Talk:Portal (video game)/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Test Subject #042

No-one seems to have noticed one of the small clipboards has an alien on it. It's in the office on the right just before the rocket turret / glass puzzle. It has a large red FAILED stamp on it. (Also there's a chance it could be a chicken, it only shows a rough skeletal outline) I have a screen shot, but no-where to upload it. However, it's easy to find: Load Portal and in the console type "map escape_01" proceed through the level past the turrets, the clipboard is in the first office on the right. The room also contains the graffiti "The Big Bad Jelly Fish WANTED". Cryptic stuff!

Joel 90.201.91.36 02:34, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

I took this to be a rubber chicken when I found it. This is pretty much in line with the midset at Aperture (and the Portal sense of humour), using a subject that will obviously fail an otherwise doable test.

Kt'Hyla 21:30, 8 November 2007 (EST)

Now that I think about it, it looks like a version of the Nihilanth with legs, is it possible that the reason the experiment was failed was because it grew too strong, and without legs, or it could be a reference to "The Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy". In the book, 42 is the ultimate answer in life, but they didn't know what the ultimate question was so it didn't make sense. So a super computer was made to find out what the question is. The computer was called "Earth" so anyway, Earth was about to find out the answer, when it blew up. So experiment 42 failing could mean how they'll never know the ultimate question in life. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Spinningfox (talk • contribs) 22:42, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

My mistake, did some more research (I'm new to valve games). No chance about the Nihilanth being experiment 42, but the second theory has a chance.Spinningfox (talk) 23:38, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

This is a easter egg... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sstefan (talk • contribs) 19:40, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

It isn't an easter egg (easter eggs are bonus content that is not supposed to be seen or you have to look really hard to find it) The clipboards are all around the labs and could be considered Easter Eggs, yet shows what appears to be a Vort and then the other one does look to be a chicken. The graffiti is entirely textural and shows that the people who made it thus far were suffering mental distress and some sorts of mindful overload. Other than the login and password for the website and the hints to where to go at the end of the game, the squid and other sayings on the walls are useless. The squid could be the Nihalanth but I seriously doubt it. And as WP frowns on any form of conspiracy or guessing then it is useless ideology for the site. --75.52.170.195 (talk) 10:47, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v209/Calbeck/subject234.jpg http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v209/Calbeck/subject042.jpg Definitely a skeleton, as opposed to a rubber chicken. The human one (#234) is also clearly a skeleton. Found several other placards, but aside from one showing the "knee reinforcement" proposal, all were of Subjects #042 and #234. Though one would be hard-pressed to imagine getting a portal device onto a chicken at all. On first examination, I also thought it was an alien of some type, possibly Xen-related. Calbeck (talk) 13:46, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Dollar$ and Sense: Competing with Black Mesa

I took this screenshot today on my way to the last level. It might be a good addition to the article when it expands and reveals more details on how it is relates to the Half-Life Story.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Escape_020000.jpg —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jpmichels (talk • contribs) 01:14, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

I used the "NOCLIP" cheat to get into the room with the projector, took a pic of another slide. Any idea what "Fuel System Icing Inhibitor" means? It later mentions that it "Inhibits Ice", so I would assume it isn't another reference to the cake (that you never get, I'm still unhappy about that). I couldn't get my texture resolution any higher, but I'll post the screencap and hope someone else can get a higher-res one. This place was definitely competing with Black Mesa (for teleportation technology, I would assume), and GLaDOS seems to have a grudge against them. This should be interesting Avatarian86 20:54, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
<----click to enlarge!

Did a quick net search on FSIIs:

"Fuel System Icing Inhibitor - FSII is used by an Air craft which has no fuel heater. An air craft without fuel heater requires an anti icing agent, which to stops the ice crystal formation in fuel tank. Anti icing agent is also known as FSII - Fuel System Icing Inhibitor. Anti icing is a not only stops the formulation of ice crystal but also keep the fuel clear by mixing it in limited quantity."

I figured it was something to do with stopping plane engines from icing while at high altitude (where it's very cold). Not sure how that relates to portals though. Unless Black Mesa and Aperture Science were working on rival projects to build a rocket to place a portal in orbit...which is rather like what you launched in Half Life 1, no? Falastur2 21:07, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Good call. somehow I never thought to just google the thing... chances are, they competed in just about everything. Seems like Aperture Laboratories managed to integrate a "Fully functional disk operating system" into their FSII, according to the chart. Wait, this has something to do with GLaDOS, doesn't it? It even says at the top: "A Case Study: Genetic Lifeform and Disk Operating System". Wiggy. Man, I can't wait till this crap gets explained, cuz I'm pretty confused right now... D:Avatarian86 23:05, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

The pic fails because it is all slanted since you're looking at it from the side; you should have been facing it head-on when taking the screenshot. Second, the Aperture Science Handheld Portal Device is blocking part of the slide, preventing poor Wikipedia users from reading everything. Third, the game gives you the option of increasing the resolution at which it is played. An interesting screenshot nevertheless, but not as helpful as it could be. tildetildetildetilde

Actually, the slide was in very-low res. I looked at that presentation through the window in-game, and I was playing on max resolution, near-max graphics, and it was still very pixellated. I'll try to get a straight-on shot for you tomorrow (or Avatarian86 can, of course). Falastur2 00:36, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

I'll try finding another one today. I had to do it at an angle b/c the light effect from the projector itself made it very faded at any other angle. I also put the texture resolution as high as it would go, but it is still pixelated in the pic. I had to play around with the angle for awhile to get it that clear, so I had to take the pic, even though the portal gun was in the way. Thanks for all the criticism though, sure is helping us figure this out... Avatarian86 03:16, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Messed around with the settings, somehow got rid of the weird light effect, so I got a new pic. If anyone is interested, I also got the other slides from the slideshow. Here we go:

--<----click to enlarge!

"Arguably Alive", that made me lol. Avatarian86 04:54, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

EDIT- I got a bunch of messages about the images, and I don't know how to add the correct copyright tags to them. All I did was hit the "Print Screen" button on my keyboard, paste it into paint, crop it, and save it as a .jpeg. I would assume that falls under the "Non-free game screenshot" template. If anyone can change those, or let me know on my talk page how I should change them, I'd appreciate it. Thanks. Avatarian86 —Preceding signed but undated comment was added at 05:16, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

From my perspective as a Government Contracting employee, I just want to add for the benefit of anyone who cares: The info in that slide is actually fairly realistic in terms of real-world US Government Procurement. It's probably obvious, but from the info on the slides Black Mesa enjoys a very lucrative and decidedly unfair advantage in regards to winning government contracts. A GSA Schedule is a pre-priced "Menu" of goods or services that is supposed to simplify the process of buying for the government. So despite a superior product and very competetive prices, Aperture Science is basicly being snubbed by the government. Also, the Government Performance Result Act of 1993 ( http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/mgmt-gpra/gplaw2m.html ) shows that the facility was not abandoned until at least that year. 162.24.9.213 13:33, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

I think you'd find that Aperture Science was being denied contracts because of its flippant/unrealistic (read into it how you will) attitude to the technology it developed. If you read into the history of Aperture Science from the website (cjohnson login required, see other sections of this talk page on that), Aperture Science started developing portals as convenient ways to enter/exit showers in the average home bathroom. With the death of their CEO, they then followed projects into equally-distributing aspirations and dreams so that those living lives with no hope for the future could feel optimistic for once while those with an abundance of hopes could act more realistic, and a technique for countering the Heimlich manoeuvre as a means of assassination, both of which prove to be collosal failures. If one assumes they approach every subject with this mentality, one can see why the Government consistently rejected their proposals. Remember that the ~320 proposals they have put forward to the Government for a DoD contract most probably weren't all about portals, either. And it would be pushing it to claim that Aperture Science have a superior product to Black Mesa - we never actually saw any of the Black Mesa technology in Half Life 1, with the exception of the testing facility, and the orbital rocket Gordon launched - which arguably was very successful, it's just that Black Mesa never realised it was commissioned for the express purpose of the conquest of Earth by the Combine. Falastur2 15:56, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

If you play HL2 EP2 they make mention of Aperture Science at the end and it will be a very big part of HL2 EP3 if you ask me. I also think that youre wrong in the fact that no one sees other technology from any of the HL games. Even in the first one you pick up two experimental weapons that are clearly black mesa research. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.57.18.190 (talk) 16:18, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

True. My bad. But you certainly don't get to properly test anything that you could accurately compare with anything seen in Portal, which was my point. Not that it matters much. Falastur2 22:33, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for all the info, Mr. 162.24.9.213. That really helped me fill in any blank spots I had about the technical terms and such with the slides. Avatarian86 04:57, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

If anyone wants me to, I'll post a transcript of what it says on the slides I posted, since I can't post the images. Just let me know here or on my talk page. Avatarian86 00:50, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

I cropped my original picture which is still viewable. Jpmichels 04:39, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

I think the funny thing is that while they set out to make a FSII, they ended up making GLaDOS and feel that it is a supperior product to Black Mesa's because all thiers does in fact is inhibit icing. This continues thier trend of making nonsensically ambitious products for simple problems. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.57.180.81 (talk) 13:09, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Something I think that's been missed about the FSII. Ep. 2 shows that Aperture's Borealis is found in cold weather. Maybe the FSII had internal company uses to allow its technologies to withstand extreme cold? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 140.247.155.201 (talk) 15:20, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Avatarian, do you mind posting that transcript? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 140.247.155.201 (talk) 15:23, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Music

I don't know if I should put "Still Alive" youtube video in the article, so I'll put it here if it is not ok to put in the article. -Yancyfry 22:48, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

The music video is copyrighted by Valve so a link to it would not be appropriate, here or on the article. If someone really wanted to see it, searching on YouTube would be easy enough without the direct link. Axem Titanium 23:36, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

setting

at what point in the half life universe is this game set? the plot section doesn't explain it very well 86.148.203.178 15:15, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Only Valve knows for sure, any answers you'll get are pretty much pure speculation Rehevkor 15:20, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

If you wish to see a bit more thorough discussion see this topic above: Talk:Portal_(video_game)#Timeframe of Portal --DrunkCat 18:24, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

the player

the A.I. says that you are a bad person does any body know what this means and could it be because it is a combine lab/prison and you were fighting the combine because that would be bad for them ...wait but then the combine would have had short distance telapoers and in the half life 2 game and .....help —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.237.202.87 (talk) 15:26, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

I think you're over analyzing, at that point in the game GLaDOS is trying every psychological trick in the book to get Chell to quit and die. I'm pretty sure that line was just more childish name calling and had little to nothing to do with the combine, although anything is possible.Mad031683 16:01, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Not only that, but given Aperture Science reputation, such descriptions to write of people would be considered "norm" in their circles. But that like everything else, it's speculation until Ep3 comes out. --DrunkCat 18:22, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

I personally use the following rule of thumb to determine the strength of any information on Portal's story, given that GLaDOS is a shameless, self-admitted liar: "Did you learn this from GLaDOS?" If yes, and you have no other information on the subject (i.e. "the floor here will kill you"), then it should not be considered as conclusive evidence for anything. —Yar Kramer 07:19, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Maybe a Sentence on Simulator Sickness?

I personally got motion sickness from playing the game, and have heard a lot of similar comments from other players. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.224.85.98 (talk) 20:42, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Any game with a low FOV apparently causes motion sickness in some people. I still find it odd (and dubious) but even then I doubt that it can even go in because it doesn't only happen in Portal. (Happens in low FoV games.) --DrunkCat 22:01, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

It's possible to change the FOV in Portal, by the way. Portal uses the same console commands as Half-life 2. --Xyzzyplugh (talk) 19:52, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Non-Localized Whoozit Now?

"The soundtrack can be found inside the non-localized Portal GCF store." That's got to be one of the more confusing sentences I've ever seen. Can anyone clarify? 76.167.52.115 14:54, 27 October 2007 (UTC) brian

Does it sound better now? I added a link to what GCF is so one can research on how to go about extracting the songs. --DrunkCat 15:19, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Game physics article improvement

The physics as described in the game itself and in the wikipedia article is largely incorrect. Portal uses a realistic physics engine and I feel that it is important to use the physics language correctly. Moreover, since the accurate use of game physics is one of the most interesting elements of the portal mechanics ("flinging" through portals etc.), the article is an opportunity to describe the process correctly and clarify misconceptions. I agree with some editors that an overly technical description may be confusing and unnecessary. Nevertheless, sloppy use of the word "momentm" in the game and article hides some of the best aspects of the portal dynamics. A wiki link to momentum does not help because the game is not using the term momentum in the same sense as the wiki link. Also, as some editors have done, incorrectly redefining momentum as a scalar only further confuses the issue because the vector aspect of momentum is an essential property. One should not pretend to be accurate and sophisticated by using technical language then incorrectly redefining the technical languge to suit your purpose.

The key to portal physics is the player can move through a portal maintaining their speed while 1) spontaneously changing direction and 2) spontaneously gaining any other potential energy (e.g. associated with the new height on the exit side of the portal). This is the real mechanism that drives "flinging," not "momentum conservation." I think a modest addition to the article along these lines can be understood by most and improve the description of the game physics. VoxMoose 16:32, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

The problem is that the game has used this language of "momentum". To try to clarify it any other way may lead to original research. I'm not saying that it couldn't be done and you're free to try, but be aware that we don't want to put undue weight on any one section of the article just to explain that it's not truly momentum but other physical concepts.

