Brink

[Khaldun]

So far this thing looks like all hat, no cattle--marketing up the wazoo, but I have no sense of what it's really got on offer. Seen that before. Not a good sign.

[Strazos]

Perhaps they should have made the smart move and released a demo before retail launch. 

[Azazel]

  Good shooter = CoD4, TF2 with real guns, etc.

Does it use real guns, or made-up ones? I always prefer real ones for whatever reason.


I always find a lack of a demo suspicious. The lack of is what stopped me buying Frontline: Fuel of War. And Homefront as well, come to think of it (unless I just missed that one?)

Actually, awesome demos are what sold me on BF1942 back in the day and also got me to pony up for a pre-order of BC2. Which was the last game I bought on release, not counting super-steam sales (I got TW: Shogun 2 on release due to the "get everything else TW included, for less than half of the AU retail price" sale, but haven't yet fired it up).

Homefront had the same issue as Brink does to me as well. You better give me a damned compelling reason to not play Battlefield instead (or CoD, or TF2, or CS, or whatever your own MP FPS of choice is). Homefront pretty much falls into the same category that MW2 and Black Ops do - for me anyway. I'll buy them when they're really cheap to play through the SP campaign, but no deep interest in the MP aspect. If you don't have a worthwhile SP experience with an ongoing community and you're just going for the MP, your game is going to be toast in 3-6 months. Which is where Brink potentially appears to be headed - gotta keep those boxes on shelves and turning over else your community will die.

[Ginaz]

Its too bad this game seems to not live up to expectations.  I was looking forward to it.  Oh well.

[kildorn]

  Good shooter = CoD4, TF2 with real guns, etc.

Does it use real guns, or made-up ones? I always prefer real ones for whatever reason.

Brink uses real guns, with made up barely one letter off names for a lot of the brands.

I'm liking Brink, but at the same time: they released it a week early.. when it clearly needed more time in QA if all the crash and sound bugs on PC are any sign.

[Rendakor]

They didn't want to compete with one of this year's biggest releases in LA Noire.

[Kail]

Who actually has the PC version by the way?

I do.  Seems like a pretty good fit on the PC, controls are comparable to other FPSes, and the aiming is tricky enough that I'd feel awkward trying it with a gamepad.  Aiming is pretty imprecise on automatic weapons,  but you can put a scope on almost anything if you want more precision.  It doesn't take a long time to kill someone if you hit them (the AI can drop you in half a second with a rifle), in fact, I'd say that generally if you're getting hit you're likely to go down faster than you would in, say, TF2 (the game does have some of ET:Quake Wars feeling of "spawn, run, die instantly, wait for respawn").  I suspect where most of the "it takes forever to kill people" complaints are coming from is that you can get a kevlar vest buff which soaks up a ton of damage unless the enemy is using armor piercing rounds (which I think are Soldier specific) and because of the inaccuracy of the automatic weapons.

On another topic, I'm having trouble with the solo 2-star objective challenge, anyone have any advice?  1-star was no problem, but in the 2-star version, it's my team of four versus the CPU's team of six, and with the fact that I have to do all the objectives myself (and can't shoot half the time) that means my three AI teammates have to somehow cover me from six enemies on an instant respawn timer.  It's getting kind of frustrating.  I can get the bomb planted no problem, the generator takes a few deaths but I can do it, but hacking while drawing fire from six enemies respawning instantly about five seconds away is causing me problems.  I had something like six minutes left for that objective last time, never got past 30% or so.  Squadmates get cut down almost instantly, I can take a few (like, two, maybe) enemies out before dying but it doesn't seem to matter since there's still going to be two or three left and the others will be back in five seconds.  None of the other challenges have been this hard, so I suspect I'm doing something wrong, but I can't figure out what.

[Morfiend]

Kail, hit me up on steam. I am under this sane name in the f13 group. Ill run some of the challenges with you. I also am having a hard time with the 2 star.

For others, this is the best "review" or write up on Brink I have read yet.

Warning Kotaku. (Worth reading)
Is Brink Any Good?

**Edit

Played some multiplayer campaign mode coop with some randoms tonight, and it was MUCH more fun than playing solo. This really is a game that having friends or others to play with seems to be pretty required.

