Is Borderlands really all that popular still? Like I remember seeing the first few games everywhere, and people talking about them, but that was years ago. I realize I’m biased but I would expect to hear something about them…
Does 1 get better? I have 1 and 2 from a bundle years ago and started the first game. It’s sooo boring, like all the bad stuff from an mmo but single player. I don’t want to walk from a Hub to place A multiple times and just the spawning mobs change based on the quest.
Or if 1 doesn’t get better, can I play 2 without losing to much?
yeah it’s a little bare bones, it’s not worth more than a single playthrough really. Because the events of 1 are expanded on in 2 and some of the story beats land a little better if you knew the characters from 1 it’s worth playing once for novelty - but it being a 16 year old game it shows its age.
After what they did to my boy claptrap they can eat it. It’s obvious that the voice acting department is going to go out of the way to deservedly sabotage this series until it finally gives up.
2 was where the series really peaked. The first did some new things, and brought some fresh life into the shooter genre.
2 expanded upon it, and had a much better story. It was also in the heyday of matchmaking game lobbies, so it was easy to boot up the match finder and jump into a game with someone. Probably half of my Steam friends list came from playing this game and just vibing with people on voice chat while we ran through the side quests.
The prequel was… Alright? I’d put it about on par with the first game. It didn’t bring anything new or exciting to the table, but it was good at what it did.
Then 3 was just bad. It felt really cringey, in a “how do you do, fellow kids” kind of way. Like it was trying too hard.
And now 4 sounds like more of 3. The game sounds rushed, and the CEO’s attempting to cover for that rush makes him sound woefully out of touch. There’s no good reason that cel-shaded graphics should require a 5090 to run smoothly.
Someday, the industry is going to realize that while transistors might still be getting smaller, they aren’t getting cheaper for it. Which was the original formulation of Moore’s Law; cost of integrated component gets cut in half every x months.
Not just games, but the whole tech industry. Even in so far as faster hardware exists–and it just plain might not in this case–people can’t afford it.
I feel like we've long reached the point where the benefit of top-of-the-line hardware just isn't worth it. IMO, Switch 2 ought to be enough to target, and any game that can't fit on that can probably stand to be scaled back.
BL2 even had some PhysX simulations when using an Nvidia card for particles and effects, so between those and running at higher internal resolutions and framerates, it’s already better than the new one in some areas.
It’s unacceptable for games from big studios to be released in such a shoddy state. At this point, the best bet as a consumer is to wait 3 months before buying anything.
It's sad that a lot of devs just make their game and then slap frame-gen on it and then release it. Like who cares about optimization. Not that I blame them, people still buy those games full-priced, so...
Even so, the steam hardware survey seems to indicate that the vast majority of users wouldn’t reach specs to enable developer-approved framegen anyway. (Unless you count Lossless Scaling).
We’re kind of going full circle back to the paradigm of “You are judged on your entry level as much (or more) than your high end [gameplay performance]”.
I haven’t looked at the performance reviews per system yet but I recall the complaints for Borderlands 3 mainly came from people trying to run it on an old i5 with a 1060 or similar. You need a high end system, that much is clear. Or you need to get comfortable with 30 fps.
I’m not saying Randy is right to strike that tone, but you can’t deny there is a point to saying that some games are meant to be played on powerful systems and won’t accept anything less.
People with high end systems (5090s etc) are apparent having a lot of performance issues, and are unable to run the game at 60fps/4k without AI upscaling or frame generation.
There’s also a lot of complaints about stuttering, and the game wouldn’t launch at all for a lot of people when it first came out.
People with high end systems (5090s etc) are apparent having a lot of performance issues, and are unable to run the game at 60fps/4k without AI upscaling or frame generation.
It’s even better when you realize that the performance degrades the longer you’ve been playing that session. It’s unoptimized and leaky.
My complaint about borderlands 3 was the cringe main antagonists. Like I’m happily shooting stuff and they hop in with painfully mediocre snippets of whatever they’re supposed to be doing. Also they killed off one of the best characters. The gunplay felt nice, the music and graphics were good. I didn’t have any real technical issues.
Sure, in theory. In practice we're talking about 3k machines struggling to hit 60FPS (dropping as low as 30fps on occasions) on max settings with DLSS on. A 3k machine gets you high setting low 70 FPS with DLSS on. If a 3k machine is not a high end system what the fuck is a high end system? And the bigger issue is what exactly are we paying for here? Borderlands 4 doesn't even look significantly better than Borderlands 3. There's no reason for the game to be this performance heavy when it looks like a game from 2019.
You have a point in some hypothetical scenario but in actuality this is a case of Randy being full of shit.
For better or worse it’s unreal engine 5 (AKA volumetrics: the engine), so it’s got some easy performance gains here and there with engine.ini tweaks and maybe some mods to remove stuff if denuvo isn’t too bad about it.
pcgamer.com
Gorące