View Full Version : Borderlands
So this is a game I've been hearing a lot about, but have no clue what it actually is. Anyone care to enlighten me?
LeftEyeNine
10-19-2009, 13:55
From what I've seen in the trailers and around, it's basically a Bioshock in post-apocalyptic setting with co-operative multiplayer taste of Left 4 Dead so as to ensure the sustainability of the lifetime of itself.
It for sure copies a lot however is one that I eagerly await to see.
Crandaeolon
10-19-2009, 14:59
I've been keeping an eye out for this one as well, AFAIK it's a co-op FPS with Diablo-esque elements (Stats & skilltrees, item collection.) set in a post-apocalyptic setting.
Meneldil
10-19-2009, 15:12
Looks like fun, even though I doubt it's anything like Bioshock given the available screens and informations. More like a mix of Fallout and L4D
Unless it gets horrid reviews, I'll probably pick it up for the co-op aspect. My wife and I like playing co-op shooters with each other, but those are few and far between on the PC.
LeftEyeNine
10-19-2009, 17:29
Looks like fun, even though I doubt it's anything like Bioshock given the available screens and informations. More like a mix of Fallout and L4D
Said Bioshock because game has basic RPG elements thrown in as well, being a shooter in the first place.
So does it require a monthly subscription?
Alexander the Pretty Good
10-19-2009, 21:05
So does it require a monthly subscription?
As far as I can tell, no.
Imagine Left for Dead means Fallout World with Bioshock elements with Team Fortress 2 graphics.
Did I miss anything out?
Alexander the Pretty Good
10-19-2009, 21:29
I still don't see where the Bioshock aspect comes in. Just because both have (not closely related) trait systems doesn't mean you can just group them together. Same with L4D - just because games have co-op doesn't mean they're the same genre or anything alike...
Personally, I'd probably call it first-person Diablo with co-op set in a Mad Max post-apocalyptic future. The Diablo bit covers the leveling and loot-getting.
LeftEyeNine
10-20-2009, 10:54
Ok then let's have the most intellectual discussion on earth about who is the ultimate genre guru and win prizes.
To me, you can never and ever design a FPS which can belong to RPG genre, 'cause the primal need for action will always pop out as a stumbling block for the feel of naturality need that RPGs are famous for. It can't be some role-playing where you have to kill swarms of enemies in order to proceed to your goal.
So, so as to benefit from the RPG-loving creme population, you throw in a retarded skill system where you can shoot faster, damage more or block better etc. (amaaaaaazing) and there you have something you can market as a RPG-based FPS.
Fallout 3 or Bioshock were of the same kind, all at various distances to each other (naturally), yet still within the borders of the same circle.
Apparently, I can group them all and you don't. What's it then ?
To me, you can never and ever design a FPS which can belong to RPG genre, 'cause the primal need for action will always pop out as a stumbling block for the feel of naturality need that RPGs are famous for. It can't be some role-playing where you have to kill swarms of enemies in order to proceed to your goal.
There's a middle-ground genre called Action RPGs. Those are RPGs that have most of the story stripped out of them and are instead mainly combat inside a RPG structure. Examples include Ultima Underworld and the Icewind Dale games. I wouldn't say that Borderlands is an Action RPG, but that middle ground does exist; it doesn't have to be all one thing or all the other.
Furunculus
10-20-2009, 12:48
Imagine Left for Dead meets Fallout World with Bioshock elements with Team Fortress 2 graphics.
Did I miss anything out?
no, that about covers it.
LeftEyeNine
10-20-2009, 13:59
There's a middle-ground genre called Action RPGs. Those are RPGs that have most of the story stripped out of them and are instead mainly combat inside a RPG structure. Examples include Ultima Underworld and the Icewind Dale games. I wouldn't say that Borderlands is an Action RPG, but that middle ground does exist; it doesn't have to be all one thing or all the other.
Hack'n Slash and/or action oriented RPGs, which you say is Action RPG, are sub-genred of RPG games.
Fallout 3, Bioshock, Borderlands or whatever. They are mainly shooters and I don't see the benefit in trying to distinguish at what distance Bioshock and F3 stand against each other.
Hack'n Slash and/or action oriented RPGs, which you say is Action RPG, are sub-genred of RPG games.
Fallout 3, Bioshock, Borderlands or whatever. They are mainly shooters and I don't see the benefit in trying to distinguish at what distance Bioshock and F3 stand against each other.
Hmmm... I'm as critical as anyone about Fallout 3, but I'm really not in agreement that it's the same as Bioshock. Fallout 3 may be a bit thin on the storyline, but it's got far, far more story and choices to be made than Bioshock. I equate Bioshock with something like STALKER: pure shooter with some character customization aspects. There really isn't anything significant to make a choice about in Bioshock except for the good/evil choice on ADAM and other than the final cutscene, that's essentially a character customization choice. In contrast, there are certainly many choices to be made in Fallout 3, even if they are often shallow choices.
LeftEyeNine
10-20-2009, 15:49
Hint: Hey, I'm a die-hard Fallout fan. It should have connections to where I'm placing F3 near Bioshock with a frown on my face right away. :smash:
al Roumi
10-20-2009, 16:10
Hmmm... I'm as critical as anyone about Fallout 3, but I'm really not in agreement that it's the same as Bioshock. Fallout 3 may be a bit thin on the storyline, but it's got far, far more story and choices to be made than Bioshock. I equate Bioshock with something like STALKER: pure shooter with some character customization aspects. There really isn't anything significant to make a choice about in Bioshock except for the good/evil choice on ADAM and other than the final cutscene, that's essentially a character customization choice. In contrast, there are certainly many choices to be made in Fallout 3, even if they are often shallow choices.
Farcry 2 is another interesting hybrid. It had too much story for an FPS (IMO)! For the sake of immersion I had to spend the whole time driving, walking, "sailing" around to my next objective. Some clutz in the Crytek design team thought FPS players would want the sometimes boring journeys interspersed with action and inserted enemy patrols which, for me, made the travel even more of a chore.
What does irritate me about Fallout 3 -compared to more RPG type games (e.g. Baldurs gate 1&2)- is that even though you can use your character's skills and choices to avoid certain tasks, you don't always get as much xp for doing so. Maybe it's me and my latent completionist desires but this makes me go for the whole slog-a-thon of exterminating every enemy, hacking every computer and ferrying every nick-nack of loot back to base.
Mass effect was good IMO, it had a genuinely balanced and thorough set of options based around the story (ok, only 2 real options Paragon/Renegade).
I never played Fallout 1 or 2, but I did play Fallout tactics -alot. Fallout 3 doesn't seem too far from that game (in spirit) to me.
Sorry, do realise this has kind of gate-crashed your deep discussion with some semi-relevant ramblings...
To me, you can never and ever design a FPS which can belong to RPG genre, 'cause the primal need for action will always pop out as a stumbling block for the feel of naturality need that RPGs are famous for. It can't be some role-playing where you have to kill swarms of enemies in order to proceed to your goal.
The number of action RPGs where you have to kill swarms of enemies is depressingly high. Stalker is a good FPS that manages to create a wonderful "feel of naturality". System Shock 2 and Deus Ex are FPS type hybrids that also manage similar degree immersion, with the addition of fine story telling. All three differ from standard FPS in toning down the swarms of enemies and sometimes giving you alternatives to fighting them (esp. Deus Ex).
Vampire Bloodlines is an interesting RPG that, in its last act, starts to fall foul of the enemy swarms and turn into an FPS at the end. But the first half to three-quarters of the game make it one of the best RPGs ever, IMO. For that matter, I am not sure how we define an RPG. In computer games, it seems to be about levels, loot and stats - which seems rather beside the point to me. The essence to me is playing a role and some games - like SS2, Deus Ex and to some extent Stalker - make you really feel you are playing a role, immersing yourself in the experience. I guess a be
I never played Fallout 1 or 2, but I did play Fallout tactics -alot. Fallout 3 doesn't seem too far from that game (in spirit) to me.
I'd strongly recommend FO1 and FO2 (play them in order). They don't feel that much older that Fallout tactics, but are much better IMO. Admittedly, they are a different genre - FOT is a squad based tactics game; FO1 and FO2 are role-playing games, but among the best ever made. FO3 has a lot of the feel of the older Fallout games in terms of exploring and surviving in a hostile world. But I found the story and quests just fell far short by comparison. I have the same issue with Morrowind and Oblivion. Bethesda makes amazing game worlds, fine character building systems and solid combat, but lousy stories, dialogue, characters and quests.
Alexander the Pretty Good
10-20-2009, 17:34
The folks over at RPS have written a lengthy verdict on Borderlands (http://www.rockpapershotgun.com/2009/10/20/the-rps-verdict-borderlands/). Caution: contains some (fairly tame) swearing.
They rather liked it, though (and it's the nature of honest games reviewing, maybe) they spend a more time on the games flaws than it's successes.
Ars Technica (http://arstechnica.com/gaming/reviews/2009/10/were-going-to-need-guns-ars-reviews-borderlands.ars) has a review up. Short, readable, and generally positive. Most intriguing line:
This is a game with midgets that fire shotguns that knock them on their butts as well as masked madmen who attack you with axes by rushing towards you screaming while on fire.
Meneldil
10-23-2009, 20:03
I don't think there's any RPG element to Bioshock.
The whole good/evil choice is pretty lame (though overall the story and background kick ***), and there's no character customization. Upgrading your guns, improving spells and getting more total health don't turn a FPS into a RPG.
Fallout 3 does have many RPG elements, Bioshock doesn't.
The only reason why Borderlands might be described as similar to Bioshock is for the distopian world, not for the gameplay mechanics IMO.
Overall, the game looks interesting. I might give it a try.
LeftEyeNine
10-23-2009, 20:53
I don't think there's any RPG element to Bioshock.
Yeah yeah, that's absolutely what I have a problem with. This is what is claimed.
Neither F3 nor Bioshock can ever qualify to be an RPG.
Neither F3 nor Bioshock can ever qualify to be an RPG.
I'm not over-fond of Fallout 3, but it's unfair to deny that it's an RPG. Stats and levels? Check. Branching dialogue? Check. Quests? Check.
It may not be a very good RPG, but its heart throbs with D20 dice.
The only reason why Borderlands might be described as similar to Bioshock is for the distopian world, not for the gameplay mechanics IMO.
There is some spells your character can use, in Borderlands. Might be a reference to that.
LeftEyeNine
10-24-2009, 00:34
I'm not over-fond of Fallout 3, but it's unfair to deny that it's an RPG. Stats and levels? Check. Branching dialogue? Check. Quests? Check.
It may not be a very good RPG, but its heart throbs with D20 dice.
Fallout 3 was Fallout 1, it would be a RPG.
Fallout 3 is the so called sequel to the former two, hence not a RPG.
Alexander the Pretty Good
10-24-2009, 05:31
I'm not over-fond of Fallout 3, but it's unfair to deny that it's an RPG. Stats and levels? Check. Branching dialogue? Check. Quests? Check.
It may not be a very good RPG, but its heart throbs with D20 dice.
It's also got a bloody silly combat system, does that count? :clown:
Fallout 3 was Fallout 1, it would be a RPG.
Fallout 3 is the so called sequel to the former two, hence not a RPG.
I think i follow your reasoning: If a duck walks, quacks and flies like a duck, it still isn't a duck unless when killed and cooked it tastes the same as every other duck?
Krusader
10-28-2009, 05:16
Been testing this a bit and enjoyed the singleplayer portion and can imagine the Coop being fun. Although two big gripes from me so far.
First, you can't skip movies, which is annoying. Secondly, the menus and parts of interface are too much consolish. But overall, it will be worth my money.
Papewaio
10-28-2009, 07:01
This is a game with midgets that fire shotguns that knock them on their butts as well as masked madmen who attack you with axes by rushing towards you screaming while on fire.
So like happy hour in the backroom?
Been testing this a bit and enjoyed the singleplayer portion and can imagine the Coop being fun. Although two big gripes from me so far.
First, you can't skip movies, which is annoying. Secondly, the menus and parts of interface are too much consolish. But overall, it will be worth my money.
Co-op is much better than singleplayer, as the Hunter and Siren become actually useful. The interface is diabolically irritating. Lazy port.
Kekvit Irae
11-01-2009, 12:59
I have been addicted to this game as of late. It's more of a cross between Hellgate: London and Fallout 3... which isn't always a good thing. For one, the presentation is extremely bland. While it does have beautiful cell-shaded graphics, the only thing you will be seeing for 95% of the game are sand, raiders, and metal sheet siding. Think of Megaton in Fallout 3, but expanded to a huge game world. In fact, until you get to the very final "dungeon", get yourself used to seeing desert, ill-constructed towns, and the same variety of bandit.
But it's not all garbage. As I've said before, I've become extremely addicted to the game. It's Hellgate: London done right. I always get a warm fuzzy feeling inside when I find an incendiary or corrosive sniper rifle I can use.
Borderlands: It's the Mad Max Apocalypse, bring friends.
I just got this game and have hit the two hour mark and I must say I'm thoroughly impressed thus far. Environments are nothing to write home about, you see the first town in the game and it's pretty obvious that you're not getting out of the desert anytime soon. But the stylish presentation sold me without even trying, Cell-Shade is always a plus especially when it's done this nicely.
It feels like someone finally got the FPS-RPG right, combat is fluid and a joy to partake in and the weapons... oh the weapons. Borderlands doesn't take itself too seriously, and when you're fighting enemies named "Bad*** Skag", you know you're in for a fun ride. :laugh4:
The one huge downside is character customization: There isn't any. You can pick your class, name and colors of your clothes but that's pretty much it. Still - this is a great game, i'd highly recommend coop though as I can see Single-player getting dull after a while.
Veho Nex
11-02-2009, 00:56
http://screenshot.xfire.com/screenshot/natural/db276cbdec34cf330a534fe4fd192d3b45922767.png
Edit: Sorry guys. I didn't think about the smaller screen crowd.
Went hunting with ma buddy
Started playing this co-op with my wife yesterday. So far, I have only two things to say about it:
1) Best co-op shooter ever.
2) Most stylish game ever.
Scienter and I have been playing the Mad Moxxi DLC (http://www.gametrailers.com/video/opening-cinematic-borderlands-mad/60261) for the last couple days. If you've got friends to play with, this is an excellent expansion. It is, simply put, VERY HARD. I love challenging games and am turned off by games that are too easy to win, and this is a major challenge. No, you don't get any experience from the kills and the loot is good, but not spectacular, but the arenas themselves are just a lot of fun. I doubt if it would be as much fun solo, but with a partner it's really added another great aspect to the game, IMO.
It can take 90+ minutes to complete a single arena, and you've got to do it all in one sitting, no logging out and coming back later to finish it. Plus, during that entire time at least one person has to be alive at all times. If everyone is down simultaneously, you're done and get kicked back a full round (15-20 minutes of fighting). All enemies spawn at your character's level. There are five waves per round, Starter Wave (general stuff), Gun Wave (all enemies have guns), Horde Wave (tons of melee enemies), Bad:daisy: Wave (Very tough enemies), and Boss Wave (a boss character from the normal game, plus minions). The first two rounds have the enemies spawned with slightly reduced health, damage, etc. The third wave is with them at normal skill. The fourth and fifth waves give them bonuses to health, etc. From round 2 through 4, every wave has a random modifier which makes things even more interesting. Round 5 has two random modifiers. And there are three arenas.
Oh, and that's just the beginner level. I'll tell you what the actual HARD level is like when I get there. It's taking a long time just to finish the starter arenas, lol.
Two thumbs up from me.
Scienter and I have been playing the Mad Moxxi DLC (http://www.gametrailers.com/video/opening-cinematic-borderlands-mad/60261) for the last couple days. If you've got friends to play with, this is an excellent expansion. It is, simply put, VERY HARD. I love challenging games and am turned off by games that are too easy to win, and this is a major challenge. No, you don't get any experience from the kills and the loot is good, but not spectacular, but the arenas themselves are just a lot of fun. I doubt if it would be as much fun solo, but with a partner it's really added another great aspect to the game, IMO.
I found it really boring, very repititive and not really requiring much skill, other than the Vampire bonus round bit. Then again, I did it on my level 50 character, with some one else online, and they all spawned level 50's which you had to go around the map searching for (in circles) just to progress.
