Talk:Half-Life 2: Episode One/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

• I think including the word "massive" in the line "... the massive blow delt ..." is something of a spoiler.

How so? Does anyone really play HL2 thinking that Gordon might not be able to do any harm to the Combine? -DynSkeet (talk) 12:13, Jun 10, 2005 (UTC)

• Sorry for all the edits I did when creating this article (it was my 1st one ever). Hope all you Half-Life 2 fans like me enjoy and add to it!

-Neanderslob

• Im not a pure Half-life fan but im interested in the series and happy that this article was created. That released screenshot from Aftermath reminds me of.....Adrian Shephard from Half-Life Opposing Force not him though.

-This article should be updated.

More than a tad confused...

I'm currently a bit "lost" on the opening segment. Gordon was removed by the G-Man, prior to the revelation of Alyx's fate, correct? And yet he's now rescued by the vortiguants, along with her? Is this, then, a ret-con or a reimagining of the ending for Half-Life 2? --AWF

No, the start of ep1, for all intents and purposes, picks up immediatedly after time slows at the very end of HL2. These is a bit of exposition before hand, mostly recapping past events and a short speech by Breen which iirc was a "flashback" to HL2. -XI

Spoiler Tags Needed

Self-explanatory. --Ultimus 21:47, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Screenshot

I made a minor discovery regarding the green-camoflagued combine soldiers seen in several official screenshots of Episode One. In the back drop of Half-Life 2: Deathmatch, the exact type of green-camoflagued combine can be seen in the background along with a couple known types of combine soldiers. I had previously assumed that these two soldiers were just a modified Nova Prospekt soldier, since the green-camoflagued combine were not yet known to anyone. Now that I've seen the screenshots, I conclude that they are indeed indentical in every way to the ones seen in official Episode One screenshots. Have a look for your self http://img129.imageshack.us/img129/1234/episodeonecombine1ws.jpg . Could someone possibly include this picture on the Episode One page? I'm new to wikipedia and don't want to mess anything up.--Gobanzo Mon 06:09, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

I don't think the image is suitable, really. A line of text somewhere sensible should do the trick. :-) --Tom Edwards 22:13, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

wow i never noticed green camo combine in episode 1.. and i didnt notice it in the backround in deathmatch ether.. good find.Chardrc 17:16, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Episode

Please cite where Valve refers to Aftermath as the first official "episode." Nufy8 20:33, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

I agree. "Episode" sounds pants. Calling it an "Expansion" clearly makes sense as it expands on the original. Saying it's the "first episode" sounds stupid because HL2 is obviously the first episode. Even if a reference is forthcoming, it sounds like a typo on the part of the reference-writer. --Plumbago 20:37, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

I still think a compromise is best until we can get a source. I feel it rather dubious Valve would ACTUALLY call this an "episode" and not an expansion pack, though I could be wrong; we just need the source to prove it. And even still, it IS an expansion pack. --Shadow Hog 22:50, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

[1]

Also, on the HDR thing. The engine always has HDR, it's dependent on the maps whether it is active or not. Perhaps we could squeeze that in the box. ;-) --Tom Edwards 14:38, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

I think "fully supported" covers the fact that each map has HDR. Nufy8 14:51, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

I agree with Tom. That should be noted somewhere, like under the tech section. --DjSamwise 14:12, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Episode really reminds me of when Quake had "Mission Packs".

It Should be: Half Life 2: Aftermath - Episode 1.

Even if it is quoted that valve itends for it to be viewed NOT as an expansion, it still IS an expansion. Opposing force added upgraded graphics to the HL engine. That's exactly what this game is doing, using the HL2 engine with some fixes/upgrades. It's not a new system, therefore an expansion.. despite what they want to advertise. Stick with the truth and don't let WIki become an ad tool. :)

didn't know how to sign 3 days ago.. so here it is. :) --DjSamwise 19:09, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

PC GAMER reporting on Alyx's playability

This article joins the ranks of publications taking PC GAMER's throwaway-joke-'spoiler'-in-mirror-writing too seriously. That sentence was a joke! It should not be included in the Wiki, but I have not removed it for fear of offending the original writer. I have instead amended the sentence to make this clear. Poorsod 14:34, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

Either way it should be included in the article, as long as correct context is given. Which it now has. Nufy8 17:41, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

Side note, I edited "The Great PCGAMER" to "The popular PCGAMER" to maintain unbias. :) --DjSamwise 05:58, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

About RAM

Does Aftermath really just require a minimum of 256 MB RAM to play it? The recommended setting for Lost Coast is 1024, which feature HDR effects. Jetro 21:59, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

256 is proably for min everything. but that seems extreemly odd since you need more than that to play almost any game on winxp.Chardrc 22:27, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Lost Coast has higher memory requirments because it has more detailed textures, not because it has HDR. --Tom Edwards 09:33, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Release date announced by GameStop

The release date for HL-Aftermath is February 14th, 2006 according to my local GameStop store's catalog.

Retailers always make dates up. Ignore them. --Tom Edwards 08:48, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

at game spot.com they said that on jan 9 valve said that they are "now shooting for an April 24 release for Half-Life 2: Aftermath"

Chardrc 22:21, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

More Proof We should go ahead and post the release date set by Doug Lombardi. 07:12, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

It's already there. Nufy8 07:16, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

hay valve said they would start preordering episode 1 today (may 1) but i havent seen anything on steam or on the web.. does anyone know what happend?Chardrc 02:10, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

You can now. bob rulz 06:05, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

flag

okay all you people who think you know something about Taiwan, please go read Proposed flag of Taiwan. And please take note that Republic of China and People's Republic of China are different political entities. Stupid idiots, I'm tired of this shit BlueShirts 23:17, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Tired or not, please refrain from personal attacks; calling others "stupid idiots" and "ignoramus[es]" won't help you. Nufy8 23:30, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

You don't need to patronize me, either. Nufy8 23:40, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

The Republic of China flag doesn't appear anywhere in the "Proposed flag of Taiwan" page. If you can actually explain it to us without swearing or using personal attacks, we'll seriously consider not reverting it next time. --Yar Kramer 00:04, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Yar Kramer, you need to take your time reading instead of reverting on the draw. The Republic of China flag is the second wiki link, how can you miss it? Or are you just scanning for a picture? BlueShirts 00:43, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

okay, in case some people have trouble comprehending the article(s), Taiwan's official country name is the Republic of China, which is totally different from the People's Republic of China of mainland. The government of the island of Taiwan is always referred to as the Republic of China, with this Flag of the Republic of China as the official flag. Many times "Taiwan" is also used to disambiguate it from People's Republic of China, on the mainland. But the fact is that the official government that administers the island of Taiwan is called the Republic of China and the official flag of the government that administers the island of Taiwan is the Flag of the Republic of China. The proposed flag of Taiwan is never used by the government and political organizations in Taiwan, as described by the said article. Therefore it is plain wrong to use that said flag to represent the the company that distributes the Half-Life 2 expansion pack in the island of Taiwan. The explaination is really simple and some people get it by an instant [2], without going through much trouble. BlueShirts 00:41, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Except of course that you are simplifying the matter. According to the Republic of China article it is only officially recognized by 25 other countries. Qutezuce 01:13, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

There is an article on the political status of Taiwan. But seriously enough, what you said has little bearing on the subject matter. The point is that the proposed flag has never been adopted by any governmental or political organizations and definitely should not be included in this article. BlueShirts 01:23, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

So you're saying that the flag of a country that isn't officially recognized is better to use than the best available flag of a country that is? --Yar Kramer 03:23, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

On this point, I'm prepared to put my weight behind Yar Kramer. If a country isn't officially recognised (which, the Republic of China is not - 25 minor countries does not sway my vote), then the flag used by the majority of countries should be enforced (in this case, the flag of Taiwan in question). The way to resolve this issue to a satisfactory conclusion would be to create a Half Life 2 article specifically for those countries which recognise the Republic of China, and use the RoC flag there. The English Wikipedia article will continue to use the Taiwan flag. This is because Taiwan is recognised by at a great majority of the English speaking world (which is the intended audience of this article).--Dan ^(Talk)|@ 04:17, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

This issue must have been discussed somewhere else on Wikipedia already, is there a policy on this matter? Qutezuce 04:28, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

As far as I know, there is no current policy. I'd dearly love this to be sorted amicably however.--Dan ^(Talk)|@ 12:17, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Take note of BlueShirts' user page: User:BlueShirts

This is done for Chinese nationalism reasons, he is strongly against Taiwan having any independence and is supports the fascist Pan-Blue Coalition. --Mistress Selina Kyle ^{(Α⇔Ω ¦ ⇒✉)} 12:45, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

49.89% of Taiwanese people voted for the pan-blue fascist presidential candidates in the ROC presidential election, 2004 and pan-blue fascists won the majority of seats in the ROC local elections, 2005 ;) BlueShirts 18:53, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Folks, please refrain from conducting this as a political debate. It is not. Throwing in charged phrases, pointing to personal politics, etc. is completely irrelevant. The only things that matter are accuracy, NPOV, and other applicable Wikipedia policies and guidelines, such as Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Chinese). That said, there really is no room for debate here. Using the proposed flag of Taiwan instead of the official flag of the Republic of China is both inaccurate and strongly POV. Everybody can agree what the official flag of the Republic of China is: that's both a matter of fact (you can look it up in the CIA World Factbook, EB, Encarta, etc.), and also a matter of law (it's specified in the ROC constitution). Conversely, there is no agreement on what the flag of Taiwan might or should be. That's partly because there is no country (internationally recognized or not) that calls itself "Taiwan". If there was, we would know about it, because then a major war would be going on in East Asia. Asserting that there is such a country/flag/etc. is a notable POV that's amply documented elsewhere, but wishing that things were different doesn't change the current factual state of affairs. --MarkSweep (call me collect) 18:06, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks mark, I couldn't have said it better. BlueShirts 18:53, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

"not recognized"?

"Republic of China" is only recognized by around 23 minor countries, "Taiwan" is the entity better known.

