That's a much better example then mine...the Soviet Union wasn't a paramilitary group...I'm such an idiot.... :facepalm:

Well in either case they will be fun to play as regardless, and I doubt that Splash Damage would go to such political extremes for a "T" rated game.

Resistance is going to be so much fun.

They are those political extremes..."extremists" really come into play when rebellion is considered

security... why? because the people that i have read for their reasons to be resistance irk me. i rather not play on the same team as someone who thinks refugees deserve an equal share of other people's hard earned product simply because their need is equal... if i go to your front door, i wouldn't expect half your paycheck; i don't see why the refugees are expecting an equal share of the resources of the ark simply because they showed up at it. also, the proffesional look of tge security is much more appealing.... i imagine i'll probably play both, for the entire experiance, but that i'll prefer security.

Because its not a situation where the refugees are simply freeloading. Its been a decade or two since the refugees showed up, and at this point they are doing most of the work to keep the Ark running.

Even the security themselves are mostly the children of the refugees, according to the link I posted earlier.

In the final run the choice runs on your view of survival.

You can take the resistance route of : Risk everything on the chance that there is a world outside the walls of the horizon.

or

THe Security way which is : Keep everything running the same in order to garentee the lives of the city will go on for a few years more.

That is these two choices are only relivent if you actualy lived on The Ark, or imagin yourself on it.

Most players will choose the following

Sleek or Rugged

Nah, the security aren't the ones that make choices like that, they are simply trying to keep the peace and follow orders.

(The leaders of) The Security aim to restore the original concept of the ARK by any chance, don't they?

Yessir, Security and the leaders are more willing to risk war then to share food and water. Soviet Union is a good comparison, as there were numerous food shortages in rural areas, where farmers were forced to give all of their crops to the government, while they were left with virtually nothing. Some farmers eventually turned to burning their crops or killing their livestock, as they wouldn't be able to eat it anyways.

Talking about this, this would be a good prologue to Brink. You'd play Security, sent to break a strike in Container City, as the citizens there are angry at doing the majority of the work, but not receiving any water. Then the team is suddenly shot down by the first members of what will be known as the Resistance. Or, the Security starts the violence and shoot the workers who are on strike.

This could work as an introductory cutscene to the story of Brink, too.

Actually, the first level of the game is supposed to be the first day of the civil war, so that wouldn't work. You are sent there to check for a bomb, and that is the Container City Gameplay video. Check it out, and you'll see that the Resistance starts the fighting. (And it's not a strike) Although that is a good point.

But they think they're protecting a vaccine of some sort. You could also see it from the resistance point of view: They feel threatened by the security's presence in their living space.
You could start arguing about who's right and wrong, but no side is right or wrong in the end.

I've seen the video, couple of times. I was talking about how the conflict got started; the Container City gameplay is the first battle between the two forces. My idea was more in line with the first level of Brothers in Arms: Road to Hill 30, where you had to die...It wouldn't be a real level, for you naysayers, it'd only take about a minute and would be more like an interactive cutscene.

Edit: I'm just hoping there's more of an intro then..."We have to obtain whatever's in that container...people just shot at us...oh [censored] oh well..."

i did not see it say anywhere in the link that refugees were doing any of the work of keeping the Ark running...

Then he gave you the wrong link. I'm absolutely sure that the refugees do almost all maintenance work on the ark.

I'm not saying who is right or wrong, probably the Security starts the fighting in the Resistance Campaign. I personally think that they both have good reasons to fight- one is for justice(Resistance) and one is for peace and order(Security). I don't want to really take sides with this, because I'm just going to do them both. You're right that both are morally right playing as them, but wrong looking at them down the sights of your gun. The way SD set this up was actually very smart.

lets assume that the refugees are doing almost all the maintenance work on the ark, despite not seeing any proof otherwise and despite it not making any sense, because then the rich would be at their mercy, because they would control the means of production and would be the ones in charge of distributing the supplies. the ark was designed for 5k people to live on it... roughly 45k refugees went on it. Considering the original 5k were fairly wealthy, i doubt the ark's maintenance requires more then 500 people because obviously wealthy people aren't going to do maintenance work... so 45,000 people doing almost all of the maintenance work that it took roughly 500 people to do... oh no! they're so oppressed!

You don't get it. When there live 50k people instead of 5k, you need to do WAAY (and I really mean WAAAAAAY) more maintenance than with an original of 5000. Everything is used by 10x as many people as intented, meaning that everthing breaks down at a rate more than 10x as fast (It doesn't linearly increase in this case) Also, the Ark gets old and everything was in great state before the refugees arrived. Now you are years later, you're floating on a let's say metal boat and everything becomes old, rusty and will break down.

