PDA

View Full Version : [Multi] Brink Review


DoctorFinger
05-12-2011, 01:46 PM
Since no one else claimed it, I banged out a quick Brink review. I'll add assets and links tomorrow

Brink Review

Title - Brink
Platform - Xbox 360 (http://www.amazon.com/Brink-Xbox-360/dp/B002DC8GKE/ref=sr_1_1?s=videogames&ie=UTF8&qid=1305229500&sr=1-1), Playstation 3 (http://www.amazon.com/Brink-Playstation-3/dp/B002DC8GKO/ref=sr_1_2?s=videogames&ie=UTF8&qid=1305229500&sr=1-2), PC (http://www.amazon.com/Brink-Pc/dp/B002GDRPYI/ref=sr_1_3?s=videogames&ie=UTF8&qid=1305229500&sr=1-3).
Developer - Splash Damage (http://www.splashdamage.com/)
Publisher - Bethesda Softworks (http://www.bethsoft.com/eng/index.php)
ESRB Rating - T (Teen)
MSRP - $59.95
Editor - Michael "DoctorFinger" Chauvet
What's Hot: Fun team based combat. Lots of character customization options.

What's Not: Mostly useless single player campaign. No party system for online play. Online play is laggy and sluggish in a full 16 person game. Class and level system punishes you for changing classes, even when the objectives require it. In sports there are few things worse than a player with “potential”. Saying that someone has potential means basically that while they have the tools to be great, they just haven’t (yet) managed to pull themselves up to that elite level. Bethesda and Splash Damage’s Brink is pretty much the textbook example of a game which squandered it’s potential.

Brink is a shooter set a generation or so in the future aboard the Ark. The Ark is an artificial super city built to be a utopia, but a global war has left them, over-crowded, under-supplied and cut off from the outside world. You play as one of two sides in a conflict for control of the Ark, the Security forces or the Resistance. Both sides play the same, with differences in character models and campaign goals. You can play through the campaign - alone or online with friends - as either side. Frankly, there is no reason to play the game in single player once you finish the tutorial. You’re just playing against bots, and dumb bots at that. Even worse your teammates are bots, and pretty much useless. I’ll say this flat out: if you don’t intend to play Brink online, don’t bother picking it up.

After you choose your side and your look - and there are a ton of cosmetic options, with more unlocked as you level up - you choose you class. Soldier, engineer, medic and operative, each with their own special abilities and perks. As you play you gain experience and level up. Each level gained lets you open new abilities, some of which are general, but most are linked to one of the 4 classes. Here’s the first (but not last) problem with the game. You’re encouraged to put points mostly in the class-specific perks because that’s where the real interesting and powerful abilities lie. But the game’s goals are all class specific. You need an engineer to repair a crane, a soldier to blow up a gate, etc, etc. So you can change classes at any terminal in the game to complete that goal, but you quickly realize that you (probably) may not have any points in that class. You can technically complete any goal even with no points spent on that class, but you won’t have the combat ability you would with your primary class. A good squad should have at least one of each class on hand, but sometimes you’ll only have one, which makes things tough. Tying objectives so closely to the class seems to force you to either generalize - in which case you’ll never get any of the really good class abilities - or ignore the objectives, which seems an odd choice in an objective-based shooter.

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3312/5714065008_e16b4ef413_z.jpg
The Ark was once a utopia. As you can see, it really isn't anymore

The actual shooting is solid. The weapons sometimes seem a little underpowered, but not absurdly so, especially considering the perks and buffs which can increase damage. Some gamers are going to be annoyed with the explosives and melee, which here are not the insta-kills they are in most shooters. Instead they’re supposed to knock you down and disable nearby gadgets. You’ll get kills with a single grenade or melee attack only if your target is already low on health. It’s certainly different, but overall I like it. This is not a game where your kill-death ratio should matter, so putting the emphasis on tactics and objectives is smart

The other major selling point of the game is it’s parkour-inspired SMART system. Hold down the left bumper and your character runs, jumps, climbs and mantles over obstacles. This mobility is key to playing a good game, as there are always secondary and tertiary routes to your objectives which can be accessed this way. After a few levels you can change your body type. A heavy body can absorb more damage and use the most powerful weapons, but can’t run as fast or jump as high, limiting their route options. Conversely you can take a small body and scamper almost anywhere, at the cost of health and offensive firepower. The SMART system mostly works well, but there are a lot of times where you get snagged on the geometry and stop, or bump into another player and slow to a crawl. Another place where the game really could have used a bit more polish.

Speaking of needing polish...we come to the game’s greatest sin: online play. As I said earlier, the game is useless offline. Unfortunately, the online play is plagued by lag and poor decisions. First off, there is no party system. When you get 7 other people together to play this, you probably want all to be on the same team, not 5 on one team and 3 on the other. But this is the scenario Brink frequently handed coughed up. Once everyone got on the same team, we’d encounter the next big problem: lag. Playing co-op vs bots usually went smoothly, but almost anytime you want to play against other people things get choppy. Which usually meant quitting and starting over, which meant trying - again - to get the whole party on one team.

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2478/3836054205_7830314a46_z.jpg?zz=1
See that tank thing in the middle? You're escorting it instead of the other way around

I know it sounds pretty bad, and it can be a frustrating experience at times. But at other times Brink really shows you how good it could have been. When you get into an online game with a decent group of people and a solid connection Brink really does shine. You’re running jumping around the level, aiding teammates, taking down the enemy and completing objectives. In short it’s the game Bethesda and Splash Damage have been so excited about for the last few years. But the stars align in this manner far too infrequently.

Presentation-wise I think Brink does a solid job, with occasional flashes of excellence. Your characters have a deformed, cartoony look. Like something out of a European comic book. Graphics are genreally smooth and the animations are mostly strong. I’ve heard complaints that the weapons sound off, but to me they sound fine.

The story is presented mostly via cut scenes in between chapters in the campaign. The story is nothing special, but it does a pretty good job of making each side’s case and giving them relatable motivations. These are further fleshed out by unlockable audio files, but these generally don’t add a whole lot.

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3253/5713504817_3bfb8b30d5_z.jpg
Just some of the looks you can go for in the game

Some of the issues with Brink could be fixed with a patch down the road, but frankly these relatively simple, basic issues should never have made it to the retail version of the game. The amount of content you get for your $60 or $50 also feels a little light, especially when compared to the other big shooters of the last few years.

Score: (3 out of 5 Cogs)
http://www.colonyofgamers.com/images/CoG3.png

Michael says, "I really want to like Brink. It has a lot of the ingredients I look for in a game, and when you do get a game going without the network problems it can be an absolute blast. But games where the networking flows perfectly are few and far between. It’s also just no fun at all in single player, making the unpolished online play an even greater sin.”

* Review based on 360 version.

Orca
05-12-2011, 02:29 PM
I think it's a fair review. If they fix the network issues, I'd say it's a must-buy for those who like team-based online shooters that are about objectives, not k/d ratios. Offline it's a waste of time, the single player game they touted so highly is just multiplayer matches against bots and not particularly smart ones at that so it's frustrating to complete objectives. It's particularly annoying when a friendly bot ruins things by grabbing the object needed, then refusing to move towards the mission goal.

Narradisall
05-12-2011, 02:55 PM
I get a strong Borderlands vibe from this, I think I'll be passing, I was expecting it to get more love here but it sounds like it has some teething issues.

Vermillion
05-12-2011, 03:04 PM
Jeez, that review sounded horrible and it still got 3 CoGs (and it only got 3 because you ignored the single player)? I'd hate to see what your threshold for 2 or 1 CoG is :)

Mike Kelehan
05-12-2011, 03:11 PM
Jeez, that review sounded horrible and it still got 3 CoGs (and it only got 3 because you ignored the single player)? I'd hate to see what your threshold for 2 or 1 CoG is :)

Yeah, I was thinking the same thing. Since it's fun only some of the time, but those times are few and far between, I'd say a 2 would be more appropriate, with a 1 for games that aren't fun at all.

But hey, not my review.

DoctorFinger
05-12-2011, 03:50 PM
I enjoyed it, so I would have a hard time giving a game like that something under a 3. To me a sub-3 score is for a game I didn't enjoy. Brink is fun, but flawed.

bapenguin
05-12-2011, 05:29 PM
Haven't played the console version but the PC version has been relatively smooth in the few matches I played. The lack of party system for me is the biggest downside.

Karak
05-12-2011, 05:35 PM
Good review and thanks for taking the time.

Wilkz07
05-12-2011, 05:53 PM
fair review. pre-ordered at gamestop and played for the past couple days, co-op with a couple cog'rs last night and had a good time. i had no lag issues, though I was the host.

i really liked Enemy Territory, even playing solo. I'll be playing this one for a while.

MosBen
05-12-2011, 06:35 PM
I was really hoping for a Borderlands replacement, but this really doesn't sound like it. I play with a weekly group of people, and most of us have no interest in competitive online games, so Borderlands was perfect. I guess I'll have to wait for the actual Borderlands 2. When does Torchlight 2 come out for Live Arcade?

Uatu
05-12-2011, 09:09 PM
I was really hoping for a Borderlands replacement, but this really doesn't sound like it.

Its a TF2/ BFBC2 replacement.

jpc_theoneandonly
05-12-2011, 10:12 PM
I applaud the time you have taken to write this review but I must disagree. At best this game gets a 2 from me. The texture detail is horendous. It does not portray a game as highly praised by the developers as it should. The online play is terrible. The lag issues are far.beyond any server issues I have had with any other release day purhase. The lack of party support makes no sense when the game was marketed as being a team based shooter. We never once manger to keep a team of 5 together unless we played a private match in which case we palter against bots. These bots had dead accurate aim and god like bullets mind you.

The single player is damn near unplayable. The friendly A.I. is useless and you try to go at it lone wolf and quit in frustration. Don't get me started on the 3 star challenges. I feel the game play is.very sluggish and even the smaller classes such as the operative move as if wearing clown shoes. Aiming is a joke. Your best bet is to earn the ability that allows you to reload while sprinting and hip fire for the majority of the game.

I understand that K/D is not the objective of this title but I would like to see other stats without having to register on the website and enter a special code found in the manual. How about objectives completed/failed? Total xp? Etc. Another issue related to this topic, a friend couldn't play with us because his level was too high. Why should that matter? Not all of us can play for hours every day. We are to be punished for this by not being able to play with higher level friends?

Again, excellent review. Hank you for taking the time. I do not mean to troll your post. I just wanted to add my two cents.

*Edit* Sorry for poor spelling. Posting from droid while on the crapper... ha.

Exodus
05-12-2011, 11:00 PM
:\

That's too bad. No developer wants to release their game that's not enjoyable. They had a deadline and it just couldn't meet it.

AversionFX
05-13-2011, 06:08 AM
Another high-hype game that ended up being a steaming pile of shit.

Who would have thought?

KidCactus
05-13-2011, 09:47 AM
I was really hoping for a Borderlands replacement, but this really doesn't sound like it. I play with a weekly group of people, and most of us have no interest in competitive online games, so Borderlands was perfect. I guess I'll have to wait for the actual Borderlands 2.

Same here. I knew the focus was on multi player, but after reading about the game I thought it would have a normal campaign that could be played either with other people or by yourself as any other single player campaign (as in Borderlands), and not just be arenas with bots in between cutscenes. This was really a big waste of money for me. :(

Vermillion
05-13-2011, 03:10 PM
:\

That's too bad. No developer wants to release their game that's not enjoyable. They had a deadline and it just couldn't meet it.

The thing is, everyone has a deadline. A good team meets the deadline and cuts scope of what's not up to snuff. A bad team crams all the incomplete stuff into the final build and pushes it to production.

My opinion is that it's better to release a product that clearly states that functions don't exist than to give a customer a bunch of functions that don't work.

Squidbot
05-13-2011, 05:28 PM
Well, I love it. Hardly touched single player. Multi player and co-op is well worth my money, and they're already patching out the problems on PC.

Ghostbear
05-13-2011, 05:46 PM
Well, you've convinced me to wait on this. Thanks for the review Doc.

CappinCanuck
05-14-2011, 08:29 PM
Well, I love it. Hardly touched single player. Multi player and co-op is well worth my money, and they're already patching out the problems on PC.

Why must you tempt me so?

KidCactus
05-15-2011, 08:11 AM
The balance between the "two" single player campaigns is horrible! Now I've played through it as the Resistance, on normal, with no big issues. But I can't even finish the first day as Security! I finally managed the first goal, but the second with the hostage is just impossible, so now I'm giving up. I'm glad I didn't start the game as Security.

Mr.Tortle
05-15-2011, 01:35 PM
The balance between the "two" single player campaigns is horrible! Now I've played through it as the Resistance, on normal, with no big issues. But I can't even finish the first day as Security! I finally managed the first goal, but the second with the hostage is just impossible, so now I'm giving up. I'm glad I didn't start the game as Security.

what system are you playing on?

I'm playing on PC and started on the Security side. I breezed through all the days pretty comfortably. The What-Ifs gave me a bit of trouble. However, now that I'm playing the Resistance campaigns. I'm having a helluva harder time. Going the other way and seeing the maps from the other side is throwing me off and just doesn't seem as balanced.

So I probably would say the same thing as you did but would reverse the teams. However, now that I'm seeing your post, I'm thinking it's not too lopsided.

Mr.Tortle
05-15-2011, 02:38 PM
This is my quick take on the game. I played the PC version. (Umm, it was quick when i first started, but it ended up long.)

For most of the game, it's really is the multi-player aspect. Challenges are the introduction to the game play. It's the tutorial to the game. Finish it and you get all the weapons you need to play the game. Between the single player and the playing online, its the same except for the AI. You have a bunch of bots in the single, you get people in the multi-player. Cut scenes and narrative stays intact for both.

