Mirror's Edge 2 Was Always Going To Happen

[Andy Chalk]

Mirror's Edge 2 Was Always Going To Happen

Patrick Soderlund says Electronic Arts was always going to make a sequel to Mirror's Edge, it was just waiting for a console generation powerful enough to bring its vision to reality.

That sequel to Mirror's Edge that you've wanted so badly for so long but, until E3, never really believed you'd get? Apparently it was always going to happen - and boy, don't you feel silly for thinking otherwise? - but EA's plans for the follow-up are so mind-bogglingly amazing that it just couldn't bring them to fruition on the laggard technology in the PlayStation 3 and Xbox 360.

"We've been looking at Mirror's Edge for many years and had small prototype teams and incubations around what it could be. But it wasn't until Sara Jansson, who is now the producer on it, came to me and called Karl-Magnus Troedsson and said, 'Listen, I have an idea for what this could be'. She presented a vision so inspiring that we were like, 'We have to build this now'," EA vice president Patrick Söderlund told CVG. "The interesting part is that it was a game that could only be built in gen 4 and that was cool. I liked that because what they're doing, it's not possible on the current generation."

"So that's when I knew that we had something and spoke to EA. The support inside the whole company on Mirror's Edge has been tremendous," he continued. "We sold about 2.5 million units with Mirror's Edge and people haven't even blinked at it - like, 'Of course we're going to make a new Mirror's Edge'. The whole company has been behind it."

Söderlund also dropped yet more hints suggesting that Mirror's Edge 2 will be markedly different from the original. "Listen, if you do the same thing again then it's not going to work. You have to be very, very honest with yourself and look at what went right and what went wrong. It's obvious that people loved the art direction, loved Faith and loved the idea of what you did in the game," he said. "I think we missed completely on the game being too difficult, people keep falling down and the notion of constantly running away wasn't maybe greatly perceived... What I can say is we're taking more of an action adventure approach on it than maybe before. First-person, running predominantly... This will be more of an action adventure game, but true to what the first one was to a large extent."

Would it be cynical to suggest that I don't completely buy the idea that EA was waiting for a great leap forward in console technology before it could bring a new game to life? There's no way to know, of course, but Dead Space came out just one month prior to Mirror's Edge and it's already had two sequels. Make of that what you will.

Source: CVG [http://www.computerandvideogames.com/416002/interviews/interview-eas-patrick-sderlund/]


Permalink

 

[Legion]

My initial thoughts at around halfway through were "That sounds good, I hope they can live up to those claims".

Then I read:

"I think we missed completely on the game being too difficult, people keep falling down and the notion of constantly running away wasn't maybe greatly perceived... What I can say is we're taking more of an action adventure approach on it than maybe before.

Apparently EA still hasn't learnt much. The people who didn't like the non-combat aspect were more likely than not the ones who didn't like the game EA, the ones who don't really care if it has a sequel in the first place. So you are going to try appealing to the action adventure crowd yet again are you, trying to bring in a "wider audience" rather than appeal to those who actually liked the original for what it was?

There is nothing wrong with a change in direction, but Mirrors Edge was not a particularly hard game, and the reasons for falling were more often than not down to the controls rather than the level design.

I will still be cautiously optimistic about this, but I can't help but feel "Here we go again".

 

[MrBaskerville]

Hmm, the combat parts were the absolute worst parts of the game. I found the first half to be fun while the second half was really annoying because you had to fight and shoot a lot. I hope they find a way to make it fun, if they intend it to be a bigger part of the game.

 

[Longstreet]

The falling (or failing) Wasn't because the game was hard but due to (sometimes) stupid controls and the 1st person perspective.

I kept getting stuck at the tutorial because, instead of taking a jump, make 2/3 wall run steps turn around and jump on an elevated platform, I did it almost instantly (jump, no or one step, then turn and jump) And it kept failing me. Thats not hard, thats bullshit.

