Gearbox: Not All that Glitters is Gold
- Thread starter vasiD
- Start date
Recommended Videos
Just a little thing, but Borderlands and by extent Borderlands 2 seems to be games that cause split opinions.Trollhoffer said:
I, and many other people really enjoyed, I've spent over 100 hours on the game so far...
All of that single-player as well.
Also this -
http://kotaku.com/5984068/how-aliens-colonial-marines-fell-apart
I believe that Gearbox are a good developer, but they seem to have a habit of being shafted. Plus being run by Randy Pitchford, that never seems to help...
I do not disagree that even awful games can be great with another person. But I gotta say, I don't think Borderlands is an awful game. I have 3 level 50 characters in Borderlands 2, and only about half the time I've played have I played with other people. I have had an absolute blast with this game; single and multiplayer. While I didn't like the original Borderlands as much, I also played that in single player half the time as well.vasiD said:
With all respect, I'm not saying that anyone's enjoyment of Borderlands or Borderlands 2 has been invalid or anything like that. What I'm saying is that it was inoffensively bland and achieved success far beyond the elegance of its design. For my part, I really enjoyed AvP2010 while recognising it as having plenty of objective flaws. But then again, AvP2010 had a level of success largely in synchronicity with its level of quality -- average.Sizzle Montyjing said:
For the sake of this post, I will use "Skinner Box" as it's intended here, despite being a misnomer.theultimateend said:
The big difference between Nazis and Skinner Boxes is that Nazis are rarely appropros and a large body of games rely on Skinner Box mechanics. In fact, I'd wager most people who complain about Game X being a Skinner Box are behaving hypocritically, if we were to look through their games list.
It'd be along the lines of calling video games violent as a pejorative. Well, yes, but most of us like violent video games. Not saying we all do, but the comparison holds. The fact is, most of us are fond of our own Skinner Boxes, and will gladly ignore our own while criticising others.
In fact, one of the big shames about Extra Credits is that people learned the word but missed a good chunk of the point. The Skinner Box, Extra Credits says, is "endemic." Their word, not mine. It's like they're reciting the term "Skinner Box" without context. Which is also evident in how it's used, but that's another point.
The bigger point is that people are now aware of the term and can use it as a pejorative, but don't seem to actually understand it at all. Or, alternatively, they are unable to take a look at their own habits or pastimes and think critically about them.
The use of this sort of conditioning and rewards to make games addictive is so widespread as to make individual critiques border on meaningless. Borderlands gets targeted more because of the specific mechanics it marries, rather than any valid critique of the use of Skinner-like conditioning.
Basically, what I would say about the Skinner Box complaint is "let she who has not pressed the pedal cast the first stone."
I think if we were all open about the games we played, right now, NOBODY making that argument could do so honestly.
But hey, I like Borderlands 2, so....
I personally found Borderlands 2 to be kind of boring, not enough actual upgrades from the original to make it feel like a different game, not much in the way of challenge, a lot of niggling annoyances like the eternally spawning enemies and whole zones that feature a total of one quest. Basically it feels like they added some good stuff but they took out a bunch of the things I found actually fun about the original.
TL;DR Not worth the hype and a little boring. Would rather play Bioshock again.
TL;DR Not worth the hype and a little boring. Would rather play Bioshock again.
Borderlands 1 & 2 were both good games in my books, by 'good' I mean 'games I found enjoyable' rather than 'the greatest thing in digital media'. I think Gearbox did a good job on them though not flawless. I think the problem with some of their crappier games is that, for the most part, they didn't make them. Duke Nukem was someone else's game finished off by Gearbox after going through development hell. Aliens was made by almost half a dozen developers, Gearbox included, over a number of years.
I just hope that if/when Borderlands 3 emerges it is like it's older siblings and doesn't try to be too different.
I just hope that if/when Borderlands 3 emerges it is like it's older siblings and doesn't try to be too different.
For what it's worth, some of us don't hinge on Extra Credits for our understanding of the Skinner Box or operant conditioning. Operant conditioning isn't always bad -- in fact, I'd argue it's necessary for environmental interaction in many games and that plenty of games have benefited from its principles. The way operant conditioning is used in Borderlands and other games with similar loot systems is based on compulsion rather than engagement, though, and that's a sign of poor creativity and design.
One of the things Skinner did during his experiments concerning operant conditioning was to change the rate of reward. For instance, a rat steps on a lever and gets a food pellet. This happens a few times and a food pellet is deposited every time, so the rat quickly becomes accustomed to using the lever for food. Skinner then investigated what would happen if food wasn't deposited every time, but only at selected or random intervals of lever presses, and this is where we come to the current issue. The rats were observed under this changed rate of reward and it was found that their behaviour didn't change drastically -- once they learned that the lever was a source of food, they would continue to try it until it was successful, compulsively.
