B1 is a bit slow, but quite fun, B2 is brilliant, BTPS is similar to B2, but the crafting stuff is annoying, B3 was too chaotic with a too cluttred UI and a damn annoying story, B4, I have no idea
I liked that one but weirdly there’s no NG+ and the DLC kind of sucked. I finished it with a friend and we were like, “that’s it?”. It’s not very long, and it ends shortly after your end of skill tree powers become available.
I think it was a really good game originally. The writing has gotten really fucking bad though, and the gameplay hasn’t really evolved with the times. (I can’t speak on the new game.)
The new one feels like progress so far. I’m not very deep in, but the story and dialogue are not nearly as annoying as 3 was. The biggest difference has to be the movement. In previous games it often felt like you were trudging forward until you found an enemy and then running backwards so they didn’t catch you before they die. Grappling hooks, double jumps, and gliding add a TON of movement and gives you those John Wick moments where you’re bouncing around the area and blasting people from every direction.
I really don’t understand the open world though. I don’t think that’s the direction they needed to go. I think the best looter-shooter I’ve played recently is Roboquest. It has all the movement you said (and more), but it’s in tight rooms, so the devs have more control of the design. Open worlds means the devs have essentially zero control of encounters and it becomes too easy. The only thing they can do is crank up health of enemies so they don’t die as quickly.
I understand your worries. I was was also concerned about the openworld first, but so far they have nailed the open world part pretty well. Travelling has been fun. There has been always fast travel near when i have wanted to use it. There is enough hidden jokes and easter eggs that i feel rewarded to look around.
I dont really understand your point. Devs still curate where you meet the enemies. Its not like its procedurally generated map where everything is random.
I cant remember single time in my 20 hours of gameplay where i have tought that i hate fighting here, or that these enemies dont fit here.
I dont really understand your point. Devs still curate where you meet the enemies. Its not like its procedurally generated map where everything is random.
I haven’t played it, so maybe they’ve done something to control it. I doubt it though. If you can come from any direction, that makes encounters much harder to design. Think about older Borderlands games when entering a compound. You’d come through one main gate and enemies would be set up with cover and you’d have to fight your way through. With open world you could do something like fly into the middle of the compound, and that’s has to be accounted for.
Check out Roboquest, for example. It has some really impressive movement options, but it’s choice of rooms let’s them restrict how much you can abuse them. You’ll always be fighting through the enemies from an expected direction.
I cant remember single time in my 20 hours of gameplay where i have tought that i hate fighting here, or that these enemies dont fit here.
This isn’t what I meant. There’s nuance between liking something and it being the best possible thing. It can be good and still be possible to be better. My biggest issue with open worlds is, like you mentioned at the beginning, fast travel. It takes so much time and resources to make an open world, just for players to fast travel past most of it. Is it really worth the that? Did it add that much to the experience? We could have more cheaper games with tighter designed experiences instead of games that cost hundreds of millions of dollars to make. (BL3 cost $140m, and for cost “more than twice” that, so minimum $280m.)
I don’t think people understand that everything is an opportunity cost. If you make an open world game, that’s at the expensive of so much more. At minimum, it’s going to be less game to play (or longer between games and more expensive). Is getting a lot of space that you hardly interact with worth it?
The thing about open world is, you can make those smaller contained spaces you keep mentioning with Roboquest inside of some structure with a single entrance and boom, we have your preferred formula.
Sure. You can make those, but you have to spend a lot of money and time making the open world just to make places for the rooms to live. Is that worth it? Everything is opportunity cost. Did doubling the cost improve the game that much?
It depends on the game. Could a Sonic game be fun in open world? Yes, and it was. Would The Hunt? Or Supermeat Boy? Probably not. I’m just pointing out you can still design for your movement abilities in an open world.
I’m not far enough to have settled on an opinion on the open world yet. I did find it tedious in other BL games that I had to walk through the same areas in the same order over and over again to access the end game or start a new character.
That being said, I often don’t know where to go or what to do in BL4. Thank Torgue they added the Echo objective finder, that’s pretty much the only way I’ve been able to stay on track at all.
Yeah, I just have a bias against open world games at this point. Damn near every game thinks they need to be open world, and most of the time it just makes things more tedious and boring. It takes a ton of dev time to make just for players to run past 99% of it. There are some games it really works for, but most would be better off with a tighter design (and it’d also save time and money).
I love Borderlands, but I really wish Randy would just shut the fuck up.
I think he thinks he’s Jack in The Pre-Sequel, but really he’s Jack in Borderlands 2.
Jack in BL2 was funny and entertaining tho.
Probably not if you lived on Pandora.
I hate borderlands, and I also wish Randy would shut the fuck up!
I have a simple rule - Not touching anything that has grease marks on it.
