Well, what can I say for all those people out there who are complaining how bad this game svcks and its not like most FPS games and its not Call of Duty's baby sister, stick to what you know. This game is not meant to be like Call of Duty and everything else and you would know this if you researched your games before you bought them. Yeah, fair enough it lags and the AI is pants but most games are fairly unplayable when they are first released. The AI is rubbish to let you get used to controls and how the guns work, then once you reach Rank 3 then boom, you have a fight on your hands. I actually love this game and hope the patch or the DLC will solve the main issues with the game, and obviously Bethesda have realised how much the issues have affected us to give us the DLC for free in June (please hurry up and release a date).

With the online side of the game people are asking for TDM and other things that you rack up kills, it is not neccessary. If you want to go round killing people be an Engineer with turrets and mines with a Heavy class and try cover poeple who actually like to complete objectives, at least you are kinda working as part of the team. If not, then Call of Duty does still love you even though youi have played a different game. This game is great especially if you are defending an objective and you plant a mine and turret in a hidden place.

For the DLC in June I would love to see more guns, maps, extra single player levels aswell as even more challenges. If they had to just do the DLC for maps and bug fixes that would be great as long as another pack was released shortly after.

I'm not doing this to single out the Call of Duty [censored]/girls from everyone else as I have already ordered MW3 but this game needs to be looked at with a different perspective as it is something fresh and its about time.

Add me on PS3
Jamesie_Payne91

Sorry bro but its not fresh. Team Fortress was created many, many years ago for Quake(ID games) as a free mod. The TF mod was created by the people that would eventually form Valve software, creators of one of the best games in history (the original Half-Life). This is simply TF with more bells and whistles. Maybe you should research gaming history a little. Maybe/probably your not old enough to know what I am talking about but this game is ANYTHING but fresh. Yes it is a fun game, yes people need to give it more time and actually learn how to play the game BUT it is NOT a fresh concept. Thats a fact.

yeah I'm sat here dribbling over the keyboard :teehee: .. No I just have common sense and don't bum off Call of Duty. The game just needs to be looked into before people buy it as they are looking to buy a FPS with all the Call of Duty traits, which if they want I can supply a list, Crysis 2, Homefront, OPF3: Red River, Medal of Honor and it goes on

I know this needs to be said, and yes it is pretty simple because it is a great game. But I also think that the vast majority of people registered on this forum have already decided to keep the game but just need to vent some of their frustrations. But hey, no harm done and it does need to be said - you should keep this game.

People are trying to get away from COD because there isn't much depth to FPS's. In any FPS in fact. The most in depth game ever is probably World of Warcraft and they even have expansions so people don't get bored. So if your looking to get "hooked" to a FPS your either trying to be "MLG" or you love doing the same thing over and over.. and over.

@skizopyromaniac: I don't even know what Team Fortress, Quake and Half-Life are, even though I may have heard of Half-Life at some point if it was available on PS2. It is a fresh concept to me as I, like many others have lived on CoD and this just makes a nice change.

@Vairosean: I understand what you're saying but alot of people also register on forums to complain and let people they are selling the game as they cannot do it, my reply is 'Okay, bye! '. It happened with Homefront and Black Ops Forums. This is a wicked game and even lent the money to get the game.

Why do people regret buying this game? I don't regret it, it was my way of showing support to the dev team. People tend to forget that when you purchase something new it's another way of casting your vote. Please don't try and compare Brink to CoD or Halo, this game is more like Shadowrun than anything.

I am not comparing it, that is my point here. People need to stop comparing it to most FPS games and give it a chance and learn to play the game with skill and teamwork.

You are confusing content with depth. WoW has a lot of content. FPS games generally focus on depth, high skill ceiling on weapons, learning player tendencies/patterns, this is depth. As for "doing the same thing over and over... and over.", I expect you've never enjoyed any sort of sport, or you are a hypocrite. You are correct on that basis if you've only really played BRINK though, which actually does have a surprising lack of depth, as far as FPS' go.

I don't know if you can try to be "MLG" which I'm assuming is major league gaming? Which is a new term for some supposed level of play. I've been in the competitive scene for years, and there is no standard "MLG".

