User Score

Mixed or average reviews- based on 516 Ratings

User score distribution:

Review this game

  1. Your Score
    0 out of 10
    Rate this:
    • 10
    • 9
    • 8
    • 7
    • 6
    • 5
    • 4
    • 3
    • 2
    • 1
    • 0
    • 0
  1. Submit
  2. Check Spelling
  1. May 31, 2011
    If you liked Enemy Territory, avoid this game.

    I don't know what it wants to be but it certainly isn't working for pub playing. I spent 100s of hours in ET playing pub-only and had so much fun, but every single design decision in Brink seems to try to destroy pub playing. It SEEMS like anything and everything revolves around teamplay. That might be really great for clan players and
    competitive league gaming but it simply isn't working with 15 strangers on a server.

    The problem is if your team is bad, you won't have fun. There is no way to move something as a single player. Why is that? Because the game pretty much keeps you alive as long as possible.

    The weapons feel like a joke. If you loved the arcade-y feel of ET, don't play Brink. Unless you have all the powerups there are, command posts and the enemy has nothing, you don't really deal damage. It frequently takes more than a clip to kill someone. There is almost zero chance for you to win a gun fight vs. two people. That means a strong player can't really turn the tide. The guns feel incredibly weak most of the time. The recoil is horrible and random, I don't see how you can adapt to the pattern and get better (even when burst firing, mind you!) over time because there just is no way to predict the crosshair movement. Iron sighting or crouching doesn't seem to really affect the "precision" if you may even call it that.

    All explosives are NOT meant to deal deadly blows. The regular nades or molotovs deal damage but it won't kill anyone, they rather get knocked down.

    Talking about knockdown. You'd think sneaking up on an enemy and knocking him down gives you an edge but it rarely is. It feels like the enemie's crosshair immediatly jumps to you once you knock him down. Combine that with the low damage and even knocking an enemy down usually comes to a coin flip of who wins. Most of the time it's better to start firing right away.

    The classes are mostly fun on their own but thanks to the fantastic design decision of not being able to change characters, you mostly can't adapt to the game. A lvl20 character has barely enough points to cover 2 classes. Another point that destroys pub gaming. In ET I was constantly switching classes to adapt, because it was fun AND helping my team. If you don't have a lvl20 soldier, you still can switch to that class but lack all the skills. No problem in clan play with designated classes, but it breaks pub gaming.

    SMART was marketed as being awesome and fresh and stuff like that. In reality, it's boring, clumsy and slow. You won't avoid any battle using SMART moves because the time alone it takes you to pull up somewhere gets you almost killed off. Enemy Territory and almost any other id engine based game had way better trickjumping and it wasn't intentional nor was it marketed as such.

    Right now we're on the 3rd (or 4th, I don't remember) patch since release. The game itself was unplayable in its release state and while most of the performance problems have gone, gameplay-wise nothing has really changed.

    I could go on and on about the big and small flaws of Brink but my overall point is: This probably isn't the game you want to buy. If you loved Enemy Territory, ET:QW (from what I read, I haven't played it myself) - don't buy Brink, it's frustratingly worse than this simple, free game I used to enjoy.

