Brink 2: A Beginning

Zekariah · 2011-07-05 10:13:21 UTC

Haha! REALLY jumping the gun on this one! There probably won’t even be a Brink 2 if the commercial success of the first one is anything to go by.

But this game and franchise has the POTENTIAL to rise above the big names in FPSs. What we hoped for in Brink was never fully realised, but some huge leaps were taken forward in future thinking for shooters. So if there is any glimmer of hope of continuing the Brink franchise, there are A LOT of ideas and changes that need to be thrown out there for any Designers to get inspiration from.

Now…where to start. I’m mostly interested in everyone elses opinion. Storyline, Character Development, Game Design, Game Mechanics, Progression, Target Audience, New Ideas…you name it.

No Trolling and no Platform Bashing. Let the melting pot make its magic.

morguen87 · 2011-07-05 10:14:16 UTC

Fool me once…Fool me twice…

if this dlc doesn’t come with a title update that makes the people who left the game come back to it and more importantly, keep playing it, stick a fork in Brink.

And if that is the case by the end of the month, good riddance. I don’t like being in limbo holding out on hope of a good update. It should have never been released in this state and it’s shameful. I am never buying an SD game without renting it first, and if it’s anything like how Brink was released I definitely won’t be buying. Haha, wait, even that’s an exaggeration, I probably won’t even bother renting it.

Zekariah · 2011-07-05 10:23:45 UTC

[QUOTE=morguen87;351583]Fool me once…Fool me twice…

if this dlc doesn’t come with a title update that makes the people who left the game come back to it and more importantly, keep playing it, stick a fork in Brink.

And if that is the case by the end of the month, good riddance. I don’t like being in limbo holding out on hope of a good update. It should have never been released in this state and it’s shameful. I am never buying an SD game without renting it first, and if it’s anything like how Brink was released I definitely won’t be buying. Haha, wait, even that’s an exaggeration, I probably won’t even bother renting it.[/QUOTE]

It’s a shame you feel that way mate. Understandable, tho.

But that’s the point of this thread, to gain ideas and suggestions to make what could have been a great game to begin with a “Robert Downey Jr Career Move” of a second game!

Overgear · 2011-07-05 10:43:47 UTC

A. Make skill choice matter. You can easily make an Engi/Op/Medic in one class.
B. Fix the bugs before release.
C. Theres no point having customisation if theres a bug that makes other people look like you or their corpses change after disguising or changing class.
D. Make the classes different. Give a selection of weapons only certain classes can use. I think thats what keeps TF2 interesting and Brink not so much. Each class is a different way to play.
E. More places to climb into using SMART. AFAIK, Shipyard is the only map where you wallhop over a gap.

But yes, Brink 2 probably won’t be happening at all.

DarkangelUK · 2011-07-05 10:44:41 UTC

There’s already a thread like this, but i’ll post here what I posted there…

A proper linear single player portion, the Ark is an absolutely fantastic setting for a single player campaign in the traditional style, and I think having that would flesh out the game and the story itself, and give you a better connection to the setting and the Brink universe. It doesn’t have to be huge, games seem to be getting away with 4 - 8hrs these days.

I’d open the maps up instead of sectioning them off into objectives, I’d make a rule of a max of 2 primary objectives per map and bring more tactical focus on securing secondary routes/spawns and make them much more desirable. Make the objectives non-linear RtCW style, making map tactics more important rather than the defence only having to converge on a single point… it’d drop the overall map rounds to 10-15mins per game, rather than per objective. (yes yes I’m living in the past, but hey it’s what I like)

I’d make it so different gametypes can be incorporated into the current map layouts, such as S&D/CS style round based bomb plant mode, CTF mode using docs or missile codes etc, KotH/Domination style mode… could possibly resurrect RtCW’s checkpoint mode where the 1st team to control all flag points wins.

As much as I hate to say it (and as much as you’ll hate me saying it), I like the positive and negative aspects brought with CoD weapon loadout. 1 attachment for your gun, or 2 depending on the ability chosen. Not a fan personally of having a hundred attachments on my gun, but that’s just me.

Lower the amount of abilities and stick to universal abilities only with a lower limit, class specific abilities have had a negative impact on how people play the game. Leave the classes as they are at their core and let the player tweak how they want to play in general without impacting their role in the game.

Have set visual styled characters for the classes in look and silhouette and get rid of bodytypes and full customization. I want to be able to look at my enemy or team mate and instantly identify their class without the need for icons and text above their head. Have a core colour scheme for the 2 sides (red/blue) but still allow the player to customize small portions like knee pads, facial gear/scars, tattoos etc, but still retain the core class look.

De-clutter the screen, there’s far too many icons and text on the screen. Let ME learn the game for myself, I don’t want a constant running commentary of everything that’s happening on the screen. If I want to know my team mates health situation, I’ll look at him with my xhair and find out, if the class silhouette is fine, I’ll know simply by his player model what class he is. I’ll learn where the objectives are and what they look like, I don’t need a big outline around the enemy to know who to shoot at. The icons i want to see on the screen are the basics, health, ammo, round timer, mini-compass for general direction of the objective or class specific function (medic looking for downed team mates). If It’s not in my line of sight or area of view, don’t show me it… I don’t want to see a fullsized team mate icon on my screen from the other side of the map… LET ME LEARN IT MYSELF!

