Pitchford "terrified" to launch Borderlands

Presumably not as terrified as they would be not releasing it at all....

Do want!
It's on the pre-order list already, if it is even half way as compelling as Diablo was then that spells trouble.

Don't be terrified, Randy, it's looking great.

Well, from what I remember, BioShock made it out in Augus, right? So that's basically the time of year where nothing really happens so people have to buy the one good game available pretty much by default (probably will happen with batman this year as well).

Borderlands, on the other hand, is right in the middle of the busiest season where all the big guns (that haven't been pushed to March, anyway) show up - dead in the water, I'd say.

I certainly am interested, I even liked Hellgate.

Stupid article.

I expect he's slightly less scared now big games like Bioshock 2 and Splinter Cell amongst many others have been put back to next year because they're all scared of Modern Boreware 2.

I'm definitely looking forward to this one.

I hope this game does really well, it looks pretty good.

Why not focus on releasing the game, instead of immediately trying to create a brand, or franchise?

Except Randy Pitchford doesn't even mention the term "franchise". He says it's a new "brand", which is ... exactly what it is. Frankly, I don't even know what Oh-Bollox's point is - not in relation to this game, anyway. The word "brand" doesn't insinuate that he's going to sell Borderlands action figures, or there's going to be 10 sequels. It's just a factual statement.

Interesting that Mirror's Edge crops up in conversation. I have a theory as to why it may not have been overly popular. There were a number of issues I had with it. But before that, what that game did that was interesting and I always thought possible was to make a first person character have more human movement. We've all experienced FPS where our character gets stuck against a post, or struggles to negotiate a small rock, or blatantly can't climb through a window or over a small wall. Every developer would have their excuse as to why their game or game engine can't resolve these issues, and in all honestly, there are no excuses, not any more. So what Mirror's Edge did was make us feel like we were a human, with two legs and two arms, and the ability to move through a location as a person can, albeit, a pretty atheletic and brave one.

Why Mirror's Edge wasn't considered worth buying for me was 1. it looked like it was effectively going to be a levels game 2. Jumping over roof tops and climbing would wear thin pretty quick. I remember reading you could have shoot out, but they weren't necessary. Sounded to me like the developers allowed us a few guns to keep the classic shooter fans happy, but really they wanted us to run, jump and slide everywhere. While running, jumping and sliding make little appearances in some of the best action movies, if they dominated the movie I think the athletic shenanigans would become boring pretty quick. I may have assumed all this about Mirror's Edge incorrectly, but that's how it came across from pictures and the demo.

The other issue was the general design. It's clearly no secret real world settings make pretty good game environments. Dense wood, swamps, bombed out buildings, streets, cities, industrial estates. All familiar settings, and with a bit of decent game design play out very nicely for stories and battles to take place. If I remember correctly Mirror's Edge was slightly futuristic. But a clean, clinical future, not a dirty interesting one. Oh, and the main character looked a bit... odd and dull!

Onto Borderlands. I'm really looking forward to this. My only concern are the environments and maps. Fallout 3 is loved by many, but I found the settings uninteresting, dare I say it, too samey. What I hope is Borderlands has a nice mix of small and large buildings, camps, woods, open areas, tight spaces, etc, a nice variety. The whole RPG/FPS mix will work as it's been shown in Fallout 3 or Oblivion (in first person). As for the co-op side of the game, I'm biased. I love co-op. So what's not to love about creating your own custom character, fitting them out as you please, leveling them up to your own tastes, joining up with friends or strangers, and going out to battle! As long as it's pretty challenging, and offers enough variety in locations, it should do well. This might just be the only original game I buy this year, as the rest are all sequels!

@Jensonjet

If you can find ME somewhere in a bargain deal or pre-owned you could do a lot worse than it. It came out on the same day as COD:WaW and Banjo Kazooie nuts and Bolts, I bought all three first thing in the morning and I had finished both ME and WAW by tea time. I ignored WaW after that but played through ME many more times, it gets better and better as you improve your skills and adapt to its way of thinking.

Except Randy Pitchford doesn't even mention the term "franchise". He says it's a new "brand", which is ... exactly what it is.

No, it isn't. It's a game. It's not a lifestyle accessory, it's not a philosophy, it's a game.

Frankly, I don't even know what Oh-Bollox's point is - not in relation to this game, anyway.