Personally, I was hoping for a bit more Borderlands and a little less Quake Wars, but now that I know what I have got, its more enjoyable.

[Amaron]

Here is my sort-of-mini first impressions:

I caved and bought it since I was reading some good things and heard all of my fears answered.   Apparently though I didn't have the right fears.

It's hard to imagine after all the decades of my life that developers can still throw me a zinger where I say they've reached a new plateau of stupid.   Basically this isn't a shooter at all.   It's just this objective thing with FPS elements.   I knew about that mode and I thought  "well that's fine it sounds cool".   Indeed it IS cool.    It does seem to have a bit of the "not enough face shooting" going on but that's probably because I can't even figure out where the fuck I'm going half the time.  I can easily imagine after I figure all this crap out that it will be a very interesting game mode with some fulfilling teamwork and blah blah.

What every fucking individual I know and several reviews neglected to mention though is it's the ONLY GAME MODE.

No FFA.
No CTF.
No DM.
No HQ.
No Dom.
NO FUCKING TDM?

SERIOUSLY?     

Oh and of course I think the biggest server size is 16.   I mean that irks me but that level of stupidity is only par for the course these days.

Did they stop the stupidity there?  Oh hell no son.   Apparently to unlock a lot of the attachments and gun stuff they chose not to copy CoD's system or to come up with their own possibly interesting variation.   No they built some sort of deus ex stupidity difference engine and asked it what to do.   I imagine they had it print out several answers then picked one via darts.  The solution of course being that you start up these mini solo/co-op challenges and complete them to unlock gun attachments.  That's right you can not unlock all those fancy bazillion gun variations by you know...SHOOTING PEOPLE.  You have to stop your multi in your multiplay game and shoot some bots or jump on some crates.



I think what makes me the most angry though is the SMART thing is clearly cool.  Hell just the fact that your guy will no longer get stuck on shit you'd normally walk over IRL is a big step up.   I actually think calling it parkour is a bit off in fact.   It makes you surprisingly more mobile in a way that makes other shooters suddenly feel a bit artificial.   Little stuff like just stepping up onto a ramp from the side instead of having to circle around to the front feels so much more natural.    Until I unlock the light body type I can't try out the crazy stuff like wall jumping but based on what I can already do I imagine it works just fine.   The rest of the combat is fine too.   At it's core the shooter mechanics seemed fine.  I did run into some medic that was taking wayyy to many bullets to kill but frankly the maps are so "shit where did you come from?" that I spazed and didn't even iron sight him.     Everyone else I shot at died in satisfyingly short order.

My pure rage comes from the fact that clearly this shit would be fun as hell if they just threw you in a map and let you shoot people.   I guess they figured that would be soo much fun that nobody would ever even LOOK at their objective stuff.  So out came the cock-blocking of course.   Never in my life have I ever felt more sympathetic of investors who feel developers can simply not be trusted with multimillion dollar products.   

So basically in summary the objective mode seems cool.   I think most people would find it fun.   At 50 bucks for that one mode though you better hope to fucking god you love it as you aren't getting anything else.

[Margalis]

It's hard to imagine after all the decades of my life that developers can still throw me a zinger where I say they've reached a new plateau of stupid.   Basically this isn't a shooter at all.   It's just this objective thing with FPS elements.   I knew about that mode and I thought  "well that's fine it sounds cool".   Indeed it IS cool.    It does seem to have a bit of the "not enough face shooting" going on but that's probably because I can't even figure out where the fuck I'm going half the time.  I can easily imagine after I figure all this crap out that it will be a very interesting game mode with some fulfilling teamwork and blah blah.

What every fucking individual I know and several reviews neglected to mention though is it's the ONLY GAME MODE.

I think the problem here is you and your expectations.

It is a shooter, unless your definition of shooter is laughably narrow. Saying this isn't a shooter is like saying that Sonic isn't a platformer because it lacks Goombas.

The objective stuff is not a mode like CTF or Team Deathmatch. It's the game. Just as it was in Enemy Territory. The goal of this game was not to make a completely generic, serviceable and forgettable shooter among dozens then bolt on a single new game mode to feign freshness, the game mode is really the core concept. That doesn't mean it's not a shooter, just not quite as cookie-cutter as some others.

