Jump to content

Talk:Portal 2/Archive 1

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

Spoiler Alert

Hi, this article is a little bit to informative about the story and so on, isn´t it? --Stabacs (talk) 23:52, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Merge?

Does this deserve it's own page yet? I think it should be merged into Portal (video game).--Magus05 (talk) 21:28, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

It's fine, even though it's small Valve will release some more info around march or april. --FrostedBitesCereal (talk) 22:27, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
Yeah I agree, and I have a few points I would like to make about this:
1. Half Life 2: Episode Three's page has not much more content than what this page contains.
2. Half Life 2: Episode Two had even less content when it first started, and not once had a person changing it to a redirect.
3. I don't see any problem with having a small article, as long as it has a Stub notification.
4. It encourages people to add more content to the article, allowing more information to be shared about the upcoming game.
I have now also added as much more information to the page as I could find, which may not be much, but it's something, and after all that's what people come to Wikipedia for!
NRG753 (talk) 09:38, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
I agree too. New game wikis have to start from somewhere, usually a confirmation by the developers. --Gamer007 (talk) 10:38, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
I'm still not sure. For instance, announced movies are not to be given their own page until filming is confirmed to have started. A simple announcement or plans aren't enough. Even being greenlit and cast and being put into post production aren't enough. Following the same scale - I don't think this should be here until we are at least sure they are working on it. They currently have Episode 3, and Left 4 Dead in production - are we sure Portal 2 is even being worked on right now? I think we should wait for more confirmation. --Magus05 (talk) 21:47, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
Valve works on all current projects, I'm 99% sure Kim Swift and the other folks on the Portal Team (Well every valve employee can choose what game they work on, but i'm talking about the digipen students.) are working on it, other wise they wouldn't really announce it. Valve never announces a game they haven't worked on (They're constantly working on stuff.) --FrostedBitesCereal (talk) 23:35, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
Being 99% sure isn't the same as a verifable source though. See my point? --Magus05 (talk) 01:59, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
Well given the news on Ep3 a few weeks back about "plot details not being formalized" it doesnt sound more hopeful than Portal 2 at this point.. who knows they could even do an "Orange Box 2" heheh. But in my opinion what confirmation we've had is easily enough to have an article on the game. I'm sure there will be more information reviled in the next month since they mentioned it at GDC, and for that reason I think this article should be available for people to add to it as I and others will be interested to read it. NRG753 (talk) 08:53, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

No merge! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.46.211.161 (talk) 21:45, 29 February 2008 (UTC) I've added a lot more information and put the page up to scratch, it dosen't need to be merged, as well as this work on a sequel begins when the first game is finished.Seanor3 (talk) 17:23, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Well would you look at that... 2 years ago I suggested merging this article because the game wasn't official yet, despite the swarm of people insisting that it was. I guess it's a good thing it was eventually merged. --Magus05 (talk) 19:57, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Merged

I merged this into the main Portal article. There wasn't enough here to sustain its own article yet: the first paragraph was a bunch of POV statements explaining what Portal is, the infobox was mostly guesses, and the second paragraph contained the actual verifiable information. This places that in a place where it is more relevant and aids readers interested in the topic. - Chardish (talk) 06:41, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

GameStop

Can this commercial site really be considered a reliable source? Where do they get their information from? Rehevkor ✉ 00:23, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