B1 is a bit slow, but quite fun, B2 is brilliant, BTPS is similar to B2, but the crafting stuff is annoying, B3 was too chaotic with a too cluttred UI and a damn annoying story, B4, I have no idea
Allegedly B4 is much better than 3, aside from the abysmal performance. I can wait until they fix it and get it for $15 on sale.
I’m waiting for it to become “free”, no idea how long that’ll take though.
Have you tried Wonderlands? I really liked it, and would love a sequel/more of that one.
I liked that one but weirdly there’s no NG+ and the DLC kind of sucked. I finished it with a friend and we were like, “that’s it?”. It’s not very long, and it ends shortly after your end of skill tree powers become available.
The TIny Tina game?
I tried it, didn’t like it and uninstalled it.
I am not saying it is a bad game, just that at the time it wasn’t game I liked.
Favorite in the series. But I’m just getting started with BL4 so my opinion may change.
I’ve been playing B4 for a few hours now and it’s been pretty good. Definitely getting more B2 vibes than B3.
Good assessment. I agree completely!
I’m not very far in, but so far I’m enjoying B4 more than TPS, and MUCH more than 3.
What crafting?
I think it was a really good game originally. The writing has gotten really fucking bad though, and the gameplay hasn’t really evolved with the times. (I can’t speak on the new game.)
The new one feels like progress so far. I’m not very deep in, but the story and dialogue are not nearly as annoying as 3 was. The biggest difference has to be the movement. In previous games it often felt like you were trudging forward until you found an enemy and then running backwards so they didn’t catch you before they die. Grappling hooks, double jumps, and gliding add a TON of movement and gives you those John Wick moments where you’re bouncing around the area and blasting people from every direction.
I really don’t understand the open world though. I don’t think that’s the direction they needed to go. I think the best looter-shooter I’ve played recently is Roboquest. It has all the movement you said (and more), but it’s in tight rooms, so the devs have more control of the design. Open worlds means the devs have essentially zero control of encounters and it becomes too easy. The only thing they can do is crank up health of enemies so they don’t die as quickly.
I understand your worries. I was was also concerned about the openworld first, but so far they have nailed the open world part pretty well. Travelling has been fun. There has been always fast travel near when i have wanted to use it. There is enough hidden jokes and easter eggs that i feel rewarded to look around.
I dont really understand your point. Devs still curate where you meet the enemies. Its not like its procedurally generated map where everything is random.
I cant remember single time in my 20 hours of gameplay where i have tought that i hate fighting here, or that these enemies dont fit here.
I haven’t played it, so maybe they’ve done something to control it. I doubt it though. If you can come from any direction, that makes encounters much harder to design. Think about older Borderlands games when entering a compound. You’d come through one main gate and enemies would be set up with cover and you’d have to fight your way through. With open world you could do something like fly into the middle of the compound, and that’s has to be accounted for.
Check out Roboquest, for example. It has some really impressive movement options, but it’s choice of rooms let’s them restrict how much you can abuse them. You’ll always be fighting through the enemies from an expected direction.
This isn’t what I meant. There’s nuance between liking something and it being the best possible thing. It can be good and still be possible to be better. My biggest issue with open worlds is, like you mentioned at the beginning, fast travel. It takes so much time and resources to make an open world, just for players to fast travel past most of it. Is it really worth the that? Did it add that much to the experience? We could have more cheaper games with tighter designed experiences instead of games that cost hundreds of millions of dollars to make. (BL3 cost $140m, and for cost “more than twice” that, so minimum $280m.)
I don’t think people understand that everything is an opportunity cost. If you make an open world game, that’s at the expensive of so much more. At minimum, it’s going to be less game to play (or longer between games and more expensive). Is getting a lot of space that you hardly interact with worth it?
The thing about open world is, you can make those smaller contained spaces you keep mentioning with Roboquest inside of some structure with a single entrance and boom, we have your preferred formula.
Sure. You can make those, but you have to spend a lot of money and time making the open world just to make places for the rooms to live. Is that worth it? Everything is opportunity cost. Did doubling the cost improve the game that much?
It depends on the game. Could a Sonic game be fun in open world? Yes, and it was. Would The Hunt? Or Supermeat Boy? Probably not. I’m just pointing out you can still design for your movement abilities in an open world.
I can see that.
I’m not far enough to have settled on an opinion on the open world yet. I did find it tedious in other BL games that I had to walk through the same areas in the same order over and over again to access the end game or start a new character.
That being said, I often don’t know where to go or what to do in BL4. Thank Torgue they added the Echo objective finder, that’s pretty much the only way I’ve been able to stay on track at all.
Yeah, I just have a bias against open world games at this point. Damn near every game thinks they need to be open world, and most of the time it just makes things more tedious and boring. It takes a ton of dev time to make just for players to run past 99% of it. There are some games it really works for, but most would be better off with a tighter design (and it’d also save time and money).