*Standard forums rules apply*

I think some of the reviews Brink is getting are a tad biased to other FPS *cough* CoD *cough*
Honestly though, does anyone else feel this at all? What are your thoughts on the recent reviews?

My opinion:
The 'review' from IGN was more of a narration of Brinks flaws. They didn't even touch onto some aspects of the game.
(Though try to watch a few reviews before you post, they're not all 'that' bad)

Share, laugh, be nice. :wink_smile:

I blame this mostly on buggy review copies, and the fact that you really cant judge a big MP game without playing it online... Itd be like playing WoW and being the only one on the server. Also reviews are really opinion based which is why I have multiple game sites bookmarked

I actually like CoD, though Id give it an 8/10. People tote it as the "realistic" shooter, but its about as far from realism as Halo. I like Halo too. However Im far more an RPG player than I am an FPS player too, which is why Im interested in Brink(not sure if Ill get it just yet, waiting on patches).

Not that I feel the need for another review thread. But I have another hour to kill with nothing better to do but troll forums.

Yea reviewers have a choice of playing the unfinished xbox version or the ps3 version that can't get the update or play online. So most of the reviewers are basing opinions on gameplay vs bots with unfinished code. A couple sites have refused to review the game until the xbox patch and they get a chance to play online which is respectable.

The gametrailers review was pretty good IMO, talked about the good and the bad and gave it a fair 8. IGN ... well anyone who has ever read an IGN review knows that they are biased and not good reviews, I wasn't suprised to see them bash the game for the graphical errors knowing full well there was a release day patch and have them CONSTANTLY bring up CoD references and comparisons. I expect gamers to compare games to COD as most people have played it and its a good way to relate games to others, but reviewers glorifying CoD as some gold standard when reviewing other FPS's is honestly complete BS. I've written threads like this for almost every game I've played after looking at the IGN review, from killzone 2 to socoms to mag to battlefield games to operation flashpoint and onward.

I'am still totally going to buy it. It wont cure cancer or feed the poor but It will entertain my sorry ass for awhile and thats enough.

totally agree with you. the reviewers went to review brink by comparing it to other triple A titles instead of trying to understand a new way of playing fps

Simple review:
Shooting game, original, fun, colourful and entertaining.
Has it's flaws, nothing that can't be fixed with a simple patch.
Overal, good idea, well executed. Little missing parts for a solid singleplayer section, but it is multiplayer based, have to wait and see when psn comes back.
I like it, I'd give it a confident thumbs up

I don't even care if the game got all 1's, because I know the game is good without even playing it because it's fresh, new, innovative, and not over-hyped. I think the reason it's getting average low reviews is because the reviewers either played for like 1 hour, don't know about the Day 1 Patch, hate anything that's different from their usual cup of tea, or don't how to play the game as a teamplayer and instead playing like CoD

I double this and added my own little bolding for effect.

Thank you my good man. We shall stand together in the name of Zero :intergalactic:

Biased? Maybe a little. But never the less, there are alot of valid complaints being made in those reviews which are not lag related.

Nope not all the game is just average it deserves what it got I was a huge fan boy of this game but after I played I was disappointed.

Well Brink has an average of 8, currently, pre-patch. (Has the day 1 patch gone live yet)? That's not all that bad, though...not entirely good either.

lol and average of 8 are you crazy it is at a 7 with a lot of 6.5 an average is more than one. lol!

While the individual numbers may be biased, a lot of the complaints being made are the same across all reviews, and some of them are quite serious.

- Brain dead bots
- Frustrating Single Player (caused by bad bots)
- A few terribly balanced maps
- No effective party system
- Weapons and combat lack impact
- Lobby system svcks ass


The last three things especially can't just be "Patched" out, and should've be taken care of before the game launched.

Initially I was kind of turned off, but the more I played and got used to the movement and shooting, the more I liked it. Granted, it has bugs/issues like any game, but based on previous games Splash Damage has released, I fully expect them to be fixed in a reasonable amount of time.

I played ET competitively for years and am as skeptical as most serious ET guys. Those searching for "ET with updated graphics" are not going to be happy with it because Brink is it's own game. Also, pure Call of Duty players need to completely change their play-styles/mind sets and adapt.

Remember to unlock the console and your fps, as well as some other tweaks. I am sure there will be many more to come as we learn more about the game.

First hour of playing = 2/3 out of 5
After 5-6 hours of playing I enjoy it more and more and would have to give it a 3.5 or 4 out of 5, with room for improvement, of course.

someone get's it! good go paragon fury!

The game ain't bad at all but some things should have been taken care of long before the release.

do you actually intend to explain what you dislike johnny or just make random angry comments?

Im reminded a bit of witcher here.

Buggy as hell to start with, then they added a patch, and went to game of the year :woot:

I truly don't trust any reviews since Gamespot gave GTA IV a 10/10. GTA IV was by far the worst GTA in the series. For reasons I won't detail here.

I'd like to 1st start by saying I haven't played the game yet. It's 9:16am here in The Bronx, and my local gamestop didn't do a midnight release. With that said, over the last couple of hours, I've been doing a lot of reviewing and researching across various sites and forums on input from PLAYERS of the game, not review mediums. They mean bupkis...because the opinions that matter to me personally are those of the paying customer...not the paid reviewer. And as stated by Achromatis, and others on other forums as WELL as a couple blog sites, the review sites were given an outdated, buggy build of the game...most likely by mistake. So their reviews are essentially of an incomplete version of the game...and justly should hold about as much weight as a grain of sand.

With that said, as Paragonfury stated, there are legitimate shortcomings in the game. But do those shortcomings make the game "bad"? Not in the slightest. And that's the general vibe I get from players. They all point out the same flaws, but they all also say that these flaws don't make the game unenjoyable. That to me is what's important. Is the game fun. Will it entertain me or will I get bored with it. From what I read from other users, it's the prior...not the later.

I speak on behalf of the MAG community when I say "we've been down this road before". MAG itself got similar reviews from such sites as IGN. It to has it's gameplay and graphical shortcomings. But a year later the MAG community is rock solid, even more so then when it launched...because that those that remain are the millions of people who stuck with the game because it was fun. Same thing will happen with Brink. The reviews mean nothing. It's the support we...the community...give it.

The COD [censored] are crawling in Metacritics, dragging the player review score down.

This
IGN always go for controvesial ratings on games. It is how they keep people coming back to watch. They don't review, they sensationalise by only focussing on the bad. Remember "assassin's creed".
If you look on Gamespot, the average customer review of 14 people, give it a rating of 8,6 while citing the same flaws. So people are still enjoying the game.

Bot difficulty ca be changed by the Developers, but you need to vote on this thread... http://www.gamesas.com/index.php?/topic/1187993-how-the-bots-work/

Its a very beautiful game, I really don′t get how some can give it a 6/10? 8/10 is legit I give a 9/10

The bots are not good
Some textures pup up late, but you have to focus on it to see it.
But thats it.it has Great gameplay,sound,look, customisation,new ideas,teamplay....

From 1up's review, in regards to customizing appearance...



maybe they gave this game a bad review because he was playing on an i386. takes me ~ 0.8 seconds per change, tops, and my computer isn't great.

I read somewhere else but can't find the link about a reviewer finding himself in the "spawn, kill, die, repeat" cycle, which is funny because i think this is one of very few FPS's that do a great job of circumventing that. I think many of the reviewers have been playing COD a little too long and are failing to grasp some of the fundamental concepts this game was built on. i bet if Brink had a FFA DM where everyone just mindlessly killed each other over and over, the reviews would speak differently.