Portal 2 Protest: Gamers (sorta?) Pan Portal 2 On Metacritic

[Smooth Operator]

...

So we should complain about things that are not bullshit? Won't that just make complaining the norm, so when it is bullshit our complaints are par for the course?
Is acting like a bunch of entilted pricks going to get us anywhere?

Nicking unlockables from a game and selling them extra is not bullshit? I guess that's the first problem, people don't know anymore when their pants are down

Anyway, customers have been pointing out dodgy DLC from the start, but companies didn't give a shit and just did more, so customers had to step it up to the point where they can't ignore it anymore.
Yes I would prefer a reasonable debate, but it's quite clear companies are leaning towards the "fuck the customer" school of thinking, and this is how customers haveto respond, either they push back or be run over and give companies free rein.

 

[lapan]

At least i have a valid complaint, i and several hundred others have been affected by a game breaking bug which makes it crash on startup. (http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/read/9.278486-Portal-2-Startup-Error#10866719)

I have yet to actually play the game :/

 

[EllEzDee]

There was DRM in Portal 2?

It uses Steam, which is DRM. It is "better" DRM compared to most, but still DRM.

Ah, gotcha. See, that's the best kind of DRM - the kind you don't even know is there.

Valve fanboy? It's pretty obvious the DRM is there: you have to start up Steam before you can access the games at all.

 

[TelHybrid]

I'd rate the game down for being so short given it's $60 price tag. When you got the first Portal, it was in a bundle that included Half Life 2 and Team Fortress 2. The first Portal was basically a gimmie, so it was fine that it was so short.

But now Valve is releasing Portal 2 as a complete package, with a price tag to match. And there just isn't enough game there to support that. If I could, I'd get my money back. I did not receive $60 worth of game.

Case in point: triple A games take 20-30+ hours to complete in a full play-through, this is fact.

Mass Effect 1 took 34 hours my first time, and I was able to speed run it in 8 hours, with all side-quests completed. Mass Effect 2 took 22 hours in my latest speed-run attempt, but I'm still refining.

Portal 2, if you know what to do and where to go, I am confident I could complete it in 4 hours or less.

As much as I agree that games these days need to be longer, I find your argument flawed. First you're saying that your point about "AAA games" having 20-30 hours of play is fact. Wrong. That's standard for your typical RPG. Your typical shooter is more like 8-12 hours on a campaign, which developers try to make up for with co-op or horde type modes generally.

You then go on to say "if you know what to do or where to go, I am confident I could complete it in 4 hours or less". Basically that's how long you estimate you can beat it in a second playthrough. It's a puzzle game. Puzzles require problem solving. If you've done it once, then it's bound to be easier the second time.

 

[The Lunatic]

I agree with the statement, I approve of people standing against something they dislike.

I have no problems with people rating the game down due to the Cash shop, and I'm not going to be silly enough to expect people to be fair about it either.

Expecting people to be reasonable is well, unreasonable.

The game is good, the cash shop is eh.

I'd rate the game down slightly due to length and I find it insulting they think I'd pay for my character to wear a tiny hat.

 

[FieryTrainwreck]

Well we've officially seen user reviews abused for good (DA2) and evil (Portal 2). I guess no one can have anything nice.

Seriously, comparing the DA2 hate (justified, greatly impacting sales) to the Portal 2 hate (whinging about hats...) is stupid.

I'll say this about Portal 2: it's a game that I unashamedly hold up as tier one entertainment regardless of audience. The writing, pacing, and production values are other-worldly, easily rivaling the highest reaches of other mediums. For the first time basically ever, I'm going to pack up my PC and bring it over to my pop's place so he can check out a videogame.

That's not light praise.

 

[Etra488]

I'd rate the game down for being so short given it's $60 price tag. When you got the first Portal, it was in a bundle that included Half Life 2 and Team Fortress 2. The first Portal was basically a gimmie, so it was fine that it was so short.

But now Valve is releasing Portal 2 as a complete package, with a price tag to match. And there just isn't enough game there to support that. If I could, I'd get my money back. I did not receive $60 worth of game.

Case in point: triple A games take 20-30+ hours to complete in a full play-through, this is fact.

Mass Effect 1 took 34 hours my first time, and I was able to speed run it in 8 hours, with all side-quests completed. Mass Effect 2 took 22 hours in my latest speed-run attempt, but I'm still refining.

Portal 2, if you know what to do and where to go, I am confident I could complete it in 4 hours or less.

