Comments on: Borderlands – The Almost MMO

By: Ravious

Ravious — Fri, 30 Oct 2009 19:17:04 +0000

All MMOs do not equal the server technology of e.g., WoW. Many people, including myself, think Diablo II pretty much falls under the definition of an MMO because like you say “they’re nothing but single- and multi-player games hosted on servers where hundreds or thousands of players are “logged in” but playing their own single- or multi-player game. With IRC-lite chat channels.”

So why didn’t Borderlands smooth out the times I want to play with my small multiplayer games with all the neat tricks MMOs have long come up with?

By: Scott

Scott — Fri, 30 Oct 2009 19:11:22 +0000

Borderlands MMO? No thanks. MMOs need a kick in the ass, and I keep saying that kick is going to come from the non-MMO side of the industry.

Maybe Gearbox or someone could figure a way to pull off an actual MMO-FPS-RPG hybrid thing, but in the meantime, quite frankly — who needs an MMO? MMOs have yet to ever live up to their potential. They’re nothing but single- and multi-player games hosted on servers where hundreds or thousands of players are “logged in” but playing their own single- or multi-player game. With IRC-lite chat channels. That’s really all MMOs have managed to accomplish. Since we’re just running around with a few friends most of the time anyway (raids or large-scale PvP notwithstanding) why fool with MMO servers for that experience?

As for routers, I hear it’s the problem of the Gamespy software and they have a list of ports to open for that hunk of crap to run, but sure, not all routers actually let the owner have any control.

By: Jezebeau

Jezebeau — Fri, 30 Oct 2009 16:55:31 +0000

Hellgate: London was an MMO. Borderlands is Hellgate: London with a better launch, no hub towns, and locally saved characters (admittedly with simplified RPG elements).

By: Ravious

Ravious — Fri, 30 Oct 2009 16:50:33 +0000

Yup, and like I tried to point out, I am having fun. Lots of fun. But it is not a timeless, uber-polished game it had potential to be.

By: heartlessgamer

heartlessgamer — Fri, 30 Oct 2009 16:48:22 +0000

I think this sums up Borderlands “close, damn close”, whether you are referring to it being “close” to an MMO or “close” to a perfect game or “close” to a perfect RPG/FPS blend. With that said, a hand grenade only needs to be “close” to get the job done and that’s exactly what Borderlands does. But anyone that has played it probably realizes it could of been better (and then they get a new gun and forget about that thought for a bit).

By: Alex Taldren

Alex Taldren — Fri, 30 Oct 2009 16:44:50 +0000

It does annoy me that everything is based on the host’s state of the game world (quests completed and in progress). But, that’s how Diablo II was done. In fact, Borderlands is pretty much a direct copy in this regard.

My biggest problem is that, unlike Diablo II, there are significant problems with hosting games behind routers, especially for people like my brothers who are at the mercy of an Apple Airport. They can’t host because of it, which means I can’t help them complete quests that I’ve already completed.

I have yet to play the game with strangers either, which is why I haven’t had any problems with cheaters.

By: Yeebo

Yeebo — Fri, 30 Oct 2009 16:15:30 +0000

Due to the fact that it has quests, RPG elements, and can be played online Borderlands has been getting a lot of attention in MMO circles. The problem is is that’s it’s not an MMO. It’s not even “sort of an MMO” like Phantasy Star Online or Guild Wars. It’s a FPS with roleplaying elements that has an online co-op mode. It really has a lot more in common with Halo than World of Warcraft. However, I agree that the implementation of the online elements is a bit clumsy, even given that.

As an aside, doesn’t the “jump into some one else’s mission” system in Borderlands remind you of what has been described for Biowares SW:TOR game? I’ll be curious to see how they implement it.

By: Ravious

Ravious — Fri, 30 Oct 2009 14:56:29 +0000

I don’t really disagree with you, and like I tried to disclaim in my post I am purposefully viewing it through an MMO lens on an MMO blog. And, like I further noted Gearbox will likely not appreciate my post for the reasons you said. Regardless, they made a game where playing multiplayer is the most fun (YMMV). They incorporated RPG-like elements. They incorporated world-phasing. And, it does not seem to be elegantly integrated together.

I do think that Gearbox, by taking a few more minimal MMO elements, like server saved character, elegant phasing, etc. the game would have been miles higher better in terms of the multiplayer aspect.

Obviously for those playing alone my post is irrelevant.

By: Chris (Game by Night)

Chris (Game by Night) — Fri, 30 Oct 2009 14:43:10 +0000

I get what you’re saying Ravious but I think you’re trying to hold Borderlands to a standard it was never supposed to live up to. It was supposed to be an FPS with Diablo-esque features. It’s heavy on the FPS and dabbles in RPG elements and does so well, in my opinion.

I don’t disagree with what you’ve mentioned here but I don’t think saying it’s “almost an MMO” holds too much water as a criticism, since that’s more than what it was held up to be anyways.

Correct me if I’m wrong here. I jumped on the Borderlands bandwagon pretty late in the game.

By: Ravious

Ravious — Fri, 30 Oct 2009 14:39:24 +0000

Thanks. Heck, I would take L4D hats at this point. I just can’t bring myself to play another round of L4D for the lolz. I am waiting for half-off for L4D2.