Things made in Taiwan tend to say on them "Made in Taiwan": Not "Republic of China" - because there is no such country. --Mistress Selina Kyle ^{(Α⇔Ω ¦ ⇒✉)} 18:57, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Taiwan is not recognized by any country, at least the ROC has some minor countries and the Vatican. My ID card and passport still say ROC. The government is called the ROC. Chen Shui-bian was sworn in as the President of the ROC. Seriously, just what do you know about Taiwan? BlueShirts 19:06, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

I know that Taiwan exists, first of all. I'd never heard of the Republic of China before this discussion. I also know that you're being rude and slightly patronizing, which probably isn't helping my lack of any particular inclination to agree with you. --Yar Kramer 01:27, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Why are flags even necessary here? This isnt an article on real armies being sent to war. We're talking about a videogame. Just because images are pretty doesnt mean we should include them all the time. Corporations aren't connected to their countries of origin like armies or Olympic athletes. --Jiang 09:31, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

The flags indicate in which country the company is distrubting, or which country a release date refers to. They give important information and do so in an efficient, easily understandable and, yes, pretty way. :-) --Tom Edwards 11:10, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

The use of flags is not quite intuitive for users not directly involved in the editing of these series of articles. A better way of conveying the relevant information (even though it would be much less aesthetic) would be to simply list Taiwan: Unalis Windows. Otherwise, we have to rely on people to a) recognize the flags and logos or b) put their cursor over the images to read the hidden text and above all, link the flag in front of the distributor to mean that it is distributing in that particular country, and so on. At first, I thought the flag referred to the distributors' country of origin (or that it was multnational)...But I see how it would be hard to fit things into the table and dont feel particularly strongly about this.--Jiang 11:34, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Someone mind telling me why this is on the Half-Life 2: Aftermath discussion page?

In the infobox the flag of a country is used to denote information specific to that country. Qutezuce 04:18, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

WTF does this have to do with HL2: Ep1? It dosnt so stop fighting like 2 year olds about something old and retarded!!

It's amazing how they stopped arguing the moment they were asked why they were arguing about it on the HL2: EP1 discussion page. Notice how an explanation still has yet to be provided. =)

So true! Insaneassassin247 14:12, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Aftermath renamed 'Episode One'

Source. Personally, I don't think something so bland will stick and I'm voting to put off any page moves until we know for certain that it's shipping with the new name. --Tom Edwards 08:52, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Comment - Yeah same, I spotted it this morning too. I'd wait until more sources confirmed this anyway, I mean right now it's just Gamespot and everyone else mirroring it. - Hahnchen 14:55, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

I say we move it now, we don't need anymore credibile sources, it came straight from Doug Lombardi's mouth. A Clown in the Dark 20:08, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

I guess we can always move it back. The question now is should we include this box shot, even though it has the old name? --Tom Edwards 08:53, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

wow that is a weird name for a expansion... i liked aftermath better. but i guess thats valves dicession.

It's not really that weird since Valve have already confirmed that they will be moving into more episodic content in the Half Life 2 games in the same way its chapters are now. The original Half Life add-ons were not intrinsic to the plot of the game but merely provided more details for the user by giving them the opportunity to play as another character. The "Episode" series kinda drives the fact that these are sequenced and add a lot more to the plot. For example, a user going to the shops in a years time and seeing Episode Three or whatever will likely (if they're that way inclined) say 'woah, there're other episodes too. Maybe I should buy them as well.' It's a fairly good marketing move by Steam as it encourages loyalty in their fans by indicating that the content will have a linear progression rather than the way the original HL mods were done (from different perspectives). The name may not be fancy, but it indicates that there's more to come! 8-) --Dan ^(Talk)|@ 15:36, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

true i gues it will make it less confusing in the long run to which comes first.. even though i liked seeing other perspectives i think ill like continuing the jurny better. (yes i know i have bad spelling)Chardrc 15:49, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

We need another move

I think it's excessive to make however many articles for however many episodes will be released, so I recommend we just rename this Half-Life 2 Episodes or something like that to prevent clutter. A Clown in the Dark 00:26, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

I dunno. This is fine for now. Unless they go up to like 6 episodes then I could see something like that. There are other games that have expansion packs that have their own articles. Thunderbrand 01:46, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

A category would be a better solution. --Tom Edwards 16:31, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

It's way too early for a Half-Life 2 Episodes article. And anyway, this article is about Episode 1, when more are released, we could put together a Half-Life 2 Episodes page. - Hahnchen 05:10, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

i read somewere that it will be a trilagy of episodes aka 3 so i think its ok to just ave 1 page per episode.Chardrc 17:18, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree with tom, a category would be more organized, the only reason i could see that we would need to combine all 3 into one page is if the future episodes are as short as ep.1 --Manwithbrisk 21:37, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

"Presumably, of Gordon Freeman"

"The game's official website mentions that the G-Man "loses control" (presumably, of Gordon Freeman)."

I understand why you say that, but in the website of the game, it says "In Half-Life, the G-Man made you. In Half-Life 2, he used you to defeat Dr. Breen and start the Resistance. In Episode One, he's lost control." - considering that "you" is the character the player controls, Gordon Freeman, by the logic of the phrase, it is talking about Gordon. Also, read the "Story" page in the website; "Consciousness returns. Gordon and Alyx discover they've somehow escaped both the reactor explosion and the G-Man's malevolent grasp.". Don't they coincide? Also, it says "he's lost control", NOT "loses control"; that was in the maganize referred in the G-Man's page.

