At least you admit it instead of making excuses :thumbsup:

It's not even going to be that bad. It's not like Halo or Section 8: Prejudice (which is a really fun game, especially for a downloadable). It's not going to take that much ammo to kill an enemy. It's going to be like using the Uzi or PP2000 in Bad Company 2.

For some reason I just can not do HALO. Throw any other at me and I do great but not HALO. I do best at KZ3 and manage to get around to 35:2 most matches yet HALO is barely a positive KDR. I don't need that in BRINK though, I just want to have low deaths and use the smoke grenade/caltrop thing which sounds hilarious.

I dunno' what you guys are talking about, Halo kills take like 2 seconds :/

I don't know why either, then again I only have the first one for PC which I only played a few times which probably is the problem right there.

Do you want to get better ? I can sort of coach you on what you are doing wrong if you give me a general summary of your play style. BTW you are talking about Reach right?

That's the problem right there.

Although this is the Brink forum............. Go for Magnum 3sk.

this (props for mentioning prejudice, its whats keeping me over til brink).

Are you sure this is true, because if I get 99% of the damage I should also get a kill bonus for contributing to most of the damage or if I get 50% of the damage I should get a kill bonus for contributing to the kill. Honestly I hope they just leave the kill bonus out, it doesn't make since. But hey, I'm a simpleton any way. I'm so confused.... :facepalm: :banghead:

Thats why this game is a TEAM-Based shooter?

The person who finishes the target off gets an addition bonus for doing so - if they didn't do much damage, it'll be barely noticeable, and even if you did all the damage, the amount you get for just damaging the target that much will be more than the kill bonus anyway. We don't know specifics, but they've confirmed the kill bonuses will be very small incentive, so kill-stealing won't be worth the trouble, and won't cost much to the guy who did most of the damage.

I think you've arbitrarily grouped people into "skilled" and "unskilled" here. We'll see who's skilled when we see who uses their split second extra reaction time more creatively.

What makes it an arbitrary distinciton? There are skilled and unskilled players, a fact of gaming. Using features in an attempt to somehow make it more fair to the unskilled will only provide the same opportunity for the skilled. No OHKs may weed out a few players that land the first hit regularly but have a hard time following up, it's not going to keep those that are good from obliterating those that are not.

If your even the least bit worried about Brink's health system, take it from a guy who used to be good at Halo and is still good at Call of Duty. I've been waiting on a game like brink since my early PC days on Doom. A game that moves properly will be great. Damage will matter and no ohko's will be a godsend. You might not see it at first but from what I know and have seen / read Brink is poised to make me drop Call of Duty and Halo for a very long time if not all together. Battlefield still holds a place in my heart, as do the others. Just dont misplace your priorities and imagine how nice it will be in a FPS to finally not get cross map OHKO'd.

I disagree. Everyone is good and bad at certain things. Someone could kick ass at Brink, but svck at Battlefield, for example. It calls for a somewhat different skill set that some people will just naturally take to. I think games encompass too many different cognitive skills for someone to be just "good at games"

Not trying to toot my own horn here. But ive all but mastered Halo. Im high rank in all their games and ive played since Halo: CE. Kills come easy for me. :brokencomputer:

So why do i like Brink if im such a Halo "fan boy"? :bowdown: (i dont see myself this way, but others lable me so)

Because its different. Because with or without killing the enemy there is something to do. You dont have to battle for 'MVP' you can battle for the sake of your team.
You complete other objectives wich in turn help the progression of the said team.
If you can utilise team work well in this game. You'll win without having to pull a trigger. :gun:

Though pulling the trigger is always good fun too. It will take a while to master the difference but theres nothing to fear. :banana:

One thing. Cover. Use it.

I like the TF2 style of health where you actually have time to react to your attacker. Insta kills (when you're on the receiving end) are far more painful than ones that take slightly more bullets to down you. It feels significantly less frustrating even if I'm not getting kills. I've had far too many bad experiences with CoD when getting killed in the cheapest ways possible. Ranging from NOOB Tubes to the M16+FMJ+Stopping Power to the "Getting shot in the foot and dying from a guy with a sniper rifle that's 3-feet away from me".

For me personally, I like having enough health so I actually have time to react to my enemies tactics. It helps me to understand why I die (if at all), and if I can manage to counter THEM it feels like the game requires more skill and accuracy to play.

My average TF2 ratio is about 40:7 (I probably get so many kills in that game because I can survive for so long)

My CoD ratio? I'm lucky if I go positive.

i think op needs to watch some gameplay footage.

lol u guys . Calm down a little.
[img]http://d.f3.photo.zdn.vn/upload/original/2010/09/25/17/1285409253607082284_574_0.jpg[/img]

Nowhere does that deny that there are skilled and unskilled players, simply that you believe there are more skill requirements with Brink. Whether or not that is true is not entirely relevant to the situation brought up by the OP as more health and OHKs are directly related to the mechanics of shooters in general.

A player who is skilled at shooting (a skilled player) in FPS games will be able to transition to Brink without trouble because everything about how you shoot is effectively the same. More damage required to kill doesn't level that playing field. He may have trouble getting a grasp on what else he is supposed to be doing in the game as a whole, but not the shooting.

At the same time a skilled RPG player, someone who's skills are based in the quick thinking and organizational areas required for group RPGs, will be able to transition to the right tactical mindset of Brink and do quite well from that position, but he may have much more trouble with the shooting because that is not his skill.

And there are a collection of players that, regardless of the game genre, excel because they have the the various skillsets required across gaming. There are also a collection of gamers that appear "skilled" in certain games within various genres because they know that game so well that they know how to use the game to their advantage, but while they are skilled at that game they are not neccesarily skilled gamers.

First off...

He didn't say MORE skills required for Brink. Different skills required.

Secondly, and also relevant to the first point, there's a difference between skilled at aiming for the opening rounds of a burst, and skilled at keeping steady aim. BOTH are shooting skills, and to an extent, with the right weapons and playstyles, both will probably be valuable in Brink, but you can't just boil both down to "skilled at shooting." MOST games cater specifically, or preferentially at least, to one of those skills. "Skilled at shooting" in the Quake and Unreal games and "skilled at shooting" in the early Rainbow Six games (only played the first few, can't comment on later iterations) are barely comparable. One requires steady aim and effective tracking of a target, the other requires patience and precision for a single pull of the trigger.

Most shooters, first- or third-person, and most players of those games, have a bias towards one of those skills or the other. The gamers tend to think of their preferred skill as "true skill" and say that games which don't cater to it are "luck based" - of course, the games they do well in are "better" - obviously.

If you watch the videos you see that people go down fast not COD fast and not Halo slow, so a nice balance.

Actually, what he suggested was a different skill set. Brink requires the basic shooter skills no question, to which one must add in order to get a different skill set than the basics.

To your second point, you seem to have entered the conversation a post late, as I already accounted for that difference, albeit a brief accounting.



Bear in mind that all of this is based off the original assesment that the OP "arbitrarily grouped people into skilled and unskilled", which by your own assessment is not the case, as we have all come to the point that there are "skills" involved in various aspects of gaming. OP never defined who was skilled/unskilled, simply that there was that distinction, and for the point that he was making there is.

The point being that trying to give "unskilled" players a chance by changing how the game works doesn't exactly give them a chance when compared to a "skilled" player. The only way to actually give the "unskilled" a chance is to give him the skills with which to compete.

The logical response to those fears would be that SD has a variety of systems in place working to teach various aspects of the game in order to give players less of a disadvantage.