Mirror's Edge should've been given a 10

For it's gameplay, alone .Not only was it original for it's time...but it plays so well. Terrific button layout and very satisfying gameplay, just one of those games you've always wanted in such a perspective. Gamespot's reasoning for a 7 is rather lame, saying it's trial and error...in other the reviwer simply sucked and wanted to just shoot stuff, it's focus is platforming and with combat/gunplay limited. Defitenily underrated from what i can tell. and yeah i'm late, i know.

Thoughts?

An 8 sounds right. A 10 does not.

An 8 sounds right. A 10 does not.

LegatoSkyheart

Yahtzee legitimately seemed like he hated it, which is saying something since he seems to mostly just "strongly dislike" most games.

It was fun, but severely flawed and required too much trial and error in some parts.

nah. there are a lot of games that are original and play well, too. besides, Mirror's Edge isn't really original. there's a first-person platformer in the PS1. and Mirrors is like 5 hours long.

i reckon it's also quite easy to design for. if you bring out the camera to third-person, then it wouldn't even pose a challenge given the level design. imagine Prince of Persia Sands of Time on a first-person view. now that would be a challenge.

[QUOTE="LegatoSkyheart"]

An 8 sounds right. A 10 does not.

soapandbubbles

Are you trolling? 'Strong story', DICE can't do story, they're worse than Blizzard.

It doesn't deserve a 10, it 'is' a flawed game, a breath of fresh air, a cool risk, but it was faulted.

nah. there are a lot of games that are original and play well, too. besides, Mirror's Edge isn't really original. there's a first-person platformer in the PS1. and Mirrors is like 5 hours long.

i reckon it's also quite easy to design for. if you bring out the camera to third-person, then it wouldn't even pose a challenge given the level design. imagine Prince of Persia Sands of Time on a first-person view. now that would be a challenge.

rumbalumba

Nope. I feel they were a little too giving with the 7 they gave it.

I dunno, I was pumped for it in the first level but I couldn't stay interested for much longer. Maybe I should give it another try.

An 8 sounds right. A 10 does not.

LegatoSkyheart

This. very flawed in aspects but enjoyable and super unique.

[QUOTE="soapandbubbles"][QUOTE="LegatoSkyheart"] Well, considering till this day..no other game plays like it or as good. Mirror's edge can simply be perfected if the amount of attention goes towards the environments you play in, with a strong story to back it up. Inconsistancy

Are you trolling? 'Strong story', DICE can't do story, they're worse than Blizzard.

It doesn't deserve a 10, it 'is' a flawed game, a breath of fresh air, a cool risk, but it was faulted.

nah. there are a lot of games that are original and play well, too. besides, Mirror's Edge isn't really original. there's a first-person platformer in the PS1. and Mirrors is like 5 hours long.

i reckon it's also quite easy to design for. if you bring out the camera to third-person, then it wouldn't even pose a challenge given the level design. imagine Prince of Persia Sands of Time on a first-person view. now that would be a challenge.

rumbalumba

I really Mirror Edge but honestly gameplay was one its biggest flaws. I like the vibe, the visuals, the sooundtrack, the concept but it felt clunky to actually play. Still it felt fresh and was a lot of fun. Gameplay would have been a lot better if the whole game was designed in 3rd person view but I like the game as it is cuz of the 1st person view concept... which is what limits gameplay and level design a lot in the first place.

Nah.I'd go with an 8.

Underrated and unique...sure,but the game does have plenty of flaws.However,I do find it idiotic that a couple of reviewers criticized the shooting aspects of Mirror's Edge,when the game was about avoiding/running from enemies rather mindlessly blowing them away.

course they can, they have enough great influences out their to implement some deeper story. How exactly was the game flawed? at least elaborate. The game is simply a platformer designed around FP mechanics..there is nothing flawed or complex about it. Since it is the FIRST game, of course things can be improved, hence me mentioning it...but the gameplay a lone was top notch. soapandbubbles

The story isn't 'complex' it's not deep.. You don't know why you're doing anything, it's never explained, it's just a few random characters who you have no attachment to.

You're just expected to accept that the government is evil and doesn't want the free trade of ideas through a physical medium for some reason and apparently has nothing better to do than viciously hunting down mailmen with whole battalion of police. It would seem that the government has conquered crime, that hardly seems evil.

I really Mirror Edge but honestly gameplay was one its biggest flaws. I like the vibe, the visuals, the sooundtrack, the concept but it felt clunky to actually play. Still it felt fresh and was a lot of fun. Gameplay would have been a lot better if the whole game was designed in 3rd person view but I like the game as it is cuz of the 1st person view concept... which is what limits gameplay and level design a lot in the first place.

m_machine024

The story isn't 'complex' it's not deep.. You don't know why you're doing anything, it's never explained, it's just a few random characters who you have no attachment to.Inconsistancy

Its a really good game but its no 10 IMO.

I thought the button layout (on the 360 wireless, haven't used the DS3 to play it) was terrible. I could never fully master the layout. And some areas were definitely dragged down by tedious vertical, slow-speed puzzles. That said, it was a highly original game that I thought at the time would have revolutionized movement in first-person. But that was 4 years ago and still we are stuck with bodiless arms floating through levels. Personally, it was a "10/10 experience". I bought it as soon as I tried the demo, and when I brought the full game home, I sat down with it and finished it in five and a half hours (then the next day, I plowed through it on hard, with the "no-kill" achievement). It still ranks as one of the best and most memorable games I have played this generation. Technically, it was rough but beautiful, and a lot of design elements should have been fleshed out more, or dropped entirely (guns were useless and unnecessary). I fear it's sequel will be casualized, action-focused, EA-destroyed trash.Zeviander

I hated the love the game gets.

It deserves it's criticsm. It's a cool and unique concept, amazing visuals both technically and artistically, but the gameplay was extremly flawed and there wasn't much to it. The challenge rooms were alright though.

I would love Mirrors Edge 2, because it's a real cool IP

[...] but severely flawed and required too much trial and error in some parts.SPYDER0416

[QUOTE="SPYDER0416"][...] but severely flawed and required too much trial and error in some parts.Zeviander

This was different. It was platformer/parkour. It should be a smooth and fluid experience.

[QUOTE="Zeviander"][QUOTE="SPYDER0416"][...] but severely flawed and required too much trial and error in some parts.OB-47

This was different. It was platformer/parkour. It should be a smooth and fluid experience.

[QUOTE="SPYDER0416"][...] but severely flawed and required too much trial and error in some parts.Zeviander

I am familiar with good platforming, not platforming where heavily armored guys kill you or when a fall due to faulty collision detection sends me back 10 minutes because of poor checkpoints.

Plus this isn't normal platforming, this is a game that emphasizes quick and fluid motions through an environment, with some levels forcing you to move quick or die. Trial and error is apparently highly necessary, but the game itself frowns upon it, and its much too overly linear when the environment could do so much more with different paths or creative ways though.

As its stands, its an average game with a highly unique concept that makes it stand out for some. Its not even like first person platforming is a new thing, we've been doing it since Half-Life in the 90's, ME just makes it look cool, up until you die or miss a jump and get sent back forever ago.

Yahtzee legitimately seemed like he hated it, which is saying something since he seems to mostly just "strongly dislike" most games.

It was fun, but severely flawed and required too much trial and error in some parts.

SPYDER0416

Its a really great game, I own both PS3 and PC versions. I love it, great for speed runs, great music, amazing graphics, amazing gameplay, but not a 10. Maybe a 9 for me as it holds a lot more replay value then most games for me due to the speed run element to the game. Its a shame it didnt sell so well and is £4 in every shop, yet if it wasnt £4, I would have never of played it. Bummer...

[QUOTE="OB-47"]

[QUOTE="Zeviander"] Hi, you must not be familiar with the platformer genre.soapandbubbles

This was different. It was platformer/parkour. It should be a smooth and fluid experience.

I bought the game day one for Christs sake. I watched all the videos, read all the articles. I was so hyped for it.

I eventually traded it in with some other games for Brink, which was another parkour/shooter dissapointment.

[QUOTE="Zeviander"][QUOTE="SPYDER0416"][...] but severely flawed and required too much trial and error in some parts.OB-47

This was different. It was platformer/parkour. It should be a smooth and fluid experience.

[QUOTE="Inconsistancy"]The story isn't 'complex' it's not deep.. You don't know why you're doing anything, it's never explained, it's just a few random characters who you have no attachment to.Zeviander

Asking for a "good story" in a game is dumb, especially in a game that is focused on providing a very refined, and simplistic gameplay experience.

It may not be necessary, and a bad one can 'hurt' a game (like Rage), but it doesn't hurt if it's done well, it makes it better.

6.5 seems about right. Imperfect controls, rather bad pacing with too much focus on environmental puzzles and awful combat sequences that should have been left out altogether. Trial and error was also a big problem as objectives were often unclear and the game didn't always make clear which objects were climbable. Add to that the fact that it's criminally short, and you have a long list of legitimate complaints against this game. It has nothing to do with finding the game too difficult or only wanting to shoot guys. Because despite its amazing presentation and original approach, it's pretty far from being the amazing game that is often implied in SW.

I love Mirror's Edge but I wouldn't say its a 10 more like of a 9-9.5

[QUOTE="m_machine024"]

I really Mirror Edge but honestly gameplay was one its biggest flaws. I like the vibe, the visuals, the sooundtrack, the concept but it felt clunky to actually play. Still it felt fresh and was a lot of fun. Gameplay would have been a lot better if the whole game was designed in 3rd person view but I like the game as it is cuz of the 1st person view concept... which is what limits gameplay and level design a lot in the first place.

