Talk:Borderlands (video game)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject Video games (Rated C-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Video games, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of video games on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject Microsoft (Rated C-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Microsoft, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Microsoft on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

DLC Pricing[edit]

I think it should be listed as 800 Microsoft Points or $10. Some people like to know how it costs in real money and the DLC is not exclusive to the Xbox 360.-- (talk) 22:41, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

The Random Game?[edit]

According to Gearbox they have created an AI that randomly generates weapons. From a revovler that shoots shotgun shells to a gun similar to Halo 3's spartan lazer all the way back to the classic assualt rifles, pistols, shotguns and LMG's. They have checked the number of weapon files and it is around 3.5 million. Along with random weapons is random weapon spawns. The weapons with be placed randomly in boxes. Not sure if the boxes move. The in game AI also is spawned randomly in the world, from when you are driving to when your in a cave. Matt5000matt (talk) 01:15, 8 October 2009 (UTC)


I think that this article might need some editing. It is fairly informative, but the style seems inconsistent with the rest of wikipedia. -Max —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 22:54, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

I agree, it reads a lot like an advertisement. While I do think this game deserves to be advertised, due to it looking amazing, Wikipedia isn't the place for that. Fruckert (talk) 03:12, 1 August 2009 (UTC)


Will there be a beta? Demo? [There has been no hint to a beta, it is october 7 and still no sign of one. Too big of a game to cut a small portion out of] —Preceding unsigned comment added by LostMK (talkcontribs) 14:56, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Betas are not demos, betas are the versions of the game when it is in fine tuning before release. You're thinking of a playable demo. UncannyGarlic (talk) 23:08, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Article is awful[edit]

The whole thing is a giant marketing tool. Google any of the sentences in the main body to find 100+ sites with exactly the same wording. Tall about marketing shills, Wiki is the worst. (talk) 00:04, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

You do realise that it's damn near impossible to get any other information besides marketing spin at this point, don't you? There's really no information out there that they didn't put out there. Thus, we use their language because we have no other sources. Once the game is released and articles are written and videos are made, then we can start adding new information to the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 23:34, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
I think that the objection is not only that the article is biased (which is a problem and even in pre-release can be rewritten objectively) but that it is taken verbatim from other articles or advertisements. It wouldn't surprise me of Gearbox has updated the page a few times. UncannyGarlic (talk) 23:11, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
I think that you're right, Uncanny. This article talks far too much like an ad, advertisement, and it really could do with alot of changing. What doesn't realize, is that it's the wording that's the issue here, it has nothing to do with what information that's available, but rather, how the information is being presented. Also, it'd be nice to see some of the less positive reviews of the game, to see more opinions on the matter. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 22:02, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
Keep in mind that it was just released for consoles and isn't released for PC until the 26th, so most of the less positive reviews from major sites won't be coming for at least a week, probably more in the range of two weeks to a month. UncannyGarlic (talk) 05:45, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
Nope, Destructoid and others were given pre-release Steam copies of the game to review. Destructoid reviewed it on PC. (talk) 15:34, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
Standard procedure is to ask journalists to hold reviews with a score lower than a desired value (usually 8, 9 with some games) until release. Companies that are seen as less likely to give those scores or are simply less prominent tend to not get prerelease review opportunities, thus don't get their hands on the game until after it's released. Depending on the publication, it takes between a few days and a couple weeks after release for the game to be played and reviewed. Written publications who didn't get their hands on a prerelease copy will most likely not have a review ready for their December issue (released in November) so it will take an additional month for them. The basic point is that it will take awhile for there to be a good number of reviews out there. I'm not saying that there won't be good reviews to include in the reactions section, just that the reactions section is likely to be updated for awhile and the most critical reviews will likely be included a little later. UncannyGarlic (talk) 18:34, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

