| Kresnik said: Also, where's all this "Borderlands 2 is a bad port" stuff coming from? The IGN review? My understanding of it is that it's a very good port (keeps graphics; maintains mostly respectable FPS; all content in tact) that made some necessary sacrifices to run on the hardware it needed to run on. That's not a bad port. It's the same as Criterion did with Need for Speed as Mike pointed out (a game which also struggled to maintain 30 FPS yet seemed to be a lot more generously reviewed). I think Gio Corsi will be in charge of porting more games. And honestly, I think he chose well with Borderlands (although it was kinda chosen for him thanks to Randy Pitchford). A little ambitious, maybe, but certainly the right type of game and they chose a very competent studio to make the port. I'm interested to see what else is in the pipeline in any case. |
Probably more because Kotaku made a article about it (not a review) titled "Borderlands 2: Vita's theworse version of a good game".. I read a preview of DESTINY from them a little while ago wich could be resumed like this: "DESTINY is notgood because: Seems like Halo, but is not. Is a fun shooter but not as fun as COD. Seems like a open wolrd epic adventure, but not as borderlond, BORDERLANDS ROCK!" based on a demo of a level of a mission from one of the coop modes. So didn't bother reading the Borderland 2 article of them. Knew about it because some nintendo die-hard fanboys from a Videogame group on facebook were I am in, published it laughing.
I watched some gameplay videos, and the game looks fun and well ported, but read some other articles about some game wrecking bugs.. so probably that's why all the thing about it being a bad port.
