PC version of Borderlands 2 is ‘best way to play?’ Shocking!

Well, I am very slowly recovering, I think, from whatever virus got me last week. I’m hoping to be back working in earnest today, finally.

One thing I have been doing with my limited energy is following the launch coverage for Borderlands 2. As a huge fan of the original, I’ve had a number of problems with the reviews of the new one, mostly when the reviewer decides to put down the first game in order to explain how the second one is improved. To me, that’s just wrong. Look, I love my second child, but I don’t have to put down my first-born in order to explain her best traits.

You can see where I’m coming from here.

Anyhow, the absolute worst thing about Borderlands 2 coverage has got to be the stories, sidebars, or paragraphs that many gaming media outlets have produced saying nice things about the PC version of the game. (Congrats to Gearbox/2K PR, by the way, for getting these people to all write the same story. Creepy, but effective.) Invariably, it seems, these stories recount PC gamers’ complaints about the menu system in the first game, which was a bit too console-centric, and go on to talk about the PC-specific menu options and such built into BL2.

I’m fine with all of that, as far as it goes, although I’ve seen much, much worse console ports than Borderlands.

But the positive assertions about BL2 always seem to be formulated like this: with these new options, the PC version is now "the best way to play the game."

Ok, hold up.

Both of these games are first-person shooters at heart, really solid shooters augmented by a RPG-style loot system that requires extensive skill and inventory management. Was there any doubt about the best platform for such a thing? Are you seriously telling me there is some question about which version of any reasonably solid cross-platform shooter—released in, I dunno, years—is the best one to play?

Yeah, some menus in Borderlands had a touch of consolitis, but that only means they didn’t take full advantage of the additional precision offered by a mouse and keyboard. Nothing about that fact gave me a hankering for an ill-suited thumbstick controller, an eight-year-old GPU, high input latencies, and a blurry, low-resolution display.

Please. We PC gamers complain and struggle, but our beef is about the fact that our awesome, obviously superior platform isn’t being used to proper advantage. We’re not happy with lousy menus, silly long loading times, cramped game levels, and smeary textures because we know they’re unnecessary. Regardless, the PC was the best way to play Borderlands. This is not a close contest. It’s the best way to play Modern Warfare 3 and Skyrim and maybe eventually even the latest Halo, depending on how badly Microsoft decides to sabotage itself.

Here’s the thing. A good PC port isn’t about adapting a game to our platform so that it can match or narrowly beat the consoles. It’s about allowing what’s destined to be the best version of the game to reach its full potential by harnessing vastly superior CPUs, GPUs, storage, controllers, displays, and networking. The difference between the console and PC versions at this point is rightfully going to be a massive, multi-generational gap.

Borderlands 2 may fall into that latter category. I think it probably does. But there was never any question which version of this precision-oriented shooter was going to be the best one. The question was only how well it would embrace that fate.

Comments closed
    • DLAROC
    • 7 years ago

    Ive played consoles for years and just started going PC a few months ago and I don’t think I’m ever going back to console, at least not for now. Since I’m not that used to mouse and key play, I bought the official MS xBox pc controller, plus I hook my laptop to my tv via HDMI, and it’s just like I have a kick ass console (that I can take anywhere and play anywhere). Most PC games look better even on just medium settings than they do on PS3 or xBox. I lucked out and got the laptop from a friend for a decent price (400) (HP Dv6 quad core) that plays all new games nicely. Couldn’t be happier. Borderlands 2 plays great!

    • crazybus
    • 7 years ago

    Have they fixed the extremely narrow default FOV of the original?

      • TheBob!
      • 7 years ago

      Yeah. Default is 90 and you can set it up to 110 with the in game menu.

        • crazybus
        • 7 years ago

        Awesome. That was the one thing that bothered me the most about the first game. You could change the .ini file to adjust the FOV but every time you sprinted it would go back to the default.

          • willmore
          • 7 years ago

          It’s a nice improvement. Quantumn Conundrum got one, too. Things are looking up in the PC gaming world! Oh, wait, I forgot that ‘the end is near’ and ‘PC gaming is dead’. 🙂

    • mkk
    • 7 years ago

    It’s just sad when a game coming out late 2012 does not support triple buffering. In fact it was sad in 2009.

      • willmore
      • 7 years ago

      Does DX support some variety of triple buffering? I thought that was an OGL thing.

        • mkk
        • 7 years ago

        Triple Buffering is just a method for graphics to run smoother while VSync is enforced. It’s not graphics platform dependent as far as PC games go.

