Fun combat and a steady flow of rewards make this journey a massively enjoyable one, especially with some fellow mercenaries along for the ride.
The PS3 version has a score of 8/10. PC version not yet rated.
that was quick
What? The PS3 version only gets an 8.0 while the 360 gets 8.5? What gives!?
did I just woke up in 2007? Come on! this thing about giving the ps3 version a lower score is not cool anymore, first bayonetta now this?... Are people getting jealous that Uncharted 2 can only be done on the ps3?
-0.5 because: "Online issues at launch, including broken Friends list functionality" Can't this be fixed with a patch???
In a way it's fair if the online portion doesn't work well, since Borderlands main features are mp and coop. But on the other hand this will probably be fixed with a patch, so it shouldn't be a large issue. At least if Gearbox are snappy about it...
"Online issues at launch, including broken Friends list functionality" That is a problem with many games lately, including Uncharted. I have been playing it online since it came out here and have had only one person show up on my list.
I'm kind of pissed a large open shooter of non-stop repetition doesn't have custom soundtrack on PS3... That is worth at least .1... I have it coming "for PS3" from gamefly at this very moment, because I refuse to pay for Xbox LIVE gold. That is going to be a bummer if the online is broken though.
But whats even more interesting is how Gears2's broken online raises its score somehow.
" The Good: ...Excellent new multiplayer modes,.... The Bad: * Fiddly controls in vehicular sections * Too many unresolved plot strands. " mmm...no, Gamespot failed again. I tried to give them a second chance after the Kane & Lynch fiasco but things like this make it impossible.
They might fix that with a patch, but in it's current state many are docking the PS3 version, which Sega handled porting duties on, due to these shortcomings. There you have it. Review sites aren't afraid to dock marks when warranted when one version is suffering compared to the other versions. This will no doubt be reflected in it's overall metacritic score. And what does Metacritic tell us overall? It tells us that so far in 2009, the majority of multiplatform games are better on the PS3. Many argue that "Oh, metacritic scores don't prove anything because game sites always give the same score no matter what." This proves that they don't. Sites like Gamespot, IGN and others aren't afraid to dock marks when one version of a game suffers compared to other versions. Thankfully, lackluster ports are few and far between these days.
I don't understand? What exactly is considered a AAA game? You guys use metacritic to quantify what a AAA title is which is ridiculous. It's like XBox 360 fanboys saying Uncharted or Resistance weren't AAA games or PS3 fanboys claiming Fable 2 and Left 4 Dead weren't AAA games. AAA is defined by the budget, production values, presentation and quality. All of which this game has in spades. It's a AAA title. I remember back in the day when a gamer didn't need 70 plus opinions to tell him a game was good. When we were excited our favorite game got a 8/10 or 4/5 for IGN, Gamespot or Game Informer. What the hell has happened to gaming? O_o @ Darkride66 You're not very smart are you? Metacritic cannot be used as a quantifier for which version is better than the other because the same people aren't reviewing each version of the game. There are platform specific reviewers who review games differently because a review is someone's opinion. So in the instance of one game being give 8s and 9s by Playstation centric magazines, the same game is given 7s and 8s by XBox 360 centric magazines and vice versa. Added to this, XBox 360 games usually have 10 to 15 more reviews than PS3 games which skews the average. Metacritic has been the worst thing to happen to this generation of gaming.
If you have to resort to insults right out of the gate that usually indicates that your main statement is lacking substance or you lack the confidence in your own convictions to let your statements stand on their own merits. Love it or hate it, Metacritic is the standard that the industry has chosen for ranking games. Metacritic scores will influence stock prices prior to the release of sales data, developers that have a history of poor metacritic scores find they have to pay more for game licenses due to their history and even Microsoft, when selecting which games to remove from XBL used Metacritic scores as their measuring stick. You might not agree with this but Metacritic carries a helluva lot of weight in the industry. If they use it as a standard, why wouldn't we? Secondly, a lower sample of review scores has an equal chance of skewing a metacritic score high as it does skewing the score low. It's simply an average. And how can you argue that "PS3 centric magazines score games higher"? There are far more Xbox centric publications. If anything, it would be more logical to argue that Xbox metacritic scores are more skewed to the positive just due to the sheer number of Xbox based sites, but in the end the fact that both Sony and Microsoft both have publications that could possibly be more generous in reviewing games on their platforms really just cancel each other out. You clearly need to take a statistics class. You argue that reviews are "just opinions". Of course they are. What do you think we're talking about here? And the fact of the matter here is the average opinion of professional reviewers states that PS3 multiplatform games in 2009 are better then their 360 counterparts.
