From my experience, its basically the same but it is a better PC port and there are way more guns - if you liked borderlands 1 then you will like it, and if you didn't - you won't. Personally it disappointed me because it didn't add much to the game. (still only one active skill etc) still not a bad game though.
As mentioned above it is pretty much the same formula but everything is just a little better done IMO. The story line is a little more fleshed out in BL2 and the number of weapons appears to be almost endless as well. I also find myself using grenades a lot more in BL2 because there are just so many different useful ones this time around. The only real downside in comparison to the first game is that some of the missions take a LONG time to complete and you still have to go back to the start of the map if you quit and come back later. This can be a bit of a problem if you are used to playing games in small chunks rather than devoting large blocks of time. I also feel that some of the mega bosses were really designed with multi-player in mind and they can get somewhat frustrating to tackle solo. Bottom line is that if you liked BL1 you will like BL2.
Well, I didn't like 1, but the idea seemed solid. I was hoping that 2 improved on it. If the story is more compelling, I may be more interested.
I too hated borderlands 1. The entire game could be summed up as go her get this go back. Zero variety and all fetch quests does not make a good game.
I vote Dishonored, only because I haven't played many other new games this year. Far Cry 3 didn't capture my attention for more than 3 hours.
Controversial... I thought GW2 was OK, I loved the combat, classes, lore - but hated the "dynamic" questing, and the fact there was no endgame PVE. Everyone was saying how the questing was fantastic because you didn't need to go to quest givers, but it seriously broke my immersion when you would return to the area in a few hours and the event would have reset itself. I think the questing in Vanilla Wow was better than that!
After playing it for a while now, I'd say FC3 is the only stand out game. I think a big part of it was because I had pretty low expectations after FC2, but they really did improve on everything I disliked in that one. A lot of good games this year but nothing felt like GOTY material over anything else until I got more into FC3.
Walking Dead for me. Hell of a story. First game in years that I really felt depressed when it was finished, I really wanted more. Far Cry 3 probably second choice. Dishonored third choice. Most disappointing was probably the new Hitman. Broken and pointless checkpoint system and too many non-assassination levels that break the flow of the game.
After playing ME3 at last I'd easily pick it now. Phenomenal and engrossing story, emotional highs and lows like I'd never felt in a game before.
I agree, except I've never gotten into the MMO thing so I have nothing to compare it to other than GW1. I don't feel a sense of progress because of the mob quests, and how certain areas will gimp your level to match the world. I'm still not that far into it but I just don't get why so many were praising it so highly.
define endgame, then. There are 8 dungeons, each with 3-4 paths that can be run daily for maximum rewards and mostly unique exotic gear. I think most "MMO purists"--whatever the *** that means--translate "endgame" to "gear grind." Ooo, how incredibly fun! well, now there is FotM in GW2, where you can do this random collection of dungeons (randomized every time you enter) that increases your level and access to more difficult mobs as you complete it, and is currently the only way to get ascended gear in the game. OMG--an MMO endgame gear grind!
The ones I played the most that were out this year. GW2. XCOM. FTL. FARCRY 3. They were all fun, one way or the other. Lol at those that complain a MMORPG is only good if it becomes a second life. You buy a game, you play a few hundred hours, it gets regular updates at no cost. Awesome. Wait, it says it is a MMORPG: sucks then.
Perhaps I should have said, a small amount of endgame PvE, none of it very good I meant it in the sense of an ongoing progression through multiple pieces of content taking place after max level. It's something that you work through, that leads to new stuff. It sounds like the new dungeons you mentioned might be kind of something along those lines (I haven't picked the game up for 2 months) but the dungeons are all 5 man (I believe?) and completely awful. The fact that there are no tanks/healers (which they went on and on about as being amazing) means that there is no tactic but to run around kiting the mobs and dieing repeatedly. There was no PvE content to do as a large organised group of people as a guild. People talk about raiding in wow (or other MMOs) as a grind, but personally it's the most fun I've had in a multi-player setting, I wasn't raiding for gear - I was having fun with people I knew in the game, and the sense of progression through the content was enjoyable. I am aware that GW2 never claimed to offer this - but I wish it had. Hope that helps explain what I meant (I never said it was a bad game btw) :sneaky:
^ yes, it is very different in that sense, and I agree with some of those complaints. The lack of tanks and healers...I'm still not sure how I feel about that. I like that most if not all classes add useful value to dungeon groups and at the very least, dungeon runs are not simple zerg rushes like the open PvE world is...when the population is up. But what it boils down to is that the most useful classes tend to be heavies or AoE/DPS classes so that runs simply go faster. Some bosses require strategy, but it boils down to individual survivability. That is very "meh" for most people, and I get that. But I also like that groups for events aren't locked into certain structures, like group find in SWToR: oh, no tank or healer available? sorry you 1,000 DPS builds, guess you aren't going to do that HM tonight. In the end, I'd rather be playing than sitting around and waiting for the one necessary class to show up.
If you dying in the GW2 dungeons you are doing it wrongly. People can (and should) use their boons, conditions, combo fields and consumables together to extend the group survivability and damage. There is tactics - it is just a different kind of tactics, and yes, GW2 is always be biased to positioning, dodging and mobility. I prefer this style, others may prefer the holy trinity style more.
I have, and while 2.5 is a ridiculously low score for the game, it wouldn't be my GoTY. Well... tbh there wasn't that many games this year that really wowed me either so it might be a contender at the very least. Ending sucked, yar yar, w/e. My biggest problem with the game was that prior to even getting to the ending you saw the lack of impact playing the previous games had on your adventure. Choosing to kill the Rachni Queen and commit genocide or not seemed to have no impact within the game. Choosing Samara or Morinth had no impact in the game. Practically every character in 2 was a worthless footnote in the game. That said, there was profound moments within the game that really did hype me up. The initial leaving of earth. Mordin... The cry of distress from the Asari commandos on whether or not you succeeded... The combat was extremely smooth and they did well to make the cover system even more versatile. I didn't give a damn about the grenade aspect, but shanking people on occasion was fun. The side missions sucked. They were 1 area fillers that had nothing interesting about them. I would give the game a solid 4.
