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

Seven doesn't mean good, and that is the problem. As scores are so inflated, 7 means "skip it" by a fairly wide margin.

Ghots4ever don't understand what is Mirror Edge about. Mirror Edge is based on real life sport. Since when sport is action and fighting game? Just another person with low IQ who knows nothing outside gaming. Sad.

@FreedomFreeLife: You really shouldn't be talking about anyone else's alleged IQ with grammar as bad as yours.

It is based upon real life sport, but it is not a sport game. So if I get into a street fight with a mugger, and I clinch and knee him, that does not mean we were thai boxing. It is an action, fighting and freerunning game. It has all the hallmarks of all three. And yeah, if you think someone did not understand your point, that does not mean they have a low IQ. One would think generalizing someone like that based upon a few posts shows, if anything, a lack of critical thinking and deduction on your part.....

By your logic game of thrones is action tv show because it has fighting and death scenes. And yet show is drama, not action. Mirror Edge is not action game. Just because you can fight doesn't make this action game.

It's called multi-genre, it's not usually one or the other..........

It's parkour game. It's about running and story, not combat, just like they banned gun gameplay from game because it's all about running and running.

Gaming logic: Anything below a 9 or 90% is garbage.

He hates anything that doesn't include pew pew pew, cause he is so "manly".

my friend old school twitch shooters are more than just pew pew pew. they are fast paced shooting horde of enemies alone with complex level design.

@ghosts4ever: The new doom game has nothing in common with the word "complexity", it's just a mediocre shooter that's all. And no amount of manly tears will change that.

mediocre shooter with best gunplay since FEAR 1?

yes it has complex level design and has tons of exploration. this and shadow warrior 2 will rule 2016.

Keep dreaming, arma 3 is way more complex than your tiny run and gun game, that throws health and ammo packs at you whenever you need some.

apples or orange? arma 3 is not FPS. its mil sim

it was not even launch with SP contents. what a joke.

Doom is the reason why FPS exsits now. new doom is just reimagining of early doom games. and become better than doom 3. Hard reset also throw health and ammo packs.

Late to this, but Mirror's Flop: Cataflop am confirmed. :P

The game looks decent enough, though I wasn't a particular fan of the first one. Not my thing. I wonder if the addition of an open world/sandbox improves or worsens the experience.

I never thought this game looks good, but then again, I thought the first game was pretty lame as well.

Never thought we'd ever get a sequel to Mirror's Edge. What's next? A Brink sequel?

Too bad all the first person running around gives me motion sickness.

If in doubt or an EA game flops just blame the moron Anita Sarkeesian or other SJWs

I enjoyed the first. I enjoyed the time trials more than game itself.

ButvIm showing too much love for sf5 as my friends do a local meet up on a Monday so been busting every moment I get on it to get to there level. Friends keep saying "pokken" so it's a toss up between those 2.

Seven on this website literally means good, on a lot of website 7 means a good game. They can't just up and have an announcement to say "hey forgot all the old scores, we reinvented our scale to properly convey this". That's what the words in the review are for. Video game critics deserve a shit ton of the blame for how inflated scores are, because they still fucking give games way too much credit for functionality, presentation, and story, and not enough criticism for being weak at the gameplayinteractive bits (The Witcher 3 a good game, is an example of that). But gamers themselves being unable to ever handle criticism and buying into anything below an 8 is unplayable, is on them. It's on the audience at that point.

You don't adjust that much to the audience if they choose to be stupid. Because slowly but surely, they'll begin to understand that at certain places a 7 isn't all that bad. Even on SW we recognize when Edge and Eurogamer were giving 7s, and this is when this place was high on the traffic department, we all knew, hey that's actually a good score from them. It's one of the reasons their 9 out of 10s made everyone do double takes.

Jesus, you are dense..........

A seven still translates to skip it. It might have the word 'good' next to it on a lot of websites, but it still translates to not worth buying, and has for years. Heck New Vegas was a buggy mess at launch that was hardly playable. It's was so broken that the low review scores stopped the devs from bonusing, and people were recommending avoiding it until it was fixed.

It's average at that time was 7.9. We might now be reaching the point where 7-7.9 means something other then "has an incredibly frustrating number of bugs" but it still doesn't mean worth buying.

