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

[Xanadu84]

Any game that reaches the utmost eschalons of hype will have a backlash. Because every game does something that someone is opposed to, and needs something high profile to make a point. Day 1 DLC? Honestly, I didn't know that it even existed until I heard people complaining about it.I have no problem with it, and given the overwhelmingly large amount of stuff that Valve just gives to players even after the sale, I'm tempted to say that Valve needs to make money somehow.

Also, I am a PC player who, personally, finds the PC universally better for everything. That's preference, not an attempt at fact or trolling. Whatever you like, more power to you, but I will always take the PC version over the console, hands down. And even I am getting sick of some of the PC whining (I'm sure consoles players feel the same about consoles). Portal 2 is not a port from a console. As games evolve, there will be a certain feel and sense from things like the controls. And that will happen regardless of what a game is developed for. Unless there are actual problems, stop complaining.

Also, a common complaint is that controls are dumbed down for consoles. This is damn foolishness. Simple controls are good. You want them. PC games BENEFIT from the effort to simplify controls on consoles, and should thank consoles for it. Simpler controls means less of a barrier between your brain and the gameplay. Bianary is simple. Letters are simple. That doesn't mean that what you make out of them has to be simple. PCs have the advantage that they CAN have more complex controls should the need arise, but most games are better, even on PC, when simplicity and elegance are encouraged.

The only shortcoming I can think of that could even vaguely be attributed to platform is load times. Load times were rather long and frequent.other then that, Portal 2 deserves nothing but praise.

 

[Still Life]

For fucks sake people, where's the middle ground nowadays??

The current 'Gamer' zeitgeist dictates that games which do not receive a 80-100% score are simply not worthy of 'attention'.

 

[Xanadu84]

The best example I can think of is in the original Portal, one of the middle test chambers has you fling yourself out of a wall, through the ground 2-3 times and catapult over a short wall across the room. By the end you are moving ridiculously fast, and are required to make accurate portal shots in a sub-1 second window.

Portal 2 doesn't have that, at all. I assume that to be because of the limitations of a console controller. It's certainly possible they just didn't feel like including it, I can't be sure, but it doesn't seem like it.

Id assume its because those twitch elements in such a cerebral game were the weakest part of the entire game. I enjoyed those twitch puzzles, but only when I was planning out the need for a twitch moment right there. Not when I was actually executing the action, and when it was difficult to execute those twitch elements, I found it frustrating with a limited sense of reward. That's not conceeding to a lower denominator, that's good design choices.

 

[FightThePower]

Valve's fanboys really are a spoilt bunch. They get great game after great game and all they can do is find even more ridiculously minor complaints.

 

[Xanadu84]

Equally as pathetic, in my opinion, are the counter-trolls giving the game perfect 10's. Rabid Valve fanboys, furious that people have something to say against them.

A 10 means that it's flawless, perfect, no room for improvement. Nothing is worth a 10. Also, very few games are worth a 0.

This whole shitstorm is merely serving to illustrate what a wierd, exremely opinionated society we live in. Something's either the second coming.......or should just be locked in a coffin filled with broken glass and dog shit and then thrown off a cliff!

For fucks sake people, where's the middle ground nowadays??

That's not exactly true. I would give it a 10, rounded up from above a 9.5. There were certainly shortcomings, but I would argue that they were extraordinarily few and far between. I like Valve because they have absolutely impeccable game design sense. I think that overall you have a point about being opinionated, and people who call this or that perfect or absolutely useless, but would argue that Portal 2 deserves the praise.

Also, I think that there is an element to the, "8 or higher or else its crap" issue that is overlooked, and far more innocent. Most serious gamers probably started when they were relatively young. And in school. And when a review happens, a 7 of 10 looks like a C-. A C- isn't a very good grade (And I would like to think that it is especially bad for a nerdy gamer used to getting A's, but maybe that's wishful thinking). If you look at a review and translate it into a letter grade, the reviews start to make a lot of sense. Really, the rating system isn't anywhere near as bad as people seem to think. Its not a flawed measurement once you know where the statistical means of the metric is.

 

[Agayek]

Id assume its because those twitch elements in such a cerebral game were the weakest part of the entire game. I enjoyed those twitch puzzles, but only when I was planning out the need for a twitch moment right there. Not when I was actually executing the action, and when it was difficult to execute those twitch elements, I found it frustrating with a limited sense of reward. That's not conceeding to a lower denominator, that's good design choices.

Christ, I don't know why I need to keep banging on this. DESIGN CONCESSIONS FOR CONSOLES DOES NOT MEAN SIMPLER/LACKING GAMEPLAY.

