Gearbox: Not All that Glitters is Gold

[Trollhoffer]

Just a little thing, but Borderlands and by extent Borderlands 2 seems to be games that cause split opinions.

I, and many other people really enjoyed, I've spent over 100 hours on the game so far...
All of that single-player as well.

With all respect, I'm not saying that anyone's enjoyment of Borderlands or Borderlands 2 has been invalid or anything like that. What I'm saying is that it was inoffensively bland and achieved success far beyond the elegance of its design. For my part, I really enjoyed AvP2010 while recognising it as having plenty of objective flaws. But then again, AvP2010 had a level of success largely in synchronicity with its level of quality -- average.

 

[Something Amyss]

Ever since Extra Credits did that special on skinner boxes I've seen the term used ad nauseum for just about every game release.

Not saying it isn't true but man its becoming the new Godwin's Law for gaming.

For the sake of this post, I will use "Skinner Box" as it's intended here, despite being a misnomer.

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....

 

[lordmardok]

I personally found Borderlands 2 to be kind of boring, not enough actual upgrades from the original to make it feel like a different game, not much in the way of challenge, a lot of niggling annoyances like the eternally spawning enemies and whole zones that feature a total of one quest. Basically it feels like they added some good stuff but they took out a bunch of the things I found actually fun about the original.


TL;DR Not worth the hype and a little boring. Would rather play Bioshock again.

 

[CriticalMiss]

Borderlands 1 & 2 were both good games in my books, by 'good' I mean 'games I found enjoyable' rather than 'the greatest thing in digital media'. I think Gearbox did a good job on them though not flawless. I think the problem with some of their crappier games is that, for the most part, they didn't make them. Duke Nukem was someone else's game finished off by Gearbox after going through development hell. Aliens was made by almost half a dozen developers, Gearbox included, over a number of years.

I just hope that if/when Borderlands 3 emerges it is like it's older siblings and doesn't try to be too different.

 

[Trollhoffer]

For what it's worth, some of us don't hinge on Extra Credits for our understanding of the Skinner Box or operant conditioning. Operant conditioning isn't always bad -- in fact, I'd argue it's necessary for environmental interaction in many games and that plenty of games have benefited from its principles. The way operant conditioning is used in Borderlands and other games with similar loot systems is based on compulsion rather than engagement, though, and that's a sign of poor creativity and design.

One of the things Skinner did during his experiments concerning operant conditioning was to change the rate of reward. For instance, a rat steps on a lever and gets a food pellet. This happens a few times and a food pellet is deposited every time, so the rat quickly becomes accustomed to using the lever for food. Skinner then investigated what would happen if food wasn't deposited every time, but only at selected or random intervals of lever presses, and this is where we come to the current issue. The rats were observed under this changed rate of reward and it was found that their behaviour didn't change drastically -- once they learned that the lever was a source of food, they would continue to try it until it was successful, compulsively.

Human beings do exactly the same thing when rewards are given with an element of observable consistency but on an irregular basis. We operate nearly automatically under the same kind of compulsion in context of our objective. When one of those objectives (such as in games) is to become more powerful in a fight and a simple damage value becomes an immediate and obvious solution, we will compulsively seek out items with better damage values if the game places us in that frame of reference. If the means to achieving higher damage is based on player-influenced systems (such in Dark Souls), then that compulsion isn't so strong or may not even exist. If not, in the case of games like Borderlands and Diablo, however, the damage-seeking behaviour becomes more compulsive and the lack of a damage reward can cause a sort of "virtual anxiety" that rises until the player receives an item that deals higher damage.

This doesn't encourage players to engage with the system, but to repeat the same actions over and over in order to master the values within the game by exceeding them, and it's based on drop chances and random loot. That's why games such as Borderlands using operant conditioning is such a bad thing, since it's a game design strategy that actively removes depth from the game and control from the player in favour of a compulsion strategy.

 

[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...

OT:hate to sound all smug but I called this one out a long time ago.

