There's opinion and then there's blaming a game for forgetting which class you have on. I'm all for "That's just lie...your opinion man," but some 'opinions' are totally unreasonable. It is not Brink's fault that you have a bad memory. You want to call the class system complicated? Fine. But that's a bit rich when your reason is that you forgot which of FOUR choices you made a few minutes ago.
But yes. NUmbering is the problem. It makes reviewers unable to say "This is how the game works. If you like that, it's your thing." Instead they say "This game works like this and that is BAD."
How do you see how many hours someone has logged on a game under their tag (360)? I think you can only do a side-by-side comparison of achievement points with friends on Live.
I agree about the hours played thing, but only having a small number of achievements doesn't prove anything. I've got 170 points unlocked on BLOPS, but I'm a 6th Prestige with multiple days logged on the MP. Maybe he played more MP than SP? Are there more MP than SP points?
I don't really have a stake, but sometimes you can tell pretty accurately how from Achievements how long someone has played. The certainty ranges from the "Good Review!" Achievement for 12 hours played to "Do 20 heals as a Medic". Depending on how much the Medic is your thing that could take 2 hours or 2 days of playtime.
Basically: We need to see the Achievement list ourselves to even begin to make an educated guess.
CarbonFireSee youin the countryRegistered Userregular
edited May 2011
So had a chance to read Joystiq's review in its entirety. They make a couple of interesting points, but at the end of the day, I think it comes down to player preference.
They list having a short rewards schedule for the weapon unlocks as a bad thing. That is entirely a preference thing, as many people would regard a longer draw up to attaining the weapons and attachments as a grind. Some people like being pulled through the content with that carrot on a stick, and some would prefer to just get on with it and play the game. Brink favors the latter.
The lobby system I suppose is an issue for the console versions, though Fireteams do still exist to keep groups of 4 playing together in between matches.
There is no single player, its multiplayer with bots. We've been singing this from the rooftops here for weeks, if not longer. I'm afraid Splash Damage was a bit full of themselves calling it otherwise, but c'est la vie, that's what developers do....talk up their game.
Oh, and god forbid a game reward teamwork and sticking together. Two menz are able to take down one manz? Like, OMG, my mad COD skills aren't working!
The first time I listened to John Coltrane's A Love Supreme I hated it. Thought it was the wankiest piece of shit ever. Then, a few months later, I listened again. It's now one of my favourite albums ever.
It's a bit different for professional reviewers, who are generally better at picking out quality. But still, there are plenty of classics that reviewers of the day hated at first glance.
Did you listen to it for three hours before it hooked you?
I know you're just joking, but there are albums that I had to listen to a good 6 or 7 times before I finally grokked them. Considering most albums are about 45 min. - 1 hr. in playtime... yes. It can take up to 6 or 7 hours, or possibly even more to absorb something the way it's meant to be.
Some of us even like that sort of thing. With instant gratification albums/games/TV/movies, I often get bored really quickly and don't return. It's the things that I have to come back to to appreciate that I have a hard time getting tired of.
So yeah, if it's true that this reviewer only spent 3 hours on the game, that's really incredibly lazy journalism. It'd be like listening to Nirvana's Nevermind just one time and saying, "Well, I don't like Grunge music, but instead of reviewing this for what it is to people who like this sort of thing, spending more time with it to see if it clicks, or, even better, letting someone review this who has the time and appreciation for the genre to do the review justice, I'll give it a 3/5."
Oh, wait.
Rolling Stone gave the album three out of five stars
There's opinion and then there's blaming a game for forgetting which class you have on. I'm all for "That's just lie...your opinion man," but some 'opinions' are totally unreasonable. It is not Brink's fault that you have a bad memory. You want to call the class system complicated? Fine. But that's a bit rich when your reason is that you forgot which of FOUR choices you made a few minutes ago.
Right. I get that. But I don't see where that was written in Joystiq's review. Which, I believe, is the source of all the "He only played for 3 hours!" complaints.
The Joystiq controversy is a bit stupid considering the fact that a review console (at work) likely has more than one gamertag on it. Hell, the home console I'm playing on right now has more than one gamertag on it and I frequently end up playing on one or the other just because its a pain in the ass to log in/out constantly.
Future Blues on
Xbox Live: No Reply
Steam: Jacobontap
LoL: FutureBlues
There's opinion and then there's blaming a game for forgetting which class you have on. I'm all for "That's just lie...your opinion man," but some 'opinions' are totally unreasonable. It is not Brink's fault that you have a bad memory. You want to call the class system complicated? Fine. But that's a bit rich when your reason is that you forgot which of FOUR choices you made a few minutes ago.
Right. I get that. But I don't see where that was written in Joystiq's review. Which, I believe, is the source of all the "He only played for 3 hours!" complaints.
I haven't read the article (pot, kettle, I know) but Sheeeep said a few pages back that the IGN reviewer blamed the game for him forgetting his own class twice. Something about mainstream-games-journalism makes me go old-man-incoherent. So I'm going to stop now.
No opinion on the joystiq issue because, as mentioned above, the jury is out IMO.
I've played three full story-mode matches so far, and one challenge - the Parkour one.
So far, my gut reaction to the game is that its a fun diversion, but its not something I will stick with long term. I got it for free from the Bethesda retail insiders program, so its not like I regret my purchase or anything.
But the game is far from perfect. In my short time with it, I have seen the AI do some terrible things. On the second mission of the Security Force, I watched a bot on my team pick up the intel, and proceed to run into a banister on a stairwell with completely broken AI for about 45 seconds. It wasn't until the enemy came in and killed him that things went back to normal.
I've also failed that mission twice, because the AI on your team is atrocious. They waste all their time capturing and re-capturing command posts, rather than working on the mission objective. I never have any backup, support, or cover fire when I go to hack the safe, pick up the intel, or whatever, because my whole team is too busy playing with their dicks to bother winning the map.
Other things I've noticed: Yes, grenades are nigh worthless. I chucked one into a pack of 5 dudes and not a single one of them died and all of them got hit. The SMART parkour stuff is as much of a hindrance sometimes as it is a help. Its really annoying to be sprinting along somewhere and have your dude randomly try to vault over something small and insignificant, which wastes a bunch of time on the parkour animation.
Lucascraft on
0
Options
Ninja Snarl PMy helmet is my burden.Ninja Snarl: Gone, but not forgotten.Registered Userregular
They list having a short rewards schedule for the weapon unlocks as a bad thing. That is entirely a preference thing, as many people would regard a longer draw up to attaining the weapons and attachments as a grind. Some people like being pulled through the content with that carrot on a stick, and some would prefer to just get on with it and play the game. Brink favors the latter.
This so, so, so hard. I quit playing TF2 because I was sick of killscreens of guys with these great weapons and combinations and I didn't have 20-30 hours to burn to get a couple of guns. I like the idea of unlocking weapons, but only so far as it doesn't actually interfere with my enjoyment.
I hate hate hate grinding for weapons. Hate. Save that shit for stuff like WoW where people don't mind grinding away at fetch quests for months. If the game is good enough to last, then drawing out the playtime with unlockable weapons is a big detraction. If the game isn't good enough to last, then aggravating weapon unlocks won't help anyway.
I've got a borrowed CODBLOPS hanging around, but I quit after level 50 because there was just no damn point in playing it any longer. I had all the weapon unlocks and the gameplay just didn't justify playing any longer. Halo: Reach, however, gives you everything gameplay-related from the start and has infinitely more replayability. BF2:BC2 also has unlocks, but I've had everything since the first couple of weeks and still play that sometimes because it's just good.
Armand White is that contrarian film reviewer everyone despises. Then again, an opinion is an opinion, unless he's doing it just for the page views ("Who's the ONE guy who said this 99% Fresh movie was bad?!")
I am embarrassed I forgot that guy's name. Thank you.
It is entertainment in and of itself to read his reviews, though.
Let's just boil games down Facebook games. Obviously if a game's premise isn't immediately apparent from the moment you hit start, the game sucks and you fail.
Honestly? Yes. I should have an idea what the premise is when I start the game.
As for ADD, I don't think you know what ADD is if you think 3 hours is a short time.
Ignoring that, though, it's entertainment. Most people, when wanting to be entertained, want it immediately. It has nothing to do with ADD and has to do with people who want 3-4 hours before they hit the hook are a minority and niche.