It's simple fact that controllers have different strengths and weaknesses than keyboard and mouse. When creating a game, one needs to keep in mind those points for the desired target. Portal 2 has removed a handful of elements from the first game, ostensibly in an effort to address the weaknesses of controllers vs keyboard+mouse.

They may well have had another reason to make those changes, I don't know, but it certainly seems like they were made with consoles in mind.

 

[GiantRaven]

On a live preview at Gamespot, one of Valve's lead writers said the decision to remove 'twitch' elements was one based upon player data from Steam. According to him, players who didn't finish the original game generally gave up on puzzles with that kind of twitch gameplay.

That's what happened to me. When I play a puzzle game, I want to be stuck because I can't work out what to do, not because I'm not skilled enough to actually do it.

If that aspect of the game is removed, it can only make it better imo.

 

[Xanadu84]

Id assume its because those twitch elements in such a cerebral game were the weakest part of the entire game. I enjoyed those twitch puzzles, but only when I was planning out the need for a twitch moment right there. Not when I was actually executing the action, and when it was difficult to execute those twitch elements, I found it frustrating with a limited sense of reward. That's not conceeding to a lower denominator, that's good design choices.

Christ, I don't know why I need to keep banging on this. DESIGN CONCESSIONS FOR CONSOLES DOES NOT MEAN SIMPLER/LACKING GAMEPLAY.

It's simple fact that controllers have different strengths and weaknesses than keyboard and mouse. When creating a game, one needs to keep in mind those points for the desired target. Portal 2 has removed a handful of elements from the first game, ostensibly in an effort to address the weaknesses of controllers vs keyboard+mouse.

They may well have had another reason to make those changes, I don't know, but it certainly seems like they were made with consoles in mind.

I would agree that making some concessions for the sake of controls on multiple platforms is not an inherently bad thing. If that's what happened here, I would say so. But that hypothesis is most likely...just wrong. The reality appears to be they removed the twitch elements because it made the game better overall, not as a concession to one control scheme or another. There needs be no discussion over if one mechanic or another benefited controllers more more, because that is not the reason it was changed. It was changed because it made the game overall better, regardless of control or platform.

I never said anything about being simpler and lacking gameplay. In fact, ive said quite the opposite.

 

[Pedro The Hutt]

On top of what Still Life said, the audio commentary of Portal 1 also reveals that it was -very- hard for them to teach their testers how to do the fling, let alone the double fling. So I can kind of understand that they chose to no longer make the double fling obligatory in Portal 2 (although I still did do a handful to get ahead in some parts of the game).

 

[RA92]

While i'll continue to tout my "it's trendy to hate on what's popular" line, and go on about how we all saw this coming after Halo, CoD, ME2 and DA2, i will say that the allegedly short length (between 4-6 hours depending on skill from what i've heard) is pretty disgusting for a full retail game of £35. It's barely longer than The Ball, and i got that for £7.50. Same sort of thing, solve puzzles using a "tool" (a hammer and ball instead of a portal gun), only it's made by an indie dev and so the cost is not extortionate. While indie titles will never have the polish equal to a AAA release it's still mind numbingly depressing when you compare the cost of the two and you realise you just have to accept that these short five hour campaigns have become the status quo now. Thought it was a phenomenon just exclusive to those short Call of Duty campaigns? Think again; anything in a first person perspective will inevitably be a short ride. Let's not forget THQ's apology regarding Homefront's laughably brief campaign, after all.

4: [HEADING=3]Portal 2 is too short![/HEADING]

Its obvious you haven't played the game. The main campaign is about 7-9 hours, and the co-op campaign is about 8-10. It of course varies by an hour or so depending on the person, but there's no possible way you ran through both campaigns in 4 hours for each one or so.

Guys, just so you know, the Steam timer is broken, and all the 4-hour completion claims based on it are bullshit. The counter also stops in offline mode.

RPS did several replays, and even after knowing the solutions to the puzzles, they took around 7 hours to complete each time.



http://www.rockpapershotgun.com/2011/04/20/portal-2-in-4-hours-the-steam-timer-is-a-lie/

 

[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.

Yes, because a FANBOY is the absolute worst thing you can call someone on an internet forum, I'm scarred and gutted for life and will now have to go cut myself to deal with the sheer pain, thank you for that.[/sarcasm]

Seriously though, yes, I'm perfectly aware Steam has to be running before you can play a Valve game. But you do know it can run in offline mode as well, right? Obviously you won't have access to multiplayer, but I don't really see how there would be DRM in that case.

