Not the Why Are You Still Playing Thread

I’ve commented about what I’ve seen, nothing more. You say that “many can’t be quantified” and you’re right, the word “many” infers no concrete value. Technicalities aside, you know what I’m trying to say.

I called your argument close-minded because, from what I have witnessed, primarily close-minded people use the majority vs. minority argument to make themselves feel like they are part of the “better” group. I can only base what I say off of the real life experiences that I have had.

The confrontational attitude you have shown only serves to hurt your credibility. I have seen all too many people talking about issues with the game that I, myself have experienced. When you say “Can you prove it? I doubt you can.”, it just comes off as rude and condescending. If you want your point to be heard, don’t act that way.

Also, quoting me followed by “(in your words)” is completely fabricated. If you want to quote someone, quote them with the tools provided. However trivial the details, please don’t make things up to reinforce your argument.

I misread what you wrote, my bad. However, my point still stands that bugfixes should take priority when developing or supporting a game.

I may not have the best understanding of how the game development business works, but I do realize publishers pressure developers to crunch or push out half-baked content. Even so, the developers still play a part in the decision. I highly doubt any sane publisher would actively prevent a developer from fixing a game and hurting their own profit. This entire point of yours regarding developers rarely being the problem seems to be an attempt to derail the discussion and call me out personally for a potential lack of understanding. I made my statement because I’ve seen too many developers push out “fluff content” one after the other and don’t seem to fix bugs that players have reported on for years. I understand why this happens, but I don’t support it.

Read my statement above. I misread what you wrote, my bad.

I’m guessing you are stating that my * other * claim is that people are dissatisfied with the game, since you didn’t quote me. Read actual reviews that state what they do and do not like from both sides. There are a lot of people that experience issues with this game and a lot of the positive reviewers state they’ve experienced the same. If we go any deeper into this rabbit hole about why some reviews are negative or positive even when stating the same thing, my head’s going to explode. The point is, many people have problems that are real and can hamper the experience.

I may be wrong in your mind, but I don’t really want to spend any more time arguing with you. I’m not dying on this hill.

Have a nice day :smiley:

5 Likes

I’m off to get myself a “pocket sized” thesaurus just for this thread. lmao

Thanks for raising the bar, so-to-speak. :laughing:
I’m looking at you @eloquentrave

2 Likes

Excuse me, is this the “Not the Popcorn thread” ?

:popcorn:

5 Likes

There’s a lot I could respond to, but after saying your bit you’ve made it clear you don’t want to continue. I’ll respect that, with one small clarification.

You didn’t call my argument close-minded, you said I seemed close-minded. Quote for accuracy, as per your request:

So when talking about my attitude, I would ask that you consider yours, considering you came in here with that.

Have a great evening (it’s getting late here)!

1 Like

Honestly, there’s a bunch of stuff on the item cards that doesn’t make sense (at least, not to me) and could be removed.
If the item card says something like “+75 splash radius”, that’s useful, cus none of the main stats give me that info and I might need to know it and/or compare it. But, if it says something like “+10% accuracy”, that’s useless, because the effect is already included in the actual stats and all it means is a part has a stat effect (which most parts do and you have to look at the parts list to see them), and it clutters up the card for nothing.
Combined with the fact that some information gets left out or covered over (like dahl fire modes, vladof underbarrels and hyperion shield capacity), the cards can be annoying at times.

5 Likes

yep
complete nonsense

1 Like

I get what you’re saying about “a lot of people”, but I wasn’t trying to make a point based on that. Just that a large number were playing in the first 6 months of BL3.
My actual point was based on player numbers (from the admittedly limited tools we have for them) and public expression of opinions, which I agree won’t be a perfect representative value, but gives a good sample.
I have to agree that some people complained about mayhem 1.0, too, but I was pointing to 1.4, which most people seem to prefer (based on public discussion), over 1.1-1.3. People complained about modifiers, so 1.4 reduced them, and many praised gearbox for it (many meaning that a majority of those publicly expressing views), but 2.0 went the other way and increased modifiers. Some people liked that, but most people discussing it seem to state they don’t.
For the record, I wasn’t trying to speak for others, so I’m sorry if you saw it that way, but I was expressing my own perception of what others have said. My interpretation of what I’ve read and heard.

