Case in point of my above passage, WHO CARES about what review sites say? Who cares if a game doesn't meet their lofty CoD sized expectations. The from what I read from actual people who have the game is that it's fun to play. That IS the reason why we play video games as a hobby, correct? To have fun. In layman's terms, if you need a review site to tell you what and what not to purchase as a consumer, you're not the most educated person, are you? The "reviews" you should be paying attention to are the testimonials of people who AREN'T being paid to review something, and put little effort into that review because they're in a rush to get back on BO. Because the community will tell it straight, unbiased and to the point. And as a few people in this thread has stated, SD will be patching the kinks out rapid fire once they've set up the infrastructure.
In closing: Use what god gave you called a brain and make your own damn decision on a game. The issues I read them picking on in that review are issues that exist in every FPS game ever made. So what makes them worse in Brink then in CoD, or Halo, or even my default FPS game of choice MAG? If you take the IGN, G4 and so on reviews seriously, do us all the solid of never playing another video game again. Because you're the consumer contributing to the degradation of innovation in games as a whole. Flocking to the cookie cutter games that are rehashes of either it's previous edition, or "borrowing" the formula of another game completely. Whereas a game like Brink, that tries to blur the lines and take the genre a different direction is reviewed poorly...pretty much because it's not like the rest of the grid.
Ok, I'm done.