Make sure that todays games standards are met. If it’s console, include a lobby system, if it’s PC, have numerical ping output and a proper server browser from the get-go. Demo recording is a standard in this day and age, so is first person spectating. Treat each platform as it’s own platform, each has their own requirements that must be met, some things work across all platforms, a lot of things REALLY don’t.

Have a proper closed (open if you must) beta to get rid of the technical niggles before release, and also get map/weapon/game feedback early on.

I think that’s about it for me…

Zarel · 2011-07-05 11:01:34 UTC

The game have the potential. So I guess it’s better they try to refine it here first.

Smoochy · 2011-07-05 11:06:09 UTC

[QUOTE=Zekariah;351582]Haha! REALLY jumping the gun on this one! There probably won’t even be a Brink 2 if the commercial success of the first one is anything to go by.

But this game and franchise has the POTENTIAL to rise above the big names in FPSs. What we hoped for in Brink was never fully realised, but some huge leaps were taken forward in future thinking for shooters. So if there is any glimmer of hope of continuing the Brink franchise, there are A LOT of ideas and changes that need to be thrown out there for any Designers to get inspiration from.

Now…where to start. I’m mostly interested in everyone elses opinion. Storyline, Character Development, Game Design, Game Mechanics, Progression, Target Audience, New Ideas…you name it.

No Trolling and no Platform Bashing. Let the melting pot make its magic.[/QUOTE]

http://forums.bethsoft.com/index.php?/topic/1206430-will-the-trilogy-ever-come-now/page__st__20__gopid__18034938#entry18034938 similar thread over at beth forums.

i think they actually might make a brink2

think about it. they now can build on a decent idea that wasnt brilliantly implemented.

:: more customisation.
:: better bots for story mode
:: make sure ATI has decent drivers
:: more abilities (i would like to see many new ones, so each character is very unique - like fallout etc)
:: more players (more usually means more fun)
:: vehicles? (not sure but its an idea)
:: better control (big letdown with the one-button-does all)
:: TDM arena for the people who cant do teamwork - i know we dont want it but it might pull more people in and some might get into the objective play. or a CTF mode?

if they did some of these it could be amazing. it also wouldnt be tonnes of extra work to create new maps, the core gameplay is almost complete

it would cetrainly be much quicker to release brink 2 than an entirely new IP

Zekariah · 2011-07-05 11:16:49 UTC

Something I’d like to throw into the melting pot is Character Development.

I don’t give a damn about the characters I have made since they have no input into storyline. Developing a character, even a faceless one like Noble Six from Reach gains a certain personal investment that keeps player interested.

I guess you need a Campaign for Character Development due to Plot, but there’s another suggestion that DarkAngelUK made.

Je_T_aime · 2011-07-05 11:22:04 UTC

Completly agree with this, this would give a lot more diversity to the current maps. My main issue with brink after the perfomance and bugs, is basicly the current maps gamemodes they are fun, but for me doesn´t makes sense to have maps with 5 missions like refuel chances to win vs a decent team is fail. With decent teams at any map the defensive teams wins 24/7 and the multi objectives per map increases the fail chances.

Brink needs to have more diversity in gamemodes, the ones that Darkangel sound good.

I would love to see some maps where both teams had to attack and defend.

I´m not suprised at all when I see half of the team disconect when the map changes and its their turn to attack in maps like shipyard or reactor etc. That just does not happen when the teams are unbalanced and the other team dominates in all maps.

Another issue that would be great is some sort of public vote for teams scramble, i´m a ok brink player but last night i played 10 maps and i lost 10 maps, when good players gang together or clanners all go in the same team to pwn some pub newbs you might just quick cuse wining is impossible in any map.

And basicly thats the stuff that I Found more frustrating with the current brink.

Not frustating but I personally don´t see the point of the command posts health buff, I would personally prefer if comands posts could be used by both teams and not buffing 1 team over the other, what happens in reality is that the best team can control more comand posts and that gives that team a even bigger edge cuse the health plus, and also it removes some players from the main objective to go over and over try to get the comand post that they lost.

Zarel · 2011-07-05 11:34:47 UTC

As long as they keep the bots, I’m in for this.

Also, if no more character personalization=tons more weapons customization, then I agree to that too, big time!

DarkangelUK · 2011-07-05 12:20:04 UTC

[QUOTE=Zarel;351612]As long as they keep the bots, I’m in for this.

Also, if no more character personalization=tons more weapons customization, then I agree to that too, big time! :D[/QUOTE]

I mean a PROPER single player portion in the traditional sense. Like Half Life 2, or the single player campaign in the Call of Duty games. A proper, linear, on rails SP with a story… not MP pretending to SP.

