Why do people keep saying Brink sucks?

(Zamininc) #1

For example, IGN.

Presentation:

The style and world of Brink look cool, from the unique characters to the appearance choices and menus. Match searching works great.

7.5 Graphics:

The character models look great alongside the style, but there are still bland textures and pop-ins in the background.

6.5 Sound:

The music and sound effects do a decent job of presenting the game, but bigger actions like explosions just don’t deliver.

6.0 Gameplay:

Moving through the world using the SMART system works great, but the repetitive objectives simply grow tiresome.

5.5 Lasting Appeal:
Maxing out a character in a matter of days is just too quick. While you can adjust your skills, the repetition of objectives and the fight don’t make this a game you can really hang on to.

Roughly ALL those things can be said about team fortress two. Lets see how they rated that.

8.5 Presentation:

User interface shows you all you need to know, solid feature set all around, and great little touches of polish. Bots would have been appreciated.

9.5 Graphics:

The art style is such a forceful presence in this game, adding to the enjoyment you get out of it and the allure to keep playing. A strikingly coherent artistic vision.

9.0 Sound:

Many of Valve’s staple sound effects are mixed in with excellent weapon and voice effects to yield excellent results.

9.0 Gameplay:

It’s difficult to describe, but this game just feels right. From the way the weapons handle to the way your character scampers around the environments. An absolute blast to play.

8.5 Lasting Appeal:

Though Hydro isn’t the best map out there, the other five give this game plenty of mileage, as well as the varying gameplay styles offered by each class.

How is that possible? Brink beats team fortress two in ALL of those areas.

(GingThu) #2

A. I have yet to get in a game with ALL my friends

B. thanks to the lag only about 50% of the matches i get in are playable.

C. Bots make playing alone a nightmare for most.

(I have the 360 copy)

(Waldo) #3

Comparing it with TF2 is kind of unfair as that game was released quite a long time ago.
Standards change.

Anyways, I didn’t like IGN’s review. I’m fine with scores, but it was the actual content of the review that bothered me.
Especially the repetitive bit. In most (all?) objective-based games I’ve played, the objectives are fixed. Control-points are always the same location, bomb-sites never move, mcoms are always housed in the same area, etc.
Many games have been like this where a map has been tailored for one specific game-mode. Singling out Brink was kind of odd.

Anyways, at the end of the day, reviews are just someone’s opinion. It might be inconsistent, but IGN has a lot of reviewers, and different reviewers have different standards. Them’s the breaks.

(Gearbox) #4

Because this game is a continuous juxtaposition of amazing design implementation and disappointing design mistakes. It feels unfinished, but has such a high potential, making it even more frustrating.

Here are 2 examples to demonstrate my point:

There is a regular bug in the airplane mission that kills all sound. In a shipped product. Almost a week after release and 2 patches.

In the final cutscene, after you’ve “seen it all” and the camera pulls back to show a beautiful boat moving along a beautiful ocean towards the Ark…there is no wake. Everything looks great, the elements are all well done; but they don’t mesh properly, the lack of connection is unsettling and this little problem seems like it should have been caught before release. The entire game is full of these moments.

If you want to compare to TF2 you’re gonna find me siding with IGN. Here’s why: TF2 is polished, and was polished right out the gate. I still play TF2, and it’s due to the lasting appeal and obvious care that Valve puts into keeping the game as fun as when it first came out.

Valve made three versions of TF2 before they released the Pixarific version that exists now. They scrapped them all rather than release them. That’s why they have diehard fanboys (like me, I’ll admit. I own their entire library) while Splash Damage has players roaring about betrayal on their own forums.

Brink is a Beta level product that went gold. It has serious flaws that seem very obvious once the general populace got their hands on it (ex. Sound Bugs, ATI card issues, Lack of Team Voip). These issues tarnish the game and cheapen the experience. While I know that money isn’t infinite, and that the problems are surmountable, I feel like I’m in a paid beta every time I boot up this game.

That feeling is reflected in the reviews Brink received.

edited to patch the word patches. preview your posts kiddies!

