Follow us on Twitter: @ggtl
Join our friendly community!
Latest news
1.2.12
The year came and went, just as it always does, and for those of us in the gaming press, that means the requisite 'best of' lists must make their appearance.
Trust me, it's for everyone's own good.
However, with a myriad of games lying about that I still haven't played to their fullest, I'm not one for rolling out a conventional list of the best games in each genre. That's something you can find on literally any webpage and I'll leave it to you and Google to solve those differences. Instead, I've put together groups of games that surprised me in various ways, both good and bad. So if you're coming here to see Skyrim at the top of the list, or perhaps to justify your purchase of Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 3, you'll be disappointed.
Most controversial
2011 wasn't without controversial titles. We're not talking games that showed too much skin, or brought to light the subject of sex and marriage, such as Catherine. We're talking about games that had their own communities up in arms due to the very nature of how the game was created. You either liked it or you didn't.
Dragon Age II
The sequel to one of the great RPGs of this generation, Dragon Age II had quite a lot going for it. Unfortunately, instead of expanding upon the universe Origins set in motion, BioWare opted to confine the game into one large area and streamline the combat system—effectively 'consolising' the game. Some enjoyed the simplified combat, eliminating the need to pause the game multiple times during more-elaborate combat scenarios. However, Dragon Age is the spiritual successor to Baldur's Gate, practically making elaborate combat a necessity to maintain that relevance.
Regardless of where you stand, Dragon Age II was as divisive as it could've been. Whether it was the simplified combat, samey environments or uninteresting characters, everyone disliked something about the changes. Maybe BioWare was rushed to complete the title, maybe not, but many still hold Origins as the superior game today.
Dead Island
Techland's Diablo/Left 4 Dead/Borderlands approach to a zombie game was as ambitious as it was a technical mess. There's a lot to like about Dead Island on paper: loot, hordes of zombies to kill, levelling, cooperative play, etc. However, the game was, and still is, plagued by an equally horrifying number of bugs and game-stopping glitches. The PC version was actually released with a previous, unfinished version of the game, rather than final game code. Imagine picking the game up to realise you're actually playing a game that can't be finished because it's 'not quite done yet.'
Dead Island has made several fixes to itself, but that's no excuse. Releasing a game people want to like but can hardly play is a criminal offense to gaming as a whole. At least when it's working it's pretty damn good.
Most disappointing
You don't want this to happen to your favourite franchise, but alas, sometimes there's no avoiding it. These are the games of 2011 that failed to deliver a genuinely excellent experience, despite the hype surrounding them. It hurts even more when their predecessors set them up for success, and they still tank.
Brink
What a letdown. Brink was a showcase title on the bleeding edge of technology that everyone wanted to play. Not only did it implement a great-looking parkour system and tremendous aesthetic design, but the team combat and objectives looked satisfyingly unique as well. Touting a campaign that others could join with or against you at any time, Splash Damage looked like they were on their way to crafting a grade-A shooter we'd all still be playing come the new year. How wrong we were.
We covered Brink, twice actually, and its anemic campaign was a focal point for our anger. As it turns out, there was no story in Brink whatsoever, and the multiplayer was little more than a bare-bones version of better games, like Team Fortress 2. The game can be found in bargain bins everywhere, so if that doesn't tell you anything, help yourself.
Red Faction: Armageddon
Considering my love for Red Faction: Guerrilla, I absolutely couldn't wait for Armageddon to release. Showcasing new technology, weapons and a gritty environment to play with destructive tools, Armageddon appeared to have what was needed to succeed. Little did we all know that the genius of Guerrilla wouldn't come close to being matched in this mediocre follow-up.
Alright, Armageddon isn't THAT bad, but when you're in the shadow of such a free-spirited and plain-fun game like Guerrilla, you're expected to do something similarly great. The Magnet Gun was the single most amazing thing to come from it, but even that was overshadowed by the confining underground environments of Mars. That, coupled with the repetitive enemies and ridiculous story, made Armageddon a tough game to accept. Also, there's a unicorn that shoots rainbows out of its ass. We're done here.
F.E.A.R. 3 (I'm sorry, it's actually F.3.A.R.)
My channeled hate for games that throw a number in as an acronym will never cease, but in this case there's a lot more to hate about F.E.A.R. 3. The gameplay is completely different than previous installments of the franchise. How so? Let's try ditching conventional methods of combat we've been used to and instead implement trite Call of Duty features like regenerating health. Sound great? I didn't think so.
F.E.A.R. was always about atmosphere, a decent story and its pretty excellent AI. All of that has vaporized in the sequel and... oh yeah, Monolith didn't even make this. Moving on.
Rage
Id Software is a pioneer in PC gaming, but Rage is something they should be quite ashamed of. While the PS3 and Xbox 360 version ran alright, the PC version (you know, the stuff they're know for) was released in a very broken state. After several weeks id managed to get the game working again for the majority of users, but by then it had been beaten with the console stick. What do I mean? The PC was stuck with the low-res textures of the console versions and according to John Carmack (id Software), they had no intention of releasing a texture pack to clear up the mess. Awesome.
Look closer. That's some pretty amazing stuff, right there.
Being one of the PC owners of Rage, I orchestrated my own set of violence as I wasted several hours attempting to get the game to run in a functional way. Eventually, I received a patch that allowed me to play the game, but the rest of my experience wasn't without further issues. Simply put, the game was not optimized for the PC (which is heresy for id). You couldn't even change any of your internal settings like a normal PC game until the patch hit, and even after the choices were barren. Compound that with Nintendo 64 textures, pop-in loading, one of the most surprisingly uninteresting worlds in recent memory, and you'll get a generic shooter called Rage.
Was it because Bethesda published the game and forced id to go with the console over PC version? There's no way to know for sure, but the truth is within the product, and I advise you to steer far, far away from it.
Duke Nukem Forever
There was no way this game was going to live up to the expectations set for it and everyone knew it. So we'll just leave this one here as-is. Enjoy.
Most disappointing studio
Just because you release one of the best games of the year (Skyrim, for those keeping score at home) doesn't mean you get a free pass to publish a plethora of awful titles. Brink? Rage? Hunted: The Demon's Forge? Yeah, they were all trash, and no, it doesn't matter that you didn't develop them. As a publisher, you are still putting your name behind the material and are thus just as responsible for the outcome. One excellent game does not give you a free pass, my friends.
Best comeback
Dynasty Warriors 7
The Dynasty Warriors series doesn't have the best reputation among gamers, but I'm still a guilty follower of the franchise, despite the fact I haven't been fully pleased since, perhaps, Dynasty Warriors 5. When I first heard this game was coming out I dismissed it entirely, but as the release date crept up I found myself eying the features more and more. Brand new story mode that follows the actual characters of the kingdom? Interchangeable weapons? An RPG-esque upgrade system? A brand new conquest mode? Online co-operative play for the first time? I was sold.
I hated the redesign of the characters in Dynasty Warriors 6, and only a few titles in the series had a sense of weight behind each strike of a weapon. DW7 shocked me by offering an excellent feel to the combat while keeping it addictive with upgrades and new weapons. In my review, the new take on the story mode was the star of the show and my feelings still haven't changed. All in all, Koei has done a masterful job at reincarnating a stagnant franchise and I can't wait to see what the future brings.
Gears of War 3
As some may probably know, Gears of War 2 underwhelmed me wholly. The standard campaign was riddled with contrived writing and uninteresting moments. Boss fights were practically meaningless, and the introduction to new enemies and story elements didn't impress me. Considering the embarrassing multiplayer, Gears 2 was seemingly a catalyst for the series' demise. Hopeful as I was, I just didn't see Gears 3 bringing the franchise back on track. Thankfully I was wrong.
While it does have its problems, Gears 3 is definitely the best game in the series. The four-player drop-in cooperative play is an excellent addition to the gameplay, and the fully-fleshed out character development really helped make some of the protagonists feel more real than they ever have. Epic also took the time to hone the multiplayer experience, giving us dedicated servers as well as the new Beast Mode, Horde 2.0 and a working, fun, competitive multiplayer experience. Hats go off to Epic for keeping their promises.
Mortal Kombat
Wait, wait, wait. Mortal Kombat is relevant again? You better believe it!
Most underrated
Warhammer 40,000: Space Marine
Relic always brings out the best in development when it comes to the 40k universe. Space Marine was their very first attempt at creating a third-person action 40k game and they certainly didn't disappoint. Riddled with alarming detail, every single second you're playing this game you'll marvel at the attention Relic has paid to the system. The particle effects, combat noises, voice acting, everything sounds and looks superb. It also helps that it's pretty damn fun to play as well.
I reviewed Space Marine earlier in the year and gave the game a rather generous score. Not only does it provide a satisfying campaign, but it also throws in some decent multiplayer that will keep you busy for hours. It doesn't have the longest campaign, though, and if you know nothing about Warhammer 40k, you could be put off by the game appearing to be ostensibly similar to everything else out there (which it isn't). Space Marine isn't the greatest game, but it's definitely something worth playing.
Resurgence of excellence
Resident Evil 4 HD, Metal Gear Solid HD, Shadow of the Colossus/ICO HD
While Resident Evil 4 is the only downloadable title of the bunch, the rest are also available at a wonderfully-low retail price. If you haven't had the chance to play these classic titles you owe it to yourself to pick them up. Now.
Most unfortunate name
Ceaseless Discharge (Dark Souls)
Doesn't the name say it all?
Labels: Andrew Whipple III, Brink, Dead Island, Dragon Age II, Duke Nukem Forever, Dynasty Warriors 7, F.E.A.R 3, Portal 2, RAGE, Red Faction: Armageddon, Space Marine, The Elder Scrolls V: Skyrim
- Andrew Whipple III
Our first review of the PC version of Brink can be found here.
"Move more than you shoot" is an interesting premise, not least in a first-person shooter, a genre of gaming that intrinsically lends itself to combat-heavy bulletfests. Counting them on one hand, there aren't many FPS games that I can think of in which more movement than combat would be logical, let alone effective. Yet, it's key advice in Brink; a focus on movement, rather than the discharging of one's weapon, is supposed to be the core mechanic of the game, the key component around which the rest of the game is built. Goodness knows that the S.M.A.R.T. system - the mechanic which facilitates the movement aspect of Brink, and is surprisingly reminiscent of EA's Mirror's Edge - has been lauded enough. Yet, Brink is also simultaneously trying to play the 'meaty, manly, gritty FPS' card, one which we know lends itself to mindless explosive shooting and not alot besides. Being frank, Brink steers dangerously close to being an incomprehensible, hazily-defined mess of nearly-incompatible ideas, but Splash Damage's latest creation manages to hold steadfast by rewarding players with a rare, intelligent tactical experience that, when all the aspects come together, can sometimes create the perfect storm.
That only happens in very specific circumstances, however. At the outset, Brink can feel bloated, laggy, inaccessible and generally unpolished, as though the foundations are there but are barely built upon. This is, perhaps, the main criticism of Brink cited by games journalists; though the original creative interpretation, the 'vision', is there, most of what Brink does and is feels underdeveloped, with seemingly important aspects proving, in truth, the most irrelevant. The first question Brink asks you, for example, is whether you choose to save or escape the Ark, the floating city in which the game's action plays out. Two simple options on a serious monocrome screen, that - whether through the minimalism or the build-up that the choice is given through an 'all-that-happened-up-to-now' video preluding the choice - suggests some level of importance leading into the rest of the game. It should have been a choice that massively shapes how you experience Brink but, in fact, it has no effect whatsoever; it seems a superflous addition that appears to act solely to give some underdefined sense of context to the story. The story itself is really given little attention; there is the vague suggestion of a relatively generic civil-war-esque struggle, but the narrative is limited to the extreme, delivered within the tight boundaries of incredibly short cut-scenes at the beginning and end of each mission, and a slightly longer but still restricted cut-scene at the outset and resolution of the overarching campaign.
Brink's campaign mode is played out in what is, essentially, a series of faux-multiplayer arenas. This, combined with the minimal narrative, is a real shame. Brink's basis is there, but stylistically it is poorly executed offline; I found myself craving a much more linear, character- and narrative-based storyline, instead of the arena-based multiplayer-with-AI that Brink's offline component is made up of. Such a storyline, as seen in other first-person shooters, would have provided opportunities to develop the sense of plotline and character progression, giving much more of a feeling of being part of a larger struggle and allowing some aspect of emotional involvement with the characters' plight, and therefore increasing the player's immersion in the world of Brink. Unfortunately, the style of offline gameplay that the developers chose - whilst admittedly increasing the players familiarity with an online style of gameplay, even before jumping into the internet-based world of Brink's online component - simply didn't leave any space for a rewarding narrative and plot, a major oversight which leaves the player feeling, at the end of each campaign, no more affected or involved than they felt at the outset.
On a lighter note, the combat in Brink is solid, and - whilst occassionally suffering from slight lag issues, and despite needing some concerted effort to even out the damage balancing - can admittedly be enjoyable to play. There is a wide range of weaponry, all of which is available from the beginning of the game, and which can be tweaked and customised with additional unlocks (such as scopes, special magazines or muzzle breakers) earned through completing the game's 'challenges'. Customisation is a major aspect of Brink which is developed and polished: the sheer number of possible options for customising your character or weaponry (from headwear to clothing, and much more besides) is incredible, and ensures that a player can be relatively sure that their character, warts and all, is unique. The shooting itself is fine, but nothing particularly special, and major improvement to the damage balancing (in addition to increasing the level of force feedback through the Dualshock 3) would serve well to increase the level of satisfaction gleaned from the shooting mechanic itself, something which is currently lacking. Brink's class-based structure can work well, but is really only fully effective online; offline, the only useful aspect is the medic's ability to revive fallen teammates, although the class roles can remain entirely untouched without much impact on the outcome of the mission.
Brink's 'S.M.A.R.T.' system - which stands for 'Smooth Movement Across Random Terrain', a sort of parkour-based free movement mechanic which essentially enables the player to move freely over obstacles and climb objects, in Mirror's Edge-esque style - is a strange beast. The idea is interesting and innovative, introducing something rare and unusual to a first-person shooter; a component which reduces the relatively monotonous, unvarying nature of a shooter's mechanic by adding something that removes the restrictions posed by the game environment, allowing a more free-flowing, organic-feeling battle through much more liberated movement. Whilst, the majority of the time, S.M.A.R.T. does its job, it can be rather hit-and-miss at times, and though it's meant to be one of the most core aspects of Brink, it is incredibly easy to largely ignore or grossly underuse during play. There just isn't enough in the way of signposting or involvement in the game's situations; where S.M.A.R.T. could have been the central entity, key to success, S.M.A.R.T. feels, honestly, like merely a late addition. We all know it isn't, as it has been heralded throughout Brink's extended marketing campaign as the game's unique selling point, but it just doesn't feel as key or as central as it should have done; it can be easily sidelined or even forgotten entirely by the player, particularly in the face of the multitude of different objectives and enemies that one has to deal with simultaneously. Moreover - and Andrew touched on this in our first review of Brink - the mere concept of the player moving instead of trying to despatch enemies is illogical, considering the fact that the enemy can merely shoot players down, mid-freerun.
S.M.A.R.T. an intelligent, inspired concept that has real potential, but needed to be more focussed and more integral to the core functions of Brink; in other words, the implementation needed to lead players down a more linear route in order to make the S.M.A.R.T. system key to solving challenges posed by the environment that the player encounters - the freedom of movement would be better obtained not by giving the player entire freedom to traverse the map as they wish, but instead by leading them more directly into challenges where the S.M.A.R.T. system would have to have been utilised, increasing player familiarity with the function and also making it tenfold more relevant.
To be frank, I've thus far been relatively scathing of Brink. The truth is, it isn't bad. It's just that all the technical aspects of the game are just... well, passable, but flawed. They're nothing special, they aren't polished and some aspects are underdeveloped, but they do function at least somewhat well, allowing the player to meander through the storyline and have some fun in places. Yet, as a whole of its technical parts, Brink solely does what it has to do to work, and not a whole lot else. Each idea behind it is interesting and, potentially, could have been groundbreaking, but they're many ideas which have come together to make an indistinct mess of different influences, rather than the carefully shaped composition it should have been, and which would have ensured success.
And then you go online, and things change drastically.
This is the 'perfect storm' I mentioned earlier, and it only happens online and when some key constituents come together. Playing with people you know, utilising voice comms, and particularly if your online compatriots are familiar with the game's mechanics and environments, Brink becomes an entirely different beast altogether. When playing with real people, all those individual aspects that, offline, create a mulch of goodness-knows-what, become clearer, more defined, and infinitely more relevant. Instead of gameplay where the class-based team structure has little or no pertinency, due to the patchy use of buffs by AI, each online player has a real sense of responsibility to support their teammates within the power of their class - each person becomes important, even essential, to the overall performance during a mission. Furthermore - and this applies to most FPS games online, but particularly to Brink, due to the objective-centric gameplay - the online encourages a gameplay style which is boundlessly more tactical than offline, due to the fact that - playing alongside real human beings - one can predict and anticipate their teammates' movements and offensives, and so can then compensate in their own playstyle for their teammates tactics and plan accordingly, leading to an overall more tactical, more intelligent experience that's likely to be much more successful and rewarding to the player, due to each player's individual feeling of involvement and influence. True, there are still slight issues with lag (and all the other technical shortcomings that plague the offline function), but online play on Brink is truly an experience, which somewhat evens out the problems and pulls Brink further towards what it should have been in the first place - an intelligent, tactical, rewarding shooter.
Brink has been a particularly interesting game to review. It poses questions about the inherent nature of videogames reviewing, ones that have seriously made me reassess the way I analyse and judge a game, and the way games journalism tackles reviewing in general. Should a reviewer consider the game based solely on what is there in front of them, the sum of its technical parts and nothing more; or should one review a game based on the emotional response it inspires, the abstract concept of an 'experience' which isn't included on the disc, but which the game serves as the trigger for? It's a question with particular gravity when it comes to Brink, as the two different approaches to reviewing would warrant two entirely different review scores, two strikingly dissimilar responses. Technically, I think it's fair to say that Brink is sub-par and, in many ways, a disappointment, particularly considering the extensive marketing campaign that painted the picture of a game of the year candidate. However, when the right things come together - that is, when online - Brink can be tense, exciting, tactical, and - dare I say it - groundbreaking, a first-person shooter that disinclines the typical run-and-gun fray and, by the nature of its objective- and role-based mechanics, creates an FPS in which pre-emptive thought is not merely a sideline, but is entirely instrumental in the success of the team.
When it comes down to it, however, Brink exhibits many key technical issues which show less than the highest level of polish. Those looking for a deep storyline or developed narrative won't find a home here, and whilst the art style is original, texture popping and other such graphical issues can often prove irritating, entirely ruining player immersion in whichever cut-scene they're watching. The gun roster is relatively widely spread, but the effort spent on it would have been better employed in ensuring the damage was balanced between player and enemy. The S.M.A.R.T. system is an intelligent idea but, sadly, underdeveloped and largely sidelined. Brink, online, can be intelligent and rewarding, but the mere fact that it takes certain independent components to come together before Brink is rendered entirely enjoyable (in this case, other people) is a testament to the fact that more work was needed in every aspect - further development of the core game mechanics, and a larger focus on appropriating them to be essential in the way a mission plays out, rather than the somewhat ignorable implementation of those mechanics in Brink currently. Brink has potential and can be an excellent experience, but it just doesn't deliver on what it could have been. It's an intelligent, even groundbreaking, idea - but it could have been so much more.
6/10 [?]
Labels: 2011, Bethesda, Brink, Linford Butler, PlayStation 3, PS3, Review, Splash Damage
- Linford Butler
What do you get when you combine a famed, first-rate publisher in Bethesda with Enemy Territory: Quake Wars creator Splash Damage? If your answer was an excellent, innovative and superbly-polished game entitled 'Brink', you'd only be a quarter right. Saying that, Brink accomplishes quite a bit with its unique formula and functionality, but its overall lack of ingenuity turns this incredible-looking first-person shooter into a derivative afterthought.
Brink's story begins and ends with the Ark, a massive structure built to withstand extensive flooding. The planet just happened, coincidentally, to feel destructive, and the waters came, destroying everything and only leaving the Ark, forcing it to become a sanctuary for humanity. But with the Ark isolated and supplies scarce, people began to fear for their lives. Some wanted to escape the Ark to search for other life, but others felt that staying organised would provide more of a benefit. Your decision on this dilemma forms the opening of the game: will you escape the Ark, or save it?
Customisation is clean and the visuals are nice. Kinda like TF2.
The initial narrative sounds intriguing. It's too bad, then, because this is the only striking bit of story the game contains; the rest is merely trivial filler to provide some vague context to whichever map you're playing in. Each map you play begins with a small cut-scene, a conversation between several faceless characters. They can talk about almost anything, from their brother being part of the opposing force to how badly they want to crush the security force barring their escape. Whatever the case is, you simply can't think about what's going on in the world of Brink because you'll never have a friggin' clue.
But then, you were never supposed to.
There's no issue with a game being completely multiplayer-focussed, as there are plenty of titles out there that have utilised this type of design, and succeeded. The problem is that Brink cannot decide what sort of shooter it wants to be. As mentioned above, the game begins with a choice and it appears to be a rather heavy one - the sort typically found in single player games. Once you make this decision, you're immediately taken to the title screen where you can select all the missions for both Security and Resistance factions. What's the point of this choice being present if I can immediately skip to the final mission for either faction? To further amplify this empty function, whether you accomplish or fail there is simply no effect on the world of Brink. There are a couple of scenarios where someone could escape or something could have been blown up, but its effect on the overarching world is negligible. If Splash Damage wanted to create a decent narrative in an interesting world, they should have gone all the way instead of making what is, frankly, a juvenile attempt.
Not even close to as satisfying as it looks.
Being a class-based FPS, you wouldn't expect much from Brink in the way of unique design due to the sheer volume of replica shooters on the market. Surprisingly, Splash Damage conceived some differentiating material that actually makes Brink intelligent when compared to its competition. Gone are the standard deathmatch modes, the lone gunmen and the grenade spamming monsters that plague conventional titles. Brink wants you to work with your team, choose the right class, and complete objectives around the map to build a successful co-operative environment.
Fancy that.
The idea behind this style is fantastic. I can definitely support a developer who wants to move beyond basic kill/death ratios and throw in intuitive gameplay, but Brink just doesn't evolve enough to accomplish these goals. For one, the game comes with two game modes. Two. Your standard 'freeplay' matches are basically the campaign, and both Security and Resistance either play the role of attacker or defender. One completes their objectives while the other prevents them, someone wins, game over. Stopwatch is basically precisely the same thing, but the sides switch after the initial match to see if the other team can gather a higher score. I refuse to believe that a developer like Splash Damage failed to think of other scenarios besides Unreal Tournament's Assault mode.
I don't know why, but the mounted guns in this game really suck at killing people.
At the very least, Brink offers you experience for every little thing you do. Hardly any points are rewarded for kills as the big money is doled out to those who capture points, heal their teammates, provide ammunition, and so forth. That's all dandy, but it brings us to the other major flaw of this game: the classes. Be it the Soldier, Engineer, Operative or Medic, every single one manages to be boring and uninspired. The experience you earn whilst playing as a certain class can unlock other class-specific abilities (like the Engineer throwing down a turret), but none is more useful than the medic who can revive others and boost health, as well as heal himself. Other classes aren't nearly as effective, like the Operative, who can disguise himself as the enemy but, if he so much as tries to open a door, finds his disguise compromised. The only real reason to switch to another class is to complete an objective that only that specific class can accomplish.
Switching classes doesn't bring you unique weapons either. Brink has no prejudice when it comes to weapon selection. Once again, this seems like a neat idea, but all it does is break the classes down even further. The only variation in which arsenal you can use relies solely on your character's weight: light, medium, or heavy. Furthermore, it's a choice you can only switch by going all the way back to the customisation page on the main menu. Heavies are slower but can tout miniguns, whilst lightweights are much faster but can't carry heavy weaponry or equipment at all. Why, come hell or high water, would you make such a unique and game-influencing choice only switchable out of the game?
Hey, that guy is down. Too bad, it'll take a full clip to make him respawn.
All shooters are judged by the percieved weight, overall feel, and control of the weapons you tout, and I'll bet you'll never guess how I feel about these. The soldier gets Molotovs, which single-handedly have the most vapid effect I've ever seen in a video game. Grenades in general are underwhelming, and couldn't be less satisfying to throw. The worst, however, comes with the weapons themselves; they don't feel or even sound satisfying when you shoot them. It doesn't help either that characters are abnormally beefy and can require several shots with a sniper rifle to take down.
You might have heard of Brink's 'Smooth Movement Across Random Terrain', or 'S.M.A.R.T.', system. This technicality was supposed to be one of the more unique features of Brink, but all it comes down to is holding a single button as you sprint around the map. With S.M.A.R.T., your character will interact with whatever you encounter automatically. That includes sliding under pipes, scaling fences, jumping across chasms; whatever it may be, you can do it automatically. This parkour style - an incredibly unique feature, particularly in FPS titles - certainly grabbed my attention in the game's many previews, but Bethesda's "move more than you shoot" motto definitely doesn't make sense in the game's context. S.M.A.R.T. doesn't do anything useful since running away from a conflict doesn't help the team and will simply net you a needless death. What's the purpose of moving over random terrain when the other guys can just shoot you while you do it?
S.M.A.R.T. isn't exactly the best implemented feature.
Since it's on topic, I should also mention that this game has had ridiculous launch issues with ATI cards. The in-game lag is also beyond redemption, and it'll probably take you at least a few dozen attempts to find a decent server to play on. But my ultimate grievance - the number one thing I hate the most about Brink - is having to wait for a patch to fix these issues. Releasing a game with some minor flaws and glitches can be endured, but issues that render the game essentially unplayable should never be encountered. With a couple more months of polish, I can't help but think that Brink could have avoided most of these technical flaws.
Brink is an intelligent game at heart, and one that aspires to be much more than Splash Damage has made possible. Its lack of narrative, fractured gameplay and ambitious but shortfallen design leave me only with the resolution that Brink is a welfare version of Team Fortress 2. Brink hints at something that could have been much greater, but never fully explores the imagination that could have made it exceptional.
Want a second opinion? Check back over the next week or so for Linford's Second Opinion review of Brink, for PlayStation 3.
5/10 [?]
Labels: 2011, Andrew Whipple III, Bethesda, Brink, PC, PS3, Review, Splash Damage, Xbox 360
- Andrew Whipple III
These two weeks see the release of two of this year's supposed 'biggest hits' Brink and L.A. Noire, which both aim to both bring a new set of dynamics into the lives of gamers. Yet, how do the changes offered by the two big budget titles rack up against one another?
Rockstar's L.A. Noire is, straight off the bat, a completely different experience from most mainstream games released today. This, coming from the publisher that brought us Grand Theft Auto and Red Dead Redemption, is to be expected; Rockstar are known - nay, famed - for their top-quality, innovative games, and their recipe certainly seems to work, as all they touch seems to turn to gold.
One of L.A. Noire's features that Rockstar really want to push home is the facial detail that they've managed to achieve using the MotionScan system, a sparkling new feature which manages to express a character's every feeling. From gameplay videos, it is clear that the team have really used the system to their advantage; it is arguably the first time a player has been able to easily distinguish lip movements, allowing for near-perfect lip reading.
However good it may look, though, some may question whether the tech will significantly change gamplay in the way Rockstar hope that it will. Rockstar claim that the features offered are needed for the detective-action title, as one needs to physically note whether the character they're interrogating is telling the truth. If it is true, then perhaps we'll see the MotionScan wizardry adopted for other titles, even despite the time-consuming process needed for significant results.
Connections between L.A. Noire and many other titles can be drawn, as it manages to delve into several different genres. It can be difficult to avoid placing it in comparison to Heavy Rain, as both share some common roots, but if you were to look further into the gameplay mechanics of L.A. Noire, you might find it closer to something in the point-and-click genre. Indeed, when searching a crime scene for a set of clues, we are reminded of the lovable Sam & Max duo. In certain scenes, equipped with a gun, elements from third person shooters are seen, although it is apparent that these areas of the game are minimal. The game is trying to 'blend' the genre boundaries, like many titles this generation have attempted to, but perhaps it is worth mentioning that L.A. Noire seems to have picked its colours from a very different palette to those other titles.
The other big hitter of this week is Brink, a title which, similarly, tries to 'blur' the genre boundaries by bringing single player and online play closer together. The system that Brink utilises allows for 'drop in, drop out' gameplay, whereby a player can invite their companion to join them straight from a single player game, without the need to set up lobbies specifically for online campaign game modes.
In my honest opinion, I've been extremely excited for a system such as this, and I really want it to succeed, in the hope that other companies will adopt the idea. Imagine the variety it could bring to other genre; for example, in something like Skyrim, one could wander into a town, find a tavern and seamlessly 'recruit' a friend as a mercenary force. One of the biggest pitfalls for a system like this, though, is that it could be completely ignored by players - if you want to maintain a single player campaign, it's likely you'd entirely leave any sort of seamless offline-online, jump-in-and-jump-out feature alone.
