BC2 took BF in a more infantry based direction, also speeding up the gameplay a bit, making it a bit more like a sport. It was one of the first game's to use a point system to reward tactical play, and it's rush game mode is currently my greatest FPS interest. I have to say, anyone who is bashing BF, and particularly BC2 is not a seasoned FPS player. Once you let down that defensive shield of game preference (in general you're going to only like the first game you really play a lot of, I did initially as well, I'm nothing special), you'll fine just about everything has something to offer. Then you start noticing games taking good pieces from across the FPS gamut, and combining them into one game, and you get something fresh and new, and sometimes it's a great game other FPS will model off of. Personally I feel that is what BC2 is. It's also what I thought BRINK was going to be, unfortunately, SD held back in some staple areas of the genre and hampered BRINK as a result. We see this in the corridor cramped maps, the stunted gunplay (low skill ceiling, i.e. weapons are easy to use, understand and master), and an improperly balanced point system which does not stress optimal gameplay (objective game play). Also the ability system allowing only limited abilities is a great idea, but in an online play, the lack of options to switch between characters and body types is shackling. All in all, while I like BRINK, I haven't found it to be the next replacement in a long line of great games with the depth to keep myself, and their respective communities coming back for significant periods of time. Hating on the popular games is not the answer, figuring out what makes a game popular/unpopular is.

Wow, its a good thing that what you think doesnt matter. COD offers a great story, no matter which COD it is, it offers solid MP with many various gametypes that are well thought out and fun to play. It sure is a shame that most BRINK players dont get what COD is about. They dont understand it or they wouldnt complain about it like they do. hahahaha sense the sarcasm? Its just moronic to say that "someones a COD player and thats why they dont like Brink". Come up with some more lame sht. I have played COD since COD1. They were all great period. I did not play BF2 , BUT i sure as hell played the SHT out of Battlefield 1943 back when it first came out.
All of the idiots here that keep saying that people dont like BRINK because they like COD and dont understand it should just Please continue, my good sir. cause thats BS. I LOVE BRINK, I LOVE COD but the fact is BRINK was released as a beta and it is still at that point, like it or not ITS A FACT. I cut my gaming teeth on Team Fortress for Quake waaaaayyyyyy back in the day. I loved the concept then, love it now but its bugged out. The arguement is what you call a straw man arguement, it bears no merrit other then its your way to cover up the facts as to why people are really pissed about the game.


at least you know the difference between there, their and they're.

you jokeing right?...right? since when was COD campains remotly fun/good.

this

One huge thing I seem to see people missing is that BRINK could be good if they change certain aspects of it. They made some poor choices which greatly restrict the fun and depth of the game. There's a diamond in there, but it's still in the rough. Unfortunately I don't think SD has any workers that know what to do unfortunately, or perhaps they love this type of game, but don't quite understand how the entire FPS market, and it's respective audiences come together. Very unfortunate. I know what many of the problems are, and how to fix them, but in the past all my efforts have fallen on deaf ears with other developers, so why bother?

great story? ....i dont even...wth...well i guess everyone is entieled to their own opinion. I know one thing brink does better then any other mordern fps multiplayer game, its giving context to their maps and objectives. COD might have objecitve base modes, tdm etc, but the game gives NO CONTEXT to why you are duking it out, obviously, it dosnt need to since it buildt for the main stream crowd AKA the COD crowd, which dosnt need more context then *point>click>blood>profit*. Ohh... and if you like running around capturing A,B,C without know why, other then winning, its mindless and boring, and certenly not for the COD crowd, because then well just have another unrealistic,mindless military shooter with no other context or objective to kill other DUDES so you could win and get that precious xp and prestrige. helll MORE POWER to u.go play COD.


unfortunaly the publishers where a bit greedy and pushed brink out a bit to early (xbox 360), but other then that its the most refreshing and well thought out FPS MP game on the market, mayby not the most popular, but thats another story.,

Just so you know, I don't criticise the COD games beyond when I make it clear that I personally don't like them. I'll admit I don't get much of what their fans enjoy - I find the storylines in them boring, repetitive, predictable and samey. Same with the gameplay, mostly. I can see a few of the BF titles looking and playing different (particularly good example being 2142), but overall, I get a similar vibe from them as well. I can appreciate and understand that other gamers don't share my opinion, and I'm still yet to say someone must be a CoD fan if they don't like Brink - I've defended plenty of people who are providing legitimate reasons why they hate on the game, and the closest I've come to CoD references in that context was telling a guy who came in saying directly that he expected a CoD-like experience that he should have done more research before buying the game, and that it's his own fault he got something he didn't enjoy.

And I'll also agree that it's a good thing my opinion doesn't matter TO THE COD AND BF DEVS, because if it did, they'd create something that would severely *#$& off their fanbase, and that just isn't cool.

