I've seen it over and over again in places other than these forums. The number one reason people are avoiding this game is the amount of bullets to kill. You don't see it as much in these forums because the people here are already predisposed to the type of gameplay shown in the trailers, where it takes most of a clip to kill one person. I have seen an entire article on N4G that complains about it. I have 3 friends myself that have said they are uninterested because of how many bullets it takes. I myself am wary only because of that one element, as other than that it looks incredible. A lot of people don't like FPS's that take a million bullets to kill, especially if the guns are not unique and don't have different ways to be used like in Halo. To me, it takes all strategy out of the game as gun fights boil down to strafe, hold the cursor on the bad guy, and bunny jump. This gets old very fast for me.

I know there are people that are looking forward to this type of gameplay, but I thought it would be a good idea to have 2 different game modes - one with normal damage and one where the damage would be a little increased. What do people think about having two game modes? I know of other games that have done this successfully and I just don't see why a game this promising would lose so much business over stubbornly refusing to appeal to both types of gamers, especially with how easy it is to just adjust a weapon's damage.

Ok how many bullets is reasonable to kill someone?

I don't think you have any right to say why people are avoiding this game.



You make a game where it takes 2-4 bullets to kill someone you have call of duty and lets face it, call of duty is a crappy game. It has a game engine, other than that the developers don't even look like they take any care in balancing their game. More bullets to kill someone introduces balance, something modern games these days don't even attempt. If they do, they do a poor job of doing it. Plenty of successful games require a lot of bullets to kill someone. In fact most of the older FPS's did this. I would like to hear some sort of citing for all your claims because without citing it's just your opinion.

you have to take in perspective that an engineer can buff your gun and their are (i believe) diffrent ammo types. so including all that and depending on what attachments you put on your gun can make all teh diffrence. Also body types and weopan. lets say your playing as a heavy with a buffed up heavy machine gun and their is a light with buffed health im pretty sure because off all this that teh light will have a very slim chance because of everything mentioned. Wraith it all depends on teh area of the body. my opinion for a kill: Head- 2-4 Body- 6-8 Legs and lower- 10 up

There have been mentions of different ammo times. Also different weapons deal different damage.

were you meaning maybe something like a hardcoe version because Imo that could possibly increase interest in this game.

Not that im not hyped or anything, i think this is my most anticipated game in a long time =)

Well, anything less than half a clip :glare:

Other than that, it's a preference. I think something like CoD with no stopping power would be good (4-5 bullets) or perhaps one or two more bullets if you want something where you can dive behind cover every time. It all depends on the gameplay you're going for and if you can combine weapons and techniques to be more effective (like Halo does with grenades, melees or fast swapping weapons).

I'm not saying it can't be its own unique game or that it has to copy other game successful games like CoD or Halo by any means, just that too many bullets to kill hurts the strategy - you sneak behind enemy lines and there's the enemy looking the opposite way - you'd be stupid to attack because if you did they would just turn around and with their combined firepower take you out immediately before you could drop one of them. In addition, the idea of cover is largely negated as dancing around like crazy becomes the norm. A game mode with any degree less would be wonderful, even if it was just the same as CoD.

Against different gun different clip. A minigun only has one clip and I hope it doesn't take half a clip.

There isn't always cover to use and if you get the drop on them even if its a light on heavy the light should win.

Uh, really, I was just posting my honest observation. You want me to get written quotes from my 3 different friends who have all refused to buy the game as a result? I'll see if I can't find the comments on N4G or the article on there I found on the issue - this is not just my opinion, this is the buzz I've seen. I spend way too much time researching the games I'm interested in.

There's a reason the older games have been replaced by newer styles and that the newer styles are so incredibly successful. And balancing can be obtained with fewer bullets with a good company like Splash Damage - Infinity Ward just svcks at balancing. Besides, I'm not talking about changing the current game style, just adding a separate option to accommodate everyone's tastes. You can still play this style.



I think that would be fine personally. From what I've heard, it's about double that right now. My personal preference would be a few shots less than your quote.



Yes, like a hardcoe version, just not like in CoD where you can't move without dying because it takes so few shots.

I think it would really increase interest and even if you don't want to play the game mode you should get behind increasing interest because that means more sales, more support in the future, and a more likely sequel.

Nothing wrong with observation but my observation is your friends are idiots. They refuse to try a game that they likely no next to nothing about. Works for me.

Also we have no divinative way of knowing precisely how many bullets it takes to kill someone since there are too many variables and we are lacking info.

You seem to have it backwards, and here is why.

When players require more bullets to take down, (like in Brink)

• simply getting off the first shot doesn't determine the winner.
  
• firefights rely more on the skills of person vs person, rather than "who shot first." - in other words, it takes far greater skill to "duke it out" with an opponent and come out the victor, than it does simply putting 2-3 (or less) shots in him, usually from a camping spot or long distance.

The fact that you only have to hit the target 1 or 2 times, means accuracy is less important - this is common sense. Players don't bother aiming for headshots in these games, because they are dead in so few shots anyway, just making contact is sufficient. Yet with the shooting mechanics in Brink, not only is accuracy and shooting skill much more important, since aiming for the head or body can spell the difference between winning and loosing, but also simply getting the first shot off, doesn't guarantee you victory. The longer it takes to kill someone, the more important movement and aiming become. When kills take very little time, the balance shifts towards positioning and being the first to shoot - This is also common sense.

