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

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 NEXT
 

Jove:
So what's the solution here? Cry and rage all over the Internet about how dumb that review is? And then the review page gets a lot of undeserved views, the news talks about the rage and how immature gamers are all over the world. Then guys like Movie Bob will defend this kind of review because "artistic journalism" and all that. Lastly, in the end, the author and reviewer gets undeserved fame.

but its hilarious

I ignoring this topic, I wanted this thread to just die, but apparantly, people here are to stupid to realize how pointless and counter productive it is to rage about this. Yeah, the review was god awful, so what?

yeah..thanks for that...

I think your confusing raging with OH MY GOD GUYS THIS IS SO HILARIOUS/STUPID...honestly why do people love to come in and stomp around be such killjoys? it happned before when we were discussing mass effect indoctrination theory OMG STOP HAVING FUN GUYS....get over youself

I think the real idiots here are the people making a big deal about this and are only encouraging more reviews like this to happen.

seriosuly...calm the fuck down...you seem to be the one raging here

Jove:

I ignoring this topic, I wanted this thread to just die, but apparantly, people here are to stupid to realize how pointless and counter productive it is to rage about this.

/irony.

Great post buddy.

Draech:

I am sorry but the game is mechnically different, aesthetically different and thematically different.

To compare it on bases it is not trying to cover while glossing over the bases it is covering is like going Appollo 13 was a crap movie because there was no aliens in it and the plot had a hollywood ending.

sunsetspawn:

Well, if this guy were a fifteen year old telling his friends at school about Borderlands 2 then that would be fine. However, this man is actually getting paid to write "professional" reviews such as this and it offends anyone that understands the entertain medium in question.

Would it be okay the compare Killer Elite to Pulp Fiction? They're both movies about professional hitmen that shoot people, so they must be the same genre, right? To a twelve year old that just likes violence I could see how these movies might be similar, but to anyone with any familiarity with the art form, to compare these two is absurd.

Could we compare Opeth to Green Day? They both make with the distorted guitars, singing, bass, and drums, so they must be similar, right?

People ARE ALLOWED to be ignorant of things, but when they are they should NOT be getting paid to write about them.

@Draech: While I will agree with you that thematically and aesthetically BL2 may be slightly different to most other FPSes out there, mechanically it is quite similar. If a game is mostly a protagonist's eye view and he's using a gun to mow down a whole slew of enemies - it's an FPS. Just like Call of Duty, mechanically - they're similar.

I know you take exception to my way of classifying games, but we really should drop the matter at hand lest we get into a flame war.

@Sunsetspawn: Well, I wouldn't attribute the Wall Street Journal as professional games reviewers, that falls within the remit of games journalists at this website for example. (Although I had to giggle when this website gave Dragon Age 2 a 5/5 rating.)

The writer for the WSJ was asked for his opinion of the game and he gave an honest opinion. Just because he disliked a game and knew little about gaming doesn't mean to say he cannot be allowed to publish his opinion on it - especially when his employers had asked him to do it. You can compare Borderlands to games like Call of Duty - they're both FPSes. At the crux of both games - they feature a protagonist's eye view as they kill numerous enemies by shooting them.

If the Wall Street Journal wanted to fill some space with a games review, they are perfectly entitled to do so. There's no law saying that financial publications can only print financial articles - if this website were to start writing music reviews or even film - it would still be very much within it's rights to do so.

First mistake was comparing an FPSRPG to a straight-up FPS.

I agree with the guy that posted a few pages back about the most apt comparison being between Borderlands 2 and Borderlands, not between Borderlands 2 and anything CoD or Halo-related.

Not everyone likes Borderlands' visual style; it took me a little while to readjust to it after not having played Borderlands since last year. That's a valid point, at least.

"Borderlands 2 falls short because it's missing several key elements you need to have in a 2012 first-person shooter game - most notably, a rich multiplayer online mode."

What a load of old skunk piss! I stopped reading it after that.

HAHAHA that was a great review "it's not CoD or Halo", "with my 14 year old" "18 simultaneous players" and "xbox live gold"....

Thanks for not being CoD or Halo they are their own franchises luckily...
Playing 18y games with 14 is what makes so many adults go nuts it's the rating is there for a reason
18 simultaneous players I usually play 64p maps on BF3... and heard of MMOs? plus it's a goo Co-Op not a shoddy half assed multiplayer that so many try to force on thank you...
Xbox Live gold? You are clearly playing it wrong....

That review made me want Borderlands so much more :)

Oh wait I called that review, sorry my bad, opinionated trash written by someone who obviously is to much in love with CoD....
(And yea everyone has the right to their own opinion like this, but can't they publish good reviews instead?)

To the WSJ guy who "Reviewed" BL2

image

I was having a bad day and now I'm happy I saw this. I love being here on The Escapist.

And thank you Jim Sterling your awesomeness is like a ninja to me before I realize how awesome you are it's already to late.

Why on earth would the WSJ let someone who never played the first game, to play and review the second game? Yes, he's entitled to his opinion. I am entitled to exercise my freedom of speech and label the guy as a douchebag.

That review is so fucking terrible it makes me feel sick to my stomach! Worst review I think I've EVER seen! it makes me feel dizzy even reading it

I thought this was going to be somebody getting mad because a reviewer has a different opinion, but then I read "Borderlands 2 falls short because it's missing several key elements you need to have in a 2012 first-person shooter game - most notably, a rich multiplayer online mode. There's an extremely limited four-player cooperative mode, and if you have an Xbox Live Gold account, you can team up that way, but this isn't the type of deeply engrossing FPS game the headset-wearing COD crowds gather to play months and months after release. In comparison, I read on several sites that COD: Black Ops 2 will feature up to six teams, for a total of 18 simultaneous players, in multiplayer mode"

...is he serious?

Stupidity at its finest, latest and gentlemen.

Stupidity at its finest.

NameIsRobertPaulson:
Anyone realize the depressing thing about this article?

The average gamer doesn't read this. The average consumer doesn't read this.

THE CEOS THAT RUN THE COMPANIES THAT MAKE THE GAMES DO.

Now we get why every game needs to be like CoD or WoW... because of crap like this.

My thoughts precisely. =/ "Guys, Wall Street Journal says games that aren't like Call of Duty are BAD! MAKE MOAR CALL OF DUTY CLONES!"

I'm actually happy to see the results on this forum mirroring the rest of the internet: This guy is fucking retarded, with absolutely no journalistic integrity.

I had seen and posted about this on several other sites, and I'm glad to see that it isn't just some overreaction to a scathing review, but that this was objectively a terrible (and incredibly dishonest) review.

Guy's entitled to his opinion but it is clear he has absolutely no fucking clue what he is talking about. I'm sure that the Wall Street Journal wanted to put in some video game reviews to try to draw attention to its dying industry but I'm also sure that they just went into the office one day, announced they where making a new 'video game critic' job and asked if anyone was a gamer, in which this father who has obviously only played Call of Duty and Halo (which there is nothing wrong with that, really) decides that he has the know how to be a real critic (but there is something wrong with that). No offence to the reviewer but he needs to stick to what he knows. I don't read poetry so if I tried to review a book of it I wouldn't know if its good or bad, but if I review something I do know like a book, movie or video game I can tell you if its good, how its good and why its good.

This is how I feel as a gymnastics fan during an Olympic year. Now you all know my pain.

There's not much else to say. Reading that review was entertaining.

This is what I got from the article,
"GARME JURALIZM, AME I DOEN IT RIGHT?"

seriously, it sounded like someone who is unqualified to write about games; writing about games. The lexicon would have one postilate that he is someone who is trying to look like someone who writes about games; but has only heard about games and never activly tried to be involved in games. So he follows the typical human trait of compairing it to something familiar: COD, WOW, MOH, etc; which everyone has heard of. The unfortuante part is that these games should not be compaired, and instead of compairing products; compare emotions, if you were bored; can you accuratly state why and what caused you to be in that state and stating "single-player campain was bad" isn't enough; just like you can't review a book by saying "Chapters 3-20 were terrible." and end it at that. or similiarly saying "Chapters 3-20 of this science fiction novel was terrible because it wasn't like War of the Worlds enough" If you enjoyed it, can you accuratly say why as well and what in the game was enjoyable. This was not a Game Article; it was an Article disguised as what the author thought was what an typical Game Article looked like, without reading any real game articles.

