Talk:Portal (video game)/Archive 2

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
← Archive 1 |
Archive 2
| Archive 3 →

Contents

About the music...

If you watch the beginning of Gameplay Demo 4 of HL2: Episode 2 then the Portal trailer (the ending part of the first "real-world" example where the player goes through the portals and escapes certain death), listen to the music. Part of the music that you hear in the Portal trailer seems to be a remixed version of part of the music in the Gameplay Demo.

Here's another part , this time it seems to bridge the gap between real-life and the game universe. I was in Parkson listening to their "soothing music" they play between their self-promoting advertisements and I heard a (very) familiar sounding part in one of them. The "familiar sounding part" is the one in the Portal trailer where the computer female narrator demonstrates that things can go through portals. I have to say it's true. Quite intriguing, isn't it? Other than that, most of the music in the trailer are all unique.

Obviously, this is all original research especially the second one but I think there is some value to adding them into the article. Any comments on this? --Bruin_rrss23 (talk) 14:30, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

UPDATE: Seems that they play their music only when they're promoting their Parkson Grand Sale, expecting lots of customers in the process. Each music piece is separated by their self-promoting ads (It's completely separate, not the voice-overs) and one of them is the music containing the part I mentioned above. I understand that this is all original research but the music only comes during their sale. Is it worth adding it to the article? --Bruin_rrss23 (talk) 14:13, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Portal is NOT part of Half Life's storyline

Portal has just been confirmed not to take place in the Half Life storyline. I have updated the article to reflect this. The references are linked to in the article, but I'll post them here as well: http://www.gamasutra.com/php-bin/news_index.php?story=13075
http://planethalflife.gamespy.com/fullstory.php?id=115496
I have quoted the relevant part of the Planet Half Life article below:
GDC: 2007, Kim Swift, in a conference with fellow game professionals announced Valve's decision that Portal will no longer cross over to Half-Life 2. Considered to be too distracting to the ongoing narrative, the Portal gun will now exist in a self contained world where existing objects and their interactions can be designed specifically for the game. Rumors surrounding the device's name, "Aperture Science Handheld Portal Device" suggested the return of another Half-Life character, Adrian Shephard. The star of Opposing Force, expansion pack to Half-Life by Gearbox Software met a similar fate as Gordon Freeman. Though the sequel to Half-Life continues Gordon's story, the whereabouts and condition of Adrian is still relatively unknown.
--Wiki Fanatic | Talk 10:05, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

If you go to the GameSpy article now, it seems to have been changed:
GDC: 2007. Kim Swift, in a conference with fellow game professionals went into detail about Valve's decision to hold Portal's game separate from the action in Half-Life 2. It is still noted that Portal exists within the Half-Life universe.
I have reverted this article to the state before Wiki Fanatic changed it. --Jeep Barnett 1:30, 10 March 2007

Thats fine, it looks like they backtracked against themselves.--Wiki Fanatic | Talk 14:49, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
The FAQ on Valves forums confirms that Portal and Half Life are linked. Alan2here 22:45, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
What does "...will no longer cross over to half life 2" mean exactly? It says "It is still noted that Portal exists within the Half-Life universe." So are they saying that the player character in portal will not be in hl2 episode 3? Or is it that there will be no reference to the combine? I am very confused, and would appreciate if you helped me understand what it means :) thanks in advance~ Nophysicalbody 12:56, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
I'm of the opinion (particularly given the picture in the talk page below about "FSII",as well as developer comments) that this makes complete sense, although confusing at first. Basically it means that Portal takes place in the Half-Life universe, not a different one. The stories, however, do not meet or otherwise directly influence each other at any time. That picture indicates to me that the Aperture Science Lab is a competing organization to Black Mesa with interests that are in conflict with Black Mesa. Additionally they must have had some excellent government connections, if they known not only OF Black Mesa, but also what their FSII proposal lacked. I would say they are a government defense contractor company. Nerve gas? Get that at Wal-Mart lately? Anyway, in short, Portal and HL are separate games and stories, but the same planet, universe, etc. 75.89.138.192 21:59, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
Portal has been confirmed as part of the Half Life universe a number of times. Here, for example, is a Gabe Newell interview from the 29th of August, 2007, where he states that they exist in the same game world. (Read the fourth question, by the picture of Portal). Also, Episode 2 makes it too clear that they are linked - you see imagery of what I presume is the area around Mossman's arctic base, on a ship called the "Borealis", which is packed with "Aperture Science" crates, with the very same company logo, too. I don't think there's any reason to believe they aren't linked anymore. Falastur2 22:18, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
Agreed, it's implied throuhgout Portal and in parts of Ep 2 that Aperture Science and the Black Mesa employees are aware of one another and in competition. I think Portal occurs some time before the events of the first Half Life game. --poorsodtalk 21:29, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
It seems to me that it's the Aperture science facility after the seven hour war. Hence why all the people are gone. --Joey Roe 20:30, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

At the end of the game, GLaDOS (the creepy computer voice's name) Sings you a song, as stated in the article. In one verse she says: "Maybe You'll find someone else to help you. Maybe Black Mesa... THAT WAS A JOKE. FAT CHANCE" This leads me to think that this IS in the Half-Life world, and Apature science and Black Mesa are in compition. Proof: http://youtube.com/watch?v=LxYfMRtun5w A video of GLaDOS signing, skip ahead to 2:16 to see the verse i'm talking about.Mrkitteh 01:41, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Not only that, but you can view a repeating slide presentation through a window near the final chamber pertaining to competition with Black Mesa65.244.227.194 01:50, 14 October 2007 (UTC) Saying that Portal is not a part of the hl universe is like saying that birds cant fly... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.150.99.165 (talk) 11:37, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Portal is not part of Half Life's plot, but it DOES take place in the same universe. They coexist, yet are unrelated. -24.27.62.134 16:46, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Aperture Science is mentioned in Episode 2, Black Mesa is mentioned in Portal. To say they're unrelated is quite frankly wrong. Rehevkor 16:55, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
Quite. Not to mention that it would seem that Episode Three will feature Aperture Science heavily. Their plots are quite clearly linked, it's just that the links have not yet been revealed - it's like saying that Luke Skywalker and Darth Vader aren't actually related to each other until The Empire Strikes Back, because the information isn't revealed until then. Vader is still Luke's father in A New Hope, even if you aren't supposed to know yet. Falastur2 23:15, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Sounds to me that what they are saying is that the portal gameplay will not be implemented in half-life, not that the plots will not be related. Besides, if their plots did not relate in any way why explicitly state that they are in the same universe? 82.18.132.162 17:21, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

The cake is the truth?

Continuity confirmed. --DeviantSolution 10:36, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

INTUB-XLG

How is that mysterious? It said that an intubation associate will be sent to revive you. It's obviously an intubation kit, extra-large. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Atomicthumbs (talk • contribs) 17:46, 23 April 2007 (UTC).


The weird woman voice

Does anyone else think that she sounds a lttle bit like a weird G-man robot? Or it could just be me... lol --81.179.120.161 14:45, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

WOULD YOU LIKE TO PLAY A GAME? --CCFreak2K 18:31, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

That's GLaDOS. The gcf files refer to her as 'gladdys', 'glados', and 'aperture_ai' —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.197.8.76 (talk) 21:33, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Incidentally, someone added "citation needed" for stating that Ellen McLain provided the voice. A citation isn't needed, as she gives commentary in the director's commentary, as well one of the producers states (in the commentary) that they needed someone flexible, and that Ellen was perfect since she was skilled in mimicry and had operatic experience. She's also listed in the end-game credits. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.36.156.251 (talk) 17:09, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
That would be the citation needed, then. --Joey Roe 20:32, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Video Quotes

Is this section of quotes from the trailers really necessary?

Someone has already transwikied it to WikiQuotes. --Bruin_rrss23 (talk) 07:10, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
Seems that it got deleted from Wikiquotes... unlike WP there's no deletion log so I can't find the reason why they deleted it. --Bruin_rrss23 (talk) 09:26, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Cake

There seems to be a hell of a lot of cake in this game, could this be anything to do with the story? Anyone who has tried the questionnaire will know there must have been at least three questions involving cake, not to mention THECAKEISALIE, You will be baked, and there will be a cake., and the ASC2 art of the cake in the questionnaire. I think the article should reflect this in some way. Muffin Man 23 18:54, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Seems clear the "cake" is the reward for being a test subject.. but since test subjects are apparently terminated either by the tests or at the end of the tests.. But yeah, has cake been mentioned outside of these things? Otherwise it's pretty speculatory. Rehevkor 20:23, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
I would like to know if there is anything in HL or HL2 to do with cake, such as any charachters or weapons. If any HL fanatic stumbles across this message please leave a message on my talk. Muffin Man 23 12:35, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
There is nothing in either half-life game involving cake. tildetildetildetilde
All I know is 'I' didn't get my cake. I love staying up til 5am waiting for the cake I was promised, only to be shafted. It better be there in Portal 2. Ghostalker 04:50, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

I suspect that the cake reference is actually an in-joke that is somewhat common on 4chan. An image is posted of a red dot and a blue dot, one representing "you" and the other representing "cake", with various obstacles (such as walls, pits, dangerous animals) seperating the two. Other posters are invited to "solve" the challenge of getting to the cake, which is usually accomplished through some ridiculous means. In essence, the whole "testing" phase of Portal is an example of this sort of meme, in which the player tries to get from the beginning of the game to the promised cake at the end. It's possible that all of this is a coincidence, and that the writers were unaware of the joke, but I personally doubt it. 198.82.90.141 02:10, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

It's got to be a coincidence. Theres no way a high-profile company would make an entire game out of a minor internet meme. 162.24.9.213 13:44, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Not the entire game, no, but I feel it's likely that someone on the team was aware of the meme, noted that using portals to get to an "impossible" goal sounded a lot like one of the "solutions" in the meme, and added the cake thing in as a sort of in-joke. It would be worth asking the Dev team about this. 198.82.90.141 15:33, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

It should be noted that the "delicious cake" threads on 4chan existed before Portal was announced. After the Portal trailer was released, many of the solutions to these puzzles included the use of portals, so much so that the puzzles eventually included "portal-proof walls". --- Odin 21:31, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

I thought the "delicious cake" meme was in reference to censored worksafe art where cake (among other things) is photoshopped over pictures of oral sex. Hence, "Delicious cake! I must eat!"Gargomon251 18:39, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

I actually think the cake reference is to myg0t. It was an old school griefing clan that used to disrupt multiplayer gameplay in CS. Suposedly to join the clan you were suposed to bake a cake and send them a photo of you eating the cake. It was a joke and usually they ended up making fun of the people who submitted the photos.--Adikos 16:25, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Also despite the writing on the walls about cake. the computer monitors have ingredients required for cake baking mixed in among the other gibberish. I think it is partially due to GladOs having multiply 'heads'. At the end one of them that you pick up starts reciting the recipe for cake, while another is angry. Perhaps cake is just one of GladOs' multiple personalities.--Adikos 16:34, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

As the actress who plays the computer woman says in the commentary, it just seems that she has this preoccupation with cake. --poorsodtalk 21:33, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

A New Theory...

What if these labratories have something to do with the Gman's 'employers'? It makes sense if you think about it, because as mentioned up there (^) somewhere, the combine can't teleport on earth. Gman is seemingly always teleporting to places. It would explain why the digitalised voice sounds so alien (and talks strangly like the Gman), and goes on and on about legailities and things. There is a mention of a 'legal team', and Gman seems to be quite buisness- oriented. And the Gman doesn't seem that caring about humans dying~ And neither does Aperture 'Labratories'. It explains quite alot when you think about it. There are other points, but I had this idea while eating dinner, and I forgot 'em :P. I personally think that Gman's employers are much more likely to be in control of these "tests" than the combine or the earth's government.

Thanks again- Nophysicalbody (Nophysicalbody 10:07, 18 September 2007 (UTC))

For people who are fed up with the theorys

Post them on my talk page instead. I am making a section for people to post however many theories without being harassed by users who are fed up with them. Muffin Man 23 13:55, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

The Portals In The Game

On the trailer for the game, the portals seem to look pretty cool. Whereas on gameplay vids I have seen the portals have looked different. Which of these portals will feature in the game?

Joepeake 10:36, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

the ones in the trailer if you have decent graphics setting, gameplay if not :3 Stuffed Lizard 09:58, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

really? all i see is the fuzzy gas effect around the portals... ~ Eyra (Talk)(Contrib) 00:33, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

THECAKEISALIE

The article is misleading in the way it says Typing that at any time after login/after the questionnaire, YOU CANT ENTER IT AFTER THE QUESTIONNAIRE!!! Anyway... I jumped to the wrong conclusion with THECAKEISALIE. It is telling you to press return if a supervisor walks by YOU! Not on the small video it plays. I have also noticed that you can press any button to get to the spreadsheet, but you can also press any button to get back to the conversation and video... Strange. Also typing a question mark is the same as typing help, and if you type INTERROGATE without anything after it displays a message about needing more than one parameter. Muffin Man 23 10:45, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Soundtrack

Why shouldn't we add the information about the sound files found in the GCFs? I think it would be interesting for readers. --87.110.43.102 18:04, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Preload

Portal and HL2 EP2 are now offered for preload, maybe worth putting into the article too? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.29.3.12 (talk) 15:18, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

If I'm not mistaken however, preloading is only available for people who have pre-purchased The Orange Box and not for people who only wish to preload portal, therefore I believe this reference should be reworded as this is a article for portal and not for The Orange Box. If I am mistaken feel free to revert my edit (and maybe tell me how to preload separately, as I would like to know). Doctoroxenbriery 01:03, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

The Guide

The Orange Box guide contains a lot of plot information, could we update the article to use that info? 172.167.194.198 14:14, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Which Orange Box guide? If it's from a Steam website, we can cite it; if it's from a handbook then it would have to be worded a little more carefully, but it should be usable. Falastur2 15:34, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Lead character name

I don't recall the name of the lead char being mentioned anywhere ingame. If this info is pulled out of the content files, it should be removed as unsourced. -- 84.133.173.242 18:16, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

"Chell" is the name in the credits. Bartleby 22:30, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Story section (RE: Rampancy)

Obviously it needs to be cleaned up a bit as it seems to have been done in a hurry (numerous typos, point of view changes, etc), but more importantly the concept of "rampancy" is both incorrect and not applicable. Rampancy is a term to describe a sentient and somewhat insane AI, coined by Bungie to apply to a very specific process in the game Marathon. It has implications in the game Halo, but the process described is not rampancy and in fact has very little to do with rampancy. The AI Cortana in the the Halo franchise was given an estimated 7 years to live (7 being "Bungie's number") before "thinking herself to death". This has no relevancy at all to Portal nor to the concept of rampancy (which itself, has no relevancy to Portal). I'd fix it myself but I'm new-ish to Wikipedia and am hesitant to violate standards. :) Viserys89 22:39, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Story section update

I have put an "update-section" tag on the story section. The game has been released (in fact I have played through it once). Some of the information can be updated to reflect what actually transpire in the game. For example, there is a slideshow in the game that tells what Aperture is. The slide show clearly shows Aperture and Black Mesa are competitors. --Voidvector 22:52, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Login and Password found ingame

At one of the walls ingame the username "cjohnson" and the password "tier3" was scribbled. I typed this into that viral page and it actually worked. No idea if this was known already, but since the page was decompiled already, anway. So, yeah, I thought I just throw this in. 87.234.30.210 11:01, 11 October 2007 (UTC) Addition: The only thing really different seems to be the new entry "Notes" which gives some weird backstory about Aperture. 87.234.30.210 11:19, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Cave Johnson appears to be the late CEO of Aperture Science, according to that history you mentioned. Also, the account is an admin account. If you try interrogating someone, it now gives an error saying "[unknown employee]" instead of telling you that you aren't authorised to discipline people. I'm looking to see if there's any employees you can interrogate, but...I don't know any employee names. I've tried the obvious - Johnson himself, Chell, GLaDOS, etc, but none of them work. It may be that there are no employees that you can use here, I really don't know. Falastur2 17:33, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
Sniffing in the history of the of the article I found parts mentioning this about the site already, but also not giving any information about the interrogation part. So I guess besides the NOTES part there really isn't much to it. THECAKEISALIE and the application also work as usual.80.139.147.224 22:38, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
When one is logged in as Johnson, they can retrieve their application code/UUID at any time. typing IP will give it to you. You also have access to some other features —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.18.240.159 (talk) 06:18, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
Another thing I would like to add here: Everything that is going on in the webpage is done with flash, and as far as I can notice, the page never reloads or anything, meaning that all this data (and perhaps more) should be viewable with a decent hex editor. I haven't tried this but I will. --ReCover 17:08, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
Hold on a minute. After a crawl through the flash file I didn't find anything readable so this gave me a hint that the data was fetched through flash. And after a quick look with Firebug I saw that there are many http requests being issued to aperturescience.com. The uri's are pretty funny as well, I'll see if I can dig something up. --ReCover 17:16, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
Okay, I tried to open the flash file with a SWF decompiler. To my surprise, I was displayed the source code of the document, it its entirety. According to what I could see, the http requests do not have any real meaning since all the text and logic are provided in the source code (maybe valve use it to track activity?). I suggest everyone interested to take a look of their own. --ReCover 17:44, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Add "android" to description of main protagonist

  • I don't see that the information is given anywhere on the page, that the player is in fact an android.
  • I think this fact is pretty obvious and important.

Not sure whether it should be stated under a spoiler warning, or in the introduction.

  • Proof: "Well done, android. The Enrichment Center once again reminds you that android hell is a real place where you will be sent at the first sign of defiance."

And the wires at her feet is a big clue as well. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.52.83.198 (talk) 11:36, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

  • Seeing that GLaDOS is lying throughout the entire game, I don't think her referring to the protagonist as android is really a valid proof. Also, would an android be needed to be motivated with cake? Would an android need revival through adrenaline when passing out due to to thirst?
  • I think the wires at her feet are really just an apparature that prevents her from taking damage through falling. Noticed how you never died no matter how deep or fast you fell? That's what these thingies most likely are for 87.234.30.210 11:50, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
    • Um.. didn't she only call the player an android in the test that was meant to be set up for, well, androids? Which seemed to be a weak lie/excuse to use so many turrets on the player. Rehevkor 11:57, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
      • No, it is specifically said in the in-game commentary that the "heel springs" are to prevent falling damage.208.59.132.248 05:37, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
  • The reason for the 'android' comment is because that particular test chamber was replaced by a live-fire course intended for androids.162.24.9.213 13:53, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
    • This is the right answer. Calling Chell an android is neither the truth, a joke, or a lie. It was just part of the script ofr that test chamber.74.135.198.127 02:21, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
  • It's a joke... the stage is configured for androids so the recorded congratulations message is keyed to androids. It's an oblique jab at organized religion IMO- it's obviously ridiuclous to tell an android it'll go to "Android hell" if it disobeys, so that extends to real hell too.. that's my interpretation --frotht 19:17, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Also, whenever she gets shot, blood splatters on the walls behind her. Avatarian86 20:55, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Although it's really obvious by now, here's another one. If you play the game with the Commentaries on, the first audio comment when leaving the cell mentions that the springs on her feet are indeed to explain her not taking damage from falls that would kill Gordon in HL2, since the testers complained about that. 80.139.147.224 22:34, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Also: Deadly Neurotoxin. Webrunner 18:58, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
  • The level in which that was said was the first level where you could take the guns through the elevator 'barrier' and see it disintegrate, 'killing the gun and sending to android hell'. Possibly a coincidence... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.76.47.215 (talk) 14:20, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
Contrived "coincidence", and not like it isn't already explained by the level introduction ("live-fire course for military androids"). --Bisqwit 13:23, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Just because the course was developed for a military android, doesn't mean that the protagonist ISN'T an android! It might as well have been made for her specifically. Also, GLaDOS mentions that she has erased all version of her and that there is no backup of her left which I think is suggestive that the protagonist is actually the one who wrote all those messages on the walls. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.149.98.37 (talk) 22:19, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
Well no, it doesn't mean she's not an android, but since GLaDOS "apologises" for sending Chell through the android course, I took it as a pretty obvious implication that Chell is being sent (deliberately or accidentally) through an area which she isn't supposed to be able to survive without crafty use of the Portal Gun, at best, whereas a military android clearly would be designed to pass the test by use of military means. GLaDOS states:
"Due to mandatory scheduled maintenance the appropriate chamber for this testing sequence is currently unavailable. It has been replaced with a live-fire course designed for military androids. The enrichment centre apologises for the inconvenience and wishes you the best of luck."
Obviously we can't be sure, but I think personally that this makes it pretty obvious that Chell is not an android, especially given the above evidence, and the clear fact that during the game we not once are required to do anything which would be indicative of a military android - the only combat sequences involve clever use of the Portal Gun combined with other combat-capable objects. Chell shows no aptitude with weapons, no ability to survive deadly encounters by skill, only the ability to cross distances by the use of portals, or use them to her benefit. Falastur2 22:43, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
  • she has heel springs, purple eyes and blood. can't we safely say she's an cyborg at the very least? --robin

Genre

Should this game be First-person adventure since there is hardly any shooting (in the traditional sense) at all. In addition, the game is more about solving puzzles, which is more like an adventure game. --Voidvector 19:01, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

I think that Portal would be categorised as an FPS-Puzzle game in the game industry...though I'm no expert, and I'm certainly not in the industry... Falastur2 21:09, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
In this case, I'd agree with the industry. The genre seems fine as is, "first-person shooter" isn't just for Doom style games. Rehevkor 21:15, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

You do "shoot" the portal gun from a first-person perspective. I think "FPS" is fine.162.24.9.213 13:01, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

I like Penny Arcade's genre for Portal: "First-Person Puzzle Comedy" --Quadraxis 19:27, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Radios in the game

Just thought I'd throw this in there, but all of the radios in the game that work are tuned to 85.2FM. I find that interesting, b/c this seems like it would be at around the same time period as Half-Life 2, but with the combine controlling the planet, I doubt that there would be any radio stations up playing music (though it's still possible). Of course, they could just be set that way, wouldn't be hard to make the LED redout at 82.5FM all of the time, and still play music through them. Again, just thought I'd throw it out there. Avatarian86 03:20, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm fairly certain Portal occurs before HL1, as the events of HL1 would result, a matter of maybe two days from the moment Gordon inserts the sample in the test chamber, in the Seven Hour War, followed by HL2 as we know it- and Aperture, as well as just about every other company and organization in the world, would cease to exist. dethtoll 06:28, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
I'm not sure about that. At the end of the game GLADoS goes on about how things are really bad outside, and that you don't want to go out there. She's probably lying of course, but something to bear in mind. Also the fact that the centre has apparently been abandoned (the tools lying around, etc), suggests something's up. Passingtramp 09:04, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
You're right. I hadn't finished the game at the time I wrote that, but now that I've finished it (and done it a second time with commentary) I would suggest that the game takes place DURING the 7HW, or at least in the days following. dethtoll 06:32, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
I thought that was because Glados had gassed everyone in the place, though I could be mistaken. The bottom line is, at the moment, we don't know when this took place exactly so I don't think we can speculate any further in article.
But there were no dead bodies or remains at any point during the game. Additionally, they installed the "core morality module" or something like that (whatever the first sphere that falls out of GLaDOS is in the final battle), so they must have intended to continue using the facility after that incident. This leads me to believe that the facility was abandoned for an entirely different reason. Of course, there are still a whole bunch of holes if this is true. Like why they would leave all the electricity and GLaDOS on and leave Chell in there.208.59.132.248 05:49, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Thekoyaanisqatsi 09:22, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

