Brink : Single Player

(Cornboss) #61

I’m a long time gamer and I used to love SP campaigns in FPS games (Goldeneye, Call of Duty, Medal of Honor etc …) But I just can’t stand them anymore. Once you’ve beaten ohhh say, 30 SP FPS campaigns it’s over.

FPS is all about online multiplayer in my oh so humble opinion. To me, it’s basically like playing digital paintball for a fraction of the cost. I like matching my wits and reflexes against my fellow gamers and the SP stories in FPS games are just terrible. I can’t think of a single FPS campaign that I have enjoyed in the past 5-10 years to be honest.

My cousins who are a bit younger and newer to gaming still LOVE Call of Duty’s SP campaigns and I don’t blame them. I would too if I hadn’t already been there done that.

I do however enjoy SP experiences for RPGs and games like the Uncharted series (Uncharted 2 was fantastic)

GIMME MAH NEW VERSION OF DIGITAL PAINTBALL!

looks over

“Oh HAI Brink!” :stroggbanana:

(Coin Op) #62

Of course at the base it is, but that’s just it.

There’s so many multi-faceted layers involved in a single player game though. It’s like a movie.

And for multiplayer it has its own layers and therefore its like a sport.

Saying MP and SP are the same is to me like saying a football movie is the same as the sport of football. They are not!

One has a story with character, story, substories, and aesthetics to create certain emotions(music, scenery, cinematography, editing/pacing, etc), and plays out the same everytime you watch it.

The other has the basic core elements to the movie: humans (characters), emotions, scenery, etc… However, there’s no director. There’s no conductor to orchestrate what happens. It’s all dynamic and the emotions derive from the competitiveness.

I’m not saying one is less than the other. I’m just saying they are entirely different animals. You’re essentially comparing apples to oranges.

(ThePilgrim101) #63

Please don’t highlight in a quotation. It works on the ea forums but it’s a bitch here.

Story is predetermined, yes. What I was referring to are story arcs and character arcs.

No, you bloody weren’t. You’re sitting here arguing that core gameplay for SP is more than you versus bots. It’s not, and you must understand that it’s not or you wouldn’t be trying to equivocate core gameplay to story.

You typically play out the story and character arcs.

You view the story in the same way that you view a book. The “multiple arc” stories are still layed out for you; see previous posts example.

Core gameplay is viewed separate from story, yet you still continue equivocating one into the other in order to make this point that the core gameplay of SP is more than just you against bots.

It’s not.

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.

Doesn’t matter. The actual predetermined action is not the gameplay. See below.

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.

  1. Brink has no “good vs bad” that you pick.

  2. Character arc is different than story arc which is different than gameplay. Stop using all of these interchangeably.

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.

Just helping my point there…The story propels the story forward. You’re trying to defy gameplay purely as your choices. That’s a horrible definition for core gameplay. We’re dealing with core gameplay. Stick with that.

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

Then why the %$&@ are you even arguing with me?

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.

Again, don’t care about your opinion on story. Dealing with gameplay here.

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.

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…

You keep talking about immersion. Why? Don’t strawman. We’re dealing with bots. The AI in SP are bots. Your gameplay is against bots in SP. Carefully controlled bots, but bots nonetheless. Debate that, not immersion.

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.

They’re separate because they are two separate things. It doesn’t matter if “immersion is key”. The enemies you fight are bots. End of story.

(Jak Swift) #64

[QUOTE=Cornboss;295049]I’m a long time gamer and I used to love SP campaigns in FPS games (Goldeneye, Call of Duty, Medal of Honor etc …) But I just can’t stand them anymore. Once you’ve beaten ohhh say, 30 SP FPS campaigns it’s over.

FPS is all about online multiplayer in my oh so humble opinion. To me, it’s basically like playing digital paintball for a fraction of the cost. I like matching my wits and reflexes against my fellow gamers and the SP stories in FPS games are just terrible. I can’t think of a single FPS campaign that I have enjoyed in the past 5-10 years to be honest.

