Comments on: Thoughts: Borderlands 2.

By: Gap

Gap — Thu, 15 Nov 2012 10:01:35 +0000

A problem I had last night was an escort mission that was too hard – I couldn’t physically kill the enemies fast enough to protect my ward. Grinding time, I guess.

By: Darren

Darren — Wed, 14 Nov 2012 16:22:54 +0000

That’s my usual approach to games as well, but the Borderlands series has so far really disincentivized that type of behavior. I really wanted to play the game that way when I first got it, given the overall increase in writing focus and quality, but doing Trivial quests pits you against enemies who are so weak and give so little XP (on top of the game’s already bit-too-slow level progression)that it just wasn’t fun.

By: Gap

Gap — Wed, 14 Nov 2012 15:27:35 +0000

My approach is to do every quest I find, but play it at my own pace so I don’t get bored. This means I can’t play co-op, but eh.

By: Hentzau

Hentzau — Wed, 14 Nov 2012 14:45:54 +0000

I’ll be honest, your approach to quests does sound like a better way to play the game even if my OCD approach to completion meant it was out of the question for me.

By: innokenti

innokenti — Tue, 13 Nov 2012 17:02:09 +0000

I think there was a long period where I hankered for them and then just so many came at once in like… 18 months. Too much! aaaa.

By: Darren

Darren — Tue, 13 Nov 2012 16:59:16 +0000

I disagree with the premise that the game is significantly worse solo. I view it in the same way I would a no-nonsense shooter like Doom or Wolfenstein: you shoot stuff that is standing in front of you. That’s it. Adding more people certainly makes the game busier and flashier, but you’re still just shooting stuff in front of you.

I’m also not sure about that 30 hours thing. I’ve played through with multiple characters, and I wouldn’t say it took more than about 10 to ever complete the game. My rule is simple: I don’t do quests that are labeled as ‘Trivial.’ Each playthrough gets some different quests as a result, while the New Game+ scales enemies as you level, so I can just do what I want.

Totally agree with you about the Archer parallel, though. Glad I’m not the only one who thought that. I’d add that part of Jack’s effectiveness as a villain is the fact that his moonbase is almost always visible in the sky (shame you don’t get to visit it) and that his robo-henchmen, who can be artillery-dropped from aforementioned moonbase, are actually pretty effective combatants. You can’t ever really forget that Jack is there, and his threat level isn’t undercut by ineffective goons.

By: Hentzau

Hentzau — Tue, 13 Nov 2012 12:28:24 +0000

There have been rather too many of them this year, it is true.

By: Hentzau

Hentzau — Tue, 13 Nov 2012 12:15:34 +0000

Yeah, I mean a big problem with co-op games is the pacing thing. If the other three want to play then you’re kind of stuck with either joining in or being left behind — and trust me, you don’t want to be left behind in Borderlands. Coming in later you’re either going to get squashed by higher-level baddies or else you’ll have missed a decent chunk of the content.

By: innokenti

innokenti — Mon, 12 Nov 2012 15:32:44 +0000

I think I did well to skip on by…

It is possible I have run out of ARPG steam anyway.

By: Gap

Gap — Mon, 12 Nov 2012 15:27:19 +0000

I dunno if I want to play this co-op. You mention a combination of uneven levels and the fact that it’s better dipped into than played through in one go. I’m happy playing every time I want to shoot something and don’t care what or how, and don’t want the hassle of playing at someone else’s pace. It also has a story, so I don’t want to dip into it as co-op might require. It is also too long for what it is. Still, nice game, but not a truly great one.