Portal

[Hümmelgümpf]

What the fuck?

Portal is the story of an enslaved woman raising a child and teaching that child how to kill her, giving her the tools, knowledge, and motivation she needs to do it, to release her from a life she hates but can't escape on her own.

 

[Erebus]

Are you serious? Somebody actually thinks that?

Portal is the kind of game which begets huge amounts of fanwank (my favorite theory is the one which says Chell is but the last one in a series of clones to be tested by Glados and all the written clues she finds were left by another version of herself).

Mind you, as the picture shows, Glados does look like a bound woman hanging from the ceiling... at least from this angle (if you're standing on the other side, it doesn't look like anything in particular).

Despite its short size, I really loved Portal. I think it's important to insist on just how good the writing is. It really contributes a lot to the quality of the game.

 

[Hoodoo]

portal deathmatch would be so fucking awesome

 

[Mister Arkham]

portal deathmatch would be so fucking awesome

What, like if you had to find ways to kill people using only the portal gun? That'd be pretty damn cool. Once you add other guns though... then it becomes like a game of TF2 where everyone is playing a spy.

 

[Hoodoo]

yah like portal guns / pistols / some kinda sniper and objects you can throw threw portals that explode etc, also being able to use everyones portals would be cool with maybe people being able to lead there portal exits over lava/ spikes etc

lol, they should make this

 

[kingcomrade]

Are you serious? Somebody actually thinks that?

Yes, captain bitchface?

 

[Jasede]

It's worth playing.

 

[Brother None]

-railroaded as fuck

With a gun that shoots portals, they should've left the puzzles somewhat open ended.

How many open ended platform puzzlers do you know?

 

[Hory]

How many games lack innovation because of this kind of mentality?

 

[Zomg]

I didn't know it was entirely a puzzle game going into it. I also thought it was going to go open ended at some point until I smacked into the boss fight and it was over.

 

[Damned Registrations]

How many games lack innovation because of this kind of mentality?

I don't know, but portal is not one of them. If you were expecting a big open world to dick around with the portals in, you're expecting a bit much. Portal wasn't made with a billion dollars. Saying they should have made it bigger is like saying dwarf fortress should have had a full graphics set complete with animations implemented by now.

 

[Dire Roach]

And that's precisely why Dwarf Fortress lacks INNUVASHUN.

 

[Tintin]

Still, it was fun all the way till the very end.

Nope. I remember thinking "God, when will the tutorial finally end?". And then I fought GladOS. And then the game was over.

Yeah, I thought the same. The first few levels have this feeling of "okay, the game is teaching me some ways I can use this portal" but then all the levels felt like that, and there was no sense of "alright, I've learned it all, and now I'm going to play the REAL levels where I have to use my brain and awesome portal skills".

It was way too easy, but still fun and interesting.

 

[Wild Slop]

Yup.

I'll compare it to Lolo again, and say it was like the 1st floor (with each floor ending in a boss fight).

...like Lolo, here should have been 10 floors with new enemies and mechanics to interact with.
The buttons/weighted buttons and energy ball activated switches were a good start.


Enjoyable enough and sets a good frame work for something better.

 

[Hory]

I don't know, but portal is not one of them. If you were expecting a big open world to dick around with the portals in, you're expecting a bit much. Portal wasn't made with a billion dollars.

Yes, portal was pretty innovative. It was based on the idea of "poor" indie developers. Innovation doesn't cost a billion dollars, and open-ended levels wouldn't have either.

Saying they should have made it bigger is like saying dwarf fortress should have had a full graphics set complete with animations implemented by now.

I haven't said that at all, I was criticizing Brother None's "nothing like this exists so far so it's OK if no one does it" attitude. You won't get any progress with this kind of thinking.

 

[Damned Registrations]

It would have cost more money than they had. Either that or it would have been buggy as fuck because they would have no time to test that much crap.

My only complaint about the game is that the first two thirds are tutorial mode for retards. But it'd be unreasonable to ask them to market a game to the 10% of us that know what inertia is and have more logic problem solving abilities than an 8 year old. Especially when the brunt of their fanbase are going to be FPS idiots that need to be lead around by the hand when there AREN'T any 'puzzles'.