That's why I think leaving it as momentum and including a representative figure from the teaser video is sufficient to get the point across as Valve intended it to be. It may not be scientifically sound or correct, but it is a video game, and Valve set the rules on how terms are used with respect to the game. --MASEM 17:05, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Point well taken. However, the game physics engine is modeled on real physics which has a specific vocbulary. If the game were using technobabble to describe fake physics in the game universe, I would have no issue. But by including a discussion of momentum in the game proper, the developers were attempting to convey some element of accuracy. As an expert, it seems like there should be at least a note that this element of the game's internal vocabulary is not totally correct. VoxMoose 17:53, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't see why the use of "momentum" is so erroneous. In layman terms, momentum is just like a dictionary describes: "force or speed of movement". You don't slow down because of going through the portal (but you might depending on where the exit is located, after you go through.) Therefore, portals don't directly effect momentum; but the positions and placement of them might. If you wish describe one of the technique's you can do with Portals (flinging) I guess you could make a sub note/section/reference to it. (The last sentence in the paragraph.) --DrunkCat 18:26, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

In game physics terms (not layman terms) momentum describes both the speed AND direction of motion. If you enter a portal at some speed and emerge on the other side with the same speed but a different direction, your momentum has changed. The wikilink to momentum defines it this way as well. i know it sounds pedanic, but the game uses a realistic physics engine and should try and be reasonably accurate in describing the physics. Indeed, it is exactly this kind of example (speed the same, direction changes) I use in university physics courses to describe momentum non-conservation. Nevertheless, I do appreciate that this is a wikipedia article for a game and not a physics class. But I would like some measure of accuracy with the physics vocabulary -- or at least clarification in the article. In the article, I have added the parenthetical qualifier "(magnitude)" to the momentum term. This now corresponds both to what the game intends and to a layman defenition -- and is physically accurate. VoxMoose 19:35, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes, the article as it stands now is accurate. I'd also point out that GLaDOS at one point indicates that the portal gun obeys conservation of momentum (as she's "explaining" how to fling) which is incorrect, as has been pointed out, since momentum is a vector quantity. Xihr 02:01, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

I am admitedly a layman in this subject, but it seems to me that the momentum vector will remain unchanged from the perspective of an object traveling through the portal. For example, if you shined a laser in the direction of your momentum through the portal, it would not suddenly jump to a different direction the instant you passed through. This is an important distinction, because more than just the magnitude of your momentum is preserved. The direction you enter relative to the portal is the same direction you exit relative to the exit portal. Just adding (magnitude) is insufficient in my opinion. Mad031683 22:09, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

It doesn't change from your perspective, but it changes for others'. All frames are equally valid, so the fact that momentum isn't conserved in all but one frame is just as problematic as if it weren't conserved in any frames. The "(magnitude)" qualifier makes it accurate without turning it into an original research physics essay. The previous incarnation, which did not make that distinction, was inaccurate. Xihr 22:34, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

The vector of magnitude stays constant from your perspective, but from an observer, it has a non-continuous change in direction as you move through the portal.

This discussion (which, btw, is getting a bit excess for a talk page) is why I think we should stick with how Valve defined it, whether it being right or wrong; as long as we give a demonstration of what this means (as by the picture given) and not get too detailed on the exact physics definitions, I think we'll be in good shape --MASEM 22:41, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

That it changes direction in all frames but one means it is not conserved, because momentum is a vector quantity. It doesn't matter how Valve defined it; their claim is inconsistent with physics. This is an encyclopedia, and accuracy should be what we're striving for, not relaying incorrect claims made by others as if they were fact. The current phrasing is sufficiently qualified to be accurate, while not belaboring the point and becoming a physics lesson, so I don't see what the problem is. Xihr 04:47, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Basically, we have two ways (presently) to define how flinging works: the primary source (Valve) defines it in a way not consistent with real-world physics, while we can apply real-world physics but this is for all practical purposes original research, even if it is scientifically correct. If we had a third source, say some physics prof writes a paper as to why Portal's portals could never be possible because the vector of magnitude is not conserved (and/or requires an infinitely large and instantly acting jerk to the new direction which is (near) impossible), we can add that better as a secondary source, but as far as WP articles are considered, primary sources trump original research. To that end, I've added a small phase "as defined by the game's physics model", which implies that what happens in the game is not equivalent to real world physics, and thus Valve's use of momentum conservation is correct in their black box of the video game. I understand the need to be scientifically accurate, but if a game says that in their game world, atoms are not made up of protons and neutrons and electrons, but of love, peace, and harmony, we have to site it like that. --MASEM 05:16, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

I see your point, but the physics engine of the game does not claim to have an accurate atomic or molecular model. However it does claim to have an accurate mechanics model (one of the really beautiful things about the HL2 engine). This is the only reason I brought up this topic and why some of us think there should be some accurate inclusion of it in the article, otherwise I would normally agree to leave well enough alone. Upon viewing the developer's commentary on the subject of portal momentum (part of the game package provided by Valve, but not part of the game proper) they correctly describe the details of the "flinging physics" using the game engine. They refer to the process as "momentum redirection" (which is right) rather than "momentum conservation" and describe some of the potential-to-kinetic energy conversion issues. It may be worth adding another section to the article at some point citing the appropriate parts of the developer's commentary. This keeps the physics discussion self contained to the game as described by the developers and also eliminates the original research concerns.VoxMoose 05:36, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Also, the source who refers to it as conservation in the game is GLaDOS, who we've already established repeatedly in other discussions is unreliable. This seems like a good example of why people are turned off by the bickering that takes place in Wikipedia; to make the content physically correct, as well as consistent with what is said in the game, all that was necessary was the addition of the word magnitude in parentheses. Yet even this is being nitpicked and resulting in hundreds and hundreds of words of discussion. It really seems massive overkill for such a minor point. Why can't it be both right and consistent with the game? For the price of one extra word? Xihr 08:24, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Thank you, VoxMoose: "Momentum redirection" is exactly the term we want to use in the article since it is what Valve calls it and is entire accurate within what one would normally consider to be real-world physics applied to Portal's game environment. It accurately describes the phenomenia that only exists due to Portals. --MASEM 14:31, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Orange to Red

In the Portal in-game control menu, there are two controls for separate portal spawning, default set to the mouse buttons. they are labeled "make blue portal" and "make red portal". No matter how it looks, the game calls it a red portal, so we'll stick with that. ~ PHDrillSergeant...§ 19:36, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Looks red to me vOv tildetildetildetilde —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.114.231.42 (talk) 05:35, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Okay, first we're supposed to ignore the laws of physics, now we're supposed to ignore colors. This is getting ridiculous. Xihr 20:50, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Mines didn't say such, so I'm wondering, what Portal version do you have? --DrunkCat 14:09, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

I have no preference which we use, as long as it's uniform. The game clearly specifies that the orange-looking portal is "red". This can be found under the options - keyboard/mouse settings.

