Gearbox: Not All that Glitters is Gold
- Thread starter vasiD
- Start date
Recommended Videos
For what it's worth, I've never played Borderlands 2 (which I said in more than one previous post, I'm almost entirely sure). Which ought to stand to reason -- if I didn't like the first game, why would I play the second? So I can't make an honest commentary on the second, but then again, I've not made any commentary on the second. I pointed out that I haven't played the second game very early on. I did play the first game to campaign completion, though. At the very least, if I was talking about Borderlands 2, then I'd have referenced Borderlands 2, not just "Borderlands".
A fair few people here have taken to cherry-picking at my arguments, so I thought I'd clear that up.
And I doubt very much that Borderlands or Borderlands 2 have a particularly great deal of weapons balance. Am I correct in remembering that weapons have randomly generated values according to their level? If so, then balance is pretty much impossible by definition. Balance can't be random, but has to be deliberate. Game designers and competitive gamers spend hours at a time pulling their hair out over this kind of stuff. It may not matter to you, which is fair enough, but balance not mattering to you doesn't mean it exists in strong form.
With those factors in mind and considering that Borderlands is a PvE game (for the most part) with other kinds of randomly generated content, we can tell that balance in Borderlands is near enough to impossible. There's a reason that difficult games use random elements as a factor of their difficulty or tend to dispose of most random factors entirely to put more agency in the hands of the player. Competitive games especially tend to dispose of random game elements, or, if they're kept, use pseudo-random systems that ensure that the practical outcomes of any random occurrence are all represented within the space of a single game (rather than following the statistical trend over longer stretches of time, as usual).
For instance, if the acidic damage type is twice as effective against enemy X, then we have to calculate how common enemy X are within the game to determine how much of an advantage the acidic damage type is. As you add elements, the calculations continue to get more and more complex. Ultimately, though, everything can be quantified with a few logical caveats. For instance, having an accuracy rate of 90% doesn't mean that all players will hit with 90% of their shots. Most players will hit with far less via factors such as panic and pressure. But we can say that the weapon is 90% effective rather than 100% effective in relation to the player's existing level of accuracy. So if a player has 60% accuracy, we take 90% of that as the player's "effective accuracy" with the weapon -- so we get 54%.
And Urian, I'd just like to thank you for being polite and respectful, even though we have very different perspectives on Borderlands as a game (or as two games). So thank you for understanding that I'm not trying to take anyone's good experiences with Borderlands away from them -- with these criticisms in mind, I reckon the next Borderlands could be a better game for it without ripping out the guts of the system or the personality of the existing games. 'Cause I'm not interested in ripping down Borderlands (or any game) for the sake of it. I want everyone playing really, really good games, and Borderlands is pretty popular. So it would be pretty awesome if Borderlands was even better, because people that already enjoy it would enjoy it even more and people who don't might get into it as well.
A fair few people here have taken to cherry-picking at my arguments, so I thought I'd clear that up.
You're presuming those factors aren't quantifiable, though, or not quantifiable within particular contexts. If you want to know the effectiveness of one burst fire weapon against another, you take the amount of rounds in the burst, the damage, the accuracy and add any auxiliary effects as I did above (from what I could tell by the weapon information screens). If such factors weren't quantifiable, there would be no game balance because such "balance" would run on guesswork. Proper balance is difficult at the best of times, so we have to begin with mathematical equivalence and alter things from there.WoW Killer said:
And I doubt very much that Borderlands or Borderlands 2 have a particularly great deal of weapons balance. Am I correct in remembering that weapons have randomly generated values according to their level? If so, then balance is pretty much impossible by definition. Balance can't be random, but has to be deliberate. Game designers and competitive gamers spend hours at a time pulling their hair out over this kind of stuff. It may not matter to you, which is fair enough, but balance not mattering to you doesn't mean it exists in strong form.
With those factors in mind and considering that Borderlands is a PvE game (for the most part) with other kinds of randomly generated content, we can tell that balance in Borderlands is near enough to impossible. There's a reason that difficult games use random elements as a factor of their difficulty or tend to dispose of most random factors entirely to put more agency in the hands of the player. Competitive games especially tend to dispose of random game elements, or, if they're kept, use pseudo-random systems that ensure that the practical outcomes of any random occurrence are all represented within the space of a single game (rather than following the statistical trend over longer stretches of time, as usual).
I think aesthetic elements (as you point out, and also including sound) are the other major factor people would consider when choosing a weapon, if two weapons are reasonably close in application and effectiveness. When it comes to things that might be considered less obvious (such as damage types and special effects), we have to make the calculations more complex... but said calculations still exist.Uriain said:
For instance, if the acidic damage type is twice as effective against enemy X, then we have to calculate how common enemy X are within the game to determine how much of an advantage the acidic damage type is. As you add elements, the calculations continue to get more and more complex. Ultimately, though, everything can be quantified with a few logical caveats. For instance, having an accuracy rate of 90% doesn't mean that all players will hit with 90% of their shots. Most players will hit with far less via factors such as panic and pressure. But we can say that the weapon is 90% effective rather than 100% effective in relation to the player's existing level of accuracy. So if a player has 60% accuracy, we take 90% of that as the player's "effective accuracy" with the weapon -- so we get 54%.
And Urian, I'd just like to thank you for being polite and respectful, even though we have very different perspectives on Borderlands as a game (or as two games). So thank you for understanding that I'm not trying to take anyone's good experiences with Borderlands away from them -- with these criticisms in mind, I reckon the next Borderlands could be a better game for it without ripping out the guts of the system or the personality of the existing games. 'Cause I'm not interested in ripping down Borderlands (or any game) for the sake of it. I want everyone playing really, really good games, and Borderlands is pretty popular. So it would be pretty awesome if Borderlands was even better, because people that already enjoy it would enjoy it even more and people who don't might get into it as well.
