I decided to copy & paste a reply I made on the SD forums here, because I wanna see what people's general perspective on the subject is. The original thread talks about how the free weekend they had on Steam for Quakecon did little to nothing in the vein of boosting the number of players on the PC version, whereas on consoles the player base remains stable and continues to grow little by little, since there's just more people playing it con consoles.



Pretty much sums it up completely. And yes, I'm a console player (PS3). The game from a design perspective, was obviously made with consoles in mind. But the underlining fact is the idea that we console players don't get the level of detail in our FPS games as PC gamers. So we naturally expect less. In a game like Brink's case, we're able to forgive it's short comings, because ALL FPS games on consoles have short comings. There has not been one single console FPS game that's been a perfect 10. Whereas you PC folks have had monumental FPS games that couldn't possibly exist on consoles. So in that, you've kinda been spoiled by such excellence. That in turn leads to you all being EXTREMELY critical about Brink. And I'll agree, on the PC platform, the game is a failure on all accounts. But on consoles, it's above average seeing as the other notable console FPS games released this year were in ways even worse then Brink. (Hell, Kaos Studios went under because of how poorly Homefront did, and who is even talking about Crysis 2 anymore?) So Brink is that in between game on PS3/360 that's keeping everyone entertained until the BIG FELLAS MW3 and BF3 come out later this year. And when they do, people on consoles will still be playing Brink as an alternative when they've played those two games to death.

In summary, the PC version of Brink failed to deliver simply on account that PC FPS game players have experienced games that are full four course meals, where as Brink offer table scraps by comparison to those games.. But for us console players, Brink is more like good pizza, not what you call a stellar meal, but definitely hits the spot where it counts, seeing as we've yet to have anything even close to a four course meal on our end of the FPS spectrum.

I agree. Of all the games I've played PC-wise, I have to say Brink just doesn't deliver in comparison. 360 and PS3 wise, it's quite good.

I have nothing to add but :clap:

And yet the lack of a proper lobby system kept most console players from being able to appreciate it. In the end SD split the difference between PC and console players and the result was a game that was merely average for both.

Do we seriously need anymore "Why Brink failed." threads?

part of the reason the game failed is people who are interested check the forums and are like....[censored] that. The Tampon fest that we call "feedback" is also harmful to the playerbase on ps3/pc/billgateslovemachine

i wouldnt say its a fail.

for me its a beautiful game with some great gameplay and the abilities mean each of my 5 chars plays very differently.

i think the thing is that gaming in general is being dumbed down for the ADHD generation.

its why bad company 2 isnt anywhere near as good as Dice's older titles and why bf3 will disappoint many pc fans. skill and tactics are being removed from all games to make them as accessible to hyperactive tweens. its why cod does well and they dont see it as a brainless shooter because they think hiding in corners taking pot shots is amazing.

lots of us come from quake arena and unreal tourny backgrounds on PC and saw games like bf2142 and bf1942/bf2 redefine gaming, but its slipping back now into where not many people want teamwork and all they care about is their epeen k/d ratios.

i think its a shame. as a 36 year old i grew up on simple games that got extremely hard. people rarely finished early 80s games as only the hardcoe could do it (donkeykong etc). these days; how many games are unfinishable? they are more like an interactive movie, rarely needing to replay levels as even on hard most games are very easy. when i was growing up you had top nail every level to the milisecond to do them. that was the point, you knew you were great at the game if you completed it.

i think brink suffers from this. so many people picked it up and realised they cant camp with a sniper rifle and show off their stats to their other ADHD obese tween friends.

the thing is, how rosey does gaming look? in 10 years we will have games that look like blu-ray movies but you just need to keep pressing X to win. skill is being removed in favour of ease of access, at the detriment of real gamers (i.e. not the casuals)

younger gamers are also much more cockey than before. look at the bf forums. they all know what bf3 should be like but have never played bf2 (to which bf3 is supposed to be a sequel, its not supposed to be bad console 3), they poo poo all ideas because they arent BC2 or cod, yet we know those games such compared to older more immersive, tactical, skilled games like UT, QA, BF2, bf2142 etc.

in a way im glad the ADHD generation dont like brink as it means my experience isnt being ruined, but i feel sorry for SD< they made a truely innovative FPS that just doesnt appeal to the dumn [censored]s.

I have ADHD, sugar fuel it normally, but actually ppl with ADD and ADHD require more intelligent thinking, to stimulate their mind, the reason alot of kids in the USA are diagnosed with add/adhd is because parents are lazy and schools do not do enough to stimulate a childs mind, allowing him to switch of very easy.

If this game was dumbed down it would be harder to concentrate. that simple.

Although you bring up many great points you also fail to mention that the static objective structure of Brink is a huge weakness. Knowing exactly where to go for every objective and which classes are required for every aspect make Brink even more repetitive than having a single objective with random locations. If Brink was released in the 90s then this might be forgivable but as we are now over 10 years past the current millenium the objectives need to be dynamic and keep the players guessing as to what comes next.

EDIT:


I'm sorry but none of this is true. To start, sugar is in no way related to this condition as there are many children with horrible eating habits that can still sit and read a book for hours without a break. AD/HD is a chemical condition that forces to brain to hyperstimulate. It directly affects the brain's ability to focus on a single task or to interact with others in a meaningful manner. In most cases of AD/HD the diagnoses in incorrect as the child has been taught to ignore authority since they have no penalty for doing so. As a result, teachers can no longer discipline children that ignore their teachings and parents are not responsible for the their children and the cycle continues. In truth, less than 5% of advlts have any symptoms of AD/HD yet up to 15% of children are diagnosed with this condition every year.

