Portal 2 - Who's Buying?

[lilshawn]

Shmokes, you may be thinking of Nabacular Drop.  I never played or seen it, but apparently Portal is based on it (or a "spiritual sequel").    

Nabacular Drop was a school project / proof of concept that Portal was based on.

the "paint" used in Portal 2 was based on another school project that was a paint based game called "Tag: The Power of Paint".

[DaveMMR]

I read more about it.  Apparently you can't jump and you can create portals in portals.  It's also very short (as lilshawn said, proof of concept)

For the curious, here's the download link: https://www.digipen.edu/fileadmin/website_data/gallery/game_websites/NarbacularDrop/

[javeryh]

I finished the single player in Portal 2 and got all of the achievements (I think).  I still haven't tried co-op though so I have quite a bit left to do...  The single player was very enjoyable (although a little on the easy side).

[lilshawn]

I have to say I quite enjoyed it. There where a few tough areas. The humor throughout the game made it quite enjoyable.

[Ginsu Victim]

I have five or six extra codes from the PS3 version for anyone who wants a PC copy. PM me.
(Note: You must enable this copy through PSN first. If you don't have PSN access, don't ask for a code.)

[Ginsu Victim]

Looks like you have to link your Steam account THROUGH Portal 2 on the PS3. Anyone know of a workaround to get your PSN and Steam accounts linked?

As soon as I find out, I'll send out more codes.

2 codes down, 4 remaining...

[DaveMMR]

Looks like you have to link your Steam account THROUGH Portal 2 on the PS3. Anyone know of a workaround to get your PSN and Steam accounts linked?

I was going to say you'd need the PS3 copy anyhow and if people already had the game they wouldn't need the code.  Though I suppose if they bought it used and someone already claimed the code (or didn't include the sheet when trading it back in), it'd be useful.

[Ginsu Victim]

I guess you could rent or borrow it. I doubt the discs are any different. Just a way to access Steam and link the accounts.

[Howard_Casto]

I have to say I quite enjoyed it. There where a few tough areas. The humor throughout the game made it quite enjoyable.

I thought it was fantastic.  It is very rare that when a game is virtually carried by a voice actor that it is improved in the sequels by adding more voice actors.  Wheatley's dialog was basically Steve Merchant being his normal nervous british self.  J.K.  Simmons as Cave Johnson might be my new hero.  

I disagree with the difficulty though.  Having played the original Portal, I found the difficulty of all but one or two puzzles to be severely lacking, and those couple of standouts were merely challenging and not hard by any means.  

The game is really short, which I don't like.  Mind you the story set the pacing of the levels perfectly, so maybe that's why, but I could have stood for things to be stretched out a little more, particularly the retro levels.  

[DaveMMR]

I have to say I quite enjoyed it. There where a few tough areas. The humor throughout the game made it quite enjoyable.

I thought it was fantastic.  It is very rare that when a game is virtually carried by a voice actor that it is improved in the sequels by adding more voice actors.  Wheatley's dialog was basically Steve Merchant being his normal nervous british self.  J.K.  Simmons as Cave Johnson might be my new hero.  

I disagree with the difficulty though.  Having played the original Portal, I found the difficulty of all but one or two puzzles to be severely lacking, and those couple of standouts were merely challenging and not hard by any means.  

The game is really short, which I don't like.  Mind you the story set the pacing of the levels perfectly, so maybe that's why, but I could have stood for things to be stretched out a little more, particularly the retro levels.  

Loved Portal 2, beat both co-op (on same display with GF) and single player.  To me, it was more satisfying than the first.

And yes, it was not at all difficult except for those puzzles where you were looking for that one little inch of surface you're able to shoot a portal onto.  Which is not to say it didn't challenge me.  I didn't "breeze" through it; towards the end I spend a good amount of time on each chamber and felt satisfied when I beat them.

Also, voice acting as you said was top notch.  A lot of work went into it and they couldn't have gotten better voices.

