As much as the developers have put genius ideas, and tremendous work into the beautiful piece of digital-craftsmanship, the single thing that disappointments me is the fact that you aren't bound to one faction. Although some people find it annoying, having to redo all their levels, just to try the other faction, the sort of unified nationalism and competitiveness it generates is a worthy trade-off. I loved it in MAG, although Valor sorta lost out, and the fact that Brink doesn't, gives it a bland, COD-like feel to it. Because it does help in making people on one side work together, and it does help in segregating and creating rivalry among clans. I can't see how these types of relationships can exist, when one second you can have an intense clan-match, and the next you are trying to co-operate with some of the people who you just beat and now despise you.

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.

Peace,
Mem

Edit: Before you guys vote, I suggest you quickly browse through all the comments to see what people have to say, then place your vote.

As much as the developers have put genius ideas, and tremendous work into the beautiful piece of digital-craftsmanship, the single thing that disappointments me is the fact that you aren't bound to one faction. Although some people find it annoying; having to redo all their levels, just to try the other faction, the sort of unified nationalism and competitiveness it generates is a worthy trade-off. I loved it in MAG, although Valor sorta lost out, and the fact that Brink doesn't have it, gives it a bland, COD-like feel to it. Because it does help in making people on one side work together, and it does help in segregating and creating rivalry among clans. I can't see how these types of relationships can exist, when one second you can have an intense clan-match, and the next you are trying to co-operate with some of the people who you just beat and now despise you.

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.

Peace,
Mem

Well then how could 2 friends play if they were opposite factions?

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.

I think they should be. If they want to change they could do it at a cost but a high one, like a few levels and gear.

This way you'll actually build some loyalty and people won't just see the factions as this team or that team but "Their" team.

Some other games using a bound-to-faction system end up suffering with an overpowered faction vs left-out faction over time.
(this most likely happen at some point when the player population goes from stagnating to decreasing.) Not having your characters bound to factions helps to prevent this.

That aside, as far as i know, nothing stops you to choose to play security only.

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

This.

+1

No, because if I want to play with mates, then they may be set to the opposite faction. Also some people may consider changing their faction after playing and understanding the game.
Also if you could not switch factions then matchmaking would be more complicated and would result in less games being played. :thumbsup:

[No... that is a stupid thing to have in a game, and I'm about to write a reply telling you exactly why!]

At first I thought it was like this, honestly! And I even made up a chart on how I would like to have the classes, bodytypes divided between the two factions, but then again - that was way back even when we thought bodytypes were permanent.. Which I want them to be, damnit!

Anyways.. No, in a small non-MMO RPG / RPG game this would not be a wise decision to make, so letting the players be on both sides makes it perfect and smooth

Think of Call of Duty, would it work like this? ''DO YOU WANT TO FIGHT FOR THE GOOD AMERICANS, OR THE BAD CUBANS, SOVIETS, NAZIS, VIETCONGS, AND KOREANS?''

It's easier to play with friends this way
also:

^ This

Yes, this - a thousand times this

EDIT: Also, are we to say what we don't like?

Here is a list I had in my head:

*Rim Lightning on enemies
*The lack of challenges, since apparently it's only 4
*From the looks of it, Heavy Miniguns, down a whole team? Yeaaah.. No
*The lack of default voice-chat, but we can just invite them to ''fire squads'' then I guess
*The lack of females now that I have seen what they could've done! But I'd rather have the game out now and the massive male customization over female characters
*The lack of weapons skins, the only skins there is for a weapon is the default Security and Resistance skin, bleh - I don't want a zebra-painted machine gun.. I WANT A SHARK-FACE ONE!
*The lack of a list of what voice-packs we'll get
*If it doesn't make it in, the lack of an asian voice-pack

Well, then you would have agree on a faction and then meet up on the same faction eventually. This was never really an issue on MAG. However, with brink they have the issue of the whole mingleplayer thing, where the campaign can melt into the multiplayer. But that just means that SD would have to make a 'Serious Commitment' option/bracket, where at max level you could choose your faction to play with - sorta like what COD has with the thing that unlocks after you prestige or whatever.

That seems like a lot of hassle though, compared to simply having the option to be either side depending on your mood or who you want to play with.

I've been here a long, long time, and I've seen dozens of "Choose your Faction" threads come and go. Believe me when I say that people can and will take sides, and that the rivalry is plenty heated already.

The thing about COD is that it has clearly defined the good and the bad people, in Brink both sides are good and bad, which makes the decision much more intriguing and to some extent a reflection of your own personal belief system.

After a long time of being here I too have seen my fair share of them, and I have taken part

I have yet however seen this rivalry :l Or well.. Political and enviromental discussions.. Does that count?

MAG suffered because it had 3 factions, and the guns had different stats on either side. SVER was always OP and Valor was always underpowered. Brink does not face this issue. But like I stated in one of my replies, it would be possible to have a completely separate bracket where people choose a fixed side, whilst keeping the option of playing normally, whereby you can get all the achievements and whatnot. This would be a prestige-type feature, only allowed at the max level.

Yeah.. Kinda bothersome that they do mark one as 100% evil But whatever, it's a game

And about the permanent-faction thing.. What would happen if one got overflooded? I thought about this too, what if one side got overflooded and it was hard to find games becuase all the opposite team guys were well.. Almost non-existant

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.

Yeah, the "rivalry" I mentioned was really more along the lines of conflicting political and moral viewpoints. But that's already better than MAG by a long shot. In Brink each side actually stands for something. In MAG the factions were just various PMC's. Hired guns. Your views really had nothing to do with your faction decision.

EDIT: You actually can't switch sides during the campaign. Once you start the Security campaign, for example, you can't start the Resistance one with that character until you've beaten the Security side.

EDITx2: Last I heard.

Sure, that is a valid concern, but I personally do not see that happening. The whole issue would be based off of ideologies, none of which are wrong in Brink, the only other factor would be aesthetics, but here both sides look bad-ass. There are no physical reasons why players might choose one faction over the other based on weapons. My only true concern with regard to one side being overpowered would be the maps, and that overall, the Resistance might have the edge or something - but given the amount of thought SD has put into this game, I think they must have achieved a good balance with the maps.

.. Yeah, the maps

One team is always defending on some, and the other is only attacking on those that the opposing team is defending on

So what if you like The Aquarium as Attackers, but can't since you're on the team that's playing as Defenders?

If BRINK was a FPSMMORPG this would work, but the maps would have to be open too and all that.. But that is something else

And I don't think this would make itself look good on the ''DLC-Suggestion Table'' over at Splash Damage :/

I'm happy the way it is now

We all play on the same maps. There's no "faction specific" maps like in MAG. Everything is factional neutral. Same goes for the weapons. It's far more balanced then MAG, so I don't think terrain advantage will be as big a factor in Brink.

I don't think it's a "stupid" idea, but in my opinion, it's not for Brink.