I don't know who missed the point more: you or the reviewer. It's blatantly obvious that the man has no business reviewing games at all. The review is garbage. The "not manga-like enough to be super-hip" line ALONE makes that abundantly and hilariously clear. Instead of quoting me and getting into a needlessly long conversation, just read through the thread or the 1500+ comments in the article to find someone who's already said what I'm inevitably going to tell you.Faladorian said:
Worst review I have seen in a long time (borderlands 2)
- Thread starter GAunderrated
- Start date
Well yeah, his vocabulary is a clusterfuck. What I assume he's trying to say is that if you're going to make graphics like that it should be like No More Heroes or something.axlryder said:
I'm not saying it's well-written. It's not. I'm saying the reason it's the world review ever probably has a lot to do with how much he agrees with it.
That's "worst" review ever, and this is legitimately one of the worst professional reviews I, and I'm sure many others, have seen. While the man isn't busy humping the legs of other franchises, he's spouting ignorant statements about aesthetics and DLC. He's faulting the game for not being something it's NOT EVEN TRYING TO BE. "this game lacks puzzle elements, I really like puzzle games, 2/5". Sorry bro, the review is genuinely just godawful.Faladorian said:
It's almost 3am, cut me some slack on the typing.axlryder said:
Coincidentally, this isn't the hour where I'm willing to argue about Borderlands for very long. So, I'm done. Declare victory if you wish.
Who gets their game reviews from the Wall Street Journal anyway?
But on a lot of points I do agree with that terrible review. No, BL is not trying to be CoD... but it is fair to compare a fps to another fps. And BL's shallow "rpg elements" isn't really much different than CoD's online rewards system. In both you get better guns the longer you play, and can unlock special abilities as well. BL (and its sequel) don't really allow for character customization that marks anything with "actual" rpg elements (otherwise I could make the soldier a sniper specialist... or the girl the tank.) It's just 4 pre-made characters and selectable skin changes. So at its core, its style is very similar to CoD just a little more customization.
What's different is the game focus, and that's what this guy missed. BL is arranged more like a traditional MMORPG (say WoW or EQ) in its fetch quests and "go here and kill x or x number of x" quests. Oh and the loot, very Diablo-esque finding slightly better equipment along the way (or at least in the first game until 1/2 way thru when you acquire guns that will serve you all the way until 1/2 way into the second playthru.) So basically, he just made the wrong game comparisons... Actually he missed those by a mile.
So far playing Borderlands 2... it's better than BL. Visually (so far anyway) it has separated itself from its predecessor by avoiding the "dirt brown, gun metal grey" visual color scheme which marred BL (which was not a "brownshooter" but WAS a cell-shaded "gritty brownshooter.") BL 2 varies the visual design nicely. It has more types of common mob, so we're not just shooting the same 4 guys over and over and over and over. And the GUI is like... a thousand times better. Visually I couldn't care less if the GUI looks better (I would not argue the comparison one way or another) but it is TONS better in terms of functionality. My sight-impaired friends don't have to press their glasses TO the screen to see if their new gun has 10 more or less "***" than their current one.
What's worse... so far the detail level seems worse than it was in BL 1. Maybe we will get a free "high rez texture pack" like Skyrim did, but right now it seems less sharp than the original. It seems to be lacking (by comparison) in rendering depth as well... but those things don't really bother me much. So I think BL 2 is (so far anyway) an improvement.
But its best feature, like so many of the things that BL 2 did not change since BL 1... split-screen multiplayer. Most devs avoid it like it has the plague, or only provide it for cut-down "arena" modes. But it remains in BL, And it continues to separate it from its FPS peers. And remains the only reason I even care about the series at all.
But on a lot of points I do agree with that terrible review. No, BL is not trying to be CoD... but it is fair to compare a fps to another fps. And BL's shallow "rpg elements" isn't really much different than CoD's online rewards system. In both you get better guns the longer you play, and can unlock special abilities as well. BL (and its sequel) don't really allow for character customization that marks anything with "actual" rpg elements (otherwise I could make the soldier a sniper specialist... or the girl the tank.) It's just 4 pre-made characters and selectable skin changes. So at its core, its style is very similar to CoD just a little more customization.
What's different is the game focus, and that's what this guy missed. BL is arranged more like a traditional MMORPG (say WoW or EQ) in its fetch quests and "go here and kill x or x number of x" quests. Oh and the loot, very Diablo-esque finding slightly better equipment along the way (or at least in the first game until 1/2 way thru when you acquire guns that will serve you all the way until 1/2 way into the second playthru.) So basically, he just made the wrong game comparisons... Actually he missed those by a mile.