In the end, the casual gaming market is what has led to the increase in games being 'dumed-down', not AD/HD. Stating otherwise is simply misinformed since AD/HD affects such a small percentage of the population.

^THISTHISTHISTHISTHISTHISTHIS^



I'm part of the generation of people who was equally influenced by old school arcade cabinets and the NES and the modern gaming systems... I have to admit, your post up above is quite offensive.
You're blaming a more fast-paced ("ADHD" as you and some doctors want to call it) generation for the "dumbing down" of games? And on that, you insulted a ton of console gamers in the same post.

Honestly, I can tell you're an elitist and it makes me mad. Haha

Yes, games were more "challenging" back them. In that you had hundreds of the same levels, usually only two directions (IF that) you could move your character, terrible physics and close to NO control. There were some genuinely challenging games (games like Wolfenstein and Contra come to mind), but they were just as few and far between as our generation. I'm not sure about you, but I HATED not being able to complete my games. Games are supposed to be enthralling and exciting and dying on the same wall every time (Battletoads) simply isn't either of those.
There are still plenty of games that issue a challenge, but they're purely twitch reaction, exactly like the games of old. Our most demanding games, instead, are modern multiplayer games.

I'm not going to write an essay here... But you should tone it down a bit and think about the material you're rambling about. The medium has changed SIGNIFICANTLY since then and mostly for the better. Now that big companies know there's money to be made, they're not willing to take as many risks as then when it was experimental (which is one reason for market over-saturation)... But to blame my generation and below is just ignorant.
These complaints are the very reason I want to get into the gaming industry. To shut people like you up and throw you a real curve ball.

DOUBLE POOOOOOST!


Considering "dynamic events" are still extremely new to games, I wouldn't expect them to base the entirety of a game around it.

Took the words out of me.

There are quite a few ways to include 'dynamic' events and some of them would be as simple as including random sequenced events. In no case are random events new to gaming.

Ok, let me rephrase - Successfully implemented and programmed dynamic events are still relatively new to gaming.
Most developers are only JUST learning how to do it properly.

Either way, I think this would break the game. A lot of the maps are too confusing to a lot of new players, having the map's objectives change every single time they play it would be rough...

It think it'd be more interesting, and ultimately easier for programmers, to design the levels with more paths, but open and close or obstruct certain paths to make the map itself more dynamic, while keeping the focus in the same spot. I see so many people running the EXACT same path all the time, and sometimes those popular shortcuts should be closed off and force players to take more interesting routes.
Kind of how Left 4 Dead did it, but more in-depth.

I thought the first reason is System Requirements, the improved id tech 4------popularly known as the Doom 3 engine. My old laptop(Pentium T2330, 2GB RAM, Geforce 8400mgs) can handle doom3 very well but can not run this doom3 engine based game in any resolution higher than 640*480. I don't think everyone are hardcoe gamers,they won't dump a pc just because it can't run some games,so that's the reason 1.

And the second reason is the price, since brink got so much negative reviews people will not spend their hard earned money on a game like this.But everyone loves free stuff, especially pc guys. If brink has a in-game-trading system then goes free just like Team fortress 2,and SD continuously make some new maps clothes or weapons so that people can taste the free part then pay in-game.

The third reason is SDK. If SD release a Brink MOD SDK that gonna be interesting, people can make new things or even a new game, pc guys loves that.

That's just my opinion :flamethrower:

If they release SDK, I'm migrating to PC.

And this is another great point as many of the maps have multiple routes yet most of them are not intuitive due to their asymmetrical design. I would go so far to say that the maps are another major problem with Brink since they are not friendly to an adverserial format nor are they balanced in this regard, if the stats site is to be trusted. Brink has a lot of great ideas but their maps and objectives are certainly not among them.

LOLOL, good spool, crap tho.
I am ADHD, the only time even now as a 27 year old that it effects me is when i have sugar or food coloring. This causes me to "hyperstimulate", and concentration goes out the window fast. I grew up in England, the doctors advice was that before he gave me soul numbing drugs he's like my diet to be changed , removing sugars and coloring and certain additives. which indeed fixed it. I was strictly raised, Navy officer for a father and smackdown mother, and the teachers tho they werent allowed gave us a slap round the head when we stepped outta line

In the USA, schools are actually payed to diagnose X amount of pupils a year with ADD and ADHD.
Also proven that not letting your children watch cartoons or play before school or doing homework, leaves their brain in the correct place.

Here's some advice for those PC gamers who think their good on PC

Come to 360 we have the most skill :foodndrink:

bah PS3>billgateslovemachine

I have a degree in Psychology from the University of Chicago. Nice try though. For the record, my wife has diabetes but let's not think that having the condition makes her an expert on the treatment of that condition. She can only speak for how the condition has affected her directly as you seem to be doing about AD/HD. Your experience and opinion on the topic are noted but they lend no credibility beyond your personal experience(s). Also, the reaserch regarding this mental condition has changed greatly in the last 20 years so your experience is somewhat outdated even if you still live with the condition since how they treat juvenilles is much different currently.

EDIT: For the record, England is the only country to actively restrict the additives, particularly sodium benzoate, in food as a way to repress hyperactivity, not specifically AD/HD.

Anyways your degree means [censored] until we can actually 100% say why the brain does stuff, not why we think.

Again, your opinions are noted but they have absolutely no credibility. Also, you can be hyperactive and not have AD/HD. At this point you have proven how limited your knowledge on the subject is and have resorted to trolling me, especially seeing as how psychology is an integrated part of our society. I would love to see you prove the "billions of times" statement though, feel free to start any time.