Talk:Portal 2

Spoiler Alert

Hi, this article is a little bit to informative about the story and so on, isn´t it? --Stabacs (talk) 23:52, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Merge?

Does this deserve it's own page yet? I think it should be merged into Portal (video game).--Magus05 ^(talk) 21:28, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

It's fine, even though it's small Valve will release some more info around march or april. --FrostedBitesCereal (talk) 22:27, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Yeah I agree, and I have a few points I would like to make about this:

1. Half Life 2: Episode Three's page has not much more content than what this page contains.

2. Half Life 2: Episode Two had even less content when it first started, and not once had a person changing it to a redirect.

3. I don't see any problem with having a small article, as long as it has a Stub notification.

4. It encourages people to add more content to the article, allowing more information to be shared about the upcoming game.

I have now also added as much more information to the page as I could find, which may not be much, but it's something, and after all that's what people come to Wikipedia for!

NRG753 (talk) 09:38, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree too. New game wikis have to start from somewhere, usually a confirmation by the developers. --Gamer007 (talk) 10:38, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm still not sure. For instance, announced movies are not to be given their own page until filming is confirmed to have started. A simple announcement or plans aren't enough. Even being greenlit and cast and being put into post production aren't enough. Following the same scale - I don't think this should be here until we are at least sure they are working on it. They currently have Episode 3, and Left 4 Dead in production - are we sure Portal 2 is even being worked on right now? I think we should wait for more confirmation. --Magus05 ^(talk) 21:47, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Valve works on all current projects, I'm 99% sure Kim Swift and the other folks on the Portal Team (Well every valve employee can choose what game they work on, but i'm talking about the digipen students.) are working on it, other wise they wouldn't really announce it. Valve never announces a game they haven't worked on (They're constantly working on stuff.) --FrostedBitesCereal (talk) 23:35, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Being 99% sure isn't the same as a verifable source though. See my point? --Magus05 ^(talk) 01:59, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Well given the news on Ep3 a few weeks back about "plot details not being formalized" it doesnt sound more hopeful than Portal 2 at this point.. who knows they could even do an "Orange Box 2" heheh. But in my opinion what confirmation we've had is easily enough to have an article on the game. I'm sure there will be more information reviled in the next month since they mentioned it at GDC, and for that reason I think this article should be available for people to add to it as I and others will be interested to read it. NRG753 (talk) 08:53, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

No merge! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.46.211.161 (talk) 21:45, 29 February 2008 (UTC) I've added a lot more information and put the page up to scratch, it dosen't need to be merged, as well as this work on a sequel begins when the first game is finished.Seanor3 (talk) 17:23, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Well would you look at that... 2 years ago I suggested merging this article because the game wasn't official yet, despite the swarm of people insisting that it was. I guess it's a good thing it was eventually merged. --Magus05 ^(talk) 19:57, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Merged

I merged this into the main Portal article. There wasn't enough here to sustain its own article yet: the first paragraph was a bunch of POV statements explaining what Portal is, the infobox was mostly guesses, and the second paragraph contained the actual verifiable information. This places that in a place where it is more relevant and aids readers interested in the topic. - Chardish (talk) 06:41, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

GameStop

Can this commercial site really be considered a reliable source? Where do they get their information from? Rehevkor ✉ 00:23, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

I've already stripped it. I'm assuming GI will be filling in details in a few days (when I get my copy) as the information doesn't appear wrong (eg [1] ) --MASEM (t) 00:31, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

On subsequent browsing from news articles, the only source (that all point to) about co-op is Gamestop, and they've since removed mention of it. I've removed it for now until a collaborating source say so. --MASEM (t) 00:54, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

http://gameinformer.com/b/news/archive/2010/03/05/Portal-2-For-Two.aspx - GameInformer confirmed it. --99.33.21.90 (talk) 01:31, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Looks like Gamestop leak has been confirmed by GameInformer, I have already posted a link to GI article. This is another proof that this information is legit. As for where they get their information from - I'm pretty sure Valve has already released basic info about this game, but they have created some kind of information embargo until the official announcement. Obviously these online stores can't be trusted when it comes to release dates, but they wouldn't publish game descriptions if it wouldn't come from the publishers/devs themselves. wlodi (talk) 01:44, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Yea, if GI is now confirming, then it's ok. I suspect that GI was supposed to have the first-hand premiere info, thus why Gamestop altered the info after the fact. --MASEM (t) 01:45, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

What about the Mac OS platform? Rehevkor ✉ 01:46, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

That we can't confirm yet. (My feeling is that we are seeing Steam for Mac in the next week or so, and then it may be added on, but that's a seperate announcmenet and one not yet confirmed for P2).--MASEM (t) 01:50, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

I have found confirmation of portal 2 releasing on mac. [REDACTED] Look at the information box on the first page. The pages also may give information for the article, but I am waiting for my copy to come in the mail, so I cannot help on that front. Wojonatior (talk) 21:51, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

The GI article confirms a mac release. This is not necessary Steam on Mac, but all signs point that direction. --MASEM (t) 01:53, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Could you please name the exact source for that piece of information? I don't see anything that looks like a confirmation... Fenris (08:35, 08.03.10) (UTC+1) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fenris.kcf (talk • contribs) 07:36, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Game Informer, April 2010 issue, page 50 (the same as in the article). --MASEM (t) 14:32, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Here's another source explicitly saying Portal will be a simultaneous Mac launch. http://www.wired.com/gamelife/2010/03/steam-mac/ 66.36.156.55 (talk) 19:18, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Just bring this up, In the steam Beta UI, there are Mac window sizing buttons in a folder called "OSX" Source:Looking on my computer;http://gizmodo.com/5479978/steam-is-most-probably-coming-to-macs Wojonatior (talk) 01:39, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Info to look out for

On a msg board, someone compared the paint function to the Digipen game, "Tag". [2] I have done a high-level search and found at least two of the students are at Valve now (the game only came out last year), and the other two have likely connections with Valve, just can't confirm that.

Thus, like how Valve brought the Digipen team behind Nabocular Drop, it looks like this Tag team was brought in for Portal 2. That info may become known in the next few months, but we should be looking for this. --MASEM (t) 20:40, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Good catch, and plausible. Worth looking out for. Rehevkor ✉ 23:27, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

It's true [3] -- Love, Smurfy 22:03, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Timeline

GameInformer said that the game takes place over 100 years after Portal. All the plot says is just "years" nothing more. Should we add the 100 to make it more accurate?--Kingplatypus 01:49, 10 March 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kingplatypus (talk • contribs)

GI says "hundreds of years", the article here says "hundreds of years". We're all good. --MASEM (t) 01:59, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Oh, durrr, it's the first sentence. Sorry, please excuse my idiocy.--Kingplatypus 19:28, 10 March 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kingplatypus (talk • contribs)

Ya, but MY question is, if it takes place "hundreds of years" after the 1st one then why is Chell still alive?? (no pun intended :p)

• Not sure if this was known then (I only learned about it just now, but I've been out of the loop), but GLaDOS kept Chell in stasis. --V2Blast (talk) 17:42, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
• Who said portals can't bypass time as well? I'm sure it will be explained in the game. 96.54.96.133 (talk) 22:45, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Series

"Half-Life" is the series here, Portal may be an offshoot of the series but it's still part of that same series. Regardless, Template:Infobox VG specifies we only use that parameter when there's a series article to link to, so it's Half-Life (series) or nothing. Rehevkor ✉ 03:01, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

I think, given what has been said about the lack of connection in P2, that "nothing" is the right choice. --MASEM (t) 03:10, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Portal's listed under the Half-Life series, so I think this goes there, too. —Preceding unsigned comment added by V2Blast (talk • contribs) 17:44, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Publisher

Just as a note [4] EA is not yet confirmed as the publisher for P2. --MASEM (t) 13:13, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Sanity check

"Chambers were first developed through whiteboard via isometric drawings, with the developers performing a sanity check on the chamber, before being created into simple levels through the Hammer level editor. "

Anyone care to explain what a sanity check is? Otherwise, I think it's vandalism. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Atomforyou (talk • contribs) 03:51, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

• I don't think it's vandalism, just vernacular. "Sanity Check" as in "let me make sure I'm not crazy", whereas "crazy" in this context means weird or too off-the-wall. At least, I'm assuming that's what it means... Shnakepup (talk) 21:47, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Basically yes, making sure that things hold up to common sense and expectations. Like, if they designed a room that effectively had a floating wall in it, that would be a problem. See Sanity testing. --MASEM (t) 21:52, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

About the cake...

Is it still a lie? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.235.87.225 (talk) 06:34, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Yes, but they wont go into that in Portal 2 :) 2.96.88.46 (talk) 10:52, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

But there was cake! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.79.16.144 (talk) 20:25, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

February's release

It think it should be mentioned that the game was originally slate dfor late 2010 released, then was delayed to 9th February 2010 and the again delayed to the April 2011 release. --BigOz22 (talk) 16:52, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Your right, it was delayed. It was just like what happened to Super Smash Bros. Brawl. - Mario324 (talk) 07:50, 18 April 2011

Awards

Should Portal 2's award for most anticipated game of the year at the VGA's be on the article? 2.96.88.46 (talk) 10:51, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Release date

Okay, as most people know, it was originally set to be released in late 2010, but after that, there seem to be two dates:

February 9th, 2011:

• Google Search, currently has two references
• [5]
• [6]
• [7]

April 21st, 2011:

• [8]
• [9]
• [10] (It's for the week of April 18th, but this includes April 21st)
• [11]

