First off, I'm 30, far from a kid. And yes, I know what an N64 is - I've been gaming since Atari.

Second, where in the post you quoted did I mention or even hint at anything about COD being the first FPS - the quote was about Halo....

And last, If a game has been out for a prolonged period of time, especially if said game is very successful (lots of sales,) it is only rational and logical to allow a similar period of time to another game, to see if it is able to surpass the sales of the already established game. Just starting from Modern Warfare and not even including COD 1-3, the game has made what - 10's or 100's of billions of dollars?

Although the it is possible that a game can come out that is so remarkable, that it makes that kind of money in sales and does it in a smaller time frame, it is not probable.

You are comparing the popularity and sales of a franchise to a single game - that isn't even out yet.

Oh, and like I already said, why are you talking about COD - the quote you commented on was talking about Halo.

i really really hope so :biggrin: ... too much tired of answering dis same question in every forum i go -_- ...
but honestly i dont care if it beats CoD or not... i just want it 2 last longer than any current shooters available in da market ...

Disclaimer: Yes, I'm a PC gamer. I have no particular opinion about console gaming, since I don't have or play on consoles. My rant below is purely from a old school PC player perspective.

I think even a 5-year old can draw the conlusion that BRINK or any other shooter will not suddenly bring COD to it's fall. The only ones who will bring down COD are ACTV and their studios by watering down the franchise.

The current path with only rental at one GSP, no influx at all on server configuration or anticheat system, only vanilla/overcharged DLC maps is getting really bothersome for those who actually pay to keep servers available - the clans and gaming communities (and that this is not limited to COD but also seen in current BF-games).

However, I have a problem understanding who BRINK is targeted for.
SMART in all glory. I'm sure it was hard work and innovative. But features like that is not what makes a game, it's the whole package.

I'm also confused about the interview, where one of the developers talked down on old school gameplay/players like it was a bad thing. I have to assume that guy have no clue about SD's heritage as a mapper for RtCW and developer of ET.

Old school for a game like BRINK would mean going back to RtCW/ET gameplay.
How can that be bad? At least it would stand out and bring back your old fan base and hopefully spark some interest for teamplay in the current crowd as well.

Some other points that is either questionable or that we lack information about:
- Dedi server files for public (windows and Linux).
Many clans/communities already rent (or even own) their own box. pls don't let us down again.

- 8v8 on PC ? Seriously ??? Only reason for that would be crappy netcode or to small maps.
Tbh, I can't even see a clan of 12-16 active players plus their normal pubbing friends interested in 8v8 no matter how grand the game is. We already swear out loud daily on COD:BO for their 9v9 on ranked servers.
We are around as a community because we like to game together, which means that we will just stick with (or move to a game) that can cater for that.

- SDK for mappers/modders ? The sooner the better.

- And do let the clans running servers have the possibility to tweak server to their likings/preference. The more variety of servers the better for all.

Basically, focus on developing/improving game mechanics and engine and let the community admin servers and sort out maps mods.

^too many words, too late to care, sum up in 50 words or less or gtfo

JK i kid, welcome to the forums

I don't think that it'll knock cod off of it's high horse, but that's a good thing. I don't want 12 year olds making my ears bleed in Brink. Although Brink will be the start of something big...

Yeah, I got carried away

To many disappointments latest years.
High hopes for new games that really doesn't deliver good teamplay, sure graphics are fantastic but ....

Personally, I think 16 players in total is a little much already.

The perfect number - in my opinion - is 12.


This is not officially confirmed, but - hint hint - they stated that both Splash Damage and Bethesda are well known for community and mod support. :hubbahubba:


This has basicly been confirmed. However, we don't know for sure how much depth there is to it.
Friendly Fire, bots and VoIP are options for sure.

Well consider it like this, I'm a video game prodigy (fps's) I find game's such as cod and halo waaaay too easy online and through competitions and I question everything there is about fps's. I hate every single one of them. This is the first fps that I actually look foward to playing. Now I'm not amazing, the typical "[censored]" does effect me; such as knifing, one hit kills, noob tubes etc... And I personally find it a breath of fresh air that people will no longer be able to kill me

Theres plenty of FPS games on PC that wipe the floor with Halo or CoD. If you think the console market is too easy switch to PC, thats where most of the real competition is at.

I'm a console player too

Enlighten me, what are these little known gems that rival CoD numbers? Unless it costs exponentially more money, how could it be significantly less popular and have more sales?

Yea i agree with you 100%, the only problem is I'd rather have a controller than a keyboard. I may make the switch to PC on Brink tho and just connect my xbox controller to my PC

Normally a controller user would get eaten alive by someone with a mouse and keyboard. Good thing you're an "FPS prodigy".

I could hold my ground against "normal" PC-gamers in Rainbow Six Vegas 2 with the XBox 360 Gamepad. But my performance was nowhere near the Keyboard & Mouse scores.

What makes someone using a mouse and a keyboard so much better? Do they somehow have better aim than me? Do their grenades somehow do more damage? Do their bullets somehow hurt me more? Does the keyboard somehow magically let them know what I'm about to do before I do it?

I have yet to receive an answer to this no matter who I ask.

Yeah, pretty much. A mouse is simply much quicker and more precise. Turning speed is also a lot faster. I prefer to play on consoles and controllers but I hold no illusions about it being superior or equal to mouse and keyboard.

I'm the biggest fan of FPS, I've played them on consoles, on PCs, and I've played all the biggest names.

I've personally studied this topic religiously, so although I hate to toot my own horn, you'll probably get the best answer from me.




Let me tell you that first of all, if I have the choice to pick any type of controller or keyboard, I would choose a wired xbox 360 controller (there is a HUGE difference between a wireless and wired, so that is very important).


Keeping that in mind, for gaming especially FPS the Keyboard and Mouse crush the controller.


There are two main reasons for this.

The first is that most if not all people are taught how to use mouse and keyboard very early on, so they are already comfortable with the controller before they've ever played a video game before.

The second is that think about the anolog stick you look with on your controller. Think about every single position you could put the stick in. Now think about a mouse. The amount of different positions for the anolog controller will be a fraction of the different positions you can acquire with a mouse. What does that mean?

That means that lets say you are playing Call of Duty 4 (a game that is both PC and console). Same situation, one on the console, one on the PC. There is a guy behind you who just shot and missed, no matter what his next bullet is going to kill you (you know this because your a psychic). The only way you can kill him is by spinning around and shooting him right in the head. Simply said, the percentage of people that will be able to accomplish this on the console, will be a fraction of the people who will be able to accomplish that on the PC.





When it comes down to it, they both have their advantages and disadvantages. If you use an XBOX 360 controller on a PC game, you are going to have an advantages over the Keyboard users, but their advantage is much more significant. FPS are all about accuracy, Keyboard and Mouse make it the easiest it can be.


I've played through well over half my ranks in the PC game: Battlefield 2 with a wired Xbox 360 controller, and I can tell you although the difference wasn't huge, there was countless scenarios where I knew if I had the accuracy of a mouse I would've survived.

Personally I prefer the wired xbox 360 controller, and I prefer console games, because I've personally noticed that there are a lot more people that svck at using a controller, than people who svck at using a mouse and keyboard.

Thats incorrect.


The turning speed varies from game to game.


I've had console games where I could look around much faster than I could on a PC game.

Short answer: no.

The Call of Duty pedigree and name recognition has been significantly reinforced since MW1. With games as widespread as CoD, people who have practically been raised on them will be biased against most other competitors. Some even troll forums in order to try to make other games fail.

I wish it were different. I like Call of Duty, but I don't love it. I played Call of Duty 1 way back and was in a rifle clan, and I had a great time. But the series took a sharp turn somewhere, so the fun's dropped off.

I'm looking forward to Brink way more than any other shooter, and I'll probably be playing it for a long while if I like it as much as I think I'm going to. But Call of Duty's kung-fu death grip on its followers is damn formidable.

Aiming with a mouse is too easy. Just point and click.

I prefer controllers. Actually takes a certain amount of skill to get headshots with a controller.

Why is that everyone seems to think that call of duty started out of no where?


You know that all those teens that love call of duty, used to be all those teens that love halo? They are the least dedicated fans in gaming. They'll flip from one game to another in a second.

being one of those teens you speak of, i have first hand experience with them. the truth behind it all is simply [and has been stated 10000 times before on this topic] that the majority of COD players arnt gamers they're just people playing the game because its easy and requires them to have little to no skill. brink is a gamers game and as far as im concerned as long as the online multiplayer servers don't shutdown im totally fine with it being smaller than COD.

their loyalty dosnt matter because they dont claim to be gamers. theyre gonna be bigoted against anything not COD because COD is all they play. its like trying to sell a tv to a blind person. just leave it. let them miss out. I'm going to enjoy brink and so is everyone else here i imagine, so just let them loose.

Well that's part of my point. Let the clans/admins running the server decide.
I'd rather have the additional choice - than being limited to 8v8 if (or once) SDK for mappers is released.
Seeing the many maps for RtCW/ET, COD1-4 and the variety of sizes, it would be weird to lock it down to 8v8.

I simply ask to support diversity/variety.

That's not it.

The major difference between mouse-control and stick-control is the way you give movement-input.

When you move the mouse into one direction, your crosshair will move into the same direction. Depending on how far you move your mouse, the crosshair moves equally far.
Now when you want to move with the stick, you move it into one direction and your crosshair will keep moving while the stick is hold down.

The stick does not allow you (read: It. Does. Not. Allow.) to move at an accurate range, but just very vaguely.
And no matter how hard you train, you can't translate the accuracy of a mouse to the stick.


If I had been drinking some coffee, milk, coke right now, I would have had to clean my room.

Gamepads just stupefy what mouse and keyboard allow. It doesn't have to do with skill in the first place, but with capabilities.


All I can see in that scenario is some rubbish like alterIW in which most servers run on 18-players hardcoe, which totally defeats the point of the game, as the maps are not designed for 9v9 (and hardcoe turns every gun into a laser. http://images.encyclopediadramatica.com/images/7/7c/Shoop_woopdance.gif)

I'm not sure I follow. I played the original Call of Duty -- not Modern Warfare, but Call of Duty -- back in 2002 or 2003. That's when the game started for me, back when we were killing Nazi's just like everyone else.

Some of them are indeed as flighty as you say. Others, though.... if it doesn't look like COD, smell like COD, and sound like COD, they'll spit on it and throw it in the garbage.

How can you "Hold Your Own" against a game?

Well, first of all you have to be a game as well ...