Jump to content

Talk:Portal (video game)/Archive 6

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

Inaccurate label under box art

The image displayed on the cover is NOT a sign in the game. It resembles the style of the signs but I propose the caption be changed as it is not in the game.

Featured article again?

Is that possible? I thought this article was already FA, can FA articles get featured more than once? 125.238.108.62 (talk) 06:53, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Being a featured article is one thing; being on the front page (which only Featured articles can be) is a different thing, but is not a second "featured". --MASEM (t) 13:47, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

portal on wikia

portal on wikia could sorely do with a few editors. i started knocking together a few basic cats, navboxes, and stubs the other day, but it's pretty much a ghost town over there. if anyone's interested in a barn-building project, this is one very much in its infancy. --Kaini (talk) 21:52, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

ASCII version

The ASCII version of Portal is being created. --88.1.6.16 (talk) 14:44, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

this information was added to the article yesterday --15:00, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

yes but the article says: "was created". False. Its not finished yet.--88.1.6.16 (talk) 16:19, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

created does not imply finished? if you want to clarify, feel free to edit the article yourself. --Kaini (talk) 18:46, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
As Kaini suggests, created doesn't imply it's finished. If you do edit the article, please do not replace reliable sources with primary/blog sources. Rehevkor ✉ 18:52, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
wellll if i was in a nit-picky mood, technically the Boing Boing cite i added regarding portal on the iPhone is from a blog (a very, very high traffic one with a basis in old media). the fact that it has its own article is a nice example of WP:N in action; it's notable and usually therefore WP:RS as well. so basically blogs aren't excluded by default; it just better be a damn good blog ;) --Kaini (talk) 23:15, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
Basically, I added them (ascii and iphone) as both has more than a few blips on the gaming blog-o-sphere, mostly as asides on sides that are otherwise RS. Are they significant enough for an article? Certainly not, but within a well-sourced article, mention of these is perfectly fine. We just don't need much more than a sentence on them. --MASEM (t) 23:43, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Fat Princess Tropy Reference

I just added the reference under the Mods and Ports section. I feel the section should be renamed, but I couldn't think of an appropriate name. --Ashitaka96 | E-mail • Talk | 06:37, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

It's not really notable enough to be mentioned at all. Rehevkor ✉ 13:20, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Why not? It's a reference to the famous quote. Your the expert of notability? The section I put it under needs a different name, but I think it has it's place in that section. Also not everything on Wikipedia needs citation, only if the nature of the information warrants it. --Ashitaka96 | E-mail • Talk | 06:04, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Besides it's one little sentence that is factual and related to the article subject. Why did you feeling it was "not notable enough" mean it had to be removed? It's not like I wrote a whole paragraph on it. --Ashitaka96 | E-mail • Talk | 06:15, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Is it more that just a reference in passing? I haven't seen the trophy but I'd say, not really. There's also a similar achievement for the game Splosion Man where collection a cake on each level gives you a Portal-themed achievement name, but again, it's in passing. If the developers of either of those games noted the acknowledgement to Portal in those, then that might be something, but name-dropping games is not sufficient for legacy info. --MASEM (t) 12:18, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
It's a bit of a tangent for this subsection, since it's neither a mod or a port — it's merely a passing mention from another gaming title which otherwise has nothing to do with Portal. Adding such micro-relevant tid-bits to any article may begin the road to ruin: there is no natural end to lists of trivia for popular subjects like Portal. By all means add link here from there with some sort of "Fat Princess contains humorous references to other gaming titles including Portal ..." remark, since this is relevant to the article at hand, but the reverse linking really isn't necessary or helpful. We can perhaps reconsider if Portal 2 contains a reference to Fat Princess ... --PLUMBAGO 12:33, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
I agree. It's not notable really. After all, (last I checked) it wasn't mentioned on the Red Versus Blue page that Gears of War has an Achievement called "Is it a Spider?", a reference to RvB Season One. --Thejadefalcon (talk) 15:24, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Handling_trivia#Connective_trivia is worth a read, if you haven't already seen it. --McGeddon (talk) 15:29, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

It seems GS took it down. We need to find something that cites GameSpot's award. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 02:02, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

BTS Poetry

The Dickinson poems are not actually featured in the areas of the game after the fire pit, rather in a small cove in Chamber 17. Should the article be edited to reflect this? Theusernameiwantedisalreadyinuse (talk) 01:24, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

A Portal 2 has been confirmed

http://g4tv.com/thefeed/blog/post/683036/portal_2_confirmed_on_xplay.html If this isn't legitimate source, I don't know what is. 76.178.228.63 (talk) 21:05, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

This is from almost 2 years ago.. Rehevkor ✉ 21:36, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
Touche, you sneaky devil. Still though, doesn't it count? Unless it was mentioned in the other archives, in which case, my bad. Edit: Apparently it was mentioned in another archive. Disregard.76.178.228.63 (talk) 01:57, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
Well there's already a section about it in this article, Portal (video game)#Portal 2, which uses different sources about Portal 2's conformation, i.e. [1]. It doesn't have it's own article yet, as little is know about it. Rehevkor ✉ 02:05, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

New radio sounds

There is a HUGE discussion on the Steam forums about the new radio sounds. Some of them are morse code, some SSTV feeds, it's all very interesting. Check it out! A p3rson (talk) 02:42, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

News sites are stated this has to do with the sequel announcement, so that information is present in that section of the article (it's not really a "conspiracy") --MASEM (t) 02:59, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
Updated to the newest developments. --The monkeyhate (talk) 12:40, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
HOYL FUCK! RED ALERT! WE HAVE MODEMIZED THE BBS AND WE ARE DOWNLOADING THE DATA AND WE NEED ALL WIKIPEDIANISTS ON GUARD! INCOMING! 72.47.31.31 (talk) 00:42, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Here are two more-recent sources (kotaku & escapist) that better detail the events of this situation. Fezmar9 (talk) 04:34, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Update to Portal ending

Valve recently updated the ending of Portal where you now hear a robotic voice say "Thank you for assuming the party escort position" and you watch as your character is dragged away by unknown forces. --76.253.162.32 (talk) 23:26, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

i've amended the 'plot' section - once some more descriptive sources pop up the 'portal 2' section might need a line or two. i have a feeling that things are going to be changing pretty rapidly for the next week or so. --Kaini (talk) 23:41, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
as an aside, this article no longer mentions how we know the protagonist's name is chell. --Kaini (talk) 01:31, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
I've rewritten your addition (though elements of it remain) to treat this as part of the game's ending, instead of "that bit they added on" as we can assume this is part of the canon plot. -- Love, Smurfy 20:51, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

minor issue

Hello all Third paragraph starts: "Portal has been acclaimed as one of the most original games in 2007, despite being considered short in length."

Does originality have anything to do with length?

Thoughts? —Preceding unsigned comment added by It Figures. (talk • contribs) 23:12, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

The statement is to say the game was acclaimed, but still criticized on length. --MASEM (t) 00:36, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, that was the intention. I don't think the grammar is quite right though, to me the word 'despite' points to the 'most original' part of the sentence rather than the 'acclaimed' part. Perhaps: "Portal has been acclaimed as one of the most original games in 2007, winning several 'game of the year' awards, despite being considered short in length."It Figures. (talk) 17:28, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

I think we have most of what's in this...

[2] don't have time until weekend to browse through. --MASEM (t) 02:10, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

The Cake Is A Lie

Maybe there should be a new page about the Cake, but maybe that's better left to some sort of Portal-specific wiki. I don't know. There should at least be an article about "The cake is a lie". 

 Portal did not coin this meme, a user on 4chan did.
 From what I heard, a few users were posting fake links to child pornography and "the cake is a 
 lie" is used as a reply to such fake posts. I haven't seen the posts myself but this meme has
 been around long before Portal came about. Can someone verify this? >.> -jkilos--121.7.239.240 (talk) 18:17, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
Are you a pedophile ? How would you know this information - that it is a FAKE link to child pornography unless you have clicked on said link ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 116.30.145.143 (talk) 14:04, 4 May 2011 (UTC)


Actually, the first known use of "The cake is a lie" is in the old 70's sitcom, All in the Family. [3] Torinir ( Ding my phone My support calls E-Support Options ) 17:29, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Since it actually says "the cake is a lie." on the wall in the game, how did Portal not coin this phrase exactly? The phrase's use was certainly not common prior to this game. Mhoskins (talk) 12:05, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

New Release

Portal has been released for free via Steam thru May 24 2010. Maybe someone should mention this special release in the article.Noghiri (talk) 15:35, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Already done, see under Distribution. (Note that the actual details of the sale are not encyclopedic, but the fact it was released for free for a limited time on the steam for mac announcement is) --MASEM (t) 15:41, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Companion Cube

I don't think Glados was really praising the cube so much as the article suggests. Throughout the level, she makes (rather funny) comments about how the cube cannot speak. The most she really did was say "take care of it", and that it "will never threaten to stab [Chell], and, in fact, cannot speak." I'll admit I'm a newbie, and I'm not 100% certain whether Youtube is a reliable source... but I'll give a link which shows a playthrough of the level if it helps prove my point. [4] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Atomforyou (talk • contribs) 00:20, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Paragraph lengths

By definition, a paragraph needs at least three sentences. Some quasi-paragraphs here are two or less! These should be merged, cut, or expanded! Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 17:19, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

There have been edits that have split paras up into the shorter parts that I've fixed, though I would argue that short paragraphs on complete, discrete thoughts that would be difficult to integrate are not bad; it just shouldn't be standard. --MASEM (t)

Are those personality cores lighting up...?

At the end of the Plot entry where it says "The shelves contain dozens of other personality cores". I've looked closely. They look more like spherical Weighted Companion Cubes, like the one you use in one of the advanced maps, that are lit up to resemble personality cores. I'm talking about the eye area where it doesn't look concave or recessed like on a personality core's eye, but convex and flush with the rest of the sphere. Anybody notice that? --ThePenciler (talk) 01:06, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Did they have the handles on them like the personality cores? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Atomforyou (talk • contribs) 04:00, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

No, they don't have handles. I agree with ThePenciler; they really don't resemble personality cores at all, except that they are round. Cooper 25 (talk) 21:58, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Portal flash version

This is a short entry. I noticed that the page has nothing about the flash version of the game. I have played the flash version, and I think it would be a valid entry. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.163.122.213 (talk) 00:12, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

it's mentioned under Mods and Ports. --Kaini (talk) 00:18, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Genre

While I respect the fact that there is a page on Valve's site that states that there are FPS elements and puzzle elements, most other secondary sources consider the game a puzzle-platformer, specifically because the game doesn't have any "shooting" elements that are implicit of an FPS. Other places on Valve's website that describe portal do not mention it as an FPS, so it seems better to the wider sourced consensus here. --MASEM (t) 00:16, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Masem here, although there is shooting, you do not shoot to injure people (there are no people). It is more a puzzle platformer than a FPS. --Stickee (talk) 00:32, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

The core of the game is FPS, it's source engine, you use a Portal *GUN*, things shoot at you, you *CAN* die, and it's part of the Half-Life series and takes place between Half-Life and Half-Life 2. Valve's word on the genre is law, they know their own game better than you two do. I'm changing it to First-person shooter / Puzzle-platformer. That is the TRUE genre of the game as Valve has stated as well as the very fair very logical reasons I have given above. - 24.49.53.195 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.49.53.195 (talk) 00:42, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

You can die in puzzle games as well. See Clu Clu Land, The Adventures of Lolo, Ico, Puzzle Quest. The Source engine can also handle third person shooters (Alien Swarm), You can shoot at things that shoot at you in many platformer games (the Ratchet & Clank and Tomb Raider series are notorious for this). Last, just because it's linked to the HL series doesn't mean much (since game series can and do change genre in the middle of the series; see Postal (series).—Jeremy (v^_^v Carl Johnson) 00:46, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
Evidently people are disagreeing with you here, you should wait until a consensus is reached before you start changing things again. Rehevkor ✉ 00:49, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