I've already stripped it. I'm assuming GI will be filling in details in a few days (when I get my copy) as the information doesn't appear wrong (eg [1] ) --MASEM (t) 00:31, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
On subsequent browsing from news articles, the only source (that all point to) about co-op is Gamestop, and they've since removed mention of it. I've removed it for now until a collaborating source say so. --MASEM (t) 00:54, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
http://gameinformer.com/b/news/archive/2010/03/05/Portal-2-For-Two.aspx - GameInformer confirmed it. --99.33.21.90 (talk) 01:31, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
Looks like Gamestop leak has been confirmed by GameInformer, I have already posted a link to GI article. This is another proof that this information is legit. As for where they get their information from - I'm pretty sure Valve has already released basic info about this game, but they have created some kind of information embargo until the official announcement. Obviously these online stores can't be trusted when it comes to release dates, but they wouldn't publish game descriptions if it wouldn't come from the publishers/devs themselves. wlodi (talk) 01:44, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
Yea, if GI is now confirming, then it's ok. I suspect that GI was supposed to have the first-hand premiere info, thus why Gamestop altered the info after the fact. --MASEM (t) 01:45, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
What about the Mac OS platform? Rehevkor ✉ 01:46, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
That we can't confirm yet. (My feeling is that we are seeing Steam for Mac in the next week or so, and then it may be added on, but that's a seperate announcmenet and one not yet confirmed for P2).--MASEM (t) 01:50, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
I have found confirmation of portal 2 releasing on mac. [REDACTED] Look at the information box on the first page. The pages also may give information for the article, but I am waiting for my copy to come in the mail, so I cannot help on that front. Wojonatior (talk) 21:51, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
The GI article confirms a mac release. This is not necessary Steam on Mac, but all signs point that direction. --MASEM (t) 01:53, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
Could you please name the exact source for that piece of information? I don't see anything that looks like a confirmation... Fenris (08:35, 08.03.10) (UTC+1) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fenris.kcf (talk • contribs) 07:36, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
Game Informer, April 2010 issue, page 50 (the same as in the article). --MASEM (t) 14:32, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
Here's another source explicitly saying Portal will be a simultaneous Mac launch. http://www.wired.com/gamelife/2010/03/steam-mac/ 66.36.156.55 (talk) 19:18, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
Just bring this up, In the steam Beta UI, there are Mac window sizing buttons in a folder called "OSX" Source:Looking on my computer;http://gizmodo.com/5479978/steam-is-most-probably-coming-to-macs Wojonatior (talk) 01:39, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Info to look out for

On a msg board, someone compared the paint function to the Digipen game, "Tag". [2] I have done a high-level search and found at least two of the students are at Valve now (the game only came out last year), and the other two have likely connections with Valve, just can't confirm that.

Thus, like how Valve brought the Digipen team behind Nabocular Drop, it looks like this Tag team was brought in for Portal 2. That info may become known in the next few months, but we should be looking for this. --MASEM (t) 20:40, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Good catch, and plausible. Worth looking out for. Rehevkor ✉ 23:27, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

It's true [3] -- Love, Smurfy 22:03, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Timeline

GameInformer said that the game takes place over 100 years after Portal. All the plot says is just "years" nothing more. Should we add the 100 to make it more accurate?--Kingplatypus 01:49, 10 March 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kingplatypus (talk • contribs)

GI says "hundreds of years", the article here says "hundreds of years". We're all good. --MASEM (t) 01:59, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Oh, durrr, it's the first sentence. Sorry, please excuse my idiocy.--Kingplatypus 19:28, 10 March 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kingplatypus (talk • contribs)

Ya, but MY question is, if it takes place "hundreds of years" after the 1st one then why is Chell still alive?? (no pun intended :p)

There's nothing in the game that makes it seem like several hundred years. The only evidence that it's been a long time is that Wheatley points out the most subjects are only in stasis for a few months, and you've been in it for "a lot longer". The in-game timeline itself heavily implies less than 100 years, as it takes place in the same timespan as Half Life. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.42.88.75 (talk) 20:03, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

"Hundreds of years" is not said in game but has been stated by the writers. There is no frame of reference that we can use in game beyond "a long time". --MASEM (t) 20:20, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

Series

"Half-Life" is the series here, Portal may be an offshoot of the series but it's still part of that same series. Regardless, Template:Infobox VG specifies we only use that parameter when there's a series article to link to, so it's Half-Life (series) or nothing. Rehevkor ✉ 03:01, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

