SD once said they have thrown out 8 or 10 maps from then developed ETQW on the reasoning “not good enough”, but even with that pickiness of theirs, I really doubt they will go for separate maps for each side in Brink(2x maps to do, with different assets and stuff).
Parallel level structure for campaigns with one or two bonus map for each faction in SP or every possible map in skirmish sounds much more reasonable.
Then what’s the point of two separate campaigns? Wouldn’t that just be one campaign with separate objectives for either side? Maybe I played too much Starcraft, but when I hear a developer mention separate campaigns I assume that they are indeed separate, kind of like a real war campaign, i.e. The Pacific, and European campaigns. 
Yes, it’s not like Starcraft or any singleplayer campaign for that matter. Because everything needs to be multiplayer it will be the same maps with for each faction a different side of the story. They achieve this by not letting the objective truth be obvious to both sides and there will be lots of bias and miscommunication making sure their perspective of each scenario will be vastly different.
The devs only wanted to stress that you won’t get the same story twice. And that playing it through for both factions will be worth it.
Oh, I have no worries about the last statement.
Ed was winking way too much for it to suck.
[QUOTE=tokamak;231460]Yes, it’s not like Starcraft or any singleplayer campaign for that matter. Because everything needs to be multiplayer it will be the same maps with for each faction a different side of the story. They achieve this by not letting the objective truth be obvious to both sides and there will be lots of bias and miscommunication making sure their perspective of each scenario will be vastly different.
The devs only wanted to stress that you won’t get the same story twice. And that playing it through for both factions will be worth it.[/QUOTE]
I see, now. OK.
I see how that would work, but then I really don’t understand the need for the devs to call it two separate campaigns, when the specific plots for each side of a mission is the essentially the same (i.e. Security defends a robot while Resistance tries to destroy it flipped to Resistance is trying to destroy a robot while the Security tries to defend it).
But I guess that doesn’t matter much. I mean, plot really only exists to give the characters a reason to interact, right? And in gaming it gives the player a reason to shoot things Also, it is cool that they thought enough about the story to give us a narrative from that other perspective.
I don’t see it as unreasonable and certainly not unthinkable to include bonus missions that are coop/sp only. It’s the standard for most games so it’s obviously not game breaking and I’d rather play a broken mission like Quarry in coop if the enemy AI was decent.
[QUOTE=ultraddtd;231474]I see, now. OK.
I see how that would work, but then I really don’t understand the need for the devs to call it two separate campaigns, when the specific plots for each side of a mission is the essentially the same (i.e. Security defends a robot while Resistance tries to destroy it flipped to Resistance is trying to destroy a robot while the Security tries to defend it).[/QUOTE]
Objectively, to an all-knowing bystander, the plot is the same. But when you look at it from either side the story should be dramatically different from each other.
But why would you make such a map singleplayer only while the enemies can easily be replaced with human players?
[QUOTE=tokamak;231533]
But why would you make such a map singleplayer only while the enemies can easily be replaced with human players?[/QUOTE]
Because it is still a single player and coop game. It’s all game styles blurred into one. Why not do it?
Coop is a growing trend and is becoming very favourable for a lot of gamers. Why not make some coop content? (Although I highly doubt they would) It’s not game breaking to even feature it mid campaign the way it’s structured - u beat the other team -> progress on to the next map which is coop only. Beat that -> progress onto the next multiplayer map.
You would still ruin resources on game content that couldn’t be played mutilplayer, it’s a waste.
That’s just your opinion. The whole world does not revolve around multiplayer.
[quote=tokamak;231533]But why would you make such a map singleplayer only while the enemies can easily be replaced with human players?[/quote]example.
No it doesn’t. However, that does not mean SD are going to turn their backs on one of their much-touted unique selling points. They have stressed again and again that each map can be played by yourself, with bots on both sides (singleplayer), with a team of human allies against an enemy team of bots (coop) and with two full teams of humans (multiplayer). What’s more, the interchange between these modes is apparently seamless.
Your argument for coop only levels is entirely defunct, considering the game that SD have stated they are making. Why limit a map to one particular capacity (coop) when it has been designed to run all three, seamlessly?
Coop can be great fun, but there is simply no reason to limit content to coop only in the game design that SD has laid out. Especially when I assume you can run coop servers/games only, should you so wish.
[QUOTE=BioSnark;231622]example.
boy I sure do hope valve gets ur memo and stops wasting time on that thar hl3 gaym.[/QUOTE]
Brink is a multiplayer with a sufficient storyline to play singleplayer, each map that is exclusive to singleplayer is one less map that can be played in multiplayer. They would be insane to do that.
The video was supposed to illustrate that in a game that is largely interchangeably coop and versus, there are game types that are not (or wouldn’t be if it were available) fun for one side in versus.
Its a fair point, but I’m not sure Brink will have any of those sorts of gametypes ^^. I could be hideously wrong and a horde mode could be just an announcement away, but thats not the impression they have given as yet.
I still don’t think you can make cross comparisons with different games like that. Or are you saying that the power pellets in Pac Man should be removed?! hm? hm?
Not at all. I’m saying you’re telling me that there aren’t power pellets in Pac Man before it is released when the developer is telling me that there are.
Don’t know if this means anything, but at around :12 sec. Ed says, “The 2 campaigns are slightly different, it’s not exactly the same maps in both.” It’s interesting that he says the campaigns are different, not just some extra bonus map.
You misunderstand me. I’m not wanting pure coop. I like multiplayer. I am simply saying from the interviews I’ve seen, it doesn’t make sense!
[QUOTE=H0RSE;231720]Don’t know if this means anything, but at around :12 sec. Ed says, “The 2 campaigns are slightly different, it’s not exactly the same maps in both.” It’s interesting that he says the campaigns are different, not just some extra bonus map.
…And this is why it doesn’t make sense. Little snippets from interviews that just don’t add up. The devs keep using differing language to describe things. To our small minds, the words objective, map, mission, and campaign should not be used interchangeably, and yet they seem to be which is what is making me question things.