I just saw a video I hadnt seen before and I think I finally understand what they meant by erasing the line between single player and multi-player. So tell me if i got this right:

Multiplayer consists on playing online the exact same missions you play on campaign but with actual people, as enemies and allies, instead of just playing against AI.

Some PLEASE tell me this is wrong. If this is true then that means that you will be playing a certain 'gameplay' unique to each map, and that is extremely repetitive and will get very old soon. i.e. if there is a mission, e.g. escorting a robot, I want to escort that robot in different maps, not just one. And for that matter, how many game styles, or missions, are there in total? one for each map = 8 ??

...this is the first time brink has shown anything that disappoints me. (not counting the hip fire thing)

Well, yes, that's the basic gist of it. You play the same maps with other people rather than AI.

However, we don't know how the maps are structured, we don't know if there are more missions per map, we don't know how replay-able the maps are. All we can do is wait for the developers to reveal more, if anything.

I completely understand, Shinigami. However, you can play as any class you want, and do whatever you want. Not much different than multiplayer on, say, Bad Company 2. In fact, even to deviate so wide as to compare to Call of Duty multiplayer, people tend to use about the same setup for specific maps. "This map has a lot of buildings, I'll use a shotgun/SMG and stay indoors".

In the end, regardless of how it's set up in any game, people typically play individual maps the same way, anyway. Brink is certainly approaching multiplayer in a novel manner, but I suspect the players will still play THIS way for THIS map, and THAT way for THAT map.

Brink if you really look at is far more expansive and has far more options, objectives than any fps I know of. At least from everything I have read from people that have played and developers. Think about most FPs's how do they typically go. You have your few favorite maps. Your few favorite guns and you run around the same 3 or 4 map shooting people in the head rinse and repeat 800,000 times. At least Brink has plenty of stuff to keep it interesting. Sure their are more weapons, more maps and stuff but you get locked into your favorites that you play until your eyes spin.

Im glad someone understands me. well, BC2, i dont know about that game. i personally hated it, but wont criticize anyone who liked it. and what you say about same map same weapons is true, but thats not really what my concern is directed at. look at all CoD games. they have different maps and all maps support ALL different game modes. with that said, my mentality wasnt focused on the guns i picked, but on the perk set. i could play the same map but drastically change my gameplay depending on my perks. and obviously, the perks i chose depended on the game mode not the map. also, by having all maps support all modes, it gave it a large level of diversity. not to mention that it seriously helps keep the "freshness" on the game.

If you think about, most games are repetitive.
TDM, same maps, just shooting people.
Bomb based variants- Same maps, just different ways to get the bomb......

there is a lot of truth in that but it is still not EXACTLY the same. demolition and sabotage are both about planting the bomb, and yet they are so different. one game mode both teams take turns at offense and defense, while the other game mode both team are playing offense and defense at all times. not to mention, in one all players in the team 'have' the bomb, while in the other gamemode the bomb is accesible to both teams...little things, big differences.

That's going to be the same in about any FPS game. Halo, CoD, BC2, Brink, you name it. It's a matter of comfort zone, mostly. The average player doesn't adapt beyond "small map, small guns". Any game, any game mode, players will mostly play this map and this game type with this loadout.

In that respect, Brink is nothing new. Black Ops wasn't anything new. Bad Company was the same as every multiplayer FPS before it. For that reason, I don't pay attention to that aspect of playing FPS games. I like new things, new places, and new people; I'm going to instinctively focus on all the cool stuff Brink has that I haven't gotten enough of before. SMART is gonna be amazing. The customization? Don't get me started. The storyline: I can't wait to play both sides of it. I can go on and on.

Yes you have it completely right the only thing I would like to add is that SD said that the game will be changing when you lv up. SD broke it down by saying that before lv 5 ie 1-5 you will be playing with only medium builds (because you cannot change body type till lv 5). Then the game will have the different body types and more specific abilities (like the turrets) and this is when you will start to see some of the more character abilities. Then when you get to the 10-15 lv group you will be playing with people who have hit there stride and more new abilities and higher lv abilities will be adding to the game and you will have to adjust. Then the final 5 lvs (15-20) you will be dealing with everything. And SD made the classes in such a way that you cannot unlock everything with one play through. There are 10 abilities for each class type plus a broad 10 the affects every class and we know that some abilities can be lved up to a lv 3 ability ,ie turrets, heath giving, etc, and if you do so you will not be able to unlock all ten abilities so another play through would be necessary and would be a whole other experience.

I see your point, and I'm slightly nervous about it as well. The other thing that concerns me is that, from what I've seen so far, all matches have a finite amount of time allotted to them. All I can hope is that there are a couple of modes that are fairly relaxed in terms of objectives, and with not-too oppressive time constraints. I like the fact that they keep it focused with timing it and always having an end goal, but depending on how it is done it could get frustrating.

I was referring to the fact that no matter how many times you play (lets say Demolition) your just going to defend or attack the same sites on the same maps. Not much change.

I think the point he's making is that even with abilities and classes being as expansive as they are, there are only 8 maps and each map is going to follow the same basic structure each time you play it regardless of how different you or your enemies are.

Map 1 (as an example) will have the "get here, then here, blow this up, move here, blow this up" structure every time you play it as a security player, where as in a game like CoD you can go to one of the 14 maps and play any number of different game modes on the same map.

Yes, how I do things may be different from game to game, but if each of those 8 maps could be played with more than one predefined structure that would increase the replayability beyond just being a different class.

Now, I treat it as 8 maps with 2 game modes each because I assume that playing resistance or security will completely change the game play (one is on defense the other on offense), but I can see where he's coming from. Even changing the role of security and resistance (making the map work in the other direction) adds to the replayability which will eventually be something many people need.

