I was wondering what kind of campaign this is. I started the first mission and it plays like a lame multiplayer match with a bunch of dumb bots. I was expecting a story about the Arc, drama and so on. The singleplayer had potential so what kind of weird rubbish is this?!

Kinda agree, there really is NO dramatic story line WHAT SO EVER, it's like go here fight them, now do it again here!. I was really hoping for a great story line because that's what i enjoy most about games, but its not there AT ALL. I Know SD didn't want to push the story onto people but i think they should have had a little more than what was included! (high hopes for DLC)

There is a story. Listen to the briefings before each map, and listen to the audio logs you unlock. They tell the story. Otherwise the campaign was made to be both the singleplayer and multiplayer modes. I understood that before getting the game so I knew there wasnt going to be a sweeping story before hand. Such an epic drama would become tedious after playing multiplayer enough.

Splash Damage said the idea behind it was to blur the lines between multiplayer and single player...making it relatively the same experience whether you play online or offline.

Listen to the Audio Logs and Breifings, thats as much story as you are going to get. The game is said to blend SP and MP together for a reason. :whistling:

I will also say I did rather enjoy the banter of the men before each mission. It gave a sense of the whole good vs good concept.

http://www.gameinformer.com/games/brink/b/xbox360/archive/2011/05/12/brink-review-a-multiplayer-shooter-suffering-an-identity-crisis.aspx

I'm so glad I tested it on a friend's console first. I probably wouldn't have bought it anyway because of all the pre-order bonuses and also the mp is far too slow for my taste. This game svcks so badly.

Personally, I didn't expect much else in terms of levels and gameplay. But yes, I have found myself a little let down the with lack of 'story'.

I do like the story, but it definitely isn't story driven..more gameplay driven.

But it is interesting, people have a lot of different opinions to this. Some say the game play is too slow, and others too fast. I think it is just about right to keep it action packed, but not too fast to where you can't keep track of objectives and the hell is going on.

As P0NY said, the story has been built around gameplay, not the other way around.

For RPG fans and those who follow the storyline as a preference, it may fall a little short of your expectations. If you're more worried about the gameplay, you're not going to find contrived bits thrown in just because the plot calls for them - everything is grounded in "make the game fun."

I thought the story had potential, but alas, single player in Brink is just multiplayer in sheep's clothing. Not that I have a huge issue with it, as I did buy Brink for the multiplayer above all. I just find it a bit lame that they marketed it as anything more than a dull distraction from online modes. It's basically the equivalent of the bot-only modes in Battlefield 2 or Battlefield 2142.

Multiplayer with cinematics. I recognized this before the game came out. Everyone else should have too. Your choices are pay attention or get overexcited. You made your choice.

It was pretty obvious, wasn't it?

I mean, they DID try to play up the story, but what we were shown was a fairly flimsy "go here, do this" plot - they did a better job than some shooters do though. And the storyline is definitely more coherent than Mortal Kombat ever got.

Was really disappointed in the Security ending... I mean... wth? At least resistance had a semblance of an ending. Security did not.

the story just wasn't existant, i expected to get really into it, but i wasn't. and yeah the security was very anticlimactic, i want to know where it goes from there, what happens after that? i just ask that they expand a little.

It is certainly a whole lot cheaper to produce a game without an actual single player campaign as there was no need to develop a true A.I. As to the blending of single and multiplayer - the same could be said for Unreal Tournament III. I do not get the feeling of innovation more like marketing spin.

Bob

when you play fallout 3 and you're killing enemies... those are bots. Combat-focused entities with AI.

Also, yes Unreal Tournament III is the other multi-player game with a story tossed in.

On more thing! I actually like all of BRINK's cinematics.

why did they even make some kind of story they should of did what shadowrund did just make it an online only game and the only story you got out of that game was the intro to it + it worked out with them alot of people still play that game. to me it just seems like the why did brink put in a story they should of just did the same thing as shadow run. to me both games are alittle alike aside from the magic in shawdowrun and s.m.a.r.t. in brink with and with alittle of team fortress 2 as well mixed in there.

There is a great deal of difference in the NPCs in an RPG and the bots in Brink. The bots in Brink have no history nor is there a way to interact with them. They are a very limited creations that do not anywhere near the same level of programing that one sees in something like the Radiant AI. It is not truly fair to compare the AI in an RPG to one in a shooter, however, A-Life in STALKER is a good example of what can be done in a shooter. It would have been really cool if the environment had been open and one could explore.

Bob

I think my only issue with the story was that my character was always essentially background scenery for 3 guys talking, if he even appeared at all.

Only the cutscene for the first Security mission actually made my character look like the star, if only for a brief 4 seconds towards the beginning. The rest of it? I'm a henchman.