The game just needs a lot of patching.
I mean, give it time guys. If it’s not your thing, then that’s fine. There are PLENTY of games out there for every person. Heck, when I am not playing BB or OW I am playing Fallout 4 or Shadowrun. There’s something for everyone.
Yeah, there are some things I wanna see changed on this game, same with Overwatch. I like both, I’ll play both. I’m not counting this game out this early, but I won’t stop anyone else from doing so if they feel it no longer lives up to their potential.
I have some friends I play with regularly, and I am quite happy with that
Snow patch is bringing back players - 10/10
Apparently 2k, rather than Gearbox, is responsible for marketing. I agree it was sparse, however.
I think all the advertising as “from the creators of Borderlands” did more damage than it did any good. It’s basically just the humor that is similar, but everything else is hard to compare, so I think a lot of people had false expectations from the start.
Oh I don’t know. I think the sense of humour and writing in general definitely justifies a recommendation to Borderlands fans, and as Bl2 was so popular I see why they emphasised the similarity. It might have dimmed people’s sense of the game’s originality though.
It’s really too early to say, I think.
The PC numbers, looking at steamcharts, are not encouraging currently but do seem fairly stable, if low. That will probably get bumped a bit with the next patch. I don’t think it’s “dying” (Grey Goo is an example of a game that died), even on PC, but rather that it has a smallish playerbase.
Some of this has to do with the timing of the launch. Although Overwatch is a very different game, there are enough superficial similarities that launching BB in the same month as OW was probably not the best approach from a strategic point of view. The reason being that OW has kind of taken over the gaming space – temporarily of course – currently, and that will have a negative impact in the short term on a game like BB which many people will wrongly infer is very similar to OW. In short, Blizzard is taking market share at this point for people who want to play competitive/cooperative online shooters, regardless of the fact that the two games are very, very different.
That’s temporary, I think, but real enough in the short term. In the medium term we will see, I think, BB retaining a smallish but dedicated group of players, and all of the noise about OW will die down as well, and we will return to a bit more of a normal situation, with players sorting themselves into the type of game they prefer.
You have in both instances a first person shooter that has extra abilities. The movement speed and level of chaos is in general the same. The difference lies in the game mode nuance. In both examples you have “a package” that needs to be helped to get to a certain point. In one instance, the package is a car or a cart. In another it is a group of minions. So in both instances you need to get the package to the point. Now the biggest difference is what you do at that point. In one instance, you gotta pass the point. In the other, you have to destroy the point. So from general perspective they are the same.
If you make the sentry just a passing point, take away the ability of minions to shoot back and make them immortal, you end up with the same game as Overwatch if it had dual payload map like in Team Fortress 2 Payload Race. The thing that is extending the time needed to win the round is the destructibility of minions and the need to destroy the passing point. In essence, they are all the same and the game that offers the most polished experience will win in the long term.
Last time I went to play I would queue up for a story mission and wait for about 5 minutes. At least 95% of the time there’d be no groups found (on either difficulty). The other 5% I was lucky to get 1-2 people, but I haven’t seen a full group since about the first week of release. Inevitably, one or both of the players found would leave. Not going to stick around playing a game where there is almost literally no group content available. This is on PC in Aus…
Very generally there are similarities, but to me at least they play rather differently and my experience when playing them feels different.
OW is more of a quick-fix TF2 type experience for me. Very easy to get in and out, matches resolve very quickly, maps are designed to facilitate lots of action around objectives, and it’s a very fun, polished quick fix. BB is more like a MOBA – matches take longer to resolve, there are more diverse mechanics at play, and the game is much less of a quick fix, but a bit meatier in feel. And that’s just the PvP side of things – PvE of course is something that OW doesn’t have.
Personally I enjoy both games, but I see them as being pretty different despite the very general similarities (both competitive/cooperative online shooters).
I am known to be a generalist so…that’s why I see it this way. Not to conerned about all the minute details. When explaining the gameplay, the generalistic approach is the best to be objective.
Quick fix, of course. You can jump in and out of the game in Overwatch and Team Fortress 2 because there is that linear element of gathering experience (leveling) missing. The game in OW and TF2 is always running and maintaining balance in the number of players. In BB it is a closed loop like in LOL and other MOBA’s. The solution here would be that any new player can join if there is a need for it (disconnect or rage quit) and assign him the average level of the team, rounded to the higher level. This way, you can jump in and out of the game like you can in OW and TF2. You change this, and you get the same “quick fix”. Modify the damage level of minions and sentries to shorten the round time…and you are pretty much there with OW and TF2.
I agree with you that GB could make those changes to BB to make it more like OW (shorter matches, quicker fix), but I’m not sure that would be the best strategy for BB, given that they’re going for the MOBA hybrid approach, which is generally less of a quick fix approach. I think it just appeals to different players, and probably more of a niche group of players as compared to the TF2 type design. I’d think it would be a better move to try to retain that design difference than to make it more similar to OW, in terms of trying to carve out a place for the game longer term.
I find I tend to really appreciate the nuanced details of a game. The way games with strong similarities pursue a unique approach, through particular, sometimes subtle decisions. I love Team Fortress 2, which means I was more than happy to look at Borderlands 2, Battleborn, and Overwatch. I like the familiar aspects of all these games, but also really enjoy experiencing the different aesthetics, characters, etc.
To me, being interested in how developers follow and deviate from their rivals seems to be a demand for enjoying video games. They tend to be very dependent on genre, which actually allows for real creativity within that genre, e.g. a FPS with MOBA elements. If all I saw was the same general game, without paying attention to how it makes changes to the genre it belongs to, I’d have given up gaming very quickly.
My experience with Battleborn is that it definitely provides enough twists on its genre and creative details to deserve a place in my Steam library.
I would prefer 20 minute countdown timer. When we reach 10 minute countdown mark…the game should’ve already finished…starts to drag on. Most of the popular shooters finish the round in 10 - 15 minutes. The two most popular games on Steam are Dota 2 and Counter-Strike. The 3rd one is Team Fortress 2 with a huuuuge difference in the number of players among the three. So merging these two play styles into one is the way to go. As we are witnessing now, both Overwatch and Battleborn went for that possible market. The former is winning. The Overwatch was announced first, only later the Battleborn joined the wagon. Both had open beta versions. Battleborn had cca 2 million downloads (this is the number I recall) and now it is only on 5k players while Overwatch reached 7 million copies sold (70 times more than Battleborn). Bullet lag (wonky aiming) killed this game on PC and left the space wide open for Overwatch to take over. So to regain market share, Gearbox has very little space to move…
- Fix wonky aiming (bullet lag)
- Shorten the round
- Netcode optimisation
- Graphics optimisation
- Champion balance
That is (or should be) their priority list.
Yes, art style, animation, effects (you obviously prefer more cartoon style graphics)…visual appeal is usually the thing that attracts you to something. Then you try a demo and if you like the insides (game engine and mechanics) you buy the game. If you are a bit more optimistic person you overlook some of the inside things because you know there is a room for improvement. If there is no improvement, you leave the game alone.
True and fair. I’m definitely not saying Battleborn doesn’t have problems and I think it’s great that players are willing to come on here and spend time offering productive feedback. It’s worth noting some of the major issues people have been reporting here aren’t universal, but I don’t mean to deny how irritating they are for the people hit. But, the problems in BB are far outweighed by the fun and artistic achievement I’ve really found in it. Although, I bought and loved Goat Simulator…
I guess I do enjoy cartoon-style shooters; the art can be hilarious and I think it allows for some great surreal plot / skill elements to come in, rather than just playing with toy soldiers. My favourite FPS is actually Half Life, and I like playing other military shooters… sometimes. A game like Spec Ops: The Line is in a very different league to CoD of course.
all they need to do is put in the free to play elements and bam , game becomes wtf , esported game. with one story mission and 4 chars a month free to play and unable to purchase extra spaces, and those that got normal version get all access like we got and holy badass game is now most popular esport in the world, but i still think there still in test phase.
Anyone that understand the game it is a badass game and alot strategy . and team work.
But i think they need a option to put are character in 3rd party camera view over the fps , so you can team work better. plus look at the artwork of the characters.
I get where @hattieinduni is coming from.
Basically, his complaint is separated up into two parts. And I can explain both easily.
Presenting Personal Taste as Fact
This has always been a problem with random Internet folks and having an overstated view of their own opinion. The bizarre idea that if a person doesn’t like a cartoony aesthetic (which is fine!), then no one likes it. So the game has to have its visuals redesigned to suit what may actually be a minority. It’s a form of entitlement that comes from being in the mainstream and enjoying an industry that falls over itself to service you.
So when you encounter a game that doesn’t necessarily do that, you’re confused by it, and you don’t think there’s any audience that could enjoy it purely because it isn’t targeted at you. Well, Sonic & All-Stars Racing Transformed wouldn’t be targeted at you, either, but it was a hugely popular game.
Frankly, I personally love the aesthetic of Battleborn. I think it has character and personality, which is sorely lacking in a lot of games which just opt for fidelity instead. Battleborn tells a story with everything it does, which is awesome. The environments themselves speak of their history, what they were used for, and what purposes they’ve served throughout that history.
It’s not just soulless fidelity for the sake of soulless fidelity. But that’s just my opinion, I’m not a fan of that kind of thing just for that kind of thing’s sake.
Considering how many people actually like Battleborn’s aesthetics, presenting a dissenting opinion as fact that they actually, indeed, do not is seen as arrogant, condescending, and out of touch. If you want to say something like this, present it as an opinion, not a community-wide Universally held belief.
Constructive Criticism is Awesome
If you’re not careful, criticism can turn into doomsaying. You’ll start whining about how the game is dead all ready and how everyone should go to some other game, which will automatically make you look suspicious. This is doubly true if that’s all you’ve done. Especially if you don’t actually seem to have any personal investment in that opinion beyond trying to make the game look bad.
You actually have to show an investment in something, that you’re not just complaining for the sake of it to try and undermine the community and crush their spirit. Often, that’s exactly what it feels like complainers are actually doing rather than trying to help Gearbox with what they see as a problem. It’s a difference in attitude and it changes how people will perceive you.
Whenever I have a complaint, I tend to state my opinions clearly and I implore with Gearbox to consider what I’m saying. I always make my personal investment in the game openly clear. I show how much I care about this game and it’s community, that I’m not just having an opinion to be disruptive and create chaos.
A lot of the time it’s all in the attitude and the presentation. If you want the community to share what you feel, you have to show them why you feel that.
100% agree on all of that.
And yes, it’s all in the attitude, which is the point of this thread.
I know some tool would call me out and just say I am bad.
Let me tell you something kid If I am bad, I am still “better” with some characters easily.
Its not just me.