Gearbox: Not All that Glitters is Gold

[Laughing Man]

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.

The guys trying to dazzle us with fancy pseudo-science and walls of text, his posts clearly show he has either never played or didn't get very far in any of the Borderlands games because if he had he would know that the points he is making about the game are at best mis-informed and at worst total and utter crap.

 

[Keith K]

<3

Finally, someone who actually has a fucking brain!!!

Opinions! They differ! What a concept.

You're welcome to yours. You can even criticize something others like. But to criticize people who do like something you don't is just ridiculous. Just move on and find something else.

 

[WoW Killer]

stuff

It's starting to get apparent you didn't play the game for very long at all, but we'll leave that. I chose those two Rifles and those two SMGs because I use all of them, depending on the occasion. There's no way you could say any of them are flat out better than any other. You picked up that recoil reduction is difficult to quantify (the Torgue happens to have much better recoil than that Vladof), here's a few more: bullet velocity (explosive and E-tech weapons have lowered velocity), bullet trajectory (the Lascaux has a horizontally biased spread), blast effect (esp. concerning the Torgue), burst fire count (both Dahl's fire in bursts while scoped, but for different counts), scopes (different zoom ranges, and even just different aesthetics). We'll ignore the elemental effects, because you wouldn't know about those.

You also picked up that different weapon types had different ranges associated with them (e.g. a Sniper Rifle has a different effective range to a Shotgun). What you may not appreciate is that different versions of the same weapon type can still have very different effective ranges. Of those two Rifles, the Torgue is more stable when scoped, so it's a bit better at long range provided the target isn't moving too quickly (due to the lower velocity). At medium range things tend to move around a bit quicker, so the Vladof's higher velocity is more appropriate (and the harsher recoil isn't as much of a problem). At point blank, only the Torgue has a workable hip-fire (the Vladof is all over the place), and because it's got a small blast effect you can fire it at a mobs feet as you retreat. So it's a bit like long range = Torgue, mid range = Vladof, short range = Torgue. The SMGs, even though they're the same manufacturer (with the same mechanic, which is the burst fire), they're totally different. The unique spread on the Lascaux makes it unusable at anything other than short range, while the Plasma Caster can snipe in little bursts at mid-range if need be (you'd still use it over the Lascaux up close if you're up against flesh, but I digress). There's also certain enemy types with convenient critical locations (e.g. Loaders have three crit spots laid horizontally), against which the Lascaux will perform massively better than expected so long as you line it up just right.

And those are some pretty ordinary weapons. That Pistol in my inventory, the bullets ricochet off walls and split into more and more pellets. You can fire it round corners, or shoot at the ground in front of a mob to get better damage. My Sniper's bullets split into three that fire off like a trident. You can't quantify things like that.

So here's the crazy thing, to reiterate: that ideal you're talking about, where the players choices amount to more than just raw power, that's exactly what Borderlands does. If you'd played the game more you wouldn't be making this argument.

 

[lazyslothboy]

stuff

It's starting to get apparent you didn't play the game for very long at all, but we'll leave that. I chose those two Rifles and those two SMGs because I use all of them, depending on the occasion. There's no way you could say any of them are flat out better than any other. You picked up that recoil reduction is difficult to quantify (the Torgue happens to have much better recoil than that Vladof), here's a few more: bullet velocity (explosive and E-tech weapons have lowered velocity), bullet trajectory (the Lascaux has a horizontally biased spread), blast effect (esp. concerning the Torgue), burst fire count (both Dahl's fire in bursts while scoped, but for different counts), scopes (different zoom ranges, and even just different aesthetics). We'll ignore the elemental effects, because you wouldn't know about those.

You also picked up that different weapon types had different ranges associated with them (e.g. a Sniper Rifle has a different effective range to a Shotgun). What you may not appreciate is that different versions of the same weapon type can still have very different effective ranges. Of those two Rifles, the Torgue is more stable when scoped, so it's a bit better at long range provided the target isn't moving too quickly (due to the lower velocity). At medium range things tend to move around a bit quicker, so the Vladof's higher velocity is more appropriate (and the harsher recoil isn't as much of a problem). At point blank, only the Torgue has a workable hip-fire (the Vladof is all over the place), and because it's got a small blast effect you can fire it at a mobs feet as you retreat. So it's a bit like long range = Torgue, mid range = Vladof, short range = Torgue. The SMGs, even though they're the same manufacturer (with the same mechanic, which is the burst fire), they're totally different. The unique spread on the Lascaux makes it unusable at anything other than short range, while the Plasma Caster can snipe in little bursts at mid-range if need be (you'd still use it over the Lascaux up close if you're up against flesh, but I digress). There's also certain enemy types with convenient critical locations (e.g. Loaders have three crit spots laid horizontally), against which the Lascaux will perform massively better than expected so long as you line it up just right.