In games that require few shots to kill, there are 2 ways to improve your chances of winning. First, you can practice hard and learn to move fast and when to move. You can improve your aim and reactions so that you can aim onto anyone you see. OR you can find a position that is hard to spot (with decent cover) and stay there, aiming at the entrances or exits to your location so that you see them first every time and don't have to aim, as you are already focused on the narrow door they will be coming through...
Obviously, most players choose the second option, since it is easier and takes less effort and concentration.

The main point is that games that require a small amount of shots to kill, promote camping and cater to casual gamers. This is a reason why COD MP is so hugely popular - because you don't have to be that good of a player to be good at it.

Is COD popular? Yes
Can you be good at it? Yes
Can it be played competitively? Yes
Does that make it a good game? No
Does that mean that COD's damage scales are the best? No

Chances are, all thees people who are complaining about it, are just upset because they have to work for their kills now.


Also, this can be interpreted in different ways. When Richard Ham said it takes about "half a clip to take an enemy," He could have meant that it actually takes half a clip's worth of bullets to kill someone, or he could have accounted for people not hitting every shot, and/or not going for headshots, and stating that the average person will take half a clip to kill someone. There also isn't any clarification on what size clip he is referring to.

You win the most ignorant comment of the year Congratulations!

*No mod, should suspend me or give me a warning for this. Because it is true. He is being ignorant*

Too many bullets to kill eh?

Every heard of little game called 'Halo'? How many copies did it sell? How many bullets does it take to kill someone in that game? Alot more than Brink, thats for sure.

Read, and get your facts straight before you troll here okay?
Thanks.

*FISTBUMP*
:clap:

This to me is the most incorrect part of your post. Other people have focused on different things you have said, but i think its important to note that the high health in Brink makes it become a game more about team strategy. A team that sticks together will be able to take people out quickly, a person who continues to attempt to be a solo pubstar and rack up kills with be decimated the moment he runs into more than one person.

In games with quick kills you can take out a person or two before you are noticed, then have a shootout with anyone that is left. That won't happen in brink.

I'm sick of playing online shooters where I'm instantly dead because the other dude "saw me first". In real life you are not going to get a twitch kill headshot. There's no aim assist for you. Sorry. If we're running around and you see me real far off you might shoot me. Maybe I'll die. Maybe you'll miss. Maybe you'll wing me. Either way. It's going to come down to battling it out. But we're all hungry for a war. And hell you'll have those moments when you're an engineer with a buffed shotgun and you pop a light in the face. And you think to yourself HOT DAMN! That was awesome. But you don't need to be popping insta kills over and over like ritalin. I know I'm not the only guy who used to play split screen shooters and chose the weakest weapons and set health to max for bragging rights. Say maybe duke nukem 64 with your friends on a friday night. Oh I'm showing my age.

I agree mostly with what everyone else has said. People have been following this game for about a year now (I'm close to 9 months now i think), and most of them like the idea that they need more bullets to kill. It requires more skill than 2 or 3 bullets do,and adds to the teamplay effect of the game. Really though, don't join and then make suggestions before seeing anything else or hearing some real opinons. If you can cite where you got this "most people are getting turned off this game because of the high amounts of bullets needed"

These "people" that are turned off by brink already. What do they even know about the game? Have they read ANYTHING? Oh it's not call of duty so it svcks right?

Seems to be the idiot consensus.

Wraith I've seen you on XBL sleeping with the enemy. You need to come capture objectives and scatter land mines on the road with me and my psychotic sneaky engineer on BFBC2. Today I put 6 pieces of C4 on an ATV and ghost rided it into a warehouse full of campers and blew it up.

im just gunna minigun you anyways.. no matter the amount of bullets.. i cant wait

In all fairness that is my brother playing Modern Warfare.

Ok well then I forgive you. Hey wraith I saw this picture today.

http://funkazi.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/12/Monkey-on-your-back-1024x791.jpg

And it made me think of how I'll be the heavy and you'll be the light riding on my back. Someone needs to photo shop a mini gun for the pig and some knives for the monkey.

I see the point of the OP. I've also been thinking about how long it takes to kill someone cuz it looks like it takes quite a few rounds. As much as I'm looking forward to this game, I doubt the game is as balanced as we all think it is. Some people here try to make the game seem perfect like it doesn't have any flaws or unbalance. But hey, I hope it is as "fair" as most are making it seem to be.

hardcoe mode? aka hide n seek with guns?

You know, it gets really annoying when people say no to ideas just because "that's not what this game is about" even though said idea could potentially improve the game.


Would I use this mode? Christ no, stupidly fast kill times which promote camping are the reason I haven't bought any recent "realistic" military shooter, I actually think the guns showed at the PAX videos killed too quickly, and I'm going to tell anyone who says a "hardcoe" (terrible name for this mode by the way) is better than the default version to [censored] off. But for the people who do want to play the game differently from it's default mode, who the hell are we to deny them what they want? It's more money for Splash Damage, and I kind of want to see DLC and Brink 2.