i notced a post at one of those battlefield trailers on youtube, that was saying : "want to hear a joke ? : brink" . and it had something like 50 likes.

then i noticed idiot games like battlefield ( all recent series ) are produced as if in an assembly line : storyline , single player , multiplayer mechanics ( similar to previous with some extra ) , beta on summer , open beta perhaps on end of summer , release on fall or early winter before school vacations.

yeah there are improved visuals, but they deliver nothing new.



brink had some bits of the mass produced brand launch : like the 8 maps on release , but the game is unique from many aspects, it was born from its own original ideas and it didnt mind the risk to deliver ARK,
no other game even came close to something pioneering rather than usual stuff.

so comments like that: "want to hear a joke ? : brink" are typical of what can be excpected by mass produced consumers.

Yeah. Too bad all those games play better, huh?
The Bad Company series at least has a campaign, and a whole lot more in multiplayer. [Vehicles, classes and objectives]
The CoD Modern Warfare doesn't offer that kind of complexity in multiplayer, but it's weapons are a lot more varied and adjustable. And it's campaigns are fun. [Excluding W@W and BO, 'cause they svck.]

Brink is a joke, as it is now. I get where you're coming from, but those mass produced games are coming from success, because even as tiring as they're getting. They're still fun, and each one usually adds onto the last.

Brink'll be the same if it takes off and gets sequels.

see ? thats the mass produced consumer

No, this is coming from a customer who doesn't respect a unfinished game on release. Or a game with severely lacking content.
I mean, damn son, I bought this game too. Expecting something good. But that isn't what I got. The game is lacking and needs some fixes, but unless they manage to double the content with the free DLC, I will stay unsatisfied. Honestly I should have gotten more with sixty bucks.

Battlefield and Call of Duty, when released, come out with the same or more amount of maps, with such less lag and glitches. Not to mention their visuals, sound and game play are overall higher then Brinks.

You may not like or respect them, but you should at least accept the fact that when one of their titles are pushed out that the game is done.

I have to agree with the OP. Although my opinion isnt as strong. For i am a Battlefield fan, and although it is mainstream, its a blast to play.
HOWEVER, Brink did deliver something that the FPS genre needed. And i think it has the other developers, well the smart ones, second questioning there product.

REFERRING mainly to that 'waste of time' game CoD. IMO.

Brink is nothing more then a complete mess at the moment and nothing more.
Not worth a penny atm.NO aspect of this game is complete or finished it seems except the maps.

The game itself is not bad(dont care about those CoD kids on youtube.they are mentally challenged anyway) but the problems that is has,JEEEEEEEEESUS,not funny anymore.I could care less about some tiny bugs in a new released game but THAT HERE?Unacceptable.This game has never seen QA and thats whats pissin me off the most.


I'am cool with searching for some minor bugs but i'am not willed to play the Alpha/Beta tester for Bethesda and SD.Pay me,then yes,but charge me for playing a beta?LOL.


Hopefully the game gets fixed fast enough before all people are gone.Game has to much potential to die out 3 weeks after its release.

i agree with the cod bit but come on, battlefield defined a genre of gaming. bf3 will blow brink away. i bet it wont have anywhere near as many bugs as brink.

they were the first to manage lagless 64 man games (imagine that, 4x more people than brink but less lag!), drivable vehicles, classes, commanders and now destruction. all with better fps and netcode than a 16 man game like brink. oh and actual ballistics and bullet physics too.

bad company is just a console version that was also ported to PC while they finish bf3.

who cares about single player anyway? these games are really only for online. its not like brink single player is worth anything is it?

bf3 will also have a beta that we can play. they wont push it out early full of bugs like SD to get the cash before the bad reviews come out. i also bet their patches wont make the game even worse.

dont get me wrong, i like brink when it actually works, but it wont last as long as bf series (people are still playing bf2 - more people than are playing brink - 10 years on!). at the moment im stopping playing brink as it just makes me angry, the recent patch made the game even worse for me.

