Portal 2 : some concerns (Not Trolling)

[CG]

My immediate thoughts on reading the first post:

There are no concerns here. You have said 'maybe they won't make it as good' and that is all you've said. Concerned about the humor? Look at the advertisements they've done so far, they're all bloody hilarious. Concerned that the gameplay will not be as fun? WHY?? You've seen none of it!!

Pessimists get out, thanks.

 

[Avatar Roku]

I have concerns, but they are not the same as the OP's. I don't think it is going to be just a cash-in. It seems to me like they are putting a lot of effort into the advertising campaign, and I really like the humor displayed in that.
Also, I really wouldn't mind if it was longer than Portal. The only thing to watch out for when you make a longer game is that it doesn't get too thinly spread.

The thing that I'm concerned about is that it seems really centered on co-op, and I will definitely be playing the game alone.

That's just a merketing thing. Atlas and P-Body are much better mascots than Chell, don't you think? Granted, GLaDOS may be a better mascot, but they're being very coy about her role in it.

 

[NathLines]

It's Valve. I don't have a single worry... Except one.

THE NEW PORTAL SONG! There has to be a new one and it has to be at least on par with the first one. This is the only thing I worry about.

 

[ANImaniac89]

I love the original Portal, but I don't think Portal 2 is going to be as good.
In fact I think Portal 2 is going to turn out like Bio-Shock 2 being a mediocre cash in at best.
I don't think it can live up to the original. I'm afraid the humor will be forced and if it is funny it will start another annoying internet meme ("The cake is a lie" is fucking annoying and everyone knows it).

Another concern is about length of the game. Portal 1 was about a 2-4 hours long game which like Yahtzee said is a good length, it prevents it form outstaying its welcome. So How will making Portal longer be to its benefit?

I honestly want to know if others share my concerns. I brought my concerns up to a good friend and he struck me upside the head and told me to NEVER blaspheme against Portal again.

Edited for Spelling, I had just woken up when I first posted this, Sorry.

What are you basing these concerns on?

Ummmmm...... How Bio-Shock 2 turned out.

What does that have to do with how Portal 2 may turn out?

Both Bio-Shock 1 and Portal 1 are considered to be some of the greatest games of all time.
Both had great writing and redefined the FPS genre and neither game needed a sequel.
But Bio-Shock got a sequel and what was the first thing they added? Multiplayer.
Now what was one of the first thing announced for Portal 2?.......... Would anyone in the class like to answer?

OK, that was pretty cool. But to be fair, there are a few key differences:
1. Bioshock 2 was made by a different developer then the first game.
2. Portal is a game that is much more compatible with a multiplayer mode. Hell, there were times in the first game when I was wishing I had another person there to help.

But, as I said in my above post, I do have concerns.

Look I'm not saying that its definitely going to be bad, I'm just saying I have some serious concerns, and I don't want to be disappointed again (like with BioShock 2)
History tends to repeat itself, and even good game makers can fuck up.
I'll still probably get Portal 2 (simply on the grounds of all the cool shit you get with it on PS3) Just not on day one. On that day I shall be busy with MORTAL KOMBAT

 

[Sensenmann]

Another concern is about length of the game. Portal 1 was about a 2-4 hours long game which like Yahtzee said is a good length, it prevents it form outstaying its welcome. So How will making Portal longer be to its benefit?

I agree with the risk of humor issues (and Portal 1 was probably the funniest game in a while if ever), but Portal 1 was only 1+1/2 hour long with only 1-3 puzzles that get people stuck. Many of us wished it was longer, so was not a "good length" and it barely had a stay to welcome. Games from Valve are usually 8 hours and the only game I feel has ever outstayed it's welcome by being good was Assassin's Creed 2 (and maybe Splinter Cell Conviction by appearing good and having enough replayability to make you realise it isn't really all that).

 

[Bek359]

I have concerns, but they are not the same as the OP's. I don't think it is going to be just a cash-in. It seems to me like they are putting a lot of effort into the advertising campaign, and I really like the humor displayed in that.
Also, I really wouldn't mind if it was longer than Portal. The only thing to watch out for when you make a longer game is that it doesn't get too thinly spread.

The thing that I'm concerned about is that it seems really centered on co-op, and I will definitely be playing the game alone.

I think they're hyping the co-op because it's a radically new feature and the bots make much better mascots than the all-but-anonymous Chell does.

 

[gibboss28]

I love the original Portal, but I don't think Portal 2 is going to be as good.
In fact I think Portal 2 is going to turn out like Bio-Shock 2 being a mediocre cash in at best.
I don't think it can live up to the original. I'm afraid the humor will be forced and if it is funny it will start another annoying internet meme ("The cake is a lie" is fucking annoying and everyone knows it).

Another concern is about length of the game. Portal 1 was about a 2-4 hours long game which like Yahtzee said is a good length, it prevents it form outstaying its welcome. So How will making Portal longer be to its benefit?

I honestly want to know if others share my concerns. I brought my concerns up to a good friend and he struck me upside the head and told me to NEVER blaspheme against Portal again.

Edited for Spelling, I had just woken up when I first posted this, Sorry.

What are you basing these concerns on?

Ummmmm...... How Bio-Shock 2 turned out.

What does that have to do with how Portal 2 may turn out?

Both Bio-Shock 1 and Portal 1 are considered to be some of the greatest games of all time.
Both had great writing and redefined the FPS genre and neither game needed a sequel.
But Bio-Shock got a sequel and what was the first thing they added? Multiplayer.
Now what was one of the first thing announced for Portal 2?.......... Would anyone in the class like to answer?

Your concerns are based on the fact a different company made a meh sequel to a meh game.

Also, how did portal and Bioshock redefine the fps genre?

