8 reasons why everyone should give Brink a try

Default_picture
Tuesday, May 10, 2011
EDITOR'S NOTEfrom James DeRosa

Prior to reading Corey's thoughts on Brink, my excitement level for the game was zero. But after reading his thoughts on the game's innovative features, I think I might actually give it a try!

I started off this article with a top five in mind, but the list quickly grew, so I decided to cap it off at eight in an effort to remain concise. The long and short of it is that I think Brink could be the next Borderlands-style surprise hit, and I want to bring others in on the excitement.

For those of you unfamiliar with this "little-known" gem, here is an outline of the top eight reasons you should think about picking up today's big release.


1) 8-player co-op

You can play Brink's entire campaign with seven of your closest friends. This isn't some tacked-on feature; it's a core idea that developer Splash Damage built the experience around. It's much more than a bullet point on the box: Co-op is why you play the game.

 

2) Class-based gameplay that actually requires teamwork

Sure, you could argue that Brink isn't the first game to have class-based team play, and you'd be right. But it may be the best. While games like Battlefield have similar classes like medics, engineers, and soldiers, only Brink forces players to use these abilities collectively to accomplish their missions. Teamwork in Battlefield is an option that makes you more successful, but in Brink it's a requirement.

For instance, you can play as a sniper, but instead of sitting back and picking guys off in one hit, you only deal around 80 percent damage. This means you'll need your friends to help out to finish off a foe. Other situations may call for an engineer to free a teammate who has stepped on a mine or require a medic to buff a fellow soldier's health to ensure he has time to plant an explosive.

3) Artificial intelligence that is actually intelligent

So you jump online, and you notice that none of your buddies are around to play some co-op. With Brink, it seems as though you have nothing to worry about. In numerous trials and demos, many testers were unaware that the guys fighting beside them weren't actually humans beings. Instead, they were seeing Brink's A.I. system at work.

4) It's your game

Brink features some of the most distinctive customization you've seen in a first-person shooter. You can outfit each weapon with unique scopes, add-ons, and skins. The same goes for your character. By fully taking advantage of its attractive art style, Brink allows you to customize your shirt, shoes, pants, hair, face makeup, and body style as you see fit. This makes each character on the battlefield one of a kind. It's like dressing up a Barbie, only with more guns and more awesomeness.

5) The Dynamic Mission Wheel

After seeing and playing Brink for the first time, one innovation made me wonder why no other developer had thought of it before: reactive mission objectives. Some titles ante up with weapon wheels, but Brink raises the stakes with a mission wheel.

This unique feature takes into account kinds of support players need on the field of battle, dynamically creates objectives, and awards XP accordingly. One minute, it may task you to help your fallen comrades, and the next minute, you may choose to switch classes and need to repair a gun emplacement. The game always has a handful of options available to you at any given time.

6) Running like a ninja

One aspect of Brink that Splash Damage has made particular note of is its parkour abilities. While the movement options aren't as robust as Mirror's Edge, Brink integrates gunplay and mobility in a much better fashion.

You can run in, cannons blazing, while hurdling a wall and sliding into an enemy emplacement, only to finish the bad guy off with a well-timed shotgun blast. On top of that, the aforementioned customization affects mobility. If you choose a small, nimble body type, you can access more areas than a larger, bullet-sponge body type. Other games may have great shooting or great acrobatics, but only Brink merges the two into a creative, cohesive, standout experience.

7) You put story in my multiplayer?

Brink's cut-scenes do more than open each co-op campaign: They flesh out an ongoing narrative. And if that's not interesting enough, you can also play the co-op campaign levels competitively. This means that you can fight through one level solo, and if playing by your lonesome bores you, you can decide to finish the story playing against online opponents.

8) Challenges = Training

One feature that Splash Damage seems especially proud of is Brink's challenge mode. This portion of the game is more than merely a task list that unlocks character-customization items; it also serves as a fun way to hone your skills. Splash Damage admits that in playtests a lot of people weren't using the game's parkour abilities effectively at first, but after a few runs through some of the parkour challenges, they had it mastered and were using it in the main game.


If you visit The Weekly Blend regularly, you've probably aware that were not shy about our enthusiasm for Brink. The game that has been on our radar since we first did an video interview with the game's developers, Splash Damage, at PAX Prime in 2009. You can check it out on YouTube here.

 
Problem? Report this post
COREY BURRES' SPONSOR
Comments (42)
Justme
May 09, 2011

Very excited for Brink, for all these reasons and more.

