Does Portal even need a sequel?

[Anticitizen_Two]

I doesn't need a sequel, but I'm really glad they're making one. The original Legend of Zelda and Super Mario Bros. didn't need sequels, but I'm really glad they got them too.

 

[Glademaster_v1legacy]

If they can make the game longer and add more harder and creative puzzles then yes it is needed as those are all areas where the game fell down. It was too short the normal puzzles in the game were too easy and the advanced ones were just awkward versions of the other ones. Awkward does mean hard but they should be challenging hard. Also all the puzzles in the first game just repeated with very similar themes. After I got into the last 3 levels I thought I was done with the tutorial not with the game.

 

[Tharwen]

No, there is never a need for a sequel, but I think Valve can make it good, so it may well ultimately be a good thing that they release it.

I'm afraid they'll lose too much of the simplistic presentation of the first game though.

 

[Susurrus]

There's money in them Portals....

It should be: There's money in them thar Portals...

Anyway, imo, no. I'm willing to be proved wrong. But I thought that Portal was perfectly paced, absolutely brilliant, and very accessible (my non-gamer girlfriend played it from beginning to end and absolutely loved it). Plus the song was classic.

A sequel smacks of cashing in. If they can make that concept work, great, but if they mess it up, Portal will seem less awesome too (don't believe me - see the Matrix. Awesome movie, totally tainted by sequels). Call me conservative, but I'd prefer to see no sequel; leave something that needs no sequel the hell alone.

Incidentally, having an ending where all the threads are not tied up IS NOT the same as having an ending which NEEDS finishing.

 

[rokkolpo]

no. not at all. it worked perfect by itself.

i hope it won't be to long of a game. or else it will get boring very fast.

portal was good because it was short.

 

[nuba km]

portal was short because it was an experiment and it was a triumph valve made a not "huge success" it was hard to over state players satisfaction.
portal two looks like it builds on what portal need more complex puzzles more lies about cakes more galdos more humour more cheating test chambers by thinking with portals so I think yes it is necessary.

 

[NoblePhilistineFox]

I think that the sequal is going to ruin it, but it might try some new things that may be interesting and will make me want to play portal 1 again.

 

[Baldry]

THEY ARE GOING TO MAKE IT AND IT WILL BE AWESOME AND WE WILL GET MARRIED ON A MOUNTAIN AND YOU WON'T BE INVITED!

 

[Sporky111]

I think Portal was a masterpiece, but it was far too short and has way too much potential for it to be left untapped.

And by 'potential' I don't mean it's potential to make money. I mean that it's fun, but there is far, far more that can be done with it before sequels become unnecessary.

 

[Singularly Datarific]

Not really needing a sequel, but the E3 videos has me already saving up money nonetheless!

 

[Ithos]

Is it needed? Hell no, It's a beautifull story on it's own (and I do say I preferred before they changed the ending).

Do we still want it? YES!

 

[Del-Toro]

If they can make more money off a Portal Sequel, then they will make it. A business enterprise is not going to let a strong IP die because it "doesn't need a sequel", that's just bad business.

 

[The Grim Ace]

As much as I loved the original I do think a sequel is in order. Portal seemed like a preview in some ways due to how short it was, it was perfect in execution but it really was just a tease of what Valve had in store, aka Portal 2. I can't wait until it comes out and I really hope the rest of Apperture Science is as fun as it was the first time.

 

[WaywardHaymaker]

No, but neither did a lot of games. Portal 2 is looking pretty fun, though, so I won't be AS upset that it isn't Episode 3.

 

[BlumiereBleck]

I say no. But I have never played portal so I really can't say.

 

[katsabas]

Longer, funnier, more complex and more Glados? Why is there even a question to something like this? This is like asking, do you want more Jello? There is ALWAYS room for it. Even need a sequel. Pffft. Of course it does.

 

[kidigus]

Didn't Gabe say that Portal 2 is the greatest game Valve has made to date?

Pretty sure he said that in some interview.

Read the damn OP next time, I did NOT put P2's quality in question. It happens all the time. They make a good game, then they decide the best way to make money is to brutaly slaughter it with a barrage sequels.

 

[SoranMBane]

Portal didn't NEED a sequel per se, but that doesn't mean that the sequel won't end up being one of the best things that ever happened (And it looks like it will be, if only by introducing Wheatley to the world).

 

[Caliostro]

Strictly speaking, did it NEED it? No.

Will it be awesome anyways? Very likely.

 

[Caligulove]

At first I thought the same. I thought that the complex nature of the puzzles, yet easy to learn mechanics, along with the brilliant writing just made it perfect, had no need for improvement, besides maybe a few more levels.

When I saw the E3 Trailers for gameplay, though. I realized just how much more creative and complex and fun to play the portal puzzles could be. That and I had faith in how the story could take place, yet not suddenly become a full narrative. That's never Valve's case, anyway.

After all, when I first saw Star Wars as a kid, I was enamored and thought that even though I was excited for more, I didn't think it could be topped; but I remember watching EmpireSB with my Dad... and yea. Things thought of as masterpieces can be outdone- definitely