Contrary To Some Info, Portal 2 Is NOT A 3 Hour Game
If there's one annoying trend that gets under my skin this generation, it's the length exaggeration.
Gamers and even critics have been guilty of claiming a game is at least 2-4 hours shorter than it really is; a good example would be a game like Heavenly Sword, which was widely accepted as a 5-6 hour quest. That's not even remotely close to the truth; it took me and everyone else I know at least 10 hours. Thing is, most of the length estimates you see are often the fastest possible finish time imaginable, so a regular gamer with no guide, no codes, and no hell-bent desire to speed through every last section in record time will almost never finish a game in the times claimed on the Internet.
And now we've got user reviews popping up for Portal 2, claiming it's very short; some say it's as short as 3 hours. Don't believe this BS for a second. I'm not done and I think my play time is between 8 and 9 hours. Some of the puzzles have stumped me for a little while, but I'm certain that none took up an abnormal amount of time to solve, and I've been moving right along. The belief that it isn't worth $60 because it's "too short" is erroneous and shouldn't be given any attention whatsoever. I've also noticed some PC elitists are just plain miffed that PS3 owners get the game first (and the best version), so they're just automatically giving the game a 2 or something. You know, because they're so mature.
I just wanted to stop this right now before it got out of hand, and consumers start saying to each other, "yeah, but I heard Portal 2 was only..."
Related Game(s): Portal 2
Tags: portal 2, portal 2 length, valve, portal 2 ps3
4/19/2011 9:49:59 AM Ben Dutka
Put this on your webpage or blog:
Email this to a friend
Follow PSX Extreme on Twitter
Comments (58 posts)
WorldEndsWithMe
Tuesday, April 19, 2011 @ 10:23:00 AM
Zorigo
Tuesday, April 19, 2011 @ 11:26:02 AM
frylock25
Tuesday, April 19, 2011 @ 11:39:19 AM
SvenMD
Tuesday, April 19, 2011 @ 11:58:54 AM
WorldEndsWithMe
Tuesday, April 19, 2011 @ 12:04:44 PM
BTNwarrior
Tuesday, April 19, 2011 @ 12:15:28 PM
Godslim
Tuesday, April 19, 2011 @ 10:13:43 AM
Reply
games like ffx took me 30 plus hours to do along with the god of war and mgs series on ps2
it seems tho to me that games on ps3 arent usually as long any more and are to focused
on mp.....back on ps2 games seemed to last alot longer with sp campaigns and with certain exepctions on ps3 it seem not as much effort is put into the sp parts of some games
oh and i cant wait to get portal :D
Last edited by Godslim on 4/19/2011 10:15:17 AM
Wissam
Tuesday, April 19, 2011 @ 10:20:59 AM
Godslim
Tuesday, April 19, 2011 @ 10:30:06 AM
WorldEndsWithMe
Tuesday, April 19, 2011 @ 10:25:45 AM
Reply
NazzyQ
Tuesday, April 19, 2011 @ 10:30:20 AM
Reply
As you've already said Ben, no real person is going to speed through the game, hell-bent on completing as quickly as possible. But these total playtimes claimed by reviewers do give us some indication as to how long each individual gamer is going to take to beat a game.
I think reviewers should should give a total playtime range, like so: "you could beat game X in 4-6 hours if you really set your mind to it, but most people, playing at a reasonable pace, will beat it in 8-10 hours".
Last edited by NazzyQ on 4/19/2011 10:31:17 AM
Ben Dutka PSXE [Administrator]
Tuesday, April 19, 2011 @ 11:29:30 AM
SvenMD
Tuesday, April 19, 2011 @ 12:00:07 PM
Temjin001
Tuesday, April 19, 2011 @ 2:56:52 PM
And sometimes, I think games can be too long if they're not properly balanced and engaging enough to have the legs to carry it through to the end.
Eld
Tuesday, April 19, 2011 @ 4:33:11 PM
And yes, that does mean I will not be buying quite a few games out there on release day. Sorry, but I can't justify paying full price for games I can finish in two short evenings.
