Exactly what "truth" did he twist about brink? From what I've seen, many (if not all) of the things he says about Brink are completely true.

You've got to remember that Yahtzee rarely complements a game.

In fact, the gaming community is so used to is incredibly critical ways that the one or two times he completments a game, the world hates that one video.


He's a critic. His job is to point out all the bad parts of a game, and even more so because he's so well known.

I don't understand why people call these videos "reviews." They are only satire, this man is a pundit. Every game receives the style of caustic sarcasm and negative criticism no matter how good the game is. This video is good only for a laugh from fans, but not for anyone looking for an actual game review.

I found it entertaining and will be sure to view his "reviews" more often. Thanks for the link.

Uhm... He's Australian.

He's also hilarious..... sometimes.

Actually he does sort of explain whether he recommends the game or not. For instance, he gave Portal 2 and Crysis 2, two very great games, recommendations.

He does over exaggerate the flaws in games, but the flaws are still there. He didnt bash the general gameplay because it is really hard to F-up 'right trigger shoot' 'class A does this B does that...' 'Shoot guys take objectives'.

That stuff is very basic and isnt bad, and he concentrates on the bad stuff.

Actually, if i remember correctly he's a Brit living in Australia.

Funny...as...[censored] i cant stop laughing. who cares about the review i couldnt here it over how hard i was laughing

Yup, and the British spell color as "colour".

He also mentioned that there hasn't been anything that Brink did that was done better in TF2...which is true. And the SMART system was hit-or-miss to me. Sometimes I find myself gliding over obstacles with no problem, and the othertimes I literally have trouble negotiating with a wall that goes up to me knees.

Very rarely, the overall arching theme of most of the videos is "this game is bad".

You can also tell he hardly sat down to the game for more than 5 minutes when he said your weapon choices were "an SMG and another SMG".

Except for all the satire and parody he does, at the base of a lot of his reviews is a good point. And the point he makes (which is very much true) is that in pretty much every way, Brink is a failed clone of Team Fortress 2; it does EVERYTHING except movement worse than TF2, from class balance to weapon balance to maps. Customization may be nice, but he brings up the point that the game isn't supposed to be a dress-up simulator, and the customization makes on-sight determinations about your enemy impossible, since they have no defining characteristics anymore.

Yeah, the Parkour system is great; but it wouldn't have any use if the maps weren't littered with random garbage. There is basically nothing to take advantage of the system with, other than climbing over a barrier than in any other game would've been cleared with a single jump or crouch jump.

Can you blame him? Gaming has deteriorated as the years went by. Not his fault he has slightly higher standards than we do.



He never said your weapon choices are only SMG's. He's saying that all the classes all have the same weapons, and he used "a submachine gun and another submachine gun" as an example of how two classes can have identical weapon combinations.

Opinionated rather than factual. I'm certainly enjoying the games I'm playing now more than I was 10 years ago.


That's not how I interpreted it. And if that is what he meant, I'm not even sure how that's a bad thing in the slightest.

I'm certainly not. I still wistfully think back to a time when shooters didn't base their standards on COD or Halo games and when Final Fantasy and Resident Evil didn't svck.


Because there is practically no visible class differentiation. In a team-based tactical shooter, which Brink is supposed to be, that's pretty bad.

When I play TF2 or the Battlefield games, I like to pick targets based on class, focusing on the medics/snipers rather than the Support or Assault classes. I could always pick my targets judging from either their appearance, the weapon they're holding, or both. In Brink, I can't do that since everyone can be anything, so that already loses a lot of tactical feel. I end up just guessing what my targets are...which sometimes ends up with a Molotov in my face or having the guy I just killed getting revived by his buddy since I chose the wrong person to kill before I had to reload. Not fun.

Additionally, as he said, since you could pick and choose your own weapon/appearence regardless of class, it severely hampers the functional variety between classes unless you start unlocking class abilities. But in a game that focuses on class-based teamplay, I don't get the reason behind having to unlock class abilities to make your classes more differential aside from the fact that it slows the gaming process down. That was a huge problem in the BC series since at first the only virtual difference between the classes was the weapon.

Again, if variety is Brink's focus, then why the hell isn't there much variety between classes until later on?

Especially his critiques about http://www.escapistmagazine.com/videos/view/zero-punctuation/767-inFamous and http://www.escapistmagazine.com/videos/view/zero-punctuation/789-Prototype. :laugh:


And if you guys wonder about the Mirror's Edge reference: http://www.escapistmagazine.com/videos/view/zero-punctuation/457-Mirrors-Edge is what he did not like about ME.
The conclusion is very similar to BRINK, methinks.

Well I certainly didn't pick targets based off class in BF:BC, and classes were nearly non-existent in MAG which I played for a solid year, and then I still just killed whoever possible in BC2, so I don't seem to have the same foundation in team-based shooters. As a result these things don't bother me in the slightest.

If I want to know somebody's class in Brink, it pretty much appears the second you hold your cross-hairs over them. I will prioritise a Medic over all else, but most Brink encounters seem to be 1v1, 1v2, or crazy CQC cluster[censored]s, so there it isn't really ESSENTIAL to prioritise. Unlocking abilities as you progress gives more of an incentive to keep on playing and gives you something to look forward to, it gives you the chance to keep progressing your character (something SD mentioned frequently) and to personalise your experience even more. The basic buffs are certainly enough to get by as it is, on a lot of characters I don't even bother spending on any other buffs and just upgrade the standard one.

And I find it strange how he said he couldn't tell them apart, but he also then clearly illustrates the different roles of each. :huh: