Portal 2 Review

[ShoX]

Does it have load times as high as consoles on PC? If not, that should probably pointed out in the review. Loading times being the bane of source engine anyway, I'd still assume they'd be significantly lower on a state of the art PC compared to 512 MB RAM consoles.

 

[coldfrog]

While the puzzles may be easier, I think they far outdid themselves in world design (in comparison to the original of course). What they had the first time around was ingenious, but what they did to the place here is just fantastic. I'm not sure about you, but I found myself not actually doing anything for about half the time I played, just looked around at what was there. I'm only at the second act, but to me, that's where the whole world design has really shone. There are puzzles, but there's also a story going on here, and to me, that tale is what really captivated me with this game. Of course, Valve is known for their games telling a story without nailing it out in cut scenes and text, and in fact with little but the environment itself, and while it did reuse a couple concepts from the first (hidey holes with crazy talk anyone?) it still kept to its high standards and didn't over-use the game's ideas. Plus I just LOVE what's at the bottom.

 

[jovack22]

What load times? On PC the load times are maybe 10-15 seconds, and my computer is not even that good.

 

[Gigatoast]

How in the hell was this game less challenging?!

Ooohh, I bet it was the tutorial that did it. Try taking someone who's never played the game and drop them into one of the later test chambers, suddenly it's the hardest game on the planet. The tutorial was so well made that you likely didn't notice it was teaching you anything.

You can't take points off a score for the developers being good at doing their job.

 

[mountainfire]

You use the term 'indie' a lot when describing Portal.

Portal isn't an indie game nor a 'pseudo-indie' game. In fact it was made by one of the largest studios in the PC market.

Valve doesn't have a publisher, that's what an independent studio is. A studio, that is not dependent on a publisher.

I thought the first portal was made by a college kid, then Valve backed/bought him. I'm pretty sure portal wasn't a Valve idea, but they made it better.

I would call it an Indie game backed by a Big company that isn't a mega corp. But that's just me.

EDIT: "Portal is Valve's spiritual successor to the freeware game Narbacular Drop, the 2005 independent game released by students of the DigiPen Institute of Technology; the original Narbacular Drop team is now employed at Valve"

Valve developed this game, they have no publisher, making them independent and the game an independently developed game.

Valve self-publishes online, but they partner with EA for retail distribution. So they are an independent dev, but they aren't entirely independent in the publishing realm.

 

[Avaloner]

~snip~

Thank you for clearing that up, thinking about this way..yes it makes sense to say it has 3 acts, I was just confused as it seemed that the xbox was trimmed down and thus that there where a few chapters missing or something.

 

[SL33TBL1ND]

You use the term 'indie' a lot when describing Portal.

Portal isn't an indie game nor a 'pseudo-indie' game. In fact it was made by one of the largest studios in the PC market.

Valve doesn't have a publisher, that's what an independent studio is. A studio, that is not dependent on a publisher.

I thought the first portal was made by a college kid, then Valve backed/bought him. I'm pretty sure portal wasn't a Valve idea, but they made it better.

I would call it an Indie game backed by a Big company that isn't a mega corp. But that's just me.

EDIT: "Portal is Valve's spiritual successor to the freeware game Narbacular Drop, the 2005 independent game released by students of the DigiPen Institute of Technology; the original Narbacular Drop team is now employed at Valve"

Valve developed this game, they have no publisher, making them independent and the game an independently developed game.

Valve self-publishes online, but they partner with EA for retail distribution. So they are an independent dev, but they aren't entirely independent in the publishing realm.

Yeah I know, but they're basically indie.

 

[mountainfire]

Portal 2 was grander. Depending upon your point of view, that can be good or bad. There is full orchestration at points. Fantastic and epic spaces and animations. Bigger puzzles, more variables. This is not the quiet little game Portal was. Some people like that, and some people don't.

Myself? I thought it was bloody fantastic. The dialogue was witty, the visuals were stellar, and the storytelling is almost as good as Half-Life 2. It's the most polished game Valve has ever made. I hesitate to call it the BEST game, but it is definitely the most polished. While nothing has yet beat the ending of HL2: ep2 (in ANY game), there were some emotional moments there. This is a game I can't get out of my head.

On the other hand, replayability is somewhat limited right now. I haven't yet beat Co-op, but a puzzle is only hard the first time, so the only thing going for Portal 2 is replaying for the story and getting achievements you may have missed. This is somewhat a downer for me, because that means the $45 I spent for Portal 2 is worth less than the $50 I spent on ME2 (I've played through 3 times and counting). I wouldn't count Valve out, though. TF2's only critique at launch was the number of maps. Now look at it. So I'm hopeful.

In my opinion, this is bound to be the best first-person game this year. It's better than Crysis 2, anyways, and it's not like the next CoD will compete.

 

[Dustpan]

What is going on with the reviewers at Escapist now? Reviewing the console version of a PC centric game, again. Portal is a console port, so get over your loading time negativity or just play it on a PC.

First, DAII got 5 stars and little negativity. Now Portal 2 gets 4 stars.

Forgetting about the stars, I find it surprising at the negativity that the reviewer has given Portal 2. I am a huge fan of Portal 1, I've played it through countless times. One thing Value does well, is make the game entertaining while you are not playing.

I found Portal 2 one of the best sequels to any game. I disagree that the puzzles are easier, although I did finish Portal 2 the same day I started, I love puzzle solving, and Portal 2 does deliver big time.

The only reason I think people think the puzzles may be easier, is because of Portal 1, and knowing that the second 50% of the game the puzzles will get harder. So knowing that the puzzles will get harder makes you think that it is easier. In fact I think the puzzle solving in Portal 2 is a lot more entertaining.

All the characters are well thought out and funny. The story flows seamlessly from Portal 1 - 2 (I played Portal 1 through last week so it was fresh in my mind when Portal 2 launched). There are some places you just need to sit and listen to the sentry robots talking while they are on the production line. It is priceless.

The only thing that I am disappointed with in Portal 2 is the lack of a partner to start the co-op campaign. But that is my problem, not Valves.

 

[DTWolfwood]

finished the game and i could not agree more with Russ Pitts 4/5 score. Good but not as great as Portal

I think its the weaker puzzles. I guess concessions had to be made in the level design to accommodate the pad players

 

[thawk]

Now that i have finished the SP in just under 5 hours, time to comment on the game.

First off, like many others I'm gonna whine about the review being done on the x360. Why would you do that? This is primarily a PC game and as one the review should be about the PC version. The loading times for me were 5-8 seconds. Do the review of the best version and mention the drawbacks of the others at the end.

As to the difficulty, if you played through Portal and found it easy, you will find Portal 2 easy as well. Not because it was made too easy, but because you're already familiar with the old mechanics and the new mechanics are just as easy to pick up as was everything else in the first game. I don't think this would be nearly as easy if it weren't for my previous experience in Portal. Sure, I would like to have really some really challenging puzzles, but the days when games were made hard are behind us.

The bad things about this game are really just one minor complaint and one unavoidable thing you should be able to get past. Complaint - yes, the constant stream of disembodied voices can get a little boring after a few hours, even if what they are saying is usually funny. The other thing - it's a sequel. It's not unique anymore. The witty AI comments and the carefully constructed portal puzzles simply can't be as appealing as they were in the original game simply because it's already been done.

Both those complaints aside, it still is a great game.

 

[Gralian]

I... didn't get what the yelling of 'science!' and occasional high-pitched voice was about.

Anyway i'm sure it's a great 'memetic' game and everything with novel puzzles and memorable moments, but one problem i really have with portal - nay, puzzle games in general - is that the re-playability is non-existent. Once you find out the solution to each room, there's... not really much more to it. It might be novel to run through it once or twice, but there's really no gameplay involved beyond trying to solve the puzzle in each room. This coupled with the pitifully short campaign (around 6 hours, wasn't it? And even that is being generous according to some reports about the campaign's length) really makes this a hard sell. Almost a cash in, in some respects, as the original portal was short but the low cost (or free in some cases) made it worth the purchase, as you're not likely to pick it up again beyond the odd one or two times you want to show off to your mates or for a mini nostalgia trip through your favourite test chambers. The fact it was brief and lacked re-playability was offset by the low cost, which is clearly not the case here as we're expected to pay £35 ($50 for yanks?) for this product. To me, it's clearly trying to ride on the success of its predecessor by clever use of memetic phrases like "the cake is a lie" and in making GLaDOS herself a sort of 'meme'. It's like the world's most devious marketing ploy. DLC dressed up as a full retail package.

 

[Mister Linton]

Once again, I am confused by everyone's insitence that the PC version be reviewed. The difference in a launch day review would be what? Possibly different loading times? What the hell are you nitwits complaining about?