3000farad (talk) 22:14, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

The late 2010 date was pushed back to February 9th first, but around December, they announced another delay pushing it to Apr 18-21. So while your first set of sources aren't wrong, they're outdated. --MASEM (t) 22:16, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Alright, thanks. I'll put the second date change in the article. 3000farad (talk) 05:56, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

It's not necessary to put previous dates in the article unless they are significant. --MASEM (t) 06:10, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

I don't understand why the release date for NA is listed as April 18th, 2011 when all game stores release games almost religiously on Tuesdays which is the 19th, not to mention all places in which the game can be purchased excluding Steam are listing the game as having an 4/19/11 release date. Also how is no source better than the retailers selling the game. Gothamghost (talk) 16:48, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Retailers typically put in default or arbitrary dates simply to satisfy their sales systems - eg if a title is known to be out by the end of 2011, they'll put the release as Dec 31 2011. They also may be guessing at straws. As for the 18th, that may be the day it will be available on Steam, but clearly its the first possible day it will be available. --MASEM (t) 15:23, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Is it important enough to mention that pre-loading of the game just started a few hours ago? --Che010 (talk) 21:20, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

I was wondering when they would get around to that... Barts1a | Talk to me | Yell at me 22:36, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Preloading isn't important -- unless it somehow ties to the arg (90% sure it will). Let's wait and see. --MASEM (t) 23:08, 12 April 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. DarthBotto _talk•cont 22:04, 08 February 2011 (UTC)

Heel springs

I reverted this edit earlier. The user is claiming non specific image as the source of the information, not the image the caption is attached to, which is rather confusing. Without a source specifically covering the heel springs this is WP:OR, using an image alone would not cut it, as it requires novel synthesis to make the connection. Rehevkor ✉ 23:31, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Totally agree. We can mention them as heel-springs like the first game (as it is pretty much obvious if you put 1 + 2 togehter) but you can't make any other inference from that. --MASEM (t) 01:59, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Too many leaks

Some people are making a lot of beta stuff, PAX 2010 co-op gameplays and leaks. I want to know where they got that idea?!?! - Mario324 (talk) 13:39 27 March 2011 (UTC)

WP:NOTFORUM. This talk page is not for discussing the game itself. It is for discussing improvements to the article. Stickee (talk) 22:00, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

I think "I want to know where they got that idea?!?!" is asking for a valid source that the infomation is acually about the final game, and not the beta version for example.Jonnyjones (talk) 21:14, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Sorry about when I said "I want to know where they got that idea?!?!" by accident. I was talking about the leaks. Anyways, Portal 2 just came out. OMG! oFTo! Portal 2 FTW! So, All you Valve fans get ready to taste that juicy cake to finish the game! - Mario324 (talk) 07:54 18 April 2011 (UTC)

"speedy thing comes in, speedy thing goes out."

User:194.17.116.224 seems very intent on getting the quote "speedy thing comes in, speedy thing goes out" into this article. First of all, I highly recommend getting a username if you intend to regularly contribute constructively to Wikipedia. It is not clear to me (and at least one other person, who reverted the original add ("in layman's terms...")) why this quote adds encyclopaedic value to the article on Portal 2. So let's discuss it here and not have an edit war. -- Nczempin (talk) 09:56, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

That's even a misquote, it should be 'goes in' and 'comes out'. --128.84.65.135 (talk) 05:39, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from Namikaza, 19 April 2011

Portal 2 has been released and it was released at 4:32PM GMT+12 Tuesday 19 April 2011 it was released earlier because of the potato sack event which was started by valve to launch the game eariler

Namikaza (talk) 04:37, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

I have an article. However it is first-party. Looking further. http://store.steampowered.com/news/5326/ --Addict 2006 04:42, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Okay, even though it got released at 10:29 PM MDT, there's no written proof. Sorry I can't help. --Addict 2006 05:03, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

By tomorrow there will be sources. Be patient, I will get around it . --MASEM (t) 05:11, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

• First party sources are fine! Go for it!--Yaksar (let's chat) 05:24, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Mandatory reception section discussion

So yeah, I'm honestly not sure if Metacritic user scores can be counted as an item of particular note anymore. Basically the /v/ board on the 4chan website have recently been launching heavy smear campaigns against games on Metacritic (same thing happened to Dragon Age 2). Oh, speaking of DA2, they've also edit-bombed the wikipedia article several times which is why it's currently under protection, just check its history. Now, whether it be for reasons of trolling or genuine discontent, the opinions of these users obviously can't be claimed to represent the userbase as a whole as they tilt the discussions and scores in a negative direction through sheer force of numbers. Meh, I don't know. On one hand, gamer journalists have obviously picked up on it (though they seem blissfully unaware that most of the negativity originates from one particular imageboard), but on the other hand, including the metacritic user reaction in the wikipedia article, when said reaction has been heavily tilted by said imageboard, seems like caving in to people who do what they can to troll/ruin wikipedia articles to/and present their heavily biased opinions as fact. --77.215.75.103 (talk) 00:48, 20 April 2011 (UTC)