Talk:Aperture Science Personality Construct

	This is the talk page for Aperture Science Personality Construct. Click here to start a new topic.
	This page is reserved for discussion about the article itself, not for discussions about the subject. If you haven't yet, please read our Talk page policy for information and help on how to comment on talk pages.

Seperate articles?

I think we should create seperate articles for all of the spheres. I mean, we have articles for every test subject, which appeared on the excel sheet in the comic, but we don't have articles for the personaliy spheres, which appear in game and with which we can interact. Anyone agree?Tokoloshi 15:16, April 22, 2011 (UTC)

yeah I think we should do this and list all dialog ect. 

Krusher29 12:16, April 24, 2011 (UTC)krusher29

The anonymous Test Subjects need to be merged or something. As for the corrupt Cores, I think they should all remain on one page; all serving a single purpose, appearing in only two areas, both times all in the same place, not that much to be said about their individual personalities. As well as that, the Developer Commentary reveals the three of them were recycled from early ideas the devs had for six or so Cores that were to fulfill Wheatley's purpose during the game. Which is a great trivia point. SteveZombie 22:45, April 24, 2011 (UTC)

Party Escort Bot

Pull up Party Escort Bot, and please take a look at it through the only picture where it is actually visible (a panel from Portal 2: Lab Rat). What does it look like to you? I think it looks rather like a Personality Core; Wouldn't you agree?

Should we include it on this page?

Maxy Dawg 22:29, April 22, 2011 (UTC)

Renaming page to more accurate name?

Considering the fact that the announcer continuously refers to the Personality Cores as Personality Constructs, do you think we should rename the page into "Aperture Science Personality Construct"? Even Cave himself called it that.

McFlurryMax 15:01, April 24, 2011 (UTC)

Worth noting?

An interesting note is during the battle with Wheatley at the end of the game, when you place the Space Core onto Wheatley, the corruption imediately ascends to 50%. When the Adventure Core and Factual Core are placed the corruption only increases by a further 25% each. This means either Wheatley himself was corrupted by 25% or the Space Core was the most corrupted of the Cores placed on him.

Unless this is wrong, is it worth noting on the article or better left unmentioned? One-Winged Hawk 08:03, April 30, 2011 (UTC)I think It should be on there User:Upsilon92712:59, July 24, 2011

The Spotlight Core

What about the core with a broken flashlight hanging from the crane, illuminating the cores in the corrupt core bin? Should we mention it?

Core's Design

Does it seem rational that the core's have a specific design to them to have a direct affect when integraded into GLaDOS? For example, we are immediatly told that Wheatly was designed to slow her down with a consistant stream of bad ideas, thoughts and process's, but can this thought be applied to other cores?

For example, the Space core, whilst corrupt, is designed to keep a solid focus on space, which in theory would easily direct GLaDOS's attention by keeping her focused on the great void of the universe. The same sort of aspects can be applied to the fact core and the advent- sorry, 'Rick'. The fact core would be, like wheatly, to slow her down with incorrect and/or irrellivent data, whilst Rick would simply be an attempt to charm away her hostile nature.

Thoughts? Does this seem too ambiguous, or does this seem widely acceptable as an understanding? Drake3011 20:00, May 12, 2011 (UTC)

The Space core was obviously used during the initial testing of the Arial Faith Plates.

Theres this, and the obvious issue of Missing Astronauts, though i personally connect this to the Mantis Men Experiment 212.219.57.66 11:31, May 16, 2011 (UTC)

GLaDOS

Based on the events dialogue from Portal 2, it seems that one Personality Construct is in "control" of the mainframe, with subsequent additions intended to amend their personality. By this logic, GLaDOS is herself a Personality Construct in the same way Wheatley, the Space Sphere and Rick are - and, considering how she herself was created, are the Constructs actually created from uploaded personalities? Is that a point we could add? Kit 17:10, May 13, 2011 (UTC)

I was under the idea that GLaDOS herself was the main "core," with all other cores either being able to alter her in some way, or able to serve as a substitute in the event that she (for some reason) unable to perform her duties; my reasoning is that no other core is shaped like her (compare an entire core against her "face/head"), and that Wheatley has to stretch/puff himself out to be attached to where GLaDOS' face should be. As for the other cores and their creation, we don't have enough proof to say that they also contain formerly-human personalities, and aren't just simulated. Snyphurr 18:17, May 13, 2011 (UTC)

I have a good theory on that, one that involves why Wheatley got so defensive and agressive over the science project volcano.

I'll say this, and I think everyone will agree: Since GLaDOS (or at least her "head", so that doesn't include the testing euphoria and such) isn't the "highest" artificial intelligence made by Aperture and could easily be dethroned by Wheatley, GLaDOS and Wheatley are both Personality Constructs. ASBusinessMagnet 07:17, June 7, 2011 (UTC)

@Kit

What if GLaDOS was an "advanced" Core?

Oops. my sig. DarkusAlpha 05:24, June 14, 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, GLaDOS was the one who was supposed to run Aperture, and not, say, Wheatley, but if they really wanted to make her "special" among Aperture personality constructs why have the whole core transfer system in the first place? ASBusinessMagnet 05:30, June 14, 2011 (UTC)

You forgot the whole "Corruption" thing? DarkusAlpha

The Corrupt cores

What are the "create command" names for them? DarkusAlpha 05:27, June 14, 2011 (UTC)

Space Core

The Space Core can be seen orbiting Wheatley. This is astronomically improbable since the difference in mass and size between the two objects are negligible. This is not a binary star system since they do not move in such a pattern. --24.201.142.105 04:57, June 26, 2011 (UTC)

It's a video game who's primary gameplay mechanic snaps physics in half. - Halo-343 10:19, June 26, 2011 (UTC)

However, the laws of physics, such as momentum and conservation of mass, are properly applied. --24.201.142.105 01:13, June 27, 2011 (UTC)