I think, given what has been said about the lack of connection in P2, that "nothing" is the right choice. --MASEM (t) 03:10, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
Portal's listed under the Half-Life series, so I think this goes there, too. —Preceding unsigned comment added by V2Blast (talk • contribs) 17:44, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Publisher

Just as a note [4] EA is not yet confirmed as the publisher for P2. --MASEM (t) 13:13, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Sanity check

"Chambers were first developed through whiteboard via isometric drawings, with the developers performing a sanity check on the chamber, before being created into simple levels through the Hammer level editor. "

Anyone care to explain what a sanity check is? Otherwise, I think it's vandalism. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Atomforyou (talk • contribs) 03:51, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

  • I don't think it's vandalism, just vernacular. "Sanity Check" as in "let me make sure I'm not crazy", whereas "crazy" in this context means weird or too off-the-wall. At least, I'm assuming that's what it means... Shnakepup (talk) 21:47, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

About the cake...

Is it still a lie? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.235.87.225 (talk) 06:34, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Yes, but they wont go into that in Portal 2 :) 2.96.88.46 (talk) 10:52, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
But there was cake! - 24.79.16.144 (talk) 20:25, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
Not there wasn't. - Mario324 (talk) 08:10 1 May 2011 (UTC)

February's release

It think it should be mentioned that the game was originally slate dfor late 2010 released, then was delayed to 9th February 2011 and the again delayed to the April 2011 release. --BigOz22 (talk) 16:52, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Your right, it was delayed. It was just like what happened to Super Smash Bros. Brawl. - Mario324 (talk) 07:50, 18 April 2011

Awards

Should Portal 2's award for most anticipated game of the year at the VGA's be on the article? 2.96.88.46 (talk) 10:51, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Release date

Okay, as most people know, it was originally set to be released in late 2010, but after that, there seem to be two dates:

February 9th, 2011:

April 21st, 2011:

  • [8]
  • [9]
  • [10] (It's for the week of April 18th, but this includes April 21st)
  • [11]

3000farad (talk) 22:14, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

The late 2010 date was pushed back to February 9th first, but around December, they announced another delay pushing it to Apr 18-21. So while your first set of sources aren't wrong, they're outdated. --MASEM (t) 22:16, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
Alright, thanks. I'll put the second date change in the article. 3000farad (talk) 05:56, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
It's not necessary to put previous dates in the article unless they are significant. --MASEM (t) 06:10, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

I don't understand why the release date for NA is listed as April 18th, 2011 when all game stores release games almost religiously on Tuesdays which is the 19th, not to mention all places in which the game can be purchased excluding Steam are listing the game as having an 4/19/11 release date. Also how is no source better than the retailers selling the game. Gothamghost (talk) 16:48, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Retailers typically put in default or arbitrary dates simply to satisfy their sales systems - eg if a title is known to be out by the end of 2011, they'll put the release as Dec 31 2011. They also may be guessing at straws. As for the 18th, that may be the day it will be available on Steam, but clearly its the first possible day it will be available. --MASEM (t) 15:23, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
Is it important enough to mention that pre-loading of the game just started a few hours ago? --Che010 (talk) 21:20, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
I was wondering when they would get around to that... Barts1a | Talk to me | Yell at me 22:36, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
Preloading isn't important -- unless it somehow ties to the arg (90% sure it will). Let's wait and see. --MASEM (t) 23:08, 12 April 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 22:04, 08 February 2011 (UTC)

Heel springs

I reverted this edit earlier. The user is claiming non specific image as the source of the information, not the image the caption is attached to, which is rather confusing. Without a source specifically covering the heel springs this is WP:OR, using an image alone would not cut it, as it requires novel synthesis to make the connection. Rehevkor ✉ 23:31, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Totally agree. We can mention them as heel-springs like the first game (as it is pretty much obvious if you put 1 + 2 togehter) but you can't make any other inference from that. --MASEM (t) 01:59, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Too many leaks

