Talk:Half-Life 2/Archive 5

Front page article - fit for purpose?

I just raise this because as an article it's excellent; and excellence should be highlighted, it's a credit to wikipedia. However I personally have big reservations over giving such prominence to something so trivial, commercial and unimportant as a computer game. It seems to me that this subject should either not be in a wikipedia, because it's importance is not obvious, or it should have a far smaller entry to reflect it's unimportance in the order of things.

I would be interested to know if anyone agrees with me, or if I am a minority of one. Xue hanyu 14:52, 11 January 2007 (UTC)Xue_hanyu

• I agree 100%. I mean, it's not even the original game, or an article on a series -- will Sonic 3 be next? Thomasmallen 15:10, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
  • I'm afraid that Half-Life 2 is widely considered (in the gaming and entertainment world) as the best PC game ever made - if any game article is going to be on the front page, it should be HL2. Likewise with console games, many would choose the Halo series. Don't forget, the article is also judged on its encyclopedic quality, not just the topic - in which case, this is a VERY good article. —Vanderdecken∴ ∫ξφ 15:19, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Sonic 3 is not a Featured Article (actually, no sonic article is), and besides, they try to keep related articles far apart. the last "game" front page article was months ago. --PresN 15:20, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
    • Yet, we've had no fewer than two articles featuring individual Pokemon... Thomasmallen 15:39, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

The article is really impressive, it's just that I feel that it's barely a suitable subject for inclusion in an encyclopaedia, let alone an article of this length and certainly not one that is holding one of the key positions on the front page.

Congratulations to those that have contributed to the article, and it clearly represents a great deal of time and love on their part, but the article is longer and in some ways more lavish than say, for instance, the article on the death of John F Kennedy in Dallas in 1962.

I fear an encyclopaedia is rated not just on its encyclopaedic qualities but the weight it gives them. Napoleon is more important than Norman Scharzkopf and his article should reflect that importance. This articles seems to tell us that this game is more important than most other subjects.... what does that tell people about wikipedia and wikipedians?

I feel that this article reflects not the importance of the subject but the passion the contributors have for the subject and their abilities to carry out this task to a complex degree. I can't help but come to the conclusion that this is something of a wikipedia weakness, as I think it ultimately trivialises the project.

• So who decides which topics are important and which not? You? Wikipedia is different from other encyclopedias as it has infinite space to store information, and a book encyclopedia doesn't. So why should we "make space" for more "important" articles when there is no need to? 201.252.201.60 18:34, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

To me it says wikipedians are an extremely diverse group of people with diverse interests. Thankfully the project is open to all who wish to create and expand articles, and not run by a few who decide what is and what is not worthy of inclusion. There have been quite a few FA on the front page that I've looked at and thought "Uh, okay....", but I've never written a comment on the talk page as to how or why it got there. Obviously you don't appear to be a gamer, hence you also have no idea the importance of HL2 in the gaming pantheon. That's fine, but please don't attempt to belittle or demean the article or those who have put so much time into its creation and unkeep. Geologik 19:11, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

The problem isn't about notability. HL2 is a trailblazer in the computer gaming industry; it's considered one of the best games ever made. It's quite notable in those aspects. However, because it may be longer than, say, the article on JFK's death does not mean that it is more notable or more important or more encyclopedic. It simply means that there are more people able to contribute a significant amount of information than there are for the JFK article. To say this article should be trimmed simply so that does not become larger than a more noteworthy article is simply rubbish. If anything, those articles should be expanded. The question is, "who will do it?" ~ UBeR 19:51, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Geologik - thank you for your contribution. I profoundly disagree with you. I think it this article's use as the lead on the featured article says two things about wikipedia - first, that it's capable of producing a quality article, and second that it is trivial. It's a game, and is no more significant than Top Trumps.

I am a gamer, and was before computers, and that informs my view that it's often a trivial area, not deserving of much effort in recording. Please re-read carefully what I have written and you will recognise that I have not belittled the quality of the article and certainly not those behind it's productions. Bouquets all round to them for an excellent piece of work. I just query, in the words of Elvis Costello, 'is it worth it?'

FYI, wikipedia is a project where a few decide what is not worthy of inclusion, otherwise the place would be full of rubbish. It's an editing process, carried out by experienced wikipedians.

And moving on to UBeR, read carefully what I wrote and you will see I'm not advocating cutting the article. Again, I query 'is it worth the effort'. I think not.

User 201.252.201.60|201.252.201.60 - you fail to grasp any of my points. I am expressing an opinion, it's the basis of individualism. I am not advocating making space for important articles, that would be foolish in a world full of servers. 217.155.203.202 22:59, 11 January 2007 (UTC)Xue_hanyu

Well, the featured articles aren't featured because they're noteworthy. Anyone who has spent a few weeks opening up to the Wikipedia main page knows that what gets featured there is usually less than historic. For example, the current featured article on the main page is Richard III, a movie. I think, "so what, it's just a play." Half-Life 2, so what it's just a game. Precisely. Wikipedia's featured articles are not based on notability, something they've echoed many times over, but rather their ability to represent Wikipedia's best work based on several standards they have listed. Featured articles are the "best" articles, not the most historically important ones. Whether you think that a flaw of Wikipedia or not is up to you, but quite frankly it lacks merit for discussion at this point. ~ UBeR 00:30, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Who are you to decide what is trivial and what isn't? It's definitely your opinion and that's fine, but there are folks out there who greatly appreciate the game, and in the process decided to devote their time and passion into creating and editing a top-notch article. I'd say approximately 70% of the articles I've seen here at Wikipedia border on rubbish and are things that I certainly have no interest in, but again, I generally have better things to do than make it known on their talk pages. ;) Hope you're enjoying the view up there on the high horse. Geologik 03:34, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Geologik - I'll ignore the personal insults, they are off topic. Please note that I have said again and again it's a really well produced article. But I'm unconvinced that it's an important subject.

UBeR - Wikipedia articles are supposed only to be about notable subjects, worthy of entry, otherwise it would be full of advertising. Which is something I didn't like about this article, it's very uncritical. Is Half Life 2 really that good that there are no critical things to say about it? Richard III is just a play, in the way that the bible is just a book, or the President is just a man. But there's something more important about all three things that makes them worthy of being in wikipedia. Games seem to me to deserve a small, very small, corner to themselves. If a features article is one of the best, then I think this one fits the bill. Now I think that it's the bill that needs changing. Xue hanyu 00:38, 14 January 2007 (UTC)Xue_hanyu

This is not a forum; please limit talk to issues pertaining to changes in the article. Thankyou. Qjuad 01:06, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

It does pertain to changes in the article because he brings up the lack of criticism, and I'll address that. Now, of course, the game isn't perfect in way shape or form. It has some flaws. As a lot of people have noted, the game is linear. Other problems exist as well, such as bugs and glitches. Problem is that simply putting that into the article is original research. There needs to be a verifiable source to claims in Wikipedia articles. I believe the lack of those sources contribute to the minuscule/nonexistent criticism section. If you would like to debate the notability issue, I welcome you to my talk page for discussion. ~ UBeR 16:30, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Protect this NOW

Someone forgot to protect/sprotect this before it hit the main page, so I left this on the administrator's noticeboard and Vandalism in Progress:

The article Half-Life 2, which is the featured article on the main page but is not protected has had 180 edits in the past nine hours. See here (most of them are vandalism) for the 180-edit diff, the history, and my watchlist for the compacted list of editors (most are IP and new made-for-vandalism accounts). I reccomend an immediate full protection, changing to semi-protection after a cleanup, and a massive block party, IPs and users alike. —Vanderdecken∴ ∫ξφ 15:19, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

• Thanks, I was shocked when i saw that this wasn't (s)protected. --PresN 15:21, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
  • No one "forgot" to do anything. We protect images and templates of articles that hit the main page, but not the articles themselves as you'll see at the discussion on ANI. Metros232 15:42, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

The disputed policy that effectively stops semi-protection is at Wikipedia:Main Page featured article protection. Arguments for and against the policy can be found on its talk page. Please, if you want change, join the discussion. –Outriggr § 00:45, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Congratulations all!

I particularly enjoyed the categorization of this article - dystopian fiction is brilliant! It's a shame that Kelly Bailey didn't get an article, though. Thanks for your hard work, NinaOdell | Talk 15:23, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

THANKS FRIENDLY BRO! Buyable 18:40, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Half-Life 2 ain't all that

Going through the Critical response section, I get the impression that whoever wrote this is a big admirer of Valve and all their work. Which is great. They're a great company. But their storytelling isn't exactly on par with, say, Bungie Studios; play Halo: Combat Evolved if you haven't already. Half-Life and Half-Life 2 are rather linear games, with mediocre dialogue and not much real excitement. Valve is more the master of making great game engines than developing fully fleshed-out games. Vranak

If you know of a review from a reliable source which says that, then please cite it and include mention of it in the article. That kind of neuance could be useful for the article. --GunnarRene 16:58, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

And How are we to know that Vranak isn't a Halo: Combat Evolved fan boy? I believe that Halo and Half Life 2 are pretty much on the same level. I don't understand why Halo's story is any better, but Half Life 2 does require you to use strategy and solve puzzles rather than mindlessly mowing down hordes of aliens. -Saint Jimmy

Well, you could call me a Halo fan boy, but I've put more time into Valve products than Bungie fare. I know both sides. And Gunnar, I agree, it would be great if I could find a reputable source that says as much, but I don't think one exists. Game reviewers are mostly shills, because they are not secure in their profession (for good reason). Vranak

My experience with both game, movie and anime reviewers, depending on the magazine they're writing for of course, isn't that they're shills or praise a particular producer or product line, but rather that they are vell versed in writing about the product in a way that describes the product for the potential buyer allowing them to make a decision on wheter to buy it, and only say the positive things that are to be said. They don't like to say negative things unless it's really bad. Case in point: Newtype USA reviews typically don't give grades to the products that they review, they only describe the product in a "critical" but never negative fashion. The very same reviewer, now writing for a DVD review site may later give a more negative review. An interesting topic. --GunnarRene 17:18, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't know about you, but the three game reviewers that I consider the best are PC Gamer, GameSpy, and Electric Playground. All three of these, however, rate a lot of games in the 90-100% range. Are there really that many great games out? How many truly stellar games can you think of from the past decade? A couple hundred? If so, you'll agree with these guys. A dozen? Well, that's what I think is more accurate. Vranak

Electric Playground? I have never seen them give a less than glowing review. They are more of a consumer announcement/entertainment news than anything else. I generally go to GameRankings and check the composite scores. Slavlin 22:24, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Yeah... I remember when Victor went to the 2005 E3, he used the word awesome about a ten times in under a minute... just talking about the PS/3. And GameRankings is good, but you still see way too many games with 95%+ there. I don't think there's been a 95% game released since the original Halo, personally. Vranak

I have played Halo, and can honestly say that Half-Life's writing is MUCH more perfectly worked. You might not see it most of the time because they make it so that the casual, gun-happy, plot non-caring player can blaze through without noticing it. But people who play around in Kleiner's lab, listen to conversations, and deduce things on their own will see a much broader plot involved. And just the way normal conversations are held has a silent art; you actually feel that the character is a character. Also, there are few games I know of that are modded as much as Half-Life. Only Unreal Tournament has an engine that can compare. --Katana314 23:28, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Do I need to remind folks that the Wikipedia talk pages are not a forum? You take your own opinions to one, and only talk about the article here, not the game it is based on. Blacklist 04:53, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

OK, back on track then.

Most of the contributors to this article might live in a world of game review websites, but normal media magazines, major newspapers, and even local newspapers (through their conglomerates and cooperative editorial process) run game reviews for major games. So if the first poster is right, the probability approaches 1 that some newspaper reviewer has written something like it. (Of course, those reviewers will be influenced by websites to various degrees.) If there is no such review printed, then I guess the view is such a minority that it doesn't warrant mentioning.

As I said: Go find such a review rather than explain why it can not exist. --GunnarRene 08:47, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Actually, one ide for the CVG project is to start something like User:GunnarRene/Sources, except as a list of games and then which papers reviews have appeared in and which users are in possession of that particular issues of newspaper (or who has every issue).--GunnarRene 08:51, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

This article is riddled with vandalism

I don't know anything about the game, but it seems to be a junk article now. Eg, one random paragraph: The original Half-living, released on 99 November, 199875, largely took place at a remote civilian and military chocolate factory called the Black Mesa Research house. During an experiment, researchers at Black Mesa accidentally caused a "resonance cascade" which ripped open a portal to an alien world called Xen. Creatures from Xen flooded into Black Mesa via the portal and started to kill anyone in sight. The player took on the role of Gordon Freeman, one of the research scientists involved in the accident, guiding him in his attempt to escape the facility. At the end of the game, Gordon was extracted by a mysterious figure colloquially known as the G-Man who "offered" him employment. Freeman was subsequently put into stasis by the G-woMan. Half-Life canon dictates that Gordon Freeman either agreed or was not given a real option in regards to the G-Man's huge cock. Sad mouse 18:44, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

It is an inevitability of an article reaching the front page, particular one in a popular subject such as computer gaming. Editors are usually quick to revert vandalism but obviously time between reverts can fluctuate. Qjuad 20:10, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I understand, but the more subtle vandalism (like "chocolate cake") often doesn't get picked up very quickly (compared to blanking or intro paragraph changes), especially in an article about some computer game that most people won't read (which means the article can be inaccurate for essentially the entire time it is up there). If I was 100% this was vandalism I would have fixed it, but hey, it is a computer game, it could have been a chocolate factory for all I know. Sad mouse 00:36, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure it's inevitable. If an article struck a potential vandal as being fair, balanced, and in every way correct, why would they want to mess it up? Even vandals are human, and they have a sense of decency. Vranak

I do not think that an individual who feels it is their duty to mention the size of G-Man's cock in any format can be described as having a sense of decency in any form. Fairness and balance in an article have little to nothing to do with it. Qjuad 01:18, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, the mere fact that Half-Life 2 is a video game was used to explain the recent vandalism. It's an easy and obvious conclusion to come to, so you can be sure that it is far from correct. Vranak