Oh... also... tanks fer menshunning mai gud grammer :foodndrink:

CoD and Battlefield are brands---and people expect certain/specific things from their brands.

However, Brink is a new IP, so it has less "wiggle room", and some people expect certain things from it.
Some people like it, some don't. Some think it has potential, but feel it needs more DLC/patches/tweaks (I'm one of those).

If SD supports Brink, I think that the niche experiment will keep retaining its hardcoe fans/audience.

Right now, I feel Brink feels different, but it's missing something. I'm not a hardcoe FPS player at all (I prefer third-person games),
but even I feel CoD and Halo: Reach games have something.......more than Brink has something right now----and I play those games in single-player campaign modes only, lol.

Maybe it's the lack of an immersive story-mode or something. I feel more for Modern Warfare guys, Soap, Price, Ghost, Roach, etc, than any of the Brink guys.
Then again, both Brink and CoD are kind of low in characterization (because it's a FPS), so that really tells you something if I think the CoD guys are more interesting than Brink guys. I think it's also because I never feel.....accomplished in my missions in Brink compared to CoD and Halo: Reach. It never feels
like a suspenseful adventure like the CoD/Halo games. Maybe it's because the cutscenes don't feel cool enough? *shrug*

But that's just my personal opinion. Your personal opinion may be different than mine, and that's okay. B)

P.S.: I don't get the hate towards CoD at all, lol.

It's like a crime-procedural or a soap opera/novella thing---people like them even though they all do the same things in all of them, but maybe with little twists or little details changed.

I think it's human nature for people to like things they are used to and comfortable with. It's like Joseph Campbell's classical http://changingminds.org/disciplines/storytelling/plots/hero_journey/hero_journey.htm theory that is seen in many well-known movies, such as Star Wars and Lion King. It's something some people expect from a movie, even if it's a little predictable. It's what the general audience expect, and that's not for everyone.

Like Brink or CoD are not for everyone.

I see it as like the romance/rom-com movies you see all of the time. They have a sort of formula people expect to see: "Boy Meets Girl, Boy Loses Girl, Boy Gets Girl"---there are certain expectations that go with the medium or whatever. Sometimes that leads to a "formulaic" approach, but some romance movies change it up a bit or add little details here and there, even if the premise is the same. There could be some romance movies that try to experiment with this formula, and it's great to experiment, but it may end up being a niche movie if it's not executed properly. Critics could give those experimental movies some kudos for trying, but they (and/or the general audience) are still looking at how the movies are executed in the end.

Brink is one of those experimental things. It combines certain elements from various games (Team Fortress 2 + a tiny, simplistic bit of Mirror's Edge, etc), and it may or may not
have executed those things to different people. People have different opinions and tastes. That is life. *shrug* There is no one perfect game. There is only the game that
feels perfect in your mind/opinion. ^_^

IMHO, at this moment, Battlefield rules the FPS genre. Brink has its potential but too many gamers not only want to play for fun they also want a sense of accomplishments and reward for putting in so much work and time. Battlefield has improved their games greatly with every release. I can’t see how a true FPS gamer wouldn’t love the destruction of buildings, access to planes, heli’s, tanks, humvees, buggies, UAV’s, custom kit layouts, great sound and visuals and the emphasis on teamwork. COD has some of the best SP campaigns I ever seen in a game, but I prefer a Battlefields Mutiplayer because of it's diversity in the gameplay.

True gamers know what works and what doesn’t. The low reviews that were giving to Brink along with the increasing amount of returns copies, the lowered retail price, and the many complaints are very telling to say the least. I do like the game, but that’s mainly because of the custom features (that are hardly showcased during or after the game). The objectives are solid but there aren’t enough to keep the majority of gamers interested, plus there are other games that have and will be doing the same. Brink needs to get their act together or they will fail. A handful of gamers will not be able to keep this game a float….not with a new COD and Battlefield debuting in a few months. So It's probably good that Brink put Bots in the game...it'll give the few die hards left someone to play with.

I sure would like to here what it is that Brink is doing so different....other then clothes customization and allowing you to make an unneeded amount of characters. The objection based game play really isn’t that unique either. In fact, the customization and gaming style has been done before in games like Team Fortress and Rainbow Six….which I’m sure Clancy will be doing another game soon, especially after hearing all the hype around the SEAL teams that took out Bin Laden.

There’s nothing really innovative about Brink other than what I mentioned, and the story…which is also lacking. I really hope that June DLC is powerful, if not for me.... at least for their own sake...

Team fortress. I thought Brink will be more like rtcw:ET, but its just cloned team fortress with worse performance. Stop talking about original ideas on Brink's forums plz.

BRINK is innovative, period. Yes it borrowed some elements from previous titles but there has not been anything like it before. Innovation comes with inherent market risk. It throws people and confuses them. Most of the gaming market today (in large part due to the boom of consoles) has become a mass of McDonald's consumers - they want the same burger and fries every time.