P.S Don't have those who are not intrepid Gamers creating professional opinons about Games, just like you don't want people who are not greatly familiar with New Wave Science Fiction Literture writing profession opinons on the subject.

Gunner 51:

Draech:

I am sorry but the game is mechnically different, aesthetically different and thematically different.

To compare it on bases it is not trying to cover while glossing over the bases it is covering is like going Appollo 13 was a crap movie because there was no aliens in it and the plot had a hollywood ending.

sunsetspawn:

Well, if this guy were a fifteen year old telling his friends at school about Borderlands 2 then that would be fine. However, this man is actually getting paid to write "professional" reviews such as this and it offends anyone that understands the entertain medium in question.

Would it be okay the compare Killer Elite to Pulp Fiction? They're both movies about professional hitmen that shoot people, so they must be the same genre, right? To a twelve year old that just likes violence I could see how these movies might be similar, but to anyone with any familiarity with the art form, to compare these two is absurd.

Could we compare Opeth to Green Day? They both make with the distorted guitars, singing, bass, and drums, so they must be similar, right?

People ARE ALLOWED to be ignorant of things, but when they are they should NOT be getting paid to write about them.

@Draech: While I will agree with you that thematically and aesthetically BL2 may be slightly different to most other FPSes out there, mechanically it is quite similar. If a game is mostly a protagonist's eye view and he's using a gun to mow down a whole slew of enemies - it's an FPS. Just like Call of Duty, mechanically - they're similar.

I know you take exception to my way of classifying games, but we really should drop the matter at hand lest we get into a flame war.

@Sunsetspawn: Well, I wouldn't attribute the Wall Street Journal as professional games reviewers, that falls within the remit of games journalists at this website for example. (Although I had to giggle when this website gave Dragon Age 2 a 5/5 rating.)

The writer for the WSJ was asked for his opinion of the game and he gave an honest opinion. Just because he disliked a game and knew little about gaming doesn't mean to say he cannot be allowed to publish his opinion on it - especially when his employers had asked him to do it. You can compare Borderlands to games like Call of Duty - they're both FPSes. At the crux of both games - they feature a protagonist's eye view as they kill numerous enemies by shooting them.

If the Wall Street Journal wanted to fill some space with a games review, they are perfectly entitled to do so. There's no law saying that financial publications can only print financial articles - if this website were to start writing music reviews or even film - it would still be very much within it's rights to do so.

That may be the case; but he shouldn't, or at least he could have tried to make an effort to become familiar with an medium he was critquing. He is putting his name on it, thus by extension his reputation and WSJ was too by publishing it. When you make an piece of work (especially in the WSJ) it should reflect the best you can give, which means; do research, not glazing wikipedia articles, become familiar with what it is; Borderlands is more along the vien of Fallout and (even) Mass Effect; and most importantly, be familiar with your audience; if I write an article on music; music-buff's will find it, no matter where it is; if you write something about games, realize it will be Gamer's who will be more interested in your article than your regular audience. This is more about being professional for an Journal; not some small gaming website by a few high school students where this "pure" opinion would be more suited.

yunabomb:
This is how I feel as a gymnastics fan during an Olympic year. Now you all know my pain.

There's not much else to say. Reading that review was entertaining.

Where would one go to become more learned in gymnastics as a whole; because if the announcers for the Olympics are doing it wrong, its good to be informed about these things.

jamesbrown:

Where would one go to become more learned in gymnastics as a whole; because if the announcers for the Olympics are doing it wrong, its good to be informed about these things.

Gymnastics forums are usually good. The good ones are The All Around Forum (pretty serious, there are judges who post there which is pretty informative) and WWGym (there's more gossip here). There are also gym blogs, but I haven't really read any recently.

yunabomb:

jamesbrown:

Where would one go to become more learned in gymnastics as a whole; because if the announcers for the Olympics are doing it wrong, its good to be informed about these things.

Gymnastics forums are usually good. The good ones are The All Around Forum (pretty serious, there are judges who post there which is pretty informative) and WWGym (there's more gossip here). There are also gym blogs, but I haven't really read any recently.

Thank you, I will try my best to stop the promblem of people being uninformed about what thier talking about; no matter what it is wheather it be games or gymnastics.

It's not that you cannot compare Borderlands II to CoD. You can compare Borderlands II to a strawberry daiquiri. And Borderlands II does belong to the same broad genre as CoD. Or maybe it doesn't. I dunno.

Point is, the specific comparisons he did make were fucking ridiculous.

I have played Black Ops, Halo, and I have played Borderlands, and I think the review is spot on. The only thing I can see people being upset about is a line in the begging:

-'it's missing several key elements you need to have in a 2012 first-person shooter game - most notably, a rich multiplayer online mode.'-

*cough

Fuck Multiplayer

Seriously tho, the guy is telling you flat out what he enjoys in an FPS, and how this compares to it. What does he say that is incorrect? The amount of anger and childishness here is deplorable. Does he say anything wrong about the game? No. Do you not agree with what he thinks? Yes.

I don't understand why this is a big deal, unless this thread is just full of people who hate CoD and Halo... that would explain everything.

IamLEAM1983:

Don't know about that. Guy clearly has no patience for a first person title that tries to put a story together. No, the polygon people will not shut up, because this game has RPG elements and they stand as quest-givers. If you want to play a shooter where only honest-to-God crucial stuff is said, go back to playing Halo or CoD.

Or, well, that's what I'd tell him.

I would argue that if a game fails to catch my interest in a story it better provides a 'skip dialogue' option like most games I've played. Because there were only a few games where it wasn't a chore to sit through the bad acted / written cutscenes / dialogue bits. And it wasn't because of my lack of patience (I have to wait for shit at university for 5-48h at a time sometimes, I think I can handle 30-60 seconds of meaningless BS), it is just plain boring and interrupts the gameplay, the thing games are actually known for.

But that's just me.

Also, my response was supposed to be a joke. Won't judge about Borderlands 2, did not find anything in the first game or the promises for the second interesting enough to buy it.

Sober Thal:
I have played Black Ops, Halo, and I have played Borderlands, and I think the review is spot on. The only thing I can see people being upset about is a line in the begging:

-'it's missing several key elements you need to have in a 2012 first-person shooter game - most notably, a rich multiplayer online mode.'-

*cough

Fuck Multiplayer

Seriously tho, the guy is telling you flat out what he enjoys in an FPS, and how this compares to it. What does he say that is incorrect? The amount of anger and childishness here is deplorable. Does he say anything wrong about the game? No. Do you not agree with what he thinks? Yes.

I don't understand why this is a big deal, unless this thread is just full of people who hate CoD and Halo... that would explain everything.

I think people are mirthful because this is the Wall Street Journal, not some bloggers livejournal. The critic makes no attempt at analysis, he is just apparently disappointed this isnt Call of Duty. I would expect an amateur to say "I don't like cartoons" and professional to give some justification for why they don't like cell-shading. Borderlands is kind of a big deal, and to be a game reviewer who has clearly never played the original, is hilarious. Really checking wikipedia for non-existant plot twists in the original? Come on. Personally I think he would have gotten away with being a hack if he decided not to compare one of the most anticipated games of 2012 with a game that has almost 0 production value.

Christ, is this still going? It's reaching near Anita Sarkeesian status.

Comocat:
Borderlands is kind of a big deal

Hmmm, not really. On this site it seems to be the case but elsewhere there's not much fuss being made. Certainly nowhere near the likes of ME3, Skyrim, COD, etc.

and to be a game reviewer who has clearly never played the original, is hilarious.

Why? Do you think game reviewers have time to play every single game? The original wasn't exactly well-received in the press.

Personally I think he would have gotten away with being a hack if he decided not to compare one of the most anticipated games of 2012 with a game that has almost 0 production value.

I think you must be living in la la land when you say COD has 0 production value, honestly. I expect Gearbox would love to have their own engine instead of Unreal 3, IW 5.0 is pretty impressive - did you think it cost Infinity Ward absolutely nothing to produce? That's without getting into anything else. You may not like COD, which is perfectly fine but you're being no better than the WSJ reviewer with the bullshittery and hyperbole.

GoaThief:
Christ, is this still going? It's reaching near Anita Sarkeesian status.

Comocat:
Borderlands is kind of a big deal

Hmmm, not really. On this site it seems to be the case but elsewhere there's not much fuss being made. Certainly nowhere near the likes of ME3, Skyrim, COD, etc.

and to be a game reviewer who has clearly never played the original, is hilarious.

Why? Do you think game reviewers have time to play every single game? The original wasn't exactly well-received in the press.

Personally I think he would have gotten away with being a hack if he decided not to compare one of the most anticipated games of 2012 with a game that has almost 0 production value.

I think you must be living in la la land when you say COD has 0 production value, honestly. I expect Gearbox would love to have their own engine instead of Unreal 3, IW 5.0 is pretty impressive - did you think it cost Infinity Ward absolutely nothing to produce? That's without getting into anything else. You may not like COD, which is perfectly fine but you're being no better than the WSJ reviewer with the bullshittery and hyperbole.

From the review: "As a $30 impulse buy, priced about the same as games like "NASCAR Unleashed," I wouldn't have a problem recommending Borderlands 2 as a fun diversion." Obviously COD has a budget of tens of millions of dollars, but sorry for being unclear.

I still stand by my statements any game that sells millions of copies probably deserves to be reviewed by professionals.

I can't believe he shoots down Borderlands 2 for "Gratuitous Cussing" then praises CoD's online multiplayer xD

Given the nature of the source even the WRITING is terrible, let alone the content, anything I say at this point would just be a repeat of what someone else has said. He had no coherent stand on the topic barring his unsubstantiated statements at the start and end; everything in between those seemed to paint the game as fairly good. I also loved the part where he sites a chart for reasons why people liked Borderlands 1, that just made me giggle. For the love of shit find someone who played the first one! (Oh dear, I've gone and ripped on the content, whoops!)

Oh dear...

...this review is actually one of the very very few where "fanboy rage" isn't the case. I haven't played BL2 nor intend to for the time being but this review is just poor.

I recently read an article from a third party trying to justify this review as being one for "non-hardcore gamers" but of course the wave of comment that followed pointed out you review for everyone. People interested in this game are going to want the full scoop, including new players, beyond simply "not Call of Duty, lame", more so since BL and COD are completely different entities. By this logic I can call the best car in the world objectively terrible because I'm reviewing for motorbikes.

XSin:
I can't believe he shoots down Borderlands 2 for "Gratuitous Cussing" then praises CoD's online multiplayer xD

SNAP!

GAunderrated:
Borderlands 2 falls short because it's missing several key elements you need to have in a 2012 first-person shooter game - most notably, a rich multiplayer online mode.

This was all I needed to read to know that this is a dumb market monkey with no understanding of what video games are supposed to be. I'm so sorry that this isn't a sight-seeing tour in which you actually have to play the game and everything isn't just handed to you in a linear format.

My money is on this being another case in which the writer is being paid by a competing publisher to discredit it and sell their bloated, over-marketed garbage.

Oh, and the comment on this being geared towards macho, testosterone fueled gamers? What is this guy smoking to think that CoD and Halo are "MATURE" games?

GAunderrated:
*snip*

I realized just how neurotic I am when the only reason for checking this thread was to make sure you weren't talking about my review.

Once I saw it was WSJ I yao ming'd and went back to eating my sandwich :P.

(I can't imagine hating B2, I could imagine being underwhelmed but it is pretty objectively good I'd think. How good is subjective but objectively I'd say its good.)

I'm very much in favour of people having their own opinion and everything, but he seems so horribly uninformed about what the Borderlands series is about and therefore has absolutely no idea what he is talking about rending his thoughts next to worthless.

