User talk:Pyroguy

Half-Life series changes

New Art for Half-Life 2, Episode One, Two

The policy to use official art is a combination of Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Article guidelines and the core Wikipedia:Manual of Style. It's the standard to use the company's official art for products so as to not misrepresent them. Personally I think your artwork is good, but that's not for myself nor Wikipedia to decide. Hopefully that helps. --Teancum (talk) 02:33, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The main reason I uploaded the new art was to remove the necessity to use the non-free box art, including the undesirable marks. Also, especially in the case of Half-Life 2, the new art is more representative of the work than the box cover (Gordon Freeman's face is not depicted in any of the games from the series). Also, the Half-Life games are now primarily distributed through Steam, where promo art is de-emphasized, and is different than the box art in the case of Half-Life 2. The art I created depicts the opening scenes from each game, which is experienced by every player (is platform independent), and also identifies the changing citadel, which is a major, unique, and instantly recognizable symbol from each game. In the case of the Episodes, the old art does depict Alyx Vance, who frequently accompanies the player, and is representative and recognizable, but Episode One includes an unnecessary text box in the upper right corner, and Episode Two includes an unreadable disclaimer at the bottom.

I did read the VG guidelines and the style manual, but I can't find a place that specifically requires promotional pieces. There was a debate about using screenshots versus box art, and it contained some relevant points, but I believe this is a separate case.

I will leave the old art in place, pending further discussion and perhaps consensus about changing it. --Pyroguy (talk) 06:59, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Half-Life 2

You should undo the edit you made to "Gameplay". That section had referenced and verifiable content, where you removed the citations and made it, er, unverifiable. --Izno (talk) 00:45, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Most of the content there was fluff and did not actually describe the gameplay, only specific weapons and puzzles. The citations only supported the specific weapons and the puzzles, so I removed them. I will try to find citations for the edits I have made. --Pyroguy (talk) 00:57, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Half-Life 2: Deathmatch

The reason it shouldn't have its own page is primarily because of notability. The expansion isn't notable, from what I can see. Nothing in the way of critical commentary or such to make it so, anyway. It serves a stronger purpose in the main article on HL2. --Izno (talk) 00:45, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Half-Life 2: Deathmatch is mostly notable because it introduced the original Source multiplayer code, which was the basis for a lot of popular modifications (Dystopia, Pirates, Vikings, and Knights 2, and Insurgency, to name just a few), and because it was a successor to the multiplayer component of Half-Life (which apparently isn't mentioned anywhere), which mods like Counter-Strike, Natural Selection, Science and Industry, and Team Fortress Classic were based on. I will try to reflect this in all the articles. If you still feel it's not notable, I'll move it somewhere. --Pyroguy (talk) 00:57, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It needs citations (to WP:RS) either way. That's what I'm most concerned with. :) --Izno (talk) 00:59, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Also, it's not an expansion, because (like the multiplayer for Half-Life) it doesn't have any references at all to the story of the Half-Life series. The only thing it shares with Half-Life 2 is art assets and weapons. --Pyroguy (talk) 01:21, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]