If it had team deathmatch and CTF would those be better than in competing products? Probably not. Within a week nobody would be playing those anyway.

Your post actually makes me very sad. Basically your complaint is that it's not a simple copy/paste of an existing game and doesn't conform to an extremely narrow genre definition that says all shooters must be exactly like COD.

Now it sucks if you were expecting something different but the game has always been billed as objective-based, and there are two previous games in it's lineage that should give you an idea of what to expect.

[Amaron]

I think the problem here is you and your expectations.

My only expectation is that if a shooter doesn't have any of the normal shooter bits then reviewers should at least mention that.  There is nothing wrong with that expectation. 

Your post actually makes me very sad. Basically your complaint is that it's not a simple copy/paste of an existing game and doesn't conform to an extremely narrow genre definition that says all shooters must be exactly like COD.

How did a post you didn't read make you sad?  I said very clearly that after I figure it out I'll probably enjoy the objective mode.   I said very clearly that the movement system would of given them a game nothing like a copy/paste of other games with those modes.  I said VERY CLEARLY in the first paragraph that you quoted that I think all that stuff IS cool.   It's right there four words saying it's cool.   I'm going to also be cool though and assume that you're insinuation that expecting them to not be cheapasses is "narrow" was just a knee-jerk defensive reaction based on the fact that my post was tl;dr.   

If it had team deathmatch and CTF would those be better than in competing products?

YES.   S.M.A.R.T is game changing.  It actually lives up to it's hype and then some.

[jakonovski]

One of the surest ways to tell whether a game will flop is the amount of "you don't understand, this game is not for you" that gets thrown around on the internets. That it gets thrown around on a game of such an iconic genre as FPS, well, that's got to be even worse...

 

[Kail]

One of the surest ways to tell whether a game will flop is the amount of "you don't understand, this game is not for you" that gets thrown around on the internets. That it gets thrown around on a game of such an iconic genre as FPS, well, that's got to be even worse...

It's frustrating, though, because it seems to be happening all over.  Brink is basically an ET: Quake Wars type game with more acrobatics and customization and minus the vehicles/outdoor sections.  You're coming at it looking for Mirror's Edge with guns, Amaron is looking for Unreal Tournament with wall running, and I've seen reviewers make similar mistakes.  The game, for what it is, is not bad.  If you come at it looking for something that's not there, you're going to be disappointed, but it's not like you couldn't say that about any game.  What's irritating is that this seems to be happening over and over with a lot of different people.  I dunno if Brink's marketing guys really fucked up or if the game concept is really that weird and alien to people who didn't play ET, but there seems to be a lot of people who thought this game was going to be something other than what it is, which is worrying me.

[Rendakor]

A lot of people (myself included) have never heard of ET: Quake Wars, or the studio who developed Brink at all before this. We're used to the shooters we've played before (COD, Gears, Halo); as a result I don't see how Amaron's off the mark hoping for TDM at the very least.

[Malakili]

Wolfenstein: Enemy Territory was pretty well known as well.

[Mrbloodworth]

Wolfenstein: Enemy Territory was pretty well known as well.

Free download and main site.



I think I know what the issue is. Its a ET style game on consoles. Case in point, from a meta critic review:

This is undoubtably the worst game ever made. Yes thats right. This game is WAAAAY worse than Crysis 2 or Gears of war or Halo....

...Killzone 3 RAPES this piece of trash. Heck even CoD is better than this ****...

Specifically its a team based game in a world sounded by games where Rambos are playing alone together.

Brink's developers made a serious effort to overcome the various problems that plague multiplayer first-person shooters today. If you hate grenade-spamming, you'll be delighted to hear that grenades in Brink don't do much damage and are on a cooldown timer.  In addition, the EXP system is designed to punish selfishness; each character class has "buffs" they can give to their teammates (soldiers give extra ammo, medics give health, etc.), and giving buffs nets you far more EXP than killing the enemy does...

...In the end, however, Brink is a worthy buy for anyone who doesn't absolutely hate multiplayer FPS action. It blurs the line between single-player and multiplayer styles, introduces an effective new movement system, and finds ways of discouraging all the obnoxious behavior common in most multiplayer shooters.