    The future of Brink doesn't look too good. There is a free DLC coming out soon, but at the time of writing, there were only about half a dozen servers with good ping and players on it, early evening. Most of the early adopters have already moved on and I really doubt the situation is going to be better.
  2. May 10, 2011
    Day 1 and they already got game destroying bugs, wow. Apparently they didn't even bother to test their servers/steams servers/whoever runs the servers for the game (based on the games forum), pretty much everyone is having a "Server Not Responding." issue when trying to join a game with a friend (coop), from what I've seen/heard, the support for this issue is "Deal with it". The "120,432,530,020" ways to customize your character was obviously a lie (who thought that was true?), it's really just about ten suits you can customize the color of and about 30-40 guns in total that can have parts swapped around on (aka, different sights, magazines, grips, etc) I've played through the first six missions in about... 3 hours, completed all the "challenges" that unlock extra scopes, magazines, all that stuff, and I'm fairly sure that its campaign is made up for 8 maps that get played from both factions perspective based on what side you choose. Slightly confusing at first if you come from FPS games that you can kill someone in one or two bullets - you need about half a clip in this one, maybe it's just because almost every gun is a submachine gun *cough* --- If you've ever played Enemy Territory: Quake Wars (another splashdamage game), you honestly don't need to buy this, ET:QW is far cheaper. BRINK is NOT WORTH 49.99, maybe 20, 30 if you're desperate for something new, not really anything new though... "SMART" system is interesting and annoying at the same time, it's so angle dependent on whether it activates or not that it may get you killed in a split-second-choice situation. It's actual "campaign" really is a copy of ET:QW, it gives you a 20-30 second intro movie for each map, then drops you into the game and tells you to go change to X class, go assault/defend/destroy/hack/whatever Y, rinse & repeat for the entire "campaign". The games AI is generally poor in terms of Support, Combat Effectiveness is lacking, None of them actually complete objectives (none of the AI on your team, that is). After so many horrible FPS releases the past few years, I wanted BRINK to be able to restore some faith in such games. I question if FPS games are even worth having hopes for anymore. Expand
  3. May 10, 2011
    Yawn. Nothing but a poor TF2 clone here with no originality. Cel shaded graphics are just a cover up for the poor bland textures and lack of art designer. There is no variabiton from character to character at all...using a shotgun feels just like using an assualt rifile. Objective based matches just turn into a clustered mess due to poor map design and just overall bad game design mechanics. The game oozes genericness in every way. Not even a rent. Expand
  4. May 10, 2011
    I think this game is an ant farming simulator? Wrong game, you say? Well then why the freck are there so many bugs? The level of generic and uninspiredness rivals that of Black OPs. There is one gun total in the game. Well, there are multiple skins for the gun, but make no mistake, they all feel like the exact same gun. The "artistic" graphics are just a cover for "we didn't want to be bothered to make actual textures or a lighting engine". A "smart" button? Can it get me more dumbed and casualized than that? Why even have us hit buttons at all? Just make the whole game autopilot and we can sit back and watch. Bethesda obviously weren't watching Bioware's mistakes with Dragon Age 2, else they would have known that dumbed down "1 button=cool stuff whoa omg!" gameplay does not make for great games. Make no mistake, this game is a piece of hipster trash designed to cash in on the TF2 popularity. It is generic. It is ugly. It is repetitive. It is unfun. Expand
  5. May 10, 2011
    Horrid. Far to simple and key-presses are nowhere near what they should be. Too simple, had potential but fell flat. If the game had improved key presses and general gameplay, this game would be great. Though, the gameplay is horrid,
  6. May 13, 2011
    I had to wait several days before I felt I could give this game a fair review. The reason for this was due to the very large amount of hype Bethesda and Splash Damage attached to this game to the extent that in Brink's facebook page they heavily exaggerated the amount of interest in Brink at PAX East (I was there, which is why I know they weren't telling the truth) and the large fanboy following which is evident in many of the games positive reviews on here (the wording of the reviews, not the fact that they have positive reviews). The simple truth about this game is that even if you put aside the fact that there are serious lag and connection issues in multiplayer the game itself is barely mediocre and frankly wouldn't be one of the top games if it were released in 2004 let alone 2011. The ID tech4 engine (which was released in 2004) looks abysmally outdated even despite the changes they made to it for this game. The developers highly touted use of parkour for traversing terrain using their SMART (Smooth Movement Around Random Terrain) system would be an imaginative addition if the maps weren't so bland and simple. The weapons feel like blunt instruments not precision ballistics and the nades are an absolute joke, their trajectory doesn't look remotely bound by any rules of physics and the explosions are laughably bad. The plot and voice acting for the single players game and the multiplayers characters feels like something from a cheesy low budget 80s sci-fi movie. In multiplayer there are lag issues and issues where every player on a server will lose sound all at once (happens on multiple servers). I could go on but there's no need for me to completely bury this game. Without the multiplayer problems this game is no better than a 4, with those issues this game is a 2 but I'll give it a 3 under the assumption that future updates will fix the multiplayer bugs. A highly disappointing game. Expand
  7. May 10, 2011
    Summing it up: A disappointment. Pros: Movement is very fluid. The players look pretty dynamic, fluid, and natural. Appears to be a wide variety of guns, along with gun attachments reminiscent of the COD Modern Warfare series. Meh: Environment isn't all it's played out to be. Climbing over things is fun, but you don't really get to monkey around obstacles as shown in many of the sneak peek videos that were released. The class options are sure interesting, but as long as you're a medic you're good to go in terms of points and XP grinding. Cons: Hmmm... Lots of these. The gameplay is barely acceptable. The damage is little or next to nothing. Headshots certainly do exist, but it seems mostly to be spray and pray, and this is coming from someone who has played CS for over ten years, and CSS since it was released, in addition to the COD series. It's not just me I swear. The multiplayer campaign idea, while different, is lacking. For some reason, the action just doesn't feel exciting. There's no comparison to a CS massive kill streak, or a good MW2 flank when you've gone around the enemy team and kicked some serious butt. You simply don't have enough bullets and don't do enough damage to make anything like that happen. While the game totes the 'freedom' of movement, players are too restricted by the campaign. If there's one thing this game is in DIRE need of, it's Team Deathmatch. Come ON! How can you make a multiplayer online FPS and not have a TD mode? The leveling up and the new perks, videos, and abilities don't really alter gameplay that greatly, unlike the abilities did in the COD series. It feels exactly like what it is: a grind! I am bored after a few hours, and probably won't pick up this game again. Expand
  8. May 10, 2011
    Another rushed, half-hearted port of a console game. Gameplay that doesn't know if it wants to be Call of Duty with team based objectives or Team Fortress 2 with modern weaponry. Either way it fails spectacularly in trying to be either. Add in a boat load of bugs from the rush job this game has become and you have a recipe for nerd tears.

    Is there a good game underneath all the issues?
    Maybe, but with all the issues who is willing to pay money to go digging for it when a solid FPS experience is already available in so many other games Expand
  9. May 10, 2011
    The game had tons of potential. You can see the free-running of Mirror's Edge, the class system of Team Fortress 2, the unlock system of Modern Warfare, and the gameplay of Killzone 2. Sadly, Bethesda has not fully utilized what they had. The juxtaposition of these elements is harsh and it just doesn't come together well. The game feels like it really belongs on a console and was ported to the PC as an afterthought. It even keeps the tutorial videos from the console version of the game. That being said, it still feels rushed over. The AI is mindless; the only thing that makes it difficult is the never ending spawning which supposedly is to make it feel more balanced. The campaign feels like there was no care in telling the story of the Arc which really disappointed me (especially when it comes from a company like Bethesda). It is a game that looks like it has plenty of potential and just never got completed. I would hope that Bethesda would become Valve-esque and release updates to make this game better, but I highly doubt that they will.
    It has it's redeeming features, such as the customization and the parkour, but that does not make up for it's flaws. It is a purchase that I regret.
    It doesn't feel completed. The campaign is laughable. It feels like it doesn't belong on PC.
  10. May 11, 2011
    First the good: it's a good fps game. Sure there are bugs, but I will ignore them for now and take the developers at their word on the patches coming down the line. Overall, it is smooth movement with nice interfaces. Group game play is promoted and in keeping with the original design philosophy. That part certain performs as the developers intended.

    The Bad: What's the point of
    parkour movement when you can't even see yourself pull off the moves? The reason why Assassin's Creed is so popular is because of how cool it looked when your character pulls off a neat stunt or combination. My problem with the mechanic is that I don't feel any different playing this game than any other FPS. I understand the SMART system is supposed to be revolutionary, but in the first person perspective, I just don't feel any different from other games within the same genre. Secondly, one button? That's it? No skill required, just hold down this one button? Couldn't they have at least made an attempt and making the player hit the button in a certain sequence. I mean, why bother having the button at all and just leave the feature turned on all the time? Think of it this way, I used to love playing Tony Hawk skateboarding games. Half the fun was in pulling of difficult stunts and getting to hard to reach places. The stunts required timing and several buttons hit in a certain sequence to pull off. I like to think of parkour in much the same way that I do skating. There is a difficulty involved that just is not reflected in the games controls.

