Brink Is “Ready & Able”, Apparently…

Vaulting is the new crouch-jumping
Via the newsbeast of VG247, I am made aware of a new Brink trailer. This one is about the abilities you can unlock for your characters over time. It includes a pretty sweet deployable turret, and the obligatory stealth-dude ability to counter it, in this case hacking it so that the thing guns down its former owners.

Brink is out on May 17th. So that’s going to be a busy week.


  1. alexmasterson says:

    Sexy menus… not-so-sexy animations.

    Something about the way people die is especially off, though as a whole this looks pretty damn good.

    • Tei says:

      Also seems the characters always land on the left foot.

      Another thing I have notice is that the muzzleflash of weapons don’t seems to illuminate architecture. The fire grenade seems to illuminate the area, but is somewhat unrealistic, for the most part the only light effect seems character shadows in areas with direct sunlight.
      Muzzleflash looks like a sprite. Maybe the authors want a “painterly” touch to the game. I dunno.

    • tomeoftom says:

      The fact that I can read “something about the way people die is especially off” and actually think “yeah, that’s right” makes me sad for the state games are in.

    • Merelia says:

      Sometimes it looks like they are slipping on banana peel instead of dying a horrible bullet ridden death.

    • Chris D says:

      oops, wrong place

    • Premium User Badge

      Joshua says:

      Is it really that important?

  2. Serenegoose says:

    Well, that’s by far the best trailer I’ve seen yet. Genuinely. The first few really turned me off what was sounding like a great game, but that’s restored some faith in it. Animations aren’t brilliant, but the first person-runny-aroundy-shooty looks much more solid now. And the pistol the self-ressing guy used sounds so awesooooome.

    Feel sorta obliged to mention that for all that character customisation they didn’t think it necessary to allow people to play as women. The ‘give your guy a baseball cap’ demographic outnumbers us, sadly.

    • GHudston says:

      Lack of women is a bit odd. Normally I wouldn’t bat an eyelid over it (team fortress 2 comes to mind… oh yeah, and every other shooter ever.), but the moment you put character customisation into a game you’d expect “gender” to be the first option.

      Still, do want! There’s nothing worse than a game being “Ready & Able” and yet denied to us for a month and a half.

    • Mutak says:

      What kind of a sick misogynist are you? Why do you want to hurt women?

      Kidding, but that’s exactly the sort of thing that game companies are afraid of. As soon as you have female character models you get screenshots and videos of women getting killed, tea-bagged, and otherwise desecrated. It’s typical juvenile shit for the shooter crowd, but guaranteed to get the moral panic going.

      Personally, i agree – more diversity, more customization, and more options in general are good.

    • kikito says:

      And midgets!

    • somnolentsurfer says:

      Someone questioned them on this at the Bradford Animation Festival. IIRC, they said they’d wanted the option to play as a woman, but that they’d not had the budget for the redesigned character models. I think they wanted to keep in the different builds, ’cause they actually have an effect in gameplay, so adding female models would have meant creating 6 of everything rather than three.

    • Tei says:

      On FPS games, people take womens if seems to have a smaller body / hitbox, and never think about it.
      See: Quake 2.

      Don’t remember anyone angry at Quake2 for the female models. Has the world changed soo much that we can’t have nice ass in FPS’s? really?

    • Serenegoose says:

      I don’t buy the excuse. They had enough money to design all these clothes for male characters, but another 3 character models would have been too much? Why didn’t they budget for this originally? I think, if you want to do character customisation, do it properly, do it equally, or don’t bloody well bother. If the Quake 3 team managed to design 31 character models (many not even -human-) in 1999 then I don’t see why we should be accepting such lackluster excuses 12 years later.

    • Turin Turambar says:

      Serenegoose, you don’t understand.

      They don’t have to add 3 female models. They would have to add 3 female models, and all the dozens of clothes and variations which apply to every model, and repeat it for them. So if they are 70 male “addons” (types of chests, clothes, accesories), they would need to make another 70 female ones.