For my own two cents, I think Valve describing it as "FPS-style" ought to take precedence over a nebulous assertion that "most" secondary sources call it something else. I am willing to bet that I could provide a source using the term FPS for every source that is provided that doesn't (but let's not, please - reference ping-pong isn't a very fun game). If I'm not grossly mistaken in assuming that kind of parity, then the designing company's own terminology probably ought to take precedent. Where I would reverse on this, I think, is if it could be regularly demonstrated that Valve publications regularly described it as something else without referencing the FPS medium. If that's the case, I'd personally say "Never mind." - Vianello (Talk) 01:14, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Video game genres are defined by the groups that report on it (your IGNs, 1UPs, etc.) as they're the ones that introduced and popularized the terms (they may have borrowed terms original from game companies, but since then they know how to define their field). Thus, while a primary source (Valve here) may believe their game is an FPS , if the reporting industry defining those terms is not calling it that, then the primary source is wrong. --MASEM (t) 01:24, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
One could argue that. Is there a substantiated indication that is, consistently, how it is represented, though? I'm not trying to say side-handedly that it isn't. I'm asking because I don't know. The claim that this is how most secondary sources describe it seems to be unsubstantiated. (This all just goes to show how "genre" has become an increasingly dead concept, doesn't it?) - Vianello (Talk) 01:33, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
If video game genres are defined by the groups that report on games, then you would have no problem if the overwhelming majority of people categorized a game like Tetris as a first-person shooter, right? Of course, you would have a problem with that categorization because you realize there's an objective definition for each genre, and Tetris definitely does not follow the definitive qualities of a first-person shooter. Therefore, the definitions of the reporting industry is irrelevant. The genres are intuitive. Look at the name. FIRST PERSON. SHOOTER. Besides, if genres were as vague and subjective or even biased as you like to suggest, why do you even include the suspected genre on the Wikipedia article? That's far from being objective. - 173.71.145.146 (talk) 01:46, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Portal is a first-person shooter ('a combat or video game genre characterized by a three-dimensional view from the player's perspective, often holding a weapon in front.' from Wiktionary) at its core and merely emphasises puzzle-based gameplay. Therefore, I think it's only fair that we conclude that Portal is a puzzle-based first-person shooter. The game is observed from a three-dimensional view, from the player's perspective, and there's a weapon involved called the Portal GUN. Combat is also a definitive trait of the FPS genre, and last time I checked, there's combat in Portal! In fact, combat is necessary to bypass some areas of the game, especially to enjoy the ending after the boss battle (which is entirely puzzle-based combat) Dropping a portal to throw a turret into a pit of fire is just as much combat as riddling an enemy with rounds from conventional weaponry. Arguing that Portal is not a first-person shooter is a lot like arguing that a rock is not a rock. Well, logic absolutes say it is. You can argue about the 'puzzle-based' adjective all you want, however, because not all rocks are the same, but they're nonetheless all rocks. - 173.71.145.146 (talk) 01:25, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

By your logic, Clu Clu Land is a third-person shooter because you shoot at blowfish, and The Elder Scrolls III: Morrowind is a first-person shooter because the game is played from the first-person perspective. —Jeremy (v^_^v Carl Johnson) 01:45, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
To be fair, those are kind of missing the other qualifiers. You could argue Portal has many if not all of them. The combat IS very non-traditional though, and very de-emphasized, so I could understand why a reviewer might not use the term "FPS". I'm really more about what it's been called, though, rather than what it looks like to me personally. My thinking was that. except in the absence of massive outside disagreement, that the branding of the game's creators is probably a strong determinant of genre. - Vianello (Talk) 01:50, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
Not in the case of Morrowind. It fits the FPS mold to a T. (First-person shooters don't require guns; any projectile weapon works.) —Jeremy (v^_^v Carl Johnson) 02:10, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
Is the game emphasized on its first-person shooter mechanics? Then, I wouldn't consider it as a whole a first-person shooter. Meanwhile, Portal is emphasized on its first-person shooter core mechanics. - 173.71.145.146 (talk) 03:17, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
Just because it is presented in the first person does not make it a first person shooter. The shooter term has several implications that are not true of Portal. --MASEM (t) 03:22, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
Like what? - 173.71.145.146 (talk) 04:07, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
Like weapons and shooting, for one thing. (Shooting the portal gun is not comparable to that). Heck, take Mirror's Edge which is not considered an FPS even though you may temporarily pick up a weapon and fire it. --MASEM (t) 04:10, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
I have to concede Morrowind both is weapon-ier and shoot-ier. - Vianello (Talk) 04:17, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
Like pressing a button that makes bad things in front of you go away. That's practically all you're doing in a shooter, but in Portal, you press a button that makes a thing you can use to teleport. Terminology/setting/atmosphere/etc do not make a game genre. Calling it a gun does not make it a shooter, just like how jumping on Goombas doesn't make Mario a fighting game.Mr. Nile (talk) 19:54, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

The existence of games like this brings to question whether a redefinition, or a separate term is needed to define the genre. Perhaps "First Person" only describes the perspective, while the second term "Shooter" describes the primary objective of the game. For instance, you would not call Morrowind or Oblivion First Person Shooters, for they are more First Person RPG's, while Portal could be considered a "First Person Puzzle" Doom, Half-Life, etc. where very little non-shooting takes place, would take the long-standing role of "First Person Shooter." A game which combines strong elements of two, say Deus Ex and Fallout 3/New Vegas would be "First Person Shooter/RPG" --DaedalusMachina (talk) 01:39, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Morrowind and Oblivion both also combine strong elements of two (especially if you run a ranged-attack character or spellcaster). Thus, to say that they (and Fallout 3, which is purely an RPG in the same style as TES) aren't FPSes is a bit disingenuous since a fair bit of "shooting" (be it arrows, quarrels, bullets, or spells) does take place in those games.
(As a fun fact, the Fallout series was originally a top-down western RPG in the style of Planescape: Torment or Baldur's Gate. It, like Postal before it, changed genre between Fallout 2 and Fallout 3.) —Jeremy (v^_^v Hyper Combo K.O.!) 21:35, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Could someone help reference GLaDOS?

I was wondering if someone could provide specific in-game references to content in the GLaDOS article. I think that besides some paraphrasing repairing, it is pretty close to being a GA. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 19:07, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Swedish politics

It seems the far right Swedish party was hacked by a Portal fan - http://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/09/20/sweden_democrats_defaced/. Worthy of a mention? -mattbuck (Talk) 17:11, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

I don't really thinks it's notable enough for a mention. Plus it also seems a bit like trivia. Thanks, Stickee (talk) 05:55, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

No mention of the 1986 game?

Does this need a disambiguation page with this entry?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Portal_%28interactive_novel%29 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.195.102.82 (talk) 14:09, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

We had considered that long ago, but determined that the 86 title really doesn't qualify as a video game, and the present name scheme works. --MASEM (t) 14:12, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Aperture Science

Can there be a separate wiki for Aperture Science? Aperture Science is far more than the two paragraphs in the included article. It's full of all types of satire. There is also an enormous fan base for Aperture Science. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.232.155.229 (talk) 16:48, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

There's actually very few reliable sources for it. Just because something's popular doesn't mean it should get its own article. --MASEM (t) 16:56, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

In fact, I fealt the urge to add a warning to the Setting section that the following text is a humorous creation and is not considered canon in the Half-Life universe.Alcator (talk) 12:37, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

I removed the text you added as unsourced POV. --Geniac (talk) 23:40, 27 December 2010 (UTC)


Portal 2 seems to rewrite the history given in this article. The tests that Cave Johnson leads you through are dated as 1956. This is the period that the Portal 1 history says he was still making shower curtains for another 18 years (until 1974). I agree Valve needs to publish more information on how any company, let alone a shower curtain manufacturer, a struggling shower curtain manufacturer, was able to design and construct an underground facility that is more impressive than 10 Great Pyramids of Giza - and do it in complete secret too. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 116.30.145.143 (talk) 14:01, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Valve Task Force Re-vitalization

Attention, all contributors to the Valve Task Force and the articles it constitutes!
I am here to announce that I will be re-vitalizing the Valve Task Force, aimed at universally improving articles constituting Valve Corporation, their employees, associates and products. This specific task force has been dormant for quite some time and with two very notable releases coming out this year, I feel like this is the appropriate time to re-stimulate the general aim of this group. For those who are not already members of the Valve Task Force, feel free to add your name to our members list and contribute to whatever articles you feel your contributions may prove beneficial for. Valve, its products and notable employees have proven to be essential to the progression of the video game industry, so I'd like to make a call of arms for this cause. DarthBotto talk•cont 22:03, 08 February 2011 (UTC)

The second demo picture was wrong

The second demo picture was wrong. It showed a second blue portal being created that supposedly increased the final horizontal momentum of the user. In fact anyone who has played the game would realize it would not actually increase momentum, by inspecting the picture. So I removed it. Theguyi26 (talk) 03:45, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

I realize I am wrong because even though horizontal momentum would be lower, there would be upwards vertical momentum which would shoot the guy further, so it is possible that more distance would be covered. So I reverted it. Theguyi26 (talk) 03:50, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

don't lose sleep over it - the purpose of the diagram is to present a rough idea of how game mechanics work. if we were to work to a mathematically exact model, we'd probably have to delete both diagrams - but this isn't the applied mathematics article, it's the article for a computer game. of course, if you want to make better diagrams, they're welcome - that's why wikipedia is so awesome :) Kaini (talk) 04:14, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Boss battle description

The current description for the boss battle implies a completely opposite atmosphere from what actually happens. What's written makes it seem like Glados does nothing but talk while you casually incinerate her pieces, which any player of the game knows is not at all what the battle feels like. At least mentioning the rockets would let the reader know that there was some kind of danger during this portion of gameplay. Please explain why you disagree with this, Masem, as "unnecessary" isn't much of a valid reason. -- Fyrefly (talk) 21:17, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

We already mention that there's a countdown here, so there's an element of urgency implied by the actions. Though I can understand what you mean, but how you added it probably didn't fit the place where you put it. Let me fix that. --MASEM (t) 21:22, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
Hm, the new version is rather awkwardly worded, but I'll give it some thought and fix it later. -- Fyrefly (talk) 21:43, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Setting Idaho?

How sure are we the setting is Michigan? There is a section in Portal 2 with a number of awards given by the state of idaho, and the terrain you come out on at the end of the game certainly doesn't look like Michigan. 159.230.140.216 (talk) 18:12, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

When the player first enters the 1950s lobby of the enrichment center, the display case includes a newspaper indicating that Cave Johnson bought an abandoned salt mine in the UP of Michigan to use for scientific purposes in 1947, which would explain the gigantic caverns that the testing facility is built into. (Other items in the case include an award from Idaho in 1955 for "the advancement of Potato Science", Cave Johnson's 1943 Shower Curtain Salesman of Year award for the Aperture Fixture Company, and several awards denoting Aperture Science as being the number two R&D science facility in the nation and/or contractor for the Department Defense, presumably coming in second to Black Mesa).

I agree that the visible terrain seen at the end of Portal 2 doesn't really match the UP, and the UP also was known for copper mining, not salt, but it should also be considered that the Half Life universe isn't necessarily on our version of Earth and there are some other discrepencies - for example City 17 in Half Life 2 looks distinctly like an Eastern Bloc city, but with the exception of Father Grigori, all of the humans seem to be American. Another possibility is that the facility is so massive that parts of it are in the UP and parts of it are elsewhere, like the lower peninsula, Wisconsin or Ontario.

