Mirror's Edge is like ICO, Silent Hill Shattered Memories, and Red Steel 2. A short, flawed, and amazing game that will change the way you look at games forver.
What's the general opinion on Mirror's Edge?
This topic is locked from further discussion.
I loved it, but it became so haaaaard about halfway thru.
It has flaws.
Almost impossible to get thru the game without killing anyone.
All games have killing.
I think it's refreshing if a game lets me finish it and I don't have to stab or shoot anyone.
Mirror's Edge is like ICO, Silent Hill Shattered Memories, and Red Steel 2. A short, flawed, and amazing game that will change the way you look at games forver.
goblaa
^^ this
(...)It never does enough with the whole runner concept, instead inexplicably deciding to focus on combat and shooting military-police types, (...)skrat_01[QUOTE="skrat_01"](...)And it also had distinct vision and a pretty cool protagonist, the developers weren't aiming for lazy exploitation, even if there was tons of writing problems there: (super rebellious runner, running from the heavily armed totalitarian state, only to constantly take up arms and slaughter huge amounts of soldiers to get from point A to point B - to a ludicrous extent in the finale). That's some bad, bad, bad characterisation through game mechanics. But I'm Mirror's Edge is around. For all its faults and the silly gushing it has received, it's really something, and the same can't be said for other 'good' games. It's not the games fault, it is you who misplayed it. The game is designed for running so run! If you decide to try to "slaughter huge amounts of soldiers" it is your issue. It is not something the game encourage, or forces you to do (except 3 times, total 8 soldiers). In fact it's the opposite. To get great times you must avoid enemy encounters as much as possible. You should take responsibility of your own experience instead of blaming things you can control on the developers.
[QUOTE="skrat_01"](...)It never does enough with the whole runner concept, instead inexplicably deciding to focus on combat and shooting military-police types, (...)Sushiglutton[QUOTE="skrat_01"](...)And it also had distinct vision and a pretty cool protagonist, the developers weren't aiming for lazy exploitation, even if there was tons of writing problems there: (super rebellious runner, running from the heavily armed totalitarian state, only to constantly take up arms and slaughter huge amounts of soldiers to get from point A to point B - to a ludicrous extent in the finale). That's some bad, bad, bad characterisation through game mechanics. But I'm Mirror's Edge is around. For all its faults and the silly gushing it has received, it's really something, and the same can't be said for other 'good' games. It's not the games fault, it is you who misplayed it. The game is designed for running so run! If you decide to try to "slaughter huge amounts of soldiers" it is your issue. It is not something the game encourage, or forces you to do (except 3 times, total 8 soldiers). In fact it's the opposite. To get great times you must avoid enemy encounters as much as possible. You should take responsibility of your own experience instead of blaming things you can control on the developers. 'Misplayed' is outright one of the worst ways to justify a developers bad design decisions. The game has combat designed into it - it teaches you melee and ranged combat, and the provides ample of opportunities to seize weapons and fight hostiles. In plenty of instances as the game progresses there are levels which throw you into enemy crosshairs or lock you in combat arenas to fight off foes. Yes it's a game about running, and the developers utterly neglected that and felt the necessity to put forced combat, and a bizzare focus on it in it. Timing is never important unless you're playing for time trials, in which that is the goal. The goal during the entire course of the singleplayer story is moving from A to B or fending off a wave of enemies. Fluidity of movement is a means to getting to that goal during that time, combat breaks up the fluidity (as does a lot of the stop and start jumping sections, that have you scale things - though I think that's enjoyable pacing which focuses on the platforming). 'Responsibility'? That's hilarious. The designers are the ones who put these mechanics and systems in, they're the ones who established the rules of the game, all I did is enact everything in there and taught to me. I never played it 'incorrectly' I didn't bend the rules or modify the mechanics. It's attitudes like yours which attempt to excuse and turn a blind eye to poor decisions by the developers, or outright bad game design. These problems are inherent to Mirror's Edge's faults, you might be able to overlook them but that doesn't stop them for existing.