A loud, vocal minority who don't accept this.
Again, I am not defending that Joystiq review, but some of the blanket statements made here are just as bad.
Bizazedo on
XBL: Bizazedo
PSN: Bizazedo
CFN: Bizazedo (I don't think I suck, add me).
I guess D2D UK still aren't giving out keys. Although they do offer an english language download now. Someone mentioned earlier that their download only had French, German, Italian and Spanish and the file size for that one does match the download that was available earlier.
There's opinion and then there's blaming a game for forgetting which class you have on. I'm all for "That's just lie...your opinion man," but some 'opinions' are totally unreasonable. It is not Brink's fault that you have a bad memory. You want to call the class system complicated? Fine. But that's a bit rich when your reason is that you forgot which of FOUR choices you made a few minutes ago.
Right. I get that. But I don't see where that was written in Joystiq's review. Which, I believe, is the source of all the "He only played for 3 hours!" complaints.
I haven't read the article (pot, kettle, I know) but Sheeeep said a few pages back that the IGN reviewer blamed the game for him forgetting his own class twice. Something about mainstream-games-journalism makes me go old-man-incoherent. So I'm going to stop now.
No opinion on the joystiq issue because, as mentioned above, the jury is out IMO.
There are certainly poorly-formed opinions about Brink. But everyone is dog piling Joystiq's review, which is actually written on well-supported opinion. Keep in mind that this all happened because of accusations made by another writer, which were based on extremely rough conjecture.
e: Apparently voodoo extreme has edited out most of Ohm's comments about how Joystiq didn't put in enough time with Brink.
Accusations which have since been removed without apology or explanation.
edit: The dick move here is that they posted the Joystiq reviewer's personal Gamertag in the article as well. And apparently, you only get achievements if you are on the team that wins missions. So the most you could say is that Griffin McElroy was bad at the game, but that doesn't make his opinion/review any less valid just cause it's lower than other peoples.
There is a shitstorm brewing over this on Twitter though. Justin McElroy is defending the review based on him trusting his employees, and getting livid due to the personal attacks on his little brother.
I mean, I really would be just as happy with mingleplayer as singleplayer. It's not like Call of Duty games have had anything but absolute shit singleplayer for a while.
But guys, you need really solid bot AI for that. Oh well, oh well. I'll post impressions on my awesome blog later today/tomorrow.
I mean, I really would be just as happy with mingleplayer as singleplayer. It's not like Call of Duty games have had anything but absolute shit singleplayer for a while.
But guys, you need really solid bot AI for that. Oh well, oh well. I'll post impressions on my awesome blog later today/tomorrow.
Shit Single Player? Call of Duty? Call of Duty was like Medal of Honor times a million. It more or less invented the whole "tons of squadmates are always around you yelling stuff" genre that has now taken over first person shooters. If anything, CoD's singleplayer has gone downhill lately (although I haven't played most of the latest ones).
TychoCelchuuu on
0
Options
DietarySupplementStill not approved by the FDADublin, OHRegistered Userregular
I mean, I really would be just as happy with mingleplayer as singleplayer. It's not like Call of Duty games have had anything but absolute shit singleplayer for a while.
But guys, you need really solid bot AI for that. Oh well, oh well. I'll post impressions on my awesome blog later today/tomorrow.
I thought it was stated earlier that while your team's AI sucks, the opposing team is really good. Is there some way to give commands or objectives to the bots?
I find it weird that one team can be good, and the other terrible.
edit:
If anything, CoD's singleplayer has gone downhill lately (although I haven't played most of the latest ones).
"Most of the latest ones?" The ones where you nuked the United States on purpose? And spawned such gems as "RAMEIREZ, DO EVERYTHING" and "A military wizard did it?" Nothing in those games was especially groundbreaking in terms of a SP campaign.
I think we can all agree that CoD SP peaked with COD2, although I thought COD MW1 had a decent storyline. The problem is, though, that for an entire generation of gamers, all they know is killstreaks and Oscar Mike.
I mean, I really would be just as happy with mingleplayer as singleplayer. It's not like Call of Duty games have had anything but absolute shit singleplayer for a while.
But guys, you need really solid bot AI for that. Oh well, oh well. I'll post impressions on my awesome blog later today/tomorrow.
