The full potential of Brink still a mystery?

[Linsolv]

You must misunderstand my request… I want to see how high you can jump/double jump as a light and how fast you can run… a simple wall hop to show the falling momentum would be great too. I just want to get a feel for what to expect… The basic limits and speeds are what I am asking to see… I’m not telling them to wall hop rail mantle wall hop rail mantle wall hop slide wall hop rail vault throughout the entirety of a map like they were doing timed flag runs.

Ah. You’re right. I misunderstood.

[Coolaguy]

EDIT: After seeing the “Get SMART: The Basics” video, most of what I have ranted about and expounded upon in this post can be officially reneged with the following utterance: FINALLY

(Tychus would probably say something like, “Hell, it’s about time.”)

(Note: The “Get SMART: The Basics” video consists of extremely high production values… As a Youtube regular, I don’t insist on such high production values, and I would have been content with a greater abundance of more timely, lower quality videos. Nonetheless, the video is very well done and achieves its purpose admirably.)

---

[QUOTE=Linsolv;284596]Well, I mean, I understand people who want to see PC footage. I understand people who want to see gameplay.

PC people, they think their game will suck. Some of them (Kinjal) are inconsolable (lol puns) and those ones make me mad, but the basic idea is totally understandable.

People who want to see generic gameplay are just excited and like seeing footage. Not exactly complicated there.[/QUOTE]

People seem to be responding to a lack of effective marketing promotion in regards to Brink. Objection handling is a fundamental part of making a sale.

Is your potential customer concerned about the lack of a feature that you have, in fact, implemented in your game? Oh, well then, here’s a video showcasing the feature and the benefits of said feature in game. Once you handle all of those objections, the sale is made. Simple as that.

As a marketer, you could let “the community” or third-party reviewers make the sale for you, but then you don’t control the dialogue anymore (not to mention that your interests aren’t well-aligned). If you want to control the conversation, especially concerning key features of your product, then the onus is on you… Marketers, do your job.

I don’t pretend to know the best way to market new video game intellectual property. Marketing a new IP probably requires a certain amount of finesse, and may, actually ramp up after the product has been released and is met with favourable reviews. I recall that I actually heard about the original Left 4 Dead in a year-end roundup from IGN highlighting it as one of the best games of the year… and it was still out of stock in stores at that point (I guess they seriously underestimated the demand in that instance).

I doubt that Brink has the same pop cultural appeal as Left 4 Dead (i.e. combating the zombie apocalypse as one of four cooperative survivors vs. experiencing the “brink of disaster” on an “immense, artificial floating city” of a formerly “contemporary green vision”), but I think that Brink has a distinct, balanced*, customizable “mingleplayer” team-shooter niche that it will occupy nicely. As a result, I think Brink will sell favourably, if not outstandingly.

• • TBD

---

A Deficiency of Promotional Marketing Material in Low cost, Moderate reward Media Outlets:
Personally, I consider it irksome that I’ve seen a greater abundance of better quality gameplay footage from titles due for release this fall than I have for Brink, up to this point… especially when the properties are being handled by the same publisher e.g. Rage. Marketing budgets notwithstanding, the resources required for putting together (Youtube) videos are not onerous. It’s just the deployment of resources that you already have at your disposal (spare capacity) in concert with low-moderate production values (spare capacity).

In addition, what media outlets is Bethesda using to target its audience? I’ve seen a paltry few ads run on Youtube and on third-party destination video game websites. I guess that Bethesda has conducted some well-run community events like the one at PAX east and that their press events seem to have been well-received as well… Perhaps I’m just responding to a shortage of media and that I’m likely discounting the value of well-run community events.