I agree with the Idaho issue. I just saw the Potato trophy, and the wheatfields at the end of the game are synonymous with Idaho as well. The citation for the 'supporting documents' doesn't mention Michigan, either. glasnt<3 11:04, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
We can't infer that "because there's no wheat in the UP that the game can't take place there". The best evidence is that in-game paper that matches what the player has seen: a complex far far underground. There's nothing in the game to support the location in Idaho; the only connection there is the potato theme. --MASEM (t) 22:38, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Removed paragraph from "Critical Reception"

I removed this from the Critical Reception section as it had nothing to do with critical reception. It also reads like an essay, and contains non-notable facts about an unnamed program at a particular college. Some of it might fit somewhere else in the article, so I'm leaving it here. --Atkinson (talk) 09:47, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

(removed copy/paste from article that was here, -M)
First, there's no need to copy/paste anything that has been included once on the main article, as Wiki's revision system maintains this. Secondly, this was all info present in the article at the time of its FAC and thus has been vetted by the community. It is not an essay, simply the fact that Portal has been used for educational purposes (and this even was extended recently in Portal 2). --MASEM (t) 12:34, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Short film based on the game

Should there not be a section for the short film that was based on the game?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4drucg1A6Xk — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.222.161.162 (talk) 01:06, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Not really, unless there's media coverage of it that established notability. -- ferret (talk) 01:09, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
That said -- I'm pondering a "Legacy" or "Cultural Impact" of Portal article that combines anything Portal-related from P1 or P2. --MASEM (t) 01:22, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Series

On the Portal page, under series it claims for Half-life. Yet in Portal 2 its series is just Portal.

Also should prequel and sequel be added to the list of stuff?

And why are the system requirements separated from the main colon?

FourDimensionalHyperSphere (talk) 05:47, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

Too man spoilers for Portal 2 is in this article!

This article is for Portal 1, so why are there so many spoilers? — Preceding unsigned comment added by SilentBob420BMFJ (talk • contribs) 07:10, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Yeah this is pretty bad. I came here after completing the first game and I've had to stop reading. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 110.174.122.225 (talk) 00:30, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

Please read Wikipedia's policy on "spoilers," specifically on why it is not in Wikipedia's best interest to omit such information. Wikipedia is encyclopedic in purpose. Visitors read at their own risk when it comes to plot summaries and information about the game. GabeIglesia (talk) 00:40, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
How about you read it? Portal 2 is a completely different game. It is not reasonable to expect it to be spoiled in this game. Take time to actually read what people say before making comments condemning them. This type of thing is why people don't like editing Wikipedia. — trlkly 21:50, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Physics: "Direction" is Conserved

The whole gameplay section is written around the misconception that "Objects retain their speed as they pass through the portals, but not their direction (and therefore velocity will be altered depending on the orientation of the portals and the object." This is a misinterpretation of the quoted article, and the physics it implies make no sense. Grade school physics guys:

A "change of direction" in terms of physics would have one of three possible effects:

  • you come out of the same portal you went in
  • you stay trapped forever in two-dimentional space
  • you come out of the exit portal at a random angle different to the one you went in

Now obviously none of these happen. If "direction" changed this game wouldn't be playable at all.

What happens instead, according to the article and the analysis of the game's code, is that the velocity vector is preserved. This means both speed and direction. What changes is the frame of reference, which is of course the portal itself - or more properly, the surface normals of the exit portal. So it is the conservation of the velocity vector in the frame of reference (erroneously called "direction" here) that enables the player to change their movement direction in-game by placing the exit portal on a different plane with the entry portal - thereby manipulating the frame of reference itself. The re-orientation that happens at the end is merely a return to the original frame of reference, the room. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.49.85.246 (talk) 10:34, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

We've been through such a discussion long ago in setting up how to describe the impact of portals, and as we're writing for the layperson, it's better to use the frame of reference of an observer of the process, which sees the change in direction without (initially) a change in the magnitude of the velocity. --MASEM (t) 12:15, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
Well this is high school physics but i see your point. Still, any reference to a "change of direction" is wrong, and doesn't make any sense. Isn't there a better way to describe it in layman's terms without putting off everyone else? How about writing that "motion" (meaning velocity) is conserved? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.49.85.246 (talk) 14:19, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
Ok, current version is both factually correct and as simple as it gets. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.49.85.246 (talk) 14:56, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
This is all wrong. Momentum conservation only applies within a single frame of reference. Obviously if you change your frame of reference, anything can happen. If you however stick to a single inertial frame of reference, the momentum direction of objects going through a portal will change with respect to your frame. The article is nonsense, and this discussion has been pretty far off the mark. Momentum is not conserved by portals, only its magnitude is. 82.73.238.63 (talk) 21:31, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
Assume you're explaining this game to a person at the bus stop. They say, "so, you fall through one portal, but keep your momentum and go flying out the exit portal?" I imagine the response would not be, "No, momentum is not conserved. When you pass through a portal, your frame of reference changes with respect to the orientation of your destination portal. Only the magnitude of your initial velocity with respect to the frame of reference of your entry portal is preserved." Mhoskins (talk) 20:07, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
You have an odd imagination. Most people don't know that much about physics. The problem is that people are reading this article and thinking it is accurate, when it is only one possible POV. Consensus doesn't change the fact that we must remain NPOV and thus show all interpretations that we can properly source. — trlkly 21:57, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Portal and Goffman

