In the words of Ratatouille’s restaurant critic Anton Ego, “We thrive on negative criticism, which is fun to write and to read.” But there come moments when we have to remind ourselves that such entertaining commentaries tend to be nothing more than cheap thrills. And so I ask: Why not provide suggestions for fixing bad game design rather than simply wag a finger at it? These developers work their asses off, so they deserve such feedback, correct? Every month, I will find a game that had great potential yet failed to deliver. I will point out some of the obvious flaws, give a few of my own tips on how to fix them, and then open this up for you to offer your suggestions as well. It’ll be kind of like fantasy football, only manlier.
This month, we’ll take a look at Brink from developer Splash Damage. This game promised a lot of great ideas and had a lot of gamers crossing their fingers (including me). Splash Damage aimed (no pun intended) to change the first-person-shooter genre by implementing new and risky ideas, splicing together subgenres, and combining multiple types of experiences. They fell short, though their efforts and ideas should not be dismissed. Here are some of Brink’s faults that should definitely be reworked:
Blending single-player with multiplayer
I was excited about Splash Damage's plans to integrate single- and multiplayer into one seamless experience, but the results disappointed. The game simply took multiplayer, made human players and bots interchangeable (not a new idea), and slapped on a few simple cutscenes before every match for the sake of narrative. If you want to successfully blend the unique features of both modes, then look for inspiration in games that have been successful without any multiplayer at all.
A stellar solo experience features far more than just the one-step process of going from point A to point B. Along the way, they reward you with chunks of narrative, additions to the gameplay (new moves, weapons, etc.), and different obstacles in your path. If Brink wanted to deliver a competent single-player experience, it would have featured more narrative than an intro cutscene to each map, more gameplay additions than upgrades to already-existing skills, and more obstacles than just the enemies of the opposing team. Brink is a multiplayer game at heart, so that aspect of its design holds up nicely. It’s fast, frantic and fun as hell. The only thing missing is actual single-player elements.
Free-running/parkour
Mirror’s Edge was a great game and provided a new, fresh take on the first-person genre. It showed us that fast, free-flowing movement could be used in tangent with the environment and level design. It worked so well that guns weren’t even the main focus of the gameplay. Fortunately for fans of Mirror’s Edge, Splash Damage saw this idea and thought it would go nicely with the fast pace of traditional shooters that we’re all used to. They were right, except they left out one crucial thing: more opportunities to use it.
In Brink, this type of navigation is known as SMART (Smooth Movement Across Random Terrain), and its purpose is quite clear. The only problem is that a lot of the maps are as flat and boring as a Nickleback song. What made this feature useful in Mirror’s Edge was the nature of its setting; a free-running mechanic works perfectly within the variety of highs and lows that are found in urban locations. Brink lacks all of the above, rendering its SMART feature nearly pointless.
The fix is easy: Tailor your level design to your gameplay/controls. Gears of War’s maps feature waist-high walls because of its cover-based shooting. Halo’s locales are large and sprawled out because of its vehicular elements. Most of the areas in Brink feature no unique flavor and could easily be found in any other shooter. If you’re going to have a game with free-running in it, then design your setting accordingly. Everyone in the world of Brink seems to know parkour, so why wouldn’t the developers build their architecture with that in mind?
Customization and RPG elements
After the Call of Duty franchise struck gold with the implementation of a leveling-up system into its multiplayer, others have tried desperately to copy it. Brink tried bringing in a little bit of that, but with a max level of 20, players won't see a lot of long-term benefit for continuous play. You can access most weapons within an hour via the game’s four “challenges," and you can unlock all of the character aesthetics within a couple of days. That’s not enough!
If you want to provide a legitimate RPG experience with your shooter, then make sure you offer enough to keep the player coming back for more. Multiplayer shooters are supposed to last people weeks, after all. Developers: If you’re going to give something like this a shot, then make sure you’re giving us a Reese’s and not just a Hershey bar with “peanut butter” written on it in frosting. Trust me -- your audience will thank you for it.
Your thoughts
You’ve heard what I have to say about Brink’s shortcomings and how to possibly fix them; now give some of your own suggestions! Even if you haven’t played the game (which I don’t suggest unless you can rent it), you can imagine some great possibilities from the aforementioned ideas. I know I did.
If we’re lucky enough, perhaps Splash Damage or another developer will see what we’ve come up with, take everything into consideration, and give us the opportunity to enjoy a fresh experience in a genre that many have gotten bored of. You never know who could be reading these, especially if we offer ways to better the medium rather than just tearing it to pieces.
