Is it "I could care less" or "I couldn't care less"? I've been confused by that.

If you do care, then it's I could care less. If you don't care at all, then it's I couldn't care less.

Also, just because the company is worth 100 million, that doesn't mean they lost 10 million due to 10% of gamers not buying it. The company did lose sales, and that would be a loss of revenue and that could lower the value etc but there isn't a direct correlation like you are implying.


And I don't "fear" the reviews, I look forward to them. Homefront started losing me when they showed that all lore/RP stuff was just fluff. I was really looking forward to exploring the world etc. The reviews of the issues with it just confirmed it was't for me. I don't see myself pre-ordering Brink, but that's not because it doesn't look awesome etc etc, it's because I'm a govt. worker with a kid in private school so on a bit of a tight budget

Your dad is awesome.



Never mind.

I couldn't give a stinking rats ass about what other people think. The few reviews i do read are games i'm not sure about getting, then a read 5 or 6 to get a more balanced view.

I honestly don't understand why people are scared of this, with all the demos(that we don't get to play :'( ) and press with community feed back...It should be fine

I consider reviews for buying something but I don't think a review could turn me off this game.

If a game like Crysis 2 is able to attain high-praising reviews, then I'm sure the quality on which reviewers judge games is being reduced a great deal.

Brink fans have nothing to worry about.

It's all the basket I really need. If they rate it low, I'll rent it first, and check the game out. Apparently, comprehension is also an endangered species, because if you would have bothered reading the entire post you'd understand my reasoning.

I wouldn't be too into that. Too many times I've seen editors show excitement for a game and see it end up rated low. Ironically, The Conduit (I was really excited for that one) got rated in my usual buy range and it turned out to be pure garbage and ticked me off to the point of selling my wii. A year and a half later, I still don't regret that decision.

I think most of us aren't worried about what the reviews say, because we don't care what they rate it.My main "fear" is that people will believe the reviews, hesitate to buy Brink, and this will cause a "death" similar to MAG ( fun game but the online community is way smaller than it should be). Fortunately the advanced AI in single player should fix this, but it's still not the same as online play. Guess I'm worried Brink's good name will be smeared by the stupid critics... :swear:

Problem is, without SMART the only thing that truly differentiates itself from the pack is the art-style. Yeah, you could say the objective based gameplay is different, but I can always just play Resistance or Halo if I want good team objective.

If IGN says it's broken and doesn't work, bias or not, chances are it's broken and doesn't work... I put things into context. I know that if they complain about opinion things like "The guns feeling to stiff" or "The story being too predictable" or even "It takes too many shots to kill" that my opinion will differ, but I look for more of the hard facts.

I've read several. Can you please explain to me how a demo in a clearly controlled environment that was most likely picked out to be the demo because it is the most enjoyable mission is a good way of guessing how the final game will turn out?

Just wondering. I guess I may be the only one here with some experience with the gaming industry, but predicting a game's reviews entirely off of a demo, especially one you haven't even played, is a major no-no. Oh, and the majority of journalism sites and magazines tend to lean towards always pointing out the good parts of the games, and their reviews aren't actually based on their past previews at all.

Not trolling, or asking for hate, but some, or the majority of people on this forum think the "SMART, teams and other features are UNIQUE, and are going to score big."
I'm sorry guys but Brink is not original, it's been done before. SURE it's a great idea, and it's definitely been polished up, but I'm sick of people thinking it's one of a kind.
Graphics have been done before, similar to Borderlands and games that use the Unreal engine (Bulletstorm for example). Parkour elements have been seen in countless games,
and team playing has been seen in multiple games as well. Again, Brink is a great idea, but sadly, I cannot see it scoring over 7.5-8. I can say I am definitely keeping an open mind and renting this game before buying.
The smartest option in my opinion.

Remember, no hate :L

I've never seen any game combine FPS and Freerunning. maybe you could show which games you are talking about cause i honestly don't know of any. And yes their are games out there that are suppose to be team based but none of them are every game i have played that is a FPS you can go it alone, COD is a perfect example of this. Where as brink forces you to play as a team because it is the only way to succeed in this game.

I've encountered an interesting role reversal with the case of Crysis 2. It is almost universally praised by critics, but the game's "community" (the forum-goers) are disgustingly immature and insatiable.

Apparently, because it doesn't look, sound, and smell like Crysis 1, Crysis 2 is "garbage" or worse. when this is clearly not the case -- I doubt any of them would want to play Stalin vs. Martians (an actual game, no lie) over Crysis 2.

