Who are you? Socrates?

I disagree with melee-running being a tactic which should be competitive in shooter games.


We assume that there is a bayonett-attachment. However, there is no confirmation on this yet.

I just had a very recent thought. What if the player could do both? Use the knife as both an accessory and a weapon. This may sound quite stupid to some but, I believe this might actually be kind of cool. So that when the player runs out of ammo for all his or her guns, they don't need to run around holding a gun they can't use. (This is, of course, based on the possibility of not finding ammo they need, which does not sound likely in Brink.)

To clarify, this is only my opinion, or thought, on the function of the knife in general. Meaning it does not apply specifically to this game or any other game.

I'm just saying one thing:

It's a first person SHOOTER. Not first person MELEE. That's all.

Of course it's an FPS. So is Counter Strike, Battlefield (the older battlefield,) and Team Fortress 2.

(All of which require the player to switch to their melee or knife but, retains the shooter elements above all.)

It's no different to camping. All the while there is the ability to do it, it is valid in the game.

Melee-running as you put it, while not being to your taste, is a valid tactic by way of the implementation of melee attacks in the game. The only way to stop it would be to remove melee, which is both counterproductive overall and would lose sales.

Oh, the sarcasm.

I wish for the old days were you actually had to select the knife before you could use it.

This topic has had this odd feel to it from the start, it feels like people are discussing about different things. I agree with the guy who started this, madcat, that I think the knife should be selected, like in older FPS, and that it would be interesting if you would even need to pick it in the weapon loadout. But I'm NOT saying this is what should be done with Brink, and neither did madcat.

And I think that madcat did a mistake when he started a topic like this in the Brink forum, because people just got confused and picky about weird things.

So you don't think people should have a choice about how they play, but you drool over a game that prides itself on a customisable experience, both in aesthetics and gameplay?

Contradiction much?

Of course melee is a valid option. What he meant (I assume), and what I agree on, is that in a shooter melee should definitely take a back seat to shooting. Hearing people wanting to run around with just a knife makes me remember the M/L/C knifers from MW2. That is a prime example of what happens when you make melee equal to or greater than shooting.

I know Brink is a lot more balanced than that though, so I'm not worried about it being broken or anything. I just think that the emphasis level is already just right as it is: low.

EDIT: And somebody else brought up a good point earlier. Knives are pretty small. Even if you could customize them nobody would be able to tell, since there are no killcams. Not really sure how you could customize a knife anyway. The only thing I can think of is being able to choose from several different models, like a machete, a switch blade, a butcher's knife, etc.

Thank you. Atleast someone who understands what I mean.
(Reading is one, interpreting is two, understanding is three, replying is four. A lot of people seem to get stuck at zero)

I completely agree that melee should not > shooting. However, I find it highly ironic that people claim that things are 'cheating' or such when in reality the developers have made it fair play.

the same can be said of No-Scoping.

In most cases it's not intented, meaning that it's a bug that should be fixed.

I disagree here, melee weapon damage, camping and No-Scoping are not bugs.

Let me express it differently. When melee is better than shooting, or no-scoping = shotgunning then they should be considered bugs. Melee should be 2-3 hit imho, no-scope atleast 2 headshots. (Typical damage meters for SD games, maybe even too few hits.)

well no-scopes will always be a problem until you put in large open maps, kinda like Halo:Reach's occasional maps like the forge one that are just enormous and really good for snipers not CQS, but if you make it too open like Medal of Honor, the game is ruled by sniper and if your a bad shot with a sniper but great with a shot gun your pretty much boned so they have too find a way to make you want too use all weaponry not just one weapon cause it owns the map.

I was under the impression that the term 'bugs' referred to technical faults not creative playstyles.

Presumably, knives would be just as slow at killing as the guns, so just as in the real world, bayonets would be obsolete on the automatic weapons, it wouldn't be worth it just for the drognav and mossington.

The bayonet would make the mossington seriously powerful though, imagine stabbing with it and then meatshotting while the blade's still in.

Since Brink is very fast paced, it might be possible to use up both guns without having a chance to reload, in which case a knife will be real handy.

Sarcasm much. Ofcourse it refers to technical faults.

I hate to use cod as an example (even though it's a bad one), but I consider OHKO Quickscoping or Commando lunging a bug, not a creative playstyle.
No-scoping should require more than one headshot. If it's not balanced right, it's a coding mistake imho and therefore a bug. (I can already imagine your response to this one)
Camping is not a bug, it's just a cheap tactic in most games and too works too well on the majority of players, without requiring much skill.

Then why allude otherwise?



Commando was not a bug, it was deliberately put there for the purpose of giving people increased melee range. It won't be back most likely, but only because it was complained about, not because it was a technical fault.

Tbh you are yet to make any objective reasoning. Camping is 'cheap'? That is entirely subjective. Personally I don't find it fun, so I don't do it, but to propose that someone who doesn't run around the map getting killed is somehow a worse or less skilled player than you for that reason is ridiculous. If anything it suggests (if they're successful) that they are playing more intelligently than you.

I agree that camping should not be used as a tactic in place of pursuing objectives, in objective-based games. However, in a game like TDM where the sole aim is to get kills, camping is a proven successful tactic.

Bayonets would be fun i think but only if done well Halo's bladed smg doesn't give a bayonet it's due,i think you should be able to tap B (on 360) for basic hack and slashing instead of but stocks and hold B (if your behind him or if he's low on health) to finish with a stab and than use as a human shield and than pull a pistol or something like that.
If the programming works correctly i think that'd be pretty awesome but if it's just a knife at the end like Halo than it's pretty neat at most but not my fav attachment.

It was a bug, because it made melee too powerfull in a First person Shooter game.



I fail to see what's wrong with going subjective reasons on a discussion forum.

Camping is considered cheap by a fair amount of people. I, personally am capable of countering camping without too much difficulties. It's that a lot of people get caught soo easily by it that it's sometimes ridiculous.

What do you mean by "the older battlefeild"

Edit: this thread is becoming less of a discussion and more of a argument each post.

Melee isnt a big deal nor is it worth having it customizable in a game where thr focus is on SHOOTING.

Nope, it just made provision for a playstyle that people didn't like getting killed by. The melee runners didn't often get great K/Ds, so the tactic in itself was not too powerful or successful enough to warrant it being legitimately called a technical mistake.

Also, I find that people try and use the genre argument too stringently. It's a game, you are provided with tools to get the job done, go do it.

It makes for a 'my dad could beat up your dad' argument. You are trying to expand the definition of the term 'bug', as well as justify slurring successful gaming under the term 'cheap', which in itself is an ambiguous word in this context. It is absolutely unquestionable that camping is a successful tactic when done well. It has been proven time and time again. I personally fail to see how you can even subjectively justify calling a successful gaming tactic cheap, when it breaks no rules, uses no glitches and uses no 'bugs' (Unless you want to include guns under your new definition)


Most people are capable of countering camping if they play intelligently. Grenades are but one option, staying away from that area is another. If you would discount the skill of finding a good camp-site, you cannot deny the idiocy of people running to the same spot time and time again. Theoretically, if people played intelligently, a camper shouldn't get more than one kill on each player before being forced to move to get more kills, or being killed by a grenade.

Once again, I'll point out that I'm not an advocate of camping, I simply despise the trend for people to put down tactics or skills which, despite being perfectly legal within the perameters of the game, they have no answer for.

I'm not even going to start to reply on this one. Don't want 2 topics to get locked due to my involvement. (Nothing personal though)