who gives a crap about the length of games he's talking about at the core his post is really good and I can agree with a lot of the things he's saying.

Yea, mostly everyone has focused on that part of his post only.

Not really at all. Why do you ask?

Excellent post OP.

Honestly I think Bethesda needs to stick to Medevil RPGs...namely Oblivion and Skyrim.

Yah, my brother who is nto even a gamer beat the CoD campaing on the "Hardened" difficulty or whatever the one above normal is in like 4 hours or so. This 10-15 hour mark is out of no where.

@AnarchyyFox, Beth did nto make the game, it was made by Splash Damage, Beth did not make a bad game, if you dont like it it is because Splash Damage did a "Bad Job", not Beth.

For being an unplayable game, I sure have been playing the [censored] out of it.

The reason 3PS's were included was due to the reply that was quotes you specifically stated Gears(and other 3PS'). If you don't want a statement directed to you about what you are talking about, then don't talk out of context. You were comparing an FPS to a 3PS; as such both 3PS' and FPS' were provided to you. Even if you want to argue that it's closer to 8, that's fine. We'll say the 'average' is 8 -- Brink is still a 1/4 of that average. So the point is moot.



Most 'white knights' will avoid any relevant discussion in order to troll regardless of what the rest of the content is.



I find this very hard to believe, as the grand majority of people who do 'Let's Play's' on Youtube are averaging about 8~ hours on each of the CoD's campaigns. These are all people with a multitude of FPS experience, so I highly doubt someone with no FPS experience can beat a pretty difficult campaign(Hardened/Vet) faster then the grand majority of the more known players. If you could, rather then just posting 'facts', please provide some form of credible information to said facts(IE: a youtube 'let's play' would be sufficient) or a screenshot of a playtime screen would be welcome. If you are going to try to discredit someone, the least you can do is provide evidence of such.

All of this is aside the point; the games single player is well below the average regardless. Not to mention, the grand majority of what the OP is speaking about has very little to do with 'single player'. Can we get the thread back on track, rather then going on a tangent about the average of other games campaigns length. If you would like to continue to discuss it, please create another thread The OP has been edited to what everyone is saying the average is(8~ hours), so let's continue on now guys.

I stand corrected. Splash Damage....some good ideas but lets hit the drawing board again....primarily in the lobby, clan and online support area. Its hard to play a team game when half the battle is getting the team together.

The fact that the only thing people can pick out of his post is the average length of an FPS when Brink clearly is at least three to four times shorter than it either way just shows how great of a post he made.

Seriously. Who cares if it only took you 6 hours to beat Call of Duty XX and 4 hours on Call of Duty XX? Brink only took me two, and that's with bathroom breaks.

Truely...its about the mst solid "Look what you did, bad SD, bad!" post you can make. There's simply nothing in it that is wrong, harshly spoken for flames or even derogetory. Its just a breakdown of how this game does in fact come short of its goal and ulitmately displeases.

Sure, there are some good things with Brink. I appluad SD for trying some new things but in the end...it comes up short. For me anyway.

that was well put together and thought out. i agree completely. my biggest problem is how terribly bad the AI is. it is downright god-awful. and i hope that every really devoted fan fruitcake that flamed me for being concerned about this game is at home slitting their wrists over their childish immature defense of a half-assed game that was not even released at the moment. what a flop. NEVER will i buy a SPLASH DAMAGE game. EVER. epic fail.

More than "viewed", the game is basically dead. The best it can hope to do now is stagnate at the "We're almost getting our money back!" mark for EA.

But, I really only agree with the OP on the story. I've given it some thought, and I feel so robbed. Not only is this easily the shortest campaign I've ever played through, I have no MP to go play now. All I can do is play the campaign, over, and over, and over. Great. Good job SD, take a good idea, and ruin it. If the MP is the same as the single-player, but with people, make it long.