Jump to content

Talk:Half-Life (video game)

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Good articleHalf-Life (video game) has been listed as one of the Video games good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
April 1, 2008Good article nomineeListed

Requirements section is too important

[edit]

"Requirements" section is one of the most important sections of a videogame article in wikipedia. where the is it???!!! --190.231.47.181 (talk) 18:07, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep in mind that basic Wikipedia policy entails that articles are informative and encyclopedic in nature, and are not meant to be video game manuals for would-be players. Articles present information for a general, concise, terse taste of the subject. See Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Article guidelines for more info. GabeIglesia (talk) 21:56, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Other Half-Life expansion

[edit]

I noticed that there is no reference to another little known expansion to the Half-Life game. The smaller expansion is located with another game (Gunman Chronicles maybe), but I am not sure which for it has been years since I played it. The expansion basically consists of three missions. It starts off with Freeman talking to the G-Man in an office and the missions take place in a carnival setting, caves, and then some sort of shipping factory. If memory serves me correct, the purpose of those three missions was to either capture or set free three different crystals of some sort. Is there anyone that can verify this? I believe it came out around 2001-2002. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jayveran (talk • contribs) 23:29, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I had Gunman Chronicles (GC) back when I don't remember this. I recall once plasying something similar to what you describe but I believe it was just a fan mod. Even so, if there was a mod within GC I doubt it would be considered an official mod. Яehevkor ✉ 11:17, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That expansion is called Absolute Redemption. It was developed by Maverick software. It was included as a bonus game with "Half-Life: Counter-Strike" (The retain version of Counter-Strike). I personally think it would be OK to mention it somewhere on this page, whereas Gunman Chronicles would not belong here. However, Uplink should most definitely be mentioned, since it was developed by Valve. It is equivalent to Lost Coast. Peacebears (talk) 18:52, 5 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It is an unofficial mod, and seemingly not a notable one. Mentioning it seems unnecessary. IceWelder [✉] 19:05, 5 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Budget?

[edit]

Anyone know the game's budget? --82.170.113.123 (talk) 13:59, 7 March 2013 (UTC) No — Preceding unsigned comment added by Plumjet09 (talk • contribs) 21:26, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Release Date

[edit]

Seeing some conflicting information on the release date for Half-Life, based on the most recent edit by User:Merrick Simms. Steam has changed their listed release date listed from Nov 19th to Nov 8th. Some reviews list Nov 19th, however, some use Oct 31st (Including Metacritic and IGN, but I believe they may be calling it "published date"). Think we need to get this cleared up and stick a source specifically to the release date. -- ferret (talk) 12:09, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It's going to be difficult to cleared up this problem. I have an article about the 15 years of Half-Life on Lambda generation and two wikis. The Combine Overwiki and the Valve Developer Community's wiki. The release date is november 19 on this website and the two wiki :
http://lambdageneration.com/community/half-life/15-years-of-half-life/
https://developer.valvesoftware.com/wiki/Valve_Time
http://combineoverwiki.net/wiki/Half-Life
The archives about Steam are clear about thi but why they change in this case ? I guess the only way is to ask Valve about that.
Merrick Simms (talk) 14:27, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Important Firsts

[edit]

There are some important firsts in HL that aren't really mentioned. It was the first game to default to WASD + mouse (Quake and Quake II both defaulted to keyboard only control and arrow keys). There are rumors that they used WASD because those were the keys used by famous Quake gamer, Thresh.72.166.65.132 (talk) 02:05, 10 April 2014 (UTC)IB[reply]

Thanks! I can add that, but I'll need a source stating that before I do. That's a pretty big claim to make, and I don't want to do it if it's inaccurate. --Nicereddy (talk) 02:40, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry but it wasn't the first to use WASD + mouse, Delta Force released a few months earlier used WASD + mouse by default.109.156.82.172 (talk) 14:43, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Grammatic mistake?