(Bakercompany) #5

I don’t trust IGN reviews. Brink is a really fun game with some really great elements to it. There is lag but they are already working to fix that. A lot of new games suffer from lag and are repaired just give them time.

Brink still has a very nice new smooth fluid movement system in SMART and really my all time favorite weapon set (sounds, design, effect).

And the customization is a beautiful thing to behold both weapon and character.

(Trypsinogen) #6

Maybe because it does suck?

I dunno. Just a thought. Just throwin it out there.

(goodpain) #7

I don’t understand it myself. I’m really loving this game. Haven’t had 1 single problem yet. Wait actually thats wrong. My only problem so far has been the words being scambled when you complete/win a mission. Mi5s/on C0m9le7e. other then that its going strong.

I’m also on the committee of veteran/broad spectrum/team based/fps player.

One last thing. The AI yes it needs work. But as a player I shouldn’t expect the AI medic to travel deep into enemy territory to heal lil ole me. Well truth be told he does try. But I shouldn’t expect him to survive :tongue:

(Charles Atlas) #8

[QUOTE=Trypsinogen;309225]Maybe because it does suck?

I dunno. Just a thought. Just throwin it out there.[/QUOTE]

Wow, good point, thanks.

Well, I think the problems are technical. The gameplay is really fun, but there are some major issues that need fixed before this game is really hitting is max potential for awesomeness

(VenousEarth) #9

The games itself is ok. The campaigns for both of the factions are too short and can be beaten in a matter of hours. I like the customization and the S.M.A.R.T. system too. But once you’ve beaten the both campaigns and the challenges (which wont take a really long amount of time). Whats left is the multiplayer, which is just playing the Campaign missions over again. no new maps and playing the same missions over and over would get boring after awhile. I’ve beaten Resistance and am 2 missions in to the Security and I’ve only played this game 3 times since i got it for only bout 2 to 3 hours a time so this game has maybe all together maybe 8-10 hours of gameplay (both campaigns and challenges included) and the multiplayer once again is just campaign missions which if you have beat them would get boring doing the same thing over and over so…this game is fun and i like it, but for 60 bucks i was expecting more content and more replayibility than this…i like working as a team and all, but i have had this game maybe a week and i have almost beaten it and the level cap is 20 and im halfway there on that and multiplayer is campaign just with other people…i was just expecting a bit more outa this game…

(goodpain) #10

lets bring up Call Of Duty. I mean really…does anyone play it for the singleplayer experience? the 4 hour singleplayer experience? or do you play it for the multiplayer? Lets try to be truthful here and not fanboism.

BRINK is a multiplayer experience. Is it that you’re upset because you expected more singleplayer? really? I mean really…

(Sheza) #11

I have to say, once I can actually play smoothly with decent graphics, I know I will really enjoy this game. I had a great time yesterday chugging along Co-Op with some randoms. As people learn how to interact with teammates, they become less and less “random”.

(Shotgun Surgeon) #12

[QUOTE=goodpain;309312]lets bring up Call Of Duty. I mean really…does anyone play it for the singleplayer experience? the 4 hour singleplayer experience? or do you play it for the multiplayer? Lets try to be truthful here and not fanboism.

BRINK is a multiplayer experience. Is it that you’re upset because you expected more singleplayer? really? I mean really…[/QUOTE]

Yes, please, LET’S bring up Call of Duty. Like… how does that game get such high scores when it’s the most boring game I have EVER played? The weapon balance is so off it’s not even funny. The killstreaks are not fun… they haven’t been since COD4. And calling Brink repetitive? Call of Duty is one of the most repetitive games I have ever had the displeasure of playing. Repetitive in the way that every MATCH is essentially the same (kill, get killed, no one cares about objectives), and also repetitive that THE PAST FEW CALL OF DUTIES WERE THE SAME OL’ BULL****.

If “professional” reviewers want to give games like MW2 and Black Ops near-perfect scores, while they give games like BC2 an 8.9 and Brink a 1/10, then I can’t take them seriously. If people say the GAMEPLAY (not technical issues) in this game sucks and they prefer a game like Call of Duty, then I have no respect for them.

