Brink

[AcidCat]

I'll ignore the objectives and just shoot people and probably ruin the game for my team.  

Nah you'll still be helping out the people trying to accomplish the objectives. Even the two pub games I got in last night, plenty of people were engaging the objectives. Being purely support by killing enemies is still gonna help your team. You just won't have the satisfaction of a K/D tally at the end - if that even matters to you.

[Mrbloodworth]

No, he will be constantly rolled, with team sizes this small, its unlikely you can just float in the masses and not be a drain. If your not a team based player, you are unlikely to enjoy this title.

This is exactly why people will tell him he may wish to go back to the other games that feature the game type he likes. No one who enjoyed Quake Wars pined for a basic official death-match, its the opposite direction of the core concept of the game.

All SD games have required teamwork, all of them a strategy beyond "Get kills", the objectives are the game-play. I even hear they are dynamically placed in brink.

Me personally, I Enjoy this type of FPS more than any other. Plantside, RTcW:ET, Global Agenda, TF2 and ET:QW are far and above better to me and my tastes than CoD, or battlefield, Quake/Unreal series. They are great for what they do, I just don't personally enjoy playing alone with others or thinking its all about "Boom head-shot". I enjoy tactics, shoot outs, strategy and teamwork. I find it lacking in those titles personally, and just see a zerg that occasionally happens to cap a control point.

I'm not so sure its valid a day after launch and with a game that allows you to climb/wall walk almost any surface we should be commenting on map layouts yet. I'm not aware of a shooter that has had to have that extra challenge of design considered.

To each his own though.



Also: Brink – An Update from Splash Damage

[jakonovski]

It just occurred to me that the sum total of Brink's content is one game mode and eight maps. That's really not much at all, especially considering how long it was under development.

[AcidCat]

Yeah it's a little underwhelming, for sure. But it's fun when it works.

Though getting Section 8 for 15 bucks recently puts a slightly different perspective on what Brink gives you for a full price game.

[Malakili]

If its close to Enemy Territory(Rtcw version at least, I honestly didn't playethe Quake Wars one) it sounds worth getting eventually, but at full price probably not, especially given that I am over saturated on games right now in the first place.  Steam sale ho!

[Mrbloodworth]

Yeah it's a little underwhelming, for sure. But it's fun when it works.

Though getting Section 8 for 15 bucks recently puts a slightly different perspective on what Brink gives you for a full price game.

Got my tax returns, was considering picking that up to. Recommend?

[AcidCat]

Absolutely, for 15 bucks. The art style is generic, but the gameplay is solid. Capture-and-hold style objectives with other random objectives that come up during a round to keep things interesting. A typical xp path to unlock stuff, in addition to earning points to spend in-round on turrets, mech suits, tanks etc. Bots that don't suck.

[Amaron]

No, he will be constantly rolled, with team sizes this small, its unlikely you can just float in the masses and not be a drain. If your not a team based player, you are unlikely to enjoy this title.

That's just wishful thinking on your part.  My team will lose yea but I'll still slaughter the enemy.   There's no need to win after all since you get nothing for it.

I'm not saying I don't enjoy the objectives mind you.  Just some times you want to simply shoot faces.   If I'm in that mood no way am I going to switch from soldier to medic if that's what we need.

It just occurred to me that the sum total of Brink's content is one game mode and eight maps. That's really not much at all, especially considering how long it was under development.

I probably should of just said this instead of writing a review.  A game like this with cool classes and interesting objective play and crazy climb all over maps?  It's a FUCKING CRIME that there is no headquarters mode.   Anyone who ever played the original TF is just going to cry.   I just can't fathom why it's missing.   ET:Quake Wars had headquarters.   It doesn't make any sense at all for it to be missing here.  

They put in all this stuff to make it team work, objective,etc etc and they didn't include headquarters it's just  .

[Malakili]

Hmm, a good (better?) review for the PC version, maybe there really is something to this console v. pc war 

http://arstechnica.com/gaming/news/2011/05/brink-for-pc-runs-great-plays-well-online-is-a-ton-of-fun.ars

[Azazel]

Wolfenstein: Enemy Territory was pretty well known as well.

Nod. It was well known back in the day. Of course, that was pretty much like any other TDM-objective based shooter, so...

[Miasma]

I liked Quake wars enemy territory a lot so I keep flip flopping on whether or not to buy this.  If they didn't have that ability where you can pretend to be on the enemy team (like the spy in team fortress) I would have bought it by now.  I find it cancels out everything I like about it being team based since I have to be paranoid and constantly checking to see if my own team member is going to stab me in the back (literally).  I really don't like that.

