The game is great. What's the problem, brah?

im so alone without playing with my friends...

(I got all 1,000 achievement points in 1 1/2 days of play) Trade Brink in for L.A. Noire. That's what I did, and I couldn't be happier. L.A. Noire IS a $60 experience when Brink is more like a $30 experience.

Oh, what a wonderful solution!
Unlike you, it seems, I like to actually form my own opinions rather than those put forward by reviewers and individuals each with their own bias and hidden agendas.
I read glowing reviews for Black Ops, but I thought that was a terrible game. So who should I blame for that dissapointment. Nob.

L.A. Noire looked more like a $4.99 experience to me mate, I'll wait for Saints Row The Third.

Saying "looked" clearly...means you haven't played it. So your opinion holds little water, if any. And nearly every major, and minor reviewer, and the average gamer experience disagrees with you. Next time, please...actually have decent hands-on time with something before you state complete, unresearched nonsense.

I've been watching a Let's Play, looks like a game from 2005. Both in originality and quality. Next time, please... don't go wildly assuming complete, unresearched nonsense.

It is unresearched nonsense; simple. You assume its garbage simply by viewing someone play it, on low quality definition. Nearly every reviewer (major, minor, the average gamer etc. etc) disagrees with your opinion. They have actually played the game, you have not, your opinion is unresearched garbage "mate". (You have no factual backup whatsoever).

It's quality and originality are sooo much higher than Saints Row (a Grand Theft Auto ripoff) and Brink, it's not even funny.

Yeah, keep thinking you are God's right hand man or something, your word is truth and all not obeying shall be slain etc.

I don't need this opinionated one-up-manship.

You obviously never tried Saints Row, it's far more ridiculous than Grand Theft Auto ever was (especially funny considering L.A. Noire was ripped off the people who created Grand Theft Auto, not very well either) I watched L.A. Noire in HD, plus the material failed to impress me in the slightest, if anything it felt like APB, a huge dredge of a game.

Also, funny, with every reviewer you mean IGN, presumably?

I'm sorry your statement ($4.99 game, no originality and poor quality) is completely falsified garbage.

Some of you need to cut out the rude comments - either discuss civilly and constructively or leave this topic alone. OK?

I think the OP of this thread, like others, was following this game closely. However, the original videos we saw of this game in its "actual beta" stage looked better than the finished product. Check this link and tell me it doesn't look like an entirely different game.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qyXOt4ujJac

I, for one, was sorely disappointed. Regardless as to what platform that came from, THAT game looked groundbreaking!

I wonder what happened along the way?

And from my personal experience,that would be the case.

I've found that the game rubberbands only when there's more than half human players combined between both teams,and when we play that map were you have to stop/launch the missile.

I think that CoD has brainwashed way too many people into thinking that "this is what a FPS should be",and can't grasp the idea of something that doesn't play the same way.

All they really did was streamline the objective wheel and brighten up the backgrounds.It looked a little more like Gears Of War before,and more like TF2 now.I really don't see any reason to be disappointed,but to each their own I guess.

Like this is the first time a game has released laggy...

^^ the lag is not what makes this game a beta
the extremely horrible lag that makes the game unplayable on xbox should have prob been sorted out tho.

this game is a beta because its so unpolished, its obvious that the devs were rushed. In an interview right before release, paul even said he wish he could have gotten more into the game, but at the same time said it was done? that makes no sense. they also hinted that the release was pushed up largely because of Bethesda's desire to not release the same say as la noire. he tried to hide it, but if you read the interview you know what im talking about.

the texture rendering in this game (atleast on my xbox and many others, with game installed to hd) is absolutely horrible. im not talking like the draw distance is bad, im talking the geometry of the levels, the textures on the walls and boxs, guns, pretty much everything but the character models looks like n64. more often than not the game looks like utter crap. unless you stand still for literally 2 seconds, and wait for the textures to draw in, then you will see something that resembles what you thought brink would look like. even then the graphics are nowhere near as good as I expected (ie the videos we were shown every week, I knew they would not be quite that good because that was pc but still....) and not on par with most shooters on the market today (bc2, reach, crysis 2, black ops, you get the point).

this texture streaming is probably a glitch, and hopefulyl easy to fix, yet I still see no mention of it in the update notes, this concerns me.

it will be great to play this game with no lag (i know id4 is hard to write netcode for really im not hating to hard, but i gotta admit I never played an online game so unplayable since command and conquer renegade), open beta or even a closed xbox beta, or Bethestha having a competent if any director for quality assurance. the thing is I've played a lot of betas. I beta tested xbox live before it was relased to the public on xbox one, ive been the the battlefield play for free beta for quite some time. I played desert combat mod for bf1942 real early. I was in counter stike way before it hit any kind of retail too. The thing is, most these betas ran better than this game on my xbox.

if the textures are fixed, the lag is gone, and the game is playable and looks like it was made in the last 5 years, perhaps then it would be worth 60 dollars. it will remain to be seen if I will be happy with my purchase. I gotta say I was pissed I bought new vegas for a few weeks, but after pouring over a hundred hours and two playthrus on it (after all the patches of course), ive thoroughly enjoyed it. i hope to be surprised again, but as it stands, even if this game is fully playabale and looked great, itd still just be another shooter as far as Im concerned. nothing will ever match up to cs, they should just reboot it again, on consoles too (better this time).