Jayhenningsen
May 09, 2011

Hey Corey - You've got some good information here. We don't mind links or shout-outs to your own website, but can you please keep those at the bottom in the future, please? That's just the way we like to keep things here. Thanks.

Default_picture
May 09, 2011

My apologies.  It was my first post and I was unaware of the process.  Thanks.

Sexy_beast
May 09, 2011

You pretty much nailed everything, Corey. I picked up the game yesterday and it's a total blast. One thing about the AI, though: It's brutally unforgiving.

May 09, 2011

JUST

May 09, 2011

JUST got my Amazon shipment confermations! Soda Can Silencer, here I come! WOO!

Twit
May 10, 2011

Looks to be an interestin

Twit
May 10, 2011

Looks to be an interesting shooter for the jaded FPS fans who prefer objective-gameplay over traditional deathmatch. I know the Monday Night Combat community is particularly excited about it since our favorite game only has one objective-based gametype.

Me
May 10, 2011

I canceled my pre-order, and am waiting until Friday to get a used copy, just in case I don't like the game, such that I can return it for a full refund to put towards L.A. Noire. I am suspicious of reviews due to the conditions in which they are written, but when I hear about choke points, map design that doesn't adequately support the parkour movement, and AI that doesn't really play to the team theme, I get nervous about dropping $60 I can't get back.

I'm discounting all the connectivity issues because I think those will be fixed soon. Splash Damage has no choice to do so or they're sunk...but check out the Joystiq and 1UP reviews of Brink. It sounds like there might be some major mechanics issues with the game. Either that, or the reviewers didn't have enough time to play the game before writing the review, which I've addressed elsewhere. :)

It's basically hope that the latter is true which is keeping a used copy of the game still on the table as an option.

Sexy_beast
May 11, 2011

I would avoid buying games used. It's tempting to do so, especially if you're light on cash (like me), but unfortunately does nothing for those who have worked hard on their product. Either support the industry or don't; stay clear of the pawn philosophy.

Just don't buy it if you're apprehensive about taking a chance. Take that hard-earned money and spend it on another game, new.

Default_picture
May 11, 2011

$60 is a lot of money to blow on a game you don't like--I learned that the hard way with Homefront. That said, I usually avoid buying used because there's normally just a $5 savings, and I'd prefer to support the industry. However, I still keep my eyes open for deals, like buy.com's $50 LA Noire or Amazon's $35 Portal 2.

Me
May 11, 2011

So, this is meant to reply to Jason and Ryan below, not my own post...we'll see what happens...but it's not about the saving $5. It's about GameStop's policy of being able to return a used game for a 100% store credit within 7 days of purchase.

L.A. Noire is coming out next week. So, I pick up a used copy of Brink. If I don't like it, I bring it back and put the $55 towards L.A. Noire. I got to play the game, get what I wanted out of it, and it didn't cost me any money.

It may sound shitty, but it's the job of the developer to deliver me a product that's uncategorically worth my $60, and not my job to support developers who deliver middling efforts, just so they can stay in business.

Did you play Portal 2? It was brilliant. That sets the bar for what my $60 is worth. Brink sounds like a multiplayer-only title in practice. I'd pay $30 for it new without a qualm. But $60? Can't do it. :(

Default_picture
May 11, 2011

I wasn't aware of Gamestop's policy. When did they implement that? I remember back when I was working at EB, and we had a similar return policy for new games (I think it was somewhere between 2 weeks-month though). People were using us as a rental service, though, so we subsequently changed the policy and new games were no longer returnable. Similarly, used games were nonreturnable once the inserted "seal" on the package was broken.

If used games are returnable, that changes my whole outlook. I may have to buy used from now on, unless I'm nearly positive about a game (LA Noire, Uncharted 3, Mass Effect 3, etc.)

I like to support the industry whenever possible, but I agree--it's up to the developer to please me as a gamer. It's not incumbent upon me to keep lousy developers afloat (nor do I have responsibilities towards good developers--it's a give-and-take relationship).

I'm currently playing Portal 2 now and loving every minute of it, though as mentioned, I bought it cheap from Amazon. But theoretically, it would've been worth $60.

Me
May 11, 2011

I don't understand that policy at all, Jason. I often use GameStop as a virtual GameFly subscription. The system only works if there's something coming out that you KNOW you're going to buy, but that's usually the case for me. I bought Homefront used, returned it, put the money towards Portal 2. I had no doubt I'd be purchasing Portal 2. Etc.

Default_picture
May 11, 2011

Dennis, you have the right idea, but what about the gamer who never keeps a game (or puts the credit towards a new title), and treats it as a never-ending rental service? The industry gets nothing because you're buying used, and the store gets little because you're constantly swapping out the same purchase. I'm not saying you do that. I'm just pointing out why EB did away with their new game return policy and the potential dangers inherent in allowing game returns in the first place.

It's the same deal with book returns. When I worked at Walden Books (yes, I've had lots of retail jobs), our policy was 30 days on all books, though in practice we'd honor returns up to a year or more. Who couldn't finish a book in a month, let alone a year?

Robsavillo
May 11, 2011

Ryan, do you hate libraries, too?

Me
May 11, 2011

I totally hear what you're saying, Jason. Like I said, I don't know why GameStop  has that policy, for the reasons you mention, but ostensibly it doesn't cost them any money to keep the policy in place. /shrug

Robsavillo
May 11, 2011

Dennis, they have that policy because contrary to popular belief, used games can be broken. Disc-based games with an unnoticed scratch, for example, can be unplayable. (That happened to me with a used copy of FF7 -- a scratch on the second disc would cause the system to freeze, and I had no work-around.)

People don't like to buy broken stuff, so most used places (including those that trade in DVDs or books) give a grace period for return to keep the customer happy. I certainly wouldn't return to a store that refused to take back a broken item.

Sexy_beast
May 11, 2011

I'm not going to tell you guys how to spend your money, but you should think more about the long-term effects of buying used and less about what you as consumers are entitled to. Games take a lot of money to make, and likewise are difficult to take chances on (both as a consumer and a developer). This industry is barely over 30 years old, yet it already suffers from stagnation.

Giving a retail store like Gamestop 100% of the profit does nothing to affect any sort of change in the development process of games. Sure, these games exist to entertain you, but if you have any sort of respect for the medium and wish for it to grow into something better, you'll give developers incentive to take risks.

That doesn't mean buying a game like Brink. If a game is shit, then it's shit -- whether or not it's trying a lot of new things. But giving Gamespot all of your money tells developers one thing: You'll only buy their games if it's shit you've seen and liked over, and over, and over again.

Robsavillo
May 11, 2011

Ryan, but your clearly are, "Either support the industry or don't; stay clear of the pawn philosophy." What else can that mean but telling people how to spend their money?

I've already responded to the rest of your comment here and here, so I won't bother repeating myself.

Default_picture
May 11, 2011

Somebody needs to clarify this, because there appears to be a misunderstanding. Is the 7-day grace period *only* in the case of defective merchandise? Or is it a free window to return whatever you'd like? I can wholeheartedly support the former, but the latter situation turns Gamestop into a library.

Regarding the new vs. used debate, I kinda straddle the line. Buying from Gamestop, and with a mere $5 difference, I'd choose to support the industry--although the return window makes buying used very enticing. As far as the second-hand market in general, I feel no compunction about buying used. Assuming I acquire the game legally, I don't feel the least bit bad about seeking out deals on Amazon or eBay.

Sexy_beast
May 11, 2011

Fine, I am telling them how to spend their money.

But it's not a bad thing to oppose a monopolistic retail chain from getting 100% profit for something they had absolutely no part in making. Buying used from a local store is one thing, but giving Gamestop even more money that they don't deserve is different. The advent of digital distribution means Gamestop's days are numbered, but that doesn't mean consumers (namely any self-proclaimed "hardcore" gamers) should still seek out minor deals at the expense of developers.

You're not very hardcore if you're digging through the bargain bin.

Default_picture
May 11, 2011

Ryan, how is Gamestop making "100% profit" on used games? They don't steal these games or get them for free. They might give a pittance for trade-ins, so the profit margin might be high, but it's still a viable business model, and they aren't making 100% profit.
Is the eBay salesman who hawks expensive baseball cards committing some offense if they sell their wares for more than they paid? It’s not a crime to want to make money. Used games represent something like 25-40% of Gamestop’s business.

I have a huge problem with digital distribution--namely, the inherent property issues. The developers want digital so they can control all means of distribution. Meanwhile, the consumers get screwed, lacking a physical copy in-hand--in some cases, it's little more than an extended rental. I'd prefer to "own" what I purchase, if only a physical copy.

Sexy_beast
May 11, 2011

When Gamestop sells a used game, they are selling a product that they outright own and have no obligation to pay royalties to any of the companies responsible for making it. If they sell you a used game, they get 100% of the profit, because it's technically their property that they are selling.

