ASBusinessMagnet wrote:
There is only one central artificial intelligence

I'd have to disagree with you there - GLaDOS and Wheatly aren't the same brain. The turrets can think on their own, and I doubt GLaDOS had to manually turn on the turret factory.

Nightgunner5 wrote:
ASBusinessMagnet wrote:

There is only one central artificial intelligence

I'd have to disagree with you there - GLaDOS and Wheatley aren't the same brain. The turrets can think on their own, and I doubt GLaDOS had to manually turn on the turret factory.

Again, Wheatley is a moron core, and sentient turrets are only experimental and not being able to do much, leaving only GLaDOS as a potential leader.

The turrets are only "sentient" in the sense that they're an AI. I don't think they are really connected or networked or anything with GLaDOS or any other Aperture AI's. Remember, they were a consumer and military product. They were designed to be stand-alone.

It's besides the point really. The automated facility maintenance systems do not have to be sentient to maintain the system. You only need real intelligence (which is not necessarily the same as sentience) to handle truly unforeseen events / catastrophic system failures.

Well, since apparently this thread has taken on a life of its own I rescind my earlier merge offer.

ASBusinessMagnet wrote:
Nightgunner5 wrote:

ASBusinessMagnet wrote:

There is only one central artificial intelligence

I'd have to disagree with you there - GLaDOS and Wheatley aren't the same brain. The turrets can think on their own, and I doubt GLaDOS had to manually turn on the turret factory.

Again, Wheatley is a moron core, and sentient turrets are only experimental and not being able to do much, leaving only GLaDOS as a potential leader.

Even if he's a "moron core" he is still AI. What I think PLayer1 means is that there is plenty of non-GLaDOS AI lying around Aperture Science.

There is a point in the game (2) where you are told all systems can run on 1.1 volts. Not hard to obtain/sustain. Potatoes for example...

I saw a timeline where someone appropriated that portal 2 is actually 27 years (9999 days) after portal 1, explaining the plants (all fast growing) and the fact that all the paper/chairs/wood/metal hasn't rotted to kingdom come yet.

Also, i think that "I'm different" turret was being manufactured as they jumped caroline's brain into Glados, thus recieving an imprint/echo of it?

Welsh Mullet wrote:
Also, i think that "I'm different" turret was being manufactured as they jumped caroline's brain into Glados, thus recieving an imprint/echo of it?

By this logic you could also assume that they at least attempted to 'jump' Cave, as there was a turret that made very Cave-like statments/quotes.

Have a nice day,
~Sidneys1

ITT: Huge leaps of logic.

I think everyone's missing the point here. I highly doubt Valve has thought so far into Portal that they had all of this planned out since Portal 1's inception. They're writers. It's their jobs to try to make the most sense out of a semi-developed plot. Portal 1 didn't offer much to go off of. 50,000 is a ridiculous and unrealistic number. Just accept it and try to analyze the story for what it's for. We all know that no company could develop a facility that could maintain itself for even 10 years in the 90's. Besides the year Portal 2 take's place has changed over development. When it was announced in Game Informer it stated that it had been over 150 years since Portal 1, not 50,000.

The number I had always heard was in the hundreds, like 300 at most. Anybody who thinks Portal 2 is 50,000 years after Portal 1 is smoking some serious crack-cocaine.

msleeper wrote:
The number I had always heard was in the hundreds, like 300 at most. Anybody who thinks Portal 2 is 50,000 years after Portal 1 is smoking some serious crack-cocaine.

Reading comprehension ftl

raulness wrote:
When it was announced in Game Informer it stated that it had been over 150 years since Portal 1, not 50,000.

msleeper wrote:
Anybody who thinks Portal 2 is 50,000 years after Portal 1 is smoking some serious crack-cocaine.

Not sure what I failed to comprehend here.

msleeper wrote:
Not sure what I failed to comprehend here.

Player1 wrote:
Keighley, Geoff: "The Final Hours of Portal 2", chapter 8, page 4: "Portal 1 took place somewhere around the year 2010, between the events of Half-Life 1 and 2".

Same source, chapter 8, page 6: "One way to further differentiate Portal and Half-Life was to set the game far into the future --- at least 50,000 years."

Same source, chapter 8, page 6: "...Aperture circa 52,000 AD"

Wow. I wonder if they realize how long 50,000 years really is. Modern man has only been around for about 10,000 or so.

msleeper wrote:
Wow. I wonder if they realize how long 50,000 years really is. Modern man has only been around for about 10,000 or so.

There seems to be some confliction in official statements. I'm just going to assume it's just been a looong time for now.

It's already bad enough that they retconned... Chell, well her appearance. In P1 she looked like a state prisoner sold to Aperture: remember the line "you are not even a good person, good people don't end up here"? There's hoping that Chell from the potato fair was something else.

At this point I'm seriously doubting the idea that a field of wheat would stay so neat past 50,000 years in the future. On that note I doubt man (if still even around) would be planting wheat that far into the future.

And even if both those conditions are true, I'm pretty certain whatever poor farmer would have checked out a rusty, dilapidated shack in the middle of his field.