why so many people hate brink.

(its al bout security) #1
  1. it has fanboys (atleast i count myself)

2.NO TDM WTF THIS ISNT CoD

3.the parkour is liek so awesome

  1. its a really good game they just dont play it enough

5(no sarcasm intended here) apperantly many computer problems? many are easy to work around or very small but computer players a tatty bit OCD for the small things yes?

6.many people that are hatin here havent really even played the game and have no idea what their talking about.

7.the whike “dissapointed customer” scandal

  1. its team based objective, most people really just dont understand that.

9.bugs (seem to be getting more on my nerves lately too)

10.they are jus haters and haters gonna hate

11.all the crap reviews (which many werent down to earth or by reviewers that play a game for 10 minutes and dont even try to get into them)

just my opinion in the matter. respectfully yours

lago coach

(hellreturn) #2

Hater or lover, the real fact is game has less then 50-150 players when I play during evening EST timezone. Less then 6 servers has more then 10 players.

Another fact is game play goes imbalance too fast. I have noticed 40% of time, one team is raping another one and at the end of map or start of new map players start leaving.

I don’t see any auto team balance.

Some maps are just worse. Team just can’t get out of spawn if they have 2-3 new players.

I get 40 FPS and in fire fight 20-30 with ATI 5870 GPU. I get more FPS in COD:BO and BC2.

I can’t use heavy weapons if my team needs it because few heavy require heavy body class. I should be able to use all weapons depending on my team and map needs.

Game in itself has various issues and hence game has less then 300-600 players? When 8 years old game ET has more players and server, you need to think once that what is wrong with the game that players are not playing it much.

No, I am not hating game and I like it and play on daily basis but I said what I noticed. There are many issues in game.

(Humate) #3

I have no idea.

(BomBaKlaK) #4

Mouhahahahahahaha ! sure :wink:

for sure ! lot of people come from wolf ET and ETQW so …

yes ! to much for a finished game …

sometimes people are just angry cause some dev talk about some stuff, and we never saw the colors of all this since the release …

+1

not a problem about like or not !
it’s all about an unfinished product who cost 50 box, and suppose to be a AAA game !
So where is the AAA game when they only release a beta !

I like the game and I still play it !
but without some big patch the reality gonna be hard for the brink players who still playin …

(legend123) #5

I dont see a lot of haters on here lately too be honest.

A lot of us like me (have played 100hrs+) but there is issues which need addressing.

(its al bout security) #6

console players generally like it more than pc players as it apparently has more problems IE point number 5.

it is a matter of like i think as i really like the game and am not disappointed whatso ever, just needs a little modification when it comes to the bugs.

(Je T´aime) #7

Well i don´t think people really hate it, what they might hate is to pay 49 euros to play a buggy game, and maybe a bit diferent from what they expected i can understand people getting mad over that.

When Black ops was released the foruns here filled with angry posts complaining about lag and bugs, thats kinda usual for every game that comes out with bugs.

I dont think its about not having TDM or CTF or k/d ratios I mean I don´t pay 49 for a game that I don´t have a clue on how it plays.

The core of the game is pretty fun, but yes it could be much better.

(funsize) #8

TL;DR – Old school competitive gamers coined this game “the savior of FPS games” years before it was released and are now disappointed by this lackluster title. Competitive gamers and non-diehard gamers alike don’t like it because of its technical/mechanical issues.

I don’t “hate” it, but I am disappointed because I’m from the era of competitive games (that took immense time and practice to achieve skill) with distinct competitive communities–Quake 1, Quake 2, Q3, CS, RTCW, UT*–that had colorful personalities and events. Myself and a lot of other people kinda hoped that Brink would rekindle that competitive nature, and SD led us to believe that it would not be unreasonable to think so. In fact, Brink didn’t do this and it pretty much did the opposite. Call it living in the past or whatnot, but I feel that this is one of the major reasons that many people in the competitive community are disappointed by this game, not mentioning the glaring technical and game mechanics issues which seem to be the complaint of everyone–pubbers and competitive players alike. But even without the die-hard competitive side, I suppose pubbing would be fun but unfortunately it seems that this game is not even that great for pubbing either :frowning:

(A_Tosa_Inu) #9

[QUOTE=hellreturn;343507]
Another fact is game play goes imbalance too fast. I have noticed 40% of time, one team is raping another one and at the end of map or start of new map players start leaving.

I don’t see any auto team balance. [/QUOTE]

Yes, hate that to, kills a server population fast.
Seen it many times, 7 vs 7, one team loose, 4 leave in one team, next map is 3 vs 7.
Before half way of the map the other 3 leave to, and than one by one the other 7 in the other team leave, cos its starts to get boring.

(A_Tosa_Inu) #10

[QUOTE=BomBaKlaK;343510]Mouhahahahahahaha ! sure :wink:
for sure ! lot of people come from wolf ET and ETQW so … [/QUOTE]

yes and 67% of them are running around like a medic rambo, trying to make most frags in ET…
And they where the first that abbandon ET for COD cos you have no objectives in that, in many maps.
Seen things like that too in Brink 3 engeneers together placing 3 turets and 6 mines at spawn exits. And don’t care to play objective. Nice for making kills, but fun?

(riptide) #11

[QUOTE=funsize;343522]TL;DR – Old school competitive gamers coined this game “the savior of FPS games” years before it was released and are now disappointed by this lackluster title. Competitive gamers and non-diehard gamers alike don’t like it because of its technical/mechanical issues.

I don’t “hate” it, but I am disappointed because I’m from the era of competitive games (that took immense time and practice to achieve skill) with distinct competitive communities–Quake 1, Quake 2, Q3, CS, RTCW, UT*–that had colorful personalities and events. Myself and a lot of other people kinda hoped that Brink would rekindle that competitive nature, and SD led us to believe that it would not be unreasonable to think so. In fact, Brink didn’t do this and it pretty much did the opposite. Call it living in the past or whatnot, but I feel that this is one of the major reasons that many people in the competitive community are disappointed by this game, not mentioning the glaring technical and game mechanics issues which seem to be the complaint of everyone–pubbers and competitive players alike. But even without the die-hard competitive side, I suppose pubbing would be fun but unfortunately it seems that this game is not even that great for pubbing either :([/QUOTE]

Pretty much spot on.

(Thundermuffin) #12

[QUOTE=funsize;343522]TL;DR – Old school competitive gamers coined this game “the savior of FPS games” years before it was released and are now disappointed by this lackluster title. Competitive gamers and non-diehard gamers alike don’t like it because of its technical/mechanical issues.

I don’t “hate” it, but I am disappointed because I’m from the era of competitive games (that took immense time and practice to achieve skill) with distinct competitive communities–Quake 1, Quake 2, Q3, CS, RTCW, UT*–that had colorful personalities and events. Myself and a lot of other people kinda hoped that Brink would rekindle that competitive nature, and SD led us to believe that it would not be unreasonable to think so. In fact, Brink didn’t do this and it pretty much did the opposite. Call it living in the past or whatnot, but I feel that this is one of the major reasons that many people in the competitive community are disappointed by this game, not mentioning the glaring technical and game mechanics issues which seem to be the complaint of everyone–pubbers and competitive players alike. But even without the die-hard competitive side, I suppose pubbing would be fun but unfortunately it seems that this game is not even that great for pubbing either :([/QUOTE]
Precisely the reason I dislike it so much; rahdo would always respond to people on Crossfire with things like “telling the dev team about this,” “that would make for a good cvar,” and other things of that nature really gave a lot of us false impressions on the game. I came into it thinking they had made lots of cvars for things everyone wanted, but in reality they didn’t do any of that crap.

I’m still looking for these settings he talked about years ago.

(INF3RN0) #13

Haters tend to be the ones with performance issues mostly. Most everyone else doesn’t ‘hate’ the game, but are just plain disappointed with it (slowly finding no reason to continue playing). It wasn’t supposed to be a sequel to past SD games, but instead a culmination of everything they have learned from their past games. Unfortunately the majority of fans are not pleased with the direction this game was taken in order to achieve the ‘next step in the evolution of SD games’, which I truly hope they realize (way too much solid content/game mechanics were cut). Brink is ‘meh’ and doesn’t have the same long lasting appeal as the other SD titles for this very reason. Every SD fan wanted to see Brink go places, but too much went wrong off release and with the game itself. Brink apparently appeals to some, but so far it appears that these are the types who get their fix from achievements, character customization, etc and that just doesn’t cut it when it comes to getting something out of a game for me. WTB ET/ETQW 2.

(morguen87) #14

lol

watch these

Brink: Behind The Scenes Part One
Brink: Behind The Scenes Part Two

I’m honestly going to be very, very hesitant before buying another splash damage game again. I will never buy without renting one of their games first, and if it’s anything like this, I definitely won’t be purchasing.

Should have been a huge red flag when a game so focused on multiplayer was released without a demo, but no, I just had to buy it anyway.

More like conned into buying it based on things like the videos above though. I guess that’s the main reason I don’t like Brink, I’ve never been made to feel like such a stupid sap for buying a game before.

(its al bout security) #15

[QUOTE=morguen87;343574]lol

watch these

Brink: Behind The Scenes Part One
Brink: Behind The Scenes Part Two

I’m honestly going to be very, very hesitant before buying another splash damage game again. I will never buy without renting one of their games first, and if it’s anything like this, I definitely won’t be purchasing.

Should have been a huge red flag when a game so focused on multiplayer was released without a demo, but no, I just had to buy it anyway.

More like conned into buying it based on things like the videos above though. I guess that’s the main reason I don’t like Brink, I’ve never been made to feel like such a stupid sap for buying a game before.[/QUOTE]

didnt you get the memo ? these gameplay trailers are ALWAYS computer enhanced to make them look better. just you wait and see, BF3 will be the same way, same thing in MAG

(morguen87) #16

I’ve never seen a “behind the scenes” with such smug bastards so full of **** I’m surprised it’s not coming out their ears

and those were posted after the game was released

(TeoH) #17

[QUOTE=its al bout security;343502]8. its team based objective, most people really just dont understand that.
[/QUOTE]

That’s quite strange, as team based objective FPS games have been around for a good 15 years. Actually in the good old days they were far more complicated, as they forced you to manage and fight over multiple objectives that were intermittantly active at different times during the round, with varying rewards coming from each. They also had much more advanced scoring systems that had no issues with ‘full holds’ and introduced penalties for dying which promoted more advanced strategy. Such as intentionally leaving 1 objective alone in order to regroup and go for a different one, if you felt your team was currently too weak to win the objective, with dying being costly.

This game was called QWTDM. The objectives were called ‘power ups, armour and weapons’, the granular scoring system was called ‘frags’, the year was 1996. Welcome to the future of online teamplay.

(riptide) #18

[QUOTE=TeoH;343608]That’s quite strange, as team based objective FPS games have been around for a good 15 years. Actually in the good old days they were far more complicated, as they forced you to manage and fight over multiple objectives that were intermittantly active at different times during the round, with varying rewards coming from each. They also had much more advanced scoring systems that had no issues with ‘full holds’ and introduced penalties for dying which promoted more advanced strategy. Such as intentionally leaving 1 objective alone in order to regroup and go for a different one, if you felt your team was currently too weak to win the objective, with dying being costly.

This game was called QWTDM. The objectives were called ‘power ups, armour and weapons’, the granular scoring system was called ‘frags’, the year was 1996. Welcome to the future of online teamplay.[/QUOTE]

The whole “objective based fps=new” thing is something console/new school pc players came up with. Just let them think they know what they are talking about.

(its al bout security) #19

[QUOTE=TeoH;343608]That’s quite strange, as team based objective FPS games have been around for a good 15 years. Actually in the good old days they were far more complicated, as they forced you to manage and fight over multiple objectives that were intermittantly active at different times during the round, with varying rewards coming from each. They also had much more advanced scoring systems that had no issues with ‘full holds’ and introduced penalties for dying which promoted more advanced strategy. Such as intentionally leaving 1 objective alone in order to regroup and go for a different one, if you felt your team was currently too weak to win the objective, with dying being costly.

This game was called QWTDM. The objectives were called ‘power ups, armour and weapons’, the granular scoring system was called ‘frags’, the year was 1996. Welcome to the future of online teamplay.[/QUOTE]

true true but think of how many people play obj. based team games compaired to how many people play TDM cod matches? i can tell you at least 13 million (the sales for Cod black ops)

you feel me?

hell on these forums most everyone does (except that dissatisfied customer feller)

(tokamak) #20

Performance issues and balance direction.

This game was called QWTDM. The objectives were called ‘power ups, armour and weapons’, the granular scoring system was called ‘frags’, the year was 1996. Welcome to the future of online teamplay.

That’s one way to polish a turd.