All games should be reviewed for what they are - not what they could be. A graphical glitch and some lag isn't enough to doom a good game, but the flaws should still be reported and they should affect the overall score since that is how the game was shipped. If reviewers want to highlight BRINK being fixed by the patch, they should do a follow up review to compare both versions of the game.

Um, the entire Battlefield game series had a very steep learning curve, and the games get pretty damn good reviews.

Besides, those videos you saw weren't being played by the reviewers, they were just by morons who don't know how to play. Hell, I'm a hardcoe COD player and even I can do better than some of the players I saw. You're generalizing waaaaaay too hard.

Hmmm,ok,why do u concern so much about what others gonna say?You like it?
Then you shouldn't care a bit!

You live your life by what others say?You play only what others play,not what YOU like?
Then you must re-consider for a sec,at least a sec.

Don't pay much attention to metacritics or w/e organization that deals in money...

Do your own research.

This isn't about the people on this forum. This is about the general gaming public and how good reviews generally translate to good sales. Just about everyone on this forum is going to get Brink whether it gets a 10 or a 2. However, there are many people out there who see a 7.5 and dismiss the game completely. The concern is that mediocre reviews will keep the game from living up to its potential because not enough people buy and play it.

For PC users, all that matters is what RPS says about the game, and so far, they seem to love it. All the other reviews matter very little.

The game looks/sounds like it has the makings of a very, very good multiplayer objective-based FPS and I'm looking forward to it.

But I will have doubts until I've gotten my hands on it. Lots of games can look great in trailers, gameplay vids etc. It's a different matter when you get your hands on the controller and feel the gameplay, experience any flaws, glitches and spamming/game styles that you might not like.

I've gotten hyped before the release of other games, more recently Medal of Honor. It's a franchise I was always a fan of and after reading a lot about the influence from DICE (virtually handing them a multiplayer) and having watched all the trailers, beta gameplay videos and whatnot I was hyped!

Yet, got the game and was majorly disappointed. Traded it in within a few weeks after completing the single-player and actually trying to force myself to enjoy the multiplayer which never succeeded. I've not played a Splash Damage game before either and having read up a good bit on their pedigree and all the background of the current team, I'm still not entirely confident.

Reviews are always interesting to read but you'll hear all sorts. You'll hear people saying it's awful and others saying it's the next best thing. My optimism is that those who've criticised it have mainly been CoD players, a franchise I've never liked and the kind of selfish, childish FPS I dislike, despite it's huge community. I'd expect CoD veterans to dislike Brink, it's a completely different style of gaming, yet looks very much like your typical run & gun shooter if you only look at a few trailers.

I don't have completely high expectations for Brink anyway, even if it does turn out to be brilliant, but I expect it to be solid, unique, artistic and fresh for the genre which will fill in a gap until the big games come out near the end of the year (ie. Skyrim, Uncharted 3, Battlefield 3, Arkham City)...

1. If a game is released in such a state that it gets a lower score - it is deserved. It could have been delayed a week or two etc. Actually they sped up the release date so any problems are on their shoulders. You should be worrying about the devs/publishers ripping you off - as so many do, rather than worrying about reviewers who do you no damage & take no money from you.

2. There will be no day-one patch for PS3 owners.

Hey, I'm a COD veteran and this game looks amazing. Don't shoe-horn me in.

That's because the graphical and texture related problems/lag issues are supposedly only a problem on the 360, the PS3 version doesn't need a day 1 patch, so it doesn't get one.


Now, if only PSN would come up lol

Haha, no offence! I unfairly generalised..

But the CoD ethos is so different from what this game will demand from a player, I reckon.

I hope you enjoy it though.

Haters gonna hate :spotted owl:

How is Gears glitchy or over rated in anyway? The gameplay is always different, game looks good, and the story is pretty good. What is over rated about that? If it gets a 9 it deserves it because its new and different unlike CoD which is the same thing but re skinned.

If reviewers got the 360 version through offical channels then the public relations departments of Splash Damage or Bethesda have the contact info they need to send a press release about the day one patch. Also the content of the review is more important than the score. People miss out on games they would love because they look at numercial review scores without actually reading the reviews.