[QUOTE="Sushiglutton"] It's not the games fault, it is you who misplayed it. The game is designed for running so run! If you decide to try to "slaughter huge amounts of soldiers" it is your issue. It is not something the game encourage, or forces you to do (except 3 times, total 8 soldiers). In fact it's the opposite. To get great times you must avoid enemy encounters as much as possible. You should take responsibility of your own experience instead of blaming things you can control on the developers.skrat_01'Misplayed' is outright one of the worst ways to justify a developers bad design decisions. The game has combat designed into it - it teaches you melee and ranged combat, and the provides ample of opportunities to seize weapons and fight hostiles. In plenty of instances as the game progresses there are levels which throw you into enemy crosshairs or lock you in combat arenas to fight off foes. Yes it's a game about running, and the developers utterly neglected that and felt the necessity to put forced combat, and a bizzare focus on it in it. Timing is never important unless you're playing for time trials, in which that is the goal. The goal during the entire course of the singleplayer story is moving from A to B or fending off a wave of enemies. Fluidity of movement is a means to getting to that goal during that time, combat breaks up the fluidity (as does a lot of the stop and start jumping sections, that have you scale things - though I think that's enjoyable pacing which focuses on the platforming). 'Responsibility'? That's hilarious. The designers are the ones who put these mechanics and systems in, they're the ones who established the rules of the game, all I did is enact everything in there and taught to me. I never played it 'incorrectly' I didn't bend the rules or modify the mechanics. It's attitudes like yours which attempt to excuse and turn a blind eye to poor decisions by the developers, or outright bad game design. These problems are inherent to Mirror's Edge's faults, you might be able to overlook them but that doesn't stop them for existing. They give options, but it's up top you to play the game in the way you think is the most fun. This is true for any game. I'm so sick of gamers, like you, who chooses to play a game in a way they don't like and then log online to whine about it. The "bizzare focus on [combat]" is all in your head. If you don't like the combat, don't do it! I play games to have as much fun as possible and actively try to find ways to play them that maximizes the fun. You should try that some time instead of lying on your back whining about things that are clearly your choice.
They give options, but it's up top you to play the game in the way you think is the most fun. This is true for any game. I'm so sick of gamers, like you, who chooses to play a game in a way they don't like and then log online to whine about it. The "bizzare focus on [combat]" is all in your head. If you don't like the combat, don't do it! I play games to have as much fun as possible and actively try to find ways to play them that maximizes the fun. You should try that some time instead of lying on your back whining about things that are clearly your choice.Sushiglutton
Fact of the matter is that the game features awful combat sequences that, at certain points, are harder to avoid than actually doing them. The pace was also broken up by environmental puzzles all too often, which were, in their turn, marred by imprecise controls and unclear game rules. This game has a lot of problems, and emotionally dismissing legitimate complaints about this game as 'whining' shows that your love for this game clouds your judgment.
'Misplayed' is outright one of the worst ways to justify a developers bad design decisions. The game has combat designed into it - it teaches you melee and ranged combat, and the provides ample of opportunities to seize weapons and fight hostiles. In plenty of instances as the game progresses there are levels which throw you into enemy crosshairs or lock you in combat arenas to fight off foes. Yes it's a game about running, and the developers utterly neglected that and felt the necessity to put forced combat, and a bizzare focus on it in it. Timing is never important unless you're playing for time trials, in which that is the goal. The goal during the entire course of the singleplayer story is moving from A to B or fending off a wave of enemies. Fluidity of movement is a means to getting to that goal during that time, combat breaks up the fluidity (as does a lot of the stop and start jumping sections, that have you scale things - though I think that's enjoyable pacing which focuses on the platforming). 'Responsibility'? That's hilarious. The designers are the ones who put these mechanics and systems in, they're the ones who established the rules of the game, all I did is enact everything in there and taught to me. I never played it 'incorrectly' I didn't bend the rules or modify the mechanics. It's attitudes like yours which attempt to excuse and turn a blind eye to poor decisions by the developers, or outright bad game design. These problems are inherent to Mirror's Edge's faults, you might be able to overlook them but that doesn't stop them for existing. They give options, but it's up top you to play the game in the way you think is the most fun. This is true for any game. I'm so sick of gamers, like you, who chooses to play a game in a way they don't like and then log online to whine about it. The "bizzare focus on [combat]" is all in your head. If you don't like the combat, don't do it! I play games to have as much fun as possible and actively try to find ways to play them that maximizes the fun. You should try that some time instead of lying on your back whining about things that are clearly your choice. Yes it gives you options, and at times they're demanded without choice. And they're all entirely legitimate ways of playing. They're taught, they're implemented they're explained, and they're even challenged throughout the game. I'm not 'whining' about how I played the game, I'm disappointed that the developers bothered even attempting inconsequential choice, and putting focus on bad combat mechanics, which rear their heads at required times. This game is not Deus Ex or System Shock 2, games which handled the problem of mechanical choice, far, far better then Mirror's Edge did. If the game did not have a focus on combat, then combat wouldn't be in it. Then it would be entirely a game about running. Fact of the matter it isn't, fact of the matter is shooting mechanics are in the game, and were given enough attention to be tutorilised and a requirement to progress in certain sections. Combat is not something that can be avoided in finishing the game. This is a matter in purposeful deliberate game design, not perceptions of what's fun 'fun' and 'what's the right way to play it', which is why it's a problem to begin with. As I said, and read this again for your own sake "These problems are inherent to Mirror's Edge's faults, you might be able to overlook them but that doesn't stop them for existing."[QUOTE="skrat_01"][QUOTE="Sushiglutton"] It's not the games fault, it is you who misplayed it. The game is designed for running so run! If you decide to try to "slaughter huge amounts of soldiers" it is your issue. It is not something the game encourage, or forces you to do (except 3 times, total 8 soldiers). In fact it's the opposite. To get great times you must avoid enemy encounters as much as possible. You should take responsibility of your own experience instead of blaming things you can control on the developers.Sushiglutton
It's an amazing and very underrated and underappreciated game.
'Misplayed' is outright one of the worst ways to justify a developers bad design decisions. The game has combat designed into it - it teaches you melee and ranged combat, and the provides ample of opportunities to seize weapons and fight hostiles. In plenty of instances as the game progresses there are levels which throw you into enemy crosshairs or lock you in combat arenas to fight off foes. Yes it's a game about running, and the developers utterly neglected that and felt the necessity to put forced combat, and a bizzare focus on it in it. Timing is never important unless you're playing for time trials, in which that is the goal. The goal during the entire course of the singleplayer story is moving from A to B or fending off a wave of enemies. Fluidity of movement is a means to getting to that goal during that time, combat breaks up the fluidity (as does a lot of the stop and start jumping sections, that have you scale things - though I think that's enjoyable pacing which focuses on the platforming). 'Responsibility'? That's hilarious. The designers are the ones who put these mechanics and systems in, they're the ones who established the rules of the game, all I did is enact everything in there and taught to me. I never played it 'incorrectly' I didn't bend the rules or modify the mechanics. It's attitudes like yours which attempt to excuse and turn a blind eye to poor decisions by the developers, or outright bad game design. These problems are inherent to Mirror's Edge's faults, you might be able to overlook them but that doesn't stop them for existing. skrat_01They give options, but it's up top you to play the game in the way you think is the most fun. This is true for any game. I'm so sick of gamers, like you, who chooses to play a game in a way they don't like and then log online to whine about it. The "bizzare focus on [combat]" is all in your head. If you don't like the combat, don't do it! I play games to have as much fun as possible and actively try to find ways to play them that maximizes the fun. You should try that some time instead of lying on your back whining about things that are clearly your choice. Yes it gives you options, and at times they're demanded without choice. And they're all entirely legitimate ways of playing. They're taught, they're implemented they're explained, and they're even challenged throughout the game. I'm not 'whining' about how I played the game, I'm disappointed that the developers bothered even attempting inconsequential choice, and putting focus on bad combat mechanics, which rear their heads at required times. This game is not Deus Ex or System Shock 2, games which handled the problem of mechanical choice, far, far better then Mirror's Edge did. If the game did not have a focus on combat, then combat wouldn't be in it. Then it would be entirely a game about running. Fact of the matter it isn't, fact of the matter is shooting mechanics are in the game, and were given enough attention to be tutorilised and a requirement to progress in certain sections. Combat is not something that can be avoided in finishing the game. This is a matter in purposeful deliberate game design, not perceptions of what's fun 'fun' and 'what's the right way to play it', which is why it's a problem to begin with. As I said, and read this again for your own sake "These problems are inherent to Mirror's Edge's faults, you might be able to overlook them but that doesn't stop them for existing." There is no focus on combat. There are three occassions where you have to fight. You run up to an opponent, click a counter and then shoot one or two opponents with his weapon. That's it. In total for the entire game that take less than two minutes. Calling that a focus is silly beyond reason. I mean I agree with you that combat should not be a major part of this game. That's why I avoided it as much as I possibly could when I played the game. I made that choice and had a great experience. I'm sorry to hear that you chosed to slaughter massive amounts of enemies and as a result ending up not liking the game as much. It's your own fault though.
