Is that Mothrakk? I died once then found it very easy the 2nd time and killed it with ease the next few times on second/different play throughs. You just need to know when and how to retreat. Shoot at it until it starts shooting at you then as those fireballs come down just run and continue to jump in one direction away from it until it stops, then shoot some more. Burst fire assault rifles are the best, but I used a sniper rifle other times to get my sniper level up. Everything was much harder when I played the game on PS3 I must add. On PC I think I've died like twice...
It's because us console gamers are the real gamers, they make our games harder because we can handle it, PC gamers would just use mods to get past any difficult bits *flame suit on*
More like console controls suck ass compared to keyboard and mouse. They actually make your games easier because the controls are so terrible. That's why console games usually have such retarded AI for the enemies, regenerating health, and allow you to do the Gears of War type of deal where you shoot from cover...because aiming with thumbsticks is horrid. The only people who put up with that crap are kiddies and Joe Sixpacks who don't know any better. Professional gamers like Fatality don't even play on consoles.
Nothing wrong with cover systems, just like there's nothing wrong with analogue sticks. Sure the mouse is generally quicker and more precise (although not always as I've seen some scary speed and accuracy with a stick) the keyboard is just retarded for gaming. Let's say you're playing some FPS, you can either run at one speed, or walk at one speed, there's no real control over your movement and in my book that outweighs the so called "pros" of using a mouse, plus using a controller has never given me a hand cramp, unlike a mouse.
Tell that to the Call of Duty Modern Warfare series where you magically get auto target when you hit the iron sights button. WHAT THE FUCK IS THAT?!?! I let Metroid Prime get away with that because they can throw in the story with the suit assisting in auto targetting, but I flipped out when I saw it in MW. Anyhow, point is moot as devs already stated outright they adjust the console versions for autoaim/make game easier due to control scheme issues. Hell everyone runs slow in Halo to make it easier to target.
I'll play devil's advocate with this one: if you have a faster game with an easier mechanism to target (PC + mouse) or a slower game with a more difficult mechanism to target (console + thumbstick), what's the real difference? Seems like it zeros out in the end. Faster game is leveled by faster targeting. Slower targeting is leveled by slower game. Yeah, you could say a PC game is more difficult...but only if you forced the user to not use a mouse. How does that make sense?
Slower game = slower paced. This is pretty much how Quake failed on consoles and Unreal made a valiant attempt, but then failed at the end too. Followed by the other fast paced more successful PC games that never transitioned to console that well.. painkiller, serious sam, etc.
Yeah, but it's slower paced because the controls aren't as easy as using a mouse. I've played plenty of PC shooters and have never found them to be "harder" than console shooters because using a mouse is easier.
I have and I did intensive science on this subject. In the early years, during the first playstation and N64 days, I tried to make the transition to consoles. N64 was respectable with Goldeneye, Turok, Perfect Dark, etc due to the controller setup but still felt too floaty/slow. Playstation had a port of Quake 2 and had the original Medal of Honor.. pretty torturous to try to play those games with that controller and the hardware. I had more confidence when the XBOX, PS2, and GC. I was disgusted by the feel of Timesplitters.. dunno wtf was up with their version of mouselook. Was pretty satisfied with Halo even though it also felt like you were floating. Unreal Championship was pretty meh. X360 and PS3 should've been the definitive change. Nope, I still see things that fully assist in aiming as shown in the COD for consoles. There are games with paces that are perfectly suitable for both platforms as shown in Borderlands. I haven't played any games recently on both platforms.. only COD: MW so I remember clearly how it was. I flew through the console version with iron sight assisted aiming. You don't even have to see where the enemy is.. just hit it, and it goes targets the next closest target. Oh, yes, I also recall Ubisoft making 2 totally different versions of Ghost Recon Advanced Warfighter for PC and X360. The PC version stayed a little bit more faithful to the original Ghost Recons.. and the difficulty was pretty unrelenting.
