My prediction is 84.

So you are saying that IGN does not give bad reviews and you are defending with a score given to a game 13 years ago?

And DA2 wasnt a bad game. but it did not deserve a good score. I would have given it a 7 and not a point higher. yet, IGN gave it an 8.5. But hey, if you really want to see the worst scores, go to gamefly. So many good games get under rated, it puts me in a bad mood just thinking about it. Plus I hear that little kids go to the opposing console section and give bad scores just to troll. i.e. xbox360 players give bad rating on ps3 and vice versa.

Nah 87.

If Brink gets anything below 86, you know something is very wrong with the ratings system. There's no way "CoD: Same exact thing as last year's" can score in the 90s and Brink can earn a lower score.

92.

sure it can. your too optimistic. frankly it's better off getting 70's and only being played by people who know what the game is about. rather than scoring mid nineties and gathering every ignorant shooter fan under the sun.

previous splash damage games like wolfenstein got 90 and quake wars got 84 so i expect Brink to score close to this or higher especially since they seem to be putting a lot of effort into development and design.

but it's hard to predict since many reviewers base most of their reviews on the single player campaigns and Brink takes a different approach to the single player

Maybe an 85%-90%. Doesn't matter anyway, all these review scores are peoples opinion really.

you will only see low scoring from the fans of COD/BF lol. there are 2 things for me too give a game a high score, wich is the fun and the replay. lil bugs gfx's and anything more i dont care much for.

Same here. Great game -- just different. Unfortunately, "different" is enough to piss people off beyond reason these days.

"different" is not the appropriate word to describe that game. And people werent pissed because it was different. people were pissed with the amount of map recycling, lack of cities and dungeons, pointless sidequests and because your actions did not change the outcome of the ending at all.

no. the game was not "different". it was a *downgrade* from the first game.

But back on topic, ratings are usually given based on a pros and cons system. and when you think of the cons in this game it is hard to come up with something significant enough to lower this games score below a 90. my vote is for 90+. but the game hasnt released yet so anything can happen.

Then again Fallout 3 came from Bethesda and a lot of people mistake Bethesda for the developer of BRINK.
Could give it a little boost.

Map recycling I'll give you - that was pretty lame; Lack of cities didn't bother me because of how massive Kirkwall was - as for dungeons... pretty sure I went through some; "Pointless" is subjective - I found them worthwhile personally; What, the couple minutes at the end of each game where a narrator tells you what happened after? Oh noes!

I felt the combat system was much better, the classes were balanced much better (*cough* Arcane Warrior *cough*) and warriors and rogues were made much more distinctive, the enemies were more intelligent, the crafting system was much better, and the conversation system was much better. Oh, and your character actually had a voice.



I can say my opinions are fact too, but that doesn't make it true.

It was different.



Naivety at its finest.



True - we should also probably try to convince people Brink is going to be Fallout 3 with better gunplay.

:P

Dangit i was looking through to see if anyone posted this so I could do it. I hate you :banghead:

Honestly, if we're all sharing personal opinions on Dragon Age and Dragon Age 2....

I prefer DA2.

Both games are good at what they're doing, but Dragon Age 2 doesn't feel like a sequel to Dragon Age. Dragon Age is an in-depth story, and a complex party-based RPG. DA2 is more of an arcade feel, and it does have a fair amount of repetition, and an overabundance of random combat encounters, but if you treat it as an action-RPG, it's a great game.

From a technical standpoint, looking at the two games, I don't think you can compare them closely enough to say either one is "better".

They're about as similar as Brink and CoD. You view the world from the same perspective, you have a similar selection of weapons and abilities, there's XP earning and leveling up... But you're not going to see one game and mistake it for the other.

THEY'RE DIFFERENT.

Back to Brink though...

If the world is fair, and the game is as good as it sounds, Brink will get 95+ Metascore.

I'm still predicting 87. Because the world isn't fair, people are stupid, and a lot of reviewers will find some way to miss the point. "You can fully kit out a sniper rifle, and it still won't kill someone with a headshot! -20% just for that!" "You can't check your KDR in a multiplayer game! That's a requirement for online play! WTF? 3/10"

...

Idiots.

I hope it gets a good score just so more people will buy it. So that tournament places will pick it up. (MLG)

Amazing...

I couldn't find a single thing in all of what he just said that I disagree with.

+1 for sure.

I'm sure a lot of TF2 players will transfer over, since TF2 now is a garbled mess of a hat simulator, and its hard to go back to regular shooters coming from a team-based one.
So, even if it get's "bad" ratings (70% - 80%) it will still get a lot of money, and still be a good game.

http://files.sharenator.com/U_Mad_Bro_RE_Do_you_have_to_have_the_last_word-s469x428-137106.jpg

I'm predicting an 80 at very least. I know it'll get higher than Homefront because homefront was a boring, disappointing clone of every contemporary FPS out there. Did it bring anything to the table? Brink seems like the antithesis of Homefront.

I would say around a 9/10.

With a game like this I could believe anything the reviewers say (that involves ign). imo I think IGN has restored hope and confidence from people already. They are no longer biased.

TEN KADRILLION

This.
<-- 3 1/2 Year Team Fortress 2 Player.

- :flame:

Yep.






Either of those 2 would be nice.


But think about it, svcker Punch has a 22% on Rotten Tomatoes and that didn't make it any less awesome. Why did it get bad reviews? Because the critics didn't understand what they were watching, and had obviously made up their review score the moment they saw the promotional posters. If they saw the film at all, they were only watching it to find more flaws to point out. The good critics anolysed the film in depth, found highlights and lowlights, and gave a balanced score based on it all. How else do you explain the divide between a group of * reviews and a group of **** reviews?

I'm expecting an 85-95. Not all of IGN is evil. They just let the evil ones review CoD. I saw an article on IGN talking about how evil CoD is. So it depends on the reviewer. I have heard that people get overwhelmed by the HUD when they start playing. I expect the IGN reviewer to blow a 2 minute issue like this out of proportion or tell us it is nothing to worry about. These choices are black and white and will tell us whether or not he is evil.

I remember Killzone 1 being crap but Killzone 2 was excellent. The reviewers actually liked it even though it was a CoD player's worst nightmare. IGN loved it more than Black Ops (1 point below MW2 though). Killzone 3 became CoD paradise and it is now at Black Ops level (according to IGN). So even though Brink is a new IP, remember Killzone 2 and what IGN thought of that even after the original. But it always depends on the reviewer. Twilight Princess got an 8.8 at GameSpot. The lack of a single player (even though they don't care about it) will probably bring its points down too. But I expect the Metacritic to be 85-95.