What did it bring? Pop in textures? I haven't seen anything that bad since Halo 2. And that game is better.
What? Parkour? Mirror's edge brought that.
Maybe class and objective based gameplay? Team Fortress 2. And hell, that came with two other GOOD games.
Stylized graphics? Borderlands has that, and again Team Fortress 2. Except it actually has character personalities, and comedic value.
Poor sound and visuals? Black Ops has that.
Laggy gameplay?
Oh, wait... Character customization maybe? Yeah, there's something the game did right. Except it's lacking women.

Dude, this game didn't make any other developer turn there heads. Especially as many people returned it for L.A. Noire, a better game.

yeah, brink isnt as revolutionary as they make out. the only really stand out thing it brings is the ability to create semi-unique characters.

DICE has been bought out by EA since BF2. They make console games now. I'll be buying BF3, but I'm still worried...


Ed: Speaking of BETA, I have an invite to BF3 beta. :thumbsup:

agreed. i hate EA as a company. they want to dumb down gaming. they do listen though to some extent. i have been invited to preview fifa12 this week but i cant make it. at least they are trying. SD havent even been on here to explain the huge cockup that was the latest patch!

Both Battlefield and Call of Duty are big "brands", not just games. Games like Black Ops that are said to be present in 1 out of 3 US homes are about "branding" as much as they are about gaming. That has its advantages like huge budgets, and disadvantages like the inherent risk of changing the formula of a known brand.

I don't know if Brink is inteded to become a brand. So far it has been rather 'experimental' and time will tell if it was a succesful experiment.

In any case, I love Brink for what it is, just like I love Battlefield for what that is. I want, and expect BF3 to be an improvement of, and similar to, Bad Company 2 in terms of online play. If I want something different I will put in the Brink disc.

And SMART.

Never saw smooth movement across random terrain in any other game. ^^

This game, in response to the people who disbelief that brink brought something new to the table, is revolutionary in the sense that it is bringing alot of good things from different games together, and that it works well. Don't know what kind of bugs people are talking about, I don't have any. Lag is also pretty non existent for me, once a rare while I do have a small lag spike, that happens in every-single-game, so who gives a rats ass.
Oh, and smart, as Sirius89 stated.

mirrors's edge. and it worked more fluidly. pity the game was kinda boring.

im annoyed im so down with brink as i initially liked it. last night it was so annoying i ended up watching the chelsea flower show with the wife!!!!!! thats how much this game has gone down the pan! enemies randomly vanishing. even when i had good fps (80+) it didnt feel smooth, new sound bugs on maps that were fine (shipyard). its just too much to be fun. if i want to debug problems i would go back to work.

I have to state that the Battlefield: Bad Company miniseries is essentially a project of DICE, you should see it as a small part of the development process of Battlefield 3. DICE did not aim to sell millions of copies of Bad Company 2, but they did nonetheless because it was seen to be popular by a lot of gamers.

Please don't even put CoD in the same league as BF. :mellow: It may be a big IP, but at least they're quality games. Hell, Vietnam was my first PC FPS, BF:BC was the first online MP FPS I ever owned or played, and Bad Company 2 is undoubtedly one of the best online experiences I've ever had.

And yenno what, most of their target audience doesn't like Brink. So what? Probably doesn't help that 100% of people I know around here that play console FPS games play them on 360, and that the 360 version of Brink was a joke of a release.

Fix'd that for you :whistling: (not taking sides, just statin' facts)

Also OP, to continue my trend of sneaking into threads where I don't belong, dropping a snarky comment and then fleeing into the night:

Brink is mass-produced too, that's how they make money.

But as for my opinion I agrre with Chaos Isaac, Brink has nothing original and has streched itself thinner than my Dad's hair as a result. Well that and SD stucj their nose in where they shouldn't of; the MP FPS market, unless (like BF and CoD) you have a [censored]-ton of money and hype behind you, you are never going to go anywhere (like Brink)...unfortunately.

I think anyone who owns more than ONE of the CoD games has wasted their money. I think MOST people who have more than one Battlefield title have wasted their money. I think there are plenty of other "mainsteam" titles where sequel after sequel pour out promising "more" when they're justing giving you "more of the same" - the reason their customers see Brink as a joke is because they missed the point of it.

It's the same way people reacted to such stupid, crazy ideas as "the world is round" and "some day, there will be a computer in every house in America" (it may not have happened yet, but it doesn't sound that unlikely any more, does it?)

