Brink : Single Player

[Coin_Op]

[QUOTE=Crytiqal;294436]Whats up with all these people trying to come off as if a single player is the same as an mp with bots?

A single player game would put YOU, in the center of attention and let the entire world revolve around YOU. Wheres the experience in an MP with bots would be more that everyone is equally important.

Some people like the experience of being the hero of the story, which you don’t get within an MP with bots.[/QUOTE]

Yeah I thought it funny when people were saying MP was basically the same as SP but with bots. That’s just ridiculous.

SP is played out like a movie. There are story arcs implemented. A good SP game will feel more like an orchestra and less like a garage band. If you can understand that analogy.

[XyzKiller]

I want a singleplayer experience Like Half Life.

Well don’t expect to play Episode 3 then because Gabe N. stated vALVE will not be doing full out single player games anymore.

[ThePilgrim101]

SP is played out like a movie. There are story arcs implemented. A good SP game will feel more like an orchestra and less like a garage band. If you can understand that analogy.

No, see, you’re talking about a story. A story is the same thing you can get in one of those choose your own adventure books you read in primary school.

The actual game part of that singleplayer is simply solo against bots.

You can still have an epic story arc but done against actual human players. Actually, that sort of thing sounds like the most awesome thing in the world; I personally am sick of hearing “Ramirez! Do everything!” from Foley. I’d rather hear, “Ramirez…Joshua! Take down that chopper with your throwing knife!”

Again, we’re not talking about the pathetic stories in SP games. We’re talking about the actual gameplay.

[Shadedluck]

[QUOTE=Coin Op;294656]Yeah I thought it funny when people were saying MP was basically the same as SP but with bots. That’s just ridiculous.

SP is played out like a movie. There are story arcs implemented. A good SP game will feel more like an orchestra and less like a garage band. If you can understand that analogy.[/QUOTE]

This is only really true for Singleplayer PS3 games. In many games the gameplay is just as important as the singleplayer, in fact more so. Singleplayer is there to give the game a reason to be there. In some games, the story mode is tied into the multiplayer. There is a story ark in Brink. In fact, the story is based around the Ark. If you can’t see the story in Brink, you are a blind, deaf mute, or don’t want to see it and came here to bash it. And considering most if not all blind, deaf mutes aren’t able to use the internet, I’m gonna have to guess that you came here to bash it.

With that being said, Crytiqal, in Brink there is no “Hero” because that’s not the kind of story line it has. Everyone is equal and fighting for what they believe in. And believe it or not, that’s the way it should be. I like the more realistic story line of “You’re a part of a team working for what you believe in”, instead of the "You grew up in nowhere town where you were raised as an orphan and then grew up and found out your parents have magical powers and you have to save the kingdom/city/country/world/universe before the bad guys do bad stuff to you. In Brink, the “bad guys” are actually the opposite team of you, and are working for what they believe in.

[Coin_Op]

[QUOTE=Shadedluck;294719]This is only really true for Singleplayer PS3 games. In many games the gameplay is just as important as the singleplayer, in fact more so. Singleplayer is there to give the game a reason to be there. In some games, the story mode is tied into the multiplayer. There is a story ark in Brink. In fact, the story is based around the Ark. If you can’t see the story in Brink, you are a blind, deaf mute, or don’t want to see it and came here to bash it. And considering most if not all blind, deaf mutes aren’t able to use the internet, I’m gonna have to guess that you came here to bash it.

[/QUOTE]

Ah ha! See this is where you are wrong. Brink is “revolutionizing” and blurring the lines between the two (SP and MP). So basically it’s a new thing to the genre. Maybe you have another example to use?

As for other games these days, yes MP is just as important but they are two separate games roughly.

Think Uncharted 2 for instance, epic single player and great multiplayer but neither of them are really the same. Yes the controls are the same but the set pieces are brief and catered to a 15 minute TDM or CTF match. To think Uncharted 2’s MP is basically SP with bots is absurd.

Call of Duty 4. Epic SP with key points in the game. Nothing translated over to the MP aspect of the game except for which factions you fought for.

[SphereCow]

[QUOTE=BrigandSk(A);294387]Try Wolfenstein: Enenmy Territoy

The game is available free! go download it![/QUOTE]

I play on a really really awesome server just about every day. It’s noQuarter mod, so it’s like Wolf:ET but a super huge expansion. The server also rotates dozens of maps in and out. It’s ridiculous. And the admins are the most laid back I’ve met in 10+ years of online gaming.

63.251.20.180:27960

[Coin_Op]

[QUOTE=ThePilgrim101;294716]No, see, you’re talking about a story. A story is the same thing you can get in one of those choose your own adventure books you read in primary school.

The actual game part of that singleplayer is simply solo against bots.

You can still have an epic story arc but done against actual human players. Actually, that sort of thing sounds like the most awesome thing in the world; I personally am sick of hearing “Ramirez! Do everything!” from Foley. I’d rather hear, “Ramirez…Joshua! Take down that chopper with your throwing knife!”

Again, we’re not talking about the pathetic stories in SP games. We’re talking about the actual gameplay.[/QUOTE]

What makes you think I’m not talking about gameplay? Just so we make this clear, what I’m arguing against is that people are saying that single player is basically multiplayer but with bots.

Unless we are referring to single player coop. Then, okay in that aspect I could agree. It is a coop game as well as a single player where everyone else is shooting the AI. However from my understanding, some people are thinking a TDM or CTF game is like a single player game.

[Shadedluck]

[QUOTE=Coin Op;294777]Ah ha! See this is where you are wrong. Brink is “revolutionizing” and blurring the lines between the two (SP and MP). So basically it’s a new thing to the genre. Maybe you have another example to use?

As for other games these days, yes MP is just as important but they are two separate games roughly.

Think Uncharted 2 for instance, epic single player and great multiplayer but neither of them are really the same. Yes the controls are the same but the set pieces are brief and catered to a 15 minute TDM or CTF match. To think Uncharted 2’s MP is basically SP with bots is absurd.

Call of Duty 4. Epic SP with key points in the game. Nothing translated over to the MP aspect of the game except for which factions you fought for.[/QUOTE]

Mentioning Uncharted 2 is only helping my cause. Uncharted 2 was a PS3 exclusive, and, although I’ve never played it, I’ve heard it played out with more cutscenes than actual gameplay, and that you felt more like you were watching a movie(I’ve never played it because I don’t own a PS3, though I would like to play it, I heard it was good even though it was like a movie).

Call of Duty 4, which was Modern Warfare 1, further proves my point. In CoD Mod1, you played on similar, if not the same maps in multiplayer. You fought for the same factions, and the same guns were used. Now, I understand what you were saying, that the multiplayer should be different from the singleplayer, but even if it isn’t, I don’t think you can really bash a game until you’ve played it.

And in your second post, I’m not defending the gameplay itself, I’m just saying that in terms of games, the story is dropped in multiplayer, and they take the same/similar maps, people, and guns, and then just pit you versus other people. Like you said before, they are blurring the lines of single and multiplayer, making it all one game that you can fight against other people playing through their story line. It’s completely optional, and if you don’t like versing other people to beat the campaign or story mode, then you can play singleplayer. We’ll definitely see how the game pans out in a few short hours.

[SphereCow]

Thank you Ragoo. Quake Wars was horrible.

That’s pretty obnoxious, and I kinda resent that, as I really, really like Quake Wars.

You’re asking for an adventure type shooter that feels like a warzone, but you bash a game that is exactly that because it is multiplayer, and not a singleplayer story that is fed to you.

ETQW is a multiplayer story game where you progress in skills and gain new abilities by exploring the levels with teammates and defeating enemies. The “story” comes from your interaction with other players that you like or dislike based on their own personalities. It’s not a story that you simply interact with in a faux dynamic world. SP shooters often lack replayability because they’re not truly dynamic, and you only get a set number of experiences from them if they’re trying too hard to simulate some sort of sandbox world while driving a story, I.E. Halo/Crysis. Don’t get me wrong, those are perfectly legit games that have aspects I admire, but I could never play through them more than once. Give me the regular rotation of ETQW maps for a number of hours and I’ll be happy.

So get over it. Brink is Brink. If you’re unhappy with it, hide in a closet and set yourself on fire for all we care.

[otirruborez]

[QUOTE=Shadedluck;294806]Mentioning Uncharted 2 is only helping my cause. Uncharted 2 was a PS3 exclusive, and, although I’ve never played it, I’ve heard it played out with more cutscenes than actual gameplay, and that you felt more like you were watching a movie(I’ve never played it because I don’t own a PS3, though I would like to play it, I heard it was good even though it was like a movie).

