Review: Borderlands 2

The first Borderlands was a game that came out of nowhere to surprise me. I wasn't expecting much from it, but a friend recommended I pick it up, and I did. I had an absolute blast with it; it was fun, it was funny, it was stylistic, and it had guns coming out of the wazoo. Now the second coming is upon us, and in returning to Pandora, things have changed a bit. So is this game as good as the first, or is it more on par with their Duke Nukem Forever offering?

I will note I'm currently still on my first playthrough of the game, and have yet to finish it. I'm playing the Xbox 360 version, mainly in two player co-op.

First up, I'll cover some of what's changed. The first game was known for its guns, millions of guns. Well, the second continues this, but this time around, the designs have been revamped. Guns have differing looks depending on manufacturer and abilities, and these more distinct looks are a definite plus, with guns actually being interesting to look at, as well as use. Each manufacturer has more of an identity now too, from the old fashioned Jakob guns to the elemental damage dealing Malawan pieces.

The characters are slightly different from the first game, but the gameplay still feels familiar. This means it's easy for series veterans to jump into with ease, but you still get to play characters with a slightly different feel. As for the NPCs, there's a lot of familiar faces, and the characters are still as weird and funny as they were. If anything, this game takes it up a notch. The first had a slightly subdued feel at times, like they weren't quite sure how far they wanted to take the funny and satirical aspects. They drifted more towards the weird and wacky in the DLC for the first game, and in the second, it's very evident. There's a lot of funny dialogue and visuals, and the game has nearly as many pop culture references as tvtropes. Personally, I like this, and I think if you liked the (often black) humour of the first game, you will too.

The game also features a revamped challenge system; instead of experience, you earn badass rank and tokens, which you can exchange for various permanent stat boosts, which apply to all your characters. This has the effect of making the challenges more noticeable, and completing them somewhat addictive. I mean, who wouldn't want a higher badass rank?

Combat-wise, things have changed up too. Enemies are a lot smarter, they dodge, try to get better positions, attempt to flank you. Different enemies actually feel like they have different AI. It's a nice change from the first game, where most enemies would just stand still, or charge at you. I find the combat more enjoyable this time around, especially when playing co-op. Which raises a good point; do yourself a favour, and play this in co-op. It's a decent and fun game playing solo, but in co-op it's something entirely better. I'd recommend playing with friends though, not strangers, or else you run the risk of finding someone who just takes all the loot, or refuses to co-operate.

A weak point of the first game was the forgettable story, and the less than varied locations. Both of these have seen a much needed boost in the sequel, with a more varied range of environments, and a much better story, at least so far as I've played. The antagonist 'Handsome Jack' is very much a presence through the game, frequently contacting you to taunt you, which puts a face and a clear goal on the game, something the first lacked at times.

Cosmetically speaking, it has the same stylised look as the first game, and it works just as well here. Character and enemy designs are fun and well executed. Furthermore, there are now various skins available for the characters and vehicles, and it's always fun to find or unlock a new one, and see what you got.

So in conclusion, it takes the fun of the first game, improves upon almost every aspect to some degree, and makes up for the few disappointing flaws of it to boot. This is a definite must-buy for me, and could even be a Game of the Year contender. It gets a full 5 out of 5 stars from me. If you don't have it, get it. If you do have it, why are you reading this when you could be playing it?!

Are Games Art?

Games as art. It’s been a big, and contentious, topic for a while now. On the one hand you have the recent influx of indie designers, you have the games that are being praised for their message, or their method, being artistic. On the other hand, you have people like Jonathan Blow, praised for his artistic games like Braid, and the upcoming The Witness, saying that games are mostly dumb and juvenile (link) and famed film critic Roger Ebert claiming games are not, nor ever will be, art.

So who is right? Are games a burgeoning art form, coming into their own as an artistic medium, capable of deep and meaningful expressions alongside the mainstream point and shoot games, much like movies such as The Artist and Battleship can exist side by side? Or are games doomed to be mere entertainment, with no chance of being anything that can be considered art?

