And Now Brink Explains The Basics

Want to understand the fundamentals of how Brink’s objective-based game unfolds? Then you, sir, must have no fear, and must watch the video that lies beneath this introductory paragraph. I remain fascinated by this game, and can’t wait to see how it plays out. More interesting, perhaps, will be how the wider gaming community takes a slightly more complex multiplayer manshoot in this time of simplicity. Will the CoD-consuming masses be hungry for something with a little more substance? I’ll be interested to find out…


  1. sigma83 says:

    What’s the point of primarizing the consoles? ‘press up to see objectives’ Surely this is a PC game foremostly.

    I worry about weapon handling. Team interaction aside the weapon handling will be the entire game.

    • Jim Rossignol says:

      Well I think *we* expect it to sell on PC, and Bethesda are hoping it will sell on 360…

    • pupsikaso says:

      Why are they hoping it will sell on 360? *We* will pick this game up, and if we like it we’ll play it for years and years. If the 360 crowd picks it and likes it, they’ll play it for maybe half a year until the next CoD/Halo/Gears/whatever game comes out.

    • Nalano says:

      It looks like it plays closer to Halo than a PC MPFPS. Slow-moving people, short-range weapons, tight environments.

    • Brumisator says:

      So what if ‘we’ play it for years and years, once they’ve sold their game, they don’t have a reason to care anymore.

    • Calabi says:

      Because people then buy it for years and years. Look at Counter Strike Source and Team Fortress 2.

    • Nalano says:

      Microtransactions are the wave of the future, Calabi?

      Perish the thought.

    • Delusibeta says:

      Note the distinct lack of microtransactions (or indeed, change compared to when it was first released) in Counter Strike Source.

    • Shortwave says:

      The fact that this is primarily being marketed to consoles (Just my humble observation) makes me think that the PC version has nothing else to offer. I really hope that’s not the case because I’ve been keeping me eye on this game for ages.. But that video made me worry.. It “felt” so slow and some of the rooms/environments looked pretty bad to me.. Thankfully I’ve adopted a no pre-order policy. I’m sick of being promised PC love and only being given a Hot Carl instead. I’m seriously sick of playing dumbed down games held back by dated hardware, FOR SERIOUSLY.
      Why are we even watching the console version on here?
      Can’t we get a look at the PC version? We’re PC gamers here.

    • Bishop says:

      Perhaps “Press up” related to 2/3 of the platforms it’s being released on? Perhaps it being relevant to the majority is a smart idea. Perhaps I’m using the word perhaps incorrectly, as I mean it’s the smart thing to do.

    • Vandelay says:


      We will have none of your logic round here! For God’s sake man, there is some raging to be had!

      What does confuse me though, is the lack of short trailers that use images from the PC (speaking generally, rather than just Brink.) Surely the publishers would want to show off the game looking its absolute best, so show videos taken from the system that is going to produce the best image. Using 360 gameplay footage for extended “walkthrough” trailers like this makes sense, but using it on those fast paced 30-second shorts?

      Still have high hope for this game though. The footage may have left me a little cold from time to time (the above looked like one of the better videos, to be honest,) but reading the words on it, even from those that have had hands-on experience with the game, gets me very excited.

    • zergrush says:


      I think they don’t show the games running at their peak on PC because console people ( that are very likely to make the bulk of sales, as with most multiplatform releases ) would notice it doesn’t look as good as on the promo videos.

    • ny73m4r3 says:

      Splash damage have been going to expos and letting people play the emo on developer xboxes, this video is shown at the expo to cover the basics for the players, as the video says, also, splash damage probably understand that as the less pathetic part of the gaming world, we would just pick up xbox controllers and gt stuck in to the demo, where as console gamers would whine their little eyes out.

      Also, PC gamers are renown for changin their controls to suit them selves, while the majority of console gamers when discussing the game will talk about what button to press when as oppose to the actual action, because they don’t realise you can rebind keys.

      Let’s be the bigger man, PC Gamers.