What I'm missing in this article is a description of the ACTUAL GAME (sorry, caps lock). Okay, it's an RPG, it has a story, but I'm pretty sure Borderlands has some gameplay here and there, so why don't you describe that instead of lengthy character bios including their blood type? Needless to say, I won't do it :) I actually haven't played it (which is why you just wasted a few seconds of your lifetime reading this). (talk) 15:50, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Hi guys. I've added a segement on the art style used in the graphics. It's been one of the talking points for the game and should be noted in some form. The sort of thing I've included is the cel-shading artwork and the almost cartoon/anime action icons - eg the 'critical' and 'exp-100' coming from the hit target - these are worth mentioning to some extent. Thanks for reading and I won't take it badly if it's deemed incorrect or irrelevant :) Tetlinho (talk) 16:06, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Nothing about the almost universal disappointment with the horrible ending? —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 00:48, 22 February 2011 (UTC)


The siren character, who is a woman, is voiced by a guy? That doesn't seem right. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 00:11, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

It's not completely off the wall, that happens sometimes. (Miss Piggy, for example!) But it's unsourced, so I took it out. APL (talk) 02:34, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Bart Simpson is voiced by a woman! That can't be right either! (talk) 01:18, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

regarding the above post, young boys are generally voiced by women because they have high-pitched voices until puberty —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 07:46, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Gearbox Lied[edit]

Just a heads up, there ARE loading screens for every large area. Few and far between yes, but annoying in comparison to Fallout's outside world. -- (talk) 04:52, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

They said that there wouldn't be loading screens inside large areas. They kept their word. The only loads that appear are when you are moving from one large area to another, and that's fine with me. Installing this game on my 360's hard drive cut the load time down anyway. (talk) 13:52, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Does anyone have the source for this? The article currently says "They lied about this.", but its unsourced. ferret (talk) 17:54, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Of course, that has been changed already, per WP:STYLE. --Soetermans | is listening | what he'd do now? 19:24, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

This article sucks[edit]

It doesn't even mention the guns, which is one of the biggest aspects of this game. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 12:29, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Be bold and stop complaining. --Soetermans | is listening | what he'd do now? 20:48, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

i mentioned the little bit i knew in the "Random Game?" section. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Matt5000matt (talkcontribs) 02:51, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Your input is appreciated Matt! In the future, can you sign your posts with ~~~~? Otherwise, just hit the 'sign' button. Thanks! --Soetermans | is listening | what he'd do now? 19:24, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

PS3 Multiplayer Problems?[edit]

2 playstations, 2 users, one USB drive. Can we play splitscreen when I go to my friend's house? Can't copy my character to his account or it will overwrite some file with the same name. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 21:19, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Please put new discussions on the bottom of the talk page. Concerning your question, I wouldn't know. --Soetermans | is listening | what he'd do now? 19:24, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
Has it been reported on by any notable sources? Complaints about nasty bugs not being included pop up from time to time but unless there's a reliable source it can't be included. Sources are hard to come by because game journalists are generally asked not to mention bugs (especially with big title releases, specifically with prerelease reviews) or assume that they will be fixed. UncannyGarlic (talk) 06:00, 30 October 2009 (UTC)


Before we go changing the genres it probably needs talked about.

The game seems to clearly fit the Action role-playing game genre, while I would agree it doesn't follow the traditional RPG lines of the player making game changing choices. The whole "RPS" thing seems to be a market buzz word from Gearbox, but until the discussion on the talk page of that article is concluded I don't think it should be removed from here. If the RPS article is valid, then Borderlands is a part of that genre. ferret (talk) 17:46, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