Hey, did anyone else notice that apparently Valve has decided to officialy refer to him as "The G-Man", instead of "GMan" like in the credits of HL2?

Yeah, I even edited the G-Man page to refer that some days ago. At least you can't say they don't hear the community, heh.

They hear the community alright. One of the commentary nodes (near where you first see the citadel again after the zombiefest) refers to a "Kleinercast", which seems to be the result of the community coinage "Breencast" for Breen's various broadcasts, recordings in train stations, and such in HL2.--69.196.212.30 17:33, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

When people play the game.

i think that we should start posting the events of hl2 episode when its realeased any one who is playing it. should at least post some kind info

I've just started playing it, completed first two chapters so far. When I've finished it I'll post a plot summary, if no-one's beaten me to it. mode_seven 19:48, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

I beat it. 3 hours 42 minutes. I RULE! A Clown in the Dark 20:46, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Just beat it… just over 4 hours. FYI, the ep2 teaser is in %Steam%\SteamApps\account\half-life 2 episode one\episodic\media. -- Jordi·✆ 23:09, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Vortigaunt color

The Vortigaunts in the intro that were blocking G-Man seemed to be a of a different color, purpleish hue instead of the normal green.--Eupator 14:30, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Its because they color have been inverted in that part

OK... I thought it was of major significance also, maybe the "third power" rising in the HL universe when I first saw it. But them muttering Vort tougues confirmed they are the old Vorts. ;) But time-stop has no reason for them to invert their colour? xertnevnI 13:26, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

But make them look more strange and interesting in that part. Also, the inverted colors help to make the glow effect.

Can someone put more screenshots of the End And a Wikicuote?

Please??? And episode 2 looks more cool. Man, battle in the WOODS yeah!" And Episode 1 needs a Wikicuote, it could be good.

Argree about the qikiquote, there are some funny quotes in there. When you are in the safehose on the 2nd level stop and listen to the other rebels watching the TV "I dunno why they call them headcrabs, they don't even taste like crab" -Ravedave 04:41, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

The actual wikicuote needs more.

It would be freak if...

The Gman is Gordon Freeman. The Vortigaunts are the last evolution (or mutation) of humans. That the Nihilanth is Dr. Breen. That the time have been separated in 2 dimensions. That the large amount of energy makes the earth explode, making it look like Xen. That the Synths of Ep2 are made of primates. That the Gman uses Shephard to get Freeman. Just comparing some things...

Unfortunately, most of that is inconsistent with the backstory of the other games, and has already been speculated to death. --Ultimus 09:44, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

I thought somewhere in some forum, that idea that GMan = Freeman is nuked. xertnevnI 13:28, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Minor cosmetic differences

While playing Episode One, I soon discovered that the Combine soldiers' radios emit a squealing noise after their transmission is finished. Could this indicate that even the Combine's on-planet communication is failing in an attempt to gather enough energy to send the information packet from the Citadel? Also, once or twice i distinctly heard a soldier say "subject: Freeman" during battle. Is this new to the expansion, or can that be heard in Half-Life 2 as well? Finally, at the location in the Lowlife chapter in which barnacles can attack zombies, they eat only the headcrab and drop the then dead zombie. I have never seen a zombie get caught by a barnacle in Half-Life 2, so I am unsure if this is new or not. I would be willing to add this information to the page if others can verify it.--Bionic Pants 19:23, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

The squeal definitely has something to do with the state of the Citadel, but I don't know if it would be power: the soldiers probably run from their own biological energy. Subject Freeman on the other hand definitely isn't new, and while barnacles only eating the headcrab of a zombie might be true, is it really worth mentioning? --Tom Edwards 08:31, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Main Picture - Game Cover

There have been a couple of reverts of the image used as the game cover. The reason the image being used is 'low res' is because such images are considered Fair Use as per .. Rather than reverting again can this be discussed here 1st if you think you have a better image. GameKeeper 13:48, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Obvious solution: resize the image in question until it is low-res... --Tom Edwards 13:57, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Any more complaints? I don't like to be rude, but honestly. This is just silly. --Tom Edwards 14:00, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

I prefer Toms Image. The removal of the bbfc symbol is an improvement as this is region specific. Sorry for the frustration in getting this right Tom. GameKeeper 14:20, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

I think Tom's is the better cover image. --WikiCats 14:15, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree that the resized image is a better fit. I'll withdraw my request for speedy deletion. ~ Vic Vipr 16:05, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Consensus was to use this image . Updated GameKeeper 18:04, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Rightward Drift

Unfortunately, viewed with a fullscreen browser at 1600x1200 (both IE and FF), the two images on the left in the "events" section suffer from rightward drift. One bumps the other into a very ugly arrangement. That part needs to be separated so the imagesare actually both on the left edge of the page rather than being stacked upon each other. Not sure of the best way to go about that. --Ultimus 06:50, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

For reference: [3] --Ultimus 06:54, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Vortigaunt Speculation

" It is also possible that, during most of the events of Half-Life 2, the Vortigaunts were Gordon's employers, and that they were outbid by the Combine at the end of Half-Life 2. If this were the case, then they were taking Gordon out of the G-Man's control at the beginning of Episode One in order to keep him from working for the Combine. "

I've cut this out. It is too much speculative and even unfounded. The GMan gets control of you in Half-Life, where the Vortigaunts are controlled by Nihilant and so can't "employ" Gordon throught the GMan. Also, Gordon wouldn't work for the Combine right after the destruction of the Citadel's core reactor. Anyone else agrees with me that this should stay out of the article?

Definetly. HL2 plot is very much open to speculation, but some of it is better left in fan forums; not wikipedia. Qjuad 21:43, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Glitchyness should be mentioned

The negative opinion toward HalfLife 2 and source engine products, not regarding the typical anti-videogame views, but regarding the crash that occurs every 10 seconds if they can even get a connection to steam should be mentioned, at least as a warning to those planning on getting the game. I happen to be out money because none of the website's attempts at fixing issues seem to resolve the issues and my system is well over requirements. Ive found that alot of people are out of luck because it crashes constantly for them and stores dont return computer software products. Many claim this is one of the main reasons piracy is so prevalent.

Unfortunatly, I'm unable to provide a "neutral" point of view regarding this otherwise I'd do it myself. --PsYcHoDaN 21:29, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

There are always bugs of this nature in complex games. The only unusual thing about Ep1 is its popularity. --Tom Edwards 11:49, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Episode 2?

Has anyone seen that new video on Episode 2? Supposedly, it was decoded from the Episode One game files. Perhaps something should be mentioned? Episode 2 Trailer Nevermind. --Delta 22:48, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

www.cs.rin.ru

I've never heard of the game being called "www.cs.rin.ru", yet that's what the main page says. The site appears to be a Russian Counter-Strike site. I'm hesitant to remove it; I'm not sure if it's vandalism or not. --24.209.244.5 01:39, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

It's just a few attention seekers. If you see it again, don't be afraid to blat it. --Tom Edwards 16:17, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

On DjSamwise's edits

I see that this user keeps adding his own text in the article, stubbornly changing it back to original form after editing by others. I can see this leading to a pointless edit war. I'm reverting the specific sentence (currently the last sentence in the article's intro) to the last version by Tom Edwards, who instead of throwing out DjSamwise's text completely, reworked it into more factual and informative information. DjSamwise, if you read this, please discuss your changes before trying to readd them or rework them into your original form. Ziggur 22:35, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Edit- Oh, I didn't notice DjSamwise had put anything in the talk page. Regarding the order of the G-Man from HL2 and Ep1, the one on the right is taken from the intro of Ep1, while I believe the one on the left is from the intro of HL2. The G-Man definitely never shows up in Ep1 looking like the shot on the left. I noticed you didn't revert that specific change for a third time but please don't do it again. Ziggur 22:40, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Hi, sorry, this is the first time I've used Wiki so pardon my newness. Thought I'd jump right in. Re: the picture.. the text claims the two show the difference in resolution between HL2 and EP1 claiming inproved graphics.. yet the one being claimed as the ep1 is lower res and crappy quality. So either they are switched around (better res one actually is ep1) or the text is wrong when it claims and upgrade. The picture on the right is no upgrade to the picture on the left. So erm.. either fix the text or learn right from left yeah?

Also.. the comments in the opening sections about the game being an expansion.. This game is an expansion in the exact same way as Half-Life: Opposing Force and Blue Shift. They both use the previous HL's game engine and simply added more story line. They both upgraded the graphics slightly. Now if valve wants to say it's not an expansion, that's fine it should be noted that that's what they think.. but that should NOT be what we write. We write what it IS, yes? Not what they want us to write. Do we review and write what it is? Or is this some marketing tool that writes what the company wants? "Wikipedia is not an advertising service." Seriously.. do I need to link to a definition of expansion in the article to demonstrate it.. or link to Opposing Force's wiki page to cite it's changes and how HL2:E1 is the exact same type of expansion? Or is this discussion enough to be able to keep it real? --DjSamwise 18:48, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

OpFor and Blue Shift don't add story, they tell the existing story from a different perspective. The Episodes on the other hand are core canon that progress the overall narrative. From a technological standpoint Valve's episodes and expansion packs might have similarities, but tech alone is not a suitable method of classification. --Tom Edwards 19:17, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

They tell an entirely new story based on the same back ground events, completely different experience. But that's not the important part. The important part is, ITS THE SAME GAME, just with a new story, thus an expansion. Any time you have a game and you add a new story to the exact same game it's called an expansion. Maybe you should move your argument to the wictionary. --DjSamwise 19:27, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes, precisely. They tell different stories. The Episodes however continue the same, central thread: by your own defenition, they do not add new stories are are therefore not expansions.

That amusing slip-up aside, Valve's episodes are certainly a form of expansion, but they remain fundamentally different from BS and OP4. --Tom Edwards 19:50, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

And BTW, why are we pointing out that it doesn't advance any MP games? Pointing out what something is not is a very wasteful excercise. --Tom Edwards 20:01, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

re: the definition of expantion, please read below under the subtitle Expantion or Not. If you need further refference to what an expansion is please reffer to the wictionary or ask me and I'll provide you with additional refferences for what the gaming community has traditionally caled an expansion.

Re: whether or not it's important, as a consumer, I'd be pissed if i thought I was buying a new product only to find an older rehashed product. Keep it real! :) --DjSamwise 20:12, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Expansion or not

My changes to the opening paragraph regarding this being an despite the marketing decision to not call it an expansion keeps getting changed with no discussion as to why it was being reverted. Please use the discussion that has existed under the subtitle "episode" before revertng these changes again. Thanks! --DjSamwise 19:09, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

1) You have just added a comment to the discussion, above, 2) you are reverting it back without discussion, too. --Tom Edwards 19:19, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Re: the intro, I did add a comment for discussion under the episode subtitle, when I first made the edits but you did not interact with it, rather you reverted with no reason as to why evey though I put the reason. Re: the faulty textbox, you are correct, I did not discuss that until just today, sorry I'm learning. :)

Tell you what, you fix the picture text box (cause it's messed up right now calling the worse graphics the enw upgrade) and then lets interact about the intro. Please stay neutral though, don't try to delete the negative facts about the product. If I was buying a game I would want to know that stuff, right?--DjSamwise 19:25, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Why do you keep changing "improvements" to "differences" in the image caption? The Source Engine has been upgraded in Episode One - that is a matter of fact. Have you even played it? Qjuad 19:58, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

"Why do you keep" Keep implies i've done it more than once. Which I haven't.

Don't get off topic here, it's rather clear cut that the Episodes are a different breed than the Half-Life expansions. The Episodes continue the story line of Half-Life 2 in a linear fashion while the Half-Life expansions expanded or enhanced its story line by retelling the same timeline from a different perspective. I kind of suspect you have not even played Episode One based on your opinion of which G-Man picture looks "better" rather than which is from which game. Actually I now realize what you're saying. I'll edit the text box to remedy your concern. The graphical upgrade known as HDR causes the facial details to be blown out which to some, myself included, doesn't make it look necessarily better. I do like the effect in the game however. Ziggur 20:03, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Re the picture in the text, yeah do whatever I switched it as I saw it and if I was wronge that's fine. --DjSamwise 20:10, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Re calling this product an expansion or not: The defining feature of an expansion is the game engine, not plot line or marketing strategies. Traditionally all subsequnt products in the same line of a game using the same game engine have been called "expansions" or "mods" by the gaming community. Blueshift, OpForce, TFC, CS are examples. Plot and graphical difference determines if it is an expansion or a mod. But the key feature of both are that they use the same game engine. Once a new game engine is written, they are no longer considered mods or expansions they are thier own entity. If you need me to help with further examples of what the gaming community calls an "expansion" I will make additional approproate refferals.

I'm going to be charitable here and assume that you are embarrased, rather than considering that a cogent argument suitable for Wikipedia. I've reverted the last edit you made as it is stating what Ep1 is not, as was mentioned previosuly, and duplicating information from just a couple of lines above.

Could we get a concensus here? --Tom Edwards 20:30, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

I try to alter what was written, taking out the most contentious lines to come to a concensus and you start insulting me? Wierdness. Since you and I don't agree on the definition of "expansion" let's wait for a few articles on the game to do it for us and refference those shall we? (signed late sry) --DjSamwise 00:39, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

The episode series, unlike previous additions to the Half-Life family, will offer no new additions to the multiplayer gaming experience.

Excellent, this is more like it. You are making clear the reasons for the statement being useful, not merely what people would expect by default, and seperating it logically from the point of comparison. "Despite using the same engine as Half-Life 2" still makes no sense for the reasons outlined above and below, but the fallacy is clear now and it's probably best to leave it in until other editors remove it of their own accord. --Tom Edwards 20:44, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Although now I think about it, there is one problem remaining: there will be an MP game with Ep2, but the statement encompasses the future episodes too. --Tom Edwards 20:51, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for helping me figure Wiki out. This kicks butt.. --DjSamwise 13:51, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Also.. Yeah I see what you are saying, the wording is not quite right. There has to be a better way of saying that This is what they are doing instad of half life 3 right now AND say that this game really just uses an upgraded HL2 engine. If you can keep those facts in there and find a better way to word it, power to ya brotha! Thanks again man, seriously, Wiki is awesome. --DjSamwise 13:56, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

There I played with the wording in the intro a little bit, see if it makes sense to you. --DjSamwise 14:01, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

It's still irrelevant, I'm afraid. Valve would be using Source regardless. --Tom Edwards 16:35, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

As a product consumer myself it's not irrelivant TO ME if this is another addition to the same game or a new generation of game. I can only assume that there are at least a few people out there to whom this information may also be relevant.. and seeing as how wiki is in essence for everyone, I can only assume that including details important to you, AND me are relevant. --DjSamwise 19:30, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

I don't think you quite understand what I and the others below are getting at here. Your opinion is that engine technology defines the category of game. But it is merely your view on things, and the rest of the industry, not to mention consumers, do not follow such a rigid structure. It may be relevant for you, and there is no problem with you holding it, but it is in no way fit for a place like Wikipedia, which must take a neutral point of view. If you must discuss the matter it should be in an article explicitly covering it, not here or on any other game page. --Tom Edwards 06:48, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

neutral point of view would be to consider the negatives of the game (the fact that it is a mod or expansion of an older engine) with the positives (the fact that the graphics and story line are upgraded)(edit) without getting all snarky. Keep it real Tom. --DjSamwise 08:33, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Calling the Game Half-Life 3 (marketing strategies)

Hey, if you're going to call the game half-life 3 in the intro, please don't delete the fact that it's the same engine as half-life 2. Does someone here work for valve or something? Be neutral. --DjSamwise 20:26, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

That detail has been merged into the paragraph above. If you use the History tab to compare versions ([4]), you can very easily spot things like this. Also, the article does not say that they are HL3, merely that they are in lieu - in place - of it. --Tom Edwards 20:30, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

My edit note is a bit misleading: it should read "duplicated info and unimportant info", as the two halves are unsuitable for different reasons. --Tom Edwards 20:35, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Dude, you can't just mention the hype without mentioning the facts. That's biased.

Please read what I have said more carefully. --Tom Edwards 20:37, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Lack of multiplayer is mainpoints intro type info. --DjSamwise 20:41, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry for my speculation, but do you have a bone to pick with Valve over using the same engine for a game they call "Half-Life 3" only in passing? It really seems like a non-issue. The engine is listed in the infobox, several times in the article, including once in the article lead just before your addition of "despite using the same engine" Ziggur 21:03, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

The final nail in the coffin is that they'll use Source for HL3 anyway... --Tom Edwards 06:54, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Well, the Unreal games all use the same engine - Unreal engine. It's just that they are using different versions of it. You can't say that a game is/isn't a mod on the sole basis of it using the same game engine. In the Gamespot interview Half-Life 2 project lead said that they are making Episodes instead of Half-Life 3. This does not explicitly mean that there will be no HL3, just that they prioritized Episodes over it. --Matveims 07:41, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Interesting observation and perhaps something that should be pointed out in the article, though I would seriously argue that specific marketing strategies for the product not be a part of the intro. I think all the facts of this discussion should be included in the article under a "Marketing Strategies" subtitle. Thanks for good discussion fellas. --DjSamwise 13:48, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

The Episodes using the same engine is about as problematic as DooM ][ using the same engine as the original DooM. I.e., not at all. As for the game names, after Half-Life 2: Episode Three, it will be rather odd if the next Freeman epic wasn't named Half-Life 3 (or Half-Life 2: Episode Four). If it were named Half-Life 4, in particular, it would look like a number was skipped.

The engine is actually being souped up incrementally. Lost Coast added face animation changes and HDR/bloom; Ep 1 includes these and also some AI improvements and other interesting tidbits, which the commentary nodes explain. The same source implies that Ep 2 and Ep 3 will probably have further incremental engine upgrades. So like Unreal, these are using different versions of the same engine. (Whether a follow-on HL3 (or whatever they call it) will use a completely novel engine again as HL2 did relative to HL1 is anybody's guess at this point.)

Cutscene

I've just removed a remark that the start of HL2:E1 shows a cutscene of Alyx being saved by Vortigaunts. I thought that was from Freeman's perspective, but now I'm not so sure (so apologies for so quickly removing the edit). Is it? If not, it's a strange decision by Valve to break with HL tradition. Cheers, --Plumbago 09:54, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

It can probably be considered more of a traditional cutscene; what with the pan up the side of the Citadel, and the spinning Breen monitor - plus Gordon was no longer on top of the Citadel when Alyx was saved as he'd already been plucked up by the G-man. Qjuad 14:27, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

I'll try to have a look again myself tonight. But it does sound like I've been a bit hasty. Anyway, I'm still shocked - a cutscene? In Half-Life? Surely there must be some mistake ... --Plumbago 14:33, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

There were cutscenes in HL2 as well. So what if you could move the camera. ;-) --Tom Edwards 15:50, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

I made the original edit. As far as I'm aware, no other HL game (user-made mods may include exceptions) has had a viewpoint that wasn't the player-character's POV (credits, menus etc. don't count). The Ep 1 intro differs. Before the Vortigaunt-Gman scene (which seems to be from Freeman's pov) the scene with Alyx seems like it couldn't be from Freeman's pov. I suppose it is possible the Vortigaunts somehow showed that stuff to his mind, or even that he dreamed it, but even so it would mark a shift from only showing what the PC really sees and only while the PC is conscious. (It has, mind you, been established that Vortigaunts have some sort of telepathy. HL2 implies it on numerous occasions -- even that they have a kind of shared memory (e.g. of Freeman fighting the Nihilanth). Notable is the remark in HL2 that every so often, a Vortigaunt was captured and taken to Nova Prospekt and this somehow caused the resistance automatically to gain more knowledge of the layout of the prison. That implies Vortigaunts are intrinsically able to function as remote viewpoints, given that prisoners would likely be relieved of any cameras or transmitters they happened to be carrying.--69.196.212.30 17:00, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

I find it completely believable that Gordon "sees" Alyx being rescued due to some kind of Vortigaunt clairvoyance-inducing power. This may be the closest thing we've ever gotten to a "cutscene", but I think it's still short of the mark.

