Agreed, SD should make it so that move mechanics can't be abused/spammed in combat like for the cases that traumatized our friend.

And no, I never played MW2. Actually, I never played any COD, just some battlefields, (2 and BC2), but I am more of a Enemy Territories player at heart. You know, the games SD did before Brink

thank you:)

and i must say you were smarter than me, i do have mw2...
best shooter up to now is still UT '99 in my eyes, then again, i've never played QW:ET or wolfenstein:ET



1) i know what you meant, but the word "real" seemed so out of place, it's why my heart stopped, for a second i thought you actually meant it was realistic, and then i read the rest of the sentence and my heart started beating again.

2) in Brink it's while using parkour, wich means it's supposed to be in, whereas i doubt anyone integrated dropshooting and bunnyhopping on purpose

3) i prefer to keep comments to several people divided, it makes things easier. or at least i think so

I bought Cod2 after I played ET. Not much later I want back to playing ET, way more fun.

You're the kind of kid that has ruined FPS gaming. Go back to your glitched up Battlefield crap, Brink isn't for you. When I want to be an acrobat prancing around like a fairy I'll join the circus. It's people like you that do nothing but alienate the real FPS community and make it look like mic spamming and bunnyhopping are the norm, it's complete wastes like you that make FPS gaming the worst experience in the gaming industry. You've already taken just about every FPS game on the planet, leave Brink out of this, it's too good to be boiled down by you bunch of mindless pansies.

Dude, tone down with the mindless rage, I might get afraid !

You obviously haven't played ET or ETQW, SD's previous games, to state this kind of nonsense. Also, you have the FPS history the other way around: In duke nukem already, strafing and jumping in combat was widespread. Then quake and unreal set some standards on close combat with even more fast moves, reflex/instagib aiming style. Only then came more inertia/realism in mainstream FPS. And you name Battlefield, which is not really a game where bunny hopping or other spam are the norm.

How did you play in Duke nukem ? How did you play in Quake ? How did you play in Unreal Tournament ? Did you not (rocket)jump, strafe, play on reflex and adrenaline ?

So according to you, I " alienate the real FPS community and make it look like mic spamming and bunnyhopping are the norm" ? But then you say : "You've already taken just about every FPS game on the planet". You contradict yourself, dude. If just about every FPS game on the planet is "taken" by bunnyhopping and whateverspamming, then it IS, in fact, the norm... And it is so, because this comes from the very first FPS gameplay in multiplayer.

Not liking this gameplay and preferrign another is one thing, but considering yourself from the "real" fps community ? Now that sounds a tad arrogant to me.

I wrote before that I am not interested in bunnyhopping, rush strafe and stuff like that though, but that I also don't want stupid immobile fights, so I need a minimum of free movement while in combat. And Brink will be properly balanced on this aspect, I am sure (I'll decide myself if Brink is for me or if it is not, mind you). So most of your rant goes to the "irrelevant" trashbin anyways...

Still, please don't give up on the circus. You'd make an excellent clown.

no persistant stats??? thats extremely bumming to me.. I enjoy working towards something. Now, im not talking about ADD rewards like COD that reward you for every single little thing you do. But, i do enjoy checking out my stats here and there, seeing how i compare to other people in my clan. now, when you say no persistant stats, does that mean no ranks or unlocks as well? I really enjoy working toward my next rank. In BFBC2 i have a rank 50 account, a 46, a 30 and a 28. lol Im sure i would have played that game alot either way, but if there wasn't ranks i seriously doubt i would have played it that much. I really think having stats, ranks and unlock really add replay value to the game. I never would have played cod4 as much as i did if it didn't have ranks and prestiges.

Sounds like someone is having too much with fun http://www.cracked.com/article_18461_5-creepy-ways-video-games-are-trying-to-get-you-addicted.html

There are levels, but the level cap is at 20, and by the time you complete both sides of the campaign (said to be somewhere around 10 hours) you will be around level 15. You can transfer your experience to your other characters (you can have up to 16), which will be nice once you reach the cap, so you don't have to play with a level 1 player to make a new build.

I personally am easily hooked by compulsive games, but I don't find it particularly enjoyable, as Wraith's article points out. Its just mindless playing for hours for a few seconds of "YAY! I'm the next rank" and then more and more hours of mindless playing.

my main concerns are the level 20 cap, wich i think even if u can start from 0 with other character, its still really low, I do enjoy the prestige thing in mw2 bo and etc, makes players play the game more and still motivates to go on and play a bit more, the thing is that brink looks promossing but it just uses the best features of other fps games so why not implement the prestige on it also : p and my 2nd concern is when i looked at the pre buy packages with doom hats and stuff, hope brink doesnt go in the path of a tf2 store type of thing, with exclusive items just for dudes who pay for it..

I'm sorry, but you couldn't be more incorrect.
Brink tries to be different, not taking elements from other games.

Objective based gameplay, with classes that interact eachother, which shooter has it?
A lot of bullets to kill someone + lots of headshots needed, which recent shooter has it?
Classes interacting with eachother, helping the team forward, which shooter has it?
...

Level 20 is actually great, it evens the playing field at a low level (compared to other shooters). Also abilities and weapons are unlocked in the opposite way of normal shooters, because they want you to have the big and great abilities from the start, while giving you the more specific things later on. I could go on, but I don't want to become rude ^^

Brink looks very promissing indeed, but sorry to say but I just see features from other games tweaked a bit but still inspirated in other games.

U asked me about those 3 points , all games have some sort of objective based multiplay, classes interact eachother, not thinking to much I would point to TF2 medic or Black Ops dude trowing a seringe to revive a team mate, or TFC/FF engeneer that boost ur armour and etc.

