I understand that there are only 8 maps but this isn't much less than what ever launches with any other FPS game. This makes 16 different scenarios to play out. Sixteen different missions on eight relatively large maps really seems like a pretty good deal to me. I don't really get why people are saying the game is short and repetitive. There is MUCH more going on in each match of Brink than the typical match of any gametype of CoD yet nobody has a problem going prestige six times in CoD doing quite literally the same thing over and over and over.

Brink only has 8 maps!!!
- These eight maps are large and a few of them are broken up into a few sections.

There's only TWO gametypes!!!
- Yes, but in each given match you are given upwards of four tasks to accomplish. Capture the flag: Check, Escort: Check, Search and Destroy: Check. So there isn't a TDM. Is that really all we are basing this argument on?

Yeah but it's the same maps EVERYTIME!!!
- I don't know if anyone has noticed but when the hell do the maps ever change in any other FPS? Check out the heat maps on any given map in Halo or CoD. Sure looks like people go to the same areas over and over again huh?
-- Escort missions turn into duds because nobody freaking FLANKS THE ENEMY. They just keep TDMing it up over and over in the same little area. In aquarium on the ramp I rarely ever see anyone go the back way and come around and surprise the guys on top of the stairs. Nope, they just keep running up the LONG ASS EXPOSED WALKWAY. Two groups of four pinching a group of eight wins every single time. Here's a thought, everyone should die and attack all at once Instead of spawning across three different waves and running out there. These maps play out the same way because people keep playing them the same way. Flank the enemy and wipe the out. Grenade flush and pinch THEN rez the damn escort. The CTF portions always have at least two different routes. I've seen people utilize the non main route 1/10 times. No wonder they die. BOOHOO ENGINEERS HAVE TURRETS AND MINES... Have you seen what frags do to turrets? And it's not the game's fault that your operative on the team is too busy shooting people instead of doing recon and spotting the mines and the MEDICS SO YOU KNOW WHICH ONES TO KILL.

Only 20 levels!!!
- Wow. Do we really freaking need levels in an online game. Freaking CoD did this. Every single game didn't need useless unlocks until that damn game. When it first started in MW it was innovative and unique and if you don't recall didn't really take very long to max. Now its a completely vapid process (along with regenerating to full health). I'm a [censored] navy seal and I can't have access to all the weapons and abilities because I haven't dumped 20 hours into getting destroyed by people who do have access to it?? Yeah freaking right. Even Crysis needed to have levels and ranks galore. It makes NO [censored] SENSE. I'm a [censored] navy seal mega marine and they found me qualified enough to wear an experimental super cloaking armor suit but screw me sideways I can't figure out how to use this new assault rifle until level 22!! Give me a break. Splash damage made it easy to unlock the weapons and attachments on purpose. These conventions are in the game but they aren't the whole game. Each rank adds a new layer upon the game and at rank five it's a whole new ballgame. That's when Brink actually starts. So what if you made it there in eight hours. Congrats, you just beat the tutorial.

I know SD overpromised on the single player. It's just the multiplayer with bots. But to say the multiplayer is lacking in content is like saying the board game RISK is lacking in content simply because it's the same board with the same pieces over and over.

Am I missing something here?

I like the fact that you can unlock all your weapon upgrades before you ever play online, no more excuses for crybabies that your weapon is OP just because of your rank.
Flanking the enemy is what it is all about to give the rest of your team time to get the escortee away, I prefer the soldier route myself and just try try create carnage and mayhem to take the attention away from the rest of the team.
This results in a lot of kills and a lot of time watching the spawn counter go down, but at Lvl20 you can at least use your secondary to keep you amused during the wait.
Played almost 40hrs since Friday, and just released the lift in Aquarium worked last night. Big lol at myself for not even trying it before and I certainly abused the [censored] out of it once I made that discovery. Eventually one of the enemy stayed posted at the top floor entrance all the time to wait for me, job done as that is one enemy out of the road.
I only played like mad to get my level20 Abilities and to be honest I still can't decide if the satchels were worth it, I hardly even select an objective now as I know where to go and what to do and no longer care about XP.
Certainly plenty routes to discover on the maps,as a light there is lots to keep you busy.