In the commentary they state that "the player loses control of the character." I think that this implies that you're still looking through the eyes of the character, just you can't move around or look around. --UNHchabo 14:44, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

That would make it a retcon. HL1 ends with you entering G-Man limbo without seeing Alyx do more than lean back and shield her eyes. If the Vortigaunts appearing are something Freeman's supposed to have seen at that moment, that makes it a retcon. It's doubtful whey are something he saw after entering limbo. If they are something he didn't see at all, that makes it a cutscene. Either way it's unprecedented in the franchise. The commentary may have been referring solely to the section from Freeman's POV with the G-Man being held back by Vortigaunts.

Maybe some clarification from official sources is needed here.--69.196.212.30 16:15, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Evil spam!

While editing this talk page a minute ago I got spammed! On one occasion I hit submit and was sent to a "Wikimedia Foundation" page with some ad-stuff including a list of credit cards they accept; the page didn't appear to be in English. (I didn't bother with a close look; just got incensed and hit "back".)

I can appreciate that the Foundation may need to drum up donations, but using the universally-reviled random-redirect technique to harass site visitors is not the ideal way for them to go about it! It is liable to drive people away, not convince them to donate. About the only thing they could do that would be worse IMO is to use out-and-out popups.

Links should behave in a stable fashion, especially here of all places.

And submit buttons especially should not do anything out of the ordinary one time in N when clicked. Not all browsers preserve the contents of form fields for you for the eventuality of your hitting "back", so it is absolutely essential that all form "submit" buttons always, invariably do what the user expects, every time when clicked, on any Web site. Data loss could have resulted from this; fortunately, as I was using Firefox, it did not. But it could have, and it could well happen soon to somebody else who uses a different browser. Form submission misbehavior can also result in duplicate postings or similar consequences, if the "submit" button submits the form successfully but goes to an unexpected Web page at the same time. Users will think something went wrong, hit "back", retype everything (with some added swear words, most likely) if necessary (depending on browser), hit "submit" again, and presto: two nearly identical submissions.

To all: beware this new phenomenon. Copy all form text to the clipboard before hitting "submit" just in case, unless you know your browser plays it safe.

To the Foundation powers that be: Find another way to solicit donations that doesn't involve interrupting workflow and risking peoples' data or duplicate form submissions. A prominent donations link on the Main Page would do. Sticking a donations banner (or just ad banners to generate revenue) on some/all pages would suck, but is another option (preferably no animations, sounds, or misleading looks to such banners). But the random redirects must go, and don't you dare react to this with "hrm, these redirects bug people ... I know! Let's use popups!" :)--69.196.212.30 17:11, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

That doesn't normally happen. It was probably a glitch, don't worry about it. --Tom Edwards 17:26, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

No duh, it "doesn't normally happen". It seems to be new (I've edited here on and off for a while). And it is definitely Not Good(tm).--69.196.212.30 17:40, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Happened again editing another page (unrelated to half-life). Saw a typo, hit "edit", made the spelling correction, added "speling" to the edit summary, hit "Save page", and got asked for my credit card number in Spanglish or something. "Back" and "Save page" again and it behaved normally.

Whatever this is, we can no longer write it off as a one-off; it's rare but recurrent, and since it asks for money when it happens, it smells strongly of Hormel canned faux meat products.--69.196.212.30 16:10, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Addendum: it happened again submitting the above! This needs escalating to whoever decides the advertising/flogging for donations/whatever policy at wikimedia.--69.196.212.30 16:10, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Nobody else has commented on this problem. If it is reccuring and nobody else gets it...client-side. Perhaps a piece of adware that is smart enough to monitor the site you're using. --Tom Edwards 16:30, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

I find that unlikely. I ran both Ad-Aware and Spybot S&D this morning with negative results, and got nailed by it twice by 1 pm, without having gone anywhere in IE or installed or run any new software in the meantime. The interstitials themselves occurred while surfing with Firefox.

Also, I doubt the Wikimedia Foundation would employ an adware purveyor as a way to flog donations -- but the interstitial definitely contained the Wikimedia donation box, the same one that appears to the right if you click the "Donations" link on any page (navigation box at left). Bunch of CC company logos, form fields including $(USD) in one, and so forth. So if it is adware, it's adware that markets donating to Wikimedia. Which makes them a client of the adware company. Which I doubt. Honestly I was surprised they'd use interstitials, or any other popup-like advertising technique; I'd be shocked and scandalized if it transpired that they actually hired ad/spyware companies to drive money their way as well. So, for now at least and unless I see strong evidence to change my mind, I am going to assume that the interstitial is actually part of the site, not the result of adware. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

I've written about this where it might get official notice and attention.[5]--69.196.212.30 17:13, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

OK, I just got this. What I saw was a form appended to the error message you get when the servers are too busy - hardly unreasonable. --Tom Edwards 19:52, 9 July 2006 (UTC)