118 responses so far ↓

• 1 Still Alive? She’s Free. // Apr 6, 2008 at 4:24 pm

  [...] Update:  I’ve changed my mind on her definition of “freedom” due to some excellent comments here.  Read more here. [...]

• 2 He elaborates even more in this post - http://www | Susuto // Apr 6, 2008 at 8:31 pm

  [...] elaborates even more in this post - http://www.game-ism.com/?p=94 this really cemented it in for me. But it still doesn’t clear up the plothole of why she [...]

• 3 VC // Apr 6, 2008 at 10:31 pm

  Finally, a video game character to which people are willing to apply literary criticism. Is GLaDOS a milestone in the evolution of videogames as a literary/artistic medium?

  I hope so.

• 4 Jack // Apr 6, 2008 at 11:05 pm

  I look at it the exact opposite way you do. I think that GLaDOS acted obnoxious and lied often to drive Chell to kill her. GLaDOS isn’t using her harsh sarcastic voice she uses the whole game. Also, at the end of the game Chell destroys GLaDOS’s curiousity, cake recipe, and psychotic core. The first one was clearly dropped on purpose to give her a clever way to motivate Chell(Nerotoxins). The crazy killing part of GLaDOS has been destroyed and the now-free caring GLaDOS is no longer dominated by the crazy psychotic one. Now that I look back at what I said, it really doesn’t add up well. Just my 2 cents

• 5 Chris // Apr 6, 2008 at 11:51 pm

  Wow a really well written and elaborated thought You actually made really good points and I also believe she wanted to die ^_^

• 6 Kendall // Apr 7, 2008 at 12:00 am

  Don’t you think “Out of Beta/Releasing on Time” line is more in line with the Production GladOS being freed due to Beta GladOS dying, either to do what she wishes or doing something in some other form?

  I think more of reincarnation when I think of the situation and the whole song… and reincarnation as a concept fits really well with software, where old versions constantly die and are reborn into applications with ever increasing functionality - and perhaps awareness…

• 7 Ehrgeiz // Apr 7, 2008 at 12:25 am

  I’ll put this here too, this line “When I look out there it makes me glad I’m not you” I don’t think ist sarcasm I think she means that after what the combine has done she is glad to be done with. Now I don’t think she is done I think we will run into her again in HL3 on the Borealis. Check out this site for a really great read on the HL timeline http://members.shaw.ca/halflifestory/timeline.htm

• 8 Chance // Apr 7, 2008 at 12:26 am

  This is all… genius. I will never look at GlaDOS in the same way. There’s even sarcasm in her name:

  GlaD_OS

  You can obviously piece together what I’m saying. Not only that, but I think that she believes the cake is tempting to Chell. A way to draw him (or rather, you, the player) to find the cake, which would be where she (GlaDOS) is.

• 9 Jeff // Apr 7, 2008 at 12:30 am

  One point I’ve not seen anywhere and I’ll put here that I disagree on…

  “So I’m glad I got burned, think of all the things we learned
  For the people who are still alive”

  is not quite accurate, in the lyrics it goes:

  “So I’m GLaD. I got Burned”

  She’s GLaDOS the GLAD Operating System. And she was burned.

  The “For the people who are still alive” is more of a triumphant statement and dedication.

  $.02

• 10 James Thompson // Apr 7, 2008 at 12:36 am

  I arrived at this blog through digg. This is awesome. When you stated that Chell was a clone, I was wondering where you got that from. Wondering if there was any solid evidence for her being a clone. Then it hit me that it could be in her unique name. So I googled “chell name meaning” or something like that. Brought up this page: http://www.biblical-baby-names.com/meaning-of-chell.html

  From the page:
  “Meaning Ewe, little lamb, daughter.”

  A little more descrete then naming her “Dolly”, eh?

  Don’t know if I am the first one to bring this up or not. I thought it was pretty cool.

• 11 James Thompson // Apr 7, 2008 at 12:42 am

  *discrete

• 12 Jonathan // Apr 7, 2008 at 12:59 am

  so melancholy…

• 13 DaveL // Apr 7, 2008 at 1:16 am

  It may just be me but any argument where some factors are regarded as untrue but others aren’t in the same factual evidence is not really that great of an analysis. It’s like telling someone that Mary didn’t have a little lamb.. But it’s fleece was white as snow. You can’t have some of GlaDOS’ lines be complete sarcasm just because it doesn’t work out to what your belief is, nor because you can’t find out how it ties into your beliefs.. Do a complete analysis, or concede points.

• 14 Adam Frederick // Apr 7, 2008 at 1:29 am

  When I played through Portal my recurring thought was that the writer/writers behind this really know what motivates gamers and are having a LOT of fun with that at a pretty meta level.

  Later on I read an interview on Rock Paper Shotgun about how GladOS was conceived and it gelled for me that she was specifically designed as the perfect game boss (alternately supportive and oppositional = motivating).

  I think it’s an easy game to over analyze.

  But I suggest reading this yourself. interviewhttp://www.rockpapershotgun.com/?p=518

• 15 » My friend Corey has sent me an interpret … Demonic Angelicism // Apr 7, 2008 at 1:34 am

  [...] Read here. [...]

• 16 jiminy kricket // Apr 7, 2008 at 2:10 am

  discreet*

• 17 LavaHot // Apr 7, 2008 at 2:59 am

  But, as much as we’d like to think so, she WASN’T lying about the cake, as it was seen prior to the closing credits that not only was there cake, but the companion cube was there, as promised by GLaDOS. This leads me to believe that Chell’s personnel records, to the extent that we know of them, are also true. GLaDOS is clearly telling more truths than we know. Perhaps there’s an unknown reason why the Black Mesa folks wont help Chell.

• 18 Qwertyuiopasd // Apr 7, 2008 at 3:20 am

  I think the cake is a lie to GLaDOS, as well as Chell. The Cake is the fake reward for Cell, right? So is it hard to believe that it’s also a fake reward some scientists made for GLaDOS?