So far playing Borderlands 2... it's better than BL. Visually (so far anyway) it has separated itself from its predecessor by avoiding the "dirt brown, gun metal grey" visual color scheme which marred BL (which was not a "brownshooter" but WAS a cell-shaded "gritty brownshooter.") BL 2 varies the visual design nicely. It has more types of common mob, so we're not just shooting the same 4 guys over and over and over and over. And the GUI is like... a thousand times better. Visually I couldn't care less if the GUI looks better (I would not argue the comparison one way or another) but it is TONS better in terms of functionality. My sight-impaired friends don't have to press their glasses TO the screen to see if their new gun has 10 more or less "***" than their current one.
What's worse... so far the detail level seems worse than it was in BL 1. Maybe we will get a free "high rez texture pack" like Skyrim did, but right now it seems less sharp than the original. It seems to be lacking (by comparison) in rendering depth as well... but those things don't really bother me much. So I think BL 2 is (so far anyway) an improvement.
But its best feature, like so many of the things that BL 2 did not change since BL 1... split-screen multiplayer. Most devs avoid it like it has the plague, or only provide it for cut-down "arena" modes. But it remains in BL, And it continues to separate it from its FPS peers. And remains the only reason I even care about the series at all.
I can't speak for everyone else but the the reason I thought the guy had no grounds to pass judgement on BLT is rather simple.
His main pillar upon which his whole attitude is based around is that for $60 we all should expect to get at least as much X as you get in Y. Y being Halo or COD because they are the Acme of the industry of course.
Does he take this same stance with regards to movies? I guess because the ticket price is the same, the only movies worth seeing are Titanic and Transformers or whatever hugely successful film you think works for the point that he thinks should be made. To him, ANYTHING that isn't AAA++ with 99% focus on team deathmatch with cool airstrikes and pseudo intellectual plot should only charge half price because its not what he likes or is popular with his 14yo kid.
I may have a bias for BLT, and hugely against Halo and COD etc., because I prefer shooting interesting npcs (humanoid or otherwise) with outlandish weaponry as opposed to pwning the same douchebags in every successive iteration of "couch soldier of fortune" that comes along.
The thing is, I'm not the only one that has this preference. People that like Borderlands aren't some fringe minority. It isn't developed on an indie budget. Its just as deserving of a SERIOUS critique as any other game in its or any other genre. Copping out and stating that it was fun, but not enough to warrant its price point is just fail reviewing.
Did your readers need to know that you consulted Wikipedia to learn the backstory? I think that you felt the desire to do so AT ALL says that you had an interest in the plot.
That he lampooned the multiplayer is pretty funny. What do you typically do in a COD multiplayer? Squad up and shoot people in a confined map, where only a handful of variables present themselves via each person's loadout and gear etc. Even then its not much of a change player to player and you have maybe at most 2 dozen maps, most of which you need to pay for as they choose to nickle and dime you for them. Typically they will just reuse old maps from earlier games in the series and call them legacy maps or whatever and still charge you.
Now, what do you do in Borderlands MP? You squad up and shoot things. Only you are shooting more than just nazis and zombie nazis and other players. You have access to more than 10 guns, and you have 5 different classes, possibly more. You have access to the entire world map, you have vehicles, you have practically unlimited numbers of guns/shields/grenades and class mods/relics/unlockable custom heads/skins/paint jobs etc.
You also get a game with a fucking personality, that on occasion is actually funny and has a plot that can't be summed up with "shoot those guys, then those guys, these guys betrayed you shoot them, everyone dies, no they didn't so shoot them. the end"
I'm not saying its a masterpiece, but its not a fucking Nascar game, "a fun diversion" like said asshat would prefer it to be judged as.
All games are by definition fun diversions.
Also, who in the fuck takes anything that someone writes for a NEWSPAPER seriously these days? Especially one with a track record of making up whatever the hell they feel like and calling it fact? Its about as silly as relying on a professional review of any media. As soon as money changes hands, its no longer an impartial review. There is always a narrative and an agenda, and if they divert too far from it they will no longer have said job.
Its why you typically see 7-8/10 for 99% of all reviews, or 3/5 in the case of G4.
His main pillar upon which his whole attitude is based around is that for $60 we all should expect to get at least as much X as you get in Y. Y being Halo or COD because they are the Acme of the industry of course.