It's an Action Role-play Game - First Person Shooter (ARPG FPS) hybrid. RPS is not yet widely enough used to merit it's own genre page, regardless of opinions about whether or not it should. If the term does catch on with gaming journalists (meaning they use it for other games than just Borderlands) then it would be a fair genre classification. UncannyGarlic (talk) 05:56, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
GameFAQs is a reliable source, so since they use shooter and not RPG, you can't widely accept this genre as it stands. Reverting back to shooter/action. (talk) 05:43, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
Also, Call of Duty allows you to level in multiplayer, but no one calls that game an RPG. (talk) 16:06, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
See following sources that are just as valid as GameFAQs that list RPG as genre.
I found these by simply searching google for "borderlands genre", and can link more if you wish. In addition, the RPS article has been considerably fleshed out since I started this section. ferret (talk) 21:24, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
I'm sorry but, it's going to stay an action/shooter until the debate is over. Please do not change it. Granted, there are sources that say it's part RPG, but due to its nature, it's more inclined to be called a shooter than an RPG. Furthermore, the term RPS was "coined." (talk) 03:46, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
The change to action/shooter was done by yourself, based on one source and your personal opinion of its genre. Multiple other sources have been listed to support the original genre classification. The article itself repeatedly refers to the game as an RPG, and multiple sources list it as an RPG. The original genres should be left in place till this "debate" is concluded. In addition, there has been no moves at this time to delete the RPS article, and even were it deleted, Borderlands still falls into the criteria of the existing ARPG genre/article. ferret (talk) 15:57, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
You wouldn't call MAG an RPG, would you? Gamestop lists MAG under the RPG category on their website only because it falls under Massively Multiplayer. I wouldn't call Borderlands an RPG simply because it has a leveling, skill level, etc. system. (talk) 23:51, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
Have you even read Action role-playing game? It's about RPG based combat systems, not the traditional RPG gameplay of choice and "role play". IGN ( lists genre as "Action RPG". 1up ( lists it as "FPS/RPG". Giantbomb( lists RPG. GameTrailers ( lists "First-Person, Role-Playing, Shooter". Almost every review mentions RPG even if they didn't explicitly put it as genre as well. The article here on Wiki itself repeatedly says "RPG". ferret (talk) 00:36, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
Fine, fine, fine. You win. Go ahead. (talk) 04:53, 20 November 2009 (UTC)


From It's not "emerging" it's been around for a while. on Role-playing shooter talk.

Obvious Game Genre is obvious: Megaman Legends (talk) 13:17, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Since MegaMan Legends is NOT an RPG, then Borderlands should not be labeled one either. (talk) 13:53, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
Also, before you get all jumpy. You do realize that there's a hack to play as Roll in MegaMan Legends, right? Maybe the devs were planning to add more playable characters (at least in MML2)? Anyway, I'll let you speak now. (Edit: I've used the hack before, but not for long, as my MML2 crashed.) (talk) 14:57, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
There's a Wiki policy that I don't recall right now that covers this. The gist is, just because the Mega Man Legends article doesn't use the genre RPG or ever mention RPG, has no bearing on the Borderlands article. Ultimately, nothing about MML has any bearing here. If you feel the MML article is in error, feel free to find sources about its RPG elements (Either from a role-playing stand point or from a gameplay/combat system stand point) and go edit it's article. ferret (talk) 13:51, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
Very well, but you do realize that when Alpha Protocol is released, I will challenge it as well for being an RPG. Similarly, you can upgrade MegaMan's stats by equipping parts or by buying more health at stores, etc. in MegaMan Legends. Isn't it similar to do so in Borderlands or Alpha Protocol? Also, there is a money system. Bosses have a big health bar at the top of the screen, etc. I also added a ref to the MegaMan Legends article showing that buster parts can be bought in stores. Also, like an RPG, it has a linear storyline that is moved along by various quests (IE: Saving a city from pirates, etc.) Also, there are even side-quests to the game (IE: Aiding the police in diffusing bombs, or by taking back stolen money.) It has some RPG Elements, just like Borderlands, Alpha Protocol, and even Monster Hunter. Though, Monster Hunter is not considered an RPG (For what reason, I do not know, since it has more RPG Elements than even MegaMan Legends.) (talk) 14:24, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
The bottom line is that Borderlands has multiple sources citing it as an RPG or as having RPG elements. MML and Alpha Protocol's status as an RPG or similarities to Borderlands have no bearing on this. You can bring it up every time a similar game is released if you want, it won't change the facts or contents of the sources used in this article. I appreciate that you feel strongly about the games, but the wiki articles need to reflect what the sources contain. And in this case, the majority of them either directly refer to Borderlands as an RPG, or refer to it's multiple RPG elements. ferret (talk) 15:22, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
That's mainly due to the fact that the company who made it released a preview/trailer that named it as such. You never know, if the company didn't do that, it just might have been labeled as just an FPS or shooter. However, other articles can effect the bearing of other articles, I have seen this happen before. (talk) 15:30, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Now that the Role-playing Shooter article has been deleted, I've removed the links/references. The game is STILL classified as an Action RPG however, which the sources support. ferret (talk) 13:15, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

