Few Thoughts & Queries..

(Shojimbo) #1

After seeing that first cinematic trailer of Brink about a year before release I fell in love with the art style and general idea. Pre-ordered it for PS3, played it, got the platinum trophy and then the lack of players and amount of empty games put me off taking the game out of it’s box - other competitive shooters and multiplayer games that I owned or went and bought took over because they had people playing it regularly.

The patches and Agents of Change came a little too late for a lot of people I suspect.

But even whilst playing gems such as Arkham City, Uncharted 3, Battlefield 3 and Skyrim lately I still had the urge to revisit Brink, and so I did… and I’ve really enjoyed playing it again. The patches, updates and DLC seem to have improved and balanced out a lot of the combat and gameplay. I’m still in love with the art style and the objective-focussed missions, as well as the whole detail behind the Ark and the Civil War. This game still has piles of potential and I still want to play it and I still have a lot of fun doing so…

I can ignore more issues and most niggly little problems because I do love what the game is about. In fact since returning to the game I’ve had piles of fun but the main problems that have annoyed me are:

Lack of players - obviously. What can be done to resurrect the community, if anything?

Team balancing - When the teams are unbalanced, even if it’s 6vs4 and even if I’m in a Fireteam with a pal, I’ll switch sides to make it 5vs5and even it up for the sake of a fair game.

So you load up a game and you very rarely get 8 versus 8 or even 7 versus 8 whilst nobody plays in the other modes/settings. Tonight I jumped into a game at Container City and ended up in a team with 7 other players, all seemingly experienced, high-leveled and obviously more capable than the AI bots. The opposition (Security) had ONE single online gamer. The outcome is obvious… the Security were kept from even getting near the first objective… it was a pointless match… the team of 8 were getting bags of experience points and picking off the easy bots who run cluelessly into a hail of bullets whilst the single online gamer struggled to do anything other than get a few kills here & there.

So why when you enter a “Standard” match where “Force Team Balance” is activated did I get automatically placed in the team with 7 other online gamers and not the Security where they only had one player?

As I always switch the weaker side, I did and couldn’t really do no more… I supported the bot and got it moving up to the gate whilst picking off as many of them as I could. But nobody could get close to blowing the gate… they had some camping above, at the sides and behind the gate as well as several turrets and mines. I messaged a few of them with the least points and told them (another player joined them by this point) it was 8vs2, one replied… “LOL”… and the other replied “jup”… considering a lot of players are that childish or that idiotic then why don’t Splash Damage implement a proper ‘Force Team Balance’ where new players who join a game are immediately put into the side with fewer players?

Such a simple element to competitive gaming and yet it’s failing here. One time I asked somebody to balance up the teams with me and they told me they didn’t know changing teams was possible…

Love the game. Have fun playing it… but some frustrations are annoying me so it must put off a lot of other players which isn’t helping my first issue of not enough playing the game.

(gold163) #2

I really don’t like how the interface is organized. My sentiments are similar to yours. The game makes you choose which side you’re on when you first start up – resistance or security. And from then on, whenever you enter a game you’re automatically in your favorite class and the game even gives you a voice over telling you what you’re supposed to be doing. Splash Damage always made a point about putting the story into the game in a unique way, and if people don’t even know that you can switch sides that’s telling me it probably worked too well.

Why couldn’t it be like other team based games? When you start a match other games make a point of allowing you to choose your team, class, etc. No other game makes you sit through unskippable cutscenes whenever ANYTHING happens. It slows the pace of the game down and it was an unnecessary annoyance made for the sake of immersion. The pace of a match just doesn’t feel fluid and snappy at all as a result, when it should. In multiplayer, the cutscenes should have been eliminated entirely and events such as blowing a simple door open or winning the match should have been integrated right into the game.

I have a lot of problems with how the menus and the UI look, and I feel like they promote such a singular, isolated frame of mind that almost penalizes team play outside of the box. You HAVE to play by Splash Damage’s rules operating within the game’s predetermined mechanics, otherwise it isn’t teamwork. It’s a bit stiff. In addition, I don’t think you can use voice chat unless you’re in a fireteam. What’s up with that?

The maps are also poorly designed and balanced. You’d think that with an element as crucial to gameplay as that SD wouldn’t mess up so badly. They’re too linear and focus on creating choke points, which once again decreases the amount of options players have for actual team play, and promotes just throwing yourself at an objective until you win or lose.

Brink was still a solid game, as far as I’m concerned. Sure, there are numerous problems with its design, but the underlying game is solid for the most part and when it works the way it was meant to you can have a really fun game. But man, where are all the players? They dropped off because of the negative reception at launch, because Brink generally doesn’t play the way its target audiences expected, and because of the aforementioned numerous problems with how the game works and looks. The gunplay and movement feel clunky, after all that boasting about how SMART would allow players to move more freely.

The fact of the matter is, Splash Damage betrayed players’ expectations; both the casual military shooter fans they were trying to attract, and the Enemy Territory fans that they made little attempt to appeal to in the first place. The little things all add up and the game ends up a mess.

