Support NeoGAF

[Totobeni]

2.5 people bought it just for Bethesda's logo on the cover

Good for Splash Damage.

not really.. they got nothing here.

"But of course, as an independent video game developer, we don't earn that kind of revenue, as we're not the publisher of the title.

Sound it's like Obsidian contract with Bethesda, which mean absolutely nothing for Splash Damage since they bonus will be based on Metacritic score and not the sales.

 

[timkunedo]

This just goes to show that gaf opinion doesn't equal reality always. Ah well....It's fun to say bomba to games you don't like.

 

[benny_a]

How many of these copies were sold at 5EUR because they overshipped and misread the market?
I know that the game was available for super cheap even a month after launch on both consoles.

It's like Deus Ex: HR, that game also sold several million but they overshipped; so 2.5 million copies of Brink is not the same as 2.5 million of CoD7 in revenue.

 

[a Master Ninja]

I don't think I've ever seen a game drop in price so fast before Brink. It seemed like it was $10 two months after it came out and it went on sale frequently everywhere.

Yep. Not just a good sale within the first month of release, but permanent price drops.

 

[MrNyarlathotep]

It always depresses me to read the gamer echo chamber whenever Brink gets talked about, because it was a really, really, solid class based, objective based FPS like all of Splash Damages games, and it gets shit on at every opportunity by people who are fine just buying team death match over and over again with all the hyperbolic vitriol of 'worst game ever made' etc.

It was by no means perfect, and did have some questionable design choices, but goddamn, when you got a server of people who knew how to play it had some genuinely great team based play to it.

Well TLDR is basically nice idea, horrible execution. But my top complaint was the absolutely terrible map/objective design. Every single match is not conducive to fun until that's fixed.

THIS I absolutely do not understand; the map design was superb, and the objective based gameplay was all about creating dynamic chokepoints based on game progression.
More maps should have made more use of the parkour-style multiple routes so light classes weren't pointless on some maps, and hacking objectives were too asymmetrically balanced towards defence, but I literally do not know how you could declare the game to overall have terrible map and objective design.

Shit, the objective design is the most coherent gameplay driven narrative I have seen in years.

 

[Deadbeat]

It always depresses me to read the gamer echo chamber whenever Brink gets talked about, because it was a really, really, solid class based, objective based FPS like all of Splash Damages games, and it gets shit on at every opportunity by people who are fine just buying team death match over and over again with all the hyperbolic vitriol of 'worst game ever made' etc.

Im pretty sure everyone here agrees that Wolf ET was a great game. The problem is Splash Damage couldnt make a proper successor twice now. They fucked up both times.

Should they get a third chance to make the same game and fuck that up again?

 

[XANDER CAGE]

It always depresses me to read the gamer echo chamber whenever Brink gets talked about, because it was a really, really, solid class based, objective based FPS like all of Splash Damages games, and it gets shit on at every opportunity by people who are fine just buying team death match over and over again with all the hyperbolic vitriol of 'worst game ever made' etc

Oh, please. I love me some objective-based gameplay, far more than TDM. Don't lump everyone who disagrees with you into some sort of groupthink who hates the kind of gameplay you like.

I, for one, really tried to enjoy Brink for what it was, but couldn't. It was riddled with bugs and performance issues that superceded my ability to appreciate the maps or whatever.

 

[MrNyarlathotep]

Im pretty sure everyone here agrees that Wolf ET was a great game. The problem is Splash Damage couldnt make a proper successor twice now. They fucked up both times.

Should they get a third chance to make the same game and fuck that up again?

See, the thing about that statement is thinking a proper successor needs to be the exact same thing again, because if ET had been released as a full price title there are plenty of people who straight up would not have given it the time it needs to understand the gameplay mechanisms involved - in exactly the same way loads of people went into the ETQW demo and went 'wtf is this shit, it isn't Battlefield' and lots of people went into the Brink demo and went 'wtf is this shit, it isn't MW'.

Quake Wars was solid, but the addition of vehicles (which clearly was trying to chase the Battlefield crowd) diluted the focus away from what has always been their gameplay strength; 'urban' style skirmishes across multiple map chokepoints.
So the crowd it was attempting to attract (BF players) hated it because it was too different to BF, and the crowd prepared to accept it for what it was - a sequel to ET - were underwhelmed by that dilution of mechanics.

