Let's be frank, the resistance are a little like terrorists, especially in the "what if" missions. While the security does act irresponsibly they aren't a totalitarian regime.

While these traits create a slightly interesting storyline, the storyline ultimately fails. Partly due to very little character development outside of the videos and audio logs, and partly due to the stale repetition of its missions.

Now if splash damage decided to "man-up" the game with some more action, making the resistance more edgy with less of a concern for the security, but at the same time making the security more totalitarian, if it was kept balanced it would be more interesting. However it could be said that a in-balence could also spark a more interesting story. Make the security totalitarian but have the resistance be all out fanatics. That may seem cliche but it could be achieved with success and interest.

However the edgier you make a game the more controversy it causes. If Brink went for a hardcoe M rating, with exploding heads and everything( Which would require the graphics to be boosted from very poor to good) then it would attract controversy, which is always interesting. Just like that experienced by the game inspired by the failed military mission in Falajua.

The problem is that splash damage isn't trying to appease a hardcoe audience(which are the only ones who want its type of customization and complex game play). They even changed the name of the "Comms Hack" ability because it sounded too much like torture and Brink(paraphrasing from Paul Wedgewood who isn't the right person to lead a game build like this in the first place) " isn't trying to build a visceral game" So they didn't need to worry about problems caused by what in essence is terrorism, but losing the possibility of a core audience who smirks at "T" games

Changing brink to be more edgy would fix some of its major flaws of poor graphics by requiring more lifelike damage and guns but also the lack of spice in the story which i could tell from the beginning would be a them vs us mentality with maybe one or two people in each group who "feel" for the other side. Instead of putting real emotion into the game they marketed it to the little kiddies, because so much money was lost in development, I would blame the head of the project for that.

TL;DR
Brink would be better if it was made for hardcoe gamers with more intense visceral ideology. Incoperating better graphics to pull it off.

In the end a lot of potential, but none of it was realized.

Meaning... Have lower expectations? Honestly, for a new idea, you people are too harsh. If you actually have a mic, and have a group of hardcoe players playing against each other, giving each other information, then you have the perfect game you're looking for. So join a clan of some sort.

As for graphics... Do you even care? Honestly, graphics hardly matter, it all depends on the gameplay, which, as I have said, would be amazing with a group of players with mics down for a serious game.

Graphics do matter, its a way of measuring how polished a game is, I hate to say it but its something that MW and MW2 did really well, they had grounding breaking graphics both games were really polished. Another example if FNV really polished up, if the graphics are polished that means that they had enough time after making the engine and maps, and also cared enough to finish the game completely. You don't send out some half-@$$** game with a whole bunch of problems

Which is why serious gamers didn't buy it, "T" is a joke and so is the lag, lack of graphics and lack of story or character development

Plus all of the ideas weren't new, TF2 had good customization and the Red v Blue color scheme, also Mirrors Edge did parkour.

I'm sorry... But that's a bit ridiculous... You've been pampered with MW and MW2 graphics...

There are some GREAT old games that are amazingly fun and their graphics are... I quote your opinion... 'atrocious'.
I don't see any argument there.
Graphics come at the very far end.

Oh, and those are two different games... Meaning... they come into ONE with BRINK...

Yes they come into a hodgepodge with a lack of development on all sides, you cant tell me the graphics are good bc they aren't, the story is terrible, the parkour is underused, the lag is terrible name one thing other than customization that this game got right

Plus good graphics are industry standard with pc, and there becoming close to with the consols all of the following games had good graphics: BF, BF2, Gears, fallout

TF2 has hats and weapons.
Customization is limited to naming, descriptions, and paint. Naming and Descriptions aren't visible during battle and paint can't be used on weapons.

Mirrors edge was All parkour, Guns as support.
BRINK is All guns, Parkour as support.



Yeah, no.

Ground breaking graphics? Really? They were good at best.

Ok army of two( # 2), everything about the weapons was customizable and you could submit your own mask to put on for online multiplayer

The graphics aren't amazing, but do they matter...? No.

The story is just a set of battles, go listen to the audio logs and get the background damnit. (I haven't so I can't say anything, some people say that it adds on to the story a lot)
Parkour underused??? I use it EVERY second.

Lag is GONE, patch fixed it (nearly, otherwise you must have a bad connection)

Sure graphics are a plus, but they come at the very END.

Well if you want to get that deep, every FPS to ever exist after 1996 is ripped off of Quake Team Fortress, and you can't very well take that away from other games.