A seven translates to skip it to you, because you overly bought too hard into the 8-10 scale bullshit. New Vegas while buggy also happens to be one of the finer rpgs (you know if things like gameplay and questing matter in a RPG) of the past decade, made Bethesda's offerings look like child's play by comparison. On a proper scale, and on this website, no it's still very much the game is good. If you choose to skip the game because it's a 7, you're part of the problem. But, you're gamer, that goes without saying.

No, not to me. I am not talking about my subjective interpretation. I am talking about how the scale is actually used.

New Vegas was getting reviewed at an average of 7.9 while reviewers were recommending people not purchase it, and there was talk of re-reviewing the game after it had been fixed so the score would reflect the actual game. 7.9 directly translated to "You shouldn't buy this game because it is extremely broken, but keep an eye on it because it might one day be good."

And remember, that 7.9 was so bad it cost a lot of people a lot of money. 80 was the cut off, the minimum standard they failed to meet because the game was released in a state most considered broken. You can ignore that as hard as you want and try to blame others, but it is history.

And the only way that changes is for people to write reviews with 7s saying "This is a good game. If you like this genre, you should consider it."

Which is what they're doing.

Publishing business practices being shit, isn't an argument. That's reaching for a straw sport.

Second: http://www.metacritic.com/game/xbox-360/fallout-new-vegas/critic-reviews It's an 84, and reading any of those reviews you hardly get a skip it from any of them. we're talking about the difference between an 85 and an 84 for why they missed their bonus, which I'm not exactly keen on thinking is the reviewers problem. But I don't really want to argue if New Vegas was broken or not, that's a moot point and doesn't translate to today.

Today if the review scales are going to improve than yes the audience must be willing to accept that slowly but surely the critics are going to use more of the scale, as in all of it, as in a 7 when they say is a good game (and in the case of a van ord review, yeah a 7 in his mind was a good game), it means it's a good game. Unless they out right say the fucking words skip it, without a qualifier, you're projecting what you think 7 means in this medium. That's on you.

Yeah no. When they do that, Overwatch will get a 7 and Mirrors Edge will get a 4 or 5. You yourself conceded scores were wildly inflated, why the change of heart?

@kittennose No change of heart at all. That's literally what I've been saying the entire time.

I did say that most big budget productions are pretty solid, but that's true regardless of whether a 5 is the norm or a 7 is the norm.

I'd argue that a lot of games for review are played extremely quickly, and that doesn't help.

But considering that most of the places scoring this a 7, which we've agreed should be considered "good," are calling it a good game with some flaws, I don't see the problem.

Yeah, scores were inflated for a few years. You fix that by using the scale properly. It's not hard.

@jg4xchamp:You must have missed the part where I said "At the time off" and "There was talk of re-reviewing."

@DarkLink77: I don't apply the "inflated" to just the nine and tens. I think it is true of the eight and sevens as well.

Nice to hear this. The first one got the same score and I enjoyed it so I'll be picking this one up, but not at full price.

Yeah, the whole scale has been off.

But again, if we say a 5 is good, 6 is fair, 7 is good, 8 is great, etc and stick to that scale, the issues will work itself out.

People are saying Mirror's Edge is fair to good. It's scoring in the 6-7 range. On this one, I don't see an issue.

I would say if you rank Mirror's Edge against other recently reviewed games it ranks lower then $15 dollar titles, which puts a $60 dollar game deep inside the "Rent don't buy" category. If this $60 dollar game doesn't beat Overwatch or Hyperlight Drifter, there is no way it earns a six or a seven.

Wonderful, so lets meet half way and pretend you are 100% right about Fallout New Vegas scenario. Maximum Right. Too right for this world. You are making a fallacious argument that ignores that the scale can't change, and the general audience critiquing something can't change. How it was used then, doesn't necessarily mean that's how it is used now.

Given how many websites there are, and how 75 actually became green for Metacritic (mid last gen, that was yellow), I'd say we have a tangible evidence for more and more critics using more and more of the scale. They still suck, because well they are gamers, but to be so stubborn to just assume that 2011's rules still apply to 2016 is again being part of the issue. The critics need to change, no disagreement, but the audience has to accept it with them.