Call of Duty 4, which was Modern Warfare 1, further proves my point. In CoD Mod1, you played on similar, if not the same maps in multiplayer. You fought for the same factions, and the same guns were used. Now, I understand what you were saying, that the multiplayer should be different from the singleplayer, but even if it isn’t, I don’t think you can really bash a game until you’ve played it.

And in your second post, I’m not defending the gameplay itself, I’m just saying that in terms of games, the story is dropped in multiplayer, and they take the same/similar maps, people, and guns, and then just pit you versus other people. Like you said before, they are blurring the lines of single and multiplayer, making it all one game that you can fight against other people playing through their story line. It’s completely optional, and if you don’t like versing other people to beat the campaign or story mode, then you can play singleplayer. We’ll definitely see how the game pans out in a few short hours.[/QUOTE]

cod4 sp is WAY different than the mp. just because you use the same weapons and some of the textures are the same doesn’t mean the ai could be replaced with real players and all the sudden it’s the same as the mp experience.

the ONLY thing differentiating singleplayer from multiplayer in brink are the bots. that’s it. it’s like battlefield, quake 3, and unreal singleplayer. a practice mode. those games happen to be amazing as well because they were marketed and created as multiplayer games.

in fact, they should have called one offline mode and one online mode. that’s exactly what they are. the same modes, but one can be played online with others.

saying brink has a real singleplayer experience is only fooling the ignorant, and that’s why they hyped it as such. to get more money.

“blurring the lines”(there is only one line, how can any be blurred together?) as you say is really a shortcut in game development in this instance.

i personally only buy games for the multiplayer, so i don’t really care what they did. people that want a true singleplayer experience will want to look elsewhere though. this is not your game.

[Coin_Op]

[QUOTE=Shadedluck;294806]Mentioning Uncharted 2 is only helping my cause. Uncharted 2 was a PS3 exclusive, and, although I’ve never played it, I’ve heard it played out with more cutscenes than actual gameplay, and that you felt more like you were watching a movie(I’ve never played it because I don’t own a PS3, though I would like to play it, I heard it was good even though it was like a movie).

Call of Duty 4, which was Modern Warfare 1, further proves my point. In CoD Mod1, you played on similar, if not the same maps in multiplayer. You fought for the same factions, and the same guns were used. Now, I understand what you were saying, that the multiplayer should be different from the singleplayer, but even if it isn’t, I don’t think you can really bash a game until you’ve played it.

And in your second post, I’m not defending the gameplay itself, I’m just saying that in terms of games, the story is dropped in multiplayer, and they take the same/similar maps, people, and guns, and then just pit you versus other people. Like you said before, they are blurring the lines of single and multiplayer, making it all one game that you can fight against other people playing through their story line. It’s completely optional, and if you don’t like versing other people to beat the campaign or story mode, then you can play singleplayer. We’ll definitely see how the game pans out in a few short hours.[/QUOTE]

The single player, immersion is probably a key word here. In the single player aspect of the game, the director conducts a symphony to create the world around you and along with its melo-dramatic moments scaled so large that sometimes the visuals and sound can be jarring. These are the “epic” moments some are referring to.

So basically, multiplayer is a watered down version of the single player and they tone it all down so to enhance on the competitive gameplay aspect which the SP doesn’t have. There’s no need for melo-drama because you already know who’s wearing the white hats (you and your teammates) and the black hats (them and their allies). The conductor will be you. You drive the action/story.

So my argument is that single player is not simply a MP with bots thrown in the mix, it’s a fully integrated experience with bots thrown into the mix.

If Brink truly does blur those lines then they’ve done something incredible. I can’t wait to find out.

[ThePilgrim101]

What makes you think I’m not talking about gameplay? Just so we make this clear, what I’m arguing against is that people are saying that single player is basically multiplayer but with bots.

In the post I referenced, you specifically mentioned story arcs. Story arcs are not gameplay, they’re story.

Gameplay for singleplayer is always against bots. The bots simply appear at different times and do not have respawn on (generally).