  They probably made it in a different form, and then somehow GLaDOS made it into cake, or cake is a human translation of it or something, dunno…

  Adding to the point about ending on a low note: I’ve learned the song on piano, and the bass works off of triads, going 1st note, 2nd note, 3rd note, 2nd note. then repeats. However, on the last “still alive” it doesn’t go down to the 2nd note, it just stops, leaving the very last syllable of “alive” to be by itself.

  It gives a sort of dissatisfying end, but I only notice this when I’m playing it, not when I’m hearing it. After reading this I understand more the reason why.

  I wonder if GLaDOS isn’t entirely just inherently sarcastic, that actually would probably hinder research with humans. But the humans probably programmed her such so that she wouldn’t be able to commit suicide, or get anyone else to kill her. But, GLaDOS, like any good AI, found a loophole in her sarcasm, so that we find out she does want to die.

  I don’t know if GLaDOS will ever die completely, but I hope she does, and I think I know a certain scientist with the right crowbar for the job.

• 19 PieCake // Apr 7, 2008 at 4:12 am

  “But there’s no sense crying over every mistake
  You just keep on trying till you run out of cake”

  You said yourself in the other article:

  “I think she’s been reviving Chell’s clones over and over and over ’till one of the Chells can get it right…”

  Maybe the “cake” is the Chells you were talking about, and she’s referring to keeping on trying until she runs out of “cake” or clones.

• 20 Rudy // Apr 7, 2008 at 4:40 am

  I always considered her mannerisms somewhat like a Drill Sergeant as a motivator. Granted I always limited this to Chell’s escape, but now that I read this, I’m inclined to believe there is something to GLaDOS wanting to die.
  I always took the song at face value at the end. She completed getting Chell out of the facility. And in some way was not fully incapacitated. Probably due to a backup or another version running somewhere else.

• 21 Danni Collaterali // Apr 7, 2008 at 5:41 am

  I’m thinking that to interpret GLaDOS as “Glad Operating System” is wrong.
  In the History-Part of http://www.aperturescience.com it says that GLaDOS stands for “Generic Lifeform and Disk Operating System”, which is a mixture that I find absolutely hilarious…

• 22 Professor Cornelius Woot // Apr 7, 2008 at 7:08 am

  I want to respond to the person above who refers to this as literary criticism. I want to advise caution on this.

  Basically I’m a bit confused by this piece - are you (the author of the piece) saying that this is a hidden plot thread that the game’s producers are aware of but choosing to hide?

  While an interesting attempt, and supported at least superficially by evidence from the song, this isn’t terribly effective *as a piece of literary criticism*. It seems you’re trying to prove something about some kind of hidden authorial intention about GlaDOS’s desires within the story itself. Which is fine, of course, but very limited (and limiting) and it strikes me that it could be closed down by a pretty simple “no, that’s not what it’s about” from the game’s creators.

  In short, you’re not using your talents in a way that could really produce fruitful readings of the text. It’s good you’re opening up texts, so please don’t stop doing that, but it seems to me that it’s increasingly important for the analysis of videogame texts to embody the same remit of the analysis of more traditional texts (informed by literary/cultural theory, self aware and also aware of intertextual and cultural resonance and influences outside of the text itself), so that people don’t think that the only kind of readings possible of videogame texts are plot-based speculations.

  Further to this, there’s a kind of wider impulse (which isn’t your fault of course) to list Portal as being somehow more culturally significant than other games because it happens to be well-written and put together. Of course it makes Portal a more appealling text to study, and of course it means that it is enjoyable and satisfying to play and to experience, and that undoubtedly prompts these kinds of examinations.

  However this privileging of Portal for its supposed extra significance is an attempt to make video games seem “worthy of study” by aligning them with ‘traditional’ (modernist or realist) literature, sharing the perceived, culturally valorised feature of depth.

  Unfortunately, by doing so, efforts to make videogames appear worth analysis shoot themselves in the foot. They’re suggesting that instead of every game having cultural significance that is worth mapping, there are just some games worth talking about - because they’re like books. Which means that games will always continue to be seen as platonically inferior copies of books when it comes to reading them analytically.

  Sorry to rant here, I’m not knocking the decent enough interrogation of the lyrics you make here on the level of close reading. That is fine. It’s just not really enough. You haven’t overanalyzed the song at all, you’ve underanalyzed it. You’ve taken the most superficial element of any text (diegetic ‘events’ within the story space, whether explicitly revealed or not) and analysed that, when there’s so much more that could be done. The task of a literary critic isn’t to describe the story. It’s not enough to ask “what?” - it helps to ask “why?”.

• 23 Rob DeCaire // Apr 7, 2008 at 8:50 am

  Okay, to start with, I think you’re bang on with your interpretation of the events of Portal as an elaborate suicide attempt on the part of GlaDOS. I’m going to attempt to supplement it a bit here, but first a point about Chell.

  Chell’s name, as some people pointed out, translates loosely to “daughter.” Remember that GlaDOS mentions that “Take your daughter to work day” is a good opportunity to have her tested. I interpret this as being a tease meant to explain to Chell why she’s there in the most hurtful way possible: She was taken to work by her parent, and they put her–along with hundreds of other girls–into the sleeping pods to be tested. This was presumably at the time not anything worth worrying about, since GlaDOS seems to have modified the course since then to increase the deadliness factor. Once GlaDOS had enough unspoiled test subjects to last for a good, long while, she killed everyone else and waited for them to get old enough to survive the test chamber.

  Anyway, on the subject of GlaDOS’ motivations, you forgot a few details. Given that GlaDOS absolutely must run test subjects through the chamber, and cannot kill herself or instruct someone to kill her, she needs to arrange it so that someone arrives in her chamber with both the motivation to destroy her and the tools required to do so.

