Brink

[Strazos]

BC2 doesn't really require to do anything besides blow people up, whereas Brink has portions where you probably need to stop shooting for a moment?

[Margalis]

In TF2 from what I remember the objectives are fairly light and every class can accomplish them. For example on the map where you push the mine cart anybody can push the cart. Sure, maybe it's a good strategy to have a medic heal the guy pushing or a demoman try to stop them or whatever, but anybody can push the cart or try to stop it. And from what I remember most of the "objectives" are just "capture point X." In SD games there are objectives that only certain classes can fulfill.

SD games really are not "team based combat" games, they are "team based accomplish shit" games where combat helps you accomplish shit.

And again, it may be a strategic mistake to create a game that looks like a typical shooter but isn't. But I don't think it's fair to ask that the game support a "play style" of not actually playing the game and just dicking around. "I just want to shoot dudes" is saying I just want to not in any way try to actually win the game - but I still expect to win somehow.

[kildorn]

BC2 doesn't really require to do anything besides blow people up, whereas Brink has portions where you probably need to stop shooting for a moment?

BC2 has plenty of interact objectives. Just IIRC, there is no CLASS requirement on any of them. Whereas brink's objectives have class reqs on about half of them.

So if your mixed fireteam busts into an objective in BC2 and the engie is the only survivor, he can plant the C4. If your mixed fireteam busts into an objective in Brink and the engie is the only survivor, he cannot plant the C4, only soliders can do that.

That said: I don't think that'a s failing of the gameplay, as much as it's giving the defending team the tactical option to kill medics and the objective class over "kill everyone or you lose"

edit: To be honest, I don't get the "brink lacks the shooting people in the face" thing. Every map will have a primary objective, and maybe 2-3 optional ones that open new routes of attack, or capture command posts. If you're running to side objectives, you may not bump into anyone if you take an odd path. But if you're going for the primary objectives, 90% of the encounter will be shooting people.

[Nightblade]

In TF2 from what I remember the objectives are fairly light and every class can accomplish them. For example on the map where you push the mine cart anybody can push the cart. Sure, maybe it's a good strategy to have a medic heal the guy pushing or a demoman try to stop them or whatever, but anybody can push the cart or try to stop it. And from what I remember most of the "objectives" are just "capture point X." In SD games there are objectives that only certain classes can fulfill.

SD games really are not "team based combat" games, they are "team based accomplish shit" games where combat helps you accomplish shit.

And again, it may be a strategic mistake to create a game that looks like a typical shooter but isn't. But I don't think it's fair to ask that the game support a "play style" of not actually playing the game and just dicking around. "I just want to shoot dudes" is saying I just want to not in any way try to actually win the game - but I still expect to win somehow.

...That's it? Really? I've heard complaints go far beyond the simple "MY CLASS CANT PLANT C4!"

Some sensible compromises would have helped, IE: This guy can plant C4 QUICKER. How the scout is not only better at capturing points, but his speed makes him well suited to the task as well. Sensibilities and compromises that allow everyone to enjoy the game, not just the comp players; though I'm not even sure how well this game would appeal to those dickless lunatics players. I wish I could go into more detail here, but after wasting money on homefront; I think I'm going to steam sale this one.

[kildorn]

The only real team complaint I see is X class for Y objective. That and a stupid whine about the lack of K/D ratios being displayed, and getting more points for a rez than a kill.

The complaints I have with the game entirely revolve around shitty map design. I think the actual gameplay(SMART, the objective wheel, the class design/weapon choices) would rock in a BC2 engine/map layout.

[Margalis]

Sensibilities and compromises that allow everyone to enjoy the game, not just the comp players;

Are FPS players really so retarded that only competitive players can learn what a whopping 4 classes are capable of?

I don't think the problem (or at least, a problem) is that the game is super complicated and unlearnable unless you are a pro gamer with 15 hours to invest in getting started, the problem is that many people simply don't WANT to do anything other than run around, shoot dudes and get a high K/D. In which case it's just the wrong game for them.

[Malakili]

I like CoD, but just the fact that this is apparently so far from CoD that it is making CoD players lose their minds makes me want to buy it just because it sounds semi unique.  I still don't think its worth it at the 50 dollar price though.