EDIT: You’re really only helping Brink’s cause at this point. If gameplay in SP is against bots, then a game that allows the narrative aspect in online play should be seen as epic by any stretch of the imagination. So far, you’re arguing that SP has to have story arcs and set-pieces…but there is nothing to say that same thing can’t happen in online play. Look at Left 4 Dead or Army of Two; those games encorporated the story into the multiplayer.

Yes, if you don’t play against a human, you’re up against a bot. Singleplayer, stripping it down to gameplay, is you versus bots. We should rejoice that our story driven games now have real opponents.

[Coin_Op]

[QUOTE=ThePilgrim101;294861]In the post I referenced, you specifically mentioned story arcs. Story arcs are not gameplay, they’re story.

Gameplay for singleplayer is always against bots. The bots simply appear at different times and do not have respawn on (generally).[/QUOTE]

Story arcs a little bit more unique in video games than they are for movies. For movies you sit there and watch them play out. For video games you play them out. That’s gameplay. Same goes for character arcs, a lot of games these days the player decides.

[otirruborez]

[QUOTE=Coin Op;294852]
If Brink truly does blur those lines then they’ve done something incredible. I can’t wait to find out.[/QUOTE]

if by blurring the lines you mean they are both exactly(this word is important) the same, but one has bots. then they have indeed done something incredible.

they have miraculously created an offline practice mode. they deserve some type of award.

[ThePilgrim101]

Story arcs a little bit more unique in video games than they are for movies. For movies you sit there and watch them play out. For video games you play them out. That’s gameplay. Same goes for character arcs, a lot of games these days the player decides.

No. The “story” is still the predetermined (in a broad sense) path by which certain events occur and the plot expands to a finish.

The gameplay is you actually playing during those moments.

The two are not synonymous. The story from a movie and the story from a video-game can be referenced completely without touching on the actual medium; the gameplay is the extension of the actual medium.

It doesn’t matter if the player decides attributes. You’re basically talking about RPGs and other RPG-like things to make your case, however, even in RPG games there is still a story that is (again, broadly defined) predetermined for you. The ending of Mass Effect 2 dictates certain endings – you don’t have the choice of making love to the reapers and living happily ever after.

Gameplay boils down to what you actually do to play the game, and when it comes to singleplayer, this still means fighting bots. You may not like it, but at the end of the day, when you beat the bad guy on Call of Duty, you’re only killing a bot. Likewise, when you take down aliens in Crysis 2, you’re still taking down a bot. At the end of the day, for SP games, your basic combat (assuming we’re playing a combat driven game) comes down to how well you do against a bot.

SP combat is simply just beating bots. That’s just the core gameplay. It doesn’t matter how good the story is because that’s just not part of the actual gameplay. There is more to gameplay than fighting bots, but that is the core of almost every SP gameplay out there.

Would you consider the story lacking if the enemy couldn’t aim their gun correctly? Would you consider the gameplay lacking if the story was about another PMC that was secretly evil?

Gameplay =/= Story

[ThePilgrim101]

[QUOTE=otirruborez;294874]if by blurring the lines you mean they are both exactly(this word is important) the same, but one has bots. then they have indeed done something incredible.

they have miraculously created an offline practice mode. they deserve some type of award.[/QUOTE]

To his credit, he means if the same impact of a story mode is achieved even through multiplayer gaming.

But, yes, it’s no different than other games like Left 4 Dead have done, essentially.

Hopefully it will be immersive. I don’t care though; I’m interested in the gameplay.

[Coin_Op]

[QUOTE=ThePilgrim101;294861]
EDIT: You’re really only helping Brink’s cause at this point. If gameplay in SP is against bots, then a game that allows the narrative aspect in online play should be seen as epic by any stretch of the imagination. So far, you’re arguing that SP has to have story arcs and set-pieces…but there is nothing to say that same thing can’t happen in online play. Look at Left 4 Dead or Army of Two; those games encorporated the story into the multiplayer.

Yes, if you don’t play against a human, you’re up against a bot. Singleplayer, stripping it down to gameplay, is you versus bots. We should rejoice that our story driven games now have real opponents.[/QUOTE]

If we are debating coop then I’ve already agreed that coop games are basically single player games. There’s no argument there.

If that’s been the argument the entire time, then I appreciate the clarification since the argument almost sounded like people were saying a multiplayer versus game was basically a single player game with bots.

[ThePilgrim101]

people were saying a multiplayer versus game was basically a single player game with bots.