This article I think just about sums up why both many gamers and reviewers dont get BRINK: http://www.incgamers.com/Columns/112/why-reviewers-dont-get-brink

Yes, the game launched with issues, and for an innovative game this is a problem. But its very rare these days to get a game at launch that doesnt have issues.

This +1,000!

I liked what Brink is trying to do, all of the new concepts they talked about appealed to me. Team work, objectives, no K/D getting in the way of my W/L ratio. But, the game falls short. Period. I love the BF series and I have played every COD. I've had fun with COD and think BC2 was the best MP experience I've ever had. But....when I bought Brink, I wasn't looking for BF or COD type of gameplay, I wanted all the things that had been hyped about this game. All of it fell short, by a longshot. I don't even find myself wanting to put the game in anymore, it's sad really.

But.....for some people (including me), it doesn't feel....complete. At least, for a $60 game. I think that's my biggest reason to think about trading it in. I'm hoping the DLC can fix that.
I also wish the objectives were more randomized because it's getting boring to do the same objectives in the same exact spots/locations...

It's also not THAT ultra-extremely innovative. People bag on CoD for being the same thing, but Brink is similar to Team Fortress/BadCompany2 and mix of other games. It's....a bit different in terms
of actually putting together elements of different FP(S) games into one game, but its individual features are not outright brand-new innovative. I think it has potential, but it's not like anyone else is going to try something similar in the future or hasn't done something similar in the past (Crysis 2 has some jumping and even Halo has some jumping, I believe, and third-person games [and Mirror's Edge] already have some parkour, Team Fortress/BC2 already have some teamwork aspects, etc).

Just my opinion, though. ^_^

I don't think you are using the term 'mass produced properly'. Not to mention anyone who takes any of the comments on youtube seriously deserves to get smacked in the face.

If you like it, great, it shouldn't matter what other people are telling you. Especially if you are taking BF3 fans seriously when they are all getting excited for the new game coming out, you think they're really going to give Brink a fair shake?

How is a game that IS Team Fortress, minus 2 classes, a few extra bells and whistles innovative? Because they slightly expanded on the concept of holding down a button to climb/jump over objects? Because of objectives? How, where and why is it innovative...please tell me. Dont just say it is tell me why it is. For a person that is 38 and has been gaming since pong, played anything and everything, its not innovative. Maybe to those lacking experience or game knowledge it is, but those of us that have been around for a while, its not.

They have SMART really utilize it. How may places are there to parkour in each map? I have seen the le parkour vid and I can tell you that 360 doesnt work like that and even still so, there are not very many routes for the light class to use the parkour. They failed to utilize it in the game.
It is the only semi innovative addition to gaming but its only an expansion on what exists.

One thing i noticed reading through this thread is that really everybody is loving Brink for what it is. I do so too. But we are aware of things you need to have in a MP FPS. People do buy these kind of games because they won`t to play with and against each others, but not in a 4 vs 4. This ain`t not a real MP experience it`s more like find 3 friends on your gameboy and play some rounds worms with them. I can play FIFA with 8 people and there`s more mp experience then in a 4 vs 4 with Brink at the moment.

You know why many other play BFBC2 after it`s been out now for more than 1 year? No lags at least if the servers are not lalalalad up. I don`t have to look at other peoples connection, real MP experience with 24 people on PS3/360 and 32 on PC. I need to hit 2 buttons and i`m ingame and playing without any bots. I can switch my class in between the rounds with all my abilities having on every other class avaible and i can also switch my weapon attachments ingame if i want to.

Brink is fun but in my opinion Bethesda and Splash Damage were to innovative and didn`t even thought about things which are called mainstream so they said: We do not need that in our game! We want to be some kind of unique! And this was a really bad decission. There are minor things you need to have in a MP FPS that`s all you have to know.

What, you do know BC was a spin off. It was meant to be a console only game but they released BC2 so pc didnt feel left out. BF3 is the true PC successor to BF2.

Yep, mass produced really only applies to tangible objects, software isn't really tangible. The OP is not an FPS player, but is upset at how poorly a game he enjoys is being received. So he's attacking the big dogs, this happens all the time with regards to everything, I can't fault for him doing it, but I hope he can rise above this indisposition one day.

I hate to be obnoxious, but COOL OPINION BRO.
Personally, I like Brink. The only problem I have with it, is the lag issue on 360, and the AI sometimes pisses me off. It doesn't mean the game is broken or unfinished.

Everyone has different expectations and opinions, but if you want to treat yours like fact, then your head is pretty far up your own [censored].

