Talk:List of Combine non-combat technology in Half-Life 2
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Contents |
[edit] Tren/Train
I think the confusion over this might stem from the signs in the first level of HL2, saying "Tren Arrive" and "Tren Depart". Presumably "Tren" means "train" in some eastern european language. Just to clear that up. 80.0.198.46 16:51, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
- Point taken, although I don't see how the Combine would prefer to include foreign spelling when it continuously utilizes English in communication. ╫ ２５ ◀RingADing▶ 17:27, 5 April 2006 (UTC) ╫
- HL2 is set in an eastern european country, so they must just be signs that were there when the Combine invaded. There's no real point in them making new signs for the peoples' benefit. 80.0.198.46 15:27, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Citation needed tag
The citation was placed directly following the sentence it concerns. "Some people believe..." is weasel words nonsense. It needs a verifiable source, per my edit summary that obviously no one looked at... --Oni Ookami AlfadorTalk|@ 03:48, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Depot
Good work, it looks better now.
Well you can leave it like that, but remember the uprising was not caused by the exogen incursion, it was caused by whatever you do in nova prospekt else, particularly; the destruction of entanglement, i dunno... mabye we should just wait for hard evidence.
Miish111 11:23, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Spoiler warning
Shouldn't there be a spoiler tag for some of the major Episode One events? I haven't actually played it yet (don't ask) and scrolled a little too far down this page. Luckily, I scrolled right back up. Doran 22:39, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Mobile Walls
Why was Mobile Walls just changed to Crushers? I don't care about the change because I don't have any more idea what they are than what the page says (don't remember any explanation in the game), but the section text is mostly unchanged and seems strange now, and other articles in the HL series and Combine category still reference them as Mobile Walls. (with broken links to this article) --70.128.122.93 05:15, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
- The changes were reverted. No edit summaries were provided along with the edits. ╫ ２５ ◀RingADing▶ 12:57, 21 June 2006 (UTC) ╫
- I also invite the author of the changes to state his/her case, rather than continuously reverting unjustified changes. ╫ ２５ ◀RingADing▶ 12:14, 24 June 2006 (UTC) ╫
[edit] Dispatcher
I didn't notice the dispatcher in Episode One (which I thought was a bit of a shame, she added to the creepy atmosphere of HL2): is this worth mentioning in the main article? I can only speculate whether her absence was due to the demise and presumed evacuation of the Citadel, or if it's just a more mundane explanation like Valve not being able to get hold of the voice actress. Chris 22:56, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
Actually she WAS in Episode 1, but not present as much. Firstly in the credits she is listed. In the game itself she is barley noticable considering the chaos from the evacuation of City 17/Distruction of The Citadel. She says some phrases but sounds different, and slowed down somewaht. Some of these phrases are along the lines of "Sterilizers comprimised" and "Alert! Alert! Alert!". She is not present however in the final moments, the last we hear of her is commands to the CP units that are encountered in "Exit 17".
Sadly there is no "Daisy" moment.
On that note, is there anyway to get into the soundfiles to determine all the lines of the Overwatch dispatcher? Helios 02:26, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
- Thanks for pointing that out, I never was the most observant gamer! I'm afraid I can't answer your questions, hopefully someone more knowledgable will know.
—Chris (blather • contribs)
09:58, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
Good news, I found a program that will allow one to listen to the soudn files. It's called GCFScape, I'll post an approxiamte transcript of the Overwatch PA for HL2 and Episode 1 soon Helios 03:27 7 September 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Depot Picture
The Picturee of the Depot is on the left of the screen even though the edit screen says it should be on the right. Does anyone know what the problem is? 67.172.204.135 23:03, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
- I've fiddled about with it and moved it (see the this diff for what I changed). Hope it's okay now. Cheers,
- -- Chris (blather • contribs) 23:26, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Speculation
I've moved the following text here from the Dispatcher/PA system section:
| “ | "Off world" is assumed to be somewhere at the fringes of the Combine empire, which is assumed to be radically different from Earth, and therefore is not a desirable location for anyone to want to be sent. Another possibility is "off world" could actually mean death, though it is unknown why Overwatch would disguise it as so. However, at the very end of the game, Dr. Breen states that "the portal destination is untenable," because "there's no way he can survive in that environment." This may mean that few, if any, off-world Combine-occupied locations are cabable of supporting human life. However, the Combine Soldiers' phisical augmentations may have provided them with at least some protection. | ” |
Hope nobody objects, but in its current form I think it's much too speculative to be included in the article itself.
—Chris (blather • contribs) 16:54, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
[edit] NPOV
This article is, frankly, awful - it is seething with POV, does not cite it's sources for many of it's claims, and is just generally very poorly written. The tone of the article alone makes it worthy of a complete rewrite, let alone all of the glaring mistakes and policy violations. It hasn't changed at all since I last visited it and I suspect that's because nobody is keeping an eye on it. Not only that, but the talk page appears to've been used merely as a forum for fan speculation, rather than for the betterment of the article. I was tempted to put it on the AFD list, but from taking a second look at it I decided that it was well formatted enough to form the basis of a good article. I will periodically return to this article to make changes and improvements that will bring it more in line with wikipedia guidelines and policies. --▫Bad▫harlick♠ 14:51, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
- Can I ask that you go into more detail about what it is that you think should be changed? I don't think that it's really helpful to just say it's "frankly awful", stick an NPOV tag on it and leave it at that. If you want other editors to make the changes that you think the article needs then you need to be a bit more specific.
—Chris (blather • contribs • e) 11:17, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
- I'm having mixed thoughts with this. I do have to admit that there are at least some speculative emphasis in this article or other Combine sub-articles for that matter (which could be located using wordings such as "theorized" (two instances in #physical construction and overview) and "possibly"/"possible"), but much of the content is based on objective observation from the game itself, as well as the Raising the Bar book and Prima guide, meaning it appears well sourced. The tone of the article is also relatively OK by my standards. It would be helpful to provide some specific examples so we can identify the problem clearly. ╫ ２５ ◀RingADing▶ 18:31, 15 September 2006 (UTC) ╫
- I don't understand what is meant by the NPOV tag. What about the point of view in this article is not neutral? Better yet, what view points could possibly be taken? Is it too pro-Combine? Anti-Combine? Anyway, reading the article, I see few, if any (and only trivial at most), problems with it. Certainly nothing that suggests "nobody is keeping an eye on it" (Which I assume is a direct flame/insult to everyone who is). As ZS mentioned, much of the info here comes from Raising the Bar and the official Prima game guide, both which are cited as references. I honestly have no idea how you could have even seriously considered this entire article worthy for deletion. MarphyBlack 01:42, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
I have removed the NPOV tag, on the basis of it being nonsense. Providing a list of points that require an overhaul would be proper in this case, and general comments about "poorly written", "policy violating" article etc. are considered unsourced, unless provided with references. 14:54, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
