This is like a slap in the face every time I read it. "Oh, to be honest, I think this will get repetitive after a while." Of course it will become repetitive! Just like every other multiplayer game on the interwebz. Because there is no infinite content (yet).

But at least it will be more dynamic than TDM or DM or CTF. Because there is not only one same objective all the time, but also dynamic ones which vary between games. After a while you'll most likely have seen them all as well, but it will take much longer than "Take this flag. It waits here and will always do" or "Kill this guy. He will respawn here, here, here or here. Take this UAV so you see where he is."


I wonder how a more symmetrical mode is less repetitive? I mean ... it's the same on both sides then, isn't it? Which reduced the content by 50% and thus - correct me if I'm wrong - increases the repetition by 100%.

Only annoyed when people point of "there there don't listen to trolls" which actually doubles the amount of pointless posts.

ANYWAYS

It should depend on the shooting mechanics because some games just handle like a fire hose, SD games are usually spot of when it comes to controls. But more so it will probably depend on how the SMART movement works and if it will be too "wonky" for comp.

ADDING ANYTHING to the multiplayer experience makes it less repetitive because you have more options. That's my point.

Best thing about what REVOLUZZER is saying and what i said earlier about the multiple dynamic objectives is the game because about HOW to do them the best, and that is what is nearly infinite in itself.

I don't think they're as complex as you make them look like. They will be the same after a while, because people start playing by patterns. Especially in that competitive scene.

Well of course they will be the same, they will be the same even the second time you play the map, do A do B do C .... with a few minor things on the side. I'm saying that the complexity is in the execution. With SMART and body-types in the mix it will probably be more complex than I'm making it look like. Over time however when teams have boiled down their strategies to a select few strategies (like any game) as long as there is more than 1 strategy like in TDM and Conquest style games, it should be awesome.

I don't consider this a problem anymore then I consider Left 4 Dead's MP having a problem in which I don't, at all.

I'm just hoping there's plenty of content so that it's not like most multiplayer where it's a few game modes a handful of maps and eventually your bored. I don't think Brink will have this problem though, haven't been this excited for a shooter since well... never.

So what you're really worried about is the number of maps/modes.

Each map has 2-3 main objectives, and two sides, so each map has 4-6 different objectives to play. If you had a game with 10 maps and 5 game modes, I don't see how it would be any more repetitive than 10 maps with 4-6 different objectives. And that's not even counting side missions.

If there were only 5 maps for either game it would likely get boring fast, there there were a couple dozen maps you wouldn't get bored as fast/

I never got bored of some of the original W:ET maps.Oasis, Fueldump, Goldrush. Some custom maps were also good, thinking about supply depot f.e. Objectives and good map design really helps the game.

Who cares, I play for fun not to say I am the best. Splash Damage is trying to make a fun game where K/D means nothing. You can have tournaments no problem but really what is wrong with competitive play? I'll tell you, first all you get is a bunch of douches doing lame tactics to pad their scores while never doing anything to help the team. You also get a ton of hacks made for the game so said douches can get higher scores too. This game is hopefully gonna save what is wrong with online gaming and do it with style too.

True enough, I'm just pointing out that a lack of alternate modes doesn't mean that each map is just the same thing over and over. Most people I know of only play one or two modes in the games they like anyway. Claiming "Search and destroy is the only skilled game mode" or whatever.

Not sure you understand what competitive play is, it's not an attitude, which is what you are describing, competitive people. Competitive playing is nearly the opposite of what you said, except there are still the douches.

Competitive play as in real life tournaments and [censored], yeah?

I could play vanilla W:ET maps all day everyday - and I did, for years.

The way I see it, there are 3 categories of people who want more gamemodes.

- There are the "Selfish Gamers," who want Brink to have their favorite gamemode(s), whether it be DM, TDM or whatever, and they will argue and make a case explaining why their gamemode "needs" to be included, which usually includes arguments on how the game will fail without them, when the real underlying reason the whole time, is simply "because I want it."
- Then there are the "Glutton gamers." Players who are accustomed to playing FPS games that have many modes to choose from, and they want more modes, because it is comforting to them knowing there is so much to choose from, regardless if they would actually play them or not - they want more just for sake of having more.
- Then there are the "Conservative gamers." Players who dislike change, and just want the same thing in all their games, all the time.

Let's face, how many players who play FPS games that have a laundry list of gamemodes (like COD or Halo) actually play all of them? Not many. It usually they play 1 or 2 all the time, and then the other 10 or so, are just there to fill the gaps when players are bored i like a "filler" gametype.

Agree. Especially like the line "the game will fail without them" lol.

So true, i only play scavenge on L4d2 nemore.
Think of it this way, there is one game mode that all their effort went into, instead of divided over 8 different modes.

Despite a game having many maps most people seem to favor a few and just play those ones.



"Only skilled game mode" what scrubs.



So nicely put, Reminds me of Brink needs to have vehicles boy.

And now that I think about it, BRINK will only have 2 game modes, yeah?

- Campaign - Online/with people, Offline/with bots
- Stopwatch - Online/with people, a race against time

I would'nt mind another game mode, not at all.

Well you can just play the maps, not in campaign mode.

What he said, you don't need to play campaign to play vs. just a rotation of maps.... like any other game

stopwatch will probably be less on pubs as people rarely like playing the same map twice.

I'm VERY glad i missed Brink should have vehicles boy.

Who is this ''Vehicle boy''?

http://www.gamesas.com/index.php?/topic/1115830-requesting-the-use-of-tanks-attack-vehicles-etc-in-brink/page__p__16384058#entry16384058

Just read this. Thank god that guy left.

He sure wanted vehicles

They all want something. I guess only 2-5% of the ideas is somewhat original or possible in Brink. The other 95-98% are typical mainstream gameplay mechanic suggestions like the vehicle thread, this one, the recoil thread, amount of bullets to kill thread. They all suggest something "Un-SD-ish".

I'm not saying that these topics shouldn't be discussed, I'm saying that it's highly unlikely because the typical SD game doesn't have it and the SD fanbase doesn't want it either.
Ofcourse (like Capt. Awesome man said before) there are people who just want a remake of the old one. I'm not one of them, they need to improve gameplay to ensure a modern game, but modern doesn't mean like the mainstream franchises.

AMEN to that !

I think we've seen enough mainstream games for the past 5 years , thank god there were still people creative enough to think about something like Brink

For some reason, I can picture myself someone posting a YouTube video of him doing a 1080 degree spin from a high point, popping three shots into someone with a ''light rifle'' (3 360 spins), people might go that far