    • Serenegoose says:

      Then they should not have bothered. Can you imagine the sheer scale of bawwwing if they’d only included female character models? But what, because it’s women, they know that if any of us thinks it’s shockingly unreasonable in the 21st century for a game to depict a reality -entirely crewed by men- they’ll get a horde of apologists telling us how HARD IT IS FOR THE COMPANY THINK OF THE COMPANY YOU SHRILL HARPY.

      Well screw it. If I’m already a shrill harpy, I’m going to be the shrillest.

    • Ricc says:


      As Turin Turambar said, clearly it would have been impossible*.

      *not really, though

    • Turin Turambar says:

      Heh, it’s more a thing of budget. If they would have done female characters, the budget of character (character concept, design, modelling, texturing, design of all the accesories) would be multiplied by two. Maybe to balance the budget they would have to cap the numbers of levels.

      So what do you prefer, female and male options, or more scenarios to play?

    • Lu-Tze says:

      You’re not just talking budget as in Money and Time, it’s also Memory. Frankly, i’m pretty amazed that they are able to make it look as good as it does with 3 different character builds where everyone is going to be wearing a huge number of different outfits and using their own personalised guns. To practically DOUBLE that with the extra animations, sounds and clothing options would be insanity, and probably bordering on infeasible for consoles. Optimisation is always a case of “as much as we need to do” so they’ll be running at like 99.5% of the memory limit in worst case scenarios already, to have to be able to fit in a load more stuff under that… well you either have to remove something else or optimise like a demon.

      As an example, Black Ops literally CANNOT add any extra weapons via DLC, because they wouldn’t be able to fit in the memory.

    • Serenegoose says:

      I don’t know, all these false dichotomies are making my brain hurt. Why don’t you tell me how things ought to be and I’ll nod compliantly?

      I don’t think so. If you’re genuinely weighing up ‘exclude half the planet’ and ‘put this new map in’ as the only two options, then something, somewhere, has gone horribly wrong.

    • Serenegoose says:

      Oh good, we’ve started! All aboard the apologist train! chugga-chugga-chugga!

      Sorry, we’ve had the whole… train bit cut. You see, we only had the budget for 2 carriages. Two carriages AND an engine would be extravagance, and beyond the means of anybody in the whole world, so there’s no point getting fussy about it. Fancy helping me push?

    • The Innocent says:

      Aren’t they fighting over women in Brink? I thought that was what it was about. If there weren’t enough women, it would be logical to not let them in on the fight.

      But if that’s not the case, I don’t see why there aren’t women characters either. Especially with the discussion that was going on a while back that with women body-types, “fat” women were essentially just a touch larger. Brink would be an interesting opportunity with its three body sizes to make truly enormous women, which no kidding I think would be great to finally see as playable characters in a game.

    • Lu-Tze says:

      I’m not apologising for jack, just pointing out that most people are making flawed arguments as to the extra “Budget” it costs. Time and Money are infinite resources, hardware power isn’t. If you say from the start “we’re going to have female models” then you’ll make it fit because you have to. Maybe the game only ends up with 2 body types to recoup the resources. Maybe the “light” body type becomes exclusively female. Maybe they drop a whole bunch of the customisation options and limit it to hats. Whatever the case, saying “It would cost time and money” isn’t the problem.

    • Noni says:

      While I would have liked to have been able to play as female, I understand that they wouldn’t have had the resources to make a female option and have it as involved as they wanted character customization to be.

      It’s certainly not enough to make me want the game less. Brink still looks amazing, I really look forward to playing it. :)

    • Serenegoose says:

      Well, despite the fact that all responses to me have really only looked at the second paragraph, the first, that says I am looking forward to this, still applies. I am, however, looking forward to it a bit less, just like when I found out (on launching the game) that ubi had removed the ability to play as the women from FC2. I still enjoyed the game (til the second act) but I still felt it -wrong- that they would give me the choice of like 8 men and no women. It does matter to me.

    • YourMessageHere says:

      I don’t buy this idea that they have to make everything 6 times; I don’t even buy the idea that they have to make it 3 times. Surely, when making e.g. a hat, they make one model and stretch/deform it to fit the different body types. Lu-Tze seems to have a good, if unfortunate point. It’s a pity everyone has to suffer because of the lack of memory in consoles, though. How about PC exclusive ‘women’ DLC?

    • The head Thorax of Abdomen says:

      Clearly, if they’d baked female characters in from the beginning there would be no question of budget or resources. Most comments here seem to discuss female characters as an optional afterthought rather than an all-round good idea. I expected to see the usual argument about targeting a mostly-male demographic, which holds a bit more water, but still leaks.

    • Serenegoose says:

      eh, if they managed to get all of Dragon Age onto the 360 I’m sure they could come up with something.

    • Serenegoose says:

      @Head Thorax of Abdomen: Leaks like the Titanic. Especially this myth that the adolescent, fearful male is somehow this omnidemographic that somehow manages to dominate all forms of media simultaneously. They need pandered to at the movies, pandered to on TV, pandered to in advertising, pandered to in games. There’s apparently -so many- of these people that they consume the vast majority of media on the planet, and everyone else is just a side show. One wonders what everyone else is -doing- with their time, but it’s apparently not consuming any form of entertainment.

    • Chris D says:

      If you made all the clothing unisex then the extra memory cost would be minimal. It would also have the advantage that by treating women as fellow soldiers rather than sex objects you’d minimize charges of encouraging violence against women.

      You have three different body sizes anyway so the hitbox argument is invalid. ( Not that it’s been made here but I’ve seen it elsewhere.)

      Also any claims that animation would be a problem could be solved by application of realistically proportioned anatomy and a sports bra.

      If Bioware think that it’s worthwhile to provide romance options for all sexual preferences then surely it’s not too much to ask that games at least try not to alienate 50% of the population. Having more women enjoying and understanding games, especially the kind we like, benefits us guys as well.

      I should add that I am also looking forward to Brink.

    • ExMortis says:

      Grrrrrrr why aren’t there robots and strogg and like dinosaur men and maybe anthromorphic fox men (AND WOMEN) with butterfly wings they’d only have to redo all the clothes and models X times to satisfy a guy on a forum

    • Urthman says:

      Maybe the developers of Brink are like ExMortis who seems to think of women as strange, mythical creatures (like strogg and dinosaur-men) that he’s only encountered in stories and videogames.

    • Zwebbie says:

      Urthman: Considering a (the?) Senior Concept Artist is a woman, I highly doubt that ;) .

    • tyrsius says:

      Lu-Tze says:Time and Money are infinite resources

      This actually highlights several problems with the developers. With infinite time and money on their hands I am OUTRAGED they did not cure cancer, feed the hungry, and fix all the other problems in the world they only require time and money (see, all of them).

      Why can’t these greedy infinitely rich time lords just share a little of their infinite wealth?

    • Serenegoose says:

      That’s the laziest parody of myself I’ve ever experienced. I’m more insulted by your lack of effort than your revealing caricature of my personality.

    • SLeigher says:

      I don’t know whether anyone on RPS even played it but you could play as a woman on Halo Reach and Halo practically invented teabagging so I really doubt anyone’s going to complain that much about a multiplayer shooter, maybe if you saw that stuff in singleplayer there’d be a problem though

    • TariqOne says:

      Customizable characters, but no women. I raise this every time this game gets covered.

      And the resources excuse is lame. They’ve got a stable of stock guys. Just change ONE into a woman, problem solved. This “we can’t afford two of everything” story is a red herring.

    • Gerard says:

      I’m not going to complain too much about the lack of women, but I do find their absence especially odd in a game where the last remnants of humanity are fighting for resources. I mean, without women the human race is screwed anyway, so why even bother?

      Also, I’ve a quibble or two with the gun play and explosives. At 1:05, the third person view makes it look like there’s a lot more recoil than there is when it switches to first person. It looks like he’s firing a .22LR. Also the molotov at the beginning; it just didn’t look like a molotov. Too much explosion, not enough fire. Maybe they should have gone with an engine other than Doom 3’s.

    • Devan says:

      I think the “costs too much resources” reason is perfectly valid for not including female models. That doesn’t mean that it can’t be done, it just means that the cost/benefit ratio was too high. What are the benefits? A greater variety of choices for character customization. What are the costs? Money, time, and having to cut other features or customization options in order to make it technically feasible.

      I’m an engineer in a game studio that makes console games, and if you’ve ever tried to make a triple-A title for the 360 or PS3, you’d be surprised at how little you can fit into memory and still make it look good. A multiplayer game that offers character customization generally has to have every possible body type and clothing item in memory at once, because you don’t know ahead of time what’s going to be on screen at once.
      This is pretty limiting and studios have to make trade-offs all the time. It’s unfortunate that this particular trade-off is not what you want, and it’s fine that you want to make your preferences known to the developers, but I don’t think they’re being unreasonable.

    • TariqOne says:

      @Devan: Again, why not make one of the stock body types a female? Problem solved. It’s not a serious argument, they just didn’t think of it or want to do it. And that’s a decision that one can rightly criticize.

      People are making it out as though their hands were tied and that’s more than a fair bit silly.

  3. Turin Turambar says:

    I want to love this game… but i need a demo. Interface, controls, map design, team balance, weapons feeling, animations, smart system, class balance, level/perk system, server browser, multiplayer features like autobalance or autokick… there are lots of things to judge and see if it’s really good.

    • Commisar says:

      don’t worry, it is a freakin’ awesome team based FPS, I got to play it at Quake Con last year, and it was WIN.

    • Thants says:

      I’m just hoping that it’s at least as good as Wolfenstein Enemy Territory.

  4. Petethegoat says:

    Is it just me, or does the climbing over stuff look pretty bad? They always cut to third person whenever someone climbed anything. It doesn’t look very smooth at all. :/

    And as has been said, the death anims look pretty poor. I don’t think shooting people looks satisfying at all, either. Anyone else notice that?

    • Trousers says:

      It’s not just you. This trailer kind of put a damper on my expectations.

    • Commisar says:

      No, you never to third person when climb over ANYTHING in this game. holy crap, not liking a game because of the DEATH ANIMATIONS!!!!! What happens in the game is you get “knocked down” where a medic then has a certain amount of time to revive you.

    • gerafin says:

      The game uses a modified version of the ET: Quake Wars engine. So, if you’ve played Quake Wars, you’ll immediately recognize the less-than-fluid movement and animations – but, just like in ET:QW, once you start playing the game, it really doesn’t matter. I was lucky enough to play the game at PAX (after an hour and a half in line…) and I can tell you that the game does feel right, dodgy animations or not. It doesn’t affect the gameplay at all.

    • Petethegoat says:

      Well, I’m speaking as someone who is interested in it anyway, but yeah, it’s interesting to hear your experience of it.

      I have to say, it’s still the jumping/climbing that looks most unpleasant to me, especially given that it seems to be something of a selling point.
      Maybe I shouldn’t expect the fluidity of Mirror’s Edge, but this looks plain unwieldy. I’d perhaps be more convinced if they hadn’t kept cutting to third person.

  5. Rei Onryou says:

    I have a couple of weeks to finish up Crysis 2 and enjoy it’s multiplayer (if that’s technically possible based on what I keep reading about hacking), then we have Portal 2 for a few more weeks, and then BRINK!

    I’m considering taking a few days off work for this baby. I hope Splash Damage do something cool to celebrate its launch.


  6. roryok says:

    well, looks like I’ve been running Brink and Bulletstorm together in my head. I forgot they were two separate games. Also APB is in there somewhere.

  7. Navagon says:

    This game should be great. It’s got a lot going for it but if they bollocks up the weapons or they don’t stop people spawn camping and other such abuses then all the work that has been poured into it has been for naught.

    I got high hopes for it though.

  8. Outsider says:

    This is really very strange. All previous trailers were really stoking my interest, but as others have said, in the above trailer the animations are really bad, no one seems to have weight and shooting someone seems to feel really “unsatisfying”, which I take to mean they just tip over in frozen animation like a cardboard target (or they can stab themselves with a needle and tip right back up on their feet in two frames like a similar cardboard target).

    The gameplay looks fun, but it’s looking severely hampered by what appears to be some really poor quality animation and character reactions.

    • gerafin says:

      Already mentioned this above, so I’ll keep it short, but the game runs on a modified version of the Enemy Territory: Quake Wars engine. ET:QW had the same animation issues, but it hardly affected the gameplay, and according to the dev I talked to they ‘fixed a lot of the issues with the ET:QW engine’. When I played it, the animations really didn’t affect the game at all – it’s like UT04 or a similar game, you’re so in-the-moment, that it doesn’t really matter what it looks like when the bad guy drops, just that he drops. I can’t imagine that this will actually ruin anyone’s experience of the game.

    • Outsider says:

      Thanks for your insight on this. I imagine, as you say, once you are focused on playing rather than leaning back and watching, animations will become less of an issue.

      I do wonder why they used an engine that has these very obvious shortcomings though.

    • bigblack says:

      re: gerafin

      I’m a little concerned about your comments that the dodgy animations “do not affect gameplay at all”, since animations are the #1 element which immerses me in even the most frantic, chaotic shooters. Every hit, every leap, every slide, every fall-down, should look AWESOME, whether it’s your own or your teammates or your enemies. Merely being un-affecting is not a promising sell for a game debuting in this age of frequently well-executed art-design.

      It may not “ruin” (your word) the game, but can we at least agree that expectations are to not have jerky, wonky animations in a game where fluid movement is a huge selling point?

      I, too, was really excited for this game and its promise of fluid movement and man-only shooting bullet-violence, but until it actually *looks* fluid, I’m afraid it’s reasonable to assume that it is not so. Even if the gameplay is absolutely top-notch, this is a really unfortunate area to fail in, especially when heightened movement options are such a large part of the appeal.

  9. Xocrates says:

    Out of curiosity, am I the only one who finds unlockable, non-cosmetic, equipment in competitive games a really really bad idea, and the popularity of such systems downright bizarre?

    Is the concept of veteran players not only getting the default gameplay experience bonus, but actually have better equipment than new players, being a bad idea really that hard to grasp by developers?

    • Lu-Tze says:

      The matchmaking is split into 5 ranks, and that’s the primary matching criteria, so you don’t end up with people far far in advance of you. Many of the weapons are unlocked via Single Player Challenges, so if you want you can get them before you even play multiplayer, and are meant to be balanced as “sidegrades” as well. Most importantly, the best class upgrades you get are buffs for your team. As such, being teamed up with top level players just means the ones on your team are going to give you massive buffs the like of which you’ve never been buffed before.

    • Xocrates says:

      @Lu-Tze: While that’s mostly good to hear, I was actually wondering about the industry wide phenomenon, not just restricting myself to Brink.

    • Falcon says:

      I completely agree Xocrates. I can understand games that have an unlockable “sidegrade” path where you get equipment that’s roughly equal in power or the ability to customize things somewhat, but getting superior gear and all of the game knowledge advantages that having poured more hours into the game brings makes games hell for new players to get into and I think it’s a horrible idea. You really have to start a game that has such a system right when it’s released to not get decimated during the early levels.

      I’ve been planning to make a mod/game for quite some time and this has been something I’ve pondered a lot, along with how do you keep the metagame deep and interesting while trying to minimize the memorization needed to get to the metagame in the first place. e.g. in SC2 you need to know all of the units, upgrades, costs, times, attack types and damages, armor types and damages, etc. before you can really explore the metagame. In action RTS like DotA/LoL/HoN, there’s a great deal of memorization and training needed before you get to the “real game”. Another great example is a game like Street Fighter IV where you need to know all of the various attack priorities, frame counts and counters of various moves to really get into the meat of the metagame. I’m interested in maintaining a high skill ceiling but trying to keep the amount of information you need to absorb before “really” playing the game to a minimum; I know balancing that with depth of the game certainly isn’t easy, but I think paying extra attention to the user interface and, perhaps to a lesser extent, tutorials can mitigate a great deal of that.

      Sorry for the tangent. =P

    • Falcon says:

      @Lu-Tze: That’s great to hear. Keeping lower ranked players “segregated” while they’re learning is certainly one way to keep upgrades fair (and presenting people with fewer options when they’re just starting out is certainly a valid way to help them learn since they have less to worry about), but I’m glad to hear Brink’s upgrades are more “sidegrade”y.

    • Lu-Tze says:

      In that case, god only knows. I’d said it’s partially based on trying to get people to TRY things rather than just hitting up google to find out what the youtube pubstars recommend and using that. By trying out everything, when you are finally able to use the “optimum” build all the pr0s use you might find that actually, it’s not for you. Otherwise from the start you’d be using it even if you were terrible at it because “it’s the best” and you’d never know any better. So yeah, Number 1, content spacing. You give people a steady stream of new toys and they try everything and see what they like. And yes, people really are dumb enough to just do and use what they are told. Because if everyone has access to everything all the pr0s on their team will scream at them for using the “wrong” gun.

      Then there is overloading people. If you give someone a massive choice at the beginning, they will have no idea what to go for. Is this best? Do I prefer this? By giving people a slow slew of comparisons to make, they are better able to make choices about what to use. The game is less intimidating if your choice at the start boils down to “LMG, Assault rifle or SMG, which do you want?” and then as you progress you can try out every flavour of those and compare to see if it’s better than the one you’ve currently got. Number 2 reason then is to simplify the game at the beginning.

      And finally, despite it being a by-product of that, there is a degree of making the veteran players feel like they are better than the people just starting. Some games manage this with purely cosmetic options (like golden guns in Call of Duty) but there can also be that feeling that the game is rewarding you mechanically for having played it so much (like the pro perks in Call of Duty). Ideally for new players you’d want that kept to a minimum but frankly, such things usually provide at best like a 5% advantage, and an extra 5% on top of getting your ass utterly stomped by people who’ve being playing much longer than you isn’t that significant.

    • Xocrates says:

      @Lu-Tze: While most of those reasons are understandable, the implementation isn’t. I can see not wanting to overload new players with information, I don’t see why that means you start with crappy weapons as opposed to an all around solid one while unlocking specialized weapons later on.

      I admit that my only real experience with such systems in FPS is Battlefield Play4Free beta and some Dabbling in Bad Company 2 (for comparison. mostly), and the implementation on those games is horrendous, which given how popular BC2 is suggests to me that games like COD behave similarly.
      Heck, BC2 doesn’t even allow level 1 medics to heal. There really is no excuse for that, and quite honestly should affect a player performance by more than 5%

    • Chris D says:

      Tangents are fun.

      I was trying to figure out how I’d do this myself. My initial thought was to give starting players more raw power (better stats, say) and as you progress you’d unlock options that give you more flexibility at the expense of power. That would have the advantage of keeping things straightforward for the new players while keeping things interesting for the veterans.

      I’m not sure it works, though. Flexibility is a power all of it’s own, and if you find yourself sniped/ambushed/killed by a trap with no way of retaliating in kind that could get frustrating quite quickly. Generally I think the best way to learn how to counter something is to try it yourself and see what people do to you, but you’re not going to be able to do that if you haven’t unlocked the ability yet.

      Another way might be just to apply a straight handicap: You get weaker when you kill someone and stronger when you die perhaps (The Obi Wan effect.) You’d balance that by giving cosmetic upgrades to better players so they have bragging rights.

      Pro: It self balances, you’d hit a natural equilibrium.

      Cons: I don’t know how interesting it would be for experienced players. You want to avoid a situation where you have to shoot someone in the face a hundred times before they fall over. Also, I don’t think it would take long before people found a way to game the system, maybe friendly fire, area damage, or just taking down 95% health and leaving someone else to finish them off. Any way to damage someone without technically killing them. Could lead to some major griefing.

      So, yeah, basically I got nothing. Back to the drawing board I guess.

    • TariqOne says:

      Matchmaking, assuming it works in the first place (see APB) is all well and good until the population shrinks.

      And yeah, giving people better gear for playing is a bad idea in this sort of thing.

  10. Web Cole says:

    I can’t help but feel that this is a (potentially) great game thats been marketed quite badly. The trailer previous to this one made the gameplay look stilted and awkward, with people standing around shooting at one another, which is pretty much the opposite of what we’ve been told it plays like.

    And this one has some really set up looking parts to it, eg the guy who got sticky grenaded really couldn’t have killed his opponent?

  11. Heliocentric says:

    The combination of stealth dude and turret dude, along with the option of quad bike/scout plane dude was my character in planetside.

    Best kdr ever.

    Having one toy each is not big or clever!

  12. nuh uh no way says:

    uhhh “recoil=0” in the INI much? what the hell is going on? this is the first trailer that has gotten a negative reaction out of me. what a shame.

    • Turin Turambar says:

      Yes, there is barely any recoil. And that’s the point of the game: a team based shooter which more in common with the old ET instead of just another CoD clone. Similarly, the damage of the weapons is kind of low so people with actual aiming skill will have an advantage, and the fights will be more prolonged than “0.5 secs to die” of other games.

  13. YourMessageHere says:

    Brink is such a weird thing. When I read about it at first, it sounded numerous flavours of awesome: A nicely dystopian setting, really interesting adaptive movement system, huge customisation potential, the whole thing with the game giving you missions based on what you’re doing and so on – a truckload of interesting ideas. I imagined it as a sort of TF with DIY classes and a setting that didn’t feel like a saturday morning cartoon.

    Then I saw it.

    This is the most hideous looking game I recall seeing for literally years. The art style is absolutely dreadful; I know this is subjective, but I can’t imagine a gut reaction like this is limited just to me. I mean, look at that pic at the top of the page – the guy’s head is smaller than his foot; it’s like Team DM in a Beryl Cook painting. Various people have also mentioned the odd animation and lighting, and the fact it uses the ET:QW engine just can’t be good. And the weapons; they appear to be about a quarter as powerful as they should be. Does anyone else feel similar, or is this a symptom of some interesting mental disorder I alone am experiencing?

    • Vandelay says:

      I personally don’t have any problam with the art style. It is certainly unique and instantly recognisable. Although I wouldn’t say it was the prettiest thing I’ve seen, it is certainly preferable to another psuedo-realistic army men style.

      But, I do agree that the videos have not been as interesting as the words I’ve heard about it. This is by far the best trailer I’ve watched, but I still have a few issues with some of the gameplay. I hope there will be demo, so I can get feel of it before buying. If it did and I liked what I saw, this would definitely be an early buy for me.

  14. mkultra says:


  15. Bungle says:

    While I don’t personally care about female characters, the developer’s story is bogus. The truth is that they simply didn’t think about it until some girl gamer asked them. All the talk about budgets and memory limitations is just babble.

  16. Tom OBedlam says:

    This trailer actually makes this game look a bit ugly and clunky, nothing like the game actually plays at all. Very weird.

  17. ran93r says:

    Quite enjoyed that to be honest, not rushing out to cancel my pre-order just yet.

  18. Thants says:

    I though that trailer looked pretty great. Other than going into third person for the SMART bits instead of showing the actual gameplay. I’m not sure why people seem to have disliked it so much. Maybe it’s just my Wolfenstein Enemy Territory nostalgia talking.

  19. Joe Maley says:

    I haven’t been following this game, but this trailer definitely turned me off. Everything about it screams unpolished TF2/CoD wanna-be.

  20. DOLBYdigital says:

    Whew agree with others, each video seems to be getting worse. Definitely not a day one for me, especially with all the other games coming out soon, I’ll have my hands full. Maybe grab it in a sale though

  21. 4026 says:

    I’m really confused by all this negativity. It looks great to me.

    But then, I enjoyed ET:QW, too.