Go nuts, Internet. He's earned it.

lunavixen:

GAunderrated:

Borderlands 2 doesn't just bill itself as an FPS. It's a space Western FPS or a role-playing shooter, with the ability to build and customize characters. The game's premise is that you're a loot hunter fighting to free the planet Pandora from the evil CEO of Hyperion Corp, Handsome Jack. The evil CEO wants to wipe out the planet's ragtag population and turn Pandora into an industrial playground for his company. His presence is felt throughout the game by the hovering H-shaped space station that serves as his and Hyperion's headquarters. In actual gameplay, you're expected to fight your way across Pandora, hoping to stop Handsome Jack from awakening "the Warrior," an alien even more evil than he is. The events in Borderlands 2 take place several years after the original game and are a continuation of those events, albeit with four new playable characters.

So basically, they just ripped off the last half of the plot of Avatar, dumbed it down and made minor changes, I never liked the original Borderlands and this has not endeared me to the series, I'd rather play Modern Warfare.

...
What you said is pretty much as dumb as what the reviewer said.

Its a comedy game. The main antagonist the reviewer critiques as hard to find sinister rides around on a fucking diamond pony; his primary crimes for most of the game consist largely of him erecting statues of his face everywhere. What you said is like judging a Monty Python film based on the strength of its plot: the plot is just an excuse to wheel you between different ridiculous characters and locales for the set-ups to jokes, with the added gratification of unparalleled gunplay.

--

Back on topic:
I would like to put it out there that I don't think he ever actually played the first Borderlands: when he runs through the plot summary in the review (all the stuff about Dahl corporation, etc), he is describing things that you have to look REAL hard to see, as the game does not at all tell you; you have to read random notes left around for out of the way side quests, among other things, which is something I can't imagine him ever having done, considering how little he talks about any specific details of Borderlands 1 besides these. To me at least, it seems like he read the plot off a wikipedia page in order to give the impression he knew more than he did.

Well that was a rather silly review, I'm dubious as to whether he actually plays games or if he just gets all his advice from his son.

dimensional:
What its not COD? good thing I read this review thingy and saved me some cash now I wont have to buy this baby kiddy cartoon CoD fail wannabe piece of junk.

Yeah seriously pretty crap review for one thats actually had some time put into its writing also he played it with his 14 year old son isnt the game an 18?

Checking..

..Aaaand confirmed.

Puzzlenaut:

lunavixen:

GAunderrated:

Borderlands 2 doesn't just bill itself as an FPS. It's a space Western FPS or a role-playing shooter, with the ability to build and customize characters. The game's premise is that you're a loot hunter fighting to free the planet Pandora from the evil CEO of Hyperion Corp, Handsome Jack. The evil CEO wants to wipe out the planet's ragtag population and turn Pandora into an industrial playground for his company. His presence is felt throughout the game by the hovering H-shaped space station that serves as his and Hyperion's headquarters. In actual gameplay, you're expected to fight your way across Pandora, hoping to stop Handsome Jack from awakening "the Warrior," an alien even more evil than he is. The events in Borderlands 2 take place several years after the original game and are a continuation of those events, albeit with four new playable characters.

So basically, they just ripped off the last half of the plot of Avatar, dumbed it down and made minor changes, I never liked the original Borderlands and this has not endeared me to the series, I'd rather play Modern Warfare.

...
What you said is pretty much as dumb as what the reviewer said.

Its a comedy game. The main antagonist the reviewer critiques as hard to find sinister rides around on a fucking diamond pony; his primary crimes for most of the game consist largely of him erecting statues of his face everywhere. What you said is like judging a Monty Python film based on the strength of its plot: the plot is just an excuse to wheel you between different ridiculous characters and locales for the set-ups to jokes, with the added gratification of unparalleled gunplay.

--

Back on topic:
I would like to put it out there that I don't think he ever actually played the first Borderlands: when he runs through the plot summary in the review (all the stuff about Dahl corporation, etc), he is describing things that you have to look REAL hard to see, as the game does not at all tell you; you have to read random notes left around for out of the way side quests, among other things, which is something I can't imagine him ever having done, considering how little he talks about any specific details of Borderlands 1 besides these. To me at least, it seems like he read the plot off a wikipedia page in order to give the impression he knew more than he did.

The reviewer flat out said he got that info from Wikipedia. That makes this an even bigger fail than it already is.

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 NEXT

Reply to Thread

This thread is locked