Poll: Brink Reviews

[BabySinclair]

Played a few hours on a friend's copy (PS3). The bots suck, really, they either ignore you or land every shot in your head. Snipers and shotguns aren't guaranteed 1-shots, though shotguns at point blank are against mediums and lights. Snipers will drop people with damage on them and grenades are not thrown wildly and aimlessly in the hopes of getting a kill like in CoD. This is a good thing (something that was complained about too,) as grenades become more tactical and less of a blind luck tool (direct hits with grenades will kill still for the whiners out there though they remain on a cooldown charger.) Objective based combat makes it a lot more interesting than, kill the other guys, and the team based roles without restricting weapons is a boon. No sniper class, engineers with only shotguns, medics that can't deal damage, or spys that have to get backstabs for kills; everyone can kill everyone.

I'm giving it an 8.5 myself due to lack of SP focus for its implementation and shoddy bots; and why can't I get more ammo for my guns besides staying near soldiers? It's a pain in the ass after running out of ammo during a challenge map.

 

[D_987]

IGN gave Terminator Salvation a short bland uninspired unoriginal game a 6.5. IGN Gave Damnation a innovative risky but flawed title a 2.5. IGN gets no respect. EVER!!! They are a worthless pile of crap clogging the tubes and and are one of the lead causes of making the industry dumber.

I'm not sure if you're serious but Terminator : Salvation was a much better game than Damnation...

Just because a game is "innovative" doesn't give it the right to an automatic higher score - especially when that game is just dreadful, filled with bugs, and poor controls. Those scores actually sound about right, especially as other outlets described Damnation as one of the "worst games I've ever played".

 

[squid5580]

IGN gave Terminator Salvation a short bland uninspired unoriginal game a 6.5. IGN Gave Damnation a innovative risky but flawed title a 2.5. IGN gets no respect. EVER!!! They are a worthless pile of crap clogging the tubes and and are one of the lead causes of making the industry dumber.

I'm not sure if you're serious but Terminator : Salvation was a much better game than Damnation...

Just because a game is "innovative" doesn't give it the right to an automatic higher score - especially when that game is just dreadful, filled with bugs, and poor controls. Those scores actually sound about right, especially as other outlets described Damnation as one of the "worst games I've ever played".

Really? So trying to do something new is better than making a quick craptastic cash in game? Jesus with that kind of mentality it is no wonder the industry is in the shitter and the only innovation comes from indie devs.

Giving Terminator an above average score is just utter crap. It was mediocrity at its finest. it should have gotten a 2.5 just like Damnation. Or a 2 because at least Damnation tried to do something new (regardless if it failed) at least they tried to push the envelope. Not just get a game on the shelves to get as much green as possible with no regard for quality. Knowing it would sell based soley on the title.

 

[Netrigan]

It's amusing that if IGN give a game a high score they're classed as "payed off", whilst if they go against the norm and give a lower score they're classed as not handing out a high score because they weren't payed off; and if they give a game, a now middling score, of 7 or 8 they're being "safe".

They can't win...

I do get the impression from a number of posts on this thread, however, that you don't really want a fair score. You want a high score to justify your hype for the game, that's why you're desperately clinging onto the reviews over 7.5 whilst insulting those outlets [at least in the case of IGN] that gave the game a score below that.

IGN gave Terminator Salvation a short bland uninspired unoriginal game a 6.5. IGN Gave Damnation a innovative risky but flawed title a 2.5. IGN gets no respect. EVER!!! They are a worthless pile of crap clogging the tubes and and are one of the lead causes of making the industry dumber.

While innovation is in the mix, I sort of like Roger Ebert's judgment being based primarily on whether it succeeds at what it set out to do and whether that's entertaining or compelling. Which is why Fast Five (an entertaining brainless piece of fluff that hits all it's marks) gets a higher score than the much more ambitious (and tonally flawed) Beaver.

Mirror's Edge got a bump because it tried something different, but it loses points for kind of cocking it up. Still a good game worth checking out, but a lot of better made paint-by-number shooters are better games.

 

[D_987]

Really? So trying to do something new is better than making a quick craptastic cash in game? Jesus with that kind of mentality it is no wonder the industry is in the shitter and the only innovation comes from indie devs.

There's innovation. And then there's innovating well. You could make a brand new genre, it's incredibly innovative and nobody has even thought of it before - but if it doesn't work, isn't fun to play, is full of bugs and has previous gen graphics - it's going to get a low score.