[edit]

Shouldn't "it was too ambitious a project" be "it was too ambitious project"? Second row in second paragraph. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.253.141.38 (talk) 20:47, 7 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion about merging Half-Life: Source into Half-Life (video game)

[edit]

The Half-Life: Source was recreated last year. With the new additions, I still don't think there is enough distinct information to warrant its own article. It's lacking detail and content in all areas. Anything currently written there can be summarised in several sentences within this article. I am proposing content be merged again and Half Life: Source be redirected back to Half Life. The1337gamer (talk) 21:48, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • merge it's not even a remake, it's a port to a new engine. There's not enough difference for a separate article. Deunanknute (talk) 23:07, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge The game is nearly identical to the original release. The article has barely any content, and users are forced to read the Half-Life article if they want to know more about the game. Might as well merge the articles and keep all the information in the same place. Reach Out to the Truth 00:18, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge. Unless print sources pop up, the game's online sources predominantly discuss it in the context of the main game. The Black Mesa remake has much more coverage. I think there's consensus to go ahead with this. czar ⨹ 18:40, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Half-Life (video game). Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 10:28, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Half-Life (video game). Please take a moment to review my edit. You may add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it, if I keep adding bad data, but formatting bugs should be reported instead. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether, but should be used as a last resort. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 09:18, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Valve LLC / Valve Corporation / Valve

[edit]

Yo. I get where everyone's coming from. The company was called Valve LLC at the time. Sure.

Except... actually it kind of wasn't. Nobody called it Valve LLC - not even the company itself, in its logo, branding etc - even though it was its legal name. Wikipedia uses the widely accepted names for things; for example, Microsoft's legal name is Microsoft Corporation but every article calls it Microsoft. The same goes for Nintendo Co., Ltd., Sega Games Co., Ltd., Square Enix Holdings Co., Ltd., Capcom Co., Ltd...

It would be wrong to say that Jetpac was developed by Rare (the company was named Ultimate Play the Game at the time); its renaming was part of a drastic brand revamp for the company and the name used at the time was Ultimate Play the Game, not Rare. Whereas the difference in name between Valve LLC and Valve Corporation is purely legal and, for the purposes of normal use, irrelevant - everyone has always called the company Valve. Popcornduff (talk) 12:22, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I have to say that your example actually muddies the waters even more - Rare weren't called "Ultimate Play the Game" at the time, they were called Ashby Computers and Graphics - they only traded as Ultimate. So in your example it's reasonable to not use the actual trading name of a company when deciding who the developer is. Chaheel Riens (talk) 12:48, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't know that, bad example, thanks. But it doesn't change the point: we use the common name. Popcornduff (talk) 13:01, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It is far to says that the common name should be used, but due to the disambiguation of the device, a valve, the Valve Corporation article talk page dicded to use "Valve Corporation" instead of "Valve (company)", wherefore every article concerning it links to an unpipied "Valve Corporation", such as infoboxes and leads of their games, other articles mentioning it, or citations' "publisher" field, which, fairly, makes sense. The "Valve L.L.C." ("L.L.C." is a common form of writing ", LLC" from limited liability company, sometimes used in Washington State) title was then inserted to Valve's pre-2003 games to differentiate it from the disambiguated "Valve Corporation", as it was not the case back then.
I agree that we could pipe it every time to Valve, but "Valve Corporation" was commonly adopted on this encyclopedia for the first mention, to know which "Valve" is meant in the first place, and Valve may be used further on, such as it is seen on their games' articles as well as their own article. Saying, as long as the disambiguation and common usage of "Valve Corporation" presists as-is currently, we should keep Valve L.L.C. for infobox and lead, to introduce the "Valve" in question, then follow up with Valve through the article. If you would tend to change the disambiguation as a whole, please confront the according talk page. Lordtobi (✉) 13:31, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It seems to me that the name of the Valve Corporation article - with regards to concerns like disambiguation - is a separate issue from how we refer to the company in prose. Popcornduff (talk) 13:48, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I posted on the Valve talk page. Thanks for the heads-up. I guess the conversation should be happening there, not here. Popcornduff (talk) 14:03, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'm still proposing to use "Valve" in this article and others. I invite others to contribute their thoughts on the Valve Corporation talk page. Popcornduff (talk) 10:23, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 9 external links on Half-Life (video game). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:04, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sources

