IGN talks about Brink and why it failed.

(SinDonor) #1

Along with 4 other games this year that didn’t do so well as they could have:

From the article:

Why it could have succeeded: Brink promised to be so much more than “just another shooter,” and it nearly pulled it off. With better level design, an extra layer of polish, and some tweaks to the objective/class system, it could’ve been revolutionary. Instead, however, multiplayer ended up being a teetering tower of incredibly interesting ideas (on-the-fly class-switching, parkour-based SMART movement, context-based objectives) that ultimately collapsed under its own weight. Single-player, meanwhile, sort of didn’t exist, making players’ inability to truly explore Brink’s incredibly fascinating, stylish world all the more disappointing.

Why it failed: Brink sold respectably, moving 401,000 units (on PS3 and Xbox 360, specifically) in its first month. It wasn’t terrible by any means, either. After all, most of its key elements – guns, mission design, etc – were serviceable. It can safely be said that Brink was a videogame about shooting people. And that’s about all. As a result, Brink just sort of faded into obscurity after its initial burst of post-release buzz.

Odds of a sequel: Decent. Splash Damage openly mentioned “big plans” for Brinks 2 and 3 a couple years ago. Closer to Brink’s launch, however, the developer said that nothing was set in stone.

(Ruben0s) #2

So brink failed because it was a game about shooting people… alright :smiley:

(zenstar) #3

No. Brink failed because, in spite of its many new additions it didn’t manage to make anything stand out as fantastic and well polished. It didn’t manage to fully realise it’s potential on any of its features.
It failed because when you walk away from it and try explain what it’s about you say something like “you shoot people… and slide around a bit sometimes… and you can dress up… and the shooting is a bit random”.
The sliding around isn’t that integral and punishes you for not playing the skimpiest body type. The randomness of the shooting has major argument threads already. The dress up bit is nice but not really much better than the custom models you could import into any previous shooter on PC and doesn’t impact gameplay.
Basically: it failed not because it’s a bad game but because it’s not a really good game.
And with the competition out there an average game is not going to get much play time.

(wolfnemesis75) #4

…it is no surprise what games ended up on that list. Wow. The gaming industry is kinda sad. IGN are terrible and predictably bad.

(donmichelangelo) #5

Right. IGN completely missed the point why Brink did a fail start/failed. So **** those kids which are listening to IGN, oh btw while I mentioned kids, probably the writer was a 15 year old…

I’ll tell you the reasons, by priority (first is the worst and the last acceptable):

  • at start only 9 maps
  • the DLC perfectly splitted the community
  • no linux server binaries
  • no sdk for mods
  • no map editor
  • not enough customisable parameters (what the heck am i supposed to do, to set a new crosshair and to manipulate its size?)
  • partly unbalanced weapons
  • SMART could be smoother and sometimes even “smarter”

As you can see too much wrong decisions have been made by Bethesdas management side and nothing has been made to fix the most important reasons.

Have a look for DNF, it wasn’t the big hit either, but still they are pushing content out why isn’t this possible with Brink?
The Clan support site is nice, but nothing that would weight more than new maps, linux server binaries or a SDK.

(Humate) #6

It failed because they tried to fit a square peg in a round hole.
They took what is a working formula, chewed it up and spat it out.
IGN is not going to say this; not if they want exclusive interviews, or first looks at new projects.
Maybe I should be quiet too, I want beta access to SD’s next game.

(.Chris.) #7

IGN just picked some games that failed, not their fault they failed, their ‘journalism’ does suck though.

(dazman76) #8

Are you saying that you don’t think the games should have been on the list? Or that the list was pretty obvious and didn’t deserve an article? :slight_smile:

(tokamak) #9

The irony of silencing yourself for a position to be critical isn’t lost on me.

(Humate) #10

Not entirely, since you pointed out what I was subtly implying about SD’s actual testers.

(dazman76) #11

The irony of assuming SD will run a beta for their next game isn’t lost on me either :slight_smile: lol

(Humate) #12

Good. I thought it may have been too subtle. :slight_smile:

(iezza) #13

Wrong "big plans " link.

(tokamak) #14

I don’t see how they ever could get out of this without it.