And those are some pretty ordinary weapons. That Pistol in my inventory, the bullets ricochet off walls and split into more and more pellets. You can fire it round corners, or shoot at the ground in front of a mob to get better damage. My Sniper's bullets split into three that fire off like a trident. You can't quantify things like that.

So here's the crazy thing, to reiterate: that ideal you're talking about, where the players choices amount to more than just raw power, that's exactly what Borderlands does. If you'd played the game more you wouldn't be making this argument.

Totally off topic, but I am super jelly of your level 50 lascaux. How did you manage to get one at that level? Did you hold off going into the zone where it spawns until you hit 50?

More on topic, the borderlands series is the only gearbox made games that I have any investment in. And honestly, I can't say I like the first one much anymore. I tried to play through it again, and I quit after 30 minutes because it was just painfully unfunny (I blame the sequel for spoiling me haha). I recall most of the dlcs being funny as well as welcome changes of pace/scenery. But the main game itself was kinda just bleh. The guns felt samey within the different weapon types (even on my level 69 soldier).

Compare that to Borderlands 2, where weapon manufacturers boast different bonuses inherent to the gun manufacturer. There are a host of different unique modifiers to guns, some better than others. The story was much more engaging with more emphasis on the laughs, which was (at least for me) one of the game's strongest aspects.

I would sort of agree with trollhoffer with his opinion on the series if all he had played was the first game. I kind of do feel that the initial game was based more about whether or not you had the bigger number on your gun. The second game cleared up that problem for me as I felt it made it such that maybe the gun with the biggest number wouldn't be the best gun for all situations.

 

[WoW Killer]

Totally off topic, but I am super jelly of your level 50 lascaux. How did you manage to get one at that level? Did you hold off going into the zone where it spawns until you hit 50?

It should respawn every time you load up a game. If you've completed the 2nd playthrough, just go through the cave and it'll be there.

 

[Zykon TheLich_v1legacy]

I don't really care about Gearbox, I don't bother looking at who makes a game. I did thoroughly enjoy Borderlands single player though, I thought it was a really great game.

 

[RobfromtheGulag]

I was surprised as BL2 came closer and closer to release the fervor, and then afterwards it didn't seem to die down much. as I saw it, BL1 was a decent game, not mind blowing but a solid FPS title with a number of novel features. Something like a 7.5/10 in my book.

So then BL2 is announced and there just seemed to be so many fans, when even during online play BL1 didn't seem that popular. I'm personally not a fan of BL2; I have noticed that it's fun in multiplayer but I generally game alone for PC titles.

 

[MetalMagpie]

There was so much hype with borderlands it was hard not to get excited and into it at first, and playing it with friends is a good deal of fun (though not without it's frustration)... But really shouldn't any game be fun when you can play it with another person? Shouldn't that be just a default "duh" sort of moment, when it comes to multiplayer? I mean there aren't many things that wouldn't become absurdly fun with four of your friends, let alone a 60 dollar piece of entertainment.

Personally, I do something like half my gaming with my boyfriend these days, so we have played a lot of coop titles. To go through a few examples: Portal 2 was fun for single-player, but we didn't bother finishing the coop (puzzles are sometimes better if you can mull over them at your own pace). Playing Torchlight II coop is almost indistinguishable from playing it alone (there's just someone else goofing around picking up loot that you can't see). The Lego games are fun, but you get sick of them eventually. And Dungeon Siege III is pretty boring even in single player, and full of irritating design choices in coop (e.g. not letting both people sort out their gear at once).

Borderlands and Borderlands 2 are the two games we have spent the longest on, by quite a way. They were designed around the idea of coop (so you rarely feel like the other person is getting in your way more than they're helping), the shooting is pretty fun, and there are enough valid ways of playing to prevent fighting over particular pieces of loot.

I'm not going to claim they're amazing shooters or at all groundbreaking. But there just aren't all that many titles out there for us gamers who enjoy the company of fellow humans. Being able to play games with my boyfriend without wanting to chew my own face off with frustration is something really precious to me.

 

[Uriain]

snip snip

Just wanted to jump in here with a question. I don't know a ton about operant conditioning or Skinner box, but the comment below brings up a (in my mind) pertinent question

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 game play experience.

