Poll: Brink Reviews

[Sovereignty]

All of the bad reviews are for the Xbox version, which is pretty much the inferior one anyway.

Well, at least you can play online with that version.

Best quote-ownage so far

Lol, seriously.



OT: I didn't like it. Seems when IGN isn't paid they aren't too far from the truth.

 

[maninahat]

"They're?" Don't talk in the plural sense when only IGN's review is a low score. Which, for IGN, just means they weren't paid. Terrible place to get opinions on games from. Every one of the other reviews has given it an 8/10 so far, standard fair for something new/unknown. Sometimes I wonder if reviewers even play half the game before throwing a score out there.

Well on this occasion they gave a 6/10, Which we all know is meant to mean "meh". Shame that in a proper use of the 1-10 scale, "meh" would be closer to 4/10, but as you say, IGN staff need to compromise to get paid. As long as you can understand the hints behind the review, you shouldn't have to worry about these absurdly high scores.

 

[iLikeHippos]

The only reviewers I care about are the ones who have the decency to put it into a video format and be generally funny while still pointing out cons/pros.

YOU FAILED ME, IGN! GRAAAHH!!

On a side note, I'll acquire this game trough sweat, tears and blood, not necessarily in that order.

 

[MrGalactus]

It's had the most mixed reviews I've ever seen :S
2's and 10's.
9's and 6's.

Niche appeal, I reckon. An acquired taste.

 

[Netrigan]

G4. 2/5. Read the review.

Everyone's entitled to their own opinion of course, but you do realize that the reviewer reviewed a multiplayer game before it came out, by saying the campaign isn't that great and playing online with bots. With. Bots. And then complaining that it's not really entertaining. Well duh!

Guys, rent it if you have to, but make your own opinion of the game.

The perils of releasing a MP-centric game. Unless you're running a fairly large beta before release, reviewers don't really have the option to review your MP content.

This is one of the reasons why trying to muscle your way into this exclusive club is so difficult. MP content doesn't get you good reviews until you're a member of the club.

 

[IamSofaKingRaw]

Guys, rent it if you have to, but make your own opinion of the game.

So again, why are you even posting here?

If they played the multi-player game with bots, so did the reviewers who gave the game a high score. Or more likely they were given review copies and played the game on the developers version of Xbox Live / at LAN events. There's no way Splash Damage would let any outlet put a review out there without playing the multi-player extensively.

In fact, according to the Destructoid review the game has nothing but the MP to live off anyway:

"You may be fooled into thinking otherwise, but Brink has no true single-player feature. Its "Campaign" mode is a series of multiplayer matches that can simply be played offline against an incongruously oppressive AI. Even worse, the ally AI has apparently been scaled back, and never seem able to win against the enemy. In fact, Splash Damage's campaign is so flimsy that you can even set it to "Versus," which will allow other players to join and effectively turn it into an exact replica of the online mode. The campaign shouldn't even exist, it's so close to being an illusion."

Excuse me but how much does Brink cost? $60?

Whn Killzone 3 came out (and I'm a huge KZ fan) it was hammered because of its SPP portion. It wa good just not as great as KZ2. The botzone (basically the same thing Brink has for a SP campaign) was great because KZ is known for its great AI and the multiplayer vs others is its go to mode with millions of hours playwed in total.

If you guys think that Brink can get awayu with having a terrible SP while othe FPS's get the same treatment it just shows the desperation of some of you for this game to be good. They made a multiplayer only game for $60 that doesn't realy do anything special except for parkour, and they advertise it as a full package. They should of gone the MAG route instead of wasting peoples time with the terrible AI.

 

[Googenstien]

No! a FPS has to be perfect for me to buy it and Brink seems as generic as they come.

 

[ZombieGenesis]

Lost my interest when they started listing 'music' and 'weapon upgrades' among their thousands of "unique character models". I think someone needs to talk with their designers.

 

[Still Life]

It's amusing that if IGN give a game a high score they're classed as "payed off", whilst if they go against the norm and give a lower score they're classed as not handing out a high score because they weren't payed off; and if they give a game, a now middling score, of 7 or 8 they're being "safe".

