RPGWatch Forums - Borderlands 2

RPGWatch Forums (http://www.rpgwatch.com/forums/index.php)

- News Comments (http://www.rpgwatch.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=10)

- - Borderlands 2 - Review Roundup #3 (http://www.rpgwatch.com/forums/showthread.php?t=18147)

Borderlands 2 - Review Roundup #3

Here are 4 reviews of Borderlands 2 and one review of a review of Borderlands 2.
Techland rates it 4 out of 5.
Pushsquare feels it being worthy a score of 8.
Frost Magazine has it at 85/100.
Gamesbeat are trying something new, called a threeview where a critic an analyst and an academic each review the game (all rate it above 90%).
And as a last entry there is a review of a review. Remember the odd review of Borderlands 2 by The Wallstreet Journal? Gameranx have analyzed that review and provide their thoughts on why someone could write somethink like that.

Quote:

The author fills the piece with claims that he makes no attempt to back up, uses nonsensical unrelated images in the article's body and cites wikipedia for a plot summary; this last point is particularly odd, because it portrays events that were set-up narrative before the previous game began as if they unfold whilst you're playing. Most egregiously though he makes direct comparisons to features in entirely dissimilar titles with different production focus in order to suggest a fault on Gearbox's part for not including them. The game is not on par with a Call of Duty due to lacking a huge multiplayer, despite that not at all meshing with the kind of experience that it actually is; a co-op RPG with shooting mechanics.

More information.

well, after 11 hours. I can say the writing is cool. Its definitely an improvement in quest flow … but not enough. Maybe its just me, but I only play it from time to time without any kind of excitement.

besides taht , at first I ran into technical problems a the start. I think Lucid Virtu was causing them.. or some disabled ATI option in the cfg file

its a 7 for me solo play, 8 party for now. but I don't expect to be blown away

Gah that awful article again. The WSJ article author only seems to be interested in Hockey, Football, Halo, and COD derived games. That's basically the totality of his game-article portfolio on WSJ and much of his critique reads as a long explanation of how it is not either a Call of Duty game or Halo. I believe he probably decided against pointing out that it was neither an NHL or Madden NFL game because he thought that his readers might be able to pick up on that one on their own. So yeah made one correct decision.

They are way too hard on him. He simply didn't like the game. And the attempt to nail him at "quoting wikipedia" is disingenuous: he said he had to look up Wikipedia to remember plot points from the first game.