Damnation wasn't even very innovative, mixing platforming and shooting has been done before, and better, in fact Damnation was, for all intents and purposes, a Gears of War clone with awful platforming.

Giving Terminator an above average score is just utter crap.

Another day, another person that doesn't understand 5 is not the average score in the games industry. However sad that statement is, it's true.

It was mediocrity at its finest. it should have gotten a 2.5 just like Damnation.

It had decent, if bland graphics. Unlike Damnation.
It was playable, and had few bugs. Unlike Damnation.


I can't really say much more because the game was nothing special - but at least it wasn't fundamentally broken.

Or a 2 because at least Damnation tried to do something new (regardless if it failed)

That's a stupid attitude to take, innovation should be rewarded if it works; if not then there's little point in adding that to your game.

at least they tried to push the envelope. Not just get a game on the shelves to get as much green as possible with no regard for quality. Knowing it would sell based soley on the title.

That was the case, but again scores should be based on the quality of the game, not the fact it includes poorly done innovation.

 

[squid5580]

Really? So trying to do something new is better than making a quick craptastic cash in game? Jesus with that kind of mentality it is no wonder the industry is in the shitter and the only innovation comes from indie devs.

There's innovation. And then there's innovating well. You could make a brand new genre, it's incredibly innovative and nobody has even thought of it before - but if it doesn't work, isn't fun to play, is full of bugs and has previous gen graphics - it's going to get a low score.

Damnation wasn't even very innovative, mixing platforming and shooting has been done before, and better, in fact Damnation was, for all intents and purposes, a Gears of War clone with awful platforming.

Giving Terminator an above average score is just utter crap.

Another day, another person that doesn't understand 5 is not the average score in the games industry. However sad that statement is, it's true.

It was mediocrity at its finest. it should have gotten a 2.5 just like Damnation.

It had decent, if bland graphics. Unlike Damnation.
It was playable, and had few bugs. Unlike Damnation.


I can't really say much more because the game was nothing special - but at least it wasn't fundamentally broken.

Or a 2 because at least Damnation tried to do something new (regardless if it failed)

That's a stupid attitude to take, innovation should be rewarded if it works; if not then there's little point in adding that to your game.

at least they tried to push the envelope. Not just get a game on the shelves to get as much green as possible with no regard for quality. Knowing it would sell based soley on the title.

That was the case, but again scores should be based on the quality of the game, not the fact it includes poorly done innovation.

Oh so as long as a game is playable in terms of bugs and glitches it deserves an average score? I mean c'mon people are bitching about Homefront's 4 hour campaign but at least it had MP. Salvation has a 4 hour campaign and no MP to boot. It should have been slaughtered by all reviewers. For a full price retail game every review should have said the same thing. Not worth 60 bucks do not buy. Instead of "the VA is not done by Nolan so we are dockin points" or try to justify the higher score because it gets leniency because it is a movie tie in.

 

[D_987]

Oh so as long as a game is playable in terms of bugs and glitches it deserves an average score? I mean c'mon people are bitching about Homefront's 4 hour campaign but at least it had MP. Salvation has a 4 hour campaign and no MP to boot. It should have been slaughtered by all reviewers. For a full price retail game every review should have said the same thing. Not worth 60 bucks do not buy. Instead of "the VA is not done by Nolan so we are dockin points" or try to justify the higher score because it gets leniency because it is a movie tie in.

The point is less that Terminator deserves a lower score, but more the hypothesis you brought up that Damnation deserved a higher score than Terminator.

 

[Weaver]

I never planned on getting it.

 

[GrandmaFunk]

any reviews of the PC version out so far?

seems like all the ones mentioned are based on the console ports

 

[migo]

So far Metacritic has 2 good reviews for the 360 version and one bad review for the PS3 version. Nothing yet on the PC. I'm confused as to how this metacritic thing is supposed to work..

They got it wrong, the supposed PS3 version was also based on the 360 version. In all fairness though, Joystiq spent all their time talking about the poor AI, so it was justifiable to think that they were testing it on the PS3 while the PSN was down.

As for IGN having horrible reviews - they make among the better video reviews, although it helps to actually have some footage to look at rather than just taking their word for it.

 

[squid5580]

Oh so as long as a game is playable in terms of bugs and glitches it deserves an average score? I mean c'mon people are bitching about Homefront's 4 hour campaign but at least it had MP. Salvation has a 4 hour campaign and no MP to boot. It should have been slaughtered by all reviewers. For a full price retail game every review should have said the same thing. Not worth 60 bucks do not buy. Instead of "the VA is not done by Nolan so we are dockin points" or try to justify the higher score because it gets leniency because it is a movie tie in.