Brink is also a title which offers a grand amount of customisation for gamers, with recent stats having revealed the scale of this mechanic. Bethesda stated that there are over 4,963 different combinations of weapon attachments, and a mind-boggling approximate of 47,325,358,080,000,000 costume combinations (that's over forty-seven quintillion combinations, if you couldn't work it out). It's one crazy amount, and means it'll be extremely difficult (if not impossible) to find two players with exactly the same qualities.
Both games are set to rock some pretty nifty changes from the norms that gamers are used to, and both are extremely unique. For a purely technical advantage,the most impressivle has to be L.A. Noire, as the impressive facial animation is something it is difficult to find in past games. However, with questions surrounding how many games the advanced technology will really change, the award for influence to the way we play can only go to Brink, whose innovative online system will hopefully lead to a fluid mix of online and single player play.
Labels: 2011, Bethesda, Brink, Jacques Hulme, L.A. Noire, Rockstar, Splash Damage, Team Bondi, Trailer, Video
- Anonymous
A lone, mourning violin heralds your arrival into the world of Killzone 3, greeting you with such a beautiful but sorrowful soundscape that, were it not for the Helghan writing, one might well wonder if they’d accidentally wandered into entirely the wrong piece of software. It’s an oddly serious, sombre opening to the latest in a series renowned for its straight-up shooting and un-shying goriness. The deceptive simplicity of the opening score inspires a straight-faced, somewhat austere feel that makes at least one thing clear from the very start. Guerrilla’s baby has grown up into one of that very rare breed: a serious first-person shooter.
Where Killzone 2 was a loud, egocentric teenager, flexing its not-quite-fully-developed virtual muscles with testosterone-fuelled bloodiness and shouting you down with a range of obscenities that even criminals on North London estates would struggle to recognise, its successor is a solemn, straight-faced adult, stoic and businesslike, getting on with whichever tasks are necessary with unfaltering professionalism. Whilst understated, the effort that has been put into giving Killzone 3 – or at least its online functionality – such a refined and developed feel is ultimately its saving grace; it turns a good game into something that could potentially reserve Killzone’s place in the history books of gaming.
Killzone 3 is simply a more mature game all-round. Amongst first-person shooters, for the grimness of war to be effectively put into game form is both a rarity and a pleasant surprise (a complete antithesis considering the gravity of the subject matter). Throughout my time on the beta, however, I’ve found Killzone 3 to continually surprise me with its adult, mature approach to the overdone war-game format that serves only to increase the feeling of immersion one enjoys when playing it. Small details like the bodies which litter the map during a game, the brutal mêlée animations, the increased sense of teamwork and tactic and the lovely interjecting cut-scenes in Operations mode make Killzone 3’s online mode feel more grown-up and – despite the fact that the horrors of war still aren’t quite accurately or fully portrayed – make Killzone 3 feel generally more involving that its predecessor or, indeed, other first-person shooters.
The quality is evident throughout the beta, but there are drastic differences between the three game modes. Whilst Guerrilla Warfare and Warzone mode are fantastic for a twenty-or-so minute blast, providing some fast-paced shootouts and the typical Killzone online action that series connoisseurs have hitherto enjoyed, it is the new Operations mode that is the star of the Killzone 3 show. Operations (and Warzone, but to a lesser extent) both boast a real sense of tactic and teamwork that is largely missing from modern first-person shooters, and it is this tactic that is key to taking objectives and winning matches. Whereas Guerrilla Warfare feels like a free-for-all, with every player gunning for themselves and for the top-spot on the leaderboard, Operations and Warzone have a sense of team cohesion that increases the game’s engagement of the player, and requires a level of skill and intellect in order to effectively win over your objectives (be that defending as the Helghast or attacking as the ISA). This sense of combined effort and unity is ultimately what makes these modes more rewarding than Guerrilla Warfare; in Operations, covering frontline infantry as a marksman from far behind the lines, to go on and successfully gain ground or an objective is hugely satisfying, whereas whilst Guerrilla Warfare is a speedy blast of fun there is never the same sense of satisfaction. In this lies the issue with Guerrilla Warfare and the winning factor for Operations and Warzone: Guerrilla Warfare provides no reward and therefore no incentive to continue playing, whereas Operations and Warzone provide rewards in the forms of won objectives, and so will ultimately end up being the more popular game modes.
The key thing with Operations is it provides new aspects that haven’t been seen before in Killzone and are still largely novel across the online gaming world, no matter what your console of choice. The intermittent mid-match mini-cutscenes are a lovely touch that give some sense of a story or situation to an online match, something that barely any other games hasten (or even bother) to add. Guerrilla ought to be praised on the idea to feature the best players from each operation are the characters featured in the cutscenes; it is a reward which not only increases your sense of involvement in the match, but also serves as a nice way to quench the thirst for bragging rights and recognition, and encourages clever, tactical play so one can be featured in these miniature scenes. The mode’s system of completing objectives to push forward, unlocking new areas of the map, will be familiar to players of EA’s recent Medal of Honor reboot, as they use a similar system; it works well as not only does it provide an impression of progression through the level, but it also means the game can end at any of the objectives depending on whether or not you play well, and so you have a real drive to play well to maximise the game length (and therefore your chances of winning the most experience points).
Broadly, however, there isn’t a mode which is unenjoyable, due to the smooth-flowing, much-improved combat and game mechanics. The trademark ‘heavy’ feel of previous Killzones has, for the most part, been dumbed down and lessened, largely through smoother movement animations and the increased speed with which one can aim, reload and take down an opponent in battle. Whilst this makes the action much speedier and smoother, due to the less labourious and unfamiliar style of movement compared to other FPS titles, it does make Killzone 3 feel different to its predecessors. And whilst I’m not saying that it’s a bad thing, it will be something that die-hard fans of Guerrilla Games’ series will have to get used to.
