[QUOTE=tokamak;390267]Wolfenstein 2009’s multiplayer was exectuted better and more polished, but the concepts underneath were boring. Brink has a wealth of content that just isn’t executed well.
So I’d say Brink has more potential but I think I would be able to enjoy Wolfenstein more.[/QUOTE]
^I found wolf09 to play better than Brink, yet it was utterly bland and boring (aside from the shooting, which surprisingly wasn’t very CoD).
Because the support for the game was a joke. The horrid launch prob didn’t help either. It took how many months to just get a proper spectator mode and clan support? Everyone was long gone when they started to fix and do things that should of been there from day 1.
I know why there are so many haters…I trounced them in a match and they are STILL butthurt. Jk.
The real reason for the hatred, in my opinion, is that it’s completely different than any other shooter on the market on so many levels. There are a lot of other, viable, complaints out there like the uber AI (either uber strong or uber dumb depending on which side of the fight you’re on) and somewhat disconnected campaign/story, and matchmaking, but I think the hate stems from the gameplay itself. Brink is surprisingly complex for a console game and unless you can figure it out quick, you will be eating a lot of lead.
In addition there is the fact that so many people came into this game expecting a new COD or Battlefield or Halo experience and were sorely mistaken when the run and gun of Halo and COD got them shredded. The closest you could get to this game, outside of Brink or other ET games, would be Battlefield because it requires a well honed team to win. Not dissing on COD or Halo (both are awesome in their own right) but they really should have made note of the fact that this game was something new all together. If the buyers had known that ahead of time, maybe they would have been in for less of a shock.
It was SUPPOSED to be ET3.
You are right about it being something new all together tho
Was he disagreeing on that?
I think low weapon damage (compared to market leaders) probably hurt Brink a lot in the casual market. Seems to be out of vogue on all platforms. Then low accuracy throws off the higher skill market and very few people are satisfied with the shooting in their first person shooter, regardless of whatever else it did right or wrong.
Yeah, people on most of the mainstream games news sites/blogs saw footage of Brink and complained that the guns looked too inaccurate and that everybody looked like “bullet sponges”… like it or not the casual market has their own specific definition of how they want a shooter to play. The problem is Brink straddled the line and didn’t really appeal to either the mainstream shooter market nor the SD diehards in terms of both gameplay and marketing.
the only reason people hate this game is that its toooooo intense for them. the just like regular games where you shoot kill and go prone when your taking too much daage and is near death. that y people hate games with health bars, but what they dont realize is that you could do so much to your health bar and can customize your guns how that way you want it . plus they r only used to guns that people unlock at the same rate as them self ,so thus making y people hate brink… if they were only advanced as how we are.
^^^ A lot of these console guys are speaking about why they think other console guys dont like the game.
In that respect there might be truth that the ET model, might be too complicated for them, but its a very limited perspective.
As for wolf2009, still playing ETQW at the time - the consolization of the game was a massive shock to the system.
In hindsight, it pales in comparison to what they did with Brink and it was far more enjoyable to play for the simple case it was an aim/track based shooter. Everything else about it was complete garbage .
Yes, why is anyone even suprised by the failure of Brink? Ever since SD got hired to do the addon mod for RTCW that became ET they have been hyping their products to be the successor of just that and in the end utterly failed to deliver anything worth of mention. Lets see:
Wolfenstein ET: Basically a free modded MP only version of RTCW. Atmospherically toned down and with a couple added gameplay elements but still a free RTCW. Huge success but in my opinion more from being a free RTCW derivate than anything else.
Quake Wars: Probably the best of the “successors”. People were ready to abandon ET en masse but hardly anyone who tried it stayed. SDK mighty late but at least it had a demo.
Wolfenstein: Yes, im looking at you SD. Ofcourse it says “Endrant Studios” but if look at who was (as they have mysteriously closed doors after slapping their name on this abomination) Endrant you will end up at the usual suspects. Shoddy console port. No demo. No SDK. No support. Not even a dedicated server for linux. All in all a big f you from everyone involved to the people who bought it.
Brink: Dejavu? You bet. I think noone who followed this over the years really cared and finally stopped listening when it was again being marketed as “the next enemy territory”. And the rest is history. Predictions sadly turned out to be true and another stinker was released.
So in conclusion there is really no need to “hate” brink as it turned out just how history predicted it. Being bitter after being played time and time again is another topic though. Dont get me wrong i admire how far splashdamage has made it as they went straight from being freetime modders to being a recognized game studio but the sad fact is you no longer can associate SD with “the cool mod friendly guys that took on RTCW”. Its now “the guys who put out crappy games with deceptive marketing”.
Im sorry but its true.
Apart from:
Two people who worked for SD went to Endrant, that is hardly enough to blame SD for Wolfenstein’s shortcomings. Endrant were also brought in late on during the development cycle to effectively polish a turd. If you thought the release version was bad you should have seen the stuff we found in the pk4s when working on WolfPro, it could have been a lot worse. Want someone to blame for Wolf, blame the publisher and the IP owner.
[QUOTE=.Chris.;390919]Apart from:
Two people who worked for SD went to Endrant, that is hardly enough to blame SD for Wolfenstein’s shortcomings. Endrant were also brought in late on during the development cycle to effectively polish a turd. If you thought the release version was bad you should have seen the stuff we found in the pk4s when working on WolfPro, it could have been a lot worse. Want someone to blame for Wolf, blame the publisher and the IP owner.[/QUOTE]
I wouldnt be so sure it was just 2 people. The little information floating around at that time pretty much suggested that Endrant wasnt just founded by ex-SD people but also staffed by those. Which makes sense since i dont think any sane publisher would bring in a team of nobodys with no experience (engine and gameplay wise) to rescue its soon to be released game.
Besides it doesnt really matter as it was just to illustrate SDs continued involvement in hyped games that turned out to be failures and actually i blame anyone who had a hand in this debacle.
I’m pretty sure, it was Neil Postlethwaite (Producer) and Matt Wilson (Level design) who moved to Endrant.
That’s the thing, Activision didn’t give a crap, they did pick a team of nobodys to finish their game, most likely to save money, remember that id software were in the process of being bought by Zenimax, Activision own COD, they didn’t care about Wolfenstein, they wanted to just get it out and be done with it.
Try Red Orchestra, then Red Orchestra 2, for a hauntingly similar and equally clear explanation 
The two are almost carbon copies, in terms of what came before, what was changed to appeal to a wider audience, and what was added to appeal to “modern gamers”. Indeed, the results are pretty similar too - although RO2 does have roughly 10,000 players, giving a daily peak of 1000-1500. For now
I haven’t quite played enough yet - I managed to miss a good chunk in the middle of the WWII heyday, so it’s not too bad But anyway… it was intended as an example of a similar situation, rather than an actual recommendation heh. I enjoy it, but it’s not really what the existing community expected or hoped for. It also tried to appeal to a wide crowd, and in doing so, didn’t really manage to cater to anyone fully. Many of the new intended audience looked, decided it wasn’t COD or BF, and returned to one of those. On top of that, it was delayed slightly but was still actually rushed - meaning it really needed more delay. Design decisions, while mostly sound, have upset and surprised some older RO1 fans. While it sold well, it did quickly hemorrhage players. As I say I’m enjoying it, but they really did make some surprising decisions, given that it’s a niche realism sequel.
Sound familiar?
I think dazman76 has nailed it.
In the FPS market you’re either a niche game or you’re a mainstream title.
If you’re mainstream then you have to go head to head with CoD and BF and do what they do. You have to be at least competent and adequate in their style of gameplay and include most of their options.
If you’re niche then you don’t compete directly with CoD and BF, but you’re also not appealing to the biggest audience. You have some slack since you’re in a smaller pool of competitors though (possible just yourself if you’re niche enough). The more niche you are the smaller your audience (and source of income) but the more likely that audience will be loyal because you’re one of the only suppliers of their brand of crack.
It’s when you try to widen your niche too mcuh that you start alienating your loyal fanbase. You can see this by all of the original arguments about “Brink shouldn’t be like CoD” when Brink first came out. But since you’re still a niche based product you can’t really compete with the mainstream games. You end up landing in a “dead zone” inbetween audiences where noone wants you and everyone is dissapointed in the result.
Brink dissapointed all the niche fans because of the “dumbing down” they did to make the game more accessible to a wider audience. The mainstream fans were dissapointed by lack of TDM and lack of sniper rifles and hellicopters and the forced teamwork and inability to be a lone wolf and still do well.
So in the end everyone went back to their preferred poison and Brink got left to wither.
The mainstream fans were dissapointed by lack of TDM and lack of sniper rifles and hellicopters and the forced teamwork and inability to be a lone wolf and still do well.So in the end everyone went back to their preferred poison and Brink got left to wither.
Mainstream fans were mainly turned off by the disastrous launch.
That certainly didn’t help, but I do remember a lot of people wanting features that appeared in CoD that are out of place in a more niche title.
For example: people who seriously request TDM (or free for all) aren’t looking to play an ET style game.
I have no problem with people wanting a different style game. It’s like ice cream. Some people like certain flavours and almost everyone is happy with vanilla. But if you’re telling me the rum and raisin doesn’t taste strawberry enough then you’re probably eating the wrong ice cream.
People don’t particularly care about TDM in BF3 either. It’s their but the conquest mode is far popular.
I have no problem with people wanting a different style game. It’s like ice cream. Some people like certain flavours and almost everyone is happy with vanilla. But if you’re telling me the rum and raisin doesn’t taste strawberry enough then you’re probably eating the wrong ice cream.
That’s exactly Brink’s problem in the first place, it tried to be every flavour which made it bland. Furthermore the entire game is build around just one game mode. The classes and bodytypes aren’t equal in a 1v1 encounter simply because some of them pay with strength in assets that fall away in DM and CTF.