So the graphics are bad

The story is rammed down our throat every multiplayer match, which most of the battles being similar in objective

Based on the above statement there really isnt a story outside the audio logs, thats cute b/c halo and portal did that first too

Brink is the sum of good ideas from many games but they don't come together

Honestly, it's one thing to give suggestions, it's another to rage quit. If you don't like the game and have no way of contributing, then leave.
It's obvious that you were expecting too much, and have been pampered by the modern days.

I repeat, graphics is a PLUS. It's NOT REQUIRED.

Um... I think that there is a SKIP button for the story part for the game... *sigh* :facepalm:

If you read the op i said what i thought would help, but everybody starting trying to defend the game bc they dont mind the graphics or repetitive-ness, I will admit It would be far more enjoyable if people talked at all but i digress. Also Doom came out in 1993 so every FPS copied it

Thank you! Swear to gods, everyone who makes a rant thread, all those people would be absolutely disgusted by FPS classics like Quake, Counter Strike, or Goldeneye 007.

Suggestions are wonderful.

Suggestions that have the tone of bashing get me irritable.
Some people create accounts on forums just to rage quit in public...

Anyway, those things HAVE been pointed out without hostility... There is no need to repeat thyself.

Wrong sir. Wolfenstein 3D is the first FPS at 1992.

I never said I don't like old games, i would think theirs an expectation for modern games to remain on par, there's always going to be a bad apple, look at the E.T game, I just prefer for modern games to be modern an if you think im bashing look up the 1up review for brink. I play brink i just don't like some aspects and i defend my ideas.

I stand corrected. Was W3d for console or pc?

Fair enough, but the whole premise of BRINK is to break away from the "modern" expectations rooted deeply in Call of Duty, and that's been the whole idea ever since it's conception.

To suggest it be more mainstream, to have more "modern" features is to completely disregard BRINK's premis, to refuse to acknowledge it, and thus a direct insult to BRINK.

EDIT: Wolfenstien 3D was for MS-DOS. Kind of the step before PC.

That's great! You should have said so in the first place that you enjoy the game and that you want it to be better! :facepalm:
You can have the most graphically amazing game... With the WORST story, WORST gameplay, and just boring after playing the FIRST time.

But.

You can have a poor graphical game with GREAT gameplay, GREAT story (Mediocre one in this case...) and interesting concepts of multiplayer that some people enjoy and some hate because of it's 'repetitiveness'. (TDM isn't repetitive? Really?)

Thank you for pointing that out! +1!

TF2 doesn't have customization beyond a few weapon choices and hats

Brink doesn't have a Red v Blue color scheme (and TF2 didn't invent to colors red and blue, nor was it the first game to use them)

Name another game besides Mirror's Edge that has parkour, Wolfenstein had guns so CoD ripped that off. Plus S.M.A.R.T. is a mode of transportation to add a 3rd dimension to the combat to the game and remove the annoyance of getting caught on a 5 inch high curb, not the main focus.

You also said that Brink had bad graphics, then implied that CoD's graphics weren't terrible and didn't have color palette consisting of grays and browns.

Also the point of the story wasn't to have both sides be evil/totalitarian/terrorists, it was to have them both have gray morality, so that the player could decide which was more in the wrong. But let's face it, this is a multiplayer game through-and-through, story isn't a focus. With that said the backstory is extraordinarily good.

Brink dosnt have a great story, multiplayer is very repetitive. and at least people talk on cod

On a side note doom was more popular and pretty much started user designed levels w3d did come first though

I am not going to dissect your whole post because a lot of it is just general console attitude (I am nearly possitive you are on 360 but maybe PS3)

But the above is just silly. hardcoe FPS players... frankly are NOT console players. The whole idea of a console is instant gratification and throw away games. To play heavily for a while until the next "shiny" comes along and then you sell the old and buy the new. Some people are different but the concept of a console is that. Simple, instant, forgettable.


The "hardcoe" fps scene is on the PC and Brink appeals just fine to them with 3 leagues going right now. Only a few weeks after release... 3 leagues! Leagues do not need the flashy "OMG I JUST BLEW THIS GUYS HEAD OFF!" because its all about the gameplay itself. The mentality you are thinking is the typical console players mentality of show me something I am not supposed to be seeing... contraversial does not = good. I was bored to tears with MW2... the multiplayer was random people doing random things and the single player was a FPS on rails. Did it look good... yes, was it fun gameplay... not to this long term and "hardcoe" FPS player.

But as typical console... when Halo was released everyone thought it was the greatest thing in the world... when it was released on PC everyone saw how far backwards it took FPS games.

Sorry for this rant... but seriously people want to change every game into something else... enjoy the game for what it is... or do not. Its very simple.