If you ask me, Gearbox needs to add more RPG elements ie, weapon dismantling/customization, custom outfits, speech macros, dance macros like in WOW Because despite it claiming to be a Role-playing shooter, it still feels like im playing an FPS. Like any RPG, it needs a gamer culture. -- (talk) 09:31, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Random content generation[edit]

The world is not randomly generated, not in the slightest, it is by and large exactly the same any and each time you play the game. There are no towers, no bunkers, no exploding cacti, no caves that are different on each playthrough, everything is static. The only randomly generated content that made it into the main game are the guns. (talk) 20:03, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

You're right, I'm playing the game myself right now and I'm rather disappointed... but we regular editors can't add such a thing to Wiki, because it is considered original research. If a reliable source yells out "This is all wrong! Gearbox lied!!", then we can add it. Otherwise we can't... Damn consensus! :-D --Soetermans | is listening | what he'd do now? 01:29, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Hey guys. Yeah I agree. I was looking forward to the whole random gen side of it but on my second playthrough and having seen two other peoples game - I can honestly say it is exactly the same every time. The only random thing is the weapons. The game is awesome though. I love it. A bit let down on the single player mode mind, as I expected so much more, but on a two-player splitscreen or online, this is amazing!!!! User talk:Tetlinho —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tetlinho (talkcontribs) 15:47, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

What you also have to realize is that it could be an experiment to see if people liked that style of game since it is very rare to find an FPS-RPG that has a good story-line or even good gameplay for one i am glad that programmers are finally making changes in the styles of games by combining them but i wish they would just go all the way so people who play to be impressed don't get let down for almost an entire for front of gaming. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 18:55, 19 November 2009 (UTC)


From what I was told by Gamestop, the game was sold out on the east coast of Canada and the USA, I also recall the borderlands facebook page saying their was a shortage as well, If anyone can kind a website reinforcing/denying this, it would be worthwhile to mention. (talk) 20:50, 1 November 2009 (UTC) this reinforces the shortage. The Shadow 277 11:39, 27 January 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by The Shadow 277 (talkcontribs)

PC Technical problems?[edit]

A lot of PC gamers are pretty upset about the state in which the game was shipped. It might be worth mentioning. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 06:38, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

If you can find some sources from reliable 3rd parties, feel free to post them here and they'll make their way into the article. Best, Cocytus [»talk«] 15:58, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
Here's one: (talk) 17:06, 4 November 2009 (UTC)


you should really mention that this article contains spoilers for the game somewere or at least box it or put in bold somewere may contain spoilers for those who care about the story-line. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 18:50, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Would that be necessary? After all, what can the reader expect to find in the "plot" section except plot (spoiler) information? Zhanzhao (talk) 09:15, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

WP:SPOILER; Wikipedia contains spoilers. That is policy. Cocytus [»talk«] 13:01, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Wikia external link[edit]

I believe it is beneficial to include the Wikia as an external link, as it provides a significant amount of in-depth information about the game, such as character details and specifics about skills/stats/gameplay that would be too WP:GAMEGUIDE-like for Wikipedia.

Since you did not provide any edit summary (beyond the default) on your revert, I am re-adding the link. Please drop a note about why you disagree with this link if you'd like to remove it, again. LobStoR (talk) 15:15, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

It does, however, fail WP:ELNO which disallows wikis without a "substantial history of stability and a substantial number of editors." As you seem to be an admin on said wiki I advise against adding the link before gaining a consensus to avoid conflict of interest issues. Rehevkor 14:29, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

i am an admin of said wiki and would like to see it included. the official forums for the game should also be linked for reference but they are forums so users should be familiar with that format to use them to full effect. Dr. F 04:52, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Shouldn't be an issue now. Borderlands wikia currently at over 1000 pages. Will add.--Anthonzi (talk) 10:49, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

How many copies were sold on each platform?[edit]

I am having trouble finding this information anywhere. I am curious about this and think it would be good information to have on here. Micro5797 (talk) 20:14, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Citation needed[edit]

Multiple articles need citation, including the entire Storyline.