Does he take this same stance with regards to movies? I guess because the ticket price is the same, the only movies worth seeing are Titanic and Transformers or whatever hugely successful film you think works for the point that he thinks should be made. To him, ANYTHING that isn't AAA++ with 99% focus on team deathmatch with cool airstrikes and pseudo intellectual plot should only charge half price because its not what he likes or is popular with his 14yo kid.
I may have a bias for BLT, and hugely against Halo and COD etc., because I prefer shooting interesting npcs (humanoid or otherwise) with outlandish weaponry as opposed to pwning the same douchebags in every successive iteration of "couch soldier of fortune" that comes along.
The thing is, I'm not the only one that has this preference. People that like Borderlands aren't some fringe minority. It isn't developed on an indie budget. Its just as deserving of a SERIOUS critique as any other game in its or any other genre. Copping out and stating that it was fun, but not enough to warrant its price point is just fail reviewing.
Did your readers need to know that you consulted Wikipedia to learn the backstory? I think that you felt the desire to do so AT ALL says that you had an interest in the plot.
That he lampooned the multiplayer is pretty funny. What do you typically do in a COD multiplayer? Squad up and shoot people in a confined map, where only a handful of variables present themselves via each person's loadout and gear etc. Even then its not much of a change player to player and you have maybe at most 2 dozen maps, most of which you need to pay for as they choose to nickle and dime you for them. Typically they will just reuse old maps from earlier games in the series and call them legacy maps or whatever and still charge you.
Now, what do you do in Borderlands MP? You squad up and shoot things. Only you are shooting more than just nazis and zombie nazis and other players. You have access to more than 10 guns, and you have 5 different classes, possibly more. You have access to the entire world map, you have vehicles, you have practically unlimited numbers of guns/shields/grenades and class mods/relics/unlockable custom heads/skins/paint jobs etc.
You also get a game with a fucking personality, that on occasion is actually funny and has a plot that can't be summed up with "shoot those guys, then those guys, these guys betrayed you shoot them, everyone dies, no they didn't so shoot them. the end"
I'm not saying its a masterpiece, but its not a fucking Nascar game, "a fun diversion" like said asshat would prefer it to be judged as.
All games are by definition fun diversions.
Also, who in the fuck takes anything that someone writes for a NEWSPAPER seriously these days? Especially one with a track record of making up whatever the hell they feel like and calling it fact? Its about as silly as relying on a professional review of any media. As soon as money changes hands, its no longer an impartial review. There is always a narrative and an agenda, and if they divert too far from it they will no longer have said job.
Its why you typically see 7-8/10 for 99% of all reviews, or 3/5 in the case of G4.
space Western FPS
hmm, I suppose it kinda is....also does sound like a very cool tagline to call it too.
Other then that, yeah, he has no business reviewing the game. Even ignoring the raging hard-on for COD, the perpetual complaints about aspects of the game people enjoy about the game (the loot system, the variety, the co-op instead of online deathmatches) shows he missed the point of the game. Badly. If I criticized a car for its inability to meet my underwater needs, I think I would be deserving of a bit of verbal nose-rubbed-in-the-piss time.
It seems his experience with games is very very narrow and selective. While some would argue that shouldn't limit him, it is like watching someone who has only seen horror movies suddenly trying to review a family comedy. It is not just useless to people who might be buying the game (so, as a review of critique, it is useless) but devoid an understanding of even the intent of the game and what it sought to do, instead spending much of the time say "it isn't COD".
He is entitled to his opinion, but he is really out of his depth here. Still, it is quite hilarious a read. Loved the "super-hip" bit too. Must be trying to talk about what the kids are into these days...
hmm, I suppose it kinda is....also does sound like a very cool tagline to call it too.
Other then that, yeah, he has no business reviewing the game. Even ignoring the raging hard-on for COD, the perpetual complaints about aspects of the game people enjoy about the game (the loot system, the variety, the co-op instead of online deathmatches) shows he missed the point of the game. Badly. If I criticized a car for its inability to meet my underwater needs, I think I would be deserving of a bit of verbal nose-rubbed-in-the-piss time.
It seems his experience with games is very very narrow and selective. While some would argue that shouldn't limit him, it is like watching someone who has only seen horror movies suddenly trying to review a family comedy. It is not just useless to people who might be buying the game (so, as a review of critique, it is useless) but devoid an understanding of even the intent of the game and what it sought to do, instead spending much of the time say "it isn't COD".
