Brink, are you hyped for it?

I never really researched Brink and thought it was just another shooter. I watched a few vids, and I have to say, I'm pretty intrigued. Are you guys hyped for it? The concept looks pretty cool.

Has potential. Waiting for reviews.

Will wait for reviews.

Can't wait for it, game looks awesome. Loved TF2 on the pc, but I am not sure how the 360 community will be :? since it's team based.

Well i payed for it quite a long time ago now and yes am hyped for it. It like how it takes some of the best elements from the top shooters and combines it into a unique package which most recent FPS game lacks. IMO its like a COD, BF, Halo, TF2 crossover or something. I really dig the artstyle and how they are handling the single player portion of the game. Theres also that crazy amount of customization which pretty much beats out every other game out right now. Strong emphasis on team work ect i could go on and on.

II know this is going to be a good game based on what ive seen alone i just hope it can gather a decent following so that people will be playing it a long time from now.

im stoked for it, picking it up as soon as i get out of work on the first day its released

Pre-ordered on Steam. Looks veyr promising.

I'm getting it homie.

Looks really good. Pre ordered it a couple weeks ago, and I really like team based games.

I preordered it and can't wait to sink my teeth into this sexy beast.

looks pretty good but im gonna rent it because money is tight and i just bought mortal kombat and portal 2. I also have to pick up L.A. Noire later this month.

It honestly looks a lot like Section 8: Prejudice, obviously without the airdrops. The control points to capture, objectives set to each individual team.

Anyways, it seems like only engineer can accomplishment bascially every objective. Why be another class? You need medics obviously but why be a soldier or another class?....

To be a support role to all the medics, obviously.

It honestly looks a lot like Section 8: Prejudice, obviously without the airdrops. The control points to capture, objectives set to each individual team.

Anyways, it seems like only engineer can accomplishment bascially every objective. Why be another class? You need medics obviously but why be a soldier or another class?....

firefox59

It honestly looks a lot like Section 8: Prejudice, obviously without the airdrops. The control points to capture, objectives set to each individual team.

Anyways, it seems like only engineer can accomplishment bascially every objective. Why be another class? You need medics obviously but why be a soldier or another class?....

firefox59

Im pretty sure soldiers are the only ones that can demolish things so there's that and of course the fact they are gonna be on the front line of battles which makes them pretty important. An engineer is more of a support class and your really there to back up your team by building turrets and buffing ect, but i doubt they will be that great in general combat. Youve already admitted that medics are needed and an operative if played correctly will most like be able to change the tide of a battle. So id say they are all important in useful in their own way.

You should really wait until a game comes out before making statements like that. Until then its all speculation really.

no not at all.

[QUOTE="firefox59"]

It honestly looks a lot like Section 8: Prejudice, obviously without the airdrops. The control points to capture, objectives set to each individual team.

Anyways, it seems like only engineer can accomplishment bascially every objective. Why be another **** You need medics obviously but why be a soldier or another ****....

Gen007

Im pretty sure soldiers are the only ones that can demolish things so there's that and of course the fact they are gonna be on the front line of battles which makes them pretty important. An engineer is more of a support ****and your really there to back up your team by building turrets and buffing ect, but i doubt they will be that great in general combat. Youve already admitted that medics are needed and an operative if played correctly will most like be able to change the tide of a battle. So id say they are all important in useful in their own way.

You should really wait until a game comes out before making statements like that. Until then its all speculation really.

Which statement did you feel was too strong? I've watched the videos they have put out. For evey objective the nice british lady says "only engineers can perform this task". Your right the soliders can blow things up but thats the only ability they have demonstrated. I'm just saying that if you get to an objective and your not an engineer your basically useless until someone else gets there who hopefully is the right class.

[QUOTE="Gen007"]

[QUOTE="firefox59"]

It honestly looks a lot like Section 8: Prejudice, obviously without the airdrops. The control points to capture, objectives set to each individual team.

Anyways, it seems like only engineer can accomplishment bascially every objective. Why be another **** You need medics obviously but why be a soldier or another ****....

firefox59

Im pretty sure soldiers are the only ones that can demolish things so there's that and of course the fact they are gonna be on the front line of battles which makes them pretty important. An engineer is more of a support ****and your really there to back up your team by building turrets and buffing ect, but i doubt they will be that great in general combat. Youve already admitted that medics are needed and an operative if played correctly will most like be able to change the tide of a battle. So id say they are all important in useful in their own way.

You should really wait until a game comes out before making statements like that. Until then its all speculation really.

Which statement did you feel was too strong? I've watched the videos they have put out. For evey objective the nice british lady says "only engineers can perform this task". Your right the soliders can blow things up but thats the only ability they have demonstrated. I'm just saying that if you get to an objective and your not an engineer your basically useless until someone else gets there who hopefully is the right class.