If Compulsion means that instead of think, consideration and deliberation about a choice, your choice is made automatically, and thus no longer a choice, and as you say then reduce the "depth of a game play experience". How do you rate that play style, weapon choice (of the actual weapon itself not strictly the dmg), and other variables within the loot system BESDIES just raw damage output against "compulsion". For example;

I am a fan of Borderlands and Borderlands 2, so when I am going through a play through I am choosing to be and to use X weapon over Y. I am in agreement with you that raw power is a strong factor in selection (or compulsion as you pointed out), but there are other reasons to pick those weapons. From simply an atheistic reason (some guns just look cool) to other more tactile reasons like, Weapon type, mode of fire (burst fire semi vs full auto), elemental damage type, secondary abilities (grenades with life healing properties, shields with resists or quick recharge rate) and not to mention class specific aspects like Zero with a sniper rifle, Siren with elemental damage, etc etc.

So with these alternate points to consider, raw power (to me) doesn't seem like it would always be the option being defaulted to.

Thoughts on that?

 

[Uriain]

stuff

It's starting to get apparent you didn't play the game for very long at all, but we'll leave that. I chose those two Rifles and those two SMGs because I use all of them, depending on the occasion. There's no way you could say any of them are flat out better than any other. You picked up that recoil reduction is difficult to quantify (the Torgue happens to have much better recoil than that Vladof), here's a few more: bullet velocity (explosive and E-tech weapons have lowered velocity), bullet trajectory (the Lascaux has a horizontally biased spread), blast effect (esp. concerning the Torgue), burst fire count (both Dahl's fire in bursts while scoped, but for different counts), scopes (different zoom ranges, and even just different aesthetics). We'll ignore the elemental effects, because you wouldn't know about those.

You also picked up that different weapon types had different ranges associated with them (e.g. a Sniper Rifle has a different effective range to a Shotgun). What you may not appreciate is that different versions of the same weapon type can still have very different effective ranges. Of those two Rifles, the Torgue is more stable when scoped, so it's a bit better at long range provided the target isn't moving too quickly (due to the lower velocity). At medium range things tend to move around a bit quicker, so the Vladof's higher velocity is more appropriate (and the harsher recoil isn't as much of a problem). At point blank, only the Torgue has a workable hip-fire (the Vladof is all over the place), and because it's got a small blast effect you can fire it at a mobs feet as you retreat. So it's a bit like long range = Torgue, mid range = Vladof, short range = Torgue. The SMGs, even though they're the same manufacturer (with the same mechanic, which is the burst fire), they're totally different. The unique spread on the Lascaux makes it unusable at anything other than short range, while the Plasma Caster can snipe in little bursts at mid-range if need be (you'd still use it over the Lascaux up close if you're up against flesh, but I digress). There's also certain enemy types with convenient critical locations (e.g. Loaders have three crit spots laid horizontally), against which the Lascaux will perform massively better than expected so long as you line it up just right.

And those are some pretty ordinary weapons. That Pistol in my inventory, the bullets ricochet off walls and split into more and more pellets. You can fire it round corners, or shoot at the ground in front of a mob to get better damage. My Sniper's bullets split into three that fire off like a trident. You can't quantify things like that.

So here's the crazy thing, to reiterate: that ideal you're talking about, where the players choices amount to more than just raw power, that's exactly what Borderlands does. If you'd played the game more you wouldn't be making this argument.

I'm sorry, but the way you come across here is a bit condescending. You are getting into a mechanic which is not commonly looked at by the "masses" who play. You look at Vault Hunter mode play through notes and comments and you see a highly similar set of builds/weapon per each character. Trying to quantify your argument of his observation of the series becomes flimsy when you start trying to injecting in sniper rifle velocity or bullet ricochet from items which you have not listed to compare against. He also shouldn't have to "quantify" every new piece of info raised, the statements he made have been properly layed out and discussed in a reasonable manner.

While I understand what your trying to say, and I agree with some of your points, like elemental damage types, weapon types in general and weapon differences, the way your going about it seems kind of antagonistic. You may disagree with Trollhoffer, which is fine, but he does bring up some valid points for both the Borderlands series and other content we are currently getting/soon to be getting. Frankly, I would rather have a discussion about this then the regular "dead horse" topics that go around many of the forums (ME,CoD,Capcom)

 

[Professor Lupin Madblood]

The "it's always fun with multiple people" argument holds no water.

One sentence and you've already managed to completely misunderstand and misrepresent the argument.

I think that's some kind of record.

If that were the case...

Spec-Ops: The Line multi-player would be awesome
Homefront multi-player would be awesome
Kane and Lynch 2 would be awesome
Medal of Honor Doorfighter [http://www.escapistmagazine.com/videos/view/miracle-of-sound/6466-Medal-of-Honor-Doorfighter] multi-player would be awesome
...can I stop yet?

1. Holy shit, it's spelled multiplayer, not multi-player. Jesus W. H. Christ.

2. The argument is not that the games are awesome with multiple people, it is that they are more fun when played co-operatively with friends. To that end, yes, all those games you mentioned are more fun when played co-operatively with friends. Most things are.

If you don't believe me, look up some videos by Criken2, FourPlayerPodcast, or Star_ on YouTube. They play plenty of bad video games, but they have fun doing so because they're playing them with friends, often co-operatively. Hell, I've done that myself on multiple occasions. I would hazard a guess that you've done it at least once.

Spoiler: For example:

The point is that a great multi-player game is much harder to pull off than you would think. Adding a "now with multiple players!!!" does not make a shitty game good.

Nobody said that it was easy, or that tacking on multiplayer made bad games good.

Borderlands is a good game. It may not be good to you but that doesn't make it bad.

How do you figure Borderlands is good? I'm honestly interested as to your reasoning.

Is it good because it succeeds at what it was trying to do, or because it has artistic merit and advances the medium? Is it good because it's a step up from the usual shooter fare, or because it has great art design?

As to the single versus multi-player, I always thought that the line of thinking of "Single player or GTFO" is such a silly line of thinking.

Again, nobody said that.

Games can be designed to be played exclusively with multiple people...no Yahtzee, that does not make them bad games.

Ah, but Borderlands isn't designed to be played exclusively with multiple people. Things like Unreal Tournament, or Team Fortress 2, those are games that are (at launch, anyway) literally only composed of multiplayer modes. That's exclusivity, not a game that can be played either way, but silently expects you to play it one enjoyable way in order to be enjoyed.

I do agree that Gearbox is an over-rated developer but that doesn't make their good games bad.

I believe the intention of the OP was that, in light of their recent and utterly abysmal releases, it would be helpful to take a step back and re-examine their earlier work (to wit: Borderlands and Borderlands 2) with a more critical eye.

 

[Poetic Nova]

Only the games they put out of dev hell are mediocre, they try to make something out of the assets they have. Personally don't see the flak they are getting all of a sudden. I personally love Borderlands 1, 2 (always playing solo) and HL: Opposing Force.

 

[Sordin]

Fact of the matter is colonial marines and forever were both a long time in development and bad from the start. Not only that but gearbox outsourced colonial marines to multiple other studios so it could focus on boderlands 2. While it should get bad press for not giving time to the game it didn't actually make the bad game. I have taken the optimistic view that marines was in a state when it landed on gearbox's doorstep and while they should have tried to make the best of it I don't particularly blame them or the outsourced studio's.

 

[Vigormortis]

Borderlands is dungeon crawler/loot grinder in FPS form really, but it is a very thin formula as is and Borderlands is the new boy that has only started to figure stuff out while the veterans have it down to a science.
But on the whole Borderlands, Diablo, Torchlight and the others feel the same to play, combat is sort of fun, story was done in 15 minutes, there are interesting designs all around but because you see them so many times it's all boring by the end, but the level/loot grind is all they put time in and that part is great.

Obviously as I said Borderlands being the new kid still has loads of annoyances but they mostly have it down.
Of course if you aren't into dungeon crawlers this shit will never be for you.

Though I agree with you almost entirely, I would argue that Torchlight 2 helps mitigate that "play-through-repetition" by having a much better randomization system to it's dungeon and over-world layouts. Plus, unlike Borderlands and Diablo, Torchlight 2 had a fairly impressive randomization system to it's in-world events.

That, of course, can't stave off the repetition indefinitely, but it certainly lasts longer than most dungeon crawlers.

There have always been Borderlands critics, less for 2 than 1 (although there were a couple). The advantage of 2 (apart from being a better game) was that it's market was now defined and we knew who it was meant for. The people who didn't like 1 didn't buy 2 because the common knowledge was it was more of the same but better, and so those people didn't need to criticise it. And because by most accounts 2 was a better version of 1, the people who did play it, loved it

I guess I'm one of the anomalies, given I (eventually) grew to love Borderlands 1 but can't for the life of me find enjoyment in 2.

I bought BL2 at launch for sixty bucks. And it has remained my most disappointing, most regretted game purchase for the last few years. I still have yet to finish my first play through.

Sure, the first game had bad writing. But, so does it's sequel.

So, perhaps the reason I can not stand BL2 is because the novelty of the series has worn off. The first game was something...different. Much of it derivative but still a fresh spin on an old formula.

However, BL2 offers nothing new. In fact, to me, it offers nothing improved either. Which, as I said, may be why I'm not nearly as fond of it as I am it's predecessor. The novelty is just gone...

