After watching the new "Choir of Guns" video i noticed that the Resistance members at the beginning referred to each other as "Brothers". That seems a little cult-like to me, before that i pictured the Resistance as a bunch of ex-military refugees plotting in the depths of Container City. Now they seem like a cult obsessed with destroying the Security. Does anyone else notice something along those lines?

I noticed that too. It reminds me a lot of the Resistance in Terminator Salvation (even though their goals greatly differ).

I have no idea why they call eachother brothers, they do not share the same mother!

Anyhow.. They probably do that becuase they're in union, they're united and share the same goal, but I do not in any way or form see them as a cult, they do not worship the containers

well in a sense the Police side could view them as a growing "cult" or group. It really depends on the side your on and your perspective on the whole situation.

Yeah, they could be viewed as a cult even if they aren't. There's plenty of unification in a cult which wouldn't hurt BRINK'S plot.

They fire a [censored] missile against the tower :l

It's not a cult. They call eachother brothers because they live in the same bad conditions. Even nowadays people who are in such a situation call eachother brothers. Or you could say they're brothers in arms.

They all come from the same multi-dimensional womb, the end

cult, i'd say no. they seem more like a well unified ghetto. everyone fighting for the same cause. the security i could see more as a cult, they are following a belief structure. they want to maintain the founders ideas...almost like its their religion

If you can consider these cults

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0185906/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brothers_in_Arms:_Road_to_Hill_30

then I guess the Resistance is a cult.

Not to mention the millions of everyday people who refer to friends as "brother" when welcoming them.

Soldiers think of their comrades as brothers, its a pretty common thing. There's even a show called "Brothers in Arms". I think SD has them referring to each other that way just to point out the fact that they are very close to each other and working for a common goal, rather than just a chaotic mob like one might expect to come from the ghettos.

Te security aren't a cult either, they are trying to keep the peace so that the Ark can run for as long as possible. I find it amusing how people continue to try and label one of the sides "bad" without knowing the whole story yet. SD has put a lot of effort into making both sides relateable and morally gray.

I still think the Resistance is more noble in their cause. Security just seems to be following orders, and even some of them question the motives.

I will admit that the motives might be better with what I know about the game, but its hard for me to call their method noble. "Let me use the resources or I will destroy the Ark anyway".

Who said anything about destroying the Ark? They just want resources.

What does blowing up the founders tower or causing a reactor meltdown have to do with taking resources?

We don't know who initiated the destruction of the Ark or the methods behind it, and the Reactor mission is a bonus level, that has nothing to do with the main story.

I'd say the Resistance is more like the IRA than a cult.

The way I understood it is that the bonus maps are part of the story, but only for one side. So, the resistance never makes it to the reactor if the security keeps winning to advance the story.

So even if you want to claim that we don't know that the resistance's goal is to blow up the tower, you still have them making the Ark's generator useless, on purpose. I assume the reason to do that is to force the founders to try and find a new place to live, since they wont allow the resistance to leave while the Ark is still able to support the population for a few more years.

I think the social aspects and commentary on society this game is making escapes people sometimes. No, the resistance is not a cult. They are simply the underclass of the Ark, and have become fed up with the living conditions they've endured during their stay their. they are not out to destroy their own home. They feel that they contribute as much if not more to the community, and feel they are entitled to an equal share in it's resources despite essentially being uninvited guests. As one of the videos on the Brink site explains, this is not a matter of choice; it is in the best interests of their survival for them to fight and take an equal share.

The reason they may call each other "brothers" is because they are part of the same class struggle, and also allies in combat, nothing more.

This is wrong. Wedgwood explains the Reactor mission and it's purpose. It is not tied to the story at all, and is more of a "what if" scenario.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ojdEVr43fHo&t=2m36s

I don't think you understand the story as well as you think you do. Its not just about fair distribution. The main conflict appears to be an argument about a plan for the future, since the Ark isnt going to last forever. The difference in lifestyle between refugees and founders just increases the tension between the two sides.


Cool interview. So you're clearly right about the reactor. I'm still not so convinced that the Resistance is more noble than the Security though. I can understand where both sides are coming from, and both are trying to make the best of a bad situation.

I think I understand it pretty well. I'm just basing my take on it off of everything that I've read and seen. What you've described is not mutually exclusive of what I did; in fact it's all part-and-parcel of the same conflict. Yes, the future of the Ark seems to be a top priority for both sides, but the struggle itself is based on each side being more interested in their own future than the others, naturally. If there was no inequity, they'd be able to work together for the common goal of sustaining the Ark until a viable permanent solution is discovered.

Sustaining the Ark is not possible no matter what happens. Even if all the people were given exactly equal rations, you would still have a big debate over what to do.

The one side wants to funnel resources into making a vessel and then going to find land.

The other side would rather play it safe and keep the Ark running for as long as possible, without wasting any resources on a gamble.

But the problem is, the ones who want to stay are the ones with the power, so the Resistance has decided to take what they have to in order to get off the Ark.

P.S. By your argument, Republicans and Democrats shouldn't have any problems getting along, since they both have the goal of Improving the quality of life in America. Before you say that there is social inequality there as well, I know rich democrats and poor republicans. Even in socialist nations, you still have disagreements about what to do in response to a crisis.

Which is completely justifiable. If you were in a situation where you knew death was just a matter of time and you decided to try and do something that could change the outcome for yourself, but were denied permission, would you accept that and sit idly by while the inevitable outcome closed in on you?

Members of the Russian army during world war II referred to each other as comrade, does that make the Russian army a cult?