??? you lost me :/

 

[Mikeyfell]

So, what do you think? Is Borderlands still that great of a game if it can't be enjoyed singleplayer?

Say what!!?!?!?!???!??!!??!

If you can't enjoy Borderlands (Especially BL2)in single player there's something wrong with you.

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.

I think it's briliant in the respect that it's one of the only games that's equal fun to play in multyplayer as in single player.
Usually MP just shits allover the rest of the experience looming over it making you feeling like you're doing something wrong (Orcs Must Die 2, Mass Effect 3) or it's a purely multyplayer game with some single player bits thrown in to justify the 60$ price tag (CoD and friends)

Don't get me wrong I still think Gearbox is pretty shitty but Borderlands is their diamond in the shit (so to speak)
I don't know if it's talent or luck but they've made one pretty good game and one great game at least (I've never played their brothers in arms games)

 

[Sir Thomas Sean Connery]

Absolutely!

I played the entire first Borderlands to max level and beyond without EVER inviting a friend to play with me and I loved every second of it.
My Scorpio turret was the only buddy I needed.

When I finally did play with friends a bit in Borderlands 2, I found it OK, but also rather unintuitive and annoying, so I switched back to single player and continued to have a blast.

Gearbox is by no means one of the best companies, but Borderlands is still one of my favorite game series.

Just a little thing, but Borderlands and by extent Borderlands 2 seems to be games that cause split opinions.

I, and many other people really enjoyed, I've spent over 100 hours on the game so far...
All of that single-player as well.

With all respect, I'm not saying that anyone's enjoyment of Borderlands or Borderlands 2 has been invalid or anything like that. What I'm saying is that it was inoffensively bland and achieved success far beyond the elegance of its design.

I know this gets used way too much, but....


Either say people who enjoy Borderlands have no taster or don't. Don't skirt around the issue by saying "Oh, I'm not insulting them at all.... But they enjoy an objectively bad thing".
It's still an insult, it's just a roundabout insult.

 

[Trollhoffer]

Who else's opinion would it be? Anyway, Borderlands is itself ultimately tasteless; a prefabs layered over prefabs with all things stolen. And if all you derive from that statement is a personal insult, then you've missed the point.

 

[vasiD]

snip

Sorry for the ambiguity in my post, very late should get to sleep soon. Yer I get the difference, to be fair, I've seen it placed upon both publishers and developers with gamers, I mean I know EA develops a load of it's own games but it is almost universally panned for anything it's label touches if it's bad, whether they developed it or not.

But yer I do get that the new line thing is closer to a publisher. To be fair I think allot of people could do with reading your clarification, there's been one too many people who seem to think the same team make Battlefield and Madden...

I thought the reviews were a bit harsh for what it is, but on this site by user's I have been reminded of these "demo's" and what people where promised, now I realize why people are so looking for their pound of flesh. They really really really do deserve a tonne of hate heaped on them for either knowingly or actively allowing such a level of false advertising. The footage of the "work in progress" looking stunning an then compared to a high end gaming pc running the finished copy are just stunning, I don't know how it can be done but pre-orders deserve their money back.

Agreed. It's a crying shame because that demo really looked amazing. I will say that if Gearbox agrees to deal with unsatisfied customers in an effective (and generous) way that they'll be able to beat back some of this fan backlash.

 

[Compatriot Block]

Who else's opinion would it be? Anyway, Borderlands is itself ultimately tasteless; a prefabs layered over prefabs with all things stolen. And if all you derive from that statement is a personal insult, then you've missed the point.

This statement, right here. This is why people are saying you're just insulting people who like Borderlands.

Because you are. So either you're missing the point yourself, in which case you might consider looking up the definitions of words like "implication," or you're lying through your teeth.

 

[Trollhoffer]

Who else's opinion would it be? Anyway, Borderlands is itself ultimately tasteless; a prefabs layered over prefabs with all things stolen. And if all you derive from that statement is a personal insult, then you've missed the point.

This statement, right here. This is why people are saying you're just insulting people who like Borderlands.

