**Official Portal 2 thread**
- Thread starter Lysander
- Start date
Already? Bit optimistic isn't it? In 6 months maybe, but for now don't expect anything more than some hats.
Me too. It wasn't hard enough.
Perhaps they'd already been working on them for quite some time, but didn't have time to put them in the final code.
Soldato
- Joined
- 18 May 2010
- Posts
- 23,623
- Location
- London
A little negative feedback for the game:
http://www.techspot.com/news/43410-portal-2-faces-backlash-over-paid-dlc-short-campaign.html
To me also, the biggest turn off I have from splashing out £30 is the length of the game. I will buy it, but £30 for a short game is expensive.
http://www.techspot.com/news/43410-portal-2-faces-backlash-over-paid-dlc-short-campaign.html
To me also, the biggest turn off I have from splashing out £30 is the length of the game. I will buy it, but £30 for a short game is expensive.
Thats hardly new. Its full of the same ******** that Metacritic user reviews are full of. That is, morons complaining that 6-8 hours of excellent story telling is 'too short' because its not padded out just to reach some arbitrary value and that the game is 'incomplete' because you have to pay for 100% cosmetic content.
but when cod does 4 hours of story it's the second coming well more like the 7th now.
If cod only had single player and nothing else, then people would complain about that too. But it is primarily a MP game with 100s of hours of gameplay. You're not comparing like with like.
Portal 2 is full price but has nothing to do once you've completed the campaign. That's why some people are critical.
Even MW2, as well as its SP campaign, has the SP special ops missions which add several more hours and different difficulty levels for more replay value.
It doesn't? I thought it had Coop to play after you'd finished the main game? Even if it had challenges and advanced chambers they still aren't part of the singleplayer story even if they are played solo.
Not like it really takes them long to do the multiplayer aspect of CoD games. Copy/paste from the previous game, make a few changes, done. Blops was riddled with problems whereas Portal 2 I've heard of the odd crashing problem (easily got around) but otherwise the game runs perfectly on an incredibly well optimised engine.
Personally, I judge a game on how much enjoyment I get from it, not just how long it takes me.
I've enjoyed Portal much more than anything else i've played recently which makes it well worth the money in my book.
Sometimes there is more to 'value' than just OMG IT'S 47 HOURS LONG
I've enjoyed Portal much more than anything else i've played recently which makes it well worth the money in my book.
Sometimes there is more to 'value' than just OMG IT'S 47 HOURS LONG
Caporegime
- Joined
- 18 Oct 2002
- Posts
- 33,188
I'm not sure if you're talking about people in general complaining about games with great stories that are short, or about Portal 2 in particular?
If Portal 2, I just can't see how anyone could think its a great story, other than being, the same story as the first one(more or less) with a very very very very obvious "twist", its just stupid.
I don't get why people think its so funny either, most of the comments are dumb and, singing turrets, cute, maybe, brilliant, game making, meh.
Theres some good comments, some funny ones, its not so ludicrously funny I almost peed myself as so many people seem to be suggesting.
Its good gameplay, though I think there were some better, spacial puzzles in Portal 1, they really went for, "big distance = difficulty" in Portal 2, over, weird angles, weird difficult jumping between moving platforms in and out of portals. The gel's were "easy mode" if you ask me, once they were added the complexity of the puzzles became mostly about shooting gel everywhere and looking for a distant platform.
It was FAR to easy, and I don't know how anyone could take more than 5-6 hours to complete it to be honest. Co-op mode is much shorter again, none of those are issues for me.
THe thing is, it IS a budget game, it hasn't made its own engine, its not "pretty" with time intensive texture making like other games, its flat, dull, bland, again nothing I care about but its pretty "easy" to make compared to most other games with varied enviroments. So if one game takes 3 years to make and the team build their own engine, make far more varied gameworld, often a far longer game, or a real story, meaning paying writers and design teams, making quests in a RPG type thing and having things to balance with combat this is, in terms of dev time, incredibly quick to knock together.
Its not a AAA game, it shouldn't have come anywhere near AAA pricing and the reason people are dissappointed is because you get very little for your money. When you pay for a game you're paying for the work put into the game, the time people put into it and get paid for, and some profit on top.
AS with so many games its a dumbed down version of the first game, for me it both lacked more complex/varied puzzles than the first game(despite being way longer) and reused the jokes, the idea's the style, the banter from the first game, while charging a crapload more for it. Its rather like if Dragon age 1 was £30, and Dragon Age 2 was much much worse, rehashed, rushed, reusing everything but simplified, and it was also £60.
At £10 Portal 2 is a laugh, simple fun game for a couple days, then never to be played again, at current pricing, its a joke.
Coop doesn't interest me or a lot of people I suspect.
Doesn't matter if it's part of the story - it still adds value.
Ha, I bet the devs would argue there's a bit more to it than that.
Yes well Blops was and is a badly written game but that's Treyarch for you - the MW games are professionally done however. (I think the COD community agrees, judging by the Steam stats where MW2 now has more players than Blops does)
Last edited:
£30 is a lot of money to some of us mate, we want it to keep us amused for a bit longer than one weekend
£30 is a lot of money to some of us mate, we want it to keep us amused for a bit longer than one weekend
Well that's just my point, some of us don't judge value on an arbitrary time length.
£30 is a lot of money to some of us mate, we want it to keep us amused for a bit longer than one weekend
well you've got lots of mod maps to look forward to.
I don't buy games when they're released, I wait until they're on sale a few months later.
However, this time, I paid £27 for Portal 2, and I have had 3 very, very, very enjoyable evenings playing the single player campaign, and have a brilliantly told and executed story to remember from it.
I'm going to head out tonight into town, I'll probably spend close to that on food and drink, and at the end of my single evening, I probably won't remember most of what went on.
I've spent just a couple of quid on some other games, played them for the same length of time I've played Portal 2 - so which was better value for money? Portal 2 was the better value for money, because I had much more enjoyment out of it.
Money spent and time it's taken are irrelevent when you've enjoyed yourself, IMO.
However, this time, I paid £27 for Portal 2, and I have had 3 very, very, very enjoyable evenings playing the single player campaign, and have a brilliantly told and executed story to remember from it.
I'm going to head out tonight into town, I'll probably spend close to that on food and drink, and at the end of my single evening, I probably won't remember most of what went on.
I've spent just a couple of quid on some other games, played them for the same length of time I've played Portal 2 - so which was better value for money? Portal 2 was the better value for money, because I had much more enjoyment out of it.
Money spent and time it's taken are irrelevent when you've enjoyed yourself, IMO.
I imagine the complainers going into Heston Blumenthal's restaurant and complaining about the food because there was no free toy like in a happy meal
Instead of the fact that they just paid £500 for a bowl of soup?