As much as I agree that games these days need to be longer, I find your argument flawed. First you're saying that your point about "AAA games" having 20-30 hours of play is fact. Wrong. That's standard for your typical RPG. Your typical shooter is more like 8-12 hours on a campaign, which developers try to make up for with co-op or horde type modes generally.

You then go on to say "if you know what to do or where to go, I am confident I could complete it in 4 hours or less". Basically that's how long you estimate you can beat it in a second playthrough. It's a puzzle game. Puzzles require problem solving. If you've done it once, then it's bound to be easier the second time.

You're right.

It's a short game with no replay value.

Way to put my $60 to work! I beat Starfox 64 the first time in 50 minutes. But that game had so much replay value, I definitely got my $60 worth out of that game, no doubt.

Portal 2? Will anyone put 20 hours into it, during the life of owning the game? Wheatley and PotaDOS just aren't interesting enough to see them more than twice. I played it once, and then again with the Developer's Commentary. I don't need to play it again. Glad I got my money's worth...

 

[TelHybrid]

I'd rate the game down for being so short given it's $60 price tag. When you got the first Portal, it was in a bundle that included Half Life 2 and Team Fortress 2. The first Portal was basically a gimmie, so it was fine that it was so short.

But now Valve is releasing Portal 2 as a complete package, with a price tag to match. And there just isn't enough game there to support that. If I could, I'd get my money back. I did not receive $60 worth of game.

Case in point: triple A games take 20-30+ hours to complete in a full play-through, this is fact.

Mass Effect 1 took 34 hours my first time, and I was able to speed run it in 8 hours, with all side-quests completed. Mass Effect 2 took 22 hours in my latest speed-run attempt, but I'm still refining.

Portal 2, if you know what to do and where to go, I am confident I could complete it in 4 hours or less.

As much as I agree that games these days need to be longer, I find your argument flawed. First you're saying that your point about "AAA games" having 20-30 hours of play is fact. Wrong. That's standard for your typical RPG. Your typical shooter is more like 8-12 hours on a campaign, which developers try to make up for with co-op or horde type modes generally.

You then go on to say "if you know what to do or where to go, I am confident I could complete it in 4 hours or less". Basically that's how long you estimate you can beat it in a second playthrough. It's a puzzle game. Puzzles require problem solving. If you've done it once, then it's bound to be easier the second time.

You're right.

It's a short game with no replay value.

Way to put my $60 to work! I beat Starfox 64 the first time in 50 minutes. But that game had so much replay value, I definitely got my $60 worth out of that game, no doubt.

Portal 2? Will anyone put 20 hours into it, during the life of owning the game? Wheatley and PotaDOS just aren't interesting enough to see them more than twice. I played it once, and then again with the Developer's Commentary. I don't need to play it again. Glad I got my money's worth...

Well you chose to buy it at launch. If you want the newest stuff you've got to pay that bit extra.

Whether it's re-playable is subjective. Some people might enjoy replaying it, not to mention there's the co-op campaign too. Also no doubt there will be some fan made puzzles made for the PC version very soon too.

 

[RowdyRodimus]

As someone who hates Valve (yes, we do exist) and got tired of the Portal franchise after hearing about the cake for the third time, allow me to add this:

What the fuck is the problem with people? It's obviously a good game for people who enjoyed the first (not that I would ever play it) so why rate it down because "it has hats as DLC" or "I beat it too quickly"? First of all, it's Valve, master of hats you knew that crap was coming when they added bots to it. Second of all, it's a sequel to Portal, you knew it was going to be short just like it's predecessor. Exactly how long would you expect it to be without making the puzzles an hour between each other?

The DA2 thing I can kind of understand because they made it feel like a completely different franchise, but Portal 2 is the exact same as Portal. Shit, people really need to get over themselves.

 

[Megacherv]

For the money it costs... it's not worth it. I was okay with the first Portal being only ~4 hours long.

Why?


Because it only cost me $20.

Well, £33 got me 2 copies of it, both containing an utterly fantastic (at least) 7 hour-long single-player campaign AND a great-fun-so-far co-op campaign, it's nowhere near a waste of money.

These people have not even played through the fucking game, and what especially annoys me is the whole '4-hour-long' campaign thing.

They are fucking Valve!!! They are not fucking stupid! If they make a triple-A game, they're gonna make it longer than 3-4 fucking hours! You fucking inept, retarded morons!

(Mods, that mini-rant was to the metabombers, and I'd guess you know that they deserve it, please don't kill me with fire and throw me in a ditch)

 

[Knight Templar]

snip

I was attempting to better understand your reasoning. I disagree with the actions but respect the motivation. Somewhat anyway.

Also I was told much of the items for sale could be unlocked, but even if untrue a micro-transaction store for cosmetic junk is not bullshit.
The prices may be, but the concept is not.

 

[Etra488]

All I'm saying is that game isn't worth $60.

If it had cost $30-40, then I'd have nothing to complain about. As it is, the price is my only regret.

 

[Megacherv]

Case in point: triple A games take 20-30+ hours to complete in a full play-through, this is fact.

Call of Duty is a triple-A game. Explain.

You get up to 19 hours with both single-player and co-op

 

[Aprilgold]

from what I heard, the games length [both co op and single] are about 7-15 hours depending on how good you were, not 4 hours, and the game is finished, oh, the dlc complaint, fuck off, the game was made for both to begin with, pc and console [in my opinion] oh, and Portal 1 came out on PC first. Now, stop your horse shit, valve is fucking, referring to the guy with the Cowboy Bepop avatar, steam is praticully indie, and are self funding.
Stop your bitching, portal 1 was about 4 hours, and portal 2 was about 9 hours for me to beat it. And co op took at least 10 hours [just trying to get my partner to co operate took an hour]
It was a complete, great game, want to know who got ***** slapped in the end, Xbox users, they are stuck with playing with only xbox users, and ps 3 gave away portal 2 for the pc.
In my book, portal 2 is a game any gamer should own.

 

[Machiavellian007]

Has anyone checked 4chan for a raid?

Otherwise, using the overused, dead and rotting Sturgeon's Law one last time; 90% of Sci-Fi is shit, therefore 90% of everything is shit, therefore 100% of Metacritic is shit. Flawless logic.

Captcha: erupte Xerxes.

I am now convinced that Xerxes the Great is going to come back from the dead and we'll have a modern day 300.

 

[Agayek]

Let me completely break their arguments.

1: [HEADING=3]Portal 2 for the PC is a direct port of the console version.[/HEADING]

This is fucking Valve, one of the last PC centric developers around. It is a PC game first and foremost, but with better console support. How is it a port? Are there not enough controls? Because Portal 1 had about the same amount of controls. Is it in terms of performance? Because so far from a low-end laptop to a beefy rig all my playtests point to "runs really great(when you adjust settings). So how, how is it a direct port of the console version?

To be fair, it's pretty obvious that a number of concessions were made in the PC version that were clearly meant to fit the console hardware limitations. The most obvious of these are the asininely frequent load times.

I'm not saying the PC version is a port (far from it, to be honest), just that a number of design decisions were clearly only made because of the console versions.

 

[Sean951]

So people are complaining about micro-transactions? God, they would hate MMOs... I played WoW for about 3 years and on top of having to pay a subscription fee, if I want one of the cosmetic features (1 mount, some pets, faction/server transfers etc.) then I have to pay an additional $15-20 and people really don't complain. They are features that in no way change game play and are never required. Many MMOs do the same thing, or even sell actual gear, which DOES effect game play.

And that is what happens when people don't complain, it used to be that extra features sell the game, now they are an additional cost.
So this time they only sell unlockables extra, if noone complains next time they will be locking off levels, or just add less to the main game and do more DLC, why not sell co-op extra when people payed for Portal 1 without it, why not make it 60$ people will still buy it, ...

Things can go very wrong very fast, other companies are already selling guns, gold and experience as DLC, even demos are being sold, if noone points out the bullshit this will go horribly wrong.

Except that companies who sell levels/weapons/demos find themselves with a smaller fan base. The slippery slope argument is considered a fallacy for a reason. If Valve decided to sell parts of the game as DLC, then they would lose sales because suddenly the game is no longer full but still costs the same. Hats do not a game break.

 

[FullMetalZ]

This is exactly why I don't consider Metacritic to be reputable. I honestly don't understand why it's still such a big deal what scores are on Metacritic. Yeah, I get that it brings together the scores of different critics to one place, but I see no point in it beyond that. It's just as easy to do some simple research through single sites, or, God forbid, a search engine. The best way to make this nonsense go away would be to just ignore Metacritic. We managed to find reviews before it came along, I'm pretty sure its absence won't destroy the fabric of time.

 

[Gigatoast]

So this is where the L4D2 boycott group went, I guess they've declared Valve their mortal enemy now. It's a good thing their opinions amount to nothing, just like their metascores.