          • Martian
          • 7 years ago

          And the result is a constant delay between the input and the effect on the screen at lower frame rates…

            • travbrad
            • 7 years ago

            If you are getting low frame rates why are you even using Vsync?

            • derFunkenstein
            • 7 years ago

            You can use triple buffering without Vsync, and the result is still lower frames.

            • willmore
            • 7 years ago

            Triple buffering wouldn’t kick in until you exceed Vsync.

            • Martian
            • 7 years ago

            I always use VSync because I hate to see half frames on my screen.

    • Sam125
    • 7 years ago

    So…Scott. You’re ranting about a guy who blogged about not liking a game? Well, at least your article was more professional and had a pretty good point. But [b<]thank God[/b<] you didn't fall for that particular blogger's trap of inciting fury for the purposes of generating more page clicks and comments. That would've just been droll beyond measure. ; )

    • Disco
    • 7 years ago

    I’m a solo game player. I enjoy single player games and don’t have the time to get into multiplayer or coop. I like all sorts of FPS’s. I know that Borderlands 2 is supposed to have quite a good single player campaign and I’m interested in getting it at some point on a sale.

    I’m wondering if the single player campaign of the original Borderlands is worth playing. I’ve always heard about the excellent coop, but not much about playing it solo.

    Who here has played it solo (Scott?) and was it good? I thought it would be nice to play the original (which can be bought for $30 including all 4 DLC packs on Steam) before I get to Borderlands 2. I’ve heard that some of the DLC is excellent – I assume for single player.

    thanks for any advice.

    dave

      • superjawes
      • 7 years ago

      There is a Borderlands 2 thread going in the forums (Gaming subforum).

      And the main selling point of Borderlands (1 & 2) is the gameplay (and the humor). The story is somewhat there in the first, more in the second, but all of that is icing compared to the RPGFPS mechanics. I really liked the first and am enjoying the second as well.

        • Disco
        • 7 years ago

        thanks. I’ll check out the forum. Looks like something to get me through the winter once my field work starts to slow down.

      • indeego
      • 7 years ago

      The first one is totally worth playing through SP. It’s a grind in every sense of the word, but well worth the low cost it is now.

      I played through with 3 of the 4 characters, (I had zero interest in Lilith) easily put 50+ hours into it. It does get grindy, though, but worth the money. I think I started off loving it and then after a few playthroughs I ended up giving it a B/B+.

      • willmore
      • 7 years ago

      Don’t pay $30 for the GOTY edition, it should be under $10 when the end of year sales come up. It’ll pay to wait.

    • Vrock
    • 7 years ago

    “The best way to play” is relative. That may mean a PC for some folks, and a console for others.

      • cynan
      • 7 years ago

      But it is implied that it is “the best way to play” for people that have both a requisite gaming PC and console(s) and have no partiality to one or the other.

    • Krogoth
    • 7 years ago

    Borderlands 2 = Diablo 2 with Guns.

    Instead of hack/slash, it is “shoot and grab”. 😉

      • derFunkenstein
      • 7 years ago

      If that’s REALLY what it is, I think I’d really dig it. Never played the original.

        • indeego
        • 7 years ago

        It is kinda like it. Diablo isn’t funny really at all. This has amusement.

        • superjawes
        • 7 years ago

        The more I think about it, the more the comparison seems to stick. It is very much based on cool drops (and some signature weapons from bosses). Classes, talent trees, leveling…

        I think that if you see the first on Steam Sale, you should definitely pick it up to try. I think the GOTY edition goes down to $7.50.

          • derFunkenstein
          • 7 years ago

          Well based on all the chatter here, and my ownership of 2 $25 Gamestop gift cards, I got it for $14 (after tax) at my local Gamestop. Totally stoked to just on a whim put the key into the Activate on Steam screen and have it attach to my Steam account.

          I’ll get to play after my daughter goes to bed. Not really a game for 4-year-olds.

            • derFunkenstein
            • 7 years ago

            Been so long since I played an fps I go motion sick. It got better after a few minutes though. I think I like it so far, but I only played an hour.

            • Kharnellius
            • 7 years ago

            I have to tell you. The first few hours were slow. I think it gets much better after the initial “hey this is how we hold your hand” phase.

        • Meadows
        • 7 years ago

        I *have* tried the first game, but it couldn’t hold my attention. Crappy as Diablo III may be, it still achieves this feat better.

          • Kharnellius
          • 7 years ago

          Yeah, beginning of both Borderlands games were slow. If you can get past the hand holding for the first few hours, it gets much better, IMO.

