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

[Cheeseman Muncher]

I'm very much in favour of people having their own opinion and everything, but he seems so horribly uninformed about what the Borderlands series is about and therefore has absolutely no idea what he is talking about rending his thoughts next to worthless.

Go nuts, Internet. He's earned it.

 

[Puzzlenaut]

Borderlands 2 doesn?t just bill itself as an FPS. It?s a space Western FPS or a role-playing shooter, with the ability to build and customize characters. The game?s premise is that you?re a loot hunter fighting to free the planet Pandora from the evil CEO of Hyperion Corp, Handsome Jack. The evil CEO wants to wipe out the planet?s ragtag population and turn Pandora into an industrial playground for his company. His presence is felt throughout the game by the hovering H-shaped space station that serves as his and Hyperion?s headquarters. In actual gameplay, you?re expected to fight your way across Pandora, hoping to stop Handsome Jack from awakening ?the Warrior,? an alien even more evil than he is. The events in Borderlands 2 take place several years after the original game and are a continuation of those events, albeit with four new playable characters.

So basically, they just ripped off the last half of the plot of Avatar, dumbed it down and made minor changes, I never liked the original Borderlands and this has not endeared me to the series, I'd rather play Modern Warfare.

...
What you said is pretty much as dumb as what the reviewer said.

Its a comedy game. The main antagonist the reviewer critiques as hard to find sinister rides around on a fucking diamond pony; his primary crimes for most of the game consist largely of him erecting statues of his face everywhere. What you said is like judging a Monty Python film based on the strength of its plot: the plot is just an excuse to wheel you between different ridiculous characters and locales for the set-ups to jokes, with the added gratification of unparalleled gunplay.

--

Back on topic:
I would like to put it out there that I don't think he ever actually played the first Borderlands: when he runs through the plot summary in the review (all the stuff about Dahl corporation, etc), he is describing things that you have to look REAL hard to see, as the game does not at all tell you; you have to read random notes left around for out of the way side quests, among other things, which is something I can't imagine him ever having done, considering how little he talks about any specific details of Borderlands 1 besides these. To me at least, it seems like he read the plot off a wikipedia page in order to give the impression he knew more than he did.

 

[Ickorus]

Well that was a rather silly review, I'm dubious as to whether he actually plays games or if he just gets all his advice from his son.

What its not COD? good thing I read this review thingy and saved me some cash now I wont have to buy this baby kiddy cartoon CoD fail wannabe piece of junk.

Yeah seriously pretty crap review for one thats actually had some time put into its writing also he played it with his 14 year old son isnt the game an 18?

Checking..

..Aaaand confirmed.

 

[rayman56]

Borderlands 2 doesn?t just bill itself as an FPS. It?s a space Western FPS or a role-playing shooter, with the ability to build and customize characters. The game?s premise is that you?re a loot hunter fighting to free the planet Pandora from the evil CEO of Hyperion Corp, Handsome Jack. The evil CEO wants to wipe out the planet?s ragtag population and turn Pandora into an industrial playground for his company. His presence is felt throughout the game by the hovering H-shaped space station that serves as his and Hyperion?s headquarters. In actual gameplay, you?re expected to fight your way across Pandora, hoping to stop Handsome Jack from awakening ?the Warrior,? an alien even more evil than he is. The events in Borderlands 2 take place several years after the original game and are a continuation of those events, albeit with four new playable characters.

So basically, they just ripped off the last half of the plot of Avatar, dumbed it down and made minor changes, I never liked the original Borderlands and this has not endeared me to the series, I'd rather play Modern Warfare.

...
What you said is pretty much as dumb as what the reviewer said.

Its a comedy game. The main antagonist the reviewer critiques as hard to find sinister rides around on a fucking diamond pony; his primary crimes for most of the game consist largely of him erecting statues of his face everywhere. What you said is like judging a Monty Python film based on the strength of its plot: the plot is just an excuse to wheel you between different ridiculous characters and locales for the set-ups to jokes, with the added gratification of unparalleled gunplay.

