
Both Croal and Totilo break down how they hope Portal will affect the industry going forward. Totilo speculates on whether it will create a legion of industry-driven imitators hoping to tap into the miracle formula for big bucks; Croal questions his buddy's focus on "the market" and looks at thematic evolution, distilling it thusly:
The philosophy of Portal, then, is that less can indeed be more. This is in stark contrast to the more-is-more aesthetic that informs BioShock: more choices, more weapons, more abilities, more systems, more environmental detail, more characters and more exposition. There are definite similarities between the two games, as each is essentially a "haunted house" game populated primarily by enemies and obstacles; an unreliable, manipulative character who guides the player; and a late-game plot twist. Yet Portal manages to create out of far fewer elements and systems an experience and a sense of place that is easily as immersive as BioShock's, with fewer flaws because Valve ruthlessly eliminated of anything extraneous or discursive. Has so much ever been accomplished in a videogame with so little? (Certainly Ico and Shadow of the Colossus come to mind, as does Rez (most notably in its fifth level), the first Manhunt and, more recently, Everyday Shooter. Did I leave anything off my shortlist, sensei?)
Well, did he? Aside from that, the distant thunder of war is rumbling; it's becoming somewhat clear at this point that BioShock and Portal will be fierce contenders for game of the year. Who gets your vote? The full Newsweek discussion makes great background for an argument in favor of Portal.