Some people are making a lot of beta stuff, PAX 2010 co-op gameplays and leaks. I want to know where they got that idea?!?! - Mario324 (talk) 13:39 27 March 2011 (UTC)

WP:NOTFORUM. This talk page is not for discussing the game itself. It is for discussing improvements to the article. Stickee (talk) 22:00, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
I think "I want to know where they got that idea?!?!" is asking for a valid source that the infomation is acually about the final game, and not the beta version for example.Jonnyjones (talk) 21:14, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
Sorry about when I said "I want to know where they got that idea?!?!" by accident. I was talking about the leaks. Anyways, Portal 2 just came out. OMG! oFTo! Portal 2 FTW! So, All you Valve fans get ready to taste that juicy cake to finish the game! - Mario324 (talk) 07:54 18 April 2011 (UTC)
Wait, there was no cake. T_T - Mario324 (talk) 08:13 1 May 2011 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mario324 2 (talk • contribs)

"speedy thing comes in, speedy thing goes out."

User:194.17.116.224 seems very intent on getting the quote "speedy thing comes in, speedy thing goes out" into this article. First of all, I highly recommend getting a username if you intend to regularly contribute constructively to Wikipedia. It is not clear to me (and at least one other person, who reverted the original add ("in layman's terms...")) why this quote adds encyclopaedic value to the article on Portal 2. So let's discuss it here and not have an edit war. -- Nczempin (talk) 09:56, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

That's even a misquote, it should be 'goes in' and 'comes out'. --128.84.65.135 (talk) 05:39, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from Namikaza, 19 April 2011

Portal 2 has been released and it was released at 4:32PM GMT+12 Tuesday 19 April 2011 it was released earlier because of the potato sack event which was started by valve to launch the game eariler

Namikaza (talk) 04:37, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

I have an article. However it is first-party. Looking further. http://store.steampowered.com/news/5326/ --Addict 2006 04:42, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
Okay, even though it got released at 10:29 PM MDT, there's no written proof. Sorry I can't help. --Addict 2006 05:03, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
By tomorrow there will be sources. Be patient, I will get around it . --MASEM (t) 05:11, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Mandatory reception section discussion

So yeah, I'm honestly not sure if Metacritic user scores can be counted as an item of particular note anymore. Basically the /v/ board on the 4chan website have recently been launching heavy smear campaigns against games on Metacritic (same thing happened to Dragon Age 2). Oh, speaking of DA2, they've also edit-bombed the wikipedia article several times which is why it's currently under protection, just check its history. Now, whether it be for reasons of trolling or genuine discontent, the opinions of these users obviously can't be claimed to represent the userbase as a whole as they tilt the discussions and scores in a negative direction through sheer force of numbers.
Meh, I don't know. On one hand, gamer journalists have obviously picked up on it (though they seem blissfully unaware that most of the negativity originates from one particular imageboard), but on the other hand, including the metacritic user reaction in the wikipedia article, when said reaction has been heavily tilted by said imageboard, seems like caving in to people who do what they can to troll/ruin wikipedia articles to/and present their heavily biased opinions as fact. --77.215.75.103 (talk) 00:48, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

User reviews are unreliable and are not to be used. That doesn't apply here though, because the reviews themselves were discussed in reliable sources. The reviews aren't being cited, sources that discuss those reviews are. 206.220.192.22 (talk) 01:09, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
Normally, yes, we disregard user reviews. The point that is being made (as IP .22 above states) is that journalists saw those reviews and countered with counterpoints to them, in some cases being factually wrong.
And once I get a chance or someone else steps up to the plate, there's probably 4 good paragraphs from the RS (including the ones in an invisible comment) to support the positive praise that the game's gotten. --MASEM (t) 01:33, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

This is a travesty. The reviews are clear trolls. My favorite was one of the several complaining that Gabe Newell must be too fat to release a good game. Complaints about the DLC are valid, though it must be noted that none of the purchasable items affect gameplay any more than cosmetically. I propose removal of the user complaints, but the addition of a criticism section that includes 1) length, 2) DLC, 3) price. Those are the only ones I've seen that don't come off as trolling. SuperWiki (talk) 06:35, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