I read that as being a reference to her wanting Chell to surrender herself and go back to the fire where she tried to get rid of Chell in the first place - basically telling her "you wouldn't want to leave. Just go back and die like a good test subject". Though I may be wrong - knowing Valve, there has to be some backstory behind Glados and her intentions for Chell. Falastur2 10:18, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
Maybe, but what about the following, found written on one of the walls-
"Though earth and
man are gone,
I thought the cube
would last forever.
I WAS WRONG"
Diwen 10:47, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

The radio signal could be broadcast from an internal facility-controlled emiter, still in operation even after the 7-years war. 162.24.9.213 13:46, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

It was a 7 hour war, not 7 year war, by the way. And I still doubt that it was set after Half Life 1 - the slides talking about commercial competition with Black Mesa would surely not be up after the Combine invasion - what's the point in discussing competing with Black Mesa when the whole facility has been nuked and they have ceased to be a viable organisation? Falastur2 16:05, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
The disaster at the enrichment center could have happened roughly around the same time as HL or even after it. The slides would still technically be up if Glados dispensed with everyone 'quickly'. It all depends on the time line between when Portal takes place and when Glados actually goes crazy. It is clear that the people from black mesa know something is/was wrong with the way Aperature worked, as Kleiner and Eli both suggest ill omens with Borealis. If ex-black mesa people are out trying to fix things, i wonder what other aperature scientists are up to (if there are any). I personally think its too early to rule out that it didnt take place around HL1.--Adikos 16:42, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
Glados mentions that she gassed everyone else in the facility a short time ago though...And I was being a little inaccurate when I said "after Half Life 1". What I really meant to say was "before the Combine invasion", since there would have been enough time for it to happen after the resonance cascade scenario from HL1, but before the 7-hour war. That said, the two disasters happening that close to each other would be some huge coincidence...or perhaps no coincidence at all (which is probably my preferred belief, actually). Falastur2 22:38, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
Edit: "Glados mentions that she gassed everyone else in the facility a short time ago" - no she doesn't. Sorry, my mistake. Still, the rest of my comment stands. Falastur2 23:06, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Oh brother. Ever heard of cause and effect, people? One of the "eyes" that you destroy when fighting GLaDOS in the final level, was installed because GLaDOS had gassed a bunch of people. What does this mean? That someone must have installed it. In other words, there must still have been people in the facility after the gassing, so the gassing can't be the reason the facility is abandoned. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.75.60.244 (talk) 06:08, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

I would disagree with you there. I would postulate that most of the employees at the EC were gassed, and a few survivors had managed to quickly put together a morality core (likely using a chassis from what appeared to be a storage room in the ending) and put a stop to the gassing. With most of the staff dead, and the bodies cleared away, it's easy to assume that the few survivors (as GLaDOS has alluded to) remain trapped in the facility. dethtoll 06:42, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
Or there's the possibility that the "morality core" bit is exactly as true as the "makes shoes for orphans" bit. Why trust the words of a passive-aggressive schizophrenic computer who's trying to kill you? :) 71.239.5.156 05:33, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
Because you would have been gassed much earlier in the game if GLaDOS was lying. :) ~ Eyra (Talk)(Contrib) 00:36, 22 October 2007 (UTC)


The game takes place well after the 7-Hour War. The proof? Combine-based technology is scattered throughout the Enrichment Center. Combine Balls which act identically (though more slowly, presumably because they aren't being launched with a physcannon/pulse rifle) to their HL2 counterparts, and even activate Aperture-built Ball Sockets based on those seen in the Citadel in Episode One. Turrets fire Combine pulse rounds (easily identifiable by the wierd muzzle flare) and are identical in behaviour to Combine turrets. Missile turrets track you with a blue laser similar to Combine snipers. Considering how much thought went into the aesthetics, as we learn by listening to the commentary, it is unlikely this is the result of coincidence or leftover art.
As for the radios, the Center is pretty big, with plenty of thick metal and cavernous internal spaces. I doubt you'd get good reception. Maybe Aperture has an internal station for the entertainment of its subjects. In which case the music currently broadcasted is the equivalent of GLaDOS humming her theme song. That's a fanwank, but my point is you can't really tell much just from the radios. 202.76.142.198 09:29, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

I just took it as Valve recycling some of it's SFX and bells & whistles. 63.84.192.253 —Preceding comment was added at 18:56, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
Plausible if you fail to consider the ambiguity that would introduce due to the game being set in the Half-Life universe, and the way it's only certain elements which have been deliberately kept. Take the turret: it's not just a reskinned Combine turret, rather a new model based on the general design which has twin guns mounted on a pair of side pods which extend and swivel in a manner totally unlike the original. This is not an example of laziness. Even if they were just going to recycle assets, why use the Pulse Rifle muzzle flare if it isn't meant to be firing Pulse rounds? It's not as though HL2 didn't have regular (and unambiguously human) flare effects they could use. 202.76.142.198 16:44, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, isn't it just as possible that the Combine simply recycled Aperture Science technologies? For instance, Hunter Choppers are helicopters... a human invention. -Keegah

Soundtrack Section

Why should there be no section for the soundtrack? Someone has added in comments "Stop putting "music" back. The track titles are completely unknown to the player since it's just instrumental and it plays in the background. Zero encyclopedic value whatsoever.", well in that case why should Half Life 2 be given a soundtrack section? The track names there are never explicitly revealed to the player either yet it has one.

The comment about it having no encylopedic value is a little rich, I actually came to this wiki page from google because I was searching for the soundtrack information, I then found myself having to scour the history to find it. ChaosDoom 03:25, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Soundtracks for games are generally non-notable, even if the tracks are named and credited. The case for Half-life 2 is notable only because there was a CD version of the music, and to that end, one can list out the track listing and other details for the CD. In the case of Portal , the only way to learn these tracks is to perform original research and that's not appropriate.
However, I would recommend that any information about the music (particularly the final track) for Portal regarding its creation and inspiration would be highly valuable in the Development section. --MASEM 04:00, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
The names of the tracks are in their filenames and can be verified by anyone with GCFscape. dethtoll 06:29, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
That's true. The song names are not my imagination, you can check the names by opening up the game files. So don't delete the soundtrack section. gracz54 (talk) 07:37, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
These titles are derived from the filenames, saying that they are the track's official titles is purely speculative. Filenames of a game's music is not encyclopedic. You wouldn't list (using Episode One as an example) VLVX_song1, VLVX_song2, VLVX_song4, VLVX_song8, so why would you here. A soundtrack has not been commercially released, so a listing of the game's music is not notable. The track order is also speculative, just because they are the order they appear in the game doesn't mean it would be the order they'd appear if Valve were to officially release the soundtrack. A music section is fine but don't list filenames. Talk about things like who composed the soundtrack, what it sounds like (with citations), what they were trying to achieve with it, etc. - kollision 12:48, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
VLVX etc is very bad example. They're just codes, where as the files names for the Portal songs are obviously titles. Also, just because there has been no official soundtrack released, doesn't mean the titles can't be mentioned the article. But either way, does anyone know who composed the tracks, Kelly Bailey is mentioned in the credits, but doesn't say what precisely she did. Rehevkor 14:05, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
At the very least, Stay Alive is notable if only for the reaction it's gotten from the gaming community. Webrunner 19:00, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
Can't this just stay there as it has been for the other games? Disregard the fact they haven't been released (yet), it's still interesting for the people who use wikipedia. I got the info I needed from this page as well. Geez, everything must be "by the book" I guess. --Eikern 19:24, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
The criteria for inclusion is notability, not "interesting". "Still Alive" is readily notable, but the other songs aren't since the only way to get their name is to pull from the steam files, which has some questionable copyvio considerations. --MASEM 23:48, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
WP:N is a criterion for article inclusion, not content inclusion. Content in an article about a notable subject doesn't have to independently pass a notability test, or there would be very, very little content in any article. Also, listing the titles of songs is scarcely a copyright issue. We do it on every album page in the encyclopedia. Concerns about original research are valid, but I do think that guessing the song name based on the file name is a clear enough choice that it is correct to do so; we may simply note the source of these names in the article together with them, and the reader may decide for himself if the file names are the intended song titles. The statement that the files are name thus and such isn't original research--its source is the files themselves. --Sopoforic 03:52, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
WP:N still needs to be considered for information in an article - this is from WP:NOT#IINFO, and thus for games, only publishes soundtracks are usually listed, or if there's notability of the entire soundtrack. But the copyvio I was talking about if it's allowable to look inside the Steam distribution files to find out the names of the songs. I don't know -- I raise the question only. --MASEM 04:40, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
But I just checked the GCF pages at Valve and it says these can be looked into but not altered, so the copyvio is likely not there. I still think that a non-released, non-licensed soundtrack is not worthy of inclusion unless it becomes notable, but I'll go with what the consensus says. --MASEM 04:45, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

(un-indenting) Regarding notability: of course we still need to consider whether the information should be included; I didn't mean to say that the article should contain every pointless bit of data we could find. Rather, I wanted to point out that WP:N, and especially its 'significant, independent coverage' test, don't apply to article content. As for looking into the steam files for the names of the songs: even if valve didn't give permission to do so, copyright wouldn't be the issue here; possibly there would be DMCA concerns if the files were encrypted, or perhaps some other thing I have not thought of, but copyright isn't an issue with this.

I'm pretty much with you on whether we really ought to include the soundtrack listing in the article. Only "Still Alive" has been noted to any extent, as far as I can tell; that one will probably be worth a mention, but as for the rest, I couldn't say. The game has only just been released, so it's a little early to tell. I will note, however, that it's not at all uncommon for game reviews to also discuss the game's soundtrack (the in-game sort, not the sold-on-CD sort), so if we do wish to include information about it, we'll probably be able to do so. --Sopoforic 04:59, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Please note Half-Life 2, which is a featured article, lists the names of all of the songs used in the game. So listing them should be a rather clear-cut matter. Little needs to be said about them however, with the exception of perhaps Still Alive, as the song has lyrics and is sung by a character. Not to mention it has relevance to the story. -Aknorals 04:45, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
But again, the point is that Half-Life 2 has a physical CD (even though not sold separately) with that music; there is no (as yet) CD for Portal. The inclusion of that CD and the music on it is notable for HL2, but so far, the only notable music is "Still Alive" for Portal which definitely needs to be mentioned; the other songs are otherwise just bg music. --MASEM 04:55, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
Here's my input: Portal has a soundtrack which is easily obtainable by using any GCF reader. The files are in the format portal_song_name.mp3. Therefore there is no way to track when they are called in-game, and no way to get track numbers. I wanted to put this on my iPod, in the order of which the songs appear in-game, so I thought I would be able to get the tracknums from here, but apparently the soundtrack isn't available. I would love to see a list of the songs in Portal, with the proper song names, in the order of which they play in-game.