As for “balance”, that’s more based on personal experience, but also a bit about other people discussing it. I’m interested, when you argue that there’s room for nuance and subjectivity, or that “right” and “wrong” are better used elsewhere, would you consider all anointments in BL3 to be “balanced”? Would you say that it’s not “wrong” to make one choice very powerful and another choice very weak if the purpose is for both choices to be balanced? And if it’s not “wrong”, can you explain your reasoning, please?
Similarly, do you feel that all manufacturers in BL3 produce (non-legendary) items that are balanced? That you could compare items of the same rarity and type, but different manufacturer and their stat differences would not, for example, cause a random selection of players to favor one over the other to a significant degree (allowing for RNG variance in stats and potentially picking multiple examples of each for comparison)?
Because, that’s what I’m talking about when I discuss “balance”. Whether players see a choice between multiple options and similar numbers go for each similar option, or whether there’s a significant degree of preference toward one (or however many) option over others.
And that kind of “balance” has very little room for nuance, I suppose, so I’d like to know how you’d define it and where nuance fits in, to you. Thanks.

3 Likes

Does it? I mean, it’d be ideal if everyone got the expanded info, but if not, isn’t it better that anyone they CAN get it to will get it? And then lovely internet forums can translate for the verbose languages.

Not being able to give a 5 star product to everyone shouldn’t prevent them from doing their best for who they CAN deliver it to.

I’m not sure I follow - are you suggesting that GBX ships English-only version of the game (thus avoiding the problem of same item name taking 30 characters in English and 50 in German, as an example), and then helpful forum members will translate item cards for German players?

I don’t think it will go well…

3 Likes

While I’d partially disagree with you about the developers being able to code or not (in most of the examples I’ve seen, esp when it comes to games, it comes down to a disparity between programming skill/experience, and the chosen engine’s wieldiness), there can be no question that ‘obvious things aren’t happening’. The ‘why’ doesn’t negate the problem existing, or it deserving to be highlighted/addressed. If we just wrote every problem off as “financially unfeasible” to fix, we’d never progress in anything. ‘Not viable’ is a cop-out in the same vein, esp when the biggest things people are asking for are things the engine is clearly, observably capable of, even if you have no formal programming experience. As I’ve said before, I don’t care if a problem exists because of bad QA, inept programmers, sycophantic producers, or coke-addled boardroom scum not wanting to laser-cut a transparent slice of time/money - a problem is a problem, and consumers deserve to complain until they either get fixed, or we stop caring of our own accord.

2 Likes

tbh most problems in borderlands are simply due to the designers directions about how they imagine the game to be
like horribly balanced skilltrees or weapons
thats very easy to fix, change values

2 Likes

@hovismetaphor55 - I haven’t forgotten about your post, I’ll get back to you. Really appreciate it.

Sure, but unfortunately reasons exist. Nobody said consumers didn’t deserve to complain, but I said the things I said because people started spitballing on the reasons in the first place.

My position is simple: it’s rarely the devs. Just like my common bugbear about “QA doing a bad job”. I appreciate not everyone cares about the particular reason, which is why I normally only go about it if someone else raises it.

So do excuses, which is what we’re getting most of the time when it comes to launch-age issues in this game.

Having the skill/ability to fix a problem incurs just as much, if not more, responsibility than having authority to fix it.
Regardless, if every possibly-responsible person works for the same entity - GBX - even if the problem isn’t directly their fault, someone should be forwarding the malice to the proper extension, rather than letting seeds of consumer discontent get deeply rooted and thrive in their collective apathy/inaction.

3 Likes

You’re trying to describe an ideal, and I get it. I don’t exactly disagree, but your understandable frustration drives that desire for action; for resolution.