Inconsistancy

the game itself IS good..its when the combat comes into play is when it fails...very clumsy controls

Bwahahahah :lol:

Oh he's serious:|

Bwahahahahha! :lol:

Oh you crack me up ol' boy!

ME is one of the most frustrating, poorly designed, overrated games this generation.

Being original or unique doesn't make a game automatically good. ME had a few problems in it's gameplay and pacing. It was a 7-8 game.

Bwahahahah :lol:

Oh he's serious:|

Bwahahahahha! :lol:

Oh you crack me up ol' boy!

ME is one of the most frustrating, poorly designed, overrated games this generation.

biggest_loser

And you came to this conclusion because?

I love it but it had its own flaws. The story was weak, the game was 4hrs long, the "bosses" were a joke, and god damn was it predictable in it's paths.

I love it but it had its own flaws. The story was weak, the game was 4hrs long, the "bosses" were a joke, and god damn was it predictable in it's paths.

mccoyca112

This was different. It was platformer/parkour. It should be a smooth and fluid experience.OB-47

[QUOTE="OB-47"]This was different. It was platformer/parkour. It should be a smooth and fluid experience.Zeviander

Sorry I must have missed all those parkour videos where the supposedly seasons veterans of parkour repeatedly kicked themselves off a wall or fell to their death because of a ledge that could be grabbed in any circumstance except in a videogame, or because the jump decided to lift me higher then the last time I jumped.

This is a game about fast paced parkour in lethal areas as a seasons parkour badass, I'm not doing jumps off a park bench as a 14 year old free runner in training.

[QUOTE="OB-47"]This was different. It was platformer/parkour. It should be a smooth and fluid experience.Zeviander

The experience of parkour is that of smooth transition and movement. The game should keep with these traits. There are slower moments in parkour, but they are never messy and unfluid. When Mirrors Edge got a bit too ambitious, it got messy and there was too much stop start to the flow.

And why should Mirrors Edge be held by the constraints of the genre? Should the fact that it's a platformer hold it back from truly showing the parkour experience?

Sorry I must have missed all those parkour videos where the supposedly seasons veterans of parkour repeatedly kicked themselves off a wall or fell to their death because of a ledge that could be grabbed in any circumstance except in a videogame, or because the jump decided to lift me higher then the last time I jumped. This is a game about fast paced parkour in lethal areas as a seasons parkour badass, I'm not doing jumps off a park bench as a 14 year old free runner in training.SPYDER0416

The experience of parkour is that of smooth transition and movement. The game should keep with these traits. There are slower moments in parkour, but they are never messy and unfluid. When Mirrors Edge got a bit too ambitious, it got messy and there was too much stop start to the flow. And why should Mirrors Edge be held by the constraints of the genre? Should the fact that it's a platformer hold it back from truly showing the parkour experience?OB-47

6.5 seems about right. Imperfect controls, rather bad pacing with too much focus on environmental puzzles and awful combat sequences that should have been left out altogether. Trial and error was also a big problem as objectives were often unclear and the game didn't always make clear which objects were climbable. Add to that the fact that it's criminally short, and you have a long list of legitimate complaints against this game. It has nothing to do with finding the game too difficult or only wanting to shoot guys. Because despite its amazing presentation and original approach, it's pretty far from being the amazing game that is often implied in SW.

DraugenCP

[QUOTE="OB-47"]The experience of parkour is that of smooth transition and movement. The game should keep with these traits. There are slower moments in parkour, but they are never messy and unfluid. When Mirrors Edge got a bit too ambitious, it got messy and there was too much stop start to the flow. And why should Mirrors Edge be held by the constraints of the genre? Should the fact that it's a platformer hold it back from truly showing the parkour experience?Zeviander

I'm not saying ME had to be a simulator at all. It doesn't need to be realistic. It's just that the game had too many segments that jarred with the flow of parkour. Like the gunplay and some very messy levels when it felt it needed to get more ambitious than it was. It should just provide the experience of parkour, not simulate everything.

PGR4 gives me the experience of high speed racing with style. It doesn't simulate everything, but the experience is there.

Anyway, I agree. They should have followed up by a sequel, because so many of EA's other IP's didn't warrant one and yet they got them (Army of Two)

Okay, so let me see if I understand this. You want the guy who reviewed Mirrors Edge to change his opinion on it just to suit your own personal opinion, which makes him wrong because he didn't give it the score you wanted?

Has it ever occured to you that people have different opinions and the right to express them? And mabey neither of you are wrong and are both right in your own way? If you want Mirror's Edge to get a 10 you should review it yourself, your opinion of a game is the only one that matters.

And I disagree with both the GS score and yours as well, the game was a solid 8 for me.