Google+

We Recommend By ZergNet

98 comments

  • kingdom - April 20, 2011 7:35 p.m.

    This is one of the most flawless games that has come out in ages. This should be expected of a good game. Everyone has flipped their shit about games with bugs recently and Valve releases one that is not only beautiful but absolutely hilarious while being basically flawless in mechanics and bugs and such and they can it. Why? Because they rushed through the initial single player (BTW I am at over 6 hours and only at the start of chapter 7). This is a puzzle game. This is a HUGE and beautiful Pop Cap game and once you factor in Co-Op at at least 6 hours, single player at 6+ (if you rushed the rest then you didn't pay any mind to the story and jokes and fantastic voice acting), AND it has challenge chambers. And yes a DLC store...but NONE of it is necessary in ANY way, its not content removed from the game - characters/quests/useful items - so get a grip and appreciate what this is. People need to play the whole game before they decide to trash it and not just take the stories of some kid who got mad because he couldn't beat a puzzle in 2 minutes and used a guide and beat it quickly. Also keep in mind if you are using Steam the timer is ALWAYS wrong, anywhere from 1 hour off to like 12 I have seen on quite a few and generally shorter unless you left it idling. This is a wonderful game on so many levels and deserves almost all (if not truly all) the praise it is receiving. TL,DR - Play the game and appreciate all that it is, count the full game into your time (single, co-op, and challenge chambers). The DLC store is totally extra and not worth your effort to bitch if you don't like it, just don't buy it. Everything about the game and its connections to the first game and all of the Half Life series is fantastic and worth any gamers effort to see the whole story.
  • aaron171 - April 20, 2011 7:28 p.m.

    i dont see how people can hate on a game like portal, which has a good single and multiplayer campaign, then like Modern Warfare 2, which had a terrible campaign, and a hopelessly broken multiplayer
  • yasmarc - April 20, 2011 7:24 p.m.

    To all the people complaining about the 0 and 2 point scores please just realize that they are offsetting all the 9's and 10's that fanboys plaster everywhere. If you look at the average score it's right around where most of the level-headed commenters are saying the game should be. A 7 isn't a bad game and honestly for how much this game has been hyped over the years it doesn't seem to warrant a full retail purchase. Portal was cool but I think the gamer community went a little overboard saying it was the greatest thing ever. I beat it once, enjoyed myself and never went back. Puzzle games lose a lot once you know the solutions and it's hard to capture the magic twice.
  • Dman3981 - April 20, 2011 7:22 p.m.

    Everything is a damn conspiracy
  • Z-man427 - April 20, 2011 7:08 p.m.

    If I'm not mistaken, the original Portal was really short and there was no co-op, but people ate it up. Yeah, it was bundled with HL2 and TF2 for less than full retail, but I don't see where Portal 2 is costing the full $60 either. The highest I'm finding is $50. The quality over quantity debate comes into this too. Would you rather have a long but not so great singleplayer campaign or something short that's packed with brilliance? I mean, this is Valve. They're known for producing campaigns that are packed with really great stuff and their multiplayer sides of things (L4D, L4D2) are often some of the most fun and rewarding. Is the singleplayer of Portal 2 fun and replayable? Is the co-op fun and rewarding? If they answer yes to either of those, they need to quit bitching
  • CraigUk1975 - April 20, 2011 7:05 p.m.

    Hi guys. New here so be gentle. Am I the only one thinking this could all be a fan backlash against Valve for their constant carrot-waving publicity stunts and cryptic teasing? Lets not forget their continued silence over Half-Life, the game that made them who they are today. Don't get me wrong, I am a huge Valve fan, but their methods are boarding on taking the p*** than actually being as many like to say, clever and ingenius.
  • Hinro - April 20, 2011 6:58 p.m.

    I wonder how many of the people that gave a score of 0 for portal 2 also gave a score of 0 for Dragon Age 2? My guess is that there's a bit of an overlap. There is a major difference between a game that doesn't work and one that is short and has a bunch of DLC. Personally, though I don't tend to buy them, I think it's a good idea for companies to have non-necessary items like extra armor and weapons be sold for extra price. They aren't required to play the game and it will help them get the money that they lost due to pirating. If you don't want to pay the extra $10 for the Ultra Time Security Gun then don't buy it. Normally DLC end up becoming free eventually. Because it's not necessary DLC should not be considered in the rating of a game. If the game is only 5 hours long I understand that can be annoying but if the game is good enough than that shouldn't really matter. Look at Tetris. Really the game, on average, only lasts about half an hour tops (unless you're extremely good at it) yet I guarantee that a lot of people would still give that game a 10 out of 10 (myself included). As long as a game has replay value then it doesn't really matter how long it is. How do I decide whether a game is worth buying or not? I watch game play footage or play it at a friends house first. Does this mean I miss out on some great games? Absolutely. But the majority of games I have (with the exception of the Lost game and Star Ocean) I can play over and over again.
  • p0wnd - April 20, 2011 6:54 p.m.

    Also why do is GR taking such interest in this, surely you believe people are allowed opinions
  • MajorPonch - April 20, 2011 6:52 p.m.

    I'm sorry but reviews don't mean a god damn thing, be they from critics or gamers, to a person who wants to play the game. It doesn't matter if a few elitist assholes try to find something wrong with a game made with as much love as Portal 2. If they don't like it and you do, they can kiss your ass.
  • bigwill1221 - April 20, 2011 6:50 p.m.

    Eh portal 2 gets 7.5 at most on my book. Yes plot and story is good, but for the amount of time it took to make this game, I expected more quantity. Finished both co-op and single... To make this game really worth 60 dollars, they should have added custom map making(endless play time instead of limited...)
  • mockraven - April 20, 2011 6:47 p.m.

    This is one of those cases of rating a title for the publisher/developer's marketing tactics and not the game itself. Giving out 0's and 2's for a game that runs well, is entertaining, does what it's advertised to do, and so forth is just ridiculous. As for the short play-through, that depends on how quick of a problem solver each person is. It might be 5 hours for some and it might be double that for others who don't solve spacial -- and portal -- puzzles in the blink of an eye. In addition to that, I distinctly remember GamesRadar giving another "short" game called Vanquish a 9 not so long ago. Also, I don't know if it's the same in this version as the original Portal, but for the people who were smart enough to tear through the levels in an hour there were also more challenging versions of the original rooms that definitely increased the difficulty and thus the amount of time it took to beat the game. I'm just starting Portal 2 for now but I do hope that some extra challenge levels are in there since that's what really drew out the first game for me.
  • Shinespark428 - April 20, 2011 6:44 p.m.

    @Cosmis I agree we gamers are spoiled but Mass Effect 2 is (with DLC)50-60 hours of "sheer greatness" (if you do all the objectives). Still I actually LOVE a short game if I actually want to speedrun it after playing through it. Which I DIDN'T want to do with the original Portal.
  • Shinespark428 - April 20, 2011 6:37 p.m.

    To tell you the truth, I wouldn't mind paying $20-$30 dollars for Portal 2; but $50-$60 bucks is just absurd. To be honest, I'd get more enjoyment out of a really good $10-$15 album; which would likely keep me occupied longer. Not that there's anything wrong with the Portal series. Just there are cheaper, longer lasting things with better value I could spend money on. I mean, I'm broke, I haven't moved out of my parent's place yet (I'm 20, that's not TOO bad), and I have an old car which could break down within a year or so. I don't have much money to burn and I have plenty I need to save up.
  • Cosmis - April 20, 2011 6:36 p.m.

    Quality over quantity in this case. I think we, as gamers, have kind of been spoiled by online gaming in that we think of games in terms of how long we can play them instead of how good said play is. I don't know, I can understand not being happy that it's only 6 (took me 7) hours long, but it's 6 to 7 hours of sheer greatness. I'd rather play a great 7 hour game than an average 20 hour game.
  • sumrandomgeezer - April 20, 2011 6:35 p.m.

    I seem to recall that the single player length is around 7hours, which far from being epicly long, is an agreeable time, coupled with the co-op which is around 4-5 hours depending on who you play with...i think the length and content is damn decent. Then again where would we be in life if we all took things with a pinch of salt....oh wait..we'd probably be better off...hmmmm
  • dioksiids - April 20, 2011 6:32 p.m.

    Single-player is NOT 3-5 hours long, if you enjoy every second of awesome dialogue this game has, each character is very well made as well as voice actors are great. Anyway, if you did finish it in 5 hours, congratulations on spending your money for a game which you didn't even enjoy, but rushed through it instead. I'm not a fan of the store, but come on, 0 or 2 just because the game is so awesome but "I DUNT LIKE $$ DLC WAAAAH".
  • bonerachieved - April 20, 2011 6:30 p.m.

    @ BurntShreds I think its not entirely up to the dev's to post something online for free. I think its more on microsofts side to decide to charge people with this content.
  • PimplesInYourAsstista - April 20, 2011 6:30 p.m.

    6-8 hour single player (that's how long it took me, derp) plus co-op that could very well be about 6-8 as well (haven't finished it)? And then complaining about the whole Potato sack thing? Christ almighty, us PC gamers get butt hurt too damn easy. Then again, same thing happened (sort of) with L4D2. They'll bitch and whine for a bit, then everyone will forget they even existed.
  • SolarPoweredShitMachine - April 20, 2011 6:30 p.m.

    Metacritic seriously need to do something about this. I don't think there's a game in existance that deserves below a 3/10 and it's basically either a 10/10 or a 0/10 I'd rather play a good 6 hour game than a crap 20 hour game.
  • Shinespark428 - April 20, 2011 6:28 p.m.

    Thank you Gamesradar, I wholeheartedly agree. Short length and a stupid amount of DLC from the getgo are legitimate concerns, but giving a 0 to a game with a lot of good things to be said about it is just immature.....AHH! What is it with trolls and idiots on the internet?! I agree that I am upset that it's no longer than the first game. When I heard about Portal 2, I thought, "oh, cool, now they can make a full-length Portal game). I loved the original, but I can't call a 5-6 hour game "perfect" like a lot of GR's crew. It was fun and inventive, but so was Okami. Which was better; and longer. That's right, counter than arguement GR! Try defending Portal at the expense of Okami!

Showing 61-80 of 98 comments

Join the Discussion
Add a comment (HTML tags are not allowed.)
Characters remaining: 5000

OR…

Connect with Facebook

Log in using Facebook to share comments, games, status update and other activity easily with your Facebook feed.