I think a lot will find it repetitive though as the choke points end up the same, like the ramp etc and instead of changing their routes or objectives just keep going back to the same spot over and over.

BREAKING NEWS!

ONLINE FPS SHOOTERS ARE REPETITIVE,IT'S NOW OFFICIAL!


Sure they are repetitive after a while.What keeps games like this alive are the tactics and the competitive play.

Look at CS 1.6/Source.MOST REPETITIVE gameplay EVER but it's addictive as HELL and millions of players play or played it for years and years online.


My build orders in SC2 are also completely repetitive,but it can ALWAYS turn out different in a match.

Damn. Good post Ninja

You took the words out of my mouth

All FPS games are repetetive.

There are only what, 8 or so maps in this game, and really only half a dozen real objective types. Play the game for a month and you'll probably be bored out of your mind with it (honestly I never got how you could have hardcoe fps fans when this issue plagues every FPS game ever made). I tend to be an RPG player more than a shooter player... FPS/TPS games just typically dont have the replayability options that other genres do.

Agreed! & were getting free DLC in June anyway. Maps & content. If you're bored, then you're boring

HELLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLL YEA WE ARE!!!!!!

In CoD there are usually around 12 maps, with over 12 different gametypes that can be played on EACH map. I'm no good at maths, but that's a lot more possibilities than what BRINK offers.

Not so sure you'll get bored. It depends on what you enjoy doing. Hell, have a look at the most played TF2 maps and you'll find that a tiny handful are played _a lot!_ And I'm quite happy logging in every now and then to grab that same suitcase or to push that stupid little cart over the same tracks I always push it.
Of course now I'd rather log into brink and fix the same crane and guard the same HE charges. I'm always trying to get better and once I have the map and tactics down then I can start experimenting with different approaches. And even then a new team makes for a different match. Some are aggressive, some defensive, some coordinated, some a complete shambles, some good and some bad.
Everything is repetative if you do it more than once (repeating it even). It's about how enjoyable it is for you and I personally find Brink enjoyable to play. Your milage may differ.

ninjanoob is there anything in this game you didnt like you sound a little bias i like the game but i have played since the day it came out and to even call it multiplayer is a joke. I have only managed to play with a hand full of REAL players and when i do LAG! LAG! LAG!. In my opinion it is repetative but not because of the maps but because of the ai/bots. I have also wanted to launch an attack all at the same time like you say but when the ai respawns they just run to where they died last just to die again and again or you could be holding down an objective for the entire map and die once and by the time you get back your team has failed you and you are overun with enemies so you fight them back again and hold it down again so you die again and guess what by the time you get back your team has failed you AGAIN there should be an online section where you can choose to play with real players only but if they cant do that because of lag then they cant compete with any fps that has dealt with the problem.


to summarize the thing that makes online gaming unpredictable is us the online gamers and without us the game is doomed to be repetative because AI/BOTS ARE NOT PEOPLE.

MULTIPLAYER? I DONT THINK SO.

And the community always hates about 3 maps and the other 9 are average to mediocre at best, most of those 12 gamemodes consist of things like
TDM
Mercenary TDM
Barebones Mercenary TDM
hardcoe TDM
And most people just play TDM or domination anyway
Do you see where Im going, though COD has the aooearance of replayability fact is your just doing regular TDM 80% of the time and when you do decided to switch things up your end up playing a recycled gamemode where they just lowered the the health or took out kill streaks or attachments.
It really sounds stupid when you think about it.

lets just say that when the people i played with today needed a medic and an operative the 2 that i havent played much as i was terrible and it made me realize that i needed to be making another character as a medic
so i can get better skills 3 characters so far and just like BFBC2 i like being the engineer!!!!!!!!!!!!! the more you play the better it gets until you get owned by the other team and no matter what you do your team is going down.

