As is everyone (Looking forward to Brink anyways), I am thinking of what could ruin the game/make it not quite what anyone expects. (Yes I have used the search function, the biggest dissapoinment is no female characters). Heres the list:

1) The game goes good for a month then dies really fast.

2) All the classes will have generic body shapes - Skinny for Operative, Skinny/medium for Medics, Large for Soldier and skinny/medium for Engie

3) Lack of patches, updates, new gameplay, map-paks and DLC

4) Some guy from Black Ops will go and find the most OP weapon and spam it, leading to more people using the OP gun

5) No disguising (I personally want to be able to Disguise, leads to those WTF BETRAYAL moments you jsut love ;D)

6) Campaign will be like 4-8 hours in total (2-3 hours for each)

7) Everyone will use the same Perks (Combat intuition, stealth running etc..)

Now some of my hopes for the game:

1) Plenty of customization options

2) Will be lots of gamemodes and maps

3) That you can run dedicated servers (if possible )

4) It becomes more popular then Black Ops

5) It creates a Sequel

6) It introduces many perks so that no one plays the same

7) Allow knives to instantkill on backstab (:3, you should add some sort of reason to watch your back)

8) Add flamethrowers or some sort of Fire-based weapon fo CQC

@ the worries:

1) I'm going to playing offline mostly anyway, doesn't matter if the game becomes under-populated because there's always the AI alternative.

2) Uummm... you select your body type when you create a character. Classes have no bearing on it.

3) Unless the game has any bugs or imbalances there's no real need for patches. DLC add-ons will be nice, but just don't go expecting them like it's christmas and you won't be let down.

4) Refer to 3, if there are imbalances (namely weapons) it's likely to get sorted. I mean the game's been delayed forever so they're obviously taking to time to balance it thoroughly.

5) You mean like the operative can do?

6) Yeah that's actually a concern of mine. Thing is, I imagine it will have decent replayability as you progress your character and unlock more stuff... and then do it all again with a new body type, weapon and common class.

7) There's bound to be some that become essential and some that may be considered obsolete, yes.

My only fear for the game is MAJOR try hard team that plays to harcore for me and my friends to even stand a chance In.

It matches you up with players around your rank or level so that shouldn't be a problem... tbh MAG is a clan-heavy game that offers decent support, and even the means for clans to deploy up to 32 clanmates into a match together...

But even then clans are rare, and only once every couple or few matches will you see even a bunch of clanmates grouped together, and they usually take up no more than 8 of the 32 players in your platoon. If it's not a problem in MAG, I doubt it will become a problem in Brink.

Just hope for the best I guess, but It sounds like that will work pretty good.

In no particular order:
There's only one game mode. (unless you count the challenges)
It has been confirmed that there are no insta-kill backstabs.
PC version will have dedicated servers. Consoles will not.
Last I heard there were 50 skills total. (wait, I think I might've heard 58 somewhere...need to re-check sources)
No word on flamethrowers, but it seems highly, highly unlikely.
If this game is anywhere near as good as SD's previous titles it will be played for a long, long time.
Only worry I have about the bodytype/class combos is seeing so many Light Operatives. Everything else seems pretty evenly distributed.
They've spent roughly the last year balancing and polishing. If it's not super balanced upon release I will be very surprised. But if that's the case I also trust SD to fix any problems ASAP. Those guys love this game at least as much as we do.

i hope private matches are an online feature and not like in BFBC2 where u need 8 people to start it. A private match should only require 1 person to start- yourself. That way you can become accustomed to any maps you dislike/unfamiliar with. Also because its cool to experiment neat tricks and strategies with your clan or just another friend.

also that body types play a role, as in your a lightweight u run faster can jump higher etc. Your big jacked guy you'l be in shape obviously but a little slower compared to lighter body types. Also please dont have name titles in online play, if im trying to blend in with surroundings and sneak up on someone, i dont want him to accidentally scroll his cross-hairs on me, see a red name and then just fire.

Another cool feature i would like to have is 3rd person mode, that way we rele can see and experience our created or customized personal character and how awesome the SMART system looks and feels while we watch our character in action. Shouldnt be so far away but enough to see the back of our body. Not trying to compare anything here but 3rd person in cod is nice view to have.

My one worry is that with the no dedicated servers on consoles, people will host those damn lobbies, and everyone will be hacking and unlocking all the cool sh*t.