Progression was doing the same 5 exact phases 15 times (so the same thing, basically 75 times). There are no loot drops worth a mention, basically just a trashy drop at the end of the round, more fun just to save and keep reloading while you camp a claptrap equipment box and you get far more out of it.
Also, I didn't find it hard at all. Only hard part was when they spawn those Eridian Warriors as they have shields which refuse to go down (I really need to get a good shock weapon), but it wasn't hard in the fun way. It was 'hard' in the sense I can to basically run out of all my ammo just to kill them while standing there, way.
Oh, and that's just the beginner level. I'll tell you what the actual HARD level is like when I get there. It's taking a long time just to finish the starter arenas, lol.
Two thumbs up from me.
There are only 3 arenas. I completed it on a 2nd playthrough as a level 50 with me on Lillith and some random guy who joined in as Mordekai (also level 50). IF you complete all 3 arenas (so 75 matches if you don't fail any), you get a grand prize of +1 skill point. Apparently, if I redo it on playthrough 1, I can do all 75 for another +1 skill point, but it isn't really worth it at all.
Only good things about the DLC is that the DLC is also the game patch, where it fixes a lot of the online issue, multiple quest issues, etc.
Also, I didn't find it hard at all. Only hard part was when they spawn those Eridian Warriors as they have shields which refuse to go down (I really need to get a good shock weapon), but it wasn't hard in the fun way. It was 'hard' in the sense I can to basically run out of all my ammo just to kill them while standing there, way.
:shrug: Scienter and I are both level 46, and there are plenty of times when we're both in serious trouble of going down at the same time. We're having a blast. It's more entertaining than loot farming, IMO, especially if you're already at level 50 and XP is meaningless to you.
There are only 3 arenas. I completed it on a 2nd playthrough as a level 50 with me on Lillith and some random guy who joined in as Mordekai (also level 50). IF you complete all 3 arenas (so 75 matches if you don't fail any), you get a grand prize of +1 skill point. Apparently, if I redo it on playthrough 1, I can do all 75 for another +1 skill point, but it isn't really worth it at all.
We just finished the small tournament (5 rounds of 5 waves each) a little while ago, and unlocked the big tournament. It's on the same maps, but there are 20 round of 5 waves each on all 3 maps, and you eventually get up 4 modifiers per round. I've read that completing a single big tournament map can take up to 6 hours, so it's a major time investment.
:shrug: Scienter and I are both level 46, and there are plenty of times when we're both in serious trouble of going down at the same time. We're having a blast. It's more entertaining than loot farming, IMO, especially if you're already at level 50 and XP is meaningless to you.
Yeah, the XP is meaningless, I got lots of money, I just want some good weapons. My best weapon is still a Dark Orange level 36 I got very lucky with. It just kills everything. But I just find it really silly that the DLC's doesn't give you any good weapons as I am really wanting to upgrade my shotgun. If you like, I could probably join you and Scienter (actually, probably cannot anymore, since I relocated again to an area I have to use a lan... no port forwarding options).
[Edit: The new DLC allows me to play online :D So I can join you two, if you like. Maybe it is just the lack of company]
We just finished the small tournament (5 rounds of 5 waves each) a little while ago, and unlocked the big tournament. It's on the same maps, but there are 20 round of 5 waves each on all 3 maps, and you eventually get up 4 modifiers per round. I've read that completing a single big tournament map can take up to 6 hours, so it's a major time investment.
Unfortunately, that just sounds really tedious. Unless there are some more options other than general/gun round/horde round/bad$$/boss over and over.
Only really redeeming feature if this - Imagine if Moxxie is Frogbeastegg. Then imagine Froggy doing all the commentary, etc. That brought me a smile.
Kekvit Irae
01-15-2010, 14:27
Mad Moxxi gets a HUGE two thumbs down for me for the following reasons: I don't play co-op, so having to go through 25 waves per arena (three arenas for the initial quest, 100 waves for the larger tournament) with no breaks in between, all waves are the same and are never randomized (starter, gun, horde, badass, boss), crap loot every five waves, no exp except for whatever Get X Kills challenges you have yet to complete, and a nice story setup but absolutely NO story progression once you play.
The developers dropped the ball on this one. A total waste of my ten dollars.
vBulletin® v3.7.1, Copyright ©2000-2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.