I do disagree with you about the length but only because I don't like my games taking 20 hours to finish anymore.  I simply don't have the time and I find myself losing interest when I invest a weekend in a game and it's not even half done.   To me, Portal 2 was the perfect length.  It took me a couple of weeks and that was a couple of hours after work and the weekends (although, I may have finished it faster if I was able to play on the PC - stupid PSN being down ensured I had to beat the game completely on the PS3). 

I guess you could rent or borrow it. I doubt the discs are any different. Just a way to access Steam and link the accounts.

Good point.  I'm hoping there's going to be further Steam support on the PS3.

[Ginsu Victim]

This is pretty cool:

[Howard_Casto]

Dave: 

Disagreeing about the length because you personally don't have time to play games anymore doesn't make a lot of sense. 

When I complain about the length of a game, it has absolutely nothing to do with my time constraints.  It has to do with if I think I got 60 bucks worth of content out of a 60 dollar game.  Take MK9.....  has a fairly short story mode.  It is excuseable though because there is so much additional content thrown in there that you get 60 bucks worth of game.  Btw I'm talking about single player content... multiplayer content is a nice bonus, but imo all titles need to have a robust single player campaign seeing as how multiplayer gaming is usually time-sensitive..... When you want to sit down and play for a few hours it's hard to keep others interested that long. 


Portal's single player campaign is maybe 5 hours long.  That's frikkin short!  Of course if you suck at puzzles it might be longer. 

Additional content consists of promotional video we had already seen prior to portal 2's release, and a multiplayer campaign I have no intention of ever playing.  Trying to get my friends to help me with a real-time physics problem would only make me realize that I need to get smarter friends. 

From what I've heard the multiplayer mode isn't any longer than the single player mode anyway and for a puzzle game, 10 hours is really short. 

Btw... all fps suck on consoles due to lack of mousage....  The reason those targets seemed hard to you was because you were trying to do them with a crappy analog stick.  I could actually see the game seeming longer on a console actually, due to the frustrating lack of percision on the controls.

[versapak]

Dave: 

Disagreeing about the length because you personally don't have time to play games anymore doesn't make a lot of sense. 

When I complain about the length of a game, it has absolutely nothing to do with my time constraints.  It has to do with if I think I got 60 bucks worth of content out of a 60 dollar game.  Take MK9.....  has a fairly short story mode.  It is excuseable though because there is so much additional content thrown in there that you get 60 bucks worth of game.  Btw I'm talking about single player content... multiplayer content is a nice bonus, but imo all titles need to have a robust single player campaign seeing as how multiplayer gaming is usually time-sensitive..... When you want to sit down and play for a few hours it's hard to keep others interested that long. 


Portal's single player campaign is maybe 5 hours long.  That's frikkin short!  Of course if you suck at puzzles it might be longer. 

Additional content consists of promotional video we had already seen prior to portal 2's release, and a multiplayer campaign I have no intention of ever playing.  Trying to get my friends to help me with a real-time physics problem would only make me realize that I need to get smarter friends. 

From what I've heard the multiplayer mode isn't any longer than the single player mode anyway and for a puzzle game, 10 hours is really short. 

Btw... all fps suck on consoles due to lack of mousage....  The reason those targets seemed hard to you was because you were trying to do them with a crappy analog stick.  I could actually see the game seeming longer on a console actually, due to the frustrating lack of percision on the controls.

I can certainly see why someone wouldn't think that Portal 2 was worth the $60 price tag, but that someone is definitely not me.

I factor in everything that I get from a game in deciding its value, and Portal 2 gave me more than enough for my money. The single player was short, but then there was a completely separate co-op that was equally as long, and I do count that multiplayer, because it is something that added great value to my experience.

On top of both campaigns there is a developer commentary, where you can go through all the levels again and listen to commentary from developers, and there are goals to be met through achievements with avatar items as a reward. Not to mention that I found the entire experience to be completely solid, and where other games have filler to extend them to 20 hours, I found Portal 2 to be nothing but solid material from start to finish. I got my money's worth.

