[QUOTE=zenstar;388482]Not quite.
In the strictest terms Brink is merely a slight modification on ETQW. It has a simplified class structure (ETQW had asymmetric classes, Brink has symmetric ala W:ET). There are no new objectives.
[/QUOTE]Sorry. Not trying to argue. But no, in the strictest of terms Brink is NOT ETQW at all other than its by the same makers and is a class-based shooter. But COD is also a shooter and so is BF3 a class-based shooter, but neither are like Brink. Brink is its own world, mythos, controls, gunplay, etc. Brink is iteration 1. ETQW has several different expansions I bet compared to Brink. Not apples to apples comparison. The fact that ETQW is mentioned so many times in this thread, or anytime Brink was discussed (search any post by .Chris) validates my entire statement.
IGN talks about Brink and why it failed.
Pompous ignorant arrogant ****.
I’ve been gaming online for 11 years, played many different games (fast shoot from the hip and slow ironsight based games, class based games and non-class based, objective, CTF, DOM, TDM, FPS and non-FPS).
Coming from consoles straight to Brink is precisely why you’re completely wrong on this issue.
I wrote a much longer response but deleted it.
Seriously dude, I’ve played both. They are the same core game.
The world and the mythos are new to Brink (and that’s why it is a new IP) but the gameplay has been imported from ETQW.
If all you’re trying to say is that it’s a new IP then: Yes. It is. It has it’s own name with no number after it.
But it’s its own IP the same way Doom and Quake are seperate IPs. Same engine, same devs, same gameplay, different stories, one has a flashlight.
Kendle he’s not arrogant, he’s just uninformed and in a closed bubble of console ignorance. He has no basis for any argument, and when they get shot down, he then jumps to something else he thinks has substance and just rinse/repeat.
“Brink is perfect, it’s all your fault there are issues!” - Comical Wolfnem
Dammit Wolf, you wrote a couple of pretty decent posts there but you couldn’t resist ruining them 
I’m sure some of us are so polarised now that there’s actually little point arguing still - and I appreciate you have a different perspective to people who’ve played SD’s games before. But then you had to go and say that “Brink is the first game of it’s kind”, and you invalidated your comments with just a single sentence. You’re essentially using something I was introduced to by a favourite fantasy author of mine - sophistry. There are other names for it too, but I can’t remember them right now
Basically, you’re artificially deeming Brink as “completely new”, by warping the very definition of what Brink is. If you listed the key “features” of Brink in a table, then added a column for ET:QW and W:ET, and placed ticks in that column where features overlap - you would instantly see that Brink is NOT the first of it’s kind, and far from it. Brink shares so many features with previous ET games, that when you combine it with the (1) the fact that they were developed by the same people and (2) SD staff members publicly claiming pre-release that it was “ET 3” - it’s pretty damn hard to find any perspective that sees Brink as completely new. Art style, setting, background, story - none of these things make a product unique when virtually everything else about the product has a tick in the comparison table, and none of them count as “features” anyway - simply “properties”. Hell, if TFC had objectives, Brink would even be comparable to that on many levels! If you took Quake 1 and simply reskinned it as Hello Kitty, it would still be the same game - it would not be a “first of it’s kind”.
I can give you credit for defending a game you enjoy - I have no problem with that at all. But you should not, EVER twist a perspective to fit your own description of it. Brink is very much like a re-skinning of ET:QW - there are simply too many similarities in both design and execution for it to be otherwise. Only someone who has never played ET:QW could make that comment - because anyone who has spent 5 minutes with both ET:QW and Brink can easily see the similarities. They aren’t just alike - they share the same origins, the same ancestors, same dev teams, same overall structure. Both of them grew from a template that was inspired by W:ET - ask SD about that directly, if you like. To try and assert that Brink is a whole new concept is to completely ignore the whole of SD’s history. That’s essentially the basis of your whole argument, and it doesn’t stand up. It’s like saying the iPad is the first of it’s kind - when tablet computing actually started in the early 90s, but just didn’t take off because they were crap and expensive. The fact that something is the first of it’s kind in your opinion is irrelevant, when it can be clearly and easily proven that this isn’t the case
Sorry DA, believing without knowing anyone else’s background that his gives him superior insight is arrogance, not ignorance.
for my part Brink death was when servers had to be constantly restarted .
People got pi…sed and me too
I wanted to throw in the word “stupid” somewhere, but it’s been a while since I’ve had an infraction and wanted to keep my slate clean till the new year! 
As it happens RTCW was a mash-up of Team Fortress and UT’s Assault mode (the developers at the time admitted as much), and the Engineer in RTCW in particular was originally modelled very closely on it’s TF equivalent. Very few ideas in gaming are unique (SMART is effectively an inferior version of the movement system in Urban Terror and Warsow).
BF3 could even be compared to Brink on some levels. It has a class that hands out ammo, another that heals and revives. Rush mode is objective, with MCOM stations that are hacked and de-hacked, and if played over 2 rounds is effectively the same as RTCW / ET / ET:QW / Brink’s Stopwatch mode.
Brink is not only not the first of it’s kind, it’s not even anything like as original as the marketing blurb would have you believe.
Because despite critical acclaim Enemy Territory games never really broke out into the mainstream. Actually, a lot of Brink’s design seems pretty derogatory towards the demographic they were supposed to attract. Huge text, simplistic objectives, streamlined UI, and rigid “teamwork” elements, plus the whole notion of SMART being easy to use by anybody and acting as a replacement for skillful player movement in more fast-paced shooters such as Quake – almost as if SD didn’t trust players to be able to figure out how to play the game themselves.
It’s obvious that Splash Damage and Bethesda were aiming for the big money with Brink. There was a massive advertising campaign and a lot of hype. Billboards, subway posters, a flashy website and lots of online buzz. I can’t speak for the competitive community or hardcore shooter fans, but a lot of casual players were looking forward to this game. So in order to follow the easiest route to go to capture the hearts of the goldmine that is the mainstream casual shooter fanbase, they dumbed down a lot of elements and added in modern FPS conventions such as ADS/regenerating health in an attempt to seem familiar.
The saddest part is, casual fans DID like Brink. There was a lot of post-release disappointment, but a lot of that was because of technical issues and game balance. The game is solid, and retains a tiny fanbase to this day, but the people who still play Brink legitimately enjoy it for what it is. However, they’re not enough to make supporting the game economically viable, I suppose. There are plenty of ways Splash Damage could have shown post-release support. Even if they had to go the TF2 route and ostracize the console versions a bit, they could have significantly fixed the PC release quickly, add in a lot of cosmetic DLC that probably wouldn’t have been expensive to produce (and Brink was ripe for this; plenty of potential for character and weapon customization), and then port these changes over to the console versions in a massive update.
It didn’t really help that maybe a month after release all of the hardcore players abandoned the game and started to heavily criticize it. Maybe their complaints were perfectly valid, but I sense a sort of intense malice coming from longtime SD fans who didn’t get the game they wanted… and you can bet that played a big part in determining Brink’s failure. It couldn’t hold a mainstream audience, and it certainly couldn’t hold the hardcore fanbase either. When the game’s design is so flawed, it’s bound to fail, but it’s not like SD intended things to be this way. Maybe they just wanted to try something different. Maybe they didn’t want to be known only as, “The Enemy Territory Guys” like Infinity Ward is known as “The Call of Duty guys” or DICE is known as “The Battlefield guys”.
I suppose it also didn’t help that Splash Damage isn’t the largest, richest or even most experienced studio out there so when they decided to make a new IP that was multiplatform there were bound to be problems with how people interpreted the advertising campaign (which made Brink out to be a story-oriented shooter in many cases) as well as technical hurdles and problems. Brink also had a very lengthy development and there was a large period of time in which we didn’t know anything about the game other than “it existed”. Once the gameplay videos started coming out, you had a massive hype spike… and a recipe for disaster.
I’m starting to believe that your question was rhetorical… and that I probably didn’t even answer it properly. I’m sure this has been discussed to death already by people more eloquent and knowledgeable on the subject than I am.
If you look at various sources, it becomes pretty apparent that it wasn’t just fans of Splash Damage’s previous games who were criticising it; it was a fair chunk of people who played it.
