Actually, the "official website" is managed by Bethesda, and it hasn't been updated in a while, besides the news tab. The places I would go to get the most recent (reliable) information would be the splash damage forums and Brinkish.

No there are but they rarely post. Most of the chill at the Splash Damage forums, you know because they work for Splash Damage. :spotted owl:

I think I've read that from one of your posts before in another thread actually Wraith, I wonder what the random developer thinks of all this :blink:

Deleted my post, didnt relize how far off this thread went.

well, as with all games, if its good and it works, it gets stolen by the competition. But its all in the execution, really. Anyone can copy a feature, but not everyone masters its implementation in-game. But personally, I'm not always looking for games that break new ground -just do what they do well and smoothly enough to keep me playing. Is Brink really going to do anything Borderlands doesn't do? Sure, you can slide and vault, but you're killing with a gun, doing quests and levelling, essentially. If the graphics are good, the game is stable, and the combat smooth and fast -I'm in.

I read this anology somewhere...let's say somebody makes hamburger earmuffs. Hamburgers aren't innovative, and neither are earmuffs. But combining those two things is an innovation in itself. The same could be said of Brink. It's innovative in that it takes inspiration from multiple sources and puts in into one video game.

psh, that's not innovative, ever hear of edible underwear? >.>

Just cant avoid a chance to be a smartbutt (stupid filter), but I agree with your example.

Hopefully it quiets htose who say Brink isn't innovative. I like to argue for the sake of arguing, in case no one has noticed yet

How could it be outdone by a copycat so close to release, especially after they have dedicated themselves to perfecting every aspect of Brink.

From what I have seen and read BRINK is a very objective game.

He meant "unlike brink" for both objectives and teamplay.

I was explaining how Bulletstorm is not like Brink. You are right, Brink is a team based objective type of gameplay. Bulletstorm is the one that's just, "kill people in awesome ways man. Woohoo, that was a cool kill! Rock on! Herp derp!"

i could be wrong, but i didn't think they released any significant information on Bulletstorm's multiplayer, only its singleplayer... i also think its your bias thinking that shooters that's objective is strictly killing others and surviving is "herp derp"; i think all objectives get real simple once you're an experienced player, and objective systems are likely to be either too easy or too difficult. but when your team is simply trying to kill the other team, the gameplay gets more difficult, more complex, more tactical the higher the skill level of the players is and as long as the skill is equal on both sides, you get balance. All shooters are essentially just killing the other team, the objectives are just gimmicks, the game still revolves around shooting, but its just one more thing to the game that could be broken. Blue almost always wins in Gravelpit in tf2 for example.

Objective based gameplay is still skill vs skill. What objectives do is provide a goal, so there is much more strategy, thought, and teamwork required. Any game mode where its a possible strategy to have your whole team sit in one spot and force the enemy to come to you isn't all that complex.

As far as unbalanced maps, that's why competitive teams use a stopwatch system, one team tries to win as fast as possible, then the sides are switched and the other team has to try to beat their time.

Yes, I do have bias against Bulletstorm because of the whole "kill them in a cool way." I'm also biased against God of War and other beat 'em ups that encourage flashy kills more than practicality. You may think objectives are gimmicks and all the game is still just about killing, but it drives the game. There have been examples Splash has given that Brink will create objectives for a team that is being crushed, just so they can have a fighting chance against a team that's clearly better.

Innovation you say?

Let's see:

-SMART system
-New dynamic team-based gameplay with the addition of the objectives wheel
-Amazing and unique art-direction
-Lots of customizable aspects that are not present in today's shooters
-And some other stuff

I'd say Brink is going to kick a lot of FPSs butts next year.

True; you are a gentleman and a scholar.

objective based gameplay still boils down to each side killing each other. they kill each other prevent them from doing their objective or to do their own objective. Everyone playing a shooter, already has goals, and thought. As for teamwork, if the game forces you to work together by making it so what you are trying to do is inadvertently helping out your team, i think that kind of teamwork is rather shallow and pointless; there is actively seeking to help your team, and there is not actively seeking to help your team, and whether there is an objective or not, doesn't change which one people are doing.

If people aren't playing in a competitive league, which most people aren't, the stopwatch system does nothing.

we don't even know what the multiplayer of Bulletstorm is going to be like... it probably will not give bonuses for killing people in a cool way.

If the best team doesn't win, then the system is broken. If the match isn't a test of which team is better, why don't we just flip a coin to see who wins? the point of the match is two teams trying to out play each other, if one team outplayed the other and lost, its broken.

I'd love to see some shiny Hack'n'Slay with Zombies. Similar to Dead Rising, but in a medieval setting, without the candy-look. And even though I have not played God of War myself, I must say: I like the look of it, mostly.


I don't want to decry you there, but just step on the brake a little.

Yes, BRINK can become better than most of today's shooters and hopefully does. But it does not really bring that much innovation to the table like people want it to.

As ZombieSpy put it in another thread, neither hamburgers nor earmuffs are innovative, but if Hamburger Earmuffs became a top seller, it would be an innovation.

And that is because, as wikipedia puts it:
"Innovation comes from the Latin innovātus which means to renew. Innovation can therefore be seen as the process that renews something that exists and not, as is commonly assumed, the introduction of something new."

Brink is renewing the FPS genre.

i don't think brink will have much if any effect on cod or halo series... first, theres no way that brink is going to come close to either in sales. 2nd, theres no reason for those series to totally change their style of play when they have so many people buying their series the way it is.

And there are still games that aren't like Halo, but that game (notice I didn't say "games") was quite innovative. To be innovative you don't need to have brand new ideas, you don't need to become the majority, or even mainstream. The term just means a new combination of (sometimes old) ideas to make something fresh, interesting, or successful.

tf2 was quite innovative, but i don't think any fps's have really mimicked it. they were innovative without really having an effect on the genre and i think thats the most we should expect from brink.

I think that's because there aren't many individual pieces you can copy from TF2 and still have it seem specifically like TF2. Other than the character classes and art style, its just another objective based shooter. When you combine the classes with the objectives, you are forced to work as a team to get anywhere.

So unless a game was to mimic a certain class, such as the operative in Brink resembling Spy, I wouldn't normally compare that game to TF2. But even the operative is more of a callback to W:ET than TF2.