Borderlands from Gearbox

[The Sarge]

I know I'm probably hoping for the impossible, but split-screen co-op hasn't been hinted at, has it?

Split-screen has been confirmed, not sure if it's co-op.

http://www.co-optimus.com/article/1935/Bor...creen_Play.html

[Floex]

There something about this game I'm not liking. Every piece of footage I have seen so far has been quite bland in the gunplay department. The enemies don't seem to react well to each weapon. I'll be watching this game with caution. As it stands right now, I have feeling it could be this years 'Too Human'

[H_S_H_24]

No way.

More like this years Fallout 3.

[Raide]

There something about this game I'm not liking. Every piece of footage I have seen so far has been quite bland in the gunplay department. The enemies don't seem to react well to each weapon. I'll be watching this game with caution. As it stands right now, I have feeling it could be this years 'Too Human'

Too Human you say? That is great in my books.

So far Borderlands has only shown a few basic enemies, who knows what else they have planned. It is also difficult to judge from the gameplay footage around exactly what the co-op will feel and play like. They have also not shown off the arena matches you can have or any of the major boss encounter etc.

It looks great fun for me, just because of the looting aspect. If the co-op is fun and the loot is plentiful, I will be all over it.

[ghosted]

Randy Pitchfork brings his typical enthusiasm to a QA session with Rock Paper Shotgun

Short of a sudden influx of atrocious review scores, this is as good as sold to me.

[Gabe]

Hmm, I'm finding it really hard to muster any enthusiasm for this. The locales shown thus far look as dull as hell (but it may have snow too? Wow. ), and the big thing that only Gearbox seem to be talking about is the fact that it has a stupid amount of guns.

Now games such as Too Human/Sacred 2 illustrate perfectly that having a lot of loot really isn't a good thing, because let's be honest, the greater the number of guns the less important each one will feel. How different are they going to be? Not very.

The worrying thing is that of all the previews I've read on this, they only ever really talk about the number of guns in it, and mention very-little about anything else - I'd like to have heard a bit more about the RPG-mechanics, the overall character progression, the world they've created etc. But no, it's all 'We've got *shitloads* of guns, go us!' - indicating there's nothing else to say about it.

I haven't read the hands-on previews linked-to, and to be honest I'm so uninterested in this now (because of the previous coverage it has garnered) that it's going to take something special for it to make me take notice - and I don't believe it will.

What aspects are people looking forward to, other than the online side of things? Is there much really for a single-player (they story is relatively-duff, from what I read ages ago)?

In spite of the above, I actually *would* like this to be good, because I like action-RPGs in the main (I did manage to get some pleasure from Too Human, after all - though the setting of that was *initlally* more appealing, until I played it for more than a couple of hours, anyway). But having said that, I don't even know how deep the RPG bits are - anybody care to expand on that for me?

Edit: Even in that RPS interview he's only really saying "Look at our guns!!11!". It really doesn't seem like they have anything else to talk about, for shame.

[Quest]

I think it looks a bit ugly, to be honest. When I saw it I thought "Looks like they whacked some cartoon outlines on half-way through production" and hey, it appears that's exactly what they did.

I can't see this coming even close to Fallout 3. It looks like a total loot bore.

[carlospie]

I watched the trailer for this on my xbox today.

I love the bit on the trailer where the dev says, I can't believe no one has tried to combine a fps with an rpg. First of all, fallout 3? second of all, this game just looks boring and repetitive. There is just something not right about shooting a guy with crosshairs dead on them, only to be told you missed because your stats are too low. Stupid concept.

[Captain Toss]

I was utterly pumped for this, until I saw some game footage a few days back.

I want it to be great, but it looks like a dull shooting gallery. At least the enemies in Too Human had the decency to charge at you.

[mr_woo]

I watched the trailer for this on my xbox today.

I love the bit on the trailer where the dev says, I can't believe no one has tried to combine a fps with an rpg. First of all, fallout 3? second of all, this game just looks boring and repetitive. There is just something not right about shooting a guy with crosshairs dead on them, only to be told you missed because your stats are too low. Stupid concept.

Fallout 3 is a great game but it's a shit FPS. The games combat works only because of its VATS combat system which is quite frankly brilliant. If you were to play it purely as a FPS it would be deeply unsatisfying, it's clunky and not very well done at all. It's only really mildly acceptable when firing off a few shots whilst waiting for your VATS to recharge, it was were all of Bethesdas effort went into and it shows. With this they are mostly being a shooter with RPG elements which is what they are claiming hasn't really been done before (or at least well) and I'd agree with that. Going by previews it seems like the shooting has at least been done well, what the world and quests/loot is like remains to be seen.

It was also confirmed that they don't use the 'roll a dice' for shooting at enemies either.

[Quest]

The movement looks completely stiff, though. It's like you're playing as Robocop.

[KriessG]

Not noticed anything 'stiff' about the movement, and I've played it Just buy buy BUY

[The Sarge]

US Boxart

[Kinketsu]

I've only seen a little bit of it, but before I get too excited, I wanted to ask a question. It's Mad Max yeah? But are there monsters? Are there like random bug monsters? Because a game like this amongst scavanging survivors sounds great. But are there ugly monsters, mutated and all that shit? Is there a giant spider? I don't want any of that. I put up with it in Fallout 3 but I'd really rather not again.

*edit* aye nevermind, I clicked on the rockpapershotgun article on the last page and the first picture is a vagina faced giant being surrounded by flesh bats/

[Podge]

Monsters in it yeah, but according to the Bombcast a few weeks ago, the moon is on fire!

That's gotta count for something, right?

[Harsin]

The moon, the moon, the moon is on fire?

[b00dles]

We don't give a damn let the muthafucka burn?

[Kinketsu]

Indeed. Burn, muthafucka, burn.

[ICECOLD]

Indeed. Burn, muthafucka, burn.

I interviewed Gearbox's President Randy Pitchford last week.

Interview's HERE if anyone wants to read it. He goes into discussion about how Borderlands differs from Fallout and Mass Effect, so it's pretty relevant.

What struck me about Randy was that he really, really loved what his team had come up with - the enthusiasm he showed in answering some of the questions was palpable. Probably the longest interview i've done as a result!

[ghosted]

Some new screens coutesy of Kotaku. Really loving the concept-art style and, love it or loathe it, you've got to admire what they've tried.

[Kinketsu]

Honest question, do you think we'll ever get a post-apocalyptic game without like...a giant spider or a huge mutant in it? When you watch good post-apocalyptic movies like Mad Max 2 or read a good book with a similar setting like The Road, there is never a lobster man who can only be shot in the eye. Yet when they come to make these games, there is always lobster men, giant this or that. Why, when the same idea becomes a game, does it need giant enemy crabs etc? What's so not scary about crazy humans who maybe want to eat you and rape your eye holes? Or a guy who wants to stick you because he fancies your missus or your burger or your car? Why do we need to rope things from D&D into it every time? It really takes me out of it when, in the Fallout games for example, I have to fight a thing which has hands for feet or whatever.

[Wroth]

Because for many, Post-apocalyptia means radiation, means mutation, means mutated creatures etc.

Blame fallout.

No, don't blame fallout, that was just their take on it. Blame all the other post-apocalypse games for copying Fallout.

[trickytree]

There's a new trailer on PSN which makes the game look a bit confused - simple and light-hearted but set in a wasteland. Doesn't seem to gel too well, but maybe that's the trailer trying to stuff too much in. Looked a bit like a 'single-player multiplayer' game, if that makes sense - big captions popping up for damage, level up etc. constantly reminding you it's a game.

[poppa_f]

I love the bit on the trailer where the dev says, I can't believe no one has tried to combine a fps with an rpg

Planetside, Deus-Ex, Metroid Prime...there's actually loads when you think about it

[Podge]

All this talk of post-apocalypse, but isn't Borderlands set on another planet entirely? All these bugs and monsters are just the hostile wildlife on the planet.

[Raide]

All this talk of post-apocalypse, but isn't Borderlands set on another planet entirely? All these bugs and monsters are just the hostile wildlife on the planet.

Yeah, its based on the planet Pandora, so its not really Earth after a Nuke laden Apocalypse.

[ghosted]

Honest question, do you think we'll ever get a post-apocalyptic game without like...a giant spider or a huge mutant in it?

Because you're talking about two different mediums. Something like the 'The Road' is a strong moody, bleak character piece. The books and films that you're thinking of there are, by their nature, building on story and characters because that's what the hook is. Drawing you into this world and putting you in that place. Whilst, on first glance, that appears to be the same objective with a game it is not. Yes they look to draw you in to the world but because it aids the primary objective - that being to stimulate your decision making, problem solving and cognitive repsonses. In many instances, a great aid to this is variety and fantasy because it's about moment-to-moment stimulus.

Write a great character in a book or film and you direct every last ounce of what makes them so intriguing. The subtleties of their actions, speech and particulars. The structure and delivery of a game never gels with such tight crafting. You don't control how the lead character behaves, the player does. You can't direct the result of every scene, the player does. So, an attempt to work with only scary humans would quickly be seen as "the same human enemies repeating". The variety and substance of a more fantastical element allows a cheaper flick of the 'enjoyment nodule' in the players brain and opens up new gameplay mechanics which is where the hook is in a game - gameplay. Now I'm not saying something like that can't be done in a game - hell, I'd love to see it done. But games, films and books are different entities. They share so much but do not play nice together.

[cassidy]

No, don't blame fallout, that was just their take on it. Blame all the other post-apocalypse games for copying Fallout.

I think the blame can only be placed on those 1950's B-Movie directors.

Oh and Damnation Alley

[Kinketsu]

Because you're talking about two different mediums. Something like the 'The Road' is a strong moody, bleak character piece. The books and films that you're thinking of there are, by their nature, building on story and characters because that's what the hook is. Drawing you into this world and putting you in that place. Whilst, on first glance, that appears to be the same objective with a game it is not. Yes they look to draw you in to the world but because it aids the primary objective - that being to stimulate your decision making, problem solving and cognitive repsonses. In many instances, a great aid to this is variety and fantasy because it's about moment-to-moment stimulus.

Write a great character in a book or film and you direct every last ounce of what makes them so intriguing. The subtleties of their actions, speech and particulars. The structure and delivery of a game never gels with such tight crafting. You don't control how the lead character behaves, the player does. You can't direct the result of every scene, the player does. So, an attempt to work with only scary humans would quickly be seen as "the same human enemies repeating". The variety and substance of a more fantastical element allows a cheaper flick of the 'enjoyment nodule' in the players brain and opens up new gameplay mechanics which is where the hook is in a game - gameplay. Now I'm not saying something like that can't be done in a game - hell, I'd love to see it done. But games, films and books are different entities. They share so much but do not play nice together.

I don't get where a giant spider flicks our enjoyment switches, especially since I'm in here complaining about them. There are fantastic games in which you only fight humans, which are not seen as repetitive. So what you wrote would suggest the developers are lazy, which I can understand. In many of these games, such as Fallout 3, the answer to combating everything is to shoot it until it dies anyway, be it a man or a giant scorpion or a thing with hands for feet, I'm not sure how much variety it adds. You seem to suggest it's impossible to have variety in a game unless one of the characters is a giant spider. How about human enemies which are ex-army and fight in a squad? Others are mad raiders who charge you. Others are perhaps suicide bombers. Others maybe bury themselves in the desert and wait for you to approach some tempting loot. There are a million kinds of scenarios and AI patterns which could be programmed, weapon types and situations which would be introduced to such a game, the laziest of which is a giant or monster which wants to eat you, and which you back peddle from while shooting in the face.

I'm not saying a game should be a movie or a book, but you seem to take the exact opposite approach, that for the sake of enemy variety (which again, is often just visual variety), you needn't bother too much in making a cohesive world and you can fuck any old monster in there. I never said a game should be as bleak as The Road, that would be complaining about the actual story of these things. I said when you watch or read most other stories in this kind of setting, you don't have monsters, but as soon as it becomes a game, they fire them in there as a lazy enemy. Many of these developers talk about being inspired by Mad Max 2, which most people would agree is a great example of this genre, and features no giant ants, inside-out monkeys or flying squid.

[Wroth]

First I was like

and you can fuck any old monster in there.

And then I :lol:d