Especially IGN..... They hate all games that aint ''Camp of duty''

IGN Xbox 360 scores:
Black OPs: 8.5
Bad Company 2: 8.9
Bad Company 2 Vietnam: 9.5
Halo Reach: 9.5
Killzone 3: 8.5
Transformers WFC: 9.0
Crysis 2: 9.0
Vanquish: 8.5

All shooters released in the last year, all rated as good as or better than Black OPs. Your logic is flawed.

Don't forget Bad Company 2: Vietnam which got 9.5.

IGN in reality holds the crown to the 'Biggest dumbasses to ever touch anything and review it' category. Seriously, The only time I've ever seen ANY IGN review make any sense was the chick reviewing the RDR: Undead Nightmare DLC as she is the only one to back up her opinions with actual facts, Not just random biased bullcrap. I think it was Mass Effect 2 that they reviewed, And they compared the combat to CoD saying it just isn't as good. That's like comparing Led Zeppelin and Ke$ha for who has better music, How can you even make that comparison? Pretty much every game reviewer on the internet is terrible. Actually no, I lied, Ben 'Yahtzee' Croshaw on The Escapist has the BEST reviews, Ever. He doesn't score the games he reviews, He simply points out facts and leaves it up to you to make the assumption if the good outweighs the bad and if you want to take the risk of trying it out or not. If anything, Listen to his reviews, They are also very humorous.

As much as I like Yahtzee, he never reviews the multiplayer aspect of a game, which really narrows down his reliability.

After their "review" of Prototype, I can't trust a word they say. (no, I don't acknowledge it as being a legitimate review of the game, hence the ""-ing)

And the few things I've read from them since haven't improved my opinion. Quite the opposite, in fact. IGN AU is usually ok, but gets their review copies WAY later (usually a week or more after the US and UK reviews, sometimes around the same time as UK, which is still usually a week late). Anything else and they're totally worthless, instead of only mostly so.

Yahtzee is quite literally the only game reviewer I trust, considering I haven't disagreed with him once. He holds games to a much higher standard than more "official" sources like IGN or Gametrailers and their ilk, diliberately focusing on unoriginal or just generally over-praised aspects of modern gaming. Even his problems with games I love (Arkham Asylum, Bioshock, Mass Effect Series) I find myself nodding in agreement with.

Anyways, to add to the discussion, I think one of the biggest issues with reviews specifically involving heavily multiplayer-based games is that reviewers set their critiques to print long before the public has access to the game, meaning their entire online playtime was spent at best with a really closed circuit of fellow reviewers/people in the office and at worst no one outside of bots. This is a HUGE problem because some of the inevitable issues with multiplayer fps are balancing technicalities and abuse of glitches, etc. This is large part leads to games like Modern Warfail 2 (*shudder*) getting ridiculously inflated scores based on "phenomenal multiplayer experiences" when in actuality it was nothing of the sort.

Actually, MW2's multiplayer did start off pretty well. At first it played fine. But then people started abusing OMA noobtubes, akimbo Model 1997's and the UMP, and then the multiplayer went downhill faster than a fat kid covered in nails. No one could have predicted that until it actually happened.

Now this i like. :celebration:

Dont be too worried about the reviews.. Ive read bad reviews for some of the biggest titles known to gaming. There is always going to be good and bad reviews.. so just make your opinion stick with it.

I respectfully disagree, though I've heard this argument before and I will cede that it was at least somewhat fun at its outset. But the game was built in such a way to favor the oblivious new player and give them "a fair fight" against more experienced players through laughable ideas like Commando (and all OHK knifing in general), Commando's dear friend the tac knife, Last Stand, Final Stand, deathstreaks, every killstreak outside maybe four, zero recoil, 1-2 hit kills, infinite claymores.....I could go on for a while but this is a Brink forum. I'll just close saying while the game's community surely destroyed it, it was constructed on VERY flimsy supports from the start.

My two cents.

I never knew review scores were that big a deal...well hopefully they arent :shakehead: