Cool. Actually just started playing Borderlands1 today. Not that impressed so far though, I'm up to lvl 12 except almost everything I've got left to do (main quest and optional quests) are all lvl 14+ so not too sure what I'm supposed to do, just drive around running the same respawning enemies over and over until I've levelled up enough or grin and bare and hope I survive doing the quests that I'm not at an appropriate lvl to do yet. Very lame.

I can see the design getting old soon too if it doesn't change it up somehow. 

Solo can get quite boring and feel pointless after a while. Additionally, the first game has quite a few issues which were addressed in BL2 which makes the sequel a smoother experience overall. I recommend getting one or two buddies to join to make it worthwhile (because playing with random strangers often sucks).

Admittedly the graphic style is something that may put off certain people. It's possible to disable the black outlines with an ini tweak to make it look a little bit less comicy perhaps. I don't mind it though. 

That instantly looks waaay nicer. 

That would have worked better for BL1 than BL2, I think. 

Love the black outlines.

The game feels a bit pointless though. (Only played the first one.) 

<@negke> for bal http://0.media.dorkly.cvcdn.com/54/79/a3c60f9991467c974a246743e92b7d25.jpg 

I broke func again!! Twice in a fortnight, I am teh rawk. 

It's pretty fun in coop. But like Mikko said, I can't escape the feeling of 'pointlessness'. It doesn't actually feel like you're working towards something.

The weapons feel really weak, even the stronger ones, which is kind of weird since the weapons are supposed to be the game's primary focus. 

<Scumbler> wtf
<Scumbler> sorry excuse me
<Scumbler> http://youtu.be/S9gHK8R53kM?t=14m40s
<Scumbler> is that what hearthstone gameplay actually looks like?
<Scumbler> Hearthstone is a collectible card game that revolves around turn-based online 1vs1 matches between two opponents,
<Scumbler> seriously
<Scumbler> are you fucking kidding me??
<Scumbler> this is the latest bullshit everyone is playing?
<Scumbler> people got computers that can show such immersive worlds, stunning gfx, diverse gameplay and enthralling experience, and people are playing something that looks like a real world card game with a fancy board in the background?????
<Scumbler> FFS
<Scumbler> i've stumbled into a parallel universe that actually makes console gaming look like a valid alternative
<@Friction> hey, it's a fun game, really
<Scumbler> well......but.........wha.....!!!!!
<czg> welcome the desert of the real Scumbler
* Scumbler splutterly indignantly!
<Scumbler> FUN? FUCK YOU
* Scumbler agrees with czg 

I think you should all calm down 

 

and graphics really means nothing, with so many indie games being retro styled I can't remember the last time I played a game which looked like it couldn't have been made 5 years ago. 

Because it looks fun as hell, but will probably get my arse kicked severely. Never played a CCG before. 

Shambler is an idiot

"hurr, games are only good if they are the latest 3d graphix!!!!"

...still plays quake. 

 

Quake is a full 3d world with fast-paced violent gameplay and although the engine is dated the designs people do in stunning maps are great. It's a good use of a computer. 

i'm sick and tired of the retro look. i never really liked '8 bit' graphics and now it seems like everyone does that. boring. 

Watching porn is also a good use of a computer.

I hate this retro 8-bit phase. If i wanted to play games that looked like this, I'd dig out my old Commodore or Atari in then feel fucking sick because the motion on those games is fucked up. WTF is the point of having a $3000 computer when everyones playing online card games and 8bit side-scrollers? But at least indie games are keeping the PC market alive. 

I think it's more of an opportunity cost thing, content creation is a huge timesink. Lofi just seems more managable for small teams that don't want to do dev cycles of several years. In terms of markting it might be difficult to sit in between 'new and shiny' and 'old and authentic'.
Well, that's my theory at least. 

I think it's more of an opportunity cost thing, content creation is a huge timesink. Lofi just seems more managable for small teams that don't want to do dev cycles of several years.

This is what always appealed to me about Quake modding. Take QWTF, one of the most influential mods of all time. In under a year of development they added all nine classes, and then issued balance patches for another 9 months. In contrast, it took 8 years of development to create Black Mesa Source, a recreation of a game that literally everyone has already played 15 years ago, to a standard that was only cutting edge when they started. Quake is about the level that you can create a mod in a reasonable timescale, non-professionally, with a small team. 

really is a personal preference thing for the gamer. You also find that the games come out quicker, usually are more playable (I suppose its easy to tweak a simple game), and are a hell of a lot cheaper for the end user.

I'm a big fan of cheap low-tech games. My favourite games in the last few years wouldn't have been out of place in the 90's. 

I hate this retro 8-bit phase.

It is mostly about cost, making anything with modern day tech is so expensive and such a huge time sink. People don't even play the same game much anymore, why waste so much time making art assets for something that will be played and thrown away within days/weeks. Retro graphics are perfect for small development teams. 

I'd like to see more NPR rendering, vs just lowering resolution/color fidelity. 

NPR rendering can sometimes be more expensive than realistic stuff, with realistic stuff you can take advantage of photosourcing, and 3D scan technology.

There's plenty of NPR stuff out there, just probably not what you mean by it... For instance all the Blizzard-art-like games. 

I'm quite happy with "within the last decade" tech.

Like Necros, I'm not so keen on faux-nostalgia pre-1990 tech.