Certainly Portal 2 is the more popular of the two by leaps and bounds. As with any Valve release, buzz was palpable. It also has the benefit of using possibly the most impressive and mind-bending piece of in-game equipment around - the portal gun.
The crux of Stacking's gameplay is nothing to scoff at though, as entering other characters' bodies has never been handled by a design idea that was this simple, or this ingenious, before. And there's always going to be a reasonable amount of interest in whatever Tim Schafer is working on.
Portal 2 has been getting universal praise for being an improvement over its predecessor in every aspect except, of course, originality. Most gaming publications have deemed it the best game released this year. I would go so far as to say that it's the best game Valve has released, combining the single-player mastery that made the Half-Life series so polished and the teamwork expertise that keeps people playing the Team Fortress and Left 4 Dead series.
Stacking has gotten good reviews as well, but not to the same extent. For all its originality and charm, some still take issue with paying fifteen dollars for a game that can be completed in three hours. But I argue that in Stacking, a puzzle game, that short length may also be one of its greatest strengths.
The separation between these developers' approaches is clear. Double Fine likes working on widely different projects; the results have been mixed. In addition to Stacking, I liked Double Fine's Psychonauts, but other releases haven't been as relevant to me. Valve are perfectionists, not innovators. Every major Valve release since Half-Life 2 has used the same engine. The reason Portal was so well-recieved is because it offered something truly new, which was especially impressive considering the developer it came from. Valve had an innovative idea, but wouldn't invest in it until it proved itself successful - thus Portal 2 is a "real game" rather than a two hour experiment with new technology. But what does this mean for the gamer, one like me who may play these games at the same time?
Portal 2 has its foundations laid in gameplay that goes all the way back to the first Prince of Persia (and probably further) - you enter a room, examine the way it hinders your progress, and attempt to maneuver through. There is one solution and you make attempts until you discover that solution. Portal 2 is the pinnacle of this kind of puzzle game design, and as such the player is often cursing themselves for not realizing the way through a room that, in hindsight, seems obvious. Well, there's something interesting. The player reaction evoked from spending too much time on one particular puzzle is one of self-condemnation. I muttered the phrase, "Wow, I'm dumb" more times than I'd care to admit to while playing Portal 2. No matter how much difficulty a player might have, the developer never gets the blame. Valve avoids too much player frustration by stripping the rooms down to little more than what is necessary to complete them. This often translates into a player reaction equivalent to a lolwut. How should one progress a stage that doesn't have a floor? How is one to avoid perfectly placed turrets? There's always a way, but these things take time. That's the crucial aspect here, time. Some players have reported seemingly fake completion times for Portal 2, while I'm sure some are still working on it. I'm sure that if I mentally muscled my way through all of Portal and Portal: Still Alive without any help, I would have been perfectly equipped to complete Portal 2 in five or six hours. On the other hand, I'm suggesting a friend play the first Portal before attempting this game or its co-op component. With less emphasis on quick shooting or precise jumping, success in Portal 2 depends almost wholly on one's thought process being in line with the level designers'. This is classic puzzle design, but games like this only succeed when they're as interesting as Portal 2 is, and have a developer behind them as good as Valve is.
Stacking presents things differently. The mindset here is that the developer provides a world with a lot to see and do, and the player decides how much of this world to partake in, with very little participation absolutely necessary for completion. Scott Justner wrote an excellent article on Stacking's design and its effects for Popmatters that points out the strength of this approach. Stacking is a game where confusion and frustration have been pre-emptively eliminated by requiring only one of several solutions for each of the games challenges, as well as implementing a hint system that encourages making a couple guided attempts before giving in and getting told the solution to a puzzle. My experience with Stacking was similar to my experience with Braid. I completed Stacking over the course of a handful of play sessions. Some days I felt like exploring and messing around with stuff, others I just wanted to progress the narrative. The end result is that the pacing of the game was always 'right'. You can't hit a slow spot, and if you want to slow down, you won't run out of stuff to do.
The difference in experience between these two games was pretty drastic for me. Portal 2's level design is great, but there were a series of rooms that just didn't click with me. I think it makes perfect sense that these rooms involved the new gels that serve as the biggest change in the gameplay outside the inclusion of the co-op mode. I had a lot of practice with how the portals of the Portal series work. These gels were new though, and accordingly frustrating when I first had to use them for anything past the simplest of puzzles. By the time I got to the end of the game I understood, for the most part, how to use the gels in conjunction with the portals and had little trouble. That said, there were still quite a few times I needed youtube guides for levels in Portal 2. There's a great sense of failure when you admit your own unwillingness to make any further attempts at something in a game, and much of my Portal 2 experience was dowsed in that sense of failure. I didn't have to consult any outside help for completing Stacking, and, even better, was able to complete all sorts of extra-curriculars without any frustration.
These differences reflect the evolution of the industry through the lens of the puzzle game. Games used to be about repeated attempts, deductive reasoning, and mastery. The direction we're moving in is toward a fluid experience, user-determined solutions, and completion. This new direction leads to player having less negative experiences while playing a game, making them more likely to purchase the now-standard DLC.
The reasoning behind the reception for each of these games makes sense. Portal 2 is one of the best things to come out of the tried-and-true puzzle game paradigm. Stacking is far less about polished or perfect design as it is about presenting that design in a more player-friendly fashion. Despite their flaws, they're both excellent. Since games are separated between disc-based releases and downloadable games for awards, I would say that these two titles earn the top spot in their respective categories. The possibility that these games could get knocked from their top spots is largely irrelevant - gaming's infamous summer slump is coming, and these are certainly the most advisable choices for filling that time. Unless, you know, you wanted to read, or something...
No comments:
Post a Comment