Why do people give the developers of CoD a chance to redeem themselves in which the community only gets let down all the time but wont give the devs of Brink a chance?

I just don't get it tbh.

Also don't people understand that EVERY game that contains mp WILL have bugs on day of release no matter what and instead, rush to trade it in without giving it a proper go.

Money. CoD makes money Brink doesn't.

the game was not perfect like in the game trailer vids. funny how game devs dont show vids of the games bad points. but it upset too many people that were looking for perfection. you know how every game that's ever been released is perfect and that's why every game always gets 10/10 scores on game sites except for brink. i think it was to much for too many to handle lag because that's the only thing that will stop you playing a game. but its not like you cant find a lag free game to join. and everybody has at least one character on level 20 so how did everybody get that far if the game doesn't work and has so many flaws. we shall never know.

Because Brink is totally unrepresentative of the footage shown by SD prior to release. People have a right to be angry. They payed for this game....

BS

Brink is what they said it was. Just cause some got overhyped doesn't mean that SD or Beth lied.

Get real.... nothing like and you know it. Stop defending this pile of substandard nonsense.

I shoulda known better than to feed the trolls...

Did we watch the same footage? I never saw any footage pre-release that represented anything other than what was provided... mostly because most pre-release footage was vague, simple montages or trailers. But even that ancient Container City footage, which is from a REALLY old build, still more-or-less manages to capture the gameplay of Brink. Then there was the leaked PAX footage, in which the gameplay is identical to what we have now. The Get SMART series they uploaded prior to release only reinforced the flow of Brink's gameplay further. If anything, watching thebrink.tv's midnight release event, and seeing the actual gameplay a few days before it was due to drop in my country, it just got me more excited because it looked better than anything I was expecting.

Did the "Brink gameplay" footage you see contain unicorns & dragons & jellybeans or something? :mellow: Seems like you were mislead by somebody else rather than the SD, if you were expecting anything more or drastically different than what we got.

Sure it was overhyped and had somewhat misleading advertising, but the multiplayer experience is what they said it would be.

Because people know what CoD's capable of. They know if the game svcks, there's a better standard that the devs will push for.

With BRINK, no one knows about that better standard, so they assume this buggy version is the real deal.

I don't feel like I was misled at all by the advertising.

Are other people really stupid, or am I just REALLY good at knowing what game developers are talking about? Because I seem to be great at looking at games other people call overhyped and being able to say "well your description of the end result is exactly what I thought they were trying to sell"

while the bugs may be a big part of it, i believe that its all the dumb design choices made by the devs. there is ALOT of minor, but annoying things in this game. While bugs are likely to be fixed, the design flaws are not.

The core of the game is good, but its hard for alot of people to get past the annoyance.

With COD for example, there may be bugs, but the core design is solid and consistent, that player base knows what to expect and for the most part accepts it, so they can put up with the bugs knowing they will most likely be fixed.

Well said.

CoD games have been going down hill for awhile now, but the core game play still remains roughly the same.
CoD games usually bring a little something new to the table every year as well. These new features don't
necessarily change overall game play, but they do tend to keep the game somewhat new and refreshing so
players don't grow quickly tired of the game. The main draw of CoD games is the fact that they don't change
that much from year to year.

You're asking people to give SD a chance when they released a game that has serious graphical flaws, an
online component that didn't work for most players, and other small, but numerous, bugs and glitches. Let's
not forget that this game released a week early because supposedly the employees over at SD were fine-
tuning and polishing the game since last year. The game has no where near as much content in it as other
games in the same genre and yet it released with just as many, if not more, bugs and glitches as those other
games. I'm sorry, but you're asking a lot from people.

This game was hyped as a potential genre changer and it did not fulfill that hype. We knew certain things
about the game from watching videos and listening to interviews, but what we didn't know was how simple
and bland the game play and its' mechanics were. We did not know how poorly designed the maps were.
We did not know how imbalanced the weapons were going to be. We did not know that the game was going
to be unplayable online for the first week after release for a majority of players. We did not know that the
game was going to release with major graphical and audio glitches. We did not know that the maps and
objectives were going to so heavily favor the defense.

You 'supporters' can say all you want, but we knew a lot less about the game pre-release then some of
you seem to think and imply. Some of you are so blinded by the fact that you feel you need to defend this
game like it was your own life that you are not seeing the numerous flaws and poor design decisions that
plague this game and are the root cause of the mass exodus of players.

The game has some decent qualities, but they are often overshadowed by the glaringly obvious flaws.
You cannot ask people who pay money for a product to just sit on their hands and shrug their shoulders
at the fact that said product is nothing like what they thought they were getting because certain devs just
flat out lied about certain things.

That is unrealistic and more importantly, it is unAmerican. *wraps naked body in Old Glory and salutes*

And I see one bug/glitch significant enough to be worth mentioning, some AI issues which are a design flaw, and the lack of lobbies for the console versions, which is a design flaw.

It's not actually as much to forgive as you're making it out to be. At least not for the majority.

And they've acknowledged that they botched some things - As a PS3 player who's got a pretty good product, I can understand how the XBox gamers and some people on PC who had compatibility issues would be dissatisfied (And you have every right to be upset with the product not being up to standard), but there's a community on PC with a great game, and a community on PS3 with a great game, and they're working on making the game run better for those who are still having issues.

I'd say bear with them.

EDIT: And stop claiming those of us with good experiencing are lying or stupid just because we get to see the good side of the game and you don't.

So because we're having a good experience with the game on PS3, and are compelled to stick by it since our version seems to be the less buggy of the three, we "supporters" are blind in our support of the game? Maybe if we had the same issues on PS3 as the other version your statement would hold merit, but it doesn't. The PS3 community of Brink is doing quite well. I personally have well over 20 people on my FL playing Brink, some from this forum, others who I've met from playing the game. We stand by the game because our version needs the least work, hence...our experience is vastly different from yours. But I bet you didn't factor that into account when you typed up that wall of text, did you?

And for the record, I read your post, and up until the paragraph above, I was in agreement to a point. But then you basically nullified any real merit you had with the old "Brink fans are [censored]" statement, cleverly hidden with a hint of intellect.

Just because PS3 and PC players have a 'great' game doesn't mean that there aren't serious game design flaws that apply to all platforms.
If the game was in fact a 'great' game as you put it then there would be a serious difference in the number of players between all the
different platforms and there just isn't.

People and critics alike aren't giving this game much credit because it offers game play that is just too repetitive and stale. It offers horrible
map design and balance. It offers the most realistic recoil in modern shooters while also offering the most fast-paced style of game play seen
in recent gaming history. It offers a class-based system that encourages the use of certain classes more so than others. It offers a movement
system, that while nice, does little in the way of changing game play. It offers a very unfriendly and unintuitive online component. It offers game
play, map design, and abilities that tend to encourage a fast-paced lonewolf mentality instead of encouraging teamwork.

It does some things right, but appears to do more things wrong and this cannot be changed by switching platforms.

And I never implied or even attempted to say that people are lying or stupid.

What on this ****ed up planet makes you think that your paragraph has anything to do with mine? You need to seriously work on your reading comprehension.
You've actually proven my point by attempting to attack my post and twist it around so you can have some form of support for the game, or at least your
platform's version of the game.

My paragraph has nothing to do with what you're talking about. I was referring to the argument above about people being misled by the videos and interviews
they heard and read before the game launched and the many design flaws that DO NOT differ from platform to platform.

But then you basically nullified any real merit you had with the old "Brink fans are [censored]" statement, cleverly hidden with a hint of intellect.

Once again, you are wrong. My statement is implying that some people are refusing to acknowledge the obvious design flaws in the game and are instead
attacking the poster who brought them to attention or referred to them. To them the game is perfect, despite the platform, and no one can tell them otherwise.
They are not stupid, but are simply unrealistic and are driving more people away from the community with their arrogant and ignorant posts.

You are either very unintelligent or are trying extremely hard to find something in my posts that you can poorly plagiarize into some form of support for your own
argument. I'm not on these forums to bash the game, but merely attempt to be the voice of reason when needed amongst those that refuse to admit to certain
flaws that are present on all platforms.

People are trying to find out the reason behind the hatred or disappointment for the game and I'm merely supplying them with one side of the story.

Try reading people's posts before finger-blasting the keyboard.

Design flaws cross all the platforms.

true ps3 version has less bugs, so the initial shock was not there to run people off right away, however the the game itself is lacking. Soon enough your community too will dwindle. (if it hasnt already, i seriously doubt its thriving as is)

sure there are many people who can look past the many minor annoyances, but there are more who can not. As it becomes harder and harder to find matches with players, not bots, more people will simply give up and move on.

i predict we will see a momentary influx of players once the free dlc comes out, but unless it is amazing there is little incentive for us gamers to put up with a poorly designed game.

as iv mentioned before, this game will be remembered as a flop

The way I see it, there's two groups with different priorities. The people who want a polished game don't like brink and that's perfectly justified, but the people with more emphasis on fun and innovation, enjoy brink and can see past it's flaws. I think it's obvious the target audience was the latter group. CoD appeals to the 1st group but is hated by the 2nd, while Brink is hated by the 1st and loved by the 2nd. I am NOT saying that CoD players hate Brink and vice versa, I'm just saying that they each succeed in different ways. Occasionaly you get a development team experienced enough to get the polish and innovative enough to create a fun experience, and that's when you get a truly great game.

And I acknowledged you pointing out "the reason behind the hatred or disappointment for the game and I'm merely supplying them with one side of the story." But the paragraph I quoted again...made your explanation completely mute, as does your above expected "defensive" retort. My comprehensive skills are perfectly fine. Yours on the other hand apparently need some fine tuning. Maybe if you feel butt-hurt when someone pulls your punk card, you'd have realized my acknowledgment within my post. But whatevz, you're entertainment value just ran out. Feel free to make your fragile ego feel better with the predictable "last word" post. I'm not even bothering to dignify your level of obvious stupidity with further response once I hit the post message button.

All games are repetetive, that's the nature of a defined game. People have been playing various sports and games for ages and still play despite the obviously repetetive nature of them.

"Horrible map design and balance" is an opinion. The design, for the most part, is quite well done for the game's purposes although it does suffer a few issues on certain maps. The unbalanced nature of the maps does not make it horrible balance, as it is intended to favor a defender over an attacker, which is a concept neccesary to the style of game but foreign to many players coming from games with central objectives and arena style maps.

What makes realistic recoil a problem in fast paced gaming?

Most class based games do promote the use of a few classes over others. There are classes for the masses and classes for niche players, neither of which are a problem, particularly since you can change your class on the fly if you need something else to get the job done.

The movement system certainly changes gameplay, but the maps allow for it so it doesn't neccesarily stand out the way it would in a standard arena setup. SMART changes how you look at every move that you need to make (provided you understand the system) because you can get to your goal in so many different ways.

I'll give you the on-line issues. It's an odd setup on consoles (don't know how it looks on PC).

The gameplay doesn't promote "lonewolf" play, everything about the game funnels players together and rewards them for being together, what people do with that play is all on them. Not forcing teams to be together doesn't mean that the teams aren't working together.

Implication is not statement of fact, implication is by definition vague. I suggest that there are many ways to interpret the meaning of the comment in question. Therefore the implications of the comment are greater than the singular definition you have given. This does not invalidate the quotation above, other than with respect to it being the only actual and definitive meaning. It is entirely possible that the definition given is the definition the author intended.



I'm sure I'll remember this game as being extrememely enjoyable, just like I remember Lode Runner being extremely enjoyable.

Very few products are actually as advertised. If a person believed that Brink was going to be the perfect game, based on the gameplay and/or CGI trailers, then that person needs to acquire a more realistic world view. I sincerely hope all the rants I see on this forum are hiding the fact that the unhappy have learnt a valuable lesson: Don't believe the hype.

By all means hope that it's going to be great, but don't expect it to change your life. Or prepare yourself to be often disappointed.

In an effort to be more on topic, I think it's because people got their hopes up for Brink without realistically considering what the game would actually be. So when it turned out to not be the game they imagined they got upset and/or angry, and rather than admit fault for being credulous they prefer to blame SD or Bethesda for not delivering what they promised. Regardless of what they actually "promised". Sure there are faults and flaws with the game, especially when you compare it with the absolute perfection that is COD, GoW, MAG, or any other online shooter because we all know the rest of them have never had any problems.

I don't see how the developers etc of Brink have acted differently to any other company that provides goods or services. How many businesses do you know who tell you their product is crap and not to buy it? It is usually more likely that they'll talk about the positive and unique features of their product.

You want a game with photorealistic graphics and absolutely no bugs, runs perfectly well on almost any platform? Try Hungy Hungry Hippos, or perhaps Monopoly.

It's because Brink is a new standalone game and completely overhyped for most people. If you get that excited about a game and expect it to be perfect(as a lot of people did) then expect to be disappointed. I didn't expect perfection, in fact Brink came close to my expectations and I absolutely love this game and hope that eventually(not too soon now, it just came out) it will get a sequel. However, that is a slim possibility because of initial reception, but maybe there are just enough dedicated fans to convince them 'ey?

horrible map design is one thing this game does not have there are so many different directions hidden areas places to find cover i mean really !!!!!!!!!!!!

Reason 1 (which has been said in some form or another by various posters already) is

It's difficult for a new game to break in to this market.

Now by new, you know that I dont mean the latest installment of COD, Halo, Gears, or BF. Good game or bad game, these have a playerbase that have been running for years now in some form or another, are refined and polished releases, have the big names and have a lot of money to throw around. They're settled. They're the Mercedes, BMW, and Audi of the gaming world. Then comes along a Nissan. Something that has a lot of potential but is frowned upon because it's an unknown. Go into any GAME store's bargain bin and pick up a bunch of shooters that are released by more independent developers that have just flopped, or at the very least, held a decent player base until the next COD game came out. For a game that's trying to fit in to a niche it's difficult because gamer's as a whole dont like niche. niche means the same money as an Audi for a non-audi, and that makes no sense to some people.

I took a chance on Bulletstorm. Got my ￡40 worth.
I took a chance on Brink. Am getting my ￡40 worth.
I will be dropping all my other games for BF:3, and will be getting my ￡40 worth.

People not getting or trying the game is to be expected. To be honest Brink has had a better release than most.
What's toxic is all the sour pusses putting it down. No one forced you to buy the game.