It was definitely orange in "Narb", but given that Valve have called it "Red" (in spite of how it appears, Xihr) can we *please* have some uniformity in future in this article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.60.90.97 (talk) 01:07, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

I vote orange, on the grounds that they look orange in the actual game. In fact, they're a bit yellowish. The reticle is orange as well. I think that, if anything, we should mention the confusion, then go with what it looks like. —Yar Kramer 04:50, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Valve is the authority on this. If they said red, it should be stated as red (See the argument about "momentum" on this page as well). This also is possibly a problem with how your monitors look compared to others, or even how individuals see color. The key thing is that we have a portal color that is blue-like and a portal color that is red-like, both as spelled out by Valve. --MASEM 04:56, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Valve may be responsible for that text, but isn't any more the authority on perceived colour than you or I. Since there seems to be a controversy here, simply have a survey of how the colour is referred to by media outlets, pick a few representative and reliable reporters, and cite them. You could also take a picture or screenshot, sample those pixels, and compare them to the agreed-upon names and colourspace definitions that are spreading through the colour articles in Wikipedia - though you'd have to find a way of presenting it other than original research.

This comes up from time to time, and each time in the end rough consensus is the only reality colour language possesses (not to mention being the purpose of naming colours in the first place). I suspect you'll find the colour is referred to as orange everywhere except the options screen, which was probably itself an oversight (perhaps from a previous version). - toh 00:55, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Seeing as how many people who read this article will have not seen the menu, or even played the game, should we really base it on what the menu calls it, or what people might perceive it is based on screenshots and the like? ♦^TH1RT3EN _{talk ♦ contribs} 05:34, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm going to suggest an alternate route: we don't mention the colors at all. It's needed to state there are two colors, but what they are, the reader can judge from the picture should they want to; the exact colors have absolutely no effect on the game or reception. --MASEM 14:46, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

You are all missing one rather relevant fact: Valve's developer's commentary (first commentary node of test chamber three) clearly calls it 'orange'. As most other people would. I have therefore changed the article to state the colours. Ingolfson 13:19, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

WP:VG assessment

Aha! The almighty Portal! Well, I'd say this is still around a B, but definitely within the scope of GA. Here are a few ideas to help you get there:

• The main problem is the lack of references. WP:CITE.
• The lead needs expansion. WP:LS.
• You might want to separate the character details out from the plot synopsis: I'd suggest having one subsection for the plot summary, one for the characters and one for Aperture Science, Inc. I also removed the unnecessary spoiler tag, as you chose an odd place to argue against policy and, regardless of your reasons, it could keep you back from getting it to GA.
• The information on Aperture Science, Inc. seems a little on the long side. Could you trim it back a bit?
• Critical reception and development sections are a quite short. The reception section in particular shouldn't take much effort to expand. Have a look at some FAs to help give you an idea of what to include.
• You may want to format the track listing in a similar way to the Half-Life 2 article.
• There are a lot of short one- or two-sentence paragraphs: try merging some together, as short paragraphs were what put my most recent GAC on hold.

Hope this helps, Una Laguna^Talk 06:56, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the advice, I might try doing a few of these things over the next little while. Vtrickzv 08:15, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! Finally someone gets arsed enough. :D! Have some cake. --DrunkCat 14:05, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Chell

If you actually listen to the lyrics in Still Alive, Glados mentions certain death by Black Mesa waiting for Chell outside of the facility. There's also the proof of cake actually existing with the aparently unharmed Weighted Companion cube which suggests that if Chell had actually gone in the incinerator as Glados had asked, she would have somehow survived and effectively had cake. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.13.131.18 (talk) 13:59, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

GLaDOS only promised that the equipment will survive the incinerator. For Chell there was a "victory incandescence", implying death by burning. There was a cake, but it was not there waiting for Chell. --Bisqwit (talk) 08:39, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Whatever happened to chell when she got "teleported" or whatever out of the Apature Science facility? Could she have died during the teleport? Or did something else maybe happened to her?--71.116.37.15 19:54, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

I think the point is that we aren't supposed to know for sure. Valve can be quite mysterious in their plot endings sometimes, and Portal is no exception. Falastur2 23:26, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

It doesn't seem likely she died, since you see through her eyes, and you ... can see. Still, as Falastur2 points out, Valve is mysterious enough with its subplots and settings and resolutions, so it's premature to make any assumptions. Though even if what would presumably be a next entry in the Portal franchise doesn't involve Chell, that doesn't in and of itself say anything about whether Chell is still alive on the surface. Xihr 00:38, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

I do believe she did die, the portal gun can be seen further away from her, I personally assume, since its not removable, that her arm has been blown off, its like when you have your head cut off, supposedly you live for a few more seconds, then there is another thing to consider, the song "Still Alive" suggests that GLaDOS is, well, still alive. If that is true, despite us seeing her blow up, then its possible those orbs are discs with GLaDOS' information downloaded onto them. Spinningfox (talk) 21:44, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

We don't know that the gun is "not removable;" it could simply be there was never any in-game scene where she was required to put it down. (Also, the song "Still Alive" addresses Chell as if she were still alive too—but given that it's GLaDOS who is speaking that doesn't necessarily signify.) I would assume she just happened to land on her back with the wind knocked out of her and the gun knocked out of her hand by the impact. —Robotech_Master (talk) 04:02, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

P.S. - Found a quote from a developer indicating Chell is definitely still alive. Added it to the article the other day. —64.22.229.180 (talk) 20:46, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

I personally doubt that "Maybe Black Mesa! That was a joke, haha, fat chance!" means that Black Mesa themselves will try to kill her. GLaDOS could just be referring to the fact that Black Mesa has recently been invaded by aliens from Xen, shot up and bombed by the military, and finally blown up in a thermonuclear explosion. Or possibly that somehow, the mere fact that they're competitors means that they'd be unwilling to save the life of someone who just left the Aperture Science building. Or (remember, you learned this from GLaDOS!) it could be just a product of her deranged mind and/or a lie. —Yar Kramer (talk) 19:31, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

There's one problem with that, since Chell escaped and obviously can't hear Glados, would it make any sense for Glados to be singing lies? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.13.131.18 (talk) 20:57, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't know. Would it make any sense for GLaDOS to send you through 20 test chambers, only to throw you into a fire at the end? GLaDOS is insane. Sense does not automatically apply here. —Yar Kramer (talk) 21:54, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

• • reverted your edits, you can't just assume all those facts, and you are reading entirely too much into the ending. the cake at the end wasn't for chell, it was for YOU, the gamer, ie: the cake was a lie, the underlying premise. Until I see chell with cake in her hands, you have to stick with the facts. Assuming anything else with out Reliable Sources is Original Reserach, and will be reverted. Pharmboy (talk) 21:22, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Development section can be expanded with this article

No time right now, but this interview with Old Man Murray on Portal development including why cake and the like. No time right now, but leaving as placeholder for anyone that wants to use to expand the dev section. --MASEM 23:02, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Weighted Companion Cube

I strongly believe that Weighted Companion Cube should have it's own article here on Wikipedia. I'm not the only one, I started an online petition that has currently gathered more than 10,000 signatures of devoted Weighted Companion Cube followers. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.13.131.18 (talk) 13:51, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

In the time since the release of Portal, the Weighted Companion Cube has become a much discussed aspect of the game. I feel current referances to "'A' Weighted Companion Cube" should be changed to "'The' Weighted Companion Cube" which subsequently needs it's own article.