    • dalziel86 says:

      Hath not a console gamer eyes? If you cut us, do we not bleed? Green blood if parental controls are on, obviously, but…

  2. Web Cole says:

    Pre-ordered and fingers crossed xD

  3. VelociraptorBill says:

    Surely they don’t expect us to use Arrow Keys, right?

  4. TechRogue says:

    Every time I see a Brink post I feel compelled to beg for a Linux version so I can give the studio my money.

    Splash Damage, please let me give you my money. The engine you’re using supports Linux already.

    • Thants says:

      This site must be very boring if you only play Linux games.

    • BAReFOOt says:

      @Tants: Certainly better than supporting a company that was convicted as a criminal many times and continues to be a criminal anyway. Because in essence, that morally makes you a criminal too.

    • Thants says:

      Hey, I’m no fan of Microsoft either. It’s a sad state of affairs that PC gaming is mostly limited to Windows. Especially considering how much Microsoft seems to regard Windows games as a unwanted house-guest.

    • ZiggyFromMars says:

      Hahahahaha, I’m morally a criminal because I use Windows? You have some fucked up morals bro.

    • Aankhen says:

      What Ziggy said.

    • Sheng-ji says:

      What criminal cases have Microsoft been convicted of exactly…. be very careful you don’t reel of a list of civil charges here, criminal law deals with murder, rape, burglary etc. Civil law deals with disputes between two parties. If I am in breech of civil law, I am not a criminal. If I am the happy customer of a company which has ever been ruled against in a civil court, I am certainly in no way a criminal.

      Also, do you own a mobile phone which was manufactured in the last 30 years, a flatscreen TV, a portable music player manufactured after 1980, a car, van, truck or lorry, insurance, a credit card, cavity wall insulation, flat packed furniture, an electric lawn mower, speakers, babies toys, a camera (including those units plonked into phones), a chainsaw manufactured by Stihl or Husvana, paracetamol, products containing xanthan gum, icecream from a supermarket, ready meals, milk… etc etc etc

      If so, you are almost certainly, by your definition a criminal. All of these industries make Microsoft look like saints compared to the practices they have engaged in.

  5. Longrat says:

    Regenerating health? I was sure it didn’t have that one.
    Aww man..

    • Jad says:

      Are there any major FPS titles without regenerating health nowadays?

      I don’t hate regenerating health as a general design choice, it is a legitimate option that produces a certain type of gameplay. Health packs (carryable or not), bleeding with bandages, one-shot-kill are also legitimate options that produce different styles of gameplay. My problem is that no developer seems to actually weigh these options and choose the best one for their game anymore. Regenerating health has been enshrined as the correct mechanic for modern games, and to do otherwise would be seen as deliberately being backwards, like removing mouse-look in a FPS or numbered group hotkeys in a RTS.

      I’m actually kind of happy that there is no news about Half-Life 3, as I can’t imagine that game being accepted now if it had health packs, lacked a cover system, and Gordon could carry more than two weapons.

    • Nalano says:

      I dare say you’re even more cynical than I am, Jad, tho I can’t find anything specific to disagree with you on.

      I hate cover systems with a passion (especially when they’re broke: When simply crouching behind a piece of cover does nothing but velcroing yourself to it makes you invulnerable – unless, of course, the AI then decides to flank you and you’re quite literally stuck to the now-useless chest-high wall) and I find the “realism” of carrying only two weapons somewhat diminished by the ability to take six bullets to the gut and only be winded for five seconds (to say nothing of being able to carry thousands and thousands of rounds for said two weapons), but they’re practically memes now.

      But then, I’ve been spending way too much time playing Call of Pripyat, where bullets hurt, ammunition has weight, and modders tweak the rest to their liking, so I may be a bit biased.

    • Calabi says:

      Thats a good point. I dont think there are very many decisions made in game development these days. Its all just we’ll, have what they have.

    • Longrat says:

      I don’t see the point of making regenerating health when the game is in close quarters and it has medics anyway. If anything, it works against this whole vision of a homogeneous team in favor of more “solo operations”.

    • Kolchak says:

      Yeah I pre-ordered this during the Direct2Drive sales where you could get 25 percent off. Now I just realized I paid 38 bucks for consolized game.

