[QUOTE=m00jitsu;307297]It’s a great game. I played it at eurogamer, and at gamescom in Germany. Then i spent the next few months raving about it to other gamers. When the bad reviews came out, i defended the game.
But i’m not going to be blindly loyal to a game that i’ve paid for which has clearly not gone through a suitable QA process.
I’m aware that lots of games have launch issues - but the lag on Brink is truly shocking. Especially with so few human players in a single game.
And yes, it does. I’d rather take 5 minutes out of my day to write a single post expressing my dissapointment with a product ive purchased (which is normal for any industry or consumer product), then spend my weekend defending a broken product.
I’m shocked that people can be so blindly loyal. You’ve spent your own money on a broken game? And you’re defending it? Doesn’t that make you a bit of a mug?
This is how consumerism works. Companies don’t get away with releasing a product and letting people purchase that product if it’s broken. It’s up to the consumers to express their criticsm.
Stand up and be brave. We’ve all spent good money on a game that’s pretty much unplayable. These community forums are here for a reason - express your dissapointment. Force them to work that little bit harder to deliver something that actually works - or at least prevent them from releasing a game in the future that has the same problems/lack of attention.
Stop being blindly loyal to a company that’s done nothing for you, other than accept your hard earned cash for their broken game.[/QUOTE]
I completely agree with these sentiments.
I rented Brink for the Xbox 360, which would have otherwise been a guaranteed purchase, based upon the negative feedback that I read about on the Splash Damage forum and several unfavourable critical reviews.
Bear in mind, I was never enticed by the idea of ‘mingleplayer’ or the so-called campaign in Brink. Likewise, the interestingly* tuned AI is not a deal-breaker for me, personally.
[I]*interestingly - defined in this context by the nerfing of the friendly AI parameters and an undue emphasis of AI allies on completing the secondary [command post] objectives with the misguided belief, on Splash Damage’s part, that an individual player would want to “feel like a hero” in a clearly team-focused objective-based game that depends on cooperation and coordination. The oversight here is ridiculous, and I can only imagine that the reason for it’s presence in the final product is either a lack of QA or a significant disparity between the gameplay skill that exists in the “gaming community” as opposed to those of the testers, beta-testers, and developers at Splash Damage (widely in favour of SP + testers).
However, the utterly abysmal lag (at times) is a deal-breaker for me. Brink’s chief offering, as far as I am concerned [i.e. not necessarily a universal sticking point], is the multiplayer offering.
Where gameplay and game design are concerned, I think Brink is exceptional. Furthermore, I believe that the balance problems evident upon release will be periodically and appropriately tuned by Splash Damage using their “configuration text file”. This is huge for me.
However, great design on one hand doesn’t compensate for a game that is hampered by abysmal execution. The implementation of console net code is atrocious, and Splash Damage’s temporary work around is a commendable effort but largely insufficient, as far as I’m concerned.
I understand that their are limitations imposed by peer to peer multiplayer hosting, and I also understand that different developers have different (read: better and worse) skills when it comes to programming and accounting for such limitations.
However, the magnitude of the problems evident in Brink point to one obvious and inexcusable reality:
Brink was launched, at least on Xbox 360, with a lack of sufficient Quality Assurance. Another way of saying this is “OMG No Xbox 360 betas!?!?”
When it comes to the lack of an Xbox 360 beta, what were they afraid of? Terrible critical reception? At the very least a critical reception that could be described as “divisive”? Well, guess what, Splash Damage released a finished version of their product and they got the very same critical reception that they were seeking to avoid.
Now that the PSN is back online, I predict that the PS3 experience won’t be as marred by netcode and lag problems as the Xbox 360 experience is. Furthermore, I expect the PS3 and PC reviews of the game to score higher than those exclusive to the Xbox 360.
On what basis do I make these predictions?
The PS3 had a closed beta. The developers at Splash Damage anticipated, based on a foreknowledge of the difficulties that other developers have had with the PS3, that extra work would be required to ensure a positive overall and online experience for PS3 users when playing Brink.
Furthermore, issues with the PC version of the game seem to focus more on system variability, as opposed to game-breaking oversights. Additionally, the PC version of the game implements dedicated servers which are, for Splash Damage, a territory (pardon the pun) that they are far more familiar with.
All of this points to a glaring lack of Quality Assurance, particularly for the Xbox 360.
Personally, I won’t buy Brink for the Xbox 360 until I’m convinced that the netcode problems have been resolved. Brink has captured my attention, but the question remains: for how long?
How many other potential customers will this botched product launch alienate? These are costly mistakes, especially for a new IP, regardless of how promising and labouriously crafted.
you can just stick with those people and not experience any lag at all. maybe that’s just me, but I’LL be able to join Big Team once the update is out.