Point being, maybe Brink will be looked back on in future and a lot of people will still mostly be saying, "wow, that game was an epic fail," but I think it's MUCH more likely to build and retain a solid fanbase over time, and down the track, more games will be incorporating features which it has... well, maybe not pioneered, but it's brought innovations from the background and thrown them into the limelight - and it makes them WORK.

It's a great view of a potential future for the FPS market, and while it did a lot of things the "mainstream" will call missteps, there are a lot of positives which will I hope their preferred games can benefit from as well.

I call [censored].
I knew a lot of people who were curious about this game, and wanted it. But after day one, only a few kept it because it was sub par.
We don't want Brink not because it's new or 'different', but because it's not good. When someone starts a game and they only see pop in, bad quality textures. They're disappointed. When they try to play multiplayer on a multiplayer focused game, and only get a laggy as hell mess, they're even further disappointed. When they see the lack of story when a good story was promised, that made neither side look like the villain, supposedly intriguing but barely got anything. (Which ruins the Co-Op aspect of the game in a few respects) Their opinion of the game goes further down. When they hear about the parkour styled movement and increased mobility, but only thing they get is corridor fests for maps. It just gets worse. When trying to play single player and finding the Bots completely uneven, with the enemy cheaply auto aiming, it just devalues the product. When they shoot or throw a grenade, they don't get good audible or visual feed back, the disappointment continues. When they play a game with such few maps and nothing else in it, the value is just shot.

This game might be recalled fondly by those who enjoy it, like myself, but it will also be remembered as a joke as it didn't hold up. It'll be a fond joke for me. At least for the Xbox. While yes, I may be such a goon and just go ahead and by MW3, that's on the fact that the previous two of the modern warfare series was fun, and delivered. And I can't wait to enjoy the hopefully enhanced multiplayer offline with my friends. You have to remember that everything that is Mainstream is because it is an success. While it can be mocked and rightfully criticized, it usually beats out the competition for a reason. You know?

I understand how we need more games like Brink, that try something different. We can't keep getting games like Brink and MIrror's Edge that fail at what they try. And for that anology, I mean the Parkour and path's, as both are far too linear. Also very stupid for Mirror's edge.

i have bf1942, bf2142 (my fave), bf2 and bc2. bc2 is a bit of a let down but it was dumbed down for consoles (i.e only 32 players). bf2 and bf2142 were vastly different games. pity bf2142 never took off as much due to it being slightly futuristic. it was also quite adventurous with the big titan mode. for me dice added a decent amount of new stuff with each release. like it or not destruction was a big addition and changes the game dynamic considerably. bf3 will push the fps boundary a lot further than brink has or ever will!

i see the point of brink, i love the concept - i love teamwork (bf2142 had it in spades with squads and commander etc). pity every map in brink just ends in a choke battle thats almost always won by the defending team. when brink works it works well but at the moment i feel like im playing an alpha or beta release, not a gold version of the game. with the new patch making the game even worse its just a slap in the face to customers.

you also misquoted above. the original was by IBM who said that computers would take off. there would be one in every CITY. it was bill gates who wanted a pc in every home, and he is most likely going to achieve that in the next 10 years.

Here's the only two points I saw in your post where my point stands.

The story is great, but it's harder to get at than we were promised - you're only given enough by the cutscenes to "set the scene" as such - the majority of the story is told by the audio logs, and to an extent, it's just politicians trying to outmanoeuvre one another and being forced into war instead of actually communicating and sharing their information. If both sides knew their opposite's perspective accurately, the war wouldn't have happened. BOTH sides are the good guys, but they both SEE their opposite as the bad guys. It works because of the lack of communication.

And the parkour is given MUCH greater freedom than you've realised - there are routes to find, and tactics to create, taking HUGE advantage of the SMART system, if you just work at it. I can run past an enemy, turning as I slide behind a barricade, then leap over the barricade sideways, still firing, jump as I pass him again, wallhop OVER HIS HEAD, and land behind his incapacitated body. In the right space, unbuffed Light vs. well-buffed Heavy, this level of mobility has allowed me to survive in situations where I should never have been able to get anywhere.

