Brink, thoughts?

Looks cool, hasn't been a decent sci-fi MP game since UT2K4.

Hopefully it doesnt flop like Quake Wars.
 
This and Section 8 - Prejudice are my hopes for this Spring/Summer.

Section 8 Prejudice seems to shape up REALLY nicely, especially for a game under $20.
 
Preordered during the D2D sale. Two week wait for it to come out now, which is why I hate preordering games. It looks like a nice change of pace from BC2 and BLOPS.
 
Yea I pre-ordered it as well for 37$. I usually don't mind pre-ordering games but I have to say, even after making up my mind, I am somewhat apprehensive about the game. I just hope it doesn't end up sucking.
 
Last edited:
Yea I pre-ordered it as well for 37$. I usually don't mind pre-ordering games but I have to say, even after making up my mind, I am somewhat apprehensive about the game. I just hope it doesn't end up sucking.
Yeah, I'm kind of having the same feeling. Guess I should just stop thinking about it and have little to no expectations other than it'll be fun.
 
Game looks like it has potential but I will wait until release to see what it is like.
 
My thoughts are that we're in a bit of a rut right now, with no new titles to argue like school children about... I mean to discuss like the grown up adults we clearly all are. This is one of those titles which I've not been waiting for but on release day could very well say, what the hell, and put my money down on. That makes zero logical sense in light of all these titles going on sale one month after release, but I guess I'm a sucker for day one titles. That said, I'm glad I held out for the Bulletstorm sale.

The great thing is that this summer might not be such a dry one. Coming our way is Brink, The Witcher 2, Fable 3, Demon's Forge (which is actually looking pretty good), Dungeon Siege 3 (which is looking fantastic), the new Red Faction title, and Might And Magic VI. I passed on Homefront, Portal 2, and Brotherhood as well, so I have options this spring and summer.
 
What stood out in a good and bad way for you?

Liked:

* Movement system. I liked mirror's edge a lot so anything similar appeals to me.
* Art direction. Gritty and futuristic. I don't mind the small cartoon/exaggeration effect too. I liked TF2.
* Customization system. I like the idea. Expecting some of it to be DLC though :mad:
* Gunplay looks decent.

Dubious:

* The footage from the maps we have seen so far seems very cherry picked. Some videos make the maps look very linear and small.
* Only 8 vs 8 multiplayer. We are talking PC gaming here, I expect 16 vs 16 in a shooter.
* XP to unlock items/weapons. I'm really tired of this mechanic in my shooters. Keep the leveling to other genres like RPGs and MMOs please.
* Since this is multiplatform, there is always the fear of the PC release being consolized (poor menu, few settings, bad controls).
 
* Since this is multiplatform, there is always the fear of the PC release being consolized (poor menu, few settings, bad controls).

This is my greatest fear. The game looks incredibly solid otherwise.
 
Steam lists the release date as May 9, which is a Monday. That's a bit odd, isn't it?
 
Preordered during the D2D sale. Two week wait for it to come out now, which is why I hate preordering games. It looks like a nice change of pace from BC2 and BLOPS.

This weekend I bought Bulletstorm and The Witcher 2 from D2D and like a damned fool never even gave a thought to Brink.

Presently at Steam, Brink is selling for $49.99, whereas at D2D it's $44.99 - now take off 25% and lo... Brink is only $34.

Wow, that's a $15 difference. But the thing is we're seeing this with every title. Steam is consistently charging more than everyone else. And this, my friends, is why capitalism works. Competition in the marketplace is what drives the prices down. Gamers need to be aware that D2D is an excellent service, and will save them lots of money.

Fucking Steam needs to respond to this.
 
The reason I didn't wait for release is because I didn't think it would be as cheap as $37 for a while.
 
* Only 8 vs 8 multiplayer. We are talking PC gaming here, I expect 16 vs 16 in a shooter.

Imo, map design and gameplay mechanics set the player count. Player count has nothing to do with platform limitations. When 8v8 are focusing on a single objective, it will be intense.

* XP to unlock items/weapons. I'm really tired of this mechanic in my shooters. Keep the leveling to other genres like RPGs and MMOs please.

I am tired of this mechanic too, but thankfully it is not the case with Brink. You do not use XP to unlock better items and weapons. Items and weapons are unlocked by completing challenges. XP is used to level up/rank up, which opens new abilities to purchase.

