Brink Achievements and Trophies Revealed

(3Suns) #41

[QUOTE=Herandar;274818]Yes, but from a tactical perspective, one side is attacking the primary objective in each round, and the other team is defending it. Otherwise there would be no conflict. In Container City, the Security is going into Resistance territory to get the glowing green stuff. At PAX East, the Resistance was attacking a Security Prison.

Within each battle there are offensive and defensive actions for both sides.[/QUOTE]

Thanks for reading and responding, Herandar. I know what you are saying about the problem of “no conflict”. That is the thing, I thought the primary objectives didn’t exactly match up, or conversely, were sometimes exactly the same (analogous to single flag CTF). I can’t find the example, and I can no longer remember the details, but for one of the matches, one side is trying to stop delivery of a biological weapon, the other is trying to capture a nuke, or something like that - I realize now that I simply don’t remember things well enough (and wouldn’t you know it but I can’t find that example either), to provide substance for debate.

You know, as I wrote this just now, I realized that even if both teams are “attacking” (trying to secure a single objective) even this is basically just a different take on plant the bomb or single flag CTF. Yet, because SD is creating these “different realities” depending on which faction you play, they are effectively hiding the traditional game mechanics and making it look like something much more than it actually is. If it really is just Attack vs Defend, then SD hasn’t done anything innovative in this area at all. All they have done is taken traditional MP matches, added bots, and allowed people to play through those matches alone - and then called that SP.

To this I can only say, I want to believe. Give me just enough magic (game mechanic subterfuge via a thin layer of story and “different realities” consistently applied throughout all game elements and text, including Achievements) so that I can pretend I am playing something new, something fresh.

I think I might have mentioned this before, but I consider the “different realities” of Brink to be something that truly elevates it from “just game” to “art”. It provides and provokes commentary on the world we live in. I think Brink provides for political commentary, what L4D provides for basic human psychology. While, for example, BioShock is an incredible game, the “moral” dilemma of saving or harvesting the Little Sisters is contrived - and the results of doing one or the other are transparent before any action is taken. In L4D, one honestly doesn’t know what the result will be of stopping to save an incapped teammate, and the choice is always agonizing. The different realities portrayed in Brink, while not subtle, offer more insight into our current political situation (globally even) than even the best episodes, of say, Deep Space Nine, and is more relevant than Hamlet.

It may sound like I am exaggerating here, but just watch the news or listen to someone speak about almost any issue, and the undeniable fact is that we are living in a world of “different” and seemingly irreconcilable “realities” - and it is shattering any chance for, or hope of, peace.

(Whydmer) #42

You are not exaggerating about the state of the political world, 3Suns. You are, imho, exactly right.

(Herandar) #43

Perhaps the acheivements are only available on certain levels that have a defined attacker and a defined defender? Or maybe it applies to the timed team (attackers) in Stopwatch mode only?

I think you are a bit premature in declaring it now, but I completely agree that the potential is there. I think that the commentary will go right over the heads of players that are running and gunning and skipping the cut scenes. But for those that appreciate subtext, I believe it will be there, and I look forward to listening to all of the audio logs.

The only other major games that I know of that have contemporary political commentary are the second and third Assassin’s Creeed games. Look at Subject 16’s puzzles, especially in Brotherhood. They are dripping with it. I fear most people just look up the solution to the puzzles in online FAQs, but I find the puzzles to be fascinating. There is so much hidden on some of the photo collages. (Not just about Templars. Themes that I remember playing fairly recently were talking about the conflict betwee Edison and Tesla, the CIA and British involvement in the assassination of Mossadegh in Iran (which deeply influenced the Islamic Revolution.) and the downfall of the Soviet Union.)

(Auzner) #44

I saw “revive yourself” and a few dozen of “please play the game and don’t troll everyone.”

(Cankor) #45

[QUOTE=3Suns;274960] I can’t find the example, and I can no longer remember the details, but for one of the matches, one side is trying to stop delivery of a biological weapon, the other is trying to capture a nuke, or something like that - I realize now that I simply don’t remember things well enough (and wouldn’t you know it but I can’t find that example either), to provide substance for debate.

…

You know, as I wrote this just now, I realized that even if both teams are “attacking” (trying to secure a single objective) even this is basically just a different take on plant the bomb or single flag CTF.
[/QUOTE]

If I understand you correctly it sounds like you believe both sides have objectives they are trying to complete? Stop biological weapon vs capture a nuke? If that is how you see it then I understand your confusing over the terms “attacking” and “defending”.

It’s not like that, one side truely is attacking (trying to complete the primary objectives) and the other team defending (trying to make sure the attackers don’t complete the primary objectives). Therefore it’s perfectly logical (for the most part) to say “while attacking” or “while defending”. These of course are map wide distinctions. Attackers could be defending a plant for instance, but that’s still part of their larger role as attackers to complete that objective. And defenders could be attacking a command post or attcking to disam a plant, but their primary mission is still to make sure the attackers don’t complete their primary mission and they are therefore the defenders of the map.

