Talk:Half-Life: Alyx

Reception Content
Should the Goomba Stomp part of the reception section be removed? Seems like a irrelevant little gaming website that is just sorta complaining for the sake of complaining. Bluedude588 (talk) 18:22, 24 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Removed. Seems like a questionable source, with no history of fact checking, no staff page, no editorial policy, and freelance writing. Could be discussed at the talk page for WP:VG/RS if someone wants. -- ferret (talk) 18:55, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

Question
But why are we going with "In 2016 and 2017" in the article over simply saying "During development"? I don't see why generalizing the statement is seen as a worse option, as the article makes it clear that development on the game began in 2016 (or 2015 if you view Valve's foray into VR as the start), so it's not like we have a vague period of time where the writers could have left Valve. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 11:17, 13 December 2019 (UTC)
 * , Your suggestion is fine with me. Popcornduff (talk) 12:15, 13 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Hm - but on reflection, we don't make it clear that development began in 2016 before this point. Popcornduff (talk) 12:16, 13 December 2019 (UTC)
 * It should not even be the second sentence in the section anyway. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 23:14, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

Gameplay footage by Tested
Tested.com founders went to Valve, and they played HL:a and released some gameplay footage as well as expaining some aspects of the game, showing both teleportation and smooth movement. Should this fact be added to the article?  Nixinova   T   C   02:59, 20 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Don't think it's notable on its own terms. Popcornduff (talk) 14:34, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

Can this read better?
The first paragraph in the Development section of this article reads oddly to me, but after debating I couldn't find a satisfactory way to edit it.

"When asked about plans for future Half-Life games, designer David Speyrer said the team was willing but were waiting for the reaction to Alyx." This line confused me, as the paragraph talks about people believing Valve wasn't developing another half-life game, but this sentence refers to work on possible titles after Half-Life:Alyx.

It feels out of place to me both regarding subject and chronologically. I can't seem to put it somewhere better without disrupting other parts, but it also feels like it shouldn't remain where it is. Purpleninja102 (talk) 05:38, 10 February 2020 (UTC)
 * , yes, this sentence doesn't belong there chronologically. I have moved it back to its proper position. not sure why it ended up where it was. Popcornduff (talk) 10:44, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

Minor awards in lead
While I can't argue that omitting it here would be for bloat reasons since it was only a single award, I believe (at least for other games) that we should not be listing exact awards a game won in the lead unless the award itself (not the ceremony) was notable. If other editors disagree with this approach then I'll change my stance on it. ~ Dissident93 (<b style="color: #D18719;">talk</b>) 14:53, 13 March 2022 (UTC)
 * But if the awards aren't notable then they shouldn't be mentioned in the article at all, let alone the lead, right?
 * I see it as kind of relative. If a game received 400 awards then we can say "The game received 400 awards, including [one or two of the most notable ones]". If the game only received one or two awards then there's no harm in being specific and naming them in the lead, because they're not pushing anything out to make room. Popcornfud (talk)