      I also pre-ordered Rage, and I know that has regenerating health already but dammit if Carmack screws up and turns it completely mainstream I’ll be completely devastated. It will mean Valve is the only company left that does FPS right.

    • frymaster says:

      from my playthrough (thanks multiplay!) you have to be out of combat for a while before it regenerates. I certainly spent a lot of time as medic not buffing people, but rather healing them.

    • Tarqon says:

      Speaking of consolized mechanics, I hate aiming down the sight so much. Especially because they always insist on slowing you down while you do it, making for incredibly static firefights.

      The whole mechanic is just an excuse to reduce the field of view so console players have an easier time aiming, I really wish they’d remove it for the PC editions of games.

    • Jad says:

      Now I just realized I paid 38 bucks for consolized game.

      And what I was trying to say was that health regeneration is not per se a sign of consolization. It is a game design choice.

      The first game I played that had it was Call of Duty 2, which came out first for PC and was back in the era when FPS games were primarily made for PC and then ported to console to bring in a little more money — it felt thoroughly like a PC game, albeit a rather arcade-y PC game (which is not a “console” thing, PC’s have had fast-paced, simple games forever [Doom, anyone?]). Crysis 1had health regen.

      Valve is a perfect example of a developer actually weighing their options and choosing mechanics based on what would work best for their game, not what is popular:

      Portal 1 (and presumably Portal 2, I only just bought it) had regenerating health. Yes, remember when you got shot by the turrets? There was no health bar or HP numbers; if you got quickly out of the line of fire you would be fine. If you sat still they shot you until you died. That system was perfect for Portal, as it was not a game based on survival or combat, and adding health packs would have been an unnecessary complication. Anyone who complained about Portal for being “dumbed down” or “consolized” because it has health regen would be an idiot.

      Left 4 Dead, released after Portal 1, had numeric health points, carryable health packs, and even changed your movement speed if your were very hurt. This was perfect for this game because it was all about survival, rationing your supplies, continuous forward momentum weighed with the time it took to heal, and those tension-packed desperate moments when you stumble towards the safe room with 2 HP left and a horde of zombies racing after you.

      Anyway, I’m glad to hear that Splash Damage at least seem to have put some thought into the implementation of health regen to fit their game, if frymaster is right.

    • Jad says:

      Speaking of consolized mechanics, I hate aiming down the sight so much …. The whole mechanic is just an excuse to reduce the field of view so console players have an easier time aiming, I really wish they’d remove it for the PC editions of games.

      I remember playing Day of Defeat in 2000 with iron sights, a year before Halo (which did not have aiming down the sight as far as I remember) was even released. Operation Flashpoint had ’em, as did PC-only CoD 1, the Battlefield games, Stalker …

      Its a game design choice, not a console thing. Some games it is appropriate, in some it is not (and I do get annoyed like you in those instances).

  6. MercDT says:

    Uhg I really need a demo, since I’m still undecided about this game.

  7. RoTapper says:

    I wonder if this has too many options. Blackops has alot of perks and weapons, but the correct answer to any situation ends up being famas/aug.

    Everyone just gravitates to the optimal weapon/perk combo and the other 50 are rarely used.

    I will be suprised if this game is well balanced on release. Still looking forward to it though.

    • Giaddon says:

      I think the hope is that because there are a variety of tasks to accomplish (both in the sense of objectives to complete and “battlefield roles”) more combinations will be viable. Because the entire goal of COD is “kill guys,” the loadout that optimally lets you kill guys is the best.

  8. Mr Rud says:

    I don’t think this game will affect CoD’s demographic a lot: the low enphasis on kills and the lack of “stylish” features (i.e. snipers and quick/noscoping) clash with the typical CoD fanboy. A lot of the customers will probably be Battlefield Players looking for some kind of filler while waiting for Battlefield 3. Don’t get me wrong, i think there is a lot of genuine interest for this game (myself included)

  9. Anthile says:

    >objective-based game

    The problem with that concept is that most people who play multiplayer shooters are seemingly very dense and unable to grasp it. I don’t mean to sound condescending but that’s just how it is. People will for the most part ignore any kind of objective and play team deathmatch instead. It is very frustrating when everyone else plays a completely different game mode. This makes public servers pretty much a no-no and forces you to play with people you know.
    I really hope Brink does something to avoid this.