I didnt feel anything you stated was particularly strong. I just think that your condemning a game that hasn't even come out yet. Some objectives require you to blow stuff up which means you would need to be a solider right? not an engineer. From the vids ive it seems that every class has objectives that they can do not just the engineer. Why would they make a game where the engineer is the only class that can get anything done?

[QUOTE="firefox59"]

[QUOTE="Gen007"]

Im pretty sure soldiers are the only ones that can demolish things so there's that and of course the fact they are gonna be on the front line of battles which makes them pretty important. An engineer is more of a support ****and your really there to back up your team by building turrets and buffing ect, but i doubt they will be that great in general combat. Youve already admitted that medics are needed and an operative if played correctly will most like be able to change the tide of a battle. So id say they are all important in useful in their own way.

You should really wait until a game comes out before making statements like that. Until then its all speculation really.

Gen007

Which statement did you feel was too strong? I've watched the videos they have put out. For evey objective the nice british lady says "only engineers can perform this task". Your right the soliders can blow things up but thats the only ability they have demonstrated. I'm just saying that if you get to an objective and your not an engineer your basically useless until someone else gets there who hopefully is the right ****

I didnt feel anything you stated was particularly strong. I just think that your condemning a game that hasn't even come out yet. Some objectives require you to blow stuff up which means you would need to be a solider right? not an engineer. From the vids ive it seems that every ****has objectives that they can do not just the engineer. Why would they make a game where the engineer is the only ****that can get anything done?

Heh, that's what I was wondering. Why would they.... You're right in that I am judging a game before it's come out but this thread is about whether or not your hyped for it. So I gave a basis for my response. I just thought it seemed odd how one cla.ss was given more "responsibility" than the others in a team based game. Of course it could be an intentional design feature to make it so that you had to play as the engineer, and would need an engineer for most objectives, with the devs thinking people would use the other classes anyways. You have to acknowledge that a large majority of the objectives require an engineer. I wouldn't say I'm criticizing the game per se, just pointing out that it's an interesting design decision for the game.

No i'm not looking forward to brink.

i kinda like the look of it but its between that and LA noire, if i can find a job soon then ill get both but i have to say im more excited for LA noire just because its so different.

I was going to get Noire, until I saw it has like 25 missions and is going to be shorter in comparison to GTA4. I'll get it when it hits $20 in 6 months, also Noire looks like it has a great story, but it doesn't appear that fun to actually play

I'm getting Brink, it came out of no where for me. I need a new shooter, and I'm looking forward to it delivering on at least some of what it promises.

Getting Red Faction at the end of the month too.

I went ahead and ordered Brink although I'm not too sure about it, if it isn't that good I will just sell it to get FEAR 3 or OP Red River next month.

[QUOTE="Gen007"]

[QUOTE="firefox59"]

Which statement did you feel was too strong? I've watched the videos they have put out. For evey objective the nice british lady says "only engineers can perform this task". Your right the soliders can blow things up but thats the only ability they have demonstrated. I'm just saying that if you get to an objective and your not an engineer your basically useless until someone else gets there who hopefully is the right ****

firefox59

I didnt feel anything you stated was particularly strong. I just think that your condemning a game that hasn't even come out yet. Some objectives require you to blow stuff up which means you would need to be a solider right? not an engineer. From the vids ive it seems that every ****has objectives that they can do not just the engineer. Why would they make a game where the engineer is the only ****that can get anything done?

Heh, that's what I was wondering. Why would they.... You're right in that I am judging a game before it's come out but this thread is about whether or not your hyped for it. So I gave a basis for my response. I just thought it seemed odd how one cla.ss was given more "responsibility" than the others in a team based game. Of course it could be an intentional design feature to make it so that you had to play as the engineer, and would need an engineer for most objectives, with the devs thinking people would use the other classes anyways. You have to acknowledge that a large majority of the objectives require an engineer. I wouldn't say I'm criticizing the game per se, just pointing out that it's an interesting design decision for the game.

[QUOTE="firefox59"]

[QUOTE="Gen007"]

I didnt feel anything you stated was particularly strong. I just think that your condemning a game that hasn't even come out yet. Some objectives require you to blow stuff up which means you would need to be a solider right? not an engineer. From the vids ive it seems that every ****has objectives that they can do not just the engineer. Why would they make a game where the engineer is the only ****that can get anything done?

HilbillyRokstar

Heh, that's what I was wondering. Why would they.... You're right in that I am judging a game before it's come out but this thread is about whether or not your hyped for it. So I gave a basis for my response. I just thought it seemed odd how one cla.ss was given more "responsibility" than the others in a team based game. Of course it could be an intentional design feature to make it so that you had to play as the engineer, and would need an engineer for most objectives, with the devs thinking people would use the other classes anyways. You have to acknowledge that a large majority of the objectives require an engineer. I wouldn't say I'm criticizing the game per se, just pointing out that it's an interesting design decision for the game.

nah its like star wars battlefront 2 where you could switch class at owned command posts. which is pretty cool.

Looks cool, but I'am going to wait for reviews a game like this can be totally badass or a complete mess.