Each day around lunchtime I decide "yeah screw it I'll give it a try when I get home" and by the time I get home I've changed my mind.

[Malakili]

Guy streaming this right now: http://www.justin.tv/itmejp#/w/1193462112

[Azazel]

Me personally, I Enjoy this type of FPS more than any other. Plantside, RTcW:ET, Global Agenda, TF2 and ET:QW are far and above better to me and my tastes than CoD, or battlefield, Quake/Unreal series. They are great for what they do, I just don't personally enjoy playing alone with others or thinking its all about "Boom head-shot". I enjoy tactics, shoot outs, strategy and teamwork. I find it lacking in those titles personally, and just see a zerg that occasionally happens to cap

It's pretty clear that someone here has never played a quality game of battlefield. Lumping it in with CoD reveals your ignorance on the differences even more.

[AcidCat]

Eh, you know that feeling of *trying* to like a game you just spent sixty bucks on? I finally got past that tonight after a few more hours of play. The game is one-dimensional, repetitive, and more frustrating than fun too much of the time.

[Kageru]

Still 90 USD$ in Australia so it would need to be a god of gaming for me to even consider that.

[Azazel]

Eh, you know that feeling of *trying* to like a game you just spent sixty bucks on? I finally got past that tonight after a few more hours of play. The game is one-dimensional, repetitive, and more frustrating than fun too much of the time.

Yeah, that's where I really take issue with all of the marketing saying one thing and then after your purchase and you finding out that it's not what you thought/were told you were buying, defenders saying "this game is not for you, you should have known!~Splash Damage!~ QW:ET!~ (which it seems that almost noone bought and only has some elements in common.)

[jakonovski]

Is it bad if despite everything I kind of want to buy this game? Mind you, it's flat out impossible for me to play at the moment because the PC version doesn't run on ATI cards.

[KallDrexx]

No, he will be constantly rolled, with team sizes this small, its unlikely you can just float in the masses and not be a drain. If your not a team based player, you are unlikely to enjoy this title.

That's an issue with the game design though, that's not an issue with the individual person.  TF2 allows team strategy and objective based gameplay, although maybe not as complex as described for brink.   However, it does it in a way that if you just want to run around shooting people and ignore the minecart that needs to be pushed, you are still helping the team by keeping people away from the people who are trying to complete objectives.  This means that both types of players can coincide together and help each other, even when they aren't intending too.

If a game can't facilitate both playstyles, and allow people to jump in even when they aren't in the mood to follow complex objectives, then it's a bad game design imo, and those people are going to play other MP games at that time that are similar and forget to return to Brink when they do have the urge for some team-objective oriented gameplay.

[lesion]

It's not a bad game but I maintain it's not worth $50. The sliding around and jumping over stuff is pretty freakin' awesome, and the rest is pretty standard fare.

Interested PC folk: try getting it from D2D for 25% off. Use the "sizzle" promo code. Plug the serial into Steam. Feel better.

[Kail]

Is it bad if despite everything I kind of want to buy this game? Mind you, it's flat out impossible for me to play at the moment because the PC version doesn't run on ATI cards.

Runs fine on my ATI card (a bit choppy in places, but it is a laptop).  The only issues I'm having are sound related.

But given all the angst over this game, I'd suggest you throw it on your wishlist and wait for a sale or a demo if you're on the fence.  I'm loving the hell out of it (probably my favorite FPS since TF2), but I can't deny that there's nothing here if you don't dig the core gameplay mode.

[UnSub]

If a game can't facilitate both playstyles, and allow people to jump in even when they aren't in the mood to follow complex objectives, then it's a bad game design imo, and those people are going to play other MP games at that time that are similar and forget to return to Brink when they do have the urge for some team-objective oriented gameplay.

This is completely right - team-based FPS titles need to hook players in through the basic gameplay of shooting stuff, then extend it out to the team-based play. If shooting stuff in an FPS isn't good enough, no one is going to hang around to learn the subtleties. And then there are players who don't want to be a Medic (or whatever) no matter what the objectives are.

And that's especially critical in an FPS that appears to be 90% reliant on team-based play involving other real players and costs full price.

Another kicker for Brink is that with the PSN down, PS3 players have little reason to buy the game at launch and will probably have less reason to buy it after reading the reviews.

[kildorn]

Is it bad if despite everything I kind of want to buy this game? Mind you, it's flat out impossible for me to play at the moment because the PC version doesn't run on ATI cards.

The ATI update fixed that for me, it's running fine for me.