    • Nalano says:

      This is kinda why playing a non-clan game in BFBC2 and BFBC2:V (a mouthful of an acronym) is all but impossible for me: Nobody takes the objectives, more than half the team are snipers who care only about their K:D ratio, and apparently multiseat vehicles like transport helicopters are really just flying ATVs and twice as disposable.

    • Zogtee says:

      That’s my worry too. Objective-based gameplay is great in theory and when playing with friends. Step outside of that circle and it quickly degenerates into running around like idiots and ignoring te objectives. I’m sorry if that sounds negative, but that’s my experience.

      I hope the game does well, but I’m not at all sure it will.

    • Kandon Arc says:

      Personally I think if you reward players sufficiently (and ideally more so than killing) for objectives then players will complete them. This is one of the areas that xp really helps a game. The CoD crowd cares far more about getting xp than they do about killing – which is why TDM is always the most popular – because those gametypes are the easiest to rack up xp. As long as Splash Damage adequately prioritises incentives, medics will heal, commandos will hack, engineers will repair and everyone will focus on objectives – whether they do so intelligently is debatable.

    • Thants says:

      This same team managed to make it work well in Wolfenstein Enemy Territory.

    • Springy says:

      I seem to recall hearing (probably here) that Brink will have an reward system where objective and team-centric actions massively outweigh simply killing the bad guys in XP, and, more importantly, the scoreboards only track and show XP, not K/Ds.

      Being stuck at the bottom of the board with no-one to see how sick your shooty skillz are may be an incentive to play with your team. Or swear a lot and stop playing the game. Yeah, I bet this’ll be fun to listen to the voice chat on Xbox LIVE.

    • Hypocee says:

      They do indeed refuse to show you any kind of K/D; it’s all teamplay and objectives. Also, no voice chat from non-friends. They’re systematically addressing the horrible parts of multiplayer gaming.

  10. SwiftRanger says:

    Still looking for a sign of that PC interface…

    Revival syringe is a neat idea though, removes the unwanted revs found so many times in Battlefield games.

  11. eightbitrobot says:

    Shame, Brink seems way too slow for PC.. I was hoping for it to be the next RtCW.

    • Òscar says:

      This. Actually, this is the first game ever that has made me think of updating my hardware. Now I don’t have to.

      This is obviously a console game and thus its typical slowness: playing a FPS with a joypad is harder than playing with kb+m because aiming with analog sticks will never be at the same level as with a mouse. I’ll be damned if someone disagrees. Therefore, if players cannot aim quickly enough, movement must be slowed down to give them more time to react. And this doesn’t apply only to Brink. Mirror’s Edge’s movement, for example, felt really good because it was not meant to be a manshoot and gave you that extra time to react and do your cool stuff.

      It’s a sad day for me, I was really looking forward to brink being something more like teams of good-looking tf2 scouts running wildly and doing cool tricks while shooting than gears of war with extra movements for your “action” button.

  12. Giaddon says:

    Man, the environments look so cramped. I know you’re supposed to be flippin’ and jumpin’ and glidin’ all over them, but dang!: tight.

    (I can see the advantages too, like keeping teammates together, creating distinct fronts of battle, and funneling play toward objectives, but then I play Heavy Metal on BFBC2, and I love all that space.)

    I guess this isn’t my jam.

  13. Gazmanic says:

    I played this at I42 and i really enjoyed it . My only quip was that the controls felt clunky but i believe this is just down to it being the Xbox version. Overall it seems like its gonna be awesome and i like how they don’t blatantly point out shortcuts so you need to find them yourselves

  14. Snall says:

    Strangely enough I was excited about this until I watched this vid…keeping to MW1/moded games still…Le Sigh.

  15. paterah says:

    All this amazing customization makes me sad I won’t be able to see my char during gameplay…Looks good nonetheless.

