I wish they weren't doing it actually. People will say they're excited now, but when it comes out there's a good chance people will either feel that (a) it strays too far from the essence that made the original so great or (b) that it just feels like more of the same. Portal was unique because it was so unexpected, the sequel is going to have a lot of expectations to live up to while sticking to the constraints that the designers themselves created. I'ld rather have them work on a new idea.

I agree, but will wait and see. Personally, I'd like to see a swarm of additional puzzle maps for Portal itself.

I'll agree with this as well.

This is just sad... while it'll be nice to see, but if it's not at the same level or better than the first it'll make the overall experience seem cheapened.

The gameplay was neat, but cmon, the real reason it was so memorable was GlaDOS as indy mentioned. God forbid, even if they took away the Portal mechanic entirely and had a HorroRPG like Bioshock in it's place it would still rock. Come to think of it that wouldn't be a bad idea...

Valve seems to do a really good job of making sure anything they release is high quality. Is there a history that makes you think this will be not as good? Was HL2 not the same level or better than HL1?

I'm just curious, but it seems like the naysaying is unwarranted fud.
Correct me if I'm wrong.

You're a very strange person.

I put the caveat of it needing to be as good or better. While Valve has a good track record it doesn't mean it can't change. Plus the more i think about it i find myself wishing that while they may be able to do something with the portal mechanics i wouldn't want anything involving the Enrichment Center or GLADOS.

The Portal experience was such a nice complete package and with the announcement of Portal 2 it's like just finding your favorite sweater in the world has a stray thread hanging off of it.

I've loved everything Valve's put out so far, and I've not seen any attacks or snobbery here yet.

The only reason I went the snob route wit my comment, was that it was more than just apprehension about whether the game would be good. It was whether the game will live up to some unrealistic expectations. The game can't be more of the same, but then, they can't change it too much either. There are times when momentum really gets going on a topic here, that people stop enjoying games (and other forms of entertainment) for exactly what they are.

It was a little troubling to see people already throwing out what their likely criticisms will be for a game that is so far off that is actually based on nothing. I think most of us can guess what might be wrong with Duke Nuke'em. Even the folks that complain about the upcoming Fallout 3 are doing so based on information that has been released. Who in their right mind would actually suggest, at this point, they shouldn't even be doing Portal?

I can understand the apprehension of people concerned about the quality of the sequel. I can't understand, however, the belief of some that they shouldn't make a sequel at all. Why not make a sequel of a game which was one of the best of last year?

Let's think about the worst-case scenario. They make Portal 2, and it's a shadow of the original. It wouldn't make the original a worse game. Would your view of the original cheapen because of a bad sequel? Would you rather they not make a sequel and then daydream of what could have been?

More of a tie in with Half Life story lines I'm gona guess. Then HL3 will mash the two series together. There is no way this game will be anything but great.

Because this will be a sequel to a game that was seen as a "phenomenon", and for some, the best game of the year. Portal was a massive surprise, Portal 2 will compete with expectations and nostalgia. No matter what they do, it's going to be very hard to have a game that won't dissapoint the pre-conceived notions of what so many people want the sequel to be, which I feel is pretty common, and admit I might fall into myself.

That was all I was saying. I in no way am saying that I assume the game will be bad. I think Portal 2 will probably be great. But I also thought Half-Life: Episode 2 was great, but it landed with a thud as far as I'm concerned compared to the other Orange Box items. It's absent on most best of lists, it's commonly referred to the "weakest of the Orange Box", and just as I am suggesting, all the polish in the world didn't stop it from being percieved by many as tired compared to TF2 and Portal. A lot of people haven't even bothered playing it.

So that's why I would like it if in two years time the team that brought us Portal would surprise us again with a new idea or gameplay dynamic, that we can experience fresh and real for the same time. Instead we could be arguing over whether Glados schtick was wearing thin, or conversely why didn't they include her schtick this time, or eight hundred other things. I want Portal to be remembered as a centrepiece for how great storytelling can be in a game, or how they don't need to be 20 hours, or how pacing is key. I don't want it to be seen as something most people feel ambivalence towards. It's a preference for what I want to see the talented people work on, not an assumption that the sequel will suck.

And of course, I'll be happy to proven wrong on these fears.

I saw this thread years ago when Valve announced plans for Half-Life 2.

I for one hope they do not Hype the crap out of this game, but knowing Valve in the past they are good and juggling this so it is just the right amount I say bring the portal gun on, hopefully there will be portal deathmatch! You can not physically harm your enemy just make crap fall on him or him fall on stuff lol!