In this instance, the reviewers are the least-biased players of the game.

That being said, I already pre-ordered Brink. I've come to be wary of review aggregates like Metacritic, and I disregard IGN's credibility entirely. Reviews are a factor in my decision, but only to a very small degree. Hands-on playtime is the key.

I understand everyone's arguments.

I mean, games are expensive nowadays and, like many things in life, are risky investments, especially if there were no demos or hands-on time with them.

Games I see as really risky investments. I do not like to gamble my money away, so I usually wait until the game prices go down, hear from
reviews, hear from the gaming community, or just buy it pre-owned. (I buy lots of games pre-owned, which is seen as evil, but I can't afford many games).

There are very few games I would buy brand new or pre-order. I have to do lots of research and rely a bit on my instincts and make a judgement on whether
or not I would like [include type of game here].

The one game (besides Brink) I have ever risked pre-ordering for was Transformers: War for Cybertron.
It was a game made by a small company I did not
know anything about. They have made only two previous games, both of which had 70's scores on Metacritic.

What made people nervous (at first) though, was that it was a licensed, based on a franchise-kind-of game.
(Most licensed games are pretty bad---with the exception of Batman: Arkham Asylum, of course).

However, I did lots of research, watched lots of gameplay videos, looked at the gaming community's take on it, and heard how passionate the devs were about
this game.

So, I decided to pre-order. Turns out, the game was pretty awesome (in my eyes, anyway), even if it has 70-something on Metacritic. But I LOVED it and
I never regretted buying it, ever. ^_^

Basically, it's like taking risks.

You can be cautious and wait or impulsive and buy right away or a bit of both. Neither approach is "wrong" persay---it just all depends on whether it is worth (the risks, the effort, the money and the research, etc) to you. ^_^

I've owned critical successes and critical failures. Scores mean very little particularly when you don't know or trust the critic. I judge reviews based on the writting, the reasoning, and the perspective and have found very few that even bother to review properly.

I have no fear for Brink's reviews. If it reviews well we get an influx of new players that we may not have had, if it reviews poorly we don't.

Oh, I read your entire post. I understand you think IGN is the sole and authoritative voice on the quality of games based on several common experiences you and they had. You have abandoned any self-reliance that you had in forming your own opinion and instead depend on a single corp, not taking into consideration any biases (encouraged or otherwise) that that corp may be subject to, to draw your conclusions for you. You represent the perfect picture of a consumerist zombie, ruling out your own alternatives and complacent in being led along by the hand.

Are the IGN reviews that you "hate" ones that scored games opposite to your experiences with those games, pray tell?

And to be fair, being the teenager you say you are, you haven't logged enough life years to be lamenting on anything becoming endangered. Just saying.

- F

I think it's more of a compilation of the features that makes the game "unique", whether or not that benefits a review score. In fact, some of the highest scoring games of the last year or so have games late in a series. Franchise games seem to do quite well on the scoreboards, so having features that have been done before should not be considered a negative.

It's going to be how well they come together and if in doing so they create an experience worth having that should earn them whatever score they earn.

One: All those things have been done before, yes. Brink puts them all together, a previously undone thing.

Two: Monday Night Combat was met with large amounts of hate over its striking resemblance to TF2 / DotA. People play and love MNC because it merges them seamlessly.

Three: 7.5 - 8 is still a good score, and one person's review is by no means another player's experience.

In the world of gaming, if the score isn't 8 or higher, many people will not buy it - at least not new.

I think, if the game is properly reviewed without bias, that 8 is the lowest score it will receive. But of course it will be compared to games like COD, TF2 and Mirror's Edge, and have points knocked off for taking ideas from them, but not being enough like them at the same time.

In the world of gaming, if the score isn't 8 or higher, many people will not buy it - at least not new.

I think, if the game is properly reviewed without bias, that 8 is the lowest score it will receive. But of course it will be compared to games like COD, TF2 and Mirror's Edge, and have points knocked off for taking ideas from them, but not being enough like them at the same time.

"No one hit knife?"
"No one hit sniper?"
"No TDM or CTF?"
"No K/D?"

I can smell the biased reviews already.

But it could gain points for doing what those games failed to do

Yes, of course, but I see the game receiving more ridicule than praise for the changes it is making.

I still think word of mouth is what will really push this game.

I agree completely!

But not all game raters are like IGN...There are trusted ones out there