Lol, I've been stealing my roommate's computer and playing Quake Enemy Territory when I have the opportunity.

Thinking of checking it out actually, it looks fun.

Hopscotch

been playing tf2 primarily, but my weekly playtime with that is like 1/10 of what what it used to be... i'm working abit more often atm, getting some overtime, hopefully will have enough money to build a new computer if my current one isn't up to it.

I really hope they'll put all their work into BRINK first and start working on a sequel ... perhaps ... 2013 or so.

That would be excellent. Or even not make a sequel, since it seems to kill series(es?) in this day and age. Just because a game made money doesn't mean a developer needs to be a money [censored].

I think devs have a right to cash in on the name of their awesome game once, I mean, they are a company. Brink 3 would be pushing it, and I don't want Brink 6 like these modern IPs.

annual sequels are unacceptable. imo the shortest time after the release of a game, that a sequel should be released is 3 years. 4 years between sequels would be even better...

Drift Battles. What-is-the-[censored]-point!? Eight cars on a racetrack of usually 5m width drif-ting!?

GRID really is a great racing game. But it tends to miss an important thing. The F-U-N.


I think I'll just play some MW2 now, to get happy again. :rolleyes:

/frustration

And this would give them time to release some DLC, and for all the Brink players to really have a lot of time invested in the game.

I agree wholeheartedly sir.

That's how I feel about of video games; two should be the limit, three in very rare occasions. Dead Space is a good 2 part game; after this second release, they should quit before they go the way of Resident Evil. Mass Effect is a solid, content filled game with an above average story, and deserves a trilogy. As a strictly multiplayer game, Brink should have maybe one or two games. I don't think this will affect Splash much though. They haven't made sequels to Wolfenstein or Quake Enemy Territory, so I think they'll be fine and won't desecrate their games.

In a way, though, Quake Wars IS a sequel to W:ET. As far as gameplay goes, there's not much different between the two, as I understand it. I think its also more likely to have a true sequel once you have an actual storyline in the game.

Ehh, I don't consider them sequels, even though the gameplay is so similar. It hasn't come out yet, so I can't tell for sure, but I'm not even counting Bioshock Infinite as part of the Bioshock series, since the setting has completely changed and the gameplay was tweaked significantly (protect one person who can fight for themselves instead of little sisters, powers are limited use instead of mana based).

i don't think its about whats the devs have a right to do and not to do. i think its a matter of supporting the community around your IP and letting the community mature through each iteration of it.

Actual i playing "World of Tanks" an "Company of Heroes Online"
And i'am wainting for "Battlefield Free to play" to play it til the Brink release.

If a developer could pull that off, with that goal in mind, it wouldn't bother me. But that's not the reason there are so many sequels, Devs make sequels of popular games because its a safer investment than starting a new IP.

SD has done plenty fine supporting their community without ever making a sequel. They take the knowledge they gain from making past games, and apply it to their work, but they don't have to make a literal sequel.

Its more of reusing old game mechanics while creating a new game...the games Splash makes are more "spiritual sequels" then anything else.