Talk:Black Mesa (game mod)
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article was nominated for deletion on 12 March 2006. The result of the discussion was No Consensus (defaults to keep). |
"On June 13, it was made known (though not widely) that the hacker(s) responsible either directly or indirectly damaged the forums beyond repair; the 3500+ accounts and most if not all of the forums' posts were lost."
I wonder if this is in retaliation for the one who leaked the source code being found out?
- Isn't this the second time in as many months the forum's been hacked? Last time the forums were only down for a day or two, but this time it looks serious. --Tim1988 talk 15:38, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
To my knowledge it was just another attack. We get a lot of hits on the site so I'd suppose it's a good hacking target due to all the traffic (One of the hacking attempts redirected the site to warez pages and so on.) I was out of town when that particular incident occured, though, so I'm the one who knows the least about it! --RabidMonkey 18:04, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
Contents |
[edit] Oh Dear
Sorry for changing the "crackers" to "hackers". I thought someone placed them there as a racial slur. Change them back if you'd like. Delta 00:52, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
Eh, it's not that important--"hacker" is the recognized term for the general public, so even if the term "cracker" is technically more accurate, "hacker" is probably better for a general article like this. Good job. Viewer 01:21, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Percent Complete
The article states that the mod is 50% complete per a value given to a mod database by the game developers. However, the developers later stated officially on the forums that this value was not true, it was just put in as a place holder value. They replaced this value with the statement that the mod, if all goes well, will be released in 4th quarter 2006 or 1st quarter 2007. Unfortunatly, there is no record of the statement, as it was lost with the forum hacking. I am changing the article to reflect this, and if editors feel it should be deleted, sorry. Redgrassbridge 01:05, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
I just talked to the developers over skype, they said that that statement is entierly incorrect and asked me to remove that statement. Astroman
[edit] High Quality Picture
Could the uploader of the PC gamer review scan it again with a higher DPI? Cant read what it says!!!! Cybesystem 13:12, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
Just zoom in a bit.... 150% should do it. it's still blurry, but legible
[edit] Hack Threat?
"On Sept. 25 2006, a member of RVB called Dman123, said he would hack the site, as of late, the site is down, more info will come as more things happen." --most recent edit. Besides being written completely unencyclopedically, is this a big enough deal to mention in the article, or is just citing an empty threat from some random internet face? The site was down long before the 25th, for one thing. Also, to what does the author refer with the acronym "RVB"? I'm assuming it's not Red Vs. Blue... Anyway, until someone can indicate this isn't someone bragging about their friends' leet hax or something, I'm removing the edit.Redgrassbridge 10:40, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Playability
In the opening, the article reads "Black Mesa will be playable by anyone with legal copies of both Half-Life 2 and Counter-Strike: Source.". Does this mean you are required to have BOTH or either game?
The mod uses content from both games, and it would be illegal for this content to be distribuled free along with the mod's original content, so payed copies of both must be on the computer.Redgrassbridge 22:29, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
I was about to ask the same thing. For any HL2 mod I can think of (e.g. Garry's Mod, SMOD, etc.) the only game required is always HL2, never CS:S. So, I have a suspicion that this part of the article is invalid. However, I'm not confident enough to remove it. Tero 23:23, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
Developers' word: This total conversion will not require Half-Life: Source installed on your system to play, only a legitimate and working version of Half-Life 2. [1]
No CS:S either, then. Just as I thought. Tero 17:22, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
I'm sorry for the inconvenience, the original article was right, after all. [2] I will restore the "CS:S" part. Tero 14:30, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Images
Various models, such as the marine, were scrapped and new ones created (the old models not meeting our new self-standards). - Black Mesa news
As you can see in their website's media page, there have been changes to the look of the mod throughout the time. Shouldn't we substitute some of the article's images for the most recent ones, or add the recent ones to the gallery? Also, since the marine model(s) was/were scrapped, what do you think of taking the PC Gamer image from the article, since it reflects old, replaced work in the game? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 87.196.99.164 (talk) 13:55, 28 December 2006 (UTC).
[edit] Xen
There's rumours going around on the internet that Xen has been scrapped due to the lack of media about it. Should this be mentioned?--80.47.60.26 18:49, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
Xen has not been scrapped, it is being kept under wraps until the mod is released. Raminator 15:43, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
If they keep to the current trickle level of media releases, then Xen information will likely be made public only within the final week(s) prior to release. It is after all the portion of the game that could most benefit from the Source engine. Displacement maps and HDR in my opinion, will be the most noticable of these. The ablilty to create truly living environments will likely be of the greater challenge for the team, and consequently, the best kept secret. With the recent video release on ModDB[[3]], I think the wait will make release all the sweeter. Yue.san 09:55, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Remove and Refer?
With the results of last years deletion debate ending in a No Consensus, and seeing as VALVe's own development wiki is more appropriate place for this article, I propose replacing this article with a referal to either the Half Life 2 article, or the article at the VALVe-Dev Wiki [[4]]. I have put an item in the discussion of that site's Black Mesa (mod) article to use this (the superior) article in place of their own. If that is done, then holding another deletion debate may be in order. Objections, thoughts? Yue.san 10:16, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
As you recall, the reason for the mod being AFD'd in the first place was being "non-notable". At this point, having received official recognition from ModDB twice, as well as receiving a commendation from Valve themselves, I believe that Black Mesa currently has enough weight to stand on its own, for the time being. Viewer 21:12, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
- I agree with Viewer that with these awards and Valve's own "nod of approval" (so to speak) of the mod, it has some legs to stand on, for now. If things turn sour (hopefully not), then what you propose may be in order, but for now, let's just let it be and add information as it comes. Delta 21:27, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Needs moving
I'm planning to move this article to Black Mesa (mod) in a couple of days (as opposed to Black Mesa (game mod)). It doesn't need the 'game' part - mod is sufficient, no other mod articles are described as 'game mod', in normal speech almost no-one says 'game mod', and what other definition of 'mod' is there that this could be confused with? If anyone has any strong objections, post here and I'll consider any and all before making the move. —Vanderdecken∴ ∫ξφ 19:12, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
