Talk:Tentacle (Half-Life)
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Video games. For more information, visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. | |
| Stub | This article has been rated as stub-Class on the assessment scale. | |
|
CVG To-do:
|
||
Contents |
[edit] Native to Xen?
Are the tentacles native to Xen? All the other lifeforms on Xen have some sort of camouflage or are dark colours, but these things stick out like a sore thumb! --Rusty2005 11:22, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
- Hi Rusty2005. Well, they are relatively common there. I think they're encountered in all three original HL episodes. Which is more than can be said for antlions, RE: our other discussion! ;) As regards their camouflage, the houndeyes are pretty luridly coloured as well. --Plumbago 12:46, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
- Yeah, can't really argue with that! Although I have a sneaking suspicion that the Antlions are not native to Xen, hence the thumping machines! --Rusty2005 13:56, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
- It is possible that antlions are in fact a native creature of xen. Their lack of presence in the original game does not necessarily indicate otherwise (especially since we dont know how large xen is and if certain wilflife are only native to certain regions of xen which gordon may not have ventured into. In fact, its quite possible they hitched a ride with the combine on their way to earth, which explains why the only thumpers (nova prospekt perimeter restricters) are combine technology, because they only needed to be built during the cobine empire's rule.--59.167.218.38 09:19, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Plumbago edits
Is anyone other than me disappointed with the newest edit done by Plumbago? The first paragraph now seems to state that it is in fact 3 individual tentacle creatures, and not the fact that there's a possibility that there's only a single creature, though it is mentioned later in the piece. I'm not sure, but this may confuse some users. He also removed the part about whether the Tentacle classifies as a Plant or an Animal, and that could easily be up for debate. There are a few good grammar parts that are fixed, so I don't believe this should completely roll back. Just parts of it should. And the part in which they state: "Typically several tentacles use the same pit, suggesting that they may be appendages of a larger organism, though no trace of this is observed in the game" is not factual. Directly after killing the first tentacle creatures in the Blast Pit, you travel down the hole the apendages were previously in, and there's a large, pod-shaped object with three severed parts sticking off of the top of it, which is later mentioned in the article. Perhaps we should also note that this pod is placed in an area with water in it, implying that it works similarily to a plant. Part of the article explaining how the tentacle attacks (The part which links to Gibbing) is also removed, despite this being true...The tentacle only completely takes in the first scientist, and every other entity is simply killed as the tentacle smashes around. This could possibly be due to the fact that the scientist part is a scripted event, and VALVE didn't want to figure out how to pull the player into the pit if you were caught. I'd also like to say that I'm confused as to how we should be adding a citation for the quote from the scientist and the end of the article, since both are experienced inside of the game. --BrokenTripod, Unregistered User.
- He did chop out a lot of content, and I'm not totally in love with it, but there was an awful lot of "speculation as fact" presented, along with a bunch of "many people think..." junk that just doesn't belong in an article (and still needs some paring, I agree about that scripted event, in every other case, these things don't try pulling anyone towards them, so its misleading as written). The main points are accurate, though, and it is more concise. ---Jackel 00:23, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
- He did make it pretty clear, and removed a lot of the "many people think..." thing, you're right. I guess it's fine as it is, although I'll fix one small mistake he made when he reworded it. --BrokenTripod, Unregistered User.
-
- Sorry for not bringing it to the talk page first. I started intending only to make a small change, but it was lunchtime, so I kept going.
-
- Regarding my changes, I did want to trim out some of the outright speculation, and I was unhappy with the grammar and generally poor use of English in the article. I trimmed the part about the scientist because I thought it was far too wordy about an event which really only needs a minor mention. Admittedly, I'm not entirely happy with the trim on this point. If you'd like to rewrite it, please do though. My main grumble is just with unnecessarily long sections on minor points (often with unknowable details). Usually the poor English comes with this territory (i.e. the more one writes, the more rope one gives oneself for hanging).
-
- As I'm on my soapbox, one final point I'd make is that often the worst speculation comes out of either a limitation of the game engine or laziness on the part of the designers. Just because something doesn't quite gel in the game doesn't mean we need a long paragraph on it (the discussion of the G-Man's immortality in his article is a good example of this). More information is sometimes less information.
-
- Anyway, thanks for your comments. And sorry, again, if I caused consternation. Cheers, --Plumbago 08:42, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
-
-
- Oh, wow, this Talk page is organized. Thanks. It's a very good rewrite, though you did take out quite a bit. It still makes sense, which is the best thing. I do believe I'll just leave it this way, since I usually get a bit too wordy when I write things, at times. --BrokenTripod, Unregistered User.
-
-
-
-
- I thought I'd better organise the page before it all became too complicated. : )
-
-
-
-
-
- Regarding the changes again, I don't think the article's wordiness was down to yourself or any single editor. It just seems to happen naturally with articles. Each addition, on its own, tends to make sense and expands the article, but after a while the piece, as a whole, tends to lose structure and become a bit confusing. It's actually not that big a deal, because when one then comes to trim it back, there's usually plenty of good stuff to choose from. The danger, of course, comes from hacking away other people's hard work without putting a note on the talk page - much as I did!
-
-
-
-
-
- Anyway, glad my changes haven't been too catastrophic. Cheers, --Plumbago 08:26, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
-
-
[edit] Synth
That Synth portion wasn't written very well, but it's a decent argument, as most animals don't have portions of them which look as if they're made of metallic parts. The body(Head?) portion of the Tentacle looks as if parts of it could be refined, possibly defining it as a Synth. Should this be mentioned? --BrokenTripod, Unregistered User.
[edit] Citation
Why does the "destroy the damn thing before it grows any larger" need a citation? It's in the game... --T-1 5 June 2006
- Plumbago removed this (I believe.) I mentioned this one before, actually. It wasn't changed. And I'm still wondering why: " one made even more so by the fact that players hear the loud banging and moaning of the creatures long before they come to face them." needs a citation. Or is it also refering to: " Many players find the initial encounter with the tentacles, along with the forced crawl or desperate sprints through its lair, one of the most unsettling and nerve-racking points of the game" ? Either way, I don't understand HOW we're supposed to get a citation of this. Do you want us to link to videos of kids looking nervous around this point in the game? I'd like to know exactly how it's supposed to be cited. --BrokenTripod, Unregistered User.
