Brink 2 and 3

(light_sh4v0r) #1

Looks like they’re looking ahead!

clicky for translate

(AnthonyDa) #2

Friday, August 28, 2009

Trolololol.

(light_sh4v0r) #3

Doesn’t really change anything does it?

(tokamak) #4

I feel like my IQ has halved, I’ve been reading the entire article in english translated from my native language.

(light_sh4v0r) #5

The translation isn’t particularly good either :tongue:

(Ragoo) #6

In several interviews they asked SD about that statement and they said they are not sure whether or not there will be a BRINK 2 and 3 because they are concentrating only on BRINK development for now :wink:

(light_sh4v0r) #7

That makes perfect sense. It’s good to know they’ve got even more new interesting features at hand to expand this concept with.

(Mustkunstn1k) #8

which only in the spring of 2010 will appear.

wat

Anyway, I’m not sure how I feel about this. Probably depends of how far their ideas are. Sure, with every game designers probably are thinking in their heads “You know what, if this is going to be a hit then to the sequel we can add this and this”. But then again it almost shows that they are holding back. I would understand if they are making a singleplayer game, but there isn’t that much usually to add to a game like this besides maps, weapons, abilities etc. I mean possibly sure, they could do some SMART 2.0 and even more awesome new stuff, but why not put these into the first one and keep supporting the game for years and years. Just saying.

Or maybe they have a deeper story than I at the moment imagine. A story which they want to continue with a new campaign.

(tokamak) #9

spring 2010 was the initial release date.

(signofzeta) #10

What kind of developer would talk about Brink 3, when Brink 1, let alone 2, hasn’t been released yet?

Oh wait, Activision and their yearly franchises.

(LyndonL) #11

That is most people’s first thought as a consumer (Why don’t I get more? Must be 'cause the Conglomorates are greedy profiteering bastards!) …

The problem is, with each new system or idea that is introduced, it causes a heap of side issues such as balance with the existing systems, interaction with the current systems and environment etc etc. All these things require extensive testing and coding, and therefore can’t all be added into the original game. Each individual idea they have may equate to 2-3 months worth of coding and testing.

A developer might have 100 awesome ideas that they’d love to put into their game, but they also have to pay their bills. Whilst their game is in development, their income is greatly reduced, and so they have to play the compromise game. It might really hurt them to have to cut some things from their creative vision, but they are at the end of the day a business, and if they don’t do things that make them money, they can’t continue to create and support the games that we love to play.

My 11 cents…
:stroggbanana:

(light_sh4v0r) #12

So you’re saying they didn’t implement certain features because they were short on time?

(LyndonL) #13

I’m only assuming. Time and money I guess. If time and money wasn’t an issue can you imagine how hardcore ALL games would be?

(light_sh4v0r) #14

There’d be less games for sure :slight_smile: