Brink
Genre: Shooter
Publisher: Bethesda Softworks Developer: Splash Damage
Publisher: Bethesda Softworks Developer: Splash Damage
Release Date(s): US: 2011-05-10
SCORES:
Advertisement
SIMILAR GAMES
Comment Comeback: Brink
by Anthony Gallegos and Peter Eykemans - IGN.com | 19 May 2011 12:00Hearing out the hatred.
Every editor at IGN wishes he or she had the time to personally respond to every semi-sane comment from the message boards, but we don't. However, in an effort to raise the level of discourse, we've decided to pick out some of the most interesting comments on Peter Eykemans's recent Brink review and respond to them. The reviewer did not pick these comments out himself. This task fell to his colleague, Anthony Gallegos. The following are the original comments as they appeared on IGN.com, with the reviewer's response thereafter. Some comments may have been edited for space, but not for content.
Comment #1: I don't as a rule criticise reviews - I understand that it's a matter of opinion but I couldn't leave this alone. My basic problem is that Peter doesn't seem to understand what type of game he is reviewing. Criticising a multiplayer shooter for poor storyline and repetitive objectives is like panning an RPG for forcing the player to take on quests.
It's in effect not a criticism of Brink – but the genre of games as a whole. Multiplayer shooters are predicated on competitive team based missions not storytelling and to ignore that completely in the review is misleading. The same applies to the criticism of the ability to switch between classes rather than crafting one character. In an RPG this would indeed be a grave failing but in a shooter where you want to switch roles in a team regularly I fail to see the problem.
Secondly you can not criticise a game because 'I was often confused when I couldn't drop a turret only to remember I was a Soldier'. Being bad at the game is not the game's fault. I don't sit through Hamlet and blame Shakespeare because I can't follow the plot – that's my own inadequacy.
I'm not a multiplayer shooter fan. I can accept that this won't be my kind of game – but really I would expect a reviewer to start out with a better grasp of the type of game under consideration. All I get from Peter's review is I don't understand or enjoy multiplayer shooters, which is not a review in my book.
Contrast this with Eurogamer's excellent review, which is written by someone who gets what Brink is about.
Posted by: BenH79
It's in effect not a criticism of Brink – but the genre of games as a whole. Multiplayer shooters are predicated on competitive team based missions not storytelling and to ignore that completely in the review is misleading. The same applies to the criticism of the ability to switch between classes rather than crafting one character. In an RPG this would indeed be a grave failing but in a shooter where you want to switch roles in a team regularly I fail to see the problem.
Secondly you can not criticise a game because 'I was often confused when I couldn't drop a turret only to remember I was a Soldier'. Being bad at the game is not the game's fault. I don't sit through Hamlet and blame Shakespeare because I can't follow the plot – that's my own inadequacy.
I'm not a multiplayer shooter fan. I can accept that this won't be my kind of game – but really I would expect a reviewer to start out with a better grasp of the type of game under consideration. All I get from Peter's review is I don't understand or enjoy multiplayer shooters, which is not a review in my book.
Contrast this with Eurogamer's excellent review, which is written by someone who gets what Brink is about.
Posted by: BenH79
Peter's Response: You bring up a solid argument, but I believe the core of your concern is incorrect. There seems to be a common misconception throughout the comments that because I use the term repetitive, or didn't simply gush about Brink, that I don't understand shooters. I love shooters and team-based gameplay.
To speak to your introduction, the influence of Brink's story is a minute detail in the greater span of the review. But regardless of whether or not story is important to the shooter genre, Brink wraps every single match, campaign and open multiplayer, in story cut-scenes. To not mention that it's bland, or exists at all, would be irresponsible. I reviewed Brink on what it brings to the table, not what a game in the genre is supposed to be about.
On the note of repetition, it's not just a single feature of the game, but the combination of many factors. Of course shooters and objective-based gameplay are repetitive by nature and definition. The reason I bring it up as a negative was actually verbalized best by another commenter on IGN. Ice-Hot suggested that: "Repetition is repetition only when it's boring. Otherwise it's called fun." This is where I'm coming from. If Brink's maps, objectives, weapons, classes, and gameplay didn't constantly feel repetitive, I wouldn't have mentioned them. If I were to complain about quests in an RPG, it would be because the quests were boring, bland and uninspired. That doesn't mean I don't understand RPGs.
Referring to the confusion over placing a turret isn't an example of being terrible at the game, but a single anecdote to represent the lack of distinction between size and classes and how the experience blends together.
Finally, I like your analogies. But complaining about Shakespeare is a discussion for another day.
Comment #2:
Sometimes I agree with IGN's reviews, sometimes I don't. But really this score is a shock for me. Not because I think this game is awesome (I have not played) but because of the way IGN's previews, interviews and sneak peeks were building it up I thought it would get at least an 8-8.5. I am now astounded by the score. I think IGN sometimes pokes the bear and asks for flaming comments with their pre-review articles. I would love if one of the editors actually addresses this for me in their new "reviewer answers comments" section. Much love IGN!
Posted by: nne05
Posted by: nne05
Peter's Response: Previews are an extremely difficult task. We're invited to preview games under very specific circumstances in which the developer can control the experience and only show us one or two elements that they feel are great. Thus, we may only get a short time to demo a game rather than a full week (or more) to understand the complete package. And when we interview developers, their exciting answers are often based on best-intentions rather than final execution.
It's for this reason that previews can't be taken as a final word. They're a great way to get information about a game you're excited about, but at the same time they aren't always indicative of the final game.
If I didn't take an honest look at Brink for the product on the store shelf, then I wouldn't be doing my job. Previews and reviews are completely separate beasts.
Comment #3: Wow. I was all excited for this game. No way am I getting it now. A 6.0 is pathetic....eww.
Posted by: blehness
Peter's Response: A 6.0 is not pathetic (6.5 on PC). Somewhere in the history of game reviews, people started treating anything rated under a 7.0 or 8.0 as a cursed omen to stay away from. This is simply not the case.
Nowhere in the review did I indicate hatred, loathing, or anything to say the game was anything outside of what a 6.0 means. If you dig into our review guide, a 6.0 means that the game is simply "Okay." An okay game can pull in a strong community of supporters and is worth a look if you're interested in the genre and especially if you don't agree with the points I made in the review. It just didn't strike me as something I'm going to outright recommend to everyone.
It's important to look beyond the number score at the end to really understand what we found inside of any game we review. You may read something that doesn't turn you off like it did us, or you may read a positive point that you realize isn't your style. The words are where the real review lives. The score is just a clean way to summarize.
Brink is okay. If you love playing team-based games and are anxious for anything new, give it a look. Like I said in the review, it's got heart.
Comment #4: Look, I understand (as stated in every comment comeback) that the reviewer has his own opinion which is then reviewed and labeled as IGN's. I understand if this comment is featured in Comment Comeback that you're going to tell me that some other editor in the office really enjoys Brink. I get it. But your opinion has aggravated me enough to levy this at you.
You say that there is lack of definition between classes. Do you not remember Splash Damage emphasizing balance during production? When class based games give each class their own stats, it gives room for a certain class to exploit its unbalance. Splash Damage innovates and overcomes by having each class what it is. A class, not a dedicated character. You miss the point. The main focus is the character, not the class. Therefore, all classes should act the same in basic gameplay, but have different abilities.
You say that there are no difference between character sizes except for S.M.A.R.T. movement. What about hitpoints? What about the tactics in body size, like a heavy medic that can take damage and heal it at the same time. A light medic that can get out quickly and put up a MG for a chokepoint. You only pointed out the bad part of the system, which is in face true, but not pointing out the strategy involved.
I agree on the graphics and the map shortage problem, but your view "glaringly" overlooks many high parts of the game. Either you are ignorant of it and just don't see it, or you were really wanting to put out an IGN style review. I'm beyond done with this site Posted by: pwndotexe
You say that there is lack of definition between classes. Do you not remember Splash Damage emphasizing balance during production? When class based games give each class their own stats, it gives room for a certain class to exploit its unbalance. Splash Damage innovates and overcomes by having each class what it is. A class, not a dedicated character. You miss the point. The main focus is the character, not the class. Therefore, all classes should act the same in basic gameplay, but have different abilities.
You say that there are no difference between character sizes except for S.M.A.R.T. movement. What about hitpoints? What about the tactics in body size, like a heavy medic that can take damage and heal it at the same time. A light medic that can get out quickly and put up a MG for a chokepoint. You only pointed out the bad part of the system, which is in face true, but not pointing out the strategy involved.
I agree on the graphics and the map shortage problem, but your view "glaringly" overlooks many high parts of the game. Either you are ignorant of it and just don't see it, or you were really wanting to put out an IGN style review. I'm beyond done with this site Posted by: pwndotexe
Peter's Response: I'd love to tell you that others in the office simply loved Brink and I'm off my rocker (readers would probably love the second note), but that's not the case. Your rebuttal is well constructed and I understand your concerns.
The elements that Splash Damage discussed during production come from the angle of their intentions, but I reviewed Brink on the final product. If the intention was to make classes balanced and characters gain the edge, then the final product still places characters under a neutral note. I discussed various skills in the review, but even those didn't strike me as pulling one way or the other in the way of balance. The transient nature of skills, size and class made for a boring fight.
Of course I understood the hit point differences and strategies, but again, the balance made the sizes feel neutral. While a large character can take more bullets, their speed causes them to take more hits. A light character takes less hits, but moves faster. In essence, the two die at about the same rate due to these tradeoffs. The balance in Brink is so successful, in fact, that everything feels the same. On the flipside, take Team Fortress 2. Team Fortress 2 features nine different classes and they all feel very different.
In reviews we often have to paint in broad strokes to get to the essence of the problems. I could have written a longer review that touched on all the details, but the upshot would remain the same.
Your discourse is respected and we hate to lose a reader, regardless of if you agree with the review or not. It's important to keep the conversation up and running.
Comment #5: Screw you then IGN I preordered this because of how positive your previews have been about this game. Did you fail to notice all this balls when you saw it until now? There's been no demo, I was relying on your hands on opinion which turns out to be hyperbole mixed through with bull****. Nice job.
Posted by: LairdDethtrap
Peter's Response: As I spoke to before, previews aren't based on the final product. Imagine seeing a single scene from the first Michael Bay Transformers film and thinking, "wow, badass." But once you watch the full film, you'll be pissed that big-budget Hollywood killed your childhood memories. If you happened to like Transformers, then flip this comparison to something that personally disappointed you.
I was excited for Brink and thought I knew what I was getting into from our previews as well. But once the matches started rolling, and bodies started dropping, I experienced that same feeling: disappointment. Brink isn't a bad game, but I stand by the final judgment. It's okay.
Game previews are based on top-notch sequences, where developers carefully put their best work forward. During previews, we don't have time to max out a character, unlock all the skills, or see all the maps back to back. While a single match may prove exciting, it was after dozens and dozens of fights that I came to the final conclusions in the review.
Take previews with a grain of salt and wait for the review to know if all the positive elements combine to create a successful package. But what it really comes down to is taking in all the information, good and bad, and drawing your own conclusions.
Supplied by IGN.com
