While Fin was visiting over the weekend, we finished the Portal 2 co-op mode.
I have to say, that's definitely where the best of the game is. Shame it's so short though.
When it comes to my over-all feelings about Portal 2,
Yahtzee's Opinion comes very close to mine.
I should take care to say that my opinion on Portal 2 is heavily influenced by the fact that it is a sequel, especially a sequel to Portal. Although, unlike most people (including Yahtzee, this time) I think Portal is a far cry from a flawless game. Then again, if I were to give Sands of Time (my favourite game) a rating out of 10, I'd probably give it about a 5. Of any game I've ever played, the highest I'd ever give would be a 6 - I don't think any game has done anything worthy of a higher score than that. Assuming that 10 is a perfect game, that is. Which I would. I'm a harsh critic.
One of my biggest problems with Portal is that it is too much like so many other games. The game revolves around the plot, rather than the plot around the game - in an interactive medium, that's an instant failure as far as I'm concerned.
It's not even in the same style as the original; In Portal, there is a 60 second period at the start of the game where you're trapped in a room (during which you're supposed to learn the controls) and after that, you're free to move around and portal and such right up until you defeat GLaDOS. In Portal 2, the game opens with a long and elaborate scene in which you've nothing to do (because you've already learned the controls) except watch random shit happen. (And then after all that, you go through the same tutorial levels as the first game!) The rest of the game is full of scenes where you're trapped for extended periods of time, or scenes which last ages where you can do nothing but listen to GLaDOS and Wheatley whine at each other, or things like that. The game doesn't care about the player, it cares about the story. A flaw practically every company in the industry is currently making, sadly.
Actually, that's probably one of the biggest flaws, even in other respects. The game is too self-indulgent. Everything goes on longer than it needs to. Not the game as a whole (that's fine, I'm happy with more gameplay.) but things like Cave Johnson for example. After the first section I had got it! He's an insane man who doesn't care about people and is hopelessly incompetent in the name of science! Grand! But then it went on through the 'homeless person' section and the employee section too. With the same pointless voice overs that just got tiresome. ("Look! I am incompetent and running my company into the ground!") It didn't enamour me that the whole thing was clearly just a way to shoehorn the history of Aperture in to the game. In a conveniently linear way! Glorious.
Going through the place where all the Turrets are built felt the same way to me - it lasted a ridiculously long time. When I played through it with Developer Commentary on it all made sense to me though; they give long speeches on how they thought it would be great to see the behind-the-scenes of Aperture science and they imagined it would be huge and elaborate and wasteful (inefficient in the name of science) - on top of that, they even said they had more areas of the labs they were designing but never put in the game. So that whole section could have been even more self-indulgent. At least they had some restraint.
They game is also easy. Not even easy, but simple. Throughout the entire Cave Johnson section, the vast majority of the "puzzles" are find the only spot you can place a portal in the entire cavern, place said portal. In the original Portal, there was complication. Lots of it. And more significantly, there was urgency. Remember Test Chamber 19? The platform you have to stand on that moves over the acid pit, with walls to knock you off the platform? Timing in that section was everything - if you weren't quick and skilled with the gun at that stage, you'd be punished for it. The fire-pit at the end of the chamber had the same thing. You had to quickly place a portal on the opposite wall, and another down in the fire, and leap through the flames, with only about 3 to 5 seconds to do it all. Portal 2 had none of that urgency. At any point in the game, you could sit back, survey the scene, etc.
The only part of the game where I felt that urgency was the bit during at the end - where Wheatley cries "Holmes Versus Moriarty! Aristotle versus Giant Crusher Plate!" which suffered from another problem. If you listen to the commentary for that chapter, they say that during play testing, people would regularly die on that part because they fired out the wrong colour portal. In response, they programmed that for that section you cannot fire the wrong portal. Which is just sad. What's the point in playing without a failure state? (It's like the PoP 2008 complaint, only replace being caught and put back on the ground with there simply being no cliffs to fall from.)
In another piece of Development Commentary for the last chapter of the game, they say that when the trailers for Portal 2 were released, fans complained that the game looked too hard, so they took out all the crushers/traps/etc. they were going to use earlier in the game, saving them for the end. That's just retarded. It
looked too hard? Seriously!? This is the most pathetic explanation I've ever heard. The original portal was challenging. People liked that. Hell, Valve sold a load of DLC based on even more difficult versions of the already difficult chambers! But no, apparently Portal 2
looked too hard, so it had to change.
Also, the humour didn't have the context and charm that made the original work. In Portal, you're going through testing and for the majority of the game, GLaDOS is just a test supervisor. She's weird and not what you'd expect from a supervisor, using a KIND of motivational technique and encouragement, but clearly missing the point of everything, not understanding the human she's dealing with. It's not until later on in the game that some hints start being dropped. Then finally, the game takes a dark turn, revealing her for a murderous A.I. In Portal 2, GLaDOS's humour is completely forced. I mean, they resort to fat jokes. Seriously? Oh how the mighty have fallen.
Which reminds me. I haven't actually pointed it out, but pretty much all my complaints come from the fact that Portal 2 was developed by Valve, rather than a small group of loving project developers IN Valve, hoping that if they produce a good enough game they'll convince the rest of the company to use the Portal Gun in Half-Life. The whole company has to get it's grubby hands all over the sequel, which is why there are typical Half-Life style scenes where everything around you is messy and chaotic and you're supposed to sit there doing nothing while they show off their amazing ability to render destruction.
Another problem which I should have expected from an entire company wanting to get involved in the sequel to their hugely successful baby is something I've come to think of as the 'Bulletstorm Problem.' I named it thus because of, well,
This.
Portal 2 has exactly the same issue (although unfortunately I don't know if anyone fought for Chell's original position) and they actually
point it out in game. I found it amusing to hear GLaDOS make the point "Most people lose weight in stasis... I want to congratulate you on somehow managing to put weight on." Most likely the developers thought that would just be an oh-so-funny fat joke, yet they actually pointed out their own misogyny. In Portal, Chell was very thin. She had a completely gaunt face, like someone who's been put through rigorous testing for years over. And she was very obviously Eurasian (something that would be copied by Mirror's Edge) - in Portal 2, she has somehow put on weight. She has larger breasts and is more curvaceous. She also took off the top of her jumpsuit (despite the fact that having it hanging around her waist probably isn't good for manoeuvrability) to show off more body. She suddenly looks very clean and relaxed, with make-up on, and a very Angelina Jolie like face. Especially because she's Caucasian now.
Yeah. I grow weary of the essay now - I'm not in college.
The bottom line is, Portal 2 isn't a bad game. It's fun! Especially because of the co-op. The co-op is incredible. Almost none of my above complaints apply to the co-op. So that's a good thing. But I would still say it's a hugely flawed game - much more flawed than the original. It lacks consistency and cohesion in tone, gameplay and plot.
It's a fun game, but in a few weeks I'll be looking back on it as just another game in my collection. Nothing special. (and with much less replay value than half the games I do have, given the gameplay is based on solving puzzles and I already know the solutions.)