Talk:Portal 2/Archive 3

Merge Perpetual Testing Initiative?
Perpetual Testing Initiative, an add-on for Portal 2, was just created a few days ago. I don't think it will probably last as a stand-alone article, but it could be included here, wherever add-ons are being mentioned. Thoughts? --MuZemike 18:11, 7 May 2012 (UTC)


 * No reason for a long discussion imho. There is no reason to assume that the DLC will be notable on its own and if becomes, we can still split it back to its own article but for now, I'd say merge it. Regards  So Why  18:25, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Given that it won't even have a new story-based level set, no reason to keep at all beyond the redirect title. (I am looking to offload info on P2 media to a separate article so if there is more to say on the PTI, it could be added later). --M ASEM (t) 21:09, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Merge, if the content gets to large within the Portal 2 article itself, then it can be moved. avalean (talk) 00:14, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I have to agree. This should definitely be merged, at least for now. It's not notable on its own. 173.66.170.5 (talk) 03:12, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Merge. No-brainer ATM.Barts1a / Talk to me / Help me improve 03:20, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Merge: As above, the subject doesn't require a separate article. Merge, I say.


 * undefined tausif 09:24, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

This discussion is WP:SNOW. I've redirected the page to Portal_2. Didn't copy any text, subject was already adequately covered in Portal 2 article. - X201 (talk) 10:02, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Overview/Summary
The first section of this article, usually a succinct introduction to what the article says, is too long. Much of the plot of the game is discussed in detail. All of its information is valuable but belongs in a later section of the article. Tysinks (talk) 22:49, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Per WP:LEAD an article of this size should have about 4 paragraphs of lead. And the plot discussed within that is about 2 sentences long. Definitely not inappropriate. --M ASEM  (t) 00:07, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

Capitalization?
I reverted a few edits today under the guise of copy-editing that decapitalized in-game elements such as Aperture Science, Aperture Science Handheld Portal Device, Thermal Discouragement Beams, and so on. As per WP:BRD, I'm opening up a discussion here to see why these elements are being decapitalized. One could apply the same logic to Skyrim capitalizing "Dark Brotherhood," right? --GSK ● ✉ ✓ 21:18, 19 January 2013 (UTC)


 * The edits were legitimate copy editing. It's a bit of a grey area.  The Dark Brotherhood is an organization and hence, a proper noun.  Aperture Science is also clearly a proper noun.  Whether or not the game elements are proper nouns is open to interpretation.  I could see a case being made that there is no such thing as a generic "thermal discouragement beam" and other such facetiously named items though. —Torchiest talkedits 21:29, 19 January 2013 (UTC)


 * In game, elements like "Thermal Discouragement Beam" are akin to brand names (invented by Aperture) that are longform for "lasers" and other simplier terms, and in nearly all sources and official media, I've seen capitalized.  --M ASEM  (t) 21:34, 19 January 2013 (UTC)


 * I agree. Every time I've seen mention of game elements, they are always capitalized. It would seem weird and slightly unprofessional if they weren't. --GSK ● ✉ ✓ 21:43, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Ahem - I'm happy to leave capitalised nouns alone if asked. Cheers, Baffle gab1978 (talk) 21:59, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Removed text
Per WP:COATRACK - this article is not about Portal (video game):

(rewritten to remove WP:COATRACK text comparing the two games):

New game elements include Thermal Discouragement Beams (lasers replacing the energy balls from Portal), Excursion Funnels (tractor beams), and Hard Light Bridges, all of which can be transmitted through portals. The new Aerial Faith Plates launch the player or objects through the air and sometimes into portals. The player must disable turrets or avoid their line of sight. The Weighted Storage Cube has been redesigned, and there are new types: Redirection Cubes, which have prismatic lenses that redirect laser beams, and spherical Edgeless Safety Cubes, which made a brief appearance in one of Portal's advanced chambers. The heart-decorated Weighted Companion Cube reappears briefly. Early demonstrations included Pneumatic Diversity Vents, shown to transport objects and transfer suction power through portals, but these do not appear in the final game because the technology was not ready in time. All of these game elements either open locked doors, or aid or hamper the character from physically reaching the exit.

