Talk:Half-Life 2: Episode Three

Where the hell did you get the logo?

I just visited the article not 5 seconds ago, and I saw a brand new Episode Three logo! Where'd ya get it?

That's what I'm wondering too. A source to where the image was found would be nice. I don't think VALVe has released anything on Episode Three.--Gamer007 22:40, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

I just removed the image. Until we have something that's really official (with given proof), nothing should be up there.--GaMeRuInEr 15:35, 15 July 2006 (EST)

It may not be official, but I think it's safe to say that that would be the logo they are going to use. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.176.159.16 (talk) 18:18, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Moving right along, what was the source for the logo so we can see it if we want? (Put it in External Links maybe, as "Possible Logo"?) 71.113.55.46 (talk) 22:11, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Half-Life 2 Episodes Article

This has been discussed before, I know, but I wanted to refer to a recent news. It was said that Episodes One to Three would be a story arc, and that there would be an Episode Four. Why don't we make an article of the Episodes with that in mind, dividing it in the known arcs? Just a suggestion.

Because each episode is very distinct and different from the others and combining them into one would be clutterous.

--74.214.39.2 03:07, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, Valve said that the episodes were basically a broken up version of Half-Life 3, so it's possible that Valve will release Ep3 with the other 2 as the intended full game. So there could be an article for Half-Life 3, which divides into its respective articles. I don't think they mentioned that there may be an episode 4, though. Jscorp (talk) 09:14, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

episode 4?

In this interview [1] Gabe Newell, hints at further episodes being possible as well as expansions playing as different characters during the events of city 17 but he doesn't confirm anything like this article suggests there could be another interview somewhere that does but I am yet to find it. 84.43.106.31 22:36, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Ep4 was confirmed more than a year ago in PC Gamer US. But because it's a print source, nobody who hasn't seen the mag believes it and the article is constantly deleted. Just wait. :-) --Tom Edwards 09:17, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

That statement is way too bold to include in this article without reference, even if it is flagged with [citation needed]. There is no other legitimate resource that confirms that, and as I recall, only three episodes were ever announced. I would be inclined to remove it completely until ep 4 is confirmed for a fact, though I don't qualify myself to do so.

On the Steam forums, someone created a Half-Life thread and asked if the rumors of an Episode Four were true. Gabe Newell himself responded and confirmed, along with a smiley emoticon that they were indeed true, and Episode Four is underway. 72.49.194.69 07:34, 26 July 2007 (UTC) Joshua

Whilist I was not able to retrieve the thread I spoke of, I found this thread in which a Valve moderator speaks on Episode Four. http://forums.steampowered.com/forums/showthread.php?t=500755&highlight=episode

Particularly of interest is on page 2, where the moderator says "From Pc Gamer Issue 162 Quote: Episode in Valves expansion of the HL2 storyline int he first of a three parter, Gabe Newell has revealed to us.

Spilling the beans about Valves future plans, Gabe explained that episodes 1-3 will form a trilogy that wraps up HL2 story arc, while the fourth is being developed by a seperate, outside dev team and will have its own storyline....

There is more on it....want to read it? Then get the mag. "

On page 3, another source is quoted,

"An here's the full, actual quote from "The World According to Gabe" Take note about the stuff for episodes 1-3 and how it's 100% accurate to what we know. This was the first place we found out about this stuff.

Quote: Newell confirmed to PC Gamer that Episodes 1 through 4 are current slated. And while we couln't pin him down to a release schedule, he says the plan is to be "pretty frequent" when unveiling new episodes - ideally six to eight months between releases.

Considering that it took five yeas to make Half-Life 2, how will Valve make this happen? By divvying up the work.

Inside Valve, two teams will be responsible for finishing Episodes 1-3, a triumvirate that Newell says will wrap up Half-Life 2s current story arc. Episodes 1 and 2 began development simultaneously by seperate teams; when Episode 1 goes live, its team will shift gears to Episode 3. Episode 4 will have a stand-alone plot and is being developed outside of Valve." 72.49.194.69 07:39, 26 July 2007 (UTC) Joshua

Online messageboards are NOT considered reliable sources. Furthermore, if you want to cite something, do so in the article, not in the discussion page.

I've heard rumors of that source for a long time, but as a subscriber to PC Gamer, I don't ever remember reading that. More information needs to be available before we keep adding that. Who's to say that it wasn't referring to Portal?

Enfestid 16:43, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Referring to Portal? That makes no sence at all. The message boards cite the source but I'm not in any mood to argue with you, so forget it. You win for now, until Gabe repeats that Episode Four is in development, then you can eat your hat. 72.49.194.69 18:00, 29 July 2007 (UTC) Joshua

Makes no sense at all? Well, supposedly the "article" (which you have never actually seen, mind you) claims that it will follow a different storyline. Portal follows a different storyline. And it won't tie in directly as a sequel. Portal doesn't tie in directly as a sequel. The title isn't being developed by the Half-Life team at Valve. Portal isn't being developed by the Half-Life team at Valve. How does that not make sense?

Furthermore, if Episode Four does turn out to be true, sure, I'll be more than happy to "eat my hat" (when was this ever even an expression)? But, the fact of the matter remains, that it cannot be cited because it's not from a reputable source. If it were, you should go right ahead and add it. But I've never seen it, and I subscribe to PC Gamer. You've never seen it, either, from what you're telling me.

Enfestid 19:11, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

It was on page 22 of the April (May?) 2006 issue, according to my post at the time. It has a different story arc - not a different world. (Although FYI, Portal does take place in the HL universe.) --Tom Edwards 19:40, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

I dunno if it ever was an expression, I figured you'd find it funny. 'Eat your hat'. Just trying to make you laugh, but I still don't think claiming Gabe was talking about Portal makes sence, because if so, why does he call it Episode Four in the article? Instead of just portal and why would Episode Four come with Episode Two? It would make more sence for it to come with Episode Three? So I'll go eat my hat. Just so you know, that stuff about Blushift 2, vortiguant invasion, etc. and other episodes, I HAD NOTHING to do with that. I've never even heard of those rumors. Take care. 72.49.194.69 02:54, 30 July 2007 (UTC) Joshua

Proof that it is an expression see the site http://www.rahulsood.com/

the article entirled "Is Vista starting to kick ass?" 72.49.194.69 07:17, 16 August 2007 (UTC) Joshua

It was I who actually posted that information on the steam forums, and that was some time ago. ( http://forums.steampowered.com/forums/showpost.php?p=5617310&postcount=22) First off all moderators on the steam forums are volunteers, and do not work for Valve so no such quote should even be remotely seen as official. The information I posted can be read in the Pc Gamer Issue 162. I have the magazine and I will root up what exactly was stated...but as I said that was some time ago, and who knows what may have changed since then. However, I certainly did not make up what I posted - and the information posted was correct, according to the article. --Greg Moroney (talk) 13:36, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Episodes? Episodes? Episodes?!

Hi, could you please tell us which issue of PC Zone discussed the possibility of those 3 (among other) episodes? Just for citation purposes so we, the benevolent editors, can check your referances? Thanks, take care! 72.49.194.69 08:30, 29 July 2007 (UTC)Joshua

As an added note, i see no basis for the speculation that this is the end of the Half Life franchise. all it says is "According to Valve", where did this information come from? Or am i simply supposed to continue thinking of it as baseless supposition? -Chris —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.81.215.85 (talk) 03:09, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Easter eggs

Out of interest, why is there a section about an easter egg in Episode Two in this article? Shouldn't it be in the Episode Two article (if anywhere)? Falastur2 13:36, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Are you talking about this line "From what Episode two depicts, the rocket was designed to make contact with Xen a world filled with aliens in the original "Half Life". With what others believe in episode three the Xen will return and help in the battle against the combine."? I am trying to figure out what that comment has to do with anything. It is at the very bottom of the article (below the Valve Corporation game list) and it does not seem to be relevant/more than someone's opinion. michaelfeb16 07:47, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Release Date: only a supposition

It might happen that Episode three will be released in november 2008. It will coincider with the tenth anniversary of the Half-life franchise. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.82.47.36 (talk) 01:53, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Episode three was originally planned to be released around the 2007 holiday season. Who knows it could and probably will change and get pushed back. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.34.212.247 (talk) 20:28, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Today's gold announcement was the first official confirmation that a third Half-Life 2 episodic update is in development. Like Episode Two, Valve divulged little in the way of information about Episode Three, saying only that it was the last "in a trilogy...that will conclude by Christmas of 2007." http://www.gamespot.com/pc/action/halflife2aftermath/news.html?sid=6151796 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.34.212.247 (talk) 23:53, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

VALVe has never been 100% correct where release dates are concerned. Let's not put in any release dates until it actually gets released... lavacano201014 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Lavacano201014 for user talk page) 22:23, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Concept art?

Did somebody hack into valve again to get the concept art!? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.46.183.98 (talk) 11:11, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Looks like scan Pahajoki 11:28, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Okay,then did anybody steal from valve? xD —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.46.183.137 (talk) 20:00, 7 November 2007 (UTC) Im' serious now!How did you get the concept art...I will remove the picture if I dont get an anwser! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sstefan (talk • contribs) 17:23, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

It's taken from here: http://www.jeux-france.com/images0_4_22044.html. --Bruin_rrss23 (talk) 08:45, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

yeah there you go, he didnt steal it or anything its all genuine. now put the picture back up again! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Msman (talk • contribs) 11:37, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Although I didnt delete the pic. I think that the picture shouldnt be here...At least until we get some official pics. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sstefan (talk • contribs) 16:54, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

New additions to gameplay for ep.III

i will not pretend to be some informed person, but i do have quite a few developer friends in the Seattle area, wink wink cough cough, this is just some info for all the fans actually, the new addition to game play in ep.III will be extreme varying and sometimes debilitating and possibly fatal weather conditions.there may be more by the time of release, but from what ive seen, rain freezing to sleet and snow and ice and wind in source, is bad ass. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.91.33.241 (talk) 21:13, 20 November 2007 (UTC) Did your friend tell you anything about the plot? :P —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sstefan (talk • contribs) 21:11, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

That'd be F-ing awesome. Sleet covering the ground as you climb the clifside, rain and sleet pelting your face, your feet almost slipping over the edge, icicles forming above you, snow in the distance reflecting the sun, almost blinding you. sweet. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.196.119.228 (talk) 21:40, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Getting cold...

I am beggining to doubt that ep3 is gonna come out...it's been like a month from the release of ep2 and still no trailer or anything...Plus,valve said that the trilogy is going to conclude by christmas...I think that valve has forgotten about ep3 :P... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sstefan (talk • contribs) 18:48, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

valve said that they will not be releasing media or things until very close to the release date! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Msman (talk • contribs) 12:23, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

So we will get the trailer on the November 30th (2025) :-P —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sstefan (talk • contribs) 19:20, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Valve may drop the episodic thing all together and return to full scale games. Episode Four was said to be in development but Newell has stated that Episode Three may be the last of the episodes. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.49.111.17 (talk) 17:16, 2 December 2007 (UTC) There is no "may".It is certain that ep3 will be the last...It just doesent pay off...I mean it took three years to create just two episodes...this is getting waaay too long...I CANT WAIT ANYMORE I WANT EP3! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sstefan (talk • contribs) 15:05, 3 December 2007 (UTC) Then please let your voice be heard by Valve, they cannot hear you on Wikipedia. Tell them you want them to drop the episodic stuff and go back to making full titles. Email Gabe yourself if you want to. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.49.111.17 (talk) 15:20, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

When Valve released ep1 they also included a trailer for ep2. However a lot changed between this trailer and the final product of the game meaning the trailer was pretty pointless. Valve are waiting a while before releasing any media this time so the trailers are actually relevant. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.134.27.111 (talk) 01:48, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree. If there is absolutely no news from Valve by the end of 2009, I say we declare episode III officially vaporware. 1DmkIIN (talk) 04:57, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

nonsense. The game is in production. There was never any release date - just because speculation has been frustrated doesn't mean there is a problem Mezigue (talk) 08:54, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Indeed. We are not to define what is and isn't vaporware. Haipa Doragon (talk • contributions) 15:56, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

First off, 'vaporware'? Never heard the term before. Secondly, I find it highly unlikely that Valve, indeen any company, would not finish such a highly successful series like Half-Life. I only just played a Valve game for the first time in January (got The Orange Box) and I agree with what I've heard: Valve only delay their games due to quality issues. If you listen to the commentary for Episodes I and II (and Portal), you'll see that they had to totally recreate quite a few areas to make it fun for the playtesters. I think that, if Episode Three has any problems, it'll be that they're trying to make it too good. Not that I consider that a problem, though. --Thejadefalcon (talk) 16:13, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Vivendi and Valve no long work together

Some unregistered user (I have no idea who it is) keeps adding the Vivendi name to the companies that are making the game, though Vivendi and Valve are partners no longer. I'm going to remove it one last time, but it keeps being restored every time I or someone else removes it. Giancarlo1992 (talk) 22:10, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

The relationship between Vivendi and Valve got sour after the release of Half-Life. They no longer work together and for all intents and purposes hate each other. It is EA and Valve that are working together, until Valve gets sick of this publisher and moves to someone else. If this vandalism continues to occur, we can appeal to a mod to lock this article temporarily. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.215.98.187 (talk) 20:27, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

This misinformation is being repeatedly added to the article, getting to be a bit of a pain. It seems nearly all of the Half-Life 2 related articles are suffering the same fate too, and I believe a single user may be responsible, perhaps actions to block them may be in order. Rehevkor (talk) 16:34, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

As I have already stated, if you feel the vandalisms are too much or worsening, have the articles that are victim to it, locked. Have one of the mods temporarily lock the articles. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.49.206.99 (talk) 01:55, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Valve should utilize thier mascot as a character within Aperture Science for Ep 3

Valve should utilize thier mascot (the gentleman with a valve for his left eye) as someone important within Aperture Science who had an unfortunate (though not lethal) mishap with teleportational technology early in its developement. Perhaps have it be Cave Johnson. They could go into this in subsequent Portal maps, Portal 2, or HL2 episode 3. Meekil (talk) 13:16, 10 December 2007 (UTC) What the hell are you talking about? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sstefan (talk • contribs) 14:05, 10 December 2007 (UTC) Go to valvesoftware.com and you'll see an image of a man with a valve sticking out of his head, though the actual image changes once in a while (to pictures of different males with the valve in different parts of their heads). You'll also see the picture when you start up a game by Valve. Meekil (talk) 19:53, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

This has absolutely no releveance at all to this article. What was the point of even posting it here. Go to a forum if you want to present your opinion to people.Nitre (talk) 11:43, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Blizzard/Vivendi?

Is this som kind of vandal game or does blizzard really have to do anything with ep3? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.46.179.94 (talk) 23:53, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Repeated and persistent vandalism unfortunately. Sierra/Activision/Blizzard/Vivendi no longer (as in some cases never did) have anything to do with Valve. Unfortunately this isn't the only page that suffers from the problem. Rehevkor (talk) 00:50, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

New logo?

Is this new logo authentic? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.46.231.5 (talk) 15:35, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Probably not. Upon close examination I can spot a couple flaws, namely the "R" in "THREE" which was clearly created from extracts of other letters.--Surfaced (talk) 01:18, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

The R, yes, definitely! I think it should be deleted until we have an official logo. Klow (talk) 01:37, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

It's a good enough place holder until we get something official. There's nothing saying images have to be official anyway. Rehevkor (talk) 08:59, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

It's generally a bad idea to make up a logo. It screams copyright infringement. If the logo really is fake, it shouldn't be there. — Trust not the Penguin (T | C) 09:45, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

The logo was deemed to be a fake and removed from the page. Until an official confirmed release from valve there should be no "episode 3" logo on this page. Magister-Dark 1:57 20 January 2008 —Preceding comment was added at 14:59, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Who destroyed the article?

Who shortend the article? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.101.147.34 (talk) 21:15, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Destroyed? Being as most of the information was speculation, I wouldn't say it was destroyed. Trimmed maybe. Rehevkor (talk) 21:48, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

No...the article has been totaly destroyed... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.101.147.34 (talk) 16:31, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

And once actual information comes out it will be rebuilt. — Trust not the Penguin (T | C) 20:25, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Jesus... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.101.147.34 (talk) 13:13, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Don't worry about it. Rehevkor (talk) 15:29, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

It always amazes me when people are very ok with articles in an encyclopedia (and YES, Wikipedia is a REAL encyclopedia) being filled with rumor, speculation and downright falsehoods. Articles in this encyclopedia are based on the facts available and nothing but. An internet discussion board is not a source, someones blog where 3rd hand information is disseminated ("I heard from a friend who has a cousin who works for Valve...") is not a source. Buster (talk) 05:22, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Please give me a break, Wikipedia is not a real encyclopedia. I like Wikipedia as much as the next person, but I'm not going to start categorizing it as an academic source. Anyway, good job to whoever shortened and removed unnecessary content in the article. 64.180.240.23 (talk) 19:54, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

so what, everybody knows it's an unreleased game; why not add some of the information that floats around through the internets on wikipedia. It's strength is that information is usually very up to date, so whenever there is more reliable information it'll be put here. In the meantime, let's have some fun and add humanity's globally available knowlege, which is a bunch of rumors and speculation Ant6n (talk) 07:28, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Xbox 360 and PS3

Are there plans to releace the expansion on the Xbox 360 and PS3? I would have thought so, as the previous episodes were releaced with the Orange Box. Any confirmation or denile of a console releace? 84.68.248.79 (talk) 13:23, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

As far as I know, so far there has been no confirmation of any console releases. All we can gurantee at this point is that it will be on PC/Steam. Rehevkor (talk) 16:31, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

theres this - http://www.psu.com/Half-Life-2--Episode-3-to-hit-the-PlayStation-3-News--a4195-p0.php it may only be speculation but i cant see valve not releasing it on ps3 and 360 when episodes 1 and 2 were. it also means more money for them too. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.165.60.0 (talk) 17:03, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Valve doesn't know what will happen in Ep 3

http://www.computerandvideogames.com/article.php?id=181670 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.34.212.247 (talk) 01:31, 12 February 2008 (UTC) Its not like they dont know AT ALL but...y'now :P —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.46.177.76 (talk) 18:41, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Portal characters in Episode 3?

I heard mention somewhere that a familiar face from Portal will show up in episode 3. I cant recall where I heard it though. Can anyone shed some light on this rumor? --StevenFurtado (talk) 22:05, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

It has been suggested by official sources that Chell will be in Ep3. See her article discussion page for details. Leushenko (talk) 14:09, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Also don't be surprised to see the portal gun in Ep 3. After all Aperture Science has been referenced in both Half-Life and (to a larger degree) Portal. Fatrb38 (talk) 06:53, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Lock The Article?

Can we lock, or at least highly moderate, this article until Valve's next real press release? Just looking at the load of unverified 'facts' which have passed through this page on the 'Talk' alone makes me want to cry. Surely we shouldn't give people the ability to edit this page, especially considering the huge chance that any disillusioned fan may want to begin shouting obnoxious claims from his or her roof at a moment's notice? Melaisis (talk) 18:20, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Not the end

Valve has said that ep. 3 is not the end and ep. 4 may not be the end either! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.189.172.2 (talk) 22:06, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

2009 release?

Heres the source: http://www.computerandvideogames.com/article.php?id=188076 This isn't a specific release date, but they did say " We've hit with episodes around every 14-16 months." 74.34.212.247 (talk) 02:23, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Valve are notoriously untrustworthy about dates. Until they give us an explicit official date, we shouldn't put anything in the article. HertzaHaeon (talk) 11:27, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Xbox 360?

Who added the Xbox 360 in one of the release platforms for the game? Till now nothing is official. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.168.48.44 (talk) 16:10, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

This kinda thing sneaks in now and then, I've removed it until it's confirmed. Rehevkor ✉ 16:17, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Remove a line?

There's a line in regards to the news/annoucement for information on Episode 3 by Doug but I'm not really sure if this is notable enough. Can I get some clarification, maybe? 64.180.240.23 (talk) 19:55, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

You shouldn't have to do anything. Since the statement has a valid source and it's relevant to the article, there shouldn't be a problem. Br3k (talk) 08:08, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Time Between Episodes

The time between Half Life 2 and Episode 1 is listed as 1 year, 4 months. If you've actually played the game, you'll see that the entire of Episode 1 takes place over less than 1 day, probably just a few hours. The episode itself picks up immediately after Half Life 2 finished, so I don't see where this statistic has come from. Indeed, Episode 2 picks up just a few minutes after the end of Episode 1. With that in mind, I'll delete the bracketed times, since they are not mentioned in the interview with Doug.Loony636 (talk) 06:55, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

It's referring to the release dates, not the in-game timeframe. It's not really needed, though, to understand the text. Haipa Doragon (talk • contributions) 07:15, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

City 17

From a 2006 interview, Lombardi commented that City 17 probably won't show up in Ep3. http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/valve-comments-on-episode-three-progress

Well it got blown up at the end of Ep 1 so it's rather unlikely anyway. Rehevkor ✉ 23:03, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Possible Plot?

Should there be at least a mention of the possibel plot of ep3? I mean: we already know Alyx and Gordon are going to search for the Borealis... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.206.139.28 (talk) 16:29, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

We do? You can make assumptions based on the end of Ep2 but they're just that, assumptions. Rehevkor ✉ 17:08, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Outdated reference.

The first reference listed is horribly out of date, considering that the series absolutely has not concluded by Christmas 2007. It should be replaced with a more recent reference, if one is available. 70.190.246.128 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 20:26, 12 March 2009 (UTC).

While the dates etc inaccurate, the particular information this article uses from the source is the fact Ep3 is the final of the planned episodes, not the release dates, which is still very much accurate unless other sources contradict it. Rehevkor ✉ 20:34, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Lombardi's cryptic message

He said "distance", not "release date". I don't think we should assume what a cryptic message means, so I'm editing this out. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.83.18.128 (talk) 09:00, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Merge to Half-Life (series)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

How is a separate article for this game "clearer" for readers? Per WP:STUB and considering the current lack of sourced information, this article should be merged to Half-Life (series). We shouldn't keep it around solely for the potential of future content, either. Haipa Doragon (talk • contributions) 00:20, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

What he said. The only two usable sentences of prose are already in the series article. Currently there are no sources to develop the article beyond a stub. Rehevkor ✉ 00:46, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Oppose - I just think it's clearer here than being redirected to a section on the whole series. Additionally there was more information on this but Haipa Doragon deleted it in bizarre edits like this one. WP:CRYSTAL says "scheduled or expected future events should only be included if the event is notable and almost certain to take place" - well, this game IS notable and IS almost certain to be released.

Look, what's the point in merging, what on earth does it gain? Nothing. If by some miracle the game doesn't come out then the article can be merged at that stage - rst20xx (talk) 11:15, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Oppose - Adding my two cents here. I agree with the parent edit on it being clearer having it's own article. If there's not much information on the game at this point, it should simply stay a stub, and any speculation added should be removed. The information that is here is all sourced and the game is confirmed to be in development. I don't think we should try and fix something that isn't broken here. A redirect would definitely cause confusion for me. I think this is a case of bored editors. Psykus (talk) 05:29, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

How is it notable, though? Future potential doesn't establish current notability. Right now, the article is composed of nothing other than primary sources, and they aren't enough to constitute a separate article. Haipa Doragon (talk • contributions) 15:24, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

None of the sources are primary, although only two are solidly reliable sources. A simple search of typical gaming sources shows the subject itself is easily notable, there's just not enough information to warrant a separate article at this point. -- Sabre (talk) 19:46, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

They all stem from primary sources, e.g. press releases, etc., though, and don't show much for its real-world context. The article currently cites very little about its reception, development, etc., content which should form the bulk of a VG article, and therefore largely fails WP:VG/GL and WP:RS. Haipa Doragon (talk • contributions) 20:04, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

No they don't all stem from primary sources. Not one is a regurgitation of a press release. They're written by individual publication writers and have gone through their standard editorial processes. If we apply your logic, a review of any game isn't acceptable because it stems from something the developer had their hand in. I'm all for merging the article, but your interpretation on sourcing and rigid non-negotiable take on petty things like this is ridiculous and very much against the spirit of Wikipedia guidelines. Publications don't mention go out of their way to mention genres, etc in these sorts of cases because they realise that readers have to have a brain made of cheesecake not to know these things—again, apply your logic and you might as well remove the statement that its a video game because no-one's categorically stated it. Stop hiding behind blindly behind policies and apply some common sense man. -- Sabre (talk) 23:18, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

I'll reply to your comment when you can have the civility not to address me with phrases such as "a brain made of cheesecake", "ridiculous", "blindly" and "apply some common sense man". Haipa Doragon (talk • contributions) 23:34, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

None of those comments are meant to insult you, I apologise if you've taken them that way, but please read more carefully. First is a generic metaphor not aimed at anyone, the others are simply used to convey I think your actions are grossly out-of-hand and misguided. Negative words and sentiments don't automatically equate to a personal attack. -- Sabre (talk) 01:00, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Well, I very much took them that way, so please avoid such comments in future. Anyway, As for the edit I made, I still don't see what's so "misguided". Where are the sources to back the information up? Such details could very well be contended, and to assume based on previous games that they are what the previous games were is nothing but speculation. Haipa Doragon (talk • contributions) 01:35, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Nonetheless, it's still speculation. As notable as it may become, there is far from enough information on the subject now and we therefore shouldn't speculate about its release by leaving around an unexpandable stub article until that time—as of now, there isn't even any form of release date for it. How can we consider it "almost certain" to take place if no details of its release have been disclosed? The absence of information could just as easily lead to an argument that the game is unlikely to ever surface, and frankly, at this point, to assert either way would be too much of an assumption. The release argument aside, WP:STUB nonetheless states that articles of such little content such as this one should be merged into another relevant article. At this point in time, I'm failing to see the need for this subject to have a separate article. Haipa Doragon (talk • contributions) 15:34, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

We can consider it almost certain to be released per WP:COMMON. All signs point to Valve still working on the game. And WP:STUB says "if a small article has little properly sourced information... it may be deleted or be merged into another relevant article." MAY be merged. Doesn't have to be. It's up to you to provide a good reason for it to be, which is clearly not WP:STUB itself. I think it's clearer to keep things separate, especially when this article is going be expanded before too long anyway - rst20xx (talk) 19:11, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

WP:STUB clearly defines that stubs are "too short to provide encyclopedic coverage of a subject"; as it stands, this article is not encyclopedic, as it lacks the necessary secondary sourcing, per WP:RS, and therefore fails WP:GNG and WP:VG/GL. The possibility of future sources arising does not establish such notability. Haipa Doragon (talk • contributions) 20:01, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

It seems to be the general consensus within the VG project, at least for series with high editor attention, to merge stub sequel articles. Details on Portal 2 for example are within the [[Portal {video game)]] article, Bioshock 2 didn't have a separate article until the media campaign started and information flooded in. I will admit I'm surprised at the lack of attention to this. Rehevkor ✉ 22:43, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

(I added the merge template and left a message here. Rehevkor ✉ 22:48, 2 May 2009 (UTC))

What's the problem with merging it for now and then redeveloping it once more information becomes available? — Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 22:55, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

The article was already boldly merged by Haipa Doragon but another user, rst20xx, contested. I presume Haipa Doragon initiated discussion to avoid a revert "war". Rehevkor ✉ 23:02, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

I'd like to know rst20xx's response. I don't understand why he thinks that's a bad idea. — Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 15:02, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

I really don't see why we need to have this discussion in two places, so see my comment on the series talk page: there is so little here that it is identical word for word in the series article: "Half-Life 2: Episode Three is the third and final installment in a series of episodic expansions of Half-Life 2 developed by Valve Corporation. It is planned as the last episode in the story arc, although not necessarily the end of the Half-Life franchise. No release date or other details have been announced, though some concept art has surfaced". Those three sentences can and are more than comfortably be contained there until there's actually something substantive to say, and we shouldn't speculate on when that will be: this is Valve. -- Sabre (talk) 23:01, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Merge until more significant details are known. Yes, they will be, but having a standalone article now invites speculation from less skilled editors that we'd like to avoid. --MASEM (t) 23:14, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Merge: Initially, I was opposed to the change, which seemed drastic, but Haipa Doragon is right; three sentences in the series article are enough to convey what it publicly known about the game. Yes, the game is being created, but that's all we know. Once more information emerges, perhaps after E3 in early July, the topic can be re-expanded into it's own article once again. Andrew James Richards (talk) 02:03, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Merge: It should be merged until more info comes up.--_{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 05:42, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

• Merge for the time being - until there's actually something to say about it, there's not much point in having this separate article. Robofish (talk) 21:36, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Merge - there's no real point i having a seperate article yet until ther's something to put in it. MrTrent9484 (talk) 15:00, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

New deaf character

There are recent reviews about half Life 3 having a deaf character apparently [2]. Hervegirod (talk) 10:48, 8 August 2009 (UTC)