Worst review I have seen in a long time (borderlands 2)

[Dangit2019]

The game?s opening sequence reminds you that Borderlands? developers chose to go the animation route, and I don?t like it very much.

Oh, they went the "animation route". Unlike all those other games that aren't animated whatsoever. It's called cel-shading...

Overall, I wouldn't be so mad at this if it were billed to parents and posted on Common Sense Media, but when a self-professed "gamer" compares a solid triple-A franchise sequel to a $30 NASCAR game because it didn't have 16-player multiplayer (as shooters are all required to do apparently) on the WALL STREET JOURNAL website, than he should really be considering changing his career.

Also, Medal of Honor? Really?

 

[Xrysthos]

I haven't heard anything this funny since...

Spoiler

...Handsome Jack told some random person that they looked like they'd grown up headbutting a sand grinder, and it turned out to be Helena Pierce.

But in all seriousness, the review in question is either an excellent practical joke or simply narrow minded. I don't care if you like Borderlands 1 & 2 or if you think the single-player campaign is tedious and boring, but I would like a review of the actual game, and not a comparison between it and Call of Duty of all things.

[facepalm] Multiplayer... [/facepalm]

Now, back to Borderlands 2...

 

[Xrysthos]

IT's funny to see a non-game player review a game. The fact that he compares the game so much to COD or Halo shows how little he gets it. I would compare the game more to Diablo (with guns).

I bought the game new and I am enjoying it more than the first one. Co-op is great and the game is lots of fun, which is what I want out of a game.

First person Diablo with guns. On acid. In SPACE!

 

[Dangit2019]

Because he typed the words 'Call of Duty'? Is that why it's a horrible review?

More because he used Halo and Call of Duty as his only points of critical reference while also displaying huge gaps in knowledge when it came to gaming. For example, saying that multiplayer is a requirement for a good FPS, thinking that BO2's 16-player games are extremely large, and using the word "super-hip".

I for one, haven't played the game, and I didn't mind his negative opinion of it, I did mind his horrible excuse for criticism.

 

[distortedreality]

My favourite part is where the reviewer suggests that added value for money in a $60 game is to have addition DLC content available...which costs more money to play.

How does that even make sense?

It makes even less sense when you consider that BL1 had an absolute crapton of DLC, and with a season pass already being sold for BL2, it's fairly safe to assume that BL2 will have even more.

 

[IamLEAM1983]

This here is still the best Borderlands 2 review / first impression that there'll ever be:

Don't know about that. Guy clearly has no patience for a first person title that tries to put a story together. No, the polygon people will not shut up, because this game has RPG elements and they stand as quest-givers. If you want to play a shooter where only honest-to-God crucial stuff is said, go back to playing Halo or CoD.

Or, well, that's what I'd tell him.

 

[unstabLized]

Just came back from watching a stand up comedy show which I laughed my ass off till my sides hurt. This was a great ending to my night of laughter. Thank you so much for sharing this. I'm in tears. Also, loving every second of Borderlands 2

 

[Something Amyss]

Yeah I read that I laughed. Honestly the guy is perfectly entitled to his opinion and I respect him if he doesn't like the game.

I don't mind the fact that he doesn't like the game, but immediate comparisons to COD and complaints about no multiplayer (remember when co-op was considered multiplayer?) make me groan and assure me he's missed the point.

I mean, disclosure: I love this game so much it completely bypasses my normal disdain for FPS. But if your measure of a game is not being what it's not supposed to be, something's wrong.

Not going to attack him or anything, because I think the gaming community throws too much shit as it is, but still. This review is kind of bad in that the thrust of it is stuff like "It's not COD."

Also, I'm not having trouble finding my way around. I will re-emphasise that I dislike the first person perspective and kind of suck with it, but I'm managing to navigate these "blocky, cartoonish" graphics fine. The levels have rarely confused me at all, and even then, I've never stayed confused for long. I'm trying to pull a "lol, I have no problem therefore there is no problem," but it baffles me that someone at all used to first person perspective would find themselves more lost than someone who isn't. I thought maybe "Oh, he's used to COD and the like with fairly linear deals," but he mentions Skyrim, so....

I don't know, the review seems like a bad one. Fair play to people who just don't like the game, but....

 

[Gunner 51]

And COD doesn't even have a shot at comparing char progression, weapon variety and enemy variety.

Comparing COD and Halo to Borderlands is so asinine it shows a downright lack of understand of the subject matter. It is like going to see a romantic comedy and then judging it on principals of Sci-fi thriller.

They are mechanically, thematically and aesthetically different things. Going "they are FPS. Therefore comparable" is just so dumb. Is Mariokart comparable to grand tourismo? They are both racers.

No is yelling at COD. COD does its thing very well. Its just not the same thing as Borderlands. Apples and Oranges. And only one without any sort of understanding of games would compare the 2 on such a lose principal.

I don't think it's that big a stretch to compare a game to another based upon mechanics. Mario Kart is indeed comparible to something like Forza. Both involve racing vehicles around a circuit. But while something like Forza and Gran Turismo may go for realism - Mario just goes for the cartoonish approach. But the rules and mechanics are similar, win the race by coming in first position. Anything else, is window dressing.

Borderlands isn't that different to any other FPS - you play in a first person perspective and your goal is to mangle anything that stands in your way with a variety of guns. Looting, good or bad writing, set pieces are all window dressing to me.

I know that to your (and seemingly a lot of other's) perspective - I am oversimplifying things. But that's just the way I classify my games. I fail to see why so many people are getting their wigs off because one guy goes against the grain in the way he classifies games. It's not like he's spouting racial or religious hatred.

If gamers fail to respect, understand and have the patience an outsider's point of view - even if it goes against our consensus, especially when he doesn't have much experience of games. It doesn't just make us look like an intolerant and immature bunch - it makes it so.

 

[Gluzzbung]

Actually, the reviewer makes some pretty valid points. Borderlands is trying to coax people into spending hours playing the game at a time, trying to recreate the same addiction that is the staple of MMORPGs.

 

[piinyouri]

*emerges from the ground*
Egh God, the sun hurts.
I uhh... what?
Oh reviewer, and uhh, Call of Duty?
Yah okay.
*delves back into another marathon of Pandora looting*

 

[Tdoodle]

Bless, he tried.

 

[adamtm]

Actually, the reviewer makes some pretty valid points. Borderlands is trying to coax people into spending hours playing the game at a time, trying to recreate the same addiction that is the staple of MMORPGs.

Must be that 'fake fun' I'm experiencing.

 

[Syzygy23]

OP: Are you part of the Gearbox forums? That is how I discovered this review. EDIT: Glossed over the penultimate line, sorry!

OT: Check the comments: Went through the first 100 and everyone is SLAUGHTERING him! Rightfully so as well, as his opinion is BL2 is not part of a COD franchise or a COD clone, so therefore inferior.

Idiot.

He writes for the Wallstreet Journal, what'd you expect? Wallstreet is all about making the moneyz, and COD makes the most, therefore it is the only one that matters.

 

[Living_Brain]

"Extremely lacking in multiplayer"
Let me proceed to tear the guy to shreds. How could you be a part of that mindless COD crowd? This disappoints me. Humanity does not deserve these kinds of people.

 

[Kargathia]

I would point out that while the review is shockingly lol-filled to us, surely its actually quite a decent review to those who typically read the Wall Street Journal? Or has the demographic for that changed recently?

Actually, it is not. A review for the Wall Street Journal's demographic would be expected to simplify its descriptions, and assume no prior knowledge whatsoever - not make wildly inaccurate statements.

Regardless of audience sophistication, a reviewer needs to know what he is talking about in order to write a measured, objective, and well argumented review explaining why something would or would not be enjoyable for certain audiences.

Right now, this review is none of that: its argumentation is solely made up from the author's biases and misconceptions, and mostly serves to showcase a degree of incompetence that can only be described as laughable.

 

[TheDrunkNinja]

He talks as though he's knowledgeable of gaming trends and current industry conventions, and yet he says absolutely everything that would make any gamer laugh uncontrollably.

I call troll. The Wall Street Journal is clearly only doing this to increase traffic and publicity.