Talk:Half-Life (video game)/Archive 3

GAN
I'm putting this article on hold pending the resolution of the following issues: Once an editor feels these issues have been dealt with, leave me a note on my talk page and I'll evaluate further. Thanks, Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ( talk  ) 20:31, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Images: The screenshots need expanded fair use rationales in their own separate sections, with a description specifically for the article. See File:Halo3 campaign ss.png for an example (of the description, not the actual image; some person uploaded a waaay too large file which is entirely invalid for the fair use, I need to change that.)
 * done Gary King (talk) 22:49, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Lead: Needs to be expanded to touch on development, et al. As per WP:GA?, the lead should encompass the entire article (think of it as a crib notes version of the article, just the essentials.)
 * done Gary King (talk) 23:43, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Organization: The Characters and Setting should be put in a section titled 'Synopsis', which includes the plot. See Halo 3 for an example.
 * done Gary King (talk) 23:02, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Soundtracks: Unless the soundtrack was commercially released, remove the track listing and incorporate the one line into the rest of the development section.
 * done Gary King (talk) 22:49, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Gameplay and Reception: Both need to be expanded. The reception section might benefit from the inclusion of a VG Reviews box.
 * cleaned up Gary King (talk) 23:32, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Later developments: Suggest moving to after the reception and reorganizing along with the third-party expansions: maybe make into two sections one after another, 'Expansions' and 'Sequels'? Or combine with 'Legacy', much like how Halo: Combat Evolved does it.
 * done Gary King (talk) 23:35, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
 * References: What makes Planet Half-Life a reliable source? The references should be formatted according to cite web.
 * Formatted. I've also changed Planet Half-Life to GameSpy - they are the publishers. The information is edited by GameSpy before being published. Gary King (talk) 22:54, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Much better. If someone is considering taking to FAC, I would suggest getting a peer review at WP:VG first, and doing a copyedit for brilliant prose. The citations would be nicely formatted with dates and authors, as well. Pass. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ( talk  ) 00:13, 1 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Wikiquote link is broken, not sure how to fix myself. Links to non-existant 'Half-Life (video game)' instead of 'Half-Life' page.

Merge Uplink
Half-Life: Uplink should probably be merged into this. We're giving rather undue weight to what is nothing more than the game's demo - yes, its story may not be in the game, but it has no independent notability and as such should not have a dedicated article. The article's relevant content can probably be merged fairly easily into Half-Life (video_game), or into Half-Life (video_game). -- Sabre (talk) 15:52, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree that Half-Life: Uplink should be merged into the main Half-Life article. The demo's plot could be then made into a vastly summarised version of the one in the Uplink article (which is ridiculously long IMO. It's basically a walkthrough lol). As for what section it should be placed under, I believe the Half-Life (video_game) is more fitting, as the demo did branch off into something seperate during the game's development, and also it isn't an expansion. Well that's my take on it, what do you think? :) BenettonHuhera (talk) 05:06, 4 June 2008 (UTC)


 * AGREE The walthrough section is too large in Uplink, a mention during Half-Life's development section especially of the diffrerences and other details, will be enough. JTBX (talk) 21:45, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Agree diego_pmc (talk) 12:24, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Ok, I'll do the merge next week. I'm doing exams at the moment, but I'll get it done when they're over with. -- Sabre (talk) 10:59, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Sorry for the delay on this, but I've moved all the relevant real-world information into this article's development and redirected the Uplink article. Merge complete, but feel free to expand (without going into gameguide material) on the demo. -- Sabre (talk) 09:38, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Canceled Linux Game
Anyone care to add it? It's in the category, but not mentioned anywhere in the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.167.51.49 (talk) 20:17, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Garry's Mod
There should be a link somewhere in the article in reference to Garry's Mod. Half Life is one of the main games people use for GMod. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.3.160.228 (talk) 23:52, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Isn't this mod only for Half-Life 2? It's already mentioned there. Rehevkor (talk) 03:31, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

The Source version of the original Half-Life can be used with Garry's Mod, but I think most people use Half-Life 2. Flash Man999 (talk) 01:39, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Cover image
It would be nice if we could somehow get an original release cover image for the page rather than the current "game of the year edition" cover. I know it's a small niggle, but I still think it's worth having for encyclopedic reasons. Before I went out of my way to look it up over at MobyGames, I'd never seen the original cover before, and had no idea what it looked like. -- Grandpafootsoldier (talk) 10:23, 22 June 2008 (UTC)


 * It's a valid argument, so I've gone ahead and replaced the image with the original box art. Main difference is the lack of Freeman on the cover, but from an encyclopedic point I agree that we should have the original box art in the infobox rather than any later editions such as the Game of the Year box art. -- Sabre (talk) 10:38, 22 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Well, the cover shot I was referring to actually does have Gordon on the cover, it's just that he isn't in full view. This is because of the weird design decision Valve apparently made in having the front box flap shorter than the actual box, as you can see Here. Is the cover image you uploaded of the UK edition? That might explain the discrepancy. -- Grandpafootsoldier (talk) 15:05, 23 June 2008 (UTC)


