Considering stuff like Elder Scrolls/Fallout get released in an absolute state for PS3 in terms of frame-rates, seems odd that Borderlands 2 is attracting such flak. It doesn't even run at a steady 30 on 360/PS3; there wasn't a chance in hell of it doing it on Vita.
What I suspect happened with this is that Iron Galaxy took on the project; realised somewhere down the line that it couldn't be done up to a standard that would review well/get analysed by Digital Foundry well and returned to Sony, who decided that it was better to release the game at all (since well... they had to) than to not bother.
And to be honest, that was the right decision. It's not ideal. People who play on high-end PC's have all the right in the world to complain about the framerate in this game and not buy it (yes, you got what I was going for with that comment - people who play on home consoles have less right to complain since the majority of games on them are riddled with frame drops).
There are, however, plenty of people out there who can stomach the poor performance of this, and for them it was worth getting the game out for than not bothering. Portable Borderlands you can play on the go and then copy the save back over to your PS3 when you get back home. It's not a massive market to reach, but it's nice for the people who are in that market.
I'm just impressed by how good the game looks. Seriously, the DF analysis made it look only a minor step down over PS360 to me (except in terms of ground textures, which were scaled back a little further). Maybe they should've chopped away at the graphics a bit more.
Existing User Log In
New User Registration
Register for a free account to gain full access to the VGChartz Network and join our thriving community.
