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

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
 

rayman56:

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

Reread the review. He's talking about how unremarkable the first games plot was, that he had to look it up to REMEMBER it.

Double post, my bad.

jamesbrown:

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.

I'd say you're onto something, but surely it is everyone's rights to talk about whatever they wish - regradless of how much expertise they have in it. The articles audience was aimed at middle aged blokes who read the WSJ who were thinking of buying the game.

The audience was never us younger and volatile gamers. Those gamers merely stumbled upon it and then blew things way out of proportion in their umbrage.

I'll grant you the review was a lazy one, but what would one expect of someone whose field of expertise is in stocks, shares, figures and global economies?

But for gamers to arbitarily say that he has no business reviewing or speaking about games is an arrogant, judgemental and disrespectful to the reviewer's freedom of expression. (Or his pursuit of happiness if you're American.)

It's like saying that the George Foreman grill is crappy because it's inventor was better at boxing than at inventing.

Either way, the whole thing has been blown out of proportion and has made us gamers look like a bunch of closed minded, exclusionary hot-heads. I guess the whole thing really could have been handled much better with a good dose of maturity.

lunavixen:
]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.

AVATAR was "dumb" enough originally...

and "ripped off from AVATAR" feels like an oxymoron since that movie is as original as having a begining middle and end

I read every little word in that "review". I found myself very disappointed by their lack of knowledge regarding the subject matter. Needlessly complicated story? Please. Borderlands and Borderlands 2 are ridiculously simple as far as stories go, even in regards to other games. As our Escapist-based demigod Yahtzee put it, the story was a "set of tassels on the handlebars of the bike that is the game". Complicated setup? Sure, if you're five years old and still don't know that putting your hand on the hot stove is bad.

Also, If you prefer Call of Duty, great. But understand that this game is not trying to be Call of Duty. It bears little resemblance to those games beyond the default controls and it's not made for the modern military shooter fan. The art style, being relatively comic book-esque, is not trying to give you the ultra-realism that comes from those games, and instead compliments the comedic bent of the its writing. The characters are designed to compliment this as well, often having unrealistic profiles and exaggerated features to work with the over the top style of the game. Call of Duty on the other hand emphasizes realism in everything from character design to the weapons and dialogue(although that has lost its grip on reality over the years due to the increasingly James Bond-ish tone). You can compare them all you like but you'd find that they're not made with the same people in mind. Enter the mindset of someone that's looking for something of a different flavor, like someone trying some new spin on a favorite food, and then tell me the game is terrible because it doesn't appeal to someone who plays Halo or Call of Duty with near-exclusivity.

Speaking of multiplayer focus, I disagree that Borderlands 2 is lacking on the multiplayer front. It's a very different setup than your average multiplayer FPS though, with a strong Co-op focus that emphasizes competitiveness between players in a very different manner to most shooters: the players cooperate and compete to get the best loot. That's where the Diablo comparison comes in, but instead of trying to get the best trousers, you're going for the best weaponry, class mods, relics, etc. Yeah, I suppose there could be a comparison drawn to COD with its perk and level-up systems, but instead of getting to a specific level for a specific item, Borderlands 2 emphasizes exploration and trying new things with how it handles loot, with every piece of gear being randomly generated and placed throughout the world. Hence, why I'm able to find a legendary incendiary sniper rifle in a garbage bin instead of having to go through a couple hundred skirmishes on a couple of maps to get some other gun that at that point may not fit my play-style any longer. The fact that I can give said rifle to a struggling friend and help them with whatever mission they're doing encourages teamwork. The game sets you up as a scavenger and the gameplay mechanics support this: if two players disagree over who should get that awesome new gun, they can duke it out for said weapon, not unlike two bank robbers disagreeing over the cuts of money between their numbers. It tells you "these people are on your side, but you need to move fast to get the best stuff", rather than "these people are your enemies, KILL KILL DIE KILL!". It casts other players in a different light, and the game plays differently because of it.

My point is that this reviewer has missed the forest for the trees, and he can stop trying to pose as a person who is "In the know about dem games", because he's not. One more thing: Halo 4 is coming in November, and is notorious for such because it's coming on election day. His lack of knowledge about this disappoints me. If he's to continue writing about games I'd suggest he broaden his knowledge base and horizons. His current knowledge base is insufficient to continue doing so.

Gunner 51:

jamesbrown:

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.

I'd say you're onto something, but surely it is everyone's rights to talk about whatever they wish - regradless of how much expertise they have in it. The articles audience was aimed at middle aged blokes who read the WSJ who were thinking of buying the game.

The audience was never us younger and volatile gamers. Those gamers merely stumbled upon it and then blew things way out of proportion in their umbrage.

I'll grant you the review was a lazy one, but what would one expect of someone whose field of expertise is in stocks, shares, figures and global economies?

But for gamers to arbitarily say that he has no business reviewing or speaking about games is an arrogant, judgemental and disrespectful to the reviewer's freedom of expression. (Or his pursuit of happiness if you're American.)

It's like saying that the George Foreman grill is crappy because it's inventor was better at boxing than at inventing.

Either way, the whole thing has been blown out of proportion and has made us gamers look like a bunch of closed minded, exclusionary hot-heads. I guess the whole thing really could have been handled much better with a good dose of maturity.

Yeah, I tried not to blow it out of perportion; just point out what seemed was an logical course of action
Also, I didn't mean to say that you shouldn't go and do other things; just make sure your equipped with the skills to do it, like george foreman could be both an inventor and an boxer; the two skill sets have nothing to do with each other, therefore don't effect each other; but he probably took some classes in how to work metal and how heat works before building a grill. Just be equipped to do what you are doing. But yes, this is a non-issue.

jamesbrown:

Yeah, I tried not to blow it out of perportion; just point out what seemed was an logical course of action
Also, I didn't mean to say that you shouldn't go and do other things; just make sure your equipped with the skills to do it, like george foreman could be both an inventor and an boxer; the two skill sets have nothing to do with each other, therefore don't effect each other; but he probably took some classes in how to work metal and how heat works before building a grill. Just be equipped to do what you are doing. But yes, this is a non-issue.

Fair enough, no biggie.
But you do realise you have now made me really hungry for some Hash Browns a'la George? :) (I knew I should have had breakfast this morning.)

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

Reply to Thread

This thread is locked