i don't like the specialization though. might not work out too well. Theres peobably gonna be a lot of specialists since its just basicly a buffed version of a class and there won't be enough [insert class here] and with no changing, yea you get the picture. some games won't be a problem but since there are objectives only certain classes can achieve might have deadlocked games.

agreed

If they find an island, it will most likely be Mt. Everest, you can't have low altitude islands like Tibet and the aforementioned because their mountains wouldn't be above the new sea level. You never know, maybe they do find land at the end of Brink, or maybe they find another ark. After all, it was a prototype. That's how Halo worked: if the plot cannot continue with said halo, make a second halo, or a million. I agree it is a little soon to be demanding any specific follow up plot, but it isn't too early to speculate.

Also, flying cities are too futuristic for this game. 2045 has a lot of green tech, but not enough groundbreaking chemistry to make a flying city run on recyclable fuel (cold fusion anyone?). After all, what reasoning is there behind having a floating city? aquatic zombies? piranhas? at that point people would feel the style has broken off from the original.

If they do run into a new city, I can see the Resistance and Security having style changes, adding colorful Japanese clothing to the Resistance and everything from scuba diving suits to gullies for the Security , alongside the introduction of new voices.

The only way to tell if SD is planning on a sequel is the by beating the game. If they leave a cliffhanger it's possible, if they don't the game would have to sell enough copies to change their minds. I think it was Wedgwood that said, paraphrasing here, I like the way it begins, and I like the way it ends. Wait, and be content Brink 1 isn't being delayed a third time.

they talk about the Ice in Greenland melting, which would raise the sea level like 20 feet. There would still be tons of land. i think if Antarctica melted it would add like 200 or 250 feet or something like that, but still. lots of land, where i live in tennessee the average elevation is like 800 ft above sea level. there isnt enough water on Earth to completely cover it.

lol dude u rly dug up the facts

nah not really i mean, it just makes sense. i just dont want people narrowing the options. there would still be tons of land and tons of options. and if you go to Brinkthegame.com you can click on the factions and one of the goals for the resistance is "establish contact outside the Ark" or something like that. I think its very possible that they find other civilization or at least contact them

Just about to say that...

That's why I've always been confused about this game. Because if all the ice in the world melted, there would never be enough to wipe out humanity. SD never mentioned natural disasters, no one has ever seen land in 20 years + there has been radio silence for 20 years. So it seems like if the earth was even 1/4 land, the Ark would have seen it in 20 years of following ocean currents. Even with 220 feet, that is enough to flood the basins in the western US, a lot of Europe and coastlines, but Mt. Everest is still about 6 miles above sea level according to wiki.

You have to admit, the chance that humanity dies out on land without pulling a waterworld is improbable at best... without a zombie invasion! Either that or people forgot how to use technology and became cave men. Or the Ark didn't realise the radio was broken and just so happened to overlook it for 20 years while planes and ships don't travel nearby and no land is in sight. All in all, the only way it makes sense without all populated cities getting flooded is that Hurricanes hit every city 10 or more times AND the Ark is chained to the bottom of the sea, because otherwise the entire situation seems improbable.

[edit:] but the chances that no one would use a radio in 20 years/radio is left un-noticeably broken AND no airplanes or ships travel nearby AND the Ark is either chained to the ocean surface/does not drift within sight of land, all of that is highly improbable. I assumed they were going with everything is flooded now Kthxbai.

They said Al Gore's worst nightmare comes true, so I guess it could be case Hurricane, but then you would guess the Ark would get a lot of those...

i like this one

You know, going with this, it could be one big psych experiment, or a really bad practical joke. But those are the only two that seem semi-probable, and even then, you would still need a lot of people to show up via boat thinking the world was sinking, and you would guess that would take a LOT of convincing.

yeah thats their main goal

i thought they said people fled to the ark because they had no home, now where would you go? to that high-tech Ark that was in the news so much? or to some higher place of land of wich you know nothing?

now, water rising, i don't think it's very good if water get's into a nuclear plant, what do you think? i think it might give a bang eventually.

water rising is the cause of everything, but it isn't the only thing that's happening, it makes stuff happen aswell, people on the mainland presumably had no long-range radio, and i expect cell-phones didn't work either due to the short life of a battery you can't charge again.

not to mention how people react in case of disaster, plundering and vandalizing destroying and scattering what could have been used.

there are a lot of things that could have contributed to the Ark not maintaining a connection with the survivors on land

that depends on if you have a way to get to the Ark or not

well lots of places don't have 'higher land' Australia for example is like a big flat sheet of rock and dust. Also, majority of the population lives in coastal areas, not to mention a sudden rise in sea level would cause some freak weather. Lots of people would get killed evacuating to higher ground. and much of the higher ground would not have drinkable water. War and disease would probably break out just like on the ark. We could have also severly underestimated the amount of ice locked at the poles. and besides the game doesn't have to be a perfectly scientific. But im guessing there probably will be land, and the ark will find it, there is only so many maps you can fit onto the ark

not every piece of land was destroyed as apparently the resistance is trying to take the ark and reach out to other survivors around the world.

they are TRYING to reach others, that doesn't mean there are any others, it just means the resistance believes there are.
i suppose it will end up there are others though, humanity clings to life like that

they are TRYING to take the ark and reach out to others around the world to help them.

You guys really have to consider what the flooding will do. Just because some areas are above the water, doesn't mean they will survive. A lot of sources of food and water will go down. Electricity is most areas is a goner. Disease will break out. It will be pretty much anarchy on the last areas of land. It will be like what happens to the Drell homeland in Mass Effect 2. Far too many people and too few resources. Murders over mouthfuls of water and crumbs of food. I think what will happen is the Ark will be attacked by an invading force of ships who travel the land grabbing all they can, or the Ark will come into contact with some survivors but something will go wrong and people will fight.

but it not enough to wipeout every human that isn't on the ark.

Please read the last couple sentences of my post.

I wasnt saying that the people on the available land would go on living fine and dandy. Yeah the sea level rises 200 feet some serious crap is going to go down, but not enough to wipe out every single person not on the Ark. Humans tend to be resilient little effers. i mean some places like America for instance might be able to function better than most, but others not so much, hell entire island chains full of people would be gone completely. Im not saying they will contact people outside the Ark are they are like "global flood? oh right i remember now, anyway feel free to drop by" I like the idea that why find land or "land finds them" (lol) like with the ships coming and trying to invade, although that doesn't make the story 2 sided like the one now, which makes the story interesting. I am also not a professional writer so wtf do i know.

doubt land would be much better than the ark. At least the ark has some renewable resources. Most areas of higher land would be just as over crowded as the ark and probably with less resources, in particular food and water, as the rising sea probably caused a lot of land to become unusable for farming, and correct me if i'm wrong but isn't high altitude land generally more rocky and with unstable weather and unsuitable for farming. War would probably break out there much faster, far less than the 20 years took for the ark, more people are probably gonna die.

My story is still ark crashes into land. land has survivor settlements. Debate on whether to repair the ark with resources and looks for the rest of humanity or strip the ark for tech to build up the settlements. War breaks out, and you get the rest

i did

It would take place in our brain becaus location is not chosen on this unconfirmed subject.

Anyone else think that the Ark will sink (kinda like Bioshock) and fight underwater? or even underground?