58, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

...wow never noticed that. too bad we cant put it in the article —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.108.65.104 (talk) 03:47, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Same here. What i ment to say was, however, if you take all 4 pieces of the JPMorgan Chase credit card company logo, split all of them in half and arrange them correctly, i believe that you can get the aperature science logo.--71.116.36.80 (talk) 04:05, 27 January 2008 (UTC)


An old program that Google ate had the exact same logo as Aperture Science. I can't remember the name though. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.120.222.188 (talk) 22:40, 25 March 2008 (UTC)


Picasa? Hypahnova (talk) 21:37, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

slow down

last time i was here this article was biger and had more infomation. now its bland and uninformative i think we should stop saying "its trival". ifwe keep it up we will have no article at all. theres somthing wrong when links fill more page then wrighting. (and that does NOT mean get rid of links)(58.108.65.104 (talk) 03:58, 22 January 2008 (UTC))

What? Xihr (talk) 06:04, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
"Last time I was here, this article was bigger and had more information. Now it's bland and uninformative. I think we should stop saying "It's trivial." If we keep it up, we'll have no article at all. There's something wrong when links fill more space than writing (and that does NOT mean needing to get rid of links.)" --Kizor 03:08, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
huh? Messiahxi (talk) 15:30, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
wtf are you talking about? There are TWO (count them, TWO) external links. The rest are references. Big != Good. The article has improved dramatically over the last couple of months, after removing all the 'game guide' and 'trivial' junk. If you have specific changes in mind, please offer them up. PHARMBOY (TALK) 16:22, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

...this was posted by an anon over a month ago, I highly doubt he "slowed down" long enough to even read the first response to his post two hours later. Coreycubed (talk) 16:26, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Good Article - we're close

I think we're close to getting this to be a Good Article, possibly even featured. There are a few small issues: there's a citation needed for the soundtrack about only some tracks being in the game, and there's a handful of citations that need to be properly cited with citation templates, but outside of that, I think we've got a nicely well-rounded article to go forward with (now that all the GotY awards have trickled in). I've tidied up a few sections to help this along. --MASEM 17:37, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

As for the needed citation, the Amazon MP3 store has the listed tracks as 1 through 19, complete with names and artists. Since the CD is actually more Orange Box related rather than Portal itself, maybe it would be best to make an article for the audio CD and just mention that some of the music from Portal appear on the audio CD? There is even a more complete and thorough section in the Orange Box article The_Orange_Box#Soundtrack. -- MacAddct  1984 (talk • contribs) 14:56, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
I looked into this soundtrack situation, and honestly I'm not sure what to make of it. From whence did the track list and order that is on the Portal article come from? I'm inclined just to delete it and link to the Orange box article. xenocidic (talk) 20:51, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
My thoughts exactly, something like a simple {{main|The Orange Box#Soundtrack}} -- MacAddct  1984 (talk • contribs) 21:14, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
Done. =) xenocidic (talk) 21:19, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
If you interested, I just came across the original source of the 12 track soundtrack on the 3rd archive page. Some completely unsourced, anonymous contributor... -- MacAddct  1984 (talk • contribs) 21:32, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
Good find. Now I'm even more confident in the changes we agreed on. xenocidic (talk) 14:17, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Why The Orange Box article has the same release dates for Xbox and Windows but this article has one day earlier date for Xbox? --Mika1h (talk) 18:05, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

For the Portal article, this source (written in June of 2007) claims the release date is October 9th. The Orange Box article has this source (written in September of 2007) that claims the release date is October 10th. Both sources claim the launch date is the same for both Windows and 360. I would assume the September article is more reliable... -- MacAddct  1984 (talk • contribs) 19:09, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
Games are typically released on Tuesdays, so that's why I went with the Oct 9 source as cited by Metacritic. xenocidic (talk) 14:14, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

GA on hold

  • I suppose there isn't a strong consensus on if we should source gameplay sections, so it's up to you...
  • I would prefer more prose and less quoting for the GameSpot thingy.
  • Is there no more information about GLaDOS available?
  • "but also to create atmosphere and develop the AI as a character." - needs a source, not really a neutral statement...
  • Don't wlink individual years in the "Aperture Science Laboratories" section
  • "Chell's face and body is modeled after Alesia Glidewell, an American freelance actor and voice over artist" - Any idea why?
  • The review refs need authors where appropriate. Also, add some more content from the actual reviews
  • "Ben "Yahtzee" Croshaw, a reviewer known for his acerbic criticisms, stated in his Zero Punctuation series that he "[Couldn't] think of any criticism for [Portal]," also noting that this had never happened and will never happen again." - Needs ref

