A polished elaboration of Narbaculur Drop, which was a 2006 IGF Student Showcase winner, as well as a finalist for the Slamdance Guerrilla Game Festival in the same year, Portal is a level-based puzzle game with the tropes of a conventional first-person shooter. The game is published by Valve as part of its "Orange Box," which also includes additional Half Life 2 material.
In each level, you must navigate a set of three-dimensional rooms and corridors; in many cases, as in most FPSes, there are doors you must open by triggering certain in-world items (placing crates on buttons, or directing balls of energy into traps). The twist is that instead of carrying a BFG, you carry a gun-like device that can "shoot" portals against many (but not all) surfaces. Portals are paired; moving through one causes you to emerge from the other. In other words, the gun creates trans-dimensional gates between two arbitrary points in the world. Momentum carries over as you pass through a gate, so that, for example, falling through a gate in the floor may give you enough forward momentum to pass over an obstacle near the portal outlet.
Visually, this is interesting, and there's some clever programming to allow you to see through portals to what's on the other side; in most levels, there are brief voice clips from "GladDOS," an AI who is ostensibly shepherding you through a series of tests of the portal technology. GladDOS also says rather amusing (and occasionally disturbing) things at times, and while there isn't anything you can think of as a real story, she does become a vivid character as you play.
If Portal were, in our terms, an "indie game" (and it can't really be characterized as such, given Valve's prominence in the industry, despite its origins in a truly independent title), there's no question that we would praise it to the skies. And indeed, as first I had no intention of covering it here, since our raison d'etre is to cast attention on smaller projects that might otherwise be overlooked. And yet, because of the debate around Portal, I think it instructive to give it a look.
On the one side, Portal has been rapturously received in many quarters -- indeed, Steve Meretzky goes so far as to imply that its publication alone makes life worth living (a very funny video, and worth watching for that reason alone, by the way). On the other, Nick Montfort has gone so far as to claim that Passage is a better game than Portal. A discussion of that debate has broken out in the comments here, with some wondering what kind of idiots we are for even contemplating the notion that so fine a game as Portal can possibly be compared negatively to little, quick-playing experimental games like the ones we often link to.
The fact is that trying to compare Passage to Portal is absurd on the face of it; one is a little art game with a bit of an emotional sting, and the other is a rather high-budget, very polished, and interesting puzzle game. They're both good for what they are, and that's really all that needs to be said about the comparison between them.
But why the rapturous reception of Portal in so many places? I have to believe the reason is this: in an industry that seems to be doing little more these days than remaking Castle Wolfenstein over and over and over -- with higher budgets, minor variations in story and background, and obviously with lots more polygons on the screen -- a game like Portal, with its very different gameplay, comes across as a breath of fresh air.
And so it is -- sort of. But while there are original elements to Portal -- the non-Euclidean geography of its portals being the main one -- it is not anything like as original and startling as those who praise it to the skies seem to believe.
The simple fact is this: Portal is a very conventional level-based puzzle game, a style of game that's existed in this industry at least since The Incredible Machine and Lemmings (and I might even add Hunt the Wumpus). It's a style of game that the conventional industry, with its blinkered Philistinism and single-minded pursuit of best-sellers has long since abandoned, as it has so many other game styles; but it's a style of game that also continues to exist, and in some cases to thrive, among independent games. I would argue that Portal is a game of precisely the same type as Eets, Chocolate Castle, Storked, and Professor Fizzwizzle. Those games are 2D, of course, and tend perhaps toward cloying cuteness, since they're attempting to cater to the demands of the casual game market -- but they are all, in their own way, excellent games.
Yes, the specific dynamics of play in all of these games is different from Portal; yes, each has its own quirks and style of puzzle. But as with Portal, each presents a series of levels; and in each level in every one of these games, you must use the characteristics of the level, and the known abilities of objects you encounter therein, to solve a particular problem and thereby open an exit, get to a particular location, or achieve some other well-defined and invariant objective ("eat all the chocolate"). "Breath of fresh air?" Say better: Another nicely polished game of this well-established style.
So let us have an end to the panegyrics for Portal -- and also to far-fetched claims that other, unrelated and very different titles, cast doubt on its evident virtues.
In the final analysis, Portal is a nicely polished little puzzle game. Hugely innovative? Not so much. But certainly worth playing.
I'd venture to say that
I'd venture to say that GLaDOS makes the game. Without that character, Portal would be, as you say, a nicely polished puzzle game. The little tidbits of backstory that are dropped like breadcrumbs through the course of the game hint at a greater narrative that is tied into the Half Life mythos. I believe that in Portal the game creators have used the character of GLaDOS to deliver this narrative in a compelling fashion, and this is, to me, what makes the game stand out.
But.. there's cake
Portal was just bliss. It was the best gaming experience of 2007 for me and a lot of people.
It was a religious experience.
It's not just polished.. it's 'complete'.
