I think some of the future multiplayer DLC should have some crazy, over-the-top stuff in it that doesn't fit with the serious tone of the main campaign.

I hate it when a serious game drags that tone into the multiplayer. It's such a drag.

Give me some crazy maps like one from the Army Men games that takes place on a giant desk or one that takes place in outer space. I want to have FUN when I'm playing these games!

The campaign is multiplayer (or singleplayer, or coop. You decide!)

Yes, but you understand my point right? I'm not just talking about Brink.

Yup, Realism doesn't necessarily make it better. In fact, realism can be very boring at times. BRINK isn't completely realistic btw....just pointing that out to those of you who think otherwise.

O.O

To be honest I think it is a bit too early. Then again I do not go on gaming forms too often so I could be missing something.

Anyway, for your idea, I like the second, third, and fifth idea. I would like the first idea, but I don't know if it is possible.

For my ideas, I would like a survival mode. Kind of like Gears of War's horde mode, Call of Duty's Zombie mode, Halo's Firefight mode, etc. etc. etc.

I don't think MP should ever offer something tat can't be played solo. I always hated how games tend to save all the "cool stuff" exclusively for MP. I commend SD for what they are doing. It's about time a developer lead the way to start changing current trends.

So far, they aren't really changing anything. The "current trend" is making the entire game serious and realistic leaving little room for anything over-the-top and fun. That's what I was pointing out.

The zombie modes in Treyarchs games are the only exception I'm seeing.

We are obviously talking about different "trends."

The trend I was pointing out, was the over-emphasis of either SP or MP. You either have games like COD or BC2, with a short and sweet single player campaign and all the meat and potatoes in the MP (which is entirely different from the SP) or you have games like Bioshock, that are really well good story-driven SP shooters, with mediocre or no MP at all.

Brink solution to this problem (offering the same experience no matter how you choose to play) is a breath of fresh air.

I really don't see how that has anything to do with the idea of future DLC having a couple of goofy, imaginative maps on it.

I never said it did...

I was commenting on what you said here:



There is no mention of DLC in there at all

And now it does.

Moving on...

Ideally, DLC for Brink should include new maps, clothes, weapons, weapon add-ons, and weapon camos. Just basically new things for every customizable portion of the game.

But I doubt we'll get any of that. Maps maybe, but new clothes and stuff, probably not.

Thank you for pointing this out, Captain Obvious, sir.


I wonder, though, why you make this assumption?

It makes perfectly sense, doesn't change the game balance and is doable with an overall low effort.

Captain Obvious is my arch-nemesis.

Just 'cos you had a tiny argument with him?



That could be cool, heavies could fight off the horde while lights try to get objectives to open up escape routes and manipulate the environment to impede the horde, zombies are too cliched though, maybe the security could be fighting off hordes of too many protesters for the resistance to arm, and the resistance could fight hordes of plastic, bladed robots, with the movement in Brink, they could come from a crazy amount of directions at once, horizontal and vertical.

He's got a better name than you.
A survival mode would be great in a game like this since there are so many different ways you can approach the enemy.

For DLC: A huge war vessel. As the Resistance your there to protect the new immigrant soldiers and sway them to join the Resistance and as Security your trying to capture them and raid the vessel for supplies. Each side will try to harness the massive guns on the ship as this would no doubt give your faction the edge against the other. You'll be scouring the ship for parts to keep it running and suppressing a resistance of people who don't want to leave or share.


It's hard to think of new maps or areas for DLC because it's an isolated Island in the middle of the sea. You can't put a new gate up and unlock a huge mapped area unless they pre-conceived certain locations on the Ark that are locked for DLC only. In which case suggesting DLC is kind of pointless.

with what i understand about the resistance's cause, if a friendly vessel showed up at the Ark, they would just ask to get a ride. The big argument is that the founders don't want to spend the resources on leaving the Ark.

I'm a pessimist.

i was under the impression it was a case of them leeching too many resources not a disagreement on searching for alternative accomodation. from the story i've read the ark was a sustainable community "project" designed for 5000 people. it's now "sustaining" 40,000 against an unknown apocolypse event. the reseource reclamation was never designed fior such a large volume of people. the refugees may be completely oblivious to such things though and simply think the have's are keeping the have-not's down.

from what i've seen neither side really see's the conflict from the others eye's which puts players in the rare position of knowing both sides of the story firsthand if they play both sides.

DLC however shouldn't be shackled by story. expansions YES, DLC no. i still think the mechanics are perfect for a 16 player survival against the zombie horde gametype. especially if those who fall get switched to zombie on respawn.

Yes, you have that part right, but the conflict stems from an argument about "what do we do next?"

The founders would like to put all resources and manpower into keeping the Ark running for as long as possible. The Resistance would like to use some of the resources to build a vessel of some sort and try to find a more sustainable lifestyle, because the Ark is eventually going to break down. If the Resistance have their way, the Ark will fall apart even sooner, and the expedition to find land might turn out to be fruitless. On the other hand, the Ark is eventually going to fail anyway, and finding land is the only long-term choice available.

The difference in living style only stands to make the resistance more fed up with the situation. "Of course the founders just want to stay, they're still comfortable."

Now, what I'm about to say next is purely guesswork on my part, but it seems to me that the founders may have a lot to gain from the war. The security force is mostly made up of refugees as well, paid with water rations to "keep the peace". Having refugees kill refugees will decrease the population dramatically, which would make life easier for the well-to-do founders. I wouldn't be surprised to find out that some of the leaders of the founders intentionally inflamed the Resistance to start the war.

Shieet.. You might actually be right D:

In that case, a horde mode might be based on resistance and security realising they've been played off against eachother, and the founders reacting by trying to destroy them with hordes of something or other.
(possibly a genetically engineered zombie virus they've put into look! free water!).

I like it. :foodndrink:

I like the horde mode idea.

Parkour zombies!