I can't play this game and it makes me sad.


(gold163) #1

Hey guys, I kind of don’t post here often but I do lurk a bit and figured I might post just to see the responses.

From what I understand BRINK is practically dead. I’ve owned the game since release and I was there when it dropped off of Steam’s top 100 popular games list. If SteamGraphs is to be believed, NOBODY plays this game on a daily basis. The few people I know on Steam who own this game also stopped playing it pretty much a day after release. Yeah.

Not me though. I’ve never been able to run BRINK in the first place. I’d like to be able to play the game, but my graphics card doesn’t support OpenGL beyond 2 and as a result I can’t even run it. Which sucks, because it means I basically blew a $50 preorder. I played the game for a little bit on my brother’s computer, but I don’t exactly have a lot of options here. I essentially haven’t touched the game since the month of its release, and that makes me sad. I really want to play this game, in spite of all its glaring, obvious faults. I really, really want to like BRINK, but I can’t even run it. Is anybody else in this situation? I know my only option is to go get a new computer, but I don’t really have the means to do that for now, so I’m essentially stuck. Unfortunately, the people who ARE able to play this game don’t for one reason or another (and believe me, I’m aware of what those reasons are and I understand).

Anyway, seeing the latest patch got me curious. In spite of what people are generally agreeing to be an improvement, BRINK haters still hate BRINK because it’s still flawed and people still aren’t playing it. Honestly, what does it take? I think that a lot of the maps need to be reevaluated, and we need more maps in the first place. The current map pool just isn’t large or varied enough, and from the bit of BRINK that I have played your SMART options are woefully restricted. There were a lot of places in certain maps that I thought I could jump to but actually couldn’t because of invisible walls. If you ask me, that defeats the purpose of SMART in the first place, don’t you think?

Also, do people still play ET:QW? I’m pretty sure people still play W:ET but I could never get into that because it was so hard to find a server that wasn’t modded to some ridiculous degree and my ping always sucked. I’d like to be able to call myself a Splash Damage fan but unfortunately I haven’t even played their games. I can run Wolf ET and QW so if anybody still plays those, I might be more interested in getting them. Please excuse me for being a n00b.

I’d like to be able to play BRINK in the future but right now I can’t because my computer just doesn’t support OpenGL. Otherwise, I’d probably be playing this game every day no matter how bad it is, because it was fun from the small experience I do have with it. I feel that Splash Damage isn’t committed enough to post-game support, or maybe they can’t be because of their publisher. I like that we’re receiving patches, and that SD listens to the community in some capacity. But it seems a little odd that there’s basically no DLC for this game besides the pre-order stuff (which nobody is going to buy) and Agents of Change (which was free for a while and anybody interested in BRINK already has it).

My suggestion? Redo how the weapons inventory works so that skins such as the Bulpdaun skins aren’t actually separate weapons. I know this seems a bit controversial, but hear me out. You could add skins to your weapon the same way you add attachments. If you wanted to have different customization sets for your weapons, there would be a loadout system (much like what TF2 has recently implemented) where you could select a particular configuration of skin and attachments.

Obviously, there are some problems with this – a weapon such as the Caesar revolver is essentially the same as an already existing weapon (I forget what it was called; the other badass-looking revolver). Either keep the clone as a separate weapon with the exact same stats, but I think it would be better to make them separate weapons with their own stats (this might be controversial but honestly as the game is practically dead I don’t see how it would hurt).

WHAM. All of a sudden people have a reason to buy DLC (different weapons + skins), and you’ve just opened up the potential for new DLC in the form of new, probably easy to produce skins (which probably isn’t as difficult as adding content such as maps, etc.) It’s win-win. What do you think?

Also, I know that SD is pretty adamant on NOT releasing an SDK but in all honesty what this game needs is to allow the community to contribute. I hate to say it but SD is not picking up the slack as well as we’d all hope and if the community had a way to directly expand the game by themselves I can guarantee you’d see more life. In my mind, there is absolutely no reason for a shooter like BRINK not to have a publicly available SDK. It’s almost as if they don’t want people to play and be interested in BRINK.

Thanks for reading, guys. I know it’s a bit long-winded, and I don’t actually play the game (I haven’t touched it in months since release), so I’m not exactly sure of the game’s current situation. So correct me if I’m wrong on any accounts.


(tokamak) #2

There’s no way people come back to a game for a bunch of new skins. Brink wanted to appeal to the masses but the thing with masses is that you need to hit the ground running or they won’t give it a second glance. All the chipping away at the core gameplay for the sake of accessibility wouldn’t measure up to the importance of the first impression when it comes to the mainstream audience.

People were open to Brink, the attitude was very positive before it got released and the competition was nil. The failure is all on the production side.

Also, do people still play ET:QW?

Yes, it has a way healthier playerbase than Brink. Also it’s a better game.


(gold163) #3

What I’m saying is that we all know that BRINK has failed to live up to the expectations of the mainstream. Where I live, there was a huge marketing push for BRINK. Billboards, posters in train stations and on buses, ads for the game were EVERYWHERE and I had personally been looking forward to the game for years since it was announced. Believe me, I was just as disappointed as everybody else.

However, I’m a helpless, idiotic optimist and I can’t help but feel that BRINK could still have a chance, if SD would play their cards right. If you can’t appeal to the masses, don’t. Appeal to the hardcore players. Give back to the people who actually stuck around to play your botched game. If SD released an SDK and passed the info to major gaming media sites, it would make for a pretty big headline. For whatever reason, “PC DEVELOPER DOES THING TO GAME THAT IT SHOULD HAVE HAD ON RELEASE” is pretty big news for a lot of people. Add enough enticing features and DLC, have a couple of sales and start advertising your game again, and people might just start playing again. BRINK needs reasons for people to play it and it currently doesn’t have many.

I don’t know about the “chipping away at the core gameplay” thing. Once again, I don’t actually play the game :o But, the general consensus is that the weapon tweaks are somewhat in the right direction, right? I get the feeling that most SD fans are at this point pretty irate, and understandably so (I don’t mean to offend anybody by this, just an observation because I believe it’s relevant to making a point to SD, even if they don’t get it or don’t listen).

I really hate to do this since you guys are probably sick of it already, but I think the comparisons to Team Fortress 2 are apt because of how TF2 has succeeded using its business model and gameplay structure. The game evolved significantly since release and probably wouldn’t still be around in a notable capacity if it didn’t add in all the customization options. I’m not saying that Brink should be all hats and shutter shades and frying pans, but since SD touted the character customization so much pre-release, and since the weapon customization is fairly versatile in the first place, why not expand upon that? Lord knows there’s worse things you could do to the game.

If it isn’t going to bring a lot of players back (and I really wouldn’t expect it to, you know), it wouldn’t hurt at the least. I’m not saying, “make skins and we will play your game,” it was just an aside suggestion. I wasn’t saying, “people are going to come back JUST for a bunch of skins.” I don’t imagine any ONE thing that SD does to improve BRINK would bring a lot of players back all at once. But having more DLC options available doesn’t seem like a bad idea to me.

Basically, this is just another plea for Splash Damage to PLEASE FIX YOUR GAME! Give us reasons to want to play it!

As for Wolf ET, I know that a lot of people regard it as the pinnacle of ET/SD games. Good to know that a lot of people still play it. I guess I’ll save the discussion about that game for its own forums.


(INF3RN0) #4

ET games require a strong community and publicity from their player base (media movies/pub stars/competitive play/etc) in order to show the mainstreams what they are up against. Brink tried to eliminate as much of the learning curve as possible, effectively eliminating many of the things that make ET games great. Wolf ET still has plenty of players, but you would need a buddy to help you find good servers. ETQW is still populated enough that it’s probably worth playing if you never have. Both games are more enjoyable and have longer lasting appeal than Brink, so you can’t really go wrong with either.


(sachewan) #5

The game is dead, there is no coming back from a playerbase this low. I have been unable to test the new patch changes because there was literally no servers besides a couple that had ONE person on them (probably playing singleplayer connected online) and this was during prime time hours.

Adding new skins and doodads isn’t going to get anyone back, people have already completely written off the game and it’s pretty much a joke around the larger gaming community. Brink already has tons of customization that dwarfs a lot of other games and it didn’t help it one bit.

The real only solution to salvage the product is making it Free to Play, but I doubt Bethesda wants to invest the money and time to configure the game and advertise it for that venture. All the customization stuff is already there, they could just release the game for free and put all the customization stuff behind a paywall, and people who already have the game will just keep playing with everything as normal. It probably wouldn’t be hugely successful, but at least it’d get the player numbers up so people who paid for this game have people to play with.

The question is why Bethesda would even bother? They’ve already gotten their money out of us and probably already have Splash Damage on a new product, they have no incentive to do any kind of further development and marketing on a title that has already crashed and burned.


(Donnovan) #6

I brough it on Steam on release and never played it.

I just give it a try today, seens a nice game, but at the resolution of 640 x 480 with all on low i get 50 FPS on a NVIDIA GTX 275 Quad Core Q9550.

Not that this avoid me to play, it does not avoid… but sounds ridiculous, and make me in doubt about waste my time with it.

The stick topic about increase performance on Windows PC is a lie! Its just to fill agenda!


(ArchdemonXIII) #7

I empathize with the OP. My rig plays at about 5-10 frames per second. I should have my new comp by the new year, but by that time, it’s unlikely there will be many games to join.

I think the changeable weapon skins is a good idea, just not something that will bring anyone back.


(gold163) #8

Well I don’t really expect anything to turn the whole game right around at this point, but I think it’s still salvagable. There seem to be a lot of bitter fans who think the game is beyond all redemption, though. They might be right, but I really hate to see a game with so much potential as BRINK (in my opinion, anyway; disregarding all the spurned naysayers who seem to be fairly common around here) just end up as dead as it is. But they’re right that Beth and Splash Damage have already made off with our money and so there’s little reason for them to actually fix all the problems that BRINK has.