To suggest it’s disgruntled customers that brought the game down is quite a fallacy. They certainly didn’t help matters (and why should they if they got a poor quality product?) but they were by no means alone.
Well I don’t want to say that it was dissatisfied customers who brought the game down alone. I also believe it had a lot to do with media coverage and reviews… I don’t recall how early the reviews came out but once you saw mediocre scores across the board I can guarantee that a lot of people decided not to buy the game.
Again, I don’t want to make it out to be the customer’s fault. On the contrary, if there’s anybody I’d like to blame it’s Bethesda. I don’t know how well the game sold, but I get the feeling it didn’t do too poorly for itself. But for one reason or another Splash Damage didn’t really seem committed to a post-release schedule. Maybe at the end of development they decided they just wanted to get the game over with, and released it early despite knowing how flawed it was and how long it would take to fix the game’s fundamental problems. Maybe they spent way too much on advertising to make much of a return. I feel like whatever the big problem was, there’s no way for the fans to see it. It doesn’t feel like there could have been anything we could have done about it, regardless of whether we stuck with the game or not.
Because despite critical acclaim Enemy Territory games never really broke out into the mainstream.
Rhado splashdamage: While that kind of gameplay is fantastic, it’s genuinely too hard for the vast majority of players out there these days.
W:ET did, more then 15 million times downloaded, of course some people downloaded it more then once, but still a lot of people played it. Even today you see a lot of normal people playing the game. I can also not understand that splashdamage said that the game was to hard to master, like that would ruin the fun normal people could have. I am running a clan for over 3 years and we got around 60 members and 150+ regular players, most of them are not even good, but they really enjoy the game.
The difference being that Wolfenstein: Enemy Territory didn’t receive the bad press that Brink did, is based on an already existing IP that people recognize and like, is free (this helps a lot in my opinion), and is generally a better and more polished game. It’s also had plenty of time to mature as a game.
Brink just didn’t have the features or polish to compete with games of a similar price point, and so it dropped off of a lot of peoples’ radar fairly quickly.
[QUOTE=gold163;388532]The difference being that Wolfenstein: Enemy Territory didn’t receive the bad press that Brink did, is based on an already existing IP that people recognize and like, is free (this helps a lot in my opinion), and is generally a better and more polished game. It’s also had plenty of time to mature as a game.
Brink just didn’t have the features or polish to compete with games of a similar price point, and so it dropped off of a lot of peoples’ radar fairly quickly.[/QUOTE]
Correction:
The provided package of WolfET by Splashdamage was back in its time a big success because there weren’t hundred of thousand gamestudios developing team-based game titles similar to WolfET as we got it now and the WW2 theme was a hot thing… now we have seen it enough.
The next point is that the original game, called “etmain” was and still is bollocks and only the user modifications like etpro, jaymod and noquarter turned WolfET into a real success.
Point three is - as you already stated - that it was free to play and also no DLC **** in the manner of CoD DLCs…
Brink is a cool but limited game/ip in it’s current state, let’s say the foundation stone has been layed, but it’s still not a complete house in which you could live…
That’s the key point, we probably wouldn’t be here today, SD probably wouldn’t even exist, and Brink would never have happened if it wasn’t for a guy called Bani who made a mod for ET (ETPro), including lots of bug fixes and game changing options (the code for which he gave to SD and they incorporated into a patch for ETMain).
Anyone remember Battery on ETMain? It was the Container City of ET, the attacking team were lucky to get off the beach. ETPro effectively “fixed” the map and turned it from unplayable to playable. Map scripts, heavy weapons restrictions, XP restrictions, forget that competition wouldn’t have existed without ETPro, ET itself wouldn’t have survived it’s first year without it IMO. So much of what we know of ET today, so much we credit SD for in our ignorance, was actually the work of a reclusive American who did it all for free and in his spare time.
why brink failed?
simply cause people don’t like it…even the devs dont play it.
It’s so easy
and w:et was a succes cause the brand rtcw was the best advertising for it, (tbh i think it’s a cheesy copy of wolf) and cause bani made a promod that made the game playable. (and also ruined it changing the hitboxes and ****in antilag +snaps 20 that means hitboxes, hitboxes everywhere)