The Danger of Shallow Mythology: Brink's failure as an icon


(littlegrenades) #1

I love brink to death, but the massive hits the population of players has taken could and may sink the IP into obscurity if no steps are taken to solidify the brink universe. Brink has improved vastly since launch and is now at the point it should’ve been at release AND I suspect it would have been, had the publishing half been given less control over the game’s production.

Still, even with polished game-play and flawless execution, Brink’s story falls short of itself in a very strange way. Which is to say, it’s kind of not there. What is there is implied story, in the background and little cutscenes. Now, I get it, Bioshock right? Let the world speak for itself, right?

This is a great idea for a game and really does enrich the experience, but remember how Bioshock was a singleplayer game? The implied information was not the backbone of the story it was a great supporting force for the story. The game still had events and characters that you could witness. Of course, so did Brink, but Bioshock had MUCH MORE.

That kind of thing is incredibly important to the survival of a game as an icon or emotional experience because it gives ALL of the weapons, people, and powers you’re using story, ethics, history, etc. Brink is a multiplayer game and not a single player game however, so of course one could ask, why bother?

Well. Call of Duty, for all of it’s massive shortcomings has a singleplayer storyline. Yes, its essentially a rail shooter, but its long and it has one. Most shooters go this route. Team Fortress, another insanely popular game has nothing much in game but it does have free and easily accessible videos, comics and quotes that reveal the nature of the game universe and are awesome to sit through. It also probably helps that it was released when it was done. Star Wars battlefront and everything else Lucas Arts did had…oh yes, SIX CULTURALLY ICONIC FILMS, A LEGION OF TOYS, ENOUGH GRAPHIC NOVELS TO DROWN A SARLACC and some kid shows. Remember clone wars? It was essentially samurai jack: the space opera and little to no Jar-Jar Binks.

Brink did have audio diaries.Right. How weak would Bioshock had been if the audio diaries was their sticking point? Brink also had cutscenes, which I’m going to get into the flaws of later. There were a total of four characters with faces, and some more disembodied voices with opinions. Two of the characters with faces never even talked or frowned (Nechayev, Council guy)

Having the player create most of this for themselves in their imagination is just a bad idea, especially if you’re trying to reach and keep a wider audience. Some people actually play games to use their imagination in such a way, but most don’t.

It should also be noted, that when people started playing starwars battlefront, or team fortress, that the media they’d watched had been the basis of the gameplay for the prior, or based upon the gameplay for the latter. So newbs coming in were muuch more likely to act less like drunk, blind, deaf and dumb soldiers. In addition to being practical, being the heavy felt cool after you saw what a basic, apathetic, single minded creature he was. When you found out the scout was some cock-sure reckless idiot you fell in love with him. When you realized the Medic was a wild organ-grafting “doctor” or that the soldier was…I’m not even really sure who he was but he was obviously a *****ing lunatic! Star was meanwhile, let you play as Jedi or bounty hunters or storm troopers, and I won’t explain why they’re cool because you all know.

Which is my point, You all know and ****ing love jedi cause they’re jedi and they’re jedi. Who is the Jesse? What’s the Sad Punk about? Where are his parents? We all know what first drew all of the non enemy territory addicts to this game(which includes me) it was the trailer. We saw the sweat walking around very casually through hell and horror with nothing but a shot gun, an smg and a tank top and he seemed to be feelin’ alright. That was really cool. We saw the bug troll the entire battlefield silently and then parkour away without so much as a second thought. Cool. We saw the anger watch tank-based injustice take his comrade and then gazelle jump across containers until he could literally stick it to the man with two machetes and make an expression like he had just swatted a particularly messy mosquito.

All of this was great but WHY DID IT STOP. Its like pouring blood into a patient only long enough for his family to foot the bill. Of course, not as sinister and not intentional, but it left the game with just as much opportunity as our patient. Why not have, instead of audio diaries the more adult members of your audience could enjoy on any level, cutscenes after certain accomplishments. Did I unlock the anger? Great, why don’t you have a little bit where a bunch of guys in hoodies track my character down and tell them what they’re about and give him one? Why not have the gestapo like fraternity of freaks offer a ski mask and jacket to my guy? Why not have a bunch of giddy buddy cops gladly give my ambitious security officer some F.I.S.T. gear?

