Dear Bethesda and Splash Damage;

I recently purchased a product with your names proudly displayed on the box and on the title screen. The name of this software product was an Xbox 360 game called 'Brink'. This title was a game that was touted as being a AAA shooter designed around class play and multi player competitive teams. It's also well documented and known that the game has been in development for a handful of years. During this development period there was no doubt many iterations and changes to the would-be final product. Since we now have, what you released as a 59.99 USD software product, we can now look over what it is that you created. There is a certain level of quality, that is not only expected but is required for a software title(especially a full retail 59.99 USD title) in this market. Let's see if your piece of software meets these quality points...

The 'average' single-player and the minimum that most players will accept for a single player 'campaign' in an FPS nowadays is around [Edit: the 8 hour mark?], while playing through on the 'Normal' difficulty level. In terms of overall length your title falls way short(I completed it, with no prior experience in under 2 hours). Quality is hard to layout in bullet points, but it's my opinion(as well as the grand majorities) that the single player component is one of the absolute worst in any FPS to release in the past decade. The culmination of many sub-standard elements including but not limited to bad voice acting, lack of any notable narrative, zero character development, atrocious A.I., no memorable set points total up to creating an awful single player experience that should be avoided at all costs.

Multi player....multi player....multi player...this is supposed to be where your game was to 'shine'. Wether it was through the 'co-operative campaign' or through the competitive matchmaking, the multi player is where the game was supposed to thrive. Thrive it is, in the annals of terrible multi player games. This is by far one of the absolute worst atrocities I've ever seen released by a 'reputable' company. A game built around multi player, by default should have a playable multi player experience. Brink currently is in an unplayable state, and has been since launch. This is, frankly, unacceptable. As a consumer base, most of us are aware of and can usually accept a multitude of issues. Brink is a culmination of anything that could be bad in a multi player shooter, no lobby system, no 'party' system, no stat tracking in game, absolutely terrible 'net code' resulting in an unplayable atmosphere, no weapon balancing resulting in a few weapons being used and the rest discarded, multiple map exploits, some of the 'classes' being unwanted or unused due to design decisions, 'exp' is not properly balanced between what awards it(buffs, objectives, etc), and the list goes on.

Multi player has been touted as being the 'bread and butter' of the title ever since the title hat started it's 'PR cycle'. We as the consumers deserve an explanation as to why the core part of the game is not functional. We also deserve a dated timeline as to when this issues will be adressed. This is a time to take off the PR training wheels and get on an even level with your consumer base. Faith, respect, confidence etc are all things that a company 'earns' by not just releasing titles, but how they deal with their consumer base. A one sentence reply of 'We’ve also been getting new reports of lag when playing online, especially in matches with lots of human players. ' is not only incorrectly stating your position(as these reports aren't new), but is also not going to qualm your consumer base.

We as your consumers deserve and demand better treatment. There is no doubt that you were aware of these issues well before the games release, and it's a svcker punch to your consumers that we haven't got a statement regarding the company knowing they fell flat and letting us know something other then 'we'll look into it'. We are aware of the smorgasbord of issues, we are also aware that you know of them, let's stop beating around the bush...shall we? You released an utter sub par piece of software and it's time to won up to it.

To extrapolate further on the above mentioned atrocities I'll label out a few outstanding issues that would go far into restoring confidence in Bethesda / Splash Damage:

• Network Issues
  
  • This is a no brainer here fellas. You guys created a 'MP only' game that is unplayable with other players. The 'netcode' that runs the game either selects a terrible host, or won't change to a better one. There is also issues when certain players join and/or leave. This is absolutely something that should have been fixed before release.

• A.I: I would find it obnoxious if anyone tried to argue that the A.I. was even remotely close to intelligent. Due to the bad A.I., nearly every game is rendered boring.
  
• Weapon Balance: Or lack thereof...out of all the weapons in the game, there are about 5 that are even remotely useful. Due to this, a grand majority of system resources are being used by weapons that will never be utilized.
  
• Class Viability: Engineer - the end all - be all of Brink. Looking to level up? Play an engie. Looking to get a lot of kills? Play an engie. Looking to buff players? Play an engie. Looking to do the grand majority of objectives? Play an engie. Overall a team of engineers can pretty much faceroll anything else(due to damage and armor buffs) and it also has twice as many 'objectives' to do on any given map. Not to mention they have the ability to double the output of outposts. While the class abilties of other classes are useful, the engie at this stage is far above everyone else.
  
• Map Exploits: I'm growing very tired of the few playable games I've been able to get into, where I'm getting shot from underneath the map by a soilder constantly refilling his ammo.
  
• Replayability: This is a huge concern, when the game is playable, that the sheer limited number of 'gametypes'(IE: 8 maps) is just insufficient for anyone playing the game for an extended period.

While I agree with most of what you said, this sentence made me laugh. Every Call of Duty, Halo, and Gears of War campaign is under 8 hours, so I don't know where this 10-15 on normal came from, but it's not from reality.

Please not the term 'average'. Citing 10~ titles in a genre which has well over 250 is not the 'average'. That being said, while your mentions do have a shorter campaign then the average; it has a four fold increase over that of this games. So in essence your statement only solidifies the OP's in that this game only has a 1/4 of what the 'bigger' titles have.

Ok, well then for 10-15 to be the "average" in a sea of 250, there must be about 125 with campaigns well over 10-15 hours. I am curious to find out which these are, because I have played almost every FPS on the 360, and with the exception of the very, very few "story" FPSs like Bioshock, I remember none being over 10-15 hours.

If you're so confident on your average maybe you should show us the remaining 240 numbers that you averaged to get your number, unless it wasn't just personal speculation.

You said what most people will accept, and obviously most people will accept shorter since all the biggest hits are shorter than that.

The campaign is still sub par though and I agree with some of your points, but the length wouldn't even bother me if it was a real campaign.

Why do people think Bethesda has more to do with this game then Splash Damage? Just wondering this...

Most people place blame on the publisher over the developer, if a game doesn't live up to expectations (sometimes surreal). Publishers do tend to push games out before they should have been pushed out, so that they may see return investment and gain in revenue. But one example: many blame EA for forcing Mythic to push out Warhammer Online before its time (1 year before its time), leading to its (viewed) failure.

Basically... The publisher always gets blamed by the community first. For some reason or another.

*flame removed* let's dive into just a few of the titles that are well above or on the average amount of campaign time; Perfect Dark Zero, Borderlands, Army of Two, Army of Two: 40th Day, Crackdown, Crackdown 2, Kane and Lynch, Kane and Lynch: Dead Men, Left 4 Dead, Left 4 Dead 2, Mercenaries 2, Lost Planet, Lost Planet 2, The Outfit, Resident Evil 5, Saints Row, Saints Row 2, Rainbow Six, Rainbow Six 2, Doom 3, etc etc. That being said, there are more then just X360 titles on the market.



I see an equal amount of blame portrayed here. Where exactly are you seeing a one sided 'blame train'? That being said, a publisher has just as much responsibility in releasing a sub-par game as a developer does(if not more). Majority of publishers actually own the companies they publish for. Due to that publishers have the ability to 'force a game out of the gate' in order to increase revenue. There are multiple instances in the past where a developer wanted to push back a game for extra 'polishing' put a publisher wouldn't allow them to.

Well, although I haven't got the game yet, and cannot comment either side to what you're saying, I hope when I get it for the 360 tomorrow, you're wrong.
But saying that, I hope you don't get flamed for it either. I'm glad you've stated your opinions in such a polite and informing manner, and above all, I hope (on the condition that you ARE actually right) that Splash Damage see this, and get their act together quick.

Oh yeah, welcome to the forums.

Great post. I was on the fence, but you convinced me Brink is a flop.

I don't know... Rainbow Six and Rainbow Six 2 (if you're speaking of Vegas) campaign took a friend, and I, about 6 - 7 hours or so each. Probably because of the Co-Op however.

LOL I'm not trolling, I am pointing out the fact that your numbers are wrong. Crackdown and Crackdown 2, Saint's Row and Saint's Row 2, and the Outfit were all not FPSs, Perfect Dark: Zero's campaign was way less than 10 hours, as was both of the Army of Two games (I would know as I have played and beaten the campaigns of all of these games.) I'll give you that Doom 3 had a long campaign, but I don't think you can classify it as a "shooter nowaday" as discussed in the OP; it is too old.

You are lying through your teeth, or keyboard as it were. The average for a modern day FPS campaign is closer to 8 hours than 10-15. Plain and simple.

Spent some time laughing, then thinking, then remembering. I call [censored], i can smell it on your breath. In the last 5 years there have only been a handful of fps that make it over the 5-6 hour mark on NORMAL! Most of these are crossovers in the RPG world (bio-shock 1-2, fallout 3 and new vegas, etc). Really most shooters of today make it around 4-5 hours, Homefront being able to be beaten in 3-4 hours, BO took me 4 hours, BC2 took me 4 hours, MW2 took me 4 hours, and COD4 took me 5. So as i said in the opening, i call [censored] on this statement.
If there is 250, this being average then you should be able to list 125 that being 50% of the average.
Get going you don't have much time. Bet this'll take you longer then it takes me to beat 20 of todays FPS games.

Haha, not sure the word "atrocity" is fitting. The holocaust was an atrocity. This is just a game that you don't like.
It is a shame that this game isn't what many people were expecting to be, but lets not blow it out of proportion.

Touche, good sir. Touche.

Part 2.



1. some of these games are in THIRD PERSON that kicks it right out of the FIRST PERSON SHOOTER pool ASAP.

