Brink: Single player or multiplayer

[Elettra]

I have recently purchased this game and have installed the system that I am using. Now the thing here is that I am totally confused whether to start the game directly in the multiplayer mode or go with the single player only. Actually I have played games similar to it before in multiplayer mode but here I am double minded whether to go with it or to start in the single player mode to get in to the groove. So please help me in this case and let me know how I can solve this issue.

[Deepest BLUE]

Either would work, I personally plan to learn only the very basics in single-player and then go straight to multi-player and start making friends. Although, I may just play co-op at first, with the enemy team being AI. But I think being around when no one knows a thing about the game will be quite amusing. So I don’t think that the section really matters here because in both the modes you will do one and the something.

[Cruzz]

You mean private or public match. You always play the story missions. The only option you have is too choose if you just want to play a private match (you can play alone or invite friends and missing players will be replaced by bots or you play a public match where everyone can join the game missing players will be replaced by bots it's always a 8vs8. Brink is some kind of "Co-Op only" game. There is no separate Single- or Multiplayer.

[desilva]

I am going to beat one of the two campaigns before I even touch multiplayer. Since I prefer Resistance, I will probably actually start with Security's campaign, that way I can start to get it in my head that they are the good guys too. After that, I will probably do most of the resistance campaign, then hit the multiplayer lobbies. So it'll probably be month 2 of having the game before I am seen in the outside world.

[Pierson]

I think you overestimate this. Once in a while there are matches between teams of developers, tester whatever and teams of people that have been invited for a demonstration usually people that work for game magazines. Although it often happens that the developers get owned even though they supposed to know everything about the game. So much for their advantage towards new players. But ok, if this is your opinion. I just don't share it and don't want to fight about it.

[Abenaki]

Starting off playing real opponents may turn out to be an advantage in the long run, now that I think about it. It will be much easier to learn PvP tactics starting from scratch than if you have to break habits that you learned when playing AI. Seeing as this games multiplayer is the normal campaign, I can’t truly see any downsides. From my experience the AI does in fact behave like players do. Other players experienced the same, as you can tell from various podcasts, in which they say people confused the two 4v4(+8 AI) matches for one 8v8 at the expos.

[Iroquois]

I don't know your definition of "professional players" but testers don't count to them. You know those guys who play in leagues and tournaments for money? Also organized in clans who are supported and sponsored by big companies like AMD, Intel etc. Players who actually do nothing but training their gaming skills the entire day. Many players out there call themselves a pro-gamer although they have no clued what this actual means. You earn money with your gaming skills. For being a real game tester you need an advanced knowledge about programming and how the software works with the hardware. Of course you should have experience in video games but in first line you need technical knowledge to get a job as a game tester.