Gearbox, hear this

Character sheets are fun and all, but if we’re just gonna get another game full of cutscenes where your VH isn’t acknowledged, or even appears, then who cares? I liked Roland, Axton, Zero, Wilhelm, and Zane (most of all) but lbh they’re just different flavors of quips to listen to during gunfire, or in response to some NPCs. At best, something to theme the the action skills around.

I’m more concerned with things like “every VH being able to use AT LEAST 2 action skills” (ala Zane), and that, if we’re gonna have the same 3 lane skill trees, EVERY tier needs to have three skills. And not TRASH skills. Hell, have more than one capstone per action skill. Build diversity isn’t a skill point abundance problem, it’s a skill tree branch diversity problem.



I’m more or less just trying to think up some original ideas for the action half of the game and the plot (post 5 in that thread). They always have a soldier, a siren, a merc, and a bruiser regardless of the skin they put over bones. My character ideas are an attempt to bring some diversity to the largely played out human roster.

I’d love it if the VHs took a more active role in the storyline, but that’s going to require that Gearbox get much more serious about its writing, imo.


Look my main problem with the story is how the gaurdian issue has been handled. Gearbox did this thing where they teased us with a serious dramatic introduction to the highest ranking gaurdian at the time known as the watcher in the pre sequel. So going into bl3 I was expecting a very serious problem to be presented with the gaurdians in this game. What did we get instead? Your telling me that there’s this threat almost unstoppable in the cylipsos and the gaurdians didn’t intervein? They tried to rectify this with dlc 6 but by then they had already butchered the story. I’m going to also speak on another serious point and it’s this- I read an article probably about 3 or 4 years ago where randy pitchford was talking about how he didn’t feel like the current gen at the time( ps4 and so forth) could even handle what they wanted to do. So imagine my surprise when bl3 was announced for that gen. This explains the piss poor story and performance of the game. They knew they couldn’t do the dramatic game changing ■■■■ they wanted to do on last gen so they gave us a placeholder instead. This is why I get excited thinking about bl4 because I have a nagging feeling they have been testing things in bl3 and wonderlands in preparation for the “game changer”. I hope my suspicion is validated. I’m also a strange and peculiar fellow so take that with a grain of salt. In other words I always trust conspiracy before the narrative.


To add to my point and the culmination of what I was getting at is this…bl4 needs to get real serious and real fast. If they come out with some kind of new age morale bs then borderlands dies. But if God forbid they sit down and craft a legitimate epic hard ass but intuitive experience while also taking first person looter schlooters to the next level then I might yet keep the faith. But with all the signs I have seen it’s doubtful. They have to show me.


Personally, I think RP is mostly just a boisterous media junky. I believe he stumbled onto something he wasn’t prepared for with the original Borderlands, and he’s been playing catch-up ever since. His comments about the current generation of consoles not being able to match his ambition might have been true where graphics rendering was concerned, but the sheer amount of content released for BL3 (a game which began development long before the next generation of consoles had even been made public) implies that Xbox One and PS4 were more than capable of handling the ganeplay. Clearly their focus was never storyline or balancing or polishing what they had - what made the Borderlands series the success it is. RP just wanted the game to look prettier than it did when he/Gearbox had every tool required to make it perform well.

RP, much like a caveman, stumbled upon fire before he understood its value, and even to this day, he doesn’t understand how to handle it properly. Sure it’s pretty and can help to keep you warm at night, but if not handled with care, you’re gonna get burned.

Your beefs with the storytelling are certainly understandable. I don’t think it’s any secret, that many wish they’d invest a bit more effort into crafting a congruent, meaningful plot, but as I see it, at this late stage, they’re going to have to put a lot more money into the writing and a lot less into pointless things like high-profile voice actors, advertisements shaped like movies, and the highest-possible graphics. And with a much as RP loves to be the center of the spotlight, I just don’t see that happening.

1 Like

BL1 BL2 and BLTPS both came with great local co-op split screen. Myself and my significant other spent a great amount time playing those and had a blast doing it. As soon as we fired up BL3 and play split screen you could tell it was off. First there wasn’t a vertical option, okay, grated it was in the last entries but okay, then we played what was provided and needless to say it didn’t fair any better. UI/Performance and text size were (still are) crap. Anyone that even attempted to play it could tell it was a mess so why it was released that way is beyond me.

Yes vertical was later implemented but that was done was a change in the orientation but everything the community was asking/requesting (ie :UI, text size, performance) wasn’t addressed.

I find it even more insulting that @GBX has the audacity to have a show entitled Couch Co-Op where BL3 was touted but they never actually PLAYED split screen couch co-op like 95% of their customers do. Guess that is another instance of @GBX burying their proverbial head in the sand.