And for the record, yes, I am a Valve fanboy, thank you for the complement.[/notsarcasm]

Alright, calm down. Notice the way i formed my incredibly short sentence. I didn't outright call you a fanboy, and it wasn't an insult. Ok ok, the word itself is an insult, but that's besides the point: it's the only word to describe people like yourself. You blindly believe everything a certain industry does is the very best. How could you honestly have not figured that Steam was DRM?
As for the rest of your post: DRM isn't something that needs a constant internet connection to use the software. It's something that overall limits your ability to use the software. To use Steam offline, you have to log in first. A user with no internet connection who bought a retail game would therefore have no way of playing his retail game until he's activated it on Steam. On top of that, not everyone wants to actually have Steam. There might be people who use a console to game, but bought a PC exclusive for once and are now forced to install additional software just to play that game. While Steam has its benefits, for someone just wanting to quickly play their game, it's a huge hassle. On top of that, sometimes Steam has its errors which i've experienced quite a few times where you're unable to access your games at all. If the Steam servers go down, Valve aren't required (though they've said they will do so in any event) to release the games Steam-free.

 

[RowdyRodimus]

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.

At least it proved my comment in one of the DA2 topics right.

When a studio is trying to be innovative people whine.
When a studio is trying to do the same people whine again.

I won't type what else followed just sad to see people aren't playing anymore to enjoy them.
By the way 20 bucks that the next hate will be duke nukem forever.
It will get 0 points user reviews because it didn't live up to the 14 year long hype(well no shit).

I know you didn't say it, but I wanted to clarify that I didn't think that rating DA2 down because of that was a good reason, but that the fans of Origins had a legit complaint whereas Portal 2 seems to do exactly what a sequel should do which is build on the first game.

I also thought that by prefacing my comment the way I did (saying I hate Valve and Portal) would at least show that I'm not being biased for the game. (Basically so people that agree with the 0,1 and 2 ratings didn't think I was doing it as a fanboy) I hope nobody got offended by that part.

 

[Andy of Comix Inc]

--

On a live preview at Gamespot, one of Valve's lead writers said the decision to remove 'twitch' elements was one based upon player data from Steam. According to him, players who didn't finish the original game generally gave up on puzzles with that kind of twitch gameplay.

This man has it nailed, I think. Seeing as skilled players can do as much with a joystick as they can with mouse and keyboard, what defines a "port" is technical limitations based on hardware, and since Portal 2 is running on Source, which has long been most well-known because of its massively scalable options and settings, nothing points towards it being a console port.

Honestly, I think some PC gamers think that console players are all morons and all PC gamers are super geniuses; I've seen it work both ways 'round, and as a PC and console gamer, I can attest that there are just as many smart, awesome console players as there are dumb, untalented PC gamers.

 

[embrezar]

http://www.g4tv.com/thefeed/blog/post/712023/portal-2-protest-gamers-pan-portal-2-on-metacritic/

Thoughts? Rebuttals? Jokes?

On the one hand, this makes me doubt the whole user score system, but on the other, I wonder what other recourse gamers have for getting their voices heard beyond the games' forums. Maybe we just need to start taking the user reviews with some bigger grains of salt. Or heaping spoonfuls in some cases.

I think these people expected way too much out of the game somehow. I have beaten the game (though I haven't played coop yet) and already I am satisfied with it. The game took the concept of Portal and expanded it with things like the funnel and acceleration gel. In my opinion, Portal was rather short, but it was very entertaining regardless... Portal 2 is definitely entertaining, it's much longer than Portal, and it introduces new gameplay mechanics. Also, the game is funny... I found myself chuckling at Wheatley's or GLaDOS' dialogue frequently. Personally, I greatly enjoyed the game... the puzzles were by no means impossible to solve, but they still made the player use his/her brain, and the gels, funnels, and light bridges gave people that played the original Portal enough variety so it could stand out as a new game.

 

[AtheistAndProud]

Good god, they beat the game in 4 hours? It took me ages...
I guess I'm not as good at thinking with portals as I thought I was.
'course, I did spend way too much time hunting for rattman dens.
Hint: There's one in the room with about six aerial faith plates above deathwater.

 

[Daveman]

Well that's real sad but on the other hand I'M A POTATO.

Whiney fuckers are whiney. I cannot understand the hate of the DLC hats and shit. Nobody is forcing you to buy it and it doesn't even remotely change the gameplay. These people need to grow the fuck up. If you genuinely didn't like the game then fine but I think we need to stay a little more objective (as much as personal reviews can be) around this. The game worked great and the humour was awesome and if you're giving it a poor score based on the idea that it "wasn't Portal 1" then you're an idiot.

Also I highly doubt that it took that guy 3-4 hours to complete it. That's how long it took to complete the first one if you were smart and this one is WAY fucking longer.