Talk:P.T. (video game)

Video analysis by The Grate Debate

There’s a lot of information in this video from the Silent Hill video essayists at The Grate Debate. Not only do they address certain gameplay details, but they also find references within the game to other media, like Japanese folk tales. Great material for the “Gameplay” and “Themes and analysis” sections. I’m busy adding a screenshot of an illustration from the video about the corridor loop. Anyone care to help mine the video for information? --Dotdapple (talk) 04:01, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

Is The Great Debate a reliable source, though? Youtube videos usually aren't. Also, at what point in the video does the illustration appear, so we can take a look at it? It might not be fair use to use it here. ~Mable (chat) 04:14, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

Okay, I understand why Dot would want to use this video. I do. I really do. But the thing is, The Grate Debate themselves warned the viewers that the video would consist of speculation and theories. As interesting as those speculations and theories are, they are also just that—speculations and theories. In other words: might be best to take it all with a pinch of salt. —017Bluefield (talk) 05:37, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

This would be a better source for that video if it were to be added. I haven't watched it so I am not sure how useful it can be for the article yet. Jhenderson ⁷⁷⁷ 13:59, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

I’m not going to refute that this video is almost all theory, but did you see anything we could possibly use? I’m fairly inexperienced at editing, but I really think it has some useful material that at least fits within the Themes section. It’s over 30 minutes long, it has analysis that’s more detailed than a lot stuff on P.T., it’s been covered by Polygon, and the creators receive a fairly decent amount of views on YouTube on almost all their videos. Again, I lack the editing experience to make the call, but I have a feeling some parts of this video are deserving of inclusion. Your call? --Dotdapple (talk) 18:55, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

I actually did get to finish watching it now. I agree that it's an interesting watch. Maybes some of them can be introduced in the themes section. For example: The radio theories and the theory that it references The War of the Worlds. But I do feel that I shouldn't be the only call. Jhenderson ⁷⁷⁷ 19:11, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

The illustration appears at 04:11 in the video. I tried going through the upload process, but it failed midway for me. Here’s the video still I took, hosted elsewhere, at full resolution. --Dotdapple (talk) 18:37, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

If you're looking for screenshots of the corridor, the official website for P.T. has some beautiful ones. However, we already have a screenshot, and I don't think we can have another fair-use image, when the current screenshot depicts the corridor as well. Rapunzel-bellflower (talk) 18:42, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

I assume that the schematic of the hallway isn't in the public domain (of some sort). Using it would be fair use, but I don't think it is needed that much, and we already have three fair-use images in here as-is. You could always ask for the creators of the video to release it into the public domain (assuming they are also the creators of the image), but otherwise, I don't think it is a good idea. I still haven't gotten to watch the video, so no opinion on that yet, though I guess we should keep in-depth analysis of the work somewhat to a minimum unless there is actually some real-world meaning to it? Otherwise, it is more like a "guesswork of the plot" section and more interesting for a Silent Hill wiki of some sort. ~Mable (chat) 20:01, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

Plot section

A plot section has recently been added, and it currently isn't in the best shape. I haven't played P.T., so my knowledge of the plot isn't that amazing, but how do we decide which aspects of it are notable and should be in the section? I'm afraid this is basically impossible to do without making decisions on what parts are and aren't important. Right now, it doesn't even include the jumpscare in loop 3 nor the hanging fridge, but it did contain a lot of the written and spoken messages (I removed some). Perhaps the plot section shouldn't exist at all? Thoughts? ~Mable (chat) 09:00, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

A plot section is usually never perfect right away the first time it is added. Also these things that aren't added can maybe be added. I personally didn't think a plot section was necessary either at first. But a discussion led me to attempt adding one. Jhenderson ⁷⁷⁷ 14:10, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

Well, it's definitely fine to see what we can do with it :) We'd have to decide which (story)aspects of the game are notable for the article - possibly to help the reader to understand what the game is about or to give context to reviews of the game. There are a lot of aspects that might be vital to understand the meaning of P.T. to one person, but is deemed a minor thing to another person. For instance, there are a lot of (hidden) messages in the game. I don't think it's possible to say that a specific few of them are notable here and the rest are not. I've only watched one let's-play of it myself, so I still have a hard time grasping what happened exactly, but it would probably be a good idea to use this section to discuss which portions of the game should be mentioned in the plot section, for those who have delved into it more than I have :) ~Mable (chat) 14:37, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

I am going to talk about more of some of the hidden messages in the theme section. The one regarding a Swedish voice and what it is believed to be talking about according to commentators.

I should note that just about everything added is explained in the video of the source of the section. That is at least one good way to determine notability. It's not easy to prove all that is said in a video that is at least 30 minutes. But trust me in that I watched the video and I am certain that all (except for the hidden messages mention) is talked about in it. You should totally watch the video. An interesting watch. I am just trying to avoid the speculation that is already in it. This page also helped remind me of the lines and the ordering of the lines used in the game.

I will try to add those two you mentioned today. I was just wondering if there were anything else you think should be added that we may have forgot? Jhenderson ⁷⁷⁷ 15:43, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:P.T. (demo)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: ProtoDrake (talk · contribs) 20:24, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

I will take this review on. It looks very interesting. Be back in a few days with a full review. --ProtoDrake (talk) 20:24, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

Review

@Jhenderson777: There are the points that struck me immediately going through the references.

• Refs 1, 3, 4, 5, 8, 11, 12, 14, 17, 19, 21, 23, 24, 27, 28, 31-36, 39, 40, and 43-46 - Please ensure all websites/magazines are properly linked.

If you meant their wikilink then  Done. Jhenderson ⁷⁷⁷ 18:12, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

• • Remove the ".com" while addressing the issue above.

 DoneJhenderson ⁷⁷⁷ 18:12, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

• Refs 1-5, 11, 12, 14-20, 22, 24-30, 33-46 - Missing publishing dates. Please provide dates where possible.

 Done all that I noticed. Jhenderson ⁷⁷⁷ 18:12, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

• There appears to be a general irregularity in the use of the "work=|publisher=" citation method and other ones. Since you seem more used to the "work=|publisher=", please ensure all references are formatted in this way where possible.

 Done. I made them all website while I used publisher for the parent company. Jhenderson ⁷⁷⁷ 18:12, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

I should note that I used |website= because I felt that the article mostly contained it instead of the "work=" one you posted. I forgot you recommended "work=" method. Jhenderson ⁷⁷⁷ 00:00, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

• This is optional, but archiving these references where possible is advisable. For GameSpot and Giant Bomb references, please use archived links prior to June of this year due to an archiving issue summarized and discussed here and here. When issue is fixed, archiving affected links can go ahead.

I plan to archive them. I will let you know when I am done. Jhenderson ⁷⁷⁷ 18:12, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

I am  Done...with the exception of two GameSpot pages due to the reason you already posted. Jhenderson ⁷⁷⁷ 23:55, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

That's what stood out. Once these are fixed, I will have another look through to see if anything else catches my eye. --ProtoDrake (talk) 13:01, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

I've had another look through, and it looks like a Pass to me. A very interesting article, if somewhat tragic in subject. Makes me miss it even though I'm not into the genre. --ProtoDrake (talk) 06:35, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the pass. I miss it too. At least we have Let's Play for memory. Jhenderson ⁷⁷⁷ 03:24, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

potential sources

• http://kotaku.com/fans-are-making-a-spiritual-successor-to-p-t-and-it-l-1715045419?utm_campaign=Socialflow_Kotaku_Facebook&utm_source=Kotaku_Facebook&utm_medium=Socialflow

Wonderful find, Jhenderson! :) Hmm. I've actually been pondering a merge of the "Silent Hills cancellation" and "links to other media" sections into a section simply titled "Legacy". Your find would fit nicely in such a section. Thoughts? Rapunzel-bellflower (talk) 18:38, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

I've been thinking of a legacy section as well. I was thinking that the Metal Gear cameo link and this inspired game that I linked counted enough for a legacy section. Now that I am noticing your idea to put the two sections in one along with thinking it's a good idea...I might just give that a shot. Jhenderson ⁷⁷⁷ 20:53, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

Looks nice. What about this for "themes and analysis": http://kotaku.com/wow-people-are-still-coming-up-with-wild-silent-hills-1637043267? Rapunzel-bellflower (talk) 16:28, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

I think this source is mostly useful just to make clear that there exist a lot of "crazy fan theories" above anything else :p The writer herself keeps saying how bonkers many of the theories are and how people are "obsessive about every detail." These aren't particularly useful for this article. ~Mable (chat) 17:17, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the response, Mable! :) I just was thinking about providing a counterpoint to the analysis we currently have. Of course, we'll never know now how accurate any of them are. But you make a good point. There are some pretty bizarre hypotheses out there. :) Rapunzel-bellflower (talk) 17:56, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

That source is already on the article. Citation #36. You are welcome to expand the article with that source if there is more to add. Jhenderson ⁷⁷⁷ 18:16, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

I just checked, and it seems to be a follow-up article to ref#36. Rapunzel-bellflower (talk) 18:25, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

Yeah you are right. From the same author at that. Well it seems like another good inclusion. Do you have anything in mind to write if this source is used? Jhenderson ⁷⁷⁷ 18:49, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

more than one value

I seem to have created an issue on this page. Apparently I created more than one value or something to the sort which is evidant when editing the full article. I am busy for lunch for now but if somebody can fix where the issue is going on at I would be greatly obliged. Jhenderson ⁷⁷⁷ 15:49, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

Night Terrors

I feel like I should note that a particular planned game was compared to P.T. in a report a while back. Now whether it belongs in the article I am unsure.Jhenderson ⁷⁷⁷ 23:52, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

It seems too unspecific and minor. On top of that, it's written by the same author of two of our existing sources. I am sure P.T. was simply on her mind as she played a new horror game. The game doesn't seem to be influenced by P.T. either, or rather, that would be a lucky guess at most. It's a nice find, but I suggest we just ignore it. ~Mable (chat) 05:20, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

204863 is 'A hume' when entered as a T9 SMS

The number '204863' renders as 'A hume' when typed into a T9 SMS interface.