[QUOTE="skrat_01"][QUOTE="Sushiglutton"]They give options, but it's up top you to play the game in the way you think is the most fun. This is true for any game. I'm so sick of gamers, like you, who chooses to play a game in a way they don't like and then log online to whine about it. The "bizzare focus on [combat]" is all in your head. If you don't like the combat, don't do it! I play games to have as much fun as possible and actively try to find ways to play them that maximizes the fun. You should try that some time instead of lying on your back whining about things that are clearly your choice.SushigluttonYes it gives you options, and at times they're demanded without choice. And they're all entirely legitimate ways of playing. They're taught, they're implemented they're explained, and they're even challenged throughout the game. I'm not 'whining' about how I played the game, I'm disappointed that the developers bothered even attempting inconsequential choice, and putting focus on bad combat mechanics, which rear their heads at required times. This game is not Deus Ex or System Shock 2, games which handled the problem of mechanical choice, far, far better then Mirror's Edge did. If the game did not have a focus on combat, then combat wouldn't be in it. Then it would be entirely a game about running. Fact of the matter it isn't, fact of the matter is shooting mechanics are in the game, and were given enough attention to be tutorilised and a requirement to progress in certain sections. Combat is not something that can be avoided in finishing the game. This is a matter in purposeful deliberate game design, not perceptions of what's fun 'fun' and 'what's the right way to play it', which is why it's a problem to begin with. As I said, and read this again for your own sake "These problems are inherent to Mirror's Edge's faults, you might be able to overlook them but that doesn't stop them for existing." There is no focus on combat. There are three occassions where you have to fight. You run up to an opponent, click a counter and then shoot one or two opponents with his weapon. That's it. In total for the entire game that take less than two minutes. Calling that a focus is silly beyond reason. I mean I agree with you that combat should not be a major part of this game. That's why I avoided it as much as I possibly could when I played the game. I made that choice and had a great experience. I'm sorry to hear that you chosed to slaughter massive amounts of enemies and as a result ending up not liking the game as much. It's your own fault though. If there was no focus on combat: Then there would be no combat There would be melee system You couldn't pick up weapons levels wouldn't have enemies directly obstructing your path levels at times wouldn't require you to fight enemies in order to progress as a goal parameter Guns, melee and combat wouldn't have been explained and tutorialised There wouldn't have been an enemies which actively hunt you for melee and close ranged combat There's a focus on combat, and too much of a focus on it in the games design, for a title that's so much more about the running. And that's why it's a problem, one that can't be ignored without either deluding yourself or turning a silly blind eye. It's not the 'heart' or 'core focus' of the game, but it's there, and it's glaring that it even is there as players are taught that combat is an effective way to solve problems, progress from A to B; and are outright told that it's the only way to progress at various instances. That's bad game design. If you read my first post I state that I liked the running, and all of the platforming focus; that's where the game shines. What I didn't like was the unfocused elements of combat, which felt utterly tacked on and not fitting with what made the game shine. Despite existing and having focus, as explained above. 'Avoiding it' is a fine way to to play, however that doesn't mean the problem I'm talking about disappears from how the game was designed and made. Which is why it is, not my fault. That's absurdly stupid. I didn't choose to put these elements in, I enacted everything the creators told me to. It's the designers fault, simple as that. The game has problems. What a shocker. What you're going to have to learn is that a game can have these faults and still be enjoyed despite them existing or being pointed out critically. That'd be you know, the mature thing to do, then blaming the person pointing them out for 'not playing it right'. Jeesh.
