Brink 2 is likely

(.Chris.) #101

Now now, there’s no need for lying, that’s just plain rude.

(tokamak) #102

I rest my case…

(wolfnemesis75) #103

[QUOTE=tokamak;379639]I rest my case…[/QUOTE]Alright cool. You rest whatever you want! I’ll keep digging Brink. Ha ha. You can’t stop me. Sucks, don’t it? Brink 2 will certainly incorporate all kinds of feedback if it is in the future for SD, so I can also be optimistic of its chances of being even better. Have a nice day. :slight_smile:

(Rex) #104

Are you a console player wolfnemesis75? And have you played ET or ETQW?

(Crytiqal) #105

The fatc is, I hope BRINK 2 will be awesome, I really do.

But seeing how SD failed with BRINK eventho we gave countless of suggestions and feedback on their idea’s and they saying that they were all taking into account, and then to see that nothing what was said is actually brought into the final output is just a total blow in the face for every fan they had for the past 8 years.

The fact you keep saying how BRINK is awesome, WITHOUT disccusing it, is what makes us annoyed.
Every thread you come in, post 1 sentences that says something like; “BRINK IS AWESOME I LIKE IT” is seriously anoying when we are trying to improve upon the game by telling SD WHAT is exactly wrong with the game.

Yes, sometimes it’s being said pretty boldly towards SD but they need to understand.
In the end you are derailing threads if you post how absolutly great and popular the game is, when in fact it really is not.
When asked to back up your claim you say you are getting personally attacked. Well guess what, you post somethign,you give explanations, otherwise people won’t be satisfied with it, as you can clearly see.

(.Chris.) #106

Yeah plus if he actually explained what they did good and why that would equally help them, knowing what did right is quite beneficial too. Saying “Brink is awesome” is just as bad as saying “Brink is crap”, gotta say why when you’re discussing things at great length as we’ve been trying to over past few months now.

(wolfnemesis75) #107

[QUOTE=Crytiqal;379647]The fatc is, I hope BRINK 2 will be awesome, I really do.
[/QUOTE]Something we can agree on! There’s plenty of feedback floating around the forum, even some from me the majority of which is in the weapon sub-forum. Check it out! Also, I’ve seen multiple posts by Badman saying that they’re working on tweaks and a patch and netvkars for weapons as well as potentially a future Clan support and some other improvements, so its not as if things are not being done. Also, Brink has been an awesome game for me. The key part being the for me part. I like it still and met some great people playing Brink and had tons of fun. For me, that’s the ultimate goal is to have a good experience and I did. That’s awesome. Lastly, there’s been tons of feedback on Brink, not all of it may apply specifically to me or be something that I agree with, but if the overall experience is improved and incorporated into Brink 2 that great. But its gravy for me since I kinda said I LIKE Brink and have had a blast thus far playing it! I am also patient and willing to see how things shake out over the long haul, since I already like and enjoy the game to begin with, and so don’t have much in the way of frustration impeding my enjoyment!

(tokamak) #108

Being positively unconstructive is unconstructive nonetheless.

(INF3RN0) #109

Something that tends to be missed around here. Most of the “negative crowd” are big SD fans and supporters, but the main difference between us and you is our thin ability to just be satisfied with anything thrown at us. We have been playing SD games long enough to know exactly what we want in their games. SD make games for consumers, which would be us; meaning the long-time overused “Let them make their games and gtfo!” line is senseless. Every consumer has their own preferences when it comes to games, but I figure SD don’t want to just be the next CoD clone developer; they want to stick with what they did in the beginning. Sure they want to open up the genre to a bigger audience, but as we saw from Brink, the ultimate dumb-down make-over for the series not only failed to grab as many new people as it wanted, but also alienated it’s past fans.

The fact that Brink actually had good advertising and caught a lot of people’s interest with the new features like SMART/customization/etc is great, but the fact that the entire game plays nothing like the past games besides that it has objectives was a huge let down. Brink would have been much better off if the original game mechanics were kept in place, while the little publicity sprinkles were kept on the cake. There were people who bought Brink not knowing what to expect, and then there were those who were convinced it would be a strong sequel to the ET series. When you try to alter a game as drastically as SD did with Brink, you wear down the original formula to the point where your basically marketing less of a game. I feel that way too much was invested in someone’s idea for retaining dumb gamers, but let’s face it… if SD wants to make CoD sales, they are going to have to make CoD. ET games are something that take time to grow on the big crowd, but when people figure them out they become thoroughly addicted. Brink kinda blew the chances there as it delivered a game you would expect to pre-date Wolf ET. We all hope that the “lessons are learned” in the next title before ET games pop out of existence all together.

(H0RSE) #110

This is what I have been trying to say. Not that I wish they would admit they bit off more than they could chew, just that they in fact did. It’s like I have said already, SD took on an extremely ambitious project with Brink - perhaps too ambitious. Based with what they had to work with, decisions were discussed, compromises were made, and we got what Brink turned out to be instead of the AAA title it could have been (or the one we all wanted it to be.)