[AtomSmasher]

I agree that it was a bit too short and that it wasn't very difficult, which is why I was glad to hear they're going to release some free DLC for it which adds new maps and brings back Challenge mode.  I think I spent most of my time in the original Portal trying to top my scores in the challenge mode, so I'm glad those are coming back.

[shmokes]

Dave: 

Disagreeing about the length because you personally don't have time to play games anymore doesn't make a lot of sense. 

It really does make sense.  Think of all the movies you've seen that would have been better if they were shorter.  If you're telling a story and it takes you so long that a huge chunk of the audience grows tired of it and gives up, your game is probably too long.  There's nothng wrong with making your game infinitely replayable, but a narrative should be the proper length to tell the story and no longer.  And if the story you are telling is too long to keep people from getting fidgety, you should consider splitting it (see Kill Bill).  Sometimes less is more.

[DaveMMR]

Dave: 

Disagreeing about the length because you personally don't have time to play games anymore doesn't make a lot of sense. 

Where you're confused here Howard that I was disagreeing out of opinion and not out of fact.  For me, it was the perfect length due to the amount of time I have to invest in games.  If a game takes 60 hours to complete, chances are I'll grow tired of it before I finish so it's actually less valuable for me.  I don't see how that makes no sense.  Trust me, I don't like "too short" games (e.g. I beat it in a day and there's nothing else); this wasn't one of them.

Also keep in mind, I got twice of much out of it than you did because I also went through the co-op mode.  The fact you're ignoring it is really a shame - it's quite well done. 

I find that both Portal and Portal 2 are quite replayable just for the story alone (plus there are achievements/trophies to obtain).  After I beat Portal 2, I played the last scene five times because it was quite awesome.  On top of that, I played through the original Portal at least a dozen times.

As Veraspeak said, I got more than enough for what I had spent.

I liked Portal 2 okay, but it's basically got the same plot as the first one and about halfway through I'm thinking, "oh gee, another homicidal robot joke".  I turned it off around level 15 or so.  Zzzz...

There's really much more to it than a one-note "homicidal robot" joke.  People have written essays about the relationship between Chell and GlaDOS and how the backstory of Apeture Science plays into everything.   Sorry you lost interest, it actually is well done and quite rewarding...

[Howard_Casto]

Dave: 

Disagreeing about the length because you personally don't have time to play games anymore doesn't make a lot of sense. 

It really does make sense.  Think of all the movies you've seen that would have been better if they were shorter.  If you're telling a story and it takes you so long that a huge chunk of the audience grows tired of it and gives up, your game is probably too long.  There's nothng wrong with making your game infinitely replayable, but a narrative should be the proper length to tell the story and no longer.  And if the story you are telling is too long to keep people from getting fidgety, you should consider splitting it (see Kill Bill).  Sometimes less is more.

Less is NEVER more when it comes to video games.  Or films for that matter.  If the film seems too long, that isn't because it needed a shorter cut, it is because the film was crap and thus seemed too long.  If anyone is capable of making a long campaign that isn't boring, valve is.  No excuses, they should have gave us more content.  Even if it didn't pertain to the story, for that matter, just more levels.

Look at the original Legend of Zelda.  That's a long game!  It has NO story.  I don't think the game would have been nearly as fun if it were a 2 or 3 hour campaign. 


No offense guys, but saying that a long game (and therefore a game with more content) is a bad thing is insaine. 

Lets take it out of video game terms and into a simplier form just to show how insaine it is:

Let's say you are hungry and go to the store to buy a single apple, which you intend to eat on the spot... you can't eat more than one.

When you get there you can buy a single apple for a dollar, or for the same dollar you can buy a bag of apples that has went on sale.  (The quality of the apples don't differ, they are just over stocked on apple bags or something.)  What you guys are telling me is that the bag of apples has the worst value because you can only eat one apple.  That is insaine!!!  Buy the bag!!  You'll get your one apple, and if you are hungry tomorrow, guess what?  More apples!!  Even if you never finish the bag of apples you aren't out anything, give the apples away, throw them out, you still got the damn apple you wanted!!!  By paying just as much for one apple as a bag, you are screwing consumers like myself who would prefer a whole damn bag of apples! 