Originally Posted by Sazime (EvAv boards)
It wasn't completely revolutionary, but I'll be damned if it didn't have a pleasant cream filling that most games in the genre completely lack.
true, but
It's fair to say that Portal is a well-polished level-based puzzle game, and has clear genre precedent in that sense. But are there other established examples of level-based puzzle games done (and done well) in a first-person 3D space? There's something to be said for pushing a genre into the 3rd dimension, and Portal crossed into FPS territory in terms of interface (and marketing). As a comparison, Super Mario 64 had clear influences but at the same time it was a significant step to move platformers out of flat space.
That aside, I think the real innovations, or at least the "breath of fresh air", were the design and stylistic choices that flew in the face of most (mainstream and indie) games' designs. The bold minimalism in both design and art, along with the dry humor, were the elements that took Portal from being merely a "nicely polished puzzle game" to something more important. Great gameplay, yes, but great gameplay combined with a very unique and refreshing aesthetic.
Let's be reasonable.
Great review.
It is extremely difficult to make a simple analysis of Portal at this point because it does not exist in a vacuum. On one side, you've got fans on forums whipping themselves into a frenzy of Portal-mania with sites like Rock, Paper, Shotgun goading them on; meanwhile, critics at places like the Gamer's Quarter saying it's the most overrated thing in gaming.
The backlash was inevitable, and Portal is not exempt from criticism. It has flaws; reviewers from this very website have pointed them out. Let's be reasonable and resist hyperbole.
Its place among other similar games
I've already said this on my own blog, but:
1) About Portal as fitting the established genre of level-based puzzle game: I felt that one of the cleverer things it does is subvert the structure of this genre. It gives you a clearly-enumerated sequence of 19 levels, culminating in a final level that tests you on all the techniques you've learned over the course of the game... but then, once you've finished that, the game keeps going, taking you outside of the promised experience and into terra ingognita.
2) Portal is a short work based entirely on exploring the gameplay potential of a single conceit. This is exactly what a lot of indie games do. (I'm guessing that the fact that it was developed as an extra for an anthology package has something to do with this: as with most indie titles, there wasn't a lot of money riding on its success.) So it's got indie sensibilities, but mainstream polish and exposure, which seems to be a winning combo.
I think there's something
I think there's something very wrong in reviewing and critically assessing this game without dealing at all with the quality of its storytelling (the idea that there is no narrative seems bunk to me, though the narrative is unconventionally told) and its artistic and philosophical conceits -- they, for me, are what make it stand out from the level puzzlers you compare it to, and they're essential to the game's popular success.
Narrative of Portal
I'm not sure how much depth or innovation I'd credit Portal's plot for having. It's story, like Bioshock's, resonates with people because we live in a time where people are seriously questioning the authority figures of America. Having an unreliable authority figure is nothing new in games (even Doom 3 kicked one out), but delivering one that was both quirky and cute made it easily swallowed for players at a poignant moment in our society.
Gamasutra did a very interesting interview with the writers a while back and they explained that part of the plot's silky smooth feel & delivery comes from the fact that they play-tested it. They would interview people after playing the game, ask them what they remembered, what had confused them, and adapt accordingly. If Portal does anything for future games, I hope it's that developers both indie and mainstream will start play testing their stories and accept feedback.
Eh...
I don't know why the most indie of indie gaming sites have to be so sceptical about Portal. It's like an exhausting "we must find mainstream-damage" search that ends in rather superficial claims like: "Lemmings did it before" or "It's JUST a puzzle game". I find it a little pathetic, to be honest.
There have been portraits before Picasso. Science-Fiction films before 2001.
Portal isn't conventional. It just isn't. Getting distracted by the big-studio polish doesn't make this a more insightful review. It's actually a little short-sighted. Why desperately keep the distance instead of embracing this chance to unite indie charm and mainstream awareness. It is the perfect proof for why preserving originality is important for games.
Portal is a precious exception and it doesn't deserve being called "conventional". Not even by my heroes at playthisthing.com
Don't be so afraid to call this a perfect game. It is.
Point there
There's something to be said for pushing a genre into the 3rd dimension, and Portal crossed into FPS territory in terms of interface...
I definitely buy that. I enjoy the Professor Fizziwizzle sorts of games, but Portal was a whole other experience because of the physicality of it all -- the first time I flung myself over a significant distance was terrifying and awesome.
--
Emily Short
Portal, Portal, Portal
I believe, on the side of narrative, Portal is actually a character study of GLADoS. She's a nicely nuanced character (even, if you'll pardon the pun, "three-dimensional"). Also, the writing is strong enough to support this as well as being simply entertaining in its own right. I mean, when GLADoS pulls up your 'personnel file' and subjects you to 30 seconds of scathing insults...and then says "It also says you were adopted, so that's funny too". That's just killer writing.
I see your point about it being a puzzle game, but I would argue that Portal is a step above those, simply because it's so realistic. You're not just moving around blocks, you're thinking about traversing a realistic space...with that space modified and complicated by your portal-casting abilities. In other words, the game gets you to rethink what you know about three-dimensional space. That, to me, sets it apart...of course I realize this judgement is perhaps more subjective.
So what counts as fresh air?
I think that a review of Portal that only spares two sentences on GlaDOS and her darkly humorous comments just serves to convince me that we don't appreciate the same things in games. The conclusion that it's "certainly worth playing" pretty much confirms that.