Leave a note on my talk page when done. Cheers, dihydrogen monoxide (H20) 09:52, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Question to H2O: "is there no more information about glados available?" - what type of information are you looking for or think is missing? --MASEM 14:46, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
in my humble opinion there is plenty of information about GLaDoS peppered throughout the article. xenocidic (talk) 14:51, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
That's what I was thinking (we have her in-game parts, how she was part of the story, and how her voice came about), so I'm not sure what else is needed, but always good to ask :-) --MASEM 15:04, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
I echoed your question and my opinion to his talk page =) xenocidic (talk) 15:07, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
Sorry about that - I wrote that after reading the "Characters" section, and didn't come back to it later. I suppose you could beef up that rather short paragraph in the section, but it's no big deal. Passed (unwatchlist, give me a buzz if you have anything else I could give input in). Cheers, dihydrogen monoxide (H20) 08:25, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Checklist

Strikethrough these when done:

  • I suppose there isn't a strong consensus on if we should source gameplay sections, so it's up to you... (at least, I think we've got it pretty good -- if not, reviews are great sources)
  • I would prefer more prose and less quoting for the GameSpot thingy.
  • Is there no more information about GLaDOS available? (see above)
  • "but also to create atmosphere and develop the AI as a character." - needs a source, not really a neutral statement...
  • Don't wlink individual years in the "Aperture Science Laboratories" section
  • "Chell's face and body is modeled after Alesia Glidewell, an American freelance actor and voice over artist" - Any idea why?
  • The review refs need authors where appropriate. Also, add some more content from the actual reviews
  • "Ben "Yahtzee" Croshaw, a reviewer known for his acerbic criticisms, stated in his Zero Punctuation series that he "[Couldn't] think of any criticism for [Portal]," also noting that this had never happened and will never happen again." - Needs ref
  • Conflicting release dates for PC/XBox vs. The Orange Box release dates (see above)
  • Conflicting track listing for the soundtrack CD (see above)

Fixed one. -mattbuck (Talk) 10:27, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Fixed others --MASEM 14:42, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Change the Portal logo bitmap image to a Scalable Vector Graphics image?

Hey, I see the distinctive art illustrating image near the bottom is vector-based, and contains the Portal logo. I could extract the logo using InkScape and use it instead of the current logo, which would be more appropriate than the current low-resolution JPEG logo, in my opinion. Agree?

-Smiley Barry [USER] [TALK] [SL PROFILE] 16:33, 9 February 2008 (UTC)


Done. I replaced the logo (though I uploaded it on a different name to keep the original) and left the original image's name in comment tags next to it if it needs to be reversed due to some violation. I think it looks better now, clearer and more professional.

--Smiley Barry [USER] [TALK] [SL PROFILE] 21:31, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
I'm not sure what the problem was with the original. Either way, I'd much rather have the proper Steam logo over any other, so it's in line with the other Orange Box articles. Rehevkor (talk) 21:35, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
Is this an actual logo used in the game or its packaging or marketing or anything, or did you make it yourself? The official logo should be used, not a vector logo that may or may not look like the official logo (I notice you left out the trademark symbol and background). The point isn't to look good, it's to display the official logo, whatever that may be. If Valve hasn't distributed a high-resolution logo, it's not up to us to just make one up! I've restored the actual logo. —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 00:14, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
Also, I started a discussion at WT:LOGO#Modifying logos for display?. Please feel free to comment; that guideline doesn't explicitly address this yet. —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 00:31, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
Simetrical, the logo does not include the background, is the official logo and appears exactly like the original, as if ValVe created the vectorized version. In addition, the vectorized logo is anti-aliased and does not include any JPEG artifacts visible in the original image. This is done in many articles, like Second Life, Mozilla Firefox, and Ubuntu (Linux distribution). I could add the "TM" if necessary, will take exactly 2 seconds.
-Smiley Barry [USER] [TALK] [SL] 12:43, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
As far as I can see, the official logo is white text on either a solid black background, or a particular gray image. You gave no source for your vectorized image, so I don't know if you decided to change the colors yourself or were using a different (official) base image from the ones I see. Regardless, the black background seems to be much more prevalent and typical, and so more appropriate for inclusion in the article. Things like trademark symbols definitely should not be removed in any case; the trademark holder uses it consistently, even if the logo is equally recognizable without it, and we don't want to imply it's not a trademark.

We're an encyclopedia, and so the goal should definitely always be fidelity above prettiness, IMO. If you were to use white text on a solid black background and make sure to include the TM, then I guess there's no big problem if they're otherwise indistinguishable at the size of the article's resolution. I still don't see any reason to vectorize it to begin with.

I do, by the way, very much believe in vectorization of images on Wikipedia! I've marked quite a few images with {{BadJPEG}} or {{Convert to SVG}} myself. But that's appropriate for diagrams and other things that are made to begin with by Wikipedia contributors, or are otherwise free. Anything used under fair use must be reproduced exactly to appropriately serve the purpose of informing readers, and to avoid misrepresenting the copyright holder inappropriately. Reducing the quality or amount of the image by cropping or scaling, of course, is necessary for a different fair use-related reason, namely using the least amount of the work necessary to serve the purpose, so that's an exception. —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 20:01, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Simetrical, the logo is used without a background, and the black background is simply implemented to replace an ugly white color on the packaging. This is done by most companies, to create a sub-conscious reaction to the color, making us want the object because it is different. However, like I said, I can implement the TM in a second, and I did specify the source. Check the image page and see. The source is from a vectorized version of the in-game symbols including the logo, which resembles the logo and symbols perfectly. I have a 11-level demo of Portal I just played a few days ago, and from looking in-game, the logo appears on white surfaces, and on a transparent background in the main screen. However, if necessary, I can add the black background.
-Smiley Barry [USER] [TALK] [SL] 22:11, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
I'm not really part of this discussion, but I feel I should point out a scaled version of this image is totally unnecessary, as there's no place it can to make scaling necessary, it's fair use specifies this article alone and it's home in the top right corner isn't suddenly going to change size. Also, something that has been discussed before, was that the original image wasn't meant to represent just the logo of the game but to represent the closest thing we had to the box art (the art from Steam) which is usually placed in game articles. Rehevkor (talk) 22:18, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
Anyone can comment here . . . —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 00:39, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
Oh, you may want to fix the image page. Under "Source" it explicitly says "The source is not specified for this particular rationale, but it is believed that the logo may be obtained from Valve Corporation." That's what I saw before, when I said I didn't see that you gave a source. I see now that you gave "Source=Image:Portal Game.svg" in the template, but it's ignoring it. (Actually I find the use of that image a little weird as well . . . why not just use the texture from the game? What does "reproduced" mean? But never mind that.)

For the rest, I'm unfortunately unable to check in Portal itself right now, and I have to admit I can't recall how or if the logo appears in-game. It still seems best to use the most commonly-distributed coloring of the logo. At any rate, personally, I won't object to the SVG version's inclusion (barring future broader discussions on the suitability of using SVG for logos in general) if the logo were changed to white-on-black like it seems to typically appear, and the TM were re-added. —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 00:39, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

I have placed a black background behind it, and changed the text to white. However, adding a "TM" text object caused MediaWiki to malfunction and render a small white cube instead of it, so I removed it, after about 4-5 tries to fix it. Now, it has a black background and fits well in my opinion. Look:
[[:Image:Portal (video game logo).svg|300px|thumb|center|The Portal logo.]]
So, put it now?
-Smiley Barry [USER] [TALK] [SL] 17:13, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
I'm not going to make a fuss if you replace it with that, given that no one else appears to care either way. I still don't agree with the idea of replacing it to begin with, though. And to nitpick, the malfunction you observed was in rsvg, not MediaWiki —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 01:17, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

This (article) is important!

