So you can play campaign solo, co-op, and multiplayer. Sweet, huh? But so far it seems as if when it comes to playing competitevely, theres only competitive campaign. Going through campaign competitively and what not. So why cant you just do multiplayer by itself instead of only multiplayer campaign??

You can. It's called "Free Play" mode. Not 100% sure on all the details of how it works, but it's basically your non-campaign multiplayer. :thumbsup:

Oh, all right, I saw that, wondered whether that was what it was. Thanks!

It's all the same missions, but in free play it isn't in order so you just pick whichever and compete.

There's also some timed mode where you play as one side and try to make a certain time and then you switch with the other team and they try to beat your time.

I'm kind of worried. I wish there was more to multiplayer than just competitive campaign. The experience might get stale after a while.

I think that game modes going to be gansta. Each match is going to be super duper long

I don't really get this argument. Most fps are set up where you either, kill a bunch of people, or capture a flag, or hold a position, or disarm something. But they are all separate game modes that you have one goal in mind. Brink takes all of those game modes and puts it into a single match.

Right, but they will always be the same game mode on the same map. It's a campaign level being played repeatedly with the same objectives.

Brink is basically Map 1 has an ABC game, Map 2 is ACD, 3 is CDE, and has 8 maps total. It's always an ABC game on Map 1.

Most FPS games have game modes ABCDE, but it's any one of those on any one of 14 maps or so.

If I could play the ABC game on each of the 8 maps, but could also play the ACD, CDE, DEA, etc. game modes it would add to the natural replayability. As it is you can only play 2 sides to each map.

I guess, but they make it seem like there are a whole lot of different objectives but none of them are crucial for winning, like they don't have to be done at all. Like making short cuts. So maybe the game will change a lot based on how many side objectives the teams do.

We had a pretty long conversation similar to this one. The thread kinda died off a bit and im not trying to necro it, but if you wanna read more on people's opinion on the matter here is the thread.

http://www.gamesas.com/index.php?/topic/1176215-regarding-multiplayer-gameplay/page__p__17381342#entry17381342

Yeah, but a lot of that comes down to the role you play. Things like healing, disguising, repairing, etc. which to me is more comparable to the simple actions than real objectives.

I don't know how it's going to turn out, but I totally see the appeal for opening the maps to new game modes, or adding new maps, just to give variety. It may seem like a lot of variety, but if a player just doesn't get good at using a lightweight or using an Operative, that's a whole lot less there's going to be for that player to do.

yeah i was kinda worried about this but its nothin different from me playin cod hc mode or bfbc2 rush over and over. i jus wish that SD had taken it a step forward and gave different ways to complete the objectives, like say the objective is to infiltrate a building u have 3 ways of gettin in: 1) escort a tank to blow up the wall, 2) blow the back door open with explosives, 3) hack open a side door. to me that wouldve added alot more replay value, since right now from what weve seen its mainly one objective with little side missions to help boost ur team to completing the main objective.

I've played a lot of MNC and the only point of any of the maps is to destroy the other teams money ball, and I have yet to get sick of it. So I guess map repetition isn't a big deal for me. Hopefully if people start getting sick of the game SD will do some DLC or something for it.

Most multiplayer maps are nothing more than a deathmatch setting, or incorporate one objective, such as control points, Capture the Flag, and all that good stuff. No one gets bored of that. Just look at Quake, Call of Duty, Team Fortress 2, and Wolfenstien Enemy Territory. They've had just about the same objectives - a few update here and there, yeah - but no one gets bored of them once they're hooked.

Brink's just the same, it just so happens that Brink's multiplayer maps incorporate around 4 objectives and deep storyline.

Simplicity is easier to maintain. The single objectives (TDM, CTF, etc.) function differently than a layered objective like we see in Brink for your average gamer. Brink has a more strict directive, complete with timers, that tells you "do this, do this, do this" and that's the same every time you play that map. It's very much like playing the same level of a campaign over and over again, which is part of it's charm for many but could be part of the problem for others.

Good point. Brink pushes players to attack objectives, it might force them to do so in the same manner over and over again.

I guess it just matters on how you play, I like MNC because I can play one of six different classes each of with I play completely different and it also matters what map i'm on how I play too. vs. BO (which I sold to help pay for Brink) where all i did was shoot at stuff and die over and over without feeling like any of the people in my "classes" were any different. Everyone keeps asking what class you'll be and i'm going to play as all of them. same thing with the weight types. Its only fun if you make it fun.

As for getting repetitive because its just the campaign. Most campaigns you follow a specific path from one point to another shooting anything in your way. Brink doesn't feel like that, it doesn't even feel like your character is the main character.

I don't know....i'm going to have fun with the game though

Precisely. Maybe it won't, but we have to wait and see about that, and even if it does many of us may be fine playing it repeatedly, but some might not.

The interesting thing about multiplayer games like this is that even if you're playing the same map and same mode with the same number of people, the actual unfolding of the match is never the same.

The players themselves make and break much of the experience for me, and I think Brink will play into this even more.