[sub]That, and it started to lose me when I realized by "better writing", Randy Pitchford meant they just came up with such pearls of creativity as "butt stallion" and "boner fart".[/sub]

 

[WoW Killer]

I'm sorry, but the way you come across here is a bit condescending.

Picking up on the fact he hasn't played the game, or at least not for very long? I don't think I could have done that without coming across as condescending, though I did my best.

 

[Dosvidonya]

Does anyone here even remember the Brothers in Arms series? Because I thought they were rather brilliant. Yeah the 3rd was a bit of a letdown but it was still really good and I thought the first 2 were one of the best shooters of their generation, only slightly behind half-life and Halo. The mechanics were really innovative and the characterization was really good, I felt like I really cared about the people under my command. Yeah the stories were kind of non-existant for the first 2, but what do you want? It's WW2 we all know how that begins and ends and even then 3 still managed to have a good story, minus the bullshit "death pistol" part.

 

[Uriain]

I'm sorry, but the way you come across here is a bit condescending.

Picking up on the fact he hasn't played the game, or at least not for very long? I don't think I could have done that without coming across as condescending, though I did my best.

Could just be me, but I don't think you need to complete a game to have a valid opinion/consensus of it. Most games (not all) do not undergo radical changes that would require you to play from start to finish to understand it. On the particular note of Borderlands the over arching analogy that has been presented is both in parts factually accurate (boil it down, Borderlands is about getting more powerful guns to kill dudes with) and parts which can and have been discussed with differing opinions (such as the comments you made about weapon spec's per manufacturer, elemental damage types etc).

 

[WoW Killer]

I don't think you need to complete a game to have a valid opinion/consensus of it.

You don't need to have completed Borderlands 2 to know that Vladof and Torgue Rifles (or take your pick of any other manufacturer/weapon type combos) are incomparable in a strict min/max sense. Two minutes into the game and you'll have a Dahl and Jakobs Pistol to play around with. You get those kinds of mechanical differences right from the start.

On the particular note of Borderlands the over arching analogy that has been presented is both in parts factually accurate (boil it down, Borderlands is about getting more powerful guns to kill dudes with) and parts which can and have been discussed with differing opinions (such as the comments you made about weapon spec's per manufacturer, elemental damage types etc).

Then you have miss-read Trollhoffer's posts. His claim was that for any two weapons there would always be one that was superior.

 

[Uriain]

I don't think you need to complete a game to have a valid opinion/consensus of it.

You don't need to have completed Borderlands 2 to know that Vladof and Torgue Rifles (or take your pick of any other manufacturer/weapon type combos) are incomparable in a strict min/max sense. Two minutes into the game and you'll have a Dahl and Jakobs Pistol to play around with. You get those kinds of mechanical differences right from the start.

On the particular note of Borderlands the over arching analogy that has been presented is both in parts factually accurate (boil it down, Borderlands is about getting more powerful guns to kill dudes with) and parts which can and have been discussed with differing opinions (such as the comments you made about weapon spec's per manufacturer, elemental damage types etc).

Then you have miss-read Trollhoffer's posts. His claim was that for any two weapons there would always be one that was superior.

I have to respectfully disagree with you. If you are trying to quantify a result of power progression (which this game does by giving you more and more powerful weapons via randomized drops) than the manufacturer of the weapon, or weapon attributes simply become another factor you are looking at when determining which is the most powerful/superior. The only "swing", as I see it, is which weapon manufacturer suits your style. If I like the Torgue equipment, I can simply grind to find the best version of those weapons and against a "comparable leveled wepaon" like a Vladof, my preference/play style put the Torgue as the superior weapon for me.

Even from a purely statistical standpoint, there will always be a weapon which is superior simply because of the situation/environment/enemy, we could remove play style out of it completely and still have these three things to base our "which weapon is suprior" discussion.

That being said, I do agree with you on the points made in earlier posts about needing to take these factors into account, as while at the most base level, I think Trollhoffer has a valid point, not everyone just focus's on "Damage arrow is green on this new gun so I should use it".

 

[vasiD]

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.

This is the kind of insight I was looking for when I first made this topic, something honest from a fan who isn't blinded by loyalty.

So basically: I shouldn't doubt Borderlands' fun factor, it's been proven and a number of people enjoy it, thus making it a good game, however having that one game doesn't qualify Gearbox as a good company and the way they handle pre and post release hype is very questionable.

Should they get another license I love in the future I will set my hopes way lower than Gearbox wants me to, but still won't discount it possibly being a good game (and that possibility will lower based on the number of years in development and the number of companies it's been outsourced to).