I don't see the problem. W:ET came out with six maps and althought it was released for free, people kept playing it for 5+ years. Mostly on the same maps (Oasis, Goldrush, Fueldump, ...), but if they wanted to change servers, they could easily play around 50 -70 common used community made maps as well.

Fact is, every game differs and a clutch victory will always be more satisfying then in SnD f.e. (Subjective)

To keep my response concise, I'm going to focus on your first statement, since it's easiest to make my point around.

Players have their own structure they follow every time. Brink does more to give you signs for where to turn than most games, but you still have to get there. For example, Black Ops gives you a destination; Nothing more. Take any route, stay where you are, ignore the objective, whatever. Brink is more going to give you the arrow, "take this shortcut", and essentially hold your hand. You have absolutely the same freedom as the Blops scenario. The thing is, each player already has their pre-set structure for how to approach "This is where you need to be". Some types are gonna get their AR and go up the middle, killing anyone they can. Some want to sit back and snipe, covering the AR up the middle types. Some are gonna want to parkour up to the roof tops and get there without shooting anyone who doesn't shoot at them.

People will play each map/objective combination the same way every time, regardless of how easy the game makes it to do what they want you to do. Now, that's generalized. I'm not saying you'll play the game the exact same way every time. I'm saying you've already got an outline of how to appraoch each scenario, before the match even starts.

Right, and I think that's sort of the point of the OP. There are 8 levels all with a predetermined course of action (we as a team have this as our goal) which doesn't change, and so he's concerned that it will get stale.

For example, if the map is about escorting the robot from one end to the other, there are only two ways it will be played, either you are the security team trying to escort it, or you are the resistance trying to stop it. Every time you play the map that's the point. No matter how you play that is still the ultimate goal.

The abilities and different classes only go so far to keep that same experience fresh.

I haven't been here long, but I swear this kid brings up constant concerns about this game. No offense.

Back on topic I'm with Nobhdy817 on this one. I remember earlier in this conversation that the comment was made that different playstyles and perks are what keep cod fresh, in comparison to BRINK (a game in which no one has touched the final build).

Keeping in mind BRINK's 50 or so skills, 4 classes, and 3 different body types (the only thing blops beats BRINK in is gun count) I don't understand how BRINK could get stale faster than COD.

The previous point made on map flexibility is a valid point, but I think people don't appreciate the time trial game mode. For those who are unfamilar with it, one team tries to complete their sides objective as fast as possible, then teams switch sides. The team with the fastest time wins. Challenging players to come up with the best combinations of essentially everything, and refining tactics should give the game more replay-ibility than is really appreciated at this "hands-off" speculation period.

My main point: People need to have a bit more faith in the developers, and something that they are so interested in that it drove them to sign up to post on the forums.

That's the beauty, isn't it? You determine how exciting the game is. You pick those abilities. You equip the ones you think you'll need. You take 'em to the field and put them to work however you want. That's what's exciting me about this game. There's so many ways to give yourself so much to do.

Thank you...


Yes its true that eventually a fundamental strategy will always be used. but what im trying to express is that 8 maps with a single game mode in each one has its obvious core strategy, but 8 maps with several different games modes would have room for many many more fundamental strategies. just so you have an idea, in BO i play team tactical the most. so every time we change the map AND the game mode. that plus new players every time is pretty chill.



first off, please dont patronize me by calling me a kid. im 21, and chances are im older than you. even if im not i dont care either way.

Second, yes ive posted a couple of times of my "concerns" because first time i saw this game i thought it would be a perfect 10 out of 10, but my opinion has been changing of late. of course the game hasnt come out so when it does my opinion will always change. regardless i dont see what is your problems with my "concerns"

third, i added something in red to fix your statement that is indicative of my entire point...

oh and, "No offense" -_-

I know what you're saying. I just refuse to abide by it. XD

I love objective gametypes because I can help with the objective if I want, or just satiate my bloodthirst, which still helps the team a bit. That's why I feel that regardless of what the game tells you to do, we all decide what we're going to do before we pick our class/kit/loadout and start playing.

Indeed it has obviously worked in the past.



The classes and body types will offer a great deal of variety to how you approach playing each map. For example playing a light medic and keeping all your team in the fight or a heavy engineer moving the robot. Will it be the same objectives yes but its a series of objectives which is far more interesting than most other game modes out there.

TDM: Kill the enemy
DM: Kill everyone
Capture the Flag: Obviously

Container City;
Blow up door
Escort bots through city
Activate crane
Escort bot to door
Defend bot while opening door
Escape with the intel

Sounds like a lot more fun than the other options :spotted owl:

All of it still boils down to how much time the map takes, how active the objectives really are, and how different each of the 8 levels are. How many times will blowing a door be fun?

I don't know, and I'm not particularly worried at this point, I just get where the OP is coming from. I plan to try and make the most of all 16 characters and the possible combinations I can create, but some of that may depend on how the community takes on their roles.

All of this can be changed by opening up the 8 maps they have to new missions, without the need for new maps and still fitting into the story. It's all down the line, right now I hope there's enough content, and that the community doesn't splinter too badly before release, so that when the game comes out there's enough going on and enough to do so that they have time to put together more content if it's needed.

How many times is killing someone been fun? Same with:capping flags or bombs. :spotted owl:

With how lucrative the violent video game market is, I'm going to assime a lot.

Yes but this is killing and doing other stuff :spotted owl: Isn't that wonderful :wink_smile:

It might be.

Lots of people think there needs to be a huge reward for doing the "other stuff" and not for killing so I'm going to assume that people think other people have trouble enjoying the "other stuff" portion.

Like I said, not worried at the moment.