In some ways, the changes that have been made enable the game to be more accessible to newcomers. One of the major problems that I found with Killzone 2 was that, whilst it was by no means a badly developed game, the way that it handled and the foreign-feeling control scheme meant that those uninitiated with the original Killzone were much less likely to find the second title an enjoyable and fulfilling experience. With the Killzone 3 beta, however, this seems to have been addressed. Old weapons return in order to ensure those migrating from Killzone 2 don’t find the experience entirely detached from its foregoer, some new weapons have been thrown in to increase variety and the weightiness of the weapons has been highly varied in order to bring the feel of the game more in line with recent and upcoming games in the same genre (Killzone 3’s shooting mechanic, for instance, has a similar aura to Splash Damage’s Brink, and regular readers will know how much I enjoyed that). The controls have been made more approachable for new players, with it being much more obvious how to use various functions than in the previous game. All the small tweaks to the gameplay serve to make Killzone 3 an all-round easier-to-play game than Killzone 2, and whilst veterans might not like that, it is certain to boost sales and chart rankings when the game releases later this month.
Matches themselves are more varied. The new brutal mêlées increase the hardened ruthlessness of the games new, more adult feel, and the XP reward (alongside the savage animations, none of which are overdone) make you as the player want to use mêlée function more, which makes for a more vibrant combat experience. The range of weaponry is much increased, with the new class- and skill-based system making for more choice when deciding on your killing tools; and the roster of side arms is more fully-featured than before. Furthermore, weapon choices have to be made carefully, as the balancing of the weapons has been very well done, meaning certain weapons are more suited to some situations or uses than others, and put together these few new additions make for an overall more tactical experience. My only gripes with the combat were that occasionally, (particularly at the beginning of a match, and most noticeably when playing as the ISA) the enemy tends to respawn far too close to your original basecamp, which prevents the battle from effectively spreading across the map; and that grenade aiming and throwing was largely hit-and-miss, and the system could do with tightening up in order to make it more intuitive and effective.
On some basic points, the single map which is playable on the beta is quite extensive – much larger than the average FPS map you might have played on before – and is well designed, with some lovely little nooks-and-crannies to hide in, some semi-secret passages and action over (at one point) five storeys. The game feels more brutal and is gory (if not as much as Killzone 2, then more so), but sometimes the gore effects can feel unrealistic and superfluous, less a well-considered component of the overall experience and more a mere party popper once the birthday banners are up (if you’ll excuse the metaphor). The game automatically puts you into an open match slot using the evermore-popular matchmaking mechanic and, whilst it is (for the most part) quick and efficient it can also mean you are sometimes allocated to a game that is late on in proceedings, meaning you’re destined to end the match with little XP and an overwhelming sense of dissatisfaction. Killzone 3 is graphically nice: the visuals have been improved on since Killzone 2, and whilst the visuals on a large scale are still a little underwhelming, the small detail such as the slight blur effect of the reflex sight’s crosshair when changing your angle of aim is what is most striking. Lastly, ranking up is quick if you play the game for extended periods, particularly if you’re a regular of games where XP is gained for completing objectives, and despite the fact that there are many ranks players may find that they reach the top ranks with little difficulty and with minimal effort.
For a moment, though, forget everything about the tweaked feel and the combat and the graphical prowess that I’ve already imparted because, although they certainly all make Killzone 3 the beautifully-formed package that the Killzone franchise was always going to naturally form into, for once they’re largely unnecessary in summing up what makes this beta so awe-inspiring. Killzone 3 – or at least the beta – is the turning point for the series, because it is drama, not melodrama. When you enter the beta, right from that very first bereft, quavering violin chord to the moment you leave the console, there is such a striking sense of thought to the whole thing. Where Killzone 2 was a good game, this is an excellent experience. It has the depth, the foresight and the development of the detail that Killzone 2 just didn’t have enough of. You can be walking the alpine expanses of the dam base one moment, the silence almost deafening when combined with the omnipresent danger, when suddenly gunfire explodes from nowhere with a roar like a wild animal. It is a refined, perfected, perfectly-glossed product that, if the single player mode and the final online functionality are as good as this beta has been, will be one of the titles best-recognised for its achievements this side of the next console generation.
You can download the Killzone 3 Open Beta now from the PlayStation Store, through 15th February. The Killzone 3 single player demo will be released onto the PlayStation Store on 16th February.
Killzone 3 is released in the United States on 22nd February, and in the United Kingdom on 25th February.
Labels: 2011, Beta Impressions, Brink, Feature, Guerrilla Games, Killzone, Killzone 2, Killzone 3, Linford Butler, Medal of Honor, PlayStation Store, PlayStation3, PS3, Review
- Linford Butler
Update
Games journalists do not run. It's less a physical limitation and more a product of said journalist's innate laziness; whatever the situation, whatever the danger, a games journalist must never run. It was a rule which I'd faithfully stood by, and - on the surprisingly warm October morning in Central London, where this story begins - wasn't one that I had any sort of plan to violate. Until, that was, Jacques and I got off the Tube and remembered the first thing on our list for the day: Brink.
For the uneducated, Brink - developed by Splash Damage, the company behind Wolfenstein: Enemy Territory, and published by Bethesda - is a first-person shooter. Before you switch off, having heard the term 'first-person shooter' a million times before, let me describe Brink this way: it is a game which I was prepared to run for.
Returning to that October morning in London for a moment, let me set the scene. It is nine o'clock in the morning, after a restless night of sleep at a very cheap hostel and a rushed breakfast in a tiny café opposite Earls Court Underground station. Jacques and I are waiting outside the entrance to the Earls Court Exhibition Centre, queuing for the final day of the Eurogamer Expo 2010. We're lucky: not only are we at the front of the press queue and guaranteed to be the first into the Eurogamer Expo (no mean feat - to be at the front means a very early start), we're also with friends. Miles Jolliffe, Adam Jones, Ben Marshall, Jacques and I (amongst others) pass the time in the only way possible without a stable internet connection: by talking about everything and anything to do with games and the Expo. Brink, however, comes up more than any other title in our conversation, and each one of us have a clear plan for when we get onto the show floor: to do whatever necessary to get a play session on Brink, short of actual physical murder.
Let me make it clear how necessary it was to break that most ancient of games journalism rules and run for Brink. The day before, both Jacques and I were at the Eurogamer Expo, and (inside our extensive network of journalist contacts and gaming friends) we'd heard that the queue to play Brink was a three hour wait. We were lucky to be the first people to play the game on the Sunday, but Brink is the sort of game for which a three hour wait begins to look more attractive the more you consider it. You begin thinking "there is no way, come hell or high water, that I am waiting three or more hours for twenty minutes of play", but the more you consider it, the more you begin to think "three hours isn't really that long". And - had I not run, and had I missed the opportunity to be the first to play - by the middle of the day I know that I would have found myself in that never-ending queue, desperately asking myself, "Why didn't you just go with the others? Why didn't you fucking run?"
When you start to play Brink, the distance between the creation in front of you and other first-person shooters is evident. There are leagues between the smooth, polished experience of Brink and alternative titles. Before beginning your online 'career', you customise the entire aesthetic of the character you'll play as, from the basics right down to details such as facial hair and scarring. Whilst it's a relatively simple system of customisation, the wow—factor comes in the intuitiveness of the system - it is incredibly simple to use and navigate, and is a joy to use - and the wonderful interface used by the player to customise their character. It isn't complex, but simple, and yet in being simple it is to-the-point, fit for purpose and therefore hugely efficient.
And then, of course, the shooting begins. Brink is, in the purest sense of the word, a shooter; everything which appears on-screen is precisely placed and serves a purpose, whilst every control is perfectly mapped to the controller. Nothing about Brink feels pasted on, nothing feels pointless and nothing feels half-arsed. The action is fast, furious and immensely enjoyable, the SMART (Smooth Movement Across Random Terrain) system works well in allowing players to navigate the playable map smoothly using Mirror's Edge-esque first-person parkour, and small aspects like the ability to change weaponry and equipment on-the-fly at an armoury whilst in the middle of a match is very impressive.
Playing a match on Brink could easily be compared to the sort of 'finding oneself' activity that teenagers so often find themselves partaking in; it opens your eyes to the possibilities of FPS games online, whilst simultaneously giving you a rush of adrenaline and introducing you to emotions you never knew you were capable of feeling. However, whilst the game is an exciting parcel of chaotic magic, the actual shooting is the stand-out aspect of Splash Damage's work. Brink's gunplay is pin-point accurate and the hit detection is spot-on, meaning skilled players will be able to aim and take down a target without disappointment. The guns have a weightiness somewhere between Call of Duty and Killzone, which serves to make them feel realistic without the mechanic being too clunky. The matches have a perfect balance between feeling arcadey and realistic, bringing authentic physics and entertaining gameplay together to form what felt to me like the most flawless shooting mechanic in a first-person shooter that I've played.
The games in Brink work very much like those in games such as Guerrilla Games' Killzone 2 in that the mission objectives change on-the-fly during the game as tasks are completed. Not only does this make for a continuous, smooth play experience without the irritation of constant 'lobby breaks' between games, it also makes combat more tactical and much more exciting, due to the need to be thinking about what might come next: if your entire team is trapped within one area when a new mode begins, it can hinder you drastically as the other team has the upper hand. Brink's range of in-game, as-and-when changes mean that an online game is constantly evolving; the state of play is always changing, leaving things much less predictable and much more exciting.
Editor's Note: The lovely people at Bethesda contacted us to clarify that Brink does in fact have an offline, single-player mode which will be seamlessly integrated with the online mode. Apologies for the misinformation previously published and a big thankyou to Mark at Bethesda for the heads-up.
From what I played at the expo, the game works as smoothly online as any single-player game, and - far from feeling like an add-on to a main campaign like on other FPS games - the online feels like every effort has gone into it to make it as enjoyable an experience as any offline campaign mode. For players reading this who haven't done the work to get their console online yet, Brink is the sort of game for which getting a broadband connection and PSN/XBL account is worth the time, effort and even money.
I haven't ever walked away from a game at an expo feeling truly lost for words. At least, not before I played Brink. It is a fast-moving, hugely enjoyable game with a purpose-built beast of an engine under the bonnet. Splash Damage have truly outdone themselves with Brink and - if the gaming public recieve it as they should, considering its sheer quality - it should be one of 2011's bestsellers. If there is one area of gaming in which I consider myself somewhat 'specialist' it is shooters, and yet I have never played a game like Brink. It evokes excitement, adrenaline, awe and such a feeling of absolute badass that you begin to wonder if any other shooter will ever feel the same after playing it - at least, that was my reaction after only twenty minutes of play. Sensationalism is a scourge of the gaming industry which I loathe, but I don't hesitate to say that Brink is the best first-person shooter that I have ever played in all my years of gaming.
The moral of the story, journalists: never be afraid to run - if you are, you might well miss an absolute gem.
Labels: 2011, Bethesda, Brink, Eurogamer Expo, Feature, Linford Butler, Preview, Splash Damage
- Linford Butler
Subscribe to our content
and never miss a single thing
subscribe to our monthly newsletter:
Our most recent writing
Our most recent reviews
Recent comments
All comments are subject to our commenting policy
Latest videos
Subscribe on YouTube
GGTL Classics
Some of the very best articles dug out from deep in the GGTL archives, written by some of our past and present wordsmiths alike.
Your continued use of this website and/or any others owned by Gamer's Guide to Life.com represents your acceptance and indicates your full understanding of all of our legal policies and terms. Our legal policies and terms are legally binding. If you in any way disagree with or refuse to be bound by any part of said legal policies and terms, you are advised to leave this website immediately.