If you already understand all this then I apologize (hopefully I don’t sound patronizing or anything)… it just occured to me from reading your posts you may think both sides have primary objectives they are each trying to complete and that’s not the case.

I hate using this example, but it’s works basically like Bad Company 2’s Rush Mode, one side attacks and one side defends. Of course that’s a pale comparison as Brink has tons of nuances which make it unique and enhance teamwork, but it should suffice to get the general idea across.

(Linsolv) #46

You’re mixing up two missions. The “Container City” mission features the Security attacking, trying to capture a biological “dirty bomb.”

The footage from PAX 2010 is set in a Nuclear Power Plant, which the Resistance is attacking to try to blow it up.

(Shadowcat) #47

[QUOTE=Linsolv;275139]You’re mixing up two missions. The “Container City” mission features the Security attacking, trying to capture a biological “dirty bomb.”

The footage from PAX 2010 is set in a Nuclear Power Plant, which the Resistance is attacking to try to blow it up.[/QUOTE]

His description of the two sides is a bit mixed up, but his commentary seems right on.

The Security are told that they have to capture a dirty bomb that the resistance is making. The resistance are told that thy need to protect a vaccine that the security is trying to steal from them. Either is a plausible story.

And this creates a situation where both of the sides feel totally justified in their actions, even though one is clearly attacking and the other clearly defending.

(Linsolv) #48

There’s no doubt that both sides have an argument, but the guy was saying that both sides were attacking. No, both examples given were attacking, but they were separate missions.

(Jess Alon) #49

But if there’s a capture type situation… like bc2’s conquest. Then everyone is always attacking.

(MF Maou) #50

Interesting.

(General Wolfens) #51

I know some really good old games without achievements :smiley:

(Seyu) #52

command posts

(Humate) #53

The footage from PAX 2010 is set in a Nuclear Power Plant, which the Resistance is attacking to try to blow it up.

Nope, the Reactor level was shown at E3. :wink:

(3Suns) #54

Thanks for the explanations everyone.

Shadowcat, that sounds like the example I was trying to recall: trying to capture a dirty bomb VS trying to defend a vaccine. Cankor, I can see now how that is a defend vs attack scenario, albeit, embedded in a much richer in context than I can think of for any other FPS MP scenario.

Herandar, I agree with you about the pre-maturity in declaring Brink’s virtue. However, unless it is done very cheesy, or for a cheap laugh, the very fact that the two sides are fighting for what they believe is right, and that this is portrayed as a separate “reality” for each side, that is already enough for me because it represents something I (we?) encounter every day - yet is very rarely recognized.

Usually, we get the typical story in which we are encouraged to sympathize with the terrorist whose sad background story is made know (e.g., wife and child were killed) - we get to “see” his side. Yet, ultimately, we side with the protagonist who stops him because it is the protagonist’s point of view that is “correct”. That is the “profound” or “emotive” story we get over and over and over again in games, movies, and books.

In the case of Brink, both sides (leaders?) not only have their own stories, they “see” (literally or figuratively through the eyes of faith) the same object as two different things. That is, for example, exactly the way I see the US Democrats and the Republicans today. There is only one reality, but to listen to either side, you get two completely different pictures. We are not just talking descriptions of different parts of the Blind men’s elephant. There is a lion in the room, and the one side thinks it is a sheep, and the other thinks it is a giraffe - both are correct in decrying the folly of the other, but both are blind to their own error.

Anyway, to bring this full circle, I was thrilled the first time I heard about the one side having to protect a vaccine while the other had to secure (capture) a dirty bomb - and that the gamer is left to decide for themselves what actually happened.

Whydmer - handshake. :slight_smile:

(Seyu) #55

3suns, if the mission structure is anything like Quake Wars, you have nothing to worry about.

“That is, for example, exactly the way I see the US Democrats and the Republicans today. There is only one reality, but to listen to either side, you get two completely different pictures.”
I disagree with that. The reality is recognized by both factions but not acknowledged, it’s personal agenda that shapes reality in politics.

(Herandar) #56

If this is going devolve into a thread about politics, keep it civil. I’m sick of having my threads closed (Handheld Ports --> Art --> Closed.)

(Whydmer) #57

I’m always civil when it comes to politics, unless we’re talking about the Judean People’s Front. (Splitters!)

(tokamak) #58

What? Obnoxious relativism? Yeah that’s recognised alright, don’t worry.

(Linsolv) #59

Are you mad? Everything I say is absolutely true.

(Schwarzeis) #60

Lol, first now saw that ‘‘Time to sleep’’/the meta achievement gives no score at all x)