The point is this, seeing as you need it explaining: Currently, we've got a very conservative, unoriginal medium with rising prices (Modern Warfare 2) and less and less creativity combined with the fact that most people are basically fucking mongs who go out and buy names they know (brands, or franchises, if you like). The next Call of Duty, Resident Evil, Gears of War, FIFA, etc could be a massive honking pile of shit and millions would still buy it, no matter the review scores, no matter the word of mouth.

Because of this, every new game that surfaces must be turned into a brand, or franchise. It is a necessity that this happen for maximum revenue. They're not focusing on the game, quite frankly they couldn't give a fuck if the game is a massive honking pile of shit, as long as it sells millions, as long as they can get films out of it, as long as they can sell action figures and other associated crap.

The word 'brand' does insinuate that you are going to whore your shit as much as you can. The word 'game' does not. Those who make games and focus on nothing else, make good games. Those who focus on brands, or franchises, knock out the same tired old shite time and again.

The point is this, seeing as you need it explaining:

Ok...

No, it isn't. It's a game. It's not a lifestyle accessory, it's not a philosophy, it's a game.

You're reading a lot into a simple statement that only says that they're launching a game that's not part of a well-known series. I find your assumptions pretty condescending and full of hyperbole.

Maybe he's hoping it can become a brand like Brothers in Arms: you know, keep releasing the same game over and over? Seriously, though, folks, I really want this to be good and Randy pretty much has a guaranteed sale to me. But it's pretty dumb releasing it in October when there's the usual summer drought right now and I'm gagging for something new.

@buggedbunny

Er... what demo?

[link url=http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/gearbox -cant-promise-borderlands-demo
]http://ww w.eurogamer.net/articles/gearbo...[/link]


I'm really looking forward to Borderlands and I’m always up for supporting new IP. Admittedly the new look has helped swayed me (great decision to overhaul it as I really love it) but that’s beside the point. new and different stuff is cool and really makes games stand out in amidst the usual sequelitis that is in the autumn/Christmas run up.

Still, saying that, there is quite a lot of new IP this year (more than i can remember from previous years) so I can see why Randy is nervous.

But don't worry - Just let the game speak for itself, Randy!

"They're not focusing on the game, quite frankly they couldn't give a fuck if the game is a massive honking pile of shit, as long as it sells millions, as long as they can get films out of it, as long as they can sell action figures and other associated crap."

The higher a game's metacritic, on average, the higher it's sales. Games that metacritic over 90 earn disproportionately more money than games metacritic below 90.

In the casual market, slightly different rules apply regarding profitability, in that kids have a different notion of what constitutes 'fun' to people posting on internet gaming forums. Quality will out even in the casual space, but the falloff is less pronounced.

Any publisher thinking that they can market and publish a honking pile of shit and make millions out of it is not a successful publisher. Of course, our disagreement regarding this last sentence very much stems on how you interpret 'honking pile of shit'.

buggedbunny, I totally agree. A demo can be either a game's saviour or it's own worst nightmare. When a game doesn't have a demo I just automically, rightly or wrongly, assume the game's so bad, the developers hope they generate a few extra sales from the uninformed. Of course there are exceptions, but generally a demo shows confidence in a quality product, or in Mirror's Edge's case it showed me that I didn't want to play that game.

A recent game I'm interested in Call of Juarez hasn't been purchased purely because I haven't been able to check out a demo. I'm still convinced it might be good, but then again the controls might be as poor as Far Cry 2 in which case it'll be near unplayable. And with the games that are coming soon (of which Borderlands is one I'm interested in) I'm now even less likely to purchase it. Perhaps when it's about £5-£10 second-hand and I'm bored with all the current games I may check it out. In this day and age, you'd think the industry would understand the importance of a demo!

In fact a demo can be so powerful they've also fooled me into buying games that once home lasted only one evening before I actually realised the game wasn't for me (Grid!). A game without a demo is like a restaurant without a menu! Developers need to build these into their initial costs, or run the risk of losing sales. I have little sympathy for a developer of a failed game if they can't be bothered to create a demo. A game like Borderlands needs a demo. It may not be able to show the full breadth of the game, but we need a taster of what it's like. Game reviews, pictures and movies aren't always enough to entice us to a whole new game. Get that Borderlands demo out and it's chances of success improve!

I'm scared of wetherspoons.

""When people take risks and it's not rewarded, in the case of Mirror's Edge, it's makes it harder for others to be comfortable taking risks,""

but Mirror's Edge didnt do that badly did it?

Surely Dice didnt make a loss on it.