    • Left_SHifted
    • 7 years ago

    * rant over.

    This should be edited to the end of the article. nice article

    • Waco
    • 7 years ago

    The worst thing is the terrible menu setup. It’s really, really, really bad.

      • willmore
      • 7 years ago

      Wait, I can’t mouseover to my backpack from my equiped items without an extra click and a bunch of scrolling? Clicking on an inventory item puts me in compare mode? Doesn’t mouseover doing that count as enough? Why isn’t click-on-item go to ‘what slot do you want to equip it in?’ mode? Why the heck do I have to click an extra time to equip a single slot item like a shield? Yes, game, I want to equip the shield in the shield slot, herp derr…

      At least it has a FOV slider! That kept me from vomiting in the first half hour of playing. Sadly, I’m one of those peopld who don’t respond well to narrow FOV.

    • blitzy
    • 7 years ago

    does PC support control pad? For me playing on xbox is much more comfortable and relaxing, which has a higher priority for me than graphics. The reason why I would hesitate to buy on console now is that consoles are at end of life, whereas buying on PC means you can continue to enjoy your games as long as windows supports them (it is still possible to play many ancient games in windows)

    i also dont like the idea of playing on xbox and having seperate content/unlocks if I want to play the same game on pc, it would be a lot easier if the game was persistent across platforms (not a borderlands specific problem, but a big problem with fragmentation of game platforms)

    platform fragmentation will hopefully become irrelevant in the near future, instead of playing with mouse and keyboard, I want to play with a motion sensitive gun controller, and occulus rift VR style display. That will be a much more immersive experience for me, and hopefully not intrinsically locked to any platform

      • sweatshopking
      • 7 years ago

      yes.

      • JumpingJack
      • 7 years ago

      [url<]http://www.amazon.com/Microsoft-Xbox-Wireless-Controller-Windows/dp/B000KA5T6A[/url<] PCs are vastly superior gaming platforms! It is no contest, death to all consoles.

    • Bensam123
    • 7 years ago

    Zom zom zom *praises the Scott god*

    I really think the best thing you guys can do is continue to quantify new harder in terms of the amount Xbox’s in power they have. You could even make a X360 baseline showing how much more performance you get over a X360 per dollar. It’s actually quite catchy and I could see it being a hallmark.

      • RenatoPassos
      • 7 years ago

      I second that! It would show hard facts and be a lot of fun at the same time (and yes, it would be a hallmark)!

    • SPOOFE
    • 7 years ago

    [quote<]Was there any doubt about the best platform for such a thing?[/quote<] No. There is no "best platform" to play a game, and when the PC Faithful realize this, their ranks will finally begin expunging the ego, self-absorption, and whiny, immature demanding behavior that murdered PC gaming in the late '90s and early 2000s. Maybe someday Techreport's reviews will stop supporting "Graphics Is T3h Bestest" bigotry. Until then, it's just going to be another site helping us get crappy games.

      • BobbinThreadbare
      • 7 years ago

      Except the PC is the best platform even when the graphics are identical.

      Mods, customization, multiple input methods. I could go on.

        • Martian
        • 7 years ago

        It’s exactly like a Linux vs. Windows argument. Some people require the extra freedom, some people find it plain annoying and overly time consuming. So there is no best platform in general.

      • BestJinjo
      • 7 years ago

      What are you a console noob? You can’t come out stating made up data on a PC site and not expect to be pawned. Go back to playing COD on your 360 and paying $50 live subscription a year or to 15 fps chugfest in the washed out and crippled Dark Souls on your PS3 or the 360’s Crysis version’s 1152×720 internal framebuffer…fail!

      Year-over-year unit sales increased by more than 100% for the seventh straight year, and during the 2011 Holiday Sale Steam’s simultaneous user number eclipsed the 5 million player mark.
      [url<]http://lambdageneration.com/posts/2011-a-record-year-for-steam-steam-sales-up-100-since-last-last-year-and-so-on-and-so-forth/[/url<] The PC is the best gaming platform for a grown up person since it offers the most flexibility: 1) You get the best graphics 2) You get the option of using a keyboard and a mouse at a desk or game on a large LCD/Plasma with a controller in the living room; 3) You get mods via PC gaming community; 4) Backwards compatibility for games that goes decades back; 5) Far cheaper games via Steam/Origin sales, etc. 6) Certain genres are always superior on the PC - MMOs, strategy games, FPS games. The only thing consoles are good for are exclusives. It’s Time For Me To Be A PC Gamer Again [url<]http://kotaku.com/5944356/its-time-for-me-to-be-a-pc-gamer-again[/url<] And now with AMD cards making $ through bitcoin mining, the only case for buying a console if you are above the age of 25 and have a real job is if you are a total console n00b from the 80-90s and don't know anything about technology, hardware and can't put together a good gaming rig. If anything, the 6-7 year old console generation is holding back the gaming industry as a whole. Both the 360 and PS3 have ran out of processing power at least 3 years ago. Their time is up, a long time ago.