This is to differentiate between the nonspecific weighted cubes and the specific weighted companion cube.Skaz 20:52, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Technically, there are plenty of "Weighted Cubes" but only "one" "Weighted Companion Cube". I think most of the indications of the WCC are "the" but change what's needed. --MASEM 20:55, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

There's only two references with a remaining. Xihr 20:57, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Actually there is more than one WCC. The dispenser you receive it from produces another after you take your first. Not to mention the cube you see at the end couldn't be the same as the one you dispose of. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.109.198.11 (talk) 12:26, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

I put a bit of an explanation about the WCC the other week and it was removed, don't know why. Am putting it back. I don't think it necessarily requires an article of its own, but perhaps a section within this article, given that it has become a bit of a cult item and in fact "companion cube" redirects here. Thoughts?Mezigue 13:29, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

A sentence to explain what the WCC is relative to the plot is all that's needed (and what Mezigue added to explain that GlaDOS implies Chell develops feelings for it is fine) - the popularity of it as a result is then expanded upon in the Reception section. Unless something major comes about, I do not believe there is any need to give the WCC its own subsection of the article - its only present in one level, its an object with no other uses or properties. --MASEM 14:26, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

well the reason I think it should be in a section is because it redirects here. Someone wanting to know what it is might not want to go through the entire Portal article to get the gist. Meanwhile, my explanation has now been deleted again as "original research" which it isn't: it's all in the game, the little heart logos, the name of the thing and GLaDos's comments and warnings and taunts. It's all there so I am reinstating it.Mezigue 21:09, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

I think adding the fact that there is implied emotional development towards the Cube from Chell, implied by GlaDOS, is what you're aiming for, and that's factually correct. However, the line you enter starts "The experiment appears...", and that "appears" makes this sound like speculation - that is, possible WP:original research (and truthfully, why that experiment used the WCC is not explained, we have no idea if the original experiment was meant to play on human emotions; GlaDOS certainly has twisted it as such, but that's not a given). I'm going to rewrite it to make it more a statement-of-fact that GlaDOS pries at Chell's emotional attachment to the cube. --MASEM 21:48, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

GLaDOS made a comment I find odd. As we all know, she lies, does anything to get you to fail, well she says "The [WCC] cannot talk, and even if it could, it is not advisable to listen to it" yet as we all know that seems to be the truth, I believe there is a way to make the WCC talk, and even if not so, then what does the comment "While the [incineration] process may be painful, 8 out of 10 scientists agree that the [WCC] most likely cannot feel much pain". This further leads me to believe it's alive. Spinningfox (talk) 22:05, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

I chalk all of that up to: It's a joke.This is a very tongue-in-cheek game, 99% of what GLaDOS says is just in the game to be funny, some of it may be true, but there is no way to tell facts from jokes. Mad031683 (talk) 22:39, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

I strongly disagree with the first statement. The cube is used for a single level, and although I did enjoy its inclusion into the game, it doesn't merit its own page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jovack (talk • contribs) 04:27, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Further Portal games?

I wanted to point out one thing - somewhere near the beginning of the game, the dev commentary refers to Portal as the "first of our portal games". I am not entirely sure if it can be taken as a hint strong enough to put into the main article an information about the potential following titles, but a dev comment seems to be a pretty "realiable source" to me. BroodKiller 12:49, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

The devs have already announced that they're either going to make Portal 2, or Portal Multi-Player, or just release map-packs. But they're going to judge their decision based on how the fans react to the Orange Box release, and I'm pretty sure that it's far too early for them to have reached a decision yet. Any information we put in this section would just be speculative, which Wikipedia tends to object to. Falastur2 13:58, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Android

At one point, GLaDOS warns Chell about going to 'Android Hell'. Does this not create the possibility that she is not human, and create an idea why she is isolated, has no backstory and why GLaDOS seems so attached to her? - FullyClothedMike —Preceding unsigned comment added by FullyClothedMike (talk • contribs) 19:17, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

No. It's been discussed here, among other places. Rehevkor 19:21, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough. FCM —Preceding unsigned comment added by FullyClothedMike (talk • contribs) 21:13, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

I just realized something, Aperture Science was founded to work on shower curtains, then after Cave Johnson's death it was made to work on the 3 tier system, no where does it say anything to do with them making androids, so why do the testing grounds have an android challenge? I believe that was the real testing grounds, because at that point in time GLaDOS seems to still be trying to stay on Chell's good side. Spinningfox (talk) 21:55, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

The website doesn't say anything about them making cute little talking gun turrets, either, but they clearly do. I can't see why they shouldn't make androids. Of course, as you say, GLaDOS could well be lying about the androids too. Given that you can't trust anything GLaDOS says, you can't really base a conclusion on it either way. —Robotech_Master (talk) 04:12, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

It is likely that the androids were a part of the testing dispite what GLaDOS told Chell as they were used in level 18 without excuse. In level 16, the player is to trust GLaDOS, but in level 17 the player begins to distrust GLaDOS as she had Chell "kill" the weighted companion cube to continue. In level 18 there was no need for an excuse for the dangerous conditions throughout the level as the player is now somewhat aware of the true behaviour of GLaDOS. (Carlnewton 12:29, 3 December 2007 (UTC))

Android hell seems to be a shout out to silicon heaven (from the sitcom red dwarf) http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=silicon+heaven —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.86.121.24 (talk) 00:59, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Isn't one of the levels designed for androids, the one where you first meet turrets? 86.151.207.112 (talk) 11:05, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Music composer?

Who composed the music for this game? Kelly Bailey is in the credits but it's never explicitly states anywhere that I can find who composed it.. Rehevkor 22:19, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Image of Chell

A bit of a disagreement has arisen over the image of Chell. I think the games lighting has caused that area to be blown out, loss of detail in the highlights which is over exposed, which is very different from how Portal looks in-game. It is not evenly cropped giving an -imbalanced feel of the picture and too much activity with the portal and X-hair taking away the focus from the main character. The only argument that could be brought up against my image is that is slightly distorted because the screenshot was taken through 2 orthogonally angled portals. If anyone could suggest a solution I would be glad to attempt a "undistort" this image. Noprob 14:44, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

I prefer the original image myself, it gives a good representation of Chell as well as a better glimpse of a typical Portal environment and a portal. And being distorted is more than enough reason to not use the second image imo. Rehevkor 15:05, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

I'd rather have a picture use as many details from the game as possible as to give it more validation for its use. The brighter picture which includes the portal edges not only make it easy to id Chell without distortion, but also shows how visual effects through portals occur, something not (easily) shown in the existing screenshot of portal layouts. --MASEM 15:09, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Image of Chell viewing herself through 2 orthogonally positioned portals, perspective rejigged, no x-hair or portal gun. Thoughts? -np

More distorted than the previous. There's nothing wrong with the original image. Rehevkor 16:45, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

I strongly feel that the current image does not do the game justice at all. -np

But does anyone else? Also, you can sign your comments automatically using 4 tides "~". Rehevkor 15:50, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Can Garry's Mod work with the portal resources? That's going to be tons easier to get a non-distorted picture than trying to pull off directly through Portal. --MASEM 21:27, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