BiigDaddyDellta · 2011-07-05 12:30:03 UTC

I don’t know that they could pull off a proper multiplayer with the type of gameplay employed here, but even if they do I think you should also be able to play just the way you can now as a secondary game etc. I would most like to see LAN and splitscreen play in the next installment.

Oh, and a lot more support.

Zarel · 2011-07-05 13:12:29 UTC

Oh no no, I mean I got that. CoD-like singleplayer campaign to strengthen the narrative base of the game. Even I kinda like that. My only wish then is that, if possible, they do that AND keep bots/offline support in the multiplayer aspect. Just like Ubisoft’s XIII or the first Unreal(NOT UT). I mean, come on, XIII lasted two years for me because of those damned bots.

zenstar · 2011-07-05 13:18:18 UTC

I think Brink sold decently. The sales numbers looked decent for a new IP iirc. The population (on PC at least) has fallen off quickly, but if they made anough money then there could be a Brink 2.
And if they take all the feedback from this iteration they could build a fantastic game that realises some of the missed potential.
I’m still interested in where they go with the DLC and future patches though.

Zekariah · 2011-07-05 13:40:19 UTC

[QUOTE=zenstar;351647]I think Brink sold decently. The sales numbers looked decent for a new IP iirc. The population (on PC at least) has fallen off quickly, but if they made anough money then there could be a Brink 2.
And if they take all the feedback from this iteration they could build a fantastic game that realises some of the missed potential.
I’m still interested in where they go with the DLC and future patches though.[/QUOTE]

There’s no doubt that the DLC is keeping me hooked for now, but there is absolutely no chance of a SP Campaign or map/gametype editor coming our way. Especially not console players.

Brink 2 could add these in and create a fanbase from all corners of the shooter genre. I just hope the sale numbers are enough to keep Bethesda or another publisher interested.

zenstar · 2011-07-05 13:59:09 UTC

Please not Bethesda. -_- Their PR tactics make me a sad panda. Radio silence and exclusivity deals that hurt the consumer are not qualities I think are good in a Publisher.

shirosae · 2011-07-05 16:11:21 UTC

[QUOTE=Zekariah;351582]But this game and franchise has the POTENTIAL to rise above the big names in FPSs. What we hoped for in Brink was never fully realised, but some huge leaps were taken forward in future thinking for shooters. So if there is any glimmer of hope of continuing the Brink franchise, there are A LOT of ideas and changes that need to be thrown out there for any Designers to get inspiration from.

Now…where to start. I’m mostly interested in everyone elses opinion. Storyline, Character Development, Game Design, Game Mechanics, Progression, Target Audience, New Ideas…you name it.[/QUOTE]

All throughout development, SD would occasionally release some info. The community would tell them why the terrible ideas were terrible and doomed to failure. SD would respond that actually no, the terrible ideas were working great, and it was too late to change it now anyway. And then Brink was released and terrible ideas are still terrible and don’t work.

For some reason, SD seems to have trouble telling which ideas aren’t working until it’s too late to do anything about them. That needs to change.

In the fantasyland of my imagination where stuff just works and we don’t need to deal with finance etc, this is how ET3 happens:

SD start developing a multiplayer game, ditch idtech 4, and open the game up to players before development finishes. SD then develop the game, dropping out the stuff that doesn’t work, and building on the stuff that does.

When they have a multiplayer game that’s fun to play and contains that ET gameplay that they claim to have wanted to show console players, they start releasing episodic single-player stuff as DLC every few months. The multi-player maps that translate from that episodic single-player DLC are released for free so the multiplayer community isn’t split.

Console gamers get an almost Half-Life (or what Half-Life was supposed to be like) story arc that almost makes the console DLC service make sense, except that the gameplay isn’t like CoD’s lol-infinite-enemies-until-TRIGGER-BRUSH-CONTACT, with a multiplayer game lying around between DLC releases. PC players get a multiplayer game without the Barbie, but can still support the continued development of the game by buying the DLC cheaply when they feel like it.

New players on either side can dabble cheaply, and blow the money on the rest of the stuff if they enjoy it.

The game acts as a platform for that ‘mingleplayer’ gameplay they wanted to provide, except that they actually have a working platform to do it on, and the time to develop it post-release, and a sustained community to buy it.

tl;dr: The ‘multiplayer’ side acts as the core game, and is pretty cheap and gets done first. When the core works, they use the single-player episodic DLC to make money and continue support for the game.

Because the core was worked on first when it was early enough to spot and fix problems, the console players get a proper lobby system, and the pc players aren’t stuck with console controls. People don’t need to dig through the half-finished Molyneux-syndrome stuff to get to the game, because the game was done first.

Smoochy · 2011-07-05 17:03:47 UTC

[QUOTE=shirosae;351713]All throughout development, SD would occasionally release some info. The community would tell them why the terrible ideas were terrible and doomed to failure. SD would respond that actually no, the terrible ideas were working great, and it was too late to change it now anyway. And then Brink was released and terrible ideas are still terrible and don’t work.