The next borderlands game go full online? If they did it right and still give us single player option to do personal quest (just like what GW2 did with personal story quest) that'd be great.
But some people don't like single player game become MMO.
Because the coop is really clunky with the level and progress disparities. But even more I'd ask, "Why not improve coop?" That was the whole point of mmorpgs in the first place, to do online together what we were doing in single player. It shouldn't surprise anyone in the thread that mmo gamers are interested in finding better ways to multiplayer.
I've got no skin in this as i think the Borderlands games are garbage but there are a lot of people who don't agree that "shared world" is an improvement to "coop". In order for a game to fit into a "shared world" it needs to be designed for that experience, the other Borderlands games weren't. Adding it into the newest one would, I assume, make a lot of people feel like it wasn't really the Borderlands experience that they know and like.
What would the Borderlands experience lose that it has now? The coop experience in the games is pretty poor. The system has a feeling of being thrown together so it can tick a checkbox but it's horribly implemented.
The three Borderlands shooter games aren't the same experience at all. They share commonalities (guns, the setting, edgy humor), but are very different games that play differently. There is a Telltale game in the series already so we know that deviating the formula won't blow up the IP.
This is the time I'd like to remind people that they trash games for being clones, trash any title in development for not being innovative (we even score on that), but in reality they want cookie cutter copies of the previous game. So are there a lot of people who don't agree that shared world is an improvement to a clunky coop experience. Or are there a lot of people who flop that way because riding the edgy critical bandwagon is cool?
Its a lot easier to improve co-op by focusing on improving co-op functionality instead of making a bloated shared world game.
Iselin: And the next person who says "but it's a business, they need to make money" can just go fuck yourself.
That's the worst idea ever. The multiplayer co-op, with friend, is enough. A shared world would be so bad on so many levels. Changing something as good as the Borderlands Series is just a mistake.
the last borderlands was boring get it right and ill buy but ill investigate first!
When was it boring? It was really cool. The concept and all. I enjoyed it to the max and even started the veteran campaign which i rarely do for games that i already finished.
I tried Borderlands 2 and The Division. I rather playThe division and Destiny 2 beta on loop than B2. It was boring to me, i didn't enjoy the artwork or the "humor". Before you start the hates, my opinion doesn't make it a bad game just a bad one for me. But omg was i bored with it.
Then don't share your straight final opinion like: Oh my god! It was such a boring game!
No. It wasn't a game for you. Just let it that way.
You couldn't be more wrong and its the same line of thinking when people think diablo should be an MMO. If I want to play a game with a shared world I can play destiny 1+2 and division, if I want a game with a world like borderlands I can play borderlands.
I don't want borderlands to be like destiny.
Bill, You ought to have Shaigh write the response. His opening line, "You couldn't be more wrong" was right on!
A more co-op-y version of a great co-op game? Yes please!
They might want to put in an option for the curmudgeonly "playing with other people is the devil" sorts to let them turn off the ability to encounter other people though. People that don't like co-op have rights too I suppose. Let them play by themselves if that's what makes them happy. Not that they'd be willing to say "I suppose if you gave co-op fans the option to play co-op that'd be fine with me."
Half the time I play The Division or Destiny I'm playing single player anyhow. It doesn't ruin my life if I notice another character running around helping me. It's not like I'm suddenly forced to invite them over for dinner and feel obligated to baby-sit their dog when they go on vacation only to find out I also have to watch their grandma who keeps hitting on me. Just pretend they're AI companions if it bothers you so much in my opinion.
i know right. all these games trying to be mmo's. pffft. just name them lobby games
IMPORTANT: Please keep all replies to my posts about GAMING. Please no negative or backhanded comments directed at me personally. If you are going to post a reply that includes how you feel about me, please don't bother replying & just ignore my post instead. I'm on this forum to talk about GAMING. Thank you.
Because the coop is really clunky with the level and progress disparities. But even more I'd ask, "Why not improve coop?" That was the whole point of mmorpgs in the first place, to do online together what we were doing in single player. It shouldn't surprise anyone in the thread that mmo gamers are interested in finding better ways to multiplayer.
I've got no skin in this as i think the Borderlands games are garbage but there are a lot of people who don't agree that "shared world" is an improvement to "coop". In order for a game to fit into a "shared world" it needs to be designed for that experience, the other Borderlands games weren't. Adding it into the newest one would, I assume, make a lot of people feel like it wasn't really the Borderlands experience that they know and like.
What would the Borderlands experience lose that it has now? The coop experience in the games is pretty poor. The system has a feeling of being thrown together so it can tick a checkbox but it's horribly implemented.
The three Borderlands shooter games aren't the same experience at all. They share commonalities (guns, the setting, edgy humor), but are very different games that play differently. There is a Telltale game in the series already so we know that deviating the formula won't blow up the IP.