--

Back on topic:
I would like to put it out there that I don't think he ever actually played the first Borderlands: when he runs through the plot summary in the review (all the stuff about Dahl corporation, etc), he is describing things that you have to look REAL hard to see, as the game does not at all tell you; you have to read random notes left around for out of the way side quests, among other things, which is something I can't imagine him ever having done, considering how little he talks about any specific details of Borderlands 1 besides these. To me at least, it seems like he read the plot off a wikipedia page in order to give the impression he knew more than he did.

The reviewer flat out said he got that info from Wikipedia. That makes this an even bigger fail than it already is.

 

[Gunner 51]

That may be the case; but he shouldn't, or at least he could have tried to make an effort to become familiar with an medium he was critquing. He is putting his name on it, thus by extension his reputation and WSJ was too by publishing it. When you make an piece of work (especially in the WSJ) it should reflect the best you can give, which means; do research, not glazing wikipedia articles, become familiar with what it is; Borderlands is more along the vien of Fallout and (even) Mass Effect; and most importantly, be familiar with your audience; if I write an article on music; music-buff's will find it, no matter where it is; if you write something about games, realize it will be Gamer's who will be more interested in your article than your regular audience. This is more about being professional for an Journal; not some small gaming website by a few high school students where this "pure" opinion would be more suited.

I'd say you're onto something, but surely it is everyone's rights to talk about whatever they wish - regradless of how much expertise they have in it. The articles audience was aimed at middle aged blokes who read the WSJ who were thinking of buying the game.

The audience was never us younger and volatile gamers. Those gamers merely stumbled upon it and then blew things way out of proportion in their umbrage.

I'll grant you the review was a lazy one, but what would one expect of someone whose field of expertise is in stocks, shares, figures and global economies?

But for gamers to arbitarily say that he has no business reviewing or speaking about games is an arrogant, judgemental and disrespectful to the reviewer's freedom of expression. (Or his pursuit of happiness if you're American.)

It's like saying that the George Foreman grill is crappy because it's inventor was better at boxing than at inventing.

Either way, the whole thing has been blown out of proportion and has made us gamers look like a bunch of closed minded, exclusionary hot-heads. I guess the whole thing really could have been handled much better with a good dose of maturity.

 

[Vault101]

]So basically, they just ripped off the last half of the plot of Avatar, dumbed it down and made minor changes, I never liked the original Borderlands and this has not endeared me to the series, I'd rather play Modern Warfare.

AVATAR was "dumb" enough originally...

and "ripped off from AVATAR" feels like an oxymoron since that movie is as original as having a begining middle and end

 

[an annoyed writer]

I read every little word in that "review". I found myself very disappointed by their lack of knowledge regarding the subject matter. Needlessly complicated story? Please. Borderlands and Borderlands 2 are ridiculously simple as far as stories go, even in regards to other games. As our Escapist-based demigod Yahtzee put it, the story was a "set of tassels on the handlebars of the bike that is the game". Complicated setup? Sure, if you're five years old and still don't know that putting your hand on the hot stove is bad.

Also, If you prefer Call of Duty, great. But understand that this game is not trying to be Call of Duty. It bears little resemblance to those games beyond the default controls and it's not made for the modern military shooter fan. The art style, being relatively comic book-esque, is not trying to give you the ultra-realism that comes from those games, and instead compliments the comedic bent of the its writing. The characters are designed to compliment this as well, often having unrealistic profiles and exaggerated features to work with the over the top style of the game. Call of Duty on the other hand emphasizes realism in everything from character design to the weapons and dialogue(although that has lost its grip on reality over the years due to the increasingly James Bond-ish tone). You can compare them all you like but you'd find that they're not made with the same people in mind. Enter the mindset of someone that's looking for something of a different flavor, like someone trying some new spin on a favorite food, and then tell me the game is terrible because it doesn't appeal to someone who plays Halo or Call of Duty with near-exclusivity.