A lot of bulltets to kill someone look at TF2.

But anyway im glad they implement the best features of several games into this game, and btw I dont care if someone disagrees with me but thats how I see it a mix of a fortress game with a Shooter.

The classes in Brink are not based on TF2 at all. Wolfenstein: Enemy Territory had 5 classes that were almost identical to the ones in Brink (Soldier class in Brink has taken over the duties of two of them). In fact, W:ET is the first game I'm aware of that had the "Engineer" class, and the "Medic" class is old as dirt, if I had to guess at its first incarnation I would say clerics from D&D.

So if anything, TF2 has taken some ideas from SD.

And taking more bullets to kill a person than games that attempt to be somewhat "realistic" isn't really an idea I would say is borrowed from anywhere. All it would take is for one of the Devs to play one of those games and say "I'm dying too fast".

You are right in saying that most of the ideas put into Brink aren't truly unique, but that doesn't make the game any less innovative. TF2 borrowed concepts from other places, and judging from the way you talk about it, you thought that it was pretty innovative (I know I do).

Haha, that reminds me of a comment on Youtube saying that Gustav Mahler's Symphony No. 3 copies the Lord of the Rings soundtrack.

:thumbsdown: Facepalm

Like people saying Stephanie Meyer invented vampires and werewolves.

I want the guns to have different feel and physics to them, ie. weight and recoil..... I don't want all the weapons to feel like paintball guns. That and the aim assist has to be low to non-existent.

QQ Learn to aim, people with your point of view ruin FPS games for me. There's nothing fun when you and the other players are forced to hold still to shoot at each other, especially with iron sights. It just becomes a game of who sees who first, because there's absolutely no challenge in shooting at a still target. I agree with you about noob tubes, match leaving, and "fairy jumps". Everything else is what makes FPS fun at all, for me. What else is there to enjoy? Elementary "tactics" involved in FPS games are completely boring in comparison to plenty of RTS games, which have far more challenging tactics options.

If you notice, all of the "jumps" he is complaining about are actually abusing the games physics engine. All of the different types of jumps he has listed end up making people move faster than is normally possible or make the person move in some impossible way. He never said that moving, jumping or diving to dodge was a bad thing, but he hates having players spamming things that don't make sense outside of the game. Like drop shots, no one lays down while they're being shot at from a couple meters away, and the only reason it works in most games is the lack of a proper animation.

Many of the other things he has listed, like camping, sniping, and one-hit kills have been removed, which means that SD agrees with him on some of the points, and the introduction of a proper physics engine to make the parkour more realistic will eliminate most of the abuse of movement. So if you thrive on things like bunnyhopping and drop shots, you should avoid this game.

Well, that's just like uh your opinion, man.

But personally I like shooters which require some actual skill in the use of weapons and don't support run&gun, spray&pray and similar incommoding occurrences.

Whats Wrong with camping?

Yeah it svcks when the only way you can go is covered. But with the ability in this game (and some others) to have more freedom on where you go, if some1 is killed by a camper more than twice (being generous with the 2nd death) than it's the person who was killed stupidity at going the same way or not remembering where they died.

I never thought that camping at a sniper spot (or a any good position) and covering your team or an objective was unfair, it is simply strategy.

Meh that's just me

There are no killcams in BRINK. so you don't necessairly know where you've been killed from. Also the fight usually focuses on one small area, where one or multiple campers can be quite annoying.

Camp-Kill-Move is okay, I think. And it works. But Camp-Camp-Camp is rubbish.

Well, the main reason that its looked down on is that its simply not fun when someone pitches a tent. If camping leads to a situation where its nearly impossible to push past, then its boring for the attackers. Yes, it can be effective, but it doesn't require any thought, and in many games it creates a big enough advantage that you're forced to just go around them. So its also tactically boring for both teams. Even for the player doing it, it tends to be boring to just sit in one spot for minutes on end.

But if you play games like Halo reach and COD:BO (hardcoe No kill-cams). Camping people are still easy to find since you know where you were killed, plus bullets are visible, or they camp near somewhere you need to go. Also Camping is essential to actually winning in some game types. I.e Defend certain objectives/areas, capture the flag - if some1 doesn't stay and protect it your gonna lose it.

So would it really be so bad to camp camp camp near something of yours that the other team wants? Personally I think its fun hunting down campers.

Anyway I hate kill-cams, makes it harder to protect. But kill-cams can cause the enemy to die again if you move and cover where you were, and the enemy comes looking

I could see where someone could call "defending" a "camping" tactic, but i generally separate the two. Defending an objective is fine, you are focusing on the objectives of the game. To me, camping is when people pick a spot based only on how well they can hold it and get kills, and are ONLY going for kills. When you see people camping in a corner somewhere random on the map, or at the end of a hallway with no tactical importance, that's camping.

I also tend to not include snipers in the definition, waiting for a shot is what they are supposed to do. Moving once in a while is preferred, but I can understand the logic in staying in a good spot.

But if the random spot was picked and is getting the player a lot of kills. Then doesn't that give the position tactical importance? Especially if it's deathmach/team deathmach and killing is the point of the mode. Also during objective modes, If the enemies are busying dieing or trying to get the camper(s) in that random spot. Doesn't that draw away enemies from the objective they need to get? Or at least slow down the attack on objectives as dead players cant capture objectives?

You could argue those things, but to me, if you aren't actually defending the objective, than you shouldn't be standing still. Again, the important part is if the game is fun or not. Having everyone pitch a tent just to get kills when someone decides to move isn't fun. And in practice, the most practical way to respond to camping is to either use mob tactics on offense, or just camp as well on defense. Neither makes for much fun.

Besides, I already said that camping is quite effective in most games.