This is the time I'd like to remind people that they trash games for being clones, trash any title in development for not being innovative (we even score on that), but in reality they want cookie cutter copies of the previous game. So are there a lot of people who don't agree that shared world is an improvement to a clunky coop experience. Or are there a lot of people who flop that way because riding the edgy critical bandwagon is cool?
True, but attempting to have the IP copy pasta mechanics from another franchise is not an example of innovation. It's the opposite.
If Borderlands wants to improve coop, do it in a way that makes sense for Borderlands, not in a way that makes sense for Destiny.
That's the worst idea ever. The multiplayer co-op, with friend, is enough. A shared world would be so bad on so many levels. Changing something as good as the Borderlands Series is just a mistake.
Borderlands Telltale didn't do that to the series. I think you're being alarmist.
Borderlands is Borderlands. IDK about shared world unless we are making our own characters, I don't want to see 15 other Mayas running around.. tbh I think for b3 to be a MMO-Shooter style game like Destiny or Division it needs to be totally different than the other entries in the series. Total overhaul.
Maybe fans wont like that.. it would be like Gears of War going shared space shooter all of a sudden. Also playing co op in borderlands seemed clunky and not necessary.
"Beliefs don't change facts. Facts, if you're reasonable, should change your beliefs."
"The Society that separates its scholars from its warriors will have its thinking done by cowards and its fighting by fools."
Currently: Games Audio Engineer, you didn't hear what I heard, you heard what I wanted you to hear.
Given the kind of ending 2 had where they called in basically all vault hunters and a bunch are to show up or some shit it would definitely work better as a well designed shared world experience with a lot more class types (they can use what they have now as a base and build out further adding over time etc). Saying it needs to remain solo/co-op seemingly ignores how 2 ended entirely.
What would be the point of making it MMO or multiplayer when pretty much every man and his dog will just solo everything anyway? Most MMO's today could be single player games the amount of solo content they have.
Borderlands 3 should stay single player, concentrate on making a good game and don't get sidetracked with all the multiplayer BS. It would just distract from the main gameplay, story etc. Terrible idea, no thanks.
Let it stay a single player / co-op game series, it's worked really well for it thus far. Just look at the Steam stats for instance, BL2 STILL after five years maintains several thousand concurrent players at pretty much any time, while The Division for instance, which has only been out for about a year, sits at about half what BL2 does. Then look at Skyrim, it's single player, yet again after five years, if you combined the players from both versions it would still sit pretty high in the Steam player count rankings. Oh, then remember how well Battleborn worked out for them? Seeing those numbers, why exactly do you want BL3 to emulate something like The Division, a move that could easily alienate the player base it has gained, just to chase after a different player base that tends to be rather fickle, and may not even be interested?
Once a game becomes some online multiplayer dependant game, then it will live, or die with the size of that population. Given how many new online multiplayer games keep coming out, keeping usable numbers isn't easy, as even one misstep, especially early on, can kill your player base pretty quickly. With so many other games to choose from, once people see the population start to die off, it tends to just begin the mass exodus to the next new title. If a game just has multiplayer, like the Borderlands games always have had, rather than being dependant on multiplayer, then it can continue to function just fine, as people are far less concerned with how many others are playing, other players can be just a bonus, not a necessity to the game.
Borderlands 2 only has about 4.2M hours. A couple years ago that put it high up on the charts, but newer games have been more popular.
The Division which has been out a much shorter time is at 3.5M and only about 1200 fewer concurrent players. The Division isn't a Steam exclusive and many more people play on other platforms.
That comparison supports the idea that shared world games are more popular than simple coop. War Thunder has about 7.2M hours. Arma 3 13.2M hours. GTA V 39.7M.
Meanwhile Borderlands: PS has about 700k hours played and is down around 150 for concurrency.
Look at how PUBG has taken over CS:GO in such a short time and it's getting ready to rocket past Dota2. That is amazing. People enjoy playing together. Even though PUBG isn't truly persistent it does have much more seamless cooperative experience and there is room in the Borderlands franchise for something more seamlessly cooperative. Shared worlds do seamless cooperation well.
The hours written are not hours spent during the lifetime of the game, its during this month. What should have made it obvious is that Skyrim has 11M hours played and the special edition has 7M hours.
Borderlands 2 which is a five year old game without content added for years is played more this month than division that was released 1.5 years ago.
Its really popular to copy what other game have, we had it with everyone wanting to replicate the success of WoW and LoL. Plenty of companies wanted to cash in on the popularity of Hearthstone. We have it with DayZ and now everyone wants to throw a battle Royale mode into their game.
If they could make a game that will be better than Destiny 2 and upcoming Anthem they can earn a lot of money, if they can't its probably going to end up being another battleborn.
Post edited by Shaigh on
Iselin: And the next person who says "but it's a business, they need to make money" can just go fuck yourself.
Interesting story, but ultimately it doesn't matter to me. Until that lying sack of garbage Randy Pitchford is tossed out on his ass like the con-man that he is, I absolutely refuse to spend a dime on Gearbox's crap.