When I say “my guy” by the way, it’s because i think in-game style cutscenes featuring your character would also have been a great way to satiate the vanity boner everyone gets after using such a robust customization system. Or don’t show my character, do the entire thing in first person, or just show them to me from a third person in pre-rendered cutscene but DO SOMETHING.

And this goes for more then clothing. Why not tie in the gameplay aspects? Who the hell are these operatives, medics, engineers, and soldiers anywho? What are the behavioral differences between the security ones and the resistance ones? Which of these weapons are your “lightsaber” is it the sticky bomb? How do they feel about sticky bombs? How do they feel about UAV’s? Do they name them? They obviously bothered to paint them on the resistance. Maybe a cutscene for going up a rank, or being an engineer for awhile, or becoming a light, medium or heavy. Did they take hormones? Is it a training regimen? Gene splicing? COME ON.

I know this is long so I have one final critique. This is the choice of story impact. By which I mean, the events that happen before every brawl. I think the story is great to be honest, all rife with metaphor and what have you but…It doesn’t loan itself to the gameplay. Having everything you’re about to do be prefaced by a specific historical event invalidates everything you do as “what could have happened when the security raided container city” Which totally waters down the user-created strategy experience of a complex objective based game like Brink.

I think most would prefer being able to say, “and this happened, this was my window to the world of brink as an ark refugee.” To do that, it would make much more sense to have the matches based around repeatable events or hotspots of resistance-security encounters. The big story pieces could be given as reward cutscenes for completing this more trivial episodes. Why not show us the resistance raiding the clinics for medicine? Why not show us escort missions about nameless political dissidents or wanted men? Why not have us blow up a warehouse of illegal resistance weapons? Or hacking the location of wanted resistance crimelords? Maybe trying to capture security helicopters or boats, or have security trying to steal them back? There is no shortage of ideas, especially in a post apocalyptic world for such missions. Thats like, the point of post apocalyptic settings. You can recreate an entire world and still get to attach it to the emotional relevence of the real world.

The big missions could be filled with perhaps iconic characters who would kind of show case the expected gamplay modes in over the top, enjoyable pre rendered cutscenes. Or, if you’re feeling lazy, maybe just the end of the cutscene where they talk about the **** that just went down, or reap the rewards or consequences. Yet another great way to tie in to the building up of iconic ideas and characters. The Old Republic is doing JUST this and I have already explained what a powerful IP star wars was to begin with.

Founders tower can only be blown up once. How interesting would the Mako Reactors have been in final fantasy 7 if the one you blew up in the opening mission been the only actually Mako Reactor?

This would also lay to rest the “What if” issue, which has made the IP fanboy-debate proof. This is something a young IP would never, ever, want to do.

So I strongly would encourage, for this or future splash damage games, heavy cutscenes OR episodic game trailers OR an expansive, indepedent single player campaign. Or blow the world out of the water with some combination of these. Remember, I really do love brink and I do love the story. But one bite of t-bone steak is never a good dinner.


(.Chris.) #2

This is why they shouldn’t have hyped up the single player aspect so much.


(zenstar) #3

Agreed.
The single player is just drop-in / -out with bots. Not revolutionary. L4D did it and I’m sure there are far older examples. In fact I remember a Quake 2 bot (eraser bot ???) that would make way for players joining the server.

The story cutscenes et al are nice, but a single player campaign they are not. They’re “multiplayer practice” at best.

I would actually really like to play through a proper singleplayer storyline in Brink that delved into the story properly and didn’t have any of the multiplayer hangups that prevented things like ingame chatting with npcs.


(Loffy) #4

Economy/budget is King.


(Stormchild) #5

A King can be chased / guillotined.

Our society/environment is not written in stone, we can change anything because we created it all. (Easier said than done of course)


(tangoliber) #6

I think you can create a single-player campaign feel in this format…and it would be unique not for the botmatch aspect, but for the pvp versus aspect.

I think the key would be to make the missions much longer with a lot more objectives, and make the objectives much easier so the offense feels like they are always progressing as in a regular corridor shooter, and the defense feels like they are just trying to slow them down in time. And of course, the narrative would need to connect the missions together better. But you would require a game 10x the size of Brink, and it would probably be too expensive.

Personally, I only care about versus multiplayer so I’d rather they just stick to that…but don’t try to promote the game as having a single player experience with set pieces, or you will end up with backlash like Brink got…and a lot of reviewers misunderstanding what the game is meant to be.

And we need to be able to turn off cutscenes for Freeplay. If there must be cutscenes, then they shouldn’t be dialog, but something that is rewatchable.
Killzone 3 implemented Splash Damage’s game mode… it isn’t as good because the game is more campy…but the cutscenes worked very well because they were meant to get you pumped up for the match…so you never really got tired of seeing them.


(Loffy) #7

About who or what is King: All I am saying, is that when schemes/plans are not on par with with resources at hand (i.e. plans and resources collide) in projects, resources win.


(littlegrenades) #8

[QUOTE=tangoliber;381655]I think you can create a single-player campaign feel in this format…and it would be unique not for the botmatch aspect, but for the pvp versus aspect.

I think the key would be to make the missions much longer with a lot more objectives, and make the objectives much easier so the offense feels like they are always progressing as in a regular corridor shooter, and the defense feels like they are just trying to slow them down in time. And of course, the narrative would need to connect the missions together better. But you would require a game 10x the size of Brink, and it would probably be too expensive.

Personally, I only care about versus multiplayer so I’d rather they just stick to that…but don’t try to promote the game as having a single player experience with set pieces, or you will end up with backlash like Brink got…and a lot of reviewers misunderstanding what the game is meant to be.

And we need to be able to turn off cutscenes for Freeplay. If there must be cutscenes, then they shouldn’t be dialog, but something that is rewatchable.
Killzone 3 implemented Splash Damage’s game mode… it isn’t as good because the game is more campy…but the cutscenes worked very well because they were meant to get you pumped up for the match…so you never really got tired of seeing them.

It really does make me happy to see games copying each other’s good ideas, but sadly I never got into killzone 3 as i wasnt ready for the shift in gunplay :confused:

And, I agree with you on most points here for sure… Not that i mind singleplayer shooting cause i want to drown myself in Rage and am currently burning through Deus Ex but i really only want splash damage to work to their strengths. Thats why i think something as simple as cutscenes like this are the solution It still fleshes out the character of the world and the more relevent individuals in it but is a much smaller investment anyway then a singleplayer campaign AND has a much greater chance of success. You just have to throw in a decent amount to get the same/similar levels of satisfaction from the audience as well as keep them interested with controlled release/unlocking. You know when a fight or an intro looks cool but building in a second game…just wastes the energy of the project. I think it would only be a good move if done by an entirely different team, which would seem unlikely. The reason i mentioned it was to give examples of how basically every other major FPS had followed the guidelines i was discussing.

And of course, the economy IS king. Though I would blame time constraints more for the problems that chewed me up, I believe Ed Stern talked about a shortage of programmers that hurt launch retrospectively so I’m not against believing corners of the budget were already cut. Still, there are multiple ways to accomplish this in different price ranges, and as a whole Bethesda invested quite a bit in Brink. I think the painting the narrative standpoint wouldve been one of the easiest ideas to sell to a publisher, because the competition is all doing it and I also think it wouldve definately given/may someday give Brink the breath of life it needs to truck on, so its not a waste of money as long as you have adequate talent in production.


(Thundermuffin) #9

[QUOTE=tangoliber;381655]

And we need to be able to turn off cutscenes for Freeplay. If there must be cutscenes, then they shouldn’t be dialog, but something that is rewatchable.
Killzone 3 implemented Splash Damage’s game mode… it isn’t as good because the game is more campy…but the cutscenes worked very well because they were meant to get you pumped up for the match…so you never really got tired of seeing them.

Those cutscenes are actually really cool and I would have rather seen something like that than Brink’s 3 minute long cutscenes. I also really liked how they had 2 different cutscenes for both teams, both showing the same action but at the same time they were showing it differently. That’s a really nice touch.

I’m still not sure I’d actually want either in my MP game, but I’d sure as heck pick those over Brink’s.


(wolfnemesis75) #10

Hopefully with the possibility of Brink 2 it will incorporate so more narrative story driven segments even if in small doses. Many gamers look forward to a single player campaign to provide a context and backing for how they identify with the world created in the game. Brink tries to do this within the context of a multiplayer context, which it pulls off well because you do (I do) connect with the story on the Ark. But it would be cool to follow two specific characters possibly and learn something about their specific struggles on the Ark, in a similar way that Portal does it. Tell the story as you are playing a bit more than Brink 1 did.


(tokamak) #11

The objective mode is as close as to a singleplayer you can get with multiplayer. Anything further any more scripts and you’re directly encroaching on how much there’s possible in a match.


(amazinglarry) #12

littlegrenades I think that’s the longest post I’ve ever sat through, but I definitely agree with a lot of your points. I even sent it to my friend who’s working on a game idea but doesn’t believe that there needs to be a backstory before he gets into the actual design of things first. Having context for as much as possible other than just a “it’s because, you know…” makes a world of difference.

Of course, I still love Brink but I want to be more involved in the story and nuances of the world with why how and when things went down. I know it’s there to a degree, but I’m not sure I agree it’s as accessible as it could be. Maybe I’ll take the time to roll through the campaign again over the weekend and see how I feel again afterward.

Either way, kudos to your post. I encourage more well thought out and articulated posts in the future.


(Oz70NYC) #13

I think was all can safely agree that while the overall story of Brink; cataclysmic global flooding washing away all threads of society, The Ark seeming to be the last beacon of society left on Earth and internal disputes over resources on The Ark boiling over into full scale civil war…is freaking AWESOME, the implementation of the story on the other hand…sucks harder the Ava Devine. There were all kinds of social and moral undertones that could have made the world of Brink a gritty and brutal experience that they never even touched on. The Asian Resistance fighter who’s Brother was on Security. Imagine how epic it would have been having to experience him being forced to pull the trigger on his own flesh and blood for “the cause” of rescuing Nachayev. Or the Black Security officer who was reluctant to be part of the CCity mission because he had family there. Imagine the undertones of his his family stood in the way of Security getting to the “Bio Weapon”. Those are just two story elements that could have made Brink’s singleplayer a joyous experience that never even happened.

The story of The Ark needs to be done justice. It needs to be told correctly, seen through the eyes of your character. Your character should be central to restoring order or bring chaos to The Ark depending on the side you select him to be on when you create him, not just a background character. That part pissed me off the most out Brink’s “campaign”. You’re character, the guy who is pretty much the tip of the spear…is simple a “bit” part to other characters who don’t even have any character background. You’re lead to draw your own conclusions about who they were before they arrived at The Ark. Like say the “Squad Leaders” in the cutscenes. Both you would imagine were soldiers before civilization died. (The Resistance Squad leader actually has mannerisms that lead me to believe he may have been IRA. I mean he DOES have the accent after all.) But there’s not even a single hint of character development. Nothing.

Brink 2 pretty much needs to BRING IT as far as telling the story after the 1st game goes. And “you” (The user) needs to be the central figure of it. A lone Security or Resistance soldier who over the course of the story becomes the key to the salvation of the founders or the guests, or NEITHER if you so choose. The whole premise behind Brink is the fact that The Ark as a whole benefits or suffers from the consequences the action from the men fighting for control over it do. The story as a whole should reflect those consequences, be they good or bad. The story has legs, no doubt about it. It’s up to the devs to make sure that when the next part of the story is told, it does the 100m dash rather then take a few baby steps before tearing an MCL and breaking a vertebrae…never to walk again.


(wolfnemesis75) #14

[QUOTE=Oz70NYC;381820]I think was all can safely agree that while the overall story of Brink; cataclysmic global flooding washing away all threads of society, The Ark seeming to be the last beacon of society left on Earth and internal disputes over resources on The Ark boiling over into full scale civil war…is freaking AWESOME, the implementation of the story on the other hand…sucks harder the Ava Devine. There were all kinds of social and moral undertones that could have made the world of Brink a gritty and brutal experience that they never even touched on. The Asian Resistance fighter who’s Brother was on Security. Imagine how epic it would have been having to experience him being forced to pull the trigger on his own flesh and blood for “the cause” of rescuing Nachayev. Or the Black Security officer who was reluctant to be part of the CCity mission because he had family there. Imagine the undertones of his his family stood in the way of Security getting to the “Bio Weapon”. Those are just two story elements that could have made Brink’s singleplayer a joyous experience that never even happened.

The story of The Ark needs to be done justice. It needs to be told correctly, seen through the eyes of your character. Your character should be central to restoring order or bring chaos to The Ark depending on the side you select him to be on when you create him, not just a background character. That part pissed me off the most out Brink’s “campaign”. You’re character, the guy who is pretty much the tip of the spear…is simple a “bit” part to other characters who don’t even have any character background. You’re lead to draw your own conclusions about who they were before they arrived at The Ark. Like say the “Squad Leaders” in the cutscenes. Both you would imagine were soldiers before civilization died. (The Resistance Squad leader actually has mannerisms that lead me to believe he may have been IRA. I mean he DOES have the accent after all.) But there’s not even a single hint of character development. Nothing.

Brink 2 pretty much needs to BRING IT as far as telling the story after the 1st game goes. And “you” (The user) needs to be the central figure of it. A lone Security or Resistance soldier who over the course of the story becomes the key to the salvation of the founders or the guests, or NEITHER if you so choose. The whole premise behind Brink is the fact that The Ark as a whole benefits or suffers from the consequences the action from the men fighting for control over it do. The story as a whole should reflect those consequences, be they good or bad. The story has legs, no doubt about it. It’s up to the devs to make sure that when the next part of the story is told, it does the 100m dash rather then take a few baby steps before tearing an MCL and breaking a vertebrae…never to walk again.[/QUOTE]Good stuff. I agree. Flesh out the backstory on some specific characters and incorporate the player into the mix somehow like it already does. Like the cutscene of Labs where we’re about to kill the resistance member. Mole.


(tokamak) #15

Yeah definitely agree with all of that.


(montheponies) #16

I really could not care less about the story, character development, skins or anything else ‘cosmetic’…basically I’d concentrate the effort on making a compelling multiplayer game that encourages and rewards skilled movement, gunplay and teamwork - if i want a story I’ll read a book or watch a movie…at a push I’ll play some singleplayer game like dues-ex…

consider how long folk have played rtcw, w:et and etqw … it wasn’t because they had a great cast of characters and an oscar winning script…


(littlegrenades) #17

Always glad to be food for thought man. To your friend, speaking as an amateur writer its honestly much easier, fluid and fun to put together the current events in a universe you’ve thoroughly thought out the history, factions and culture of…which sounds so obvious but its so tempting to skip it over and just dive in. Thinking up hotspots, ghettos, secret fraternities open up the world. Once you actually start to have fun piecing a universe together, you’ve got something good that only needs to be translated well to whatever audience you’re going for (Which a smart choice in musical accompaniment really gets going.)

Still, if you’re really stuck for ideas, you can totally do some pre concept art on the fly, take a look at it and think “what kind of affiliation of grimy rogues would set up base here” I see no problem with that, but final stuff or even nearing final stuff you dont want to start with cause its so much worse thhen what will come to you naturally OVER TIME. You really cant summon good art and good story. You’re crazy little human brain will put something together over the course of the week, so it never hurts to give a think, and it will also cause you to analyze other people’s work in new ways. :smiley:


(littlegrenades) #18

To Oz70NYC, firstly ROFL at your metaphor, it hadnt dawned on me you could use a porn star to make metaphors…you’ve opened up worlds here. And second, YES, i agree with you so much on the shortcoming of the story! Its stubborn decision to consistently be ALMOST interesting with things like the asian guy’s brother ate me up too, and there really is SO MUCH they could do with every facet of that story. Though it looks like in agent of changed they grazed the surface with the agents who seemed to be the not so sure types from both squads. On a side note, the Irish guy and everyone are actually second generation ark citizens( Mostly, i guess i’m not really sure of his age vs. the passage of time) but this presents still MORE opportunity for interesting story and characters because if you think about how distorted OUR generations are based on the ideals and culture of the prior, how perverted could it get when the only thing the new generation has to go on is stories! You could have crazy disproportion on parts of our culture and trivial things thrown into religious status…think the Kings from fallout New Vegas.

Also, they dont really show why the security and resistance are so awsome at what they do which is like…essential almost for pumping up your fans. You just got to have people talking about the SPARTAN program in a halo game and i think it should be the same here, i dont just wanna hear i’m a super soldier in your interviews…and i think “Be more objective,” and “Tower Defense” and those missions would have been played way more if you got just such an informative little cutscene, maybe a great time to add…some characters, like your commanding officers, and the people who taught you parkour. This would lead to people playing these more which would lead to also, more newbs knowing how to play the game! Which leads to more matches enjoyed across the board, which leads to a healthier population which leads to a sick ass sequel.

Which…Montheponies is why a good story is important. Besides the fact that Brink is an IP that someone wrote and they wanted people to care about a story they wrote, and I want people to care about a story they wrote because they didnt write a story to fill out a level or they wouldve just done more of the old ET stuff. If done right, and alongside gameplay that isnt horribly flawed when the majority of the people who’re gonna look at it get around to looking at it, a solid, expansive story in a game draws players, teaches basic gameplay and also ENHANCES gameplay, because now you care about the turret you’re dropping if you saw a cinematic where the engineer gave his a funky name, you feel cooler throwing a molotov when you not only acknowlege it as the soldier’s functional bread and butter, but you see a cutscene where a soldier is raining hell on the battlefield and rummaging through his almost empty backpack for more firepower.

Maybe you personally dont, which i can respect because gameplay is a critical enough aspect to want to focus on and elevated and it obviously wasnt taken seriously enough by someone to boost what could’ve been a hugely successful game at launch…but well done story in addition to solid gameplay is community LIFEBLOOD man, it takes it from cult classic to something with enough funding to ensure plenty of better sequels, and gives the company enough credit to support their games by any financial means necessary! Personally that last sentence is justification enough for me, and it tears me up to see a game with this much value, some tapped and some untapped, recieve discouraging feedback in the form of dwindling gamers electing to particpate in game sessions.


(Crytiqal) #19

[QUOTE=montheponies;381993]I really could not care less about the story, character development, skins or anything else ‘cosmetic’…basically I’d concentrate the effort on making a compelling multiplayer game that encourages and rewards skilled movement, gunplay and teamwork - if i want a story I’ll read a book or watch a movie…at a push I’ll play some singleplayer game like dues-ex…

consider how long folk have played rtcw, w:et and etqw … it wasn’t because they had a great cast of characters and an oscar winning script…[/QUOTE]

But it does relate to:

WWII, or the Strogg invasion from the Quake universe.
They have distinct good and evil settings which you can relate to and are obvious.

Games that even lack this give no bonding to players
At least thats what I think the majority of gamers think…

(On comp level it’s different ofcourse)


(montheponies) #20

i agree that an overall setting will have an affect - but on multiplayer any kind of story is going to get old very quickly as you repeatedly play the same map. in brink the overall setting is cool, but the repeated cutscenes before and during the map are nothing short of a pain in the arse. basically after i’ve played a map for a few times i no longer care about the ‘story’, my only interest is in how best to complete the objectives, win and have fun.

i don’t honestly believe that the majority of gamers ‘bond’ to games because of developing storylines and ‘caring’ about the background to a gun or turret or character…so in essence for multiplayer a broad shallow setting is more than enough. or do you truly believe that you’re transmitting the docs on beach, 10yrs later?