[kildorn]

It's not even that far from CoD. It's the same objectives we're used to, displayed in the same format we're used to. CoD is the gametype pretty much none of us ever played: Team DM. If you've played any form of an assault mode or even freaking Counterstrike, you probably "get" Brink.

It's not something vastly different, really. The smart system is neat, the objective wheel is neat in that it points you towards sub goals, but it's just another FPS when you actually sit down and look at it objectively.

[Amaron]

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

LOL pictures.

I'll reword it even though you knew exactly what I meant.   There hasn't been a PC oriented FPS in that style since COD4.  

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.

In an old FPS the reality is there aren't enough active admins to make it worthwhile anymore.   I do indeed play it on occasion though.

[Nightblade]

Are FPS players really so retarded that only competitive players can learn what a whopping 4 classes are capable of?

No, but it helps to be intuitive and easy to get into. Are these suddenly undesirable traits?

I don't think the problem (or at least, a problem) is that the game is super complicated and unlearnable unless you are a pro gamer with 15 hours to invest in getting started, the problem is that many people simply don't WANT to do anything other than run around, shoot dudes and get a high K/D. In which case it's just the wrong game for them.

And again, I'll ask about the other mountain of complaints people seem to be ignoring in favor of "go away".

[UnSub]

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!

In the particular genre of racing game, years of experience has taught players the aim is to go fast (or best route) to win. That's almost the entire point to racing games.

In a similar fashion, FPS multiplayer have been heavily oriented around killing other players to win. That's what a lot of FPS players are expecting, but have received a title where killing other players isn't as helpful to winning the overall game and (from reviews / player descriptions) might not feel that satisfactory either.

Going back to the racing game example: the Brink equivalent would be a racing game that awarded more points for the player seeing certain landmarks than being the fastest on the track. It's a different way of looking at the genre, but if 90% of your market just wants to go fast, you aren't going to see a lot of players hang around.

And multiplayer games need players to hang around.

Brink sounds like an innovative game, but not a good game. The next title to pick up the SMART idea will probably do it a lot better.

[Malakili]

In a similar fashion, FPS multiplayer have been heavily oriented around killing other players to win. That's what a lot of FPS players are expecting, but have received a title where killing other players isn't as helpful to winning the overall game and (from reviews / player descriptions) might not feel that satisfactory either.

This simply isn't true though.  There have been shooters for for well over a decade that have focused on objectives over raw killing.  Killing matters to varying degrees in all of them, but it isn't as if your goal in Brink is suddenly to NOT kill people.  Farming kills as an offensive player without pushing the point in TF2 is utterly useless, as having too many people sniping on offense in Battlefield: Bad Company 2, both are very popular CURRENT shooters, let alone things in the past like Tribes. 

I think we are way over playing the "not killing stuff" in Brink.  I was watching a stream of the game yesterday and there was plenty of killing going on.  But it was also clear that if you ignored your objectives you would lose the round.  How is this drastically different from other team based games in principle, especially to the degree that this would get so much bad responses.  Now, overall it seems like a different enough play on team based/objective based gameplay that it might be worth getting (not at 50 dollars in my opinion, but thats another story altogether, if it was 20 or 25 bucks, I'd have bought it by now).

[Amaron]

I think we are way over playing the "not killing stuff" in Brink.  I was watching a stream of the game yesterday and there was plenty of killing going on. 

I think maybe "not killing stuff" is mislabeling the problem on my part at least.    More like the guy you just killed will spawn 50 feet from you within on average 5 seconds.  Thus avoiding death has a lot less value.  The maps are just way to small.

[Kail]

And again, I'll ask about the other mountain of complaints people seem to be ignoring in favor of "go away".

Like what, specifically?  Just about the only other solid complaints I'm hearing are that there are only eight maps (true, and disappointing) and complaints about the map design (debatable).  Most of the rest of it all ties back in to wanting the game to be more like Halo.

[Margalis]

The only complaint I'm objecting to is "why can't I just shoot stuff and win? I want COD!"

Complaints about tech problems, map design, etc seem perfectly fair to me.

[jakonovski]

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

Neogaf is still talking about some kind of a texture bug on 48xx series of cards, and I have a 4890. Could well be that it works anyway, but 50 eurobucks is a lot of money to gamble like that.

[Mrbloodworth]

I think we are way over playing the "not killing stuff" in Brink.  I was watching a stream of the game yesterday and there was plenty of killing going on.

I think maybe "not killing stuff" is mislabeling the problem on my part at least.    More like the guy you just killed will spawn 50 feet from you within on average 5 seconds.  Thus avoiding death has a lot less value.  The maps are just way to small.

It was mislabeling.

Nooooo, Class skill interdependency is HIGH, you will need it to even get to the objective and take/hold while its being done. Rezing on the spot is extremely useful and key.

[AcidCat]

I think 1up's review http://www.1up.com/reviews/brink-review gives a good idea of the gameplay problems, that go beyond "this game isn't Call of Duty"

I'm all for FPS games that go beyond "just shoot the guy" - TF2 for example really did objective-based teamplay right.

I think the thing is, a FPS has to start with the basics right - and the basics of any FPS is the base gameplay of shooting dudes in the face. Of course you can build in complexity from there, but if that foundation isn't solid, the rest will be only so much wasted potential. With the driving game analogy - sure you can do all kinds of things with a driving game, but if the basic feel of controlling your car isn't satisfying, the rest won't matter.

[Mrbloodworth]

There is so much wrong with that article..... Its also the 360 version, its going to be biased.

But:

"Here's how a typical life went: Spawn, run unopposed to the objective point, shoot an enemy, and then die. Repeat." - Doing it wrong. No team, did you guys go in one by one?

"Almost all of these objectives require players to get to a specific point on the map and stand still or guard a specific point for a while. Problem is, these points are usually a huge bottleneck." - Whats the issue here? That you have to guard a objective? That it maybe contested? I only see an issue here if you are trying to rambo and have no one backing you up.

"Usually firefights end with one or just a couple of players standing on top of a pile of dead bodies. And then, every 20 seconds, everyone that died during that firefight spawns at their respective teams' spawn point and sprints towards the objective. " - Doing it wrong. There are medics for a reason.

"It's been a long time since bots this dumb have been allowed in such a high profile title." -  Yes bots are stupid, play with others.

"Problem is, if you're not the right class to rebuild a staircase, for example, it simply says that you should "guard" the location, or escort a player that is the right class to that spot." - This is a problem? Its even trying to get you to team up, take the hint.

"The attacking team is reduced to simply throwing as many bodies as possible at the problem and hoping for victory. Very few "strategies" are less fun. " - Oh dear god. Perhaps he is missing the key strategy, moving as a team.

"Installing to the hard drive helps a bit, but players shouldn't have to with a retail build of a game." - What?


NOTE no mention of the PC version or PS3 version as this was the Pre Release Review copy aka PRE DAY ONE PATCH for the Xbox 360.  Most of those issues have been resolved with texture loading and such as far as I hear. If I recall, ET:QW had similar issues on consoles when it was ported over, to the point that due to the hardware they had to lower the graphics to a noticeable level. Still, technical issues aside, I don't think this reviewer understood the game. That's not an "Its above you puny gamer", its a "You did not take the time to understand THIS game, and played it like was every other game, then bitched".

Reviews from PC reviewers are noticeably different than those on the consoles ( And poor PS3 players who have zero option to play with others right now are shafted ) mostly in mentality of play.

[01101010]

There is so much wrong with that article..... Its also the 360 version, its going to be biased.

But:

"It's been a long time since bots this dumb have been allowed in such a high profile title." -  Yes bots are stupid, play with others.

From the looks of it, the players are guilty as well, so playing with others might be a futile. 

[Mrbloodworth]

Entirely true. If everyone on your team is playing like him, thats a problem.

I played a few PUG games, and I think some people were getting angry the medic was following them. 

[Nightblade]

"It's been a long time since bots this dumb have been allowed in such a high profile title." -  Yes bots are stupid, play with others.

Don't bots fill in for missing players? "BRB dinner, have fun being crippled by this brain dead AI". Kind of like Left 4 Dead, only slightly more manageable.

[AcidCat]

Well my experience pugging on the 360 was pretty much exactly what that reviewer described. A massive cluster where the glowy yellow thing was contested, die, spawn, run through a tunnel to get back there. Side objectives that just gave you a different way to get there.

"It's mostly two teams at extreme loggerheads" - Tom Chick's review http://www.honestgamers.com/reviews/9387/Brink.html describes this too, but he has a much different view on it.

I think it comes down to either liking this very focused gameplay or not. Two teams contesting a specific spot with hardly any freedom of choice for what to do at any given moment, other than picking your class. I can see enjoying this kinda play if you are on an organized team, but playing 360 pug games, these conflict points were almost always massive stalemates that would occasionally get broken through by luck or brute force. It was just frustrating and repetitive.

In Brink the Team is Everything, I guess that is just not my style, and pugging on Live just exacerbates that. I like team-oriented games, but with more wiggle room for accomplishing stuff on your own, or at least more options for where to go at any given time (like Battlefield's point capturing). Brink just felt way too claustrophobic and rigid to me.

[Mrbloodworth]

His is more Accurate IMO than the other.

With exception: "Like Quake Wars, Brink has excellent bot support, which makes it a viable single-player game. " - Quake wars bots sucked, so does Brinks.

[Malakili]

pugging on the 360

Found your problem.

[Amaron]

"Here's how a typical life went: Spawn, run unopposed to the objective point, shoot an enemy, and then die. Repeat." - Doing it wrong. No team, did you guys go in one by one?

Who the hell has a coordinated team to play this shit with?  If a game wants to have teamwork it better figure out how to be a HELL of a lot more popular than Brink is turning out to be. 

[AcidCat]

pugging on the 360

Found your problem.

I would assume this is how most 360 owners play online, just jump on and find a game. Works just fine for most games, had no problems playing this way with Section 8, Monday Night Combat, or course Call of Duty, Halo, etc.  Brink is just much more demanding of teamwork ... in addition to the ridiculous amount of lag of course, which is a whole other retarded issue.

[Malakili]

pugging on the 360

Found your problem.

I would assume this is how most 360 owners play online, just jump on and find a game. Works just fine for most games, had no problems playing this way with Section 8, Monday Night Combat, or course Call of Duty, Halo, etc.  Brink is just much more demanding of teamwork ... in addition to the ridiculous amount of lag of course, which is a whole other retarded issue.

So this is a problem with the players then, not the game.  If the game fails because there aren't enough players that want to play it, then fine.  But that doesn't mean its worse than the other games you mentioned, just that it isn't aimed at the same audience.  Now, I haven't even played Brink, so I can't REALLY comment on how good a game it is really.  I just think all this fuss over a game because it requires teamwork seems odd to me.  Granted, I've never played online games on a console, and have generally played on community servers for the games I do play regularly, servers that have people who play the way I want to play.  So it doesn't really strike me as that odd to "require" teamwork in Brink.  If you want to log in and smash faces, maybe this just isn't the game for that, fair enough.

I plan on picking it up on Steam sale down the road a bit because it sounds promising to me as a game, it just doesn't seem like there is 50 dollars worth there at the moment.

[Malakili]

Interesting review/discussion on RPS:
http://www.rockpapershotgun.com/2011/05/13/the-rps-verdict-brink/

What I get from reading it is very similar to what I am hearing here.  Unforgiving to players who are used to being able to just log in and shoot things.  Rewards lots of team work.  Rewards intimate knowledge of the maps.   Whats you to put the team ahead of yourself including switching classes when needed etc.   

A couple quotes

"I think it will reward very tight teamplay, and probably be less interesting as a public game"
"It doesn't feel like it could break out like TF2. If you're not in the club already, you probably won't want to join it."
"There's a strong, strong need to learn the maps."
"Its Quake-like in its demands on spatial learning."

[AcidCat]

Yeah, I'm clearly not the target audience for this game, but I didn't realize that when I preordered. Because, I do like teamplay, as I said, but clearly there is a whole spectrum of games that are based on team play  -  from games like Battlefield on one end, where a coordinated team will do better, but you can still lone-wolf it and have a perfectly good time and still help your team, to well, Brink, where you either get with the team program 100% or the game is an exercise in frustration. I just didn't realize it would be at the extreme end of that spectrum.

[Mrbloodworth]

Interesting review/discussion on RPS:
http://www.rockpapershotgun.com/2011/05/13/the-rps-verdict-brink/

What I get from reading it is very similar to what I am hearing here.  Unforgiving to players who are used to being able to just log in and shoot things.  Rewards lots of team work.  Rewards intimate knowledge of the maps.   Whats you to put the team ahead of yourself including switching classes when needed etc.   

The closing comments are the most telling:

Jim: It’s not the sum of its promises, no. But also most of the criticisms that surfaced in the initial barrage of 360 reviews are tosh. One was even criticising it for rewarding teamplay, which made little sense. This game cannot be judged on its single-player, because it’s a demanding multiplayer game, and utterly focused on that. Also, I was reading somewhere that RPS would be an apologist for this game, and I’m sorry to have to confirm that dude’s opinions of us, but the point is that Brink is simply a bit disappointing, it is by no means a bad game as some people have attempted to argue. That’s just nonsense. (And if they’re making that judgement based on the 360 version, well, you can imagine my feelings on that.) The bugs are atrocious, the pace of the game is odd, the overall sense is one of it being less than we’d hoped. But it’s still quite something.

Quintin: It does have it’s moments. I was carrying the objective on a map this morning, hunkered down behind some cover with the enemy closing in from one side and my freshly-respawned team-mates sprinting and leaping and clambering towards me from the other direction. It was a perfect race, and in the end they showed up first and we pushed on.

Alec: I’m going to immediately play it again once we’ve finished this chat, I must say. It successfully tunnels you into its purpose, you’re totally involved in your objectives rather than in the scoreboard.

Jim: Yeah, I’ll be on the RPS server, if anyone needs me.

[jakonovski]

Steam just deployed a patch that fixes a whole lot of problems. Impulse control, impulse control!

http://forums.steampowered.com/forums/showthread.php?t=1887385

[Margalis]

I just think all this fuss over a game because it requires teamwork seems odd to me.  Granted, I've never played online games on a console, and have generally played on community servers for the games I do play regularly, servers that have people who play the way I want to play.  So it doesn't really strike me as that odd to "require" teamwork in Brink.

The fundamental mistake they made was trying to make a console game that requires thought and teamwork. They tried to put in all sorts of things to make teamwork easier, hints about what you should be doing, laying out the objectives and such - but console gamers are mostly 12-year-old borderline-retarded racists. And I say that as a primarily console gamer myself. As a console game it's just the wrong product for that audience.

You cannot underestimate how terrible the online 360 community is.

[Malakili]

I just think all this fuss over a game because it requires teamwork seems odd to me.  Granted, I've never played online games on a console, and have generally played on community servers for the games I do play regularly, servers that have people who play the way I want to play.  So it doesn't really strike me as that odd to "require" teamwork in Brink.

The fundamental mistake they made was trying to make a console game that requires thought and teamwork. They tried to put in all sorts of things to make teamwork easier, hints about what you should be doing, laying out the objectives and such - but console gamers are mostly 12-year-old borderline-retarded racists. And I say that as a primarily console gamer myself. As a console game it's just the wrong product for that audience.

You cannot underestimate how terrible the online 360 community is.

I'm coming at this from a PC gamers perspective.  Yes, console players are less likely to enjoy this game, that seems fair enough.  But Brink is on the PC as well, and frankly I don't know why anyone would choose to buy this for console instead of PC if they had the option.  So, I guess my point is that its too bad that community is so awful, but that isn't their fault.  I'm sure the same crowd wouldn't play Chess, but it doesn't make Chess a bad game.

[Morfiend]

I just think all this fuss over a game because it requires teamwork seems odd to me.  Granted, I've never played online games on a console, and have generally played on community servers for the games I do play regularly, servers that have people who play the way I want to play.  So it doesn't really strike me as that odd to "require" teamwork in Brink.

The fundamental mistake they made was trying to make a console game that requires thought and teamwork. They tried to put in all sorts of things to make teamwork easier, hints about what you should be doing, laying out the objectives and such - but console gamers are mostly 12-year-old borderline-retarded racists. And I say that as a primarily console gamer myself. As a console game it's just the wrong product for that audience.

You cannot underestimate how terrible the online 360 community is.

I'm coming at this from a PC gamers perspective.  Yes, console players are less likely to enjoy this game, that seems fair enough.  But Brink is on the PC as well, and frankly I don't know why anyone would choose to buy this for console instead of PC if they had the option.  So, I guess my point is that its too bad that community is so awful, but that isn't their fault.  I'm sure the same crowd wouldn't play Chess, but it doesn't make Chess a bad game.

But it does make buying said chess game to play on Xbox live a bit of a bad idea.