Per WP:COATRACK:

According to Valve, each of the single-player and cooperative campaigns is 2 to 2.5 times as long as the campaign in Portal, with the overall game five times as long. ]]


 * I don't think WP:COATRACK necessarily applies in this case. I think it's normally used for articles about real life topics, usually political or contentious in some way, that hide an agenda.  In this case, making comparisons to the first game are probably okay in terms of providing context, since it is the same development team and publisher for both games, and the sources are interviews with said developers.  Perhaps if there were some other, similar game by a competing company, I could see excessive comparisons that reflected negatively on the imaginary company's product as a WP:COATRACK violation. —Torchiest talkedits 22:36, 19 January 2013 (UTC)


 * A key note made in the development of this game was teh challenge of taking the "short" Portal and extending it to a full disc experience. Hence it is completely fair to say, in Valve's words, how much larger the sequel is. --M ASEM (t) 22:51, 19 January 2013 (UTC)


 * A fair point; I'll reinstate this sentence a bit later - I was a little concerned about the quantity of text pertaining to Portal early in this article though, so i think some of it needed to come out. Cheers, Baffle gab1978 (talk) 23:00, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Character design/Voice cast
This subsection was so off-topic that i created a 'Voice cast' subsec, and am removing stuff not germain to either subject.Baffle gab1978 (talk) 02:16, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Wolpaw said that the game has three endings, one for each of the main characters: GLaDOS learns a lesson but chooses to delete it; Wheatley learns a lesson and longs to apologize for it; and Chell escapes into an unknown world possibly controlled by the Combine, the brutal transhuman empire from ''Half-Life


 * I think this is wrong. The original section before characters articles were made was a character development article - casting (outside of a few points) was not the intent of this section. What was remained after separate character articles was a summary of these character development sections and the intent was definitely not to limit them to consider a voice casting section. The above quote was rather important to the section as character development and obviously not so much if taken as casting. --M ASEM  (t) 03:25, 21 January 2013 (UTC)


 * That's what I found - there was a lot of text that discusses voice casting/acting/lines etc, which isn't about how the characters were developed. Here's the pre-copy-edit version. The Wolpaw quote above is about game endings, not character development, and would probably (I think) be best in 'Plot' or 'Gameplay'. Feel free to move it if you wish. Cheers, Baffle gab1978 (talk) 04:40, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Not supported by reference (don't worry I've kept the ref in the article!):

The two robotic characters were originally more human and less robotic, similar to designs seen in the movie Westworld. The final designs are a modified personality core and a turret gun with haphazardly attached limbs. The numerous deaths players would endure throughout the game would be rather gruesome with human or human-like characters, but the deaths of robotic characters provide comical animations, such as struggling while being crushed by a lowering ceiling.


 * er, the last part is definitely supported by that ref. I know that the Westworld mention had once had a ref - its the GI reveal article at minimum. --M ASEM (t) 03:25, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Apart from the piece about ceilings collapsing on robots, most of this isn't the Joystiq reference - I'll check the GI one and if it's there I'll gladly replace this, but I'm not willing to chase it down. Cheers, Baffle gab1978 (talk) 04:10, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Do you mean http://www.computerandvideogames.com/253854/news/two-more-portal-2-e3-gameplay-videos/ ? Sorry but it's not there, just some descriptions about three pre-release gameplay videos. I'll gladly replace this para if you can track down the correct reference(s), but as I said I'm not chasing it. Cheers, Baffle gab1978 (talk) 04:44, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
 * It's the print version of Game Informer magazine for the Portal 2 reveal (one of the first references on the list). Unfortunately, the article's not online but I'm 99.999% sure that that information is from that article (given that I added back when the game was revealed.). --M ASEM  (t) 15:07, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Release --> Announcement
Per WP:COATRACK - article is about Portal 2 - not another game's development, or Valve's technical dificulties Baffle gab1978 (talk) 22:11, 21 January 2013 (UTC):

Valve employee and former Source mod maker Adam Foster led the development of the ARG, having previously run a smaller ARG to announce his employment at Valve. The idea stemmed out after preparing material for the Game Informer reveal for Portal 2, considering offering "some kind of super-fan counterpoint" to the upcoming feature. The ARG had a budget of US $100 and was designed to attract casual players, who would find radios in Portal, and more enthusiastic players, through the decoding and deciphering. Some facets of the ARG, such as the SSTV image, were inspired by Foster's crawling of obscure technology on Wikipedia. They had wanted to run a larger, more interactive BBS, but at the time, Valve was moving offices and would be difficult to maintain the phone and computer hardware, and some lines were too modern to support a BBS; instead the BBS ran out of a PC in Foster's kitchen, looping the ASCII images of Portal 2 screenshots.


 * That entire section is about the argumented reality game promotion that was part of the marketing push of Portal 2. It is not about another game or unrelated technical difficulties. That final sentence however could definitely be trimmed quite a bit.