 * That would be correct. Its a UK version. I would have just cropped off the extra flap bit anyway if I'd uploaded the US version. -- Sabre (talk) 15:53, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't know. If we are going to show the original cover, I think it should be the original US version with flap. Even though it looks weird, it is what Valve/Sierra decided on. I've managed to find a US "flap" version and will upload it. -- Grandpafootsoldier (talk) 16:37, 24 June 2008 (UTC)


 * The essence of the box art is the blank orange background, not the flap. The flap is unnecessary, it clearly wasn't intended else all other versions would have it. Any time the box art is shown on official Valve sites, it lacks the flap. -- Sabre (talk) 17:30, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Can you provide a link? Both Valve's official website and Steam don't use box cover images to advertise the game so I don't know what you are referring to in that regard. Also, I don't really see how you can argue that the flap was "unnecessary" and "wasn't intended". Publishing and advertising a high-profile computer game takes a lot of time, money, and energy, and I seriously doubt whoever designed the box accidentally left an inch off the front flap and the manufacturer just rolled with it.
 * Even if that was the case however, that shouldn't prevent us from using it. As an encyclopedia we're going for accuracy, not aesthetics. I don't much like the design either, but that's what they used to sell their game, and I don't think we have the right to substitute something else because we don't like it. -- Grandpafootsoldier (talk) 19:24, 24 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Unfortunately, it seems my recollection of Valve's website is a bit out of date: you're right, they don't use the box art any more. What is used is a variation of the game of the year edition art on the black in-game menu as the Steam title, but that's no use. -- Sabre (talk) 14:23, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

I think this should be added
I was just about to ask why was the game called half-life cause I don't see how the terminology fits into the game. But when through past discussions. I came across a question just like mine, and the person who replied said:

"In the book Half-Life 2: Raising the Bar, Gabe Newell, the chief developer of Half-Life, came up with the name because he wanted a name that sounded cool and had a science-fiction feel to it. Achiu31 (talk) 05:07, 27 December 2007 (UTC)"

I think this should be added because theres always a chance that someone will read this article to know why the name was chosen (like me), thinking theres some big reason behind it, but it turns out that Newell thought it sounded cool XD. So, it would be an interesting fact to learn. 75.72.221.194 (talk) 06:52, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I'd also read that they decided on that particular name because it provided them with an easily identifiable symbol (the "λ") with which to market the game. Kind of like id Software's stylized "Q" for the Quake series. -- Grandpafootsoldier (talk) 07:16, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Weapons?
I think it should be mentioned that the guns are not actually the weapons listed, but appear to resemble them. IE: The 'mp5' is called the 9mmAR in all file names. (short for 9mm assault rifle, even though the mp5 is an smg) The high definition pack does not 'change the mp5 to an m4' but rather gives the '9mmAR' a skin that resembles a colt m4 with an attached m203. —Preceding unsigned comment added by CrimsonOath (talk • contribs) 05:23, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Also, in the section where it talks about the Highdef pack, both versions of the shotgun are spas-12s, the high definition version just features a folded stock. The KRAL tactical, which is reminiscent of the SPAS-12, isn't featured. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Brother Shrike (talk • contribs) 01:43, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Accuracy of System Requirements?
While I'm hesitant to change the listed system requirements myself for lack of a reliable source, I do know that I have personally played Half-Life on a 366 MHz Pentium II laptop with 2.5 MB Video RAM, and the game ran perfectly fine using software rendering. I doubt the published requirement would be 500 MHz and am quite sure 16 MB VRAM is not required when software rendering is an option. Where did these numbers come from? 24.183.189.238 (talk) 06:18, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
 * At the Steam Store, the system requirements are the same as on the article. However, this may be due to the requirement of running Steam, which is more demanding than the just the original game. However, this site and this site both have slightly varying requirements, though both are lower than the ones on the Steam page. Delta (talk) 23:44, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

When?
In the section Setting (in Synopsis), it says the game happens between May 5 - 15. I don't think that's what the letter means at all (see ). I think it means he has to get to Black Mesa by May 15th, and the letter was sent on May 5th. He might have been hanging around Black Mesa for a while before the resonance cascade. I haven't seen any calenders during my playing of this (fantastic!) game, but if someone could upload a picture of said calenders as proof, I will happily retract my statement. Thank you for taking the time to read my opinion. Flash Man999 (talk) 14:22, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

When playing Blue Shift calenders can be seen which put the month as December. It is around the same time as Half-Life because you can see Gordon Freeman on a tram near the start which ties in with the Half life storyline (riding in tram, security guard banging on door). Im not sure if the calenders are just placed there, or if they actually corelate to the date. 41.240.86.24 (talk) 09:02, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Aside from the month, what year does this take place in? The Setting section says 200X, but the Plot section clearly states 1998. If someone could find a source clearly defining at least the decade, that would help clear up the contradiction. I think 200X is the correct notation considering the facts presented at the Half-Life Wiki. http://half-life.wikia.com/wiki/200-#200-. ZomB-man17 (talk) 13:38, 22 July 2010 (UTC)


 * It is 200X (which is from the manual I believe), not sure where 1998 was from (game's release date?), but I have removed it. Rehevkor ✉  13:48, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Game Ending
Hi,

if the player does not enter the portal at the end of the game and waits some time the train door will close and he will be teleported in an unknown area crowded by alien grunts.

