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

[Amaror]

Oh god, honestly i feel a bit bad for this guy.
Sure he had no idea what he's talking about, but the amount of shit he's getting is too much.
According to an Apology comment of him, which he reposts again and again, people even call his work.
He is incredible stupid, however.
At the very end of this Apology - comment, he again compared Borderlands to COD and Halo, which makes people even more mad.
Seriously how stupid can one person be?

 

[Faladorian]

I couldn't have put this better myself.
I never liked Borderlands either, it was a lifeless and depressing slog in my opinion. It shares the title "Nadir of FPSes" alongside Bulletstorm AFAIC.

Besides, laughing at the Wall Street Journal's review of Borderlands 2 is rather unkind - it's a publication for investment bankers and the like. If they want to review the game and have an opinion on it - that's fabulous. It means that gaming is becoming accepted by stuffiest of suits.

But laughing in their faces for simply not enjoying what Borderlands fans like is immature and not certainly not a good reflection of gamers to the wider world.

OK, the reviewer may not come off as knowledgeble on games as someone like Yahtzee or even Charlie Brooker - but I'll give him his props that he not only spends time with his son by playing video games with him - which marks him as a good, responsible parent in my eyes. But he also comes across as more mature and personable than someone like Jim Sterling.

If anything - he was honest and exposed the games flaws as he found them. Now that I think of it, just imagine the review he would make of Dragon Age 2.

Agreed. There are far worse things out there than somebody not enjoying your favorite game, reasons aside.

 

[Connor2224]

in the hereby immortalized words of sir hammerlock
"my brain cells are committing suicide"

 

[Nieroshai]

Basically "It's not multiplayer like COD so it sucks! But the first one was good, but I DON'T REMEMBER IT so I have to look up a wiki!" Honestly, even the first Borderlands was better than COD, and #2 is even better than that. I don't miss team deathmatch, in fact I'm tired of it.

 

[aguspal]

IMO:

Borderlands 1, 2 and COD (That has nothing to do with them at all) are all awesome games and I love them all. But they are different. Like, WAY different.

Halo idk, Never played it.

 

[For.I.Am.Mad]

I don't get it, why is this review horrible. Because he didn't like it?

 

[For.I.Am.Mad]

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

 

[Dfskelleton]

Oh God, as soon as the comparisons to Halo and CoD came up, my mind auto-composed a really funny song that sounds like it belongs in the Neverhood that played in my head as I continued to read.
I don't even care for Borderlands (I played it a little when it was free that one weekend on Steam, and it wasn't bad), but this is just... this is gold.

 

[Mel Theofficegamergirl]

I couldn't get past the "Halos" and "Calls of duties". *giggles* Seriously who writes like that?

 

[Westaway]

"Borderlands 2's single-player campaign mode isn't as good as what you'll find in games like COD: Black Ops or the Medal of Honor series"

Stopped reading
Reported
Sage
Threw monitor out of window
Set tower on fire
Alerted the authorities
Sent letter to local PM

 

[Simonoly]

Pffft I've read worse reviews on Kotaku.

But yes this review is wonderfully missing the point of what Borderlands 2 is and what it's trying to do.

 

[Gunner 51]

Agreed. There are far worse things out there than somebody not enjoying your favorite game, reasons aside.

*snip*

I think you're misunderstanding what people are finding funny about it. It's not his opinion that's funny, it's the reasons he gave.

To put it succinctly, he seems to have misunderstood what the game was. The fact that he repeatedly compared it to COD and Halo indicates that those titles are the benchmarks he's holding the game up to. The problem with that is they are totally different genres. They may have similar mechanics, but they are not in the same genre.

COD and Halo are action focused FPSes. That's what they do. Thus, they are, by nature going to be more immediately engrossing than Borderlands, because that isn't what it's trying to do. Likewise with multiplayer. COD and Halo are focused on competitive multiplayer. Thus, they have more diverse multiplayer modes. Borderlands is only focused on co-op multiplayer so it doesn't stand up as a competitive multiplayer title.