  16. killmachine says:

    i dont know why. am i getting old? i mean. everyone who knows a tiny bit about shooters should be totally excited about this game.

    when i read comments about brink on various gaming sites i think people have no idea about games like quake, rtcw… it seems to me that people only know cod, battlefield or tf2 and further, even think that these games invented or define the genre.

    brink is based on wolfenstein enemy territory. enemy territory is based on rtcw. rtcw introduced (for me anyways) objective based multiplayer. wolf:et took it to the next level. rtcw (and wolf:et) are based on quake3 (id)tech(3). there you go, quake, full circle.

    splash damage started as a modding team for a team fortress themed mod for quake3. (i think) they created the multiplayer for rtcw. they created wolfenstein enemy territory, a very popular, free shooter, a lot of people still play. they created the multiplayer maps for doom3. (they created quake, again quake, wars, which was a flop due to short developing time.)

    so, plz stop mentioning battlefield, cod or tf2. they didnt create the genre nor do they define it. they are all based on quake (more or less, dont hit me). quake defined the genre for a long time. after that there was ww2, modern warfare, large open spaces, vehicle combat, ironsights, objectives…

    whats my point? my point is that splash damage has no need to look at games like cod, battlefield or tf2. they already did games before those games were even released. people who look at brink as a filler for the next cod/battlefield have probably no idea about the “good old” shooters. if you think you are a uber shooter pro this should be your next game you’ve been waiting for since quake3.

    cod/battlefield/tf2 actually were fillers. those games took what quake defined, minimized it and threw it out to the masses. brink hopefully takes a step back and recreates what quake defined and on the same step makes it more accessible for the people.

    (sry if theres some bullshit included that doesnt make much sense. im sick and cant exactly articulate what i want to say in english.)

    • slight says:

      Specifically, they started out making a mod called Q3F, which was initially an attempt at a version of QWTF in Q3. The initial members were from the UK QWTF scene. Q3F ended up heading in the total conversion direction introducing a fair bit of stuff not supported by the Q3 engine out of the box.

      So ET:QW and now Brink are a natural progression from QWTF really. :)

      God TFC sucked.

    • Thants says:

      I don’t see how Battlefield or CoD are at all based on Quake, they’re very different types of games. TF2 is obviously based on the original TF Quake mod.

      In any case, I agree with you. I’m very excited that this is looking like a continuation of Wolfenstein Enemy Territory.

  17. Sinnorfin says:

    My opinion is: Its not the regenerating health that matters but the effects of getting shot.
    You want a fun shooter, go ahead use a regen or a static health with med kits.

    But you dont want the player to have that crazy body awareness(?!) bouncing of camera, flashing in your eyes, and ketchup sauce all over the monitor for seconds…same for the giant shoot-direction indicators in some games..Especially not for competitive multiplayer.

    What happens is when the player gets shot bad, its either that he sprays a few bullets and hits/kills someone, or get in cover somehow blinded and confused, OR get shot again right after the first shots…
    All it adds is unnecessary randomness, and a sportly multiplayer shooter doesnt need that.

    The same scenario , either with regen or static health is: Player get shot bad, and he go in cover, go suicidal, or whatever, but he remains in Control! I know its surprise of attack or else, but then its usually just ‘luck’ of getting shot first, especially in a game where everything shits bullets..Half the game played with blurred vision, distorted sounds is not the way counterstrike got so popular.

    I would say keep these ‘realism’ effects for simulators, but this is no realism anyway.. If there is blood spraying from your body to your face, blinding you… then its just a game…over.

  18. RagingLion says:

    Only being able to get upgrades through ‘Challenges’ seems quite a surprising thing and departure from many other games where you get them from playing the normal multiplayer mode. I’m assuming these challenges would be single-player from the way they talked about them.

  19. Radiant says:

    This seems very much ‘throw yourself at an objective’ type of game coupled with a ‘you are not the right class to complete the objective’ type of game.

    Boo on both counts.

    Can’t we just grab flags and kill everybody?

  20. neolith says:

    Well, there goes my excitement for this game…

    I’m absolutely baffled how boring the gameplay in the vid looks. I still dig the looks of the characters a lot, but that doesn’t change the fact that I am now completely unimpressed by how sluggish, slow and lifeless the game comes off. Maybe my expectations were too high but I really hope the video doesn’t do the game any justice at all.

    • Thants says:

      No FPS looks very good played with a gamepad. What I don’t understand is why they don’t show the PC version in these trailers.

  21. suibhne says:

    Put me down as another one of those folk who were totally jazzed for the game last year but have become increasingly…concerned? Disconnected? Wait-and-seeish?

    It looks good, I’ll grant that. I like the aesthetic of it and I’m a big fan of objective-based gameplay. But I have a fear that it’ll turn out somewhat like Section 8, which so drowned in various objectives that it became a disorganized circus most of the time (in my view). I want well-structured gameplay, like in CoD2’s Search & Destroy mode, not just the chaos of tons of options. ET struck a good balance in this regard, but this game looks like it might be closer to chaos than to structure. Any comments on that from folks who have played it?

    • Hypocee says:

      I haven’t played it, but the levels are built around a linear bottleneck objective chain rather than Section 8’s everything everywhere all the time, and they put in a Directorlike feature to funnel people to the same objectives by manipulating XP rewards.

  22. Thants says:

    I really wish this didn’t have experience based unlocks. If I want to play an MMO I’ll play an MMO. Games like these are hard enough to balance without people doing things I can’t because they’re been playing longer.

    • Springy says:

      I wish they were still self-contained within a round like Wolf:ET rather than persistent. That would encourage you to garner XP, but wouldn’t unbalance things too much from game-to-game.

      It would also introduce an interesting balancing act, trying to unlock things in a game that would help tip the scales in your favour before the time ran out (I remember desperately trying to get the adrenaline needle as a medic in W:ET in Gold Rush to make the necessary mad dash with the gold to the truck).

    • Hypocee says:

      I hate RPG bullshit too; it’s my one major turnoff on Brink. It is mitigated by SD’s promise that all the straight-up improvements are frontloaded into the first few levels, and all the weapon unlocks being tied to proficiency in the single-player challenge levels rather than time or XP. They give you a level or two just for watching an instructional video, and if you’re good enough you could roll through top marks on the challenge levels first try.

      The impression I’ve gotten from all the coverage I’ve read is that the unlock system is not intended to induce RPG lootlust, but rather as a way to avoid analysis paralysis and misunderstandings from all the permutations of weapons, bodytypes, mods and perks in a player’s first few matches. ‘Look, just play a couple games, maybe against bots, with Medium bodytype and an assault rifle kit. See how a Heavy Minigunner works before you try to drive it.’ Of course, whether they’ve lived up to their promises only time will tell.

  23. Oroku Saki says:

    In defense of the regenerating health, though I found it odd at first, it does seem like it could work properly in an online FPS if done properly.

    Firstly, it lessens the chance of a player throwing themselves at a wave of enemies if they are going to die before they can get to a health pack anyway, and it also limits the ability of the enemy team to control stationary health areas in such a way that combat can become very static, ie. run away from the health pack to kill a few enemies, run back to heal up, repeat ad naseum.

    Secondly, it also increases the tension between you and your enemy. If things are going badly you know that if you can escape and hide for X amount of time that you can come back and take another shot at an objective without having to run off to find a health pack or having to wait on the respawn and a long walk about. On the other hand, it also increases your desire to hound your enemy until they are definitely dead, because you know that if you let them go they will be back again, possibly with reinforcements.

    On the other hand, it destroys some tactical aspects in favor of new ones. Assuming all players are equally skilled there is no problem with this system, however once you introduce players whose skill is markedly superior to others an issue is created where it may become impossible to whittle them down over time, after throwing multiple bodies at them in an effort to take them out. If you can’t take them out in a one-on-one fight you will need to swarm them and overpower through superior numbers. I for one am in favor of this concept, but I doubt how many public server players would take this line instead of raging about how he is a cheater and about how they are going to kill him this next time.

    I think the real key to all of this is how long it takes you to begin regeneration and once it begins how fast it takes to regenerate to full health. If it is too fast it will turn the game into players hiding behind objects waiting for their health to get a boost. If it is too slow, players will be hiding behind objects waiting for full health before risking another enemy confrontation. I am hoping they will hit the spot where you really need a medic in a combat situation, because there is no other practical healing solution that doesn’t involve outrunning your enemies and hiding, while still allowing players to be able to go from firefight to firefight without having to deal with the fact that there isn’t a nearby medic to prepare them for the next fight.

    Other than that, really liking the enemy territory influence.

  24. 3Suns says:

    Consider that the marketing for this game is a bitch because it is significantly more complex than other class based first person shooters and it is being simultaneously developed (not ported or “consolized” – pwtd) for multiple platforms.

    Splash Damage had Quake Wars ported for the PS3 and 360 and the jobs were done so poorly, they decided to do the work for Brink in house.

    I have spent over a year checking the Splash Damage forums on a daily basis, and I can assure you, they are hardcore PC gamers who, by their own admission, play L4D “every day at lunch since it released”.

    Not only are they hardcore gamers, but they are genuinely nice people who have a constant presence in their forums.

    Nothing they have done for Brink was done on a whim. For better or for worse, every minute detail of the game has been well debated. If you ask them a question, they will have an answer with a reason.

    I can’t wait for this one!

    Edit: One of the reasons SD continues to show the game on consoles rather than PC is because consoles and their single controller are much easier to take (in great numbers) to various functions and events.

    • killmachine says:

      i can totally agree to that. i too am very present in the official forums, hi 3suns. ;)

      i am very excited about this game and looking forward to it very much. though im also in the mentality to “wait and see”.

      i have blinded my mind a few times by marketing and only gameplay videos and im not going to make this mistake again. i will play the game first and then decide on buying it. if i have to wait for a demo or a free steam weekend, then i have to wait for a demo or a free steam weekend.

    • Rei Onryou says:


      I don’t use the SD forums (although maybe I should), but I’ve been following SD since W:ET and played them all. I’ve got very high hopes for Brink and do not doubt it will be a brilliant game. I played it at Eurogamer with RPSites and there was little to be worried about (AFAIK, it was running on PC, but using 360 controllers). Talking to the developers and listening to Ed Stern in an interview helped prove their dedication to the PC version.

      The media bandwagon will always be aimed at the consoles (that’s marketing for you – how many PC only games get the spotlight) – it’s a fact of life. But don’t judge the game based on that fact alone.

  25. Hatsworth says:

    Including unlockable advantages in a competitive multiplayer game is shooting it in the foot. I really hope this ends, but sadly I doubt it.

    • 3Suns says:

      There are several competitive communities looking very closely at this game.

      By level twenty (how long it takes to get there I don’t know) all the abilities and cosmetic features are unlocked, and the weapons and attachments are all unlocked by completing the “challenges” (which are there to train the gamers in parkour and shooting). If it happens that the competitive players don’t play enough to unlock everything (so they can all play with everything) then perhaps they shouldn’t be playing competitively. I can’t hit the broad side of a barn, but plan on having everything unlocked within a month or two. Also, people can always play “vanilla”.

      I won’t be playing competitively, but I cannot wait to see what dedicated, competitive gamers do with Brink. What they did with Team Fortress 2 blew my mind.

      @killmachine – I completely understand the “wait and see”. I have be burned horribly in the past, but have also had games live up to my lofty expectations.

      For Brink, however, I am taking off all my clothes. I will be sitting on the sofa with the lights down low, a drink in each hand, and just a doily on my lap propped up by great anticipation. I unabashedly plan on “getting lucky”.

  26. Ringwraith says:

    More importantly, bots!

    Yay bots!

  27. hosndosn says:

    >Will the CoD-consuming masses be hungry for something with a little more substance?

    It looks almost exactly like CoD. Is a medic class considered “substance” now?

    • Tin_man_Tex says:

      Given that all players go to an incapacitated state before dying and medics can revive them, then yes, medics have a substantial sway on the game flow.

  28. Grey_Ghost says:

    Was that a proper English accent? I know that faked ones rumple your feathers, what what. Cheerio…