BRINK - The Next Generation of FPS Coming May 10th 2011

Just got done playing this today

Single player is multiplayer maps with bots. Gameplay is VERY glitchy, dark and uninspiring, I felt like Red Faction on the PS2 played better. The Game graphics, they aren't the best looking. Think borderlands mixed with Team Fortress, 1! Half the voice overs MUST be done by heavy accented Africans and the lines they spurt out frequently get annoying after playing 5 Minutes of this game.

Conclusion: This is worse then a Nigerian Scam.

Don't buy it. I promise after 1 week the price will drop.
 
I'm still confident in my choice to preorder. I don't trust reviewers when it comes to online heavy games. People like different things and are looking for different things in games that rely on multiplayer.

Look at MAG. It got average reviews and I thought it was a masterpiece of a shooter. I'm kind of nervous hearing about the lag, but almost all the reviews I read said they were playing without the day one patch.

I guess I'll find out tomorrow!
 
fuck REVIEWS, make your own review. I cant wait to get mine tomm. Got a few cats on steam saying its a blast. I cant wait.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
[quote name='Big St3ph3n']fuck REVIEWS, make your own review. I cant wait to get mine tomm. Got a few cats on steam saying its a blast. I cant wait.[/QUOTE]
DERP. Reviews important for budget.
 
Yeah but you need to get to know your reviewer. This game wont click with people who always want a COD clone, and a one man show game. This requires teamwork, a review i read complained about having to teamwork. Pathetic.

I knew the game wouldnt be a triple A title, but as for a original IP and good mechanics, im all over it. I hate when the masses automatically cancel a buy when the reviews drop the night of. Also, i think its gonna be solid, because SplashDamage has went out of their way with the videos and dev walkthroughs (SMART vids) to show us they arent scared to show off the game. Seems to me that most games are scared to do that these days.

I cant wait to play this tomm.
 
I don't usually go off of reviews, but when multiple sites talk about how bad the game is and one site flat out refuses to review it.. Yeah, that catches my attention
 
[quote name='Scorch']I don't usually go off of reviews, but when multiple sites talk about how bad the game is and one site flat out refuses to review it.. Yeah, that catches my attention[/QUOTE]

Yup. Polarizing reviews, I'll give the game a chance. All mediocre to poor reviews? I'm not getting Homefronted again.

Oh well...LA Noire is only a week away, glad I didn't pre-order from Amazon.
 
well I was on the fence about buying this yesterday from Amazon (last day of release day shipping) and decided against it, but after these reviews, I am going to give it a rental.
 
I can forgive the server/lag issues, especially if the day-one patch fixes them and the rest of the complaints I have heard about the game thus far sound like nit-picking to me. Maybe I'm trying to justify to myself the fact that me and about 5 friends all have the game pre-ordered, but I still feel excited to play it with them today.
 
[quote name='seanr1221']Yup. Polarizing reviews, I'll give the game a chance. All mediocre to poor reviews? I'm not getting Homefronted again.

Oh well...LA Noire is only a week away, glad I didn't pre-order from Amazon.[/QUOTE]

All too familiar. A game with a lot of promise that just fails in execution. I'll save my money for Noire.
 
[quote name='Poor2More']well I was on the fence about buying this yesterday from Amazon (last day of release day shipping) and decided against it, but after these reviews, I am going to give it a rental.[/QUOTE]


I must admit, I thought that sentence was going to end differently. :lol:
 
Sigh.

Now that I have taken the time to look around at all the review this is another prime example of why reviews are the worst things for the gaming industry as a whole. It seems like the average for the game is around a 7.5 or 8. Which boils down to the game being just solid. Nothing spectacular but far from the broken mess that some of these sites are trying to make it out to be.

EDIT: This reviewer tries to prove that Joystiq's review is bunk as the Griffin only had a handful of cheesemints unlocked under his gamertag. Take it for what its worth....(obviously he could have played it on a different xbox.... has pics though) http://ve3d.ign.com/articles/news/60202/Brink-Reviews-Are-A-Mixed-Bag-Some-Thoughts

Update: Uh oh, time for some drama boys and girls. I felt that Joystiq's Brink review was fishy, it almost came off as if it was written by someone that had spent very little time with the game. I was also pretty sure that Griffin McElroy was one of the editors that I played in the media game with. So, I decided to do a little digging, and confirmed that I had played with him while he was under his Xbox Live gamertag called "The Pencil Rain". The kicker is Mr. McElroy has only earned a total Brink gamerscore value of 225, primarily from achievements that pretty much unlock themselves in the opening hour or two of play. I had over a couple hundred points just after the media playtest, and I'd imagine that's where he left off too. Xbox Live says he was playing Brink just a couple hours ago, yet again the value is 225. In my picture of his gamerscore details below you'll see that he hasn't completed either campaign, let alone the "what if" missions.
This puts a pretty big black mark on Joystiq's journalistic integrity in my eyes. If I had to guess the amount of time he spent playing it'd be a few hours at best, and from my point of view that's extremely unprofessional. But great job on that 2/5 score Griffin, way to shaft Splash Damage and Bethesda by putting in an absolute minimal amount of effort into your review.
Click to expand...
 
[quote name='Soodmeg']Sigh.

Now that I have taken the time to look around at all the review this is another prime example of why reviews are the worst things for the gaming industry as a whole. It seems like the average for the game is around a 7.5 or 8. Which boils down to the game being just solid. Nothing spectacular but far from the broken mess that some of these sites are trying to make it out to be.

EDIT: This reviewer tries to prove that Joystiq's review is bunk as the Griffin only had a handful of cheesemints unlocked under his gamertag. Take it for what its worth....(obviously he could have played it on a different xbox.... has pics though) http://ve3d.ign.com/articles/news/60202/Brink-Reviews-Are-A-Mixed-Bag-Some-Thoughts[/QUOTE]


I really do agree with this for the most part and think that reviewers should always finish the game, but let's be honest - if you think a game sucks after several hours then there's a 99% chance it's going to suck after six or eight. Not too many games completely change for the better that far into it and if they do, shame on the developers.
 
[quote name='chriscolbert']I really do agree with this for the most part and think that reviewers should always finish the game, but let's be honest - if you think a game sucks after several hours then there's a 99% chance it's going to suck after six or eight. Not too many games completely change for the better that far into it and if they do, shame on the developers.[/QUOTE]

So it only takes 2 hours to decide a multiplayer game sucks, when most people invest days on end into them? When the core component of this game has shown to be team-based multiplayer, that seems like a weak time investment from a reviewer. I'm not justifying the single player integration being forgettable, but to rate it a two without playing enough MP doesn't tell me the reviewer got a solid experience.

I may decide I don't care much about this game, but this game looked like it was trying something new in the FPS. I owe it to myself to try it out first hand, rather than let a review tell me how fresh it is.
 
I agree, if a game sucks at the beginning there should be no reason to play it for 10 hours before saying it sucks but that does nothing for how a review should be written. My point is that a review should be 80% fact and 20% opinion. When I read a review I want very little of your damn opinion in it. I can get the opinion of the game from anyone.

When I read a review it means I havent bought the game yet so what I want to know are things like, are the controls tight? Customization on par? Lots of levels, Story coherent? etc etc... Too often now a days do reviewers get on a soap box and their so called review turns into 5 pages of opinion with a blurp about facts.

Seriously, watch the gametrailers review and really pay attention to what he says...its very little opinion..and compare that to the Joystiq review and its as clear as night and day. Now I am not saying that Griffin is wrong in anyway....I am just saying that its not a review...its just his opinion.

Only in the gaming world is it acceptable to have a "review" 90% opinion. This is why Madden keeps scoring 8s every year. When saying a opinion its usually colored one way if you dont like something you are more likely to overlook all that is good about it when stating it...same thing goes when you like something.


Review are not equal to opinions.
Bascially these "opinion reviews" are nothing more than glorified fanboys/girls dressed up in big boy/girl clothes.
 
[quote name='Necrozilla']DERP. Reviews important for budget.[/QUOTE]
Yup. Reviews aren't the end-all be-all and your personal interest in a game is much more important (Borderlands is my go-to example of a game that to me is an 11/10 flawless masterpiece, despite getting lots of review scores in the 7s and 8s). I'm sure a bunch of people will fall completely in love with Brink and these lukewarm reviews won't mean a thing to them. To the rest of us who are on the fence, and don't have infinite money and time to give every game a chance, we need to rely on something to help us make a decision, and if a number of reviews are hammering on the same perceived flaws, it's a fair bet that there are some issues with the game.
 
Yeah but you have to be smart enough to make a decision on facts not on someones pure opinion. This is a perfect example the game is averaging 7-8 from even the most critical of sites yet weak minded gamers will make a snap judgement based of a few sites that are clearly in the minority.


But its a viscous cycle and no clear end in site...just be happy to play the 12 installment of a mainstream franchise because everyone for whatever reason chooses to look at the lowest possible score on a poorly written review as facts.

