Gearbox: Not All that Glitters is Gold

[Trollhoffer]

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.

The shooter mechanics in either game series are very similar. You can run and gun it as per traditional FPS games such as Half-Life, or you can be more cautious and pick off enemies with the ironsights. Mobility is similar (if less rigid in Borderlands), the types of weapons available are similar and the mechanical application of both is similar.

I'm not sure where you're getting the idea that the mechanics are not remotely similar from, because as far as my experiences go, both games are played in essentially the same way with almost identical controls. Overlaying those factors with RPG mechanics doesn't change the essence of how you're playing the game, except to incentivise looting.

If anything, I'd consider Medal of Honour and Call of Duty favourable comparisons to Borderlands. Both franchises have come under fire in the past few years, rightly, for failing to diversify the experiences they provide. For all that, though, those series (along with Battlefield) have more or less perfected conventional FPS mechanics. Borderlands takes a page from their book and provides very similar mechanics as the core mechanical foundation of the game and while there's nothing essentially wrong with that, it's the only thing about Borderlands that is structurally sound or has the potential to provide depth.

I'd say that Medal of Honour, Call of Duty and Battlefield provide more depth in any case, as they have the advantage of more consistent damage values and no "loot" -- every weapon and tool in those games is very deliberately placed by the developers rather than being left up to random chance, allowing them to more finely balance the experience in both single player and multiplayer. In turn, this throws an emphasis on skill and tactics over defeating the difficulty curve mathematically. With no way to significantly upgrade the damage of a weapon (a 5.56 is a 5.56, no matter how you look at it), it's up to players to work out how to make their damage output more efficient without compromising their defense. While those standards of the current FPS genre haven't delivered much of note outside of multiplayer for some time, the fact remains that -- by design -- they contain more potential for depth due to the lack of an easy back door via increased damage values.

That's why Borderlands can have such a staggering lack of depth despite being mechanically similar to more run-of-the-mill FPS games. Rather than overcome the game's challenge curve via advancing levels of understanding or skill, players are encouraged to empower their character mathematically. Boiled down, Borderlands of other games of its ilk are about finding the value of X+1. That's not engagement so much as it is attractive compulsion.

 

[SushiJaguar]

I've never been a huge fan of Borderlands. Other people have always spoilt it for, either while playing by giving me one-of-a-kind hacked (and unhacked) weapons, or while not playing by telling me all the best bits. If those things had never happened, I still wouldn't be a huge fan. They are solid, likeable games...but not by me. A few things are alright, granted, the cut-outs when a character is introduced and the innovating gun designs. But they get canceled out rather quickly when every gun looks the same and fires the same and feels the same and sounds like your pop--coming out of the toaster. They also get canceled out rather quickly when the characters and presentation of the game are dull and uninteresting.

So to me, Gearbox really don't have a saving grace. I'm not attempting to convince anybody, or start an argument or what have you. I'm just weighing in my opinion.

Colonial Marines is pretty garbage, though.

 

[Frostbite3789]

I think Borderlands is a rather bland copy pasta mission sort of game who's only real strength is fun with friends. I mean really is there any mission that's more than fight enemies that have spawned in in a spot? Nothing was really dynamic or different.But does that count as a good game? Sure when you and your friends get it on discount. Or one friend wants to buy it for you so he can play it with someone.

Actually you just described Skyrim. And Skyrim didn't allow me to have friends with buddies. I remember all sorts of different non-killing a bunch of dudes quests between the two Borderlands games.

 

[James Joseph Emerald]

And by the way, the artstyle loses points because they stole it from an indie movie part and parcel.

Points for the reference, but A Scanner Darkly didn't invent cel shading.
In fact, the art style has been used in at least 30 games [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_cel-shaded_video_games] prior to both Borderlands and A Scanner Darkly.

What makes the aesthetic of Borderlands unique is the combination of cel shading, post-apocalyptic environments, colourful & interesting characters/monsters and sci-fi overtones, all packaged within a mainstream first-person shooter. Prior to Borderlands (and even since), you'd be lucky to find one of those interesting design choices used in an FPS.

 

[mooncalf]

Yes it seems like Aliens: CM was some kind of colossal mishandling of a beloved IP by a widely trusted Dev with ostensibly too much on it's plate, getting it out there like the the latest spider man film just to keep hold of it.

I too am surprised at the number of people ready now to firebomb BL in a chorus of "You see? GBX really is awful!"