The entire section added at the end was likely added by trolls. There is an official troll campaign on /v/ to get Portal 2's score as low as possible, there's no way this should be included in this article as if it's genuine customer opinion. --86.131.50.120 (talk) 13:08, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

I can understand if they are trolls trying to bring down the rating. The point, however, is that journalists from reliable sources have noted the low scores and complains and written to refute the claims. This is a notable facet of the reception of P2. We are not trying to highlight the user response, but put a point-counterpoint that readily exists in the media about this. --MASEM (t) 14:28, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
I feel that we're falling victim to a false equivalence if we say "Group A says X, while group B says Y" since we seem to be agreeing that group A is only being included because group B mentions them. In particular, the article currently includes their claim that the game is 4 hours long, and that it was a console port - both easily falsifiable statements, so where are the sources? It's not balanced to give both sides equal space when we don't believe that both arguments have equal merit. 203.217.150.69 (talk) 05:02, 21 April 2011 (UTC)


Remember, this is the "reception" section. Normally we have no sources to talk about the layperson (the non-reviewer users) feel about the game and thus this is impossible to document. A case in point would be Civ V, where every press outlet raved about the game but users felt (on release, before patching) it had numerous flaws. No RS talked about the flaws so the best we could do is scrounge from same points from RS reviews. This case is unique. One critical response to P2 has been a campaign to inject negative feedback into the system based on several basic points (claims of a short game, "day 1 DCL" , consoliziation of a PC game). If no sources talked about this, we wouldn't include it but here is a case where numerous sources have identified these reviews and countered them. That's all part of the Reception of Portal 2, and thus appropriate to include. --MASEM (t) 05:19, 21 April 2011 (UTC)


The four hour thing is complete rubbish and must be removed. Even if you were a tester and had a 'game-faq' style walkthrough with you, it's hard to see how you could rush through it all in four hours. I know I'm not the worlds hottest gamer, but 4 hours per chapter is going well. There's no source because it's untrue. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.101.129.56 (talk) 10:55, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
Be aware that the only people saying "the game is 4 hours long" are those users that are throwing the game negative ratings. What is being said in this specific paragraph is that: 1) Journalists observed users giving P2 low scores on Metacritic. 2) Journalist find the user reasons to be too short, etc. etc. 3) Journalists call those BS and counter those reasons (including that the game much more than 4hrs long) 4) Journists consider the users just bitter at Valve or trolling or the equivalent. This is all documented in reliable sources, and it is not meant to imply that the game is actually only 4 hrs long. --MASEM (t) 13:07, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

The line about the whole user slam being from Anonymous, and then citing source 145 seems to be in poor taste. There is no mention of Anonymous in 145 or 144. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.95.19.99 (talk) 17:07, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Including user reviews is stupid, no other game article has done this, and many have negative reviews from users. They also tend to be incredibly inaccurate. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.180.63.44 (talk) 16:22, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Co-op Change?

After GLaDOS gleefully congratulates the robots, seeing the humans as new test subjects for her to process, she then blows them up. I thought that that was important enough to add in, so someone should. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ratedeveryone (talk • contribs) 01:40, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure it's not worth mentioning; she blows Atlas and P-Body up several times through the co-op campaign and seeing as they are usually re-assembled... Zepp95 (talk) 17:21, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from Cryllic, 23 April 2011

-Original-

...users cited complaints about the game being too short (with some saying it is only four hours long), the existence of paid downloadable content at launch for some versions, and supposed evidence that the game on Microsoft Windows and Mac OS X were ports of the console version.

-Suggested Change- ...users cited complaints about the game being too short (with some saying it is only four hours long), the existence of paid downloadable content (In the form of cosmetic items for co-op play) at launch for some versions, and supposed evidence that the game on Microsoft Windows and Mac OS X were ports of the console version.

