Gearbox: Not All that Glitters is Gold
- Thread starter vasiD
- Start date
Recommended Videos
For my part, I wasn't registered to The Escapist forums. I definitely would have defended your position at the time.Duffeknol said:
I liked BL single player, hell I haven't even touched multiplayer and it BL2 was one of my favourite games last year.
As far as Gearbox is concerned, I still like 'em. Bought Colonial Marines day 1 and I must admit I'm likin' it, first new release I bought this year and a good start in my opinion... Then again I like Resi 6, Downpour and New Dante so maybe I'm just stupid.
Fun fact: Loved Borderlands 2, didn't care for Borderlands 1.BrotherRool said:
As far as Gearbox is concerned, I still like 'em. Bought Colonial Marines day 1 and I must admit I'm likin' it, first new release I bought this year and a good start in my opinion... Then again I like Resi 6, Downpour and New Dante so maybe I'm just stupid.
Wow. I was about to go on a rant about Borderlands being a bloated skinnerbox, but you said all that needed to be said.Trollhoffer said:
Too busy making their own threads complaining about how horrible Borderlands 2 was, because this is the internet and nobody can possibly express their ideas in their own threads.Duffeknol said:
They were wrapped up in themselves. By your lack of awareness, you probably were, too.
Yeah, like wasnt Borderlands 2 Game of The Year for a lot of people here?Compatriot Block said:
For me it isnt but its damn near close, and what about Brothers in Arms? Duke Nukem sucked but we already know what happened there and I guess that the mistake with Aliens here was that it was made when Gearbox was also making Borderlands 2 and its DLC.
They said near the launch of Borderlands 2 that they considered themselfs a mid tier developer so when they were asked to do 2 AAA games at the same time their decision was to focus on one and outsource the other one. Its kind of obvious why the game failed.
Gearbox is yet to fail on me with their actual work and that is what I expect from them.
And people should avoid pre-ordering stuff, marketing exists to make shit look good so dont be suprised if that good shit is just simply shit
Brothers in Arms (at least the first two, can't speak for the third) is really, really good. I really liked it at any rate.josemlopes said:
I liked Opposing Force and Brothers In Arms, but I agree with the rest. I have been wary of Gearbox since the made Borderlands, the game ian't my cup of.tea, I hate grind, like a bit of variety in my games, and loath co-op, but it was the shitastic PC port that ruined them in my eyes.
Sure, Borderlands is shit in singleplayer. It barely rises above mediocre, and the grind sets in pretty quickly, and the humour is just too scattered to sustain the narrative over a solo playthrough. The second does a better job, but it's still just pulling a bare minimum. But, I'd rather it have the singleplayer that I rather not play, than not have it, and force me to play multiplayer.
For instance, if I want to start a new character, putting other players through the introductory missions again is just being dickish. I can level my character seperately to my friends, I can screw around rolling for equipment. It's a feature that would be missed if it were gone, even if it isn't a great game mode in and of istelf.
They're good multiplayer games, you just have to realise they are such. You should probably avoid them if you don't have friends to play them with.
Co-op FPS titles are more of a rarity, and ones which allow you to play with RPG style roles are pretty much non-existant. Playing with a variety of classes adds that much more character to the experience, and you end up building your own narrative around it.
And Savior? That's called Cell-Shading. It's not just from an indie movie, or whatever drivel you want to go with. It's a similar style to Team Fortress 2, among other things, and draws it's influence typically from comic books and animation.
For instance, if I want to start a new character, putting other players through the introductory missions again is just being dickish. I can level my character seperately to my friends, I can screw around rolling for equipment. It's a feature that would be missed if it were gone, even if it isn't a great game mode in and of istelf.
They're good multiplayer games, you just have to realise they are such. You should probably avoid them if you don't have friends to play them with.
Co-op FPS titles are more of a rarity, and ones which allow you to play with RPG style roles are pretty much non-existant. Playing with a variety of classes adds that much more character to the experience, and you end up building your own narrative around it.
And Savior? That's called Cell-Shading. It's not just from an indie movie, or whatever drivel you want to go with. It's a similar style to Team Fortress 2, among other things, and draws it's influence typically from comic books and animation.
Me too. I've spent the majority of my time with Borderlands playing single player.aguspal said:
No mad dashes for loot, and I can listen to the quest dialogue in peace.
Just wanted to chime in here on this post specifically.Trollhoffer said:
Firstly, excellent post, very well put together and thought out. I appreciate a good post/thread like this as it helps bring about not only good discussion, but an exchange of personal idea's on a more respectable level.
Seconly, I want to touch briefly on your Borderlands comments. Primarily these two
and
The first point I think while valid can be argued against. While CoD and MoH did cement the "FPS genre" into its most popular form as it is now, the innovations in this genre (from strictly the shooting mechanic itself) are very slow to turn about. Gears of War popularized the over the Third person shooter aspect, which you see many games implement, and their fierce CQC that you can see in games like Spec:Ops, Max Payne, and Assassins Creed III MP (not a shooter but its close quarter frantic killing, so I equate it as such). Cover based shooting has also become quite a popular aspect in many shooters, primarily third person, but this style did not seem very appropriate for BL 1&2. So, out of the options given to them, being traditional shooter, over the top shooter (like Bulletstorm, tribes, unreal and its like), and cover based shooter. I would personally argue that the "traditional shooter" with a sprinkling of over the top was the correct decision to go.
The second point, I am a bit confused, as you say there is no systematic personality here. Its weapon compliment and game design based around it is unique onto itself (being that it is melding gun combat with the stat comparison and abilities) and its own distinct art style along with a good sense of humor (as per your comment). Yet, you go on to say that it does not have strong qualities of endearment concerning its core game play systems. So my question here I guess, is what do you consider to be its "core game play systems". To me, I see it as an amusing story with good humor, the collecting of ridiculously powerful guns, and the ability to engage in the the game with friends or play solo. Now, I could be missing your point on this particular issue, so please tell em if I am not getting what you mean
Lastly, I want to echo your statement about "diversifying" as a gamer. I think its important to both your gaming health, and (if you want to) knowledge on what is going on across the medium. All in all though, excellent post
Thanks for the kind words, Uriain. And also to others who have commented on my post -- given the strong reception of the Borderlands games, I wasn't sure that my thoughts were going to go down very well. It's good to have my considerations validated from time to time, or at least commented upon. I don't think everyone has to agree with me, of course, but I think there may be some points in there that hold true even for some Borderlands fans.
Let me contrast that with a much more elegant and well-considered means of judging a weapon provided by the first Witcher game. In that game, there are different weapons and weapon upgrades, but you'll likely stick to the sword you began the first chapter of the game with for quite some time. This is because your damage is derived from your progression as a swordsman in the game, with more upgrades to your sword skills netting you additional damage. Different weapons do a different percentage of damage based on these sword skills, and the weapon you begin the first chapter with does 100% of the damage detailed in your skills. As far as I remember, no weapon in the game deals more than 140% of your sword skill damage (insofar as steel swords are concerned), which incentivises progressing your character over finding new equipment. This throws a much bigger emphasis on effective combat decisions than it does on loot collection, and in any case, most weapons dropped by your enemies do something to the effect of 70% of your skill damage (but they also tend to have positive modifiers for critical effects such as bleeding).
Using a percentile system rather than raw damage values means that the effectiveness of a weapon scales to the skills of your character, which in turn means a powerful character with a poor weapon is more effective than a level 1 character with the best weapons in the game. Combined with the rarity of weapon upgrades, this means that getting something better than what you have feels quite momentous, but isn't honestly the most important factor until you maximise your sword skills. Less scavenging, less cycling through menus to determine which weapon gives you a minuscule advantage and more emphasis on your overall character build and ensuring that your choices have synchronicity within themselves. So much of your success in The Witcher is based on internalised values rather than externalised values that may or may not randomly appear in the environment.
That's probably my favourite example and this post has become much longer than it was originally intended to be, so I'll leave it at that for now. But hopefully I've illustrated what I meant; if I was unclear, please don't hesitate to ask for clarification. And, as always, I don't consider my posts to be gospel truth, so I invite disagreement if anyone has it.
I think you properly point out divergences in shooter genres, but I think there's another one that stands a little bit apart from the "traditional shooter", which is the one popularised by Medal of Honour and Call of Duty. If we take traditional shooters to be based on the likes of Half-Life, then these "semi-traditional shooters" are that with the additional of minor simulationist elements, such as universal ironsighting or scoping for all weapons, loadout limitations and other things like that. I'd say that Borderlands falls under the "semi-traditional" type of shooter, at least in relation to the types we're using here. Otherwise I find myself agreeing with this paragraph.Uriain said:
When I say "core gameplay systems" I mean the systems players manipulate in order to achieve the win states of the game. In most games, this means systems to do with environmental traversal, combat, item management and other things the players directly and knowingly control. In Borderlands, the core gameplay systems would include the shooting mechanics, inventory and equipment management, and essential movement. Inventory and equipment management, I think, is one of Borderlands' major failings as it's based on Skinner Box principles rather than depth of gameplay -- you look for the gun with the biggest numbers, basically.Uriain said:The second point, I am a bit confused, as you say there is no systematic personality here. Its weapon compliment and game design based around it is unique onto itself (being that it is melding gun combat with the stat comparison and abilities) and its own distinct art style along with a good sense of humor (as per your comment). Yet, you go on to say that it does not have strong qualities of endearment concerning its core game play systems. So my question here I guess, is what do you consider to be its "core game play systems". To me, I see it as an amusing story with good humor, the collecting of ridiculously powerful guns, and the ability to engage in the the game with friends or play solo. Now, I could be missing your point on this particular issue, so please tell em if I am not getting what you mean
Let me contrast that with a much more elegant and well-considered means of judging a weapon provided by the first Witcher game. In that game, there are different weapons and weapon upgrades, but you'll likely stick to the sword you began the first chapter of the game with for quite some time. This is because your damage is derived from your progression as a swordsman in the game, with more upgrades to your sword skills netting you additional damage. Different weapons do a different percentage of damage based on these sword skills, and the weapon you begin the first chapter with does 100% of the damage detailed in your skills. As far as I remember, no weapon in the game deals more than 140% of your sword skill damage (insofar as steel swords are concerned), which incentivises progressing your character over finding new equipment. This throws a much bigger emphasis on effective combat decisions than it does on loot collection, and in any case, most weapons dropped by your enemies do something to the effect of 70% of your skill damage (but they also tend to have positive modifiers for critical effects such as bleeding).
Using a percentile system rather than raw damage values means that the effectiveness of a weapon scales to the skills of your character, which in turn means a powerful character with a poor weapon is more effective than a level 1 character with the best weapons in the game. Combined with the rarity of weapon upgrades, this means that getting something better than what you have feels quite momentous, but isn't honestly the most important factor until you maximise your sword skills. Less scavenging, less cycling through menus to determine which weapon gives you a minuscule advantage and more emphasis on your overall character build and ensuring that your choices have synchronicity within themselves. So much of your success in The Witcher is based on internalised values rather than externalised values that may or may not randomly appear in the environment.
That's probably my favourite example and this post has become much longer than it was originally intended to be, so I'll leave it at that for now. But hopefully I've illustrated what I meant; if I was unclear, please don't hesitate to ask for clarification. And, as always, I don't consider my posts to be gospel truth, so I invite disagreement if anyone has it.
I only ever played borderlands single player, and I prefer borderlands 2 as a single player game. they're both really great games in my opinion. However, I think it was kinda hard to screw up borderlands considering they didn't really try anything new with it, so my opinion of the company overall is that they can make good games, but I don't expect them to.vasiD said:
I absolutely loved my time with Borderlands 2, but goddamn if Randy didn't lie about that one too. A mere two weeks before release, even. Two weeks before release is well after the game went gold.
So many things should have been in it, from the kickass cobbled together bandit guns, to larger backpack spaces, but weren't. I've learned to take what Randy says with entire fields of salt. Hopefully after this debacle everyone else has too.
Then there's the shitty way they handled loot. And the lackluster DLC that people bought season passes for, on the promise that they will all be bigger and better than Knoxx. Not one has even approached it, in terms of length or quality. They've even forced the worst parts of MMOs into it.
So, yeah. Borderlands 2 is fun. But Gearbox is kind of a fucked up studio with a history of outright lying, and I hope they get their shit together for Borderlands 3.
So many things should have been in it, from the kickass cobbled together bandit guns, to larger backpack spaces, but weren't. I've learned to take what Randy says with entire fields of salt. Hopefully after this debacle everyone else has too.
Then there's the shitty way they handled loot. And the lackluster DLC that people bought season passes for, on the promise that they will all be bigger and better than Knoxx. Not one has even approached it, in terms of length or quality. They've even forced the worst parts of MMOs into it.
So, yeah. Borderlands 2 is fun. But Gearbox is kind of a fucked up studio with a history of outright lying, and I hope they get their shit together for Borderlands 3.
From what I understand, they didn't make Duke Nukem Forever, they just took what was already there, finished it, and shipped it. I still really like it, though. Because, you know, I try games to see if they are fun instead of listening to peoples opinions (reviews) or looking at a number (metacritic) to see if a game is "good" or not.vasiD said:
Yep I had a blast.Slowbear said:
The moment their DLC is on steam sale I'm grabbing all of it.
Different strokes I guess.
Ever since Extra Credits did that special on skinner boxes I've seen the term used ad nauseum for just about every game release.Meatspinner said:
Not saying it isn't true but man its becoming the new Godwin's Law for gaming.
I liked Opposing Force
Gearbox tends to become involved with troubled projects. Their choice, of course, but still. DNF was inherited after a long and troubled history which everyone is familiar with. A:CM was also in development for a long time and passed through the hands of many developers.
I don't like Borderlands very much. It's not bad but it is bland, and feels empty. I do like ARPGs like Diablo, but in small doses, so maybe that's it, I'm not a lover of diablo-likes. But not liking it doesn't mean I can't recognize it's well done and lots of people like both Borderlands games, so I take it they're good games.
In the end, the problem with Gearbox may be related more to bad business decisions than being a bad developer. They have 2 "bad" (or at least mediocre) games in their resume, both which were through development hell, while their other games turned out good or even excellent, depending on who you ask.
Gearbox tends to become involved with troubled projects. Their choice, of course, but still. DNF was inherited after a long and troubled history which everyone is familiar with. A:CM was also in development for a long time and passed through the hands of many developers.
I don't like Borderlands very much. It's not bad but it is bland, and feels empty. I do like ARPGs like Diablo, but in small doses, so maybe that's it, I'm not a lover of diablo-likes. But not liking it doesn't mean I can't recognize it's well done and lots of people like both Borderlands games, so I take it they're good games.
In the end, the problem with Gearbox may be related more to bad business decisions than being a bad developer. They have 2 "bad" (or at least mediocre) games in their resume, both which were through development hell, while their other games turned out good or even excellent, depending on who you ask.