Wed Apr 20, 2011 3:59 pm
I'm suggesting that the first half life 2 was a good value, and was because of the following:
1. the lengthy single player
2. the cutting edge engine
3. the multiplayer deathmatch
extra: CSS
the first 3 should all be standard for an fps, and have historically been. it also, as an added bonus had CSS, which made it even better deal. what you've got with portal 2, imo, is the following
1. excellent gameplay in the single player mode, but it's quite short @ 6 hours.
2. co-op, which takes about 4 hours.
assuming you LOVED Playing the coop repeatedly, then maybe you'd get more out of it. Personally, i'm not a huge fan or repeating puzzle games, as the big part is solving the puzzle. first portal was a 3 hour play through, repeated when it first came out, and a few weeks ago, totaling probably 5 to 6 hours. Great for an orange box add on.
with p2 i have yet to try the coop, maybe the stupidity of my friends will add something, but idk, that'll likely be a 4 hour additional aspect.
With hl2, you had a roughly 20 hour single player, and literally hundreds of hours of multiplayer, spanning multiple modes. I realize that it's trickier to make a ton of multiplayer with this engine, but if they're able to come up with 80$ of dlc on day one, obviously they had more ideas, and i'm wondering when you compare content to HL2, why the huge difference, for the same price. I'm merely commenting on what i see as the reduction in value of valve's games, not trolling.