After posting my review for the SP of Portal 2 it got me thinking. I am quite obviously in the minority with my feelings on that game, and yet I believe my criticisms are all entirely valid and my sheer disappointment of the game actually made me question the 7 I gave it. I could have quite easily opted for a 6 but tried to maintain some objectivity.

It seems far too easy to get caught in the hype and lavish high praise and, subsequently, ratings on a game that probably doesn't deserve it. Looking back at my few contributions to GS I have certainly done it myself. 9.7 for Half Life 2 Episode 1? I don't think so some how, for one where is the room for improvement? I actually think Episode 2 is the better game out of the HL episodes, so should I give that a 10? No doubt I got carried away with the hype and the excitement, possibly in part due to this then new idea of episodic gaming.

Before guying a game I like to see peoples opinion on it, I usually bypass specific reviewers and head straight to the public to get a good idea of what the game is like. However, as confirmed Portal 2, this isn't always reliable. When I do read reviews I often go for the ones with lower scores as people are more likely to highlight issues in the game that I may not enjoy. If I had found reviews of Portal 2 that mentioned the horrific intrusion that was Wheatley, the lacklustre attempts at humour or the sad gaps in gameplay I may have been less curious and could have used my £30 for something more deserving.