But I'm not gonna begin comparing apples and oranges. I loved the art, humour and simple mechanics of Borderlands games and wherever they came from or what they measured up to, that's not gonna change the enjoyment I got out of them whether alone or with friends.

Points for the reference, but A Scanner Darkly didn't invent cel shading.

Nor was A Scanner Darkly Richard Linklater's first rotorscoped movie. If I'm not mistaken that was "Waking Life".

 

[Snotnarok]

I think Borderlands is a rather bland copy pasta mission sort of game who's only real strength is fun with friends. I mean really is there any mission that's more than fight enemies that have spawned in in a spot? Nothing was really dynamic or different.But does that count as a good game? Sure when you and your friends get it on discount. Or one friend wants to buy it for you so he can play it with someone.

Actually you just described Skyrim. And Skyrim didn't allow me to have friends with buddies. I remember all sorts of different non-killing a bunch of dudes quests between the two Borderlands games.

I only played Borderlands 1 and I personally I find skyrim far more playable. I'm over 100 hours in both and Skyrim has random events that even still surprise me, as in never saw something like that happen before. In borderlands I've seen every mission, I'm sick of the dumbass opening unskippable tutorial. There's no random events in BL's or events that stand out, you talk to a guy, a bunch of enemies you've fought a dozen times before spawn and then you go gun them down in the same environments, drive back to mission guy and collect your cash. In skyrim I think I'm delivering a package when randomly I'm attacked by a dragon, or someone runs up to me begging for help because they got bit by a vampire, something different is always happening.

The lack of variety in environments and enemies left so much to be desired after the 5th playthrough and I'm still not bored with skyrim because there's always something new and unseen, and if you want more you can mod the game and get new content. The story is interesting in Skyrim and the lore is crazy deep, Borderlands story gets in the way and is unskippable, which sucks in a multiplayer environment.

This is just my opinion, I'm honestly so burnt out of Borderlands I can't even play it with friends.
I only played through borderlands 1, and I can say Skyrim is infinitely more replayable (to me). I hear BL2 is much better but I'm not interested in trying till a massive price drop.

 

[WoW Killer]

Who else's opinion would it be?

In the context of this particular thread, opinions are irrelevant. A:CM has technical issues: graphical glitches, poor AI etc. That's not an opinion, and it does, to an extent, reflect badly on the developers. If, as the topic suggests, this is a reason to go back and reevaluate other Gearbox games (e.g. Borderlands 2), then it should be from the same perspective of technical performance, not in terms of your own personal opinion.

Borderlands 2 is not a low quality game in any objective sense, regardless of any subjective opinions you have of it. You not liking the game doesn't reflect badly on the developers. It's just not your sort of game. There's plenty of games that aren't my cup of tea either.

 

[Trollhoffer]

In the context of this particular thread, opinions are irrelevant. A:CM has technical issues: graphical glitches, poor AI etc. That's not an opinion, and it does, to an extent, reflect badly on the developers. If, as the topic suggests, this is a reason to go back and reevaluate other Gearbox games (e.g. Borderlands 2), then it should be from the same perspective of technical performance, not in terms of your own personal opinion.

Borderlands 2 is not a low quality game in any objective sense, regardless of any subjective opinions you have of it. You not liking the game doesn't reflect badly on the developers. It's just not your sort of game. There's plenty of games that aren't my cup of tea either.

If only technical quality was relevant, we'd consider the Transformers films to be good, or we'd judge books on the accuracy of their spelling and grammar. Criticism of other mediums holds itself to other standards that make up a kind of "secondary objective". While they're imperfect, they also provide a measure by which a work of film or literature can be judged apart from its technical proficiency. In fact, if we judged a work of media based only on its technical robustness, then older works would arbitrarily be considered worse despite their other qualities. As far as I know, Kurosawa's films are still considered some of the best ever, despite the fact that Avatar had much better technology and technical proficiency with it many years later.

A game isn't simply a product that performs a function, but a media experience that should -- like films and like books -- be held to certain standards apart from pure technical proficiency. One of the most neglected set of standards in games criticism is those pertaining to the effectiveness of gameplay systems, and that's what I've been talking about with my criticisms of Borderlands. We can't just allow the gaming industry to keep feeding us prefabricated systems within new IPs, because it means we're allowing creativity to stagnate in the area that defines what a game is -- the system of play.