 

[jpoon]

The load times aren't that long at all really, on PC they're only about 6 or 7 seconds between levels and on PS3 they're only about 10 to 15 seconds. That's not long at all, I think the reviewer is blowing it a bit out of proportion.

I will agree that it does take you out of the game a bit but it really isn't that bad at all.

I will ad that I really think some of the puzzles in this game are damn genious and are a lot of fun! Well worth the price of admission to me.

 

[Rayansaki]

Judge a product by its weakest link, this case being the 360 version.

Then everyone would call The Orange Box a steaming pile of #$%& because of the PS3 version.

You should review the game on the platform it was made for, in this case the PC, or if you want the console version, review on the complete one, not the gimped one.

In this case I don't think it matters. He didn't mention anything about bugs, or controller issues, and everyone already knows that loading times are shorter on the PC than on consoles because you're reading off a 7200RPM hard drive rather than a DVD, so it makes little difference what system he used.

Speaking of those loading screens, though, I got the PC version and I'm still disappointed in the loading screens. Halo had seamless level pre-caching ten years ago, on a console, and here Valve is making games about the same length as Bioshock but with about five times as many pauses to load the next area, plus another one every time you die. It's pretty stupid, really.

But that was a generation ago when less stuff had to be loaded. Halo Reach has some 50+ second loads, and so does Halo 3. I think only KZ3 and U2 eliminated all load times this gen, but they were basically masked under cinematics.

The loads in Portal 2 are due to the age of the source engine, and the fact that Valve wanted every bit of the game playable. If they made some of the dialog in the beginning of the levels into cutscenes, they could hide the loadings, but it wouldn't be a Valve game anymore.

 

[Hunter15]

i wonder when Yatzee is going to review this cause he loved the first one and i expect him to hate this one

 

[TheEndlessSleep]

I must ask, why review the 360 version of the game when its a primarily PC version.

It's not primarily PC, its a multi-platform game so they can review whichever they feel like reviewing.

PS. It's not like it makes much of difference, its the same game on both platforms.

 

[Pariah164]

I don't get why people hate this game. Been playing since 2 AM and I love it. I don't think I'm even halfway through. I'm gonna go crash for now though. Must sleep.

I close my eyes and all I see are portals...

 

[beema]

Portal: single-handedly bastardizing the meaning of "science" for an entire generation. Did you really have to yell "science" after every time you said "science?" It was kind of funny the first time but then got really obnoxious.

 

[Danpascooch]

I know they're different people, and it's not affecting my decisions to play or buy the game.

All I said was that the Escapist as a whole is demonstrating time and time again that their reviews are not trustworthy, I don't see how anything you've posted conflicts with that statement.

Well, if that's the case, I appear to have missed your point by a country mile. I guess I'm just not seeing how this hints at the Escapist's reviews being untrust-worthy in any way, shape or form.

Well let's see, reviews are supposed to be an accurate evaluation of the quality of a game.

Average Dragon Age II Critic Score: 79
Escapist Dragon Age II Critic Score: 100

Average Portal II Critic Score: 94
Escapist Portal II Critic Score: 80

So either the Escapist reviews are untrustworthy, or everyone else is. Which seems more likely? I want a reviewer that gives me an accurate measure of a game's worth, and solid reasoning behind it, that's why I go with Game Informer. The mark of a good review source is that it deviates a bit from the average with good reasoning behind it, the mark of a bad review source is when it wildly leaps 15 to 20 percent in random directions, with conclusions that weren't supported by logic or examples anywhere in the review.

Russ Pitts said in his conclusion (the "bottom line"): "The levels just plain aren't as challenging" But nowhere in the actual review gives an example, or a reason he feels this way, hell, he doesn't even mention it at all it just slips in to the conclusion at the end like a 6th grader who doesn't know how to write the conclusion of an essay.

And don't even get me started on this excerpt:

"The levels may not seem as devious or as interesting[b/] (perhaps owing to familiarity with the underlying portal mechanic), but the puzzles and environments are sufficiently varied and interesting"

So the levels don't seem interesting, but the puzzles and environments are interesting? What the fuck?

I don't have anything personal against Russ Pitts, but the Escapist is spreading itself too thin, they already have Yahtzee for (sort of) reviews, they either need to hire someone solely for reviews, or just stick with Yahtzee, but this whole "cycle a staff member into a review every so often" just causes them to look unprofessional and schizophrenic in their opinions.