    The game fails because it's touted gimmick is so unbelievably boring. Not worth $50.
  11. May 11, 2011
    well, this game is not as good as i expected.
    the first problem i encountered was the game engine itself: the idtech 4 is so outdated that this game has mobile phone quality graphics, and super low framerates. if you can get past this, you'll be pissed off by the fact that this game is only in english and that there are no subtitles. that may not be a problem if you speak english very
    well, but if you're like me and it takes you a long time to concentrate on what the characters are saying in order to understand the story of the game, subtitles, or localization are a needed.
    apart from this **** the game is decent, but not too original, it's just a regular shooter with classes and abilities.
    **** this **** what a waste of money
  12. May 14, 2011
    After playing Brink non-stop I'm starting to feel disappointed mostly on the terrible map design. The AI is like something of a joke and the overall feeling you get when playing a really good game isnâ
  13. May 10, 2011
    This game's terrible. I will never pre-order another splash damage game. I should have known better after they ruined the q3f mod for quake 3 back when. cons ===== - Terrible textures - Clunky movement - Gun sounds suck - Level design is bland - Horrible UI menu looks like its from 1995 - gain points for doing jack squat - thought the objectives would be more interactive, but they're not... boring - frequent server connection problems - frame rate issues between single player and multi player for no apparent reason. SP tells me I'm running at 60 fps yet it feels like 20. - SP is non-existant - horrible AI and the list goes on.... DONT BUY THIS GAME. Save your money. Collapse Expand
  14. May 11, 2011
    If you're looking for fun, play something else. The campaign mode is annoying on solo, you can't command your fellow fighters to do anything and don't expect them to cover you, follow you, or assist in any manner...they do their own thing while you get shot, sometimes they will toss you a revive shot. The SMART system they talk about is no big deal, wow one buttons lets me jump and climb...that's worth 50$. The unlockable weapon upgrades don't do much; like a drum magazine increases the ammo capacity from 23 to 45...seriously?!? How about 100 round drums, that's what they are modeled after. Why do red dot sights reduce the equip speed? Enemies can incapacitate you with one melee hit, while you can't do the same. Oh and good luck finding a server to play on.

    Run here while shooting, run there while shootin, press and hold F while getting shot, run here, run there, escort this, escort that, press and hold F. There is what you will be doing on every mission.

    If you want a fun pvp game play TF2, this game fails big.
  15. May 10, 2011
    So launch day there is a bug where theres no sound for entire servers so im gonna judge this game as presented. A game with no sound that isn't a horror game with a hearing impaired person is unacceptable. Im sick and tired of all these producers launching beta's as finished products. class balancing leaves a few things to be desired I.E operatives have no innate point generation like all the other classes. Really this is a par game with nothing new probably a 5 or 6 but with no sound its a 1. Expand
  16. May 10, 2011
    Most disappointing launch since STO. Terrible weapons system. Clunky controls. Worst map design ever. No incremental spawning. Rubberband lag so bad it's unplayable. One of the worst games i've ever played. Typical match: sprint to spawn while holding "f" to buff players. Firefight while one guy holds "f" in place for a minute, everyone dies in 20 seconds, respawn at other end of map, sprint to objective/only bottleneck in map, firefight 20 seconds, die, spawn, sprint, repeat ad nauseum. EXCELLENT art, everything else is **** Expand
  17. May 19, 2011
    The depth of my disappointment with the game cannot be overstated, but neither can its flaws. The primary issues are ones that relate to the elemental parts of a good FPS game. In these ways, Brink scores below average when compared to the benchmarks across the FPS pantheon (Planetside, Quake 2, Counter-Strike, Battlefield 2142 and BC2, TF2). Weapon Balance: Poor. There are two runaway favorites - the CARB SMG and the Revolver. Because their accuracy, operating range and damage are only barely worse than the next tiers of weapons (and because combat happens at close range most of the time), these two guns are the most common seen and the most effective. There are no appreciable advantages to the Assault Rifles or Heavy weapons. The rest of the SMGs are, simply put, worse than the CARB. Don't bother. Class Balance: If some maps didn't require Operatives and Soldiers then you'd never seen them. Medic and Engineer are very well rounded and their buffing abilities outshine whatever skills the other two classes have. This, keep in mind, with the Engineer's turrets almost entirely crippled by incredibly slow target acquisition. The body types are visual candy at best; the differences in health are negligible in firefights, leading more to choose the Light type due to its mobility. Note that the Light can use both of the superior weapons above. The twitchiness of aiming and movement make it possible to tank damage simply by moving quickly.

    Map Design: Consider that one map has no sound, another glitches all player models into invisibility and a third can have one team's spawn locked down within 30 seconds and you'll see why the map design is disappointing. There are no CTF or Capture Point modes (near-requirements in the FPS space), instead relying on repeated objective-based tasks governed by timers and checkpoints. These are poorly balanced, with the defending team almost always at an advantage. Controls and Movement: Possibly the worst part of the gameplay. Yes, you can jump over barricades and slide into corners, but your character will also get tripped up on ground debris (breaking sprint - argh!), twitch uncontrollably when up against cover and mercilessly hesitate when transitioning between postures, aiming and sprinting. The complete lack of polish in control ruins the authenticity of the gameplay and makes you feel more like a ghoul clumsily floating over the landscape, occasionally snagging your pants, rather than a mongoose-like soldier weaving your way through a battle.

