PDA

View Full Version : Is saving Brink possible? ("comprehensive" patch incoming)



SirKicksalot
15-11-2011, 07:05 PM
Today Splash Damage announced (http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/2011-11-15-comprehensive-new-brink-update-detailed) a new Brink update that brings clan support and tournament features.

Currently the game is nowhere to be found in the Steam stats page. The last entry on that list, Titan Quest IT, has 336 players. I assume the situation isn't much better on consoles.

I liked Brink. Most reviewers didn't. Some complained about teamwork, most notably one that wondered why should he fix a staircase and open a new path for his team. The game was also terribly buggy. It basically died in just a couple of weeks. The free-for-a-while DLC and free weekend didn't help.

I have no idea who could possibly be looking forward to the new update.
I believe this game can be saved only if it goes f2p and the developers add a shitload of customisation options. Make some available only for money - and customers that bought the game. The weapon and character customisation are incredible in the base game. The game is solid. But nobody plays, and since it's a multiplayer title it can't get new customers because people see it's dead.

What do you think? Can Brink be saved?

mr.doo
15-11-2011, 07:34 PM
Short answer no. Long answer: buggy release+bad reviews+multiplayer (as in, needs people to be successful) =failure

Jockie
15-11-2011, 07:38 PM
It's too late in my opinion, I played at release and put quite a bit into it, but the shooting felt plinky plonky (thats a technical term), the balance was appalling, the freerunning really limited and the map design completely uninspired (in contrast with the art design which was great).

In short , despite paying full price, I've got no real desire to go back to Brink personally. It's a shame as Splash Damage seem like cool guys (and are British).

Casimir Effect
15-11-2011, 07:47 PM
With regards to upcoming Steam xmas sales, how is the singleplayer? Is it like UT3 where there is some plot which contrives to use the game modes to convice you that an objective is being completed? And what is the AI like?

DaftPunk
15-11-2011, 07:50 PM
There's no way that people who bought the game will come back and try the game with this "Fix". But its quite a shame,looking these people made Quake Wars,fantastic game in my book.

QuantaCat
15-11-2011, 07:54 PM
I liked it. I havent played much MP yet, though, but the few that I played, was wonderful, and on RPS servers.

PS: also, it looks like they took the world of Brink and made Anno 2070 out of it. (obviously not really)
Even the soundtrack sounds like a crossover between Anno1404 and Brinks'.

PPS: I will pimp the shit out of my brink for LAN games.

Stevo
15-11-2011, 08:42 PM
I sorta liked it. Maybe I forced myself to like it. It was different to most FPS. But then it was exactly like every other type of FPS. The whole Body Architecture really didn't work at all, it was rare enough to see anyone go Light or Heavy the pay off just wasn't their.

Map design honestly fell flat on it's face. It very much turned into camp a small area (Maps were tiny sure) for nearly 10 minutes repeating the same thing over and over again. I guess I fooled myself in saying "Oh yeah but I was battling to control the bridge in one of the maps" but honestly I wasn't it never accounted for much, RO2 was much better at conveying Key Positional Battles that aren't actually highlighted on the map at all.

Vandelay
15-11-2011, 10:04 PM
Map design honestly fell flat on it's face. It very much turned into camp a small area (Maps were tiny sure) for nearly 10 minutes repeating the same thing over and over again. I guess I fooled myself in saying "Oh yeah but I was battling to control the bridge in one of the maps" but honestly I wasn't it never accounted for much, RO2 was much better at conveying Key Positional Battles that aren't actually highlighted on the map at all.

I still believe that the reason the maps felt this way was because no one used the freerunning mechanics to get to the flank positions. Pretty much every map allowed you to do this, but everyone just continued to charge at the same point. I think that the limited player numbers of 8 per side didn't really encourage this, with everyone needing to be at the front to keep hold of the position.

Just increase the size of the maps (isn't even any need to change layouts for most of them, just increase the sizes,) and increase player count to at least 12 people a side, then I do not think the maps would have been an issue* and the amount of stalemate battles would have been reduced dramatically.

@Casimir Effect - I wouldn't bother. The bots were terrible, which probably put a lot of people off before they even reached the multiplayer. As for how it plays out, it is identical to the multiplayer mode, even to the extent of both modes starting each map with cutscenes, as well as a few mixed in once objectives are completed.

*Except Aquarium. That map was shit.

Oak
15-11-2011, 10:08 PM
You're right: they can make it free-to-play with cosmetic DLC, or they can continue letting it bleed out. Nothing less is going to get newcomers to look past its bad reputation or spurned early-buyers to get over its buggy release.



I still believe that the reason the maps felt this way was because no one used the freerunning mechanics to get to the flank positions. Pretty much every map allowed you to do this, but everyone just continued to charge at the same point. I think that the limited player numbers of 8 per side didn't really encourage this, with everyone needing to be at the front to keep hold of the position.

Signposting needed to be more obvious, or simply existent. This was one of those situations where respecting the audience's perceptive abilities and trusting their willingness to learn map layouts was a bad idea. A loading-screen minimap, or some HERE ARE THE SHORTCUTS or YOU CAN JUMP UP HERE signage for the initial playthrough would've gone a long way.

TailSwallower
16-11-2011, 12:24 AM
Today Splash Damage announced (http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/2011-11-15-comprehensive-new-brink-update-detailed) a new Brink update that brings clan support and tournament features.

Really? They're only just getting ready to release it now, after BF3 and MW3 have been released, thus stealing 90% of the audience who may have once been interested in Brink?

The biggest problem with Brink was that despite all the delays, the game still released feeling unfinished. It needed more maps, and the stats-tracking, clan and tournament features needed to launch alongside the game, not weeks later (for the stats-tracking) and not months later (for the rest).

Brink probably should have been canned, because they've obviously struggled to make the game that they wanted to make (probably because they were working on a new IP), and I doubt they've made enough money for it to be worthwhile.
Bethesda should have gutted Brink and got Splash Damage to make another game based on an existing IP, but with the Brink movement system.


Currently the game is nowhere to be found in the Steam stats page. The last entry on that list, Titan Quest IT, has 336 players. I assume the situation isn't much better on consoles.

Brink was doing much better on 360 than PC soon after release, but now that the pre-Christmas juggernauts have all come to market I don't imagine much of a playerbase would still remain.


I liked Brink. Most reviewers didn't. Some complained about teamwork, most notably one that wondered why should he fix a staircase and open a new path for his team. The game was also terribly buggy. It basically died in just a couple of weeks. The free-for-a-while DLC and free weekend didn't help.

Yeah, that DLC really needed to be free, full-stop. I hadn't touched Brink for a month or so, but I downloaded it, played for approximately 10 minutes and then retired Brink once again. Too little, too late.


What do you think? Can Brink be saved?

No, not at all. I think even if they went F2P it would be a short flash-in-the-pan before it fell silent once again.


With regards to upcoming Steam xmas sales, how is the singleplayer? Is it like UT3 where there is some plot which contrives to use the game modes to convice you that an objective is being completed? And what is the AI like?

I thought the bots were quite good... for bots. But it's still a multiplayer game first and foremost. If you get it for a fiver then it's probably alright for singleplayer only, any more than that and you might feel ripped off.

If you LAN regularly I have a feeling that that's where the game would really shine, but otherwise I doubt it's worth it.

The Innocent
16-11-2011, 03:02 AM
I think Brink could be saved, but I don't think it will be.

I agree with the assessment that they need to go free-to-play. And add more stuff to unlock to incentivize a storefront. And make it not-awful, unlike most FTP setups.

But beyond that, I think it would still fail without a major overhaul. The main thing I would change are the maps. They were simply awful. A good map (in my opinion) creates a battle that sees firefights erupting on multiple fronts, each one critical to a team's short-term success. Brink tried to do this with the control points that were scattered about and certain of the secondary objectives, but in actual play those things were either too close to the main objective (so defenders could cover both the main point and the secondary point with roughly the same effectiveness), or they were secondary to such an extreme that while now and then someone would run over and capture them, nobody really fought over them seriously. Instead, Brink had two teams bashing their heads against each other over a square yard of ground, and it became tedious in minutes.

So I'd change the maps. I think that Brink would actually work really well with a Conquest-style gamemode, as found in the Battlefield series. Have a slightly bigger map with three points that need controlling, and position them perpendicular to the spawn points (so that you can access any of the three from spawn with a bit of running). This way, neither side is permanently attacking or defending.

I'd also like to see other changes, like making more of the guns useful (and adding variety) and having the heavy body-type be more beefy. But the maps are the main thing.

And frankly, I just don't see them changing up what they regard as the core of their design, even if it makes for repetitive and unbalanced battles.

QuantaCat
16-11-2011, 09:31 AM
I for one, dont care if noone plays it. I will make SURE it gets played.

Because, you know, the most important criteria it fulfills: It works & is fun. It always worked for me, and was always fun. And it got even funner with that DLC. And I know they love their game, because they always love their games, and if they dont, they change it accordingly.

This game, is tournamentlevel perfection. I wish korea would see that.. instant success!

Althea
16-11-2011, 09:37 AM
If they put in female PCs then maybe I'll play it. Maybe.

hamster
16-11-2011, 10:06 AM
Also the ability to unlock less clothing.

Xercies
16-11-2011, 10:41 AM
I loved it, but I didn't play it that much for some reason. I think the maps are really well designed, because there are loads of flank points and loads of ways to get around the place and get across deadpoints. But deadpoints are fun because you get the siege mentality.

Quantacat, what servers do you usually go on? I might just joiin you in the save Brink myself brigade.

Insanity
16-11-2011, 11:35 AM
I love Brink and still play it regularly, it's just one of those games that I really enjoy even though I couldn't put into words for you exactly why. Sadly crippling performance issues and bugs for many players killed of the community quite quickly. I think a revival this late in the life span could only be achieved by a decent set of mod tools.

QuantaCat
16-11-2011, 12:03 PM
If they put in female PCs then maybe I'll play it. Maybe.

I was going to say "how terribly sexist of you!", because I forgot that the faceless internet might also contain people of different gender.



Quantacat, what servers do you usually go on? I might just joiin you in the save Brink myself brigade.

Arr. At the moment, nothing/nowhere. Because my PC is in work mode. Meaning that I had to throw everything off in order to finish editing my series. However, it should return to "normal", soonish, as I might install that 2TB HD I have lying around. And I also need to get internet first :D (aside from the cellphone Im using right now, connected to my PC. Ahhh, the terrible fate of having to have ones' own office that isnt set up completely yet XD XD XD !)


Also the ability to unlock less clothing.

I dont want to see those "could-be-good-looking-but-arent" brink guys running around.

Althea
16-11-2011, 12:09 PM
I was going to say "how terribly sexist of you!", because I forgot that the faceless internet might also contain people of different gender.
I just think it's so bloody annoying that many online shooters don't have female PCs. Some games allow for mods (ARMA II, for example), but then you have to find the right mods, then the mods that work, then the mods that are compatible with others and so forth. Even if it was a L4D situation with just one female character, I wouldn't mind.

QuantaCat
16-11-2011, 01:34 PM
The problem would be rather: theyd have to animate and voice them as well, for those movie bits. first of all, I doubt theyd get nonsexist femaleanimations right. Secondly, if they give them equal appearance time, I would be very impressed. There is few a game that manages that.

Althea
16-11-2011, 01:38 PM
Never seems to have stopped Saints Row or Fable.

QuantaCat
16-11-2011, 02:45 PM
Fable isnt nonsexist in its makings. Also, I think Saints Row has less customisation, if such a thing is even possible.

Althea
16-11-2011, 02:58 PM
I'm honestly not sure what your point is. Saints Row and Fable both have different animations for females as well as different voices (although Fable 2/3 just have one voice per gender of Hero, I believe).

SR 3rd has three different animation sets (I think, I know #2 did) for each gender, three sets of voices too. Both games are bigger as well, and as such more animations are required and they have to work for the many different body types and clothes they've created. Yes, it might have less customisation in the total of unique characters you can make, but it still doesn't mean it wouldn't be feasible for SD to create females for Brink.

It's nothing to do with sexism or anything like that. It's somewhat understandable for something like ARMA, sure, but for a futuristic shooter? Nah, it's not really something devs can really justify for many games beyond going on pointlessly about time and money.

CuriousOrange
16-11-2011, 05:27 PM
I would certainly buy Brink if they lowered the price. Played it on a free weekend and thought it was a bit unstable and buggy for me. But after BF3, it seems pretty damned stable.

I'm really craving an arcadey multiplayer shooter, I had hoped BF3 would fill that slot. But the damned thing won't stop fucking up. After RO2 I thought BF3 couldn't possibly frustrate me with bugs and performance issues. But RO2 and Brink are far more polished, that's not a compliment to the state of either of those games at all by the way. I can actually play them, albeit a little bit choppy framerate wise. But they work!

applecup
16-11-2011, 05:40 PM
Honestly, I played Brink during the free weekend and thought it was pretty fun - as much as being able to have a female avatar would be nice. But the lack of content + the fragmentation of the playerbase can only be bad things, in the long run. As much as that seems to have already been proven.

It's a shame, really, as a lot of thought and care was put into the world and story of the game - especially for an MP-only game.

QuantaCat
16-11-2011, 06:54 PM
Hm. Whats your reason for desperately wanting female characters anyway? Not that I hate more diversity, I just dont care.

Althea
16-11-2011, 06:57 PM
Hm. Whats your reason for desperately wanting female characters anyway? Not that I hate more diversity, I just dont care.
Because I simply prefer to play female characters? I also care very little for the male form, and as such I'm not particularly interesting in one of Brink's features (i.e. the vast customisation) because I would not be able to invest any amount of interest in it.

TailSwallower
17-11-2011, 12:52 AM
I forgot about the lack of female PCs. Another reason why it should have been kept in development until it was actually finished, or simply canned.

And really, I'm not a hater. I must have played 20 hours of Brink on the 360, and it had the potential to be one of my favourite multiplayer games ever, so now I'm just disappointed.

Shane
17-11-2011, 01:58 AM
I forgot about the lack of female PCs. Another reason why it should have been kept in development until it was actually finished, or simply canned.
Isn't that a bit too high handed for a redundant feature?

TailSwallower
17-11-2011, 02:32 AM
Whether or not it's redundant is up for debate - it's an issue for UnravThreads, and I'm sure it's an issue for many other people. Personally, I don't really care, but it's something a lot of people were vocal about in the lead-up to the release of the game.

And I was adding it to the list of reasons I mentioned in my previous post as to why it should have been kept in development or canned. On its own it might not be a big issue to most people, but I see it as one more thing to add to the list of features that should have shipped with the game.

metalangel
17-11-2011, 01:46 PM
The enemy is taking our command post!

Bobtree
17-11-2011, 04:47 PM
Brink is quite good, but it's basically the same game as Enemy Territory (and short on maps, but has 10 now, up from 8). The customization's cute, but ultimately just a distraction, and I'm not a fan of leveling for unlock bits in competitive games. What I really want is more Quake Wars, mostly for being meaner, bigger, messier, and rangier, in the Battlefield sense, and having big maps and vehicles and deployables.

The fundamental mistake of Brink, outside of the messy launch and janky player movement, was to misrepresent it as a game for everyone, when it's really still the same kind of sporty ultra-competitive game as ET and QW.

QuantaCat
18-11-2011, 10:11 AM
Brink is quite good, but it's basically the same game as Enemy Territory (and short on maps, but has 10 now, up from 8). The customization's cute, but ultimately just a distraction, and I'm not a fan of leveling for unlock bits in competitive games. What I really want is more Quake Wars, mostly for being meaner, bigger, messier, and rangier, in the Battlefield sense, and having big maps and vehicles and deployables.

The fundamental mistake of Brink, outside of the messy launch and janky player movement, was to misrepresent it as a game for everyone, when it's really still the same kind of sporty ultra-competitive game as ET and QW.

I second all of that. I still love the game.

b0rsuk
21-11-2011, 07:05 PM
Some games just deserve to die. Brink is one of them. It doesn't appeal to anyone.

But Paul "Brink" Wedgewood, the CEO and chief designer at Splash Damage, is so confident that he gives lectures. About game design, on universities.

A much more timid version of this post was removed from Brink forums.

archonsod
21-11-2011, 09:08 PM
Whether or not it's redundant is up for debate - it's an issue for UnravThreads, and I'm sure it's an issue for many other people.

I suspect the ability to shoot a woman in the face would be a big issue for considerably more people tbh.

Oak
21-11-2011, 10:12 PM
Some games just deserve to die. Brink is one of them. It doesn't appeal to anyone.

Do you mean besides the people who liked it, or

Scumbag
21-11-2011, 10:37 PM
I suspect the ability to shoot a woman in the face would be a big issue for considerably more people tbh.

Never seemed to bother people playing UT or Quake III, but that was a couple of genarations ago.

Althea
21-11-2011, 10:53 PM
Never seemed to bother people playing UT or Quake III, but that was a couple of genarations ago.
Or GTA IV (and its multiplayer), nor in many other games.

QuantaCat
21-11-2011, 11:22 PM
Some games just deserve to die. Brink is one of them. It doesn't appeal to anyone.

But Paul "Brink" Wedgewood, the CEO and chief designer at Splash Damage, is so confident that he gives lectures. About game design, on universities.

A much more timid version of this post was removed from Brink forums.

My, why would it not be removed from it! its such an enlightened and fantastic discussion point!

b0rsuk
22-11-2011, 07:33 AM
My, why would it not be removed from it! its such an enlightened and fantastic discussion point!

When you design a total failure like Brink, you shouldn't pretend you're a good game designer. Paul "Brink" Wedgewood thinks he has a lot of wisdom to share.

archonsod
22-11-2011, 07:42 AM
Or GTA IV (and its multiplayer)

Pretty sure it's one of the main complaints levelled at the GTA series as a whole.

Shane
22-11-2011, 07:59 AM
When you design a total failure like Brink, you shouldn't pretend you're a good game designer. Paul "Brink" Wedgewood thinks he has a lot of wisdom to share.

Wedgewood is also responsible for Quake Wars and Wolf: ET, two of the most cerebral competitive fps' ever made. Splash Damage is certainly one of the best independent game studios out there.

QuantaCat
22-11-2011, 08:20 AM
Also, I like the design. Also, it is structurally sound, in my opinion. I would love to meet the man behind it.

This sentence alone makes all of your reasons invalid. Next time, say "In My Opinion", and save yourself the hassle. Or not and go be depressed somewhere else.

b0rsuk
22-11-2011, 03:19 PM
Wedgewood is also responsible for Quake Wars and Wolf: ET, two of the most cerebral competitive fps' ever made. Splash Damage is certainly one of the best independent game studios out there.

ET:QW had major issues with framerate and connection drops, not to mention crashes. I have 8800 GTS, Core2Duo E6750, 2GB RAM which should be more than enough for it. Yet no amount of tweaking, not even reducing detail to minimum would make the game run fluid.
The game had okay design, but also a fair share of broken stuff. Like extremely fast vehicles with no lag compensation (Icarus was very hard to hit not because of player skill), basically untouchable air vehicles (forget about deployables), broken vehicle model (they boasted you'd be able to do trickjumps.... hah. Remember the husky ramp on Valley ?).

As for W:ET, yes, it was good but let's not foget
a) it was a commercial failure converted into a PR stunt. A failed project by their own admission, even if someone else was meant to do the single player portion (I believe)
b) You don't give enough credit to id Software and Nerve. RTCW was a very solid game, it had the same gunplay and won many game of the year awards.

I wouldn't say Enemy Territory games were stellar, they had many issues ("SD's trademark lack of polish" - shirosae). And Brink is a turn for the worse. I actually took the time to check the list of employees and guess what ? People who worked on Quake 3 Fortress, Wolfenstein: Enemy Territory, Quake Wars are a small fraction of Splash Damage. Last time I checked. The company is now around 60 people, it has more console developers and designers than it ever had PC developers.

Fan loyalty for loyalty's sake isn't worth it. They used to make decent games, they no longer do. The bigger games you make the less creative freedom you have, and SD is now very big. I have much more interest in Natural Selection 2, being made by 5 people, than SD's next game. At least it looks like a game (rather than a movie) and there's abundance of gameplay footage. Since the days of ET:QW SD has been very shy when it comes to showing gameplay footage. Turns out they have reasons to be afraid.

deano2099
22-11-2011, 07:14 PM
When you design a total failure like Brink, you shouldn't pretend you're a good game designer. Paul "Brink" Wedgewood thinks he has a lot of wisdom to share.

Exactly this.

I can't take Tim Schafer seriously after he designed that huge flop, Psychonauts. Chris Avellone can fuck off with his bloody Planescape: Torment. And don't get me started on Looking Glass and their succession of commercial failures that led to the company closing down.

[Not that Brink is on par with those games, but you need more than 'it didn't sell well' to justify bad design]

fearlessgoat
22-11-2011, 07:39 PM
Wedgewood is also responsible for Quake Wars and Wolf: ET, two of the most cerebral competitive fps' ever made. Splash Damage is certainly one of the best independent game studios out there.

Quake wars flopped and Wolf:et was pretty much rtcw with a few more bells and whistles.
In fact rtcw had the best muliplayer out of all those titles and it wasn't made by Splash Damage. Nerve software (http://www.nervesoftware.com/games.php) made the muliplayer component for RTCW but have been porting the games to consoles instead of making them now-a-days.

The RTCW multi-player is pretty much evident in every splash damage game and it annoys the hell out of me that Spash damage get the credit for that style of gameplay. When in fact, it was done better in an older title in RTCW.


Rant over and back on topic:

Brink has some good things going for it, the Art direction is fantastic...........Thats all I got

My main problem is the Weapons, they feel like I am firing a pea shooter and this is in every game made by Spash Damage. It really puts me off buying any game I see there name on :(

b0rsuk
22-11-2011, 08:52 PM
Exactly this.

I can't take Tim Schafer seriously after he designed that huge flop, Psychonauts. Chris Avellone can fuck off with his bloody Planescape: Torment. And don't get me started on Looking Glass and their succession of commercial failures that led to the company closing down.

You're trying to be sarcastic. So which is the major success of Paul "Brink" Wedgewood ? W:ET is heavily based on Return To Castle Wolfenstein, which was named game of the year by many magazines. Quake 3 Fortress, a mod based on Q1 Team Fortress with few changes, was only moderately successful especially compared to Team Fortress Classic. ET:QW had many showstopping technical issues... but it was a success compared to Brink.



[Not that Brink is on par with those games, but you need more than 'it didn't sell well' to justify bad design]Oh, but Brink did sell well ! 256 000 on PC alone, it made it into top 10 of Q1 2011.
http://www.splashdamage.com/forums/showthread.php/29945-brink-sold-256000-copies...-%28PC%29

It only hasn't managed to keep those players. The forums were full of angry threads of disenchanted people. Chief complaints were: a) people were misled by preview videos into thinking the game would have lots of free running and parkour. Maps turned out to be choke points SD-style. b) veterans/pc players were misled into thinking gunplay would be like in Enemy Territory games. Rahdo was hanging around tournament websites saying Brink will pretty much be the next Enemy Territory game. But weapons are very inaccurate. c) People were misled into thinking the game would have a proper single player rather than glorified bot match with cutscenes d) stupid bots e) defense-biased maps resulted in full holds f) bad body type balance. Few reasons to play mediums and practicaly none to play heavies. Heavies, with more HP, felt fragile. Weapons didn't actually deal more damage than smg's. g) low weapon diversity. Even RPS said they're mostly dakka-dakka-dakka type machineguns. h) one largely useless class (Operative) which was a problem considering the game had 4. So it ended up being 3 classes.
I don't even bring up bugs. Brink had some pretty bad ones, but players would be ready to forgive them if the base game was interesting. Sure enough, bugs were fixed pretty soon. But that wasn't the real problem.

Check out this graph of Brink playerbase over time:
www.splashdamage.com/forums/showthread.php/31292-Is-this-game-dead-already?p=383854&viewfull=1#post383854 (http://www.splashdamage.com/forums/showthread.php/31292-Is-this-game-dead-already?p=383854&viewfull=1#post383854)
http://steamgraph.burstpixel.net/index.php?action=graph&appid=22350&from=0

I actually like a couple of things about Brink. Sound (not music - forgettable, eww generic war movie) is hands down best among all SD games. Art direction and style is distinct and likeable. Incidentally, both are areas where ET:QW was very lacking (yes, they managed to make often bizarre and not even humanoid Strogg look boring and standarized).

TailSwallower
23-11-2011, 01:32 AM
Pretty sure it's one of the main complaints levelled at the GTA series as a whole.

People call it a murder simulator, sure, but what's the difference between shooting an innocent woman in the face, and shooting an innocent man in the face? Innocence is innocence and virtual murder is virtual murder.

Now, if we're talking about non-innocent men and women, as in actual combatants, then I also don't see what the issue is. Your point seems totally sexist - not saying you're sexist, but anyone who thinks that shooting a woman in the face is any worse than shooting a man in the face is sexist. I think any explanation of why it is worse would come down to women being more fragile or unable to deal with combat situations, etc - as in, a sexist argument.

Now, if there was a misogynistic game where you play a man going around shooting women and throwing around derogatory terms then hell yes, condemn the shit out of it, but otherwise I'm all for equal opportunity death and death-dealing in my games.
If someone can offer me a compelling argument as to why I'm wrong (an argument that boils down to more than "She should be in the kitchen, not on the battlefield") then I'm happy to reconsider my views.

So yeah, more gender equality and less stereotyping in general in games... And movies, and TV shows, and culture in general.

SirKicksalot
23-11-2011, 03:52 AM
Oh, but Brink did sell well ! 256 000 on PC alone, it made it into top 10 of Q1 2011.
http://www.splashdamage.com/forums/showthread.php/29945-brink-sold-256000-copies...-%28PC%29
.

No way. And that figure claims to be Steam only for two months. Brink had a maximum of 15k concurrent players and then dropped like a rock. There's absolutely no chance it managed to sell 256k copies in two months. I doubt even Tripwire's formula of estimating sales applies for Brink.

QuantaCat
23-11-2011, 07:36 AM
You forget that brink had a lot of hype going for it. it was pimped like a console release. I think those figures are acurate.

Xercies
23-11-2011, 08:28 AM
I have to say though many people.criticising.it especially in reviews i dont think played it much. It has lots of freerunning and it has lots of areas around the chokepoints. The guns are a.little lacking but since after awile most multiplayer fps people use the same.guns its.not.to bad. I agree its a.bit to late for.it to be saved though whice.is a shame

Gnoupi
23-11-2011, 09:03 AM
I doubt it will be saved as well, unless they go really large with a big price drop, or F2P model.
It's a shame, I really liked the game.

There were some annoyances for sure, being ATI owner, I had to play with console settings to actually get a playable framerate.
Some maps also have mistakes, like the beginning of container city, typically, which can cause security to be locked in their own spawn place, or the infirmary in the prison (huge "back and forth" chokepoint) (Well, also the beginning of this map, if resistance is not fast enough).

But other than that, I don't feel that the map design was "so awful that no one likes it". Other maps had alternative paths to the objectives, and "SMART" alternative paths.

As a light character, I have to say I really enjoyed the SMART system, and the map design. Lot of occasions for me to jump around, surprise defenders from the back, etc. The weapons in this game require mostly to be able to follow the enemy with the machine gun, and you can really jump your way around walls, to manage to kill someone who should have outlived you.


But despite qualities and the fact that not everyone hated the game, it's too late. They underestimated the lifetime of a multiplayer game, without the "extra multiplayer support". They added personal stats only months later, and they are adding actual "pro" options only now. They probably believed that they had time for that, from their previous experiences. But the truth is, the game was already dying dying on PC by the time their first map pack released, and it's fully dead now. So it's a bit pointless to bring a big multiplayer update right now.

Pity.

acidtestportfolio
23-11-2011, 03:05 PM
steam reports at least less than 417 peak players for brink (only estimating this because it has fallen off the list of top games by current player count. even simcity 4 deluxe is beating brink.)

well, i think the damage has been done and splash damage has shot themselves in the foot so well they've also taken their lower leg with it. not even weird-looking characters and that halfway semblance of a story could save it from being completely marred by the terrible meatgrinder gameplay. the way the game was so safety edged into dullness didn't help. farewell, brink, you were a fucking snooze.

fearlessgoat
23-11-2011, 06:32 PM
No way. And that figure claims to be Steam only for two months. Brink had a maximum of 15k concurrent players and then dropped like a rock. There's absolutely no chance it managed to sell 256k copies in two months. I doubt even Tripwire's formula of estimating sales applies for Brink.
Some companys like Game in the uk bought a lot of units to ensure it wasn't on steam (as in being able to buy it on steam). Hell you can get it for under 10 in most Game stores.

Estel
23-11-2011, 06:48 PM
I enjoyed it quite a lot at launch. But... haven't touched it since.

b0rsuk
23-11-2011, 08:16 PM
I doubt it will be saved as well,

It it's saved, it will be a minor miracle. And I don't demand much, I would be impressed if the game made it back into Steam's top 100 played games. I don't think even making it free to play would save it, there are better free games. TF2 isn't so popular because of how it looks. Tribes: Ascend is in closed beta, and it should be in open beta before long.

DickSocrates
23-11-2011, 10:14 PM
If they made a substantial re-release and called it Brink 1.5, and not just 'here's a patch that fixes some stuff... please come back' it might generate some buzz. If they turned it into a genuinely great product, some people would play it and through word of mouth it would spread that the game is now good. If there was any DLC, that should all be given free and made part of the base product. DLC puts people off top tier games.

But in reality, probably nothing can help. It's tainted. Even Brink 2 would be met with suspicion.

neema_t
23-11-2011, 10:32 PM
I was considering getting Brink until the free weekend. I'd played my brother's PS3 copy a while ago and thought it was alright, pretty mediocre but doable, then the free weekend... Well, let's put it this way. I joined an online game which was mostly populated by bots, but the game was fine. Then I pressed esc to remap some controls, and guess what? I couldn't resume the game because it must have unmapped all the keys, or at least just esc. One ctrl-alt-del later and I was uninstalling a game that was still free to play for the next two days. Seriously, though, if you're trying to promote a game through a free weekend, at least make sure people actually can play it. They say there's no such thing as bad publicity, I think Brink is a perfect example of how wrong that statement can be.


Oh and from what I played of the PS3 version, all I could see was a massive wasted opportunity to combine Mirror's Edge with a manshoot; the SMART thing had such limited use, especially as only one class of player could use it and that class wasn't available at the start. Given how much buzz there was around the parkour aspect you would've thought you could play as a light type from the start, but it's as if the game was designed so that it was a really minor aspect. Fair enough if they had some other awesome mechanic to highlight, but they didn't, they didn't do a single thing better than Modern Battleduty Warfield of Honour 4 except the customisation of your character, and how many people bought the game for that? Still, from what I played, I thought it would be worth about 5 if it was that cheap from the start. Problem is, by the time it got that cheap, no one was playing it, and no one was buying it because no one was playing it, and as it's online-only (ok, it has offline modes, but what's the point if it's just pretend online?), that's kind of a dealbreaker.

Scumbag
01-12-2011, 08:49 PM
And so the second free weekend is here. I thought I'd give it a shot... and it wont even download.
Gotta give them credit though, this has had a few attempts to kickstart. More then some games get.

b0rsuk
02-12-2011, 12:04 AM
Forget Brink. Save whatever reputation you have left, Splash Damage, and don't make a free weekend. Less bad word of mouth. 5 extra sales is not worth the reputation loss. The game still has bad gameplay design, interface, and ugly bugs (invisible enemies etc). I have a feeling Splash Damage will change its name.

xxx
09-12-2011, 03:58 PM
Short answer no. Long answer: buggy release+bad reviews+multiplayer (as in, needs people to be successful) =failure
Different but right
______________________
"I recently learned something quite interesting about video games. Many young people have developed incredible hand, eye, and brain coordination in playing these games. The air force believes these kids will be our outstanding pilots should they fly our jets."

Zephro
09-12-2011, 04:06 PM
I thought the game was solid if a bit uninspired really. There's nothing wrong with the game, and people claiming it's terrible really should go take a long hard look at a proper stinker.

It's just a hyper saturated target market, it was never going to compete with CoD for players and with games like this.... no players means no game.

But yeah it's too late.

Also QW:ET was brilliant so piss right off.

Shane
09-12-2011, 07:19 PM
I can't say I liked Brink very much but, yes, QW:ET and W:ET are both fantastic multiplayer fps games.