I haven't checked for the PC version but on the Xbox version there are several cheat codes that would help take a better photo.Spinningfox (talk) 21:36, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

I just put in my image of Chell, which shows her face, the ASHPD, and the environment in the background. If need-be, however, it can be reverted to the old image. I simply thought people approaching the game might want more than a simple side view of the protagonist and would also like a face to attribute to the character they're playing. Gmr Leon (talk) 01:31, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

You need to fix the copyright tag on your image, but that is a really good image, very interesting view. Pharmboy (talk) 02:29, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

I wasn't certain on that to be honest. Ah, nevermind found my answer or something leading to it.. Gmr Leon (talk) 02:35, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Non-free_content covers that. I have only uploaded a half dozen images, and all were mine, not copyrighted. You have to claim it as non free. Although it came from your computer, it is from a copyrighted program. The rationale would be something like 'necessary to describe subject matter, doesn't take away from artists ability to profit from their work, etc.' and you must use the proper template. Read up, then steal ideas from a similar image ;) Key is to be accurate and honest about the source/use/etc. Pharmboy (talk) 02:39, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Ah. Alright, I think I have the proper copyright tag up there now. I really should read over these things rather than glancing. Thanks for clarifying that for me. I'm not exactly new to wikis, but they all seem to have different sets of rules so it takes a moment or two to adapt.Gmr Leon (talk) 02:43, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

(←) I've reverted the image - I see what you're trying to do, but I think the older image presently does a better job to show Chell that the one you added. --MASEM 03:24, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

I would respectfully disagree in part with your decision based on the fact that it is difficult to see Chell's face in the older image, and the new image appears to have a higher quality resolution. Admittedly, it doesn't show the leg springs, which is beneficial to understanding the character. It is difficult even while playing to get a good face shot and see what Chell looks like (I suppose the same in all first person games), so I felt the new image added some valuable information. IMO, there may be room for both images, as they both convey different information without infringing on the rights of the copyright holder. I won't be wp:bold about it, but would instead ask you look at adding both images to improve the quality of the article. Pharmboy (talk) 13:45, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

I think, given how anonymous Chell is when you play the game, knowing what her face looks like up close while losing what "heel-springs" or the portal gun looks like is not as beneficial. Now, I thought that Gerry's Mod recently got updated to include Portal asset support (maybe it was just TF2 asset), so there should be a better way to pose a shot of Chell alone. --MASEM 14:52, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

I guess my point would be that the 2nd image we already have is already here, is from in game (doesn't require a special mod, thus reproduceable), doesn't potentially infringe on Gary's Mod, and suits the purpose until a better image can be obtained. Again, as an addition rather than replacing the current image. Pharmboy (talk) 16:15, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

So, would this work? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Portal_Chell_Fullbody_Face.JPG Gmr Leon (talk) 02:42, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Music

This information should be readily available. It should be easy to find out what songs are played in what order, so people who want to add this music to their music library can do so with correct tracknums.

Soundtrack

1. "Subject Name Here" - 1:44
2. "Taste of Blood" - 3:06
3. "Android Hell" - 3:45
4. "Self Esteem Fund" - 3:30
5. "Procedural Jiggle Bone" - 4:34
6. "4000 Degrees Kelvin" - 1:01
7. "Stop What You Are Doing" - 4:00
8. "Party Escort" - 4:21
9. "You're Not a Good Person" - 1:24
10. "No Cake For You" - 4:05
11. "You Can't Escape You Know" - 6:24
12. "Still Alive" - 2:56 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.185.7.212 (talk) 21:50, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Name?

Forgive me if this is a stupid question, but where exactly does it say that the nice lady with the portal gun is named "Chell"? I don't doubt the information, since I've seen it in several different places, but it wasn't at the Orange Box website or at the Aperture Science website. I also don't remember ever hearing it in the game. Anyone care to point me in the right direction? Master Deusoma 01:24, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

It's mentioned in the credits for the game. Rehevkor 02:50, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

I have (re)added this to the article. I believe it's a reasonable clarification; I had the same question too, and was confused why this article continually referred to the protagonist as "Chell" even though her name is never spoken during the game. Motley Fool (talk) 17:35, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

if you can manage to get 2 portals with the right viewpoint of each other you can also see a nametage on her —Preceding unsigned comment added by Clone627 (talk • contribs) 06:52, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Need some verfication

i refer to this paragraph:

"Aperture Science, Inc. is also mentioned in Half-Life 2: Episode Two, in which a ship of theirs, the Borealis, is said to have disappeared under mysterious circumstances along with part of a dry dock. Half-Life 2 was already supposed to feature a chapter playing on the Borealis but it was abandoned at a late stage of development.[8]"

what? the reference given isnt valid anymore...anyone can confrim this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.120.68.71 (talk • contribs)

Reference seems fine from my end, insofar as the book exists and the weblink connects me to it. Were you looking for a webpage which reproduces the appropriate content from the book? That might be difficult since it's copyrighted, but I have come across the story about Borealis and Half-Life 2 before, so I believe it's basically correct (although I don't believe that it was an Aperture Science ship at that point). Cheers, --Plumbago 12:01, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Also there was the whole Missing Information Mod that was allegedly the original content of the leaked version of Half-Life 2 and was nearly confirmed as true when Valve exclaimed that they considered this, "illegal content" though there was no formal action taken post the statement from Valve. I do believe they sent the MI team a Cease and Desist letter about distributing the mod and they complied though it can be found fairly easily to this day. Don't have the refs for it but it is mentioned in the Half-Life 2 article last I checked... But our reference for the mentioning of the Borealis should be the physical mentioning of the book if no other source can be found. --75.52.170.195 (talk) 11:07, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Borealis is in Ep3 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jovack (talk • contribs) 04:32, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Implosion or explosion?

Some anon had changed the text so that it says "the resulting explosion sends Chell and the debris...". I think it should be "implosion" since Chell is lifted up into the light before she ends up outside. If it were to be an explosion, it would create a pressure shock wave and debris which is fatal. It should be more of an implosion in my opinion. --Bruin_rrss23 (talk) 04:36, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

original research is not appropriate here. GLaDOS explodes and the moves upward; suggesting that we know this is a controlled implosion is not appropriate for Wikipedia without reliable, third-party sources. Xihr 11:07, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Keyboard

The Aperture Science keyboards in the work stations have five or six letter keys highlighted as orange. I know what keys they are (They're written down here somewhere), but does anybody know if they spell anything or if they're just there to look stylish? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.175.17.2 (talk) 14:33, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

I guess the Aperture keyboards are tailored to highlight common commands when communicating with GLaDOS, and the highlighted keys don't necessarily embody an anagram or hidden meaning (however I'd love to know that they do). This kind of highlighted keys is common in digital editing for example. Just google for "avid shortcut keyboard" Pstrahl (talk) 01:12, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

In Games For Windows Magazine, there was an interview with Gabe Newell which said it's a joking reference to the fact that "ASHPD" (Aperture Science Handheld Portal Device) called "Adrian Shepard" to the mind of some fans immediately after the first Portal trailer, so they added it as a red herring in-joke. —Yar Kramer (talk) 19:37, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Do we have a reference for this? I would be willing to consider this trivial back story towards the Gearbox Title Opposing Force but not in cannon of the Portal nor Opp Force story arc... --75.52.170.195 (talk) 11:12, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

If you unskrable the letters (and use some more than once) it spells out Adrian Shephard, the player charectar of oposing forces. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.25.24.7 (talk) 23:01, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

That's awfully weak evidence. Furthermore, this has been discussed here (and removed from the article itself in the past). If I recall correctly, there was even a statement from Valve indicating that this connection was unintended and is a coincidence. You're finding patterns that aren't there. Xihr (talk) 23:14, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Meme status of "The Cake Is A Lie"?