Tenuous connection, to say the least.

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

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

Reference to Narbacular Drop on the lead

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

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

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

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

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

Removed section regarding timeline/sequence of events

Pretext:

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

The removed section:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Can it really be called a mod if it is created from scratch instead of by modifying the existing game?

If modifying an existing game isn't necessary for something to be called a mod, what is not a mod then? --TiagoTiago (talk) 03:00, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Portal (video game). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:33, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

PEGI rating

What is the PEGI rating of Portal? 194.251.18.203 (talk) 04:32, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

Go to the PEGI site to find out. -- ferret (talk) 14:18, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

Development Section

I have recently been improving the Media Molecule article. I came across some interesting infomation regarding development for Portal. This being that fact that Valve almost chose different developers (those being the co-founders of Media Molecule) to develop a game around portals. This game was called The Room and was described as being "more Portally than Portal" and "Portal, but with scale factor". They even happened to meet with the students of DigiPen who discussed Portals with them at GDC 2005. They met with Valve who were interested in hiring them for them to develop The Room, but nothing ever came of it. Evans (one of the co-founders) noted that "But I wonder that if we had [joined Valve], maybe they wouldn't have hired the Narbacular Drop team, and we would have screwed the world out of Portal." It might be worth noting this on this article to some degree. Some refs:[5], [6], [7], [8], [9].  Spy-cicle💥  Talk? 15:18, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

I don't think a "what if" speculation based on Evans's anecdote merits inclusion in the Portal article. Even as a Portal fan (>700 hours between Portal and Portal2...great replay value in those games), it doesn't seem very interesting to me that Valve talked to different dev teams before making their hire. (Thanks for sharing though, now I'm aware of Media Molecule and will keep an eye out for their games!) Schazjmd (talk) 16:03, 15 December 2019 (UTC)
@Schazjmd: I do see your point we do not want to speculate. What are your thoughts on having a one sentence summary just so viewers are aware of it? Something along the lines of: Valve originally sought to hire the to-be co-founders of Media Molecule involving a game which featured portals however nothing ever came of it.  Spy-cicle💥  Talk? 12:14, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

Retconned timeline

The timeline of Aperture was retconned with the release of Portal 2. Information revealed in-game shows that Aperture Science was founded in 1947 and worked on portal technology right from the start. Cave Johnson was also poisoned by moon rocks in the early 1980s, not 1978. We also don't know when GLaDOS was activated, we only know that it was a few days before the Black Mesa incident, which happened between 2000 and 2009. I think the 'setting' section needs revision, does anyone else agree? 56KPK (talk) 01:12, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

The amount of detail that was "retconned" is beyond the scope of Wikipedia. We have made reference to the fact that Portal 2 established some parts of Portal's story, but that's all we really can go into. --Masem (t) 02:54, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

WikiProject: Spoken Wikipedia

Hi all- I'm going to be making a spoken-word version of this article as part of the Spoken Wikipedia project. JRennocks (talk) 12:34, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

Alright, that's done! Thank you. I hope it's useful.JRennocks (talk) 14:17, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

  1. ^ Stanton, Rich (2011-04-26). "Erik Wolpaw on Portal 2’s ending: "the [spoiler] is probably lurking out there somewhere". PC Gamer. Retrieved 2011-04-26.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Portal_(video_game)/Archive_6&oldid=1221498989"