Mechanics, Depth, and Portal 2

In 2007 Portal revolutionized the gaming scene forever. Portal was quickly embraced for its dark humor and clever writing. Additionally, Portal revitalized the puzzle genre with its unique portal gun mechanic. The player controlled portal gun allows the player to create a wormhole that connects two distinct points in space. Portal was initially bundled as a smaller game to be sold in Valve’s package The Orange Box, but after such success it was inevitable that a full length standalone sequel would immerge. Portal’s acclaimed gameplay and successful puzzles utilized a small number of mechanics deeply; however, Portal 2 sacrifices mechanical depth for breadth, resulting in a less challenging experience. Portal 2 provides us with a platform to examine and qualify mechanical depth to provide context for analyzing and comparing video games.

In his paper “Defining Game Mechanics,” Miguel Sicart sought to define mechanics in the context of games. Through these definitions, we are able to gather a lens through which we can classify and analyze individual aspects of games objectively. In his paper, Sicart defines “core mechanics [are] the game mechanics (repeatedly) used by agents to achieve a systemically rewarded end-game state” (Sicart). We can narrow the core mechanics in both portal games down to walking, jumping, and placing / traversing portals. Specifically, these core mechanics are primary mechanics because all three of these must be utilized by the player in every level of play in order to reach the goal. Sicart explains that defining mechanics “allows the study of the systemic structure of games in terms of actions afforded to agents to overcome challenges[…] and how mechanics can be used to create specific emotional experiences in players” (Sicart). Despite sharing the same core mechanics, Portal and Portal 2 approach the same, core, portal mechanic in different ways. In order to analyze differences in the same mechanics, I assert the concept of mechanical depth: the more ways in which a mechanic can be utilized, the deeper the mechanic is.

One of the major differences between Portal and Portal 2 are the portal surfaces that the player may connect while solving puzzles throughout the course of the game. The surfaces that a player may place a portal on in both games are characterized by a clean, white surface. While the portal surfaces stay visually consistent, the portal blocking surfaces may be displayed as dark, contrasting barren surfaces or simply random environmental assets. In Portal 2, a significantly smaller percentage of the games surfaces are eligible for portal placement. In this way, Portal gives much more freedom in how puzzles may be solved than in Portal 2.

Looking at figure 1, you can see that three visible walls, the floor, and the ceiling are all applicable portal surfaces. This can be clearly contrasted with figure 2. Figure 2 portrays a typical level in Portal 2. Here, three of the walls of the puzzle room all have eligible portal surfaces. However, the surface area on each wall is limited to only the pieces that are necessary for solving the puzzle. Much of this surface area could be enabled in such a way that does not change the solution to the puzzle or introduce alternative solutions. However, this area is not opened up and the player can only utilize the puzzle necessary wall surfaces. This design decision greatly limits not only the player decisions, but also the ways in which the core mechanic of the portal gun can be utilized in Portal 2. Limiting the use of this core mechanic decreases mechanical depth in Portal 2 compared to its prequel Portal.

To pretend that Portal 2 does not have some less-limiting test chambers would be a misrepresentation of the game. While the overall freedom in portal placement is more restrictive than Portal 1, there are still a numerous test chambers with a large surface area of valid portal walls. One example of such a chamber can be seen in figure 3. However, the relevant portion of the open puzzle area is clearly marked by a distinctive wall pattern. These indicators are also used in puzzle rooms with more limited space such as the room shown in Figure 2. Other surface markers appear such as smaller tile patterns. These changes to the core mechanic overall may be overall beneficial, as they help guide players to their goals and process aspects of the puzzle; while these indicators do not directly limit the core mechanic, they do guide the player and simplify it.

Another way that Portal and Portal 2 differ in their handling of the main portal mechanic is the circumstances under which the players are required to place portals. Adam Biessener noted in his Portal 2 review “Portal 2 has fewer agility-driven obstacles, so less dexterous gamers shouldn’t find themselves stuck on anything for lack of stick-flicking ability” (Biessener). The main way in which this simplification was manifested in the game was not needing to place portals while moving. Puzzle games are traditionally focused on mental fortitude rather than physical prowess. It is logical for the developers to take an approach in which the physical aspects of the player are not as demanding.