My point is, if you can't finish a game, that is your problem.  And if the game is fun does it matter if you finish it?  The answer is no, it doesn't.  The fact of the matter is if the game is fun you will find time to complete it regardless of length.  If it drags out for you then the game isn't too long, it's a sucky game.  Length has absolutely nothing to do with how fun a game is but the amount of content you get certainly has a lot to do with the price point.

[versapak]

Less is NEVER more when it comes to video games.  Or films for that matter.  If the film seems too long, that isn't because it needed a shorter cut, it is because the film was crap and thus seemed too long.  If anyone is capable of making a long campaign that isn't boring, valve is.  No excuses, they should have gave us more content.  Even if it didn't pertain to the story, for that matter, just more levels.

Look at the original Legend of Zelda.  That's a long game!  It has NO story.  I don't think the game would have been nearly as fun if it were a 2 or 3 hour campaign.  


No offense guys, but saying that a long game (and therefore a game with more content) is a bad thing is insaine.  

Lets take it out of video game terms and into a simplier form just to show how insaine it is:

Let's say you are hungry and go to the store to buy a single apple, which you intend to eat on the spot... you can't eat more than one.

When you get there you can buy a single apple for a dollar, or for the same dollar you can buy a bag of apples that has went on sale.  (The quality of the apples don't differ, they are just over stocked on apple bags or something.)  What you guys are telling me is that the bag of apples has the worst value because you can only eat one apple.  That is insaine!!!  Buy the bag!!  You'll get your one apple, and if you are hungry tomorrow, guess what?  More apples!!  Even if you never finish the bag of apples you aren't out anything, give the apples away, throw them out, you still got the damn apple you wanted!!!  By paying just as much for one apple as a bag, you are screwing consumers like myself who would prefer a whole damn bag of apples!  


My point is, if you can't finish a game, that is your problem.  And if the game is fun does it matter if you finish it?  The answer is no, it doesn't.  The fact of the matter is if the game is fun you will find time to complete it regardless of length.  If it drags out for you then the game isn't too long, it's a sucky game.  Length has absolutely nothing to do with how fun a game is but the amount of content you get certainly has a lot to do with the price point.

No, everything is relative, but something can indeed be too long.

If I want one apple, but can get a whole bag of the same apples at the same price, which to buy really depends on circumstances at hand. If I am going to be spending the whole of my day walking around, then buying a while bag of apples that I have to carry around with me is too much. I'd rather buy the single apple. If I already have a bag of apples at home, and buying another meant that I'd have too many, leaving some to go bad, then I'd buy just one.

If I go to a restaurant and the drinks are all one dollar, regardless of size, then I am still going to get my kids a small, because a large is too much. They won't finish the large, and it would go to waste.


I don't think a game is bad, because it is long. I have played many a long game that was excellent, but a game doesn't have to be long to be excellent. Yeah, I want more, but that is because the game was great, not because it was too short. I have played some games for hundreds of hours and still wanted more there as well.

Portal 2 gave me about 15-16 hours. I think that is just fine. What is flawed is that you do not give the game credit for all that it does include. Co-op is a substantial portion of the game. Your aversion to it is a flaw with you not the game.

[Bender]

As my 8th grade teacher said when I asked how long an essay should be, she asked "how long is a piece of string?"
as long as it  needs to  be to get the job done, too short, you can't get youreslf out of the ditch, too long and you hang yourself with it


For me Portal 2 single player campaign (haven't played the co-op yet) was the perfect length for the story and the pacing was spot on! loved the legacy levels!
my only complaint and this is a minor criticism is that the puzzles were a little easier (or at least it felt like it to me) than the first Portal
Still one of my favorite games of all time!
looking forward to the co-op next
Plus if there is going to be some free DLC seems like icing to me!