(FYI - I’d classify community events such as PAX as high cost, high reward)

---

A long-overdue and probably melodramatic rant on the “S.M.A.R.T.” Acronym:
I think “SMART” is a rather trite acronym and a lackluster marketing effort. A “SMART movement system” doesn’t have any inherent meaning and will need to be explained to the audience anyways. “What’s SMART? Well, SMART stands for ‘Smooth Movement Across Random Terrain’. Instead of being a super-soldier refrigerator on rails, you are able to vault and mantle over in game objects using a context-sensitive movement system in a parkour-like manner.” The key buzzwords in that explanation weren’t embedded in the acronym, itself. Rather, they were: parkour, vault, mantle, and context-sensitive (which is kind of bogus, itself).

Another aspect of diminishing returns for “SMART” is the sheer number of companies that have “SMART”-branded systems for this feature and that feature… For future reference to all would-be marketing geniuses: get a new acronym, folks. You can do better.

[Linsolv]

Man, I remember your first few posts, back when I was still lurking here. Been looking forward to this since then.

[QUOTE=Coolaguy;284736]People seem to be responding to a lack of effective marketing promotion in regards to Brink. Objection handling is a fundamental part of making a sale.

Is your potential customer concerned about the lack of a feature that you have, in fact, implemented in your game? Oh, well then, here’s a video showcasing the feature and the benefits of said feature in game. Once you handle all of those objections, the sale is made. Simple as that.

As a marketer, you could let “the community” or third-party reviewers make the sale for you, but then you don’t control the dialogue anymore (not to mention that your interests aren’t well-aligned). If you want to control the conversation, especially concerning key features of your product, then the onus is on you… Marketers, do your job.

I don’t pretend to know the best way to market new video game intellectual property. Marketing a new IP probably requires a certain amount of finesse, and may, actually ramp up after the product has been released and is met with favourable reviews. I recall that I actually heard about the original Left 4 Dead in a year-end roundup from IGN highlighting it as one of the best games of the year… and it was still out of stock in stores at that point (I guess they seriously underestimated the demand in that instance).

I doubt that Brink has the same pop cultural appeal as Left 4 Dead (i.e. combating the zombie apocalypse as one of four cooperative survivors vs. experiencing the “brink of disaster” on an “immense, artificial floating city” of a formerly “contemporary green vision”), but I think that Brink has a distinct, balanced*, customizable “mingleplayer” team-shooter niche that it will occupy nicely. As a result, I think Brink will sell favourably, if not outstandingly.

• • TBD[/quote]

I think I have to agree that Brink simply hasn’t been getting the kind of word of mouth that I expect from Bethesda’s more established IPs. I’m not really sure if that’s a typical thing for Bethsoft, considering that I also JUST found out how cool RAGE is (I mean I’d heard about it, but it was so peripheral that when I finally saw a video featuring it I was sold almost instantly.

I’m not convinced they know how to handle new IPs. RAGE and Brink both are slipping in under the radar, WET was terrible (not W:ET) so who cares how advertised it was, and their Cthulhu stuff was alright, but almost completely unknown in hindsight. The only things they’ve got going for them really are Fallout, an IP that they bought after 2 iterations from a failing Interplay and The Elder Scrolls, which now gets by on name recognition more than anything.

A Deficiency of Promotional Marketing Material in Low cost, Moderate reward Media Outlets:
Personally, I consider it irksome that I’ve seen a greater abundance of better quality gameplay footage from titles due for release this fall than I have for Brink, up to this point… especially when the properties are being handled by the same publisher e.g. Rage. Marketing budgets notwithstanding, the resources required for putting together (Youtube) videos are not onerous. It’s just the deployment of resources that you already have at your disposal (spare capacity) in concert with low-moderate production values (spare capacity).

In addition, what media outlets is Bethesda using to target its audience? I’ve seen a paltry few ads run on Youtube and on third-party destination video game websites. I guess that Bethesda has conducted some well-run community events like the one at PAX east and that their press events seem to have been well-received as well… Perhaps I’m just responding to a shortage of media and that I’m likely discounting the value of well-run community events.

(FYI - I’d classify community events such as PAX as high cost, high reward)

I haven’t actually seen much from RAGE. The Dead City trailer was the first thing I really saw, and even when I went looking after seeing that, all I could really find were the same PAX/E3 interviews I can find for Brink. Again, Bethsoft dropped the ball here.

A long-overdue and probably melodramatic rant on the “S.M.A.R.T.” Acronym:
I think “SMART” is a rather trite acronym and a lackluster marketing effort. A “SMART movement system” doesn’t have any inherent meaning and will need to be explained to the audience anyways. “What’s SMART? Well, SMART stands for ‘Smooth Movement Across Random Terrain’. Instead of being an super-soldier refrigerator on rails, you are able to vault and mantle over in game objects using a context-sensitive movement system in a parkour-like manner.” The key buzzwords in that explanation weren’t embedded in the acronym, itself. Rather, they were: parkour, vault, mantle, and context-sensitive (which is kind of bogus, itself).

Another aspect of diminishing returns for “SMART” is the sheer number of companies that have “SMART”-branded systems for this feature and that feature… For future reference to all would-be marketing geniuses: get a new acronym, folks. You can do better.

I have to disagree here. SMART is not actually a selling point, it’s a STICKING point. Let’s say… oh, real world example. I play BFBC2 with my girlfriend’s dad a lot. Or, I did before KZ3 came out, but that’s beside the point. One day, we’re sitting there chatting, and I said “Oh yeah, man, I’m really excited for Brink” and he says (this was before Bulletstorm and Homefront hit) “I haven’t been hearing a lot of people talking about that, mostly Bulletstorm and Homefront.” Well, that sounds like my cue. Sadly, then he had company come through the door and the conversation was over.

But the point being, if the conversation had continued, I might have said “Yeah, a lot of people are excited for this SMART system they’ve got.” He might then give me a quizzical look, because I said darn near nothing, and I’d continue “Yeah, it’s sorta like free running, where you can run up walls and slide around and stuff. Nothing too crazy, we’re not talking about Mirror’s Edge or anything, but you know.”

Now, you’ll notice the conversational tone I can maintain when I use a word like “SMART.” Now, if I had to say “that flippy-dippy slidey-shooty system,” that probably would’ve gotten me more quizzical looks in the realm of “did you get hit on the head or something.” The acronym works, at least in my mind, more as a point of reference than as an educational element.

[tokamak]

SMART gets the message across. MW1 had also really convenient mantling, you could get into one-story windows that way. It’s just that it was probably all triggered and because of that the maps remained ‘flat’ and didn’t offer many ways to use it.

[X-Frame]

Oh, so you want to have somebody else show you what SMART is capable of, rather than figuring it out and experimenting for yourself after the game releases, gotcha.

Exactly!

Because, you know, the game isn’t out yet so like, I can’t, you know, experiment myself. This why I made this thread, to suggest a more “hardcore” video showing off the games potential to consumers. Advertising, remember?

Some of you are reading WAY too much into this. I am not looking for hand-holding or think what I suggest would limit my possibilities when playing. Just because a dev with years of experience can pull off some combos I will instantly be able to once seeing the video? Come on now …

[Coolaguy]

Man, I remember your first few posts, back when I was still lurking here. Been looking forward to this since then.

Sometimes, my enthusiasm and verbosity gets the better of my discretion.

[QUOTE=Linsolv;284750]I have to disagree here. SMART is not actually a selling point, it’s a STICKING point. Let’s say… oh, real world example. I play BFBC2 with my girlfriend’s dad a lot. Or, I did before KZ3 came out, but that’s beside the point. One day, we’re sitting there chatting, and I said “Oh yeah, man, I’m really excited for Brink” and he says (this was before Bulletstorm and Homefront hit) “I haven’t been hearing a lot of people talking about that, mostly Bulletstorm and Homefront.” Well, that sounds like my cue. Sadly, then he had company come through the door and the conversation was over.

But the point being, if the conversation had continued, I might have said “Yeah, a lot of people are excited for this SMART system they’ve got.” He might then give me a quizzical look, because I said darn near nothing, and I’d continue “Yeah, it’s sorta like free running, where you can run up walls and slide around and stuff. Nothing too crazy, we’re not talking about Mirror’s Edge or anything, but you know.”

Now, you’ll notice the conversational tone I can maintain when I use a word like “SMART.” Now, if I had to say “that flippy-dippy slidey-shooty system,” that probably would’ve gotten me more quizzical looks in the realm of “did you get hit on the head or something.” The acronym works, at least in my mind, more as a point of reference than as an educational element.[/QUOTE]

I can appreciate your points here. For starters, we both recognize the innovation in the free-running mechanic. Secondly, I think you are arguing something along the lines of “a sense of intrigue is better than a highly-technical, overly-pedantic explanation” (or, as the more eloquent would put it: “less is more”).

My objections to “SMART” as a marketing term center on the idea that

1. too many companies use this bogus brand/acronym to describe systems or designs that are anything but smart or intelligent and come off as pretentious, at best, or collossal failures, at worst (example).

2. the term “SMART” doesn’t have any inherent meaning other than that it is in some way being branded as clever, innovative, or intuitive. “SMART” doesn’t imply anything about movement or free-running in and of itself.

3. to emphasize the lack of meaning that the SMART acronym has, the qualifying descriptor “SMART movement system” is both necessary for comprehension and redundant. One is effectively saying “Smooth Movement Across Random Terrain Movement System”. 2x Movement…

SMART, as an acronym, is poor (IMO). However, the innovation mechanic it represents is novel and ingenious.

With regards to point number 2, do you, as a marketer, want to communicate your value proposition vaguely and obscurely, with the potential upside of customer intrigue (and the potential downside of customer apathy) OR do you want to succinctly capture your value proposition and ignite your customer’s enthusiasm (or, at the least, open up a number of new objections that you can handle)?

Consider the following example. This example is equally obscure and ineffective in my view, despite the fact that it actually captures more of the actual actions associated with Brink’s free-running system.

Brink’s CLEVER Movmenent System

C.L.E.V.E.R.

Climbing
Leaping
Evading
Vaulting
and
Energetically
Running

or for your amusement, the next iteration of Brink’s SMART system:

C.L.E.V.E.R.E.R.

Contextually
Leaping
Evading
and
Vaulting
Effectively
in
Response
to
Environmental
Restrictions

[Herandar]

off as pretentious, at best, or collossal failures, at worst (example).

‘smart’ stands for “Swatch Mercedes Art”.

[Coolaguy]

‘smart’ stands for “Swatch Mercedes Art”.

“Oh, you mean the SMA cars?”

…

Puh-lease… Thanks for the useful information, but don’t expect to convince me that SMART wasn’t both a deliberate acronym and a feature of the brand, in that case.

Contemporary? Check. Green? Check. Vision? Why not… Sure. Check.

[Linsolv]

Sometimes, my enthusiasm and verbosity gets the better of my discretion.

Honestly I just meant that I’ve been accused of being a bit long-winded at times and it was both a relief and an implicit challenge to see someone who was at least as long-winded and reasoning as I was.

I can appreciate your points here. For starters, we both recognize the innovation in the free-running mechanic. Secondly, I think you are arguing something along the lines of “a sense of intrigue is better than a highly-technical, overly-pedantic explanation” (or, as the more eloquent would put it: “less is more”).

Well, no. I think people remember simpler concepts better. Any time you can abstract something, as long as you don’t lose people’s comprehension in the process that thing is going to be easier to remember. Which is why I can currently tell you more about integration than I can about Rhiemann sums. Because one is very abstract, and one pretty concrete (well… as concrete as you CAN get in calculus).

My objections to “SMART” as a marketing term center on the idea that

1. too many companies use this bogus brand/acronym to describe systems or designs that are anything but smart or intelligent and come off as pretentious, at best, or collossal failures, at worst (example).

Yeah, that’s true. However, to say that I’d prefer that they changed it would just be another drop in the bucket of games I liked that had plenty of things I’d rather have different. Fallout being the biggest example because so many of their minor design problems were fundamental to my vision of how I felt it SHOULD’VE worked.

2. the term “SMART” doesn’t have any inherent meaning other than that it is in some way being branded as clever, innovative, or intuitive. “SMART” doesn’t imply anything about movement or free-running in and of itself.

True. See my previous point. I’d prefer something related, but simple, like EASY Running System, or something. I’m not really a marketing guy, I don’t have a talent for fancy-pants acronyms.

3. to emphasize the lack of meaning that the SMART acronym has, the qualifying descriptor “SMART movement system” is both necessary for comprehension and redundant. One is effectively saying “Smooth Movement Across Random Terrain Movement System”. 2x Movement…

SMART, as an acronym, is poor (IMO). However, the innovation mechanic it represents is novel and ingenious.

ATM Machine. Acronyms are notorious for creating redundancy.

With regards to point number 2, do you, as a marketer, want to communicate your value proposition vaguely and obscurely, with the potential upside of customer intrigue (and the potential downside of customer apathy) OR do you want to succinctly capture your value proposition and ignite your customer’s enthusiasm (or, at the least, open up a number of new objections that you can handle)?

Well, if we’re talking about what I want to do… I’d probably use a lot of guerrilla marketing. :rolleyes: Figure I’d probably run an ARG, and get a ton of gameplay out there. I dunno if it’d work but it seems like it probably would. But at the point of dealing with what we’ve got now, I’d have to say that a video that really just let loose and showed what could really be done with SMART would be counter to my own best interests. I want to whet their palette, not give them a free steak right before their meal.

Consider the following example. This example is equally obscure and ineffective in my view, despite the fact that it actually captures more of the actual actions associated with Brink’s free-running system.

Brink’s CLEVER Movmenent System

C.L.E.V.E.R.

Climbing
Leaping
Evading
Vaulting
and
Energetically
Running

or for your amusement, the NEXT iteration of Brink’s SMART system:

C.L.E.V.E.R.E.R.

Contextually
Leaping
Evading
and
Vaulting
Effectively
in
Response
to
Environmental
Restrictions

Cute.

[Mustang]

Puh-lease… Thanks for the useful information, but don’t expect to convince me that SMART wasn’t both a deliberate acronym and a feature of the brand, in that case.

It was, who said otherwise?

[DarkangelUK]

[QUOTE=Coolaguy;284812]
Puh-lease… Thanks for the useful information, but don’t expect to convince me that SMART wasn’t both a deliberate acronym and a feature of the brand, in that case.[/QUOTE]

SD originally called it Freedom of Movement, it was the Bethesda PR and marketing bodies that created the SMART buzzword/acronym.

[Kendle]

Do you see jump movie potential for this game Darkangel ? Doesn’t look to me like you can actually jump very far, just over stuff with bit of (very limited) walljumping (ala Warsow / UrT) and climbing thrown in. Forward movement speed doesn’t seem that high either.

PS: Firefox reports shaolin productions as a site hosting malicious content, any idea why that might be ?

[Nail]

I think with a light and a made for map, you could replicate a lot of basic parkour and put some interesting speed runs together, the challenge “parkour this” seems to be the easiest vehicle though

[Coolaguy]

Well, no. I think people remember simpler concepts better. Any time you can abstract something, as long as you don’t lose people’s comprehension in the process that thing is going to be easier to remember. Which is why I can currently tell you more about integration than I can about Rhiemann sums. Because one is very abstract, and one pretty concrete (well… as concrete as you CAN get in calculus).

I agree that using simple, clear-cut abstractions (oxymoronic…) with effective brands (or names) work wonders for retention and comprehension.

In some ways, it just bothers me when I listen to the interviews with Splash Damage guys, and I know they are doing their best to sell the game… but then they stumble across trying to explain what their own stupid acronym means before they get to the part where they describe what the mechanic actually does for gameplay. (I believe that I listed, verbatim, the PR spiel that they always use to explain SMART in another post [minus the fat guy jumping over a wall part lol].) SMART was obviously an early design/marketing/branding choice. For Splash Damage’s sake, I just wish it were more specific and communicative.

It wouldn’t make sense to change the acronym or re-brand the system at this point… hence why I stated originally that my ‘rant’ was probably ‘melodramatic’ and hence, pointless.

[QUOTE=Linsolv;284815]ATM Machine. Acronyms are notorious for creating redundancy.[/quote]You are absolutely correct, and that is why I think a special place in hell has been reserved for those who create obfuscating acronyms. j/k. I no believe in acronym hell - I use expression.

It’s funny (ironic), because I hold such contempt for buzzwords and acronyms in scientific and business context, but I thoroughly enjoy the way that internet/computer culture twists and warps the use of language… I suppose the difference is that one form maintains clarity (for the exclusive club) whereas the other increases obscurity and is usually used as a replacement for proper nouns or to elevate mundane actions (for the respective exclusive club).

With regards to point number 2, do you, as a marketer, want to communicate your value proposition vaguely and obscurely, with the potential upside of customer intrigue (and the potential downside of customer apathy) OR do you want to succinctly capture your value proposition and ignite your customer’s enthusiasm (or, at the least, open up a number of new objections that you can handle)?

In many ways, this is an open question, and you interpreted it correctly by citing what efforts you would take as the leadership of Brink’s marketing effort. Likewise, I am implying my preferred style of communicating marketing messages: one of brevity and complete clarity (irony, anyone?). Either approach can be effective when executed properly. (And this discussion has been concerned principally with the suspected* effectiveness, or lack thereof for such, efforts.)

I think for the sake of having my game developers give interviews, I’d prefer that their buzzwords and acronyms were air-tight and communicative. Long-winded story-telling is great and all, but it just opens up more opportunity for miscommunication and misunderstanding (i.e. ‘lost-in-translation’ games of telephone… purple monkey dishwasher). Add to the fact that the Splash Damage people seem like genuinely good guys, and I get squeamish watching them deliver well-planned and executed but poorly conceived rehearsals of a wonderfully innovative movement system. [/rant]

• • The true measure of marketing effectiveness is sales, after all. (And brand awareness, to a lesser extent.)

---

[QUOTE=Coolaguy;284812]Puh-lease… Thanks for the useful information, but don’t expect to convince me that SMART wasn’t both a deliberate acronym and a feature of the brand, in that case. [/QUOTE]It was, who said otherwise?

Responding to your rhetorical query in the context of SMART cars:
Subtext and interpretation, my friend. Subtext and interpretation. (or misinterpretation)

A woefully long-winded explanation for something that I can only explain as being a product of intuition:
By presenting information that seemingly derails my point, (i.e. the SMArt car brand is actually a modification of Swatch Mercedes Art rather than some other form of branding), the implication is that SMArt is a standalone brand (ala GSK for GlaxoSmithKline), rather than being a deliberate choice based on the intended value proposition of the brand. In doing so, his point is subversive to my assertion that too many companies brand their products deliberately as “smart” in order to associate their product with a sense of cleverness, intelligence, innovation, and/or intuitiveness. Because I found his presentation interesting but unpersuasive, I responded by rebuking the idea that SMART wasn’t a deliberate branding effort. (lol)

---

SD originally called it Freedom of Movement, it was the Bethesda PR and marketing bodies that created the SMART buzzword/acronym.

Very interesting. Good to know.

[Kendle]

I guess I’m just comparing it to UrT, which has done walljumping / climbing for 6 years, with full Quake style strafe-jumping as well, leading to insane speed / height / distance capabilities. So far I’m rather underwhelmed by Brink’s movement system.

[Herandar]

[QUOTE=Coolaguy;284812]“Oh, you mean the SMA cars?”
Puh-lease…[/QUOTE]

Sorry, I thought this was so exceedingly obvious that it didn’t require TOTAL capitalization:

“Swatch Mercedes ART”. smart is much better than ‘Swatchmobile’ which is what one of the creators wanted, apparently.

By presenting information that seemingly derails my point, (i.e. the SMArt car brand is actually a modification of Swatch Mercedes Art rather than some other form of branding), the implication is that SMArt is a standalone brand (ala GSK for GlaxoSmithKline), rather than being a deliberate choice based on the intended value proposition of the brand. In doing so, his point is subversive to my assertion that too many companies brand their products deliberately as “smart” in order to associate their product with a sense of cleverness, intelligence, innovation, and/or intuitiveness. Because I found his presentation interesting but unpersuasive, I responded by rebuking the idea that SMART wasn’t a deliberate branding effort.

It was a simple statement. I wasn’t arguing (actively or passively) in the slightest. I was going to ask how you consider the car a colossal failure, but I lost interest while looking up information on the cars.

[Coolaguy]

[QUOTE=Herandar;284886]Sorry, I thought this was so exceedingly obvious that it didn’t require TOTAL capitalization:

“Swatch Mercedes ART”. smart is much better than ‘Swatchmobile’ which is what one of the creators wanted, apparently.

It was a simple statement. I wasn’t arguing (actively or passively) in the slightest. I was going to ask how you consider the car a colossal failure, but I lost interest while looking up information on the cars.[/QUOTE]

I was kidding with you. I know it’s SMART.

I was pointing out that most acronyms, by definition, only consist of the first letter of each respective word. Thus, in this instance, the ‘true’ acronym would be SMA (for Swatch Mercedes Art), where SMART (or SMArt) exists as a clever branding effort and an unconventional acronym.

I was also emphasizing the lack of punch that SMA has… hence why SMART is a much better branding choice.

It was a simple statement. I wasn’t arguing (actively or passively) in the slightest. I was going to ask how you consider the car a colossal failure, but I lost interest while looking up information on the cars.

Then I just misinterpreted. (Which means, Mustang, that the Mystery of the Foot in Mouth has been solved.)

The car is hardly a colossal failure. However, images such as the one I posted represent a tragic type of irony that I (and some other people) find too captivating to pass up. It’s like the way that the Titanic was “designed to be unsinkable (as far as is possible)”…

[Herandar]

Understood. The branding was a compromise between the car’s creators and Mercedes, and I’m sure that the public image was definitely considered.

[DarkangelUK]

Do you see jump movie potential for this game Darkangel ? Doesn’t look to me like you can actually jump very far, just over stuff with bit of (very limited) walljumping (ala Warsow / UrT) and climbing thrown in. Forward movement speed doesn’t seem that high either.

Not sure tbh, the problem with a system that opens up movement to everyone, is that it opens up movement to everyone. The only thing that brought a glint to my eye was an interview with Bezzy (or about Bezzy), apparently he managed to mantle a jump that cut 9 seconds off a route, and no one has been able to replicate it since… not even him. I’m not expecting any ‘wow’ factor jumps, just stuff that will be interesting to those that care about movement. Pretty sure I’ll be exploring the possibilities regardless.

PS: Firefox reports shaolin productions as a site hosting malicious content, any idea why that might be ?

Not sure, been happening for a few days now. None of the content has changed and the host has been notified. Could be that it’s a very out of date version of joomla in use… been lazy and never updated it. Btw in case you didn’t know, Termi from SP moved on to bigger and better things… was him that edited and produced the Dead Island trailer

[Mustang]

Lol, what is all this about foot and mouth cars?
I was meaning exactly the same thing as Darkangel
That, in the context of Brink, the phrase coined SMART is a deliberate marketing tool