#1 Posted by VoshiNova (1669 posts) -

I never bought Brink.

Everything about Brink was appealing to me, the menus, the movement, etc. But I felt like I wasn't going to get my moneys worth from playing it, as I am not one to stick with a multi-player game and level grind etc.

Ever since Titanfall has reared it's massive head on the video game website I frequent (giant bomb) I couldn't help but feel the same way I did about Brink. Although I think there is more to the comparison than just the obvious touchstones.

I'd love to hear/read someone else's thoughts on the two games, and think that this is good example of what forums can be utilized for.

#2 Posted by Iodine (545 posts) -

The gunplay in Brink was incredibly underwhelming, and the unlocks were not balanced (the higher level players would straight up have more health than lower level players), so the matchmaking was a chore, and well, no massive robots of death

#3 Posted by ViciousBearMauling (993 posts) -

Brink had so much potential...... What a shame

#4 Posted by Crembaw (353 posts) -

From what I've seen you can actually play Titanfall with your friends, so it's the automatic better game.

#5 Posted by razkazz (169 posts) -

This is one of those things that is always going to irk me, I guess. There's a whole lot of Brink in Titanfall. The fundamental difference is that in Brink, kills were more a means of suppressing the enemy so objectives could be completed, rather than the primary objective themselves. It introduced the parkour aspect and story bookends to matches to the multiplayer shooter but doesn't get any credit, while Titanfall does it and gets praised as revolutionary. I'm sure it brings it together in a nicer, more polished and accessible package, but Brink was a fine game. Unfortunately, people expected a lot more because Zenimax hyped it as having a full singleplayer campaign. It's really the spritual successor to the classic niche multiplayer Enemy Territory games and selling it as universally appealing new shooter for the masses is what lead to the enormous backlash. It's a fine, even great, game for what it was intended to be, just not what was promised. It's just unfortunate that it won't be remembered that way and Titanfall will take the glory for its innovations, as well as its own. History totally is written by the victors. It's how Gears Of War invented the cover shooter.

#6 Edited by big_jon (5723 posts) -

What?

#7 Posted by audioBusting (1489 posts) -

I was just thinking about this. Brink had a lot of potential but it ended up feeling kinda underwhelming to play, and not so balanced most of the time. Titanfall seems like it plays similarly but adding a lot to it to make it less boring in general. The storytelling in both games look pretty much the same though.

#8 Edited by fisk0 (3989 posts) -

@razkazz said:

This is one of those things that is always going to irk me, I guess. There's a whole lot of Brink in Titanfall. The fundamental difference is that in Brink, kills were more a means of suppressing the enemy so objectives could be completed, rather than the primary objective themselves. It introduced the parkour aspect and story bookends to matches to the multiplayer shooter but doesn't get any credit, while Titanfall does it and gets praised as revolutionary. I'm sure it brings it together in a nicer, more polished and accessible package, but Brink was a fine game. Unfortunately, people expected a lot more because Zenimax hyped it as having a full singleplayer campaign. It's really the spritual successor to the classic niche multiplayer Enemy Territory games and selling it as universally appealing new shooter for the masses is what lead to the enormous backlash. It's a fine, even great, game for what it was intended to be, just not what was promised. It's just unfortunate that it won't be remembered that way and Titanfall will take the glory for its innovations, as well as its own. History totally is written by the victors. It's how Gears Of War invented the cover shooter.

Yeah, in many respects I think Brink did the multiplayer campaign much more interestingly - the objectives and you performing them were better tied to the story, and I certainly got more invested in the story that was playing out there than I've been so far in Titanfall. That said, I think Titanfall does succeed in making the parkour feel right, whereas it was pretty hit and miss in Brink, and the gunplay is a lot better.

I'd also like to mention Battlefield 2 in here, as lots of people don't even seem to realize it had a multiplayer campaign (something I imagine may have been Kaos Studios' idea, since they seemed to try to do similar things in Frontlines and Homefront, whereas DICE ditched it in the sequels). It didn't shove it down your throat though - the story was told primarily in text during the loading screens, the map progression changed depending on who won, I'd maybe compare it to the screen progression in Nidhogg - both teams started in the middle east maps, and depending on which side was winning, the game would progress towards the US or China mainland, culminating in a Conquest Assault battle (a battle where one side starts out owning all the flags, and the other side have to capture them, instead of the regular mode where both teams start with one flag each and have the capture neutral flags across the map).

Sadly, most servers ended up just running one map 24/7 or using set playlists, rather than running the campaign.

#9 Posted by Getz (2995 posts) -

Brink was an average game, the movement stuff was fun for awhile but I never stuck with it.

#10 Posted by Aerobie (104 posts) -

For me, the biggest problem with Brink was that it always matched you up with a ton of bots. And the bots SUCKED. Nothing could ever get done, because your bots wouldn't do anything productive, so it was just running into a line of defense for 15 minutes. With Titanfall, all of the bots are just minions. Instead of trying to make bots equal to players, serving as a replacement, and failing miserably, Titanfall has the bots there to make the battle feel more interesting, while you're running around messing up these bots, they're there to make you feel more powerful, instead of making you feel like the only character on your team with a brain.

#11 Posted by VoshiNova (1669 posts) -

@razkazz:

"The fundamental difference is that in Brink, kills were more a means of suppressing the enemy so objectives could be completed, rather than the primary objective themselves."

I think that you may have just pointed out what I needed to hear/read in order to differentiate the two on a larger scale. Fuckin' awesome man.

#12 Posted by VoshiNova (1669 posts) -

@big_jon: Apologies. I was requesting a general comparison between two video games that I have been thinking about. Unless you meant "why?" In which case, because.

#13 Edited by fisk0 (3989 posts) -

@aerobie said:

For me, the biggest problem with Brink was that it always matched you up with a ton of bots. And the bots SUCKED. Nothing could ever get done, because your bots wouldn't do anything productive, so it was just running into a line of defense for 15 minutes. With Titanfall, all of the bots are just minions. Instead of trying to make bots equal to players, serving as a replacement, and failing miserably, Titanfall has the bots there to make the battle feel more interesting, while you're running around messing up these bots, they're there to make you feel more powerful, instead of making you feel like the only character on your team with a brain.

Oh, yeah, that was a real pain in the ass during the later missions which not a lot of people played. I doubt it was even possible to finish the game alone if you didn't play as the class with the deployable gun, since you had to use it all the time (to draw fire and to defend you while being stuck in the use animation) in order to complete the objectives that the bots flat out refused to perform.

#14 Posted by VoshiNova (1669 posts) -

Now I'm probably misusing forums by switching topics, but I guess it's related - I think that the marketing for this game is literally going to be detrimental to sales. It just seems bad. I know that's not very specific and descriptive, but I think it's faults are obvious enough to warrant using "bad."

How are the duders on GB receiving it?

#15 Posted by crithon (3111 posts) -

the parkuor of Brink never did work out as well as promised. Instead the game turned into counter strike and players camping out choke points waiting for someone brave enough to leap in and get shot and let it go on forever. Titanfall almost has no camping, except for last titan standing campaigns can feel like camping but that lasts like less then 3 minutes.

#16 Edited by DonPixel (2585 posts) -

@voshinova said:

Now I'm probably misusing forums by switching topics, but I guess it's related - I think that the marketing for this game is literally going to be detrimental to sales. It just seems bad. I know that's not very specific and descriptive, but I think it's faults are obvious enough to warrant using "bad."

How are the duders on GB receiving it?

What do you actually want? do you plan to play either of those or... You seem trying to confirm your dislike for titanfall for whatever reason, you don't need to build pointless speculation to decide what YOU like.

The best thing you can do is: Buy both play both see what sticks for you. In my personal opinion Brink blows and Titanfall is actually pretty good. About the marketing.. videogame marketing is mediocre at best, Titanfall's not the exception.

#17 Posted by Lunnington (171 posts) -

Brink's parkour didn't seem to be as dedicated to verticality like Titanfall's is. Titanfall focuses on wall-running and basically getting up onto rooftops and jumping around. Brink was more about leaping over cover, diving into cover, and sort of maneuvering around on the ground. It felt nice, but I think Titanfall sort of takes that feature and actually makes it into something more useful.

Brink's campaign was similar to Titanfall in that it was multiplayer, but Brink had custom objectives that actually made sense for what was happening. In Brink there might be a VIP target that you have to escort through the map, or plant a satchel charge to blow something up. You'd also have secondary objectives which helped you win but weren't necessary. Titanfall doesn't do any of this, they just have normal multiplayer rounds with nothing new whatsoever. That kind of disappointed me. Brink wasn't a good game in my opinion, but at least it made me feel like the battle was moving forward and that I was contributing to the outcome.

#18 Posted by VoshiNova (1669 posts) -

@donpixel: I definitely don't dislike Titanfall. I only saw this as an opportunity to talk about a comparison between the two. Specifically because I thought it was odd that I hadn't seen the discussion on the interwebz yet. Once I started comparing them in my cranium, I couldn't figure out why the two weren't talked about in the same sentence more. Theeeeeeeeen, this guy @razkazz made a salient point in the discussion that made sense to me.

Phew! Didn't expect to explain so much, I guess my bad for not making it clear in the OP?

Oh, and the other post with the gamestop ads is because I got that email while replying on this forum and found the marketing of the game we were discussing in this forum to be really offputting and wondered what other users thought.

ok, now phew!