Self-explanatory, really. It's become the de facto tagline of the game. Franck Drake 15:34, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Normally, memes are hard to define, but I think I've seen some top-tier game articles that refer to this in this fashion. Needless to say, we need to cite references to say "the cake is a lie" is a meme generated by the game. --MASEM 16:12, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Also, for this to be worth commenting on, it needs to persist. Come back in a year and see if "The Cake Is A Lie" has persisted and spread (e.g. is it the mantra of grunts in some future Halo 4?). If so, then it might be worth adding to the article then. All ideas are memes, the only memes worth thinking about are those that persist. That last statement is, of course, just one other meme thrust out into the world and trying to survive ... Cheers, --Plumbago 16:36, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Verifiability is all that matters here. ---- McGeddon (talk) 16:55, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

While verifiability is crucial, adding it at this point potentially runs afoul of recentism. For the meme status of "The Cake Is A Lie" to merit entry here, it has to stand the test of time. One and a bit months after the release of Portal is not a good time to judge notability. Cheers, ---- Plumbago (talk) 17:18, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

My friend has a "The Cake Is A Lie" shirt, how old are those? I'm pretty sure he's had it for a couple years but then again I don't really pay much attention to clothing so I'm not sure on how long he's had it. Spinningfox (talk) 21:48, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

"The Cake Is A Lie" shirts I believe were created by the author of VGcats, a web comic, after his comic cited the line, and the shirt was requested, it's pretty recent actually if I'm correct. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.123.78.149 (talk) 20:18, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Normal vs. relative

The article has gone back and forth today over whether the momentum redirection takes place normal to the plane of the exit portal, it doesn't. If something goes in at an angle, it exits at an angle. I admit the current wording is awkward, but saying normal is inaccurate. Mad031683 (talk) 23:47, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Yeah I discovered this myself trying to redirect turret lasers at other turrets, it was my original theory on how to get the "Friendly Fire" achievement... I've since then realized that idea was stupid, but if you use a turret as a shield it'll keep yelling at the other turret to cease fire. Spinningfox (talk) 21:46, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Spoiler

In the wiki article there is a complete Spoiler about the game... but there are no advertisement about this! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.174.20.146 (talk) 17:20, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

That's right; {{spoiler}} was deleted. --Geniac (talk) 18:36, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Any reason? Is this because people should expect spoilers in a "plot" section? Cheers, --Plumbago (talk) 19:02, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

See WP:SPOILER. Xihr (talk) 19:22, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Ah-ha. That's what I thought, but I hadn't realised that warnings were now passé. Thanks! --Plumbago (talk) 19:32, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

but it spoils a diffrent game —Preceding unsigned comment added by 211.31.85.242 (talk) 13:50, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Chell's Past

On the Aperture Science website if you read the notes it says that GLaDOS was first activated on the the first annual Bring your Daughter to Work Day, this suggests that Chell may have been an employees daughter, further proof is that GLaDOS says how Bring your Daughter to Work Day is a good day to have them tested, so it's possible that is how she became a test subject. -- Spinningfox (talk) 21:27, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

All of these are "suggestions", rather than explicit statements so any conclusions drawn from them would likely be original. Axem Titanium (talk) 03:14, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Weighted companion cube...............

Forgive me for asking this, but what makes the Weighted companion cube so popular for other players?--71.116.37.15 (talk) 21:46, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

The quirky nature of GLaDOS's comments about it, plus all that weird graffiti on the wall in the little "shrine" behind the pushed-out wall panel, as well as the fact that you have to "euthanize" the cube at the end of the level. IMO, it was one of the cleverer bits of mind-screwery GLaDOS did. In short, GLaDOS and the unknown wall-scrawler anthropomorphized the cube so well that it tends to rub off on the players. —Robotech_Master (talk) 04:19, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

It really is just the original idea of it, it was a hit or miss thing with players and that is why they scarcely speak of it in the game as the entire game as a whole was hit or miss with the current gaming trends changing over. This also hit towards female gamers as an adorable yet completely inanimate character in the game. Go figure... I lover my Companion Cube! --75.52.170.195 (talk) 11:20, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

I added the history of Aperture Science

The information i posted is directly from aperturescience.com it took me a while to type it seeing as how you aren't able to copy paste from the site Spinningfox (talk) 19:30, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Hmmmm. Seems like a load of copy-vio to me. And if not that, it falls foul of guidelines on guides or FAQs. Can't we just outline the fake history of this fictional company? --Plumbago (talk) 19:43, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, way too copy-vio. Even a paraphrase would fall afoul of plagiarism detecting-programs. The summary that exists gives a great overview already. Axem Titanium (talk) 23:56, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Portal Logo.jpg

Image:Portal Logo.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 19:40, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

This needed a Fair use rationale, I have added it. --MASEM 01:19, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Adrian Shepard?

Has anyone else noticed that the players "weapon" has the acronym ASHPD? I believe this is a clear referance to Adrian Shepard, the protagonist from Half-Life: Opposing Force. Should referance be made rto this in the article, or is this too trivial?

Britishindia —Preceding unsigned comment added by Britishindia (talk • contribs) 08:45, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

It's not that it's trivial, it's that it's original research. Wikipedia is about using information from existing sources, rather than adding our own observations and theories. --McGeddon (talk) 08:48, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Valve has already cleared up the speculation: [1] If the website doesn't turn up anything, try googling "Portal ASHPD Adrian Shephard total freak coincidence" --Bruin_rrss23 (talk) 09:59, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

It's been talked to death about but it basically is a freak accident that Gabe Newell busted out laughing over in an interview, it is speculative that the keyboards were the tribute to this yet has no confirmation. As of right now it is to be believed that the character of Adrian Shepard is owned by Gearbox who was the creator of the title Opposing Force, yet was published by Valve Corporation. Basically I don't think we will ever see Adrian ever again but who knows... --75.52.170.195 (talk) 11:27, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Press

Apparently someone found it an improvement to delete the following list of reviews from the article (20:51, 22 October 2007)

• Portal at 1UP.com
• Portal at Eurogamer
• Portal at GameSpot
• Portal at IGN
• Portal at Wired

The Seventh Taylor (talk) 19:43, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

It's better to integrate critical response into the text, rather than simply linking. Also, a review box ({{VG Reviews}}) may be a good idea. Axem Titanium (talk) 21:52, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Aperture Science Hiring Ad

I just saw this on Kotaku [2] and was wondering what people thought about it. Could it be some form of guerrilla marketing or just a crazy fan? Thoughts? Cpuwhiz11 (talk) 01:40, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Crazy fan. Rehevkor (talk) 01:50, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Pastiche of "The Chariot" by Emily Dickinson

"The Chariot" by Emily Dickinson:

Because I could not stop for Death,

He kindly stopped for me;

The carriage held but just ourselves

And Immortality.