Gamers are idiots.
 
Even with the scores coming out, I still want to play this game. I'm still looking forward to picking this up today, honestly. It still looks genuinely fun.

A week from now, could be a different story. But I won't know until I play it. That's how I think everyone should look at it. Don't completely ignore the scores, but at least play it on your own accord. Hell, everyone ripped into Shadowrun and Frontlines: Fuel of War when they came out, and I really liked both of them. Shadowrun is still on my shelf right now, actually.

Don't hit the panic button yet, people.
 
I laugh at reviews from any gaming medium. Everytime I have been beaten across the face saying a certain game sucked but came out smiling because I actually enjoyed the game. I say the same thing about movie reviews. WTF cares what you think of it? If it peaks my interest then I will watch/play it. The only people that I listen to are my friends, and that is still with a grain of salt. As someone else said, if we listened only to reviews for games then we would be stuck with mass market franchise games that will continually be stuffed down our throats. This is why I love indie games (so far). Very creative, and, for the most part, something fresh at a low $ for me to give a whirl.

If Billy says jumping off roofs is fun, then would you do it? If so... then please do. Right now.
 
The problem I'm having with low review scores is that I was expecting a lot out of this game. Maybe I was being unfair, but I'd followed its development for over a year and really liked what I was seeing. I assumed that would translate into a great game. As some reviews have articulated, it is not a great game. Good maybe, but definitely not great.

As far as the review scores go, there are only a handful up on Metacritic right now that I even trust:

Eurogamer 80
GameTrailers 79
IGN 60
1UP 25

And that's with a caveat that while IGN is a big-time reviewer, I'm not always convinced they do a good job with reviews.

Anyway, two good scores, one average score, and one bad. It's not enough for me to make a decision yet. I'm curious to see what Giant Bomb and Gamespot have to say.

It'll be another day or two before my copy arrives from Gamestop.com, so I can mull over the reviews and in-game footage until then, but right now I'm on the fence as to whether I'll keep my copy or not.
 
Anyone who passes on this for LA Noire is a straight up gonad...that game will be over in 8 hours and you will have traded it in after 3 or 4 days of play time, and i'll still be playing Brink. Reviews be ^^^^^^, quake wars got average reviews, shadowrun got average reviews...and those are still in my collection today, why? Because they are different than most of the FPS fluff like Halo and COD thats why.
 
I'm picking it up, I tend to love multiplayer shooters that others hate, I LOVED Bioshock 2's multi.

if your looking for a game send me an FR at GT: x Doc Zaius x
 
This is fairly hilarious. I don't understand why most of these review sites are having such a hard time. Are people really that blindsided by Call of Duty and Halo that this game looks or feels like a wannabe to them?

Besides varying PC issues, I haven't really seen any valid complaints on 360. Besides, you have Splash Damage and Bethesda backing up the game.

GameTrailers definitely had (has) a good review for the game. Worth watching if you're on the fence, like Soodmeg said.

Sadly, I'm still waiting on UPS to deliver, and we're at the very end of the damned delivery route. =X


Edit: Also, I'm surprised there's nothing available to buy, that's Brink-related, on Xbox.com. No DLC, no avatar crap, and no theme/gamer pics. Kinda sad as I was looking to buy at least a theme. =X (though, good for them for not focusing on useless crap like this)
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I'm still gonna wait and see what my friends who are picking it up today say post-day-1-patch. Still it really bothers me that there is no "party" or "lobby" system to group up with friends. Does it at least put you together when you send invites/join in progress? It'd be nice to know how they work that out.

Since someone else mentioned Shadowrun I have to say that I love that game and it did so much right that I wish people on my friends list still played it. Hell, that team-based game even had a lobby/party system years ago.

Also, that Voodoo Extreme guy is really a pussy for pulling his "Update" from his article regarding the McElroy review without even acknowledging it existed other than to still have the gamerscore screen-shots in the photos section.
 
I'm definitely reading through and keeping track of all these reviews. Back in the day I wouldn't have thought twice about launch day purchases without them, but times have changed. The type of games I'm into are becoming an endangered species now and I've been burned too many times in the last two years by established franchises for blind faith to support such recklessness. Bad net code is a huge deal breaker for me in a shooter. Hopefully the post patch reviews revitalize my enthusiasm.
 
[quote name='woodcan']I'm still gonna wait and see what my friends who are picking it up today say post-day-1-patch. Still it really bothers me that there is no "party" or "lobby" system to group up with friends. Does it at least put you together when you send invites/join in progress? It'd be nice to know how they work that out.

