Talk:Narbacular Drop

Not Finished

should the release date and the plot be redone as the game was never finished and there was no boss fight? Diesal 11 (talk) 22:39, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Credits

The article states that everybody in the credits is now employed by Valve except the special thanks. I think what it means is that the top 6 (the dev team) are now employed by Valve. For instance, Josh Billadeau was a freelance musician for various Digipen games and is now (I believe) employed by Nintendo Software Technology.

i dont think that was why. i mean they also thanked garrysmod and this release was before they got hired Diesal 11 (talk) 22:39, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Link

The link to the EXE is broken.

Can someone PLEASE fix the link?Cousert (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 17:06, 19 April 2011 (UTC).

Final stage

I felt it was meaningful to add the info about the final stage because it might have confused some people. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.51.147.19 (talk) 01:05, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

It's not appropriate for Wikipedia when it's original research. Xihr 02:56, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Maybe something like "Although the player's goal is supposedly to defeat a demon, the game contains no boss fight, instead simply ending when the player enters the last room"? --DocumentN (talk) 23:24, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

IPA transcription

The IPA doesn't seem quite right. Is it really supposed to be pronounced nerbeckuler? From the spelling, I would have guessed nɑɹbækyəlɚ.

Furby100 11:33, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

I've now changed it as nobody voiced any objections.

Furby100 00:28, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Crate runs?

What Crate Runs have been recorded exactly? I can't find a single one using a search engine... is this true data? --67.41.46.194 18:31, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Not a shooter

I agree it's non-violent, but it's not a shooter. The character holds nothing in her hands, you click a mouse and the portal opens (you are seemingly calling upon the game environment mentally somehow). –xeno (talk) 22:01, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

I think that as long as discussions are on the table it is inappropriate to give the category the appearance of underpopulation by removing articles that could fit under the suggestions for compromise such as Category:Non-violent first-person game. As it stands now, who could take that compromise seriously? All of the games involve shooting and you've thus invalidated any strength to my compromise. Insofar as you have a vested interest in the outcome of the discussion, don't you think it might be more appropriate to wait until the CfD has ended? -Thibbs (talk) 22:47, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

You are placing things into categories they simply don't fit into. –xeno (talk) 22:48, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Maybe we should finish our discussion in CfD before making changes that alter that discussion. You are engaging in Disruptive and tendentious editing as you have here as well. Disruptive editing violates site policy. Please reconsider your actions. -Thibbs (talk) 21:37, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

This game is not a shooter. I don't appreciate your characterization of my edits: I am simply making the articles more accurate. Accuracy is the main goal of an encyclopedia. –xeno (talk) 22:02, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

I notice you hadn't edited this page once until a few days after I did. This looks suspiciously like the actions of an editor trying to manipulate the views of those engaged in a discussion you are heavily invested in. The other diff I provided is quite clearly just such a manipulation. To characterize these edits as part of a campaign for accuracy is highly suspect. I would strongly suggest that rather than engaging in such underhanded and behind-the-scenes edits you instead embrace transparency and engage in consensus-building discussion. -Thibbs (talk) 22:16, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

I edited the page after seeing it in the Category:Non-violent first person shooters. Knowing that this game is NOT at all a shooter, I removed the category. I have been participating in discussions with you, at length, and each time I present an argument proving that Portal is not entirely non-violent, you move the goalposts. It is you who are in the minority as two separate editors have removed the category from Portal, and you've re-added it twice, against consensus. It's WP:BRD, not WP:BRRRDR. –xeno (talk) 22:27, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Requiring reliable sources is not shifting the goalposts. The conflict we find ourselves in regarding Portal is your assertion that you just know it to be a certain way versus my citation to reliable sources indicating that it is another way. Making claims like "You are placing things into categories they simply don't fit into" is acceptable as long as you provide something to counter my sources however your word in the matter is insufficient. Now to be fair, I realize that you have at last managed to find one or two sources to support your theory without resorting to synthesis, however this does not mean that the viewpoint represented by the sources I have provided should be excluded from Wikipedia in favor of your POV.

