Borderlands 3
HYPE TRAIN
Reply
Erm, that doesn't sound like it should be a thing. The audio for Claptrap is positional in that he'll sound louder the closer he is to you, but I'm guessing you've already thought of that.
This doesn't sound amazing.

We're not getting it at launch anyway because Epic Store, maybe things will have improved by the time it gets to Steam. (Although it sounds like there are fundamental issues with the game that aren't going to change.)

Doesn't matter anyway since we're playing WoW Classic which is kind of the only game we need really.

https://www.pcgamer.com/borderlands-3-review/

Attachment:
revieweros.JPG
That's why I caved and got it for the Xbox. This mess going on is putting me right off pc gaming.

https://uk.ign.com/articles/2019/09/09/ ... s-3-review

Depends on what you find funny then I guess. I'm all for toilet humour, it still makes me laugh more than anything else.
I’ve been really enjoying Borderlands 2. It’s a lot of fun, seems to balance handing out loot pretty well, allows a wide variety of play styles, and is genuinely funny.

So I am tempted by this, especially if able to arrange a solid co-op playthrough.
Curiosity wrote:
I’ve been really enjoying Borderlands 2. It’s a lot of fun, seems to balance handing out loot pretty well, allows a wide variety of play styles, and is genuinely funny.

So I am tempted by this, especially if able to arrange a solid co-op playthrough.


It's about the best co op has ever had to offer really. I did start BL1 alone but once I played in co op it was a whole different experience.

I'm glad that "it's just more Borderlands" but with better weapons. That was my only gripe with the first two really.

I'm also glad that they didn't try to do a FO4 and make it worse than FO3 by adding lots of needless tat. If they had of done people would be complaining it's not Borderlands.

I also think that review hearthly posted was a bit harsh. So he didn't find it funny? Fair enough. But to down score it because of that is ridiculous. Since when do people now get to tell you what's funny and what isn't? Surely it's one of the most subjective things ever? How can you say poop jokes have seen their time when it's probably something we've been laughing at since the dawn of time.

Seems we also totally scored getting it on the One X as it's 4k and targets 60 FPS. The regular Xbox one is locked to 30.
To be fair, humour is one of the selling points of the game...
JohnCoffey wrote:
Since when do people now get to tell you what's funny and what isn't? Surely it's one of the most subjective things ever?


For sure. It's right up there in the subjectivity stakes along with 'how much someone enjoyed a particular video game'. Reviews of anything are subjective at every level, that's rather the point. Come on man, you know that.
Bamba wrote:
JohnCoffey wrote:
Since when do people now get to tell you what's funny and what isn't? Surely it's one of the most subjective things ever?


For sure. It's right up there in the subjectivity stakes along with 'how much someone enjoyed a particular video game'. Reviews of anything are subjective at every level, that's rather the point. Come on man, you know that.

I remember when Gamergate was a thing and one of their core tenets was that all reviews should be objective. So someone did one and it ran along the lines of:

This is a video game. It is available on consoles and PC. You can use a controller or mouse and keyboard. It has graphics and sound. It RRPs for $60 and you can buy it at Amazon.

Without a subjective response reviews are meaningless.
The Digital Foundry turned it into a YouTube video which is just 20 minutes about frame rates and resolution.
Mr Chonks wrote:
I remember when Gamergate was a thing and one of their core tenets was that all reviews should be objective.


I think you'll find that it was about ethics in gaming journalism.

Satsuma wrote:
The Digital Foundry turned it into a YouTube video which is just 20 minutes about frame rates and resolution.


I mean, that is entirely what they're for; to be fair.
Bamba wrote:
JohnCoffey wrote:
Since when do people now get to tell you what's funny and what isn't? Surely it's one of the most subjective things ever?


For sure. It's right up there in the subjectivity stakes along with 'how much someone enjoyed a particular video game'. Reviews of anything are subjective at every level, that's rather the point. Come on man, you know that.


Then why did that guy review it? Sounds like he didn't enjoy the first two either. As said, one of its charming qualities is the humour. The problem I have is that he's saying that the humour in the game is dated and not funny any more. To him, he means. The problem is that every reviewer now thinks they are the authority of what they do. At least that's how they see themselves. So why are they reviewing the games if it's not their sort of thing and thus they know it's going to be negative?

I tell you, the older I get the more this planet confuses me :s

I wouldn't mind but most reviewers now are just corporate shills.

Borderlands is silly, it is childish, it's rude and sometimes gross but that's why I like it lol.
You misunderstand. The review isn't saying "it has the same sense of humour as previous games", it's saying "it has a shit sense of humour compared to previous borderlands games"
Cras wrote:
You misunderstand. The review isn't saying "it has the same sense of humour as previous games", it's saying "it has a shit sense of humour compared to previous borderlands games"


Ah well I'll find out for myself I guess.

Liking what I've heard so far though. Hope the dayum gun made it into the final product :)
JohnCoffey wrote:
Bamba wrote:
JohnCoffey wrote:
Since when do people now get to tell you what's funny and what isn't? Surely it's one of the most subjective things ever?


For sure. It's right up there in the subjectivity stakes along with 'how much someone enjoyed a particular video game'. Reviews of anything are subjective at every level, that's rather the point. Come on man, you know that.


Then why did that guy review it? Sounds like he didn't enjoy the first two either. As said, one of its charming qualities is the humour. The problem I have is that he's saying that the humour in the game is dated and not funny any more. To him, he means. The problem is that every reviewer now thinks they are the authority of what they do. At least that's how they see themselves. So why are they reviewing the games if it's not their sort of thing and thus they know it's going to be negative?

I tell you, the older I get the more this planet confuses me :s

I wouldn't mind but most reviewers now are just corporate shills.

Borderlands is silly, it is childish, it's rude and sometimes gross but that's why I like it lol.


This is so obviously going to be one of those things you just keep banging on about without ever trying to understand the other viewpoint but let's give this a shot.

Every reviewer is the authority of what they do; because what they do is give a completely subjective opinion on the completely subjective subject of 'how good is a video game'. Every person in the world may or may not like certain bits of something. That's up to them. That's their opinion. That's fine. It's more than fine, in this case it's exactly what they're supposed to be doing. In the same way you're perfectly welcome to disagree.

If they said something was, I dunno, available for the PS4 when it wasn't then that's a factual error that they should absolutely be pulled up for.

If they praised the cutting edge graphics and it actually looked like ten year old horseshit then that's absolutely a point worth making.

If they say they don't find something funny though? Yeah, fuck off, you don't get to tell anyone what they actually think is funny because that's genuinely more subjective that 'how good a video game is to play'.

Bonus round:

JohnCoffey wrote:
I wouldn't mind but most reviewers now are just corporate shills.


The 'corporation' in this scenario would be Gearbox, the massive multinational game publisher.

If the guy you're shitting on was a corporate shill then he'd be spending the entire review telling everyone how hilarious and awesome the game was.

He's totally not doing that.

In fact, that's what you're annoyed about.

Please give some consideration to how completely nonsensical that makes your stance.
That last part was my fault. The corporate shills part was just me moaning about hardware reviews and not so much games.

Oh the joys of being quite old and getting good at moaning.

I'm annoyed because he's saying the comedy in the game is dated and basically not funny any more which is a stupid thing to say, even if you're being subjective because as said it's his opinion. Which is basically what ruins journalism, unless your opinions line up with that of the reviewer. IE I would find it helpful if I agreed with him but I don't.

Kinda like how I'm still a fan of Duke Nukem and cheesy 80s action movies. The whole "one man army" style that people said was shitty and dated. And then John Wick came along.
JohnCoffey wrote:
I'm annoyed because he's saying the comedy in the game is dated and basically not funny any more which is a stupid thing to say, even if you're being subjective because as said it's his opinion. Which is basically what ruins journalism, unless your opinions line up with that of the reviewer. IE I would find it helpful if I agreed with him but I don't.


Giphy "wtf":
https://media1.giphy.com/media/LyJ6KPlrFdKnK/giphy-loop.mp4
Satsuma wrote:
The Digital Foundry turned it into a YouTube video which is just 20 minutes about frame rates and resolution.


I read a technical Microsoft document the other day and the whole thing was just about hyper-converged infrastructure in Windows Server 2019, there were no fighting robots or anything, and the tone was rather dry.

I have complained in the strongest possible terms.
The thing with the writing/humour in Borderlands is that BL1 had shit writing and BL2 had superb writing. (Gearbox recognised the writing really let BL1 down, so they brought in proper writers for BL2.)

I fell out with BL1 a few hours in 'cause the characters and writing were just grating on me too much, the Scooter in BL1 is very different from the Scooter in BL2, for example.

If BL3 has BL1 level writing I'm immediately much less interested than if it's BL2 quality writing.

(Writing/humour/dialogue/characters/etc are all basically interchangeable above.)
If humour is so subjective then how come everyone agrees that Airplane! is the funniest film ever made, aye? Riddle me that scientists.
Satsuma wrote:
If humour is so subjective then how come everyone agrees that Airplane! is the funniest film ever made, aye? Riddle me that scientists.

Easy. It has an amazingly high jokes-per-minute ratio. You didn't laugh at that one? No problems, here's another! It's relentless
So would it be better to get a group of people to review something? Does that make metacritic and the like more valuable than the reviews they are based on?
Grim... wrote:
So would it be better to get a group of people to review something? Does that make metacritic and the like more valuable than the reviews they are based on?


We should make a review site. It could be called ‘Hold Circle To Go Prone’ or something.
Grim... wrote:
So would it be better to get a group of people to review something? Does that make metacritic and the like more valuable than the reviews they are based on?


Total PC gaming magazine used to do something similar. Like at the end of the review there would be other opinions from staff etc. We need a second opinion really.
JohnCoffey wrote:
Grim... wrote:
So would it be better to get a group of people to review something? Does that make metacritic and the like more valuable than the reviews they are based on?


Total PC gaming magazine used to do something similar. Like at the end of the review there would be other opinions from staff etc. We need a second opinion really.


You could just read another one of the umpteen reviews that are available?
Bamba wrote:
JohnCoffey wrote:
Grim... wrote:
So would it be better to get a group of people to review something? Does that make metacritic and the like more valuable than the reviews they are based on?


Total PC gaming magazine used to do something similar. Like at the end of the review there would be other opinions from staff etc. We need a second opinion really.


You could just read another one of the umpteen reviews that are available?


I have, and quelle surprise they are all wildly different. And yes, this is the diversity I seek but I prefer it when you have more than one opinion. It wasn't just tpcg other mags used to do it also. You'd have small captions at the end saying "John thinks" and so on. That was good.

As I said if it's more Borderlands with better guns it's heaven for me. I did notice how repetitive BL2 could be but I didn't care at all. It was tons of fun.

Nonono, ouchouchouch. They must have taken that line from Drop Dead Fred.
https://youtu.be/GcU6-lA_Ohs

OK so I installed it earlier and played it for about an hour so that hopefully I'm now ready for co op.

I don't see what all of the complaints are about. It's a lovely looking solid game so far. Perfectly Borderlands enough for me to want to stick around for the 30+ hours or so that you get from the base game.

I'd certainly say that if you are a Borderlands fan and you do listen to the very negative reviews you'll be robbing yourself of a lot of fun.

I started reading some of the Google reviews but stopped when I realised that the 1/10 reviews were actually reviews of the Epic game store by Steam fans /eyes roll.
I played it for an hour and a half last night. It's okay.
Did they really launch this on PC without cloud saves?

Remember when Steam implemented cloud saves a decade ago?
It's in beta on epic apparently and doesn't work with all games. I wasn't about to take a £40 risk on whether it would work or not. I'm not with the "death to epic" crowd but I have to say that it needs quite serious work. Imagine my horror when I came home to find that the 8 hours I'd put into Metro : Exodus at my mother's (most of which being unskippable cut scenes) would all have to be repeated on my second PC.

It just wasn't worth the gamble, given how good the xb1x version is. I tried to find out if they'd got it working but like anything else Epic info is like rocking horse poo.

It also hadn't gone unnoticed that PC games on the epic store are around £10 higher on cdkeys than the steam equivalent was before it all started.