With brink, the gameplay feel is up to you. You can either ignore the objectives and go off killing, go on secondary objectives, use your class effectively, do the primary objective, or just mess around. All it is with CoD is "kill these people, camp here, move in about 30 seconds to another spot." Regardless of the game modes, it's all the same with that game. And, with different maps come different objectives. How in the HELL is it repetitive. It's your own fault you don't see the lack of limitations in the game. You can even make a private match and just explore the maps with a lightweight!

And if you don't want to play with bots on multiplayer, check the Public VOIP box to see if it's checked on the game modes. If it's checked, that means no dumb ass bots. And they're going to patch the AI, I'm sure.

I enjoy Brink but the maps are extremely repetitive. There is nothing dynamic about them. You will be forced to complete the exact same primary objectives in the exact same order every single time. If the primary objectives were even a little bit random it would make Brink 1,000 times better. Instead I know exactly what the next objective will be and where it is located. The only randomness of the map is how the players will react. Even random locations in game types like Headquarters have more variables than Brink's objective gameplay (and I hate CoD).

Imagine if Brink had randomized objectives where neither team could plan ahead with any consistency. This would be revolutionary! I think Brink is fantastic but the storyline of Brink has made the maps rather bland as they are trying to force the players in a specific direction instead of letting the objectives be the real stars of the game. Imagine starting a map and not knowing what/where the first objective will be. Sure, once you have played the map enough you may know which objectives are available but not sprinting immediately to the objective and actually having to coordinate your team's efforts is what Brink is all about. Instead we mindlessly know that a Soldier is needed first, followed by an Engineer, etc. That's not revolutionary, that's just repetitive.

I'm all for Brink's objectives gameplay but static objectives are pointless (unless you want to tell a story). I understand that they are needed for the campaign but the multiplayer missions should have them randomized to keep the players adapting. As Brink stands now it is a slightly above average shooter. With dynamic maps that change as you play them it would have revolutioned the genre.

Bad Company 2 has the objectives in the same place and it's not repetitive.

I like Brink, I play it alot. But I don't let my fan boyism take over, its easy to see Brink is a half assed beta of what should have been. Just because you and I like it doesnt mean it isnt EXTREMELY repetitive. Infact thats why im not playing it now. Don't let your fan boyism take over, there are 8 very sectioned maps, and only maybe 10 hours of gameplay IF you stick with it through all the lag and terrible glitches. Brink deserved its mediocre rating....it might not have even deserved that. But I still like it, doesnt mean I have to make a thread hating on everyone and trying to prove points through my own logic. Brink svcks, get over it and keep playing it like I do.

^^^^^^ that
:turtle: :turtle:

This was because their a million strategies, vehicles, more strategy for lone wolfs. In brink its teh same strategy example: for teh aquarium playing as resistance just plant turrents where tehy come fro and done. In BF:BC2 you could have people snipe or have engis blow the place up or send people to teh grave to haev them revived... Saying al lthis makes me rething brink and why i waited 2 years for something with little in it...?

Battlefields maps aren't sectioned, there completely open. (DONT play rush its for the CoD kiddies) For example attacking flag B on atacama desert. I can use the chopper, maybe flank around back on foot, go around the ship and use the UAV, bring a tank and humvee, maybe humvee/quad rush it, maybe humvee in quick and plant mines, how about a tank convey, maybe a tank convoy + chopper support? Nah I think i'll send a buddy with a tank and the rest of us will go on foot around back...not to mention the other team adding infinite variables. In Brink its....go around left, go around right, use smart to get above (in the rare occasion theres a way above) and plant charge. That is where it ends. See the difference? I wasn't even 1/10th done explaining different ways to attack B.

I've played at least twice on every map as Security, and played several as Resistance (some multiple times on their side as well), and one of my friends was over last night playing, and he played through the entire Resistance campaign and half of Security's... twice.