I apologize. I should not have insulted you. That was uncalled for. It's unfortunate that Metacritic is given such weight by the gaming industry. Similar to Michael Pachter, it's a phenomenon I just don't understand. I'll use Batman: Arkham Asylum as a recent example to show you how unreliable metacritic is. The PS3 version of the game has a metascore of 91 after 70 reviews while the XBox 360 version has a metascore of 92 after 77 reviews. The PS3 version has 7 PS3 centric reviewers who scored the game 90 or above for an average of 93 while the XBox 360 has 8 XBox 360 centric reviewers who scored the game 90 or above for an average of 91. Publications reviewing both games such as IGN, Gamespot, Game Informer and Edge gave the game similar reviews. So what's the reason for the disparity in the final metascore? The metascore is a weighted average so reviews from the larger more established sites contribute more to a game's metascore. How does this work? God only knows. I contend that being able to play as the Joker in Challenge Room missions clearly gives the PS3 version more value but few reviewers, if any, factored this into their review. By your own words, using metacritic the XBox 360 version is better, right? And XBox 360 fanboys would be correct in proclaiming one of the years best games "better on the XBox 360", right? To me what is clear is that metacritic should not be used as a measure for which version is better. Usually the difference is metascore is 1 point which by using metacritics weighted scale wouldn't be significant to make a determination of either versions quality over the other. Now, for comparisons of multiplatform titles, Richard Leadbetter of Digital Foundry does some of the most detailed, technical comparisons of multiplatform titles and XBox 360 versions tend to be more detailed or perform better including Batman: Arkham Asylum. I would recommend using his comparisons as some of the most unbiased when comparing multiplatform titles in his Face-Offs.
And group hug in 3 1 2 3 HUG
I was talking more along the lines of when we've got a difference of 5 or more. If average scores are deviating more than 5, that's probably a good indication that something is up, otherwise we can be pretty safe in assuming that the games are fairly similar. The problem with some of the head to head comparisons is that they're just as subject to differing opinion as any other review. Look at Lens of Truth. BlazBlue was identical graphically, the PS3 has a couple of seconds added on to load times and the 360 suffered from control issues. They said both versions were tied. Now, in what world does a couple of seconds of load time cancel out control issues...in a fighting game? That's why I like using metacritic scores. At least then I'm not just getting one guy's opinion, I'm getting 70 opinions. To me, that just makes more sense. However, that's just my opinion. Edit: And thanks for the apology. Not many around these parts would do that.
If the game launches with problems, that is what stands PS3 version has problems, sorry guys. What do you expect GS to say? "Well, if this feature were working, it would be great, so lets score it really high because of that." Like, really? The game is partially broken at launch, and a patch could com at any undetermined time. Until then a review must stand and GS isnt going to wait on the PS3 version to get its sh!t straight to review it.
I don't know maybe it's because 360 has live other than that i have no idea
Well, so far the game isn't receiving Fallout-killer scores.
even it doesn't receive fallout killer scores there are gonna people who like it better than fallout..i know a few and so far its hella fun
True but I don't believe it deserved what it got, using a recycled system from oblivion with VATS which IMO made the game worse, delivered a good but not great experience.
The post apocalyptic setting is where the comparisons to Fallout end IMO. Fallout had poor FPS mechanics, and most ppl always resorted to VATS. It was RPG heavy and FPS lite. Where as Borderlands looks to have slick and skilled FPS gameplay. And the emphasis on co-op rather than single player. I agree with angel604, there are many who will prefer this over Fallout and vise versa.
I was just addressing those who thought it would pwn Fallout 3 into nothingness, which clearly is not occurring. Clearly they are both good games in their own right; Fallout 3 is however seemingly the better game overall according to industry review standards. Not by much...but still better so far.
Neither game seems to have nailed what they were after to me. Vorderlands fails by a large margin at being as sleek and breakneck as it thinks it is and FO3 is the most overrated game I've ever played. I'm a MASSIVE FO1 and 2 fan and nymber 3 with TWO broken combat systems(when trying to turn it into a hybrid shooter that's just not good enough)was a massive disappointment to me. They killed the atoshere too and the story acr was too short and simple. It's okay I just never got why people thought it was avtually any good. I's an insult to it's series forerunners-and worse than Oblivion too.