People bitch and moan on the internet. Who cares? Let them. In the end they’re just that… bitches.

(P00xilPiwer) #13

Because they’re videogame conservatives.

(hawksking) #14

[QUOTE=Shotgun Surgeon;309343]Yes, please, LET’S bring up Call of Duty. Like… how does that game get such high scores when it’s the most boring game I have EVER played? The weapon balance is so off it’s not even funny. The killstreaks are not fun… they haven’t been since COD4. And calling Brink repetitive? Call of Duty is one of the most repetitive games I have ever had the displeasure of playing. Repetitive in the way that every MATCH is essentially the same (kill, get killed, no one cares about objectives), and also repetitive that THE PAST FEW CALL OF DUTIES WERE THE SAME OL’ BULL****.

If “professional” reviewers want to give games like MW2 and Black Ops near-perfect scores, while they give games like BC2 an 8.9 and Brink a 1/10, then I can’t take them seriously. If people say the GAMEPLAY (not technical issues) in this game sucks and they prefer a game like Call of Duty, then I have no respect for them.

People bitch and moan on the internet. Who cares? Let them. In the end they’re just that… bitches.[/QUOTE]

Its not that Brink is a bad game. Its a great game in my opinion. They did not polish the game well and did not release a beta to listen to the community’s feed back, if they did then we wouldnt be complaining.

Example: Mw2- No beta… overpowered killstreaks, perks, noobtubers etc.
World At War- Beta… maybe not that much fun(my opinion) but had a healthy balance(expect MP40) and was a great game overall.

Looking at brink… lets see.
People hate bots(we want real players in multiplayer, its called “multiplayer” for a reason)
Lag, if you cant get lag issues solved then why add the multiplayer? Instead put that time in making single player better like the upcoming L.A. Noire did.

(Zakk Sayonara) #15

Some ppl just cant accept other opinions. Pretty selfish. IMO (u see “IMO”) the game looks toyish comparing to trailer game play. Not the main trailer, but when they showed its gameplay. All the colors, outlook, animation is not which they used to tempt ppl to order the game. It was more realistic. There wasnt that neon toy color outlook in those demonstrations. Even the animation is hilarious… like when u see u hit ur enemy its side to side jerking is like from early '90s games. I mean If u expect something cool looking stuff but get something what is eventually different, worse, doesnt it make u disappointed more or less? So, let ppl have their opinions and if they say it just accept it. Maps, characters and weapons are very cool looking and nice graphics tho. Character editing is cool thing. Missions are nice. Playing is pretty good. But few things, mentioned earlier, is why Im a bit disappointed.

(Swimmy) #16

GameInformer gave it a 6.75

(GR0MIT) #17

you can’t spell IGNorant without IGN.

(Oschino1907) #18

IGNorant and SOONy are my fav company names now.

Oh and of course Vandalay Industries, the leaders in the latex industry.

OCP gets honerable mention for actually becomming a company and making the Brawndo drink a real life entity.

(GR0MIT) #19

I lol’d but it should be “Sueny”

(Shinta) #20
  1. graphical issues
  2. lack of a proper lobby system
  3. sound issues
  4. lack of a sprint key that is not a smart key

Those are all things that are down right ridiculous to exist on launch; however, I love the game play so i can forgive it and wait for some sort of fix in the future.

One game play peeve I have though is the maps seems to promote a parkour time and a shooting time rather then a meld of the two as I had expected. Smart is used to lessen the annoyance of traversing the map rather then some sort of skill gap creating ability that I thought it would be. For instance at L intersections it is VERY fun to be able to wall run off one wall and hop to the next continuing the animation in order to create a whole different angle of entry; however, it seems on many corners of many maps the developers choose to place random crud right on the edge so I am forced to simply strafe like I do in every shooter I have ever played. I am not saying I want to be neo flying around and shooting the whole time, but I think the ability to attack at surprising angels (the entire appeal of the smart system as it is a replacement for canned animation leaps?) is too inhibited.