Non-free images in talk

Per WP:NFCC#9 I am removing all the screenshots from this talk page. Please be aware that non-free media is not allowed outside of the main article space. I am replacing them with Image:Placeholder.png Thanks, --Phirazo 16:58, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Sorry about the images I posted, I'm kinda new to wikipedia standards. What if the image is hosted somewhere else, but the link is posted here? Avatarian86 18:13, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
In all honesty, I'm not sure. In my opinion, it probably should be okay, but I can't find any rules about it. --Phirazo 06:22, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Portal Gun Can't Grab Items

Anyone who has played HL2 will understand this, and playing the game I know how it actually goes, but there is a comment that the Portal Gun can "grab" objects like the Gravity Gun. This is NOT true. It may look like it from screenshots but objects floating in front of the gun are actually being held by the player (No hands driving vehicles or picking up objects with the E key in any Source Engine game.) I would request someone else to fix this as I'm new to Wikis and would rather not mess up the entire page. 165.170.128.66 18:10, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

I disagree. The gun is still in use when you're carrying something (after you get it, of course), the standard "Gravity gun carrying something" animation is essentially there, and it ends when you drop the item. I agree that you never actually see her hands when she's just carrying a box before she gets the gun, but afterwards, the gun is still involved. Avatarian86 18:16, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
Yep. It's very clearly the portal gun holding the item when you play the game. Rehevkor 18:20, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
I suppose it's just there to explain how you can pick up objects while having both hands on the gun. Webrunner 18:56, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
If you listen closely, you can even hear that throbbing "hum" sound that the gravity gun makes when the portal gun is holding an object. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.82.90.141 (talk) 21:09, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
And you can see energy jumping between the points sticking out over the nozzle bit of the gun, in the same way that the grav gun does. See this video of the companion cube - watch the tip of the gun when the cube is picked up (you only need watch for about 15 seconds). It just clearly has none of the power of the gravgun - it can't shoot objects, basically, only drop them again. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Falastur2 (talk • contribs) 23:04, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
The visual feedback is there, and it seems that you use the portal gun to pick up objects. But you pick up objects in the same manner _before_ you are able to get the portal gun. Furthermore, in order to pick up items, you press the use key, not the primary or secondary fire key (or whatever are they labeled in Portal). On the other hand, in HL2 when you use your "hands" to pick up object, you current weapon drops instantly, a move that does not happen in Portal... You draw the conclusion. But in my opinion, as you are able to pick up items before the portal gun is available using the very same manner, the portal gun is not used to carry objects. Kkmic 23:05, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
You're not comparing like for like there, this has nothing to do with holding weapons in HL2. We're talking about comparing the gravity gun to the portal gun - in neither case does the gun "drop instantly". The Portal gun DEFINITELY can pick things up - the animation of the Portal gun shows this clearly when you pick something up. Thekoyaanisqatsi 21:39, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
Alright, alright, no need to get ANGRY about it. I didn't realize the animation of the gun when an object was "grabbed." It just seemed odd to me as a gamer that a key would enact something on the gun rather then another option such as physically picking it up. 69.207.138.94 22:08, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
It is also good to note that in HL2 you also pick up objects without hands prior to attaining the gravity gun, and after the gravity gun makes a similar electrical effect. ZeikJT 07:16, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

The gas didn't kill everyone

I forget how it goes exactly, but near the start of the final boss fight glados says something to the affect of "I figured out what that thing you destroyed did, it was installed in me after I flooded the facility with deadly neural toxin gas to stop me from flooding the facility with deadly neural toxin gas" That means some of the facility workers surviver her attempt to flood the station with gas, because they installed this part in her. So I removed the part stating that she killed everyone with gas. Continuity wise, that can't have been the way she killed everyone. 70.78.84.7 20:50, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

I concur, I was meaning to fix that tonight. -Ravedave 21:05, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
I also agree with this. During the credits song GLaDOS states "There is research to be done on the people who are still alive." Which could mean Portal 2 could either continue Chell's adventure, or maybe another test subjects interaction with GLaDOS. It is also possible that they release an episodic story similar to Half-Life 2's Episode One and Two. We shall wait and see.99.229.166.131 22:39, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
GLaDOS has plenty of ways to murder people other than a deadly neurotoxin. The game clearly shows the protagonist as being the only person in the facility. --Phirazo 06:25, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
The game does not show other holding cells, but there is no reason that there can't be other holding cells with test subjects in stasis. 84.67.233.66 22:39, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
I thought the combine killed or capture most people. Even using Nerve Gas leaves bodies..But I haven't seen one at all.
Could it be possible that most of the staff were gassed by GLaDOS and that the few remaining scientists that managed to construct the morality core were merely captured by her like Chell? GLaDOS may of started just holding people and not killing them as she sees it to be OK to use them for scientific testing, whereas just gassing them would probably be disallowed by the morality core. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.86.140.199 (talk) 03:01, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

If they released a sequel it would have to go back in time because, umm... maybe you killed GLaDOS! But what if Chell was the only survivor, installs the morality core, inhales a tiny amount of gas, faints and forgets all about it. What if it was only her in there after all. And maybe the messages were written on the walls by GLaDOS herself just to confuse you. I love theories. Muffin Man 23 15:04, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Did you listen to the song that played over the credits? The one where GLaDOS points out that she's "Still Alive"? Plus there were all those spare modules around the cake. Also, GLaDOS has obviously run the test before, which explains all the writing on the wall about the cake being a lie. So GLaDOS could have a stockpile of subjects in isolation chambers like the one Chell came out of. Anyway I think that its more likely that Portal type gameplay will be in Episode 3. Mad031683 21:28, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
Oh sorry, I dont have the game, I just know tons about it. Recently listened to song and yes, it seems she is still alive. Although, she seems confused when you escape, ie none of the other test subjects escaped the fire, ie why is there still writing on the walls further than the fire? Btw, The Aperture building must be absolutely huge, 19 test chambers plus the 19th includes behind the scenes of all the other test chambers, so why at the end is the ground in where the building was is so small cmopared to what it should be. There are videos on youtube where people use either noclip or other serious glitches to get outside AND in the cake room, while still playing.Muffin Man 23 13:16, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Composer

Who did the soundtrack? I want to say Kelly Bailey, since he's Valve's primary composer, but I can't be sure. dethtoll 00:48, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Critical reception

Does IGN really stand out as such a trustworthy/respected site that its review is the only one individually mentioned? 66.36.152.118 02:44, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Not in my opinion. It could be said to encompass the majority of reviews on the internet that the game was highly regarded by critics who praised its innovation, gameplay and comedy yet criticized it's short length. Or something to that effect. I don't know that we need to specifically mention whoever Dan is at IGN. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.36.156.251 (talk) 17:11, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
I don't know why everyone is complaining about it being too short when it's just as long as it was intended to be. Not to mention replayability and challenges!
(Delete this rant please)--74.214.39.2 03:03, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Timeline

I re-added the timeline, as I felt it was an important part of the page, and no reason was given for its removal. It was there one minute, then gone the next. Ghostalker 06:40, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

The timeline is too excessive for being a work of fiction - the article needs to focus on the real-world notability by secondary sources of the game, and while it is important to summarize the plot and note that this takes place at Aperture Science, the full history of AS from a primary source is not appropriate - at least at this time. There's possible, but not current, indication that AS may reappear.--MASEM 12:13, 13 October 2007 (UTC)


Plot

This NEEDS to be re-written. A plot outline should give a vague understanding of the plot, not go through the whole thing step by step. I pity the poor people who haven't played portal yet who have inadvertently ruined a portion of their gaming experience by being exposed to it. If someone could kindly clean it up a little and not give so much away that'd be fantastic. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.235.192.165 (talk) 13:56, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

If people who haven't played the game are worried about the plot being spoiled, they shouldn't be reading sections marked "Plot". It's a bit of a give away of the nature of the section. Rehevkor 14:06, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
Exactly, see WP:SPOILER. Additionally, to not cover all major elements of the plot violates a neutral point-of-view (it is not editors say to say what is a spoiler and what isn't). --MASEM 14:13, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
Uh, WP:SPOILER itself states: 'A section header such as "Plot" or "Overview" can be ambiguous as to the presence of detailed spoilers, particularly for a newcomer to Wikipedia. If that section contains significant spoilers, consider changing the header to something clearer.' The header should therefore be changed to something like "Synopsis", which I am now going to do. Well done for referencing a Wikipedia style guideline without actually reading what it says! :3 84.67.233.66 22:43, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
It would seem that even "Synopsis" is not being interpreted as a spoiler warning. Is there any title which will be acceptable? Falastur2 07:01, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
Couldn't you just explicitly say "This section may contain spoilers" or something to that effect directly after the title? I don't know all the rules of Wikipedia but I don't see how this could be unacceptable if done right.69.207.138.94 22:13, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
The plot of this game was, indeed, spoiled for me by this article. I see no reason why there shouldn't be a spoiler warning here, so I am adding one, baby. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pigkeeper (talk • contribs) 17:26, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
And I've deleted it. If you don't want to be spoiled don't read neutral articles with "Plot synopsis" in large, friendly letters. Spoiler policy dictates "Plot synopsis" is enough of a spoiler warning, if you don't like it take it up there. Rehevkor 17:32, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
Why can't there be a spoiler alert if there is a spoiler? Synopsis doesn't have to cover the entire plot (especially the ending). Please then remove the plot section until it has been rewritten.--80.222.64.155 22:39, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
This ruined it for me too. What is the big deal with putting Plot (Contains Spoilers) as the heading? When I saw the word "plot", I expected a generic summary, like off the back of a game box. Instead, it jumps right to the final scene and blows the ending. I could understand if it were a longer and involved story, but a short one can easily be ruined in a paragraph or two. Changing the word to "synopsis" is ridiculous as well. Look it up in a dictionary: "a brief or condensed statement giving a general view of some subject". It means the same thing as "summary". How is the average person supposed to know that "plot synopsis" now equates to "spoiler." Posting a link to WP:SPOILER doesn't magically alter the interpretation either. That article is probably referring to something with a substantially longer plot, to which it's obvious spoilers are coming before you've read too far. If you're going to give away key details, indicate clearly that the article contains spoilers. The issue here is whether it's obvious or not that you're about to read a spoiler. Clearly it is not, since several people have said as much. You can post all the wiki policy links you want, but the issue and resolution should be clear without them. It spoiled the plot for several people now; quit with the editing war and add a spoiler tag already.
Also, if you insist on posting wiki policy links to defend your view, be sure to read them entirely. From WP:SPOILER - "In a work that is uncommonly reliant on the impact of a plot twist or surprise ending — a murder mystery, for instance — a spoiler tag may be appropriate even within a properly labeled "Synopsis" section." Put the spoiler tag back in... and "if you don't like it take it up there". --64.252.168.160 12:00, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
Most ridiculous invocation of NPOV ever. More relevant guidelines state that wikipedia isn't for book reports and the like, and isn't about providing blow-by-blow plot recaps, trivia, or minutia. It's about providing a high-level summary of what's relevant. That's the criterion here, not "spoiler or not". As cool as the game is, it's not yet established as an object of major artistic/literary significance, and there's no other material in the article that demands a detailed retelling of the plot to be understood. So, the whole lot's unencylopedic. The "Synopsis" section should be replaced with an actual synopsis... which is to say, something about a paragraph long. 71.239.5.156 05:47, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
See: Plot Shortening. CaNNoNFoDDaTalk 07:00, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Last image

The last shot doesn't always show the Weighted Companion Cube. Here's proof. JAF1970 03:13, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Look closer. It's in there. -Aknorals 03:51, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
I think you mean the new menu that appears after the credit? The companion cube appears if you wait for a while, the camera will pan towards the right, revealing the cube. 165.21.83.240 13:39, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
(SPOILER)If you have seen a ending video without the cube, they have noclipped the cube out onto the surface where chell faints/dies.82.46.22.136 17:13, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

GLaD <==> GLaDOS

I'm not sure, but what's the significance of the final credits using the first four characters of GLaDOS to spell glad? It doesn't have much meaning without the OS in the name. Could it have enough significance to be included in the article? 165.21.83.240 13:18, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

The significance is just that those letters appear in GLaDOS's name. We know that GLaDOS stands for Genetic Lifeform and Disk Operating System. To imply that GLaD is actually an acronym makes GLaD "Genetic Lifeform and Disk" - which seems a bit...well, I can't see it concealing a hidden message. I think it's just GLaDOS toying around with her name. Falastur2 16:03, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Cause of GLaDOS's behaviour

There seems to be a missing reason as to why GLaDOS killed off the majority (if not all) of Aperture Science employees, as well as the reason for leaving Chell (and if possible, other test subjects) alive.

