Poll: Views on Gearbox?

[DrunkOnEstus]

I picked "good but lazy", and I imagine that is a statement that needs some qualifying. I think they're "good" in the sense that they're above-average developers when it comes to code, absence of bugs, engines, artwork, and gameplay/balancing. Thinking on it now, it's not lazy but Brothers in Arms seems to be their only attempt at a tightly focused single player narrative. Maybe it isn't their strength and they're wisely playing to their strengths. It's hard to judge DNF and Aliens for this seeing as they didn't actually do the heavy lifting on those titles, but Borderlands seems content to use the MMO formula in terms of pacing. IMO, "to me", and all that, just to clarify.

 

[RevRaptor]

I picked average, As much as I love playing borderlands 2 the bugs are kinda hard to ignore, as is the total lack of traction on them fixing them. wish they would hurry up an fix their damn game already.

 

[JemothSkarii]

Good but lazy; they've made some bad games, they've made some great games. But what makes me like them is they will support their games, good and bad...and they also did this stuff:

Spoiler: Claptrap's Eulogy for Michael John Mamaril

Spoiler: Claptrap's Proposal

The Eulogy made me 'Aww'

The Proposal was awesome as hell.

 

[Jandau]

Gearbox is a fairly common occurrence - an average/mediocre developer who had one good idea. In their case, Borderlands. They stumbled upon a formula that for whatever reason worked, but they can't follow it up because when it comes down to it, they aren't all that good. Not only that, but the good game (and its sequels) build up expectations among the gaming public meaning that their subsequent mediocre work is judged even more harshly...

 

[Gethsemani_v1legacy]

I think that Colonial Marines, like Ultima IX and Duke Nukem Forever before it, was just in development hell for too long and the developers were tasked with salvaging what they can and make a sort-of-finished product.

This pretty much sums it up, I think. A:CM isn't the terri-bad that reviewers has made it out to be. It is just bogged down by lots and lots of assets that are obviously outdated (from the obvious graphics to the more subtle but more annoying problems with alien pathfinding AI) but still made it into the finished game. To me it seems quite obvious that the E3 demo was what they wanted to give us, but that they were working with an engine that couldn't bring that kind of fidelity to consoles and so we got the stripped down graphics we see in the released game.

Whatever it has to do with an understaffed/inexperienced development staff, bad directors and leads or corporate meddling I don't know. But it is obvious that A:CM suffered from a lack of resources and/or direction.

 

[Tayh]

Used to be good(Borderlands), turned bad when they decided to treat their customers like dirt and gate their game behind drm(Borderlands 2).

 

[DoPo]

I cannot say. I've only played Opposing Force and Blue Shift - I liked both, a lot in fact but I don't feel can give me an accurate idea. I've seen some Borderlands and it seems fun and enjoyable, but I don't want to evaluate a company on a few snippets of what they offer. There were some...rumours that paint Gearbox in bad light there [http://www.gatheryourparty.com/articles/2012/11/12/pound-of-flesh/] but I never really went deep into them, so I don't really know how true/not true they are. Duke Nukem Forever I am familiar with but in no way can I blame Gearbox for it. They only had the game for...a year? Or somewhere there tops, however much they could have messed the game, it's impossible they did everything that was bad with it. And I pretty much don't know anything about ACM but it seems to me it was in a very similar situation. I don't know when Gearbox got it and I don't know how involved they were with developing it. Well, they still had those trailers wrong, though.

 

[Al-Bundy-da-G]

They're doing pretty good in my opinion. Though it seems like they're just buying up ip's that are stuck in development hell so that they can just finish them and start on the next one in the series.

 

[MrCollins]

Only 8 or so people mentioned that they made Brothers in Arms, this is unacceptable!
Brothers in Arms was the best WW2 series, IMO.
Borderlands wasn't too bad and their "offending games", I had no interest in.

 

[MetalDooley]

I agree A:CM and DNF were both pretty bad, but they were both games that GB took over from someone else, and had very little creative input.

Actually unlike DNF Gearbox were in charge of Colonial Marines from the very beginning.The only reason they had very little creative input on CM was because they were the ones who decided to farm it out to 3 other studios so Borderlands could take priority.I agree that they should be cut some slack for DNF as that game was in development hell well before they got their hands on it but CM is a different story.They had 6 years to make a good game and they fucked it up and people need to stop glossing over that fact just because they like Borderlands

 

[octafish]

They haven't done anything of quality since 2008, and Hell's Highway wasn't as strong as the first two Brothers in Arms games. I have had little interest in them since then, they seem only interested in making a quick buck by churning out half baked rubbish that tries to cash in on a big name (even exploiting their own back catalogue with that Furious Four bullshit).

Borderlands? I couldn't play more than half a hour of it before being bored and disappointed at the shoddy workmanship of the PC port and the lack of anything interesting at all in the game.

The fact that they only reached the final cell shaded look of Borderlands because they were too inept to get the game to look decent speaks volumes for the quality of the studio.

 

[Canadamus Prime]

Well I can't say that their latest dick move makes me want to trust them in the future.

 

[Something Amyss]

I'm not sure how willfully deceiving the public and defrauding the company behind you could count as "unlucky."

 

[Something Amyss]

Well I can't say that their latest dick move makes me want to trust them in the future.

Which one?

I'm just curious. I agree, for the most part, but it's more a pattern for me than a single point.

 

[Canadamus Prime]

Well I can't say that their latest dick move makes me want to trust them in the future.

Which one?

I'm just curious. I agree, for the most part, but it's more a pattern for me than a single point.

The Aliens thing. I'm not aware of any other dick moves. Well I suppose Pitchford (or however you spell his name) didn't exactly respond to the Aliens thing very well either so I guess you could count that too.
It's a funny phenomenon I find that happens these days is that some companies own up to mistakes when they don't need to and others act like dicks when they should own up to their mistakes.

 

[NightmareExpress]

They scream average to me.
Borderlands was boring beyond belief, the humor was idiotic but I can see a few pieces of good in it.
CM was a fuck-up, DNF wasn't entirely their fault and the good days of Brothers in Arms seems long gone (what is this new Inglorious Bastards knock off bullshit?)...

I also recall an interview where someone from GearBox tried to define the term "graphics" as something other than a visual representation. Wat.