He is entitled to his opinion, but he is really out of his depth here. Still, it is quite hilarious a read. Loved the "super-hip" bit too. Must be trying to talk about what the kids are into these days...
Your wish has come trueAndrewtheeviscerator said:
/sarcasm
Here is a video the reviewer posted on youtube.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3ENYyl6Tuyo
Below it are comments from gamers.
LOL LOOK AT THIS FUCKING BEVERLY HILL'S DADDY LOOKING DOUCHEBAG!!!! I'll be he hasn't touched a fucking video game since the 70's and just asked his 12 year old what he should write in his borderlands "review"
xxbrkdwnxx 4 minutes ago
I hope you and your son die in a fire. You worthless game reviewer.
Raider Joe 7 minutes ago
Fucking ass-hat.
KingKems 8 minutes ago
So I was on reddit today saw an article about borderlands 2 and how it sucked compared to cod and halo. So I read it. I laughed. Than I read the comments on the article and how I should come to this video. So I did.
And this guy is a douche
jbobom 9 minutes ago
xxbrkdwnxx 4 minutes ago
I hope you and your son die in a fire. You worthless game reviewer.
Raider Joe 7 minutes ago
Fucking ass-hat.
KingKems 8 minutes ago
So I was on reddit today saw an article about borderlands 2 and how it sucked compared to cod and halo. So I read it. I laughed. Than I read the comments on the article and how I should come to this video. So I did.
And this guy is a douche
jbobom 9 minutes ago
I haven't played Borderlands 2. I played 1, enjoyed it till I was bored. May play Borderlands 2 if I can ever bring myself to beat 1.Faladorian said:
Most of this review is a fair review, albeit one against what most players think the game deserves. And that's fine. It's ok to have negatives reviews.
But here's what bugs me. He states that Borderlands 2 biggest shortcoming is the lack of 16 player multiplayer to attract the Call of Duty Crowd. I'm not certain when online multiplayer became the sole focus of an fps.
He also states that the game lacks a rich social/media community. Once again, why is this such a big issue? I don't think there's a single fps on the market with a "rich" social/media community.
Furthermore, he states that the game lacks the DLC to get players coming back. Which is false. The game does have DLC in the works, as anyone with 3 minutes and Google can find out. Even looking at Borderlands 1 can show several DLC adventures (how good or bad they were, I have no idea).
And finally, as you brought up, the constant comparisons/references to Call of Duty and Halo. All that does is make this entire article scream, "This game is not CoD or Halo, therefore it is bad." That'd be the same as writing a review for a new RPG, only saying regularly that it lacks Skyrim's features. Is it true? Yes, it is. Is it objective or even a useful review? Not really.
A review is a reviewer's opinion. But he's writing for Wall Street. He could do a little bit better than just using this review to advertise CoD and Halo.
I will say though that while it is a badly written review, it certainly is not the worst ever.
Well what do you expect from a review written by someone who knows nothing about games and targeted at an audience who know just as little. It's just words to fill the entertainment supliment that you pull out an read on the shitter. I mean, this review was made for wiping your arse with when you run out of bog-roll.
This reviewer clearly doesn't play many video games, so why do we care what his opinion is? Sure he should have a different job, but no gamer in their right mind is going to listen to him, because a real gamer knows that you cannot compare a Shooter/RPG to a straight up FPS.
My god, this guy is an idiot. He seems to be in Activisions's pocket too.
He's getting paid for this, that makes me want to cry.
He's getting paid for this, that makes me want to cry.
Meh, he's not the first reviewer I've ever seen in print to do this badly. The sad truth is some quality publications really don't care who get's assigned to the video games section, I've always suspected that younger journos get thrown at it to pay their dues in the entertainments department before they move on to what they actually want to be covering (film/tv/music/literature) so we get these results.Moonlight Butterfly said:
If he needs to name check this many other sites he's obviously not got his finger on the pulse of the gaming scene, regardless of his opinions on the FPS genre. That said, nobody let this guy play Fallout 3, if he thinks Skyrim is lonely wait until he gets into the Capital Wasteland!
It's sad but in reality he hasn't done much harm, possibly cost Gearbox a few hundred sales from his readers who would have bought it if he was a bit more "with it" but he's perfectly entitled to his opinions and frankly there's plenty of excellent journalists elsewhere to balance him out...
No interest in Borderlands 2(didn't like the first), but that was absolutely the most retarded review I've ever read. Not just the content but the format and grammar is atrocious. How can a writer for the Wall Street Journal not construct a proper paragraph?