      • destroy.all.monsters
      • 7 years ago

      Dumbest comment in thread.

      Games are optimized differently for each platform – and some platforms receive more attention than others. There’s a reason why some Saturn and Dreamcast games still have value (primarily Capcom’s and SNK’s 2D fighting games), and why the vast majority of fpses are better on the pc. Control schemes, mod support are the tip of the iceberg.

      It’s not solely about graphics and your desire to paint users as the bad guy instead of publishers is ignorant and wrong. Deus Ex, Unreal Tournament and many others came out in that time period. C&C. You have no idea what you’re talking about.

      Publishers only recently started moving away from the pc (and more recently started coming back) and that was due primarily to their desire to control the software and platform.

      Edited to add: what BobbinThreadbare and BestJinjo said.

      • cynan
      • 7 years ago

      RE the first paragraph: Might I suggest continuing this “debate” at a more [url=https://techreport.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=12&t=79074&start=270<]appropriate (and already established) venue[/url<]? As for the second paragraph... Umm yeeeah.

      • Washer
      • 7 years ago

      Except literally anything a console can do a PC can do better. It’s not just graphics. It’s controls and game customization, the two biggest factors in my opinion. You have the choice of keyboard+mouse or gamepad, it’s up to you! You can enjoy free player created content on many games. Hell, some of the best games going right now started as mods (or still are mods… like Day Z).

      I don’t get the TR comment. They’re reviewing hardware here… performance is a big factor, they cover other factors too though.

      I will say I think the PC gaming community as a whole does itself a disservice because there is a lot of focus on graphics in PC gaming. Which sucks in my opinion. But I feel that’s largely because the big name publishers rarely take advantage of the PC’s other unique abilities.

      • squeeb
      • 7 years ago

      So many trolls these days.

      • PainIs4ThaWeak1
      • 7 years ago

      Control customizations (via config file editing / drop-down console) are reason # 1 why I game with the PC. Quake 3 Arena days were the era that made this quite the important gaming aspect, to me.

      Or more recently – to get more play-time out of a game (eg. FO3 & FO:NV level cap raising via the ‘maxcharacterlevel’ switch) <- That switch alone extends my FO playthroughs to ~80-90 hours, sometimes as much as 100+ hours.

      Then the obvious, KB + Mouse comes, in close second, as reason # 2.

      • clone
      • 7 years ago

      whiny, immature, demanding behavior didn’t murder PC gaming…. may have saved it actually given that it’s alive and well albeit different….. and to be clear PC by far is the best platform if you’ve got the coin.

    • WaltC
    • 7 years ago

    Although Borderlands (either game) does nothing at all for me because of its cartoon artwork, and I eagerly passed up both because of that, this is certainly a worthwhile topic.

    At the rate that high-performance PC components are dropping in price, it becomes ever more problematic to imagine what a so-called next-gen console could possibly do for $300 that a $500 full-blown PC won’t do 10x better. xBox and PSx were born in an era where you had to spend >$2k to build a box with reasonable 3d performance credentials, which made these systems look very good to some people at a $300 price. We just don’t have and will never again see the kinds of pricing differences that existed between “PCs” and consoles 10+ years ago. I’ll bet this is in no small measure the reason Microsoft has perpetually put off the next xBox, and why Sony keeps on reinventing the PS 3 every couple of years. Economies of scale on the “PC” side of the fence are awesome, and consoles have in no small part benefited enormously from them. But as time moves on, the economic argument for consoles over “PCs”–the only real argument it was ever possible to make in favor of the console–gets thinner and flimsier.

    Eventually, I believe, the “console” will come full circle, and essentially will become nothing more than a low-end gaming PC that isn’t as upgrade-friendly as a slightly more expensive traditional PC. Heck, some people might already say we’re there now…;) I would, too, except for the x86 picture. That’s going to change with Haswell, I think, and in a fairly short while Intel and even possibly AMD, too, will be making serious inroads into territory now held firmly by ARM. Prices per x86 MHz seem to be falling as precipitously as x86 energy requirements. I just don’t see the traditional console as being a competitive concept for much longer.