And I'll reiterate what some people have already said, and remember this is an opinion, some games ARE too long, I loved oblivion, but for me it was just too long. I stopped playing it for a little while and when I came back a couple of months later, I forgot what I was supposed to be doing, what powers I had, what items I was looking for, where the F*#K I was, etc
Games like Mass Effect and Red Dead, seemed a little better designed where you could play through the main mission relatively quickly, but extend your experience, by doing side quest, or just wondering about. I know RPG's are a different animal but I was just giving an example

[DaveMMR]

And I'll reiterate what some people have already said, and remember this is an opinion, some games ARE too long, I loved oblivion, but for me it was just too long. I stopped playing it for a little while and when I came back a couple of months later, I forgot what I was supposed to be doing, what powers I had, what items I was looking for, where the F*#K I was, etc

Same thing happens to me all the time. I'm playing a long game, I have to stop for an extended time and I have to restart from scratch to get back into what I was doing....

Howard, I can't really argue since it's of your opinion that games need to be a certain length to be of value, which is fine.  But I'm not the type of person who needs a bag of apples when one will fill me up just fine (I can't tell you how many literal apples I've thrown out, uneaten, because they went bad).  I think we just need to agree to disagree on this.

[ark_ader]

I rented it from Blockbuster for £5 for 5 days.  Finished it in 2.  The Xbox version.

I'm waiting for the multilplayer DLC that is coming a in a few months.

It was OK, but I found it boring towards the end.

Maybe the PC version is better.

[DaveMMR]

Maybe the PC version is better.

I only dabbled with the PC version but I believe it's the same exact game (except you can decorate Atlas and P-Body).

(Unless you count mouse control, but aiming with the DS3 wasn't bad at all)

[shmokes]

Apples make a poor analogy because you don't have to finish the apple to fully enjoy it.  You eat as much or little as you want and, for you, the apple is finished.  A book or movie or narrative-based videogame you have to finish it to fully enjoy it (or to even come close).  To say that it shouldn't matter whether you finish a game so long as it's great while your playing is as insane (no "i" in that word btw . . . Not trying to be snotty at all, I just think you should know after that last post) as insane as saying the same of reading a book.  If you don't finish you're left with loose-ends that detract from the experience.  You miss the climax. Etc. Clearly finishing is a major part of enjoying a narrative.

[ark_ader]

Apples make a poor analogy because you don't have to finish the apple to fully enjoy it.  You eat as much or little as you want and, for you, the apple is finished.  A book or movie or narrative-based videogame you have to finish it to fully enjoy it (or to even come close).  To say that it shouldn't matter whether you finish a game so long as it's great while your playing is as insane (no "i" in that word btw . . . Not trying to be snotty at all, I just think you should know after that last post) as insane as saying the same of reading a book.  If you don't finish you're left with loose-ends that detract from the experience.  You miss the climax. Etc. Clearly finishing is a major part of enjoying a narrative.

Well that was random.

[lilshawn]

Apples make a poor analogy because you don't have to finish the apple to fully enjoy it.  You eat as much or little as you want and, for you, the apple is finished.  A book or movie or narrative-based videogame you have to finish it to fully enjoy it (or to even come close).  To say that it shouldn't matter whether you finish a game so long as it's great while your playing is as insane (no "i" in that word btw . . . Not trying to be snotty at all, I just think you should know after that last post) as insane as saying the same of reading a book.  If you don't finish you're left with loose-ends that detract from the experience.  You miss the climax. Etc. Clearly finishing is a major part of enjoying a narrative.

Well that was random.

I LIKE TURTLES!

[DaveMMR]

Apples make a poor analogy because you don't have to finish the apple to fully enjoy it.  You eat as much or little as you want and, for you, the apple is finished.  A book or movie or narrative-based videogame you have to finish it to fully enjoy it (or to even come close).  To say that it shouldn't matter whether you finish a game so long as it's great while your playing is as insane (no "i" in that word btw . . . Not trying to be snotty at all, I just think you should know after that last post) as insane as saying the same of reading a book.  If you don't finish you're left with loose-ends that detract from the experience.  You miss the climax. Etc. Clearly finishing is a major part of enjoying a narrative.

Well that was random.

Not at all random, he was replying to an analogy brought up earlier in the current conversation...

[Ginsu Victim]

Climax....
Finishing....
Everyone enjoys that.