[edit]

Noclip documentary due next week

[edit]

Teaser vid but the full will be out Dec. 10. [10]. --Masem (t) 19:52, 5 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Needs info on the censored German version

[edit]

With immortal scientists, robot Marines, and shit (mostly shit). SNAAAAKE!! (talk) 20:55, 22 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Clarify "shit (mostly shit)". please. Also requires sources. Lordtobi (✉) 20:56, 22 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I got a Polygon one, and know why we know about it. [11] --Masem (t) 21:08, 22 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Polygon does qualify as shit indeed. Surprised anyone wouldn't know because it's one of the most infamous cases of FPS censorship, similar to the denazified Wolfenstein by Nintendo. SNAAAAKE!! (talk) 23:14, 22 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Lead summary needs to include the mention of derived games

[edit]

Notably CS. Also the expansions, too. --SNAAAAKE!! (talk) 08:53, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Also implement that list of sources above and delete the used ones. Especially if they can replace my Amazon links - and i couldn't even find anything regarding Half-Life: Platinum Pack anymore. SNAAAAKE!! (talk) 09:28, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Infobox needs programmers, artists, and so on

[edit]

With sources as normal credits (https://www.mobygames.com/game/windows/half-life/credits) aren't helpful. SNAAAAKE!! (talk) 17:12, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ive noticed something.

[edit]

Ive noticed, after reading the entire Legacy section, that there appears to be no sign of Scientist screaming memes cited here. Should I edit the article to document that part of the HL1 legacy? — Preceding unsigned comment added by SliceOfBread69 (talk • contribs) 17:17, 29 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Reviews

[edit]

207.229.139.154 (talk) 00:28, 26 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ https://archive.org/details/backstab-magazine-french-14/page/n35/mode/2up

Is the 25th anniversary update dropping support for macs running 10.13 or older important?

[edit]

I can personally attest to this (I know no original research), and there are social media posts about it, but I feel like it isn't important enough to be mentioned, and there arent really any super credible sources for this claim. Emulsification92 (talk) 01:34, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If, despite an abundance of coverage, no source cared to include this particular detail, it is likely not worth mentioning. IceWelder [✉] 07:55, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Addressing Dr. Gordon Freeman

[edit]

It's stated in the first game that Gordon Freeman graduated MIT with a Ph.D. in theoretical physics. I believe this means that he should be referred to as "Dr. Gordon Freeman" rather than simply Gordon Freeman, if not in every instance, then at least in the first instance of his name. However, I am unsure if this both makes total sense grammatically and fits the Wikipedia rules for edits. Unsightly Scientist (talk) 01:41, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Developers commentary

[edit]

Even if that's the developer publishing their own stuff, it is fully appropriate as a source, as long as we know that the person is the one that developed the game. We're not looking to boost notability here, that line is already drawn, so its not required to be secondary. And the additions were attributed to this person so that we're not making any assumptions. First party and SPS sources are absolutely allowed. — Masem (t) 00:47, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's a self-published WP:PRIMARY source and therefore of dubious use to Wikipedia. As a general rule I don't think we should add material that would make an article less likely to pass a FA review.
Additionally, as someone who watched this entire multi-hour series of videos a while ago, we could probably add hundreds or thousands of words to this article based on the fascinating stuff this guy says, and that makes me really uncomfortable — where do we draw the line?
Having said that, looking at previous discussions on game talks, there has been agreement to use similar primary sources in the past, so if there is a consensus to let this one pass then I'll respect that. Popcornfud (talk) 01:10, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Primary sources are not bad. They don't support notability, and pretty much cannot be used for BLP related issues as well as contentious statements. But in terms of stating influences that were incorporated into a game, assuming we can vouch for the identity, its 100% legit. As long as we don't overload the article with that (which , with only two sentences, that's not an issue) Masem (t) 01:12, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Multiple videogame articles here use YT videos by original developers as sources, for example Conker's Bad Fur Day, so these videos should definitely be acceptable enough to add back into this page. Condontdoit296 (talk) 01:17, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Half-Life_(video_game)&oldid=1254447378"