I wish I could enjoy this game, make it happen

- Agreed Brink isn't the first objective based game but when you take into a account the genre is flooded with TDM and people only focusing on there K/D it is refreshing and something especially rare for consoles.

- I also agree with you the story is somewhat lackluster and they could have put more time into the narrative and cutscenes explaining more instead of leaving audio logs to fill in gaps.

- I disagree here granted the SMART system has it's issues it truly is remarkable and refreshing to be able to climb,hop and slide through environments to get to places easier or to get away faster. One the main issues with the SMART system really has nothing to do with it more so the maps.

They created this amazing system getting rid of something which has plagued FPS's since the beginning yet they did not create maps giving players enough options/freedom to take full advantage of the SMART system. Most maps have 1-3 routes to get somewhere and most of those are going to take you in a narrow or predictable corridor leaving you ripe to be picked off by the defending team. They need to open the maps up a bit more allowing players and matches to truly be unpredictable as you would never know what a player/team may do.

- I definitely agree with you on the multiplayer side. Since I have had the game (release day) I have yet to get into a decent match, Every time I try and play multiplayer I end up in a match with completely unbalanced teams or it creates a new room for me and no one ever joins. So as of right now the multiplayer is really lackluster and needs some work. They need to have matches not start until teams are equally balanced with real players.



I completely agree with you here as well. There has been a trend started by developers which has truly scared me. They have been continuously pushing out games when clearly they are not ready with the mindset "lets just make release date we can always patch it later". This is truly disturbing and should not be acceptable. Granted they cannot fix everything before a game is released but players and consumers can tell when a game was actually released ready with a few bugs and when it was rushed out. Examples of this recently are:( MAG, DC Universe Online, Killzone 3, Brink ect.)

Do not push your game out and put a 60$ price tag on it when it is not polished and finished. Do not release a game with a mindset we can always patch it and release DLC later. Have pride in your game and with that pride sometimes you need to pushback the release date but so what. In the end consumers will respect you more for pushing the release back in order to give them a more polished and bug free product.

So what's after Beta?

I have no loss of respect for Splash Damage, knowing that there is problems in every game and this is certainly not the worst I've played. I don't care if there is problems, because unlike most of the highly known and anticipated games *cough* CoD *cough*, they will be fixing it.

Thats like calling an apple an orange... they are both fruits just like both games were pushed out when they should have been held back and worked on more.

Sorry I like Brink alot but I'm not going to stand up for them when I cannot even get into a dang multiplayer match I have had the game since release date and have yet to play against actual players. Everytime I try and play online multiplayer I am either on in a game completely unbalanced or it puts me in my own room in which no one every joins.

I dont think it is to much to ask to actually play an 8v8 match with all real players from Dev's who incorporate multiplayer as a dominant mechanic of there game.

If you just play a game to level up, you aren't actually having fun. (think it's called skinner's box theory, look it up)

.
I know that theory well, but it is the random reward theory and of absolutely no relevance to your point.
I played The first Modern Warfare up to tenth prestige and had so much fun in doing so.

Fun for some people is a feeling of achievement at the end of doing something you enjoy.
Weather from learning a new skill, or something slightly more pointless such as trophies or rank progression, then who are you to judge?

I used to want to be a pro football player, but then I found out that you get your jersey, cool shoes, pads and stuff on the first day....
well what is the point in playing if I have everything right off? :shrug:
I asked the coach what level I unlocked the endzone dance and he just looked at me. :blink:
Screw football, I'll go back to CoD and my 10 prestige modes.

CoD 4 screwed up games for a long time to come.....

I just rented it. I sprint up to a wall I can see it flicker from least detailed to most detailed in about 2 seconds. Dis not be good.

First of all, oranges are clearly better than apples.
Second of all, Brink messed up their first time, while every Call of Duty suffers from the same problems! At least SD does updates. I'm not like most other members of this forum that complain. If I keep getting into laggy games? I go play offline. AI not great? I do the objectives myself. Or I play with my friends. I find a way to enjoy myself and not find fault with the game when I know updates are coming. If I did complain, then it's not like I would go to CoD considering how unbalanced and laggy that still is to date.

If you don't want to play it for whatever reason, then don't. Don't come onto the forums and complain about your problems to people who don't care.