* Since this is multiplatform, there is always the fear of the PC release being consolized (poor menu, few settings, bad controls).

This is a fear with all games, but Splash Damage has been a PC studio since day one, and they are using an PC proven engine. They've shown support for traditional servers, developer console, and complete customization.
 
Cant help but feel like this is a mix between COD and TF2. We'll see..
 
The one thing that's worrying me: I'm not seeing much in the way of narrative. This was the reason Borderlands failed to grip me. There was no reason to keep playing. Without a real plot, the game just wasn't compelling.
 
Didn't know there was a 16 player cap for PC MP, having second thoughts about my preorder.
 
Didn't know there was a 16 player cap for PC MP, having second thoughts about my preorder.

Almost thinking the same. Though the enormous post outlining all the features is still knocking around my memory and reassuring me.
 
Guys not every game needs to have massive player numbers to be good. It all depends on the game design. Counter Strike is optimally played in 5v5, RTCW used to be 6v6 and Enemy Territory was best with 8v8 if I remember correctly. The last 2 games were made by the developers of Brink btw.
 
Please don't lecture us on what you consider to be optimal, some people prefer playing with lots of other users at the same time.

And it is quite humorous that you cite Splash Damage's previous releases which both allowed player limits way in excess of a mere 16 players (quake wars 32 players and enemy territory 64 players.

If people want to play on small shitty ass servers that's fine by me, user choice is one of the advantages of PC gaming and there are always more than enough servers offering small player caps.

However, putting a tiny hard cap on player limits for all MP in the absence of some real technical limitation is bullshit. Playing such games do not interest me especially after having wasted too much time on CoD: BO and Crysis 2 MP.
 
I know when I am playing counter strike and it is only 8v8 I am not having any fun at all. Then WOW someone else joins and now it is 12v12 and I am having so much more fun! Eat that console players!

:rolleyes:

Numbers aren't everything. So hold your bs before the game releases and then we can see how it plays.
 
You may not be aware but sarcasm is the lowest form of wit, and some players might have more fun with an extra 6 players. Who are you to pass judgment.

As mentioned before, you are more than welcome to go play on low player cap servers if that is your preference, but don't for an instant think that your preferences reflect that of anyone else.
 
I know when I am playing counter strike and it is only 8v8 I am not having any fun at all. Then WOW someone else joins and now it is 12v12 and I am having so much more fun! Eat that console players!

:rolleyes:

Numbers aren't everything. So hold your bs before the game releases and then we can see how it plays.

Ahahaha you play counter strike?! I thought that game was only for people with shit computers who cannot afford anything better. In that case yes you certainly need that low player cap to maintain anything above 30 fps.

For people with real hardware, we demand real games with real player counts.
 
You may not be aware but sarcasm is the lowest form of wit, and some players might have more fun with an extra 6 players. Who are you to pass judgment.

As mentioned before, you are more than welcome to go play on low player cap servers if that is your preference, but don't for an instant think that your preferences reflect that of anyone else.

Well, they do match the preferences of the game developers.

It's being designed for 8v8 play, how do you pre-order something without even doing basic research on the product?
 
I had done research but overlooked the player count, and assumed based on my experience with ET and QW that it would be at least 32.

And its not like pre-ordering is an iron clad arrangement with no escape, I simply cancel it and keep on playing BC2 until the arrival of BF3.
 
Please don't lecture us on what you consider to be optimal, some people prefer playing with lots of other users at the same time.

I wasn't lecturing anyone. Just pointing out that even back in 2000, 5v5 was okay for what went on to become the world's most popular multiplayer FPS. Of course, PC gaming back then wasn't saddled with bullshit PC gaming elitists who whine like babies about anything and everything. PC gamers played games for fun back then. PC gamers bitch and moan in forums for fun these days.

For people with real hardware, we demand real games with real player counts.

Have you perchance noticed that, increasingly, no one in the industry gives a flying fuck for your 'demands' of 'real games' for 'real hardware'?
 
Ahahaha you play counter strike?! I thought that game was only for people with shit computers who cannot afford anything better. In that case yes you certainly need that low player cap to maintain anything above 30 fps.

For people with real hardware, we demand real games with real player counts.

http://store.steampowered.com/stats/

Still the top played game on Steam.
 
Back
Top