It definitely varies from game to game, both on consoles and PC's in terms of how well they balance the easier/harder controls with the easier/harder speed or AI. IMO, AI really isn't that great on either platform. The difference in sophistication between the two is negligible to me. Borderlands is a good example of that. Most enemies will simply run straight at you, while the others that do use cover tend to not move around much. I totally agree about Timesplitters on console, but there were other games like Medal of Honor for the GC that seemed pretty good. I also thought that the COD game that came out at launch for the 360 worked quite well...some challenge without annoyance. Then you have games like L.A. Noire, where the shooting is really beside the point of the game and the heavy reliance on auto targeting makes sense.
I think games like the new Splinter Cell and Max Payne (3rd person over the shoulder action games) style are perfectly suitable for both systems too. When I tried out Max Payne on the XBOX, it felt just like playing it on PC. I played through Splinter Cell Conviction on PC, but not on console, but the style would be perfect on console. But then games like Left 4 Dead, I already know I'd have a rough time on a console.
Me and my mates finished Borderlands' main quest and are now on our second playthrough, talk about the ultimate anti-climax! :SPOILERS: For some reason I kept thinking this Crawmerax thing was the final boss so when we encountered the Destroyer I just thought it was some sort of sub boss, it was very easy to kill. I wasn't really reading the quest info the first time round, we just selected a quest and did it, I'm reading all the text regarding quests this time so it will be in context. We killed the final boss, were denied access to the vault which was the whole damn reason for coming to this planet. That woman in my head was so intent on us making it to the vault so we could kill the destroyer, why not just keep the vault closed for another 200 years? After the credits we saw a cut scene of some satellite "reprogramming" a claptrap into some sort of ninja thing for some reason, we have not encountered this character yet in our second playthrough. We were allowed to carry on with our games but we had loads of quests to turn in, never got the chance because when I turned the game on yesterday it just began a new playthrough, without asking me and without warning, voiding all that well earned xp. Worst game ending ever. Terrible in every respect.
I didn't find it too bad but I did follow the story so that may have helped. Did you get the DLC? I was too cheap to buy them myself but Monsly seemed to really like at least 3 of the 4 so they might be worth you getting if you like the game. Think you can get all 4 for £16 on PSN, should give you another good few hours of new things to do.
You can hand in quests after the end; you just need to back to playthrough 1. That claptrap is part of the Clap Trap DLC. Crawmerax is part of General Knoxx. The ending is pretty anti-climatic but better if you follow the story.
The DLC is pretty good. If you pick it up then I'll go through it again. Convincing chi is the hard part.
I know there's 4 dlc packs but when I checked the ps store a few days ago all I saw was Dr. Ned's house (or whatever it's called). As for the claptrap, it seems a bit silly that they'd introduce a new character when you finish the game but you never see him again unless you buy the dlc, and they don't even tell you. Overall it's a great game though, it would be amazing if it weren't for the horrendous lag me and my mates suffer. There's almost none when I host, unfortunately I don't host very often. We get a lot of lag, garbled communication and a few disconnects, very annoying. The lag is the only reason I don't use any weapon that has a scope (bar rocket launchers) because I won't hit anyone, they'll move before the bullet I fired when they were in my sights actually reaches them.
Go into game add-ons and find borderlands under the a-z and you should see all 4 packs along with the bundle. I looked last week so it is definitely there.
I know a few of you guys really liked the first game..check out the sequel. Looks pretty nice and they seem to have really kicked it up a notch.
Ooooh, I just merged the topic of an admin. I'm such a bad boy. On that note, zomg. This game is looking massive. Considering how polished the first game was in it's huge environment and equipment system, I think gearbox will not disappoint. Grittier art direction is nice too. And was that a flying vehicle?!?
Weird..I did a search for Borderlands 2 and nothing came back - hence the new topic. Well done for spotting it. However for humilating me I am reserving an evil punishment for you which will happen at my pleasure..muahahaha