Also, to say Portal's gameplay is common because you use things that you see to get past places that you are makes me wonder if you have in mind a game where you use things you don't see to get through places that you aren't. Which is to say, aren't all games common at that point?
3D Spaces
No. Not all games are explorations of 3D spaces.
What's the big deal? Wasn't PREY almost released in 1998? ;)
I agree with the reviewer. "Portal" is a clever little game made by a bunch of smart people with a knack for playing with familiar gameplay mechanics and narrative conventions. That in itself is certainly enough to warrant a purchase, but the amount of hyperbolic praise currently being heaped over this game probably says more about the commercially lucrative but deeply irrational, hype-infested state of the world-wide gaming community at present than it says about the game in question. "Portal" is by no means the kind of paradigm shifter that games like (for example) "Zork", "Ultima", "Doom" or even "Half-Life" was, and it would simply be outrageous to imply that smart things haven't been done before with a combination of puzzle-oriented gameplay mechanics, compelling narrative twists and carefully planned 3-D level design...
Yay! I stirred up some trouble!
On the one hand, I think this review is totally correct: if it wasn't for the quality of the writing, Portal would have just been another puzzle game -- clever and polished -- but not that special. It's so easy to imagine the same game, just in another wrapper -- maybe you're a "lone Space Marine" escaping the clutches of his evil Alien captors or something equally uninspiring and tired. I doubt I would have finished.
On the other hand, it's unfair because it gives so little weight to GlaDOS and "Still Alive" and the excellent writing, which is what really pushes the game into the stratosphere. If we held "Passage" to the same standard -- stripping out the "emotional context," rendering the little man and his wife (and, most importantly, their tombstones) as little multicolored blocks -- would anyone have given it any serious thought? Definitely not. And it's also the writing that gives it a lot of its ludological oomph -- the "Companion Cube" has provoked as lively a discussion about the nature of games (and how they work on us) as "Passage." Eets, etc., may be excellent puzzle games (I haven't played them), but I very much doubt that they present the same kind of interesting, challenging narrative; it's not simply that they're candy-colored.
Which is not to say it's perfect (and partly I'm just grateful for a game that was both good and short). But I would think that Portal is exactly the kind of success story we'd like to encourage here -- an interesting game with a few new ideas that started as an indie project, got a slick makeover and cracking narrative from a mainstream publisher, and was then released to great acclaim and played by the masses. Won't that open the door a bit for even odder and more indie ideas?
Time to take a step back.
Time to take a step back. There's no such thing as a "perfect game", and if you find yourself seriously suggesting that you've found it, you need to spend some time doing something unrelated to the argument to get your perspective back. Portal has less flaws than the average game, but it is by no means "perfect".
People have argued that Portal doesn't really challenge the player, and sacrifices difficulty to allow the greatest number of possible players the chance to see the snappy writing. The game environment was also rather transparently a stereotypical game environment: yeah, the lab was appropriate, but too many of the back rooms were "convenient gaming spaces". Consider the pointless room full of pistons.
Yeah, it's an excellent game in an industry full of stinkers. Hatred and worship are equally unwarranted. We're driving people to both extremes by the frenzy of our arguments, and we really need to tone it down.
Perfect!
You can expect different things from games and I try not to dismiss any facet of game-design, if it's done well. Portal does fit into existing genres. But that's the only true flaw I hear. Personally, I do not consider that a flaw.
Let me re-phrase "Portal is a perfect game" to "Portal is the perfect example for the kind of game I have been waiting for years". It brought back my hopes in bigger game studios.
I've never played a game before that changed my perception of 3D space so radically. A game that had such a perfidious, cynical villain, so perfectly integrated into gameplay. Hearing Kim Swift talk about the importance of play-testing over and over again leaves a bad after-taste of commercialism, I admit. But see what an amazing game grew out of this seemingly creativity-defying process!
No, I don't want to qualify that statement: Portal is an exceptional, special and important game that deserves all the praise it gets.
Subversion of genre
A few folks above have mentioned that Portal subverts the genre it seems to be rooted in, and I think that this point should be further emphasized. I played through Portal with very little prior knowledge of it, and as I finished the first few levels of the game, I thought to myself, "What's the big deal? It's a puzzle game with a dull setting mixed with a novel concept." But, when the game began to reveal itself I got sucked in, and Portal gave me one of only a handful of gaming "wow" moments I've experienced in my life when I discovered the first "hidden" room filled with evidence of other humans trying to survive behind the broken wall mechanism. I felt as if I had "broken" the game within the game, like I had actually discovered something, something completely unexpected. The remarkable thing about Portal is that this game-within-a-game, subversion-of-genre element never feels forced.
Taking a tried-and-true convention and making it feel completely new and exciting shouldn't be seen as some kind of hoodwink. So what it's "just a puzzle game" at it's core. Hamlet is "just a revenge story" retold. (Okay, that was a really ridiculous comparison, but I'll leave it anyway.) Portal isn't perfect, but it certainly deserves much of the attention that it's been given.