I'm not bothered that others don't share my opinion. If someone else likes Borderlands, then far be it for me to take that away from them. But if I'm going to be grilled for my criticisms against the game, then at least respond to me on the level of the criticism I've provided for the thread, rather than just "it's your opinion". That is it, but it's also my analysis of the game as someone who gives a damn about a highly neglected aspect of games criticism and the fundamental understanding of games.

 

[WoW Killer]

waffle

You keep implying your opinions are objectively relevant. Nobodies opinion is worth more than anyone else. You're not getting grilled for your opinion, you're getting grilled because you're stating your opinion as fact or suggesting it as superior.

 

[Trollhoffer]

You keep implying your opinions are objectively relevant. Nobodies opinion is worth more than anyone else. You're not getting grilled for your opinion, you're getting grilled because you're stating your opinion as fact or suggesting it as superior.

I'm still not hearing anyone above the level of "it's just your opinion", which could be made recursive; that it's just my opinion is just your opinion is just my opinion is just your opinion and so on. That doesn't take us anywhere meaningful and it's an anti-intellectual cop out, so if only for the sake of discussion, some counter points to my points would be the obvious avenue.

Plenty of people in this thread have posted that they like Borderlands, entirely without being ruffled or upset by any of my posts. More power to them, because as I keep saying, my words can't fundamentally alter an experience that's already been had, and nor can they eliminate taste or preference. If you actively want to negate my points, though -- which is what someone does when they open their mouth to disagree specifically to an argument -- then referencing my arguments is a good place to start. Where am I wrong about principles of game design, or operant conditioning? I'm open to the idea that my analysis of Borderlands is flawed, but to actually accept that, I need my points to actually be countered rather than the clarion call of "opinion" simply being pointed out.

 

[theultimateend]

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....

Yeah that was my point but in not so many words.

Basically it is meaningless because every person that mentions it >loves< a game that follows the very same mechanics but under a different disguise.

Not to invalidate the opinion of others, it just doesn't feel very deep. Like when teens talk about how dark life is and then they reel back at how conscious they are of the world.

(I was one of those teens).

Then you grow up and realize you sounded like a jackass. I feel that way about the "its just a skinner box" ranters more often than not.

Though sometimes I admit that its blatant and very predatory, mostly on social games.

 

[WoW Killer]

opinion

Well that's just your opinion dude.

What else are you expecting? You're under the impression that "that's just your opinion" isn't a valid response. It's a very valid response when you're touting your opinion as an objective statement.

Case in point, operant conditioning slash the Skinner box. This must be the most meaningless argument currently circulating in the community. Lets state it how it is. Some people like activity X. People who don't like activity X argue "you only like X because of reason Y". And then, so far as I can tell, all the people who liked X are supposed to go "oh shit, I was just brainwashed all along; how exploitative". What should matter is that activity X is enjoyable to said people; the reason is irrelevant, whether it has a catchy scientific name or not. We're all star dust, and what's enjoyable to us is just brain chemistry.

It's a bit like saying "you only enjoy bacon because you're biologically programmed to like food with high fat and protein". That's entirely true; there's nothing inherently "tasty" about bacon or any other food, it's just a creation of our brains. So say I'm a sandwich maker. What should I do with this information? Should I remove all bacon related products from my sandwiches so as to avoid "exploiting" people? In a sense, if I put any kind of flavour in my sandwiches at all, anything that people would enjoy, then I'm brainwashing them, right?

There's only one reason the Skinner box ever turns up in relation to gaming. It's because someone doesn't like something that someone else likes, and rather than agree to disagree over an opinion, they try to suggest that liking said thing is scientifically "wrong" or "flawed".

 

[Trollhoffer]

Well that's just your opinion dude.

What else are you expecting? You're under the impression that "that's just your opinion" isn't a valid response. It's a very valid response when you're touting your opinion as an objective statement.

I've made room for subjectivity in my stance. I did from the beginning. But there's a difference between what is subjectively experienced and what can be objectively measured, and the bulk of my grievances lies in objectively measurable game systems and their relationship to both the medium and the state of the industry.

I didn't come in here expecting my opinion to be particularly well received, but what I was hoping for was some kind of discussion rather than the opinion argument. It's thought terminating rather than thought validating, as evidenced by the fact that the opinion argument can't be explained without tautology. Something being an opinion makes it an opinion, therefore making it an opinion. Which is, in itself, an opinion. How post-modern.