What I DID learn after playing multi for a few hours: The map design is HORRIBLE. I mean, not the twists and turns and 80 ways to get places. I mean that escort and CTF type objectives often force you to run right in front of the hostile spawn point. Like, less than 15 feet from it. Won a match entirely because my spawn point was right next to the ugly choke point at the end of an escort mission. So even if my team couldn't shoot for shit, we could just zerg the objective down.

Also: other players just don't get Brink. At all. Newly spawned medic (so full on supplies) runs right past four downed teammates... to fire an SMG down a hallway at hostiles. Not what medics do, damnit!

[Mrbloodworth]

That's an issue with the game design though, that's not an issue with the individual person.  

Negative. Shooting people on "the point" is a far cry from simply running around shooting people. Two different things. One if helpful one is not.


Played this a lot last night. The comments about grenades being worthless is laughable. The knockdown is a big deal. Sadly, until some friends pick it up, Pugs is all I can do, and yeah, the very issues with player types is RAMPANT in this game. Players speaking in Team about "where is my K/D?"

No one sticks as a team, NO ONE seems to even go for the objectives ( other than one or two people ). I encountered on team last night while pugging, they rolled us into lolzvile. People going off alone, trying to rambo objectives if they even care to go there. kildorns Example is another great one. Many other players do not even wait for a medic, even when it clearly TELLS YOU how many are on the way!

Its the exact same things you see on a battlefield server. Every public battlefield server proves my point.

However the potential for tight teams, and team based play is huge here. Overall ill say "taking" and objective is a bit longer to do than say, TF2. This is a good thing IMO, as a tight team defending the objective should be a challenge to remove. Every system really is designed for team based play, its clearly mandatory. Eventually I played a few rounds with the same line up of players, this lead to us starting to get the feel for each other, and the difference showed big time when you support each other ( Just buffing up before a match seems rare with most I played with ), some of the class combos are really fun. The movement system is a BLAST if not a bit to get your head around. Both in how to use, and how to avid it being used on you. Maps have tons of "paths" that you have to train yourself to look for. "Can I get to that? * run run run * "YES!"", the map design is quite different then typical because of this. I can see issues if you are used to one or two shot kill games, if you are not accustomed to longer firefights, your going to have problems. The TTK is rather long, as compared to other games, not excessive, but not Counterstrike quick.

However my verdict is wait for a demo/sale. The lack of maps is a big issue, but one that can be minimized over time.  If the right community adopts the game, its has a great potential to be one of the more competitive shooters made. Its definitely Feels quite fresh.

[Morfiend]

Eh, you know that feeling of *trying* to like a game you just spent sixty bucks on? I finally got past that tonight after a few more hours of play. The game is one-dimensional, repetitive, and more frustrating than fun too much of the time.

This is how I feel too. I WANT to like the game, but it really feels more like a Xbox Live Arcade game, not a $50 premium.

[Mrbloodworth]

I definitely agree the price point is high.

[01101010]

 If the right community adopts the game, its has a great potential to be one of the more competitive shooters made. Its definitely Feels quite fresh.

Right community? Does that even exist anymore in any game outside EvE? 

[KallDrexx]

Negative. Shooting people on "the point" is a far cry from simply running around shooting people. Two different things. One if helpful one is not.

Again you miss the point.  For example, TF2 fixes this by designing their maps so that your even if you go around randomly shooting people, you are shooting people in areas that will help push your front line forward and help your team members that care about strategic objectives to perform them.  Thus dicktits pyro that is running around like an idiot is still helping you even when he has no intention of it.  This is a design decisions that allows anyone to get in and play, and when they decide to care about strategic objectives they can, but when they don't they can still dick around and still inadvertently be useful to the team as a whole.

Your whole post reinforces this.  Any MP game that is only fun when everyone is playing "properly" is a badly designed game.  You can't force players to change their playstyle, you have to find a way to design the game and map so that player's playstyles mesh with the overall game vision.

[kildorn]

Meh, I think AC:B's multiplayer is awesomely designed and fun, but it requires everyone involved to "get" the gameplay. A server isn't much fun when it's 80% idiots running around in open stances running from roof to roof. But that doesn't make the game design bad, it just isn't built for mass market appeal.

[Malakili]

Your whole post reinforces this.  Any MP game that is only fun when everyone is playing "properly" is a badly designed game.  You can't force players to change their playstyle, you have to find a way to design the game and map so that player's playstyles mesh with the overall game vision.

Not really.   Sure, the "big" titles generally allow for people to just log in and go, but there are plenty of well designed MP games that require people to play "right."  All the best RTS games, for example.  Now, I don't know if Brink is going to pan out or not as a good title in the end, but the fact that you can't go around shooting shit randomly and be an asset to your team has little to do with that in my opinion.

[Mrbloodworth]

which it seems that almost noone bought

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enemy_Territory:_Quake_Wars#Reception   

Also Game of the year many times over. The console versions were given low scores, wonder why.

[Margalis]

If a game can't facilitate both playstyles, and allow people to jump in even when they aren't in the mood to follow complex objectives, then it's a bad game design imo, and those people are going to play other MP games at that time that are similar and forget to return to Brink when they do have the urge for some team-objective oriented gameplay.

What?

What if I want to play a racing game but instead of racing I just take my time and enjoy the scenery? Oh no I lost - the game doesn't accommodate my Sunday-driver play style! What if in Mario I want to shake hands with the Goombas and invite them over for tea rather than jump on them? Oh no I died!

The fact that a game is a game and not actually a different game is not "bad design." All games are the game that they are, and all games have a play style that does not work at all in that game.

Your whole post reinforces this.  Any MP game that is only fun when everyone is playing "properly" is a badly designed game.  You can't force players to change their playstyle, you have to find a way to design the game and map so that player's playstyles mesh with the overall game vision.

This is such depressing, narrow thinking. You can't force players to change their playstyle? Really? So if the first game I ever played was Pong every game has to be playable by moving along a single 1 dimensional line and bouncing a ball off a paddle?

EVERY SINGLE GAME should require a new play style. You play Mario differently from Contra, differently from Forza, differently from Ico. What you are asking for is for all games that kind of look like standard FPS games to play exactly the same.

I suppose to be charitable your point is that if you make something that looks like a duck people expect a duck. If you make something that looks like yet another samey FPS that's what people expect and will try to play it the same way. I suppose that is a problem, but I'm not sure that's really a design problem. That has more to do with the current context the game lives in than the game itself.

[Amaron]

EVERY SINGLE GAME should require a new play style.

Time passes and technology is still steaming ahead really.   Sometimes you just want what you had with new paint and maybe some different fiddly bits.   The reality is there still hasn't been a good solid PC FPS since COD4.   

[Malakili]

The reality is there still hasn't been a good solid PC FPS since COD4.   

[Margalis]

If you want to play COD4 play COD4. Problem solved. It's not like it's 20 years old, doesn't run on the latest hardware and looks like garbage. It's still a fine game.

It's not fair to bash a game for refusing to be COD4 with a new coat of paint, especially when that's exactly what every COD since that is. As well as Medal of Honor etc.

Honestly, this is like picking up Bonk's Adventure and complaining about the lack of Goombas. Yeah - it's Bonk, not Mario. Durr. It says so right on the box. Brink doesn't say COD anywhere on the box nor was it advertised as a COD clone. If you expected to be a COD clone just because it has guns and a first-person view that's on you.

[Nightblade]

What?

What if I want to play a racing game but instead of racing I just take my time and enjoy the scenery? Oh no I lost - the game doesn't accommodate my Sunday-driver play style! What if in Mario I want to shake hands with the Goombas and invite them over for tea rather than jump on them? Oh no I died!

The fact that a game is a game and not actually a different game is not "bad design." All games are the game that they are, and all games have a play style that does not work at all in that game.

Thats... not the point he was trying to make.


This is such depressing, narrow thinking. You can't force players to change their playstyle? Really? So if the first game I ever played was Pong every game has to be playable by moving along a single 1 dimensional line and bouncing a ball off a paddle?

EVERY SINGLE GAME should require a new play style. You play Mario differently from Contra, differently from Forza, differently from Ico. What you are asking for is for all games that kind of look like standard FPS games to play exactly the same.

I suppose to be charitable your point is that if you make something that looks like a duck people expect a duck. If you make something that looks like yet another samey FPS that's what people expect and will try to play it the same way. I suppose that is a problem, but I'm not sure that's really a design problem. That has more to do with the current context the game lives in than the game itself.

Thats... not the point he was trying to make. At all. He was trying to say that accessibility to a multitude of playstyles is important. I don't know, I think he did a pretty decent job explaining what he meant, I'm not sure what the hell you're even trying to say, but hyperbole doesn't serve your point well.

TF2 was designed with a multitude of audiences in mind. It can be played in smaller comp groups and it can be played in public matches with some decent semblance of balance and competitiveness. The game has some failings to be sure, but it has good accessibility while having extremely helpful tricks and tactics for the guy who likes to play games well.


Also, one thing I'd like to ask in earnest. What makes this game's team based combat so different from other team/class based games? I've yet to see any actual explanation on this. In BC2, if your team is stupid is goes all recon; you're team loses and/or there's a long tedious stalemate; yet the game is still generally accepted to be at least a decent game. What makes this game so esoteric that the unwashed masses cant comprehend it?