-- (talk) 15:36, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Storylines need citations now? Really? Please show me a reliable source that summarizes video game plots, or even a single other video game with its plot cited and I will agree with you. Oh? You can't find either one of those things? What a terrible tragedy. Spartan Sharpie (talk) 03:03, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Not Cel-Shaded[edit]

Removed Borderlands from the "videogames with cel-shaed graphics" category, as Randy Pitchford has said that Borderlands is not cel-shaded. "Heh! No, Borderlands is not cel-shaded - it's a gritty and serious world after all. But since the game was first unveiled we have made big advancements with the art direction and the technology to support the art and have produced some pretty impressive, even shocking results." Slogsdon (talk) 04:45, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

If the game XIII is cel-shaded, then Borderlands is cel-shaded. It should be noted that Randy Pitchford is CEO and president of the development company, and thus is an interested party, and thus cannot be expected to portray a neutral point of view. Rather than having the information deleted, it should instead be reported as a controversy. A quick Google search will illustrate such a controversy. A hastely gathered example from a later post on the same source[1] as the above post:
"We really aren't going to get into a semantic discussion about Borderlands' new art style, so feel free to call it cel-shaded or illustrative, it's all marketing-speak bullet-points to us at this stage. Thing is, the game looks totally different than it did back in the day."[2]
Reading this, it seems safe to say that the developer's objection to the description of the art style as "cel-shaded" is more about product image and marketing than factual accuracy.--Anthonzi (talk) 07:43, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
Actually if you read Slogsdon's cited article[3] carefully, you'll find that the author describes the art style as "an illustrative or cel-shaded style". Tsk tsk. Seriously, learn to read.
"The latest issue of PC Gamer apparently has images of the Mad Max simulator's new art direction, which appears to be an illustrative or cel-shaded style -- say goodbye to Borderlands' previous Fallout 3-esque motif."[4]
--Anthonzi (talk) 08:11, 2 November 2010 (UTC)


I restored the description of the graphics which someone summarily deleted. It is currently in the gameplay section simply because that is where it was originally. However I think it may be better suited for the Development section. With a few tweeks it should fit in there nicely.--Anthonzi (talk) 10:39, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

I would also like to note that it may be more accurate to call it semi-cel-shaded, a term I found on this forum post. Stylized may also be a good term to use. Unfortunately I can't find any good resources that have described the the graphics style in accurate detail post-release.--Anthonzi (talk) 11:37, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

RE : RPG Vs. Shooter[edit]

Just wanted to revive this old topic. I know it's basically been resolved by saying it's a shooter with RPG Elements. But if people want to re-create the shooter-RPG article I suggest renaming it as "Tactical Puzzle Shooter" and not Shooter RPG, it would make more sense as an RPG is usually chocked full of both tactical and puzzles. (talk) 17:58, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Borderlands is about as much an RPG as Burnout Paradise is a platformer. it's about an equal portion of each game Duds 2k (talk) 21:37, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Updated Sales[edit]

The sales total hasn't been updated since February 2010. Can we get an update for 2011? -- Charles Stover 15:14, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

storyline mistakes[edit]

The storyline that the person who wrote the article made a small error. The claptrap is struck by lightning that causes the claptrap to malfunction and become the interplanetary ninja assassin claptrap —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 14:04, 1 May 2011 (UTC)


According to the Infobox's "Platform(s)" field, this game runs on "OnLive". Is "OnLive" really a distinct platform? It does not appear in the Template:Vgclegend list of "Supported platforms". If it is not a distinct platform, it should be removed from the Infobox.

ProResearcher (talk) 02:06, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Single vs multi player[edit]

Does the game differ if I play alone or with friends? Is there another story or is the story mode only available in single player mode? Moberg (talk) 23:40, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Borderlands Legends[edit]

A spin-off game called "Borderlands Legends" based on the original has been released on iOS. It should be added to the article under spin - off section.KahnJohn27 (talk) 09:56, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

I don't understand Borderlands Legends is given in the template but there's nothing even written anything about it.KahnJohn27 (talk) 13:45, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

Its unreal engine 3 not modified source[edit]

How the hell is this on a Modified version of the source engine. When it has been known sense before release it has always been Unreal engine 3 Who ever made this mistake way back never fixed it neither did anyone else. its been this way for years — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:9:3400:9BF:8924:EE25:8D83:6FA5 (talk) 02:09, 11 January 2014 (UTC)