Returning to the topic at hand, is it inconceivable for you to simply avoid making edits relating to the topic of discussion until after the discussion is complete? There would be absolutely no question of your integrity if you could simply wait until the CfD had ended. Assuming good faith despite evidence to the contrary, can't you see how your actions have a strong appearance of underhandedness? I doubt very much that an administrator reviewing your two edits that I've described as tendentious would consider them appropriate particularly in light of the fact that you are an administrator and should know better than this. Forget your personal investment and think of it tactically. Is this the sort of thing you want brought up before Arbcom? -Thibbs (talk) 22:45, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Enough with the idle threats and policy-wonkery. My edits made the articles more accurate and had descriptive edit summaries indicating exactly what was changed so they were in no way "underhanded". Discussion does not put a freeze on editing, nor should articles remain inaccurate because they are ongoing. I'm not trying to exclude your viewpoint, in fact I've encouraged you several times to write it into the article but your suggestion to have two categories "Violent first-person shooter" and "Non-violent first person shooter" on a single article simultaneously is laughable at best. I've no "personal investment" except a desire to see articles that accurately represent the subjects they seek to describe. –xeno (talk) 23:02, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Policy wonkery? I hardly think asking you to refrain from influencing third parties is inappropriate. I say your edits have been underhanded because the community discussing the relevant subject matter have not been informed of your changes. Don't you think your removal of nearly all references to Portal as a "first-person shooter" may have somehow influenced neutral editors' opinions of whether the category "Non-violent First-person shooters" fits the article? That edit was made, it is quite clear, in order to support your POV and it was not done in order to insure accuracy. To support my claim, I offer the fact that exactly 100 minutes prior to your edit removing references to "first person shooters" I had offered you six references stating that it was a "non-violent first-person shooter." If you were interested in increased accuracy you would not have made that edit. Anyway, you've unrepentantly ignored policy in favor of your POV from the very start so it should come as little surprise to me that you bristle at my bringing it up at the CfD, but I'm afraid I have no time for close-minded arguments designed solely to promote a particular POV to the exclusion of all others. I will not warn you again of what my claims will be should it come to Arbcom and I sincerely hope it doesn't. I apologize if you think I was threatening you. My intent was to help you consider what your actions might look like to a neutral third party. -Thibbs (talk) 23:23, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

By "all" I assume you mean "one" because there was only one reference (not counting the piped one which is still there, might I add) - which was completely out of place since the rest of the article did not characterize it as a first person shooter. My point of view is that the article should provide readers with accurate information. Telling a reader through categorization that the game is "non-violent" may cause them to decide to allow their young children to play the game, at which point they will witness violent deaths. Have we accurately described the game? No. Have we done a service to our readers? No. Where have I bristled? You can bring up any of my edits you please: I trust that people will see that my good-faith edits are making the articles more accurate. At the risk of being repetitive: by all means, write into the article the references that call the game non-violent, I may even write it myself if you don't. But it does not belong in the category as named. Category:First-person games with mild violence, perhaps. –xeno (talk) 23:39, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

• [1] I'll let it sit in this category for now even though it doesn't belong, since the CFD is coming to a close soon and if my new compromise is accepted then it'll fit in that cat. –xeno (talk) 14:14, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

• For the record the CfD was successfully completed today and Category non-violent first-person shooters was deleted by administrative decision of User:Good Olfactory. Compromises were discussed but ultimately it was the opinion of editors that the concept of violence was inherently subjective as applied to video games and that reliable sources (ESRB, etc) were insufficient to prove or disprove violence as these sources represented nothing more than the opinions of raters/reviewers, marketers, and members of the gaming community and opinions are incapable of objectivity despite reliable sourcing.
  • Personally I disagree that the requirement of objectivity should extend as far as the content of the reliable sources themselves and would have preferred some sort of equal face-time presentation of conflicting sources as I believe nearly all sources to be biased in some manner, however I will not seek any further action as my views are clearly in the minority. -Thibbs (talk) 13:51, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
    • I believe the closure hinged upon this sentence from WP:CLN: Unless it is self-evident and uncontroversial that something belongs in a category, it should not be put into a category, so his closure was firmly rooted in category guideline. The sources that discuss Portal's (relative) non-violence would still make a great addition to the article, but cannot help to prop up the category. –xeno (talk) 14:01, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

how about "First Person Puzzle Solving" game?

Regarding the categorization, how about "First Person Puzzle Solving" game or perhaps "First Person Maze" game? --TiagoTiago (talk) 13:54, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Date Discrepancy

The dates quoted here and on the portal wikipedia page as the release date for portal in the orange box differ. one is the 9th of oct. the other is the 10th. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.192.244.123 (talk) 23:14, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Narbacular Drop. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20100528035054/https://www.digipen.edu/?id=1170 to https://www.digipen.edu/?id=1170&proj=501

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: 18 January 2022).

• 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 II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 22:32, 16 February 2016 (UTC)