So, my friend brought this up and I figured it'd be fun to discuss as everyone may have an opinion.

The question he proposed is how will they fit in a sequal to this game? A little early, sure but I figured I'd toss it out there for you to chew on.

He propses the situation that if the Ark is blown up or the resistance is wipe out...where to next?

I countered by saying that the resistance isn't really trying to blow up the ark as much as they are trying to get more rations and get off the Ark. So, maybe they will eventually get off and we take Brink 2 to the nuclear mainland.

As a wild card we have that green light in the Container city video and the mysterious figure the securtiy forces encounter in the container with the light. We don't know whats going on there...could there be an underlying plot to Brink we have yet to discover beyond the face apperance of a revolution? I'd think so, which of course could spin the story in a completely unknown direction.

Thoughts?

So many options:
- They found survivors, but are not accepted in their society.
- They stayed on the Ark, which kept on running, but find themselves in a similar situation (boring, but possible)
- They stayed on the Ark, but a malicious figure has taken over with a personal force.
- ...

Plossible Spoilers so yeah.

Ed Stern stated that depending on what side you're on each faction has their own ending. The Resistance gets off the Ark and finds land while the Security forces settle things down again.

Or at the end of Brink, the Ark sustained too much damage to vital components and people had to evacuate and now live in a small city on the mainland and instead of fighting over rations it's over what type of government they should have. Just a thought......

Or they might not make a direct sequel, but instead incorporate elements of Brink into their next game.

Like how WET and ETQW has some elements incorporated into Brink.

And they are in Canada and the PM is found in contempt of parliament and the resistance raise up, because they think there is a conspiracy behind it

In no way am I hinting at current events (wink wink, nudge nudge) :spotted owl:

Do you have an eye twitch? And Why are you nudging me?

Possible spoiler IF I'm right..

I read an interview with Richard Ham in which he was describing BRINK's plot. He said as resistance in the first level you are fighting to keep a vaccine safe because a virus or whatever is circulating around the ARK. The security claims that a biological weapon is being made by the resistance and they are going in to retrieve it (green glow). I think the resistance is making a vaccine and a bio-bomb, that way they can hold the security ransom and they won't kill themselves when they launch the rocket into the founder's tower (see end of Choir of Guns). Not sure where they could take it as a sequel, maybe outside factions are trying to invade the ARK for resources/space, but that might make it good vs. evil which they seam to be avoiding...

i like the idea of the vaccine and bomb...but another idea onto that of the virus...what if the bomb doesn't cover all of the ark and later we get zombies and infected plantation...like the flood in halo...just a thought though...

That could be cool, but it kind of sounds like an expansion rather than a sequel.

Sigh please dear god no zombies on the Ark.

Didn't the devs say that the Brink story is in the timeline of 3 weeks? If so I see a sequal because 3 weeks seems really short. Or is it the start of something? Since the devs said that they're on the brink of civil war, so maybe the civil war starts?

It's actually two weeks, IIRC.

BRINK begins on the very first day of the civil war, and everything continues from that point on.

Just a thought,

Now we know this is a two week period, and what if (potential spoiler if correct, which is a LONG shot) people on land formed a government(Hey, just even a group of well armed pirates) and attacked the ARK?
I mean, yea, Resistance wants to be free.... But defending a home from an invading pirate force? Could it be plausible? Yea they felt oppressed but watching the home you've grown up in attacked by an outside force that doesn't care about the people?

BOTH sides want what is "Best" for the people, while this third party wants only bounty and blood. A temporary truce?

But, I thought the devs are trying to avoid making each side look like the bad guy? :unsure: The Resistance ending you are giving makes me think the Security sound bad. :confused:

I don't see it that much since the Earth has been flooded.

Your getting the perspective of each side, resistance sees themselves as freedom fighters and looks at the security like a opressive military force, while the security sees themselves as defenders and peacekeepers of the ark, they see the resistance as terrorists and thugs. Whatever side your on, the other side looks bad.

I bases this on the fact that people went looking for the ARK, but not everybody found it... So groups banded together and started a raiding other survivors and found coordinate in one of the safes to a place in the middle of the ocean.... Kind of a Waterworld deal... Yes the planet flooded but people survive.

Aw, man. I feel bad thinking that the other side is bad, lol. :laugh:

The thing is, I like both and see both sides of the issue, so it's like... I feel for the both of you, dudes!

I guess it's like Transformers: War for Cybertron in which you play for Decepticons getting used to them and the Autobots being "bad guys" and, then later in the campaign, switching to the Autobots side and shooting yourself/your teammates on the side you used to be on, lol! :laugh: That felt weird, hehe.

Indeed. It's like playing as the ISA killing the helghast, the helghast are not really the bad guys, ISA are, but playing the story it makes the helghast look very evil (killing there own, torutureing ISA troops, being evil and bad in general )

But really the ISA are the ones who caused the war yet they feel like there the ones defending themselves.

It's a little confusing.

that means you should play as the Res first you subconsciously agreed with them and thought the Sec's seemed cruel. it's only my opinion take it very lightly.


political wars,never do make much sense

That's what I think as well.

Splash Damage seem too creative to simply continue what they already did. Probably they come up with a completely new thing.


I do agree. Very much.

I can never understand why the most wanted and unique portions of one game is often the most hated of another. Think aboiut it, happens quite a bit.

As for Zombies...I can attest that they are really awesome if done well. CoD has possibly ruined the concept for years to come with their travesty. No if Red Dead Redemption would have been the first, things would be a lot different and many folks would actually want zombies. RDR is probably the best adaptation of "Zombies" I have ever seen in a game and is by far one of the top 3 DLCs I have ever Downloaded.

Imo the best adaptation of Zombies into a game is still Left 4 Dead.

I don't like Left 4 Dead, because I don't like the Source Engine very much, but it definately did the right thing. RDR Undead Nightmare, on the other hand, seemed more like a goofy Zombie adventure thing.

But in comparison to this game... It's a run and gun deal. Would the zombies have a parkour ability? Would they be like L4D with special infected? or just classic slow dumb zombie horde?