    There are too many controls given what you can actually do with them. For example, two keys are required to deploy your base ability - one for self-use and one for other-use. In a game where you can express intent by aiming your crosshairs, you simply don't need two buttons. Press the key - are you looking at something? Act on that. No? Act on yourself. Brink is only vaguely molded and not-at-all polished. There's probably a good game lurking somewhere in the design documents, but the just-barely-thought-out customization and gameplay design choices all smack of trying to do too much. What concerns me most are the issues at the core levels of gameplay, specifically movement, ballistics and game modes. These are hard things to resolve with patches, yet the game desperately needs help in those areas and more. It's hard to walk away from the glitz of different colored shirts and a few parkour moves, but I recommend you do. Check back in a year - if there are still people on the already-near-empty servers, the price has fallen and the game cleaned is cleaned up in the ways that matter then, well, you might be in for a treat. Apologists will predictably quip, "I'm having a ton of fun; if you don't like it then don't play it" and "You just don't understand what kind of game it is; go back to CoD." To which I reply, "Just because you think it's fun does not mean it's good."
  18. May 30, 2011
    I just signed up to this site JUST so I could Warn/Explain what a terrible game this is. I have never felt so disappointed about a game in my life. It's times like these I wish steam would offer refunds. At $90, it is a high price to pay for an unfinished, clunky FPS that offers nothing new, or extra for the world of gaming. On launch day this game was unplayable. Broken menus, freezing, save game loss no servers available on-line to play MP.
    But, I gave it a chance, a good 2 - 3 weeks in fact. The game was patched, but it was too late. Most PC players have given up on this game. Even if you find a server, chances are it will be empty or contain only one other person, desperately trying to force themselves to like this game.
    So, why not play single player you ask?
    Single player is simply multiplayer with AI, however. This is the worst AI I have ever seen!! Unless you constantly switch rolls to actually do all the objectives yourself. The AI might as well not even be there. They just wonder around aimlessly, dying. They don't help AT ALL, It makes the single player mode completely pointless and frustrating.
    With titles such as Battle Field (bad company), Team Fortress 2, Left 4 Dead 2, Call of Duty. All these games listed are half the price, if not cheaper! (Sometimes on special for $8). Why would you bother with such a boring, broken game.
    You want to dress your character up? Go out and buy TF2 and put some hats on him.
    Because what you are spending money on ladies and gentlemen is a $90 dress-up simulator with a terrible FPS attached to it.

    You don't want a hardcore competitive game like Call Of Duty, I get that. But go out and spend your money on Team Fortress or Left 4 Dead instead. In fact you could buy both at the cost of Brink.

    People rating this game positive either have never experienced a casual FPS outside of this game. Or are convincing themselves they actually enjoy this because it cost them so much money.

    Next time, I won't fall for clever marketing.

    Brink, more like Stink.
  19. Jun 10, 2011
    Brink started out great fun, but somehow became buggier the more I played. Enemies disappearing, sound entirely not working on some levels. A few patches on and nothing had really improved and last check only 2000 people playing on Steam at peak times. Feels dead right out the gates.
  20. May 11, 2011
    Not impressed at all. Terrible performance issues with ATI card users make the game almost unplayable. Also, several common resolutions aren't even supported. The graphics are pretty good but more importantly, the gameplay is nothing special and gets old quick. The character customization is fun in the menu but in-game, its useless as it's an first-person shooter and you rarely see your own character. I would not recommend this game in the slightest. Thorough disappointment. Expand
  21. May 13, 2011
    Great potential, but i don't know what's happened with the engine - there must be something gone horribly wrong. I like the multiplayer aspect with buffing mates, missions, storyline in multiplayer wich grants more xp than just killing stuff. The character class customization options are very good, the range of possible speccs makes this game a long-term fun. Many Weapons, "perks", (IMHO) good balanced maps, graphics with a unique atmosphere, well made interface for multiplayer action.
    But back to the Engine. All drivers up2date, gtx580 and i7 980x - and it's stuttering like hell. The FPS are good but every second it feels like it's freezing. Laggy as hell, too, but not as bad as PS3 and XBOX360 Players are reporting.

