Talk:Black Mesa (game mod)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Famicom style controller 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.
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the assessment scale.
Low This article is on a subject of Low priority within gaming for inclusion in Wikipedia 1.0.
VG To-do:
Articles for deletion This article was nominated for deletion on 12 March 2006. The result of the discussion was No Consensus (defaults to keep).


Contents

[edit] Forum hack attack

"On June 13, it was made known (though not widely) that the hacker(s) responsible either directly or indirectly damaged the forums beyond repair; the 3500+ accounts and most if not all of the forums' posts were lost."

I wonder if this is in retaliation for the one who leaked the source code being found out?

Isn't this the second time in as many months the forum's been hacked? Last time the forums were only down for a day or two, but this time it looks serious. --Tim1988 talk 15:38, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

To my knowledge it was just another attack. We get a lot of hits on the site so I'd suppose it's a good hacking target due to all the traffic (One of the hacking attempts redirected the site to warez pages and so on.) I was out of town when that particular incident occured, though, so I'm the one who knows the least about it! --RabidMonkey 18:04, 28 June 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Oh Dear

Sorry for changing the "crackers" to "hackers". I thought someone placed them there as a racial slur. Change them back if you'd like. Delta 00:52, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Eh, it's not that important--"hacker" is the recognized term for the general public, so even if the term "cracker" is technically more accurate, "hacker" is probably better for a general article like this. Good job. Viewer 01:21, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Percent Complete

The article states that the mod is 50% complete per a value given to a mod database by the game developers. However, the developers later stated officially on the forums that this value was not true, it was just put in as a place holder value. They replaced this value with the statement that the mod, if all goes well, will be released in 4th quarter 2006 or 1st quarter 2007. Unfortunatly, there is no record of the statement, as it was lost with the forum hacking. I am changing the article to reflect this, and if editors feel it should be deleted, sorry. Redgrassbridge 01:05, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

I just talked to the developers over skype, they said that that statement is entierly incorrect and asked me to remove that statement. Astroman

[edit] High Quality Picture

Could the uploader of the PC gamer review scan it again with a higher DPI? Cant read what it says!!!! Cybesystem 13:12, 31 July 2006 (UTC)


Just zoom in a bit.... 150% should do it. it's still blurry, but legible

[edit] Hack Threat?

"On Sept. 25 2006, a member of RVB called Dman123, said he would hack the site, as of late, the site is down, more info will come as more things happen." --most recent edit. Besides being written completely unencyclopedically, is this a big enough deal to mention in the article, or is just citing an empty threat from some random internet face? The site was down long before the 25th, for one thing. Also, to what does the author refer with the acronym "RVB"? I'm assuming it's not Red Vs. Blue... Anyway, until someone can indicate this isn't someone bragging about their friends' leet hax or something, I'm removing the edit.Redgrassbridge 10:40, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Playability

In the opening, the article reads "Black Mesa will be playable by anyone with legal copies of both Half-Life 2 and Counter-Strike: Source.". Does this mean you are required to have BOTH or either game?

The mod uses content from both games, and it would be illegal for this content to be distribuled free along with the mod's original content, so payed copies of both must be on the computer.Redgrassbridge 22:29, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

I was about to ask the same thing. For any HL2 mod I can think of (e.g. Garry's Mod, SMOD, etc.) the only game required is always HL2, never CS:S. So, I have a suspicion that this part of the article is invalid. However, I'm not confident enough to remove it. Tero 23:23, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Developers' word: This total conversion will not require Half-Life: Source installed on your system to play, only a legitimate and working version of Half-Life 2. [1]

No CS:S either, then. Just as I thought. Tero 17:22, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry for the inconvenience, the original article was right, after all. [2] I will restore the "CS:S" part. Tero 14:30, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Seriously? So those of us with only Orange Box will have to buy CS:S for this mod? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.105.29.174 (talk) 00:14, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Isn't CS:S free if you own HL2? I have it and I sure as hell wouldn't have paid for it as I hate CS 90.210.113.58 (talk) 17:20, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, if you originally bought HL2 from a store when it first came out, CS:S was packaged with it, so it might be that. —Yar Kramer (talk) 19:23, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Images

Various models, such as the marine, were scrapped and new ones created (the old models not meeting our new self-standards). - Black Mesa news

As you can see in their website's media page, there have been changes to the look of the mod throughout the time. Shouldn't we substitute some of the article's images for the most recent ones, or add the recent ones to the gallery? Also, since the marine model(s) was/were scrapped, what do you think of taking the PC Gamer image from the article, since it reflects old, replaced work in the game? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 87.196.99.164 (talk) 13:55, 28 December 2006 (UTC).

[edit] Xen

There's rumours going around on the internet that Xen has been scrapped due to the lack of media about it. Should this be mentioned?--80.47.60.26 18:49, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Xen has not been scrapped, it is being kept under wraps until the mod is released. Raminator 15:43, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

If they keep to the current trickle level of media releases, then Xen information will likely be made public only within the final week(s) prior to release. It is after all the portion of the game that could most benefit from the Source engine. Displacement maps and HDR in my opinion, will be the most noticable of these. The ablilty to create truly living environments will likely be of the greater challenge for the team, and consequently, the best kept secret. With the recent video release on ModDB[[3]], I think the wait will make release all the sweeter. Yue.san 09:55, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Remove and Refer?