Cryllic (talk) 02:17, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure. The users are saying "day 1 DLC" not even considering what it is, while the counterarguments to them is that it is cosmetic items. --MASEM (t) 02:20, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Review

New review which calls it 'One of the greatest games of recent years' in yesterday's The Observer here. It goes on to say '"female" binary demigod GlaDOS really is (in a rare case of living up to the hyperbole) one of the most fascinating characters in the history of the video game.' 81.157.193.129 (talk) 16:48, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

I have that review set up to go in the reception section under a invisicomment with about 6-9 others. Just need to find the time to figure out how to structure the section. --MASEM (t) 16:51, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
We need the review summary up pronto. --The monkeyhate (talk) 17:27, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
Er, there's no deadline. I certainly plan on getting to it very soon. --MASEM (t) 17:38, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
Well, the current state of the article's reception puts quite excessive focus on the Metacritic user score and the media reaction to it in comparison to actual, professional reviews. I mean, the actual professional reaction to the game has barely been spared a single line, and that seems quite strange for a first-time reader and gives a rather skewed impression of the reception. If you're planning on writing something up though, I'll wait and see what you have in store :) --Rogington2 (talk) 01:38, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
And that's why there's a big UNDER CONSTRUCTION block there to show that its coming. --MASEM (t) 05:48, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Edit Request

Steam Cloud saving is NOT cross platform, as is currently indicated in the article. The reference to this is located on the steampower.com website under the FAQ "Portal 2 and Steam on Playstation 3". The following text should be removed: "allowing users to save their game in the Steam Cloud to reuse on any of these three platforms;" - — Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.234.247.129 (talk • contribs) 21:21, 27 April 2011

 Done - X201 (talk) 07:03, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

GLaDOS=Chell?

I think that Chell is Caroline because GLaDOS is saying in the end <<Goodbye Caroline>>. I also think that we cant talk because something happened when the put Chell personality in GLaDOS. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.176.1.42 (talk) 12:41, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

<< SPOILER WARNING >>
Caroline's consciousness was uploaded and stored in GLaDOS, and at the end GLaDOS deleted it. Chell was the daughter of an employee I believe.
<< END SPOILER WARNING >>
Alphathon /'æl.f'æ.θɒn/ (talk) 13:40, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
Caroline is Cave Johnson's assistant who's conscious was put into the body of GLaDOS as a base personality. At the end of the single player campaign GLaDOS deletes the part of Caroline that was inside her. That's why she says, "Goodbye, Caroline."--Kingplatypus 15:19, 2 May 2011 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kingplatypus (talk • contribs)

Edit semi-protected

In section Portal 2#Reception, the clause

[...] but the end result was as good or better than the original.

should be removed. There is no reference, and, even more importantly, even if there were a reference, the phrasing would still imply that we're not quoting someone else's published opinion, but passing "the end result was as good or better than the original" off as fact. --195.14.222.240 (talk) 10:37, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