    For me it's definitely not playable, i hope there is a patch very soon. Don't buy it before someone reports the bugs as fixed. Save money and many frustrating minutes.
  22. May 17, 2011
    The premise of a waterworld with bothers is certainly an enticing idea and certainly had me interested. Once immersed the game play I quickly realized that the staying power would be short lived. Personally I love precision shooting with high twitch elements. I do genuinely think some people will enjoy the game immensely. Especially once a patch fixes some of its graphical glitches.

    think in terms of overall gameplay, TF2 is a better game over Brink. Expand
  23. May 12, 2011
    Its great as a tech demo.
    As a game, its useless, for anyone older than 12 years. Strip away the graphics and its good old high speed, no point shooter. Quasi-macho style is nothing new. Still pitiful tho.
  24. May 16, 2011
    Brink will appeal to a very certain type of PC gamer.

    Above all, it will be the type of gamer that cares only about multiplayer, because despite it's claims to provide an 'innovative' mix of single-player, co-op, and multiplayer, BRINK simply reuses the multiplayer maps for single-player and co-op whilst adding bots into the mix. Unfortunately, with crippling AI shortcomings, these bots
    provide a single player and co-op experience that is frustrating, tedious, but (mercifully) short. The game contains in total 8 maps, less than many budget games, and though these are accompanied by some attractive cutscenes and an interesting premise, they ultimately boil down to charging through one of two choke points to an objective, or defending these chokepoints against the opposing team.

    Secondly, it will be the type of gamer that likes the idea of teamwork, but dislikes engaging their brain too much. Teamplay in BRINK is achieved by spamming buffs, rather than careful positioning or depth of strategy. If you do take the risk of engaging your brain for a second, you might be taken aback by how incredibly patronising the game is in its desperate attempts to force you to focus heavily on buff spam - this is a game that literally rewards standing at your spawn buffing freshly spawned players more than running off and single-handedly obliterating the enemy team. Proponents of BRINK might be quick to discount people who are more interested in killing the opposing team as people who don't understand the true value of teamplay; however, when a major objective of said teamplay is to kill the enemy team, the bizarre way in which BRINK rewards the most trivial actions over the most significant ones makes it extremely difficult to identify the good players from the bad.

    BRINK is the equivalent of your manager grabbing you by the neck and slapping you in the face repeatedly screaming "BE MORE OF A TEAM PLAYER!". Subtle it certainly isn't in its efforts to get you to stop thinking about the fun of trying to rack up kills, and get back to your key role of pressing "F" and "X". You'll certainly be pressing these keys a lot, because you need to rebuff yourself every time you die (it's not fun in an MMO, and turns out it's even less fun in an FPS). The same goes for your teammates, who'll also need buffing constantly, and the objectives you'll be zerging to stand near and press "F".

    So, thirdly, BRINK's appeal is also limited to FPS players who aren't huge fans of, or very good at, the actual running and shooting part. Running is handled by a SMART system which allows you to hold a key to automatically jump/vault as appropriate, eliminating any need to carefully time jumps. Unfortunately, the parkour-based fun that might ensue is limited by the 8 maps that really don't allow the system to shine. Shooting is facilitated by a wide selection of broadly similar weapons, whose killing power is often affected more by the randomness of their huge bullet spread than the actual accuracy or tap-fire ability of the user. Aim is still required, and it would be wrong to suggest there isn't a degree of twitch-based action in BRINK, and I'm sure there are many subtle differences in the weapons, but it's still a game where the outcome of a firefight is mostly down to the number of people you bring to it, rather than their individual skill. A Call of Duty-style XP unlock system allows weapon upgrades and perks to be unlocked, but you'll get through this in about 10 hours of play, so it's yet another way for the developers to continue to hammer in the "TEAMWORK! TEAMWORK!" mantra by forcing you to complete the trivial team actions the XP system so richly rewards.

    Finally, BRINK will only appeal to the type of gamer who doesn't own an ATI card or care about 3D Vision support, since neither of these work with BRINK at time of writing. This is another buggy release, less so than the Xbox360 version, but still fraught with issues - a surprise given that this game treads no new ground in its graphics, netcode, or gameplay.

    Despite all this negativity, if you fit all these criteria, chances are you will at least like, though perhaps not love, BRINK. It doesn't innovate half as much as the hype might have you believe, but if you loved TF2, you'll find more of the same here. Yet these is one final proviso - BRINK is incredibly overpriced given the omission of true single player or co-op gameplay, and a meagre 8 (similar) multiplayer maps. As a result, Splash and Bethesda deserve poor reviews for pushing out so little content at a premium price tag. At $15 BRINK's peers would be Killing Floor, Section 8, and Breach, and it's comparable to all of these. At $50 it can only be expected to be compared to the big boys of the FPS genre, and it's far from their league.
  25. May 28, 2011
    False marketing of "innovation" and "blending online-offline-single-and-multiplayer" leaves a bad aftertaste.

    Unlike what the advertisement promises, there is no campaign or single-player modes; only matches with bots and the "blending" constitutes of showing cutscenes in multi-player and single-player alike. That's it.

    The game is plagued by connectivity issues and an objective system
    that punishes creativity by penalising completing objectives without selecting them first on the objective wheel. Teamwork outside of the predetermined roles is thus punished with an XP penalty; or not given an award at all! Quite a hindrance when levelling is so important in the game.

    The game promised to do away with "one-shot-kills" and endless camping, but dying from one or five shots within a 1.5 second timeframe makes no difference at all. Camping remains the most solid tactic, in particular since escort missions of very slow moving objectives are so common.

    You have to specialise in a class to be effective, and that completely negates the idea of being able to change classes on the fly. You loose a level by respeccing, which is a terrible price to pay and not at all worth it if your into competitive play. At the higher levels, they take a very long time to regain.

    The weapons lack tangible differentiation, despite behaving quite differently. Another issue is that you can only decide what weapon suits you by trying them all. Some are utterly useless, while others are similar enough to each other that it simply becomes a matter of preference. Then there are a few that seem to be entirely predominant online; those with highest damage and stability scores.

    The system of unlocks is tedious and punishes new players. You have to unlock necessary upgrades to be competetive by completing tedious and often outright boring Challenges; particularly egregious since you have to complete each of the four missions TWICE in order to attain those important ammo and scope upgrades. They also more or less have to be completed on early levels, since attempting them online will quickly prove frustrating and the difficulty is such at higher levels that the tedium becomes too much to bear. Starting a new character is because of all this a very unattractive prospect.

    The server browser is absolutely horrible, with no way of discerning what rules the match you are entering has if it doesn't conform to some limited preset of rules; a clear majority of servers are simply listed as "custom", which can mean just about anything. Are you going up against rank 5 (the most advanced skills) specialists that will pwn you over and over unless you have a solid team, is friendly fire on or off, and so on. Coupled with the incessant disconnects, despite rock solid performance in every other game I play, that sometimes gives you marginal XP and sometimes none at all, this provides a frustrating and quickly tiring online experience. As a team based multiplayer shooter, it is average; not as punishing as Counter-Strike, but neither as rewarding, not as difficult to learn as Team Fortress 2, but neither as dynamic.

    The SMART system works as a cool replacement for rocket-jumping and the likes, but the utility of the Light body type that can do wall jumps and more advanced manoeuvres is very much in doubt. The levels have a only few places where the Light type can pull off some cool stunts, but the only real gain is that you arrive faster at your destination by using those shortcuts; most often that means leaving your team behind and thus a quick death when you arrive at the enemy camp. Had the servers supported more than 8 players on each team, perhaps a strike team of Lights could do something useful, but as it stands those slots are needed for the core team to be able to complete objectives. All in all, I found Brink to be worth about 20hrs of gameplay, after which it became stale and restrictive. For a multiplayer shooter, that's appallingly short in terms of longevity.