Since someone else mentioned Shadowrun I have to say that I love that game and it did so much right that I wish people on my friends list still played it. Hell, that team-based game even had a lobby/party system years ago.[/QUOTE]

This is from a recent Q&A done on the Bethesda Blog:

[quote name='Bethesda Blog']How is the multiplayer lobby going to work? – Asian Jello[/QUOTE][quote name='Bethesda Blog']

Brink doesn’t have multiplayer lobbies in the traditional sense – you can jump directly into your buddies’ matches using the friends list. If none of your friends are online – don’t worry. Brink will first check if there’s a match already going that matches your parameters. If there is, you can hop right into the action. If not, it’ll start a new match with AI filling out the rest of the players until human players join in and replace them seamlessly. For us, it was really all about getting you into the match of your choice as quickly as possible and minimizing the time you spend waiting around.[/QUOTE]

And I didn't see this posted anywhere, but I thought this was hilarious. (pic)
 
I love it when companies add bots to fill in slots for multiplayer. Say what you will but that very reason was why I played so much PDZ. Of course you could set up offline matches as well, any chance Brink does this (for someone who's connection isn't up to par for online FPS action)?
 
[quote name='Spybreak8']I love it when companies add bots to fill in slots for multiplayer. Say what you will but that very reason was why I played so much PDZ. Of course you could set up offline matches as well, any chance Brink does this (for someone who's connection isn't up to par for online FPS action)?[/QUOTE]

What's PDZ?

Yes, Brink allows you to play the entire game offline, if you like. No split-screen or system link, however. Three bot difficulties, and nothing is barred from you in offline play. Also, challenge levels (to unlock new weapons/attachments and learn to play).

Also, agreed. I love bot support!
 
This game is weird...

The lengthy tutorial video at the beginning made the game look awesome. Then, when you finally get to play it, it looks and feels... different.
 
Brink sucks. No sense of direction, everything is disorganized, and the online is laggy as heck. You'll spend more time "downed" and waiting on a medic, than you will actually playing. Complete and total letdown. Glad I only rented it.
 
[quote name='Rhett']What's PDZ?

Yes, Brink allows you to play the entire game offline, if you like. No split-screen or system link, however. Three bot difficulties, and nothing is barred from you in offline play. Also, challenge levels (to unlock new weapons/attachments and learn to play).

Also, agreed. I love bot support![/QUOTE]

Thanks, that's good to hear. I played a lot of Gears 2 and Unreal Tournament 3 due to bot support as well.
 
[quote name='hustletron']Hahahah this game looked terrible and everyone was so hyped about it. Hearing more and more it sucks.[/QUOTE]
halo6.jpg
 
was really hyped about this game too, damn.... now let's hope L.A. Noire isn't a huge fucking dissapointment either.
 
[quote name='OblivionScamp']Anyone who passes on this for LA Noire is a straight up gonad..[/QUOTE]

What a fucking troll! 8 hours? fuck off!
 
I can't tell if I'm excited or unhappy that this has poor reviews. It takes one game off of my already massive summer playlist, however, me and my buddies are lacking a multiplayer game to play all summer. Oh well.
 
I know this game was going to blow for the mass majority of people. Have a feeling LA Noire could be the same. It's like GTA but on the other side of the law. Hopefully I shall be proven wrong on that one.
 
I decided to give it another go. Still sucks.

The best way I can sum the game up is: Team Fortress or Shadowrun with persistent character leveling minus the fun of those two games.

Playing alone with bots or a private match is lag-free, but still irritating:

The graphics, which look like someone puked a pastel color scheme over the top of a pile of motion-blur, are not easy on the eyes. The in-game screens look nothing like the crisp graphics that popped in the preview videos. Perhaps the PC version looks much better, but I'm not playing that version. Maybe the 360 is just starting to show it's age, but I doubt it because Crysis 2 showed that running on the right engine, the 360 can run some beautiful games. Brink, at least the real game, and not preview videos, is not an example of a beautiful game.

Next, the sound is vomit inducing and will irritate the heck out of you. When you shoot for a long time, or are next to an explosion, the sound mutes out. At first, I thought my 360 or television was having issues. Nope, it's intentional. It is so irritating.

The gameplay is crap. You play the solo and multiplayer thru one interface. Missions are sorted by faction, with a separate list for each. You select a mission, and it sets the game up. A brief audio description is played during the unusually long loading screen, and that's it. The objectives are highlighted in a traced cutout, usually representing a terminal or door you have to do something with.
You can use the mission wheel, which is like the ability wheel from Dragon Age, to see, select, or change objectives. This is awkward.