I thought it was stated earlier that while your team's AI sucks, the opposing team is really good. Is there some way to give commands or objectives to the bots?
I find it weird that one team can be good, and the other terrible.
edit:
If anything, CoD's singleplayer has gone downhill lately (although I haven't played most of the latest ones).
"Most of the latest ones?" The ones where you nuked the United States on purpose? And spawned such gems as "RAMEIREZ, DO EVERYTHING" and "A military wizard did it?" Nothing in those games was especially groundbreaking in terms of a SP campaign.
I think we can all agree that CoD SP peaked with COD2, although I thought COD MW1 had a decent storyline. The problem is, though, that for an entire generation of gamers, all they know is killstreaks and Oscar Mike.
If I was to hazard a guess, this is the reason why your AI teammates are terrible but the enemy isn't. Otherwise the game would play itself, and we can't have the player not be the center of attention all the time can we?
Olivawgood name, isn't it?the foot of mt fujiRegistered Userregular
edited May 2011
Call of Duty's singleplayer is extremely well-produced, if nothing else, and has a definable narrative and characters who are memorable
Brink's singleplayer is either nonexistent or awful, depending on how you personally view the idea of "mingleplayer" (god are we really calling it that, I don't want to call it that)
You can't deny that all of the CoD games (The IW ones) contained tons of jaw dropping excitement in their SP campaigns. I wouldn't really say its fair to refer to them as "Shit".
As for the shitty bot AI for Brink, does it help to turn the difficulty to easy?
Also, still havent gotten my psycho pack from amazon, but three separate emails telling me about my $10 credits. Anyone else running into this?
Skull2185 on
Everyone has a price. Throw enough gold around and someone will risk disintegration.
Call of Duty's singleplayer is extremely well-produced, if nothing else, and has a definable narrative and characters who are memorable
Brink's singleplayer is either nonexistent or awful, depending on how you personally view the idea of "mingleplayer" (god are we really calling it that, I don't want to call it that)
We aren't calling it that. It's MP with bots, pure and simple.
And COD may be well produced, but so were the Transformers movies. That doesn't make them GOOD ;-)
But it does have a single player roller coaster ride campaign, so for those that want that, it is there.
I read a post at SA that said the bots will focus on the secondary objectives to clear the way. I don't know if that is true or not. I got my game an hour ago, fiddled with the character creator, walked my dogs and ate, and am now going to work!
I am thoroughly enjoying Brink and it seems to fun fine on my 5770 oddly enough.
What drivers are you using man?
11.4 and 11.5a aren't cutting it on my 5870. Tempted to roll way back.
no worries on
0
Options
Olivawgood name, isn't it?the foot of mt fujiRegistered Userregular
edited May 2011
Okay, serious question: does anyone know if there's truth to the idea that the bots get better or worse depending on how much time is left in a match, and who is winning near the end?
Because that was a question that was raised in the Giant Bomb Quick Look that I haven't seen anyone else post about it, and I'm genuinely curious because that seems like a really odd way to code bots in a video game!
I am thoroughly enjoying Brink and it seems to fun fine on my 5770 oddly enough.
What drivers are you using man?
11.4 and 11.5a aren't cutting it on my 5870. Tempted to roll way back.
Yeah, I'm probably going to roll back to my last stable set (11.3) to see how it works. My card is powerful enough (modded 6950->70) to brute force the performance I need to play it, but I'd sure like it to be actually smooth
I read on one of the forums that turning off shadows in the config really helps, I'll be trying that tonight and see how it works. At least until ATI can figure their crap out.
Although I only played a little last night, and my sick addled brain meats couldn't figure out simple things like throwing grenades and performing actions, it seems like an amazingly fun multi-player game.
So far, I really like Brink, and I've only completed about 3/4ths of the Challenges Mode so far. My only complaint is that, yeah, the Bots are fucking retarded. The first Challenge sets you up to learn how to plant and defend Objectives, which sounds easy enough, except the enemy team seems to just fucking squat down on whatever I'm headed for, and my team does nothing. I had to switch to that Mossberg Shotgun to complete that Challenge, because it's the only thing I had at the time that's powerful enough to take those fuckers down in a single shot.
But yeah, liking it so far. No real complaints yet. Can't wait to get this thing online, once I finish the Challenges.
For things like challenges, the bots will not help you, that's intended. I would treat the challenges as training on how to complete objectives and as a way to unlock more weapons, and that's really what it is meant to be.
I played for several hours and focused on multiplayer quite a bit. Its easily the most fun I've had in a multiplayer FPS in a long time.
Choke-points on maps aren't an issue if you experiment. Most of the time its a matter of finding the right path to flank with, and the designers had this in mind as the parkour style movement really helps here.
The objectives are really fun and refreshing to me. The shifting goals keep the matches from getting stale and force you to make game changing decisions between multiple primaries and secondaries. At first it was a little confusing, but using the objective wheel nonstop helps a ton, and is fun. It shows what the goals are and lets you highlight one for easy tracking.
Yeah, there are launch issues, but that has become so standard in this industry I can't seriously knock the game for it until some time passes.
As for the bots, that should be the last thing on any reviewer's mind. This is a multiplayer shooter, Unreal Tournament and Counter-Strike were not judged by their bots as much as they were for actual multiplayer and for good reason.
Take Brink for what it is, an update on multiplayer focused shooters that finally brakes away from COD and give it a chance to be fixed. Though it is sad that it has become commonplace to have launch issues like these, but there it is.
Posts
But yes. NUmbering is the problem. It makes reviewers unable to say "This is how the game works. If you like that, it's your thing." Instead they say "This game works like this and that is BAD."
I don't really have a stake, but sometimes you can tell pretty accurately how from Achievements how long someone has played. The certainty ranges from the "Good Review!" Achievement for 12 hours played to "Do 20 heals as a Medic". Depending on how much the Medic is your thing that could take 2 hours or 2 days of playtime.
Basically: We need to see the Achievement list ourselves to even begin to make an educated guess.
WHY AM I POSTING SO MUCH ABOUT THIS
Last post on this, I swear.
hAmmONd IsnT A mAin TAnk
They list having a short rewards schedule for the weapon unlocks as a bad thing. That is entirely a preference thing, as many people would regard a longer draw up to attaining the weapons and attachments as a grind. Some people like being pulled through the content with that carrot on a stick, and some would prefer to just get on with it and play the game. Brink favors the latter.
The lobby system I suppose is an issue for the console versions, though Fireteams do still exist to keep groups of 4 playing together in between matches.
There is no single player, its multiplayer with bots. We've been singing this from the rooftops here for weeks, if not longer. I'm afraid Splash Damage was a bit full of themselves calling it otherwise, but c'est la vie, that's what developers do....talk up their game.
Oh, and god forbid a game reward teamwork and sticking together. Two menz are able to take down one manz? Like, OMG, my mad COD skills aren't working!
I know you're just joking, but there are albums that I had to listen to a good 6 or 7 times before I finally grokked them. Considering most albums are about 45 min. - 1 hr. in playtime... yes. It can take up to 6 or 7 hours, or possibly even more to absorb something the way it's meant to be.
Some of us even like that sort of thing. With instant gratification albums/games/TV/movies, I often get bored really quickly and don't return. It's the things that I have to come back to to appreciate that I have a hard time getting tired of.
So yeah, if it's true that this reviewer only spent 3 hours on the game, that's really incredibly lazy journalism. It'd be like listening to Nirvana's Nevermind just one time and saying, "Well, I don't like Grunge music, but instead of reviewing this for what it is to people who like this sort of thing, spending more time with it to see if it clicks, or, even better, letting someone review this who has the time and appreciation for the genre to do the review justice, I'll give it a 3/5."
Oh, wait.
Right. I get that. But I don't see where that was written in Joystiq's review. Which, I believe, is the source of all the "He only played for 3 hours!" complaints.
Steam: Jacobontap
LoL: FutureBlues
I haven't read the article (pot, kettle, I know) but Sheeeep said a few pages back that the IGN reviewer blamed the game for him forgetting his own class twice. Something about mainstream-games-journalism makes me go old-man-incoherent. So I'm going to stop now.
No opinion on the joystiq issue because, as mentioned above, the jury is out IMO.
hAmmONd IsnT A mAin TAnk
So far, my gut reaction to the game is that its a fun diversion, but its not something I will stick with long term. I got it for free from the Bethesda retail insiders program, so its not like I regret my purchase or anything.
But the game is far from perfect. In my short time with it, I have seen the AI do some terrible things. On the second mission of the Security Force, I watched a bot on my team pick up the intel, and proceed to run into a banister on a stairwell with completely broken AI for about 45 seconds. It wasn't until the enemy came in and killed him that things went back to normal.
I've also failed that mission twice, because the AI on your team is atrocious. They waste all their time capturing and re-capturing command posts, rather than working on the mission objective. I never have any backup, support, or cover fire when I go to hack the safe, pick up the intel, or whatever, because my whole team is too busy playing with their dicks to bother winning the map.
Other things I've noticed: Yes, grenades are nigh worthless. I chucked one into a pack of 5 dudes and not a single one of them died and all of them got hit. The SMART parkour stuff is as much of a hindrance sometimes as it is a help. Its really annoying to be sprinting along somewhere and have your dude randomly try to vault over something small and insignificant, which wastes a bunch of time on the parkour animation.
This so, so, so hard. I quit playing TF2 because I was sick of killscreens of guys with these great weapons and combinations and I didn't have 20-30 hours to burn to get a couple of guns. I like the idea of unlocking weapons, but only so far as it doesn't actually interfere with my enjoyment.
I hate hate hate grinding for weapons. Hate. Save that shit for stuff like WoW where people don't mind grinding away at fetch quests for months. If the game is good enough to last, then drawing out the playtime with unlockable weapons is a big detraction. If the game isn't good enough to last, then aggravating weapon unlocks won't help anyway.
I've got a borrowed CODBLOPS hanging around, but I quit after level 50 because there was just no damn point in playing it any longer. I had all the weapon unlocks and the gameplay just didn't justify playing any longer. Halo: Reach, however, gives you everything gameplay-related from the start and has infinitely more replayability. BF2:BC2 also has unlocks, but I've had everything since the first couple of weeks and still play that sometimes because it's just good.
I am embarrassed I forgot that guy's name. Thank you.
It is entertainment in and of itself to read his reviews, though.
Honestly? Yes. I should have an idea what the premise is when I start the game.
As for ADD, I don't think you know what ADD is if you think 3 hours is a short time.
Ignoring that, though, it's entertainment. Most people, when wanting to be entertained, want it immediately. It has nothing to do with ADD and has to do with people who want 3-4 hours before they hit the hook are a minority and niche.
A loud, vocal minority who don't accept this.
Again, I am not defending that Joystiq review, but some of the blanket statements made here are just as bad.
PSN: Bizazedo
CFN: Bizazedo (I don't think I suck, add me).
There are certainly poorly-formed opinions about Brink. But everyone is dog piling Joystiq's review, which is actually written on well-supported opinion. Keep in mind that this all happened because of accusations made by another writer, which were based on extremely rough conjecture.
e: Apparently voodoo extreme has edited out most of Ohm's comments about how Joystiq didn't put in enough time with Brink.
edit: The dick move here is that they posted the Joystiq reviewer's personal Gamertag in the article as well. And apparently, you only get achievements if you are on the team that wins missions. So the most you could say is that Griffin McElroy was bad at the game, but that doesn't make his opinion/review any less valid just cause it's lower than other peoples.
There is a shitstorm brewing over this on Twitter though. Justin McElroy is defending the review based on him trusting his employees, and getting livid due to the personal attacks on his little brother.
3DS Friend Code: 2165-6448-8348 www.Twitch.TV/cooljammer00
Battle.Net: JohnDarc#1203 Origin/UPlay: CoolJammer00
It was about Too Human back then
All that did was make me sad that Silicon Knights hadn't made a sequel to Eternal Darkness
And now I'm sad again
siiiiiiigh
PSN ID : DetectiveOlivaw | TWITTER | STEAM ID | NEVER FORGET
I mean, I really would be just as happy with mingleplayer as singleplayer. It's not like Call of Duty games have had anything but absolute shit singleplayer for a while.
But guys, you need really solid bot AI for that. Oh well, oh well. I'll post impressions on my awesome blog later today/tomorrow.
Shit Single Player? Call of Duty? Call of Duty was like Medal of Honor times a million. It more or less invented the whole "tons of squadmates are always around you yelling stuff" genre that has now taken over first person shooters. If anything, CoD's singleplayer has gone downhill lately (although I haven't played most of the latest ones).
I thought it was stated earlier that while your team's AI sucks, the opposing team is really good. Is there some way to give commands or objectives to the bots?
I find it weird that one team can be good, and the other terrible.
edit:
"Most of the latest ones?" The ones where you nuked the United States on purpose? And spawned such gems as "RAMEIREZ, DO EVERYTHING" and "A military wizard did it?" Nothing in those games was especially groundbreaking in terms of a SP campaign.
I think we can all agree that CoD SP peaked with COD2, although I thought COD MW1 had a decent storyline. The problem is, though, that for an entire generation of gamers, all they know is killstreaks and Oscar Mike.
If I was to hazard a guess, this is the reason why your AI teammates are terrible but the enemy isn't. Otherwise the game would play itself, and we can't have the player not be the center of attention all the time can we?
Brink's singleplayer is either nonexistent or awful, depending on how you personally view the idea of "mingleplayer" (god are we really calling it that, I don't want to call it that)
PSN ID : DetectiveOlivaw | TWITTER | STEAM ID | NEVER FORGET
I am thoroughly enjoying Brink and it seems to fun fine on my 5770 oddly enough.
As for the shitty bot AI for Brink, does it help to turn the difficulty to easy?
Also, still havent gotten my psycho pack from amazon, but three separate emails telling me about my $10 credits. Anyone else running into this?
We aren't calling it that. It's MP with bots, pure and simple.
And COD may be well produced, but so were the Transformers movies. That doesn't make them GOOD ;-)
But it does have a single player roller coaster ride campaign, so for those that want that, it is there.
I'm 2% away from having this.
Where is my amazon pre-order?
What drivers are you using man?
11.4 and 11.5a aren't cutting it on my 5870. Tempted to roll way back.
Because that was a question that was raised in the Giant Bomb Quick Look that I haven't seen anyone else post about it, and I'm genuinely curious because that seems like a really odd way to code bots in a video game!
PSN ID : DetectiveOlivaw | TWITTER | STEAM ID | NEVER FORGET
Is it possible to burn a barrel and reduce accuracy? How about handguards smouldering?
That would be a level of realism that would be funny.
Yeah, I'm probably going to roll back to my last stable set (11.3) to see how it works. My card is powerful enough (modded 6950->70) to brute force the performance I need to play it, but I'd sure like it to be actually smooth
I read on one of the forums that turning off shadows in the config really helps, I'll be trying that tonight and see how it works. At least until ATI can figure their crap out.
Although I only played a little last night, and my sick addled brain meats couldn't figure out simple things like throwing grenades and performing actions, it seems like an amazingly fun multi-player game.
Destiny! : Warlock - Titan - Hunter
Hooookay.
Didn't you already spend your crowns or cronies or dinars or rubles on this yesterday? Did it get resolved?
But yeah, liking it so far. No real complaints yet. Can't wait to get this thing online, once I finish the Challenges.
I played for several hours and focused on multiplayer quite a bit. Its easily the most fun I've had in a multiplayer FPS in a long time.
Choke-points on maps aren't an issue if you experiment. Most of the time its a matter of finding the right path to flank with, and the designers had this in mind as the parkour style movement really helps here.
The objectives are really fun and refreshing to me. The shifting goals keep the matches from getting stale and force you to make game changing decisions between multiple primaries and secondaries. At first it was a little confusing, but using the objective wheel nonstop helps a ton, and is fun. It shows what the goals are and lets you highlight one for easy tracking.
Yeah, there are launch issues, but that has become so standard in this industry I can't seriously knock the game for it until some time passes.
As for the bots, that should be the last thing on any reviewer's mind. This is a multiplayer shooter, Unreal Tournament and Counter-Strike were not judged by their bots as much as they were for actual multiplayer and for good reason.
Take Brink for what it is, an update on multiplayer focused shooters that finally brakes away from COD and give it a chance to be fixed. Though it is sad that it has become commonplace to have launch issues like these, but there it is.
PSN: ShinyRedKnight Xbox Live: ShinyRedKnight