Also, it doesn’t help that on PC at least, there are numerous hardware compatibility problems (or were at launch).

(wolfnemesis75) #3

Found some full matches last night on Xbox. We couldn’t do a clan match because the Brink site was down. Hopefully, when it comes back up, we can do some matches. Although small, there is a decent community that still plays Brink on Xbox. And I still had fun playing. It’d be interesting to see if the rumored Holiday Ladder happens. That may attract some folks along with the reduced price of the game. Not sure this game will ever be accepted at the PC level, but as far as on console, there is still a viable group of players to get content to.

(Shojimbo) #4

Have to agree with most of what you’ve both said.

It’s a pity this game didn’t live up to it’s expectation and it’s a pity it’s suffering for that now… as it’s still a fun game.

You can buy it for less than a tenner brand new on console… maybe stick some more free DLC in, including maps and balance out some issues… such as the poor team-balancing… it might lure some more gamers in to resurrect it. If there is to be a Brink 2, reviving some of Brink 1’s reputation must be important! Or any future SD console-release for that matter.

(wolfnemesis75) #5

I posted a thread about an extended version with more content for console. I really do think that there’s an opportunity to do a kind of re-boot for the game now that the heavy hitters like MW3 are out and just as redundant as ever. Dead Rising 2 is releasing a version of the game that is different from the original Dead Rising 2. I’d be cool to release something like that for Brink on console. Brink is closing in on the 1mil unit sales on xbox, so I think that makes it a Platinum Hit on Xbox. I’d be cool to re-release a Collectors Edition that includes all released content and some bonus stuff.

There are huge fans of Brink out there, in fact I was playing with one guy last night that has well over 1 Million Experience Earned on Brink.

(gold163) #6

The problem is that SD has no reason to spend more money on developing Brink. It’s clear they wouldn’t get a very profitable return on such ventures, given how small the player base is and how it’s spread across three different platforms, two of which have finnicky, policy-clogged distribution models.

(wolfnemesis75) #7

The problem is that what you say is the case for most video games development. Its high risk unless the title has COD in it. Come on. I mean, seriously, there are more low risk business ventures than video game development. So, some of it has to come down to if you are passionate about the project as a developer to want to continue supporting it. Video game customers are finnicky.

(gold163) #8

I don’t think the amount of passion a developer has in continuing to support a product matters if the publisher blocks those attempts. We don’t know what’s going on between Bethesda and Splash Damage, so even if SD wants to support Brink there’s the chance that there’s no way in hell Beth would even let them.

(wolfnemesis75) #9

I know that. We don’t know what Bethesda is all about with Brink. They have done little to support it once it came out…but, if you go and watch the original trailer, there’s still such a strong response to it. So there’s something there in terms of perhaps developing more of the story. Also, I find that there are people who really liked the game. Wish Bethesda could clear up what their plans are.

(gold163) #10

I feel like Bethesda/Splash Damage aren’t going to say anything unless the entire SD player base revolts, lol. And even then they’d probably only give a filler response like, “we’re grateful to all our fans, but we have no comments on future plans at this time.”

(wolfnemesis75) #11

[QUOTE=gold163;388176]I feel like Bethesda/Splash Damage aren’t going to say anything unless the entire SD player base revolts, lol. And even then they’d probably only give a filler response like, “we’re grateful to all our fans, but we have no comments on future plans at this time.”[/QUOTE]You are so right. That’s exactly what they would say. “We can neither acknowledge or deny any reports pertaining to any future plans related to Brink at this time. Going forward, we are invested in the development of current announced titles.”

(Vis) #12

I had to register just to respond to this. I’ve been playing brink for about a week and I love it. 18 hours for $6 is an outstanding deal. Having said that, I can’t really justify spending a lot more time on a title whose future is so totally unknown. Even after the free weekend/steam sale the title went from being close to the top 20 to about 6 spots from dropping off the top titles list completely. Ideally, I think a lot of people would be willing to hang in there if we knew what the position of Splash Damage was on this title. Have they finished supporting it or will there be more content later? I can only assume their silence in this matter means there are no future plans for development with this title, which sucks. It also generates further unnecessary ill-will toward Splash Damage that could impact any other games they plan to release. Just tell us if there game has anything planned for it or not, please.

(wolfnemesis75) #13

Everything they do, even announcements is at a snail’s pace. So they could have plans, but it would take so long to pass along the info that the room will be empty when the message is delivered. Just saying.

Edit: Oh, and welcome to the forums, brother. :slight_smile:

(tokamak) #14

Lack of players - obviously. What can be done to resurrect the community, if anything?

Communities are path-dependant. Especially multiplayer games. They rely on friends convincing their friends to start playing a particular game. The word of mouth value in this case is insane. Communities either snowball and boom or they’ll stay pathetically small. The size of a snowball at the end of the hill is decided by the weight that it starts with. Brink didn’t start with any weight. The raw content was there, it was fresh, well-thought of and had enormous potential. However, it completely underestimated the final few percents on which the game enjoyment turns. I think it speaks of enormous arrogance to rely on the feedback of a handful of interns (in their turn reliant on the feedback of their employer) to prep a game for launch. Especially with an IP that had all the proving ahead of itself.