      • ZGradt
      • 7 years ago

      It’s similar to what we’re seeing with phones and gameboys. Everything is functionally the same, just aimed at different markets. What kills me is that everyone seems to think that the consoles are spitting out 1080p visuals, when it’s actually more like 720p. At a max of 30fps. That’s unacceptable to a PC gamer. That was the state of things on the PC back when Quake 3 came out, but we’ve advanced quite a bit in the 13 or so years since.

      Heck, the first Xbox ran on a budget Celeron with a midrange Nvidia chip, and it could easily edge out the PS2 in specs. The bar is a lot lower when it comes to consoles.

      • Martian
      • 7 years ago

      Console manufacturers are happy because they can sell nearly the same crap for almost a decade, minor upgrades and shrinks every few years, meanwhile money pours in from games and other fees since the platform is closed and under their full control, they can charge for whatever they want.
      Game developers are happy as well because they can keep developing for the exact same hardware for years and years, no need to learn new things, no dificulties with everchanging hardware and software environments. No loud and critical customers, just sheeps who line up to buy the same crap again and again.
      Console players are happy as well, they don’t want to mess with a “huge and noisy” PC that requires constant attention, care and upgrades, they don’t want complex, challenging gameplay, mindblowing graphics, they just want to turn on the “box” and have some fun after work or school, nothing serious.
      In addition, PC is thought to facilitate piracy which is b******t, just as much console players have a second console for copied games. Those consoles shouldn’t even count in the statistics, but they do.
      So I don’t see PC is going to come out as a winner from this game. There is nobody behind it with a huge pile of money to popularize it. Even Valve is about to leave the sinking ship. Sadly…

        • sunner
        • 7 years ago

        “….even Valve is getting ready to desert the sinking (PC) ship….”

        Can you give a link or links, to where Valve said that?
        Or is it your opinion, formed by what you’ve seen/heard on the Web?

        I’m not ragging on you—I’m asking cuz I think Valve is quietly working on a Console that will play both console games and pc games.
        A box like that would imo revolutionize gaming.

          • Martian
          • 7 years ago

          It is my opinion only of course. I think Valve is working on it’s own hardware to have it’s own platform and do the very same thing M$, Sony or others do with closed platforms. Gain more control that they can transform into more money as soon as circumstances let them do so.
          I think they want to run a custom Linux OS on it, this is why they started experimenting with a Linux version of Steam, but it’s an insignificant detail. And the whole thing might prove to be too much for them and maybe we will never see a piece of solid hardware from them ever.

      • gamoniac
      • 7 years ago

      [quote<]I just don't see the traditional console as being a competitive concept for much longer[/quote<] I game on both PC and console. I am not arguing that PC games are awesome for us geeks, but I believe the consoles are here to stay for at least another generation, and the next gen will still sell well. Three reasons off the top of my head: 1. PC is for mainly for single user in a room, whereas console is more family oriented (eg. living room). Basically, they target different audience. 2. There is something about gaming on a 55"-60" HDTV that is satisfying. Yes, a 27" 2560x1440 is better, but not too many people have that kind of high-end monitor. Of course, this is subjective but it is true for me. 3. Consoles are morphing into media center/hub and providing more functionality and content than they did ten years ago -- Netflix, ESPN, Pandora, Zune, music/video streaming, etc.

        • Martian
        • 7 years ago

        A PC can be hooked up to a huge HDTV in the living room as well and it can function as a console and an awful lot more. But it requires some knowledge most people don’t have. Even connecting the cables to the back of the console is puzzling to most people. They do not read TechReport or any other geek site…

      • cjb110
      • 7 years ago

      Consoles will always have the edge on the OS side though.

      As Carmack and other developers have often alluded too, there is too much crap between the hardware and the game, and the drivers still aren’t good enough, and the OS’s aren’t good enough at abstracting the differences in hardware. (or the standards bodies aren’t creating robust enough standards)

      So a Console with the same hardware as a PC *would* actually perform better… for 6 months at least 🙂

    • Kougar
    • 7 years ago

    Combine any console FPS with a gamepad for precision aiming and then tell me the PC version isn’t better.

    Admittedly I haven’t played more than a few, but out of those I did the console games required so much auto-aim support that it was just a joke to play. If a console FPS game is going to aim for you (in addition to all the other freebies it already gives), then what’s left to do other than mash a single button the entire game? Just seems utterly boring, and automatically makes any PC version a little bit better if it has good mouse support..

