So just to give you guys some background the games that I normally play are: Halo 3, Halo Reach, Call of Duty MW2, COD: BO, Battlefield: BC2, and Homefront. And I'm not really partial to any single one. I've proficient at each, in the way that I have a positive K/D and W/L ratio on almost all of them.

I'm going to be honest, I played maybe 45 minutes of this game. If I can't get into it in that amount of time, I prolly never will.

First off, the Campaign game play was horrible. It was like they took the multiplayer, put some cut scenes in there and that's it. It wasn't compelling.

The Multiplayer, (360) the texture problem along with it taking a whole clip to down someone, and then another half a clip to make sure they can't be revived if you want to do it like that.

Nothing made me step back from the game and think, "Man this is awesome" or "That's really cool!".

If my friend doesn't like it, I'm going to take it back. I can put that $62 towards a different game like Portal 2, or something I know's going to be worth it.

I am not trying to be mean or call you out on anything but you joined just today to give not an in-depth review?

IMHO....45 mins is nowhere near enough game time to provide a decent review of this game.

And the mere fact you are referring to K/D ratios means this game isn't going to be for you regardless of how long you play it!!

45 minutes isn't enough to provide a decent review for any game...

True....but I meant this game will take longer than most due to it's different style of play :thumbsup:

Also if you also complain nades don't do enough damage there is a reason for that. It's by design

IMHO which is none(thanks Best Buy -_-) you are just the guy who has for the majority of his gaming life, has been obsessed with K/D W/L which Brink is nothing about. In all honesty, this game just wasn't meant for players like you.

Here's the problem. K/D isn't how you play this game. It's teamwork. Winning is determined by how well you coordinate as a team, not by how many kills you score. You can be the guy with the most kills and it won't mean anything when the round is done.


Because this game is more complex than any of the ones you have listed above.


The challenge was to provide a storyline that can introduce you to the problem and the reason for that mission within thirty seconds, which was the loading time for a match. And yes, it feels like multiplayer, because the game can. You can go from having a totally solo experience to an eight-player co-op match to an 8v8 adversarial campaign round.


Scoring kills is determined by how well you can aim as well as the buffs you have equipped, which makes teamwork even more important.


Not trying to be brash, but what's your definition of "awesome" or "cool"?

So, in essence:
BRINK isn't supposed to be COD, Halo, Battlefield, or Homefront. BRINK is its own game. In the other four, there's either very little emphasis on teamwork (so you could help out teammates in BFBC2, but you didn't need to in order to actually win), or none at all. BRINK is a teamwork-oriented game that awards you for actually helping out your team more than going on your own and scoring kills, because that method of play has been done too much in these past few years.

I realize where you're coming from; I myself have played COD, Halo, and Battlefield. But there's no point in being put into teams with either of the games because actually cooperating teams are few and far in between (although you'll see more with Battlefield, it doesn't happen that often anyways). You can't compare those games with BRINK.

Furthermore, playing a game for forty-five minutes won't be enough time to give an anolysis.

I Just took mine back....only got $23!.

Im pissed....I hated the game and gamestop was pricks

Like others have stated before: A lot of the people here don't care about K/D and W/L ratio. It's about the teamwork.


That's not nearly enough for a game with a learning curve. My first FPS was W:ET and if I would have quit after 45 minutes, I would have lost the most profound moments in my gaming life.


That's exactly what I like about this game. No instant reflexes needed, you can turn around and still win. It's just a different game dynamic that requires you to choose between: Finishing someone off, but losing ammo/reload time or risking the revive.

More complex? How so? Because you get different classes and instead of getting to the objective one way you get to it another, or another way? It's like a Choose Your Own Adventure book, it's going to end the same way every time regardless of what you do. Or do you mean more complex in the idea that you need that specific gun for that specific job, or that class to hack that terminal or disarm that mine? I've played games like that, Fallout 3/New Vegas, Mass Effect.