There is no focus on combat. There are three occassions where you have to fight. You run up to an opponent, click a counter and then shoot one or two opponents with his weapon. That's it. In total for the entire game that take less than two minutes. Calling that a focus is silly beyond reason. I mean I agree with you that combat should not be a major part of this game. That's why I avoided it as much as I possibly could when I played the game. I made that choice and had a great experience. I'm sorry to hear that you chosed to slaughter massive amounts of enemies and as a result ending up not liking the game as much. It's your own fault though. SushigluttonRead the bold. You kinda contradicted yourself there.
And it didn't sound like Skrat chose to go on a "killing spree", since he was specifically bringing up occasions where you have to fight, which is more than a few.
I just find it hilarious that you say it's his fault for utilizing mechanics solely provided by the developers.
Read the bold. You kinda contradicted yourself there.[QUOTE="Sushiglutton"] There is no focus on combat. There are three occassions where you have to fight. You run up to an opponent, click a counter and then shoot one or two opponents with his weapon. That's it. In total for the entire game that take less than two minutes. Calling that a focus is silly beyond reason. I mean I agree with you that combat should not be a major part of this game. That's why I avoided it as much as I possibly could when I played the game. I made that choice and had a great experience. I'm sorry to hear that you chosed to slaughter massive amounts of enemies and as a result ending up not liking the game as much. It's your own fault though. drinkerofjuice
And it didn't sound like Skrat chose to go on a "killing spree", since he was specifically bringing up occasions where you have to fight, which is more than a few.
I just find it hilarious that you say it's his fault for utilizing mechanics solely provided by the developers.
No contradiction. I don't think there should be a focus on combat and luckily there is no focus on combat. The focus is clearly on the parkour. There are three occasions in the entire game where you have to fight. I think it's fair to call that "a few". The developers have provided the tools to play the game in the way he seems to want to play it. Instead he choses to use other mechanics that makes the game less fun to him. That is entirely his own fault.[QUOTE="Sushiglutton"][QUOTE="skrat_01"] Yes it gives you options, and at times they're demanded without choice. And they're all entirely legitimate ways of playing. They're taught, they're implemented they're explained, and they're even challenged throughout the game. I'm not 'whining' about how I played the game, I'm disappointed that the developers bothered even attempting inconsequential choice, and putting focus on bad combat mechanics, which rear their heads at required times. This game is not Deus Ex or System Shock 2, games which handled the problem of mechanical choice, far, far better then Mirror's Edge did. If the game did not have a focus on combat, then combat wouldn't be in it. Then it would be entirely a game about running. Fact of the matter it isn't, fact of the matter is shooting mechanics are in the game, and were given enough attention to be tutorilised and a requirement to progress in certain sections. Combat is not something that can be avoided in finishing the game. This is a matter in purposeful deliberate game design, not perceptions of what's fun 'fun' and 'what's the right way to play it', which is why it's a problem to begin with. As I said, and read this again for your own sake "These problems are inherent to Mirror's Edge's faults, you might be able to overlook them but that doesn't stop them for existing."skrat_01There is no focus on combat. There are three occassions where you have to fight. You run up to an opponent, click a counter and then shoot one or two opponents with his weapon. That's it. In total for the entire game that take less than two minutes. Calling that a focus is silly beyond reason. I mean I agree with you that combat should not be a major part of this game. That's why I avoided it as much as I possibly could when I played the game. I made that choice and had a great experience. I'm sorry to hear that you chosed to slaughter massive amounts of enemies and as a result ending up not liking the game as much. It's your own fault though. If there was no focus on combat: Then there would be no combat There would be melee system You couldn't pick up weapons levels wouldn't have enemies directly obstructing your path levels at times wouldn't require you to fight enemies in order to progress as a goal parameter Guns, melee and combat wouldn't have been explained and tutorialised There wouldn't have been an enemies which actively hunt you for melee and close ranged combat There's a focus on combat, and too much of a focus on it in the games design, for a title that's so much more about the running. And that's why it's a problem, one that can't be ignored without either deluding yourself or turning a silly blind eye. It's not the 'heart' or 'core focus' of the game, but it's there, and it's glaring that it even is there as players are taught that combat is an effective way to solve problems, progress from A to B; and are outright told that it's the only way to progress at various instances. That's bad game design. If you read my first post I state that I liked the running, and all of the platforming focus; that's where the game shines. What I didn't like was the unfocused elements of combat, which felt utterly tacked on and not fitting with what made the game shine. Despite existing and having focus, as explained above. 'Avoiding it' is a fine way to to play, however that doesn't mean the problem I'm talking about disappears from how the game was designed and made. Which is why it is, not my fault. That's absurdly stupid. I didn't choose to put these elements in, I enacted everything the creators told me to. It's the designers fault, simple as that. The game has problems. What a shocker. What you're going to have to learn is that a game can have these faults and still be enjoyed despite them existing or being pointed out critically. That'd be you know, the mature thing to do, then blaming the person pointing them out for 'not playing it right'. Jeesh.
I have allready said several times in this thread that this game is far from flawless. Saying that the combat is a major issue is just dumb though. You can avoid combat almost entirely and the few occasions you need to use it, it's a matter of seconds. That is not a major problem. The most important reason by far why combat was a big issue for you, is that you choosed to play the game in a way you didn't enjoy. That is your fault and has nothing to do with bad game design.
You need to understand that there are two things that decides the experience. One part is the game and the other part is you. Some issues are the games fault (likefor example in this game the elevator loading times) and some issues are your fault (like in this case the so called focus on combat).
If there was no focus on combat: Then there would be no combat There would be melee system You couldn't pick up weapons levels wouldn't have enemies directly obstructing your path levels at times wouldn't require you to fight enemies in order to progress as a goal parameter Guns, melee and combat wouldn't have been explained and tutorialised There wouldn't have been an enemies which actively hunt you for melee and close ranged combat There's a focus on combat, and too much of a focus on it in the games design, for a title that's so much more about the running. And that's why it's a problem, one that can't be ignored without either deluding yourself or turning a silly blind eye. It's not the 'heart' or 'core focus' of the game, but it's there, and it's glaring that it even is there as players are taught that combat is an effective way to solve problems, progress from A to B; and are outright told that it's the only way to progress at various instances. That's bad game design. If you read my first post I state that I liked the running, and all of the platforming focus; that's where the game shines. What I didn't like was the unfocused elements of combat, which felt utterly tacked on and not fitting with what made the game shine. Despite existing and having focus, as explained above. 'Avoiding it' is a fine way to to play, however that doesn't mean the problem I'm talking about disappears from how the game was designed and made. Which is why it is, not my fault. That's absurdly stupid. I didn't choose to put these elements in, I enacted everything the creators told me to. It's the designers fault, simple as that. The game has problems. What a shocker. What you're going to have to learn is that a game can have these faults and still be enjoyed despite them existing or being pointed out critically. That'd be you know, the mature thing to do, then blaming the person pointing them out for 'not playing it right'. Jeesh.[QUOTE="skrat_01"][QUOTE="Sushiglutton"] There is no focus on combat. There are three occassions where you have to fight. You run up to an opponent, click a counter and then shoot one or two opponents with his weapon. That's it. In total for the entire game that take less than two minutes. Calling that a focus is silly beyond reason. I mean I agree with you that combat should not be a major part of this game. That's why I avoided it as much as I possibly could when I played the game. I made that choice and had a great experience. I'm sorry to hear that you chosed to slaughter massive amounts of enemies and as a result ending up not liking the game as much. It's your own fault though. Sushiglutton
I have allready said several times in this thread that this game is far from flawless. Saying that the combat is a major issue is just dumb though. You can avoid combat almost entirely and the few occasions you need to use it, it's a matter of seconds. That is not a major problem. The most important reason by far why combat was a big issue for you, is that you choosed to play the game in a way you didn't enjoy. That is your fault and has nothing to do with bad game design.
You need to understand that there are two things that decides the experience. One part is the game and the other part is you. Some issues are the games fault (likefor example in this game the elevator loading times) and some issues are your fault (like in this case the so called focus on combat).
How is that "dumb" when it's clearly a point of focus in the game? I said it can be avoided, but not entirely, and that it takes up enough space and focus to genuinely detract from the rest of the game. It's not a matter of seconds as it prevails from start to finish of the game, this isn't something that is forgotten about at certain points. Combat in Mirror's Edge isn't Human Revolutions horrible boss battles; it's there from start to finish, and it's always a negative thing for existing. I chose to play the game the way the developers intended. If they didn't intend for combat to play a role they would have axed it entirely. Purposeful Mirror's Edge isn't, and that's a problem with it. I can tell you outright as a developer and a researcher into this very kind of thing - yes the player is a huge factor in the experience, and outright the driving force of it. However it's the developer and the designer who architect and frame that experience, they're the ones responsible for molding the players experience and directing them. It is not the players fault that they play the game how they've developed and designed it. There's no such thing in playing the game 'incorrectly' when they're acting as they've been taught, using the mechanics which have been designed or implemented. If I was to ignore all the games rules and mechanics and try to fight against them, then maybe you'd have a point, but I didn't not once. I played the game as it was presented and designed; I was given weapons, I was told to get from A to B I was taught that combat is inevitable and efficient; this side of being told speed and avoidance is important. And guess what, you can't say that this is wrong. Because combat exists in this game and has too much focus, enough for a player to take hold of it and detract from the games real strengths. Which is why Mirror's Edge is a flawed game; it's a matter of understanding it why it's flawed. Which is why someone who insists on the player for 'not playing it properly' isn't exactly doing a good job articulating why the player is playing it incorrectly when they're doing exactly what the developer has enabled them to do, and told them to do. Mirror's Edge simply shouldn't have had any focus on combat, and if it did it should have been far, far better. In its current form it can easily detract from the game. As I said, you can turn a blind eye, but that doesn't mean that a multitude of other players aren't going to do this, and they're not going to be incorrect or invalid; they're playing the game as the developers have designed it. What it boils down to is game design, intention and direction. Mirror's Edge core faults exist within this space, all stemming from that lack of direction, and half heartedness in trying to make combat a part of the game. You can ignore it, I'd certainly like to - however that doesn't mean its a problem when a gun and **** shooting mechanics are just as much as a problem solver as running. In both instances these are 'correct' ways in playing - in achieving goals and progressing. Blaming the player , let alone genuine criticism of a games faults is outright the worst kind of excuse making.No contradiction. I don't think there should be a focus on combat and luckily there is no focus on combat. The focus is clearly on the parkour. There are three occasions in the entire game where you have to fight. I think it's fair to call that "a few". The developers have provided the tools to play the game in the way he seems to want to play it. Instead he choses to use other mechanics that makes the game less fun to him. That is entirely his own fault. SushigluttonDid you even read my previous post? "If there was no focus on combat: Then there would be no combat There would be melee system You couldn't pick up weapons levels wouldn't have enemies directly obstructing your path levels at times wouldn't require you to fight enemies in order to progress as a goal parameter Guns, melee and combat wouldn't have been explained and tutorialised There wouldn't have been an enemies which actively hunt you for melee and close ranged combat" That's focus. More focus is on the parkour and platforming, however there's still focus on combat and throughout the game; from tutorial to that horrible finale in what I remember to be server rooms filled with wonderfully shattering glass walls and tons of armoured, machine gun toting guards. Who you're encouraged to kill to survive. This isn't a sandbox game with tools, this is a highly architected game experience. At the end of the day it's up to the developer to create those tools and make sure the player makes use of them. Often enough developers get it wrong and they did in Mirror's Edge. Combat adds nothing to the parkour focus, it detracts from it and that's the responsibility of the developers.
Please Log In to post.
Log in to comment