    Releasing an unplayable game is also not acceptable, which was the state the game was in when my pre-order copy arrived. That's why it gets a '4' and not the '5' I would rate it as in its current state.
  26. Jun 23, 2011
    Releasing an unfinished game, too many bugs, bad ping from one player can cause the whole team to lag. Not even close to being good enough for competitive play. Wasted 50â
  27. May 13, 2011
    First of all this is the machine I am playing this game on: Phenom II 965 BE, 8GB 1600 DDR3 RAM, HD5770x2 Crossfire, it is a brand spanking new PC that has 42 other games currently installed all running extremely well. None of my components is damaged, all were previously tested before assembly. Ok, so this game performs badly, and the graphics are heavy, laggy and sluggish. First order of business, updated the driver, so framerate issue was fixed, yet it was still laggy! it was running at 70-90 fps and the game still looks like its running at 10-15fps!. Second of all it doesn't keep my graphics settings. For example I would click for high quality post processing or anti aliasing or even soft particles, I would exit the graphics menu, then go into the game...problem?game still looks the same. I go back into the video settings only to find out that the video settings are not sticking. I try to change them several times, even tried rebooting the game, graphical settings still do not stick! Look, I understand that this is an OpenGl game, but for gods sake why would you use it knowing that there are incompatibilities with hardware that uses directx for everything!! Most hardware out there is directx at its core, why use OpenGL?, I have absolutely no idea, but it was a bad decision. Ok so on to the game...the only plot in this game is you are trapped in an island city with no way out, that's about it. Single player is horrible, it's supposed to be like a cooperative as in Left4Dead, but greatly fails because you can't control your team and it doesn't help you. You die every second with 1 or two shots, while you have to empty 5-10 full clips of ammo into them to kill them! When you are down you just sit there and nobody revives you, medics are off doing their thing, at that point I exit the mission and just restart it because there's no point in just sitting there doing nothing and unable to move. For the SMART button all you do is hit space bar, there you go, spacebar to jump over almost everything. The problem is, it really doesn't help you do anything other than jump over everything, enemies still kill you with one shot anyway. Also the music in this game is horrible, someone with a piano sat down and put the soundtrack together in about 30 minutes, horrible. Plot is shady at best, there are no character intros, there is no background, there are no protagonists or antagonists, nothing to help you identify the game at all or where the plot or the story is going. This game deserves all these negative reviews and more, this game utterly fails at everything. There is no good thing I can say about it at this point, hopefully I do find something good, but from the looks of it, I am probably not. Save your money, and if you don't believe me, there is no demo, but there is The Pirate Bay. Expand
  28. May 17, 2011
    Only lasted 3 hours with this. New levels of repetition for me. Its a console game and I suspect designed for a younger gamer than me to be fair. I like games with a bit of depth. Really bothered me that the environment is more or less completely indestructible too.

    I liked Bethesda a lot until I bought this. This game has made me nervous that they have lost their edge and I fear for
    Skyrim when its released later in the year as that is probably my most anticipated game ever. Fingers crossed they dont make another shallow one weekend unit shifter out of that one too. Expand
  29. May 17, 2011
    This game is not at all fun. There is nothing to do, all the mission are quite same and other then killing a bunch of soldiers there nothing else. i enjoyed the character creation more than the mission. i think the only good and different thing in this game is the character creation, other than that this game is useless and quite boring. i just started playing this game and after a couple of minutes i bored. I think they could have really made is game much better. Expand
  30. May 16, 2011
    This game has probably had the worse launch I have seen in my life. It shipped with major bugs, slow loading textures, incompatible with ATI graphics cards, issues with gameplay balance and game breaking lag. The game was removed from the UK Steam store on launch and is still unavailable today (16/5/11).

    I cant recommend this game right now, with it being shipped as a broken product.
    Wait for the dust to settle and bugs to be ironed out then give it a try because right now there isnt an experience to be had Expand
  31. May 11, 2011
    well, this game is not as good as i expected.
    the first problem i encountered was the game engine itself: the idtech 4 is so outdated that this game has mobile phone quality graphics, and super low framerates. if you can get past this, you'll be pissed off by the fact that this game is only in english and that there are no subtitles. that may not be a problem if you speak english very
    well, but if you're like me and it takes you a long time to concentrate on what the characters are saying in order to understand the story of the game, subtitles, or localization are a needed.
    apart from this **** the game is decent, but not too original, it's just a regular shooter with classes and abilities.
    **** this **** what a waste of money

Mixed or average reviews - based on 38 Critics

Critic score distribution:
  1. Positive: 17 out of 38
  2. Negative: 2 out of 38
  1. Oct 19, 2011
    Brink is destined to be a cult classic (on PC), for us fans of Quake Wars. Has no single player value but high entry difficulty due to tight team focus and sprawling maps. Good, but not nearly as damn good as Quake Wars. I like Brink but it is no wonder that most gamers don't. [June 2011]
  2. Jul 26, 2011
    Who would have thought that this highly ambitious concept would turn out to be such a bland game?
  3. Jun 24, 2011
    Brink's unique visual style and great customization options save the day. Although its core gameplay needs some polishing, it's a solid multiplayer-only experience nevertheless. [July 2011, p.81]