The Only thing I dislike about Brink. : Othor Games

» Sun Nov 21, 2010 3:13 pm

I like the idea of bounding characters to factions but as others have said it makes playing with friends harder. but then again we do have 10 character slots. either way i just want the game

» Sun Nov 21, 2010 8:20 pm

But isn't that the beauty of the game? It creates a sense of kinship to the side you choose. Being able to switch sides would kill that kinship. The way the plot of the game is made, switching sides takes away from the "urgency" of the war. Being on one faction through your campaign means that your "character" builds rank within that faction. And as was stated earlier, you can't reach the max level switching sides. And do we really believe there's going to be lack of variety to the gameplay to warrant wanting to switch sides? I doubt the mission structures will change much on each side. Defend this, hack that, escort this, destroy that, etc. If seeing it from both sides is so important, just create a separate account on the other faction like many of us MAG players have. Unlike MAG however, the way Brink is made, there's no way one faction will dominate the others. We all get the same weapons and abilities, and we all play on the same maps. It's what's done in battle that will determine the winner, not who's guns are OP and who's map is unbalanced. (MAG players know what I'm talking about.) I personally will be with the Security Force specifically because I know majority are going to go Resistance. In MAG, I've started with SVER, and ended up coming back to SVER after I vetted through the other PMCs because they were the "underdogs", but as it stands SVER is the strongest of all the PMCs. Because I don't want to be part of the juggernaut...and want to be challenged in this game, I'm going with the faction that will probably have the least users as a whole. Makes it that more rewarding when I level up.

Exactly, this dude knows where I'm coming from.

When I started this post, I had already accepted SD's decision to make it this way. But after I was sort of forced to argue it and had to come up with the idea of a detached option, which would not disallow you from going back and playing the regular game, but allow you pick an actual faction on the side, I realize that I'd love to see this being introduced in some future patch/DLC.

» Sun Nov 21, 2010 4:57 pm

The only thing I dislike about Brink is the fact that it is not released yet.

<3 Sometimes I like standing for one side. Perhaps rewards for loyalty would have been in order, but this is a multiplayer game and as such should be freeform enough to play with whoever you want. Alliances are with real people, not the game. If you want this level of loyalty and cooperation, there are plenty of clans in any multiplayer online game for that purpose. Any given side of a game can't portray the true allegience of real players.

» Sun Nov 21, 2010 10:49 am

The game locks parts of your character once you create him, locks what perks you get as you level up, why not your faction as well?

It seems to be the game is intended for you to make more then one character.

» Sun Nov 21, 2010 3:58 pm

Anyway, my point is that a lot of the stuff that can motivate (and to some degree frustrate - yes, I admit that) players can come from this kind of faction-loyalty.

That's something a filthy ~~Resistance~~ Communist ~~fighter~~ baby would say!

» Sun Nov 21, 2010 9:28 pm

That's something a filthy ~~Resistance~~ Communist ~~fighter~~ baby would say!

Has anyone ever told you that you're a great judge of character?

If that's the case, give them a good old slap!

I'm all about Security

» Mon Nov 22, 2010 12:44 am

Meh. Basically, it would be nice for some of the more hardcoe loyalists that really get into the whole "taking sides" thing, but at the same time it would be very annoying for the guys that just want to play as and for whoever they want whenever they want. Some people won't want to make a separate Resistance character just to play with their friends.

» Sun Nov 21, 2010 2:49 pm

Meh. Basically, it would be nice for some of the more hardcoe loyalists that really get into the whole "taking sides" thing, but at the same time it would be very annoying for the guys that just want to play as and for whoever they want whenever they want. Some people won't want to make a separate Resistance character just to play with their friends.

You can use my name, it's fine Hatter.

» Sun Nov 21, 2010 10:26 pm

If the character would be locked to either faction, how would you play stopwatch?
Did you have the same problem in Counterstrike? Or Bad Company 2?

» Sun Nov 21, 2010 8:00 pm

If the character would be locked to either faction, how would you play stopwatch?
Did you have the same problem in Counterstrike? Or Bad Company 2?

