The review thread
History repeating!
I read the forum and several reviews the last 2 hours and it reminds me very much of the ETQW release.
-
SD didn’t deliver what they had promised. An “immersive FPS blending SP, MP and Coop into one seamless experience” was promised although it is actually a MP game only.
I’m sure I’ll like and play the game, I’m just saying SD produced expectations that can not be satisfied even with a great MP game. On top of that they obviously rushed the release, most likely because of a lack of cash after years of developing If Paul W.'s interview is any indication on the financial situation at SD. -
The so called press is too stupid or too lazy or both for proper testing. Just like they have been with ETQW - after 2h game time they think it they knew it all and may wrap it up on two pages.
Splash Damages greatest achievement is also their curse. They introduced objective based teamplay into gaming with tremendous feedback. So they always aim for that very same gameplay. That puts the majority of players in a position they can not master - learning curve to steep, game too complex - which also leads to highly imbalanced matches if teams who can play fight against teams who can not.
And it puts the press in a position where they should test a game for several days and not hours before reviewing, which is impossible due to either the dumbness of the journalists or how the press business works.
If I understood Paul W. correct they aimed for a BlockBuster, creating a brand with Brink.
And it is all or nothing situation at SD. If Brink fails, SD falls. That makes me sad, because I fear the game will only address very few players in the long run compared to what should have been achieved playerbase-wise. No BlockBuster here, no brand created.
I really hope I’m wrong and SD may turn the tides with the first patches, but some damage may never be undone and that is party SDs own fault.
Novalis
Xbox: http://www.metacritic.com/game/xbox-360/brink/critic-reviews
PS3: http://www.metacritic.com/game/playstation-3/brink
PC: http://www.metacritic.com/game/pc/brink
I think Brink should of shipped with more maps being mainly a MP game, but as long as SD support it i don’t mind.
qute from The Gaurdian news paper
Brink deserves to be ranked among the finest co-op games available. As a multiplayer experience, it is exquisite. [link](Brink deserves to be ranked among the finest co-op games available. As a multiplayer experience, it is exquisite.)
Updated the first post, let me know if you want me to put more reviews there.
If I’m not allowed to plug, let me know.
But Brink vault has generally the biggest collection of reviews for the game, sorted alphabetically so just look for your favourite site or whatever. Layout feedback would be greatly received too.
http://brinkvault.com/2011/05/brink-review-mega-post/
Feel free to take any reviews from there, it’ll be constantly updated.
Going to prop this up - Gamespot have given 6/10
http://uk.gamespot.com/xbox360/action/brink/review.html?tag=summary%3Bread-review
Giant Bomb, gave Brink 2/5: http://www.giantbomb.com/brink/61-26694/reviews/
I agree with that review, it is silly how little content there is in this game, years in development and you basically get 8 maps. I don’t care how good those maps are, I’m not buying a full-priced console game with just 8 maps and nothing else.
Honestly I don’t trust any review (be it 2/5 or 9/10) that has been released up to now.
in my opinion you have to play a game like BRINK for at least a week (with online matches possible) if you want to do a proper Review.
[QUOTE=YoungGuns;297826]Honestly I don’t trust any review (be it 2/5 or 9/10) that has been released up to now.
in my opinion you have to play a game like BRINK for at least a week (with online matches possible) if you want to do a proper Review.[/QUOTE]
I completely agree.
[QUOTE=Hansel;297772]Giant Bomb, gave Brink 2/5: http://www.giantbomb.com/brink/61-26694/reviews/
I agree with that review, it is silly how little content there is in this game, years in development and you basically get 8 maps. I don’t care how good those maps are, I’m not buying a full-priced console game with just 8 maps and nothing else.[/QUOTE]
What was TF2? Something like 9 years in development. It shipped with 6 maps.:rolleyes:
I normally use IGN for my reviews, they pretty much trashed brink - but the whole review just felt harsh.
Having said that, I just rented SOCOM 4, IGN rated it 7… and OMG its terrible. So how can brink be worse, I just dont think it can.
I will still pick this up on friday (if PSN is back up!)
I’m still watching brandon play on justin TV. And i’m noticing none of the problems stated in that gamespot review. (he’s on 360 atm). Brink in 2 days 
can’t wait:)
[QUOTE=YoungGuns;297826]Honestly I don’t trust any review (be it 2/5 or 9/10) that has been released up to now.
in my opinion you have to play a game like BRINK for at least a week (with online matches possible) if you want to do a proper Review.[/QUOTE]
Well in that case there is no game out there that got a proper review. While multiplayer gameplay usually gets better as players become better, there are still lot of things that you can see that are missing from the game without playing the game for one week, namely lack of content which seems to be the biggest problem with Brink, it is not worth the price. Had it been an cheap add on to an existing game, or standalone multiplayer game sold in Steam/Xbox Live Arcade, 8 eight maps worth of multiplayer content would have been more than enough.
But the problem especially with the consoles is that people are going to be disappointed if they pay the full price for this game expecting to get a solid singleplayer experience out of it, alongside with a good multiplayer game. Right now, it seems that all that Brink has is that solid multiplayer game, which some of the Xbox 360 players can not currently play properly. Next week, they could spend that same amount of money to buy LA Noire that gives them 20+ hours of better singleplayer content.
If there is any purpose for the game reviews, it is to help customers to avoid buying games that have problems or not enough value for the money. You can’t blame that many reviewers for doing that.
The difference here is that TF2 was not meat to have singleplayer, so the game was solely judged as a multiplayer shooter. People saw it more like an addition to Half-Life 2, just like CS:Source, rather than a full standalone game. The Orange Box, which included Half-Life 2 Episodes 1 and 2, TF2, and Portal, clearly had enough content to justify the purchase on day one.
I think preview scores for Brink would be better if they had not been talking about how great the singleplayer experience would be. Or how Brink bots would easily replace some of the humans in the online Brink games, turns out that in the reality nobody wants to play with those bots. I think that the basic rule here is that when you make those promises, make sure that your game lives up to the hype. TF2 did live up to its hype, and some aspects of Brink didn’t, that is the difference.