 

[OManoghue]

They've been working on the game for 4 years. I think it'll be okay, the thing that ruined BioShock 2 or even murdered Dragon Age 2 was short dev time.

 

[TilMorrow]

I don't see what people find so bad about Bioshock 2. I just finished it today and thought it had a great ending. But I'll admit some things were overdone...

Valve produces great sequels to great game just look at HL and HL2. Don't worry Portal 2 is probably going to turn out all right.

 

[Smooth Operator]

Only issue that could arise is the co-op, suppose to be a separate campaign, now I like to replay these things many times and while I'm sure I'll have a buddy to do it with once or twice I do need an alternative, like that decades old invention called bots that no game designer seems to be able to conjure up anymore, otherwise I will be left with a half broken game once people move on to new shinny stuff.

 

[Dexiro]

Another concern is about length of the game. Portal 1 was about a 2-4 hours long game which like Yahtzee said is a good length, it prevents it form outstaying its welcome. So How will making Portal longer be to its benefit?

I don't think this will be a problem at all. Portal 1 had incredibly simple mechanics, their were only so many challenges they could make with such a limited set.

With Portal 2 though we have like 8 or more new mechanics/obstacles (gel, tractor beams etc), those will increase the life of the game massively.

As for the humour; I imagine it being a little hit and miss compared to Portal 1 but I trust Valve will do a good enough job.

 

[Avatar Roku]

Only issue that could arise is the co-op, suppose to be a separate campaign, now I like to replay these things many times and while I'm sure I'll have a buddy to do it with once or twice I do need an alternative, like that decades old invention called bots that no game designer seems to be able to conjure up anymore, otherwise I will be left with a half broken game once people move on to new shinny stuff.

How would you add bots to a puzzle game without either a)making it way to easy or b)making it frustratingly difficult?

 

[SoranMBane]

Honestly, I'm not worried at all. Not even about the seeming emphasis on co-op, which would normally be a concern for me. Half of that probably has to do with the fact that I'm getting the PS3 version, which comes with Steam, meaning I'll be able to play it with my friend who'll be on a Mac. It also feels like something that actually deserves to be there rather than an arbitrary addition to pander to the multiplayer crowd. In other words, the co-op is there because Valve felt like it would be a neat thing to do, and I seriously doubt that they'd put any less effort into the single player for it, since that's what older fans are going to buying the game for.

 

[SovietSecrets]

No concerns from me. Why? Its Valve. They take their time to make sure their games are good. This is why I dislike sequels so much, not because I hate sequels, I hate the people that start getting pissy or worried about the sequel. Then when the game comes out, they ***** and moan even more most of the time or they are actually happy and understood that there were worried over nothing.

 

[Tharwen]

There are a couple of potential pitfalls:

1. The complexity. Portal was brilliant for its simple approach, and adding a more detailed art style and more puzzle mechanics may ruin this.

2. The length. It will be hard to keep making original puzzles for an entire 10-15 hour game. I just hope they don't end up sticking multiple puzzles together or repeating old ones with increasing difficulty like a lot of games seem to do.

 

[tzimize]

Consoles: Valve has already stated that the twitch gaming from the original will not be found anywhere. They say this is because gamers should not be disallowed to finish a game just because they are not fast enough with a mouse/gamepad, or something of the sort. This is just PR speak for: If we make the game as fast as the original only 5% if any of the console crowd will be able to finish it.

Thanks for providing me with a very ignorant statement. I needed to laugh. How many puzzles in portal we're exactly twitch reflex? I think maybe 2 >.> Thats not what a puzzle game should be anyway, it should be about using your head. Finally, 5%? Are you kidding me? Every gamer I know has played portal and they all played it on the 360, and I'm sure this is true for many, many more people on these forums alone. Stop puling figures out of your ass.

If you reread my post, and especially my answers with the link to the Valve-guy interview you might understand what I mean. In case you dont, I'll try to explain it better:

I'm not using 5% as an accurate number, I'm using it in the meaning: very few. I had thought that was obvious, but in case it was not...thats what I meant.

I'll have to be very careful now to not get into a console/PC war as that was not the intention of my post. A mouse is more accurate than a gamepad. Thats a fact. What you or I prefer to use does not matter.

When you fly through the air at some big speeds after a couple of portals, and try to aim a portal where you land, a lot of accuracy and timing is needed. The game might be fine, but there was some tough challenges (I.E. the extra missions/timed challenges). I liked those. At some point it will be close to impossible to pull off with a gamepad, but only quite hard to pull off with a mouse.

It does not take a genius to imagine why games, all games are easier. So that more people are able to play them. When more people can play them, more people buy them = more money. In some cases this is easily done with difficulty sliders. Enemies hit harder, etc. Changing the level design is not so easy to do with a difficulty slider. When Valve caters to a crowd that does not have the potential to be as accurate as another crowd (because of technical specifications, not skill) they have to design the levels around that.

This in turn makes the game less fun for me.

 

[Mr.Walrus]

I don't see this happening... If there's one thing Valve is known for, it's quality. If you're concerned that it won't reach the levels of entertainment that Portal 1 did, just take a look at Valve's history with sequels for their classic games. Half Life 1 was an absoloutely amazing videogame, winning dozens of awards and satisfying tens of thousands of players. Then what happens? They make Half Life 2, and somehow, it manages to be even better. It's obvious that Gabe has put some serious cash into Portal 2, judging by the amount of advertisement and media they're going for... I just don't see Valve going to such great lengths to advertise a game not worth playing. Keep in mind that worse sequels from the company, such as L4D2, didnt get half as much media as Portal 2 has, even when it's likely L4D1 hauled in a greater profit than P1.

Simply put, I think that judging by the past and the signs all around us, Portal 2 will not only live up to the original game's quality, but also surpass it.