Read more: http://cheatcc.com/ps3/rev/brinkreview.html#ixzz1M3UJZgf5

[Rendakor]

Among PC gamers, maybe. That's all I'll say however as I'm tired of having this argument every time a FPS launches.

[Mrbloodworth]

I am also sure having Zero multi-player option on the PS3 is a big issue for this titles reviews. Considering its a multi-player heavy title.

Gamespy review encapsulates it:

For fans of Splash Damage's lauded Enemy Territory franchise, Brink's learning curve will be brief. For console gamers unfamiliar with the dynamics of class-based first-person shooters, it will be steep -- and some will likely retreat to Call of Duty's cozy confines before getting over the hump. It's a shame, because on the other side of that learning curve is a rewarding multiplayer experience. Despite some red flags, Brink is a blast, and injects new life into a genre that is quickly becoming stiff with rigor mortis.

Linky

[Nightblade]

My main concerns and a lot of complaints I see are often misconstrued as "LOL U LONE WOLF COD FAG GO BACK TO COD FAG FAG".

Complaining about awful map design does not make you a "cod fag".

Complaining about sluggish mechanics and a lack of variety does not mean I "need to go back to Counterstrike".

and lastly

Complaining about a shitty tacked on single player game doesn't mean "lol it's Splash damage so it's ok, Imean u expect it rite?"

TF2 has similar class based gameplay with a lot variety and pug sensibilities thrown in. Excusing awful game design when you're getting spawn camped as "It's team based" doesn't fly. At all.

[Mrbloodworth]

You do realize that ET:QW and TF2 are not comparable games, and very different beasts, ET:QW is also very much unlike the COD or battlefield designs.

I believe the commentary that new users on consoles are unlikely to have played this type of game is completely valid. Splash damage pretty much defined class based/Team based shooters. And was known for online only, small team based play. Everything brink seems to have that people are complaining about. And its highly unlike the games on most consoles where team play is secondary, and score boards and kill counts are all that matter.

EDIT: Seems even splash damage knew this:

[Sky]

Console players are struggling with the concept of objective-based gameplay? That's hilarious.

[Mrbloodworth]

Yet likely completely true. Or most reviews that go low score would not be saying that having to change classes to fit the objective is a pain.

You don't need to switch classes, IF YOU ARE PLAYING AS A TEAM.  If you are just solo playing with others online ( Like Halo, most shooters on consoles ) you are doing it wrong.  This is a defined game type with a long history on PC, that has yet to really come to consoles.

My main point with the differences is. Dependency on other players and classes are the main design difference. Simply having an "objective" on a map does not make a team focused shooter.

[Nightblade]

You do realize that ET:QW and TF2 are not comparable games, and very different beasts, ET:QW is also very much unlike the COD or battlefield designs.

I believe the commentary that new users on consoles are unlikely to have played this type of game is completely valid. Splash damage pretty much defined class based/Team based shooters. And was known for online only, small team based play. Everything brink seems to have that people are complaining about. And its highly unlike the games on most consoles where team play is secondary, and score boards and kill counts are all that matter.

EDIT: Seems even splash damage knew this:

Right, and what about the complaints that have nothing to do with people struggling to play as a team?

[Mrbloodworth]

Technical issues can be patched out. No head shots is intentional, grenades not being instagib is intentional, lack of a K/D ratio is intentional, Lack of standard FPS modes is intentional as they do not fit this type of game. ETC.

Lack of a story mode the length of halo is is debatable as is likely a failing of marketing, or player expectations because of not knowing the games pedagree.

[jakonovski]

I dunno if Brink's marketing guys really fucked up or if the game concept is really that weird and alien to people who didn't play ET, but there seems to be a lot of people who thought this game was going to be something other than what it is, which is worrying me.

In my case it was marketing fail. I watched a lot of videos where they gushed about three things: awesome floating cityscape, parkour movement, character customization.

That led me to believe it would be an atmospheric shooter.

[Nija]

I'm not even to the point where I'm reading about the actual gameplay issues.

All I hear about so far is what a disaster the game is technically. From 5 fps in the server browser to blue tinted screens and framerates locked at 30; FOV at sub 90.

Yet another pay to beta game that I'm going to avoid. By the time they fix the bugs it'll be in the bargain bin.