I know there seems to be no information regarding this available, but it seems odd that such information is missing from a game plot 165.21.83.230 17:31, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

This is Half-Life (in a way) we're talking about here, it's always been rather vague with sporadic information. :P Rehevkor 17:39, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
If it's not available or described anywhere, adding it in is speculation and original research. --MASEM 15:42, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
I'm guessing the whole reason behind leaving it vague is to allow them scope to set up a second game. They have said that they are considering where to go next with Portal - according to reception of the game by players, it'll either be a Multiplayer version, a tie-in to Half-Life, or a sequel in the same style as Portal. Which means that they have to have some ground that they have left untrodden, or else they'd have to make up a whole new story for a possible Portal 2, which isn't really Valve's style. Falastur2 16:06, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
This gives me another question, should Portal really be regarded as a game or a technical preview? The story does not seem to be very much developed, gameplay is extremely short and it seems more of a platform to gather feedback on future releases. Like you said, the producers did leave the future of Portal open for further consideration, and if you listen to the commentary, they were more concerned with the technical aspect rather than the plot.165.21.83.230 17:31, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
It's definitely a game. It has all the characteristics of a game - as for the story...well, it's kind of Valve's style to not actually let the player understand the motives behind their actions. It just happens that this game was designed largely around the portal gun, which means that we don't really understand why we are doing anything required to complete the game. But then is that not just a clever ploy by Valve to sucker more players into speculating over the Half Life world, and subsequently buying/playing more of their games? It probably wouldn't work, if not for the fact that the Half Life games have already been taken so far, that we are quite happy to play such a cryptic game simply for the extra confusion, which lets us indulge our desires to guess what's actually going on even more easily... Falastur2 22:53, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
Interestingly, the only "eye" module that doesn't react when picked up is the very first one; the morality module. It remains perfectly still and silent, while all the others move around and make sounds. Perhaps it was defective? 198.82.90.141 17:09, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
"Good news: I figured out what that thing that you just burned up did. It was a morality core they installed after I flooded the Enrichment Center with a deadly neurotoxin to make me stop flooding the Enrichment Center with a deadly neurotoxin." (copied from the closed captions, she actually says incinerated, not burned up) This implies that 1: people survived when she flooded the enrichment center with a deadly neurotoxin, and 2: the morality core was installed after she flooded the enrichment center with a deadly neurotoxin and prevented her from flooding the enrichment center with a deadly neurotoxin again. It seems that she was trying to get you to destroy it so that she could hurt you directly, instead of with round about ways like diverting you to a live-fire course designed for military androids, or leading you onto a platform that is on a track leading to your victory candescence. Diwen 20:48, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
It's a bit hard to take what GLaDOS says literally at times, since she lies, jokes, and generally is being difficult most of the time. So I'm not sure how much weight should be put into the line about the "morality core." Now please assume the party escort submission position. Xihr 21:19, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
Five points for not making the party escort submission position :P165.21.83.240 21:36, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
Again, though, if the sphere you destroy first doesn't prevent her from killing you, why doesn't she just attack you right off the bat? (and if you think that she doesn't decide to kill you until after you destroy the first sphere, remember that she does say "Okay. I am going to kill you now" soon before attacking you with the first rocket turret.) Diwen 01:38, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
I seem to have an alternate theory. Maybe everyone did die, but external people found out (Aperture Science should have multiple buildings right?) and managed to install the morality core (by wearing gas masks, etc?).
GLaDOS has got to be functioning well once, thus its turn to evil could probably be due to a malfunction or misdirection of the cores, hence the evil behaviour of the third core and the erratic behaviour of the second.
The morality core could have been whipped up in a hurry and thus it makes no sound, or perhaps valve couldn't find a good audio representation of morality ;)
GLaDOS sincerely doesn't seem to know what the morality core is, maybe its attached without her knowing or it was designed to seem non-existant.
The morality core seems to just make GLaDOS love humans, which accounts for why she sounds more friendly and stuff (the credit did sound like GLaDOS was in love with Chell), and this also accounts to why she can still try to kill Chell.
The remaining cores seen at the ending sequence could have been replicated GLaDOS cores she has created while she was evil, and they're just turning on to rebuild the whole system again.
Which corporation installs neurotoxin flooding systems controlled by a computer?!
And if I can take it further, its possible that the whole thing, from the beginning to the explosion and out, is just part of GLaDOS's test, which could explain why a performance report could be generated for the credits (as the destroyed GLaDOS could be a decoy)
Of course, these are just speculations and I shouldn't really be talking about this in wikipedia 165.21.83.240 21:36, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
It's not mentioned in the article because it's never indicated in the game what happened. Xihr 20:37, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Fan site additions

An anon IP is attempting to add in a portal map site. I will point out that by external link guidelines, fan sites have to meet a high level of scrutiny before they can be added to external links. The Portalmaps.net site, while likely the first site to offer extra portal maps, does not yet meet the requirements - mainly because its too early to tell what the community will consider the "authoritative" site for portal maps. It doesn't offer anything new at this point to the understanding of what Portal is - remember, we're an encyclopedia, not a link directory. --MASEM 17:14, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Is there any kind of link directory set up? Not that we should set one up here, but it'd be awesome to get some kind of listing. Avatarian86 00:42, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Use as you will...

This user has had cake.


Add {{User:Masem/userboxes/Portal}} to your user page to add it. --MASEM 23:06, 14 October 2007 (UTC)


Woo hoo... I like this!165.21.83.240 23:09, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
Thanks! This is great. Sp!ke 02:44, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Couldn't resist a modification...

This user thinks that the cake is a lie!

{{User:LordJumper/userboxes/thecakeisalie}} LordJumper 18:32, 17 October 2007 (UTC)


Did this one a while ago...

This user is thinking with Portals!


Just add {{User:Muffin Man 23/Portal}} Muffin Man 23 14:04, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

(no, not trying to have userbox fights here) Be aware that non-free images (including fair use logos like Portal's) are explicitly forbidden within userboxes. (Which is why I created the one above when I happened to find the cake image off the WP Commons.)--MASEM 14:13, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
I made this one some days ago
This user found out that the cake was a lie while playing Portal

{{User:Xhandler/UBX/Portal}} Chandlertalk 02:43, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

The Song: Prophetic or Post?

Someone keeps editing the article to put a prophetic slant on the song. It quite clearly refers to the actions of Chell in past-tense, and the song says over and over that "I (GLaDOS) am still alive".

It's rather obvious that the song is written past-tense - as or just after Chell leaves. Given that GLaDOS even talks about backups (through taunting Chell), and given the final cutscene, it makes much more sense that the song is sung post-Portal rather than pre-Portal as some form of prophecy. Berym 23:14, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

It also says at one point Now we're out of beta / we're releasing on time"
This must surely be about the game, not the events seen in it. Presumably they added the song at the end for a laugh, as the music department or whatever had nothing to do for a week or so before release. I'm taking anything I read in the song lightly, though I admit it could be setting up future games. Falastur2 13:26, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

I assumed the "out of beta" means that your testing of the portal gun was successful and it can now be marketed. -some guy who never edits wikis

Why would GLaDOS be promising Chell that she's still alive, then? The song is clearly a humorous way to indicate to the player that the Portal franchise is not necessarily over, and GlaDOS may make a repeat appearance. Xihr 02:46, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
Why not? I don't see the problem. It's like a "ha ha you didn't win" kinda thing.Gargomon251 03:00, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
I think its definitely post-game, and the we're out of beta line is breaking the fourth-wall, a little self-deprecation from Valve refering to how long it took for Half-Life 2 to come out Mad031683 15:30, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Bring-Your-Daughter-Day

What is up with the bring your daughter day thing? Its mentioned once by GLaDOS as not very informative comment. But in the promotional website, it seems to be more significant as its the last thing mentioned in the memo in cjohnson's account. Maybe something happened that day?165.21.83.240 23:21, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Maybe it's, you know, just a joke? Xihr 00:19, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
It says on the web site that GLaDOS was brought online during the "Bring your daughter to work day", and that "In some ways, the initial test goes well". Personally, I think this is the time that GLaDOS released the deadly nerve gas. That would certainly fit with the "In some ways, it went well" thing. Avatarian86 00:48, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
I thought at first that it was why Chell was there, but then GLaDOS talks about her personnel file at the end, so I'm not sure. -Berym 01:15, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
"Well done! Remember: The Aperture Science Bring Your Daughter to Work Day is the perfect time to have her tested."Diwen 01:27, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
Remember that her father has been dead for some 14-ish years before bring-your-daughter-to-work day. Why would a daughter attend such an event when she was probably too young to even remember her father, let alone his place of work and know enough about this day in order to go it? Falastur2 13:47, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
Didn't the intro to HalfLife 1 say something about "Bring your daughter to work" day ?, I'll install it again and check. -Switchable 09:03, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
Just played the tram ride again to save you the trouble. It mentions the Hazard Course Decathlon, asks you to invite friends or family members to take jobs at the facility, and reminds you to get regular chemical screenings, but there's nothing about any bring-your-daughter-to-work day. And give the top-secret nature of much of the compound, it would probably be a bit of a risky thing to do anyway... I'm not entirely sure that I believe that bit of the website, like Xihr said. It's probably a joke. Falastur2 13:47, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
Yea, game finally installed late last night. Also noticed the "Friends and Family" thing, must have been that. -Switchable 07:50, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Gun Glitch

There is a glitch allowing you to use the half life guns in the game. Should this be posted? Link287 01:35, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

By 'glitch' do you mean something other than 'use the console to set sv_cheats to 1 and then enter impulse 101'? Diwen 01:55, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
Kind of more or less than actually using the weapons causes glitches such as a crow bar appearing as though its piercing her abdomen Link287 03:08, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Updated character portrait with a more high-resolutioin photo.

I took a screenshot of Chell from the very front with as high resolution as possible and added it to the article to replace the older screenshot we had. Sp!ke 02:32, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

I also added spoiler tags to the Synopsis because they contain significant plot details that shouldn't be revealed to those not wanting to have the game spoiled for them. Sp!ke 02:43, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Consensus re: Spoiler, the meaning of the song, and so forth

Can we come to a consensus, please? There's a war going on here between those who feels it's a spoiler and those who feel that it's entirely justified that a plot section contains points of plot.

