Cankor needed to go to bed last night. You can see him talking himself into confusion.
New info
And I’m back today with more obfuscation!
Here’s the thing that I think not all of you may be picking up on, 16 Missions playable across both campaigns. Since some missions are not in both campaigns, these “one sided” missions could equate to maps all by themselves.
So one more time: 8 missions per side right (that’s the whole question right there, this may not be true, see below)? If true though, that’s 16 Missions total.
6 of them are in both campaigns, thats 12 Missions in both campaigns, with 4 left over.
Of these four it makes sense to split them 2 per side.
If these four missions are only in one campaign and not the other, they would constitute 4 additional maps.6 shared maps + 4 additional = 10 maps.
This gives you 8 missions to play as resistance or 8 to play as Resistance.
So this is possible.
The other way to look at it is like this:
6 shared maps as above.
The four bonus missions though are really only one extra “one way” map per side, and they are calling it two missions each because you still need someone on the other side even if it’s not part of that campaign.
In this case there are two one way maps. So 6 plus 2 = 8 maps.
So this is possible as well.
But note that in this scenario there are only 7 campaign missions per faction, not 8. 6 shared maps, plus 1 unshared map per side is 7 maps/Missions per faction (they still add up to 16 total because the last ones are not shared).
So this is what I am resting my hopes on: That when he said 16 Missions across two campaigns he meant “8 missions per campaign”. I admit in the cold light of day I’m probably being overly optimistic, and if there really were 10 maps they probably would have said so.
But I hope they are just being coy
You guys haven’t noticed they do that a lot?
I’m sure that there’s going to be expansions to Brink down the road. (Probably more maps.)
I wonder if there will be other game modes, aside from the main game and the challenge stuff.
I think it would be a awesome idea to have a Team Deathmatch mode in Brink. 
what do you guys think?
[QUOTE=trigg3r;267283]I think it would be a awesome idea to have a Team Deathmatch mode in Brink. 
what do you guys think?[/QUOTE]
Would suck hard! This is not CoD!
“U so ignorant!! Trying to exclude a major part of the FPS community. Killing is the point of FPS games!”
(Feel compelled to explicitly state that all non-parenthetical text on this post is a complete joke.)
Hahaha, that WAS a fun thread. No death threats though
only head-shots are serious enough business to merit that 
I’d rather have Free For All. That’s all most games need. FFA, Domination, and maybe Demolition.
guys, cmon, seriously, for realz. Like, cant believe no one brought this up. Seriously, unbeliveable, cmon now.
melee only.
BOOM is the sound of your minds blowing lol.
hmmmm… how about get rid of all the guns and change it to a in depth combat system keeping the parkour. so it will be like a team based first person mortal kombat haha.
Perhaps TDM or a similar mode would not be such a bad idea. I have two reasons for this.
-
It may attract people to the game who would normally dismiss it as ‘too complex’.
-
It would provide a gamemode for players who would otherwise come into the objective based games and play solely for kills.
There are obviously downsides to this also.
What do you guys think about this?
It would of course have to have an appropriate name. Something like; ARENA DEATH MODE or simply FIGHTING!!!
If Charlie Sheen were in charge of this operation you can dang well believe there’d be a TDM! Winning!
Oh my, that isn’t true at all.
My friend mooned the camera (by mistake). He was trying to give me a longer obstacle to vault, and happened to crouch down in front of a camera. I then did a kong vault clean over him, which you couldn’t see because his ass was in the way.