I also hate to say it, but if you think CoD has better visuals and less bugs, then you need to wake the [censored] up.
Battlefield though, I'll be all over that [censored] like aggressive moss.

you guys that are defending brink are just doing it out of pride if you realy cant see some of the problems in brink your blind but im not saying it isnt fun i have fun playing but i do think that games like battlefield 3 cant be compared with brink. and also whats with the whole mentality of this forum if cod and battlefield were waists of money do you think they would have gone over as well as they did. seeing the type of people that are on this forum makes me want to not play brink so i dont run in to you in the game.

I get it now and I got when I was playing TF for quake. Im just not a leg rider thats going to cover up facts and flaws to push an agenda and obfuscate the truth.

1. Objective based team oriented play on complex stage segmented maps with story driven content.
The maps are not complex by any means. The most complex map is Container city. Thats one map. story driven content doesnt carry over well through out the game. There is no feeling of attachment to your character or what is going on. That is due to the LACK of serious story driven content.

Unique backstory.....It may be a new take on the post apocalyptic world but just the fact that it IS post apocalypse means it isnt original. Just a new take on an old idea. Besides the "unique backstory" doesnt carry over into the game. F the audio logs, I dont want to hear about that garbage. I want to see events unfold in the game that tell the story, not have to sit and listen to an hours worth of dialogue.

thankfully something other than "US military in the mid east.".........still not innovative...Fallout 3 not an MMO but still post apocalyptic and you are not in the military or in the mideast.

shooter with MMO character customization....still not innovative, I dont even see how you can bother listing that as innovation. Wont waste time on that straw man arguement.

SMART movement...I find plenty of opportunities to jump up and over things like any other good shooter. There is nothing to really highlight and take full advantage of SMART so while it is partially innovative there are not enough parkour side routes or hidden routes to make it worthy of spending so much effort on. If it was utilized better in the way of routing,for lights, it would have been more innovative and effective but it falls short like everything else in the game.

Brilliant level design? I dont think so...They are mediocre. Two maps turn into to pure spwan fests and the others have a feel of many other shooter games out there. The level design sure as hell is not innovative. You keep saying its story driven but it is more objective driven then story driven. Story driven implies that there is actually a deep story base to go with the gameplay and that is absolutely the farthest thing from the truth. If you say otherwise, you arent being honest. Some people are just easily pleased and cant form a real unbiast opinion on their own. Parrots.

The last statement there is moronic as I have stated, I GET THE FN CONCEPT. I got it before you ever knew it as a concept. Its nothing new. Grow up, go to Mcdonalds to hang out with those "people" you are talking about, graduate from your happy meal to a big mac. When you grow up to become a real gamer and play more than the games that your norrow view allows you to, then come back and talk to me. I have played it all. BRINK is NOT innovative. PERIOD.

Its team fortress with character customization. Not Unique. Even TF had objectives waayyyyy back in the day. As a matter of fact COD has many types of objective based gameplay. They just made interacting with the objectives a little more visual and created a little bit of diversity in objectives. The medic, spy, engy, soldier concepts all old as day, even the concepts of how they function are very similar to TF. NOT INNOVATIVE.

Kids sure think they know it all.

I have almost 300 hours into bc2 so far, I wouldnt be playing it if it wernt fun. How does that makes me a mass consumer? I dont buy many games, never bought a CoD game in my life (have played them). I plan on getting BF3 and I have high hopes that Its going to be just as good if not better than BC2. And no BF3 is not going to be a reskined BC2, maybe an updated BF2, but I never played that game.

There are many many flaws with calling people who enjoy a game series mass consumers who are blind to innovation and varied game mechanics, which is basically what you said.

You know, I don't remember any of the problems i'm having with Brink on release I had with Modern Warfare 2. Geez, I didn't have any consistent game breaking lag or pop in textures. So, you know, yeah I will say CoD is less buggy. [Again, BO and W@W nonwithstanding. As those two svck.] And hell yeah Modern Warfare 2 has better visuals. Now this doesn't have anything to do with how Brink looks, I like it's stylized look. But asides from the characters, many many things are low res. And just don't look that good.

But my opinion is my fact. I expected a better game. Maybe if this was a twenty dollar arcade game, or a thirty dollar release. Things could have been forgiven. But it's not. This game shouldn't have come out like this. You can go ahead and accept this game and like it all you want, but for sixty bucks, you got screwed too. I like the game, I really do. But only 8 maps for a for release title focused solely on multiplayer? That's just a shame.

Now before anyone else decides to be a [censored] towards me. I'm not busting this games chops because I hate it. But because I like it, but it's content isn't worth the price, neither is the shape the game is in. And patches aren't going to fix that opinion, and the DLC probably isn't going to change enough to be forgiven.

skizopyromaniac is dead on it too.

I wouldnt call Battlefield an "idiot game" however, I defenitely would call CoD that. But, i can't really blame people for hating this game since it really is pretty bad on the xbox 360, just have to hope they really do care about their community because there really is alot of people still holding in there hoping the lag issues are fix because I know I am.