[KallDrexx]

Can someone explain to me wtf ET:QW gameplay was?  All i keep reading is "It's just like ET:QW duh!" over and over again, and yet it's apparent that most of us had never played the game.  I remember hearing about it when it came out but I never played it.

I genuinely want to know what the difference between ET:QW is and most standard FPS games (Bfs and Cods) that are apparently big enough to make such a huge difference in how well you will understand Brink

[AcidCat]

Played the 360 version for a couple hours last night, so far the game is a real mixed bag. Though you're immediately given an almost overwhelming selection of guns to pick from right off the bat - to get significant upgrades to them, and unlock a few more, you have to play challenge modes, twice each, which are single player with bots. These challenges are not fun and just feel like pointless busywork. This is a multiplayer game - why do I have to play these lame single player challenges to get stuff? Outfits and abilities unlock as you level up in the standard game, dunno why they separated out these other important unlocks.

Maybe it was my mistake not getting the PC version, but the graphics look very low-res and blurry. Combat feels a bit sluggish ... the new movement system so far, I've not seen it really add anything to the game, maybe it just takes some getting used to to get the most out of it. But most importantly, something is jacked up with the netcode or hosting or who knows what, but it was extremely difficult to find a game without crippling, unplayable lag. I tried close to 15 times to get into a game online and got two games out of those that I could actually play. If that issue gets ironed out, I can see having fun with Brink, I do like the customization for appearance and abilities, and the core gameplay mode is fun.

[jakonovski]

Can someone explain to me wtf ET:QW gameplay was?  All i keep reading is "It's just like ET:QW duh!" over and over again, and yet it's apparent that most of us had never played the game.  I remember hearing about it when it came out but I never played it.

I genuinely want to know what the difference between ET:QW is and most standard FPS games (Bfs and Cods) that are apparently big enough to make such a huge difference in how well you will understand Brink

For myself, Brink is missing one key thing from QW: large maps and vehicles. Fighting in small rooms with two dimensional layouts has to stop. It's boring as fuck.
 

[Kail]

Can someone explain to me wtf ET:QW gameplay was?  All i keep reading is "It's just like ET:QW duh!" over and over again, and yet it's apparent that most of us had never played the game.  I remember hearing about it when it came out but I never played it.

I genuinely want to know what the difference between ET:QW is and most standard FPS games (Bfs and Cods) that are apparently big enough to make such a huge difference in how well you will understand Brink

Kind of like a cross between Team Fortress and Assault mode for Unreal Tournament (if you played that).  Basically, instead of scoring points by getting kills or capturing flags, it's objective based.  There are two teams: the attackers (who win the map if they complete the objectives) and the defenders (who win the map if they can preven the attackers from winning).  The maps are set up so that there are a series of challenges for the attackers to overcome, and the defenders try to stop them.  Most objectives require a specific class to complete.

For example, there's one level (Tower, I think) which has Rebels on attack and Security defending.  The scenario is that the rebels are rescuing one of their guys from the hospital where he's being interrogated.  The first challenge is for the rebels to blast open the front gate, which requires a Soldier class to plant a blasting charge on it.  Once that's done, the next objective is to access the Warden's computer to get the access codes to the hospital.  This can only be done by Operative classes hacking into the computer.  Once they've got the codes, they have to carry them to the door of the hospital and input them into the door (any class can do this).  After that, the Rebel prisoner is released from the hospital, and the Rebels have to escort him back across the map to the starting point.  Anyone can escort the prisoner (he only moves when someone is near him), but if he gets knocked out (he can't be fully killed) only a Medic can revive him.

[KallDrexx]

Kind of like a cross between Team Fortress and Assault mode for Unreal Tournament (if you played that).  Basically, instead of scoring points by getting kills or capturing flags, it's objective based.  There are two teams: the attackers (who win the map if they complete the objectives) and the defenders (who win the map if they can preven the attackers from winning).  The maps are set up so that there are a series of challenges for the attackers to overcome, and the defenders try to stop them.  Most objectives require a specific class to complete.