LOL, I may be wrong but the only guys I see bringing up COD or any other game are the ones who are clearly over looking the obvious flaws in Brink. I"ll keep my copy because I'm a collector, but if they don't improve this game by Autumn it will be shelved.

con·tent1 ? ?
[kon-tent] Show IPA
–noun
1.Usually, contents.
a.something that is contained: the contents of a box.
b.the subjects or topics covered in a book or document.
c.the chapters or other formal divisions of a book or document: a table of contents.
2.something that is to be expressed through some medium, as speech, writing, or any of various arts: a poetic form adequate to a poetic content.
3.significance or profundity; meaning: a clever play that lacks content.

or

depth? ?
[depth] Show IPA
–noun
1.a dimension taken through an object or body of material, usually downward from an upper surface, horizontally inward from an outer surface, or from top to bottom of something regarded as one of several layers.
2.the quality of being deep; deepness.
3.complexity or obscurity, as of a subject: a question of great depth.

hmm idk... i dont know if you know this but sports are real life not virtual reality. maybe you wish your life was your level 75 night elf rogue
yes im a hypocrite.. and you ostracize for no reason what so ever. bye guy

More so, the devs need to get it FIXED so people can enjoy playing it. If the game were fixed we would all be playing not blowing up the forums. I am here because I love the game, I am relentless in my efforts to hassle the DEVs because I love the game, the more people speak out, the more urgency it will create in them(imo). I am hoping that they will quit acting like sloths on these fixes. They have had 2 years to address these issues and it just seems as though they did not want to address them until they had to, thats very bad business. Stop working on your other projects, quit being greedy in other words, and lets get this damn game fixed and playable for the masses.

A very serious question that I have is, If the patch is done and has been "rolled" out to MS days ago, why the hell do we have to wait a week to get it? This makes no sense to me as the game is sinking like a rock and you want to give it another week for even more people to leave? Why not release the patch, to the people, the day MS gets it or at least the next day? Why wait a whole entire FN week or more unless the patch really ISNT ready? I cannot, for the life of me, understand this move. It just seems like more bad business to me. I dont get it..

Well put Jamesie!!! I myself love this game and I'm a huge COD fan. People shouldn't compare the two. It's like apples and oranges.

you know what your gonna get when you post on forums.. pretentious underlings that should be ignored or hushed.

Every FPS game that has come out in the last 20 years uses mostly the same mechanics or variations of those mechanics. Almost ALL games share features.

I did research this game, and was lead to believe that while it WAS team oriented, it was still going to have multi player that we all know and love... If I would have known that multi player was going to be strictly team oriented with no respect to your stats I would not have bought this game. Its very disapointing to say the least, this game has awesome graphics, great storyline (even though its a very short story line) multiplayer should have had the option for straight up team death match, and other various multi player game types that we have all grown to love in the past. it was impossible for someone to know that multi player was going to be what it is... and for all of you that are going to say, "the stat sight is coming you just have to be patient" who wants to have to go online and look at your stats? why cant we just look at them in between games right on our x box? And i hate to have to state the obvious, but before i get flamed and a 100 people say you cant have straight up team deathmatch because everyone will just be medics and revive all the time or the whole endless supply of ammo thing, take that stuff out for TDM and other multi player games, give every one the same basic starting tools, and run around and FSU! Theres a multitude of ways to have it... I really hate to have to kick a dead horse here, but COD is the yardstick by which all games are measured by, imagine how awesome this game would be if they had the multiplayer that they currently have AND had the option for original style of multi player thats available on COD. If they can have an option for your controller figuration called "DUTY CALLS" then they can do the same thing for multi player...So, unfortunately, when you measure this game up to COD, it comes up very short, you dont have to take my word for it though, just look at their over all sales and returns of this game, look at the low number of people playing it online, more people are still playing world at war online than this game. In their hasty attempt to be different, they ran themselves right out of the market...

I have to disagree with this. The problem with BRINK, in most peoples opinions, is the state in which the game was released, overall lack of content and story, not to mention that it doesnt look like (to some extent) what they were showing us in the previews and add to that the serious issue of lag and bugs. If this games netcode had been as polished as it should have been, when it was released, most of the "complainers", including myself, would be playing the game and not be on these forums. So to sum it up, poor business practices that lead to the release of a $60 BETA are what is taking them out of the market.

ANYONE that says "whaw most games are buggy when they are released", I dont want to hear it. The fact that they release games, that need work after release, doesnt make the practice right or acceptable. The only way to look at it is, its a very poor business practice and should be unacceptable. Its simply a sign of laziness, lack of work ethic and lack of taking pride in what you release. There are also PLENTY of games that are released without the serious issues that many are known for. Those people take pride in what they sell.

yes, I agree. Further more, Rockstar comes to mind when you mentioned " Taking pride in their work". There's a few others but they stick out the most to me. The Devs for Brink can (and should) turn all of this negative hype around with their June patch. * fingers crossed*

I don't particularly care if the "COD faithful" return tot he motherland. Based purely on *most* of what I've overheard the few times I took my game online I'd rather not be playing with the majority of them anyway. The only sad part really, is that they're effectivley killing the chances of Brink 2 for the test of us.

I am, however, worried that Brink might degrade into a batch of super competetive folks playing the same game of "who can spawncamp who first" over and over. I can't manage to wrap my brain around that well enough to figure out where the fun would be coming from. Which is kind of sad since Online CO-OP would be against the AI and the Enemy AI at high rank is beyond cheap at the moment.

I must also point out I'm in agreement with skizopyromaniac. This whole "release and patch it on the fly" thing is irritating. It's also pretty much exclusive to this generation of consoles. I know I tolerate this onyl because the games tend to be really good once they're brought to some semblance of working order. However the past has pointed out that a game released and patched up never does end up working as well as a game that's brought to working order in house. *cough* eithe rof the fallouts, dragon ages and then Oblivion. They all did this, they're all still at least a little bit broken.

FOR GODS SAKE, quit trying to blame this games failures on people who play COD. Its beyond rediculous. The people that are causing this game to fail are the people at SD. You cannot blame it on anyone else.

Oh, I'm sorry that's not what I was trying to do. I was tryign to point out. Good Riddance.

LOL, no, you research gaming history a little, kid. The guys who made QTF were HIRED to join Valve. Valve has founded by Gabe Newell and Mike Harrington, just that Gabe's more well-known.

And if it's not a fresh concept, name one game that has most of BRINK's functions.

Also, You can't very well say a game derived from another game is a direct clone with more additions. In that case, every modern shooter in existance is a direct clone of TF. TF invented the Disguise, laid out the Player Classes, and most importantly, the Headshot.

Unfortunately this practices has been going on longer then most here have been gaming. It started way back in the day on PC's. It has just been going on for soooo long that it has become industry standard. I remember having a 100mhz CPU and voodoo video card(that was the first card that could render 3d made by 3DFX the first company to produce such a video card, QUAKE was the first game using openGL or glide) and it was the sht back then. Back when I had that old dinosaur they started patching games. I cant remember what the first game was but Wing Commander, Quake, Unreal and others were some of the folks that created and made this practice industry standard.

derp guess I omitted my "this may have been happening on PC for some time" clause. I really don't do much PC gaming and when I do it's usually old games or something not particularly graphics intensive. >.<;

Ok right, they didnt found it, they were hired by them....
Team Fortress is a team- and class-based online multiplayer video game mod based on id Software's Quake. Team Fortress was designed and written by Robin Walker, John Cook and Ian Caughley in 1996.

The premise of the game is a class-based battle between opposing sides, Red and Blue. Players are defined by which class they select (the classes being Medic, Sniper, Soldier, Demoman, Pyro, Spy, Heavy, Scout, or Engineer), with each class having strengths and weaknesses. Each class also has unique weapons (e.g. Pyro has the flamethrower and Heavy has the minigun) and abilities (e.g. Scout being able to run the fastest and Medic being able to heal teammates).

A player can either choose to be on the red or on the blue team. On community maps or through the use of custom skins, players may also choose to be on a green or yellow team. The objectives of play can vary, including traditional objectives such as capture the flag or controlling a point(s) on the map. Another mode involves delivering a payload to the enemy's base while the other team defends, or have two teams race to deliver a payload.

WOW That sounds JUST LIKE BRINK...THATS AMAZING...not really as BRINK IS NOT INNOVATIVE OR NEW! For an "innovative" game to have soooo many similarities with another game is mind boggling.

Dont try and sell me a lie bro. I wont buy it like those that are more gullable. I know of what I speak.

I will add this for you as well since you obviously dont know the definition of innovative......

Adj. 1. innovative - ahead of the times; forward-looking, advanced, modern progressive - favoring or promoting progress;

2. innovative - being or producing something like nothing done or experienced or created before; groundbreaking, innovational
original - being or productive of something fresh and unusual; or being as first made or thought of;

Quake was innovative, Team Fortress was innovative, Half-Life was innovative, In its day, COD was innovative, Battle Field 1943 was innovative, Dragons Layer was innovative, Pong was innovative, BRINK is not.