However, puzzles that required the player to fire while moving were typically challenging and focused on building up momentum through multiple portal chains. The puzzles demanded a new way of thinking about the game and core mechanic of portals. In Portal 2, almost none of the puzzles required the player to fire the portal gun while moving, and therefore were not able to utilize the momentum building aspect of the core portal gun mechanic. This design decision for Portal 2 limits the solutions for puzzles, the limits the design of the puzzles by removing this layer of mechanical depth. This example illustrates that mechanical depth does lead to higher difficulty and challenges, but this may not always be healthy for the game. This is a clear physical decision to make the game more playable, but limits the mental space that the player is able to explore during gameplay. This understanding of mechanical depth must be present when designing such a game in order to understand the cascading effects of decisions such as not requiring players to place portals while moving.

Core mechanics are only one dimension to consider when evaluating the mechanical depth of a game. Secondary mechanics are a level below core mechanics in their prevalence, but are still vital to understanding a game. The portal gun was a primary mechanic because it was “readily available, explained in the early stages of the game, and consistent throughout the game experience” (Sicart). On the other hand, “secondary mechanics are either available occasionally or require their combination with a primary mechanic in order to be functional” (Sicart). The secondary mechanics featured in both portal games include buttons that activate various parts of the puzzle rooms, boxes that can be used to hold down buttons or navigate terrain, and lasers can active sections of puzzle rooms when they reach a laser receiver. Portal 2 expanded on the secondary mechanics of Portal by introducing many more of them, including refracting cubes, light bridges, portal surface paint, repulsion gel, and acceleration gel.

The presence of significantly more mechanics presents itself as a great thing for mechanical depth. The more mechanics there are, the more ways in which these mechanics can interact with each other, and increase the depth of each mechanic individually. However, in his analysis of Portal 2, Michael Abbot wrote “Portal 2 is a fun game, but it's burdened by a new array of mechanics that give the player more things to do, yet fail to add value to his experience” (Abbot). Abbot compares this to the idea of making peas fun to eat for a toddler by pretending the spoon is an airplane: “Portal 2 flies that spoon around with so many laborious mechanical gyrations that the savvy player begins to suspect something is wrong with its pea cargo” (Abbot). Mechanical depth can help us understand why a presence of mechanics, and therefore new options and spaces, could lead to this negative, suspecting emotional aesthetic.

Portal 2 introduces a plethora of mechanics to facilitate level design and expand the space in which they are able to solve puzzles. However, the mechanics of Portal 2 are not fully explored in the main story of Portal 2. The main game in Portal 2 is a medium for delivering the story and uncovering the mysteries of the world of Aperature Science, the laboratory in which the puzzles are taking place. After the release of Portal 2, Erik Wolpaw, one of the writers of the game, was quoted as saying “Portal was at its core, an intimate story between these two characters” and this is what Portal 2 was built off of (McElroy). While the puzzles are a medium for delivering the story of Portal 2, the story and humor is the center of the attention as makes sense in a single player game.

In order for the story to be delivered effectively, it had to be limited in time and integrated into the puzzles. Abbot notes, “Stuffed in between all the new toys - hard light surfaces; excursion funnels, conversion gel, repulsion gel, propulsion gel, redirection cubes, etc. - is plenty of skillfully penned dialogue. GLaDOS turns berating into an art, and Wheatley yammers hilariously;” additionally “the player constructs a story by leveraging the game's mechanical elements and piecing together bits of evidence” (Abbot). The constraints placed on the game by its focus on story and limit in time do not allow for the time required in order to fully explore the depth of each of the new mechanics. Many interactions are never required, and many mechanics never appear paired with each other. While the depth of interactions between the varius gels and the excursion funnels is explored, the player never gets to see how light bridges interact with these puzzle elements. Unexplored mechanical depth leaves room for emotional responses such as that from Abbot, where the presented mechanics are not fully explored. Portal 2 gives us this example to define and learn from unexplored depth.