Well, at the very least, all the death in Brink will sure cut down on the numbers of people living on the Ark, so more food and water for everyone!!!

ok, so 45k people go to the ark, and makes everything break down at more then 10x as fast; why shouldn't they be doing the majority of the maintenance? and i still have seen no evidence that they are doing the majority of the maintenance, and i suspect it doesn't exist after someone sited a source to say it they do almost all the work, but the source says no such thing. If they did do almost all the maintenance it wouldn't make any sense.... you would just have to stop doing the work and that would force the 5k original members to do it... if the minority have control over the water and the food, they have to either be producing it themselves, or they have to be hostily taking it by force from the refugees. nothing suggests the latter, so the former is almost definitely the case. Other then what is used for food and water, what other products will need more maintainable with that many more people? i mean, everything used to keep the island afloat and moving shouldn't noticeably increase in wear with the increased number of people; and everything that has increased in maintenance is a direct product of the refugees coming, so why wouldn't ther refugees be responsible to repair it?

It's simple: The refugees work, they earn money, they can buy food. The security needs the refugees to keep the ark afloat, the refugees need the security to maintain a order and to distribute food. They work together like this OR they all die.

EDIT: http://www.fragworld.org/frag/community-blogs/brink-info-pt-1-story-gameplay-smart-classes-and-objectives.html Here's your link.

As fas as I know Brinks Security is defending upper ark against refugees, who want resources distribution fair - socialism-like solution. That's not really Security is "to blame", and on the other hand SD tries to make resistance also being "right". The story is not about destroying nation/country for political purposes, the idea is clear: the conflict has no "bad side" - both resistance and security are just trying to keep Ark situation profitable for them, where there is not enough resources to keep everybody alive - the "green" experiment has failed.

It's good enough to inject some atmosphere into the Brinks world, so there is chance for additional layer of fun during shooting around. I just hope it will be based mainly on the locations, visuals and sound rather than just on cutscenes and narration. Meaning feels believable, and naturally merged altogether.

If it will be like that - both sides would feels similarly cool, but, if the atmosphere is intended to be deployed by cutscenes and some other "artificial" stuff - it could be totally different, but at the same time, far less compelling. I expect what I prefer, so I would choose both sides with same probability... but maybe idea of resistance is more interesting, because of action element involved, attack. Still, it can be implemented poorly, or well, and thats what makes huge difference. Must see the game in final stage, play for a while independently and then decide... Or see extensive presentation by SD, where it'd be shown in 1:1 scale.

First of all, the link I posted was the most complete summary of the story I have found so far. I never said it included every single bit of information. You are debating with Dysfunction, a member of the forum that has looked into Brink quite a bit, and using your own lack of research as an argument. Yes, there is something to be said for sourcing information, but saying "Its not part of the single interview I looked at" is a bit extreme.

Second of all, its not just a case of diminishing returns, there is also the fact that the Ark was never intended to last 40 years, as it was just intended to be an experiment. I'm not sure if you ever made an eco-jar in science class, but the idea is to have something you can set in the sunlight and everything inside has everything they need to live. Eventually eco-jars stop working.

So you have a group of 50k people who are all working to figure out how to get every last resource out of what appears to be a sinking ship. I'm not even sure if the refugees are doing more work per capita than the founders, but even if every person on the ark does equal work, that means that the refugees are doing 90% of it. So they are looking for equal rationing.

Also, because its 20 years after the arrival of the refugees, you have the offspring of both sides doing most of the work, who have grown up in this environment and have most likely learned everything required to keep the different parts of the Ark running, so saying one side is more qualified than the other is no longer any true. So what has evolved is a caste system. If you are born in the upper Ark, you get better rations, if you are born in the lower Ark, you are forced to live in container city.

Its been said many times, but it bears repeating. The resistance is trying to break the caste system apart and create equality, the security is just attempting to keep the peace. SD has very carefully made sure that neither side is a bad guy, so its not just a case of entitled freeloaders like you seem to feel.

Not trying to be rude, but you should read all the available information before you jump to conclusions and arguments. Read the compendium,watch all the information on the official Brink website and do some more reading on Brinkish. Read HORSE's blog posts. Then you will be Brink-educated .

Security I think

1) majority of my clan wants to play as them -- as do I
2) Resistance looks pretty awesome in terms of appearance, I am guessing it will garner a younger generation of gamers on average then Security (teenagers) -- this could end up being a balance issue just like MAG
3) Story- What Resistance stands for is more appealing to me

Number 2 is interesting, I'm curious now about Resistance because I think you have a very valid point there and that worries an amuses me.