    • cynan
    • 7 years ago

    At least Crytek is doing their best to [url=http://www.tomshardware.com/news/Crytek-Crysis-3-Keplar-FPS-Melting-PC,16928.html<]clear up any such confusion about Crysis 3[/url<] (about which platform might offer the superior experience) ahead of time. Maybe they're just feeling guilty about the lackluster performing console port that was Crysis 2... PS. Regarding the Tom's Hardware article linked above, gotta love how many "reviewers" only consider Kepler to be an example of state of the art consumer PC GPU tech (while Tahiti is obviously a dinosaur by comparison).

      • Krogoth
      • 7 years ago

      Here comes the resurrection of the “Will it run Crysis?” meme! 😀

      • Martian
      • 7 years ago

      It is not a business practice at AMD to pay where they fail to deliver… while many others’ ethics let them do so.

        • Silus
        • 7 years ago

        LOL, yeah keep spouting that nonsense! In AMD’s current state you may be hired as their next CEO and only employee!

          • Martian
          • 7 years ago

          Somebody finally fires all those people who proved to be unable to change the course of events. It is risky of course but eventually something happens.

      • Silus
      • 7 years ago

      Lackluster performing console port ? If there’s anything anyone CAN’T fault Crysis 2 is from being a lackluster performing title. It ran great, even on machines that ran the first Crysis poorly.

      Anyway Crytek can’t win…ever! The first game comes out and it runs poorly on old machines (shock) and they get criticized for it. At max settings it also slaughters top of the line PCs, which for some meant Crytek couldn’t code. Then Crytek makes adjustments and releases WarHead which runs better, yet brings the graphics fidelity a notch down. People complain that WarHead doesn’t keep the same graphics fidelity of the original Crysis.
      Crysis 2 comes out, it’s arguably the best looking game at the time of release and it runs great and has more focus on the story (it’s more on rails that the first one) and GASP…it doesn’t use DX11! People complain that Crytek sucks because Crysis 2 looks bad and it doesn’t use DX11 (while at the same time praising games like Left 4 Dead and Modern Warfare whatever version)

      Crysis 3 will be no different. Even though Crytek is practically the ONLY company actually keeping the PC platform alive, by pushing the envelope of current hardware, people will criticize the game because it doesn’t have DX12 or some stupid crap like that.

        • Arclight
        • 7 years ago

        *GASP* It won’t support DX 12? That game will be sh*t.

        • Geistbar
        • 7 years ago

        You have a very slanted view of history here. Crysis 2 got so many complaints for two primary reasons. One, it was a technological regression from Crysis; Crysis had 64 bit support and utilized DX10, while Crysis 2 did neither. Those regressions make no sense for a game where the PC is an equal partner instead of a platform to port to. The second is because they stated frequently that it was going to use DX11 from the start and treat the PC as something more than just a port.

        There’s often a lot of unreasonable criticism for media (and if there isn’t for a specific game/movie/etc., then it probably has unreasonable [i<]praise[/i<] in its place), but you shouldn't take the presence of such as justification to ignore reasonable criticism. EDIT: Also, PC as a gaming platform isn't kept alive my being graphically intense anymore. It's kept alive by being designed for PC first and foremost. Games like Torchlight or The Witcher do more for the PC as a gaming platform than Crysis 2 or Mass Effect 3.

        • cynan
        • 7 years ago

        I guess I meant performance more in terms of quality rather than how efficiently it runs. Sorry for the poor choice of words.

        And you are correct. They can’t win. I loved the fact that the original pushed the performance envelope to the extent that it did – even though I didn’t have a PC that could play it until a year after it came out. In my opinion, we need companies that push the envelope, because we’ll always have the huge corporations like EA and Activision that are fine with the status quo as long as they can sell x million copies of their there most popular handful of titles. So I’m personally excited that Crytek is promising a more demanding – at least resource wise – Crysis 3. It still won’t be as demanding in relative terms as the original was back in 2007 as Crysis 3 is still headed to consoles. But at least there’s hope.

        What really concerns me is Crytek’s apparent new dedication to cloud based F2P gaming. Ugh. I don’t see how this model works outside of MMORPGs or action RPGs like Diablo and its clones…

      • PrincipalSkinner
      • 7 years ago

      Crysis 2 was a good game. My gripes with it are lack of save game feature, mute protagonist and sometimes brain dead AI. A soldier walks up to his dead buddy and starts the never ending “You hit?! You hit?!”.
      None of those issues are results of consolitis.

    • albundy
    • 7 years ago

    yeah, my money is on mech warrior online.