(Kendle) #15

Why it failed for me is due to bad design decisions.

They gave the guns massive spread so 15 year old Johnny Nemb, who’s never played an FPS before, could jump on a server with Joe Vet and not get his arse handed to him on a plate. Wrong decision. My first game was RTCW, it was a tad difficult to get up to speed to begin with, I got spanked pretty hard the first few weeks, but I learned, and I practised, and I’m still gaming 10 years later. SD under-esitmated their player base IMO.

They made maps that were too easy to defend, making it repetitive and boring, for both sides. Again, they under-estimated the player base.

They made a PC game out of the console version with no regard for the differences a PC game would usually have, like the console control system. Even then that was badly designed, they could’ve put objective wheel / use CP on the same key, buff team-mates / buff self on the same key (using their cool new target acquistion system) and we wouldn’t have had to endure the one key does all “F” key nonsense, and it wouldn’t have taken any more keys than they actually used. Again, just bad design coming back to kick them in the teeth.

(SinDonor) #16

With all of its failures, Brink still is one of my favorite FPS games of all time. Currently being replaced by BF3, but it damn well should be. BF3 is Dice’s 10th FPS game. I would hope that Brink 2, 3 or 4 would have solved many of the issues we’re experiencing with Brink 1.

I hope SD gets the chance to make Brink 2, or whatever their next game will be with the upgraded Brink engine.

(dazman76) #17

I completely agree - but since they’re now part of Bethesda, who appear to know very little about their customer base - well, we know how that turned out already. Hopefully they’re both able to learn from that, and next time will be different. Honestly though? I don’t think Bethesda have the capacity to “adapt” in this context - which is essentially admitting their policies are wrong and operating differently. Right now they’re completely averse to gamers getting their hands on their product before they hand over money - a very telling trait indeed. They probably also believe that DRM has some use in the world. I’m resorting to generalisation now, but I see no reason to believe that they think otherwise - they seem to do everything else in the typical fashion of the other big publishers, maybe worse in some cases.

Kendle - a good post, and some fair points. Agreed with everything you said there :slight_smile:

(tokamak) #18

This was Bethesdas first real multiplayer right? I mean the first with multiplayer as it’s main priority. Really poor production then. The CEO’s should be ashamed.

(dazman76) #19

I hate to say this, but I can’t help thinking that the SD + Bethesda thing is actually just a by-product of the iD + Bethesda thing. While Brink was being produced, Rage was also on the operating table - and I think we all know where priority was going to lie between the two :slight_smile: You’ve probably guessed what I’m suggesting by that assumption - that’s it not really to do with either MP or indeed general production values and attitudes, but simply that Brink was “that other bit that came free with the Rage deal - you know, that bit from the UK or whatever”. It’s nice to see SD soldiering on with the clan site etc., but I do wonder just how much support they have from Beth for this - or if it’s just a case of “whatever, you do it, you fund it” like they had with Activision and the final ET:QW patch. Rubbish, but at least it gives SD the chance to tie up some loose ends - far too late for most people I fear, but I do have a huge respect for SD for getting on and doing it.

I have to say here - I have no desire to cheapen anything related to or created by SD, by these comments. Unfortunately, I probably am doing just that - but this is my personal gut feeling of the “relationship” between Beth and SD. I’m very sorry that SD felt they should partner with these people, because they exhibit all of the nasty traits one expects from EA or Activision. They do not appear to be the company I remember from the ET:QW days - almost everything seems to be different.

Complete disregard for their partners, complete disregard for their customers, and a “transparency policy” that wouldn’t go amiss in some MI5, CIA or KGB office :slight_smile: Lack of communication, denial of problems (which is better than no communication!), removal of complaint threads from the forums, ignoring of complaints that aren’t removed, bouncing complaints back to partners and causing support pinball via “teflon shoulder” responsibility dodging. You name it, Bethesda are rocking it. Classic example of a software company run by business people with no real sense of the human side of their market/industry - completely the opposite to the kind of profile you’d link to SD, at least in their ET/ET:QW years.

(tokamak) #20

Oh hell no. Brink had as least as much exposure as Rage. Activision letting COD push Quake Wars to the background I buy, but not this.