Human beings do exactly the same thing when rewards are given with an element of observable consistency but on an irregular basis. We operate nearly automatically under the same kind of compulsion in context of our objective. When one of those objectives (such as in games) is to become more powerful in a fight and a simple damage value becomes an immediate and obvious solution, we will compulsively seek out items with better damage values if the game places us in that frame of reference. If the means to achieving higher damage is based on player-influenced systems (such in Dark Souls), then that compulsion isn't so strong or may not even exist. If not, in the case of games like Borderlands and Diablo, however, the damage-seeking behaviour becomes more compulsive and the lack of a damage reward can cause a sort of "virtual anxiety" that rises until the player receives an item that deals higher damage.
This doesn't encourage players to engage with the system, but to repeat the same actions over and over in order to master the values within the game by exceeding them, and it's based on drop chances and random loot. That's why games such as Borderlands using operant conditioning is such a bad thing, since it's a game design strategy that actively removes depth from the game and control from the player in favour of a compulsion strategy.
One of the things Skinner did during his experiments concerning operant conditioning was to change the rate of reward. For instance, a rat steps on a lever and gets a food pellet. This happens a few times and a food pellet is deposited every time, so the rat quickly becomes accustomed to using the lever for food. Skinner then investigated what would happen if food wasn't deposited every time, but only at selected or random intervals of lever presses, and this is where we come to the current issue. The rats were observed under this changed rate of reward and it was found that their behaviour didn't change drastically -- once they learned that the lever was a source of food, they would continue to try it until it was successful, compulsively.
Human beings do exactly the same thing when rewards are given with an element of observable consistency but on an irregular basis. We operate nearly automatically under the same kind of compulsion in context of our objective. When one of those objectives (such as in games) is to become more powerful in a fight and a simple damage value becomes an immediate and obvious solution, we will compulsively seek out items with better damage values if the game places us in that frame of reference. If the means to achieving higher damage is based on player-influenced systems (such in Dark Souls), then that compulsion isn't so strong or may not even exist. If not, in the case of games like Borderlands and Diablo, however, the damage-seeking behaviour becomes more compulsive and the lack of a damage reward can cause a sort of "virtual anxiety" that rises until the player receives an item that deals higher damage.
This doesn't encourage players to engage with the system, but to repeat the same actions over and over in order to master the values within the game by exceeding them, and it's based on drop chances and random loot. That's why games such as Borderlands using operant conditioning is such a bad thing, since it's a game design strategy that actively removes depth from the game and control from the player in favour of a compulsion strategy.
Say what!!?!?!?!???!??!!??!vasiD said:
If you can't enjoy Borderlands (Especially BL2)in single player there's something wrong with you.
I think it's briliant in the respect that it's one of the only games that's equal fun to play in multyplayer as in single player.
Usually MP just shits allover the rest of the experience looming over it making you feeling like you're doing something wrong (Orcs Must Die 2, Mass Effect 3) or it's a purely multyplayer game with some single player bits thrown in to justify the 60$ price tag (CoD and friends)
Don't get me wrong I still think Gearbox is pretty shitty but Borderlands is their diamond in the shit (so to speak)
I don't know if it's talent or luck but they've made one pretty good game and one great game at least (I've never played their brothers in arms games)
Absolutely!
I played the entire first Borderlands to max level and beyond without EVER inviting a friend to play with me and I loved every second of it.
My Scorpio turret was the only buddy I needed.
When I finally did play with friends a bit in Borderlands 2, I found it OK, but also rather unintuitive and annoying, so I switched back to single player and continued to have a blast.
Gearbox is by no means one of the best companies, but Borderlands is still one of my favorite game series.
Either say people who enjoy Borderlands have no taster or don't. Don't skirt around the issue by saying "Oh, I'm not insulting them at all.... But they enjoy an objectively bad thing".
It's still an insult, it's just a roundabout insult.
I played the entire first Borderlands to max level and beyond without EVER inviting a friend to play with me and I loved every second of it.
My Scorpio turret was the only buddy I needed.
When I finally did play with friends a bit in Borderlands 2, I found it OK, but also rather unintuitive and annoying, so I switched back to single player and continued to have a blast.
Gearbox is by no means one of the best companies, but Borderlands is still one of my favorite game series.
