Voodoo Extreme writes :
Reviews for Splash Damage's Brink have begun to roll in now that the embargo has lifted, and they're either relatively accepting or quite negative. I was able to spend some time with the Xbox 360 version since the PC build was locked down until launch, enough time in fact that I completed all of the missions both online and offline and even managed to completely nearly all of the challenge missions as well. Brink is not a bad game by any means, but it's also not the "bestest FPS game evar!". It needs to be taken for what it is, primarily a team / co-op oriented FPS with some single player aspects layered on top.
140°
20°
40°
40°
40°
Ad 
30°
Nope. It is pretty much a bad game. No other way around it. Sorry.
It is a team base game no doubt about it and even though that the environments are open and fun to run around in, you generally end up clumping together to take an objective simply because 1 guy can't take out 3 because of the massive amount of bullets a person can take. The game just doesn't give you any real options on how to capture or take the initiative because you everyone all has to go the same way to try and absorb and distribute enough bullet damage.
Now that was only for offline. Can't wait to try it online. If you though Gears of war took too much to take down a guy, you are going to seriously hate Brink.
I don't like the first two campaign maps as they tend to funnel the action.
The later maps however, are bigger.
For example, I just finished playing as a light operative on container city. Constantly stalking people from above the containers and dispatching those that stray from the flock. Then it's disguise time followed by spray everybody from behind time. I can usually take out three guys and the pistol can take down two more.
As for damage, I like it. High damage tends to promote camping and makes people afraid to actually get their ass on the objective. BC2 also took a few hits to take someone down. (Vietnam increased the damage, and is partly why I haven't played it in two months)
Though, try getting an engie to buff you, it'll make mowing people down easier. ;)
just cause people like to not communicate or work together is there problem
this is why call of duty has ruined gaming.....it destroyed the whole meaning of online game play
@joni-ice
very true very true
There are aspects of truth in what you are saying but even in COD you have to play as an effective team to win consistantly.
I've seen plenty of clowns do nothing but go for kills and brag about how good they are even though they lose every match because they aren't willing to sacrifice their K/D ratio to help their team win. In COD, if you have a bunch of friends that aren't afraid to die for each other and work as a team . . . they are often unstoppable.
It's kind of like Peyton Manning/Dan Marino . . . . tons of stats and only 1 ring between the two of them to show for it vs. Brady/Montana . .. good stats (not as great as the other two) but 7 rings to show for it.
Even in COD you need good team based strategies to win. But I also agree that COD has almost promoted selfish, camping, losers to excel.
and there are multiple objectives on each map bunch of main ones and lots of sub ones
and yeah EVERY game has a lack of polish but im to busy playing and having a good time to make a big deal about small pointless stuff like that graphics and detail don't make a game......the overall experience one gets out of it makes the game
how bout you play the game before we talk
So, you are asserting that a person is incapable of gauging how good a game is if they have not played it. By that logic, a person has no way of knowing whether Quantum Theory( a game considered by many to be one of the worst games released this generation) is a good or bad game. I have read multiple reviews and watched a 45 minute gameplay commentary by sites whose opinions I trust; a recurring theme amongst the reviews is that the game is a novel attempt at something "fresh" in the shooter genre, but one lacking in polish and replay value.
I never called Brink a bad game. However, it is not a game that I feel is worth my sixty dollars; especially when there is a potential game of the year contender being released a week later( L.A. Noire).
@Rybakov
While it is true that Call of Duty, Halo, and Killzone have similar amounts of maps to Brink, they also have six to ten hour campaigns and co-op modes. These features add anywhere between fifteen and twenty hours of gameplay for the same price.
As for your polish argument, you are correct in stating that no game is perfect. However, some games get closer to perfect than others, and the closer a game is the better. You can argue against it all you want, but a games technical proficiency definitely affects a persons overall experience with a game.
I made the conclusion based on your comment, which wouldn't be written by someone who played the game.
Namely, the 'eight maps with one objective each' part which is completely wrong, and which Rybakov corrected.
Otherwise, I don't think someone has to play a game to make an opinion on it. Reviews are a fine way to judge a game and you can spend your money wherever you see fit.
I haven't played the game enough to decide if it has enough replay value. Then again, BC2 has given me a lot of replay value and that game has some pretty static objectives too. Most multiplayer-centric FPS games are repetitive on paper. It's the competitiveness that makes them last.
From the videos of Brink i have seen so far, Brink really looks appealing so will be getting this game in the next few months.
I don't buy games based on reviews but buy them based on the fact that the concept appeals to me and it looks like FUN to play. And IMO, Brink looks like it will be a blast to play with mates online.
brink looks like a fun team based game. im not into deathmatch style gaming where you repeatedly run around and shoot stuff so brink looks more like my style of play.