If you ask me, or even if you don’t, I feel that games are capable of being art. But I feel that a lot of the critics who say otherwise are somewhat missing the point. A game is a much longer experience than a movie. It’s often longer than a book also. And they are primarily entertainment. So a game does not need to be simply artistic expression from start to finish. There needs to be room for entertainment, as well as for artistic expression. I also think that the constant comparisons to movies do nothing to help the matter. Games are not movies, they are games. They’re inherently interactive. I feel that the best examples of artistic expression in games are ones which use the mechanics or limitations of a game to their advantage. When the very act of playing the game is forcing you to experience it in a way that is unique to games. We shouldn’t be looking for the Citizen Kane of games, because Citizen Kane would make a horrible game. We should be looking for gaming’s own examples of art.

I respect Roger Ebert as a film critic, but when it comes to games, it’s very clear that it is not his wheelhouse, and that it is probably too late to teach that old dog new tricks. That’s fine, he’s entitled to his tastes, and to his opinions. I bear him no malice at all for his borderline insulting words to one of my hobbies and passions, because I realise he is approaching it from a completely different outlook to me. Jonathan Blow I have a little less understanding for. Braid was great, and I think it was a great example of the mechanics of a game expressing something in a unique way. But from the interviews I’ve read with him, and profiles I’ve read of him, he comes across as being arrogant, pretentious, and dismissive.

So I said that the art in games should come from the mechanics themselves. What do I mean by this? I mean that although in a book, narrative is the main form of interaction, and the way in which the artistic message is conveyed, and in film it is through the script, the visuals, the filming techniques, in games though, the primary form of interaction is just that; interaction. Games are all about player agency. So what games can I point to for examples of what I mean? There are several, though I warn you that spoilers for various games may lie ahead, though I’ll try to be circumspect.

I mentioned Braid already, and it is a good example, the game’s time bending mechanics are used to great effect in the finale of the story, giving a genuinely enjoyable moment of revelation to the player. There are deeper messages and allegories in the game too, but to me, the real triumph of art was that one section where the mechanics of play were used to deliver that memorable scene.

Another good example is Bioshock. It does indeed deliver on the levels of aesthetics and narrative. Of note is the way that much of the background to the story is delivered through exploration, rather than cutscenes. There are certainly scenes in there that lend themselves to a more conventional definition of art. I found certain scenes particularly striking, like the large fight to the strains of Walt of the Flowers, taking place in a dark room while a spotlight centres on you. It creates a memorable scene, and one which I would argue is artistic in its execution. But the scene I would really point at is the one in which you finally confront Andrew Ryan. Control is taken from the player at a pivotal point, and you’re forced to watch as it happens. It makes the plot twist, and the scene far more powerful than it would have been otherwise, and far more powerful than it would have been in a movie or a book, because it’s happening to the player, using the interface the player has come to take for granted, which is exactly what is happening to the character. And isn’t that what art is? Art is hard to define, but delivering a message or an experience through clever use of the tools, resources and materials available is as good a definition as any other I’ve heard.

Both my examples so far are from games which have been praised for their artistic value already in some way, so for my third I’ll go a bit farther afield. Final Fantasy VII: Crisis Core. This isn’t a game that would generally come up as a discussion of games as art. But its final battle is one of the best examples I can think of. Spoilers ahead! The game is a prequel to Final Fantasy VII, and anybody who has played that knows that Zack is going to die at the end of this game. The fatal battle comes up, but it’s executed amazingly. Through the game, the battle system has had the DMW, or Digital Mind Wave, system. This resembles a slot machine, with other characters faces on it. These represent memories of those characters, and are used for special attacks and so on. In the final battle, you’re facing a stream of enemy soldiers, an endless one. As you fight, and are injured, the DMW becomes shaky, as if it’s malfunctioning. As your consciousness fades, the faces of your friends and allies fade from the DMW, until you’re left seeing only the face of Aerith, your love interest in the game, Zack’s final memory as he dies (particularly sad, since in FFVII, you find that Aerith never learns of his death, and has been left always wondering what happened to him). This creates a really poignant scene, the DMW has only been a mechanic through the game, the tie to memories and so forth seems nothing more than window dressing...until this scene.

There are other examples I could use, but hopefully I’ve explained what it is that makes a game art. The melding of the playing and the experience, using the unique qualities of games to enhance and complement the experience, rather than simply as a means to an end. To me, examples like this are why I feel I can say yes, games are capable of being art, and artistic moments can already be seen throughout gaming.