Holy smokes. Calm down or you might give yourself an ulcer. Anyway, I have no problem discussing this but if you're not going to talk to me with some respect, I'm not going to bother.Professor Lupin Madblood said:
The OP responded to my post early in the thread and said nothing about me "mis-understanding" his post. If I mis-understood what he stated, he is free to tell me that but until then I am under the assumption that my understanding is correct (and therefore my criticism of his view). That is why I attacked the notion that "playing a game with friends automatically makes it good", which is what I gathered from his post (Quote: "But really shouldn't any game be fun when you can play it with another person?"). I countered with No, having multi-player does not make a bad game good. The game still has to be a good game for people to enjoy it. More specifically, the game has to be good for it to garner such universal praise from gamers.
As to your question, I found Borderlands fun because...well...it was fun. I enjoyed running around shooting things with my buddy (and alone when said buddy was busy). I enjoyed the humor of Clap Trap. I enjoyed the grind of getting more guns and fighting bigger things. I enjoyed unlocking special abilities and throwing my hawk at people. It's understandable if you don't find that fun but that doesn't make it a bad game. I don't like puzzle games but does that make Ico, Shadow of the Colossus, Professor Layton series, and so on bad games? Of course not and I'd have to be pretty damn full of myself to believe it does.
If the DLC pack was better in every way.Limecake said:
Everyone enjoys saying it's more like Borderlands 1.5, but so are a lot of sequels. Doom II had one new weapon and a handful of new enemies. Call of Duty 2... oh, look, more WWII themed levels. Assassin's Creed 2... a less irritating version of the first game with a more interesting lead. Gears of War 2... more of the same but better thought out. Saints Row 2... same city with some additions. Every GTA game since III... same shit, different city. Uncharted 2... same Drake-time, same Drake-channel, only a hell of a lot better this time. Arkham City... same basic game only in a real sandbox this time, not a linear game hiding behind an expansive hub. Bioshock 2 is just like the original only with Communism and a few combat tweaks.
If the game hits pretty close to the mark the first time out, it's not going to change things up too dramatically the second time. Borderlands took everything that worked from the first game and fixed most of the stuff that didn't quite work. It brought back all the old favorite characters and enemies, introduced a fair number of new ones. It took the basic environment and added several new environments. It took the basic weapon generating mechanic of the first game and expanded upon it in a meaningful way. It fine-tuned levels so they're a hell of a lot more playable in solo and co-op. The story in the first game was just a bunch of meaningless quests to delay you from your original goal (the plot is level up until you're powerful to take on the Vault), while the second game actually has a proper plot even if the twists and turns don't always make a ton of sense. There's a lot of game content, there's a lot of maps to explore, more weapon types, more enemy types, better game mechanics, better level flow, a proper drop-in/drop-out co-op system, better customization options.
What exactly do people expect from a sequel if not expanding and tweaking the original while maintaining the same basic tone and feel? How did Borderlands come up short when compared with Pac-Man, Super Mario Brothers, Doom, CoD, GoW, Saints Row, GTA, Bioshock, Arkham, Halo, Uncharted, Infamous, Assassin's Creed, Angry Birds, and the scores of other successful game franchises which have never wandered far from the formula that made them successful in the first place.
As a fairly dedicated solo player, I surprised myself with my eagerness to go on-line with Borderlands 2. Even if you're playing with assholes, the worse they can do to you is grab gear before you get a chance. This is off-set by the many generous players who will happily give out legendary items to people who do their best to be team players.MetalMagpie said:
The only problematic thing in single player are boss fights because bosses will regenerate health when you respawn, so you can suck your way through most of the fights through simple attrition. Co-op eliminates that particular problem, letting players concentrate on just having fun.
One thing that struck me about the second game is just how different the weapons in a particular class can feel. Such as I can't really be arsed about Jacobs or Dahl, because I'm tend to hold down the fire button which results in me totally not firing at the enemy. Some weapons look absolutely amazing on paper, but a Hyperion sniper rifle is probably going to be more trouble than its worth. The Dahl sniper rifle might be great against tougher opponents thanks to the three-round burst, but it's going to be a waste of ammunition on everyone else.WoW Killer said:
Can't tell you how many times I got my hands on what I thought would be a great weapon only to find it turned to dross in my hands.
And I can't think of another shooter which has anything resembling the variety of guns on display in Borderlands 2. Even discounting the vast, vast, vast majority of weapon variances, there's simply no other shooter that can boast the same number of unique attributes (the E-tech weapons alone beat out any other shooter). Just look at the grenades where you have there's several methods of delivery (thrown, teleporting, seekers) and about half a dozen basic damage types (singularity, bouncing betties, vampire, etc.). There's several types of shields, some favoring close-up fighters which deal damage when depleted, others favoring melee attacks, some super-charging attacks, others absorbing ammo instead of taking damage, and so on. The Bee and The Sham are the two big favorites at the moment, and the Rough Rider (a shield which offers no protection whatsoever) is quickly gaining ground because of how it combines with certain skill points.
The bazillion guns things is largely a gimmick, but it's a gimmick that conceals one of the most vibrant weapon selection in the history of video games. I can't think of a game that even comes close.
I recently started Borderlands, and I can see where the fun in it lies: the pacing in combat and the feel of the weapons, as well as the aesthetics and PC and enemy design are all top-notch. On the other hand, the missions are repetitive and the quest design, story, and characters are one-note, while the RPG elements and focus on loot add essentially nothing to the experience except a time sink. If these drawbacks remain true throughout the game, then I would be inclined to describe the game as an excellent core engine, completely wasted. It's like someone was handed one thousand pounds of solid gold, and used it to construct a featureless cube.