The point is less that Terminator deserves a lower score, but more the hypothesis you brought up that Damnation deserved a higher score than Terminator.

No the point is how utterly biased and useless IGN is. Oh a popular title automatic average score. Oh a new IP gets jack. The only positive thing you can say about Salvation is it ran. The rest of the game was mediocore at best (if you call letting the retarded AI do all the heavy lifting while you hide in cover to distract the enemy mediocore).

 

[D_987]

No the point is how utterly biased and useless IGN is. Oh a popular title automatic average score. Oh a new IP gets jack. The only positive thing you can say about Salvation is it ran. The rest of the game was mediocore at best (if you call letting the retarded AI do all the heavy lifting while you hide in cover to distract the enemy mediocore).

You're not giving the game enough credit, it was solid, generic shooter gameplay. Nothing special, but it wasn't terrible like Damnation.

 

[Tsunimo]

I bought it yesterday...
I found myself dissapointed by it in a way I couldn't make sense of.
Not to say it was bad, it's far from that, but something just seemed... not good?

 

[squid5580]

No the point is how utterly biased and useless IGN is. Oh a popular title automatic average score. Oh a new IP gets jack. The only positive thing you can say about Salvation is it ran. The rest of the game was mediocore at best (if you call letting the retarded AI do all the heavy lifting while you hide in cover to distract the enemy mediocore).

You're not giving the game enough credit, it was solid, generic shooter gameplay. Nothing special, but it wasn't terrible like Damnation.

Solid 4 hours of generic gun gameplay (and by that I assume you mean you could aim and your useless bullets went straight). Bullets that actually did damage if the enemy decided not to target you. 1 boss that you barely saw? That is unacceptable.

 

[a ginger491]

I heard that the controls are mush easier to map on the pc than consoles so that needs to taken into account

 

[a ginger491]

So far Metacritic has 2 good reviews for the 360 version and one bad review for the PS3 version. Nothing yet on the PC. I'm confused as to how this metacritic thing is supposed to work..

They got it wrong, the supposed PS3 version was also based on the 360 version. In all fairness though, Joystiq spent all their time talking about the poor AI, so it was justifiable to think that they were testing it on the PS3 while the PSN was down.

As for IGN having horrible reviews - they make among the better video reviews, although it helps to actually have some footage to look at rather than just taking their word for it.

I think the game was finished before the PSN outage. not having a game finished about a month before release sounds a bit far fetched

 

[migo]

So far Metacritic has 2 good reviews for the 360 version and one bad review for the PS3 version. Nothing yet on the PC. I'm confused as to how this metacritic thing is supposed to work..

They got it wrong, the supposed PS3 version was also based on the 360 version. In all fairness though, Joystiq spent all their time talking about the poor AI, so it was justifiable to think that they were testing it on the PS3 while the PSN was down.

As for IGN having horrible reviews - they make among the better video reviews, although it helps to actually have some footage to look at rather than just taking their word for it.

I think the game was finished before the PSN outage. not having a game finished about a month before release sounds a bit far fetched

I can't comment on when it was finished, but Joystiq definitely only got the game since the PSN went down.

 

[Sejs Cube]

Saw the Quick Look on GiantBomb.

Didn't need a review score. Saw first hand how unsatisfactory the game was. Not going to purchase it as a result.

 

[a ginger491]

I wonder if Yahtzee will do a review and use his famous "PANTS ON HEAD RETARDED" bit to describe the AI

 

[a ginger491]

So far Metacritic has 2 good reviews for the 360 version and one bad review for the PS3 version. Nothing yet on the PC. I'm confused as to how this metacritic thing is supposed to work..

They got it wrong, the supposed PS3 version was also based on the 360 version. In all fairness though, Joystiq spent all their time talking about the poor AI, so it was justifiable to think that they were testing it on the PS3 while the PSN was down.

As for IGN having horrible reviews - they make among the better video reviews, although it helps to actually have some footage to look at rather than just taking their word for it.

I think the game was finished before the PSN outage. not having a game finished about a month before release sounds a bit far fetched

I can't comment on when it was finished, but Joystiq definitely only got the game since the PSN went down.

Oh, I misheard you is all actually. I thought you were saying splash damage was still play testing their game when the PSN went out but you seem to be saying that the Joystiq rewiew is based solely on the single player which is not what the game was intended for so the review must be thrown in a bin