Second, the running away from people shooting at you wasn't the bad part, it was the people shooting at you that sucked.

My three main tips for them.
More free-running less vent crawling / fighting people
Third person view (and tieing in with this, seriously look at your controls (PC))
Remove guns completely, make it hand to hand combat all the way.

 

[MrBaskerville]

Remove guns completely, make it hand to hand combat all the way.

Agreed!

Though it could work if they did something with visible projectiles, so you were able to dodge the enemy fire. Stuff like slowly moving fireballs could be fun, you would have to run and sometimes sidestep, jump or slide to avoid getting hit.

 

[TiberiusEsuriens]

My initial thoughts at around halfway through were "That sounds good, I hope they can live up to those claims".

Then I read:

"I think we missed completely on the game being too difficult, people keep falling down and the notion of constantly running away wasn't maybe greatly perceived... What I can say is we're taking more of an action adventure approach on it than maybe before.

Apparently EA still hasn't learnt much. The people who didn't like the non-combat aspect were more likely than not the ones who didn't like the game EA, the ones who don't really care if it has a sequel in the first place. So you are going to try appealing to the action adventure crowd yet again are you, trying to bring in a "wider audience" rather than appeal to those who actually liked the original for what it was?

There is nothing wrong with a change in direction, but Mirrors Edge was not a particularly hard game, and the reasons for falling were more often than not down to the controls rather than the level design.

I will still be cautiously optimistic about this, but I can't help but feel "Here we go again".

A lot of people didn't like it because it was not actiony enough. EA's solution is simple: make it a shooter.

 

[BrotherRool]

It's weird the way people are calling this gen 4. It's like Sony has been so successful that people are just basing it on their console numbering? There were lots of consoles before the PS1, and even if you want to avoid the mess of the Atari generations, the NES/SNES generations should still count.

 

[kael013]

The falling (or failing) Wasn't because the game was hard but due to (sometimes) stupid controls and the 1st person perspective.

I kept getting stuck at the tutorial because, instead of taking a jump, make 2/3 wall run steps turn around and jump on an elevated platform, I did it almost instantly (jump, no or one step, then turn and jump) And it kept failing me. Thats not hard, thats bullshit.

Second, the running away from people shooting at you wasn't the bad part, it was the people shooting at you that sucked.

My three main tips for them.
More free-running less vent crawling / fighting people
Third person view (and tieing in with this, seriously look at your controls (PC))
Remove guns completely, make it hand to hand combat all the way.

Agreed with you all the way (as long as you meant 3rd-person as an option; some of us liked the 1st-person view) to "remove guns completely". I can't accept that part; I know the game wasn't about the shooting, but there were instances where fighting was a good alternative to running (the stairs after shooting the convoy and the server room spring to mind). I'd say don't remove guns completely, but rather limit them. Faith knowing how to shoot a pistol or a shotgun was acceptable, Faith knowing how to operate a MG or being an expert marksman (markswoman?) was not.

OT: nice spin guys. I don't buy it for a second that you were always waiting for the next-gen to implement your ideas, but it kinda says something about those ideas that only the next gen can handle them. And it seems like you did learn a lot: now put that knowledge to good use.

 

[oldtaku]

I just installed this again last week, played a few hours, uninstalled it. It's glorious when you're outside and just running, but the controls are too sloppy for indoors where you can't see things and people are shooting you in the back. Hell, it's annoying as hell to be outside, just wanting to climb a building, and have three people and a chopper shooting you in the back too.

The expansion pack was fantastic - completely abstract, complete running/climbing/jumping challenge, no guns. I think we've had enough indie games now that even EA can feel safe not including guns in a game.

Perhaps a multiplayer arena with guns for people who really want it? Normally I wouldn't suggest cramming multiplayer into a game that doesn't need it, but... EA.