 

[Brother None]

Innovation doesn't cost a billion dollars, and open-ended levels wouldn't have either.

Uhhhh...actually open-ended levels are really expensive to craft and test.

I haven't said that at all, I was criticizing Brother None's "nothing like this exists so far so it's OK if no one does it" attitude. You won't get any progress with this kind of thinking.

Really now? So we should shout at every single game which has core gameplay that has been done before? It is OK if you repeat what's been done before, that's the very definition of "OK". It's not great, it's not innovative, it's OK. Your attitude lacks even a semblance of realism.

 

[Hory]

Uhhhh...actually open-ended levels are really expensive to craft and test.

Baawww, poor Valve Corporation can't afford to pay a couple of extra level designers. They probably barely survived the release of Portal, we should be glad they didn't go bankrupt, right? Seems that the more time Brother None spends working for public gaming websites, the more he turns into the average corporate lap-dog reviewer.

Really now? So we should shout at every single game which has core gameplay that has been done before? It is OK if you repeat what's been done before, that's the very definition of "OK". It's not great, it's not innovative, it's OK. Your attitude lacks even a semblance of realism.

My attitude? You're the one giving extremist examples. I argued with you in a specific context, I didn't say that this should apply to any and all future cases of game development. Hobo Elf said it should have been more open ended. You implied that this is not the case since other open ended puzzle games supposedly don't exist. I criticized this ridiculous argument, because it's the antithesis of the thinking that brought about most worthwhile human advances, and it's what makes the video game industry of today so shitty. Fuck, why am I arguing with someone who can't even follow the thread of a simple argument? Do I have to recap the debate after each post for you?

 

[SimpleComplexity]

Portal is awesome, play it by all means. Only negatives i can think of is that it is a) bit too short and b) levels aren`t really hard ... Btw there are some small robots, actually kinda cute,i don`t see any reason to be afraid of them. And in HL those lets call them rope monsters aren`t really dangerous, when they start to pull you up just take out the crowbar and hit them when you get close.

 

[Silellak]

The defense turret level is reason enough to play Portal.

Challenging? No.

Entertaining as Hell? Yes.

 

[Damned Registrations]

Uhhhh...actually open-ended levels are really expensive to craft and test.

Baawww, poor Valve Corporation can't afford to pay a couple of extra level designers. They probably barely survived the release of Portal, we should be glad they didn't go bankrupt, right? Seems that the more time Brother None spends working for public gaming websites, the more he turns into the average corporate lap-dog reviewer.

Really now? So we should shout at every single game which has core gameplay that has been done before? It is OK if you repeat what's been done before, that's the very definition of "OK". It's not great, it's not innovative, it's OK. Your attitude lacks even a semblance of realism.

My attitude? You're the one giving extremist examples. I argued with you in a specific context, I didn't say that this should apply to any and all future cases of game development. Hobo Elf said it should have been more open ended. You implied that this is not the case since other open ended puzzle games supposedly don't exist. I criticized this ridiculous argument, because it's the antithesis of the thinking that brought about most worthwhile human advances, and it's what makes the video game industry of today so shitty. Fuck, why am I arguing with someone who can't even follow the thread of a simple argument? Do I have to recap the debate after each post for you?

Fuck you. A fucking good game actually shows up and you bitch because it isn't more epic like Halo or some shit. Piss on some other game, there's plenty worse than this. You want your massive budgeted open ended pile of crap with a physics engine and some jokes thrown in somewhere amidst the giant design team? FO3 is waiting for you.

 

[Hory]

Get off the internets, retard. I didn't piss on Portal, I even praised it earlier in the thread. Are you sick in the head or just blatantly fanboyish?

 

[Brother None]

Baawww, poor Valve Corporation can't afford to pay a couple of extra level designers/

Huh? I never said they couldn't afford it, I was just pointing out you're underselling the costs.

I argued with you in a specific context, I didn't say that this should apply to any and all future cases of game development.

You did. I was criticizing Brother None's "nothing like this exists so far so it's OK if no one does it" attitude. You won't get any progress with this kind of thinking You're criticizing an attitude because "that kind of thinking" stops progress. You even ask How many games lack innovation because of this kind of mentality? How is that not making the argument in a general way?

You implied that this is not the case since other open ended puzzle games supposedly don't exist.

No, they don't exist period. Name one example. There are a lot of conceptual problems with open ended platform puzzlers. And Portal is primarily a platform puzzler. The fact that the tool used is a portal gun does not change the nature of the gameplay, it's just a gameplay representation tool. In other words, Hobo Elf was looking at the shovel before he looked at the pavement and naturally concluded digging would be a possibility. He's wrong.

I criticized this ridiculous argument, because it's the antithesis of the thinking that brought about most worthwhile human advances, and it's what makes the video game industry of today so shitty.

Yes, and that's where I replied that expecting massive innovation from every title isn't reasonable. Hey, great, we're back where we started. Are you going to actual address my remark now or do you want to do another recap?

Note that I never said no one should ever try to make an open ended platform puzzler, conceptual problems or not, just that I'm not surprised or disappointed that the recent first-person platform puzzlers, Portal and Mirror's Edge, are both linear as feck, because platform puzzlers usually are, and there's nothing about either game that makes me demand they should break out the innovation when they're bringing minor innovations and fun gameplay to the genre anyway.

For ME it was kind of dodgier because the game did look tantalizingly open from the cityscape shots, but gameplay vids quickly showed anyone interested it was railroaded. Since they never promised anything else, I don't see the problem with them being your typical linear puzzle platformer, but in FP and with some interesting gameplay touches.

 

[Damned Registrations]

Baawww, poor Valve Corporation can't afford to pay a couple of extra level designers. They probably barely survived the release of Portal, we should be glad they didn't go bankrupt, right? Seems that the more time Brother None spends working for public gaming websites, the more he turns into the average corporate lap-dog reviewer.

Best praise ever.

 

[Hory]

Huh? I never said they couldn't afford it, I was just pointing out you're underselling the costs.

Do you realize what my point is? That they could have implemented it if they wanted to, without any great sacrifices. This makes the entire discussion about costs irrelevant.

You did. I was criticizing Brother None's "nothing like this exists so far so it's OK if no one does it" attitude. You won't get any progress with this kind of thinking You're criticizing an attitude because "that kind of thinking" stops progress. You even ask How many games lack innovation because of this kind of mentality? How is that not making the argument in a general way?

I was criticizing a specific application of this attitude - the case in which it is used as an argument against improving something. I didn't say that "we should shout at every single game which has core gameplay that has been done before". That's general.

No, they don't exist period. Name one example.

I say "supposedly" because I'm not in any position of experience with regards to platform puzzlers as to say if open ended ones exist or not. And this is also irrelevant. That they don't exist yet says nothing about whether they should exist or not.

Yes, and that's where I replied that expecting massive innovation from every title isn't reasonable.

If by reasonable you refer to the probability, it isn't reasonable. In these times, it's reasonable to expect no innovation whatsoever. But there's something more important that unreasonable expectations bring: progress. Because when enough people have these expectations, others start noticing them and reacting accordingly. And this is what I opposed: downplaying Hobo Elf's "unreasonable" expectations.

Note that I never said no one should ever try to make an open ended platform puzzler, conceptual problems or not, just that I'm not surprised or disappointed that the recent first-person platform puzzlers, Portal and Mirror's Edge, are both linear as feck, because platform puzzlers usually are, and there's nothing about either game that makes me demand they should break out the innovation when they're bringing minor innovations and fun gameplay to the genre anyway.

I don't think that puzzle platformers have a history long enough to be able to say "how they usually are" but, again, I'm not an expert. Also, Mirror's Edge could have easily been made more open (hell, you're walking in open spaces), so from a technical point of view, it's not unreasonable at all to expect it.