And you assuming that even now, when all the reviews are saying otherwise, that a 7 means skip it, is what it is. It is incorrect.

@jg4xchamp: Cute strawman for someone using the word fallacious. Let me know if you would like to address my position.

I did address your position, I never disagreed with the notion that game critics had a tendency to use the 8-10 scale. Our argument was that a 7/10 shouldn't be a skip it, and nowadays isn't being written as a "skip it". You, as in you chose to look at it that way, because you would rather be stubborn, then just accept that you know what half those idiots actually figured out a way to improve. And the audience should learn to accept that shit as well.

That's not strawman that's choosing to not be ignorant or pay attention to context. What an absurd notion.

Because lets say that they do think the game is good, by your logic they should have given it a more than a 7, because of how the scale used to be. Instead of actually fixing the problem, they are just going to continue to be shit. The current solution of actually present 7 as good and stick to it, which they are, is an actual solution. You're just making excuses for yourself.

Ah, so now we're using the "gameplay per dollar" argument. Sorry, that doesn't fly with me. Something's quality is not dictated by its quantity.

Essentially, it seems to me that your argument is this: "This game got a seven. I don't think this game should have gotten a seven because of x, y, and z, therefore the reviewers are wrong and the score is inflated."

And considering I doubt you've played the game yet, I don't think you can make observations about how much it's worth.

A game that costs sixty dollars should be better then a game that cost fifteen the same way it would work with a meal.

You agreed that scores were inflated, so don't know why you are changing your mind. Again. Pick a position?

We are in a thread in which everyone is talking about this review before the game has come out.

The more I play of this game the more I like it. It's really something special imo.

That is so wrong I don't even know where to start. That doesn't even work for food. $60 could just mean you ordered more food. It doesn't mean it's better. You've never had bad expensive food? Price doesn't equal quality. It never has. And there are plenty of indie games that are better than AAA releases.

I'm not changing my mind. I have said nothing contradictory throughout this whole thing. Yes, scores are inflated. We should bring them down. But saying "I don't agree with this score because it doesn't fit my preconceived notions" is not the same as "Scores are inflated."

Right, but your logic is that the game is someone undeserving of being called good or fair because games that cost less are better. That's non-logic. Cost doesn't dictate quality.

I said a $60 meal/game should be better then a $15 meal/game. Didn't say it was automatically better. In fact I am saying the fact that this game can't match low budget indy quality is a reason to avoid paying $60 for it.

If game scores are inflated, then this one is inflated to. This isn't magically the exception to the rule because ... reasons?

Never said anything of the sort. If however these game devs can't pull off the quality of indy devs charging a forth the price, that should be considered a major problem, not top tier work.

I started this last night, the mechanics seem alright but man the open world design is bland. Its mostly collectibles and shitty timed fetch quests with fail screens and long load times if you mess up. Collectibles are such a bad idea since the fun comes from sprinting around and maintaining speed, stopping to pick up collectibles literally kills the momentum.

the story missions are a bit better so far, very similar to what Mirrors Edge 1 offered though. I have a hard time understanding why they thought making this open world was a good idea

So I've played about 8 hours on Xbox One and a little over an hour on PC (stunning!) and I feel like I am playing a different game than everyone who doesn't like it. This is literally the opposite that happened where everyone loved The Witcher 3 and I hated it. Mirrors Edge Catalyst is amazing.

The gameplay is so much fun. Imagine yourself playing a parkour/platforming section of Uncharted 4. You know those parts where it looks like you are doing amazing stunts? Now imagine if you were actually in control of those stunts and the success or failure of those stunts required some sort of skill on your part. Then imagine if you could approach those segments whatever way you wanted instead of there only being a single way or path to complete the obstacles. That game would resemble Mirrors Edge Catalyst. The soundtrack is great, the atmosphere is amazing and the visuals.... Wow. The timed delivery side quests are challenging and fun as well. Yeah the collectables may slow down momentum but this is true for any game that features collectables.

My only real gripe is the skill tree stuff. It's about as tacked on as any mechanic I've ever seen. Why are half of the skills on the tree unlocked from the beginning? Why even have them there then? The skill tree mechanics really don't make too much sense. The employees responsible for this should probably be drug tested.