For example, there's one level (Tower, I think) which has Rebels on attack and Security defending.  The scenario is that the rebels are rescuing one of their guys from the hospital where he's being interrogated.  The first challenge is for the rebels to blast open the front gate, which requires a Soldier class to plant a blasting charge on it.  Once that's done, the next objective is to access the Warden's computer to get the access codes to the hospital.  This can only be done by Operative classes hacking into the computer.  Once they've got the codes, they have to carry them to the door of the hospital and input them into the door (any class can do this).  After that, the Rebel prisoner is released from the hospital, and the Rebels have to escort him back across the map to the starting point.  Anyone can escort the prisoner (he only moves when someone is near him), but if he gets knocked out (he can't be fully killed) only a Medic can revive him.

Thanks!

That actually sounds pretty awesome, depending on the actual implementation obviously.

[Nightblade]

Technical issues can be patched out. No head shots is intentional, grenades not being instagib is intentional, lack of a K/D ratio is intentional, Lack of standard FPS modes is intentional as they do not fit this type of game. ETC.

Lack of a story mode the length of halo is is debatable as is likely a failing of marketing, or player expectations because of not knowing the games pedagree.

Shitty map design, technical issues being patched out still isn't an excuse, Grenades being useless isn't intentional IE: they don't have to instant kill to be effective at something, You don't need standard FPS modes to insert variety into your game, sluggish poorly implemented movement system which, by even generous accounts is just a glorified action button, nobody worth talking to gives a crap about KDR. 

[Sky]

The problem with UT's Assault mode is that everyone had boiled down the objectives to the LCD within a couple days. I remember running objectives to see who could shave a few seconds off the best time, there was no real way for the defenders to stop anyone once the 'trick' was figured out. And the maps got old pretty fast because it's linear.

I played a lot of Assault, wishing it could be more.

[Amaron]

It's frustrating, though, because it seems to be happening all over.  Brink is basically an ET: Quake Wars type game with more acrobatics and customization and minus the vehicles/outdoor sections.  You're coming at it looking for Mirror's Edge with guns, Amaron is looking for Unreal Tournament with wall running, and I've seen reviewers make similar mistakes. 

I was expecting Quake Wars with S.M.A.R.T.   I played Quake Wars all those years ago.   Saying they both had objectives is just not even remotely descriptive.   The game is nothing like Quake Wars.   They took the enemy territory series and decided that people were having fun by ignoring the objectives.   They decided this ruined the objectives because so many were ignoring them.   Their SOLUTION was to remove FUN that people can have by ignoring objectives.   They could of tried to add different objectives but they clearly just didn't want those people to like the game.  

It's as if the developers wanted to say to 50% of their previous audience "You don't understand, this game is not for you".

I like how a lot of you are ignoring that TDM is a simple game mode that's easy as hell to add on too.   I mean you'd think I'm asking for some crazy totally difficult thing.   I simply want them to let people go into a map and SHOOT AT EACH OTHER.  I'm still going to just go shoot people in the face anyways.   I'll ignore the objectives and just shoot people and probably ruin the game for my team.   Normally I'd just shelf the game but S.M.A.R.T is to much fun.  

[Mrbloodworth]

Kind of like a cross between Team Fortress and Assault mode for Unreal Tournament (if you played that).  Basically, instead of scoring points by getting kills or capturing flags, it's objective based.  There are two teams: the attackers (who win the map if they complete the objectives) and the defenders (who win the map if they can preven the attackers from winning).  The maps are set up so that there are a series of challenges for the attackers to overcome, and the defenders try to stop them.  Most objectives require a specific class to complete.

For example, there's one level (Tower, I think) which has Rebels on attack and Security defending.  The scenario is that the rebels are rescuing one of their guys from the hospital where he's being interrogated.  The first challenge is for the rebels to blast open the front gate, which requires a Soldier class to plant a blasting charge on it.  Once that's done, the next objective is to access the Warden's computer to get the access codes to the hospital.  This can only be done by Operative classes hacking into the computer.  Once they've got the codes, they have to carry them to the door of the hospital and input them into the door (any class can do this).  After that, the Rebel prisoner is released from the hospital, and the Rebels have to escort him back across the map to the starting point.  Anyone can escort the prisoner (he only moves when someone is near him), but if he gets knocked out (he can't be fully killed) only a Medic can revive him.

Thanks!

That actually sounds pretty awesome, depending on the actual implementation obviously.

The maps in Quake wars also expanded as the mission progressed.