I know you're excited about Brink—I'm excited about it too. Unfortunately, the code arrived too late for us to play it for any significant amount of time, the state of the review code was such that I was uncomfortable rendering any kind of authoritative verdict, and there will soon be a patch released that may address most of my complaints. Or it could address none of them. The fact remains that the game reviewers have been playing for the past week will not be the same game you play at home, and that makes it impossible for me to do my job in an effective manner.

Allow me to explain what happened, and why you should take a wait-and-see approach to the game.

We just didn't have enough copies of the game

When we first received the e-mail asking what version of the game we'd prefer to look at, it's likely no one thought that the PlayStation Network would still be offline when the game launched. I made a joke about it being awkward for reviewers to ask for the PlayStation 3 version, but the grim reality is that if you wanted to try the online portion of the game, you had to play on the Xbox 360. We'll also be looking at the PC version of the game, but review codes for that won't be available until the game launches. For now, it's 360 or bust.

With only one version of the game being functional for reviews, every member of the press was given the 360 version. I was told my copy would be coming early in the week. Then it was set to arrive on Friday, but copies once again ran out. My copy of the game showed up on Saturday afternoon, and that is not enough time for me to settle in and play the game for the amount of time I need to get a feel for the often-complex mechanics and gameplay of Brink.

That being said, I did have a chance to pour some hours into the game, and what I found made the prospect of reviewing the game even less attractive.

The code is a mess

The copy of the game that went out to reviewers came on a disc, in retail packaging. We were sent the same code that you will buy in the store, but it became obvious that the game wasn't finished. Textures were ugly messes and texture pop-in was a common problem. The visual fidelity of the game world fluctuated madly while playing. Sometimes I had a glimpse of what Splash Damage was aiming for with the game's aesthetics, but more often the technical issues led to a frustratingly uneven experience.

The netcode was even worse. I don't play with the developers when reviewing an online game—I've explained my distaste for those sessions elsewhere—but I'm friends with a number of other reviewers who had access to the game. When we tried to get a co-op game together, the game collapsed in on itself. The framerate was halved, and the gameplay often stuttered. It was completely unplayable, and this was the result of adding two other players. I can't imagine what a full server would feel like. The game would also kick players off the server seemingly at random. It was a frustrating, unfinished mess, and I gave up trying to get an accurate picture of the online portion of the game after an hour or so.

The problem is that I was told the 360 version of the game would benefit from a patch released the first day of the game's release, one that would help with network performance and visual fidelity. Reading the e-mail, the patch sounded extensive, so it's impossible to know how many of the issues I experienced would be fixed before you could buy the game for yourself. How could I say anything about the game one way or the other without knowing how much of it would be fixed a few hours after my review was posted? How would it be helpful for me to render a verdict under these circumstances?

Known knowns, and unknown unknowns

There was no mention of a PlayStation 3 patch on the first day of release, although we do know that Sony still has the ability to update both games and hardware—even with the PlayStation Network still offline. I've also heard that the PlayStation 3 version of the game looked great when it was shown at PAX, with few of the problems seen in the 360 version shown to reviewers. It's possible the PlayStation 3 version of the game looks and plays better, at least before the 360 patch is released, but the copies were held back due to the inability to play online.

There is also no way of knowing how well the PC version of the game looks and plays, so the only version of the game we have access to is the one version of the game we know may be significantly improved when the first patch is released. So if you read reviews elsewhere, keep in mind that the game being played was the 360 version, and the game you'll play when it's released may look and feel much better than the version the reviewers were given.

The situation is frustrating, but there was no way we could review this in the traditional sense. The game we would have either praised or attacked will be changed before you play it for the first time. If the PlayStation 3 version is better, we have no way to know.

Don't buy the game... yet

My advice right now is to stay away from the game. The version of the game I played is a mess, and not worth your money. Keep an eye on the forums, check to see if reviews are updated as the game is patched, and then make a decision. Sadly, I'll be traveling starting on Wednesday, and the week after that I'll be out of the office taking part in E3 preview events filled with games I can't talk about. It's going to be a good long time before I can download the PC version of the game and tell you what I think.

In my opinion, that's a good thing. Let's give the game some time to breathe, to get some patches, and then we'll revisit it and see what has happened. There are hints of a good— maybe great—game here. Nothing would be better than to have the technical issues melt away to expose the fun underneath.