Mirror's Edge: Catalyst: 7/10 on Gamespot

All this review did is remind me ME 1 is one of 80+ games I have in my Steam backlog thats been sitting there for years :(

No? All challeneges modes or something?

Kinda. One is story stuff, but it's really short.

Yeah going OW is such a crazy decision, but I guess they wouldn't have been allowed to do it otherwise by EA. The other focus, an expanded melee combat, was also wrong :(. Minimalist HUD-less design was so great in the first, but like you said it's kind of impossible for OW and on top the new melee system introduced that super unelegant circle. For parkour you also want hand build stages that you can play over and over to perfect.

Damn, it's so obvious what they should have done and yet....

I I feel like this forum is slowly killing my braincells, one by one.

Played the beta. I expected much worse from what I played. That being said I didn't like the first one too much.

So you have negative brain cells?

Will wait for more reviews. First one started really well then became a drag later on. Overall it was pretty good game but could've been better. Was looking forward to this game to fix the issues of the first one and really take full advantage of the genre.

Bound to. There was no hype surrounding it.

It's like complaining about combat in a Stealth game. Seems like reviewer judged the game based on what he wanted it to be and not on what it is. It was never meant to be an action game to begin with (so don't understand what's up with this "disappointing action game" statement) and I'm glad that they targeted original audience with this game. Will pick up the game in the near future.

Mirrors Edge is a very niche game, and I sort of expect niche games to review low. If the PC version ever works well I assume I will have a lot of fun with this game, likely avoiding all/most combat. 10/10? Nah, but I bet it ranks a solid 'blast' on a scale from 'meh' to 'Oh my god I am going to die of fun'

stealth games are based on stealth. this mirrors edge is action game. and combat should be reviewed and judge

Witcher 3 always get free pass for having lackluster combat.

I really enjoy the combat from playing it in Access, it's fast, blending in with running smoothly, kicking an enemy through glass or off a roof all while continuing on your way never gets old.

I've put in the 6 hours Access let me then about 8 hours Beta playtime, never got bored.

Mirror's Edge was amazing back in 2008, the concept isn't that refreshing now so this game is essentially for the fans. So far this seems like an improved version of the first one, so I'm definitely playing this.

Playing the EA Access trial right now, actually it isn't so bad. Will definitely get when it's a bit cheaper. But, I'm impulsive, I might not even wait that long. Let's see how I feel at the end of my 6 hour trial.

Anyhow, I know they did the BC on Xbox One thing but they should really consider doing a slapdash remaster of the original and making it available digitally at a nominal price. That was great and people who missed out last gen should get another shot to try it.

Kick that crap to the curb.

saw the game running on the Bone... looked atrocious.

I didn't even realize that this was coming out so soon...

@freedomfreak: ign recommended to go PC version if possible. Say the textures on both consoles were not very good. probably pick it up on PC. Loved the original.

Possibly.

The visuals are hit or miss but the early trial and $6 discount from EA Access makes them tolerable. And the gameplay is great. I'm a double dipper anyway and will get the PC version after I finish the Xbone run. I just can't justify Origin Access too when they don't offer most of the spots titles...

Mirror's edge is not an action/fighting game. It was always about parkour and running away from your enemies. If combat made you feel like Rambo then there would've been no reason to run, which means... completely different genre. A lot of people complain about certain mechanics not taking their long term use into account.

Since game reviews became a thing.

"Mind you, they reviewed the Xbox One version. Reports are coming in that PC version isn't great, so needless to say, it would've scored higher had it been reviewed on the Ps4, due to it being the best platform for multiplats."

The magic station 4 version is awesome. It fixed the combat and storytelling. :-S

Well, at least this can wait a little. I might even pick it up in a sale down the road.

The fact that complain about the combat yet say it's avoidable, and fault a PLATFORMER for story-telling just goes to show you how messed up Gamespot's review staff's priorities are.

The original was a 7/10 and received mixed scores across the board as well, and was my Game of the Generation last gen. I would be eager to get this, but with a wedding coming up in 20 days, buying anything hobby related is just laughable.

Will definitely be picking it up later this year with Doom (2016).

