I'm hearing all over YouTube AND this forum that IGN gave this game a bad review because they were comparing it to COD. Please watch their review. Only ONCE did they mention COD, and they said that it was a fresh step AWAY from COD. That's not comparing at all, in any way shape or form. IGN gave their own points as to why they didn't like this game, and some of them are actually pretty legit. Maps are serverely limited, and colors don't really allow you to see other player's customizations. Hrm, those are definitely points that compare with COD, right?

Good Lord, no wonder IGN gets so much damn flak. People make assumptions about them faster than a lighting bolt on crystal meth...

It only has one mode, no deathmatch, grenade radius were the direct comparisons. They even went so far as to say something like "it tries to be better than COD but pales in comparison".

They failed to mention the superior balance and customization.

it's the fact that it's being compared to COD in the first place. every damn shooter that comes out is being compared to COD, hell even Halo Reach was. it's [censored] annoying. The only game that should be compared to COD is another COD.

They don't have to say CoD did this and Brink did this really, they started off the review saying how it pales to CoD in comparison. Then when they say things like the grenade radius is much smaller, it's not hard to know what they are using as the gold standard.

Activision did what they wanted to do

They made themselves immortal, due to every shooter being compared to COD, and a new game is always out every year and it is svcked up as quickly as the previous one - they manipulated the system to their own good and use

''so yeah, Pacman adventure.. is pale compared to COD...''
''wat''
''hm?''

So just because they mention the lack of modes automatically means it's being compared to COD? It's not like all shooters out there have deathmatch or multiple game modes...


No, neither the written nor the video review mentioned grenades.


No they didn't. I read AND watched the review. Only one mention of COD, and that was saying Brink is a fresh step away from COD.


And that compares to COD..how?

So, why do you care about what people say about IGN so much? How about that? IGN reviewed it poorly, people think its an unfair review...people are entitled to their own opinions. Not sure why this is touching such a deep part in your soul for. Move on..

Edit: Also assuming that every youtube comment immediately means that every person from the brink forum must have said those terrible comments is quite misguided.

It's not. I'm just curious as to why as soon as IGN rates a game below a 10, people think IGN is comparing to COD.

All these new CoD games svck anyways, CoD2 was and will always be the best out of the series.

Black Ops is pretty fun. About as unrealistic as any Halo game though(which I also play, Legend rank here!). I absolutely love shredding up a building or sniping a sniper across the map with my "Fat Lady" M60, and kill cams make it just that much more insulting XD. I say unrealistic because of things like Dogs or Ballistic Knives, and the "Oh you shot me in the foot? LET ME FLOP OVER AND DIE FOR YOU" stuff. Realism my ass.

Oh but wait, I play mostly single player RPGs and MMOs on my PC and I think Shadowrun is one of the best shooters ever. Am I still a CoD "kiddie" because I also like CoD? Man is the internet full of wanabee hipsters who hate something because its popular, or is it just me?

If you never agree with IGN reviewers then what do you care? Just because you dont doesnt mean there arnt people who do, and I dont know about you but I would want to write reviews based on my reader following rather than the people who spout "IGN is for IGNorant!" too.

+1

How fast is that? Could you mail me some? I mean. . . nevermind. . .

I stopped reading IGN reviews along time ago, fact they rated two of my most played games a 6.9 and a 4.5, i'm not interested in what they gotta say.

"Brink gives experience upon completing objectives, killing enemies, and helping the team. There is no incentive to become a lone wolf -- there are more points for reviving a teammate than going it alone. Brink's lack of stat tracking is glaring, though. The official website holds some info, but otherwise level, kills, deaths, and successes are hidden -- those of other players too."

Just wanted to put this one here, taken directly from IGN's review... If this doesn't say, without saying it (obviously), that brink svcks compared to CoD... Then I dunno what does. All the time up till today I have heard about this "don't go the lone wolf style like CoD" or "The leaderboards have less info than CoD because of this reason and that reason"... I am sorry but that one paragraph invalidates the whole damn review.

LOL....beat me to it. Lovely expression

Just out of interest OP, have you READ the IGN review? The guy who did it has been at IGN for 3 weeks *shrugs* No idea on his background either. He does make a couple of comparisons to COD as well. He's also been heavily flamed.

More to the point, he actually gave it a 6.4 if you know how to do math, but rounded it down.

IGN see COD as the benchmark for any shooter that comes out.

But they're not the only reviewers that do that. Their problem is that their issues with the game are due to unfair expectations, misunderstanding Splash Damage's overall plan.

And even mentioning COD in the review is unnecessary.

I haven't played the game and I can fairly say that. It comes across as a very simplified and ignorant critique.

I think you may have read that wrong, hes not saying the no lone-wolf thing is a negative. Just the lack of stat tracking, and what they do have is poorly done. And... well CoD does some massive stat tracking and its been around for a while so its not an invalid comparison. Its not important but its fun to see things like how many metric tons of frag grenades have been thrown, or to see how many headshots youve gotten. Ill have small competitions with my brothers in some matches to see which one of us can get the most knife or crossbow kills or something silly like that, it spices up the game.

But thats just me, and I understand not everyone has to like the same things I do.

To me the tone of the whole review seemed rather negative or "sneering". When the game does something good, it's just not good enough. That is why I interpreted that paragraph as having the reviewer say it negatively, instead of it being positive.

Edit: Personally I don't really care for how many bazillion grenades I have thrown and how many of those I hit with.

Everyone seems to miss the fact that Brink's reviewer over at IGN just started 3 weeks ago. The guy has little to no experience giving out a fair and balanced review. I guess you have to fork over the big cash if you want a senior reviewer to write something favorable for your game. Instead, Brink got reviewed by a frickin' noob.

6.0, 6.4, either way the score is making people jump to conclusions that IGN is saying "Oh, let's give this game a low score because it isn't COD" when it's far from the truth.

Look up the review to Black Ops. They gave it a 9.0 for its customization. Basically they were smoking something while reviewing it.

You have to look beyond the review to see what they really base things off.

Um, they gave the game an 8.5. Or are you referring to the 9.0 they gave to its Lasting Appeal?

IGN is a bunch of COD [censored]. they giving high praise to such horrible games like MW2 or Blops and criticise and ridicule titles which are better or able to compete with they beloved franchise.It would be okay if they would be just private persons, but as the reviewers in professional site its just shameful bias.

I dont care about any of IGN opinions , they lost any credibility long time ago.