When you search for Portal on Google this page is the longest, most thorough, and first on the list. Thats right, it beats its own homepage to the top of Google. This either says something about their page or ours. I will be nice to the valve IT staff and say "Good Job Wikipedia!" On a second note, why does Wikipedia's spell check tell me wikipedia is not a word? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.15.4.226 (talk) 04:37, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia pages are often at the top of many Google searches, although I can't remember the exact reason why. I remember reading that it has something to do with all the links within Wikipedia pages -- MacAddct  1984 (talk • contribs) 05:31, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
Wikipedia doesn't have any spell check. You're probably seeing Firefox's spell check. —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 01:13, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
Right click on the "misspelled" word and click "Add to dictionary". xenocidic (talk) 13:44, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
Since Wikipedia is highly popular, and there are many, many sites linking to it, and Google scales the results by link popularity, it's obvious Wikipedia would beat any site in results, except the original site searched for, like Second Life and There.com for example. Though, there are some exceptions like above, but, it could be that there are more links to the Wikipedia article than the original site, as I assume more information exists here.
-Smiley Barry [USER] [TALK] [SL] 13:36, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
Except xkcd.com, maybe. They have one of the highest ranks on the internet. (They've become infamous for filling their forums with links labeled HARDCORE PORNOGRAPHY and appearing at the top of the list) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.92.236.229 (talk) 22:56, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Chell

In the latest update for Garry's Mod, they added Portal content, including the Chell ragdoll. You can see her disheveled hair through the portals in-game, but if you look closely in Gmod, you can see her eyes are terribly bloodshot. Just thought I'd mention this. Maybe GLaDoS was depriving Chell of sleep or something. PowderedToastMan (talk) 07:10, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

GN: The interesting thing about Portal is that we know who the protagonist, Chell, is, and we'd already planned that character's part in something that occurs later. With Portal, we sort of opportunistically said, "Oh, she fits in here. This makes sense."

I don't know how or whether to integrate this, but it looks relevant. From http://www.1up.com/do/feature?cId=3165930 Leushenko (talk) 21:55, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
I'm not even sure what that means. xenocidic (talk) 21:56, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
I'm not sure if there's much to the Chell thing, but that article was quite nice to add a few more details on the development section. (Including confirming the ASPHD==Ardian Sheppard coincidence). --MASEM 22:27, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

i think i know where Potrals fits into Half-life's timeline

After i found a note book (i forget the real name 4 them, but any ways) in a room just you meet your 1st rocket Launching little robot (thingy), in the note book there is what i think is a picture of skeleton lay out of a vortigaunt, so i am guessing potrals may be set sometime after the black mesa incident- 2me —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.107.197.228 (talk) 13:50, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

interesting, but I don't think it would meet the criteria for inclusion in the article per WP:OR. xenocidic (talk) 13:55, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Looking to get free replacement for Image:Weighted Companion Cube (Portal).png

As part of the FA review, one editor suggested that we likely can replace the WCC picture (which is non-free) with one of the user-created versions, taken as a photo, as a free replacement. Note that I'm checking to make sure this is ok, but in the meantime, I'm looking to find two pictures, both free:

  • A photo of Valve's plush companion cube. Note, you need to take this picture yourself, you can't take it off the website.
  • A photo of one of the fan-pattern-based plush or papercraft for the Cube. I'm going to try to talk to the PC case mod author to see if he can upload an image of the case into Commons.

Thanks . --MASEM 16:12, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

  • This is overkill, in my opinion. There's nothing wrong with a few fair-use images. Besides, the pictures of objects based on the Companion Cube are still derivative works of Portal, and thus non-free. Depicting the cube in any way is non-free, so we might as well use the in-game one. --Phirazo 19:02, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
    • Well, even if non-free, showing a fan-created or Valve's version of the Cube ties the picture in much better with the text without losing the purpose of the current picture: the identification of the cube, with the added benefit of showing how it's been recreated in the real world. It may not change the amount of fair-use non-free material on the page, but it makes a better justification for its inclusion. --MASEM 19:07, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Portal 2

http://kotaku.com/359484/portal-creator-announces-portal-2 2:56 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.122.210.173 (talk) 02:34, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately "Well, I believe Doug Lombardi, who is our lead marketing director at Valve, has announced Portal 2" isn't exactly a confirmation -- MacAddct  1984 (talk • contribs) 15:31, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Is the lead necessary?

The only way someone can get to this article is if they: a) click a link from another page that directs to Portal (video game) or types in /Portal_(video_game) into the url. Portal itself is a disambiguation page, so it's likely that that is what most people are going to come to first. -- MacAddct  1984 (talk • contribs) 15:03, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

There is absolutely no harm. The Portal (interactive novel) link is necessary since there is potential confusion between it and this game, and as long as we have that, there is no harm in including the dablink to Portal. --MASEM 15:37, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Velocity and momentum are not scalars

I changed 'with no change in velocity and momentum' to that it changes their respective magnitude not. Velocity and momentum are vectors, not scalars, their magnitude remains constant, their direction changes and thus they change mathematically speaking. That is why these portals are impossible in the first place, because they conflict with the law of conservation of momentum, one changes momentum out of nothing, which is not possible, eventhough the magnitude of the momentum remains the same. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.84.222.243 (talk) 20:12, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Portals act as their own dimension in which the direction of the momentum is changed and then the object returns to our demension with the same momentum. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.120.222.188 (talk) 22:36, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't think the portals change direction. They act as if the exit of the portal is a continuation of the entrance. Perhaps in my tired state I don't see what you mean to say. What I think you mean is the portal acts as if it takes you from one place to another, almost like simply taking a turn. They don't take you from over here and move you over there in a physical sense. You don't gain momentum inside the portal, once you exit the portal it acts as if you were continuously falling, for example. You will gain speed equal to your weight apportioned to the relative gravity. If you enter a portal that is on the floor feet first, and exit through a portal that is also on the floor, you will exit feet first (upside down) with the momentum you entered the portal with, only projected in a different setting (vectors that existed before entering the portal seem to be reversed). I fail to see where the change of direction occurs. --IronMaidenRocks (talk) 03:16, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Nevermind. Don't surf Wikipedia half asleep. I forgot that it does change direction in the game. You exit the portal according to the shape and placement of the portal, right? --IronMaidenRocks (talk) 03:25, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
Correct. Xihr (talk) 06:32, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Neutral Checking

Does Ben Croshaw really fit with the fully established game reviewing companies? I mean, it's not that I doubt his professionalism, I just think that seems to be like adding the Angry Video Game Nerd's reception to the games he's reviewed.

I just don't like fanboy-ism in articles, even if the game is great. Speaking of which, In the third paragraph (Of the summary) can someone possibly iron out the sheer bluntness of the statements? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.16.228.212 (talk) 22:06, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Potential source

For those working on this article, Valve posted a PowerPoint from the GDC detailing some of their design philosophy. The notes contain some information that might be relevant. [1] Geuiwogbil (Talk) 20:44, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Not especially to be honest, I don't suppose there was any audio commentary to go with it? -mattbuck (Talk) 21:09, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
No, just text commentary. Geuiwogbil (Talk) 21:12, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
Ah, I see the information is already in the article. Apologies! It might be more useful, though, to link to the full text of the GDC document, in addition to summaries in Shacknews and Nextgenbiz. Geuiwogbil (Talk) 21:18, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Here's something else: [2]. Geuiwogbil (Talk) 03:35, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Great interview. I'll try to add stuff from that here and a couple other places. --MASEM 03:47, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Should Aperture Science have its own article?

It has enough information. Valve gave it its own web site. It needs to have its own article. Black Mesa has one. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.120.222.188 (talk) 22:41, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps you should hack something together in your userspace and then ask for input. xenocidic (talk) 23:10, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
Given that we don't currently have any more information about Aperture Science than the four paragraphs already in the article (which help describe the setting of the game), I don't think we'd gain anything from copying it off to its own page. I think we'd need to wait until Valve interviews, Portal 2 or future Half-Life episodes gave us more material. --McGeddon (talk) 23:34, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

"The cake is a lie"

That line has become a huge Internet meme, with several hundreds of thousands hits on Google, t-shirts (check Google Images), and so on. I suggest that someone links that line directly to this article. --82.171.70.54 (talk) 08:25, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

The cake is a lie redirects to here. While we know there is a large meme for it, memes need a higher level of verification to be explicitly discussed (though the line is mentioned in the plot description). --MASEM 12:38, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

"and will be released as a standalone retail product on April 9, 2008."

I bought a Steam-enabled Portal DVD long ago. Was it brought via a time machine or what? (I'm in Russia, just in case that matters.) - Sikon (talk) 16:28, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Are you sure it was Portal, or just a similar game? AP Shinobi (talk) 01:19, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
I believe Russia uniquely had stand-alone packages on release. Pretty sure it was mentioned in this article at some point.. Rehevkor (talk) 01:51, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

I dont know if this is the right place to disscuss this but....

I've been reading many articles on this game from various web sites and there seems to be some criticisms surrounding the minimum requirements needed to play this game as listed on the game itself are still not enough to play the game. Many people are complaining that their graphics card is not compatible with the game even though their graphics card is up to date or in some case brand new. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.49.184.29 (talk) 13:39, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Do you have a link to a reliable and notable publication reporting this? xenocidic (talk) 13:46, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Release date

Per the discussion at talk:The Orange Box, I believe the release date via Steam is October 10, since it was delayed from the October 9 release date. ~ UBeR (talk) 22:05, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Is the Acupuncture site working for anyone else?

I thought it best to ask here, w/ so many people here. For me, all I get is someone green-blinking small square...am I missing some software?? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.72.221.194 (talk) 20:51, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

waaait. I get it now. ignore this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.72.221.194 (talk) 20:54, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Sign your posts. Four tildes. That's all it takes. And it's Aperture, not Acupuncture. —Preceding unsigned comment added by SonicBoom95 (talk • contribs) 18:58, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Ohhhh the irony!! ~Pip2andahalf 21:24, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

GLaDOS' original purpose

GLaDOS' original purpose was not to de-ice fuel lines, she was shoehorned into the de-icing project in an a attempt to out-bid Black Mesa.

From the notes.exe on ApertureScience.com (login: cjohnson password: tier3)

1986 - Word reaches Aperture management that another defense contractor called Black Mesa is working on a similar portal technology. In response to this news, Aperture begins developing the Genetic Lifeform and Disk Operating System (GLaDOS), an artificially intelligent research assistant and disk operating system.

GLaDOS is a research assistant built to help beat Black Mesa's similar portal technology project.

The.v.dog (talk) 22:17, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Black Forest (Cake) & White Forest

During development, Swift said that she picked up a Black Forest Cake because it "looked the best". It could just be a red herring, but it seems to be the opposite of the White Forest where Freeman was supposed to take Alex to in HL2 Episode 2. Coincidence, connecting the plot, or just a red herring? --21:44, 16 May 2008 (UTC)GlobalSequence (talk)

Either way, it's original research and so therefore inappropriate for the article. Xihr (talk) 05:45, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

New Chell Picture

I would like to propose using this[[3]] picture on the article main page, as opposed the current image on the homepage, on the basis that this one is a full body profile as opposed to a side-view.

Thank you for considering,

Moocow (talk) 19:17, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

A side view is needed to show the heel springs, you can see every aspect of Chell in the original anyway, as well as it being clear and it lacked portal artifacts and portal gun reticle obscuring the view. Rehevkor (talk) 19:34, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Sales?

At a cursory glance, this doesn't have any info on sales. Was this not mentioned at its FAC? Ashnard Talk Contribs 13:25, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

A FAC doesn't have to have information on sales. It's possible the information isn't even public knowledge, so there'll be no sources on it. Other than that.. I dunno. :P Rehevkor (talk) 14:22, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
Would it not then fail criteria 1b, comprehensiveness? Ashnard Talk Contribs 14:24, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
You can't really be comprehensive on a subject when there's little or no information in the hands of the public. Rehevkor (talk) 14:58, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
An article can still be penalised for lack of broadness or comprehensiveness, regardless of availability. I've known GAs and FAs fail due to a lack of development, sales or other such information. Saying that, things aren't set in stone—it's usually dependent on the individual circumstances and how the reviewer interprets the criteria/policies. Ashnard Talk Contribs 15:41, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
At the time, as it was either in the Orange Box or a separate download on Steam (which only Valve can provide numbers, and I've seen no such indication that there are numbers Valve's released for this), sales for a co-packaged game didn't come up, and that would have been expected to be in the Orange Box section (hence the seealso). (though I do note there's no sales mentioned in Obox's article) The individual PC game just came out, but I haven't seen any figures for sales at all for that.
this interview gives more than a million Oboxs on the consoles, and some unspecified figure on the PC. It is definitely less than 1.82M per this, but that's only console sales. and I can confirm a figure in Oct07. But again, these all are for Obox, not Portal itself. --MASEM 14:32, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
Okay, fair enough. I'd forgotten that it was a co-release until after I posted. It probably goes without saying that it will help the article to include the Portal when/if they are released. Happy editing. Ashnard Talk Contribs 14:46, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Emotional

" Jeep Barnett, a programmer for Portal, noted that players have told Valve that they had found it more emotional to incinerate the Weighted Companion Cube than to harm one of the "Little Sisters" " Wait... this has to be a joke, right? Sandwiches99 (talk) 20:26, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

No actually it's true. He said it during some interview. :p --FrostedBitesCereal (talk) 00:03, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Cake Recipe

I'm not sure if this is appropriate for the article...

The actual cake recipe can be found by unpacking the localized .gcf file, since one of the cubes you incinerate rambles it off. The audio files are aperture_au\escape_02_sphere_cakemix-XX.wav (where XX is 00 through 41).

I haven't confirmed that all of the audio clips actually are heard in the game.

And the recipe is (ingredients in order of audio file numbering):

  • 1 package (18.25 oz) chocolate cake mix
  • 1 can prepared coconut pecan frosting
  • 3/4 cup vegetable oil
  • 4 large eggs
  • 1 cup semi-sweet chocolate chips
  • 3/4 cup butter or margarine
  • 1 2/3 granulated sugar
  • 2 cups all purpose flour
  • Don't forget garnishes such as:
    • Fish shaped crackers
    • Fish shaped candy
    • Fish shaped solid waste
    • Fish shaped dirt
    • Fish shaped ethyl-benzene
    • Pull and peel licorice
    • Fish shaped volatile organic compounds and sediment shaped sediment
    • Candy coated peanut butter pieces, shaped like fish
  • 1 cup lemon juice
  • Alpha resins
  • Unsaturated polyester resin
  • Fiberglass surface resins
  • Volatile malted milk empoundments
  • 9 large egg yolks
  • 12 medium geosynthetic membranes
  • 1 cup granulated sugar
  • An entry called "How to kill someone with your bare hands" (?)
  • 2 cups ruhbarb, sliced
  • 2/3 cup granulated ruhbarb
  • 1 tablespoon all-purpose ruhbarb
  • 1 teaspoon grated orange ruhbarb
  • 3 tablespoons ruhbarb, on fire
  • 1 large ruhbarb
  • 1 cross-borehole electromagnetic imaging ruhbarb
  • 2 tablespoons ruhbarb juice
  • Adjustable aluminum head positioner
  • Slaughter(?) electric needle injector
  • Cordless electric needle injecter
  • Injector needle driver
  • Injector needle gun
  • Cranial caps

"And it contains proven preservatives, deep penetraton agents, and gas and odor control chemicals that will deodorize and preserve putrid tissue"

It's far too trivial to be included here. See WP:NOT. Xihr (talk) 01:52, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
Nope, doesn't belong here. But that is the full recipe, and it does appear complete and in that order in the game. I've listened to it myself. It's also the subject of several videos on YouTube. 70.210.166.118 (talk) 06:31, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Previous test subjects?

In the game, when you go back into the observation rooms that look out on the testing areas, often times there will be a clipboard on the desk. Each clipboard has a chart listing the hazards that may be encountered, and sometimes a silhouette of a person. One clipboard has a human silhouette (possibly representing Chell) and the word "SUCCESS" or something like that stamped over it. But the others have the word "FAILURE" stamped on them, and the silhouettes... aren't human. Frankly they look like a plucked eagle. What the heck is that about? Is that a part of the backstory that just hasn't been explained yet? 70.210.166.118 (talk) 06:29, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

"Portal: Still Alive"

With the announcement of "Portal: Still Alive" as an XBLA title, I have created a redirection from Portal - Still Alive to here. Please note that we cannot link "Portal: Still Alive" as it is a namespace conflict. I don't know if we need a separate article or not (I think we might once more details are revealed) but be aware it will be the above location. --MASEM 18:59, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Also note PORTAL STILL ALIVE IS NOT PORTAL 2! This is a small filler for Portal 2 --FrostedBitesCereal (talk) 00:22, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

The girl's name

Its already known whats the girls name, but when your in like Chamber 8 or something and you complete the goal, GlaDOS says something like " [subject name] would be proud of [subject father's name]"............I'm not so sure I can make sense to you people. But at some point in the game GlaDOS uses like a recording of Chell's voice saying her name and maybe last name, and her father's. Can anyone understand that recording? I'm just curious.............does anybody even know what I'm talking about cause I feel might dumd right now... 75.72.221.194 (talk) 09:24, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

I'll play through Chamber 8 in a moment to see/hear what you mean. — chandler — 09:42, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
I know the one your talking about. GlaDOS says "[subject name here] must be the pride of [subject hometown here]". Those two bits aren't voiced by Chell, it's just a standard "fill in the blank" sort of thing. I interpreted that to mean that she's been doing this for so long or with so many people she doesn't even bother with the formalities anymore. Hewinsj (talk) 17:54, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
In the Rock Paper Shotgun interview they say that GLaDOS, at that point, "basically plays pre-recorded versions of herself to talk to you", and I took that to mean that she was also playing the blanks that she was supposed to fill in for "the current test subject." —Yar Kramer (talk) 23:24, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