Brink was solid, but the addition of character levelling and 'perks', and the huge weapon loadouts and customisations (which clearly was trying to chase the MW crowd) diluted the focus away from what has always been their other gameplay strength; class based gameplay with dynamic objectives requiring players to adapt to the needs of the team (or be in high level competitive play where you know everyone on your team is bloody good at their designated class choice).
So the crowd it was chasing didn't like it because they couldn't just run, frag and spawn camp like a champ and then win their next prestige, and the crowd prepared to accept it for what it was were underwhelmed by being forced to specialise in a class when they would be better serving the team in something different (combined with the fact that the more popular classes generally had less map objectives to perform).

It seems obvious that Splash Damage learn from their feedback (Brink was much closer to gameplay style than ET:QW was, and imo is the best game they've yet made) and I don't think they deserve anything like the condemnation they get for iterating on a formula rather than just rehashing it - which let's face it would have been a piece of piss for them to do in either ET:QW or Brink.

EDIT:

Oh, please. I love me some objective-based gameplay, far more than TDM. Don't lump everyone who disagrees with you into some sort of groupthink who hates the kind of gameplay you like.

I, for one, really tried to enjoy Brink for what it was, but couldn't. It was riddled with bugs and performance issues that superceded my ability to appreciate the maps or whatever.

I'm not trying to lump everyone together, or even trying to adopt some kind of elitist stance that 'oh, you wouldn't like it because you don't get it' - and I can see why people who wanted to like it would have been disappointed in it, because it was definitely flawed, but flawed is definitely not the same as 'worst FPS ever made' etc.

 

[Team Klimt]

... for less than ten dollars."

Seriously, they couldn't have sold more than a few hundred thousand at full retail.

 

[PedroLumpy]

THIS I absolutely do not understand; the map design was superb, and the objective based gameplay was all about creating dynamic chokepoints based on game progression.
More maps should have made more use of the parkour-style multiple routes so light classes weren't pointless on some maps, and hacking objectives were too asymmetrically balanced towards defence, but I literally do not know how you could declare the game to overall have terrible map and objective design.

Shit, the objective design is the most coherent gameplay driven narrative I have seen in years.

Well I'm not sure how deep you want to get into it, but basically it's that the result of the map/objective design was that any part of any map tended to HEAVILY favor one side or the other. I could go into more detail if you wish, but it might be more of a PM kinda thing.

 

[Azure Phoenix]

Did they actually ever fix the horrific server issues the game was having on launch? I bought Brink a couple of days early and loved it, but from launch day onwards it was unplayable.

 

[Danne-Danger]

Was QW1 any good?

Only the best MP shooter ever made. (with a few rough edges)

 

[Incendiary]

The game was a great concept, but probably one of the biggest disappointments I've bought this gen. I was really looking forward to it, but within a week the multiplayer community had already died and it was no fun with AI. Where are all these 2.5 million copies being played?

 

[zroid]

You'd have to pay me to get me to play this game.

 

[Dan Yo]

Was impossible to find games on the PS3 when it came out.

PSN was still down when Brink came out.

 

[MrNyarlathotep]

Well I'm not sure how deep you want to get into it, but basically it's that the result of the map/objective design was that any one part of the map tended to HEAVILY favor one side or the other. I could go into more detail if you wish, but it might be more of a PM kinda thing.

I think I understand what you mean, but I am pretty sure that is a deliberate aspect of the 'ramping up of intensity' objectives had; the first few attack objectives are usually ludicrously easy to perform, and the final ones were extremely tough and required very high levels of cooperation to break a solid defence.

I mean, I can see why that might not appeal to your particular play preferences, but I'm not sure it counts as terrible design; Dustbowl and Goldrush in TF2 do the exact same trick, but Tf2 manages to not alienate players with it so much by having ubers which can break solid defences even with fairly mediocre team work.

 

[Danne-Danger]

Well I'm not sure how deep you want to get into it, but basically it's that the result of the map/objective design was that any part of any map tended to HEAVILY favor one side or the other. I could go into more detail if you wish, but it might be more of a PM kinda thing.

But that's the point, as you're meant to play stopwatch. The problem on some maps was that it heavily favored the defense (resulting in long, boring matches), but there were a few good maps on there, most were fine for pub play.

 

[PedroLumpy]

I think I understand what you mean, but I am pretty sure that is a deliberate aspect of the 'ramping up of intensity' objectives had; the first few attack objectives are usually ludicrously easy to perform, and the final ones were extremely tough and required very high levels of cooperation to break a solid defence.

I mean, I can see why that might not appeal to your particular play preferences, but I'm not sure it counts as terrible design; Dustbowl and Goldrush in TF2 do the exact same trick, but Tf2 manages to not alienate players with it so much by having ubers which can break solid defences even with fairly mediocre team work.

Well, for one thing, often the first objective was the toughest one for the attackers to take. The prison, the mall, the container yard, maybe you can argue that a bit, but the idea of 'ramping intensity' is far far more of a stretch.

And I would consider Dustbowl and Goldrush to be horribly designed maps. But they were the first maps for their respective gametypes, so it's none too surprising. Map design isn't easy, but I think TF2 has provided a good example of their learning process for maps.

But that's the point, as you're meant to play stopwatch. The problem on some maps was that it heavily favored the defense (resulting in long, boring matches), but there were a few good maps on there, most were fine for pub play.

I'm not sure I completely understand what you're getting at, but I'll try and respond. Essentially yes the balance could have technically been fixed by having the matches work like Team A attacks - Team B defends for x amount of time, and then switch. Whichever team gets farther or finishes first wins. Technically balanced, but still there are problems.

1. Those are not the default match settings. You can't expect your player to jump through too many hoops to find the fun. You'll find some who are willing, but if you're talking about the game catching on with a bigger crowd (like we are) then you have to put your best foot forward out of the gate.

2. Even if the match is technically balanced, those brutal meat grinder defence favored objectives are still not fun. For anyone really, I didn't enjoy easily slaughtering attackers one after another, and I certainly didn't enjoy repeatedly throwing myself against the wall of death over and over again.

 

[KaYotiX]

That is one large amount of disappointed people.

I am one of them......good concept but horrible execution. My biggest regret this gen was buying Brink

 

[Dash Kappei]

Apparently Brink did quite well.


Source: http://www.gamasutra.com/view/news/...ves_Freetoplay_publishing_backend_support.php

Yeah, lol, game was like £7 a month after release

 

[Ramirez]

The game had some cool ideas, the lack of party options and matchmaking were bizarre for a console title though. I bought it for 60 bucks on day 1, and if it weren't for the lag and basically 0 population, I wouldn't have regretted the purchase, I genuinely enjoyed what little I got to experience of it.

 

[StevePharma]

Wired was right (lol)

60 bucks is dead.

although 2 million times 5 bucks, not sure if 10 milli is enough to cover the costs....

 

[mckmas8808]

When your game is selling for $10 for so long, hard not to put up those kinds of numbers.

It generated about $130 million.....

 

[bigtroyjon]

It generated about $130 million.....

Doubtful, that was purely that guy's terrible assumption.

 

[mysocksarepink]

this was going to my go to game up till bf3 came out... then they would have both been my go to shooters



I know over a dozen people who felt the same thing... (some were waiting for duty, but everyone wanted brink)


If we got what we were promised in this video... I think things would have played out astoundingly different :


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iwU0rKEhMJ8&feature=fvst (the video in question)

this video throws you right into the combat (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kHzFwn2G3Fg)

both prime examples of WHY SO MANY were SO excited for this fucking game

the game looks gorgeous here. explosions are detailed. the atmosphere is dark and gritty... you feel like the world around you has really been torn apart. you feel like you're really fighting as the resistance for a reason.


then they delivered absolute garbage. I don't understand what happened to the game they showed in those videos.. but it's no where near what they delivered.


this is what we played when it launched :

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BG3KeSYqdlU


which looks ABSOLUTELY nothing like what they originally showed. Went from dark and gritty with an awesome art style to... a cartoony clone of TF2



This has been my biggest upset in the last several years... after I watched videos of container city I first linked above (the before) I went on my first media blackout.. and I played the game and saw nothing what I once believed I would play.

so when it launched: all around me people were returning the game and selling it on ebay/gamestop in troves ... and I sat there with my dick in my hand, whistling... guisee relax the patches will come to fix the game! And eventually, I broke... I broke when I would hit quick match and get into a game with 80% bots.