Do you know how much team work is actually done on the X-Box or any console system? It's hard to communicate and do things well as a team when no one has their mics in, etc. And if I don't like this game, then how many others like me are going to feel the same way? Do you know how many people don't play Battlefield: BC2 because of the bullet drop and no prone? If they had a hard time adjusting to that, I can't wait to see some of them try to play Brink.

When I play campaign or "Singleplayer" as some people call it my goal isn't to turn it into a Multi-Player match. It's to go through the campaign, play through the story and take as fast or as long as I want. The Campaign isn't supposed to be Multiplayer and the only time I should ever see those aspects are when I want to play Co-Op.

My version of awesome or cool? I'll tell you the few instances to where I thought during a game, "this is really cool":

-Free roam in pretty much any game. GTA, Assassins Creed, Fallout- Because you weren't limited in what you could do. There was a campaign, there was a main story line, but if you wanted to explore for 10 hours you could.
-When decisions you made in the game actually meant something. Like in KOTOR or Mass Effect. To where if you decided to do something during that mission, it would potentially change the outcome of the rest of the game.
-When I was able to leap tall buildings or run faster or beat down harder because I wore a Nano-Suit that enhanced everything I did/do.

Real innovations.

And I didn't want to BRINK to be any of those games. Because those games above, are all similar, but different in their own ways. And you know why? Because it's worked for years and years. Am I saying by that statement that you shouldn't try things outside of the box? No. What I'm saying is don't stick them all in one game. It's like the movie Skyline, it had the potential to be so great, it had a decent plot, but all the actors were B-Rated or Second Rate. So like this game, it was cool the ability to leap over boundaries and climb on any edge and slide, etc. And that alone would have made the game a whole hell of a lot nicer then most the FPS' out there.

And who are you to say that I didn't give it enough time? Do things change? Does the Campaign loose that multiplayer feel? Do any of the things I've listed as problems change?

And who are you people who say W/L and K/D aren't anything in this game? Soon enough as every game does, you'll have those elitists who play the game and spout how they have those good things. And those people who don't will be noobs, etc. I like winning. I like having more Kills then deaths, it shows I'm proficient as a player.

That's why you take it back and say your X-Box had a problem with it, or put a scratch in it, or use your receipt- You're not taking it back to be traded in, your returning a defective game for your money back or another game of equal or lesser value.

How old are you....10?? I now know that with this type of attitude your words are merely a [censored] stain on the pants of society.

Deliberately damage a game just so you can return it....[censored]!!!!

You just listed a whole bunch of RPG games that are centered about singleplayer and you're surprised that you're not all that attracted by a FPS with its main focus on multiplayer?

Again, RPG's with an open world. Not an FPS in a "scripted world"

RPG's again.


Having a good KDR shows your skill as individual gunner, not as a proficient player in general. If you don't push to get objectives you won't win. If you don't push for objectives, you're not a proficient player. Atleast not in Brink.

:facepalm: GTFO

I did....they told me there was no way to get retail!...

I used my receipt

Once a game is opened you cannot return it for face value, you can trade it in or switch it for a copy of the same game.

Review:


Review: In a game 45, minute is plenty anymore and your playing with you self. The games have changed long ago you did not accept the fact that your money meant anything to the purchase but think about it 60$ what a movie that would make

Because I would rather keep a game I have no intention of playing then take it back and get money I can either spend on another game or currency I can use on something else.

I love the way all the things you listed as "real innovations" have been done on some level in games going back at least into the 80s.

Well done. That's some impressive blindness to the past you managed to pick up somewhere.

Free-roam: Elite - 1984. I'm certain other games did it first, but that still stands as a large free-roaming environment, and it's sequel in the 90s still stands as the largest free-roaming environment ever made. While still being able to fit the ENTIRE GAME onto a 1.44 MB floppy disk. TWICE (and no, I'm not exaggerating).

Player decisions meaning something: Lets go all the way. PEN AND PAPER RPGs - 1960s at least, possibly earlier.

Super-powered characters: Do we really need to answer this? As far back as we can look, children have been pretending to have superpowers in games they've played with friends. So, pretty much... forever.