What Are You Playing (Fall 2013)?

[YellerDog]

The fluids stuff was kind of obnoxiously obvious.

Never got that far into co-op.

[Mzo]

Co-op was pretty damn good.

[Darmonde]

When I think of portal 2, I think of the coop. I almost forgot there was a pretty huge single player game in there. I really liked it.

I do remember thinking it was less twitch than the first game, but I don't think that's necessarily bad, but yay opinions. The first game was basically an excuse to play with portals and do crazy things. The second went with story and added some different ways to use the portals.

I wonder sometimes how people's opinions about games would change if developers would just shut the fuck up. If you never heard they 'dumbed it down' would it change how you thought about the game?

[Mzo]

Before I ever read any interviews or heard any commentary, I played the game. I kept expecting it to ramp up and get to a point where it was hard or at least challenging, but then it was over. The story and presentation were so good I didn't mind, though. It was still fun to go through.

Everything I read or heard afterwards pretty much confirmed what I was thinking at the time, so no, having no access to what the developers say wouldn't have changed my opinion. The first game was a much smaller project with no expectations and was just right in terms of difficulty. The second was a goddamned event so everyone had to be able to finish it.

[Darmonde]

You just said it was still fun to go through, but easier.

Your first post basically made it sound like the game looked good but then it got turned to shit.

Maybe you just need to be clearer about what you're saying. I don't think you disliked portal 2. You disliked the idea that the game was marketed more toward mainstream (bad) players, which it was, and you're letting that color your opinion of the actual game you played.

It would be 'too easy' if the game never did anything and you got bored playing it. What can we do with these portals, to make them really interesting to the players? In the first game, they were used to do things that were fast and hard. In the second they tried more interesting but less difficult uses. Yes, it was partially because the audience was different. But it wasn't near as bad as you're making it out to be. If you don't care about story, puzzles, and slower play, then fine, you didn't like it. But that's not what you're saying.

[Mzo]

Portal 2 looked really interesting until they focus tested it to appeal to as broad a demographic as possible.

That says I thought the game went to shit?

All that means is I watched videos like these:



and I kept waiting for some of that stuff but it didn't exist in the final game. It felt like training, training, training, over. I definitely liked it, though. The other thing I said here was:

The story was bumped up x1000 and the puzzles were pretty great, but it never got anywhere near the first game in terms of what they expected you to be able to do and how quickly.

I really don't see where you're getting that I'm shitting all over the game.

[Diff-chan]

Well they explicitly took out twitch-based puzzles, so the level in that video was axed it seems.

I think the game took the Portal mechanic as far as it can go. Kim Swift wanted to do a bunch of other stuff but got overruled (then she left and made Quantum Conundrum, which I haven't played). I have absolutely zero interest in Portal 3.

[Mzo]

Quantum Conundrum was pretty fun but it had a devastatingly bad and anti-climactic final puzzle.

[A Robot Bit Me]

QC is not good at all.

[Mzo]

It does take special talent to make John de Lancie completely uninteresting. That final song was atrocious as well!