Speaking of multiplayer focus, I disagree that Borderlands 2 is lacking on the multiplayer front. It's a very different setup than your average multiplayer FPS though, with a strong Co-op focus that emphasizes competitiveness between players in a very different manner to most shooters: the players cooperate and compete to get the best loot. That's where the Diablo comparison comes in, but instead of trying to get the best trousers, you're going for the best weaponry, class mods, relics, etc. Yeah, I suppose there could be a comparison drawn to COD with its perk and level-up systems, but instead of getting to a specific level for a specific item, Borderlands 2 emphasizes exploration and trying new things with how it handles loot, with every piece of gear being randomly generated and placed throughout the world. Hence, why I'm able to find a legendary incendiary sniper rifle in a garbage bin instead of having to go through a couple hundred skirmishes on a couple of maps to get some other gun that at that point may not fit my play-style any longer. The fact that I can give said rifle to a struggling friend and help them with whatever mission they're doing encourages teamwork. The game sets you up as a scavenger and the gameplay mechanics support this: if two players disagree over who should get that awesome new gun, they can duke it out for said weapon, not unlike two bank robbers disagreeing over the cuts of money between their numbers. It tells you "these people are on your side, but you need to move fast to get the best stuff", rather than "these people are your enemies, KILL KILL DIE KILL!". It casts other players in a different light, and the game plays differently because of it.

My point is that this reviewer has missed the forest for the trees, and he can stop trying to pose as a person who is "In the know about dem games", because he's not. One more thing: Halo 4 is coming in November, and is notorious for such because it's coming on election day. His lack of knowledge about this disappoints me. If he's to continue writing about games I'd suggest he broaden his knowledge base and horizons. His current knowledge base is insufficient to continue doing so.

 

[jamesbrown]

That may be the case; but he shouldn't, or at least he could have tried to make an effort to become familiar with an medium he was critquing. He is putting his name on it, thus by extension his reputation and WSJ was too by publishing it. When you make an piece of work (especially in the WSJ) it should reflect the best you can give, which means; do research, not glazing wikipedia articles, become familiar with what it is; Borderlands is more along the vien of Fallout and (even) Mass Effect; and most importantly, be familiar with your audience; if I write an article on music; music-buff's will find it, no matter where it is; if you write something about games, realize it will be Gamer's who will be more interested in your article than your regular audience. This is more about being professional for an Journal; not some small gaming website by a few high school students where this "pure" opinion would be more suited.

I'd say you're onto something, but surely it is everyone's rights to talk about whatever they wish - regradless of how much expertise they have in it. The articles audience was aimed at middle aged blokes who read the WSJ who were thinking of buying the game.

The audience was never us younger and volatile gamers. Those gamers merely stumbled upon it and then blew things way out of proportion in their umbrage.

I'll grant you the review was a lazy one, but what would one expect of someone whose field of expertise is in stocks, shares, figures and global economies?

But for gamers to arbitarily say that he has no business reviewing or speaking about games is an arrogant, judgemental and disrespectful to the reviewer's freedom of expression. (Or his pursuit of happiness if you're American.)

It's like saying that the George Foreman grill is crappy because it's inventor was better at boxing than at inventing.

Either way, the whole thing has been blown out of proportion and has made us gamers look like a bunch of closed minded, exclusionary hot-heads. I guess the whole thing really could have been handled much better with a good dose of maturity.

Yeah, I tried not to blow it out of perportion; just point out what seemed was an logical course of action
Also, I didn't mean to say that you shouldn't go and do other things; just make sure your equipped with the skills to do it, like george foreman could be both an inventor and an boxer; the two skill sets have nothing to do with each other, therefore don't effect each other; but he probably took some classes in how to work metal and how heat works before building a grill. Just be equipped to do what you are doing. But yes, this is a non-issue.

 

[Gunner 51]

Yeah, I tried not to blow it out of perportion; just point out what seemed was an logical course of action
Also, I didn't mean to say that you shouldn't go and do other things; just make sure your equipped with the skills to do it, like george foreman could be both an inventor and an boxer; the two skill sets have nothing to do with each other, therefore don't effect each other; but he probably took some classes in how to work metal and how heat works before building a grill. Just be equipped to do what you are doing. But yes, this is a non-issue.

Fair enough, no biggie.
But you do realise you have now made me really hungry for some Hash Browns a'la George? (I knew I should have had breakfast this morning.)