Portal 2 : some concerns (Not Trolling)

[gibboss28]

I love the original Portal, but I don't think Portal 2 is going to be as good.
In fact I think Portal 2 is going to turn out like Bio-Shock 2 being a mediocre cash in at best.
I don't think it can live up to the original. I'm afraid the humor will be forced and if it is funny it will start another annoying internet meme ("The cake is a lie" is fucking annoying and everyone knows it).

Another concern is about length of the game. Portal 1 was about a 2-4 hours long game which like Yahtzee said is a good length, it prevents it form outstaying its welcome. So How will making Portal longer be to its benefit?

I honestly want to know if others share my concerns. I brought my concerns up to a good friend and he struck me upside the head and told me to NEVER blaspheme against Portal again.

Edited for Spelling, I had just woken up when I first posted this, Sorry.

What are you basing these concerns on?

Ummmmm...... How Bio-Shock 2 turned out.

What does that have to do with how Portal 2 may turn out?

Both Bio-Shock 1 and Portal 1 are considered to be some of the greatest games of all time.
Both had great writing and redefined the FPS genre and neither game needed a sequel.
But Bio-Shock got a sequel and what was the first thing they added? Multiplayer.
Now what was one of the first thing announced for Portal 2?.......... Would anyone in the class like to answer?

Your concerns are based on the fact a different company made a meh sequel to a meh game.

Also, how did portal and Bioshock redefine the fps genre?

 

[OManoghue]

They've been working on the game for 4 years. I think it'll be okay, the thing that ruined BioShock 2 or even murdered Dragon Age 2 was short dev time.

 

[TilMorrow]

I don't see what people find so bad about Bioshock 2. I just finished it today and thought it had a great ending. But I'll admit some things were overdone...

Valve produces great sequels to great game just look at HL and HL2. Don't worry Portal 2 is probably going to turn out all right.

 

[Smooth Operator]

Only issue that could arise is the co-op, suppose to be a separate campaign, now I like to replay these things many times and while I'm sure I'll have a buddy to do it with once or twice I do need an alternative, like that decades old invention called bots that no game designer seems to be able to conjure up anymore, otherwise I will be left with a half broken game once people move on to new shinny stuff.

 

[Dexiro]

Another concern is about length of the game. Portal 1 was about a 2-4 hours long game which like Yahtzee said is a good length, it prevents it form outstaying its welcome. So How will making Portal longer be to its benefit?

I don't think this will be a problem at all. Portal 1 had incredibly simple mechanics, their were only so many challenges they could make with such a limited set.

With Portal 2 though we have like 8 or more new mechanics/obstacles (gel, tractor beams etc), those will increase the life of the game massively.

As for the humour; I imagine it being a little hit and miss compared to Portal 1 but I trust Valve will do a good enough job.

 

[Avatar Roku]

Only issue that could arise is the co-op, suppose to be a separate campaign, now I like to replay these things many times and while I'm sure I'll have a buddy to do it with once or twice I do need an alternative, like that decades old invention called bots that no game designer seems to be able to conjure up anymore, otherwise I will be left with a half broken game once people move on to new shinny stuff.

How would you add bots to a puzzle game without either a)making it way to easy or b)making it frustratingly difficult?

 

[SoranMBane]

Honestly, I'm not worried at all. Not even about the seeming emphasis on co-op, which would normally be a concern for me. Half of that probably has to do with the fact that I'm getting the PS3 version, which comes with Steam, meaning I'll be able to play it with my friend who'll be on a Mac. It also feels like something that actually deserves to be there rather than an arbitrary addition to pander to the multiplayer crowd. In other words, the co-op is there because Valve felt like it would be a neat thing to do, and I seriously doubt that they'd put any less effort into the single player for it, since that's what older fans are going to buying the game for.

 

[SovietSecrets]

No concerns from me. Why? Its Valve. They take their time to make sure their games are good. This is why I dislike sequels so much, not because I hate sequels, I hate the people that start getting pissy or worried about the sequel. Then when the game comes out, they ***** and moan even more most of the time or they are actually happy and understood that there were worried over nothing.

 

[Tharwen]

There are a couple of potential pitfalls:

1. The complexity. Portal was brilliant for its simple approach, and adding a more detailed art style and more puzzle mechanics may ruin this.

2. The length. It will be hard to keep making original puzzles for an entire 10-15 hour game. I just hope they don't end up sticking multiple puzzles together or repeating old ones with increasing difficulty like a lot of games seem to do.