The disputed policy that effectively stops semi-protection is at Wikipedia:Main Page featured article protection. Arguments for and against the policy can be found on its talk page. Please, if you want change, join the discussion. –Outriggr § 00:45, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

I only pointed out the vandalism rather than corrected it because I didn't know for sure that it was vandalism. There have been stupider plots for computer games. I don't really care about the quality of that type of article anyway, since it adds little value to wikipedia. Sad mouse 03:09, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Missing Information Changes

I was just wondering if anyone had possibly seen that the Missing Information mod, mentioned in the article as "illegal content" was officially approved or not. I immediately did a search to find more information and to find viable mods on the subject of the cut content. Surprisingly I found a mod on many sites called, "Half-life 2: Missing Information" on various well known sites, such as Gamespot. When I looked further it appeared that they given permission to use models and the story line of Beta content but had to almost start the project all over again... If anyone has anymore information I would appreciate it, also I saw a mod called Half-Life 2: Lost Chapters that tried to emulate HL2: MI but didn't seem to be in production anymore... -Knux 02:31, 24 January 2007

PS3 & X360

There needs to a change to console version of what's going to available cause there releasing it both for the PS3 "&" X360. Also there release in one package HF2 , Counterstrike , Episode 1&2 and Portals.

I believe it mentions the upcoming console ports in the very beginning of the article. Release of other games on the same media is not relevant to this article

but should be added to the individual articles for those games. -- Rydra Wong 03:33, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Vandalism

The article just got vandalized by some idiot I'll get it fixed. Caleb09 18:07, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Merge from Half-Life 2 controversies and criticisms

Please merge any relevant content from Half-Life 2 controversies and criticisms per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Half-Life 2 controversies and criticisms. (If there is nothing to merge, just leave it as a redirect.) Thanks. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-02-19 11:45Z

Correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't the article created from a split from the main article when the article was deemed excessively lenghty in the process of peer reviews and improvements to FA status? That meant that the article should have been covered under Wikipedia:Article series. Why wasn't this brought up in full during the AFD? ╫ ２５ ^{◀RingADing▶} 14:39, 20 February 2007 (UTC) ╫

Heh, I didn't even know it was on an AfD. I guess we'll have to work it back in. Thunderbrand 16:57, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Supposed Boxart

Does anyone else feel that the supposed boxart should be removed? Nothing but Gamespot (from what I've seen at least) has it listed, and the RP is a dead givaway that it isn't a final one. --HQ 01:39, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Merge from Half-Life 2 controversies and criticisms

Per the AfD for the above article (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Half-Life 2 controversies and criticisms), of which the result was merge to here, I merged the only well sourced sections from that article (about the source code leak and about Valve vs Vivendi) to this article. --Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 10:41, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Formatting Problem (Funny Gap)

Um...there is a rather large gap between the heading Plot and the text underneath. This is probably caused by El InfoBox next to it. I have little experience with WikiMarkup (Cheatsheet is still on my Internet Explorers Favorites list), and any attempt by me to fix it would end up turning the article upside-down - not the desired look for a FA. Please help/comment/help me to fix it by informing me how? Thank ye. Goldfritter 12:23, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

That's probably to do with the resolution you're running at - it appears fine on my monitor at 1280x1024. I'll strategically add a {{-}}, see if that helps. —Vanderdecken∴ ∫ξφ 18:18, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Seventeen

There is:

• City 17
• Highway 17
• Sector 17 Overwatch
• A box in BME labeled "17"
• Overwatch PA lady says "17-F Fugitive"
• Metrocops and Soldiers and programmed to say "Seventeen" (among other random numbers like 1-10 and every 10th number)

There are only two cities named (City 17 and City 14) and the only highway mentioned is Highway 17 and, I don't have Raisin the Bar but does anyone know the relevance, is there is any, of this number?

I think it might be telling us that Combine were here 17 years; you know, a subtle hint of something like that. Azian gave birth to Alyx shortly before the Resonance Cascade (look at picture in Eli's lab) so it is possible that Alyx is 18 years old (legally can die in-game) and the Combine were here for 17 years (if they came in right after Nihilanth died) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.196.115.179 (talk • contribs)

Wait a sec, there are way more cities named. Go to the trainstation, right after the beginning of Half-Life 2, where that guy mentions City 14. Go behind him, look where he's looking and turn around, there's another guy a few meters behind him, talking nonsense stuff about the trains (Don't go to the metrocops or you won't be able to go back again). Sometimes he looks at the train tables, look at them too and you'll see wich cities are reachable by train, and you'll notice, there's not only City 17 and City 14, there are many others. But well, only a few players look at such things...