 * 1st sentence - Adam Foster and what he did previously. 2nd sentence: Source of idea for arg game; 3rd sentence: inspiration for arg game; 4th sentence: BBS technical problems. I fail to see how this relates to Portal 2. The ARG game and BBS are covered in the paragraph before this one. Baffle gab1978 (talk) 23:21, 21 January 2013 (UTC)


 * The para before explains what the concept of the first ARG was (leading to P2's announcement.) This para is the background behind that ARG, which is tied to P2 (so its definitely not coatrack) but are the behind-the-scenes details so they should be listed "nearby". It could proceed the details of the ARG or mixed with them, but they are relevant details. --M ASEM  (t) 15:07, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
 * The arg concept and its role in setting up Portal 2 (important) is still in the article. The rest is irrelevant and would belong in the agr/bbs article if it was notable. Baffle gab1978 (talk) 20:34, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Promotion and release
Mostly WP:COATRACK - but I think some content is relevant and I hope to add it back soon:
 * I have now replaced most of this text in the article - struck and left here for reference:

Portal 2's release was preceded by another alternate reality game, called the Potato Sack, which includes thirteen independently developed games. Envisioned by Newell around December 2010, the developers were brought to Valve to discuss and plan the "Cross Game Design Event", to culminate with the early release of Portal 2 on Steam. The developers were given access to Valve's art and audio assets to incorporate Portal-themed content into their games. The game was launched on April 1, 2011, with a Steam bundle sale of these titles. Players worked to solve the multi-tiered puzzle, coordinating efforts through web sites and chat rooms, which some journalists believed pointed to the release of Portal 2 on April 15, 2011, instead of the target release date of April 19, 2011. Eventually, on April 15, the players discovered "GLaDOS@Home", a distributed computing spoof that encouraged participants to play the various games to unlock Portal 2 earlier. As a result of these coordinated efforts, the game was unlocked about ten hours early.


 * Key here is that this is just a summary paragraph to the main Potato Sack article, putting it in context for P2's release, in considering what to edit or trim here. --M ASEM (t) 15:07, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Bonus and downloadable content

 * Not about Portal 2, per WP:COATRACKBaffle gab1978 (talk) 01:12, 22 January 2013 (UTC):

The Steam release of the game Dungeon Defenders includes pre-order content based on the portal gun from Portal and various Team Fortress 2 items.


 * Appearances/tie-ins between games (particularly when the second game is not published by the same people as the first) are generally documented (moreso than just being cultural references).  I wouldn't call it coatracking to mention this exists. --M ASEM  (t) 15:07, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
 * That's fine as long as the text is on-topic (Portal 2) for the article, but Portal is not Portal 2, which is the subject of this article. Coatracking is text that wanders away from the subject of the article to discuss something else, like the BBS being run from someone's kitchen (like who apart from gamefen cares?), which would belong in an article about the arg, but is OT here. Cheers, Baffle gab1978 (talk) 20:34, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Critical reception
Not supported by given sources - Wired reference moved to next occurrence; SMH doesn't seem to be reused:

Before its launch, several critics had expressed concern that Valve might be unable to take the shorter, experimental, Portal from The Orange Box and make it into a full retail game, but upon release the game was widely considered to be as good as or better than the original.

Some reviewers said that the second act of the game, taking place in the less-structured portion of the old Aperture facilities, while filled with impressive vistas, may be confusing to some players.
 * Replaced summary but not references (left here for reference) - other reviews do say something like this. Baffle gab1978 (talk) 00:44, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

I'm removing this for neutrality reasons - who are these journalists? What did they actually say/write? I 'will replace it, but not as it stands here. Baffle gab1978 (talk) 01:25, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Struck - rewritten and replaced - original with correct Metro author attribution - left here for reference. Baffle gab1978 (talk) 04:18, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Journalists noted that many of the initial user reviews for Portal 2 on Metacritic evoked a negative opinion of the game. These 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. Journalists have defended Valve in these claims, countering concerning the game's length and the game content, and suggesting that the quality of the graphics on the Windows and Mac version did not suggest a simple console port. Some journalists also identify that the minimal impact of The Potato Sack alternative reality game on the early release of Portal 2 may be influencing the user scores.