 

[tzimize]

Consoles: Valve has already stated that the twitch gaming from the original will not be found anywhere. They say this is because gamers should not be disallowed to finish a game just because they are not fast enough with a mouse/gamepad, or something of the sort. This is just PR speak for: If we make the game as fast as the original only 5% if any of the console crowd will be able to finish it.

Thanks for providing me with a very ignorant statement. I needed to laugh. How many puzzles in portal we're exactly twitch reflex? I think maybe 2 >.> Thats not what a puzzle game should be anyway, it should be about using your head. Finally, 5%? Are you kidding me? Every gamer I know has played portal and they all played it on the 360, and I'm sure this is true for many, many more people on these forums alone. Stop puling figures out of your ass.

If you reread my post, and especially my answers with the link to the Valve-guy interview you might understand what I mean. In case you dont, I'll try to explain it better:

I'm not using 5% as an accurate number, I'm using it in the meaning: very few. I had thought that was obvious, but in case it was not...thats what I meant.

I'll have to be very careful now to not get into a console/PC war as that was not the intention of my post. A mouse is more accurate than a gamepad. Thats a fact. What you or I prefer to use does not matter.

When you fly through the air at some big speeds after a couple of portals, and try to aim a portal where you land, a lot of accuracy and timing is needed. The game might be fine, but there was some tough challenges (I.E. the extra missions/timed challenges). I liked those. At some point it will be close to impossible to pull off with a gamepad, but only quite hard to pull off with a mouse.

It does not take a genius to imagine why games, all games are easier. So that more people are able to play them. When more people can play them, more people buy them = more money. In some cases this is easily done with difficulty sliders. Enemies hit harder, etc. Changing the level design is not so easy to do with a difficulty slider. When Valve caters to a crowd that does not have the potential to be as accurate as another crowd (because of technical specifications, not skill) they have to design the levels around that.

This in turn makes the game less fun for me.

 

[Mr.Walrus]

I don't see this happening... If there's one thing Valve is known for, it's quality. If you're concerned that it won't reach the levels of entertainment that Portal 1 did, just take a look at Valve's history with sequels for their classic games. Half Life 1 was an absoloutely amazing videogame, winning dozens of awards and satisfying tens of thousands of players. Then what happens? They make Half Life 2, and somehow, it manages to be even better. It's obvious that Gabe has put some serious cash into Portal 2, judging by the amount of advertisement and media they're going for... I just don't see Valve going to such great lengths to advertise a game not worth playing. Keep in mind that worse sequels from the company, such as L4D2, didnt get half as much media as Portal 2 has, even when it's likely L4D1 hauled in a greater profit than P1.

Simply put, I think that judging by the past and the signs all around us, Portal 2 will not only live up to the original game's quality, but also surpass it.

 

[Laser Priest]

How about we play the game and then decide, eh?

But yeah, Yahtzee is not objectively right about everything like everyone seems to think he is. The humor will be written by the same people, who agree that the joke is overused. And they've added many puzzle elements and other things to add more time.

I don't see any reason why this would be any worse than the first game.

 

[Lilani]

I agree about the focus on co-op

however

1. Its valve they know what they are doing, ill give them the benefit of the doubt But ONLY because its valve

2. its portal

3. ITS VALVE

I find myself agreeing with you. Valve has proven themselves to be the Pixar of video games, and up to this point, they have not given us any reason to distrust them about the quality of their games.

So I guess in 58 hours and 20 minutes, we shall see :3

 

[Vault101]

I love the original Portal, but I don't think Portal 2 is going to be as good.
In fact I think Portal 2 is going to turn out like Bio-Shock 2 being a mediocre cash in at best.
I don't think it can live up to the original. I'm afraid the humor will be forced and if it is funny it will start another annoying internet meme ("The cake is a lie" is fucking annoying and everyone knows it).

Another concern is about length of the game. Portal 1 was about a 2-4 hours long game which like Yahtzee said is a good length, it prevents it form outstaying its welcome. So How will making Portal longer be to its benefit?

I honestly want to know if others share my concerns. I brought my concerns up to a good friend and he struck me upside the head and told me to NEVER blaspheme against Portal again.

Edited for Spelling, I had just woken up when I first posted this, Sorry.

If Im expected to pay $80 for it, it better be a damn decent length

and length dosnt niecicarly mean cashin or padding no theres plenty of room to expand portal, the first one was really an experiment anyway oh Im sorry but "because yahtzee said" is not a good way to judge games, if yahtzee said Portal was rubbish would you have played it?

They've been working on the game for 4 years. I think it'll be okay, the thing that ruined BioShock 2 or even murdered Dragon Age 2 was short dev time.

