Lacking content?

(Kabarka) #1

I mean there are 10 maps right?
So the single player is basically played on those maps as well. Doesn’t it seem kinda low for a 60€ game? you got other games that have a big ass campaign + 12 multiplayer maps or whatever
Or does every mission on 1 map take up to an hour of play time or something?

I would love to see a mission be played fully so i can get a sense of what is going on.

Not trying to bash the game in any way, just wondering. already got it preorderd and i think it just looks awesome

(tokamak) #2

It’s 12 maps. The maps are also much more than your regular multiplayer shooter maps. They’ll be different a different experience every time you play, just like in ET.

So what you’re going to get is not a quantity in content, but quality in gameplay value which translates into a quantity in replay value.

(JeP) #3

Actually, it’s 8 maps :

“Brink will have sixteen missions, spread across the two campaigns, but out of those sixteen, four are what we like to call the “what if?” missions. They’re not actually part of the official storyline.”

  • Richard Ham

But Kabarka, I’d like to know about games getting a really interesting SP AND 12 maps to play online. CoD or BFBC2 have a single player story quite boring, or at least scripted all along, that you can finish in around 6 hours, and it’s more 8 maps, perhaps even 6, to play MP. And as they’ve said (and tokamak), it’s really more about quality than quantity.

(Herandar) #4

Will take longer than Homefront’s SP campaign…

(DouglasDanger) #5

“mingle player”

There is the single/co-op/multi campaign, stopwatch mode, and then there are challenges and stuff. It seems the maps have multiple objectives are quite well done. There is a lot to do before you can win, from what I have seen. I don’t think Brink is lacking content. Just becuase it doesn’t have capture the flag or death match or domination or headquarters or whatever doesn’t mean it is lacking.

(Mustkunstn1k) #6

Since the maps are multi-staged they will probably be bigger then the maps in most other games. And if you are going to compare them to Battlefield, then these are most definetly more detailed. BF maps have big emty areas.

(Kabarka) #7

has there been said how long it will take to complete 1 map on average? Thats what i would like to know…

(tokamak) #8

Not necessarily, but the maps will be more dense in interest, the relevance-per-inch matters more. Where in team-deathmatch it doesn’t really matter in what backdrop you frag, in Brink every corridor and corner has some degree of importance.

(Herandar) #9

On the same note as Tokamak’s post, it seems to me that there is more vertical gameplay in most Brink levels than most levels in other FPS games. (Highrise levels excluded, of course.)

(Ajax's Spear) #10

It’s been said that each mission will take 20 minutes to a half an hour to complete. I’m not sure if that actually means “stage” of a main mission or not, but even still, as Tokamak touched on, gaining ground is designed to be grueling, giving the maps much more depth than a typical wide open area or huge map in general. And also, there’s a great deal of replay value, as the situational objectives will vary each time, and you have several characters to max-out and run through each campaign.

(Murderous Pie) #11

Most reviews said that games took 10-30 minutes.

(ShoryukenII) #12

10 minutes is a nightmare. Most Uncharted 2 games last twice as long and that game has a pretty generic multiplayer. I doubt 10 minutes is true. I hope console players can make custom games though so we can create long warzones that could last over 3 hours. I’m not expecting to be able to customize every little bit of the game like PC. But I do expect to be able to customize every big and useful thing.

(maZiixxxx) #13

I’m only interested in the multiplayer so am hoping it have competitive support.

(EnderWiggin.DA.) #14

I doubt the SP will play like the SP for Homefront, Bulletstorm, CoD, or BF:BC2. I perceive the SP more as a trainer for the MP. I think you’re comparing apples to oranges. I could be wrong. I haven’t played the game so…

(maZiixxxx) #15

You’re most likely right because the game is heavy on the MP side such as customizations etc.

(Herandar) #16

10 minutes would be one side dominating the other. But seriously, 3 hours?!?!! I’ve got better things to do than play one stage for three f**king hours, And I’m much more patient than your typical caffinated teen gamer. A three hour match will kill Brink much faster than unbalanced gameplay.

Where have you been? SP is identical to MP. Bots or other humans is the only difference.

(MatthiasK75) #17

besides crysis 2, i defy you to name a recent game with a “big ass campaign”

expecially from a FPS, and with Brink you play probably the same length or more than those, and then you play as the other side.

(SockDog) #18

It’s a matter of expectation, something SD/Bethesda should really have addressed long and hard. A single player mode that is really multiplayer with bots and only the one game mode is going to be a let down for many players, that then may lead to similar negative word of mouth that ETQW saw.

(LyndonL) #19

It’s no different than the battlefield series which was very popular (BF2 and such).

(Seyu) #20

That was seven years ago.