Splash Damage wants you to shut up and play Brink

Brett_new_profile
Monday, February 28, 2011

Brink screenshot

At most press events I attend, the demo stations sport top-of-the-line gaming headphones -- you know, the kind that feel like butter on your ears -- to drown out the din of the venue and facilitate communication during multiplayer games. Yet at a hands-on session for Brink the other week, headphones were nowhere to be found -- a conspicuous absence for a team-based multiplayer shooter.

Turns out that was intentional: Voice chat is actually turned off by default in Brink. Developer Splash Damage knows that one foul-mouthed, racist idiot (and there are plenty of them on Xbox Live and PSN) can ruin the online experience for everyone, so they've decided to craft a game where you can cooperate with others to pull off complicated objectives -- all without uttering a single word.

 

The end product works surprisingly well. My fellow writers and I -- none of whom I'd met before -- completed two challenges as a cohort of silent killers with time and lives to spare.

Brink's game world consists of the Ark, a massive utopian city floating on the waters of a postapocalyptic, flooded Earth. Two factions, the Security and the Resistance, fight for control of the Ark. Both sides feature four classes: operative, engineer, medic, and soldier; you can swap classes at any time by accessing a terminal at one of your command posts.

Smartly, the console tells you how many teammates are suited up as each class, so it's easy to maintain a balanced crew suited to any objective. We played as the Security, and one objective tasked us with escorting an injured comrade. After accessing the console, I saw that our team was stocked with medics, so I picked the engineer in order to lay down remote turrets at choke points and protect our escort as the medics fed him health packs. 

Your decisions are also aided by the fact that objectives are plainly outlined in your HUD. Another objective had us swiping an important medical vial and bringing it back to an evac point. So I suited up as a soldier (for a good balance of speed and health), snuck my way in to where the vial was located, then hoofed it to the waiting helicopter while my colleagues laid down suppressive fire.

Both challenges required precision teamwork skills, and yet we didn't need to speak one word to get them done. The braying morons who love to lob hate-filled insults on Xbox Live are going to hate Brink because of that...and that's more than enough to get me interested.

 
Problem? Report this post
BRETT BATES' SPONSOR
Comments (5)
Photo_159
March 01, 2011

Man I have been waiting for this one.

Default_picture
March 01, 2011

Having my first cooperative/compeietive online game be Socom, the whole 'be quite while we figure this out' approach sounds horrible to me. Playing Black Ops though, where the majority of matches I get into only 4 players or so actually have mics I'm sure it could work. If the game is built around objectives and awards team play vs. a one man army I hope it does great cause that what I'm looking for from a shooter.

Default_picture
March 01, 2011

What's interesting is that you'd think that people would need the mics to communicate with useful advice. It looks like Brink is trying to prove that the mics are more of a hindrance than anything else. Maybe I'll try this out in my spare time.

Itsame_
March 01, 2011
So when you say "turned off by default" you mean it is still in the game right? Most of friends have PS3, so no party chat and even though I may not need it, voicechat is a good way for me to catch with friends while playing. Not trying to be negative, just don't like to loose options I feel should be a standard for online experiences.
Default_picture
March 01, 2011

The default option is that you only hear voice chat from people on your friends list - not sure how PS3's friends list works, whether it's game-specific or systemwide, but yes. You can still chat and catch up with your friends; the idea is to obviate the need for players to speak *game data* via A) careful game/interface design and B) a highly-tuned Bayesian barks system by which the avatars talk to each other and players' GUIs with the kind of info that experienced FPS players typically speak in-between all the N-word contests.

An example scenario described in a lot of press: Player A gets low on ammo. His character shouts "I need ammo!" and a marker appears on the HUD of soldiers (who can dispense infinite ammo). He then gets shot and incapacitated. His character radios "I'm down!", the soldiers' markers disappear and a marker appears on medics' HUDs. Player B, a medic, decides to take a detour and rez him. If he's across the room he's probably already just tossed out a syringe, but if he's going out of his way he'll want to get more XP for his trouble by accepting the specific mission. Therefore he chooses the Heal Player A objective from his quick-access objective wheel; it's probably mapped to the most important slot, meaning it's just a momentary tap of the Up arrow. When he accepts the mission his character barks "I'm on my way" to Player A so A knows to wait around. He runs into the room and tosses a syringe. Player A uses it, his character says "thanks" and Player B gets his healing XP and mission XP and runs off to resume whatever he was doing.

It is also possible to turn on universal voice chat, but it's a server-side and server-wide variable to avoid peer pressure on people to mic up and the nasty situation where only some people can hear and players are uncertain who they are.

You must log in to post a comment. Please register if you do not have an account yet.