Case in point, operant conditioning slash the Skinner box. This must be the most meaningless argument currently circulating in the community. Lets state it how it is. Some people like activity X. People who don't like activity X argue "you only like X because of reason Y". And then, so far as I can tell, all the people who liked X are supposed to go "oh shit, I was just brainwashed all along; how exploitative". What should matter is that activity X is enjoyable to said people; the reason is irrelevant, whether it has a catchy scientific name or not. We're all star dust, and what's enjoyable to us is just brain chemistry.

It's a bit like saying "you only enjoy bacon because you're biologically programmed to like food with high fat and protein". That's entirely true; there's nothing inherently "tasty" about bacon or any other food, it's just a creation of our brains. So say I'm a sandwich maker. What should I do with this information? Should I remove all bacon related products from my sandwiches so as to avoid "exploiting" people? In a sense, if I put any kind of flavour in my sandwiches at all, anything that people would enjoy, then I'm brainwashing them, right?

There's only one reason the Skinner box ever turns up in relation to gaming. It's because someone doesn't like something that someone else likes, and rather than agree to disagree over an opinion, they try to suggest that liking said thing is scientifically "wrong" or "flawed".

I think you still misunderstand operant conditioning or my stance on it. I made a post on page 2 (the last post, in fact) explaining that operant conditioning was not inherently bad and may be necessary for gaming. If you'd like to respond to that specific argument, go ahead. In short, it's that the specific kind of operant conditioning Borderlands uses functions on compulsion rather than systematic engagement. It goes like this:

1. Damage is the primary factor driving the player avatar power curve.
2. A player will usually want to exceed the difficulty curve with their power curve, unless playing a challenge run.
3. Therefore, players will seek out ways to deal more damage as a primary means of overcoming difficulties in game.

That's pretty obvious and applicable to almost all games, of course, but it hasn't commented on the actual means of acquiring more damage, and that's where one of the grievances I've previously discussed comes in. If loot is the primary means of gaining additional damage, and loot is randomly generated, then damage acquisition is random rather than consistently systematic or player influenced. That means seeking loot at every turn is the only way to continuously exceed the difficult curve with the player avatar power curve rather than using an actual gameplay system to manage it. It's certainly true that Borderlands also has skill trees which increase weapons damage, but those are much less important to overall damage than having a weapon with high damage values.

I know it's frustrating that a lot of people use the Skinner Box/operant conditioning argument without understanding it, but it's equally frustrating to use that argument and to have it thrown out because the audience for that argument doesn't understand the difference between the flawed understandings used by some and the actual applicability of this example. Random loot used as a primary means of power curve progression is about as operant conditiony as the application of operant conditioning gets in games, and it's based on compulsion. Compulsion means that instead of thinking, consideration and deliberation about a choice, the choice is made automatically and therefore ceases to actually be a choice in the first place. So it does, in a very real way, reduce the depth of a gameplay experience.

 

[WoW Killer]

In short, it's that the specific kind of operant conditioning Borderlands uses functions on compulsion rather than systematic engagement.

This is how I see it. Loot can be procedural or static. Some people like procedural loot, we'll call them people A. Some people like static loot, we'll call them people B. Borderlands is a series that caters for people A. People A who play Borderlands tend to have a decent opinion of it. People B tend not to have such a great opinion, because they don't like the idea of procedural loot.

What you're trying to argue is that procedural loot is objectively inferior to static loot, that people A are "wrong", and that they shouldn't like what they like. I suggest instead that you are simply a member of people B, and you are simply forgetting that what you like isn't necessarily the same as what other people like. There's no need to invoke any pseudo-scientific jargon this way.

I know it's frustrating that a lot of people use the Skinner Box/operant conditioning argument without understanding it, but it's equally frustrating to use that argument and to have it thrown out because the audience for that argument doesn't understand the difference between the flawed understandings used by some and the actual applicability of this example.

So the argument is a massive cop-out, and people that invoke it are completely clueless, except in your case, because you're some sort of expert on these things. Is that about right? The argument is nonsense, no matter who uses it. People like what they like. People can't be wrong for liking what they like.

 

[mad825]

As far as I'm aware, Gearbox didn't develop DNF, they just helped get it polished and shipped.

2K Games was the publisher...

??? you lost me :/

No, you've lost me. Gearbox was the main development team.

 

[Trollhoffer]

This is how I see it. Loot can be procedural or static. Some people like procedural loot, we'll call them people A. Some people like static loot, we'll call them people B. Borderlands is a series that caters for people A. People A who play Borderlands tend to have a decent opinion of it. People B tend not to have such a great opinion, because they don't like the idea of procedural loot.

This has nothing to do with "procedural" against "static" -- it's just random, and random isn't procedural. To give a contrasting example in loot handling, Dark Souls has some randomised loot, but it also has strong enough gameplay design and balancing that random loot isn't the primary means of progressing along the power curve. So the loot becomes advantageous but optional, reducing or removing compulsive collecting behaviour. It also reinforces the notion of choice, since a weapon you simply find in most cases won't be better than what you currently have, and depending on your build, it may not ever be optimal for your character. Since most weapons have low stat requirements in relation to stat scaling potential, though, there's plenty of room to try out a variety of weapons while building a mechanically efficient build.

It's a design that not only allows for player choice, but encourages it. By having each weapon balanced against others for their level (a longsword +5 is about as efficient in combat as a spear +5, for instance), there's no truly optimal solution and therefore no dominant strategy. But in a system that hinges so heavily on raw damage values, such as Borderlands, there's very obvious optimal solutions for each class and each build of each class -- after that initial choice, choice is essentially over. Choice isn't important for absolutely every game, but given that the appeal of Borderlands was always supposed to be at least in part about choice, it's a major failing of the system.

There's no need to invoke any pseudo-scientific jargon this way.

It's no psuedoscience, for one thing. It's accepted scientific theory and a part of a the discipline of psychology. If you don't think operant conditioning is a real psychological phenomena, or that it's legitimately scientific but too complex to discuss on an internet forum (it's not, apart perhaps from the neuroscience, which I don't know about), then you're severely misinformed.

So the argument is a massive cop-out, and people that invoke it are completely clueless, except in your case, because you're some sort of expert on these things. Is that about right? The argument is nonsense, no matter who uses it. People like what they like. People can't be wrong for liking what they like.

I've at least had the courtesy not to put words in your mouth, so I'd appreciate it if you did the same for me. The argument is only nonsense if you haven't a clue about psychological science or disregard it as a legitimate discipline. Tautology is tautological because it's tautology. And for the Nth time, I'm not trying to contradict anyone's personal experiences, but to have a discussion about the mechanical elements of the game.

Look. I'm twenty-two. I am not an expert on anything. But I've done some study of psychology and I like to study game design in my own time. There are plenty of books about this by experienced game designers, as well as game design conventions where successful and influential designers and developers stand up to have their say. It's good stuff. And as any game designer will tell you, game design is multifaceted and multidisciplinary -- it's not good enough to throw some mechanics one likes together and call it a game, because the result will be a disaster at worst and tedious at best. This is an area with experts. Like I said, I'm not one of them. But I sure as hell listen to the guys that are when they open their mouths. I read what they write, and I even understand some of it.

As soon as someone with greater experience and learning comes in here and contradicts me with a solid argument and good sources, then I'll shut up about this whole thing. But you and a few others have come in here with the idea that certain factors of media experience can't be quantified. That is false. It's the job of every director, musician, game designer, writer and what-have-you to quantify human experience on some level, even if they don't use the same quantifications as mathematicians or neuroscientists. There are things that are proven to work, things that don't and things that are popular in passing. I've gone to the effort to learn about some of this stuff, because I love video games and I always want to understand them better.

And then you treat me like I'm the arrogant one, or the one who's out of touch, when you're the one contradicting established psychological science and game design expertise. This isn't stuff I pulled half-baked out of my arse, but things I painstakingly learned from people much more experienced and intelligent than myself. So no, this is not a matter of opinion. And no, I am certainly not talking about people's personal experiences with a game being "wrong". What I absolutely am talking about is flaws in game design process, ending in a weaker game than could have otherwise been. The way the gaming business works, however, is that often it's not actual game designers that get project lead jobs -- it's just as often programmers, or even more often visual artists. A significant amount of game development leadership is in fact underqualified for the job they're doing and don't understand how to provide a better experience. Add the pressures of publishers that don't understand game development properly and you have a scenario where underqualified project leads are operating under poor project management.

Like I said. No expert. Just a mundane guy. But one doesn't have to be an expert to find and learn this knowledge. They just have to give enough of a damn to give the subject some study rather than being complacent with their existing level of knowledge. Fundamentally, most people don't know what "game design" is, and it's not just mashing together mechanics that seem like they'd be good together or "make sense" or taking a random sample of mechanics that have been successful in other games. For a great game, there has to be great mechanical synchronicity. And often, coming to a greater level of understanding means criticising and finding the flaws in games one may personally enjoy very much. There are plenty of games I personally enjoy that are mechanically suboptimal (most of them, in fact), but it's not like those suboptimal elements simply disappear because I enjoy them. Great example: weapon upgrades in Demon's Souls, which required too much grind in comparison to how un-grindy the rest of the game was. One could spend inordinate amounts of time preparing their favourite weapon so as to max it out, which was odd because the rest of the game placed emphasis on cautious and efficient environmental progression. So there was a pretty significant pacing and power progression issue there, which is why FromSoftware fixed it for Dark Souls.

tl;dr Game design isn't magic.

 

[Gethsemani_v1legacy]

The shooter mechanics in either game series are very similar. You can run and gun it as per traditional FPS games such as Half-Life, or you can be more cautious and pick off enemies with the ironsights. Mobility is similar (if less rigid in Borderlands), the types of weapons available are similar and the mechanical application of both is similar.

I'm not sure where you're getting the idea that the mechanics are not remotely similar from, because as far as my experiences go, both games are played in essentially the same way with almost identical controls. Overlaying those factors with RPG mechanics doesn't change the essence of how you're playing the game, except to incentivise looting.

If anything, I'd consider Medal of Honour and Call of Duty favourable comparisons to Borderlands. Both franchises have come under fire in the past few years, rightly, for failing to diversify the experiences they provide. For all that, though, those series (along with Battlefield) have more or less perfected conventional FPS mechanics. Borderlands takes a page from their book and provides very similar mechanics as the core mechanical foundation of the game and while there's nothing essentially wrong with that, it's the only thing about Borderlands that is structurally sound or has the potential to provide depth.

I'd say that Medal of Honour, Call of Duty and Battlefield provide more depth in any case, as they have the advantage of more consistent damage values and no "loot" -- every weapon and tool in those games is very deliberately placed by the developers rather than being left up to random chance, allowing them to more finely balance the experience in both single player and multiplayer. In turn, this throws an emphasis on skill and tactics over defeating the difficulty curve mathematically. With no way to significantly upgrade the damage of a weapon (a 5.56 is a 5.56, no matter how you look at it), it's up to players to work out how to make their damage output more efficient without compromising their defense. While those standards of the current FPS genre haven't delivered much of note outside of multiplayer for some time, the fact remains that -- by design -- they contain more potential for depth due to the lack of an easy back door via increased damage values.

That's why Borderlands can have such a staggering lack of depth despite being mechanically similar to more run-of-the-mill FPS games. Rather than overcome the game's challenge curve via advancing levels of understanding or skill, players are encouraged to empower their character mathematically. Boiled down, Borderlands of other games of its ilk are about finding the value of X+1. That's not engagement so much as it is attractive compulsion.

This is, to use a highly non-scientific term, a load of hogwash. You consistently talk about the mechanics behind the weapons in each game while neglecting that Borderlands has two other mechanics that influences the combat gameplay, levels and skills. To use a scientific term, you are exhibiting a great degree of bias (conscious or otherwise) in that you are dismissing these two mechanics as not pertinent to the discussion on the combat gameplay when they are in fact integral to how combat works in Borderlands.

In Modern Military Shooters (MMS) your only options to get past any particular obstacle is the set of tools the developers has given you access to. Should you fail, for whatever reason, to get past the obstacle you are stuck replaying the same obstacle over and over until you get an alternative outcome. In terms of cognitive behaviours this is, quite frankly, pretty inane. Not even pigeons in a Skinner Box kept pushing the same button over and over after it had proven not to yield anymore bird seed. Borderlands (BL) on the other hand offers you three options for getting past an obstacle you've failed to pass: 1) Loot more in the hopes of acquiring better gear, 2) level up some more to get an additional edge in terms of health and damage multiplier or 3) Re-structure your skill tree to tailor your skills to a new approach against the obstacle. You can also utilize any combination of these three approaches.

In essence, what I've just displayed in the above paragraph is that BL offers a much more dynamic approach to the gameplay and progression of the game than MMS. You are not stuck repeating tasks that are the very definition of Skinner Box ("How many times will a gamer try to get past this obstacle before realizing it is pointless and giving up?") but you are instead encouraged to find alternative methods of tackling the obstacle and the game readily offers you paths to pursue these alternatives.

[/pseudo-scientific bullshit mode]

Look, all of what I said above apply. That does not mean that Borderlands is a inherently better game than whatever MMS you want to compare it to. It only means that they are two different kinds of games. For someone who likes structured challenges of gaming skill MMS-games are superior. To those who like the more dynamic, but unpredictable, gameplay of RPGs Borderlands will be superior. Objectively Call of Duty and Borderlands are both well-crafted games, but they also appeal to two different kinds of gamers. If you want I can sling pseduo-scientific bullshit with you for a few posts more until we both agree that neither of us will "win" this argument or we can just reconcile our differences right now and realize that what games we like is all subject to opinion.

 

[WoW Killer]

But in a system that hinges so heavily on raw damage values, such as Borderlands, there's very obvious optimal solutions for each class and each build of each class -- after that initial choice, choice is essentially over. Choice isn't important for absolutely every game, but given that the appeal of Borderlands was always supposed to be at least in part about choice, it's a major failing of the system.

Which of these Rifles is better?

Spoiler

What about these two SMGs?

Spoiler

Furthermore, why equip more than one weapon? I mean why do they give you four different slots? And why would I carry around more than those four, as standard, to switch between? Why is my gear setup different from that of every other person I know who plays the game? My brother and I both have a Zer0 character, and we just so happen to use the same skill build (the Kunai one). Yet my brother consistently prefers Jakobs sniper rifles, while I prefer Vladofs. Why? I consistently prefer Hyperion Shotguns while he swears by Torgues. Why? If it's all just the numbers, and there's no choice/personal preference, why aren't we both using the same items all the time?

I find this an... odious argument, because you're talking about one of the things the Borderlands series does very well in my eyes. Many loot-em-ups do indeed become all about those mundane min/max increases rather than having more active forms of progression (e.g. Diablo). That's exactly what Borderlands does differently, and that's why it's my favourite loot-em-up.

It's no psuedoscience, for one thing. It's accepted scientific theory and a part of a the discipline of psychology. If you don't think operant conditioning is a real psychological phenomena, or that it's legitimately scientific but too complex to discuss on an internet forum (it's not, apart perhaps from the neuroscience, which I don't know about), then you're severely misinformed.

Skinner's Box isn't pseudo-science. The "Skinner's Box as it relates to gaming" argument is pseudo-science.

 

[flarty]

As far as I'm aware, Gearbox didn't develop DNF, they just helped get it polished and shipped.

2K Games was the publisher...

??? you lost me :/

No, you've lost me. Gearbox was the main development team.

No they wasnt. 3Drealms was, when they went bump a few of the devs formed Triptych Games which continued work on the game. Then gearbox arrived on the scene and helped triptych finish the game. But gearbox was only involved in the project for about a year, and have stated many times over that they intended to release the game 3drealms had made.

So yet again what has 2k games got to with this apart from they published it?

 

[Trollhoffer]

Which of these Rifles is better?

I couldn't tell you for sure, since I don't know the damage modifier for the explosive trait. Discounting that, though, the Ferocious Renegade appears to be more efficient. It deals significantly more than half the damage of the Slippery Root while having almost twice the rate of fire and being superior in every other regard.

What about these two SMGs?

A little more complex, but let's quantify. Let's measure this in damage per second, with the assumption that the rate of fire value equates to rounds fired per second. Accuracy is the percentage of damage per second that is actually dealt (the rest will be assumed to miss, as per imperfect accuracy). Magazine size will be used for a secondary value that will be represented by magazine damage potential. I'll discount reload speed, since we'd have to run these calculations in more cycles to find equivalence between the two weapons and honestly, screw that. All decimals are rounded down, because computer code likes to do that. Perhaps Gearbox impose rounding up for values of .5 or above, or all decimals. I have no idea, so I'm just going to run with what most code does.

For the Plasma Caster, since I don't know about the effectiveness against flesh trait, I'll leave that out. The additional burn damage will be 13.5% flat addition of 3605.9 to 6816*RoF.

6816*7.1 = 48,393.6, so that's our basic DPS.

13.5% of 3605.9 is 486.79, so we can add the latter value to the DPS, for a total of 48,880.39. Recoil reduction is difficult to quantify since it increases efficiency (and therefore lowers difficulty, which is hard to quantify), but we can't treat the DPS as though it was over 100% accuracy. This may be useful in case of a tiebreaker, however.

To find the weapon's magazine potential, we find out how for how many seconds it can fire and multiply that by the DPS. In the case of this weapon, though, we halve the magazine value since each shot takes two rounds. In this case, we come to the value 4.15, which is the amount of seconds it can fire for before needing to reload. We come to a value of 202,853.61.