Throwing grenades is also awkward: you have to select the grenade with the left directional arrow, followed by tapping the right bumper. Aiming the grenade is a shot in the dark, and half the time you don't see the explosion and the damage is crap.

Downing enemies is basically like having "last stand" mode from Call of Duty turned on 100% of the time. Getting downed sucks and happens frequently. You can hold out for a medic who almost never comes. If he does, you are thrown a hypo and must revive yourself by holding down the left thumb stick. Also awkward. Alternatively, you can respawn after 15 seconds, WAYYYYYY back at the beginning of the stage.

Character abilities, like the soldier's resupply are also handled by holding down the left thumb stick. The fact this game even needs separate character classes is beyond understanding. It's so irritating having to chuck ammo out to teammates, or frequently micro-managing fallen teammates with the medic. The gameplay is a mess.

Online play, (public matches) is so laggy that it was unplayable, so I can't really say much about it.

The character setup and weapon customization is great though. If only the rest of the game was this functional and easy to use, Brink might have actually of been a good game. Sadly, these parts are really the only things I actually liked about the game.

In closing, I'm glad I only rented Brink. I would give it a 3 out of 10, and only that high of a score because of the interfaces and because I respect Bethesda and id games as two of my favorites. I just hope Rage isn't as big of a disappointment that this game was.
 
Debating review scores is pointless. However one thing nearly every review mentions, whether positive or negative, is questionable/poor game design. Pass, I think I'd rather get Section 8 on XBL. At least that's only $15
 
Rage is actually being developed by Id, whereas this just uses IdTech. Big difference.

I definitely agree though, the game is trash (playing on PC). I don't have issues with the visuals like you do (it actually looks pretty good I think), but everything else is spot on.
 
I also might mention that I was somehow under the impression that this game was going to have a separate single player mode with an actual story. Nope, it's just multiplayer mode with bots. Not quite as bad as Shadowrun's "training mode", but still sucks.

In some regards, Homefront was actually better. At least Homefront had a story mode. Granted, the story was pretty much a 4 hour gas run for the US Army, it still had a story. All Brink gave us was weak-sauce inbred bots that ignore you for the most part.

I didn't even get to utilize the parkour moves. I was too busy getting f#cking shot by the waves of enemies closing in on my location after my AI teammates abandoned me. That, or I had to respawn at the beginning of the level, and parkouring over obstacles while on a time limit just seemed a little counter productive.

This game fails on so many levels. If you must play it, rent it. Or, talk a friend dumb enough to buy it into lending it to you.
 
After putting about 6-8 hours into it today with a friend my opinion on the game is that it's not great, but not awful. If I had to rate it on a scale of 1-10, I'd give it a 7.

People are being a little hyperbolic of the game. The mechanics of the game are decent. The game is tactical. If you're playing 8v8 and you don't have 6 solid players on your team then you're going to lose. The game requires extreme coordination, and you can't be a hero. Bots are useless, if you're in a match with bots just get out.

Completing objectives is difficult, but with the exception of a few maps they're not mind numbingly hard. The classes are varied enough and all have useful buffs. Turrets seem pretty weak, but they can make nice traps. The weapons are balanced. So much so that it doesn't seem to matter what weapon you choose, they all do around the same damage. And that's kind of disappointing to me, I don't understand why an SMG with a drum magazine is just as effective as a crazy chaingun.

The parkour is definitely important, people just don't know how to use it effectively with the maps yet. There are great places that lightweights and middleweights can hide and sneak through the map with. Customization is cool. It's fun to mess around with.

In the matches I got in that were lag-free I had fun. It was even more fun when I wasn't playing with idiots.

So the main mechanics of the game, although different from any other FPS I've played lately are good. The glaring flaws with the game aren't from the game itself, but the way matchmaking is handled. No lobby system is fucking retarded, and the way parties are handled is just as bad. In a game that REQUIRES teamwork I can't believe they bumbled that up so badly. If they patch these things in, the game easily becomes 8.0-8.5 for me. It's a headache the way it is.

And I don't care what they say, there's no singleplayer. Just multiplayer with bots (which by the way they need to have a humans only option for multi). This isn't a negative for me, because this game does have solid multiplayer.

It's not GOTY. Not even close, but it's still a good game. If they fix the network issues and matchmaking/lobby system, it'll be even better. It's not as bad as people are making it out to be, it's just a different kind of shooter with some really obvious (but possibly fixable) flaws.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top