Portal:

Because I could not stop for Death;

He kindly stopped for me;

The cube had food and maybe ammo;

And immortality

This is easily verifiable by reference to the the game itself and to any reprint of Dickinson (for example, the Gutenberg etext). Gdr 18:12, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

• As long as you have a citation that meets wp:rs, then it can't be considered original research. Without a proper cite, however, I think it would have to be considered an interpretation, thus violating wp:or, no matter how factual it is. Pharmboy (talk) 21:09, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

• Here's a source that mentions the Dickinson similarity. I know, it violates WP:SPS, but since the publisher seems to be a Portal expert and the connection is pretty obvious, I think we should bend the rules a little. --Explodicle (talk) 21:48, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

That is a bit weak via :rs, and I am betting it isn't enough (by itself) to overcome objections. If there were a few such references, I don't think there would be as large of an issue. The next question would be: Is this important enough to the understanding of the topic to be bold or bend rules and achieve consensus with the singular link? Pharmboy (talk) 21:59, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

You're over-interpreting what it means for something to be original research. As it says at WP:NOR the point is that Wikipedia's contents should be verifiable using reliable sources. The observation that the Portal graffiti refers to the Dickinson poem is indeed verifiable using reliable sources: the in-game text can be verified by looking at the game, and the Dickinson poem can be verified by looking at any printed or online copy. Gdr 22:04, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

I think it would be legitimate for us to say that the first two lines are the same. I'd have to agree, though, that that probably doesn't belong in the plot section, and it's more akin to a trivia item. Croctotheface (talk) 22:28, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

But that requires both playing the game and reading the original poem, which the purpose of the article is to provide information to someone who has not played the game. (ie: OR) Making a claim of comparison, imho, falls outside of 'obvious statements' about Portal that wouldn't require wp:rs, ie: it is a game, etc. As this fact (or properly called trivia below) is not central to the article or the understanding of the topic, it seems it really must be cited and its importance to the article made more clear. Pharmboy (talk) 12:58, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Nitpick: Your claim that "the purpose of the article is to provide information to someone who has not played the game." is false. The purpose of the article is to provide information about the game, period. That said, I agree that this is trivia and whether its citable or not is immaterial. Talking about the poem makes no more sense than

• listing the different personalities and colors of GLaDOS' components
• printing the cake-recipe easter egg
• posting the entire lyrics of "still alive."

etc, etc. There is value in conciseness. An article saddled with too many irrelevant facts is less useful than a trimmed article that addresses the core facts at issue.-₪-Hemidemisemiquaver (talk) 13:56, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

I think I rushed to judgment. Looking closer at the context and source, and assuming the commentary actually says the poem is a pastiche, I think it's appropriate to the article since the hidden rooms are a notable part of the plot and the poem is a significant part of one of the rooms. So just let my two contradictory opinions cancel each other out.-₪-Hemidemisemiquaver (talk) 14:01, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

I wonder if there's some confusion over the use of the word "pastiche". It just means "imitation". The word implies no judgment call or interpretation, it's just a description. You may be thinking of "parody", which means "imitation with intent to ridicule" and has some element of judgment. Gdr 21:12, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree this is an interesting reference but at the end of the day, it's not notable enough to include on a general purpose encyclopedia such as Wikipedia, regardless of the quality of references. Axem Titanium (talk) 23:04, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Technical discussion

Any passing experts like to add some information about the technology of the game? E.g. does this use portal rendering, or is that something different? 81.86.133.45 (talk) 22:07, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Uh, no, portal rendering is when you divide a level into sections, only one or two of which are "loaded" in the graphical memory at any given moment, to cut down on the memory needed to render it. The "portals" in that artical are usually-small divisions between those sections. Portal uses a separate set of "cameras" which look through the portals, more or less from your perspective. (The developers' commentary explains it better.) That said, I think that a discussion on that sort of thing would be better put in the Source engine article, maybe with just a brief overview here. —Yar Kramer (talk) 05:57, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Chell

I was just wondering, how do we know the caracter's name is Chell? Where do we find this info? happypal (Talk | contribs) 13:56, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Try here. Cheers, --Plumbago (talk) 14:04, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Well I feel stupid :( Sorry 'bout that. happypal (Talk | contribs) 02:21, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

No worries - this page has gotten quite long already. And I know that I didn't see this reference to her name when I completed the game! Cheers, --Plumbago (talk) 09:19, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

I have (re)added this to the article. I believe it's a reasonable clarification; I had the same question too, and was confused why this article continually referred to the protagonist as "Chell" even though her name is never spoken during the game. Motley Fool (talk) 17:35, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

also if you can manage to get 2 portals with the right viewpoint of each other you can also see a nametage on her —Preceding unsigned comment added by Clone627 (talk • contribs) 06:56, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

website

it's nice that theres a link to the apture website but there is no metion of the pass word or user name if we arn't going to give those facts and a little gideance a link to where to find some would me a good idear. mabye the portal wiki —Preceding unsigned comment added by 211.31.85.242 (talk) 13:43, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Both used to be here somewhere yet have been deleted, it is also nice to point out that as of this past Friday the live camera feed has changed to a Christmas / "Happy Holidays" type video. --75.52.170.195 (talk) 11:41, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Authoritative "Still Alive" link

I've added a link to the authoritative lyrics and chords, plus Jonathan Coulton's story of the song. That should supply interested readers with useful information without violating copyright :-) - David Gerard (talk) 17:09, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

And removed it again when I saw it was already in the refs. Buh - David Gerard (talk) 17:21, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

suggestion about "aperture science" article"

It would be nice with an article about aperture science since it has a history and information. Although such an article would be rather incomplete because of the (so far) little information about it, I think that it could be a good contribution to further "Portal" and "half-life" articles, this since I've several times been redirected here from half-life 2:episode 2 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jjonte (talk • contribs) 17:57, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

The amount of information is too small and too non-notable by secondary sources to be its own article. Maybe, if as expected, HL2Ep3 gives more details, there might be a call for it, but right now, being a fictional company, it can get its own section but not its own article. --MASEM 18:45, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

To add to what you are saying, the different Black Mesa compounds have articles, but there is a much richer history with them, starting with being the central place in the 1997 Game of the Year HL1, and everything since. If Apperature Science ends up in HL2/E3 and Portal 2 (please have 1st person be one of the robots!...), then you might have enough to talk about it. Maybe. Pharmboy (talk) 19:44, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6