44 thoughts on “PCGamer Borderlands 3 Review (63/100)”

  1. TL;DR:

    >Between the bugs, the extended non-jokes, the self-aggrandizing jabs at game design trends, and a few cameos I won’t spoil but that made me audibly groan, Borderlands 3 has a lot in common with Gearbox fan events as of late. There’s a lot of loud, extended posturing while holding what everyone really came for hostage. It’s a shame, because Tales from the Borderlands found a delicate balance of absurdity, self-awareness, and genuine heart. A better Borderlands is possible, it’s just not Borderlands 3.

    Ouch.

    A well-written article that’s worth a read (I’ll have to wait until after work).

  2. Should be added that the game is reviewing very well and get’s high scores from most other sites.

    edit;

    8 and 9 across the board from other reviewers it seems.

  3. I was told that Epic controlled PC Gamer because Epic sponsored their booth once, how can they give EGS’ biggest exclusive a 63?

  4. B3 is getting great reviews from other sites, I thought PCGamer would give it much better score considering their ties with Epic.

  5. This article reads like it’s written by someone who thinks they’re too intelligent for Borderlands. Every complaint this guy has about the game’s dialogue is something that is part of the core Borderlands experience. It’s not a sophisticated, intelligent game. It’s Borderlands. Expect a lot of edgy jokes, toilet humor, and random monologues about things that don’t matter. It’s like they asked a guy who hates superhero movies to review the Avengers.

  6. Holy hell that PCGamer website is cancer. I had to force close my browser twice to get rid of the pop ups. Never clicking a PCGamer link or website ever again.

  7. Instead of doing review thread let’s post a single most negative review and judge the game around it. This sub never changes.

  8. I have zero interest in this game whatsoever. Just saying that PC Gamer isn’t what it used to be and their reviews are pretty much trash.

  9. It’s well written but nothing about his previous reviews gives me any faith that he was the appropriate person to review this game. Borderlands 3 was made for people who just want more borderlands. If you like borderlands, you know what you are getting here. He goes in not trying to really focus past what makes every single borderlands game annoying but instead simply magnetizes to exactly those aspects. His main beat seems to be Fortnite. He gave WYB a 79 (are we a joke to you?) and Man of Medan (the most cringe writing I have seen in 5+ years) an 81. Sorry but that ain’t it chief.

    If you played Bordlerlands for the humor then this will definitely appeal to you. If you played borderlands to fuck around with your friends (post bl2) and play with crazy guns and rewarding gunplay (most of the series), then this will still appeal to you (I’m betting). If you come in expecting Randy fuckboi to revolutionize story telling and cut the annoying satire shit, what the fuck have you been smoking because I want some.

  10. Thank god I have the sense of humor of a 13 year old.

    But seriously, I dont give a fuck that the writing might not be a masterpiece. Very few attempts at writing of any kind are. Besides, we are talking about BORDERLANDS here! I like that it makes dumb poop jokes. Im a grown ass man and I busted a gut when Hammerlock got frustrated and said “bonerfarts” for the first time! Putting the writing aside entirely, as long as the mechanics and loot are there, Im good.

  11. I like how you found the lowest review from a bad source and went with that. Yeah that’s what we call *cherry picking*.

    https://www.reddit.com/r/games/comments/d1r7zu/_/

    Edit: I get the whole Epic and Randy Pitchford hate thing but that doesn’t just mean we get to pretend the game is bad because of it. I’m gonna wait for more reviews for an actual verdict but this kind of thing is really telling about this sub.

  12. He mostly bashes the story but let’s be honest: nobody cares about the story in Borderlands games. If the shooting is fun it’s all I ask for.

  13. I personally dont care if this is a sign that the game is actually bad or if its actually a good game since it got mostly 8-9’s everywhere else since a limited amount of big-name reviewers are the only ones who got access. It doesnt matter to me if PCGamer is a shitty source for gaming reviews as I’ve had incredibly negative experiences with nearly every site that has put out early review copies. Now I’m not going to sit here and say they were *all* paid off or anything, but I have significantly less reason to trust any of these sites than I do my favorite independent reviewers. I’ll wait until the game releases and I get to hear about it from people I trust. I dont plan on getting it till it hits Steam anyways. Got way too many games to play as is.

  14. This is just someones opinion. It does not make it fact. You can make your own opinion without riding on the heels of others.

  15. Reviewer here: Read wide. Some folks jive with the humor. I didn’t, like, at all. But to clear something up that’s easily forgotten when reviews are aggregated or compared purely based on the final score, a 63 is still a recommendation on our scale, just with caveats. I’ll probably play more Borderlands 3 with friends and the volume low and have a good time making the numbers big. It’s largely Borderlands 2, again, with some QOL improvements and some nice changes to the combat and gear generation. Use critics’ thoughts not as the final say but a point of comparison for your own tastes. I just want to make sure no one regrets spending money on something that doesn’t jive with ’em.

  16. Yea but factoring story so much into the score of a looter shooter where most people dont give a fuck about the story but instead on the gameplay loop and loot itself?

  17. This review basically amounts to “I didn’t like the humor but the actual gameplay and everything else about the game was good but still 63”

  18. I’m taking this review with a grain of salt.

    This is the same guy that reviewed Wolfenstein Youngblood with a score of 79, which according to most critics, isn’t a score the game deserved, that and its the only other review I can find of his in the past 2-3 years of articles he’s written on PCGamer, so I question his ability to even write a decent review.

    Could it be accurate? Sure, it could be, but judging by the other reviews which have been released so far, this 63 is very much an anomaly, much like his high score of Wolfenstein was.

  19. It’s amazing how quickly this sub will change its mind on something if it’s anti Epic. Epic sucks but so does PCgamer. This article reads like someone who’s never enjoyed Borderlands got stuck reviewing it. They literally described every other Borderlands game minus one as a reason to hate it. I have no personal attachment to Borderlands (only played through the campaign of 2 once and part of 1) but this article, like everything else on PCgamer, is shit.

  20. Reading between the lines, I think it scored so low because it is “more of the same”.

    I think if you enjoyed Borderlands 1 & 2, you’ll likely really enjoy Borderlands 3.

  21. If only there were some sort of platform where the game was sold where you could see hundreds of thousands of reviews for the game from people that owned it.

  22. This seems like its exactly what fans would want who cares what the scores are. I know some panned BL2 hard when it came out too.

  23. Oh community, now we’re listening to PC gaming journalism sites ?

    Hilarious. Only when it suits your guy’s agenda though. Read this guy’s bio and review history then tell me this should be taken seriously.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *