On May 07 2011 13:58 Seide wrote: I have to say I watched a couple game play videos including: + Show Spoiler +
and I gotta say: I am not impressed at all. To be honest the more videos I watch of this game, the worse it looks.
I'm going to go ahead and call it: this will be another one of those hyped up FPS that does not deliver. Customization don't mean shit if the game play sucks.
You may be right but I wouldn't base my opinion on what the console version looks like with people playing against bots
and I gotta say: I am not impressed at all. To be honest the more videos I watch of this game, the worse it looks.
I'm going to go ahead and call it: this will be another one of those hyped up FPS that does not deliver. Customization don't mean shit if the game play sucks.
You may be right but I wouldn't base my opinion on what the console version looks like with people playing against bots
From what I read the PC version has some differences and even has faster movement. I wasn't impressed with the console footage from game leaks but then again console FPS never really did it to me since I started in the genre back with Doom and have always done most of my gaming on PC.
Just to let people know, it uses the same graphics engine as DoomIII, that's 6 years old. Seriously game developers, pick your shit up, and start using new graphics engine.
Also, Brink has a bulletstorm look to it, w/ a tf2 gameplay, and mirror's edge movement.
Although I can't help but feel that I wish the smart system was more interactive, rather than just holding a button and running towards an obstacle.
On May 09 2011 00:46 anilusion wrote: Modern Warfare was not a new IP.
I think the general point still stands, though. Just saying that a game will fail because it's not a sequel or part of an existing IP displays a terribly depressing outlook on the game's industry.
Actually, more than just being a horribly cynical viewpoint, it's also incorrect.
(I should point out that I'm not suggesting that this is your opinion, just continuing the discussion regarding that Gamefaqs list )
Honestly it's not even a new IP. The base game is the same as the Enemy Territory series that Splash damage has been a part since 2003. The publisher changed so since Activision owns the rights to Enemy Territory the game could not be legally called Brink:Enemy Territory.
I dearly hope this game delivers. If anything, it deserves praise for its aesthetic. Not just another brown FPS. And it doesn't look half bad either. In fact, it looks rather nice to me. Honestly, I won't be sitting around checking out the textures when I'm duking it out online.
On May 09 2011 01:40 wei2coolman wrote: Although I can't help but feel that I wish the smart system was more interactive, rather than just holding a button and running towards an obstacle.
It is. The smart button is essentially pressing the jump or crouch button for you, in conjunction with sprinting or not. You can still do everything manually without touching the smart button, which can often be just a tad faster.
One of the devs explained it in one of their videos that using the smart button while running towards a wall, for example, it waits until you're at the wall, sees it, and then climbs over it. If you do it manually you could jump before you even get to the wall, which means you may be further up and get a shorter climb animation (or just jump over it entirely if it's small enough). Seems like a reasonable compromise.
Here's a short diagram from a link earlier in the thread showing a couple of ways to get over an obstacle. Gonna guess using the smart button makes some of them a little more likely to be used than others.
Essentially, the smart button will get the job done, but it usually won't be the most efficient method.
The graphics and animations look pretty good for a fuckaround fps, I preordered this some time ago and it's shaping up more and more like the kind of game I would play when LoL servers are down and I don't feel like playing SMB.
On May 09 2011 01:40 wei2coolman wrote: Just to let people know, it uses the same graphics engine as DoomIII, that's 6 years old. Seriously game developers, pick your shit up, and start using new graphics engine.
From the programmer:
Its a heavily modified Quake Wars engine (idTech 4), its got a completely new renderer, new multi-core architecture (a job system for NUMA (PS3) and SMP systems), a new tools framework and lots more.
We think its the best of both worlds, get tried and tested Quake Wars tech (its often underestimated how much time it takes to get shipping tech) but with new shiny bits where required.
We hope the screen shots, show shiny new renderer is doing okay Source
Quake Wars is 3 1/2 years old, Brink was probably in production for a good span of that period. What do you expect, that they switch over to the latest Crytek engine when it comes out? The games graphics are stylized and it clearly doesn't aim for realism, so why waste time on using another engine? Not even to get started on the huge amount of work it takes to create all the in-game assets for the more realistic engines. Take a look at WoW for example. The graphics are far from what could be done, but that doesn't matter, as the gameplay is solid (at least, enough people enjoy it :p). Borderlands is another good example here. The graphics were nothing spectacular in terms of technology, but it was still an amazing game. Brink is clearly a run and gun type of game...are you really going to have time to inspect skin pores on the characters?
And then we also have the implications graphics bring to game design. UT3 has loads and loads of detail, but to me that means that sometimes I'm shooting at a simple particle effect, where I thought I saw a player moving. Lower amounts of detail facilitate players in recognizing game elements better. Take a look at TF2 for example or Quake, where players prefer to disable as much detail as possible.
Furthermore, you need to keep in mind that the consoles are not as powerful as the current wave of PC setups. Even looking at the PC platform only, it is only logical that you would want to enable as many people as possible to play your game. With SC2, players that have an older system are still able to play.
The only other option I see would be viable here is if they would have went with UDK/Unreal 3, but that wouldn't make much difference, I guess (Borderlands was Unreal 3), as they are going with a stylistic art style over realism.
In the end, you are taking stabs at something that was carefully thought through. Take a look at any of the games that you feel have better graphics and then think about their budgets and how they spent it. A good example here is Modern Warfare 2. The budget was huge, but the game was only 4~5 hours long. I'd much rather have a longer game and sacrifice some detail for that, than to have a short game which I blow through in two days.
To disregard games due to their graphics is just ignorant. Portal 2 uses an even older engine, but that doesn't mean it's not a good game.
On May 09 2011 01:40 wei2coolman wrote: Just to let people know, it uses the same graphics engine as DoomIII, that's 6 years old. Seriously game developers, pick your shit up, and start using new graphics engine.
Its a heavily modified Quake Wars engine (idTech 4), its got a completely new renderer, new multi-core architecture (a job system for NUMA (PS3) and SMP systems), a new tools framework and lots more.
We think its the best of both worlds, get tried and tested Quake Wars tech (its often underestimated how much time it takes to get shipping tech) but with new shiny bits where required.
We hope the screen shots, show shiny new renderer is doing okay Source
Quake Wars is 3 1/2 years old, Brink was probably in production for a good span of that period. What do you expect, that they switch over to the latest Crytek engine when it comes out? The games graphics are stylized and it clearly doesn't aim for realism, so why waste time on using another engine? Not even to get started on the huge amount of work it takes to create all the in-game assets for the more realistic engines. Take a look at WoW for example. The graphics are far from what could be done, but that doesn't matter, as the gameplay is solid (at least, enough people enjoy it :p). Borderlands is another good example here. The graphics were nothing spectacular in terms of technology, but it was still an amazing game. Brink is clearly a run and gun type of game...are you really going to have time to inspect skin pores on the characters?
And then we also have the implications graphics bring to game design. UT3 has loads and loads of detail, but to me that means that sometimes I'm shooting at a simple particle effect, where I thought I saw a player moving. Lower amounts of detail facilitate players in recognizing game elements better. Take a look at TF2 for example or Quake, where players prefer to disable as much detail as possible.
Furthermore, you need to keep in mind that the consoles are not as powerful as the current wave of PC setups. Even looking at the PC platform only, it is only logical that you would want to enable as many people as possible to play your game. With SC2, players that have an older system are still able to play.
The only other option I see would be viable here is if they would have went with UDK/Unreal 3, but that wouldn't make much difference, I guess (Borderlands was Unreal 3), as they are going with a stylistic art style over realism.
In the end, you are taking stabs at something that was carefully thought through. Take a look at any of the games that you feel have better graphics and then think about their budgets and how they spent it. A good example here is Modern Warfare 2. The budget was huge, but the game was only 4~5 hours long. I'd much rather have a longer game and sacrifice some detail for that, than to have a short game which I blow through in two days.
To disregard games due to their graphics is just ignorant. Portal 2 uses an even older engine, but that doesn't mean it's not a good game.
To further the OP's point John D.Carmack has said that the current hardware that consumers have cannot even run ID Tech 6 and Tim Sweeney has has also said that the unreal engine 4 will not run on the underpowered 360 or PS3. It's basically a case of the software being more advanced than what is available to the general public. Your not going to see new amazing engines until the 360 and PS3 are replaced. Also there are no ID tech 5 games out on the market yet so ID 4 is still a relevant engine. Most of the ID tech 5 stuff is about making the engine developer friendly although you can use 20 gig textures in it apparently.
Ive preorded the game and will be playing at 12 to night so if anyone is interestd in joining me m Skype or vent pm me, cause im looking forward to really getting into this game.
EPT
)![[image loading]](http://img31.imageshack.us/img31/6247/brinkdiagram.png)