It is a general summary taken from the 5 or 6 lines of sourced reviews that immediately follow it, as to prepare the reader for what the reviews will have said. If you did what I did and opened all 15-20 some review sources used, it's very obvious that the statement is verifiable. --MASEM (t) 12:43, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
An inherently subjective statement of taste like this one should always be attributed within the prose. Something along the lines of
According to one/several/many/all critics, the end result was as good or better than the original.
would be perfectly fine if it is accompanied by the sources to substantiate it. But asserting the greater quality as a fact, not as a subjective opinion held by the quoted authors, is something we should strictly avoid. --87.78.137.176 (talk) 12:48, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
The sources are there - the statement is verifiable in itself. It is a highly generic statement that is necessary to lead into the paragraph for reading comprehension. Every sentence after this first one is a sentence of support of the first statement with the sources to go along there. --MASEM (t) 13:11, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
He/she's right, you can't simply state that "it is better"; that is a subjective position that needs to be qualified. Here's the full sentence as it stands at the moment:
"Several critics expressed concern that Valve would be unable to take the shorter, experimental Portal from The Orange Box into a full retail game, but the end result was as good or better than the original."
As it stands, this breaks down to something along the lines of "critics were sceptical/wary, but it is better". What it needs to say is something to the effect of "critics were sceptical/wary, but having now played it their concerns have been laid to rest".
It doesn't need to be changed much, just enough that it is represented as the collective opinion of the critics rather than an objective truth (otherwise it is essentially a fallacious argument from authority).
Alphathon /'æl.f'æ.θɒn/ (talk) 14:32, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
You're exactly right, Alphathon. The applicable policy is at Wikipedia:Neutral point of view#Explanation of the neutral point of view: Avoid stating opinions as facts. Usually, articles will contain information about the significant opinions that have been expressed about their subjects. However, these opinions should not be stated in Wikipedia's voice. Rather, they should be attributed in the text to particular sources, or where justified, described as "widespread views", etc.
I've accordingly marked the request as unanswered, since editing the current version is a non-negotiable necessity. We may keep discussing the best wording, but for now the clause should simply be removed, unless someone prefers to reword it instead. --87.78.52.177 (talk) 15:52, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

I've reworded it so it is now presented as a widely held opinion. It's still not perfect though and could do with some more work, so if anyone has any suggestions that'd be great. Alphathon /'æl.f'æ.θɒn/ (talk) 17:07, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks! I'm perfectly happy with your version, it removes my main concern wrt NPOV. --87.78.52.177 (talk) 17:14, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
Yeah, my concern is just that it's a bit clumsy, hence "not perfect". Alphathon /'æl.f'æ.θɒn/ (talk) 17:20, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Doug Rattmann=The Rat Man?

Just to settle this little debate, should we replace the Rat Man with Doug's name in the plot section? It's very, very much implied, and I think even stated by Valve (i may be wrong though) that Doug is the same person who wrote all the graffiti in both games. The fact that his last name is "RattMann" should be enough evidence to this.--Kingplatypus 15:23, 2 May 2011 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kingplatypus (talk • contribs)

We cannot infer anything if its not explicitly stated in primary or secondary sources. We can't even confirm if that is his bottle of pills with "Doug" on it. Given that the only place where "Doug Rattman" appears is the fictional history of ApSci from its website means its not something we really need to highlight. --MASEM (t) 04:49, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
"drattmann" is the username that was used in the Portal ARG to get access to posters of the Cooperative Initiative among other images. I'd say your just splitting hairs if you really, really don't think those pills were his when GLaDOS said he had schizophrenia and the pills were for his schizophrenia. --Kingplatypus 15:21, 4 May 2011 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kingplatypus (talk • contribs)
With what we know, we simply cannot state that Rat Man is Doug Ratmann because of WP:SYNTH. Evidence points that way, but there are scenarios where it could be a completely different person. Who is it to say that "Doug" (the person with the schizo drugs) is Doug Ratmann where there could be 100s of Dougs in the massive ApSci facility? Yes, by Occum's razor, its pretty clear that the simplest explanation is that the Rat Man character in the comic is Doug Ratmann from the old website, but we cannot make that connection without injecting original research. If someone else - Valve or a reliable gaming source - puts forward this, then yes, but also consider that the only mention of the character within Portal 2 the game is as the Rat Man, and so this should be the name used. --MASEM (t) 15:31, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
"The Final Hours of Portal 2" (steam version, likely the iPad version too) confirm Rat Man is Doug Rattmann. No more issues. I'll keep it as Rat Man as that's how he's more common known, but including Doug's name is completely legit. --MASEM (t) 02:46, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Who is Wheatley apology really to?

I know this might be nit picky but on the wiki page it is stating definitively that Wheatley is expressing regrets about betraying Chell.