[QUOTE=INF3RN0;379667]Something that tends to be missed around here. Most of the “negative crowd” are big SD fans and supporters, but the main difference between us and you is our thin ability to just be satisfied with anything thrown at us. We have been playing SD games long enough to know exactly what we want in their games. SD make games for consumers, which would be us; meaning the long-time overused “Let them make their games and gtfo!” line is senseless. Every consumer has their own preferences when it comes to games, but I figure SD don’t want to just be the next CoD clone developer; they want to stick with what they did in the beginning. Sure they want to open up the genre to a bigger audience, but as we saw from Brink, the ultimate dumb-down make-over for the series not only failed to grab as many new people as it wanted, but also alienated it’s past fans.
[/QUOTE]
This is one of those things that has irked me. It seems that SD has been blacklisted by their community to only make “SD style games,” and if they decide to stray too far from that formula, they are ridiculed and harassed. Reminds me of when a band comes out with a new album after many years of nothing and it sounds noting like their old albums, and fans just yell and call them sellouts. SD has the right to make any game them desire - even games that play nothing like SD games. Now I’m not saying this is the case with Brink - we all know Brink had its fair share of problems and was not simply due to design decisions, but my point is, if Brink released virtually bug-free, with tip-top polish and had that solid AAA title feel, yet didn’t play like an SD game (as if Splash Damage needs to constantly develop games that play the same way in order to remain credible) I don’t see the problem. Yes, I would like them to continue to release class-based team objective games that have the “SD style” of gameplay, but I’m not going to bitch and moan if they don’t - it’s their call and their right. Besides, I more blame publishers than developers when gameplay decisions are made/changed, since it’s their money funding the project and so they essentially have the final say

(INF3RN0) #111

I believe Brink was not designed to be it’s own game, in fact I know it was not; referring to quotes. Brink was supposed to be the solution to all the problems and non-problems with the past games. When SD claims the issue with Brink was difficulty to grasp the “concepts”, that is completely wrong. If they made a new kind of game, I wouldn’t have pre-ordered and I wouldn’t have asked for it to be the traditional style. Point is that’s not what happened, and harsh criticism is required to save the genre. Support will just produce more of what we got, and if Brink is “in it’s own”, then I would say the majority rules in its discontinuation.

(.Chris.) #112

To be fair they did say Brink was meant to be like their past games, they said the same about ET:QW during it’s development, was a lot of ET players pissed when they tried playing it and it happened a few month ago.

I liked ET:QW for what it was despite coming from ET previously, however I just couldn’t get into Brink.

(H0RSE) #113

They also said Brink was going to be it’s own game, not ETQW2 or W:ET2 with new skins and graphics or even part of the ET universe.

(.Chris.) #114

I don’t think anyone complained that Brink wasn’t in the ET universe…

(Crytiqal) #115

if I remember correctly, that is exactly what rahdo said, ET3

(Azure19) #116

[QUOTE=INF3RN0;379676]I believe Brink was not designed to be it’s own game, in fact I know it was not; referring to quotes. Brink was supposed to be the solution to all the problems and non-problems with the past games. When SD claims the issue with Brink was difficulty to grasp the “concepts”, that is completely wrong. If they made a new kind of game, I wouldn’t have pre-ordered and I wouldn’t have asked for it to be the traditional style. Point is that’s not what happened, and harsh criticism is required to save the genre. Support will just produce more of what we got, and if Brink is “in it’s own”, then I would say the majority rules in its discontinuation.[/QUOTE]What long-time Splash Damage fans fail to realize is the fact that things can’t be the same as things evolve. I’d go as far as to say that long-time SD fans are taking SD in the wrong direction.

(INF3RN0) #117

Are you serious? Brink is nothing but a devolution. Are you one of those wolfnems who have never touched any of the other games? Either way though, past SD fans outnumber the Brink fans if we want to make this a success story.

(Crytiqal) #118

I understand you have played W:ET and ET:QW and liked those two games then?

And now you are saying the fans of SD made SD fail at BRINK? Cause we take them in the wrong direction?

Wauw :smiley:

(tokamak) #119

Muse! Great example! Their album ‘Resistance’ was a bland bubble-gum pop album, a caricature of what they used to make. All because they’ve found a new target audience, the thirteen year old overweight female Twillight reader. In this case ‘something new’ simply means ‘move more album copies’. Their music vaguely sounds like the masterpieces they used to make but it has lost all it’s edge.

Great analogy for Brink.

(.Chris.) #120

[QUOTE=tokamak;379689]Muse! Great example! Their album ‘Resistance’ was a bland bubble-gum pop album, a caricature of what they used to make. All because they’ve found a new target audience, the thirteen year old overweight female Twillight reader. In this case ‘something new’ simply means ‘move more album copies’. Their music vaguely sounds like the masterpieces they used to make but it has lost all it’s edge.

Great analogy for Brink.[/QUOTE]

Exogenesis is hardly bubble-gum pop…