Brink

[Ochre]

Given a 6 by IGN on Xbox 360, not reviewed yet on PS3 due to PSN being down.

IGN Ratings for Brink (X360)
7.5 Presentation
The style and world of Brink look cool, from the unique characters to the appearance choices and menus.
6.5 Graphics
Once inside the game, Brink’s world suffers from pixelated lines, murky colors, and an almost greased-lens effect.
6.5 Sound
The music and sound effects do a decent job of presenting the game, but bigger actions like explosions just don’t deliver.
6.0 Gameplay
Moving through the world using the SMART system works great, but the repetitive objectives simply grow tiresome.
5.5 Lasting Appeal
Maxing out a character in a matter of days is just too quick. While you can adjust your skills, the repetition of objectives and the fight don’t make this a game you can really hang on to.
6.0
OVERALL

Okay
(out of 10)

 

[King Elvis]

Out when?

 

[Mitchemx]

Out on Thursday.

Looks promising, however the IGN review is a bit off putting. Got so many game atm that it was something i was only going to pick up if it received great reviews. I'll wait for a few others to come out but at this stage i think i'll pass.

Any sort of demo out or announced?

 

[DarkPhoenix]

I dont usually take much stock in IGN's ratings, they have a tendency to over/under rate games.

Still looking forward to it.

 

[Mitchemx]

Looks like i'm out either way for the moment. Reading around it appears that ATI cards are having massive issues and i got an ATI card.

 

[sacka]

Dont ever listen to IGN's review scores, unless it has COD in it's title it's not going to score well.

 

[HBK619]

The game sounds very repetitive.

To be fair though, it was something that Borderlands, when you get to the meat and bones of it, was also. However that had the massively enticing subject of LOOT! As far as I'm aware Brink doesn't have any real loot system.

It's probably confirmed that I won't be getting it though, at least not for a long time.

 

[Knighta21]

So let me get this straight, there's no Team Deathmatch mode for multiplayer?
Is it always objective? Seems abit stupid not to have the mode if true.
Even if it's an objective based game, just to change things up for awhile would be to just kill as many opposing players as possible don't you think?
Will wait and see with this I think.

 

[HBK619]

So let me get this straight, there's no Team Deathmatch mode for multiplayer?
Is it always objective? Seems abit stupid not to have the mode if true.
Even if it's an objective based game, just to change things up for awhile would be to just kill as many opposing players as possible don't you think?
Will wait and see with this I think.

It's a co-op multiplayer game.

Much like Borderlands. Honestly don't think that should be the worst part about what you'd be looking at.

 

[Knighta21]

It's a co-op multiplayer game.

Much like Borderlands. Honestly don't think that should be the worst part about what you'd be looking at.

Well I was totally wrong with what I thought this game was about. Even though I like (loved) borderlands, the RPG factor isin't there it seems (loot, character building skills, "Millions" of guns, etc).
It seems that character leveling doesn't take long in this, and the Single player missions not that long.... which were totally opposite in borderlands.
Like I said before; wait and see. But at the moment, looking like a no.

 

[Jabso]

Dont ever listen to IGN's review scores, unless it has COD in it's title it's not going to score well.

If it were up to people who comment in the comment section every game would get 10/10.

Black ops got a 8.5. Mortal Kombat got an 8 and people complain about it.

I continue to be dismayed by the whinging that goes towards scores. The only problem I've had with a review was Football Manager 2010 getting a 2/10. They pulled it off the site shortly afterwards, it's a niche game that was reviewed by someone who quite simply doesn't get it. The apology is still on the site in place of the review. http://au.pc.ign.com/articles/936/936295p1.html

I'm pretty faithful to mainstream site scores like gamespot and IGN. If I have no idea about a game but it has some pre-release hype I'll look into it if it gets a 6 or lower I know it's not worth it.

If a game I otherwise wouldn't be that interested in gets an 8-10 score I'll look into it more to see if it's something I should look into.

People look into these like they're writing the history of video games. This is not true.

 

[Freo4life]

If it were up to people who comment in the comment section every game would get 10/10.

Black ops got a 8.5. Mortal Kombat got an 8 and people complain about it.

I continue to be dismayed by the whinging that goes towards scores. The only problem I've had with a review was Football Manager 2010 getting a 2/10. They pulled it off the site shortly afterwards, it's a niche game that was reviewed by someone who quite simply doesn't get it. The apology is still on the site in place of the review. http://au.pc.ign.com/articles/936/936295p1.html

I'm pretty faithful to mainstream site scores like gamespot and IGN. If I have no idea about a game but it has some pre-release hype I'll look into it if it gets a 6 or lower I know it's not worth it.

If a game I otherwise wouldn't be that interested in gets an 8-10 score I'll look into it more to see if it's something I should look into.

People look into these like they're writing the history of video games. This is not true.

This is generally how i operate, however i also make a habit to check the average user rating and if they are similar (e.g crap) then i forget about the game. If they are quite different like a +2 differential then i think the reviewer probably got it wrong and do a bit more research into the game (if it seems like a game i would like). I think a good example is the recent AFL game. It got 6 from the reviewer but the users rated it something like 7.3

 

[sacka]

If it were up to people who comment in the comment section every game would get 10/10.

Black ops got a 8.5. Mortal Kombat got an 8 and people complain about it.

I continue to be dismayed by the whinging that goes towards scores. The only problem I've had with a review was Football Manager 2010 getting a 2/10. They pulled it off the site shortly afterwards, it's a niche game that was reviewed by someone who quite simply doesn't get it. The apology is still on the site in place of the review. http://au.pc.ign.com/articles/936/936295p1.html

I'm pretty faithful to mainstream site scores like gamespot and IGN. If I have no idea about a game but it has some pre-release hype I'll look into it if it gets a 6 or lower I know it's not worth it.

If a game I otherwise wouldn't be that interested in gets an 8-10 score I'll look into it more to see if it's something I should look into.

People look into these like they're writing the history of video games. This is not true.

It's not just the scores themselves that piss me off about IGN but more the fact that half the people that now review the games sound as if they did it after playing the game for an hour.

They weren't that bad not to long ago but geez they are getting worse by the day imo, have all there intelligent writers left for greener pastures?

And you cant say that they dont have a crush on COD ffs just look at MW2 score.

 

[HBK619]

Gave a watch of GiantBomb's Quick Look of this last night, anyone who wants to have a look as well here is the link (48 min vid):
http://www.giantbomb.com/quick-look-brink/17-4101/

It's absolutely fair to say, this game looks terrible.

Gunplay looks wholly underwhelming (and is said in the vid). The guns sound like pellet guns, if you didn't like the sound of the guns in Blops, then don't think these will be any better.

The missions are SOOOOO generic and the side missions that they give you really don't force you or tempt you enough to go do them instead of the main mission. So you're really going to just see absolute shitfights at the main objective, could see it being REALLY tedious.

There's no story to speak of, it's just got very basic set up cutscenes and that's in. No real cutscenes during the missions, no big set pieces, nothing but basic run into objective and try to defend/attack it.

There's some good concepts and ideas at play throughout various moments in the game, the teamplay potential interactions are good.

Overall it just looks incomplete. The game seems to feel like it was meant to be some part of a bigger whole. As it stands, it's almost like Spec Ops mode in MW2, just an extra to what is a much bigger package...only here, there is no big package.

 

[DarkPhoenix]

The company said theyre not focused on downloadable stuff before release, so it sounds like it will be updated via patches later on.

 

[HBK619]

The company said theyre not focused on downloadable stuff before release, so it sounds like it will be updated via patches later on.

There's an option on the menu that says "Downloaded Content" so unless that's for the pre-order bonuses, I'd say they changed that focus.

 

[Jabso]

This is generally how i operate, however i also make a habit to check the average user rating and if they are similar (e.g crap) then i forget about the game. If they are quite different like a +2 differential then i think the reviewer probably got it wrong and do a bit more research into the game (if it seems like a game i would like). I think a good example is the recent AFL game. It got 6 from the reviewer but the users rated it something like 7.3

I usually hate AFL games. I don't know if I hate them more because of how much I love footy, or less. So for me to really take a look at them I'm looking for a much higher score from either camps.

 

[Ant_]

So who has the game and is it any good?

 

[DarkPhoenix]

There's an option on the menu that says "Downloaded Content" so unless that's for the pre-order bonuses, I'd say they changed that focus.

Preorder bonuses are activated by a steam menu so the downloadable content option is indeed for new content later on.

As to how it plays:

Enjoying it so far, ill be honest its not the best shooter but it is something different.

The menu's are rather fiddly and the clothing released with the game isnt exactly a mountain and what there is you need to unlock by playing the game, so to start with customization is very minimal.

Controls are Okay but not the greatest, Melee attack is V which is rather odd.
Gameplay is fast paced and frantic, something I rather enjoy.
Grenade lob is set far too low you really have to look right up to get any distance at all, explosives themselves can be annoying as hell as being on the outside of the blast radius causes you to be knocked down.

Its a rather unique game that does have its flaws, and with the downloadable content menu indicating future additions and fixes it will eventually be a pretty good game.

My recommendation is play it with an open mind, keeping in mind it will most likely get better once some downloadable stuff is released, and dont take TOO MUCH notice in some of the reviews posted by games sites yet. One major review sight complained about the difficulty of interacting with turrets and being unable to use them when he was actually using a class that cant use them (soldier). Its full of little intricacies like this.

 

[FGMPR]

I just cracked and bought it when I saw on Steam it was US$60 with the prima guide. It's obviously an error because the game alone costs $90 and the guide is an abhorrent $35. So I guess if anyone is willing to bite at about $56AU, which includes a very comprehensive guide with lots of backstory etc, then you should probably go grab it before the deal closes up.

 

[RoosterLad]

I was considering getting this for co-op, maybe as a rental from EB to test it out, but now I am reading this does not have local co-op!!

Can anyone confirm?

 

[MightyTiger]

Got the game yesterday, played it for 15 minutes and took it straight back to Game, such a terrible terrible game, some of the concepts are 'ok' but it just doesn't sit well with me, the controls for it on 360 are just terrible, to much going on with the controls and unless you have a few extra fingers it's far to complicated.

I give the game a rating of 4/10 graphics looked good, I liked how they had classes such as Medic etc a bit like TF2 but other then that nothing really to get excited about.

Another thing that really ticked me off, was that there was no tutorial on which buttons did what, and which skills should be upgraded, it basically throws you into the deepend without giving any basic information about the game and considering the detailed layout of the game I thought it was really stupid not to have a more in-depth tutorial.

 

[sacka]

Got the game yesterday, played it for 15 minutes and took it straight back to Game, such a terrible terrible game, some of the concepts are 'ok' but it just doesn't sit well with me, the controls for it on 360 are just terrible, to much going on with the controls and unless you have a few extra fingers it's far to complicated.

I give the game a rating of 4/10 graphics looked good, I liked how they had classes such as Medic etc a bit like TF2 but other then that nothing really to get excited about.

Another thing that really ticked me off, was that there was no tutorial on which buttons did what, and which skills should be upgraded, it basically throws you into the deepend without giving any basic information about the game and considering the detailed layout of the game I thought it was really stupid not to have a more in-depth tutorial.

Can you even rate a game after playing it for 15 mins?

 

[MightyTiger]

Can you even rate a game after playing it for 15 mins?

Yep......

 

[DarkPhoenix]

Yep......

No, you cant. Especially not this game.

Ive noticed that the more you play this the more it opens up.

Have read so many people saying they played for 20 minutes and gave up, its not the kind of game you can get an idea of in 20 mins.

Friend of mine bought it, 15 mins later started bitching. These were his complaints (that I can remember):

"Needs less health and faster running"
Erm, thats the light body type, you need to unlock it.

"Needs Knives"
Equip a pistol and press melee.

"The AI is stupid"
The AI levels with you, the higher your level the better the AI.

"The campaign looks really short"
Yeah, it is, its just an extra to help you level your character, online multiplayer is where its at, the game basically revolves around multiplayer.

"The classes are way too vanilla"
Yeah thats because youve been playing it 15 bloody minutes, you need to unlock the upgrades to unlock class abilities such as Cortex Bombs for operatives etc



Most of the complaints people seem to have seem to be things that could be solved by reading the manual (Which noone does). No tutorial on what button does what? Theres a section in the manual called "CONTROLS" with detailed descriptions of what every button does. Play the "Challenges mode" it holds your hand through every game type and teaches you how to do things. Every interactive in the game pretty much screams at you anyway "PRESS X TO BUFF ROGERS WEAPON DAMAGE!"

Brink was always going to be more suited to PC play (being similar to TF2 and CS: Source), am surprised so many have opted for the console version.