You may only see it as corridor fests, but that's because the depth isn't forced - it's buried in amongst the ordinary-looking - the game's maps have HUGE amounts of freedom for the experimenting Light player.

I don't think that more of the same is bad. Both Call of Duty and Battlefield might deliver sequels with roughly the same gameplay, but that is because they do what they do so well and it's great fun. I have spent 110 hours playing BC2 (a lot for a casual player such as myself) and I'm sure I will get BF3 soon after it's released.


How Brink will be looked back upon will depend largely on the next few weeks. I'm still confident that Splash Damage can correct the lag issues and texture pop in, aside from some other more minor issues. But to keep me interested it will have to come soon because I'm getting tired of playing bots.
Brink is the first game I have ever pre-ordered, and I did that mostly to show support for such a great novel approach. No regrets, but still...

Oh yeah, those boring as hell audio logs. You know, it's hard to care when I don't know any of these people. I mean, honestly that's a major factor of story telling, unless there's some omnipotent narrator, you need the characters. Just throwing us audio logs with very little context and nothing else to do is pretty lazy. I know Bioshock and Dead space did it, but damn it you could still play while they went. And I got more character out of those then most of the audio logs. And then, you understood the situation. You were experiencing it. But to use audiologs that you have to unlock just to learn more about the Ark and what is going on is a bad decision mate. I hope you understand where i'm coming from on this.

You know, that's the second time i've heard that. But hey, you know all those extra routes you're talking about? They're just smaller corridors that the Light's can hop around through. [ I've found a few of them just experimenting.] And I think i've only found two that were useful, and they were on the same map. Slightly faster arrival times. Oh, and in any other game I could just shoot the guy, instead of complicated acrobatics that don't quite work well [mainly the climbing though]. Hell in CoD I can run past a guy, hop a wall and drop into prone in a ditch, and crawl away to safety to pop up and fire back. Same thing, really. Avoid, out maneuver and retaliate. You can do it in most games, just think outside the box. Brink just tried to focus a bit more on it, but didn't add enough for it to make much of a difference. Not to mention, i've done the same by just shooting the Heavy. Their auto-aim isn't quite as cheap as most.

And the Resistance is extremist terrorists. They resort to killing hostages, setting up missile systems and generally 'causing more damage. And the sides lack of communication is obvious if you just play both sides of the campaign. Doesn't mean I should care. Who is the guy with the kids? Why is he important? Does he do anything besides help try and kill a guy? But that's getting into opinions.n

Battlefield and COD are the big names in FPS series, they both have quite a history, and even tho each new iteration may not have drastically new features, they do tend to add small changes and new toys to play with. If they made a completely new game each time then they loose the brand, and if u know anything about western economies, branding is everything. Furthermore, these game are huge because they sell. Many people like them, even if you don't like them them.

I personaly am not a big COD fan, always considered it a cheaper knock of of the BF series. But ALOT of people like it and will buy it. but why? well, because they are for the most part getting what they expect from the game, and a more finished product. Alot of people feel they didnt get what they expected with brink, thats partly due to the fact that its a new IP, but moreover its because they game is completely unpolished and the claims made dont match the game.

Also, the only new feature this game brings to the genre is a much more expansive character customization. its a good thing. the rest is just a mish mash of other games. not a bad thing but not as epic as people wanted. the whole "Seemlesly blending of single player and multiplayer" that they promoted so vigorously fell flat. its just crap. It was, IMO, a feeble attempt to attract the singleplayer crowd to a multiplayer exclusive game. It should be considered criminal to market a botmatch as a "campaign", its ludicrous and i can understand why some people feel lied too.]

with all that being said, i like brink. What i was looking for in a game was to play some good ol fashion ut assault style of gameplay, regardless of any of the other features, and thats mostly what i got. granted some of the maps are prooly designed, but that can be remedied with dlc. besides the fact, there isnt a lot of options out there for this style of game play.

This game will die off quickly tho, it just does not offer enough to gamers. I highly doubt it will ever become a brand, i dont see sequels in its future. The game should have been properly tested before release, and that solely is going to be its downfall. It feels rushed.