Portal 2 is able to expand on this unexplored depth in both its multiplayer and user generated levels. These levels are limited by needing to fit into the context of a greater. Valve makes a brilliant move in making the level designing tools available to the community. Valve recognized the possibilities presented by the new mechanical depth were not met in the main Portal 2 game, but still made them available to users through the workshop. This is one of the reasons that Portal 2 is still being played almost 6 years after its initial release. Valve was able to create a mechanically deep game that would keep players challenged and interested for years to come. The multiplayer mode expands on this introducing new, deep secondary mechanics, in the ways that a second portal gun can interact with all the other mechanics in the game.

Portal 2’s focus on story does allow for more gameplay elements that were largely absent in Portal. Portal 2 features hours of gameplay that function as walking simulators. These sections prevent the player from experiencing fatigue from being confronted with endless mental obstacles. Additionally, they provide a medium for developers to share information regarding the story and history of the game with the player. In figure 4, you can see one of these story focused sections. This section is largely composed of non portal retaining surfaces. However, this presents a new challenge of navigating the ruins and finding the next portal retaining surface in order to continue the story.

Finally, Portal 2’s story limits its depth through its linearity. The game even comments on this itself. Near the end of the game, one of the main character provides the following commentary while you are solving a puzzle room: “Yes, you 'solved' it, but I'm wondering if there are a number of ways to solve them and you're picking all the worst ways. No. No. That was the solution. Rrrg! What am I missing?” (Portal 2). In the developer commentary for Portal, Jeep Barnett provides commentary for a different level: “A few playtesters put a portal on the floor here and used the rising stair pit to skip the rest of the puzzle. We'll usually rework a level if playtesters discover a way to bypass chunks of the puzzle too easily. But in this and a few other cases where skipping ahead arguably takes more skill than solving the puzzle properly, we let the ninja solution stand” (Portal). The quote from Portal 2 suggests that the puzzles should be linear in their solution. However, the quote for Portal suggests that there may be an intended solution to the puzzle, but a particularly challenging solution may be present in order to reward cleverer players. This exemplifies the balance that must be struck between difficulty, mechanical depth, and player reward. The level in Portal had an easy to physically execute, mentally challenging solution and a difficult to execute, mentally tricky solution. This type of level design leaves mechanical depth while making the game more accessible and rewarding to a larger array of players.

In conclusion, mechanical depth is a core component to any game, and will affect how players respond and what aesthetics are generated from the game. Portal and Portal 2 provide the grounds to begin understanding an analyzing mechanical depth. While Portal 2 generally lacked mechanical depth in its single player mode, it made this available through other modes of gameplay. Nonlinearity can lend itself to both deep and accessible solutions to puzzles throughout the Portal series. It is important to understand, analyze, and study mechanical depth in order to continue to make games that are rewarding and successful.

Figures

Figure 1: Portal Test Chamber 13

Figure 2: Portal 2 Test Chamber

Figure 3: Portal 2 Marked Surface

Figure 4: Portal Two Walking Simulator

Works Cited

Abbot, Michael. "Too Much Airplane, Not Enough Peas." Brainy Gamer. Brainy Gamer, 4 May 2011. Web. 29 Nov. 2016. <http://www.brainygamer.com/the_brainy_gamer/2011/05/there-really-was-a-cake.html>;.

Biessener, Adam. "Portal 2: The Sequel You Were Hoping For." Game Informer. N.p., 18 Apr. 2011. Web. 29 Nov. 2016. <http://www.gameinformer.com/games/portal_2/b/pc/archive/2011/04/18/the-sequel-you-were-hoping-for.aspx>;.

McElroy, Justin. "The Last Human Artifacts: A Portal 2 Post-mortem." Polygon. N.p., 08 Mar. 2012. Web. 29 Nov. 2016. <http://www.polygon.com/gaming/2012/3/8/2853841/portal-2-post-mortem>;.

Portal. Bellevue, WA: Valve, 2007. Computer software.

Portal 2. Bellevue, WA: Valve, 2011. Computer software.

Sicart, Miguel. "Game Studies." Game Studies. The International Journal of Computer Game Research, Dec. 2008. Web. 29 Nov. 2016. <http://gamestudies.org/0802/articles/sicart>;.