Will Portal change the game industry?

Maximum fun in minimum time - sounds good to me.

Short games are just as fun as long games, its short games selling for £50 thats the problem.

A game needs to be just as long as to deliver an optimal experience. Portal and COD4 prove this and I don't mind.

I hope so. All the lessons that portal gives are ones that help gaming continue to shed its perception as a geeky niche.

I hope it doesn't. Any game that can be beat in 3 hours or less is not worth spending full price on. Save those games for renting.

Portal was a fun game, but the fact that it was so short is exactly what's keeping me from giving it so much praise. I'm all for casual games that you can just pick up and play, but portal gets boring so quickly with its lack of maps.

All depends on the price. I love Portal but I'd never spend more than £5 on it individually.

But no I prefer longer games like Galaxy, Zeldas, FF etc.

I hope the F*CK it does.

Portal has been a refreshing escape from these shooters that just seem to pile up like shovelware.

Everyone and their grandmother is doing a shooter. Everybody wants to be the next Halo, everybody wants to be the next COD....Don't get me wrong, these two games are excellent in their execution. But, if games are an art form then they must evolve or they shall perish in a sea of clone games.

If any game raised the bar of excellence and innovation, Portal was it.

Bravo to Valve for taking a chance.

Here's a question, though - how much of Portal's development time can be accounted for by the student project? When you account for that, it might be that the game's development time was a bit longer than initially assumed.

ever heard of the independent gaming scene? you know, where indie developers work under very little to no budget producing varied lengths of gameplays? or are we just big on major established publishers to acknowledge their existence?

Isn't that what services like Xbox LIVE were supposed to promote? Great games that are shorter that don't cost $60. Maybe Portal's success will finally put more pressure on MS to remove the 150 MB Arcade limit so smaller studios can easily distribute games like Portal.

'Cause let's face it, without 4 other games on the disc, games like Portal can't be sold on store shelves.

It won't for now, because it requires a certain genius to pull it off.

But it could inspire a whole new generation of seemingly simplified games, with a deep complex structure to unravel.

While portal as a concept may be new, lower budget creative games are not. Look at flow, everyday shooter, etc. (I only have a PS3 but am sure Xbox has many of these types of games as well.) There will always be a place for the big budget, guaranteed block busters, FF, Halo, etc. While it is nice to see portal get some press, all winning game of the year will do is make sure that a flood of indie/different games will be released, some of which will be spectacular, and many will suck A$$.

We have to consider that Valve made this game, not your normal indie company.

Not that I mind that being a sign of things to come.
But had it not been a part of the Orange Box and had it not been VALVE that released it. Do you realy think that portal would still be as big of a hit?

i would be perfectly fine with this unless devs start pumping out low budget crap at the regular $50-$60 price. short, low budget, high quality games would be great for like $30-$40.

Sure, you can make it shorter. Whatever. Just don't forget the OTHER thing that makes Portal different from other shooters: innovative gameplay that has enough possibility to keep people coming back.

This will only work if:

* The sort game will have to be roller coaster of orgasmic joy from beginning to end. A 2-3 hour game should not have one ounce of filler or lack polish becuase there's no excuse.

* It's ether cheap or bundled with other games.

* It has to be original. Nobody is going to give a toss about another FPS, let alone a short one.

* Otherwise take an existing format and make it mind-blowingly good.

Games are getting more expensive. I sure as hell ain't gonna pay 60$+ for some short-ass experience. It worked for Portal because it was part of a pretty big pack-in.

No, short low-budget titles sound to me like shovel-ware. Not to say Portal is shovel-ware, I think it's the greatest game of 2007, but then again I haven't played Bioshock yet.

I don't trust any company other than a handful such as Valve and Blizzard, to make a short AUD$30 game so brimming with quality gameplay and story elements that I would have gladly have spent AUD$80 on.

No Portal won't change the game industry, at least not in a good way. Portal is an excellent game which packs a ton of fun in a short period by being original and creative. The industry as a whole doesn't know how to original and creative consistently. So, the industry goes with formulaic and bullshots instead.

And I can't see that changing. You can't put creative on a schedule, so the industry can't really build games around it.

I also don't think shorter is always better, look at Rez. It could use a lot more levels, especially since 5 of the 6 are nearly identical to each other anyway.

The thing that I really hate about Portal is that as much of fun as it is, it doesn't deserve a GOTY.

The Orange Box does an its' bastard child has stolen it!

Don't know about you guys, but I'd pay $50 for Portal...

No, Portal won't change the industry.

I think one of the major problems with Portal was that it was far too short. That's mainly due to its brilliance, we all craved more of it, but it was still short. And as long as a game can provide originality without becoming repetitive (which is a reason I'm glad Portal was as long as it was, I could not imagine going through 20+ hours of levels; or even 10) then the longer the better.

http://www.magicalwasteland.com/2008/02/making_claims_with_absolutely.htm

Portal and REZ too short? By what standards?

Are all movies 2.5 hours long? What about short films?

Not all TV shows are an hour long. Many are half that, and are better for it.

Portal and REZ are perfect examples of games that were the perfect length for what they were. If they were longer, you'd only be diluting the experience. The puzzles would get samey, the dialogue would wear out its welcome. You could take the best film in the world, extend it by an hour and completely RUIN it.

I think gamers put far too much emphasis on play time, and it's an attitude that has to change. It's easy to make a game that takes 20+ hours to beat; it's far harder to make a game where you're enjoying each and every one of those hours as much as you did playing Portal.

Pacing is an extremely important thing for movies and music, and I think the more talented developers are beginning to realise that it's true for games as well.

Portal isn't going to "change the industry," if you mean that the majority of games will go with this shorter length/lower cost mentality, but it's possible that it could begin to happen more often, and especially with downloadable content.

That said, this argument is only coming out because of Portal's huge and sudden popularity. Valve had this idea years ago when it started work on Half Life Episode 1. And, aside from the huge waits, I think it's been a success.

Portal was great, but it wasn't the only reason I bought The Orange Box. Unless this means developers or publishers or whoever are going to start shipping smaller games in compilations, then I don't see really short games becoming a trend at all... at least not without a price cut. Also, Portal was just an amazing game. You can't pull that off with any ol' crap.

Oh yeah, forgot to mention that I'm quite happy with games getting content trimmed back. There's a lot of stuff in even recent releases that just shouldn't have been in the final release. Mass Effect's side quests come to mind...

I can't resist though I'm catching up late on a lot of Joystiq posts. Part of Nintendo's Blue Ocean create a dynamic library includes breaking pricing structure so $20-40 short games become viable.