 

[Andy Shandy]

Uh-oh, that "running away" part being seen as bad doesn't bode well for a free-running game. It makes me worry they're going to make it more shooter-y, whereas I'd go the complete other way, don't give Faith any guns. Allow her to use the environment to take down enemies - run off a wall then jump into a hurricanrana on an enemy for example.

 

[1337mokro]

WHAT THE FUCK!?

It was to difficult and people didn't like running away? That's the entire point of these courier runs. You are basically playing Trials but with a human over a parkour course. Here is how you make a good Mirror's Edge sequel.

AVOID going inside as MUCH as possible. Give us big open environments, basically if it was up to me I'd ask for an entire sandbox open world city where you could just parkour to your hearts content, find your own ways to finish missions and compete with each other to find the fastest paths across the cities. Failing that make the levels into hubs, where you have a limited amount of space to move around however here you can experiment with all kinds of weird improvised jumps and climbing. That's what the people want.

What they also want is for the enemies to just leave. They should be either completely avoidable or you should be able to shake them off, see also the hub missions, where taking routes where they can't follow will shake them off temporarily. Combat is not your forte here nor should it ever be your focus. A stun punch or two is the most you should throw in dire situations. The guns should be used as a story mechanic, the guns represent the oppressors they can pick you down at range, but you have to get in close to stand a change or outrun them. Make the theme fit the combat.

Give more context to the deliveries. What are we delivering? To whom? What are we getting for doing this? Give each package a story or even better a choice where privacy and integrity weigh against one another for your deliveries. After all do you open the package to see what it contains or do you deliver an unknown device to an unsuspecting victim (see Zero Punctuation review).

I cannot emphasize one point enough though. DON'T MAKE THIS AN ACTION GAME!!! It is a PLATFORMER, it should STAY a platformer, the only part people liked was when they were outside PLATFORMING without people SHOOTING at them. So just make it a goddamned platformer!

 

[shiajun]

Everything so far just makes me want the game to be cancelled. It feels like another "turn it into a action-shooter" type of instance, with just a remnant of the original, distinct gameplay in it. That PR blurb has all the alarm-triggering phrases in it. The original game wasn't all that complex or intensive processing wise, why would you need such behemoth of tech to upgrade it, just so slightly?

 

[Chimpzy_v1legacy]

"Mirror's Edge 2 Was Always Going To Happen"

Of course it was. Seems like Mirror's Edge will have more colors than just really bright white. It'll be mostly brown from all the bullshit.

 

[Proverbial Jon]

"The interesting part is that it was a game that could only be built in gen 4 and that was cool. I liked that because what they're doing, it's not possible on the current generation."

I don't understand this sentiment. What could the next generation really bring to this game. Greater graphical fidelity? Surely that's the extent of it. I don't think gamers care about graphics half as much as developers do. I don't buy this as an excuse.

 

[ciancon]

Yeah I'm calling bulls*** on that one, waiting for the next gen cos our game is just too amazing. I adore Mirror's Edge and I hope this does well, but some of his comments have me more concerned than I was about Dark Souls 2 being made "more straightforward".

 

[Zhukov]

... and the notion of constantly running away wasn't maybe greatly perceived... What I can say is we're taking more of an action adventure approach on it than maybe before. First-person, running predominantly... This will be more of an action adventure game...

Oh fuck me.

They're going to mess it up, at least mildly.

 

[Kyogissun]

"I think we missed completely on the game being too difficult, people keep falling down and the notion of constantly running away wasn't maybe greatly perceived... What I can say is we're taking more of an action adventure approach on it than maybe before. First-person, running predominantly... This will be more of an action adventure game, but true to what the first one was to a large extent."

I'm just gonna ask... If anyone else here, like me, didn't really struggle with the game and, if anything, spent more time figuring out the platforming puzzles more than anything else.

Hell, the only time I had problems with the combat/disarming heavy sequences was on the higher difficulty where I was playing the hard difficulty AND challenging myself to do the Test of Faith run as well.