My cousins who are a bit younger and newer to gaming still LOVE Call of Duty’s SP campaigns and I don’t blame them. I would too if I hadn’t already been there done that.

I do however enjoy SP experiences for RPGs and games like the Uncharted series (Uncharted 2 was fantastic)

GIMME MAH NEW VERSION OF DIGITAL PAINTBALL!

looks over

“Oh HAI Brink!” :stroggbanana:[/QUOTE]

I agree, but alas i always have faith in Duke. The new Duke Nukem will be an awesome single player fps, like… Its Duke nukem haha.

(ThePilgrim101) #65

Oh, so all of those tens of thousands of middle-easterns and russians you killed through the past few Modern Warfares during the singleplayer campaign were all real people? Oh wait, no they weren’t.

They were NPCs. AI Controlled. Bots.

You killed bots in Call of Duty. Too bad, so sad.

(Achromatis) #66

o.O Modern War singleplayer is probably some of the best cinematic experiences Ive had in a long time(including movies). Not a big deal for people who dont like a good story, but some people do. Drew me into the game more than most RPGs ever have.

Theres some pretty cool stuff they can do in SP that they cant in MP due to balancing reasons like boss fights or giving you a BFG, and some games have some not your same old bot AI events that are heavily scripted.

But Brinks focus is obviously on MP so Im happy to be able to play the same game offline. Not that I wouldnt have minded an epic SP story, especially if they had played up the factions to get people heated up for online.

(Coin Op) #67

Did people on here not say that MP is the same as SP but with bots?! Isn’t that what you’re trying to argue?!

I’m arguing the complexities of the single player and how they differ from the multiplayer and vice versa. They are not one in the same. You’re comparing apples to oranges.

At the very base, at the very smallest core, they have their similarities just as much as every effen FPS is just like Call of Duty. Holy jeebus how you’re not getting this is beyond me.

(otirruborez) #68

bump .

(Je T´aime) #69

Brink singleplayer is basicly like l4d2 singleplayer, same maps as the mp some bots and some cinematics, so i understand people that complain about the sp campaign on brink, Did any of you guys played l4d2 sp to the end i didn´t its boring, l4d2 beauty is on its multiplayer same as brink i supose, but anyway i kinda understand this whining about it, brink isnt properly cheap and people want the regular scripted singleplayer storyline of all AAA games, in brink feels like your payng a lot for a game and just getting the coop and multiplayer.

(MarkcusD) #70

L4D2 still has a SP feel to it while this really is just MP w/bots. I don’t have an issue with that but that shouldn’t advertise it as a SP game.

(shpigo) #71

[QUOTE=ThePilgrim101;295175]Oh, so all of those tens of thousands of middle-easterns and russians you killed through the past few Modern Warfares during the singleplayer campaign were all real people? Oh wait, no they weren’t.

They were NPCs. AI Controlled. Bots.

You killed bots in Call of Duty. Too bad, so sad.[/QUOTE]

Registered just to reply here.
Indeed, all SP games are against bots. Indeed, story and gameplay can can be seen as a different aspect of the game. You right about all of these. So if you consider brink to have a great story, that is indeed got nothing to do with its gameplay. However, you must realize that not all SP games are all about shooting bots. That is the core gameplay, right, but not 100% right. You must have played half life 2 (gravity based situations ect), portal, ect.
Lets make an important assumption, the most important thing in games is the whole experience, and not a single aspect of it. You want a game to be, innovative, surprising, and yes - immersing. A gameplay can be as immersing as a story. “Angry bird’s” is all about gamelay, and people can be totally immersed in that game.
In every game, the player is introduced to the gameplay, and then resolve situations with that gameplay, be it shooting bots or portal holes in the walls, MP, SP, whatever. If the gameplay is repetitive, youll get the point pretty quick and be tired of that game. The thing about MP, is that the situation is mostly the same every time, but the enemy’s reaction is always different. Therefore, the gameplay is always changing according to your enemy and the experience is always innovating. If the enemy is an AI, youll learn it’s actions soon enough. Thats why SP games must introduce more aspects of the game - like story and even different gameply (even if predetermined).
There are moments in modern warfare that you only do once (like the hoover dam assassination), they are not new gameplay elements, they are predetermined. But those moments make the experience a lot better.
If you’ll take BF 2 (the old one, not BC2), there is a single player which is exactly the same as the MP, with bots. 2 hours into the game, you get it, always the same. Same objective, same bots, same AI.
Brink, has a MP based gameplay, even in SP mode - each member of the team need to do his job in order to win. The enemy is doing the same, and the objectives are mostly the same. For me, the gameplay was repetitive, and not surprising enough. The story wasn’t there for me to cover it up, and I can totally understand people who are not enjoying the experience due to gameplay, story, or both.If you are enjoying it, or story it provides along with the gameplay - then keep on playing. Games are all about having fun, no?