    • voodootronix
    • 7 years ago

    Just to weigh in with what may be an unpopular point of view on this site, I don’t think you *have* to always prefer playing PC games with mouse and keyboard to prefer the PC as a platform.

    I’m a dedicated, long term PC gamer, I have three gaming PCs in my house just so buddies can play LAN with me, I’ve just bought a 660ti to play Borderlands 2 (I think my friends and I are just as excited about it as Tech Report)…but…I am personally gonna play it sitting on my bed, on a 40″ TV, with a control pad. About 7 feet from the screen so it looks really big. My team-mates can sit up in uncomfortable chairs all night!

    Even though I own all the “current” generation of consoles, they almost never get turned on apart from the odd bout of Soul Calibur, as PC is 100% my preferred platform. I’d just like to point out it can be fun to play a game with a control pad, regardless of platform!

      • superjawes
      • 7 years ago

      I think the appeal of the PC version is that you can make that choice. It’s the fact that a mouse gives you more control and that consoles haven’t really adopted it as an alternative that gives PC a clear advantage on that front.

      The only way you’re going to catch flak for using a controller is if you argue that an analog stick is better than a mouse 😛

    • yogibbear
    • 7 years ago

    There are guns in the game where the augmentation is each bullet you fire improves accuracy. I’m 2 hrs into the game. So far, I avoid these like the plague as they feel like auto aim and I end up feeling nauseous as my aim will go wildly all over the screen like an aimbot if I use one and I’ll fight against it trying to shoot at a different enemy…

    Ugh….!

      • willmore
      • 7 years ago

      High five! I paid a lot of money very early on because they seemed like a great idea. But it took too long to get accurate and the muzzle jump ruined the effect. I ended up spraying more than aiming and using up too much ammo–which cost me *more* money. I sold it and I’ve maked them for sale whenever I pick them up. Maybe they’ll make sense in some other play style–maybe the console guys like them–but I’ll stick with actally acurate guns. 🙂

      Lvl 17 Unstopable Pointman, right now. Need more mutated badass bug samples for the crazy British cyborg guy.

    • Ryhadar
    • 7 years ago

    [quote<]Anyhow, the absolute worst thing about Borderlands 2 coverage has got to be the stories, sidebars, or paragraphs that many gaming media outlets have produced saying nice things about the PC version of the game.[/quote<] It... is? A game company actually gave a damn about the PC version this time and even marketed it as such and this is a bad thing? Either this is sarcasm or I completely missed your point.

      • Damage
      • 7 years ago

      Well, OK, hyperbole. But it is a bad feature of the coverage.

      It doesn’t really match this, though:

      [url<]http://blogs.wsj.com/speakeasy/2012/09/18/game-theory-borderlands-2-fails-to-cross-ove/[/url<] Best unintentional comedy piece of the year.

        • Ryhadar
        • 7 years ago

        Hah, I’ll have to read that later thanks. Also, I accidentally submitted my post too soon, so it looks like a ninja edited but I promise that wasn’t my intention!

        *EDIT* – Wow! That review was so bad it was hilarious. The guy could sum up the review by saying, “It’s not Call of Duty. 0/10” and calling it a day, haha.

        • rxc6
        • 7 years ago

        My goodness! Even skimming over that piece of crap was painful.

        • drfish
        • 7 years ago

        OMG, that’s the best thing I’ve EVER read! I’m literally laughing out loud. Thanks for pointing it out!

        • superjawes
        • 7 years ago

        I would love to see his thoughts on Spec Ops: The Line…

        • jdrake
        • 7 years ago

        WOW – that was amazing. The comments are the best part.

        • lilbuddhaman
        • 7 years ago

        From the writer of that article in response to the THOUSANDS of bad comments:
        [quote<] A. Najberg wrote: Dear Community Members, I know you’re angry at me for what I wrote previously on this article. I didn’t want to cause controversy on here at all. I just wanted to write a simple review about Borderlands. That being said, I do not take back what I said about Borderlands 2. I know you are all upset with me but Borderlands was NOT a good game and it definitely did not compare to Call of Duty or Halo in multiple ways, as I stated above. Call of Duty and Halo are going to contain much more rich multi-player abilities than Borderlands 2. Also, I believe the graphics on Call of Duty and Halo are much more detailed and accurate than in Borderlands 2. I was basically just writing my opinion on how I dislike Borderlands 2. It wasn’t supposed to be against a community member or anything at all. Please stop writing on my YouTube, Twitter, Facebook, and Google+. Also, please stop calling my work. Nobody deserves this much harassment because of his belief on a simple video game that wasn’t up to standards. I appreciate the time you took to read this comment. Thank you, Adam Najberg [/quote<] I think he's being paid by you-know-who, or that he's simply a CoD-Bro. Idiot either way.