The DPS has to be modified by *.916, too. We could do this with the magazine potential, too, depending on whether you wanted to measure it in a more practical sense or in a sense of its maximum possible potential. The DPS becomes 44,774.43.

Now for the Lascaux.

Each shot of 4998 damage does double damage, so that's an easy 9996 already. That multiplied by 7.1 leaves us with 70,971.6. Multiplied by .909, that leaves us with 64,513.18 DPS.

Magazine potential is 5.77*64,513.18 = 372,540.89.

So, in review:

Plasma Caster = 44,774.43 DPS, 202,853.61 Magazine Potential

Lascaux = 64,513.18 DPS, 372,540.89 Magazine Potential.

Unless the effectiveness against flesh trait does something drastic, the Lascaux is clearly more efficient and reliable, dealing more damage per a second, even in relation to its accuracy. It also contains more damage within each magazine, given that is ammo consumption is much lower. In fact, it's almost 50% more effective than the Plasma Caster.

I probably got a few things wrong (again, no expert), but that's a decent approximation of the mathematical considerations behind game design. You don't just punch in numbers -- you calculate, and use that calculations to balance. From where I'm standing, the Lascaux is the better weapon by a significant margin.

Furthermore, why equip more than one weapon? I mean why do they give you four different slots? And why would I carry around more than those four, as standard, to switch between?

Firstly and most obviously, most games ensure that switching weapons is quicker than reloading the current weapon. Weapon types are also balanced to be more or less efficient at certain ranges. So while there may be some choice in terms of weapon class, we can calculate the effectiveness of each weapon within a particular class and find its exemplary instance. So you might like sniper rifles over SMGs, and sniper rifles will operate more effectively at their intended range, but we can find the most efficient sniper rifle by quantifying the in-game values. Once you have chosen the sniper rifle, that is the extent of true choice, with the rest being calculation or perceived calculation.

In the example you give about you and your brother preferring different sniper rifles (as quoted below), you two might be using two differently incorrect (with all respect, since few of us quantify correctly on the fly. I probably got some stuff wrong above) methods of quantifying the efficiency of these weapons. If both of you are placing emphasis on different factors of the weapons (such as one of you focusing on critical effects and the other on accuracy), then you're going to come to different conclusions about what is optimal.

However, you've both made a decision on what you believe is optimal. Since you have a clear preference, this consideration ceases to be a choice and has become a matter of calculation. An unclear preference may still be a choice, but if there's a model of sniper rifle that you prefer easily above others, then your method of quantification (be it direct or indirect) has led you through the process of calculation.

Why is my gear setup different from that of every other person I know who plays the game? My brother and I both have a Zer0 character, and we just so happen to use the same skill build (the Kunai one). Yet my brother consistently prefers Jakobs sniper rifles, while I prefer Vladofs. Why? I consistently prefer Hyperion Shotguns while he swears by Torgues. Why? If it's all just the numbers, and there's no choice/personal preference, why aren't we both using the same items all the time?

Because the calculations are complex and obfusticated. Being a PvE game, Borderlands doesn't discourage suboptimal builds or equipment like a PvP game, either, but that doesn't mean there's necessarily good balance.

I find this an... odious argument, because you're talking about one of the things the Borderlands series does very well in my eyes. Many loot-em-ups do indeed become all about those mundane min/max increases rather than having more active forms of progression (e.g. Diablo). That's exactly what Borderlands does differently, and that's why it's my favourite loot-em-up.

As I keep saying: if you like Borderlands, more power to you. I'm not trying to convince you, or anyone, that your experiences with the game were bad or invalid when you "thought" they were fun or engaging. A game experience is subjective, but we must distinguish between a game experience, a game as a product and a game as a process of design. The latter two aren't subjective, and we can measure where they did less than they otherwise could have. Borderlands' loot system takes agency away from the player and gives them a randomised relationship with the difficulty curve rather than a deliberate one on part of the developers or a deliberate one on part of their own gameplay decisions. You liked the loot system? Again, fine. But it could have also been more elegantly designed and placed more agency in the hands of the player for a deeper system of builds. Its basis need not be entirely scrapped, but it was handled with too little elegance because of the reliance on random generation.

Skinner's Box isn't pseudo-science. The "Skinner's Box as it relates to gaming" argument is pseudo-science.

The Skinner Box is a semi-colloquial term for any kind of environment designed to take advantage of operant conditioning, though. To say that operant conditioning doesn't take place in games is to say that operant conditioning doesn't exist, because it's not as though we can just switch it on or off.