I think a big problem with this game from the outset, besides issues with gameplay, was simply hardware compatibility. To this day people with ATI cards seem to have trouble running it. BRINK’s rather lofty system requirements probably turned a lot of people off when the game was too stubborn to run, so part of the blame goes to the engine for not being very versatile. It’s id tech 4, but it has insane requirements in comparison to any other id tech 4 game. I mean, I have a laptop with integrated graphics, so there’s NO WAY I’m going to ever be able to run BRINK on the computer I have now.

But other id tech 4 games actually do run on this thing. Doom 3, Quake 4, the ET:QW demo, Prey, the newer Wolfenstein… they don’t exactly run at very playable frame rates but they do start up and you can get in-game. BRINK just refuses to run at all, on account of its specialized renderer. It’s just very discouraging. You could say, “don’t buy the game unless you meet the system requirements,” but there were plenty of people who had good reason to believe they would be able to run it, but just couldn’t, or couldn’t run the game well.


(Fetter) #9

BRINK is a good idea and the core gameplay is solid, but the game was extremely unbalanced for some time, and coupled with very bad technical issues for many users, this was enough to kill the early release hype. If there is one thing that a game needs to be successful it is a solid release, and BRINK had much the opposite. In a way, BRINK is the new Shadowrun-- a good game limited in its potential by a very bad release, stifling the later playerbase.

The free weekend revitalized BRINK for some time, acting as a “second release” of sorts, but wasn’t enough to bring the game back to life for good, perhaps thanks to the weird and “floaty” shooting mechanics, which many find frustrating. While this has largely been corrected, many have given up on BRINK, and without a splashy “rerelease” with new content, free weekend, or even going F2P (as per Tycho’s suggestion), I don’t think it will be coming back.


(Runeforce) #10

[QUOTE=Donnovan;385614]I just give it a try today, seens a nice game, but at the resolution of 640 x 480 with all on low i get 50 FPS on a NVIDIA GTX 275 Quad Core Q9550.
[/QUOTE]

I have a slower GPU and CPU (not by super much though) and I run it on HD with full settings and get great fps.


(Codine) #11

a lot of the newer games are simply just throwing too much load on cpus and not taking advantage of gpu power. Quite a shame since gpus can do so much more, but the industry is still stuck using 6 year old hardware.


(zenstar) #12

The problem is that a lot of companies design a game with Xbox hardware in mind and then don’t take the time to tailor the game to the PC. The interfaces, textures and hardware integration are left as basic as possible to make it easier to bugfix (which they need to do since they rush the release to market).

If the publishers would give them a little time the developers could tailor the game to the platform and take advantage of the better hardware and add customization functionality that is expected on PC.

Look at Deus Ex: directX 11, FOV options, decent PC interface.

Rage: limited graphics options, “console feel” to the interface, low quality textures, Carmack himself said they built to console standards because if you build to pc standards the cosnoles will never be able to live up to it.
Brink: “console feel” to the controls, locked netvars, issues with many graphics cards.
Skyrim: “console feel” to controls (WASD to browse your inventory? srsly?), needs config “hax” to get the best out of the graphics.

Sometimes I just wish they’d delay the PC release by 3 months and turn out something that runs properly on PC and isn’t just a direct port. I have a keyboard and mouse ffs. If I want to play a console game I’ll play it on my Xbox. I own a PC so that I can play PC games.
sigh… /rant


(Azev2000) #13

The game is toast. On US primetime its near impossible to find a game with more than 3 or 4 humans on the PC. I could not even test the patch. They should thank god they had the advertising dollars or else this game would have sold 1/4 of what it did.


(Donnovan) #14

How much FPS you get, Lakers?

Even on some areas, where the FPS goes to 100, it sounds like 30.

@All,

There is any benchmark topic around?


(ArchdemonXIII) #15

[QUOTE=zenstar;385641]Sometimes I just wish they’d delay the PC release by 3 months and turn out something that runs properly on PC and isn’t just a direct port. I have a keyboard and mouse ffs. If I want to play a console game I’ll play it on my Xbox. I own a PC so that I can play PC games.
sigh… /rant[/QUOTE]

+1

This is much more logical request than expecting companies to ignore the the majority of their customers and make PC only games.


(Runeforce) #16

Perhaps it was an overstatement. I never unlocked the fps, but it rarely (if ever) drops below 30.

I always had a smooth experience with my GTX260 and quadcore @ 1440x900.


(Donnovan) #17

I have allways the feeling of low FPS. Must be because of consoles.

Game is nice. Really liked it. But without SDK, no chance to go too much further.


(oG_sCoPe) #18

Is there a free trail? If so, can someone please put the link up, i’ve been trying to find it for a while.

Thanks, oG_sCoPe


(Nail) #19

there is no demo


(taodemon) #20

Most of us that did enjoy the game and invested a decent amount of time playing have likely moved on to other games by now.