[QUOTE="Gen007"]

[QUOTE="firefox59"]

It honestly looks a lot like Section 8: Prejudice, obviously without the airdrops. The control points to capture, objectives set to each individual team.

Anyways, it seems like only engineer can accomplishment bascially every objective. Why be another **** You need medics obviously but why be a soldier or another ****....

firefox59

Im pretty sure soldiers are the only ones that can demolish things so there's that and of course the fact they are gonna be on the front line of battles which makes them pretty important. An engineer is more of a support ****and your really there to back up your team by building turrets and buffing ect, but i doubt they will be that great in general combat. Youve already admitted that medics are needed and an operative if played correctly will most like be able to change the tide of a battle. So id say they are all important in useful in their own way.

You should really wait until a game comes out before making statements like that. Until then its all speculation really.

Which statement did you feel was too strong? I've watched the videos they have put out. For evey objective the nice british lady says "only engineers can perform this task". Your right the soliders can blow things up but thats the only ability they have demonstrated. I'm just saying that if you get to an objective and your not an engineer your basically useless until someone else gets there who hopefully is the right class.

[QUOTE="firefox59"]

[QUOTE="Gen007"]

Im pretty sure soldiers are the only ones that can demolish things so there's that and of course the fact they are gonna be on the front line of battles which makes them pretty important. An engineer is more of a support ****and your really there to back up your team by building turrets and buffing ect, but i doubt they will be that great in general combat. Youve already admitted that medics are needed and an operative if played correctly will most like be able to change the tide of a battle. So id say they are all important in useful in their own way.

You should really wait until a game comes out before making statements like that. Until then its all speculation really.

betamon

Which statement did you feel was too strong? I've watched the videos they have put out. For evey objective the nice british lady says "only engineers can perform this task". Your right the soliders can blow things up but thats the only ability they have demonstrated. I'm just saying that if you get to an objective and your not an engineer your basically useless until someone else gets there who hopefully is the right class.

Only if you want them to. It comes with voice over IP turned off as default. You have to change an option to hear them. That's one of the main perks of this game to me. The game will communicate what I can do, and what I'm doing to other players without the need to talk to the kiddies and big kids (adults).

[QUOTE="Gen007"]

[QUOTE="firefox59"]

Which statement did you feel was too strong? I've watched the videos they have put out. For evey objective the nice british lady says "only engineers can perform this task". Your right the soliders can blow things up but thats the only ability they have demonstrated. I'm just saying that if you get to an objective and your not an engineer your basically useless until someone else gets there who hopefully is the right ****

firefox59

I didnt feel anything you stated was particularly strong. I just think that your condemning a game that hasn't even come out yet. Some objectives require you to blow stuff up which means you would need to be a solider right? not an engineer. From the vids ive it seems that every ****has objectives that they can do not just the engineer. Why would they make a game where the engineer is the only ****that can get anything done?

Heh, that's what I was wondering. Why would they.... You're right in that I am judging a game before it's come out but this thread is about whether or not your hyped for it. So I gave a basis for my response. I just thought it seemed odd how one cla.ss was given more "responsibility" than the others in a team based game. Of course it could be an intentional design feature to make it so that you had to play as the engineer, and would need an engineer for most objectives, with the devs thinking people would use the other classes anyways. You have to acknowledge that a large majority of the objectives require an engineer. I wouldn't say I'm criticizing the game per se, just pointing out that it's an interesting design decision for the game.

By the way ive found this video that shows that each class has unique objectives that only they can complete. So your whole engineer theory is out the window. check it

With the blend of free-running and FPS, i think it has great potential. But with the lack of coverage on the majority of the game, i think i'll wait for the reviews.

I've looked at a couple of videos and it looks good.

My problem is I don't see a demo. That could be a deal-breaker for me.

It's looks great, but it's not for me. Just another game that forces its online play into dopey co-op and team-based nonsense, but forgets to include a basic free-for-all mode.

[QUOTE="firefox59"]

[QUOTE="Gen007"]

I didnt feel anything you stated was particularly strong. I just think that your condemning a game that hasn't even come out yet. Some objectives require you to blow stuff up which means you would need to be a solider right? not an engineer. From the vids ive it seems that every ****has objectives that they can do not just the engineer. Why would they make a game where the engineer is the only ****that can get anything done?

Gen007

Heh, that's what I was wondering. Why would they.... You're right in that I am judging a game before it's come out but this thread is about whether or not your hyped for it. So I gave a basis for my response. I just thought it seemed odd how one cla.ss was given more "responsibility" than the others in a team based game. Of course it could be an intentional design feature to make it so that you had to play as the engineer, and would need an engineer for most objectives, with the devs thinking people would use the other classes anyways. You have to acknowledge that a large majority of the objectives require an engineer. I wouldn't say I'm criticizing the game per se, just pointing out that it's an interesting design decision for the game.

By the way ive found this video that shows that each class has unique objectives that only they can complete. So your whole engineer theory is out the window. check it