I wondered how long it would be before the PC was "set about" for greenbacks due to it gaining in popularity. Seems I have my answer.
Yeah Epic Store does not represent increased competition, it represents reduced competition, because Epic are engaging in the extremely anti-competitive practise of paying to get games removed from competing stores.

They also don't seem to have much incentive to improve their service, since rather than having to match or even improve on the quality of service and features Steam offers, they are just removing the option of Steam for games like BL3.
Put in a few hours last night. Paying for it today but it was worth it. It's a very good game. I chose the girl who has the mech suit and the combat is just awesome. At first the graphics look nicer but didn't blow me away but it's when you're in combat and you start noticing all of the new effects and etc that it really starts to feel like BL3.

Really enjoying. It's nice to be back :)
I'm in no hurry for this, by all accounts there are loads of technical issues with it, like all games these days it'll be better (and cheaper) in a few months time, so when it comes to Steam in six months sounds about spot on.

Besides the fact that I object to the Epic Game Store on a moral level, there's also the practicality of the fact it's shit too, easy decision to wait for the game to come to Steam.
I have to say, it's not as funny as Borderlands 2. In fact I can count the number of times I smiled on one hand. All involve Rhys.
Pundabaya wrote:
I have to say, it's not as funny as Borderlands 2. In fact I can count the number of times I smiled on one hand. All involve Rhys.


That’s a shame. Gentleman Jack and Claptrap were proper funny.
Objectively or subjectively?
Trooper wrote:
Objectively or subjectively?


Sobjectively.
Subjectively, ofc.

To me the attempts at humour feel forced. Also they try to do the " Handsome Jack interrupts your radio feed" with the new baddies, but they're unfunny twats. Whereas Handsome Jack was a incredibly funny twat.
My verdict thus far: decent enough shooting, bosses are annoying as fuck, not very funny, story is pap.
That doesn't exactly fill me with enthusiasm for it.

The humour, characters and story were a big draw for me in BL2.
Airplane! really wasn't funny though.... in fact the presence of a Leslie Nielsen is almost as good a predictor of something being unfunny as a Will Ferrell or an Adam Sandler. Objective fact there.
Er, Borderlands mumble mumble.
MrChris wrote:
Airplane! really wasn't funny though.... in fact the presence of a Leslie Nielsen is almost as good a predictor of something being unfunny as a Will Ferrell or an Adam Sandler. Objective fact there.


I think we should enshrine this somewhere, as the single wrongest post on the entire forum.
MrChris wrote:
Airplane! really wasn't funny though.... in fact the presence of a Leslie Nielsen is almost as good a predictor of something being unfunny as a Will Ferrell or an Adam Sandler. Objective fact there.

Sure, which is why Airplane was a flop and isn’t a revered movie widely held up as a classic of the genre.

Oh no, the other thing.
That's certainly true, and it has never happened that large numbers of people have loved utterly pants films or TV shows. This explains why no one watches East Enders, Love Island or Songs of Praise and no one likes the Expendables films.
Is it because such things are subjective?
MaliA wrote:
Is it because such things are subjective?

In some respects that's the easy answer - a bit like blaming the bad things on "evil" or people reading the Sun.

But whilst that's an easy answer, I think we need to look a bit deeper. I think what it really shows is that some people, perhaps more than just some, have utterly no idea about anything. Maybe as many as 52%.
MrChris wrote:
MaliA wrote:
Is it because such things are subjective?

In some respects that's the easy answer - a bit like blaming the bad things on "evil" or people reading the Sun.

But whilst that's an easy answer, I think we need to look a bit deeper. I think what it really shows is that some people, perhaps more than just some, have utterly no idea about anything. Maybe as many as 52%.


How deep should we look?
MaliA wrote:
MrChris wrote:
MaliA wrote:
Is it because such things are subjective?

In some respects that's the easy answer - a bit like blaming the bad things on "evil" or people reading the Sun.

But whilst that's an easy answer, I think we need to look a bit deeper. I think what it really shows is that some people, perhaps more than just some, have utterly no idea about anything. Maybe as many as 52%.


How deep should we look?

I think you look until you see a reflection, Mali.
Mali's reflection is extremely shallow
But what a reflection
Page 2 of 3 [ 117 posts ]