As is your choice.
I’m not saying that there is sp/coop only content. Nor that there is sp/coop only content when playing in campaign mode. Nor that it will be sp/coop only unless you invite friends. Nor that the developers are being misleading to make their sp/coop experience sound more appealing. I’m just saying you don’t havea monopoly on truth or reason in this discussion.
The question is of course if it matters. After playing through the campaign mode once, I’ll most likely just be doing random games, which I suppose are possible on every map the game has.
Oh but I do. I already demonstrated how highly unreasonable it would be to expect anything else but multiplayable maps.
If the devs actually answered some of these questions, threads would only be 1 page long, max. Funny.
I doubt that, it’d lead to more questions or more whine… probably both.
[quote=tokamak;232006]
I’m just saying you don’t havea monopoly on truth or reason in this discussion.
Oh but I do. I already demonstrated how highly unreasonable it would be to expect anything else but multiplayable maps.[/quote]
Then I guess Mr.Right isn’t open to a debate. Why did I bother?
Funny that when I give an example of how coop/sp can work in a versus game you attack it for “cross comparisons” yet you are all too willing to use the same reasoning to do so as well as to argue other points. Not only are you obviously comparing Brink to Quake Wars and W:ET in judging what is “highly unreasonable” but you even compare it to MMO’s in the Abilities and upgrades thread to make a point.
If you want to try and set rules for a debate then try sticking to your own rules.
A few things come to mind as I read all this.
In some interview (forgive me for not knowing specifically which) someone said on the topic of vehicles “this is brother versus brother” man versus man. It’s supposed to be about the struggle between 2 groups that think they are doing the absolutely right thing. SD wants to emphasize this competitive spirit and they’ve said that countless times. It’s not crazy to take this to mean every map is going to be competitive. However, SD has also made it clear that every map will still be playable co-op and single player.
Also, when it comes to map/campaign/objective layout, I think everyone is thinking way to hard about it. Let’s say we have a list of maps:
Sa
Sb
Sc
Sd
Ra
Rb
Rd
Re
A, B, and D would be shared “maps” in both “campaigns”, but different “objectives” depending on what side you’re playing on. I’m sure we all knew that much at least. What about C and E then? They are faction specific maps for that factions campaign. How would that be turned into multiplayer? Something else that was said in even more than one interview (unless I’m mistaken) was that the game doesn’t have to played linear or even like there is a campaign at all. We know free play is an option. Pick a “map” any map, choose what side you’ll play it on and go. Regardless of whether you’ve played 1, both or none of the campaigns you could fight on these faction specific maps as the antagonists.
So who or what controls the antagonists then? And why wouldn’t those be playable by real players?
Seriously, there won’t be any faction-exculsive maps.
[QUOTE=tokamak;232106]
Seriously, there won’t be any faction-exculsive maps.[/QUOTE]
lolol, is this thread still about this?
Serious Question… Do you wake up in the morning and kiss your reflection in the mirror Tokamak?
The game whilst played as a campaign COULD have faction specific maps. The devs have already said that any map is able to be played by setting up a match to your specs. So THAT is how you play as the antagonist. We already know the game has great AI, so THAT is who you play against in the campaign.
To paraphrase: I don’t know how to make it any clearer:
Playing Campaign - play against the AI.
Playing Free match - play against humans or AI.
Until the devs say otherwise how can you NOT accept it as possible? You already know that the game is appealing to a wider audience than just your standard ET crowd, so what way to give a game more appeal and interest and drive a player to experience both sides of the coin than to have faction specific maps (in campaign).
I hazard the suggestion to keep trying to make yourself clearer, I have not the faintest clue what you’re trying to point out here, neither do I think you understand it yourself.
I’m open to arguments on the subject not whining about the form of the discussion.
Funny that when I give an example of how coop/sp can work in a versus game you attack it for “cross comparisons” yet you are all too willing to use the same reasoning to do so as well as to argue other points. Not only are you obviously comparing Brink to Quake Wars and W:ET in judging what is “highly unreasonable” but you even compare it to MMO’s in the Abilities and upgrades thread to make a point.
If you want to try and set rules for a debate then try sticking to your own rules.
Yes, sometimes comparisons reasonably apply and sometimes they don’t. A comparison is reasonable if the asset in question remains standing despite the other differences in the game, which isn’t the case with either Half Life or Left for Dead. However, when we’re talking about class-based matches, then it doesn’t matter whether the format is shooter or rpg, the overlying system remains the same.
I can’t blame you though, non-sequiturs can be tricky to spot sometimes.
He obviously feels the need to compensate for something on these forums. Unfortunately it won’t prevent anyone from giving him the bag treatment in Brink :).
To reiterate, from the post you were responding to and quoting
as I’ve been saying from the beginning,
I’m open to arguments on the subject not whining about the form of the discussion.
I’m open to arguments, too. However, your arguments are based on a gameplay mechanic which is irrelevant to the discussion of sp/coop and versus mp. Read below.
There are class based and cooperative first person shooters with RPG-like permanent upgrades out there… like Killing Floor. However, that example is completely unnecessary because a class based (just fyi, L4D is class based for the Infected team) mechanic has no relevancy regarding whether or not a developer can make killing AI enemies a compelling experience that is quite apart from the experience of killing players.
A compelling multiplayer versus experience revolves around mechanically balanced sides which have an equal chance of winning so that the outcome is generally determined by skill and/or cooperation. That’s the point a number of people are concerned about with regards to the upgrade/rpg elements in Brink. On the other hand, a compelling singleplayer or cooperative experience either gives the AI opposition some advantage such as, most usually, superior numbers; gives the players some disadvantage such as, for example, a difficult objective, respawn limitations or weapons and ammunition restrictions; or bother
The class based mechanic is a complete red herring in this discussion. It is purely a distraction you pulled to try to derail my point:
I’m not sure how else I can reiterate this point. In any case, you should be arguing with the game developers, not me. I’m saying it’s possible. The devs are saying it’s happening in Brink. glhf…?
Take a room guyz 
Why dont we just wait quietly for the game and then go all whine out? buhahaha, anyway even if “faction only” maps are indeed not to exclude, it would be a bit weird considering that SD tried to promote the “play both sides to have more fun” thing in their previous games.
Peace
Why would I? They’re already doing what I’d like to see. But don’t let that stop you having little fantasies about singleplayer-only content. Co-op and versus aren’t largely interchangeable, the gameplay is identical.
you’re nitpicking irrelevant details. whatever i posted b4. it’s completely possible for SD to do whatever they want with campaigns. the victory is the condition to proceed so teams aren’t static thru a campaign. so, they can throw an imbal sp/coop map or even alter the gameplay rules/team sizes etc. or wahtever they want. also read the SD interviews posted about campaigns.
@apples: as you wish. me r finish.
Which means one less map for the versus content, which has much higher replay value and thus the resources on it are better spent. ETQW amd W:ET could get by with 12 respectively 6 maps, you can’t say that about any singleplayer shooter bar Space Invaders.
There’s not going to be exclusive singleplayer maps.
I saw a lot of videos again and what the devs said in each was contradictory in same way to what was said in another, I guess it’ll be best to wait for more info.
For the time being I am assuming this is the case :-
[QUOTE=tokamak;232188]
…There’s not going to be exclusive singleplayer maps.[/QUOTE]