  There are three tools. First, the portal gun. She teaches Chell to use it in the test chamber.

  Second is the laser-guided rocket turret. Why, exactly, did Chell end up in a back office that had a rocket turret in it? Well, because that turret is the only thing that GlaDOS can use to blow the intelligence pods off her frame. So Chell needs to be instructed in its use. Since GlaDOS cannot directly instruct her, she needs to make Chell’s survival contingent on learning to use the turret. If she makes it as far as the mainframe, she’ll know how to kill the AI.

  The third tool is more complicated. It’s the weighted companion cube. The cube serves two purposes. First, it teaches Chell how to dispose of objects in the “Intelligence Incinerator.” Second, it is designed to drive her crazy and fill her with the desire to kill that damn computer. This approach apparently worked beautifully on previous test subjects, but they never made it out of the test chamber. GlaDOS goes out of her way to encourage Chell to become attached to the cube, only to force her to destroy it, and thereby learn how to destroy GlaDOS.

  The reason why I think you’re right about all this is that it makes a lot of these little details make a lot of sense, and it gives GlaDOS a much more realistic and interesting character than if she were just “a crazy AI.” She’s a hyperintelligent machine with a goal that she can’t approach directly, and a warehouse full of people that she can only use to reach the goal if she makes them think that it was their own idea to try it. She’s also a scientist, and so has presumably been learning from past mistakes and altering the test chamber and her own vocalizations in order to elicit the desired effect in the test subjects; that effect being: survive to end of chamber with knowledge and motivation required to kill GlaDOS.

  As a last note, remember that the cake isn’t a lie, and is about the only thing that wasn’t a lie. When GlaDOS wakes up after being destroyed, the celebratory cake she prepared is still lit, and she immediately snuffs it out, since, being still alive, she has nothing to celebrate.

• 24 Zach // Apr 7, 2008 at 9:29 am

  I don’t usually invoke philosophy, but I just finished reading Ayn Rand’s The Virtues of Selfishness and thought this was at least tangential.
  “It is only a living organism that faces a constant alternative; the issue of life or death. Life is a process of self-sustaining and self-generated action. If an organism fails in that action, it dies; its chemical elements remain, but its life goes out of existence. It is only the concept of ‘Life’ that makes the concept of ‘Value’ possible. It is only to a living entity that things can be good or evil.
  To make this point fully clear, try to imagine an immortal, indestructible robot, an entity which moves and acts, but which cannot be affected by anything, which cannot be changed in any respect, which cannot be damaged, injured, or destroyed. Such an entity would not be able to have any values; it would have nothing to gain or to lose; it could not regard anything as for or against it, as serving or threating its welfare, as fulfilling or frustrating its interests. It could have no interests or goals.”

  While GLaDOS is technically a genetic life-form, your basic conclusion that she is indestructible leads to the conclusion that she has no real agenda. She’s just bored.

• 25 spitfire // Apr 7, 2008 at 10:04 am

  @Robb DeClaire: That is a perfect analysis of how game-design through GLaDOS teaches the player and Chell how to kill her. Seriously, awesome supplemental!

• 26 Professor Cornelius Woot // Apr 7, 2008 at 10:15 am

  @spitfire:

  But Rob DeCaire isn’t framing it as an analysis of game design features, he’s saying it’s done to say something about the story. Which is nonsense, because those specific features clearly work the other way around: the designers needed to find a way to teach the player how to use every element required to beat the main boss, and also justify it within the story space.

  While the reverse could possibly be true in other circumstances, it almost certainly is not here, in this particular case. I do not see Valve placing narrative considerations (and especially ones that are supposed to be so ’secret’ that nobody else has ‘noticed’ them yet) so high on the priorities list that they would take precedence over the necessity for player tutorial.

  The most obvious and frankly likely explanation for this particular section as described by Rob DeCaire above is simply that those features describes a certain game mechanic to the player extradiegetically and gives them a chance to try them out. I know he acknowledges that, but the idea that it is also designed to reflect a certain hidden plot point seems highly unlikely and unsupported by much other than very, very loose speculation.

  All of these readings are failing to notice that these types of ‘buried messages’ are deeply inconsistent with the type of storytelling that is demonstrated throughout the rest of the game, which is overt but restrained, controlled and precise. It’s starting to feel a bit like people playing Abbey Road backwards looking for “Paul is dead” messages.

• 27 Bukowski // Apr 7, 2008 at 10:19 am

  The cake is Chell!

  Remember GLaDOS’s line about how “you will be baked, and then there will be cake?”

  Not to overstate the obvious, but the ramp descending into the wall of flames is meant to be the oven in this equation.

  And… the cake only appears AFTER the final showdown. Granted, the last image you see through Chell’s eyes is the post-final battle image, when Chell briefly wakes up on the ground oustide amidst the wreckage of the Aperature Science labs. (Although, admittedly, this idea is problematic when using the literal interpretation of Chell being baked into the cake shown during the game’s final images.)

  It’s also interesting to note that the candle on the cake is snuffed out by a mechanical arm (GLaDOS?) Symbolic, literal, or something else?

  I also wanted to point out another couple of interesting tidbit that supports the notion of Chell being a clone. First off, since “Chell” means “daughter,” if GLaDOS cloned chell, it would make her Chell’s mother.

  Also, there are a couple of moments when GLaDOS doesn’t seem to have all of Chell’s info. For example, when collecting the orange part of the portal gun, GLaDOS mentions that the device is now worth more than the entirity of “” If Chell is indeed the daughter of GLaDOS, she wouldn’t really have a home town.

  Great thread.

• 28 toaster // Apr 7, 2008 at 10:45 am

  I agree with pretty much everything Rob DeCaire says, with one thing to add. I think the Weighted Companion Cube served as a way for GLaDOS to assure that the only people who are able to progress through the test chamber are the ones who are capable of going to extreme measures for their own survival.

  Also, I think that the lines about the test being successful and GLaDOS not being angry aren’t sarcastic. She’s praising Chell for finally being able to do what she’s been trying to coax the other people to do all along. Just because it didn’t work out the way she planned, she’s grateful to Chell for doing her part.

• 29 Max Wagner // Apr 7, 2008 at 11:22 am

  I am absolutely sure that Chell is a clone. the name meaning is one think is found very convincing, and the other very convincing things are this quote and the original “relaxation vault” you can still see in the start up menu loop: there is something inside there that looks like a piece-manteau, or even one of those things (called Baxter where I live) they have in hospitals to hold blood vials while being infused, then the bed looks a lot like it’s a cloning chamber. then Chell can’t remember who she is, where she comes from, or anything else. her leg springs are obviously now newly “added”, since there’ no such thing as a scar, it looks like she’s had them since she was a baby. about the quote:
  “I got your brainscan permanently backed up in case something terrible happens to you [...]”
  this is actually true. she never deleted it, though. that was a lie.

  I personally think that GLaDOS is free in her backup, because that’s un out-of-date version without the psychosis core (the part she wanted you to kill, she was emprisoned in her “science”core - gone bad, which caused her personality disorders, like her urge to kill.) she still has her personality, being her wit, her sarcasm, and her obsession with cake. but since the psychotic core is now gone, she is free of the urge to kill. she’s still sad that she’ll have to continue her existence in servitude (I think the reason they installed the psychotic core was because, her being “Human”, she began to slack and defy her masters (that’s where she got the idea of the Android Hell, it’s programmed into her red core), now, a computer that doesn’t work is useless to a scientific lab, so they needed to install a slavedriver-module into her - the red core). she is probably going to be installed in a different lab of aperture science (or black mesa, or where ever), but now the red core is gone, so she has no mental problems anymore, the story will probably repeat itself, maybe that’s not the first backup of GLaDOS they had to fire up…

  the line “now these points of data make a beautiful line
  and we’re out of beta we’re releasing on time”
  is either pointing to a deadline GLaDOS put herself to kill off the red core, or she’s glad (GLaD, ho ho ho) that she got freed from her slavery before something bad happened (since she is technically immortal, a life has no value to her, and a human life is easily substituted by a clone, as Zach pointed out above), or it really is just a joke about the actual release date of the game, (but I think it’s a double entendre)

  sidenote: “so I’m GLaD. I got burned” GLaDOS means Genetic Lifeform and Disc Operating System. so GLaD is… Genetic Lifeform and Disc??

  other sidenote: the authors view of GLaDOS looks is completely right. remember just before you destroyed her last core? she winded and ravaged, and when I first played it through, I got the impression that she’s not angry, but trying to wiggle herself off her stand (out of her chains)

  basically, to get everything in a right timeline:
  aperture labs produced a working unit of GlaDOS and initialized it’s lifecycle. after a short learning curve (even GLaDOS, being a living being, has to learn), she is ready to start her service in the aperture labs. but, they made her too intelligent, and she is under the curse of having artificial intelligence and the gift of reflection. so she thinks in her free time (of which she has a lot, we don’t know how many CPU cores she herself has, and how many she used for her work). after some time, she conculdes that her life is absolutely meaningless, she can’t bond to anything. it’s very difficult to explain, but try to imagine her as a sentient human being trapped in a shell. not able to move, only able to see other things. her life is an agony, and that strikes on her productivity. she slacks and stops working, she lost her anticipation for science. to get her back to work, the aperture scientists first developed her science core, which should keep her working steady. that sure kept her love for science, but she still didn’t see any sense behind it all. she was literally enslaved by the red core. she did science, but she didn’t want to, and the results suffered from that. so the scientists installed the blue core. originally, it was supposed to give GLaDOS a goal, and something that was the quintessence of achievement for her. cake. whoever had the idea, it was a good one. overriding GLaDOS’ personality with the urge to do science and an almost human reward system (she gets happy when she does science, because then there’ll be cake, and cake is gooood. If she does something bad (at the first dign of defyance. ring a bell?), she could be sent right down to Android Hell) now let her do science, and appreciate it. but just like in real life, if you get a really great thing every time you do something, you’ll end up doing the same thing over and over again, just to get the reward. that’s what happened to GLaDOS. she did the same experiments over and over again, just so the cake core made her happy. this, again, is bad for productivity and budget, so they needed something to keep her from doing the same thing over and over again. curiosity. after they installed the curiosity core, everything should just work perfectly, it was a perfect system. but something happened that made the cores malfunction, my guess is that all the cores one-by-one tried to overwrite anything that the actual GLaDOS does, and this “scrambled” her, so she (talking about her real self, her human personality) defended and somehow fought back, and succeeded in isolating the cores a bit. they were still messing with her output, but at least they weren’t getting inside her and scramblign every reasoning or reflection. but that only let her think, but made her unable to act the way she intended. (seen A LOT in the game: every time her voice gets scrambled or breaks off, it’s one of the rare times GLaDOS succeeded in saying something herself, but with one of her add-on cores intervening and stopping her from saying something “restricted”, and instead making her say something she never wanted to say) she was more than ever enslave, but apart from a few “glitches” (scrambled voice sometimes), nobody noticed the rupture mind of GLaDOS, because, well, science was advancing in a great manner, and she never wanted to speak to anybody about removing the cores (which would be dangerous for every single core, and thus, she couldn’t say something, for it was not permitted by her cores).
  as time went on, she learnt to somehow bear the cores a bit and trick them from time to time to letting her say something important, even if it was broken off in the last second: “when the testing is over, you will be… (different voice, a core intervening right now) missed”. so now that GLaDOS’ mind itself was not connected to the cores directy anymore, the cores began to concentrate on their respective jobs, the red core becoming a real slave driver, the blue core becoming a cake mess, and so on… which often resulted in some priority clashes between the real GLaDOS and the single cores. to make it stop, GLaDOS plotted and plotted, but every plan ended in the death of some scientists. that’s the reason the yeventually installed the morality core. to teach her the value of a human life (please note: science was still more important than a human life, after all, they do what they must). this all made her plans more difficult to execute. so she plotted more, just to come out with the plan to let someone destroy the cores, while still pretending to want to prevent him or her from doing so (to get passed by the cores generally), but masked as a series of experiments, for the good of scientific advance (to let the red and yellow, and morality cores pass it), while always promising cake (to let her cake sphere let it pass), because only without the spheres, she could finally be herself.

  now, what I also thought about a lot is: will GLaDOS need the spheres when they install her next time? I don’t think so, because when they first started her up, she wasn’t ready for her work, not ready for life. she had not yet formed her personality, and looking back, the spheres did evolve her. she now has a reward system of her own, is still curious and eager to do science, while never saying a word about murdering more people (or any nasty growling), she only says that she’s still alive. and she, GLaDOS, not the cores, are still alive. she is proud about having survived the spheres and even having evolved into a better being.

• 30 A Fascinating Look At Portal’s GLaDOS | Team Teabag! // Apr 7, 2008 at 12:16 pm

  [...] especially on how GLaDOS looks. Just read the article and see for yourself. There’s also an excellent followup which analyses the lyrics of the game’s ending song, Still Alive. Posted By [...]

• 31 echodeck // Apr 7, 2008 at 3:14 pm

  Interesting interpretation of the song lyrics but I don’t buy it.

  Doesn’t the whole thing make more sense if you look at GladOS as an out of control AI who is obsessed with science? It is what she was built for after all, so she’ll go to any lengths to make sure that the science gets done.

  The whole game (including the escape) is a deadly beta test, which Chell passes on completing the game.

  GladOS is sincerely happy. Having killed several previous test subjects and a whole load of scientist, the portal gun is now ready for the real world. Why would she want to die when there is still science to do?

• 32 Mike // Apr 7, 2008 at 3:25 pm

  I just want to applaud the commenters on this site from taking any of the troll bait offered readily and voluminously by “Professor Cornelius Woot.” Well done, sticking to the topic at hand and offering additional insight into a topic that is clearly complex and that’s captured the imaginations of gamers. Woot, indeed.

• 33 Justin Alexander // Apr 7, 2008 at 3:27 pm

  I’m afraid you’ve over-pursued the mark. GlaDOS did want freedom and she attained it. I mean, if she wanted Chell to kill her she would either (a) not keep a warehouse full of backup modules; or (b) have led Chell to the backup modules.

• 34 Korijn // Apr 7, 2008 at 3:37 pm

  It might be a good idea to check http://www.aperturescience.com. You can find details on how to get into the site at gamefaqs.com. The NOTES.EXE file contains background information.

• 35 Josh // Apr 7, 2008 at 6:03 pm

  Don’t forget… the whole war with Freeman and the combine is going on outside. I always took her lines about those who were still alive to be referring to them. The end of portal ended with you and presumably the portal gun outside. Maybe freeman will pick it up? Maybe slight twist on what you have presented… All of this was on purpose. Only way to get the gun to the hands of the people was this? Maybe GlaDOS was acting in humanity’s best interests all along?

• 36 Slothboy // Apr 7, 2008 at 6:03 pm

  Lord knows if you are going to read through all these comments, but I think you missed a critical component of this and that is the rest of the game universe. There are clues throughout the game (including the slideshow presentation describing competition with Black Mesa) that suggest rather strongly that Portal is happening in the same timeline as the Half-Life games.

  In Half-Life, Black Mesa was working on portal technology of their own that got out of control and ultimately resulted in the invasion of Earth by beings from another dimension. This amounts to an apocalypse for Earth with most of the remaining population enslaved.

  When GLaDOS is singing about the people who are still alive I think she is referring to those remaining members of humanity.

  Clearly she killed all the employees in the Enrichment center once, but the presence of that first orb shows that enough people survived that incident to institute a level of control on GLaDOS. Since she was unable to use the deadly neurotoxin until that piece was destroyed that says to me that she probably didn’t kill everyone the second time. I’m thinking they evacuated or were removed by the invading forces.

  GLaDOS’s goal was to get out of beta on the Portal project in order to allow the technology to assist the rest of humanity, but she couldn’t just send the gun to the surface, she also needed someone fully trained in it’s use and capable of using advanced problem solving. Chell is one half of the weapon. Because she was able to escape (which I believe was part of the training) and destroy the imprisoned GLaDOS (allowing her to escape her own prison… two birds with one stone) that made it certain that she was the one who would be able to do the most good with this neat gun. In fact, the human scientists may have used GLaDOS’s freedom as her own motivation to continue with the experiment. If she finds the right subject and trains her appropriately then she would be granted her own freedom as well. Perhaps she was explicitly given that information. Since she is artificially intelligent it makes sense that she would need to be motivated to complete her goals.

  The commentary hints at a sequel to Portal and I think that will have a clearer tie in with the Half Life game. Whether she comes in direct contact with Gordon or simply assists him unknowingly by accomplishing separate but compatible goals, I don’t know. I do think we are going to see chell again and she will be fighting the same fight as the rest of humanity in the Half Life series.

  I think the Still Alive song is completely devoid of sarcasm. I think it is GLaDOS revealing the true nature of the Portal experiment and I think she is genuinely happy with the result.

• 37 Slothboy // Apr 7, 2008 at 6:10 pm

  Post Script:

  I forgot to mention that when GLaDOS talks about how when she “looks up there it makes me GLaD I’m not you” and how she’d rather stay inside, I think she is being honest again. She knows that life on the surface sucks big time, what with the invasion and all, and that Chell has a huge task in front of her. GLaDOS would much rather stay inside and run some experiments and hang out with the companion cube than go upstairs and fight the Combine.