But each game mode has a variety of objectives and a completely different landscape.
And yes you are correct there are 50 skills, 10 universal, and 10 which are specific to each class(4 classes)




No third person mode, but there is a perk where you can go third person when planting/defusing or some other "hands-on" animation
And when disguised you will appear to have the name of the player who's identity you stole.
And since everything unlocked is equal to your starting guns and abilities they'll just be losing out on the fun of unlocking the cool stuff.

And I believe that each side of single player takes like 4-6 hours to complete

I only fear the OP possible weapon and the fact that you have a certain amount of objectives. "Yay, it's my 105th time escorting the robot!"

Black Ops @$$holes will probably wiped out quick. I too, fear repetition, and would like some DLC's. :icecream:

1. It's a Splammage game. They know how to do longevity better than anyone.

2. Experimentation will be a big part of Brink. Maybe that's not the best thing for those classes, who knows?

3. It's a Splammage game, they're with Valve at the top of the post-release support tower of kings.

4. If there is an OP weapon, it will most likely be a heavy weapon, so you'll have to sacrifice a lot of speed to use it, and some people will take perks that gives them more health, which makes the over-powered-ness less relevant. Anyway, Brink isn't about killls, and I know that people wont play for kills, even "that guy from Black Ops."

5.There is disguising, but you need to incapacitate the person you're disguising as first.

6. 5 hours each, unfortunately, but bear in mind that's 10 hours, plus several classes to master, several perks to try, three body types, a million guns to try, and it goes on. Massive replayability.

7. Experimentation, again. People will experiment til they find the perks they like best, and with Splammages balancing, there should be a lot of variety in players.



1. Oh, there definitely will be.

2. There is, and hopefully.

3. On PC there is, on console it's P2P

4. You want a brand new IP with only semi-big hype to outsell the best selling and most successful release in entertainment history? Unlikely.

5. Hopefully it'll be a looooooooooooong, long time before that.

6. I think there already is this.

7. There's no Instakills at all, thank christ, and they already removed backstabs, again, thank christ.

8. Sounds interesting.

I doubt the game will die.

I mean, there are still people playing MGO and the console ports of TF2. You'd think nobody would still be playing those games anymore (especially TF2 considering it's practically unplayable) but a lot of games have really strong fan bases and stay going years after its release.

You can count on the noobs to use the light body type because they think it's the ninja one but they will learn the hard way as us Pwners, owners and Body Grounders will show them the light of it all. that should be your only and exspected worry you should have.

The worries about it being too repetitive could be solved easily by them releasing a sdk (obviously pc only) and allowing people to make maps or even randomising the maps (by the looks this wont happen) but even still if you take a look @ W:ET people love playing the original maps on it and its lasted this long so far

I doubt there will be some majorly OP weapons; as people have said it's release has been pushed and pushed back for balancing so it shouldn't be too much of an issue.

Perks wise it will depend on your play-style and with the fact that you have 4 different classes that should vary them more than enough; You still have to earn them unlike W:ET where every time you go into another server you have to re-earn all of your stuff again so that should give you some longevity as well.

From what i've read the queuing system is similar to LoL in that you can queue by yourself or put together a team of mates not to mention being able to progress on with the same bunch of guys if you set them as friends/mates (i forgot the correct terminology of it) I love the fact that AI can take over spots from leavers which is absolutely brilliant and new players can join in and take over from bots if people leave.

No making it PC only will just piss PPL off make it fair and allow it for all or nothing for everyone.

I don't care if Brink never becomes more popular than COD, in fact I wo0uld prefer the community to remain a modest size of like-minded gamers. What I would like to see is Brink acknowledged as an overall better game than COD, especially among journalists, reviews, etc. in the industry. It would be great to see people notice everything Brink is bringing to the table, whether it be the SD-style objective play,or all the content it offers players, the polished gameplay, useful options like fully customizable controls for consoles, etc. I would love for everyone to just see Brink as a phenomenal game - while all the COD [censored] hate on it more and more for it being just that.

I wasn't stating that it should be made only for pc but the fact that most SDKs were usually only for pc versions and as it stands (as i said) i highly doubt this will be the case anyway. I do agree that any expansions or new content should run across both console and pc for some continuity.


Totally agree with everything you said.

Yes. Coming from someone who used to make maps for Quake 3, it would be quite difficult to implement mod tools on a console that offer all the functionality, control scheme (m/kb) and ease of use that they have on the PC.

The Forge editor in Halo Reach and the map maker for Farcry on console, are 2 best I have seen for console, and they are EXTREMELY limited in comparison to a map maker on PC. I don't even know how you would make mods on console - that's what DLC is for.

I could not agree anymore with what you wrote. If all goes well I look forward to hearing the announcement of a new COD or whatever and hearing a question like. "Does your game offer parkour?" "Does your game offer vast amounts of customization and variety?" Of course they wont and I'll enjoy watching developers squirm. Even more so if its a COD developer lol.

BRINK is a pretty big step forward in FPS gaming. COD, well, it's always gonna be a step back. BRINK is what happens when you put actual love into your game and the community by looking out for them.

Totally agree on that comment

Hmm, now that I think about it, my comment is pretty biased, and maybe I should elaborate a bit more. Looking back at what I've said, I think I'm a bit too far off by pointing fingers at Treyarch for not actually caring.

Here goes.

I don't think Treyarch is totally in it for the money. I'm pretty sure at least a few people in Treyarch do actually care for the games they make. It's just that who they work for, in conjunction with the game series they are working on, seems to make us think that Treyarch is nothing but a greedy company that doesn't even have a single soul who actually gives a crap about their game.

Activision had proven to be quite avaricious after the release of the first Modern Warfare, and because of the great fame of COD4 they're abusing their players and communities by offering them the same experience every year because they know no matter how terrible the next installment is, everyone will buy it anyways.

I'm pretty certain Treyarch would enjoy more time to develop a more balanced game, but they just can't because Activision is bearing down on them to always keep making more of the same stuff. Call of Duty is technically the only reason Activision is still in business, now that Guitar Hero has been axed and Tony Hawk games simply aren't interesting anymore. In addition, this franchise is always under fire because it's too unbalanced and has too many bugs, and while all of this is true, I don't think it's Treyarch's fault so much as it is Activision's, because Activision knows they'll always prevail during the holiday season no matter what.

There, I said everything contradictory to most of our mindsets, flame me now. If I'm wrong, well, I'll recant. I just don't think Treyarch's the problem, now that I think about it.

What about InfinityWard, have anything to say about them? ^_^

I am very pleased with these answers, I was expecting flaming and the old "Search before you post noob".

As I add-on to the Treyarch comment, that is really true. I feel bad when the EAxis of evil (EA and Activision) takes another soul. CoD after three is just re-skins of the same game. Till Brink is out... Bfbc2 and Starcraft for me

Infinity Ward is kind of an odd case. It started out under EA, but got fed up with management or something and left. Then you had two of its CEOs fired by Activision for "insubordination", which can be translated as "planning to work with EA" or something like that. So the company split--a number of IW guys joined up with EA (again) to form Respawn Entertainment, and whoever didn't leave still remain with Infinity Ward (or moved to Treyarch, probably).

Oddly, Activision actually didn't want COD4 because they wanted to keep COD strictly a WWII-era game, but now look what they have on their hands. By disobeying their superiors, Infinity Ward made one of the biggest hits in the FPS genre in its entirety, and whether or not you enjoyed COD4, you have to at least acknowledge that. Activision was totally swayed by the massive success and appeal of COD4, and now you have them milking the series.

Modern Warfare 1 was actually a pretty balanced game for me (and I need to stress the "for me" part; I hadn't played any other shooters prior to COD4 apart from Counter-Strike), but because of how well COD4 was received, Activision wanted a sequel ASAP, knowing that they'd receive massive revenues for the sequel to a game that technically took the FPS genre to new heights. As a result, MW2 turned out to be a pretty big disappointment because it was pretty unbalanced compared to its predecessor. Activision rushed the game along; that wasn't Infinity Ward's fault.

And then you have the entire scandal about some IW guys wanting to work with EA on something. Developers have the freedom to unite with whomever they want for a game, but Activision's actions towards Infinity Ward show that because of COD4's success, they wanted to chain IW to themselves and keep making them churn out more and more sequels because they knew millions of people loved COD now, and they could make billions of dollars in profits off of this game series now.

So, in general, I don't think IW is to blame for not putting love into their games. Sure, they didn't follow out what Activision had said, but I don't think even they were aware of how big COD4 would end up becoming, and they probably wouldn't have predicted what Activision would begin exacting from them after its release, either.