What if I told you issues were passed up the chain all the time? What if I told you games development, more than software, is often run as cheaply as possible wherever possiblefor the benefit of making money? It’s endemic.

A lot of people do the best they can do. There are great people working in games. Others run off with money. That’s just what happens. It’s not an excuse, it’s literally what happens. It’s for-profit taken to its logical (or sometimes illogical) extreme.

Sometimes it’s benign. Sometimes the resources just aren’t there, nomatter the willpower. But sometimes the resources are being cut. Or diverted. Regardless, the system of making games is designed to extract so much value, that the games themselves are the first things to suffer. Or the teams that make them are (crunch, etc). Or both.

It’s not a pretty picture. But we need to move past “excuses”, because you’re right in that these things shouldn’t be acceptable. But the reality is all care gets thrown out of the window if it affects the bottom line. It’s reality. It just is, at least at that size of company and investment.

I work in software, right? It’s better off (by and large; anecdotally). And there are still things i can yell about all year and see no progress on. Sometimes they’re minor things. Sometimes they’re just things we deal without, or maybe they cause us headaches. Sometimes they’re worse. But if I’m not listened to, there isn’t much more I can do. Is that sensible, for me to be ignored? Eh, 50 / 50 :stuck_out_tongue: I have a habit of overthinking problems.

But hey, even when I am listened to, the time I get to fix the issue is often a fraction of what I need. What you see, nearly always, is a compromise. Between what was wanted (or necessary), and what was allowed. And sometimes that’s justified, and at other times it’s less so. I think we can both agree leaving certain high-profile bugs outstanding is “less so”. But I’m trying to explain to you why it’s not about individual (developer) responsibility.

And blargh, as usual, I use too many words.

2 Likes

Because I love the series and not the direction the corporate overlords took this game, and will probably take future games on the same route?

Are you actually happy that these very same corporate overlords didn’t do anything, so that their developer’s team would deliver a game without issues and ridiculous bugs you wouldn’t find on an indy Early Access game?

Are you happy they deliberately removed a Raid Boss that was teased right before the was released, only to put it back in the game, but lock it behind a Season Pass that added barely any new content to the game, and was priced pretty much the same as the first Season Pass, which included 4 DLC areas?

If you’re happy with it, power to you… however don’t be mad or bothered that people like me will show their disgust over these corporate overlords and all the issues present within the game they made and still refuse to fix it to this day.

7 Likes

I’m being genuine when I say that I never experienced any severe bugs. Not dismissing the people that have, but to be frank, I can’t say that I’m not happy about being a “beta tester” if I never felt like one. That’s just something that’s case by case.

I 100% agree about the Raid boss, actually. It’s actually one of my biggest issues with how something in this game was handled.

I really can’t relate, but that might just be a difference in personality. When I don’t like something, I tend to just not bother with it in most circumstances. So yeah, in the context of a game, I just stop following the development. The idea of continuing to dedicate time to something I don’t enjoy isn’t something I can see myself doing, especially if I want to make my distain for the “corporate overlords” known. I prefer to simply talk with my wallet and attention.

Will say again, though, 'cause I got a certain impression from this comment: I don’t care if you don’t like the game. And I mean that as politely as possible, no malice or dismissal intended. My OP wasn’t actually about criticizing people’s opinions of a video game. Not my style.

7 Likes

Guess I am a little late to this party but to answer you question as to “why?” pretty simple.

I purchased a game that was advertised to work on a console that I own. BL3 does work on the XB1X in the same way that you car will run with sugar in the gas tank but only for a little amount of time before it craps out. Yes I went through the trouble ticket experience to the point that 2k was able to replicate the problem as well and forward the issue to the developers and instructed me to the forum to find additional updates and fixes which I did. I even was told by @GBX reps that post here that they were aware of the issue and looking into it but that was over a year ago, something that I am sure you have seen me post a time or two.

There are other reasons as well, ie: a split screen implementation that was added as an afterthought, UI and performance issues, matchmaking, I could go on and on but they have been covered by others in this thread.