I been a fan of Splash Damage since Wolf:ET so the mechanics are very familiar. SD added on top of the previous games with a new mechanic with the SMART and balanced some of the shortcoming from their previous games. I think Brink is just about right for the type of game it is: close-quarter combat, small teams, guerrilla tactic style game play with directed objectives. That makes it very, naturally, a team-based game as players just have to do things together.

However, there are things to be improved upon. Dropping the voice commands because of the console aspects removed an active teamplay mechanic. Calling for a medic or an engineer, or telling someone to build or disarm with a few quick keys was very useful in Wolf:ET and ET:QW. Now, very little talking and figuring out how to help becomes annoyingly harder. The simplistic HUD is nice and cleaner, but relevant information is lost. If I'm a medic and the timer is running out, I may opt to not revive the player so they can respawn and I can save my pip for another player who needs health. I don't know that anymore. A heavy, may want to clear out a room and would require buffs to be successful. They would need to type or explain all of that out instead of making it show in the HUD with the voice commands. Their are options for fire-team chat as there always was, however, I have no idea on making it happen. The non-intuitive way to setup fire-teams and being able to coordinate that really makes gameplay look random. The gameplay in general can be random.

The gameplay, at times, feels random. It's hard to figure out who's going on to do the primary objective versus those doing side objective or merely going into the gunfight. Although you can bring up your objective wheel to see how many are doing what, most of the time, players just don't select it. The worse of it is that may be players think this is just a shooting game. Many forget the objectives and just want to spam the other side with bullets, making a round progress really slowly. That always works for the defending team and then the gameplay feel really unbalanced. (For the seasoned though, it's not too bad as you can just get the objective done by squaring off with a few.)

From my experience of the other SD games though, the random gameplay becomes moot as players become more seasoned. As I play ET:QW now and then, players naturally know the best tactic and moves in teams "instinctively". Players knows what needs to be done with the right balance to be successful. It creates exciting rounds, memorable moments, generates more strategy and a better experience. However, because of that learning curve, that is also always been Splash Damage's failing: Initial Impressions.

Although Brink lowers the bar and allows more players to jump in and play, initial impressions are always tough to overcome. The difficulty to "get used to" the gaming style will throw a lot of new players off. Mixed in with seasoned players, and new players are going to have a hard time to enjoying the game initially.

I really enjoy the game. I don't have difficulty telling people to play it. The co-op setup helps bring players into the game and eases the mentality of the style of play. For all that is lacking in server listings, lobby, missing UI elements, and other workflows, Co-op was done with "easy" in mind. Start a game, players connects, you're playing a game. Like Left 4 Dead: 4 players, players in, play a few, players out. I think that's been the highlight for me. Left 4 Dead was really nice in terms of setting up a game. It seems trivial, but I enjoy getting to play a game with a few friends and be done with it afterwards. All the randomness with playing online isn't there, the team knows what to do, and you create a great gaming experience.

The only other thing to mention is the customization in appearance and weapons. I haven't seen anyone that looks like me who wasn't a cvop in disguise. I feel unique and the handful of players I see on server, I recognize them my their appearance choices. It's nice to see the differences and adds a level to the gameplay. Weapons, I have my favorites. It's nice to have your top picks and then in game you can switch it out at the command post.

If you're on steam, hit me up to play. Steam ID is MrTortle.

c0m3d14n
05-15-2011, 05:25 PM
well i enjoy brink somewhat but i got a few remarks.
this game is not for casual gamers, if you are in a team with people who have no clue you can quit right away because you have no chance whatsoever. this is more prominent than in any other shooter i have ever played.
the mapdesing is horrible, HORRIBLE on certain areas. there are a few chokepoints on an few maps that are nearly impossible to get through, if you are playing against even a subpar team. (shipyard- rocket launch area, and the one where you have to plant a charge on a pillar for example)
the engineer turrets are completely useless... the damage is ok but they take so fucking long to react that an enemy can run at it and trough it with no problem.
but what annoys me the most is class selection. the game makes a point of selecting the class that is most needed, but a maxed out character can only be 2 maxed out classes. so people, are sticking to the classes that their character is leveled as... whats even more ridiculous is that you cant change body type during a game.
i guess they didnt want people to hang out in the customizing menu too long, but they should at least give us loadouts that we can switch while in a game.

shodan2020
05-16-2011, 05:12 PM
Its a TF2/ BFBC2 replacement.

Actually, that was Section 8: Prejudice... ;)

Squidbot
05-17-2011, 01:24 AM
Horses for courses, I absolutely hated S8 Prejudice.