I was so happy when Battleborn tanked. 100% Karma, IMO.
AN' DERE AIN'T NO SUCH FING AS ENUFF DAKKA, YA GROT! Enuff'z more than ya got an' less than too much an' there ain't no such fing as too much dakka. Say dere is, and me Squiggoff'z eatin' tonight!
We are born of the blood. Made men by the blood. Undone by the blood. Our eyes are yet to open. FEAR THE OLD BLOOD.
Just came here to point out that destiny is not an MMO, I know everyone wants to believe it is, but it's not, it's an online cop-shotter with a focus on gear, that does not make it an MMO. Just as Borderlands or Diablo or any other game that could be played with friends was never called an MMO even thought it can be played online with others, has boss encounters, level progression and gear hunt, so again, don't refer to Destiny as an MMO, because it's not.
No and just no. Let the single player games or games with just co-op stay that way. Every game doesn't need to be a MMO. Sometimes I just want a game I can play by myself and not have to worry about playing with others. I want to be able to do everything the game has to offer without others. I am all fine with them taking the IP and making a MMO, but do not call it Borderlands 3 because it wouldn't be that at all. That's like calling WoW, Warcraft 4 which it isn't and wish they would make someday.
Comments
But some people don't like single player game become MMO.
When was it boring? It was really cool. The concept and all. I enjoyed it to the max and even started the veteran campaign which i rarely do for games that i already finished.
Then don't share your straight final opinion like: Oh my god! It was such a boring game!
No. It wasn't a game for you. Just let it that way.
Holy f***. I just found one of the best persons in the world
Bill, You ought to have Shaigh write the response. His opening line, "You couldn't be more wrong" was right on!
They might want to put in an option for the curmudgeonly "playing with other people is the devil" sorts to let them turn off the ability to encounter other people though. People that don't like co-op have rights too I suppose. Let them play by themselves if that's what makes them happy. Not that they'd be willing to say "I suppose if you gave co-op fans the option to play co-op that'd be fine with me."
Half the time I play The Division or Destiny I'm playing single player anyhow. It doesn't ruin my life if I notice another character running around helping me. It's not like I'm suddenly forced to invite them over for dinner and feel obligated to baby-sit their dog when they go on vacation only to find out I also have to watch their grandma who keeps hitting on me. Just pretend they're AI companions if it bothers you so much in my opinion.
i know right. all these games trying to be mmo's. pffft. just name them lobby games
If Borderlands wants to improve coop, do it in a way that makes sense for Borderlands, not in a way that makes sense for Destiny.
Some people and change, amiright?
Borderlands is Borderlands. IDK about shared world unless we are making our own characters, I don't want to see 15 other Mayas running around.. tbh I think for b3 to be a MMO-Shooter style game like Destiny or Division it needs to be totally different than the other entries in the series. Total overhaul.
Maybe fans wont like that.. it would be like Gears of War going shared space shooter all of a sudden. Also playing co op in borderlands seemed clunky and not necessary.
"The Society that separates its scholars from its warriors will have its thinking done by cowards and its fighting by fools."
Currently: Games Audio Engineer, you didn't hear what I heard, you heard what I wanted you to hear.
Borderlands 3 should stay single player, concentrate on making a good game and don't get sidetracked with all the multiplayer BS. It would just distract from the main gameplay, story etc. Terrible idea, no thanks.
Also, I didn't even care for the first two Borderlands games. Gearbox has yet to release a good game in my eyes.
Once a game becomes some online multiplayer dependant game, then it will live, or die with the size of that population. Given how many new online multiplayer games keep coming out, keeping usable numbers isn't easy, as even one misstep, especially early on, can kill your player base pretty quickly. With so many other games to choose from, once people see the population start to die off, it tends to just begin the mass exodus to the next new title. If a game just has multiplayer, like the Borderlands games always have had, rather than being dependant on multiplayer, then it can continue to function just fine, as people are far less concerned with how many others are playing, other players can be just a bonus, not a necessity to the game.
Borderlands 2 which is a five year old game without content added for years is played more this month than division that was released 1.5 years ago.
Its really popular to copy what other game have, we had it with everyone wanting to replicate the success of WoW and LoL. Plenty of companies wanted to cash in on the popularity of Hearthstone. We have it with DayZ and now everyone wants to throw a battle Royale mode into their game.
If they could make a game that will be better than Destiny 2 and upcoming Anthem they can earn a lot of money, if they can't its probably going to end up being another battleborn.
I was so happy when Battleborn tanked. 100% Karma, IMO.
AN' DERE AIN'T NO SUCH FING AS ENUFF DAKKA, YA GROT! Enuff'z more than ya got an' less than too much an' there ain't no such fing as too much dakka. Say dere is, and me Squiggoff'z eatin' tonight!
We are born of the blood. Made men by the blood. Undone by the blood. Our eyes are yet to open. FEAR THE OLD BLOOD.
#IStandWithVic
거북이는 목을 내밀 때 안 움직입니다