End scene NEEDS editing

There is no way the cake is chocolate, and the balls are not features of GLaDOS but the same balls used instead of the weighted companion cube when choosing the advanced option. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Muffin Man 23 (talk • contribs) 15:41, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

It's a Black Forest Cake. --FrostedBitesCereal (talk) 18:12, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
It's original research to say what cake it is (other than delicious and moist). -mattbuck (Talk) 18:52, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
See Portal_(video_game)#Development: "According to Kim Swift, the cake is a Black Forest cake which she "thought looked the best" at a nearby bakery, the Regent Bakery and Café.", which cites this source. Rehevkor ✉ 19:05, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

This is what I thought when I played the game the first time

File:A formation of Marines, firemen and policemen running across Manhattan in 2007.jpg
The prosthetic I talk about in my talk.

When I played the game the first time, I died quite a lot. I remembered the dieing without the familiar red glow of death from HL2, and just laying on the floor, but able to look around and see where I fell. When I got to the end, I was sure that I, or the character I was playing was blown free from the belly of Aperture, and had died. You're laying on the ground, immoble.

On further thought, the immobility is probably due to the incomplete 'scene', meaning that if you look around that scene it has obvious 'flaws'. It was meant as just a scene to look at from one angle. I also realized that the knee implants would probably help Chell survive most any fall.

This is mostly just what I thought, not really a discussion of the page, so I will include something else:

jumping stilts

I was looking at Eli from HL2's missing leg and the technology looks similar to a real life prosthetic technology that I thought was used for running. On looking at Chell's leg implants I see some similarity. I see some similarities between the implants, and I see similarities between them and jumping stilts. I heard that jumping stilts (or things like them) are fun to use and run in because they reduce the impact of each step a little.

Just what I see though. Similarities are everywhere if you look at them right. What do you think? Sliferjam (talk) 13:04, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Portal: Still Alive==Flash Mappack?

Okay, someone added to the article stating Still Alive would contain levels of the Flash mappack, citing this source. Now to me that site seems to be some sort of blog. Would anyone be able to confirm the claim, provide a more reliable source or verify the given source? If not I think it'd be best to remove the statement altogether until we have something re can reply on. Rehevkor ✉ 13:33, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

 Done - http://www.xbox360fanboy.com/2008/07/20/new-portal-still-alive-content-mined-from-flash-version-and-no/ –xeno (talk) 13:36, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
Ah, cheers, it just seems like a rather far fetched claim really, found it a little suspicious, thanks for soothing my doubts! Rehevkor ✉ 13:41, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
That source doubles back to the GSW source, so that's not really a replacement.
But I will vouch on the reliability of the blog. The author is Chris Remo, who used to work at Shacknews and now is editor-at-large for Gamasutra (here), which is in the Think media group that also runs GSW. Yes, it's on his blog, but that's a reliable starting point. Now, if IGN or the like pick this up separately, I have no problem with that being replaced, but at the present, this is the best source. --MASEM 13:45, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
Yea, I'm fine with that. I actually didn't notice your first revert, which kinda confused me as I was changing the source because the "verify reliability" tag had disappeared =) –xeno (talk) 13:50, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

merge Portal - Still Alive back here?

No problems, just trying to avoid problem sources.
Now, I don't know whether we want to wait for a second, independent claim to this or not, but given this, I am pretty sure that we want to merge the Portal - Still Alive article back to here, since there's effectively nothing new to talk about with it, or at least nothing that won't be a second paragraph on the "development" of it. Any thoughts on this? --MASEM 13:53, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
I agree. a glorified expansion DLC pack doesn't really deserve its own article. –xeno (talk) 13:55, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
I'd support a merge, there'll be little beyond trivia that that could be put in a separate article since there's no new story or content (as far as pc users are concerned), and as is the Portal article isn't overly long. If this turns out to be wrong then we can split at a later date, after the game is released. Rehevkor ✉ 13:58, 21 July 2008 (UTC)


Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5 Archive 6
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Portal_(video_game)/Archive_4&oldid=1142444087"