It's not illegal and there's nothing inherently bad about it. You gave a perfect example of eBay providing the same system. My argument would be that Gamestop doesn't need that extra cash (certainly not as much as the developers do). I'm a 100% capitalist and love the free market, but there are some cases where certain names get more than they deserve.

And Gamestop does not deserve the $50 you're putting down on a used game, just so you can save $10.

Default_picture
May 11, 2011

Again, Gamestop's profit margins might be higher for used games than for new, but if profit is defined as "the excess of the selling price of goods over their cost" (Merriam Webster), then they're not making 100% profit. Going by your supposition that selling one's own property=100% profit, there'd be no such thing (because there's always an initial cost), unless someone donated a game, free of charge, to Gamestop or some other entity who subsequently resold it.

And so far as I know, the difference between used and new is usually "just" $5, not $10. If it were $10, then the used game "epidemic" would be worse than it is.

To take my eBay example further, is it more moral for an individual to make a profit via the secondhand market than a multinational corporation doing the same thing? I don't see a difference. "Fair" has nothing to do with it.

Img_20100902_162803
May 11, 2011
There is also a 10% discount if you are a premier member. So a game which is sold at $55 actually is $50 plus taxes.
Jayhenningsen
May 11, 2011

Jason - Technically, you're wrong. Profit percentage is calculated as a ratio between the profit and the cost -- you divide the actual profit in dollars (Sell Price - Cost) by the Cost. (Not to be confused with profit margin, which is something completely different.)

So, if you purchase something for $25 and you sell it for $50, that is indeed considered 100% profit. (25/25=1=100%)

Ironically, though, neither my explanation or yours actually addresses what Ryan is saying. What Ryan is saying is not that Gamestop makes a 100% profit ratio, but rather that they keep 100% _of_ the profits (regardless of the actual margin) earned (with no profit going to the developer) on used sales.
Note: I don't necessarily agree with Ryan's position, but you're not actually refuting the point he is trying to make.

Default_picture
May 11, 2011

Jay, *technically* you're right. Mathematically, making $25 when you paid $25 for a product=100% profit, similar to how selling it for $37.50=50% profit. But I think Ryan was discussing it from the perspective that Gamestop hasn't paid it's dues (not owing the developer and/or publisher anything & it being their property)="100% profit"), and doesn't *deserve* to make $25.

As far as developers/publishers receiving a cut of the profits, this cuts to the core of the first-sale doctrine. They're entitled to receive due compensation for the original sale, and morally and legally, they're entitled to nothing more.

Short of federal or state regulation controlling prices on the secondary market (which I'd oppose with every ounce of my being), I don't see a fair way to limit Gamestop's (or any other entity's) profits regarding used game sales. Gamestop has just as much right to re-sell games as individuals do. Nor should anyone attempt to curtail in any way, shape, or form the secondary market.

Sexy_beast
May 11, 2011

I see that your dedication towards raw capitalism is unfaltering, Jason, so I'm not going to try to convince you that Gamespot's negative death grip on the retail game market is only perpetuated by their trade-in policy.

Default_picture
May 11, 2011
I assume you mean "Gamestop" :) And yes, I don't think Gamestop or consumers have an obligation to support the industry. It's nice to do so, but one shouldn't feel obligated. In any case, I'm about to write a piece on this topic. We can continue our discussion there.
Sexy_beast
May 11, 2011

Whoops! Yeah, I meant Gamespot. I always get those two mixed up.

I'm anxious to see how you defend the belief that gamers shouldn't support their respective medium.

Sexy_beast
May 11, 2011

Fucking Hell, I did it again. This is not my morning. I need coffee.

Sexy_beast
May 10, 2011

I'm afraid I must retract my previous statement. After spending enough time playing Brink, I admit that it unfortunately did not meet my expectations; I was quite excited about this game, for all of the reasons Corey states. While I commend the game for taking the genre to a new and exciting place, it just doesn't seem to deliver. Perhaps Splash Damage was being a little overambitious, though I still think the attempts that it made should be considered by other developers. While Brink suffers from some poor design choices and technical issues, I think it was a step in the right direction for shooters.

For me, Brink made me realize a very important question: Why must the competative experience of multiplayer and the scripted, cinematic, story-driven experience of single player be two different aspects of a game?