However, I found it interesting that he never stated if it was Chell or GLadOS. I made sure to read the citation on the page first, but after reading the interview with Erik Wolpaw I am still not convinced that Chell is the sure proof owner of that apology.

Can the line be amended saying something like this?

In the epilogue, Wheatley floats aimlessly through space and expresses regrets about his betraying her. Whether this apology is directed towards Chell or GLaDOS is left up to the player to decide.

This is just a thought. I liked that they left it ambiguous enough for this to even be a concern.

This is my first edit request so apologies if I did this wrong. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ebaye1 (talk • contribs) 20:47, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

A recent interview with the writers clearly suggest the apology is to the player (Chell), removing the ambiguity of who Wheatley is referring to. --MASEM (t) 20:53, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
Specifically this interview [12] --MASEM (t) 20:56, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
The game itself remains entirely ambiguous though. So we shouldn't simply write it up as though it was clear from the game itself who is addressed by Wheatley's apology. It should be noted that it was cleared up in that interview, ex post. The current wording wrongly implies that the game plot itself clarifies whom the apology is to. It's basically a form of in-universe writing, which should be avoided.
We should note the ambiguity as it exists in the game itself, and then mention the interview. That would be the correct form. --87.78.238.134 (talk) 14:23, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
These are the writers of the game - they wrote it with that intention; their interview statements also help to clarify many other plot details (for example, we are never given an idea of the time between P1 and P2, only that it's "long", but the writers have stated its been hundreds of years outside of the game, so we take it that way). --MASEM (t) 14:27, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
The interview is not a part of the game. Primary information is primary information, secondary information is secondary information. The two types of info need to be carefully distinguished to achieve a truthful representation of the subject matter. Would you also argue that Greedo shot first? --87.78.238.134 (talk) 14:36, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
No, WP discourages completely in-universe writing styles (see WP:WAF). If the creators clearly have delineated something that occurred within the game for clarity, it should be part of the plot. Now, if there were a case where third-party reviewers noted that there was an ambiguity or some other confusion that wasn't clear and the creators returned to address that , that would be a point of order to add somewhere in the article (likely development). This isn't a case here - I don't think I've seen anyone question of whom Wheatley is apologizing to; instead, the writers discuss it alongside the rest of the plot elements. So it's simply part of an out-of-universe writing of the plot for complete clarity. --MASEM (t) 15:25, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

I agree that this particular case is straddling the line, but just to clarify: All in-universe writing is completely unacceptable, it does not need to be an entire article or section. Omitting even a single bit of real-world info constitutes IN-U. That's what I meant when I wrote "The threshold of what constitutes in-universe writing is making any effort to re-create or uphold the illusion of the original fiction by omitting real-world info." Anyway, it's a very minor point and if it's that important to you that we avoid mentioning the interview, have it your way. --87.78.238.134 (talk) 15:50, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Should this article be trimmed down a bit?

The article seems pretty big now (132k now?). Anyone else thinks it should be trimmed of material that isn't absolutely necessary, paraphrased, ect.? Croben Problem? 16:30, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

A discussion about this is happening here. Mainly about whether or not to trim the development, or to split it into a new article. Blake (Talk·Edits) 16:32, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
And in relation to that, this article reflects what the sources available are (there's a reason that there's nearly 200 sources here). It seems unlikely we're going to pull off the dev section, but with articles already on GLaDOS and Wheatley, and one coming for Chell, and a perchance for one on ApSci and Cave Johnson together, a lot can be shuffled off to those articles. --MASEM (t) 16:41, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3

Looking to FAC after GOTY lists have settled

I plan to bring this to FAC after the various year-end "game of the year" lists have settled down; the only major anticipated change would be the next bit of DLC but that's not significant enough to alter the whole approach to the article.

I would appreciate it if people could re-review the language and copyedit as needed before that point. That should hopefully smooth things out at FAC. --MASEM (t) 22:18, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Portal_2/Archive_1&oldid=1146671526"