IGN knocked down Mortal Kombats presentation because "its 2011 and this game still wont allow you to skip cutscenes in the story mode"

Failing to realise these points:

1. Its story mode and if you wanted to just skip to the fighting then there were other modes for that because this mode is exactly what it says it is. The story.

2. There are NO loading screens throughout the story. The cutscene cinematics act as the loading screen.

3. You CAN skip the cutscenes on the 2nd playthrough once the game has loaded.

Its 2011 and IGN failed to notice they spent the whole story on a fully flowing journey with no black screens with whirling emblems. Its a revelation not just to fighting games (which never have a story until MK blasted every other fighter out of the sky with this) but to games across all genres.

You can shout all you want about cinematic hollywood style narratives like Mass Effect but the fact is that even these games pop up the black screen with whirly emblems or jolting progress bars every 5 mins!! MK story mode doesnt do this throughout 18 chapters!! IGN completely missed out on this massive achievement in flowing narrative from a genre that in itself has become reknowned for its lacking ability to provide narrative. They gave the presentation a 6 based on their inadequate fallacy.


Honestly Im not as impressed with Brink as I expected to be but Im not sure IGN is the most accurate source to go by. Im waiting for Edge and Games TM. These are absolutely the only reviewers I trust now and are very meticulous with their reviews. If they give a game even a 7 then consistently you know its worth buying. If they give reviews higher than IGNs then I will never go by an IGN score ever again. In fact I doubt I will even now after the shocking fallacies the MK review was built on.

Although you should not made up your mind on reviews all these bad results will keep alot of players away from Brink now. And sorry, a 6 or 7 IS BAD and NOT average or even good. A game that has been expected as a "game of the year" should get a scoring of at least 9. A 8.5 is acceptable but everything underneath is just a "slap in the face". I wouldn't judge it that way if it was just a "normal" game. But all this hype around Brink gave such a boost on the expectations that many people feel disappointed now although they haven't played the game yet. I haven't played the game either but honestly I had a bad feeling after I watched the first "non-official" gameplay videos. Due to the horrible AI it looked all like CoD to me and there was no teamplay at all. Unfortunately this killed the "singleplayer" (so far you can call it that way) and I bet that most reviewers tested Brink on that aspect which didn't give the game any chance of a good score. To see the full potential of this game you definately need 16 human players. That's why I don't care much about this desaster (yes, I call it that way) and give the game a chance. But many people won't which is a great loss for creating a big community around the game. THIS is the actual sad thing about the low scoring.

Seriously. These objectives are getting repetitive but if I could just kill everyone I see the repetitive level would drop? O.o

Interesting indeed

I always defend IGN, but even I have to say that giving Brink a 6 is absurd. A 6? Really? Homefront was a cookie-cuter shooter with no effort put into it, yet you gave it a higher score than Brink?

I will have to say the AI wasn't as "Fighting like it was human players" but i wasn't really expecting that.

Bottom line: Brink is a Multiplayer game, which splash specializes in. It doesn't go with the kill everyone as quick as possible, but to do the job and help the team. There is Smart works like it should, even if it doesn't feel like your sprinting at an olympic runners pace. It's more like a marathon runners.

Well, now Im glad I don't use their site for reviews, besides everyone knows the only review that matters is Zero Punctuations

Seems like they all hit on the same basic issues many of us identified early on, although the four reviews seem to disagree over how much it effects the game.

I'm getting it either way so I don't care, but hopefully it plays well enough to get my friend interested.

A lot of the reviews are saying " Not enough maps" but I thought the new schtick was to put out map pack after map pack. Granted 8 maps isn't a lot ( no Im not gonna count each as two each cause you can play both sides) but if SD releases map packs in a timely fashion it should really mater.

Friday (13th), I've been looking at reviews going to still get the game though, I want to try it myself.

Edit.
8 Maps? Are the what if missions just on one of the other main 8 maps then and not on there own unique maps?

:) nice anology

i personally never rate reviews. unless its by someone i know and trust.

my fave game online of all time was bf2142 - didnt get a great score.

i must admit though that the lack of demo isnt good, i think i will like this game but who knows? some of the issues seem like gamechangers? (poor AI when this game has an offline mode etc) not that i care about single player as i hardly ever play the single player stuff on online games, at least with this one you can earn XP offline while you try to learn where the objectives are etc.

i only trust reviews made by people and not a big company and the forums

the gamesradar one was great, but IGN doesn't know what the [censored] they're talking about. I'm just waiting for my pre-order to arrive.

Bot difficulty ca be changed by the Developers, but you need to vote on this thread... http://www.gamesas.com/index.php?/topic/1187993-how-the-bots-work/

Thank you. People should really check that out. It's about the G4 reviewer. That's some serious lack of integrity, to the point where I feel like something should be done.