I didnt actually think bioshock 2 was bad...I guess what ever they did the seaquel was going to be rundundant anyway, and there was no way they could have lived up to the "omg wow!" factor of the first

so yeah htey did a good job I think

 

[Vault101]

Another concern is about length of the game. Portal 1 was about a 2-4 hours long game which like Yahtzee said is a good length, it prevents it form outstaying its welcome. So How will making Portal longer be to its benefit?

I agree with the risk of humor issues (and Portal 1 was probably the funniest game in a while if ever), but Portal 1 was only 1+1/2 hour long with only 1-3 puzzles that get people stuck. Many of us wished it was longer, so was not a "good length" and it barely had a stay to welcome. Games from Valve are usually 8 hours and the only game I feel has ever outstayed it's welcome by being good was Assassin's Creed 2 (and maybe Splinter Cell Conviction by appearing good and having enough replayability to make you realise it isn't really all that).

$80 is hardly worth 8 hours.....

 

[Gigatoast]

This is the type of topic people make when they haven't played the first game, or seen any of the new footage from the second game. Oh, and Bioshock doesn't have a hyphen in it.

 

[Baneat]

Another concern is about length of the game. Portal 1 was about a 2-4 hours long game which like Yahtzee said is a good length, it prevents it form outstaying its welcome. So How will making Portal longer be to its benefit?

I agree with the risk of humor issues (and Portal 1 was probably the funniest game in a while if ever), but Portal 1 was only 1+1/2 hour long with only 1-3 puzzles that get people stuck. Many of us wished it was longer, so was not a "good length" and it barely had a stay to welcome. Games from Valve are usually 8 hours and the only game I feel has ever outstayed it's welcome by being good was Assassin's Creed 2 (and maybe Splinter Cell Conviction by appearing good and having enough replayability to make you realise it isn't really all that).

$80 is hardly worth 8 hours.....

Where's the 80 dollar figure coming from? I've never seen a game close to that expensive.

 

[Vault101]

Another concern is about length of the game. Portal 1 was about a 2-4 hours long game which like Yahtzee said is a good length, it prevents it form outstaying its welcome. So How will making Portal longer be to its benefit?

I agree with the risk of humor issues (and Portal 1 was probably the funniest game in a while if ever), but Portal 1 was only 1+1/2 hour long with only 1-3 puzzles that get people stuck. Many of us wished it was longer, so was not a "good length" and it barely had a stay to welcome. Games from Valve are usually 8 hours and the only game I feel has ever outstayed it's welcome by being good was Assassin's Creed 2 (and maybe Splinter Cell Conviction by appearing good and having enough replayability to make you realise it isn't really all that).

$80 is hardly worth 8 hours.....

Where's the 80 dollar figure coming from? I've never seen a game close to that expensive.

welcome to Australia land of the crappy internet and expensive games

and $80 is being generous, generally a triple AAA console new relase can reach up to $120

anyway I think if a game can it should definetly be a decent length no matter how much Im paying for it, if its a stand alone release then 2-3 or 5 hours or even 8 hours is just unacceptable I might as well buy a movie

 

[Baneat]

Another concern is about length of the game. Portal 1 was about a 2-4 hours long game which like Yahtzee said is a good length, it prevents it form outstaying its welcome. So How will making Portal longer be to its benefit?

I agree with the risk of humor issues (and Portal 1 was probably the funniest game in a while if ever), but Portal 1 was only 1+1/2 hour long with only 1-3 puzzles that get people stuck. Many of us wished it was longer, so was not a "good length" and it barely had a stay to welcome. Games from Valve are usually 8 hours and the only game I feel has ever outstayed it's welcome by being good was Assassin's Creed 2 (and maybe Splinter Cell Conviction by appearing good and having enough replayability to make you realise it isn't really all that).

$80 is hardly worth 8 hours.....

Where's the 80 dollar figure coming from? I've never seen a game close to that expensive.

welcome to Australia land of the crappy internet and expensive games

and $80 is being generous, generally a triple AAA console new relase can reach up to $120

anyway I think if a game can it should definetly be a decent length no matter how much Im paying for it, if its a stand alone release then 2-3 or 5 hours or even 8 hours is just unacceptable I might as well buy a movie

Well, if you send someone in the UK PP£ they can gift you back the game through steam, right? I've done this a few times for germans with portal 2 (5 times actually, they collectively tipped me enough to buy myself a copy) because they had to pay 50 euro or something like that, and there wasn't a problem with it.