I honestly thought VATS + Bloody Mess Perc were the only good things about that game.
I don't understand, it doesn't look like they even explained why the PS3 got half a point lower. Considering that's a pretty decent difference, vaguely describing some problems with the online connectivity simply doesn't cut it. Gamespot continues to lose my respect. I wouldn't even care if they actual gave a decent reason for giving the PS3 version half a point lower score.
I mean Borderlands heavily advertise it's co-op features so I can see why someone would put a lower score for the PS3 version. Not really a decent difference it's probably because GS uses the .5 system instead of it's past .1 system. So I don't think GS intended to make it look like a big difference I think they just wanted to emphasize on the difference. But that's just me
What I can't understand is why ps3 owners aren't used to the fact by now that mutli-plat games run better on the 360. Anyways, good score, but my moneys going toward fm3 then mw2.
WTF.. This game is almost perfect .. there is nothing wrong with it and it has amazing co-op and great campaign .. so why no one gave it 9+ ?? screw 'em all ..reviewers get paid these days.. -_-
Wow, they deduct .5 points just because of some online issues that will probably be worked out in a patch very soon. I find that to be bogus!
Then maybe they'll update their review. It deserves a lower score for broken functions. I'm playing single player for a while. Only installed it and played about 10 minutes before I had to go to bed. The graphics are nice, the combat is fun and well, I haven't even gotten to the meat of the game yet but I like the look of it so far.
I’m still waiting for Gamespot to change their Kane & Lynch review. ;) In other words, I don’t think they will be changing it any time soon.
if you read any web site review politics, you would see that they review the games they receive in the state it is when the review is done. It doesn'T matter of it can be fixed in a patch, when they reviewed the game, it was broken, therefor, the review takes it into account. There are also reports that the co-op on PS3 doesn't work at the moment. If a game based on co-op and online has broken co-op and online, wouldn't you expect it to be said in a review? Or would you just rather want it to be left aside ecause, it might get patched?
How do you complete a review of a game which whole premise is base on coop and multiplayer play when in fact the mp is broken? What they should do is wait until it's fix so they can properly review it, instead of doing a half ass review. If you aren't able to get the online working then you wouldn't play it enough to do a review anyway so why review it? The game is the same on both platforms and most reviews say both console versions stutter. the only difference is teh online is there is compatiblity issue with the psn right now but that should take away from the game itself.
UC2, Demons Souls, MAG Beta + MW in a couple of weeks = no time or $$ for this game...wait for the bargain bin or rental.
-.5 for sketchy online? That's BS. So the game runs the same on both but the friends list is shotty? Gamespot, you need to get in the game. You suck and lose all your bubbles. What a load of croc.
I am loving this game. Online co-op is a blast. Enjoying it much more than halo 3 odst.
yawn. will skip this game. i'll probably wait till its $20 bucks to get it.
but why didn't anybody do this for Gears of War 2 and it's broken online at launch? SOCOM: Confrontation was also rightfully marked down for online issues at launch (that were patched within a week of launch), but again, they never did the same for OTHER games with online issues at launch. once again the steep grading curve of PS3 game reviews rears it's ugly head. reviewers are all over the place with their standards and criteria for scoring this generation. they don't seem to know which end is up most of the time, and seem, to me, to simply just slap scores on games in a panic. there's so much pressure from the editors, the publishers, the readers, etc, that i don't know why they even BOTHER with scoring this generation. i never got what an arbitrary score for a game really did, when it was always the body of the review that i found the most useful. i mean, what's the point of even WRITING a full review if the reader can just glance at the score and be done with it. a 7/10 game for me is, i guarantee, different than someone else's 7/10. scores mean nothing, especially when the reviewers aren't even going to be CONSISTENT when they score something. go right ahead and mark down Borderlands on the PS3 for the online issues, but you should have done the same for Gears of War 2 last year. even Fable 2 had WEAK co-op (me and my wife stopped playing co-op because it just wasn't as fun as we were hoping), and they got free passes. BE CONSISTENT reviewers. that's all i ask. i won't be able to pick up Borderlands for a while, since my gaming budget can only accommodate Ratchet: ACIT this month, but when i do, i'm sure the game will be patched, and that will be noted in my review when i write it.
online has been fixed for me
Can't wait for this to launch on the PC... Damn you console wanks for getting your copies on time! WTB less delayed pc launches kkthx
N4G is a community of gamers posting and discussing the latest game news. It’s part of NewsBoiler, a network of social news sites covering today’s pop culture.