Portal 2 Review

[Sassafrass]

Well let's see, reviews are supposed to be an accurate evaluation of the quality of a game.

Average Dragon Age II Critic Score: 79
Escapist Dragon Age II Critic Score: 100

Average Portal II Critic Score: 94
Escapist Portal II Critic Score: 80

So either the Escapist reviews are untrustworthy, or everyone else is. Which seems more likely? I want a reviewer that gives me an accurate measure of a game's worth, and solid reasoning behind it, that's why I go with Game Informer. The mark of a good review source is that it deviates a bit from the average with good reasoning behind it, the mark of a bad review source is when it wildly leaps 15 to 20 percent in random directions, with conclusions that weren't supported by logic or examples anywhere in the review.

...What?

Seriously, you're taking an overall average, taken from many reviews and then comparing it to one review score and then using that as leverage to say the Escapist reviews are untrustworthy. ...I'm just going to walk away and leave you to think that they are untrustworthy then.

 

[Stevepinto3]

Surprised about the loading time complaints. Sure they were after every level, so about every 5-10 minutes, but they only took like 10 seconds. Then again I was playing the PC version not the 360.

I will agree that some of the levels are just a lot easier, but that could be due to the fact I did a lot of the challenge modes in the first game.

There's one room where you have 3 lasers and 3 switches to hit with them on the other side of the wall. I had it figured out within 15 seconds, easily. It seemed like they thought it would be harder than that. There were some rooms that really stumped me for a while though.

 

[Slycne]

Average Dragon Age II Critic Score: 79
Escapist Dragon Age II Critic Score: 100

Average Portal II Critic Score: 94
Escapist Portal II Critic Score: 80

This is a common problem for those of us who don't score on 10 or 100 scales. We didn't give Dragon Age II 100 nor did we give Portal II a 80, those are merely the aggregates conversions. We gave them a 5 and 4 stars out of 5 respectively. You can see what these scores mean here [http://www.escapistmagazine.com/articles/view/editorials/7149-What-Our-Review-Scores-Mean]. You're comparing a set of data points that's intentionally giving wider marks to one that I feel is needlessly complex. I'd love for someone to point out to me what the quantifiable mechanic, feature or difference that equates to a game receiving a 92 instead of a 90. For instance, when I recommend something to my friends I tell them if I think it's great, that I still had fun with it or to skip it. Anything more is really not helping me to recommend it, and ultimately that's what we are trying to do here recommend games, not adjust our average scoring on metacritic.

 

[Jaime_Wolf]

(Developer Valve "updated" the game last year, adding a new ending in which Chell is dragged back toward the underground science lab immediately after emerging victorious.)

Is this actually complaining about updating the game to make the sequel fit better? What, did Valve ruin it's "purity" or something?

 

[halkun]

Oh for the love of Pete people!

The "SCIENCE!" thing is the review is from this.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2IlHgbOWj4o

 

[TiefBlau]

You use the term 'indie' a lot when describing Portal.

Portal isn't an indie game nor a 'pseudo-indie' game. In fact it was made by one of the largest studios in the PC market.

Which, as it so happens, is an indie developer themselves.

Indie, or independent, means that the developers are not run or published by any game publisher like Activision or EA. Valve most certainly fits the bill.

You don't think of Valve or Bungie as typical indie developers per se, but they most certainly are. And in Valve's case, it shows.

 

[Jaker the Baker]

Blah, Russ...I see constant complaints on this review about the quality of it (i.e. not mentioning the co-op enough), and shouting memes doesn't make you funny. Just...stop trying so hard >.<

 

[Sansha]

I liked this review, but the 'science, SCIENCE!' thing irritated the hell out of me.

 

[John Funk]

I know they're different people, and it's not affecting my decisions to play or buy the game.

All I said was that the Escapist as a whole is demonstrating time and time again that their reviews are not trustworthy, I don't see how anything you've posted conflicts with that statement.

Well, if that's the case, I appear to have missed your point by a country mile. I guess I'm just not seeing how this hints at the Escapist's reviews being untrust-worthy in any way, shape or form.

Well let's see, reviews are supposed to be an accurate evaluation of the quality of a game.

Average Dragon Age II Critic Score: 79
Escapist Dragon Age II Critic Score: 100

Average Portal II Critic Score: 94
Escapist Portal II Critic Score: 80

So either the Escapist reviews are untrustworthy, or everyone else is. Which seems more likely? I want a reviewer that gives me an accurate measure of a game's worth, and solid reasoning behind it, that's why I go with Game Informer. The mark of a good review source is that it deviates a bit from the average with good reasoning behind it, the mark of a bad review source is when it wildly leaps 15 to 20 percent in random directions, with conclusions that weren't supported by logic or examples anywhere in the review.

Russ Pitts said in his conclusion (the "bottom line"): "The levels just plain aren't as challenging" But nowhere in the actual review gives an example, or a reason he feels this way, hell, he doesn't even mention it at all it just slips in to the conclusion at the end like a 6th grader who doesn't know how to write the conclusion of an essay.

And don't even get me started on this excerpt:

"The levels may not seem as devious or as interesting[b/] (perhaps owing to familiarity with the underlying portal mechanic), but the puzzles and environments are sufficiently varied and interesting"

So the levels don't seem interesting, but the puzzles and environments are interesting? What the fuck?

I don't have anything personal against Russ Pitts, but the Escapist is spreading itself too thin, they already have Yahtzee for (sort of) reviews, they either need to hire someone solely for reviews, or just stick with Yahtzee, but this whole "cycle a staff member into a review every so often" just causes them to look unprofessional and schizophrenic in their opinions.

Yahtzee does not do reviews, and never has. He is an entertainer and a critic, but not a reviewer, as he will tell you himself. Reviews have ALWAYS been by members of the staff (or occasionally by paid freelancers). That's part of our job description, as you'd find at pretty much any other game site on the internet.

As Justin said, we don't grade on a 100 point scale. We have 5 rankings, and only 5 - we don't even do half-stars. What's more, is that game critique is an inherently subjective form. I mean, there's certainly a point where you can agree that a game is well made or poorly made (we can all agree that Assassin's Creed 2 is better than Stalin vs. Martians), but as reviewers and gamers we all have things that interest us or grab us more than others.

Something that Greg Tito, as someone who has been playing table top games for over a decade, really loved in Dragon Age 2 might be something that another reviewer thought was horrible. Something that Russ Pitts didn't like in Portal 2 might have been something that another reviewer thought was fantastic. They're different scores, given by different people, though we at The Escapist stand by them every time.

That does not mean that we all have a consensus on every score we publish, of course. It's not uncommon for us to talk about the scores we're giving before the review is finished, and we might disagree. Susan gave Assassin's Creed 2 a 4-star rating, and I'd have easily given it a 5. Similarly, I'd have personally given Portal 2 a 5, but I tried playing the original Dragon Age and got bored within 30 minutes, so I'd have never rated it highly.

Metacritic is not the end-all-be-all of game reviews. It is a collection of subjective opinions that it attempts to assign objective scores, and that's why a lot of game journalists and game makers alike have a problem with it.

 

[OZITOMAI]

i dont get what you mean by long loading titles, it takes less then 15 secs to load

 

[Crowser]

I... didn't get what the yelling of 'science!' and occasional high-pitched voice was about.

Anyway i'm sure it's a great 'memetic' game and everything with novel puzzles and memorable moments, but one problem i really have with portal - nay, puzzle games in general - is that the re-playability is non-existent. Once you find out the solution to each room, there's... not really much more to it. It might be novel to run through it once or twice, but there's really no gameplay involved beyond trying to solve the puzzle in each room. This coupled with the pitifully short campaign (around 6 hours, wasn't it? And even that is being generous according to some reports about the campaign's length) really makes this a hard sell. Almost a cash in, in some respects, as the original portal was short but the low cost (or free in some cases) made it worth the purchase, as you're not likely to pick it up again beyond the odd one or two times you want to show off to your mates or for a mini nostalgia trip through your favourite test chambers. The fact it was brief and lacked re-playability was offset by the low cost, which is clearly not the case here as we're expected to pay £35 ($50 for yanks?) for this product. To me, it's clearly trying to ride on the success of its predecessor by clever use of memetic phrases like "the cake is a lie" and in making GLaDOS herself a sort of 'meme'. It's like the world's most devious marketing ploy. DLC dressed up as a full retail package.

Please actually play the game before making remarks claiming that it is "DLC dressed up as a full retail package." -.-

I found the single player to be around 10 hours for me, with the Co-op clocking in around 8. 18 hours defiantly justifies a full retail purchase for me, and at the very least it is NOT what you quoted it above to be.

 

[Gralian]

at the very least it is NOT what you quoted it above to be.

I won't argue with you on the aspect of length, as i said before, i haven't played it or finished it and i'm not qualified to comment on that. However, i think my point regarding replayability still stands. You can't ignore that just because you don't mind re-running the same puzzles five times over due to fanboyism. (i'm sorry if that comes off as derogatory, i couldn't think of a better way to express it)

It doesn't matter how amazing the game is if there's nothing to bring you back after you've seen and done everything. It's not like, say, a shooter where the enemy AI is constantly thinking and reacting to you and thus presents a challenge (regardless of how minor) simply because you've seen all the tricks and you know all the puzzles. The whole game is based around a concept of "here is a room with a puzzle, solve it". As someone else before me said, it's like taking a test while staring at the answer sheet. The gameplay of it is virtually non-existant, beyond figuring out the answers to puzzles, and while co-op is a nice addition there's no real online component. Or rather, no online competitive component which is what keeps a lot of games alive, beyond the odd co-op focused title like Left 4 Dead, but the exception is made due to the unpredictable AI element i mentioned earlier. This still provides competition, only it is against the AI, not other players. Portal is not about competition, which is a mortal blow to its replaybility. I find it amazing people overlook this entirely.

 

[I dun give]

Seriously? Was spoiling the acts 1, 2 and 3 really needed? I mean, I was expecting a boss fight, a first, second and third act, but there was no point in spoiling what these acts entailed. Now I'm going to have this niggling thought in my head telling me whats coming next. It's like saying the whole "Atlas is Fontaine" thing everyone spoiled. At least he didn't spoil the co-op.

And too bad you didn't enjoy the game, I can't wait to play it.

 

[BlackStar42]

SCIENCE!

I'd so love to get this, but don't have the money Ah well, I bought Dragon Age:Origins for £20, so that'll keep me going for a while.

 

[smithy1234]

What an honestly tremendous game, by the end it almost had me in tears because I cared so much for the characters. Absolutely superb, games are art and Roger Ebert can eat his heart out.

 

[Shakermaker]

Such a levelheaded review. Refreshing.

 

[BGH122]

Portal 2 Review

The indie darling returns in a AAA sequel, but is it still good enough for science?

Read Full Article

Three times the originals length is vague. How long is the single player?

EDIT: Seriously, swear on your companion cube the single player is over 8 hours long. Please??

It took me six hours.

Seriously, OP, did you have to incidentally show the strategies for so many of the Act 3 difficult puzzles? Or Wheatley's viewing screen? You were spoilering like mad here.

EDIT: One thousandth post!

 

[Yopaz]

Wow... the review complained about loading times and played it on the Xbox 360. Playing it on the PC will give you almost no loading time at all, and the PC I played it on isn't great.

 

[DenSomKastade]

what's up with everyone calling the arg, it's Portal. And I think it is a shame that they didn't have advanced chambers or challenge maps =(

 

[ninetails593]

I think you spoiled a bit in the Act 3 scenes. Also, I have no idea what you're talking about that this game's puzzles are easier. Did your brain somehow get turned upside-down?