2. As i said some go into RPG word and also into the ONLINE aspect too (borderlands crackdown 1 and 2, etc)

3. Lots of those games i was able to beat in 4-5 hours thats 5 to 10 hours shorter then you say all FPS should be judged.

4. I am still waiting for that list of 125 games. DERP.

um resident evil 5 (well atleast gold) is a third person shooter and it can take me about 5-9 hours to beat it...

Have you played the original Section 8's single player? That one has Brink's in spades.

I just removed all actual FPSs and your list is pretty long still.


Both Rainbow Six Vegas games have campaigns of under 10 hours.
The Left 4 Dead games have no actual campaign, but - like BRINK - a hybrid. And each mission doesn't take very long either.

Also I finished Lost Planet in under 8 hours.

A couple of rude posts have gone away.

I agree with many of the things you stated in your original post.

The thing that bothered me the most was that they didn't even have the "Stats Site" working when the game launched.
A "Stats Site" is totally lame. In this day and age "in-game" stats are the way to go, but if you are gonna do a website only stat function, then by God, atleast have it functional when the game is released. Totally unprofessional.

Makes me sad, since the game actually has some positive things going for it.

I wholeheartedly agree here. This must be fixed if this game wishes to be a success. There's a small window of time from now til about next week before the majority of players just sell the game and give up, many already have.

I don't know I haven't found that the A.I. has been horrible. Not the best but I've had matches where they did work together and help me. The enemy is hard but like I said I like a challenge.

I tend to agree with this guy's comment.


Honestly this could be said for just about every shooter today. There are always a couple of guns that rise to the top. The cream of the crop if you will. In every shooter that's the key to it, finding the gun(s) you like best. I know for myself it was the AK-74u in Black Ops and the MP9/MP7A1 on Rainbow Six for example. I'm still testing out the guns on Brink but I have my favorites already.

Is this really a problem for Brink? I mean really each class has it's own specific role and just because the Engie is a good XP getter doesn't make it overpowered or the other classes underpowered. In fact I can get a lot of XP with Medic as well and my bro can get even more XP on average then myself with a Soldier just because he's a better player. That's not to mention it's not all about XP. Who cares who gets the most it's about the gameplay, the fun of it, and helping the team win. Each class plays a role in that and they all serve a purpose. While it's true the Engineer is very versatile; it can buff damage and armor which are IMO the best two buffs to have as the health pip buff doesn't regen and they can also build and repair a lot of the objectives like you said so they are very important to completing the main objectives. They can be killing machines as their turrets are very helpful in the damage they do and also help a lot when defending objectives as do their mines.

Now Soldiers are ultimately the best killing machines. They can give themselves the armor bonus and they got a damage upgrade, also for themselves only, to negate anyones armor bonus. They play a big role in the team as they can give you ammo which lets be honest a lot of the guns run out of ammo quickly. If your able to stay alive long enough you better have a soldier around or be ready to run back to the command post for more ammo.

Medic's play a even bigger role. In a heated firefight your going to want a Medic, or two even, if you want to come out on top. Not only are they very important to the team with their revives but if a player plays a medic right they can keep you in the fight without going incapacitated. Their heals are okay and the extra health pip buff is so-so ( I usually just save my supplies for revives) but they do have another buff that will make your health regen faster which lasts until you die and respawn, even if you go incapacitated it stays on you if you get revived.

Operatives are probably the weakest or least sought after class to play but even they have a big role in the team if they are played right. You can give your whole team a radar for a short while, you can disguise yourself as the enemy which is pretty powerful to get behind enemy lines, and you can complete hacking objectives which there are a fair amount of. Oh and firewall a command post is another bonus they can do. Sure pointing out mines is a waste of time but it can save your teammates life if you take the time out to do it. Plus with the ability to explode yourself while downed comes in handy if the enemy team usually tries to finish the job with melee instead of wasting bullets.

I'de say they all serve their purpose and I often switch between them. While Medic and Engineer are the two I use mostly I do get a lot of help by my friends who play Soldier. Operatives usually only come into play when the main objective requires them but if played with skill can be a dangerous opponent because your not always thinking about their deadly abilities like disguise and self exploding.

I've never experienced this yet but truth be told I've played very little of the versus multiplayer because of lag right now.

I can already feel a little bit of this coming on. Most games suffer from this though. Only a few have the kind of backing to keep coming out with map packs after map packs. I hope Splash Damage has a plan for DLC, a new story chapter with like 5-8 new maps would be awesome. Rainbow Six Vegas (1) did this best. They had the best maps and a lot of them and then came out with two huge DLC Map packs with a ton of more maps. Brink needs this if it wants to stay relevant down the road. I even suggested they release the first one for free because of the lag issue.

They didn't want in-game stats because they didn't want it to distract players from objectives. This way anyone who wanted to see it could, but you have to go slightly out of your way to see them.

Also it doesn't just track stats, they gave a laundry list of functions which escape me right this second.