They can't win...

That's because IGN has a bad reputation. And with good reason. Quite frankly ANY other reviewer has more credibility than IGN.

How has IGN elicited a bad reputation?

 

[Jasper Jeffs]

I don't know why it took people as long as now to realise Brink sucks, it has always looked shit. I remember watching a video of it all the way fuck back and it was the same damn map they showed in some of their most recent videos. In my opinion, the gun gameplay looks dull, the parkour is grossly overrated, the maps are depressing to look at and the customisation is useless.

I feel quite bad for the developers that it has been received poorly, hopefully the durhurhype crowd will at least give them some compensation for their efforts.

I think you can guess that no, I won't be getting it.

 

[Vault101]

Hahahaha I knew it would suck. So many people told me otherwise too.

Suck it!

A lot of which had to do with the fact that once a level started, the game actually let you die/be confused/glitch/break/terrible driving section for the most part instead of tripping over its own two feet with QTE's like BlOps did.

Pretty much sums up my experience. I wouldn't give MOH 2010 anything over a four.

OT: Which basically says all you need to know about trusting other people's opinions: Don't. Play it yourself.

Once they have your money they win. Defeats the purpose of using a review since you don't want to get fucked out of your money.

whats your problem? people who pre-orded it murder your dog or somthing?

 

[StrangerQ]

It's amusing that if IGN give a game a high score they're classed as "payed off", whilst if they go against the norm and give a lower score they're classed as not handing out a high score because they weren't payed off; and if they give a game, a now middling score, of 7 or 8 they're being "safe".

They can't win...

That's because IGN has a bad reputation. And with good reason. Quite frankly ANY other reviewer has more credibility than IGN.

How has IGN elicited a bad reputation?

Money whispers i think

 

[Korten12]

I like what Gameinformer said:

If you're looking for the official Game Informer review of Splash Damage's latest multiplayer-intensive shooter, be patient. We want to test it in the wild before we make our final verdict.

In playing Brink over the past week, one thing has become abundantly clear ? this is a multiplayer game first and foremost. The single-player experience is basically bot matches with the same objectives and maps as the multiplayer offerings. When reviewing a game of this nature, it's hard to accurately critique the play experience without spending a considerable amount of time with the maps and the community. The game is also due to receive a significant patch this week, and we're not comfortable handing down a verdict or talking about the technical performance until we experience the game as a consumer would if they purchased the game.

Look for our review in the coming days, and in the meantime please add your hands-on impressions in the comments section below.

 

[GiantRaven]

Eh, I don't think I'll be getting it now. There are too many games for me to play right now. LA Noire and Lego POTC are about to come out. I still haven't got through Dragon Age 2 and Deadly Premonition. I'm not really willing to spend the money on a new game I'm not ridiculously excited in unless it's getting fantastic praise from the people playing it.

 

[sephiroth1991]

I'm still getting it, since when is 7/10 not good, that's a first in uni standards

 

[Sethzard]

http://www.oxm.co.uk/28239/xbox-360-brink-review/ gives it an 8/10

 

[Polaris19]

I'm just saying...

#1. Wasn't getting it to begin with
#2. If you wanted to play it, go play it. Reviews are opinons, and (as Mr.Yahtzee has said often) it's hard to really attach a number to a game to say how good it is. Who knows, maybe you'll enjoy it.

 

[D_987]

since when is 7/10 not good

Since every single mediocre game on the market earnt a 7/10.

Money whispers i think

Unlike Gamespot there's no proof of that...

 

[Outright Villainy]

Meh, the only reviews I'd really take heed of is Rock Paper Shotgun anyway, who I mostly agree with, but not always. (Fallout New Vegas being a good example of where I completely disagreed.)

And I'm not going to really make up my mind until I play it anyway, obviously. I'm still probably going to pick it up when its cheap. I mean, Mirror's edge was getting these kind of scores across the board, and I fucking loved that game.