Tell me about Borderlands...?

[seawasp]

I've heard some good general buzz about the game, and I have heard that there's a sequel out or coming soon, but I've never played it or seen it played. Is it a game I'd enjoy?

Games I've played and enjoyed:
  A bunch of the JRPGs, with Chrono Trigger and Star Ocean and Persona at the head of the lists
  Fallout 3 and New Vegas
  Oblivion and Skyrim
  Dragon Age

Games I have enjoyed but found I can't play them for long before my aged reflexes betray me and I am filled with fail:
  Action-RPGs like Tomb Raider and inFamous

Games I don't really enjoy are FPSs.

  I've also been thinking about Mass Effect. Is it important to play ME1 before ME2 and ME3 or are they pretty much separate?

Comments

[ninjarat.livejournal.com]

Third person, not first person, but still shooters. They're all action games with RPG elements. They're not role-playing games.

[windchime68.livejournal.com]

For what it's worth, while I agree that the Mass Effect games are more action games/shooters than RPGS - I usually dislike (and suck at, due to poor reactions) action games/shooters and love RPGs, and I loved all three Mass Effect games (much to my surprise). They don't really feel like shooters, to me.

If you like story-driven games with good characters, where your choices affect what happens down the line (and not just at the games' endings), in a compelling setting - then I'd say give the ME games a try. And I'd recommend playing all three, in order. As anton said, you get more of a connection to your character (and other characters in the games as well) that way, as well as more control over your character's background and story. Also, while each game is more-or-less self-contained, they do form a overall story, so you'll only get the full picture by playing all three.

I started ME1 for the first time about 5 months ago, and while some aspects of it are a bit primitive now in comparison to the other two, I still found it very playable.

Can't comment on Borderlands as I've never played it.

[ross-teneyck.livejournal.com]

Just out of curiosity, what to you makes a game a role-playing game? Because I would have no hesitation in describing the ME series as RPGs.

[ninjarat.livejournal.com]

In a role-playing game, success is determined by the character's abilities.
In an action game, success is determined by the player's abilities.

[ross-teneyck.livejournal.com]

Hmm. I see what you're getting at, although I'd quibble that character advancement management and inventory management and combat tactics and so on are player abilities.

But if I understand you, the difference to you is that in an RPG it doesn't matter how good the player's physical abilities are -- reflexes, manual dexterity, etc. It only matters what decisions the player makes.

I still prefer to describe the ME series as a hybrid of shooters and RPGs, because they are no more pure action games than they are pure RPGs. However, I can see the validity of both "shooter with RPG elements" and "RPG with shooter elements."

[ninjarat.livejournal.com]

A player's mental abilities aren't necessarily challenged in most RPGs. A player has the option of copying another's builds and strategies thus eliminating the player's mental abilities from the progress equation. On the other hand, action games often require good perception and situational awareness as well as quick and steady reflexes. These things can't be copied from a guide. So it still boils down to the character's abilities vs. the player's abilities.