With all that said do I hate the game, no…there are things that I think were great about the game and to be honest I wish that game balance was my biggest issue with the game. I have been playing the BL series since it came out and have purchased multiple copies on different consoles to play with others online as well as split screen (main reason I enjoyed the other entries).

Lastly I have gained insight into how things work more from other individuals on this forum than any @GBX rep would care to communicate to the public regarding fixes to their product. My frustrations are with a company that continues to peddle cut and paste answers to issues then buries their proverbial head in the sand when asked for follow-ups to issues they themselves said they were looking in to. Maybe the answer you are looking for is people are still dwelling on the game they don’t like because they are passionate about the series itself, just because you are critical of your favorite team doesn’t mean you still don’t follow it right?

4 Likes

I get my Borderlands fix by replaying B2 and the pre sequel currently thinking of rebooting GOTY, B3 is just to boring to revisit, I will retry it with the new cartel thing and see how it goes but I don’t see myself staying with it. I have invested a lot of game time in the Borderlands franchise and had high hopes for B3 unfortunately it may be the franchise killer. I will wait and see on Wonderlands but I am not prepurchasing any game ever again.

7 Likes

That’s fair. I have a different memory of 1.4 (over time; it started positive but people from memory started getting tired of the grind. M2.0 was positive news, at least in the run-up to release), but I appreciate that what we’ve both seen will differ based on what threads we read and didn’t read at the time :slight_smile:

As for large numbers, yeah, most activity happens in the first 6 - 12 months of a game’s release. Sales are frontloaded (in general, based on an article I read loooooong ago) around the first 4 - 8 weeks. This is why “eternally supporting a game” is a problematic concept in my opinion, but that is probably saved for another thread :sweat_smile:

I would not consider all Anointments balanced, no, hah. But I also believe balance to be a time-consuming thing. My opinion is that some Anointments are designed to be worse because of the inherent RNG in rolling for gear.

This will frustrate people, much like part perfection in BL2 frustrated people. But it has priors in the BL series and I understand the need to pad out loot RNG in this kind of game. I’m not sure that’s the approach I’d take, but I also don’t know what influence management has on the developers on these kinds of things (they seem too . . . deep, but I’ve seen weirder interventions from management before along the lines of “do this, it’ll keep our players engaged for longer, which is good for our Metrics™”).

Balance in manufacturers is a trickier topic in that not all Legendaries need to be equally viable for all classes. Some classes work well with different Legendaries to others, and so on. And this is okay, because each Legendary is a single item.

Now the same concept applies to manufacturers (of course, for example a splash Moze needs, well, splash and ideally fire rate), but any disparities are felt much harder by players. If Zane is weak with an entire manufacturer’s set of weapons (theoretically), that’s a lot worse on Zane players than it is Zane not getting on with a handful of Legendaries.

I don’t really know the solution there. BL3 is a complex game. BL2 never quite solved the manufacturer problem, and there are deeper skill interactions in this game vs. that game. It’s something that requires resource to address over time. Which is why I believe Gearbox opted to focus on Legendaries, and is just buffing Legendaries. It’s a simple(r) solution to the general problem. Anyone can use whatever they want in Normal (and even TVHM, probably), but as you hit Mayhem, you start wanting to upscale to Legendaries. That way manufacturer drawbacks matter less, while their benefits are more obvious (at the levels at which they’re used). And Legendaries are usually exceptions that prove the rule, so they’re not relevant to manufacturer balance specifically.

1 Like

If you look at actual numbers, this forum only represents a tiny percentage of players.

While our opinions here shouldn’t be dismissed (although we seem split on just about everything), information from shift gives a much clearer indication of whats going on… Surely?

We are mostly here because we are more passionate about the franchise than the general / average player i would say - a community or dysfunctional family who live in that weird looking house at the bottom of the street, yet thet’s not assume anyone here speaks for the majority.

Peace and love to you all.

6 Likes