Because you are. So either you're missing the point yourself, in which case you might consider looking up the definitions of words like "implication," or you're lying through your teeth.

I'm sincerely sorry that you feel insulted, but it would be dishonest of me to just take back my opinions on the game. And besides, as I said, none of my statements were a personal insult against anyone. For those who are loyal enough to the product that they interpret criticism of said product as an insult, then there's nothing I can do to prevent my words as being interpreted as an insult -- it's a done thing before I commit my wording to the internet.

There's really no way to sugarcoat my opinion on Borderlands, it's been posted and elaborated upon, and I think it's important that games criticism is open and honest. Inadvertently insulting others when it comes to this matter isn't one of primary concerns, because as soon as just about any game is criticised, there is always those who feel personally insulted. The only other thing I could do is pretend to take my words back about Borderlands while holding the same opinion. Again, that would be dishonest.

In any case and for what it's worth, Sir Thomas cut out the piece of my previous post where I described the way that I sometimes enjoy games that have plenty of bad qualities while knowingly considering them bad. Sometimes ironically, but more often unironically. I'm not some kind of arbiter of all objective truths -- but I know what I consider to be a lack of quality in a product.

 

[Doclector]

Personally I loved both games in single player. I think most people did. Probably not more than they did in multiplayer mind, but I certainly think you're in the minority of people thinking that multiplayer is borderlands only merit.

The question is, does that make gearbox's bad games worse? It's one thing when a terrible dev comes up with a terrible game, big surprise, but when a dev you know can do brilliantly comes out with a bad game? That's not just bad, it's confusing.

Though, i must say, i didn't think that colonial marines was a terrible game. Not good, but not especially bad.

Duke nukem forever though? I hated that. If there is a single game with less fans than colonial marines has right now, it's duke nukem foever.

That just says so much about the inconsistency of gearbox. They seem to have talent, seem to have passion, but then they just come out with brilliant games, terrible games, and everything in between.

 

[Laughing Man]

There's no systematic personality there. I'll concede that the art is somewhat distinctive and the game has a good sense of humour, but what it doesn't have is strong qualities of endearment concerning its core gameplay systems. Although these are all RPG mechanics. The shooting mechanics in Borderlands aren't bad, but there's nothing distinctive or attractive about them, either. Many years ago, Medal of Honour and Call of Duty had already mastered the same essential gameplay system.

You're basing an argument by comparing the gunplay mechanics of a game that has literally millions of weapon and character loadouts to a modern combat FPS. Really? I am a BF2 and BF3 vet and the gunplay mechanics are NOTHING like that of either of the BL games, not even close. You know why, because the RPG elements that you put down at the start of the argument are a defining point in how the gunplay works. I play MOH five times chances are the weapon load out and tactics will be much the same, I play BL2 five times each game will be different based on the combination of weapon randomness, the character I choose and the RPG power ups I select.

This poor choice of comparison really nullifies the majority of your argument, by all means you are entitled to the argument but what your opening statement shows is someone who really didn't play the game. Seriously their is no way that you can say that MOH and COD nailed the shooting mechanics and then use that as any basis to attack the shooting mechanics in the BL games.

The judgement on Gearbox should be held off until they show us what they are going to do. The E3 demo that everyone thought the game was going to be has to be side lined now, THAT is never going to happen, someone over at the forums suggest that Timegate submitted that game to Gearbox and they rejected it because it went over the memory limitations of the console forcing the game to use a less 'developed' engine, no matter what they do next will determine the fallout.

- The DLC that continues or adds to the story needs to be released as a free addon.
- The SDK needs to be given out, so at least the PC community can fix some of the issues
- If they do go for DLC it needs to be quality and it needs to be cheap, skins for BL2 that worked out at a $1 a piece just won't wash here.
- They need to make a solid effort to patch the game
- Someone at Gearbox needs to come forward and give a solid no BS reason for why the game turned out like it did, no deflecting, no marketing BS, no trying to blame the third party software developers they used.

 

[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.