Controversy?
Is the incident in the "controversy" section really notable? One man complains of being "shocked and really surprised" by some dialogue... not really notable is it? ▫ Urbane Legend chinwag 14:25, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
 * This has been removed before, I remember it being in the article maybe a year or more ago. It's not really notable. -- ferret (talk) 18:52, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Right, I've removed it. ▫ Urbane Legend chinwag 16:23, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

Musical
I'm thinking maybe we could add the following either at the end of the § Post-release section or somehow merge it with a (renamed) § Use in education section:"At the end of January 2015, Geekenders, a group of burlesque performers native to Vancouver, will be putting on an unofficial, black comedy musical based on Portal 2 at the Rio Theatre called 'Portal 2: The (Unauthorized) Musical'." Thoughts? --82.136.210.153 (talk) 13:38, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Another article at The Georgia Straight here. --82.136.210.153 (talk) 19:53, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

Portal-based HTC Vive game
Woudln't it be useful to add a reference to the Lab (a VR game set in the Portal universe)?

84.80.119.216 (talk) 14:29, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
 * It's covered on the series article Portal (series). --The1337gamer (talk) 14:46, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

"momentum does not change" sidebar
At the risk of being pedantic, momentum does change -- it changes direction, while its magnitude remains constant. Momentum like velocity is a vector and the direction is significant. Is it worth altering the sidebar to incorporate this fact? 173.61.182.234 (talk) 13:37, 27 July 2017 (UTC)
 * The current caption doesn't make much sense either way. It says it doesn't change, then says "it's converted", so clearly it changed. Feel free to update it to say something like "Magnitude is preserved" or something. -- ferret (talk) 13:49, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

Portal gun
Can you add a picture of the Aperture Science Handheld Portal Device plz? I think it would be beneficial for understanding that the game is not a first person shooter necessarily. Portallover23 (talk) 20:27, 13 July 2018 (UTC)

Adding the time when Portal 2 takes place.
I've tried twice not to add an approximate date when Portal 2 takes place, automated removal occured once and lack of evidence was a second reason by a human who reverted the edit. The prologue of Portal 2 mentions that Chell have been asleep for 50 days then goes back to sleep. The announcer says 9 then loops due to an error. Combine this with the fact that GlaDOS have a blackbox that lasts for 50,0000 years: (Unable to provide a link) Youtube video Portal 2 OST: All GLaDOS Dialogue/Quotes [Solo] -- 19:20 minutes in. That place the ultimate date at 90,000+ years. The possibility that the announcer was malfunctioning exists. There's no reason to assume that GlaDOS' statement is not correct. And if she was forced to relive her life for 50,000 years then Chell awoke 50,000 yeas later. Gamerh5 (talk) 17:36, 26 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Firstly, we don't include speculative information and theories like this. Information on articles should be verifiable by reliable sources. Secondly, this sort of information is trivial and really not important for Wikipedia. --The1337gamer (talk) 17:58, 26 July 2018 (UTC)
 * That sounds like original research which we forbid. Unless the game or a reliable sources explicitly states the time, we are not to include it. Regards SoWhy 18:14, 26 July 2018 (UTC)


 * The greater whole, of what I wrote, is speculation, yes. The one line is not. GlaDOS mentioned having relived her destruction for 50,000 years. Then it may have ended...or Chell may have interrupted. The fact: Chell was asleep for 50,000 years. And I can not believe it is trivial as it notes a very important concept: time. Gamerh5 (talk) 18:40, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

Adding to this: It is mentioned in the game that GlaDOS' black-box lasted for 50k years. That's literally a statement that Portal 2 is set 50k years after Portal 1. Does that really count as ¨original research¨ when the whole plot written is basically the same? I would merely consider it a part of the plot not written down yet and it shall be. --No, I will not sign my posts. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.194.12.145 (talk) 11:38, 3 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Gamerh5 argues above that it means 90,000+ years later. You see the problem? Unless a reliable source explicitly says "it takes place X years after Portal", we cannot include it here. Regards So  Why  12:14, 3 September 2018 (UTC)
 * And what I meant was not that. A reliable source--the game--states the time spent between the two events (not the speculation above--+90k years--but a more literal statement). I mean, if Gamereactor--or what have you--simply translates the quote from GlaDOS in-game ¨50,000 years is a long time¨ to ¨according to in-game dialogue, the game takes place more than 50k years later¨; you'll add it but not if the game it-self states it?--no, I will not sign my posts. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.194.12.145 (talk) 14:16, 3 September 2018‎ (UTC)
 * Please note and  were the same user. Discussion on this can cease if it didn't add anything. –  TheGridExe  ( talk )  19:05, 4 September 2018 (UTC)