(fearlessfox) #72

And this would be cool had SD/not/ touted the thing as a being brilliant in both respects.

I only really care for MP, but many people were hooked by a promise that just didn’t deliver.

[QUOTE=ThePilgrim101;295175]Oh, so all of those tens of thousands of middle-easterns and russians you killed through the past few Modern Warfares during the singleplayer campaign were all real people? Oh wait, no they weren’t.

They were NPCs. AI Controlled. Bots.

You killed bots in Call of Duty. Too bad, so sad.[/QUOTE]

The precise nature of the MOB isn’t in question, it’s the set up of the game. It’s the difference between a well narrated SP experience and maps filled with MP emulating bot scripts.

(Je T´aime) #73

I kinda agree with you : ) It should have been sold as a multiplayer game, that misconception helped the bad reviews for sure.

(ThePilgrim101) #74

[QUOTE=Coin Op;295255]Did people on here not say that MP is the same as SP but with bots?! Isn’t that what you’re trying to argue?!

I’m arguing the complexities of the single player and how they differ from the multiplayer and vice versa. They are not one in the same. You’re comparing apples to oranges. .[/QUOTE]

No, stop that. That’s the problem.

You can’t argue one thing and equivocate it with another. The gameplay against the AI is not equivalent to the story. At an expanded level, singleplayer is very complex (as is arguably multiplayer), however the core gameplay - as I’ve defined it and as you won’t refute - is simply AI against bots.

Strip away the story, strip away the voice acting, and it’s just you versus the AI at predetermined times.

No one is arguing the complexities of singleplayer on a grand scheme. We’re looking at the core.

For the final time, stop strawmanning for your own argument; we’re dealing with one issue. It’s not time yet to talk about the other.

(ThePilgrim101) #75

Good, now we can finally move the &#@$ on.

Yes, at the macro level, SP is meant to be complex and narrative and all of that cool stuff that gets slapped onto the box-art.

Why did this even have to become an issue?

(ThePilgrim101) #76

No, read the first three posts.

It is, indeed, the nature of gameplay that is in question.

(shpigo) #77

[QUOTE=ThePilgrim101;300931]No, read the first three posts.

It is, indeed, the nature of gameplay that is in question.[/QUOTE]

You can’t ignore the fact that single player does have some scripted moments, predetermined npc actions and events that you as a player cannot change. These moments are there like an interactive cinema, you can’t change whats going on but simply watching it happen (or either fail and try again). These is not a complex AI bot fighting against you (which has to come later in the game) and it may not involve you shooting at all (driving a buggy while an AI is shooting for instance).

These are all predetermined single player experiences that make the game better.

So lets assume that the SP gaming world has evolved beyond just shooting BOTs. You know its not a real person, theres no doubt about it, and so does its actions are pre-written. While in BRINK’s gameplay, or Team Fortress, or Counter Strike, the BOTs are emulating human reaction in real time to try and give you the feeling that you are fighting an unpredicted enemy. Truth is, they can never do that, because they cannot act beyond the written code. Therefore, a single player that relies ONLY on emulating real human behavior will cease to be engaging once you play it enough.
Don’t you agree?

(meccs) #78

Wtf?!? It’s the same as MP! Even the CGI is the same in MP! What are you talking about?!