Let's come to a decision and leave it at that, eh? - Berym 08:50, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

I had put up a overarching Template:current fiction box but someone took that down, but it a recommended piece to use for a fictional work shortly after release, and still think that should be added (though arguably, it is meant to imply that the article state can change frequently). And while I understand why we would want spoilers, we're going by the established guideline for spoilers. We're not a game guide or a forum, we're an encyclopedia to report things on an unbiased basis. --MASEM 13:43, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
WP:SPOILER is pretty clear about the Plot Synopsis implying spoilers are within, also this game isn't a big mystery with a surprise twist that's ruined if you know it before hand. I see no need for spoiler tags. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mad031683 (talk • contribs) 17:03, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
WP:SPOILER is also pretty clear that spoiler tags may be needed, even with the title "Plot Synopsis". I urge you to read the article again:
  • A section header such as "Plot" or "Overview" can be ambiguous as to the presence of detailed spoilers, particularly for a newcomer to Wikipedia. If that section contains significant spoilers, consider changing the header to something clearer.
  • In a work that is uncommonly reliant on the impact of a plot twist or surprise ending — a murder mystery, for instance — a spoiler tag may be appropriate even within a properly labeled "Synopsis" section.
The reason a formal warning is not always needed, is because you can often identify a spoiler before it's too late. For example, if you're reading the plot summary for a book, it may contain very detailed statements. You would then realize that you were reading a detailed summary, well before you'd read any spoilers. It's not the heading that magically grants the warning to the reader. It's the ease of transition and the content of the paragraphs preceding the spoiler. Although the heading is a warning sign, it is not definitive. This is not possible with shorter plots, since the majority of the story is surmised in a few paragraphs. The way this article was written, does not indicate there are spoilers until it's too late. The first three paragraphs are pretty generic. The fourth one, however, immediately reveals the climax of the game in the opening sentence. The transition was without subtlety. It goes from talking briefly about the cube and graffiti, straight to the closing scenes of the game. If it cannot be written in a way that foreshadows spoilers, then it should be explicitly stated.
These wiki policy pages are intended to babysit people who can't use common sense; they try to define what is and isn't a spoiler. You don't need to read a wiki policy to answer this question. I think we're all in agreement that this is, in fact, a spoiler. It is also evident that this article has or will spoil the plot for a good number of people, due to the ambiguity of "plot", which has even been explicitly stated in my first quote from the WP:SPOILER page. If this is frequently mistaken, then it obviously requires a spoiler tag. If you read too deeply (or not deeply enough, in your case) into the WP:SPOILER policy, then you fail to understand its purpose. In a nutshell, the policy says to use your best judgment to clearly identify spoilers without interjecting a POV on the topic. If it's not an issue of POV, then there's no harm done by adding a spoiler tag. To be honest, I had no idea this game even had a plot, since it was a puzzle game. I read all the way through the third paragraph before I realized I was reading a spoiler. I would say YES, this page definitely requires a spoiler tag. To be honest, I would like to know why everyone is so adamantly against a spoiler tag. Leaving the tag out is obviously doing more harm than good, and the plot is too small to write an overview for. --64.252.168.160 14:41, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
You'll need to review through the rather long talk archives at WT:SPOILER to see why. Basically, there's two issues:
-WP is a general purpose encyclopedia: our job is not to protect people from reading information they may not want to read, but instead to give all appropriate information to the topic. Plot and major revelations within the plot are necessary as part of that information, and in the case for Portal, it is necessary to state the spoiler (as it is key to why the reception of the game is such). The spoiler tag, as it has basically come from the internet culture, is seen as weakening WP's claims as an encyclopedia, and thus it is strongly recommended to not use spoiler tags (and hence the implicit meaning of "Synopsis" titles.
-The spoiler tag is one of the most mis-applied tags on WP. Spoilers have no meaning on a past work (people were spoiler-tagging Romeo and Juliet, for example), and because its such a time-sensitive tag that needs to be removed after "some time", the definition of "some time" is so variable depending on what viewpoint that you take that its better not to have it than to have it. Furthermore, people over-used the spoiler tags, excessively tagging complete sections or complete articles. There's very limited points where spoilers should be indicated if at all.
I understand the concerns, but it will quickly become apparent that WP is not the place to be reading about a recently released work if you want to stay unspoiled about it. However, I have put in the spoiler tags around the specific section of the plot text, though I have a feeling others will remove those in the future. --MASEM 15:06, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
Even though I love this game with all my cake, I have to admit I can't keep people from ruining the game by going to an encyclopedia to read about it. That's why they have review sites like ign and etc. This is suppose to be an encyclopedia not a review site. I expect articles to be thorough not baby foot around topics for context sensitive persons. If I read an article about Metroid Prime and read through the plot, it's my own damn fault I spoiled myself since I decided read the plot. What else would I expect from it? --DrunkCat 16:14, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
The two bullet points you listed don't apply to this article anyway, the first one doesn't say add spoiler tags, it says change the heading. As for the second one, is there really a surprise ending or plot twist? This isn't the Sixth Sense or The Usual Suspects. The ending is foreshadowed in GLaDOS's dialogue and the graffiti throughout the game.Mad031683 16:40, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
I don't see consensus for tagging here (at least not yet). For me the fact that we're giving the plot in a section labelled as such seems to be enough. If people come to an encyclopedia and read the plot section in an article about a fictional subject, they're going to find out the plot. If they're the kind of people for whom knowing the plot ruins the game, they should avoid doing so.
Moreoever if, as Mad031683 says, the ending is foreshadowed, it's not a big enough deal to consider adding special tags. --Tony Sidaway 16:45, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Plot shortening

For a 2-3 hr game, we have a heck of a lot of plot in this (even though it is relatively deep). I propose the following, more consistent with writing about fiction:

Portal is set in the Half-Life universe,[3] and is presented to the player through the game's audio messages and visual elements seen through Chell's perspective throughout the game. Additional elements of the story's background are developed from the fictional Aperture Science website created by Valve for the game in addition to some elements presented in Half-Life 2: Episode 2; through these, Aperture Science is presented as a mysterious company similar to Black Mesa Research and in competition with them for GSA funding.
Waking up in a statis bed, Chell is informed by the computerized voice of the AI GLaDOS that she must complete a series of potentially hazardous test chambers prepared by Aperture Science using their new Portal guns, and that she will be rewarded with "moist, delicious cake" once she has completed the tests. The chambers have cameras and frosted observation windows, though no human figures are otherwise seen by Chell through the tests. Furthermore, Chell is able to find ways behind certain "broken" test chamber walls to find messages from some unknown benefactor, stating "the cake is a lie" and other warning messages. GLaDOS, aware of Chell's findings, becomes agitated and urges Chell forward in the tests for her reward.
Upon completing the final test, GLaDOS congratulates Chell and sends her to "be baked" in a large furnace, admitted that she had made a Freudian slip when talking about the promised cake. Chell quickly escapes with the use of portals and makes her way though the maintenance areas and empty office spaces behind the chambers, again led by directions left by an unknown benefactor. As Chell ascends the facility, GLaDOS attempts numerous means to dissuade her, both through physical harm and through verbal promises. Eventually, Chell reaches a large chamber housing the main GLaDOS unit, at which point GLaDOS begins to fill the room with a neurotoxin gas. Chell is able to dislodge and incinerate sphere-like parts of GLaDOS, causing the AI's personality to degenerate. Finally, Chell is able to destroy GLaDOS; the resulting explosion causes Chell and the debris to fly out of the chamber. Chell wakes from a period of unconsciousness, finding herself outside on the surface, just outside the gates to Aperture's facility among other debris from GLaDOS.
The final scene shows the promised cake surrounded by various metallic "eye" components similar to those that were on GLaDOS. Some of the eyes activate and a robotic arm puts the candle out. The credits roll as GLaDOS gives a concluding report about Chell in the form of the song "Still Alive".

Any thoughts? I want to cut out what's becoming a lot of speculation which the current version crops up with a lot. --MASEM 16:20, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

All good - only thing is "GLaDOS claims to have killed off the Aperture employees before in the same manner when they tried to stop her after she had become self-aware.". Does she actually say that? Passingtramp 21:17, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
First, the unknown benefactor doesn't imply that "the cake is a lie," he plain writes it. Freudian is spelled wrong. And Led, not lead. Finally, as Passingtramp points out, GLaDOS says no such thing about killing employees related to her becoming self-aware, just that she's released the neurotoxin before (obviously implying casualties but she doesn't say). Xihr 21:26, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
You're right - I've fixed the above and completely took out the re-releasing of gas part.
Also, looking at Ep2, while I don't think it's warranted to copy all the information from the timeline on the fake website, I think we want to have a section called "Aperture Science" to describe what they've done, and their competition w/ Black Mesa, and other information known from both games. (Aperture Science does not yet warrant a full separate article ,, however ). --MASEM 21:36, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
I was contemplating an article on "Links between the Half Life Episodes and Portal" myself, though I guess we really need to wait for another game to be released before we can put in anything which isn't speculation. Anyway, going back to GLaDOS, she does state that she killed everyone (well, attempted to, we don't know the extent to her success) in the facility, but we don't know that it was right after she became self-aware. To me, going from the evidence, I'd say that as soon as she was put online she was instantly self-aware, something her programmers hadn't realised would happen. Falastur2 22:52, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Ok, I've put up this shortened version, though I did add one paragraph to identify the characters (the gameplay and the plot were getting some crosstalk between plot elements and gameplay -- ideally, once the game has aged a few more weeks I think it is worth flipping these sections around (plot first, gameplay second). People are adding speculation left and right - as discussed above, the new plot section is all non-original research and can likely be backed up with some additional commentary / review sources. This still leaves the ability to talk about Ap.Sci. as its own subtopic in the plot (though again, I'd wait a few weeks to put in a few critical details (if you know what I mean). --MASEM 05:38, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Moddable

Should it be added that the game is (suppousdly) highly moddable and mod-friendly(custom made maps and the like). [1] AnoreX 22:45, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Maybe a paragraph or two about the ability to Script challenges, and add map-packs whould be a good thing. Though mods aren't really a new thing in the Source-engine, the scripted challenges are specific to Portal. -Switchable 12:27, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Misspelling in filename

Very minor - but in the soundtrack it should be noted that the actual filename of the song "You're Not a Good Person" has the "you're" spelt as "your", improperly. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.70.0.212 (talk) 02:19, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Adrian Shepherd message.

It seems as if there is some speculation about the possibility of Adrian Shepherd returning in a future game, due to the name of the portal gun ("Aperture Science Handheld Portal Device" or ASHPD for short...) Anyway, it seems that there may be another 'easter egg' hidden message: the keyboard models lying around in portal have several keys colored yellow, assuming the keyboards are QWERTY keyboards the highlighted letters are ASDERHNIP.

These can be made to spell (with some duplication of letters) "Adrian Shepherd".

I first saw this in a discussion on the Facepunch Studios forums [2], but can't find the thread there anywhere! The info I have used came from http://boards.ign.com/teh_vestibule/b5296/152273556/p1/ 82.18.132.162 18:18, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Talk about original research, and tenuous OR at that. Xihr 01:00, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

The letters can also be anagrammed to "hard penis." Just thought I'd throw that out there... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.167.20.17 (talk) 15:08, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure a Valve employee had stated that the "ASHPD" thing was just a coincidence, but i can't remember where i read it. If someone could cite it... 91.92.178.164 14:49, 20 October 2007 (UTC)


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adrian_Shephard He's from Opposing forces, Anyone remember Hl1 ;p. --Arvash 21:28, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Gameplay section : gun abilities

are you guys sure the weapon/tool has the ability to pick up items? i played the first few tests, and i was able to pick up the items manualy without even having the gun yet and afterwards i used the same buttons to pick up items like boxes later on. so i dont think picking up the items like boxes, is an ability of the weapon/tool, rather something chell does herself. Like any human beeing would pick up a box. 81.244.204.179 12:10, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

The Portal Gun clearly shows a reaction to items that are picked up in the same way as the gravgun does - energy jumps between the nodes on the end of the gun. See this video for reference - just look about 20 seconds in when the Companion Cube is grabbed. But obviously you can't throw anything with the portal gun. As said in a previous comment in this very talk page (check out Portal Gun Can't Grab Items), I agree with Webrunner that it is merely a premeditated answer to the question "how can you grab things when both hands are on the portal gun" that many pedantic gamers (myself included) might otherwise have asked Valve. Falastur2 14:51, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

About GLaDOS' modules

It used to list what each one represented. I kinda liked that. It made GLaDOS almost seem like she had depth and wasn't just totally insane. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.51.140.4 (talk) 00:22, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

I vote for that as well if anyone's waiting for more people to agree to actually do it. DrunkCat 13:59, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
I don't believe this is necessary. Yes, its a great game and all, but remember we are writing the article to be understood by anyone, not just those that played the game. It is necessary to identify GLaDOS, it is not necessary or appropriate to provide a breakdown of her personality makeup in the literal sense - because in the end, this is a FPS/puzzle game that's 2hours long and has less plot than most movies yet we're almost overkill on it already. --MASEM 14:06, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

GLaDOS Voice in HL2 Ep2

Did anyone else notice how similar the voice ordering the combine sounded just like GLaDOS? I know that they're from the same voice actress but the voice sounded exactly the same. Would that mean that the combine actually used GLaDOS sphere modules for themselves? And they themselves are the ones who put the Morality Sphere in her(You try surviving a Deadly Neuro Toxin; not even the water did)? And kept Chell from them by putting her in that detention room deep in the Portal testing facility?

They sound similar because they're both voiced by the same voice actress, Ellen McLain. It doesn't indicate anything other than that. Xihr 21:04, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Also, the plot synposis now reads like a 4th grade essay, what the hell happened? --147.70.99.94 16:37, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

That's something that can only be properly answered by the release of Episode Three (and perhaps not even then). Personally I believe that the use of Ellen McLain for both voices is a coincidence, but noone really knows for sure, except Valve, and they aren't telling. Falastur2 18:53, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
She's also the British Super villain Assistant-style announcer voice in TF2. Valve seems to like her to do voiceovers. Webrunner 15:41, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

I know that they're the same actress. But the way they digitized it makes it sounds the same. DrunkCat 14:08, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Maybe the combine "borrowed" the voice technology from Aperture Science.... ~ Eyra (Talk)(Contrib) 17:25, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

That's what I thought but I started worrying when I couldn't find anything, or anyone mentioning the smiliarity in speaking manner and voice tone. =\ I figured they put in the morality chip to subdue GLaDOS and then just take what they needed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by DrunkCat (talk • contribs) 17:27, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Timeframe of Portal

I'm referring to this section of text from the article:

"The portions of the Aperture Science Enrichment Center that Chell explores within Portal suggest that it is part of a massive research installation. At the time of events depicted in Portal, the Aperture Science Enrichment Center facility seems to be long abandoned. Photos in the game and hints from GLaDOS that "the world has changed since [the player] last left the building" and claims that GLaDOS is "the only thing standing between us and them" suggest that Portal is set at approximately the same time as the events in Half-Life 2, after the Combine invasion of Earth has already taken place."

This can't be right, 1. PowerPoint slides show that Aperture Science was, at the time, competing directly with Black Mesa. How could they be competing with Black Mesa at the time of Half-Life 2 seeing as Black Mesa was destroyed by a nuclear bomb at the end of Half-Life 1?

2. GLaDOS reveals herself that she killed the workers of the facility with neurotoxins, it's not abandoned.

3. How would any of this building/technology have survived so intact, protected from Combine at the time of Half-Life 2?

If I was going to have a stab at when Portal is set, it's more realistic to say that the events of Portal occured just before the events of Half-Life 1, during the events or any time before Half-Life 1. HOWEVER there is not enough information to make any guess at when the events of Portal occured, so I suggest that this paragraph be deleted until more information is found out. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.243.220.22 (talk) 16:14, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

1. The powerpoint itself is dated 1987. Which is probably when GLaDOS decided to cleanse the faciility for kicks. Why would she bother turning it off or touching/going in the room?
2. Yeah, see 1.
3. She also mentions that she is the only thing standing between you and them. Meaning she probably kept the facicility safe herself so she can run her experiment and research without bothering.
I get the whole being weary of making assumptions but you can't be so afraid that you actually started hurting the article by making it so broad it's either ridiclious or makes people go "Why did I even go to Wiki?" DrunkCat 14:06, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
Yes, the slide showing that Aperture Science was competing the Black Mesa doesn't confirm or deny anything about the timeline today. The slide could have been made years ago; and, as is pretty clear while playing the game, nobody else appears to be present in the facility. Xihr 18:16, 20 October 2007 (UTC)


I Agree with the last point above, and just thought i'd add; in one of the 'cubby holes', there's a calendar that says September 1983. Maybe they just kept it cause it had a nice girlie on it. Did the start of Half-life give the date the Black Mesa Incident took place? If not, I think the manual did. JaffaCakeLover 20:33, 24 October 2007 (GMT)

I always thought(remembered) it took place in 1999 or 1998. But according to the Half Life Saga Story Guide. it happened May 5, 200-. Also, there's a good picture somewhere on the Poral steam forums a clipboard from the meeting table that says "Mark V Hazard Suit" (HL1 was Mark IV, HL2 was Mark V) if someone could bring it here. If anything, it probably just means that Neurotoxin got emitted after the seven hour war ended as a mercy murder by GLaDOS. (Like the Queen did in Resident Evil (movie)). Which still begs to question when you awake in Portal in the time line. (Knowing Valve, probably same time G-Man took Freeman off of stasis.) --DrunkCat 19:50, 24 October 2007 (UTC)


There are a couple of things which give us concrete factual evidence about the timeline of Portal.

1) Test subject 042 was a Vortigaunt. This pretty much locks the events of Portal to post-Resonance Cascade. Would anyone disagree? (in game clipboard)

2) GLaDOS was not activated until "several years" after 1996. I take that to mean a minimum of three years, since two would be "a couple". Which means the earliest possible year GLaDOS could have been active is 1999. (aperturescience.com > LOGIN > CJOHNSON > TIER3 > NOTES)

3) The Enrichment Center contains Combine technology. This suggests that Portal takes place at least several months after the 7 Hour War. Given the disruptive nature of the war and Earth's subsequent subjugation, I would posit that several years is more likely.

4) Another clipboard shows an subject ID of over 200. If (and I realize there is no basis for this) you assume a simple increment of one for each subject's ID, the events of Portal must take place quite a long time indeed after the Vortigaunt test subject. All together this indicates fairly strongly that Portal takes place closer to HL2 than HL1.

-- Jordan, 12:36 10/25/2007 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.107.45.222 (talk) 19:36, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

See, when it comes to Portal's own place in HL time line, it gets more complicated like so. (It was easier to pinpoint the facilities date.) The reason I say this is because one simple thing: Combine didn't poses portal technology. And subject 42 looked like a chicken to me; someone get that picture =p. Though... One could say, Combine's assimilation of technology derived from Aperture Science technology which would then answer all the same questions; except with a bit more sense to it. --DrunkCat 20:42, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Some more info to add.............

After you defeat the "boss" in portal, i noticed you get sucked up in the air and then you end up in an urban area with the pieces of the boss around you on fire. COuld you maybe have gone back in time to city 17? Also, while you do not have to add this to the article(I think the computer may be lying too)i overheard the computer say in the boss battle that the protagonist was "adapoted".--71.116.37.15 20:59, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

The car park has English language writing. By contrast, City 17 is filled with Cyrllic script (suggesting a Russian location), and since all cars have been abandoned surely there would be no point in a car park in City 17 at all? Falastur2 21:18, 20 October 2007 (UTC)


Aye, her being Adopted might be worth inputing if Wiki-commoners deem it ok to. Becuase GLaDOS did mention it in a "seperate" voice clip when she was trying to demorlize her (the first comments ran smoothly then at the end, the adoption one seems a bit cut off.)
For everything else though.. Yeah, there's absolutly nothing to go with other than the trees which implicate forest and the park lot with the entrance to indicate facility like Black Mesa. Assuming how Blue Shift ended however you could hazard a guess it's just that you teleported outside the complex. And given how advance Aperture Science got their portals to work, I doubt you can apply the same logic on them as the Rebel's portal(the one that slow-portal'd Alyx and Freeman for a week.) DrunkCat 14:07, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
Yeah.. AS portals seem to be the only true local teleportation so far in the series... the combine lack it completely, and the Rebels use a Xen slingshot 72.38.0.230 23:46, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Secret Rooms - Where Are They?

The article mentions secret rooms, but neither explains where they are, and does not link to any website that does explain. This seems to be an oversight that could stand to be corrected Hi There 02:23, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Secrets and guides can be mentioned, but how and where to find them are the realm of game guides, which WP is not. --MASEM 02:27, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
Yes but a link to a place that has the how and where would seem to be called for. Hi There 02:31, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
The "Secret rooms" mentioned are probably the ones where all the "THE CAKE IS A LIE", "HELP" text, pictures and taken down security cameras are. Chandlertalk 02:37, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
Yes. "Secret rooms" is really a misnomer; the player is intended to find them. Where they are located is game guide/walkthrough material, not suitable for an encyclopedia entry. I'll adjust the wording. Xihr 02:42, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
Okay, I see what it is now. Sorry for the misunderstanding, I thought the secret rooms were something along the lines of Easter Eggs, and not a regular part of the game that was used to insert a kind of backstory into it. Hi There 03:07, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
Yes, the language wasn't clear. They're not areas you have to go through to complete the game -- at least the ones early on -- but they're hard to completely miss (I missed the first one on my first play through). But they're definitely nothing like Easter eggs or true "secret" areas as is meant by the usual use of the term applied to gaming. Xihr 09:01, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

CS mod?

A friend mentioned a Portal mod for Counter Strike is in the works. Is this thing done by Valve or fans, and is this true? If so and can be referenced with a credible source it should be mentioned in the article. Cheers, Rothery 05:08, 22 October 2007 (UTC).

If there is a mod in the making, Valve won't be the ones making it. They don't mod their own stuff, just make it moddable for the community. Plus it would cut into their planned sequel/follow-up, and it's pretty unlike a company to cut away their own profits by releasing free content like that. Falastur2 13:03, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
Technically, they've only released a few full games, while the rest are mods, or 'expansions,' upon the games they've already made. Half-life got blue shift, opposing force, and the early counter strike, hl2 engine spawned most of the rest... granted, there is a good deal of extra coding with each expansion, but they're still arguably "mods" for existing games. they just dont marked them as so. There are some third-party mods that are almost as good as the valve ones. oh, i should mention something about the topic starter, shouldnt i? lol. Well, if it's true that there is a portal css mod, i'd put it under a section of portal-inspired things, and call it something like "counter strike mod inspired by portal". NuVanDibe 06:01, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
Well kind of, yes, but Valve didn't make Blue Shift and OpForce themselves, they hired a third party, a tactic which I believe (though I could easily be wrong) that Valve have since abandoned. Counter-Strike on the other hand started out as a mod developed by fans, with no professional association to Valve at all, and became so popular and successful that Valve bought the rights to it (I think they also hired the makers of CS, just like they hired the makers of Narbacular Drop to make Portal). Falastur2 17:35, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Chell adopted