        • Jason181
        • 7 years ago

        Comedy gold. Did you see how many comments that article has? There’s a half-hearted apology by the author at the top of the comments.

          • superjawes
          • 7 years ago

          I tried to read the article and comments at work on IE. It almost died.

        • cynan
        • 7 years ago

        As laughable as that WSJ review may be, it’s still at least one step above Fox News’ “Sexbox” coverage of Mass Effect.

      • Damage
      • 7 years ago

      To be clear, the raw ignorance in “revealing” that, goodness sakes, the PC version may be the best way to play is painful to watch.

        • Ryhadar
        • 7 years ago

        I think I see your point. I looked at it the other way though: despite years of being in the shadow of consoles, the PC finally gets some much deserved love from a AAA title with marketing to boot.

        Arguably, the features they added are standard affair for you and me but, hey, progress!

          • Damage
          • 7 years ago

          Like I said, I’m good with all of that. But the bit that was bad.. yeah, I elaborated on that point.

        • superjawes
        • 7 years ago

        I could see an interesting argument for analog sticks and D-pads on the left hand, but until consoles can also offer a mouse or effective alternative on the right hand, there is no comparison.

        I guess after 10+ years of Xbox and equivalents being considered the mainstream of gaming, journalists are assuming that people are ignorant to the fact that their PC can play games.

          • brucethemoose
          • 7 years ago

          [quote<] journalists are assuming that people are ignorant to the fact that their PC can play games [/quote<] Sadly, that's the case with most gamers I know. They recognize Age of Empires/Sims/etc. but alot of them seem confused when they see Skyrim on FPSs on my desktop.

          • lilbuddhaman
          • 7 years ago

          Woah woah, what about lefties?

            • l33t-g4m3r
            • 7 years ago

            Become ambidextrous. I’m a lefty and use a RH Logitech G500. The only thing I have trouble using is a non-inverted gamepad, and I attribute that to growing up playing descent and other flight games with a joystick.

            • siberx
            • 7 years ago

            I absolutely concur. I’m most definitely left-handed, and have used a computer with the mouse in my right hand since I started on the things (currently own a very RH-only G700 and love the thing).

            For the negligible difference in starting accuracy/comfort for using a mouse in your dominant hand you’re seriously hamstringing yourself in terms of peripheral availability; there’s barely anything ambidextrous available in nice mice, and good luck finding something specifically left-handed. By the time you’ve spent any time whatsoever on a computer you’ll be just as good with whichever hand you’ve been using – so start with the one that’ll give you the widest choice of comfortable mice!

            To all you lefties just starting out with computers – put the damn mouse in your right hand; you’ll thank me later 😉

            • superjawes
            • 7 years ago

            HANG ALL THOSE UNAMURICAN LIB–

            Oh, you mean left handed people…

            I feel bad for you, but I think you need to learn to play right handed. That’s not even a console/PC argument as it is a hardware development overall. Left handed mice are few an far between, and I don’t think I’ve ever seen a left handed controller with the exception of the Wiimote and simple joysticks.

            • BobbinThreadbare
            • 7 years ago

            The N64 controller came pretty close, and a lot of games had an alternate control scheme for using it left handed.

            • superjawes
            • 7 years ago

            True, but although I loved the N64 and am still a Nintendo fanboy, I can’t say that the controller was comfortable.

            Didn’t Gabe mention something about innovating beyond the keyboard and mouse for games? It seemed a little crazy, but if they do anything, I do hope that my left handed friends can get some handiness-neutral controls.

            • lilbuddhaman
            • 7 years ago

            Think about it like this…which side of the controller most closely resembles the mouse for most game? Left thumbstick / directional pad. Me being a lefty is actually a benefit for the controller, but this crazy talk of something like that being incorporated into the keyboard is heresy!

            -MasterRaceLefty

      • Bensam123
      • 7 years ago

      I sure am glad that the game was marketed to PC gamers! We would be at a loss if it wasn’t.

    • Forge
    • 7 years ago

    I have the demo. Come by my house and I’ll let you play it. Not right this minute though, I’m working on a Badass point.

    • south side sammy
    • 7 years ago

    where’s the demo ?…………… and before any of you scoff at that…………. for how long have we all been getting boned because we get to see great movies but when we purchase the game we feel reamed because we spent money on a lie ( Vista… ahem ) ?

Pin It on Pinterest

Share This