When the gaming "journalism" industry uses only a small portion of the available scoring scale, it devalues higher scores.

the beta i played was super meh. this is definitely a bargain bin game if you can get it on pc.

No shit.

The issue is that most big budget games are pretty decent. Very few people on this forum have actually played bad games.

I actively try to avoid them. I barely have time to play the ones I have. I don't feel like experimenting with bombs.

I'm not saying you should play them. I'm just saying people who don't play bad games shouldn't lose their minds when decent games score decently.

Yeah that is not how scales work. If most readers have no reason to play games ranked an eight out of ten, then that scale is not calibrated for the readers, it is calibrated for publishers. Likely dictated by advertising revenue largely comes from publishers. There just isn't a point of having a 1-7.5 if anything between 7.5 and 8 equals a "Do not buy" warning.

I played the beta and that was enough for me. I was really excited for this game too, but after playing the beta, the combat is just too clunky in contrast to the fluidity they aim for in movement. After about 3 hours or so I was like yeah I think i've seen everything I need to here.

The scale is probably better than it has been in a decade. Look at what's scoring in the nineties now. There's not a whole lot of games. Reviewers are using the whole scale more than they have been.

We just need our internal scales to catch up.

It isn't the job of the readers to adapt to the reviewers. The only reason we would need our scales to catch up would be if the customers the reviewers were catering to was publishers instead of readers. 'Not worth buying' shouldn't be a 7.8. It shouldn't even be a 5.

I mean, a five is pretty average.

I don't think there's many sites using 7s as "this game is bad, don't buy it."

First game was meh - this looks like much of the same.

This exchange started when you weighed in on an 8 being a bad score with "No Shit" and talked about how people don't play bad games. The average game worth purchasing should be a 5, not somewhere over an 8. "Worth sixty bucks but not worth getting excited about" shouldn't be equated with the upper tier of gaming.

I was saying "no shit" to the idea of score inflation.

I think 5 should be an average. Personally, I think anything over a 6 is more good than bad. Still, every review I've read with a 7 or higher means "good," especially today. That's how I write mine.

Should a five be average? Sure. Would most people purchase that game? Hell no.

None of the reviews are describing the game as average (most of it is a the game is good, but it has a glaring flaw or two), what the shit is anyone even talking about in this thread?

You fucking tell me, man. Apparently 7s and 8s are bad scores.

I am saying what most people will purchase should be a five, not something over 8, and the fact reviewers are calling a product "good" when most people wouldn't buy it is a bad thing. Readers shouldn't be adjusting themselves to such a scale. More and more people are starting to consider the sites that created the scale to be jokes.

I mean heck, this forum categorizes 7.9 as a flop.

I don't know what you want them to do. When they're using the whole scale, as they are here with a 7 being good, that's a problem. But if they don't, it's a problem, too. I think reviews should be unscored, but beyond that there's no quick fix aside from people getting used to the idea that a 7 is a good score.

To be fair to the forum, flopping here is based on hype, not score.

is this game 60fps on consoles? thx in advance

Oh hey a seven! That's a good score.

Good, people. Take note: this is what a proper rating scale looks like.

Seems like a great concept that had horrible execution.

So I just went as far as the EA Access trial would let me before the release. (15 minutes ago). This game has moved into my top 3 of 2016 and has pulled me away from the other 2 games in my top 3. Doom and Overwatch. I love the futuristic sci-fi setting and this game does it as well as any game not called Mass Effect. I can see the points made about the story or tacked on rpg elements, but the game is more original than 95% of the stuff out there. No game has nailed it's setting or atmosphere this well since Splatoon. And that game was in my top 3 of 2015. People can get hung up on scores if they want. Any Mirrors Edge fan should jump in head first on this game. It's fantastic.

Fell victim to the open world trend and trying to casualize and streamline games when your core audience doesn't want this.

Still keen to play this one, assuming the PC version isnt too terrible.

Been hearing some good things and fair share of criticisms from people that have been playing it. I like the concept enough and wouldnt mind if it's more of the first game.

I knew the games weren't for everyone, but I'm really surprised by the amount of hate for the series in this forum. Too bad. Guess I should just count my blessings we got a second one at all.