portal 2 trolls

[thiosk]

You're right, it was a terrible analogy. The rear parking sensors actually change the way your car works in some small way. It's more like paying $5000 for a car and then complaining about not getting some wicked awesome flame stickers to put on the side. Derp.

If you'd paid for a good paint job and then you didn't get one, then yeah, that's a reasonably good analogy.

No, I'm not talking about the paint job, I'm literally taking about fucking stickers. That's what this is. The game looks prettier than hell already, so the good paint job is there. If you choose to customize it further, as a six-year-old girl might do with her Barbie, good on you I suppose. Me? I'll take the fire-red Ferrari as it is.

Fire is actually orange.

Not always!

I want to build a ferrari out of strontium. THEN SET THAT ***** ON FIRE and drive it into the bioware offices as punishment for the actual day one DLC on DA:O.

This portal business is simply attracting attention because of its popularity.

 

[pwnzerstick]

Im not complaining, its optional. But I do think that it would have made more sense for the skins and hats to be unlockable through in game actions rather than through purchasing.

 

[Yopaz]

Actually I find it funny that the OP calls them trolls without having played the game himself. So he says that the 'trolls' are wrong without being able to judge it by himself. Thank you sir, I agree with you fully. Not everyone on the internet is a troll, someone does have different opinions than me.

lol, people don't like portal 2, thus they're obviously trolls because everyone that disagrees with the OP is a troll, right?

What part of 90% of these 0/10 reviews are simply complaining about "Day 1 DLC" that doesn't exist could you not comprehend? Nobody is saying the game is bad [well some are, but frankly if they think the game is bad they must hold impossible standards], they're simply complaining that they have to pay for a few useless co-op skins...

For anyone not from the UK, these comments from the channel 5 website and the thoughts of the dribbling fools who watch the Wright Stuff show here is something for you to mull over.

What does this have to do with anything?

Actually the OP said they were also complaining that the game was only 3 hours long, which had to be wrong according to the OP, because the OP had played the game exactly 0 hours and knew it had to be far more than 3 hours long based on his experience wit the game. Or did you miss that part? Also this is how Meta Critic works. Most of those who like a game give it 10/10, those who don't give it 0/10. They should remove the rating system, because frankly we're loosing grip on mediocre and only see good/bad.

 

[Legion]

Trying to be a grammar Nazi here? You know, there's an achievement for that somewhere.

There is a difference between telling somebody that they spelt something wrong, and said something that doesn't make any sense.

If you take the time to read the posts you will also see that the person I corrected was happy that I did as they hadn't noticed.

 

[D_987]

Actually the OP said they were also complaining that the game was only 3 hours long, which had to be wrong according to the OP, because the OP had played the game exactly 0 hours and knew it had to be far more than 3 hours long based on his experience wit the game. Or did you miss that part?

Having played the game there's no way in hell it can be finished any faster than about 5 hours. No way; even if you run through the environments, speed run every test and skip every cut-scene the amount of time it will take you to traverse the environment is sufficient that it'd take a good few hours. It took Valves testers, who knew the best way to beat every puzzle and so on 6 hours to speed run it... The 3 hour myth is complete bullshit; and really if you ever plan to try and play the game to get a time anywhere near that [i.e use walkthroughs on your first playthrough and so on] you're missing the whole point of playing a puzzle game.

And peoples claims are complete fabrication because Steams counter for the game is broken, people are being told they have spent 3 hours on the game when in reality its been 7, for example. See here [http://www.rockpapershotgun.com/2011/04/20/portal-2-in-4-hours-the-steam-timer-is-a-lie/#comment-672472] for more information.

 

[Yopaz]

Actually the OP said they were also complaining that the game was only 3 hours long, which had to be wrong according to the OP, because the OP had played the game exactly 0 hours and knew it had to be far more than 3 hours long based on his experience wit the game. Or did you miss that part?

Having played the game there's no way in hell it can be finished any faster than about 5 hours. No way; even if you run through the environments, speed run every test and skip every cut-scene the amount of time it will take you to traverse the environment is sufficient that it'd take a good few hours. It took Valves testers, who knew the best way to beat every puzzle and so on 6 hours to speed run it... The 3 hour myth is complete bullshit; and really if you ever plan to try and play the game to get a time anywhere near that [i.e use walkthroughs on your first playthrough and so on] you're missing the whole point of playing a puzzle game.

And peoples claims are complete fabrication because Steams counter for the game is broken, people are being told they have spent 3 hours on the game when in reality its been 7, for example. See here [http://www.rockpapershotgun.com/2011/04/20/portal-2-in-4-hours-the-steam-timer-is-a-lie/#comment-672472] for more information.

I never said it could be finished, I just said that there were no way a person who has never played it could be the judge of that. Don't get me wrong just because you want to prove me wrong. All I said and the only point I was trying to make is that the OP was judging the game based on the hype from Valve, rather than personal experience. I haven't played it myself, so I don't say anything about the game, I am simply saying that anyone who hasn't played it can't judge it. I know I might have looked a bit like a troll with my posts, but do you get my point? All I tried to say was that the OP seemed like a hypocrite saying people bashed the game without playing it while he praised the game without playing it.

 

[D_987]

I never said it could be finished, I just said that there were no way a person who has never played it could be the judge of that.

Nonsense; the OP could easily have looked up the information from any number of course, such as the RPS news post linked.

Don't get me wrong just because you want to prove me wrong. All I said and the only point I was trying to make is that the OP was judging the game based on the hype from Valve, rather than personal experience.

Likewise the OP did not mention the games quality, only points that do not require the game to be played to be argued [such as the time needed to complete the game - which is a fact, and the reasoning behind other complaints being poor at best].

I haven't played it myself, so I don't say anything about the game, I am simply saying that anyone who hasn't played it can't judge it.

On these areas they can.

I know I might have looked a bit like a troll with my posts, but do you get my point? All I tried to say was that the OP seemed like a hypocrite saying people bashed the game without playing it while he praised the game without playing it.

I see your points, though I disagree with them. Perhaps you should change your style of posting because, as you stated, you do come across as troll-like in those previously quoted.

 

[Yopaz]

I never said it could be finished, I just said that there were no way a person who has never played it could be the judge of that.

Nonsense; the OP could easily have looked up the information from any number of course, such as the RPS news post linked.

Don't get me wrong just because you want to prove me wrong. All I said and the only point I was trying to make is that the OP was judging the game based on the hype from Valve, rather than personal experience.

Likewise the OP did not mention the games quality, only points that do not require the game to be played to be argued [such as the time needed to complete the game - which is a fact, and the reasoning behind other complaints being poor at best].

I haven't played it myself, so I don't say anything about the game, I am simply saying that anyone who hasn't played it can't judge it.

On these areas they can.

I know I might have looked a bit like a troll with my posts, but do you get my point? All I tried to say was that the OP seemed like a hypocrite saying people bashed the game without playing it while he praised the game without playing it.

I see your points, though I disagree with them. Perhaps you should change your style of posting because, as you stated, you do come across as troll-like in those previously quoted.

Did you read the first post. He judged the game by what Valve said, not by what friends said, not by his own experience. He judged the game without any possible way of knowing that it was great or bad. He says they are trolls for not liking it. Perhaps they are, but my point is that he should not judge a game when he hasn't played it. Do you disagree with that?