If I remember well the words "Subject: Gordon Freeman Status: terminated" will then appear and the game ends.

I cannot verify it right now so i did not edidted the article. 151.96.3.241 (talk) 16:28, 18 March 2009 (UTC)Zigo


 * You're correct. A short sentence sourced in the same manner as the current final sentence should suffice.  Given that the G-Man alludes to Gordon's choice (or lack of it) at the conclusion of Half-Life 2, noting that the first game presents the user with a nominal choice is probably worth noting (in a short sentence).  It would be good to track down the exact wording used by the game.  Wikiquote doesn't have it.  --P LUMBAGO  16:36, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Generation
Just thought I'd point out that there are two versions of Half-Life Generation. The original version (black and silver box) does not contain Blue Shift, only the second version (black and blue box) does. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.155.67.47 (talk) 19:23, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Day One
Half Life: Day One redirects here, and is mentioned on the Day One disambiguation page as a demo, but there's no mention of it in the article. Can anyone add some info? Rojomoke (talk) 13:49, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Looks like the page (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Half-Life:_Day_One&oldid=170294677) had pretty much zero sourced info in the first place. It should probably have been deleted rather than merged. Mezigue (talk) 13:58, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

release date
according to Half Life it was released on October 31, 1998, not on November 19, 1999. This also makes more sense, because otherwise it would have been released after Opposing Force, which was released on November 1, 1999. --MrBurns (talk) 22:22, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Tau Cannon != Rail Gun
Hey there. I hope this doesn't come off as too nitpicky (an encyclopedia should be accurate after all), but the Tau Cannon is most definitely not a rail/coil gun as mentioned in the last paragraph of the gameplay section. As this fellow has explained in detail, everything about the Tau Cannon suggests that it is a miniature particle accelerator firing beams of Tau particles that, although superficially seeming similar to generic railguns in other games, is a very different sort of weapon. The confusion stems from the naming of the files in Half-Life, which were probably left unchanged because of the hurried second phase of development after Valve decided to do a 180 when they realized they were probably going to release a lukewarm game, as briefly mentioned in this Gamasutra article. As a Half-Life geek, this inaccuracy just niggles at me.

Ambient.Impact (talk) 06:15, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Reference material
Over at the online print archive, there are quite a few reviews for this game. In addition, I found numerous preview articles that might be of use:


 * Computer Gaming World Preview
 * Computer Games Magazine Preview
 * Computer Games Magazine Preview of Half-Life: Day One
 * Computer Games Magazine Preview
 * Computer Games Magazine Preview
 * Next Generation Magazine Preview

That's all, for now. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 01:59, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Game Version?
I noticed the omission of a game version for Half Life, even though Half Life 2 has a game version. I actually came to this article looking specifically for it, since I have version 46/1.1.1.0 and the latest version is 48/something (that's what I wanted to find out). I have a feeling the latest version is 48/1.1.2.0 but it's pretty ambiguous on the internet. Can this be cleared up? Cybersteel8 (talk) 14:50, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Gameplay - Enemies
There are no headcrab zombies in Half-life, at least not the version that I just played through again. They do appear in Half-life 2. Lanthano (talk) 03:34, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
 * There are headcrab zombies throughout Half-Life. Black Mesa is full of them! Aren't you thinking of poison zombies? Mezigue (talk) 10:08, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I can confirm that there are plenty of headcrab zombies in Half-Life. Chris TC01 (talk) 11:25, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

There must be a version difference then. I found a demo of Half-life, which did contain Headcrab Zombies, and it differs greatly from the version of Half-life that came with Half-life 2. Lanthano (talk) 23:24, 22 August 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. D arth B otto talk•cont 21:59, 08 February 2011 (UTC)

Version: 1.1.1.2 is an unofficial patch, 1.1.1.0 is the final official patch by the Valve
It's better to edit the version number. Patch 1.1.1.2 is created by other developers than Valve (final official patch is 1.1.1.0). I don't know we can mention unofficial patches in the infobox or not. But if it has no problem, I think both official and unofficial patches must be mentioned to avoid confusing. Also if I'm wrong about this, it's good to have references about this patch. Xooon (talk) 13:22, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

M4A1
There is no M4A1 in the HD version. It is a Colt Model 727 (Looks exactly like the M4 but the carry handle cannot be removed.) Please correct it. --212.108.204.4 (talk) 20:23, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Do you have any sources to support that? But considering the information did not appear to be correctly sources I have removed it entirely.  Я ehevkor ✉  20:30, 13 October 2011 (UTC)