He compared Borderlands 2 to COD and Halo on their terms, which, of course lead to Borderlands looking bad, because it's not trying to do the same things as they are.

I actually like COD and Halo (I don't like their communities, but the games themselves are good), and found Borderlands a bit dull (I can only have fun playing as Lilith). But this review was WAY off.

A guy in my office put it best, imo. His review was like going into Taco Bell and calling it the worst burger joint ever.

@Krantos: I?d have to beg to differ on there are several genres of FPS. A first person shooter is a first person shooter to me. Just because Borderlands maybe set in a dreary wasteland doesn?t make it any more or less an FPS than the futuristic looking Halo, or gritty setting Modern Warfare. Whether it is an action packed FPS or not, it?s still an FPS. The reviewer was simply using his own experience and trying to compare it to that.
I totally have to grant you that as a competitive multiplayer title, Borderlands 2 simply doesn?t stand up to the fast and fluid pacing of a Call of Duty game. In addition, it?s community will beat the CoD community hands down in terms of friendliness, IMO.
But let?s not rip into the reviewer too much, his review might highlight his own inexperience with games. It?s like laughing at the elderly when they fall off a skateboard in an attempt to keep up with the younger generation ? it?s a bit cruel.

@Faladorian: Thanks, I try to see both sides of the coin. It's just not worth getting one's wig off because they disgree with a small issue. Live and let live, I say.

 

[KoudelkaMorgan]

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.

If I saw someone that did that with a completely serious, and completely official review of a car I would probably die laughing.

"Sure the new Toyota Orpheus has all wheel drive, but can I use it to salvage sunken ships? No! Room for 5? Where is the rest of my crew going to sit? In the trunk? Best in class safety? Hardly! The headlights would barely illuminate an iceberg at 900 yards, and the heated seats wouldn't protect you from hypothermia around the Antarctic. 1 out of 5 stars!"

 

[Bostur]

I also cry a little when reviewers compare a Total War game to Civilization. But hey it's a niche subject and the review probably works for a broad audience.

Thats why we have media that specialize and media that are more general. "Wall Street Journal" is not a game magazine so it should have a different angle than something called "Lootwhores weekly".

 

[Bloodstain]

I....I just...what?
"It's not like COD because it doesn't have the online multiplayer so it must suck in comparison." What.
"The game isn't manga-like enough to be super-hip"....What.
"I played an 18+ rated game with my 14-year old son"....wha-...okay, actually, I don't really care about that.

Still, my general reaction is: What.
So, the game is bad because it's different from another game although Borderlands 2 doesn't even try to be anything like COD? According to the author, all FPS games must be like COD or suck otherwise. Jesus.

Captcha: kitten mittens
Indeed.

 

[Krantos]

[I?d have to beg to differ on there are several genres of FPS. A first person shooter is a first person shooter to me. Just because Borderlands maybe set in a dreary wasteland doesn?t make it any more or less an FPS than the futuristic looking Halo, or gritty setting Modern Warfare. Whether it is an action packed FPS or not, it?s still an FPS.

I guess that's where the disagreement lies (lays?). It's less a matter of having different settings, and more about having different mechanics.

Borderland and CoD both use guns from a first person perspective, but, mechanically, that's where the similarity ends. Between the skills, loot, regions, and quest systems, borderlands sets itself apart from CoD which doesn't have any of those systems. What it does have is more focused action and narrative elements (as well as, imo, tighter controls and smarter AI) and, as stated previously, a deeper Multiplayer component.

I think a similar comparison could be made to Mass Effect and Gears of War. Both contain shooting enemies from a third-person perspective and chest high walls, but to claim they are trying to engage the player in the same way, I think, is a disservice to them both.

 

[repeating integers]

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.

So why don't you like Halo again?

OT: I do love that he apparently couldn't go a paragraph without beginning to fantasize about Black Ops 2.

Really, their problem was that they put an FPS reviewer in front of a shooter-RPG and told him "This is an FPS. Review it like one."

You need the right reviewers for the right jobs. This guy wasn't.