I took this out of the Plot Synopsis (although now it's been added back in by DrunkCat). The reason I did so is that its inclusion in the article suggests that it is "canon" in terms of backstory; in fact, (to me, at least) it sounded more like an insult by GLaDOS when things aren't going her way instead of hard backstory. Therefore, I'd suggest removing it again. —Daniel Vandersluis(talk) 20:42, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, it clarifies that GLaDOS is most likely lying about it, but we have no reason to assume it's is a lie though. Rehevkor 20:44, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
We also have no reason to assume that it's the truth... ;) To me, that statement was along the same lines as the "you have no friends" line. In any event, I've reworded that sentence a bit to make it more clear that no background information presented about Chell can necessarily be trusted. —Daniel Vandersluis(talk) 20:48, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
As GLaDOS is out only point of reference of Chell, we have to give her comments some weight. I don't see a problem with that as long as it's also clarified that she may be, and probably is, lying. Rehevkor 20:58, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
Since you made this, I guess I can explain myself a bit more clearly. Here's my reasoning as follows: At that specific moment when GLaDOS states that, she speaks it out of voice when compared to her rant about how worthless she is. Plus, we have to remember, it's still a computer attempting to insult you, and when it comes to insulting, computers aren't exactly great, they only have data and information that's stored in their memory to be able to insult you (reason why she even used employment status as a form of an insult). Meaning that Chell being adopted was inside a file and GLaDOS knowing the frailty of humans said it to further hurt her. Or I could be wrong, that's why I made sure to leave it open ended. But again, not to the point where plot synopsis starts lacking. =p I like the rewording by the way. (Y) --DrunkCat 20:50, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
I think that's a bit of a stretch, in terms of the provided information. First of all, GLaDOS is clearly an artificial intelligence, so I don't think it is incapable of coming up with its own ideas. Secondly, I don't think it was ever told/programmed to use toxic neural gas on the Aperture Science staff ;). Thirdly, this is a character in a non-real universe, so real life constraints do need have to apply. Furthermore, we (as gamers) have no context as to the inner workings of GLaDOS, what it is capable of, or even what is truth and what is lie, in the context of the game. Anything that is not clear via the game (ex. stepping into one portal causes you to emerge from the other) or via Valve (ex. details on the aperturescience.com website) is speculation.
That being said, there is no way to know if Chell is in fact adopted or not, just that a non-trustworthy character in game stipulates that she is. —Daniel Vandersluis(talk) 21:00, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
GLaDOS was getting desperate and distorted near the end but you're right. Certainty is impossible, though I don't think I'm stretching it that much(GLaDOS = Insults = (t || f)Adoption). But now that you mention aperturescience.com, should the time line given in notes.exe be included in the article? --DrunkCat 21:15, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
The full timeline is too much (it's extraneous details of the game) - but I have included an abbreviated one in the ApSci section if only to establish a relative time frame to HL2. --MASEM 21:30, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
I think it's a little...naive...to apply our current understanding of computers and robotics to GLaDOS. There are numerous points where GLaDOS says things which clearly show that she doesn't "only have data and information that's stored in their memory to be able to insult you" - mainly she says things which are clearly lies on several occasions, and even at points tells you that she was lying earlier - clearly she has the ability to make up arguments. She also twists the truth - for instance the running adage that you will be given cake, which she changes to "you will be baked, and then there will be cake" at the end of the test levels. She also uses things such as reverse psychology on you, and repeatedly tells you that "you're going the wrong way" or "you should have turned left" etc in the latter half of the game, and all of her quotes are quite clearly (to me, anyhow) designed to give the player the underlying idea that she is both untrustworthy and fearful of you finding her. Given the evidence, I'd say that she lies freely, and that the adoption comment was, as has been suggested, merely meant to aggravate or dishearten you. Finally, I thought I should comment that I think (though I can't recall where) that there is a Wikipedia guideline that recommends not adding information if we can't be certain of it - that's why there is such an emphasis on citations, after all. Falastur2 23:32, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Wow, people. What horrible events in your life caused you to have stunted sense of humor? Its just a joke, meant for us, the players. If your best friend/sibling told you in a light-hearted argument that you were adopted, would you assume they had some obscure knowledge that you weren't privy to?63.84.192.253 13:45, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Heh, this did grew a bit more than I even thought possible. And since everyone is being so grilling on that quote I said I guess I should admit it was from the Steam forums so it was out of context. The context wasn't that GLaDOS is incabale of fabrication (you realize this the first time she lies plainly ["We will stop enhancing the truth".]) but that when it comes to what she was spouting off that one point, could've as easily also been a file she was reading off of. And as for horrible event, my cats ate my Cake when I was five. =( --DrunkCat 17:21, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

My friend told me that Chell was the daughter of a test subject. In some of the first test chambers, GLaDOS makes reference to two test subject names and they have the same last name. Later on she mentions Take Your Daughter to Work Day, I think... Robin Chen 04:40, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Your friend's guessing, like everybody else in this section. GLaDOS mentions all these things, but isn't proof of anything. Valve's games are obscure enough on their own; don't add to it by speculating. Xihr 05:29, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
Glados isn't giving any names. Her exact words are, "Unbelievable. You, [Subject Name: Give], must be the pride of [Subject Hometown: Give]." The words in brackets are spoken at a much higher pitch and, when combined with the computerized voice patterns, is pretty hard to understand. Also, after acquiring the upgraded portal gun, GLADoS says "As part of an optional test protocol, we are pleased to present an amusing fact: The device is now more valuable than the organs and combined incomes of everyone in [Subject Hometown: Give]." These speeches can be listened to more carefully in steamapps\portal english.gcf\portal\sound\vo\aperture_ai\03_part1_success-1.wav and 07_part1_get_device_component-3.wav, respectively.
That's a bit harsh though. Chell being the daughter of one of the workers there is extremely plausible. Which added to the initializing of GLaDOS on "Bring your daughter to work day" would make it also plausible that the reason she is there was because of that. But like I said twice, it's "plausible" and isn't verified by a direct fact. Merely careful observation. So in the encyclopedia it doesn't go. (Unless you're using it as an example of the vagueness of the game.) But it does offer the most logical explanation. --DrunkCat 18:45, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
It's plausible. But it's also unknown. Speculation and original research are inappropriate for an encyclopedia entry. Xihr 19:15, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
So is redundancy. ;) --DrunkCat 19:58, 26 October 2007 (UTC) [Unless you wanted to clarify further my "So in the encyclopedia it doesn't go." statement." :p]

Cultural References?

Did anyone find any cultural references in this game? I could only find the spoof of Emily Dickinson's Because I could not stop for Death in the graffiti. It read:

"Because I could not stop for Death, He kindly stopped for me. The cube had food and maybe ammo. And immortality."

I don't know if that's enough to make a whole section but I was wondering if anyone has found anything else. Please be gentle, this is my first time posting.

--Ghettoburger 20:11, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

It certainly doesn't warrant its own sections, unless there are many cultural references and it is a crucial element of the story, which it surely doesn't seem to be. Furthermore, it borders on original research. Xihr 22:24, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
I don't think cultural references would have to be crucial to the story. After all, they're just references. This is an encyclopedia, not an analysis essay. Also, I agree that while some cultural references found would be iffy, the phrase, "Because I could not stop for Death, He kindly stopped for me." is an extremely famous line from a equally famous poem. Call it what you will, but there's a point where "original research" will begin to invalidate some fact. NuVanDibe 06:01, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
It is not remotely possible to include every fact about a subject in Wikipedia; in fact, that would completely miss the point of an encyclopedia. That a fact about an article's subject is true does not mean it's mandatory to be included. On the contrary, the point is to include the most relevant facts to give the reader a broad understanding of the subject. A single reference to a poem in griffiti is completely irrelevant to that understanding. Such facts could be relevant if the purpose of existence of the subject was to bring together multiple cultural references in a unique way, but that is not what Portal is at all. The graffiti that reads "The cake is a lie" is far more relevant than this throwaway cultural reference. Providing the reference without interpreting what it means in the context of the game would be irrelevant; providing that context without reliable, third-party resources would be original research. Xihr 06:10, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
Then perhaps you'll consider this fact: that poem was part of a much larger collection of graffiti which depicted a man (or woman)'s attachment to the Companion Cube and his/her subsequent descent into madness as they accepted the reality it had to be destroyed, and then finally destroyed it. "Because I could not stop for death," although a cultural reference, could also be used to point out how GLADoS treats the test subjects. NuVanDibe 16:13, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
You don't need to analyze that grafitti to realize how GLaDOS treats her test subjects. --DrunkCat 18:38, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Color of Portals

Throughout the web, wikipedia, and common dialog the portals are referred to as blue and orange. However, on commentary and within the game cache files, the portals are labeled blue and red. I think both should be mentioned in the article, but to what extent? Additionally, if you look at the red/orange portal, the core of it is red and fades to orange the further from the center you get. Maotx 13:51, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Are you sure about that? Becuase I can clearly remember that the commentary nodes always mentioned "Blue" and "Orange" portals. Ex. "We wanted the player to realize that both the Orange and Blue portals can act as an Exit and an Entrance". --DrunkCat 15:22, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
I was quite sure of it, but I will have to confirm the commentary when I get home later. The audio files are indeed labeled red and blue. Maotx 15:33, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
In what way are you suggesting to add the information? If you mean to simply say that the commentary differs from the game description, with the best of intentions, I'm not sure that it's worth adding, but if there is something that relevant to the colour which needs adding, then I'm all for it. For what it's worth, by the way, I've played through in commentary mode, and I don't recall any mention of the colour red either, but then I could easily have forgotten. Falastur2 17:16, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
Not that it's actually relevant, but if you play with the subtitles on, the game tells you about each portal opening sound - and calls them 'red' and 'blue'. - some random passer-by —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.209.233.147 (talk) 07:59, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
That is what I was thinking of! I had subtitles on while playing the commentary. Thanks. Maotx 23:13, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
I suggest changing all the orange descriptions of the color of the portal to the color red instead. No need to go overboard with it and discuss the huge confusion, but I believe the developers intended for it to be a red portal, as labeled in the audio files and subtitles and as identified by the inner color of the portal itself. Maotx 23:13, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
They quite possibly did mean that, but the portals according to the actual game are orange. At the end of the day, this is an article about the contents of the game, and while mentioning the orange/red confusion could perhaps be added as a bit of background info, we have to describe the game as it is, not as it was meant to be. Falastur2 23:23, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
Just as a side note, GLaDOS is labeled under "aperture_ai" in the GCF as well. Doesn't mean she's named, story/plot/game-wise Aperture_AI. --DrunkCat 18:08, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
No, but the naming serves as an accurate description. Maotx 23:13, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

85.2 FM

Most of the world's FM radios will not tune to a frequency that low. In fact, the only country where it would be a valid FM station is Japan. 204.108.8.5 20:01, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Maybe that AS Facility was based in Japan. :D! Very good info. --DrunkCat 20:27, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
Or the FM radio band could work differently in the Half Life universe. Or they could have specially-built, Aperture Science radios that can tune 85.2. Or Valve could have just wanted to use a fake frequency, similar to "555" numbers in television shows and movies. In any event, it's all just speculation. :) —Daniel Vandersluis(talk) 19:25, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Flash verision of Portal

http://portal.wecreatestuff.com/ Here's a link to it. I thought that was pretty amazing/cool and since it can't be in the article (I think) I'm putting it here. --DrunkCat 22:21, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Split Aperture Science into separate article

Since Aperture Science has appeared in Half Life 2: Episode Two and no doubt will feature in Episode Three (based on ending of Episode Two, seems to be based on the Borealis) it is no longer really only specific to portal, thus would suggest separating into Aperture Science Inc. Thoughts? Stuskiv 18:09, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

We're already had it split; by itself it does not have enough notability to stand alone as its own article (all about Aperture Science is only in-universe information). If/when it appears in Ep three and more details about it are understood, it may warrant its own article, but again, we need to wait. --MASEM 18:14, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
Don't split it. As far as we know, Aperture Science was just a passing topic in Ep2. So for now, it's heavily dealt with in Portal. When Episode 3 comes out and they become shared then it'll probably be good to split. --DrunkCat 18:41, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
Don't split; Wikipedia has too many articles about non-notable bits of fiction. 75.23.152.145 —Preceding comment was added at 10:02, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

And quit adding links here at Aperture (disambiguation). "Aperture Science" is not ambiguous with "aperture", and is not notable enough to get a "see also" link there.--Srleffler 04:40, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Removed sections

Between me and some other editors today, the article got a big re-write. Most of the speculation and preview talk is gone. The entire Trailer and Aperture Science Website sections got deleted. If you think these need to be in there, add them in or talk about it here. Peace. Tyro 08:44, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

I doubt the trailer needs a section, or perhaps even a mention, but I think there is scope for the inclusion of the section about the website. I mean, the whole thing tied in well with the game, it was a pretty big publicity stunt (among gamers, anyway), and it was out of character for Valve, meaning it is unique, at least as far as Valve games go. I think including information about it would add to the article. Falastur2 15:10, 11 October 2007 (UTC)