next »

[unsilentwill]

As long as we agree about that. Now we can debate whether or not that's a good thing.

Valve is continuously praised for integrating story and gameplay, which is why the Portals stand out as such tremendous failures in that regard. Again, there's so much effort in their story for them not to be trying to tell it well.

[Christian Knudsen]

Portal 2 is primarily about solving puzzles. Its gameplay is the main focus. You're acting as if it's primarily about telling a story and Valve failed because the gameplay doesn't support one of the story's themes 100%. You're judging the game on something that wasn't its primary concern and giving it a failing grade because Valve didn't let this lesser important part of the game dictate all aspects of it (and thank god for that).

[unsilentwill]

Portal 2 is primarily about storytelling. Its story is the main focus. You're acting as if it's primarily about solving puzzles and Valve failed because the story doesn't support one of the gameplay's themes 100%. You're judging the game on something that wasn't its primary concern and giving it a passing grade because Valve didn't let this lesser important part of the game dictate all aspects of it (and thank god for that).

Actually, I think it should be about both. Why can't it be about both? Why shouldn't it?

[Christian Knudsen]

Is that an attempt at being snide or do you truly believe Portal 2 is primarily about storytelling? And even if it was primarily about storytelling, your entire argument still seems based on the highly debatable stance that the storytelling is poor because the player's emotional space doesn't line up 100% with the protagonist's emotional space.

[unsilentwill]

It was snide, sorry. Just saying that with Valve especially (who have a history of balancing story and gameplay, compared to Parker Brothers) we could argue it either way without any authority whatsoever, as it certainly has fun puzzles plus a descent story.

Like I said I'm not arguing that way, I think it should be about both and they should line up, instead of being about both and being completely opposite. If your story is conveying and emotion anything other than what the gameplay delivers, the story needs to explain that through context, using the poetic device juxtaposition, which Portal made no little (although some, like when Wheately has control over things to make them unfair/dangerous, etc.) attempt to do.

[Morroque]

I agree with Unsilent in that the theme of "dehumanization" is an important one one, as well as a potentially dangerous one. However, from my own experiences with Portal, I think that this arises from how I doubt a sequel was even meant to be in the first place. In Portal 1, it was justified to enjoy oneself during the puzzle sequences because until the final test chamber it wasn't entirely clear that the ultimate theme of the game was "escape" and that you endangered yourself by playing the game. But since Portal 2 assumes the events of the first, with the same lead character and her memory, the old theme of escape conflicts with the new theme of dehumanization -- forcing the unhealthy choice on the player.

It might very well be that we, as the first golden generation of designers who grew up with games and wish to advance them further, must delve further into the player-avatar relationship, and begin to wonder "This game is meant to be enjoyed, but in this context, is it kosher that it is enjoyable?" After all, the most of us probably would not want our own games to further the image of a Huxleyian reality.

But do we also forget the nature of play? Games are unlike other texts, in that they are not read or consumed, but played. Play is a funny thing. We all know it, but not many people know much about it. Children do it with ease, but Adults have some trouble with it. Does it come from the free spirit? Or does it come from the imposition of rules and structures? Are the games we play now really games to be played, or are they games we must work within? Since play is such a mystery, maybe it could be safe to assume that the nature of play isn't politically correct. Maybe play includes the unsavoury parts of existence to make the more joyous ends all the more potent. Perhaps all the souls in Heaven must endure 15 minutes of Hell, just so they can enjoy Heaven all the more.

Both those things said, I feel it is also important to note that the theme of dehumanization is one with a long history. It was listed in A Hero with a Thousand Faces when certain tribes adopted the totem as a means of conquering the fear of the wild by assuaging human weakness and becoming part of the natural world. In Marshall McLuhan's The Mechanical Bride, he looked at an old comic of Superman and remarked "Isn't it ironic that man's solutions to the problems of the machine age is to become a machine himself?" There is also a lot of religious commentary in Christianity which tries to undo the original sin, build a new Eden, and be once again at one with God -- ignoring the point of the fall of man in the first place was to gain self-consciousness and become a truly alive being. Even in my own observations of a few therian friends, I've found it strange how human it is to wish you were something other than just that.

[Christian Knudsen]

That doesn't make any sense. Most players have fun playing most games. Does that mean those games should only concern themselves with a light story in which the protagonist is having fun? Or is the player somehow wrong for enjoying the game? I truly don't understand the argument you're making.

And I still don't see why the emotional space of the game's protagonist has to line up with that of the player? Chell is trying to escape, but isn't having fun because her life is on the line. The player is trying to escape by solving the puzzles, but is having fun because the puzzles are challenging and entertaining. Why is this a problem?

Could you explain how the story/gameplay interaction could have been improved in Portal 2 from your point of view?

EDIT: This was a reply to unsilentwill.

[unsilentwill]

This is hard to answer, because I've understood it for a long time. I could point you to a Jon Blow or Rev Rant video, but that's just me saying how other people agree with me.

It's mostly an issue with dishonesty and motivation, kind of like in Bioshock. Either I have the freedom as a player to do things or I don't, and I don't want to be lied to about it. Give Up Robot is honest, Meat Boy is honest, a Rubik's cube is honest saying here's some weird puzzles I made if you beat them you win. Portal is not honest because everything in the game except the puzzles says you're a human, escape! And I actually can't escape except where it lets me, which is not escaping in the first place.

Portal 2 would be better if it were a bouncy castle with puzzles, with me being motivated by an increasing number of abilities (gels and lazers and what not) where I'm playing it because it's pure fun.

Portal 2 would be better if it were exactly what it says it is: a cruel, robotic, dangerous environment I was trying to escape. It could even have a choice between the two where I stay in the inhuman fun test chambers to get one ending where you turn into a robot then go play co-op forever, and an ending where I'm actually given the choice to escape.

[SirNiko]

I always assumed the "Point" of portal was to explore the concept of impossible spaces via the creation of wormholes. This point is explored via puzzles that require you to "Think with portals" in order to accomplish tasks that would be impossible in our real world.

The story was secondary, but a very strong point. Rather than bombarding the player with text-dumps on between-level splash screens, the story is told via the characters as you explore the facility and solve the puzzles. Some of this is just dialogue as you walk from one puzzle to the next, but much of it occurs as you are exploring the behind-the-scenes areas of the facility by letting you see the abandoned offices, the display cases, the photographs of the people and places you are learning about. You see Wheatley's madness in his pathetic box-turrets. You laugh at his ineptness as he tries to kill you with defective turrets, a moment of levity after a moment of trying to figure out an impossible escape plan.

This is why Portal 2 is praised for its storytelling.

Your second option doesn't go into enough detail. Would it be enough if GlaDOS, at the end, gave you the option to stay? Would that solve the problem? How would you make it more cruel, robotic, and dangerous? I'd love to hear you describe what your idealized scenario would play like.

[Nix]

The goal isn't to escape because tests suck but because GLaDOS is trying to kill you. You the player dom't really have any thought of escape (in Portal 1) right up until the point where GLaDOS leads you into a fiery pit of doom. I think I even rode it to my death my first time through until I realized that I had to escape it. The puzzles are fun, but staying alive is more fun!

[Noah!]

@Noah The facility is the game, is it not? You, as Chell, are trying to escape the facility. But she wants to, and you don't. That seems like a bad design choice.

OK, I feel ya now. Player wants to explore and learn, protagonist wants to escape. Dissonance. Gotcha.

Gotcha.

[Nix]

I don't get why you guys keep saying the player doesn't want to escape. I wanted to keep moving forward because it meant more puzzles to discover! They never really say that Chell wants to escape for any other reason. Chell just does what the player wants her to. There are no cutscenes or anything. There's only dissonance if you, the player, decide to make it.

[Radix]

Yeah, Valve is also all about the character being a stand-in for the player with no discernible conflicting personality. Because they realise that we, the players, want to play the game, and give us the credit of knowing we're participating in entertainment and permitting the game to do what it's going to do. You aren't giving players that kinda respect as consumers of entertainment with a faculty for suspending whatever.

Personally I felt compelled to move forwards because I was enjoying the puzzles, but also because I was intrigued by the drip of glimpses into the setting (and apparent Combine technology, even if they were really just recycled assets originally), and finally thanks to basic video game completionism. Contrary to the idea that I would want to stay in the lab, I felt that the length of the games were pretty much perfect and was happy to move on when it was over. I lost interest in multiplayer after a couple of stages and didn't bother with bonus puzzles.

[Zaphos]

I don't get why you guys keep saying the player doesn't want to escape. I wanted to keep moving forward because it meant more puzzles to discover! They never really say that Chell wants to escape for any other reason. Chell just does what the player wants her to. There are no cutscenes or anything. There's only dissonance if you, the player, decide to make it.

Yeah, that's true.  Chell (via the player) always just does the only option available that isn't 'stand still forever' or 'die'.

To be blunt and lazy, Schindler's List 64. Get the high score saving as many Jews as possible! Maybe it was fun saving Jews, sure. But is that really the story that needs telling? Is that the whole story? Is that telling things from exactly one view point?

Sure, it's more difficult to take a real, traumatic event like that and highlight the interesting or exciting aspects of it. But it's not such an issue in fiction.  People do this with fictional stuff across all media all the time.  You don't need to tell all the details of every story.  We don't need to know that James Bond had sore feet and also had to do his taxes.

It also tends to say, gameplay can only be used for fun, the music, art, placing, lighting, and writing are the story telling tools.

No, doing something one way is not the same as saying it can only be done that way.

[TheLastBanana]

Is this only a problem with Portal, really? One of the problems here is that the game has a pre-written storyline, and you therefore have to play it a certain way in order to continue. Ultimately, your role is written from the beginning, and as a result, you don't really feel "connected" to the character. Instead, your focus is on advancing the storyline and continuing to the next level. The story isn't there for you to live it personally, but to live it vicariously through your player character. That's the case for many, many games.

Another way of approaching the story is like a western RPG, in which you create your character and make all the choices for him or her. In that case, you might have a bit more of a connection, since it feels more like you "are" the character. Even then, a lot of people play the game solely to beat it (or to watch bars fill up).

Unless you can do some incredible job of immersing the player, the likes of which I personally have never seen, I don't know if it's really possible to remove "beat the game" as the player's ultimate goal. As a result, it seems a bit unreasonable to say a game is necessarily worse for failing in that regard.

Still, you raise an interesting point. I'm just not sure why you chose this game in particular to criticise for it -- the whole thing is a pretty lighthearted, individual-challenge-based affair, so it seems like a pretty poor vehicle for that kind of storytelling.