Is anyone else disappointed with the objective system in the game? I felt that there would always be more going on in a match. Instead we have 8 maps where you do the same primary objectives over and over. They call the system dynamic, but changing the primary objective from hacking the terminal to guarding the guy who hacks the terminal depending on your class isn't that dynamic. It is nice that each class has it's own objectives, but they still are often in the same hat.

I would have liked the maps to have multiple primary objectives going on at once and say you need to get 2/3 or 3/5 to win (And don't say that's how some levels are now. While there are multiple objectives, they are one at a time.) That way you can split up and try and tackle them or focus as a team. As the game stands you don't have that much choice.

I'm enjoying the game, I just guess I thought when they said dynamic that the primary objectives could vary on a map. Maybe the order you did them, which ones showed up on the map, how many needed to win. Instead we do the same things over and over which disappoints me.

If you want disappoint with Objectives, go play BFBC2. You've got rush, and Conquest. The ONLY two objective modes.

And yes the objective can get repetitive, but, it's the journey, not the destination. The best part of objective play is getting to, and completing objective. It's always different, and you have to change your tactics on the fly.

To be fair, the point the OP was trying to make was that a selling point of Brink was its dynamic objectives that supposedly adapted to your class and the battlefield to offer you different things to do outside the main goal. While from what I've seen this game has some of these (construct the stairs/destroy the stairs) they don't seem all that meaningful or varied in the long run. Bad Company 2 had limited gamemodes,agreed, but DICE was never promoting some new, adaptive system to give players different choices in combat.

My problem is the journey is always the same. I thought it would be much more varied. And I'm sad face cause of it.

And thank you thegreedyeti. That's the point.

It really is... Only rarely do I have a different "Journey" than the 5 previous times I played the map.

True. Yes they did promote a "dynamic" objective system, and I think it is. I enjoy having to change to a certain class in case say, the enemy opens a shortcut.

I would really love to see this. I agree with what's been said. I would hope that newer stuff like this will be incorporated in DLC. This game has so much potential to it. I feel that they will be learning and be taking notes on what the community wants to make an even finer game. I can't accuse them of doing anything wrong because they are trying a lot of new things and they have to take it slow. Not to mention, they plan on having this for competitive play, and they want to keep things balanced which may be hard to do with something like that.

I feel like that's a good way to put it, saying the game has a lot of potential. If SD offers good support and updates down the road Brink can be something really special.

It seems a little unbalanced to me, the defending team always has the advantage. That's generally pretty normal in any scenario, but it seems like too much of an advantage to me.

DLC and support on a console game can only go so far. I think if they work on it right they can really make it special like you said, but I really feel like Brink II is where the magic's really gonna happen.

I didn't wanna look at it like that cause then I feel like i'm paying $60 to beta test for the sequel, which svcks

The level of Dynamic Objectives is not what I expected, but it much more than I am capable of tackling at once. Since I run Operative and Engineer, I always have more than enough I can do that is dynamic, it is just not necessarily primary objectives that it revolves around. However, I can definitely see more complex objective based maps occurring in the future.

Well don't look at it like that. Obviously a game that was testing this many new stuff wasn't going to get it all perfect the first try. They'll learn a LOT from this game and make the next one better. Give good feedback and I'm sure Brink II will be Brink on Steroids.

Well there is some variability in getting to the objectives but an extra few movement pathways does not a dynamic game make. It makes for a standard one, one which may just even pass over the bar of level complexity but it certainly doesn't revolutionize the FPS (especially in light of truely dynamic games, like Section 8 Prejudice.)

When he said journey I thought he meant everything you go through to get the objective done.. not literally the way you take to arrive at the objective lol. Like your gun battles, how you deal with the defense/offense of your opponents, adverse situations, ect., stuff like that. And I agree with him. I played CS 1.6 and Team Fortress Classic on PC.. talk about repetitive but fun as heck because its a different "journey" everytime =P

If that's the logic, every multiplayer game is dynamic. No two matches of Halo or BF or CoD are the exact same. So you're saying those games have the same variety, and they didn't even tout a genre bending dynamic objective system. See the point here?