Serakek
Tuesday, April 19, 2011 @ 11:00:41 AM
Reply
Last edited by Serakek on 4/19/2011 11:03:21 AM
kraygen
Tuesday, April 19, 2011 @ 11:05:46 AM
Reply
However I honestly don't care how great or awesome a game is, if it's 10 hours and you are left with no reason to replay it, then I'm waiting for it to be cheap.
To be fair though, I don't have a lot of money and I wait for almost every game to be cheap. I only buy 1-3 games a year at full price.
CrusaderForever
Tuesday, April 19, 2011 @ 11:30:57 AM
Reply
maxpontiac
Tuesday, April 19, 2011 @ 11:35:06 AM
Reply
Dustinwp
Tuesday, April 19, 2011 @ 11:50:04 AM
As far as the length of games, they really haven't changed in time completion since video games were invented. Most games since the frickin NES could be completed in 5-10 hours!
Last edited by Dustinwp on 4/19/2011 11:54:15 AM
Mornelithe
Tuesday, April 19, 2011 @ 12:20:08 PM
Reply
Best version? C'mon Ben, we both know that they said it would be the best 'Console' version. And really, it depends upon the PC you're playing with, that defines performance. Hardware-wise, we're well aware that PC's outpace the consoles, and have for a few years now. Why even try to start something with PC users?
Obvious flame-bait aside, I'm supremely happy to see Valve finally getting their heads around the PS3, and to see Steam opened up on Sony's machine. It'll only make things better for everyone in the long run.
Jawknee
Tuesday, April 19, 2011 @ 1:24:17 PM
Nlayer
Tuesday, April 19, 2011 @ 2:09:34 PM
That's just me though. I get the great PC version of the game along with the best console version of the game. Perhaps this is why Ben said it was the better version?
I'm not trying to start any heated debate, by the way. Just sharing my opinion. =]
Ben Dutka PSXE [Administrator]
Tuesday, April 19, 2011 @ 3:33:42 PM
MyWorstNightmar
Tuesday, April 19, 2011 @ 4:04:54 PM
Top of the line PC costs _____(enter dollar amount here, everyone seems to have an opinion as to how cheaply they can put together a high end gaming pc for).
PS3 works perfectly for my tastes, even if there are PC's out there that can outpace it as you say. It is not worth the cost investment IMO.
JMO_INDY
Tuesday, April 19, 2011 @ 4:45:10 PM
Excelsior1
Tuesday, April 19, 2011 @ 6:09:51 PM
that comment about starting something anytime you want with pc gamers just was not cool for an administrator. they are gamers too, and deserve a little respect. i have way more respect for them than i do for the brainwashed xbox fans.
i have actually convinced a couple of pc gamers to get a ps3. they share the view that the network should be free. so there seems to be some common ground there.
my xbox loving friends won't even touch a ps3 becuase they say the network is crap, games look better on the 360....blah,blah. they drive me way more nuts becuase they think the 360 is the best machine out there when it's not. factor in the free psn network, exclusives, and the 360 hardware failure rates and it seems like a nobrainer to me.
whatever, it is what it is, and i just can't get it through to them. there are a lot of elitist 360 owners out there as well...i will say that. they annoy me way more than pc gamers.
Jawknee
Tuesday, April 19, 2011 @ 7:33:25 PM
Temjin001
Tuesday, April 19, 2011 @ 9:14:27 PM
Excelsior1
Wednesday, April 20, 2011 @ 6:21:45 AM
it's called an opinion. get over it. i'm not telling ben how to run his site so you can stop with the crouch riding.
@temjin
you are correct that there are elitist on all sides, but i've encountered far more xbox elitist. i got to thinking about your comment and wondered if i was a ps3 elitist becuase i think it's best machine, but i don't think i am. i'm willing to acknowledge the good points of the 360. it has some great games as well, and a great network to back it up. so i kind of get why it's so popular.
Last edited by Excelsior1 on 4/20/2011 6:35:23 AM
SSRGohan
Tuesday, April 19, 2011 @ 12:44:03 PM
Reply
JPHarvey
Tuesday, April 19, 2011 @ 1:14:23 PM
Reply
Now that it's built for PS3, has coop and all, I'm not going to stop to some crappy estimates about gameplay length.
I bought Portal 2 this morning and cannot wait to spend some quality time with my son tonight!
Temjin001
Tuesday, April 19, 2011 @ 2:01:08 PM
Reply
Judging from the first game, most of what was done took place in a setting that has a very sterile, clinical-like, feel. I know this is more of a matter of preference, but something I value in gaming is the expressive artistry of fantasy settings and worlds. Which is something that Portal appears to tread lite on. Great game, nonetheless.
Ben Dutka PSXE [Administrator]
Tuesday, April 19, 2011 @ 3:36:11 PM
But I blame that on the archaic Source engine, which gives a stark semblance to everything, and an almost complete lack of richness or artistic sensibility. Really, the doors in Portal 2 are basically the same doors I went through in Half-Life 2.
But of course, that isn't the point of the game. :)
Lairfan
Tuesday, April 19, 2011 @ 6:50:37 PM
SSRGohan
Tuesday, April 19, 2011 @ 2:36:14 PM
Reply
CrusaderForever
Tuesday, April 19, 2011 @ 3:17:54 PM
Excelsior1
Tuesday, April 19, 2011 @ 2:56:25 PM
Reply
i'm sorry, but with little replay value or multiplayer i can't justify a purchase. sounds like a rental to me. i don't buy the argument that length is irrevelant. why spend $60 on a game that can be beaten in a dedicated weekend that has little replay value? i always factor in the length of a game, and its replay value when considering a purchase.
Jawknee
Tuesday, April 19, 2011 @ 3:07:46 PM
Ben Dutka PSXE [Administrator]
Tuesday, April 19, 2011 @ 3:34:30 PM
Excelsior1
Tuesday, April 19, 2011 @ 3:51:02 PM
Looking Glass
Tuesday, April 19, 2011 @ 3:29:09 PM
Reply
But Portal 2 is on it's own and as such I'm afraid that a lot of people may not find that it really justifies paying full price for it.
Excelsior1
Tuesday, April 19, 2011 @ 4:16:00 PM
others may feel differently, and that's fine.
Excelsior1
Tuesday, April 19, 2011 @ 4:39:58 PM
Reply
Last edited by Excelsior1 on 4/19/2011 4:40:41 PM
BIGRED15
Tuesday, April 19, 2011 @ 6:45:28 PM
Reply
Lairfan
Tuesday, April 19, 2011 @ 6:55:57 PM
Reply
Replaying through Portal 1 was a blast despite knowing the answers to the puzzles. The atmosphere was great, and I liked hearing the absolutely insane things Glados would say.
Judging from what I'm hearing of Portal 2, I'll like the atmosphere again, the story is well written (and I always like that), and the new gameplay elements add a couple new dimensions to the game. Plus, with a coop campaign (thank goodness we have another game supporting splitscreen!...although I may play a little online coop too), I'll have plenty to keep me busy for a couple weeks. All in all, it should be well worth the $60.
Norrin Radd
Wednesday, April 20, 2011 @ 12:48:27 AM
Reply
A game should be at least 10 hours long to get my $60. Why 10 hours? That's $6/hour - that's what a movie costs. And I enjoy gaming more than movies! Plus, most games I play a helluva lot more than 10 hours - way more. I don't enjoy speeding through games - or books - what's the point? If you don't savor and enjoy, well, meh - I just don't get it. Makes no sense. Overall I think games and books are some of the best money/hour forms of entertainment that exist.
CHAOS THEORY X
Wednesday, April 20, 2011 @ 3:20:51 AM
Reply
Last edited by CHAOS THEORY X on 4/20/2011 3:22:53 AM
___________
Wednesday, April 20, 2011 @ 8:16:54 AM
Reply
BikerSaint
Wednesday, April 20, 2011 @ 2:38:13 PM
Reply

Portal 2









Ben Dutka PSXE [Administrator]
Reply
Tuesday, April 19, 2011 @ 10:04:55 AM
I say "little replay value" because after you've solved the puzzles, it just doesn't have the same impact to go solve them again. Really, the only downside of puzzle-based campaigns.
Last edited by Ben Dutka PSXE on 4/19/2011 10:05:16 AM