I never really saw repitition - except that he made a few noob mistakes early on that I'd also made, and that once one of us found a specific tactic that worked, we'd be repeating the use of that tactic in similar situations - and sometimes pushing the limits of how different the situation can get before the tactic loses its viability.

If you're not trying new things, because your tactics worked last time, guess what? The enemy might spoil your plan! Even the bots, even on Easy, are willing to CHANGE TACTICS WHEN YOU BEAT THEM. If you're winning, don't set yourself on cruise control and think you'll always win - don't keep repeating the same mistake just because it got lucky the first time.

If I place Caltrops in the same place every time on defense, the enemy (AI and human) either approaches through that route slowly, hoping I'm watching another path and assuming the Caltrops will warn me of their approach, or they'll come from another direction. Sometimes they'll coordinate and send one person in through the Caltrops, then a group will attack me from behind while I'm out of position. If I'm supported by good teammates, they can cover the hole that I leave, so I get an unbalanced 1 vs. 1 against an already--hurt enemy, but other times, I'll be alone, or my moving out of position will allow my teammates to get overwhelmed by a strong push from the enemy.

You NEVER know how ANYONE in this game will react - whether HUMAN or AI.

I'd agree with you if this was true, but sadly it is not. You can make a player or bot react with certainty if you apply the correct stimulus. Ever outsmart another player? How'd you do it? Chances are that the human player fell into their repetitive nature and you exploited it. What did you do immediately afterwards? Chances are that you adapted back into your normal routine. Why do players do this? Because the map is static. They know exactly what to expect, with very little variation, since the map only has a limited number of routes and the players are all trying to complete or defend the exact same objective.

Now imagine if when the match started you didn't know what class was needed to complete the objective or where it was located. You could see where it is located using your objective wheel and find out what class was needed using a CP. Just this subtle change makes the map entirely new. No more running to point A to do menial task, then point B to check for something else. You would still have routines that you follow but now you would have to account for more random variables. Things like players that went to the wrong location and are backtracking through a normally unused area, or players that have the wrong class selected and need to capture the local CP to change. Just a single random change in the objective will cause enough chaos that every player will be adapting instead of simply following a routine.

Are most games repetitive? Yes. Does Brink need to be? Probably not.

EDIT: Back when I was young I learned to play chess. Once I had the rules and basic premise down my father would have me pull a piece of paper with a color and piece listed on it out of a cup. Why? Well I had to play without that piece. Sometimes it was a Rook or Knight so the color didn't matter as much while other times it was a Bishop on black or even my Queen. Let me tell you that I never developed a strategy that couldn't be changed immediately because of this. Brink needs a few pieces of paper in a cup that changes the rules slightly and keeps the players guessing. Randomizing the objectives would be a great way to do this.

Cus it is. The maps focus down to the same choke points, the smae objectives and avenues to get to them, the same stratgies to complete them. Its only interesting when you get more than 4 ACTUAL people in a match but in the 2 dozen plus I;ve played so far...thats only happend 3 times.

Well...it is repetitive. I like Brink, I really do, but I don't think it's going to last. It's problem is that the objectives are so definite that they end up playing out the same again and again. With a less definite objective, capturing and holding a flag say, the repetition is significantly reduced. Class-based shooters do better when the classes are used to support each other during the capture of an objective, not when they are required to capture the objective themselves.

Sad truth, but like Halo: Reach's Macthmaking gametypes, they have incredibly low numbers of people playing games like classic, action sack (probably cause they want more XP), and pretty much everything that isn't Slayer or a variant of Slayer.

Brink's maps may not have many objectives after the engineers have built every MG nest, and it becomes a main objective-orientated match, but I still would rather have Brink options, then most FPSes, ironically thats what I said about Reach, then I moved towards custom games and forge.

EDIT: by the way, does anyone agree that in future DLC, that we get a escort civilian mission where you can change the direction instead of the preset way they go? Like in Security Tower, I kinda wish he went up the stairs instead of the hallway choke point that can be abused.

My first thoughts were "Why can't that spot be locked, and a operative can hack it open as a shortcut? Thats just me though.