I know this gets used way too much, but....Trollhoffer said:
Either say people who enjoy Borderlands have no taster or don't. Don't skirt around the issue by saying "Oh, I'm not insulting them at all.... But they enjoy an objectively bad thing".
It's still an insult, it's just a roundabout insult.
Who else's opinion would it be? Anyway, Borderlands is itself ultimately tasteless; a prefabs layered over prefabs with all things stolen. And if all you derive from that statement is a personal insult, then you've missed the point.
This statement, right here. This is why people are saying you're just insulting people who like Borderlands.Trollhoffer said:
Because you are. So either you're missing the point yourself, in which case you might consider looking up the definitions of words like "implication," or you're lying through your teeth.
I'm sincerely sorry that you feel insulted, but it would be dishonest of me to just take back my opinions on the game. And besides, as I said, none of my statements were a personal insult against anyone. For those who are loyal enough to the product that they interpret criticism of said product as an insult, then there's nothing I can do to prevent my words as being interpreted as an insult -- it's a done thing before I commit my wording to the internet.Compatriot Block said:
There's really no way to sugarcoat my opinion on Borderlands, it's been posted and elaborated upon, and I think it's important that games criticism is open and honest. Inadvertently insulting others when it comes to this matter isn't one of primary concerns, because as soon as just about any game is criticised, there is always those who feel personally insulted. The only other thing I could do is pretend to take my words back about Borderlands while holding the same opinion. Again, that would be dishonest.
In any case and for what it's worth, Sir Thomas cut out the piece of my previous post where I described the way that I sometimes enjoy games that have plenty of bad qualities while knowingly considering them bad. Sometimes ironically, but more often unironically. I'm not some kind of arbiter of all objective truths -- but I know what I consider to be a lack of quality in a product.
Personally I loved both games in single player. I think most people did. Probably not more than they did in multiplayer mind, but I certainly think you're in the minority of people thinking that multiplayer is borderlands only merit.
The question is, does that make gearbox's bad games worse? It's one thing when a terrible dev comes up with a terrible game, big surprise, but when a dev you know can do brilliantly comes out with a bad game? That's not just bad, it's confusing.
Though, i must say, i didn't think that colonial marines was a terrible game. Not good, but not especially bad.
Duke nukem forever though? I hated that. If there is a single game with less fans than colonial marines has right now, it's duke nukem foever.
That just says so much about the inconsistency of gearbox. They seem to have talent, seem to have passion, but then they just come out with brilliant games, terrible games, and everything in between.
The question is, does that make gearbox's bad games worse? It's one thing when a terrible dev comes up with a terrible game, big surprise, but when a dev you know can do brilliantly comes out with a bad game? That's not just bad, it's confusing.
Though, i must say, i didn't think that colonial marines was a terrible game. Not good, but not especially bad.
Duke nukem forever though? I hated that. If there is a single game with less fans than colonial marines has right now, it's duke nukem foever.
That just says so much about the inconsistency of gearbox. They seem to have talent, seem to have passion, but then they just come out with brilliant games, terrible games, and everything in between.
You're basing an argument by comparing the gunplay mechanics of a game that has literally millions of weapon and character loadouts to a modern combat FPS. Really? I am a BF2 and BF3 vet and the gunplay mechanics are NOTHING like that of either of the BL games, not even close. You know why, because the RPG elements that you put down at the start of the argument are a defining point in how the gunplay works. I play MOH five times chances are the weapon load out and tactics will be much the same, I play BL2 five times each game will be different based on the combination of weapon randomness, the character I choose and the RPG power ups I select.
This poor choice of comparison really nullifies the majority of your argument, by all means you are entitled to the argument but what your opening statement shows is someone who really didn't play the game. Seriously their is no way that you can say that MOH and COD nailed the shooting mechanics and then use that as any basis to attack the shooting mechanics in the BL games.
The judgement on Gearbox should be held off until they show us what they are going to do. The E3 demo that everyone thought the game was going to be has to be side lined now, THAT is never going to happen, someone over at the forums suggest that Timegate submitted that game to Gearbox and they rejected it because it went over the memory limitations of the console forcing the game to use a less 'developed' engine, no matter what they do next will determine the fallout.
- The DLC that continues or adds to the story needs to be released as a free addon.
- The SDK needs to be given out, so at least the PC community can fix some of the issues
- If they do go for DLC it needs to be quality and it needs to be cheap, skins for BL2 that worked out at a $1 a piece just won't wash here.
- They need to make a solid effort to patch the game
- Someone at Gearbox needs to come forward and give a solid no BS reason for why the game turned out like it did, no deflecting, no marketing BS, no trying to blame the third party software developers they used.