With the results of last years deletion debate ending in a No Consensus, and seeing as VALVe's own development wiki is more appropriate place for this article, I propose replacing this article with a referal to either the Half Life 2 article, or the article at the VALVe-Dev Wiki [[4]]. I have put an item in the discussion of that site's Black Mesa (mod) article to use this (the superior) article in place of their own. If that is done, then holding another deletion debate may be in order. Objections, thoughts? Yue.san 10:16, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

As you recall, the reason for the mod being AFD'd in the first place was being "non-notable". At this point, having received official recognition from ModDB twice, as well as receiving a commendation from Valve themselves, I believe that Black Mesa currently has enough weight to stand on its own, for the time being. Viewer 21:12, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Viewer that with these awards and Valve's own "nod of approval" (so to speak) of the mod, it has some legs to stand on, for now. If things turn sour (hopefully not), then what you propose may be in order, but for now, let's just let it be and add information as it comes. Delta 21:27, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Needs moving

I'm planning to move this article to Black Mesa (mod) in a couple of days (as opposed to Black Mesa (game mod)). It doesn't need the 'game' part - mod is sufficient, no other mod articles are described as 'game mod', in normal speech almost no-one says 'game mod', and what other definition of 'mod' is there that this could be confused with? If anyone has any strong objections, post here and I'll consider any and all before making the move. —Vanderdecken∴ ∫ξφ 19:12, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:Bmspcguk2.jpg

Image:Bmspcguk2.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 08:29, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Release date? Price?

Do we still not have a release date for Black Mesa? Ever since my disappointment with Half-Life Source, I've been waiting patiently for this. And we still don't have even an idea for a release date? What about pricing? Will it be free to people with legal copies of HL2 or CSS, or will it cost something? —Preceding unsigned comment added by PowderedToastMan (talk • contribs) 08:14, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

I've been hearing that an estimated release date was leaked in the past couple of days. Can anyone confirm this? Cpt Hand Bannana 23:51, November 5, 2007 (EST)

Someone posted something on MODDB about that, but it got deleted not long after. I think it said something like Q3 2009, but its probably just BS. Cpl Shepherd 18:10, November 6, 2007 (EST)

On the steampowered.com forums I think some of the developers said they were hoping it wouldn't take them this long (2009), so chances are that BM will be released 2008. However, developers of other games and mods have proven to be too optimistic, so while their unofficial goal might be 2008, I wouldn't be surprised if it does slip to 2009 after all. --Pizzahut2 (talk) 19:23, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

At the moment we have no set release date, any published dates you see are false unless released by a developer. Usually this will be part of an official update, so you will know if its for real. Until then the release date is still "When it's done." And it will be free, as long as you have a copy of both HL2 and CS:S you will be able to download it for no extra charge.--Stormseeker (talk) 14:51, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Forum hacks

Does this article really need so much information on it? It's pretty irrelevant to the game itself, and it could be summed up with a sentence like "there were a number of times when the Black Mesa forums were hacked." Krang 11:35, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree, detailed security issues are not relevant to this article and should be summarised in one sentence or removed completely.--Matthew Hill 22:46, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
Agreed. All the security related issues have nothing to do with the mod itself. I'd like to see them removed, or if it must be, summarise. --Pizzahut2 (talk) 19:14, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Cancellations

The game has been, sadly, cancelled. I assume so, anyway, considering that the site has not been updated in a year. I say that we delete this. I grimace while typing this, as I hate deleting articles. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.112.146.121 (talk) 11:44, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

But there is news from 24 dec 2007. That is not "over a year". BillMasen (talk) 13:04, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
Site seems very much alive to me, The devblog seems to have plenty of activity, last post was.. 5 days ago? No "news" doesn't mean a game as been "cancelled". Rehevkor (talk) 13:28, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
Didn't know that there was a Devblog. Also, I Don't think that I said "Over a year". Besides, I forgot that 2008 just started. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.112.146.121 (talk) 11:15, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
"he site has not been updated in a year", ambiguous I guess :) BillMasen (talk) 12:20, 27 April 2008 (UTC)


[edit] Steam Distribution

The article says that the mod will be distributed by steam. This is incorrect, as no such thing has ever been stated, and due to the mod beeing free is beeing highly unlikely. I will remove it immediatly. Arcid (talk) 20:32, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Past or present tense

Hiya, a note from an uninvolved admin here: I see that there is an edit war about whether the mod should be referred to with "is" or "was". I have no opinion either way, but would like to see the edit-warring stop. I would also caution folks that if someone changes a tense, it may be something that you disagree with, but that doesn't mean it can be reverted as "vandalism". The word vandalism should only be used for blatant cases, such as page blanking or profanity. See WP:VANDAL. In terms of the tense issue, I recommend that you develop a consensus here at the talkpage, as to how the article should be handled. Preferably something that is a compromise which incorporates different views. See also Wikipedia:Dispute resolution. Once there is a clear talkpage consensus, then any "anti-consensus" changes that are made to the article, can be reverted with a pointer to the talkpage discussion. It will then be up to people that want to edit the article differently, to discuss and build a new consensus at talk, or to make changes to the article which keep it in a neutral state, which other editors are also happy with. --Elonka 14:31, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Fair enough. There was a post to the devblog on May 11. Therefore, the mod is not cancelled. Therefore, present tense is correct. --Geniac (talk) 17:49, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
Indeed. While it may not be vandalism, it is clearly disruption as they are adding blatantly wrong information. Rehevkor (talk) 18:06, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
Seriously, anyone who have visited the site more than once (wich one should have if you want to claim that you have correct information) would know that the mod is not cancelled. Arcid (talk) 20:06, 15 May 2008 (UTC)