computerandvideogames.com have done an article on Brink and what struggles its going to face when launching, here's a snippet from the article:



Check out the full thing at http://www.computerandvideogames.com/article.php?id=283821

Hard to argue against the article. This really isn't SD's fault though. They have pre-order packs, I have read tons of articles about the game on many different sites, and Paul Wedgewood has done a tremendous job explaining what BRINK offers and how it is different from all of the other FPS out there. I convinced 5 of my buddies to pre-order the game in one night. Everyone just has to give it their best effort. Those other games are mainstream and it's difficult to look past that when you're dealing with the average public.

One of the people commenting is on drugs or something :

"It is in no way shape or form what mirror's edge tried to be. I don't like Brink because its just a shooter that uses parkour as a gimmick. Don't get me wrong, the level design is great at some parts, the art design is hit or miss, and the character customization looks great...but because of the way parkour is present i probably won't even consider picking this game up. I love parkour and love seeing it in games, but i see a shooter that uses parkour as its gimmick. The smart system removes any depth it could have had. I would probably think more of brink if it didn't have the smart system, there is a lot of other things to like, and i understand why people are excited for it."


Then couple comments down he writes this :

"i think my original problem was that on another site someome called it "what mirror's edge should have been" which infuriated me. While the SMART system is simple and a bit lacking in depth , i shouldnt call it a gimmick. It's just developers fixing whati considered i big problem in the fps genre. I can also see more games following suit. So all in all it is a good thing and a step forward for all fps. On second thought i might pick it up depending on the community, like i said there is a lot to like. I did see one trailer that depicting a character with dreds vaulting and shooting, loved the trailer. If the game was like that i would play, but from what i've seen and heard it isnt like that at all, seems to play like a standard shooter with a bit more freedom, which isnt really a bad thing."



Got 2 words for him : GOT BRINK'D !

What the [censored]?

So.. First he does'nt like SMART, then pow, he thinks SMART is the best thing ever to hit the FPS genre? :l

I think he really thought about his first comment and realized he sounded like an idiot. Little does he know that the second comment really put the icing on the cake.

Did Crysis ever have a good/popular multiplayer? Homefront is garbage, I've been alpha testing it, bulletstorm is basically a single player co-op shoot fest...


What happened to reviewers who actually were gamers? You know, people who had some background knowledge on the topics at hand?


Oh yeah, as for DN:F we'll have to wait and see, that may just be competition for BRINK, but again, doesn't really fall under the same umbrella as our game.

Brilliant , isn't it ?

I'm not sure about Crysis but Homefront looks like it's garbage. I don't see what has people so excited for it.....it really doesn't offer anything new aside for the Campaign. Its biggest selling point is "battle points". I'll be honest, I'm getting Crysis 2 but only because I'm a NY person and I'm sure I'll really appreciate it's graphical beauty. Bulletstorn doesn't really catch my attention.

My thing about Brink is the customization, ability to get over anything [hate that in other FPS's and makes it more fast paced], bullets to kill is higher then games like CoD and BF, and the nice graphics. I hate war graphics like CoD and BF, makes the game bleh. I prefer modern day type clothing like in APB. I'm also working on getting 4 friends to get Brink, two I think I can definitely get to.

Homefront = Crap. Crysis 2 = Meh.
Bulletstorm is a must hire for me. But will not buy till cheap cheap.

Eh, I like crysis except nano suit.

I noticed that guy as well. In his first post, he clearly doesn't know that much about the game, expected parkour to be center stage, and didn't like how simple it was. Someone responded to his post saying that SMART was not put into Brink as the focus of the game, but just to improve the movement. I think it forced him to actually look into the topic, or just think about what it could add to gameplay, and realized that it is a step in the right direction.

How so?

This isnt any of the shooters fault, it is Cataclysm's fault. It pushed all the major shooters into the spring release dates. Bah!

I wont say Homefront is garbage, but nothing about really caught my attention.

I had played Kaos studios previous game and I must say I prefer it to either COD or the Battlefield series.

:lol:

Isn't the Nano Suit the main selling-point in Crysis? (Isn't this your point ... actually?)

Didn′t Splash damage say that there are releasing Brink later to polish and balance it?

And I don′t understand why people are mentioning Bulletstorm in this context, except this topic is really about FPS in general. Don′t get me wrong. Bulletstorm will a great game for certain people who want to play a shooter which isn′t serious at all, looks gorgeous and is makes killing creatures hilarious and very entertaining. But Bulletstorm won′t be a competitive multiplayer. It has a coop mode and a versus mode, but no real competitive mode.

I would not say that Homefront is garbage either. It has few interesting concepts in singleplayer to draw the players more in the setting and let them care about what happens around them and to the characters they encounter. But their multiplayer looks like a really big bunch off people running around on a very big map who get big weapons and vehicels every time they reach a certain amount of "Battle Points". Although it is objective based, it looks very boring and repetitive.

Does everyone care about Crysis′s multiplayer? The singleplayer campaign looks just fantastic and will be a touchstone for following FPS, but like in Bioshock 2 no one REALLY cares about the multiplayer. Sure it will feature new vertical gameplay, but it is still just typical, generic Deathmatch with some Nanosuite gimmicks.

I've gotta say, I don't really see how the Crysis 2 story will be a touchstone. The game looks good, but after all they grilled over 400 graphic-cards to create this game. So only a fraction of the gaming community will actually be able to enjoy the graphics of that game.

Trust me it become interesting trying to hold and push the line.

Ugh, why couldn't they have just let Duke Nukem died.

I want my Borderlands sequel Gearbox, not a badly aged relic of the 90's.

The point system seems similar to counterstrike's "buy weapons" system. Which should be an interesting approach. And counterstrike rules.

I never said that Crysis 2 STORY will be a touchstone, but the campaign itself. It will have a lot of cinematic cutscenes and scripted events, that will be bombastic. Sorry, next time I will be more precice.^^

Hopefully it will get interesting, stand out and get enough attention to drive FPS forward. As I said there are a few concepts I like, but I really can not sympathize with the idea of getting an advantage over the enemy for doing good stuff for the team, although I really love playing Shadowrun, which grounds on the same concept as Counterstrike. For me "Battle Points" sound like a more objective driven modification of "Killing Streaks" in Call of Duty. You kill a few enemies (In case of Homefront do good things for your team) and earn extreme powerful weapons, gadgets and vehicles. In my opinion this game mechanic is just unbalanced. Or am I wrong? I really would appreciate the opinions of experienced Call of Duty players.

Well not an experienced Call of Duty player but my bro is. He is a legit 10 prestiger :shakehead:

Battle points doesn't seem unbalanced but a way to progress the intensity of the map. You get battle points by getting kills/helping teammates/ taking objectives. These can be used to call in anything from rocket launchers and drone to eventually tanks and helicopters. This eliminates something that always annoyed me, half the team waiting for the tank to respond. Now if you want a tank you need to earn it and no one can steal it from you.

I still want to know what beefs the guy who is alpha testing it has with it.

Sounds precisely like Call of Duty.