The game had a lot of things that were disatrious on launch (mostly including what I've said above) but what really killed it was the fact you'd join a server and boom, bots and two people. You'd do it again, bots and three different people, and you'd do it over and over... and you'd always get into a game filled with bots and different people. What hurt most is it was so obvious that in the beginning the people were there, it's that they couldn't get paired with one another.











So for TRULY breaking my heart with this game, fuck you splash damage. you lost a customer


tl;dr: qq and being butthurt over videos showing another game, lies, and broken hearts

 

[mxgt]

This along with Dragon Age 2 were the 2 worst purchases I made last year.

 

[Seraphinianus]

if your game is completely terrible, just sell it for $10, dummy!

FOR YOUR HEALTH

 

[Des0lar]

2,5 million disappointed gamers.

 

[MagicWithEarvin]

Brink? More like Stink. Honestly surprised it sold this well.

That game was awful - the whole online component was complete crap. If they make a Brink 2 they really need to take a look at revamping their online structure and do proper matchmaking with lobbies.

 

[Reikon]

I bought Brink at release and I'll forgive them for it if they make ET Live, so I could play ET again with people and without all the bullshit mods on all servers nowadays.

 

[Sol..]

yeah, sorry gaming industry. I let you down by buying this one.

 

[EVIL]

i remember that i really loved the gamescom build back then in 2009. but the final game was just a big mess. sooo... i'm really surprised about this news.

The gamescom build was excellent! and it got me really exited about the game, so I was really surprised it came out in such a crappy state. I mean it was more terrible then the gamescom build, the hell! like they accidentally shipped a crappy beta version of the game.

 

[MrNyarlathotep]

And I would consider Dustbowl and Goldrush to be horribly designed maps. But they were the first maps for their respective gametypes, so it's none too surprising.

Dustbowl isn't the first map of its gametype, heh.
It almost has the same history as 2Fort.
Goldrush is probably the most popular payload map, so it did something right, although Badwater Basin is better balanced (but also has the same 'ramp up' mechanics).

Played on a pub with random people not really knowing how their class is supposed to play (or worse, not picking classes the team needs) I can see how Brink can feel like a meat grinder, but that's really a bigger design issue relating to the kind of FPS it is (class based, objective based, team based) and you can still get that stonewalled in TF2 which has made a hell of a lot more nods towards 'casual pub play' than Brink did.

I'm not sure I completely understand what you're getting at, but I'll try and respond. Essentially yes the balance could have technically been fixed by having the matches work like Team A attacks - Team B defends for x amount of time, and then switch. Whichever team gets farther or finishes first wins. Technically balanced, but still there are problems.

That's Stopwatch mode; it's how Brink is played competitively, in clan matches and tournaments.

The game had some cool ideas, the lack of party options and matchmaking were bizarre for a console title though.

I guess that's partially where the hate comes from?

It's not a console title.

It's a pretty hardcore competitive team based PC FPS with a lot of its design clearly catered towards high level clan and tournament play (but then other aspects of its design like the levelling and unlock system directly at odds with that)

 

[BrLvgThrChmstry]

I guess that's partially where the hate comes from?

It's not a console title.

It's a pretty hardcore competitive team based PC FPS with a lot of its design clearly catered towards high level clan and tournament play (but then other aspects of its design like the levelling and unlock system directly at odds with that)

Hey guys, listen this man. Apparently he knows for a fact this isn't a console title, even though it has not only been demo'd running on all three platforms and was eventually released the same day on three as well. Also nevermind the fact that a lot of the mechanics for this title were streamlined to accommodate the lacking console platform.

 

[Danne-Danger]

It's not a console title.

Yes it is, that's its biggest problem.

 

[MrNyarlathotep]

Hey guys, listen this man. Apparently he knows for a fact this isn't a console title, even though it has not only been demo'd running on all three platforms and was eventually released the same day on three as well. Also nevermind the fact that a lot of the mechanics for this title were streamlined to accommodate the lacking console platform.

Okay, well if you're going to get overly pedantic / defensive; it is the latest iteration in a fairly niche genre that has never traditionally found much following or representation on consoles.

I mean, Valve can go ahead and release DOTA2 on consoles day and date with its PC release if they feel like it, but it still wouldn't be a 'console title', and would not do particularly well.
Brink is a 'LAN game' kind of title. I'm not knocking consoles.

EDIT:

Yes it is, that's its biggest problem.

I think fundamentally it isn't, based on the hate its received from - AFAICS - primarily console gamers. Primarily 360 owners as well from my observation.
If you mean the design problems it has stem from an attempt at greater accessibility (as TF2 did), that's slightly different.

 

[BrLvgThrChmstry]

Okay, well if you're going to get overly pedantic / defensive; it is the latest iteration in a fairly niche genre that has never traditionally found much following or representation on consoles.

I mean, Valve can go ahead and release DOTA2 on consoles day and date with its PC release if they feel like it, but it still wouldn't be a 'console title', and would not do particularly well. Brink is a 'LAN game' kind of title. I'm not knocking consoles.

The hell are you talking about? It's just another class based shooter. And speak as if this game as released on PC before consoles, who cares whether or not you want to believe these types of games existed on other platforms before your beloved PC (which I am impartial to myself). This game was developed with Console platform in mind as well. There is nothing special about this game aside from its convoluted movement system(?) and shitty, overly abundant, pointless weapon selection/upgrade options.

 

[jkanownik]

Yes it is, that's its biggest problem.

It's biggest problem is that it didn't work. I play every shooter on the 360. I loved Shadowrun and will still occasionally play that. I'll admit that Homefront was a decent MP game. I sacrifice my KDR to complete objectives. The game was simply broken at launch. It may have gotten better over time, but then you introduce the problem of having no one to play with.

 

[Lunchbox]

i was one of those suckers

what a horrible piece of shit with broke ass servers

 

[Escape Goat]

I thought topic was about this guy

No idea what Brink is though...

 

[Instro]

I was a big fan of Splash Damage prior to this game. It was pretty disappointing honestly.

 

[FantasticMrFoxdie]

A good sign that we need more FPS games in this market.

Spoiler

c'mon son

 

[Anton Sugar]

One of the few games that made me feel fucking awesome and fucking stupid in a single round. Thought I was hot shit until I realized I was playing against bots in an online game :-|

This didn't get the support it needed.

 

[Ricker]

Wow, there goes 2 million disappointed customers ...one of my biggest disappointment of 2011...

 

[Emitan]

Bugs aside, PC version was a great game.

 

[itsgreen]

Bullshit I saw it for 10 bucks just 3 days ago...

 

[Des0lar]

This just goes to show that gaf opinion doesn't equal reality always. Ah well....It's fun to say bomba to games you don't like.

what? servers are empty for a reason

 

[Surface of Me]

I played a match at Quakecon the August before it released and it played better then than it did at launch. I guess they polished that version like diamond and it being over LAN concealed the lag.

 

[rdrr gnr]

Embarrassing.

 

[PedroLumpy]

Dustbowl isn't the first map of its gametype, heh.
It almost has the same history as 2Fort.
Goldrush is probably the most popular payload map, so it did something right, although Badwater Basin is better balanced (but also has the same 'ramp up' mechanics).

Dustbowl was first along with Gravelpit as part of the offical release of TF2. So they are both first.

Popularity doesn't necessarily mean it's good. I mean If I was to use your own popularity argument on say .... Brink, that would mean Brink sucks since it's not popular.

Played on a pub with random people not really knowing how their class is supposed to play (or worse, not picking classes the team needs) I can see how Brink can feel like a meat grinder, but that's really a bigger design issue relating to the kind of FPS it is (class based, objective based, team based) and you can still get that stonewalled in TF2 which has made a hell of a lot more nods towards 'casual pub play' than Brink did.

This paragraph doesn't really say anything clearly. Shitloads of games have classes/objectives/teams, yet do not approach the meat grinderness(?) of Brink. What's are you getting at in mentioning TF2?

That's Stopwatch mode; it's how Brink is played competitively, in clan matches and tournaments.

Indeed, not surprisingly the competitive scene saw some of the problems and tried to address them.

It's a pretty hardcore competitive team based PC FPS with a lot of its design clearly catered towards high level clan and tournament play (but then other aspects of its design like the levelling and unlock system directly at odds with that)

Well if you're wondering why it didn't catch on, you should be looking at it's 'pub level play' design rather than it's 'high level play' design. The two aren't necessarily mutually exclusive, but they definitely aren't always equal for any given game.