The Only thing I dislike about Brink. : Othor Games

» Sun Nov 21, 2010 9:24 pm

i roundhouse kicked this thread :toughninja:

» Sun Nov 21, 2010 4:12 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.

I was going to say something, but you literally covered every thought in my head in that post.
EDIT: What's your PSN ID? You're the kind of person I'd enjoy playing Brink with.

» Sun Nov 21, 2010 12:24 pm

I voted "no". Here's a few thoughts on why.

Chiefly, I think the reason faction binding would be problematic is that there can be an imbalance of manpower and skill. What if the traits that make people want to pick one faction are also correlated with better teamplay instincts? What if one side has more people who want to play medic and engineer, and the other has more soldiers and operatives? What if one side is just plain more popular? It would be unbelievably frustrating to be denied the chance to play a multiplayer shooter against humans, just because you picked the popular side.

Then there's the artistic aspect. Brink is a game which, for all its exaggerated violence and warfare, has a lot of work put into the writing, and especially into the moral ambiguity of each faction's position. Without seeing the game from both sides, a player doesn't get the full effect of that element, and only gets to experience half the writing and cinematography regardless. That would be a deeply strange thing for a developer to want.

Finally, my personal take on games is that there should never be arbitrary restrictions. I'm a proponent of gameplay over realism, and I think games should place restrictions on you only to challenge you and make the game fair for others. I feel so strongly about this that I'm not even on board with the permanent tattooing or the inability to change a character's body type in-match, as odd as that sounds. (I'm fortunately not a tattoo type, anyway.)

I'm looking forward to playing both sides for their story, to being able to switch sides if my favored Security team is mashing the helpless Resistance, and to being able to join a game where only one side has slots open.

» Mon Nov 22, 2010 12:05 am

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.

dude i want your PSN ID as well. You are DEFINITELY the kind of dude i want to game with, or against!