If Brink is going to be continued -and I doubt it- then a beta will be tantamount. Not just because of the value of unfiltered testing, but also as a means of spreading the word that this time the developers are listening. There’s no other way to regain trust.

Oh well, at least this time the emperor’s new clothes are fully customisable.

(jazevec) #15

Unfortunately, the only way to revolt properly is to stop buying their games. We’ve seen how it worked for Call of Duty. There will always be some poor folks who buy it.

(zenstar) #16

At least then you won’t have wasted any money. And you can always pick it up later if it turns out to be good. Consider the “poor folk who buy it” as your personal lab rats sent to test the game for you and provide reviews.

(gold163) #17

I agree, but I wouldn’t use “poor” to describe those people. They are paying $60 for the game up-front, plus $15 per map pack in the future, after all. And if Bethesda has a Call of Duty, it’s Elder Scrolls and we all know it. Given the production quality of those games, I doubt Beth is going out any time soon… id and Splash Damage might though.

(zenstar) #18

I think he means “poor” as in “unfortunate” and not as in “financially gimped”.

(dazman76) #19

Apologies for the long post - I’m quite passionate about the gaming industry in general :slight_smile:

This happened some time ago I’m afraid :slight_smile: It followed a period of several months where we basically pleaded with SD to change things in order to improve Brink’s acceptance, and to actually make the game appeal to most of the people who bought it. This is something that didn’t work at all - the game, as delivered, appealed to very few of the paying customers who bought it. Eventually, it became clear that SD would not address most of the concerns that players had - partly because Beth would not finance that, and partly because mistakes had clearly been at the design level. Brink sadly fell at as many hurdles as it actually cleared.

Just as you were appreciating the gorgeous and somewhat unique art design, you were constantly frustrated by pressing just one key to (attempt to) achieve one of several actions. Even when presented with clear evidence (after asking for it) of when and where this happened (always and everywhere), SD were unable/unwilling to change their decision. This was one of the worst decisions they made, but apparently it was at such a level of the design that it couldn’t be easily undone. Personally I’d challenge that single claim until I was blue in the face - key binding response is not particle physics - but it matters not :slight_smile: Maybe poor hard-coding practises confounded the problem, but it’s irrelevant now.

Anyway - it’s great that you’re enjoying the game :slight_smile: I did too, until the quirks and problems started to kick me in the teeth every time I played. Next time, however - I won’t be pre-ordering the new SD game because a member of staff claimed publicly that it was “Enemy Territory: The Long Lost Sequel”, because it won’t be. Nope, unless there’s a demo to prove that becoming more professional (and being owned by clueless corporate idiots) also results in producing games worth buying, I’ll be in the long line of people who were completely disappointed with Brink and the general handling of it - and therefore won’t be sending any money in the direction of SD in a hurry.

I loved the SD who created ET:QW and were so involved with the community - unfortunately they seem to be no more. They sold their soul to Bethesda, and I have no reason to believe they’ll ever get it back now :slight_smile: Sorry SD guys (if you’re reading this), I know you had good intentions with Brink - but that didn’t stop it turning out the way I just described it. It makes me sad to write this, because I know that some of these decisions must have seemed the right way to go during development - but if it was me, and I’d just jumped on the Bethesda bandwagon - I’d be looking for the revolver and the single bullet. They’re no better than EA, and the speed with which they delete threads on their forums that highlight problems with their products, really does speak volumes.

By the way - Red Orchestra 2 from Tripwire has suffered many of these problems too. In fact, it’s almost a carbon copy of the whole experience. True sequel (to a realism FPS) was promised, but what arrived wasn’t quite the whole deal. While I do enjoy it (and play it far more than I ever played Brink), I have to admit that trying to widen the appeal to a greater audience has completely backfired - the result being that RO2 went from 20K peak players to just a couple of thousand, in something like 2 weeks. It didn’t please the realism crowd, and due to bugs and overly ambitious indie developers, it didn’t please the rest of the players much either :slight_smile:

tl;dr - Moral of the story - stick to what you’re good at, and maybe you’ll still have fans left when you release your next game. Try to grow by doing something different “for everyone”, and you’ll pay the bills - but nobody will give a **** 2 months later

(gold163) #20

Amen to that, brother.

in retrospect it was idiotic of me to just accept that there would be no demo for Brink. What the hell happened? I remember Epic games way back saying that they wouldn’t be releasing a PC demo of Bulletstorm alongside the other demos because they didn’t see the PC platform as economically viable as the others. And Ubisoft is always non-stop bitching about how they can’t sell PC games.

It’s not that hard. Put out a decent game that’s actually built for the platform that people are playing on. Give us a demo so that we don’t have to buy the game in order to see how it is. You get MORE interest by offering a little bit for free than less. I really don’t understand what some of the people in the games industry are thinking these days.