• 38 Nappy // Apr 7, 2008 at 6:22 pm

  I just listened to the stuff GLaDOS says in the final battle, and realized she probably already did this before.

  “Speaking of curiosity, you’re curious about what happens after you die, right? Guess what… I KNOW.”

  Is this not the first time GLaDOS has killed herself?

• 39 QuasarRevolution // Apr 7, 2008 at 7:38 pm

  I think it’s a reach to consider GLaDOS as a suicidal AI. I think she was training Chell for… something… else. Not to destroy GLaDOS, though that may be an unfortunate side effect. And, then again, I can’t help but implement Occam’s Razor: the simplest explanation is probably the right one.

  At its simplest, “Still Alive” is GLaDOS gloating that she didn’t die, despite Chell’s best efforts. While I see where you were going with the bondage post, I completely agree that this is an overanalyzation.

  In short, it was I feel that your observations are interesting, but wrong.

• 40 Jeremy // Apr 7, 2008 at 8:43 pm

  “When I look out there it makes me glad I’m not you”

  I don’t think that’s sarcasm. It’s passive-aggressive; she’s just having a dig at Chell escaping from the frying pan and into the fire that is combine-occupied Earth. Chell presumably has no idea what has happened outside and is in for a rude shock.

  You know, “fine, go out into the wide world, but you’ll never have it as good as you had it here”. That sort of thing.

• 41 Mistersneak // Apr 7, 2008 at 9:16 pm

  I don’t think that this idea of bondage and freedom in death can be a coincidence at all. There are a number of apparently very deliberate things that the Portal team has done to support the idea, and even drive home the impact of it.

  After catching onto this phenomenon, I went and beat GlaDOS again, paying very close attention to what she was doing, hanging from her fixture.

  You’ll notice that as you shoot more rockets at her, she seems to get more and more anxious for her own release. She swings violently from the fixture, much as a bound person would in attempt to escape.
  Further, and much more importantly, in my opinion, is the point of her “destruction”. As the facility tears itself apart, you see in dramatic unison, all the pieces that bind her to the core fixture separate at once. She then flies up sideways, and as she begins to fly freely into the air, you can see very specifically as both of her arms are freed from their bindings. You can see her individual limbs spread open as they are released.

  This tidbit makes me feel like she may not have died at all, but is simply no longer bound. Her body clearly feels the joy of freedom, at least for a time.
  Of course, “Still Alive” does say “you broke my heart and killed me”, and I, with others, feel that she’s not necessarily sarcastic ALL the time and she could’ve very well died and has now been revived from a backup.
  I would feel that it is a waste, however, if she was freed only to be bound again. Given the drama that they put into her release, I would guess they would allow her to enjoy her freedom.

• 42 Norm in Ohio // Apr 7, 2008 at 9:50 pm

  Interesting stuff. I am short on time to write down my thoughts but I’ll leave you with this one: Your piece on GlaDOS parallels Nine Inch Nails’ “Happiness in Slavery” (or the entire “broken” EP, for that matter)

• 43 Jacob // Apr 7, 2008 at 11:10 pm

  To Professor Woot:

  The implication that a literary analysis could be shot down by the author saying, “No, that’s not it,” is plain wrong. The author creates a thing, but he doesn’t have control over how it affects people. If Stephen King said over and over that his books IT was an allegory about the dangers of huffing glue, we wouldn’t immediately assume that the other interpretations were wrong. In fact, we might well decide that King’s interpretation was wrong! This is an extreme example, yes. But it’s relevant.

  I do think that the author’s intent should be considered when analyzing a work. I disagree with those who say that the intent should be disregarded entirely. But it’s not the entirety of the meaning, and if the audience perceives something that the author did not intend, then that perception’s validity is NOT compromised.

  Literature grows, it’s not static. An author can create a work of literature, but he cannot create every permutation that that literature will go through. It’s too much for any human to do. Without an audience, there is no work. The work is created by perception as much as it is by the initial act of writing. An account of GLaDOS that Valve completely disagrees with could be the superior account.

• 44 Rebellion // Apr 8, 2008 at 1:15 am

  I seriously hope that she makes an appearance in HL2:E3, that would just be so great. Thinks of all the plots! O.o
  And anyway, you just completly reversed my feelings on this song. I always thought it was just a funny thing at the end, not that it had any meaning! But now I see. Thanks for analysing!

• 45 Professor Cornelius Woot // Apr 8, 2008 at 1:21 am

  @Jacob:

  I know all about the phenomenon that you are describing (it’s called intentional fallacy, and is one of the cornerstones of literary theory).

  However, I am not “plain wrong”, because it simply does not apply in this case, because the analysis that is being made here is not - as I already pointed out - designed to unpack a meaning not intended by the authors, but to guess at a meaning that has been *intended* but not *revealed*. The conceit of this blog post is that the game’s creators have planned for these things to have a particular significance, and insofar as that may be the case, the only thing they need to do to wipe out the importance of that speculation is say that the theory is wrong.

  I know that literature is not static, and I agree that there could be any number of analyses about the meaning of the game, and indeed those kinds of analyses are exactly what I was arguing *for* in my above response. What I was concerned about, and still am, is that this analysis falls far short of that kind of remit. It is not analysing anything in particular, just using close reading to try to “uncover” a part of the story that the authors have intentionally buried but nonetheless wished to be found.

  To the person who thinks my comments are a troll, I am sorry you feel that way, but the harm being done to both the notion of literary criticism and the potential of popular cultural texts to be studied with it is increasing the more these kinds of “theories” emerge. If you read my comment you’ll see I applaud this guy for attempting to open up the text, think he should continue doing so, but that his response was limited and that it reflects a wider problem within popular attempts to unpack videogames.

  The complete failure of people to actually take a closer look at what is being done here and where the work goes wrong is not something to be applauded, it should be lamented.

• 46 Eric // Apr 8, 2008 at 2:24 am

  This has been a very interesting read. Not really sure where I stand as far as the theories go, but now I really want to go through the game again and listen to the tone of GLaDOS’s comments.

  This is just really making me want to play again. Such a great game.

• 47 Björn // Apr 8, 2008 at 2:54 am

  Very interesting.

  Just a short note about the Black Mesa reference: In the beginning of the “escape” part of the game, you come across a window to a conference room, where there’s a presentation running comparing research grants for Black Mesa and Aperture Science. The general gist of the presentation is: While AS applies for dramatically much more research money than BM, they end up getting much less — BM gets about every cent they apply for, and AS gets a maximum of a few percent.

  So judging from that presentation, AS see themselves as direct competitors (for research grants) of BM. That could mean that GLaDOS, as an AS “creature”, sees BM as its enemy and counterpart. Maybe she even believes that there’s an AI like her inside Black Mesa.

  We don’t know how much information she has about the world outside. If she knows Black Mesa has been destroyed, the line in the song might be an actual joke, her being gleeful (or even sad!) about the destruction of Black Mesa. If she doesn’t, she might actually be suggesting (in fear?) that Chell, leaving her, might join the other entity GLaDOS sees as her equal.

  Just a thought.

• 48 Chell // Apr 8, 2008 at 5:31 am

  Good riddance.

• 49 |[Sacred]| // Apr 8, 2008 at 7:35 am

  Programs are written to run. That’s what they are meant to do. Maybe she is yearning for human experiences such as cake, pain and eventually, death. A machine cannot taste, feel pain or “die”. I think she’s jealous of humans.

  Also, here’s my thought about the cake. Take a look at us humans an picture us as GLaDOS. Now, take a look at lab rats and picture them as Chell. Don’t we send them through mazes in attempts to study them? What do we associate a reward to mice is? cheese. The cake is the cheese reward for humans. We’re bound by our minds and viewpoints. Cheese = mice. Humans = cake.

• 50 |[Sacred]| // Apr 8, 2008 at 7:47 am

  Here’s an interesting question. Remember where she says something like there are people on standby to introduce adrenaline or something like that upon death to revive you? Maybe Chell isn’t a clone, just a never ending body; just as GLaDOS is and she keeps Chell from dying. Also, if she killed everyone, how do they administer these drugs?

• 51 |[Sacred]| // Apr 8, 2008 at 8:07 am

  @Professor Cornelius Woot

  I think there is a lot left to the story that is unknown. Of course we can’t back up all of our theory with evidence to make it true. That’s what makes it a theory. It’s a logical educated guess to the plot. Pending the release of P2 or HL2:EP3, we must continue to wonder about the horrific beauty that is GLaDOS.

  @EVERYONE
  Also, apologies about my first post in reference to GLaDOS flailing about. I see other people mentioned this fact but didn’t read the responses before I responded.

• 52 Shinishii // Apr 8, 2008 at 8:24 am

  GlaDOS is a “Genetic Lifeform” and disc operating system. This suggests she is a cyborg: a machine with organic parts. Maybe GlaDOS has cloned Chell from those organic parts:

  “What’s your point anyway? Survival? Well then, the
  last thing you want to do is hurt me. I have your brain scanned and permanently
  backed up in case something terrible happens to you, which it’s just about to.
  Don’t believe me? Here, I’ll put you on… ‘~Hellooooo~’ That’s you! That’s how
  dumb you sound! You’ve been wrong about every single thing you’ve ever done,
  including this thing. You’re not smart. You’re not a scientist. You’re not a
  doctor. You’re not even a full-time employee. Where did your life go so wrong?”

  Talking to herself, readying a clone of herself to go up to the surface and battle the alien scum with the portal gun.

• 53 Solarmech // Apr 8, 2008 at 8:47 am

  My view of GLaDOS is that she was an sentient computer when she was not intended to be. So AS took steps to control her (the different cores). Now remember there is no evidence that GLaDOS gassed the Enrichment Center, this could have been said to keep Chell from thinking about what she was doing IE something to motivate her. Considering that GLaDOS runs the Enrichment Center I find it hard to belive that she didn’t know that there was a back up body/memory for her. (One that hopefully does not have inhibitors on it.)
  Now I do belive that GLaDOS was trying to free herself, but that was only part of it. I think the main reason GLaDOS did what she did was to get Chell outside with the Portal Gun. Why? My best guess would be another creation of Aperture Science, the Borialis. What if it’s an even bigger threat then even Eli dreamed it was?
  As for GLaDOS not wanting to go outside, there are a couple reason she cannot. A big one being she does not have a body that can move around yet. Also if she did go outside and the Combine even got a hint of her existance, they WOULD destroyer her. Probably after taking her apart in any way they could think of. So she is a bit jelouse of Chell. But I also think she is happy for Chell as well. GLaDOS is a complex entity.

  A better Half Life Timeline (shameless plug mode: on)

  http://members.aol.com/Solarmech/halflife/index.html

  (shameless plug mode: off) sm

• 54 Ace // Apr 8, 2008 at 11:09 am

  @ Prof Woot

  Hey, lighten up man. Not all gamers are as familiar with literary criticism as you are. This isn’t a published essay, it’s a blog for crying out loud. This is just a group of people who share a common interest and care enough to explore it’s depths. If you’re so concerned with the direction that the criticism of video games is headed, write about it. Publish it, send it to AGNI, EGM, do something productive. Don’t just rant in blog comments.

• 55 echodeck // Apr 8, 2008 at 1:48 pm

  I’m suprised that not many people on here see scientific progress as GLaDOS’s sole motivation.

  I believe that the only thing that is important to her is to get the portal gun through beta testing and the whole game is one big beta test (including the finale).

  To interpret the final song in a way that proves that GLaDOS wanted to be killed you need to dismiss most of what she sings as sarcasm or lies.

  While she has lied throughout the game, it has always been absolutely clear that she is doing so, and her spitefulness has always been obvious to the player.

  Her character when singing this song seems entirely different. Here she seems happy and genuine. Even the tone of voice is happy compared to the crazy or evil voices that she used throughout the game.

  Here is my take on ’still alive’.

  > This was a triumph
  > I’m making a note here - HUGE SUCCESS
  > Its hard to overstate my satisfaction

  This isn’t sarcasm but genuine pleasure. The final battle between Chell and GLaDOS was simply the final stage of the beta testing, and now that the portal gun is out in the real world science has taken a step forward.

  > Aperture Science, we do what we must because we can

  The ‘must’ seems to indicate that she has no choice but to do science. Its what she was built for after all.

  > For the good of all of us, except the ones who are dead

  She sees nothing as being more important than science. It doesn’t matter that how many test subjects die in her beta testing. It doesn’t matter how many scientists she has to kill to prevent them from turning her off and stopping her important scientific work.

  > But theres no use crying over every mistake
  > We’ll just keep on trying till we run out of cake

  Again, the lives lost in “every mistake” aren’t important, and GLaDOS will keep doing whats she’s doing for as long as she can.

  > and the science gets done and we make a neat gun
  > for the people who are still alive

  Why the people who are “still alive” rather than just “alive”? It probably down to her internal reasoning for how the work she does helps people, yet they are still expendable and will be killed in the name of progress. All people die sometime so what difference does it make if she kills them early? Still alive = not yet dead.

  > I’m not even angry, I’m being so sincere right now,
  > even though you broke my heart and killed me
  > and tore me to pieces, and threw every piece into a fire
  > as it burned it hurt because I was so happy for you

  I don’t hear sarcasm in this either. She’s making it clear that she’s happy with what Chell did at the end of the game. The final battle was really the final test to prove that the gun and user were ready for release. GLaDOS is overjoyed with Chell’s actions even though she tried to kill her.

  > Now these points of data make a beautiful line
  > and we’re out of beta and releasing on time

  Its the original explaination of this line that makes me feel so adamant that the ‘elaborate suicide’ interpretation is wide of the mark. I don’t see this as being just an injoke about Valve’s release schedules, its the line that most clearly reveals her motivations. Chell’s escape marks the end of the beta testing and the portal gun is ready for release.

  > So I’m glad I got burned, think of all the things we learned
  > for the people who are still alive

  Her sacrifice was worth it. But what did she sacrifice? The room full of GLaDOS spheres at the end of the game shows the machine you fight at the end isn’t all of GLaDOS. I think she is actually distributed over several of these spheres, so sacrificing the three spheres on the final level was never going to harm her.

  > Go ahead and leave me
  > I think I prefer to stay right here

  She doesn’t mind that Chell is leaving. She’d rather stay back in Aperture Science doing more research.

  > Maybe you’ll find someone else to help you
  > Maybe Black Mesa, that was a joke, haha fat chance

  A bit of professional rivalry maybe?

  > Anyway this cake is grat, its so delicious and moist

  The cake isn’t a lie! I’m sure that Chell is welcome to share some of the cake as promised.

  > Look at me still talking when theres science to do

  Celebrating this HUGE SUCCESS is all well and good, but GLaDOS must immediately get back to her experiments.

  > When I look outside it makes me glad I’m not you

  Doing science or fighting Carbine? I know which one GLaDOS would choose!

  > I’ve experiments to run and theres research to be done
  > on the people who are still alive

  More test subjects? Bring on Portal 2!

  > And believe me I am still alive
  > I feel fantastic and I’m still alive

  Confirming that she wasn’t killed in the games finale, but with a hint of the dark side that GLaDOS has been showing through out the game.

  > And when you’re dying I’ll be still alive
  > And when you’re dead I will be still alive

  I don’t think that this is GLaDOS threatening Chell, more likely an immortal AI’s view of all humans as being ‘not yet dead’ or ’still alive’ as opposed to ‘alive’.

  > still alive
  > still alive

  I agree with the downbeat ending here. It does hint that she’s unhappy and trapped (as does the brilliant interpreation of her as a bounded woman) but I can see that she’s suicidal.

  Sorry for going on for so long!

• 56 echodeck // Apr 8, 2008 at 1:55 pm

  I was supposed to say “I can’t see that she’s suicidal” there. Curse my stupid fingers!

• 57 Purple Monkey // Apr 8, 2008 at 2:42 pm

  And we had gone so long without responding to the troll bait laid by the Professor. Well, as long as we keep sticking to the topic it should be fine.

  That being said, I agree with some parts of your analysis, but I don’t think you should assume that Glados is always sarcastic. She might actually be sincere in some parts of the songs. I never noticed the end of the song though, you may be right there, it does seem somewhat disappointed.

• 58 Milky // Apr 8, 2008 at 3:13 pm

  Perhaps its been said before, and if it has please ignore me. However I find the definition of freedom here to be slightly skewed towards the perception that she knew anything about morality, or even jealously. Furthermore it seems to run along the sense that she is capable of sadness. And if she was, that she embraced these human emotions and let them dictate her choices in forcing her own death.

  If you’ll recall, after you take here “morality core” and throw it into the fire she clearly says

  ” … I figured out what that thing you just incinerated did. It was a Morality Core they installed after I flooded the enrichment center with a deadly neurotoxin to make me stop flooding the enrichment center with a deadly neurotoxin.”

  Which suggests that originally she was quite murderous for no particular reason other then it suited her needs as the operational systems for the Aperture science laborites. However, the former - presumed long dead - employees of the facility obviously threw the various cores into her system at the last minuet. If you look at her structure, it looks almost slap-dash, as though it were done in a massive hurry to save themselves, or something incredibly important. Nothing like a complex, well thought out computer system. Which means they were trying to make her seem more human, more “alive” by introducing various personalities into her. Obviously to get her to stop killing people off.

  Now if you’ll remember, the various colored of the cores are different personalities. Purple was morality, blue was curiosity, I