It depends on the game. Factorio has some amazing streamers who you can learn a lot from.

For the most part though, I agree. Streamers are the ones who dictate what a given game’s “meta” is; i.e., which gear or strats you are allowed to use if you want social acceptance from the rest of the playerbase.

Here is a good example, check out the sizing difference of the UI from BL2 to BL3. Imagine sitting on a couch trying to read that quest text under the mini map. The menu text size and weapon card text are the same size and issue.

Simple fix would have been to have the UI scale able to better adjust it to fit each screen size rather than just cram two single player UIs into a single screen making the text 50% of what it is in solo play.

1 Like

I thought they’d added an option for vertical splitscreen in BL3? You’re right about the font size though - BL3 overall uses smaller fonts than BL2. Same thing has happened with many other games using UE4. The Outerworlds, for example, had the same issue when it launched, but the developer adjusted it in response to player complaints.

Imagine that.

1 Like

I wouldn’t. Imagine trying to present that as a business case :rofl:

“yeah so we have about three users out of a million that use a completely impractical monitor that would need us to completely redesign most of the UI constraints just so things remotely make sense”

“sure, schedule that for sometime next decade, with a priority tag of never”

Sure, some games might be better, some games might be worse (you even said other games are simply “not as bad”), but no game is going to look great with that kind of screen shape.

Harshness aside, the reality is there is always going to be hardware that isn’t supported, and it’s not as simple as “just make it all based on percentages”. A lot of my software work involves making displays work on a variety of different screen sizes, shapes and aspect ratios (we support desktops and mobile devices, including tablets, across the board). Fun fact! It’s actually one of the most fundamental and difficult parts of designing the product.

We have to have cutoffs. It’s not feasible to keep rewriting everything because somebody has a phone shaped like a Z somewhere. It’s a cost-benefit analysis. And Borderlands 3 in particular (before you assume I think it’s a perfect star-studded example of perfection) has a lot more work that could be done (even now) before raising a screen like that as something that needs catering for.

They did add the Vertical split but more UI gets cut off its basically which ever terrible layout you prefer.

If only Gearbox would do the same…

1 Like

First off, the monitor and the 32:9 aspect ratio is officially supported by the game.

Second, it’s just a matter of rendering more. You have a standard 16:9 1440p display in the middle and then half of another one on each side. All you have to do to support it is maintain perspective. The problem with BL3 is it’s horribly fish-eyed in it’s perspective. It’s fish-eyed on your monitor, you’ve just gotten used to looking at it that way. But look at something straight in front of you like an NPC so they’re right in the middle of the screen, and then slowly turn until they’re at the edge of the screen and you’ll see that their character model becomes longer and wider. It’s just more obvious on my monitor because the edges of my screen are farther from the center.

And frankly, this is called cheating or lazy coding. By making the view fish-eyed they can give the appearance of rendering more of the world than they actually are. They have to put less effort into optimizing their graphics engine. They simply render a 4:3 screen and then fish-eye it into 16:9. But man does it look bad when that fish-eye effect is stretched out to 32:9.


What FoV can you get up to on that 32:9 setup, and does that make a difference? That has always seemed to affect the amount of ‘fish eye’ effect I’ve seen on 16:9 monitors (which I’ve definitely noticed as it tends to make me motion sick :nauseated_face:)

I feel like this is the important part that kinda flies under the radar. If it was a simple matter of just “rendering more”, it wouldn’t be a problem in the first place. So we can assume (for whatever reason, negative or positive, charitable or not), that it is a problem. That the answer isn’t as simple as just “rendering more”.

So it comes down to the perception of “lazy coding”, when we all know that BL3 had severe performance problems from the start. It literally broke for me, for months on end (as much as I love the game and go to bat for it, I did not go to bat for the performance over that period. I spent hours in a 2K support ticket demonstrating the issue).

Performance is hard. And is ultimately dictated by the budget given to the project, not lazy coding. Which I appreciate most people don’t care about, distinction-wise.

It’s in the game. I don’t think I can select it from a list in my game, because I don’t have a monitor that supports it. Which means the game doesn’t support it explicitly. I think it’ll poll your hardware for what the hardware supports, and renders that to the ingame options, and then from that point does its best to support the listed options. Certainly not better than listing it at all (like a lot of older games that have a fixed number of resolutions and aspect ratios - for example, non-Legendary Edition, “classic” Mass Effect 2 that fails to start properly on my 1080p monitor).

But that’s just an (educated) guess (educated because I’ve literally done basic work on supporting multiple displays and working out what info the system can give me about the display devices before, but never got as far as building it into a rendering engine, nevermind one as complex as BL3’s. Mine was just for monitor detection and screen-edge snapping for 2D GUIs).

1 Like