Official Site: http://www.brinkthegame.com/
Source: Youtube Channel BethesdaSoftworks
Developer: Splash Damage
Publisher: Bethesda Softworks
Platforms: Playstation 3, Xbox 360, PC
Release Date: May 10, 2011
Genre: First-Person Shooter
Pros:
-Unique team-based gameplay that demands the cooperation of the whole team
-The parkour concept makes for an interesting way of getting around, escaping, or attacking
-The art style is colorful, clean, and refreshing in a genre so used to muddy brown and cloudy grey
Cons:
-Uncooperative team mates can make for a frustrating and unpleasant experience
-The game is meant for multi-player as single-player is an emulated multiplayer with ally bots being really dumb
-Missions will require cooperation, but the game design doesn't exactly encourage it in the right way
-Multiplayer is officially dead; you're too late if you want to try it now
If you're a console player, don't get Brink. It's not because it's a "bad" game per se, but because the community for the game is dead now (absolutely 0 people online). If you're a PC gamer, you might still have a chance. Out of all the First-Person Shooters I looked forward to from the beginning of 2011, Brink was the one I had most faith in. It sadly disappointed me in so many ways that that I almost regret buying it, but am glad I did only because it helped me learn so much about game design. The game had a lot of potential that was hurt by its own design choices, which should have made it better, as some concept flaws weren't foreseen. If Splash Damage were to develop Brink 2, a sequel, and change everything that went wrong to make it right, then there still might be a chance for this franchise. As of right now, I have to recommend NOT getting this game for console as you won't find a multiplayer experience OR a single-player experience for that matter.
Aesthetics - Graphics, Audio, and Presentation
What I liked about Brink from the get go was the bright and colorful environment it had (much like Mirror's Edge). The characters do look odd, but they're believable as people. One of the problems with the customization of characters is that they can wear all sorts of different colors, even if the team colors are "Blue" and "Red". This makes identifying friendly and hostile in a split-second decision a bit more difficult. It might be more realistic to have individualism with what the player wants their character to wear, but this is a game and it hinders on the gameplay if allies and enemies keep getting confused for one another when getting shot at. The HUD system is clean and pretty straight-forward. The objectives menu took some getting used to, but it's easy to get around once a player knows how to use it. The voice-acting was alright, but the volume balance for it wasn't set right. I can barely hear the characters speaking during cinematics. The gunfire sfx was alright and being able to identify between each weapon was easy enough. I was kind of confused why everyone had an Australian or Jamaican accent, but I liked it anyways. One of the things I could not stand at all was hearing "our command post has been captured, GET IT BACK" or "the command post has been stolen, STOP THEM!" or something of that nature. I'll explain that under "concept". The game really looked good and feels pretty good the first time you play it. The art style was different, colors were clear and brilliant, menus and HUDs were clean, and gameplay felt smooth. There's the occasional texture blinking and disappearing and some things kind of meld in together with the environment (including enemies), but the game looked and sounded really nice for a frantic First-Person Shooter. Aesthetics: 9/10
Buttons - Controls
The key mappings to Brink is slightly different from other First-Person Shooters. One of the main keys being sprinting. Since the same key used for sprinting is the same one used to perform wall runs, climbs and other stunts, it is mapped to the L2 button rather than L3 (for PS3) so that the player doesn't accidentally jump over cover when moving around. Everything else is about the same: R3 to melee, Square to reload, Triangle to switch weapons, Circle to crouch, Cross to jump, R1 to fire, and R2 to throw a grenade. The problem with the key scheme falls in when interacting with anything. The player has to leave their right thumb stick to hold the square button. This makes aiming for the object and interacting with it difficult when under gunfire. This probably doesn't pertain to PC players as both hands will be on movement and aim while the interact key is probably the "E" key. A better mapping would've probably been having R3 as interact and reload, and square as melee or grenade. Even better, it would've been better if the player could remap the keys to their liking. Input is alright, but there might be some things that people won't like. When climbing, the player's character can't do anything in-between the sequence they moment they start until they are done. It might be only one second, but that's enough for any enemy right above you to take you out. When aiming-down-sight, there's a slight delay going into it. This means that you can't fire for that 0.75 seconds or so until you're fully aiming down. It also has that delay getting out of ADS as well. Those who are used to fast ADS in Call of Duty, Battlefield, Halo, or whichever FPS you play, it might be bothersome. The player still slows down to a crawl when in ADS. A melee attack (also has a slight delay) knocks an enemy back for a chance to shoot them; however, they're able to shoot back when on the floor. When performing a melee attack, the player can't shoot for a second or two. This leaves the player at a disadvantage. For a game boasting in fluidity and fast-paced action, the controls feel clunky and unruly at times. Just trying to interact with objects is a really big problem. The game controls feel very standard, even with the ability to perform parkour moves. Buttons: 6/10
Concept & Content - Design
I need to break this down because there's a lot that makes this game shine but also fail at the same time.
Seamless single-player and multiplayer:
When I purchased Brink, I did so for the single-player experience as the community had dwindled for the multiplayer. To my surprise, Single-player, co-op and multiplayer versus were all the same thing. Each level was actually a mission for each of the sides. Single-player consisted of playing one of 4 challenges or up to 4 players in co-op while the main game is an assortment of capturing command posts, taking an item (capture the flag), escorting, defending a wall, trying to blow it up, etc. Single-player is essentially a pseudo multiplayer where the player goes against bots with bots on their side of the team as well. At first, it's pretty interesting since there's still that team-work aspect still there when playing the game; however, there will be many encounters when ally bots will be very uncooperative and won't fulfill the main objective or end up dying. It's frustrating because the enemy bots are well organized, have dead-aim all of a sudden when you least expect it which kills off your entire team and eventually yourself, and just plain plays much better than the bots on your own team. Earlier, I mentioned that I hated hearing the game announce that a command post has been captured. Not only is it irritating hearing it every other minute, but it also causes ally team mates to run over to re-capture it when the attention is needed on the main objective. This happens with both bots and players. Command posts give a team advantage, but it isn't necessary for victory. Versus mode is how the game is meant to be played, yet bots exist to fill in the void for each game session. The community is dead now, so single-player, co-op and versus all end up being single-player for consoles now.
Adding a story to multiplayer and giving purpose:
This is a double edged sword that made the game interesting but also killed it. The story of the ark and its inhabitants gave reason to the fight between the sides and created the setting of the world for the player. Along with cinematics are dossiers of voice recordings and profiles of the people involved with the fight. It set the time and place of the world, but it didn't really build up to anything interesting. Worse yet, since all the levels are missions that tell each part of the story, a player feels "complete" after accomplishing the task for that particular level. Going back to a level to replay it feels like playing a game that's already completed and relies more on "versus" mode to keep the game fresh (which most people probably finished in co-op). I'm really not sure how the story could have evolved better, but I didn't find any purpose to replay any level after I found out what each mission was about.
Persistent character progression, upgrading, leveling, and acquiring new items to customize:
The core game is very much like Valve's Team Fortress 2 with the movements of Mirror's Edge's parkour gameplay and Call of Duty's (or any other typical current gen FPS) weapons and customization system. Splash Damage combined the level progression of Call of Duty games into Team Fortress 2's team-based combat to create a multiplayer experience with a deep story and character progression. This was a great idea as it gave players a purpose beyond just killing players and performing tasks. All the previews and trailers presented a dynamic weapon customization system that allows for a variety of unique effects and appearance. In Call of Duty (at least for the Modern Warfare series), the player is frequently rewarded little by little as they continued playing the game online. In Brink, players acquire weapons in bulk by completing 3 levels of 4 challenges. The player (if skillful enough) could acquire all the weapons in the game within an hour or so which ultimately defeats the concept of "player progression" other than gaining levels for new clothing or abilities. Even with all the weapons, their differences are meager and the customization being limited to a few attachments. There's essentially 6 weapons with all the extra ones having minor differences: Assault, SMG, Gatling, shotgun, sniper, and launcher. All guns share the same scopes, customized mags, and add-ons, so customization doesn't go as far as making a few statistical changes. I actually don't have much to complain about the upgrading and leveling system for new abilities as it closely follows how Battlefield: Bad Company 2 does it by leveling and acquiring new abilities (though they're items in BFBC2 such as med-packs and ammo). The difference is that in Brink, you can choose what new skill to acquire as long as its within the player's "rank" to do so. So with the incentive of getting more abilities, there's very little content to keep the player going beyond that.
Class and team-based gameplay concept:
The developers probably didn't foresee this happening, but the team-based concept is quite a problem when trying to actually fulfill a mission. How each mission works is the team gets a main mission and usually requires a certain "class" to fulfill them. A Solider can blow up obstructions and provide ammunition, Medics can heal and resurrect fallen comrades, Engineers can build turrets and repair items, and Operatives can disguise as the enemy to get behind enemy lines to captures posts and hack computers. So all four classes are necessary for a successful mission and their dependency relies on each other. The "class" system falls apart though when put into another perspective. Most players play First-Person Shooter online to compete against other players and thus are used to "death matches". But there is no such mode in Brink and is an assortment of modes put together. Another problem with the class system is that it is mainly used for "fulfilling" a mission and doesn't limit their abilities to "kill". A player can have any body type (Heavy, medium, light) utilizing any weapon they want. This makes every class capable to kill another player. What happens then is that players will forget their main objective and focus on the "killing" aspect of the game. Soldiers will use their abilities to refill their own ammo to consistently kill. Medics will keep themselves in the fight by healing themselves and focus on the fire-fight. Engineers will set up turrets and mines around while racking up kills. Operatives will try to use the disguise to get behind enemies to shoot from there. There are lots of abilities that limit classes from only buffing their team mates, but the main ones are usable on themselves which breaks some of that reliance of team mates and allows one to solo it out. Even with such a dynamic design of team-based gameplay, there will be players who will play the game like a "death-match" and ultimately kill the experience for everyone else. To point out one of the examples, Team Fortress 2's medic can't heal themselves and don't do much damage. So the reliance on a team mate to protect them while they heal them is necessary. In Brink, it's very easy for a player to solo in a fire-fight as everyone possess the same guns to fight. I'd blame the players for this problem if it was possible, but there aren't any players left online to blame for it.
Modes and Map Design:
I personally liked how each mission was an assortment of capturing, defending, attacking, and planting as it promotes team work more than "Team Death match" does. The problem is not everyone feels that way, and so there will still those who will play the game like a death match rather than a capture mode. This actually isn't a problem with the mode selections, but more to do with the way the "class" system is set up. If you can't encourage team-work past class specific objectives to fulfill, no one will fall in to play their part. The maps were designed to be able to perform various parkour moves, but they can be very confusing. Map flows are obscure, maze-like, and difficult to navigate. I eventually got used to a few of them, but it was still difficult to find my way around some areas which wastes time.
Parkour:
This was one of the main attractions to the game, especially after the appeal Mirror's Edge had. Throughout the game, the tutorials will tell the player to "move" around a lot as it is the only way to survive. In the trailers, you see the player sliding into enemies, chasing them through several platforms, and leaping into a fray of enemies. The problem? Guns shoot far, and they will reach you no matter where you run to unless there's cover. This concept of "running around" and "Parkour" was to hopefully diminish the amount of "camping" that happens within FPS games, but it doesn't work even in Brink. Running will only expose yourself to gunfire unless there's cover nearby, and climbing up walls slows your character down with the delay which gives free reign for an enemy to shoot you. Running and Parkour is great for getting to where you need to go, but not for combat. In the midst of battle, the most effective way to get through a gunfight is by moving up slowly with the entire team and finding cover. Sliding into an enemy and shooting them may look cool in the videos, but in the actual game you'd probably get shot by the enemy or their team mates before being able fire.
The game is innovative, and it truly has a lot of potential that it could still work with. The game just simply doesn't work well right now for a true "team-based" multiplayer experience, but it might still have a chance of redeeming itself if the problems are addressed and fixed. Concept & Content: 5/10
Duration - Pacing, length, and Replay Value
I finished all the missions (except for Day 6 of the enforcers, that accursed mission) in about 10 hours or so in replaying some of the missions. Each mission takes an average of 30 minutes depending on the situation. If the team is defending and loses the first point, they need to defend the next point which adds time. If they successfully defend the first point, the mission ends within 10 minutes. Single-player and co-op don't have much lasting appeal, and so the reliance on Versus mode to keep the game's replay value high is necessary. Unfortunately, the game's online community is dead. So as of right now, it has little to no replay value unless you really like to play with bots or doing those challenges. But I got about 12-15 hours of gameplay for $10, so I'm alright. This score would've been very different if there were still people playing this game. Duration: 5/10
Fun - First/Last Impression, Entertainment Value
When I first started, I liked it. Being able to freely climb up high place, jump off walls, and sliding around was fun and made me look at the levels differently. I didn't think much of the weapons as they were exactly what I expected out of an FPS. I thought it was interesting to add a life-bar over player's heads. It made priority a little easier to decide. As I got farther into the game, I started to become very frustrated. Human players would leave their characters online to "hopefully" have the computer AI win for them as well as gaining points to level up. Ally computer AIs were dumb and uncooperative which really made me feel like I was playing a single-player game as I had to switch between classes and fulfill the tasks myself. After awhile, it was more of a chore than an exciting experience for me. When I finally finished all the missions and saw the ending cinematic, it ended in a very sad whimper leaving me unsatisfied and upset with the game. I found out there were a lot of dossiers I haven't unlocked, but got bored really fast after listening to a few of them. The story no longer interested me, and the gameplay was too frustrating to go back to as human players no longer exist on it and bots were too dumb to withstand. I was very glad I played the game in a bad way for the game itself as I learned so much about what didn't work in a team-based multiplayer game. I put the disc back in its box and placed it with the rest of my finished games to remind me what the game has taught me. It was sort of fun while it lasted, but I'm done with Brink. Fun: 6/10
Overall
The game had a lot of potential and it still does for a sequel should the developers decide on doing so (though Bethesda might not want to back them up on it), but I the game is officially dead within the same year it was launched. I was hoping it would give me the satisfaction of a single-player experience, but it even failed at that. I still have some faith in the franchise and think it could evolve into something better, but I have to be honest with this first one and say that it wasn't as fun as I had hoped it'd be. Overall: 6.2/10
No comments:
Post a Comment