Because, at the base, it is. See my last post to you.

[otirruborez]

Because, at the base, it is. See my last post to you.

lol…

that depends entirely on the game. with brink it’s true. with call of duty, it’s not even close.

[Coin_Op]

[QUOTE=ThePilgrim101;294884]No. The “story” is still the predetermined (in a broad sense) path by which certain events occur and the plot expands to a finish.

[B]Story is predetermined, yes. What I was referring to are story arcs and character arcs. These are crucial points that drive the story or character. Without them, you really can’t have a “story”. These are typically the dramatic moments that propel a story.

Example: Act 1: Thor goes and defies his father’s wishes to over take King Laufe at his home world Jotunheim. Story arc and character arc is now being played out.

However, the entire story stops while the fight between Thor and the Frost Giants play out until we see a victor. Thor wins and then returns to the father who then banishes Thor out of Asgard for going against his wishes. Because of his actions he propelled the story in this direction.

Fast forward passed Act 2 to Thor finding humility ultimately granting him access back into Asgard, story and character arc finished. Story wraps up in act three, the conclusion. [/B]

The gameplay is you actually playing during those moments.

You typically play out the story and character arcs.

The two are not synonymous. The story from a movie and the story from a video-game can be referenced completely without touching on the actual medium; the gameplay is the extension of the actual medium.

Yes to some extent but are still have to propel the story by defeating a boss character (or bot, whatever works). If defeating that character is crucial part to the story (arcs included) then it must happen and you must win.

It doesn’t matter if the player decides attributes. You’re basically talking about RPGs and other RPG-like things to make your case, however, even in RPG games there is still a story that is (again, broadly defined) predetermined for you. The ending of Mass Effect 2 dictates certain endings – you don’t have the choice of making love to the reapers and living happily ever after.

Yes but the character arc is what I’m talking about. You pick and choose how you wish to play; either good or bad. You propel the story to its end.

Gameplay boils down to what you actually do to play the game, and when it comes to singleplayer, this still means fighting bots. You may not like it, but at the end of the day, when you beat the bad guy on Call of Duty, you’re only killing a bot. Likewise, when you take down aliens in Crysis 2, you’re still taking down a bot. At the end of the day, for SP games, your basic combat (assuming we’re playing a combat driven game) comes down to how well you do against a bot.

Yes and this propels the story forward. Unfortunately there’s no alternative if you happen to fail. You must beat the boss or the story (story arcs and character arcs included) stops.

SP combat is simply just beating bots. That’s just the core gameplay.

In terms of combat yes. What else is there? You could beat puzzles depending on what the game’s core game play is.

It doesn’t matter how good the story is because that’s just not part of the actual gameplay. There is more to gameplay than fighting bots, but that is the core of almost every SP gameplay out there.

And this is where I believe Brink is trying to define itself. They want the story arcs to be played out between the online community. Who will win? The resistance or the security? Either way, the outcome of the story is up in the air until there’s a victor.

Would you consider the story lacking if the enemy couldn’t aim their gun correctly? Would you consider the gameplay lacking if the story was about another PMC that was secretly evil?

It would certainly help the immersion or the believability of why those things are happening. In SP games today, you run into “bot’s” friendly fire and nothing happens. You run into friendly fire online someone blurts out “get out of the way you…****”. You either a) apologize and move on, or b) say “up yours.” Depending on the individual who you’ve just crossed their line of fire, they could become even more pissed and therefor a dynamic change has happened. You now have a friendly who is now an enemy. A story is now being played out, well that is until the 15 minutes are over and the game is finished.

[B]What if a game integrated those experiences? How immersive will those games be then? That’s why games are a more unique than movies. Currently there’s a set formula but eventually humans will be playing the “bad guys” and ultimately create the set for the “good guys” to take place in. Afterall that’s why they call them antagonists. By becoming the antagonizer to lure the hero out of hiding. Could we see the hero lose? Would melo-drama cease to exist entirely? Could we see the antagonists’ as the heroes instead?

All these can be played out. Eventually…

But to answer your question, currently no. Gameplay and story are separate because there’s a set formula that’s been rehashed over and over and over again. But that’s why I’ve said before that immersion is the key word. IF they could blur the two, the gameplay could eventually change the story. [/B]

Gameplay =/= Story[/QUOTE]

View the highlighted responses.