.. Yeah, how would you play Stopwatch with your favorite character? :l

You'd have to use up two - TWO character slots for the same character (ability-wise)

» Sun Nov 21, 2010 9:34 pm

Well due to the fact that they stated you cant achieve level 20 playing through the campaign for both factions, i believe only level 14 by doing that. Youd be at an even greater disadvantage only being able to stick to one faction, youd have to create another character entirely just to enjoy the entire story from both views. I dont see anything wrong with this game nor there decision to do this.

can i get a link

» Sun Nov 21, 2010 4:12 pm

The only thing I dislike about Brink is the fact that it is not released yet.

This.

» Sun Nov 21, 2010 5:58 pm

WAIT WAIT WAIT

The only thing I got from that is "It doesn't create a feel of nationalism" and "That makes it CoD-like".

>.>

<.<

.....

BWAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHHAHAHA

ALSO: lol @ reversed psychology in the poll.

» Sun Nov 21, 2010 3:55 pm

Each side has exactly the same thing no diffrent weapons or abilities only clothes, also they did plane to make you bound to a certian faction by making a certian char bound which made the Char limit 16 but they changed it to 10 so everyone can switch factions, if they made it so your bound you wont find as many matches

» Mon Nov 22, 2010 12:08 am

This aint MAG so NO i dont like being bound to a faction cuz it will not work for competitive play as u wont be able to play ppl from the same faction. If u wanna feel so much like u bound to a faction then play campaign online and select the faction of your choice. problem solved.

» Sun Nov 21, 2010 3:00 pm

Being able to make 10 toons leaves me enough opportunity to create on both sides, so I wouldn't mind having each character locked to a faction.

Heck, make it an option I can set up so it's Sec/Res/either and those that want to have a character locked to a faction can and those that want to freely switch can do so.

I'm going to end up playing at least some of my characters that way anyways because I happen to like building the character's story as much as his look.

» Sun Nov 21, 2010 7:14 pm

Hated it in MAG. After 5 vets I just thought "[censored] it" and made an alt account for SVER. Wound up vetting that one over to Raven and made another alt for SVER after another couple vets on my main.

Give people the option. If they want to remain loyal, good to them. But some people (like me) don't want to be tied down to any faction, and SD want you to experience both sides of the story easily.

» Mon Nov 22, 2010 1:55 am

Hated it in MAG. After 5 vets I just thought "[censored] it" and made an alt account for SVER. Wound up vetting that one over to Raven and made another alt for SVER after another couple vets on my main.

Give people the option. If they want to remain loyal, good to them. But some people (like me) don't want to be tied down to any faction, and SD want you to experience both sides of the story easily.

True, but unlike MAG you don't need an alt account to setup a second character (a failing of MAG) so it isn't as drastic a case.

» Sun Nov 21, 2010 3:46 pm

No. Just no. As it is made for competitive as well as casual gaming, factions just won't work. It's easier for competition to have one character work for both sides, instead of being locked into just one.

And the idea is just stupid.

» Sun Nov 21, 2010 11:11 am

I said no. Although I like the idea at the same time I am thinking about the replay value. Being able to play on both sides adds replay value as you get to see each map from a different view. On top of this for competitive play would make things a little more difficult.

Although on somewhat of a same topic I believe your character should be stuck with the same body type. This will add more unique characters as well as add to replay value as you have to make new characters to expierence all the different body types and combinations. Being able to switch body types between matches takes away some of the individuality in Brink as anyone can pretty much be anything at any time.

» Mon Nov 22, 2010 2:14 am

The only thing I dislike about Brink is the fact that it is not released yet.

LOL, same!

» Sun Nov 21, 2010 4:38 pm

I don't think it'll matter hugely either way, but I can see myself creating 6 - 8 characters easily, and if I can't easily swap between Resistance and Security when I've done so, that will mean that I can't have my full complement of characters on both sides.

Early on when there were 16 characters, I read that they were considering making each character Faction-specific - with those numbers that would be fine. But if you're cutting back on the numbers as far as they have now, then I think it's better to allow players to swap sides freely with each.

» Sun Nov 21, 2010 1:07 pm

Limiting someone to one faction is stupid. It would cheat people out of half of their game.......

» Sun Nov 21, 2010 9:26 pm

The only thing I dislike about Brink is the fact that it is not released yet.

This

» Sun Nov 21, 2010 10:17 pm

well if you wanted to play with friend with a different faction you'd have to play against them, and a person can change sides irl