Me
May 11, 2011

That question of delivering different experiences in the same package was the focus of my Gama story on Brink,  because I didn't believe it could be pulled off. Richard Ham presented the idea and it came off sounding theoretically-feasible, but apparently the faction commanders and the "Moe, Larry, and Curly" squadmates who introduce each mission aren't doing it for people.

They may have to be different experiences because...they're different experiences. Campaigns are built around narratives and heroic roles for the player. Multiplayer is a competitive eSport. Those are two very different sets of parameters to get right. Splash Damage tried, and I respect them for it, but it doesn't sound like it worked. I won't know for sure unti I get my used copy in a few days. :)

May 11, 2011

Corey and I played online with 6 other guys last night (for about 5 hours). Going through the challenge modes and campagin, after the initial learning curve (which is longer than most games), it's a VERY fun game. LOVED IT. Very smooth movement, very well balanced (except for the AI is crazy accurate with the shotgun from a long distance), and I really didn't notice the choke-points causing any problems, I actually like them because it forces the players to change strategies for that part of the level. Oh, and if you're not a team player, sorry, this is the worst game ever made for you, you can NOT win at this game if you're just going for kills. I played as a medic for most of the night and consistently had the highest score because I would mostly revive, buff and THEN shoot. However IF you're a team player type, then this game is PERFECT for you. I loved every minute of it.

Default_picture
May 11, 2011

When you make reference to chokepoints, are you saying that some technical glitch *causes* chokepoints, or merely that they're present? If the latter, I'd say this closely approximates real life. Ever heard of a "fatal funnel"?--i.e. the doorway that soldiers pass through when room clearing.

May 11, 2011

I mean the fatal funnel. And really there are so many ways of attacking each area that you often times just have to find the best route.

The only flaws I've experienced so far is (some pop-in, but only during cut-scenes) and when the AI uses the shotgun they are crazy-accurate from a distance with them. Nothing a patch or two couldn't handle (I think).

Robsavillo
May 11, 2011

You should mention that Splash Damage (Brink's developer) is responsible for the awesome Enemy Territory multiplayer variants of id Software games (Wolfenstein, Quake Wars). Several of the points mentioned (class-based teamwork, smart A.I., and dynamic mission objectives) were actually pioneered with those older titles.

Default_picture
May 11, 2011

Very good point.  

Me
May 11, 2011

But the AI purportedly isn't very smart at all...perhaps we should leave that part out. :P

Robsavillo
May 12, 2011

Tom Chick says the bots are top-notch, and I trust his judgment over the vast majority of "professional" reviewers. He's the only veteran writer (back from the CGW mag days) who consistently analyzes A.I. in games and advocates for better A.I.

Ironmaus
May 13, 2011

I was a huge Brink evangelist before it came out. I saw a gameplay demo at PAX Prime '09 and was hooked. Everything they said resonated with me. I still believe that the ideas Splash Damage put forward will be borrowed and improved upon by FPS developers in coming years. That said, Brink is a huge disappointment.

1) Eight-player co-op is amazing. Having a max team size of four in other games feels too small to accomplish anything meaningful and having huge 32-man teams doesn't feel like we're a cohesive unit. Eight feels just right. But the lack of splitscreen or LAN play means you'll only ever be playing one guy to a console, and you probably won't be playing in the same room. Additionally, the lobby system—on the 360 at least—is cumbersome and confusing. Instead of gathering my friends together into a private lobby and then discussing what we want to play, I need to coordinate with them ahead of time, start that match, then quickly invite them into it. Then, between levels, there's no return to any sort of lobby. The cinematics play while we're magically being whisked to the next level, occasionally dropping someone along the way, which we can't see until the next level starts. Hiding the technical aspects of playing together makes it harder to start playing together and keep track of people once you've started.

2) I have nothing bad to say about the class-based gameplay. The classes are awesome and mesh together well. In one match, I was about to run over a mine that I couldn't see when an operative stopped me by sighting the mine to make it visible, an engineer rushed in and defused it, then we all stormed down the hallway toward our objective. Amazing. Also, changing classes in the same life? A game changer for sure. I do have a complaint about the class-based unlock system. After each level, you're given one point to unlock a special skill. You can choose from a batch of general skills, and then four pools of class-specific skills. If you choose to specialize in one class a little, then you're more excited about playing that class. If you choose to specialize in one class a lot, then there's little incentive to ever play anything else other than the game requiring the other classes for certain objectives, and at that point, it feels like a punishment. This could have been easily solved by giving players one class-based unlock for EACH class every time they hit a reward level. Instead, you wind up with these lopsided classes which keep you from enjoying the thrill of the mid-level class changing that is core to the game.

3) The AI is intelligent, but it's also implemented poorly. In combat, the bots are agile, able to switch between defense and offense effortlessly, and exhibit humanlike creativity. I had a bot drop a grenade on one side of a piece of cover, then sweep around and attack me from the other so I would dodge out of his fire and onto his grenade. I laughed out loud. The problem is that allied AI will never complete objectives. Richard Ham has stated that this allows you to feel like the hero, but instead it means you spend a lot of time running back to base to change your class. It also means, if you're playing against an all-bot team, where those bots WILL complete objectives, that you're outnumbered. Eight bots all completing objectives versus however many humans you have sucks. Additionally, there's horrible rubber banding. In one match, I was coordinating an awesome defense of a breach objective for five minutes out of the six minute goal. My team, bots and all, weren't just surviving, we were racking up the body count. In that last minute, the enemy bots became super-genius kill-machines, wiped out my entire team, completed two objectives and forced a time extension. The disconnect between how they had been playing and how they started playing in those last desperate moments was jarring. So, yes, the bots are challenging and awesome, but that creativity is poorly leashed or unleashed, depending on the situation.

5) The customization is fun, though I'm sad it's only one gender. Most disappointing though is that the majority of the unlocks are bundled together and unlocked through challenges. In another game like CoD:MW2, every level you achieve unlocks one or two things. In Brink, some levels give you jack squat, while others unlock twelve new outfit options. Most of the weapon attachments are unlocked in the challenges, which are single player only. Oh, sure, you can play them with up to four people, but you won't earn stars, unlocks, or leaderboards unless you're playing alone. The first night I got it, I hopped on to see six of my friends playing. When I asked who wanted to group up for a match, more than half of them said they'd do it after finishing playing the single player to unlock all the attachments.

6) The dynamic mission wheel is another game changer, but because the maps are so small and limited, it's usefulness in Brink itself is practically nulified. I applaud the ability to switch objectives on the fly. I also appreciate that you can mark class-based assistance opportunities as objectives, sort of a way of saying, "Find me the nearest person who needs my help." But look at your screenshot again; there are three objectives: the primary objective (destroy the conduit), a class-based resupply objective, and the option to go back to base to change your class. That's it? Those were your choices at that moment? There were no meaningful side objectives like clearing a new path, taking out a machine gun turret, charging an energy shield, or establishing a new outpost? No, and that's how the levels feel all the time. The failure of Brink in this case isn't the objective wheel itself, it's the lack of objectives in the levels, and that leads to the heavy emphasis on choke point battles that has been echoed in almost every review I've read. One reason for this failure is because so many of the meaningful objectives—yes, I'm dismissing the class-skill and command post objectives because they don't feel all that connected to the primary objective of each level—don't have meaningful opposites. One side must blow up a door while the other team must...stop them. Whenever there is a two-sided objective, the game becomes more strategic and awesome. In one level, one team has a side-objective to repair an elevator generator, but then the other team has the option to blow it up again. Should you keep all eight guys at the primary objective or should you split to go ensure that secondary objective is flipped in your favor? That's a strategic decision, and it's one you won't find often in Brink's levels.

7) Story in multiplayer is one of those ideas that I wanted to work so badly, and here's why it doesn't: no one else seems to care. The backstory of Brink could easily be turned into a kickass book trilogy or film, but here it's relegated to audio clips playing over loading screens and short flavor videos before the fight. The meaningful exposition is in the audio clips, but you're already talking to your co-op partners about the fight, and when the cinematic appears, most people skip it to jump into the fight. If you watch it all, you're waiting for the next respawn once you're in the game, and your teammates have all left for the fight. Particularly if you're playing against humans, if you stop to enjoy the story, you're chosing to fall behind in the game.

8) I've already railed about being unable to win unlocks by playing the challenges in multiplayer, so I won't go into that further. I will however say that the challenge mode had other failings, and the parkour level you're talking about is one of them. In the parkour challenge level, you play as the light body type. While it's definitely the most exhilirating, it's also the body type that you unlock last, at level SEVEN. I spent my first few matches misjudging which walls I could jump to and climb over because the challenge mode had trained me to believe I was capable of more than the standard body type could pull off.

Don't get me wrong, the SMART system, the objective wheel, the class switching, and the ability to play eight-on-eight story-based missions are all excellent gameplay ideas. I hope that they are implemented well in Brink 2, because I'll probably sell my copy of Brink this weekend.

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