Mirror's Edge 2 Was Always Going To Happen

[teh_Canape]

"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.

adding more gunplay and removing some of the free running could go two ways
Crysis 2 or Brink

OT: so basically, they're tuning the new Mirror's Edge to the preference of the Battlefield crowd?
am I getting that right?

 

[lacktheknack]

Shit shit shit shit shit shit shit shit shit

I don't like where he's going with this, and the people in this thread are only scaring me harder (bullet dodging was the FUN part, dammit! And STOP TRYING TO TAKE AWAY MY FIRST PERSON PARKOUR BLARHAGHJAGHAGH).

To everyone saying "Go to pure melee and go to third person", please keep your Prince of Persia and let me have something different.

 

[Vivi22]

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.

I agree with you except for third person. Make it an option if they must I guess (though I can't see how that would work without it being basically Assassin's Creed and not Mirror's Edge), but if it was third person only I wouldn't even play it. It was great in third person, and the PC controls were pretty much perfect to me after some minor re-mapping.

 

[shrekfan246]

The cynicism in this thread is palpable.

"Action-adventure" can mean literally anything. Jumping right to "shooter" just because it's EA seems a bit unfair to me, when "action-adventure" also includes the likes of The Legend of Zelda, Okami, Devil May Cry, God of War, and (to an extent) Metal Gear Solid. I'm as skeptical as the next guy, but I'm still willing to give them the benefit of the doubt here.

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.

Personally, I loved the combination of inside and outside environments. I could live with a little less vent-crawling and elevator-waiting, but part of what made the world feel more 'real' to me despite the fact that it was completely lifeless save for the enemies was the fact that I wasn't just running about some plastic overworld the entire time. The buildings were actually buildings, with entrances and exits (within the bounds of the courses, obviously, but still).

The best thing they could do with a more open world is give us tons of buildings to enter and work our way through as alternate paths to avoid the enemies. Go through a building, drop down to the ground and race through the alleys, or take to the rooftops, more choice would be far better in my opinion. One of my primary complaints with open-world sandbox games is that the worlds almost always just feel like some sort of plaster model town, because the only time the player ever enters any buildings is for specific scripted events, or because they're shops/player homes.

 

[unstabLized]

Oh fuck. Ohhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh fuck no no no no no. Whenever "Action Adventure" pops up from EA it is BAD news. Oh Lord save this game. My spidey senses are already off the freaking charts about how they're going to kill this game. They're completely taking the original, taking the main point of the entire game out, and packing it with BS instead. Someone do something before it's too late!

 

[Slayer_2]

I swear I'm the only one who liked the combat. It was a good break from free-running, and if the game was more open world, you'd probably have the choice to avoid it 99% of the time anyhow. I don't know why you'd remove it, and why people act like it was forced upon you. I played the game through at least ten times, and I had a run where I never killed anyone, I'd just "knock them out" with melee attacks. I ended up with only a few kills.

 

[Retardinator]

That's an outright lie, EA, and if you looked at Escapist's own news section a few years back you would discover that this statement is true.
Now that that's out of the way, I have something to get off my chest.

I don't think Mirror's Edge (2) is going to be as good of a sequel as, say, Far Cry 3 is to Far Cry 2. They're completely missing the point with their design. First off, what did most of the people hate about the game? The combat. What did the first trailer for new ME show? That's right, combat. Shitloads of it.

Second thing is the level design.
They're going all-out open world. I don't think that's the direction ME ever needed to take. The level design in the first game was no good either (it was solid, but it kinda missed the point).
I think a good middle ground should be found with small, contained levels that have ways of non-linear progression towards a single goal. It would fit the game much better IMO, as it would still make it nice, tight and flowing, but still give players a bit of choice and freedom.
The story doesn't even deserve a mention (except this one time).

 

[MrBaskerville]

PS: All it needs to shine is less combat. No lethal combat. And the game needs some AI that interprets what the player is trying to do into appropriate actions. Dying over and over is not fun. Steer Faith. She should know if your approach is going to lead to imminent death or not and refuse to make the leap. She's a professional after all. If she keeps jumping to here death you start to wonder how the hell she made it this far in the first place? Games are going to have to incorporate more and more interpretive AI like this or we will always be limited to what can be expressed with three buttons. In other words, take the player's input on good faith. See what I did there.

I might misinterpret what you write, but it sounds very boring like Enslaved, where the game is doing all the thinking for you. You have to be able to fail a jump or else it´s completely pointless, i´d say.

And getting told that: "no, i´m not going that way" is going to be really annoying when you try to figure out how to proceed.

 

[Rastrelly]

Oh, I am so sad for I won't be buying Mirror's Edge 2. Because after Mass Effect 3 I don't want to give Electronic Arts even a penny. Also I am perfectly sure this game won't bring anything good into series. And finally: a prequel? Are you even serious, EA, Dice, or whoever makes this? At what point did you decide that ME story needs a prequel?! For Faith to whine more about what a harsh world she lives in?

 

[rob_simple]

So they're sticking with the first person platforming thing, then?

Welp, there goes my interest.

 

[MeChaNiZ3D]

Well, for a start, bullshit, I can't imagine what vast improvements must have been made that they needed a new console generation to do it and had already planned what that would enable, and secondly, too hard? Taking a more action-adventure approach? Fucking...please, EA. You have no common sense.

 

[MrBaskerville]

So if the game predicts your actions will lead to death. And so it refuses to suicide. Then that's the ultimate getting stuck. You are thinking for it. But it is managing the micro reflexes. Since there is no button for every part of Faith's body that makes perfect sense.

A game is worthless if a cautious player can't finish without dying. Getting arrested is one thing. But death is the big game over. If you take someone who's been playing games their whole life and they can't finish the game from start to end on their first try without dying, then it is beyond belief that the player character could've achieved the same feet.

That's bad game design plain and simple.

EDITED: (consider for instance ME. In the first level Faith's sister as I recall is abducted into a helicopter hovering over the edge of a building. Faith decides the best way to save her sister is to jump onto the helicopter. That's a horrible decision if she wants to save here sister. It's very likely to be the end of Faith. Horrible game design. That should've been an option. An option that hopefully no one but the developers would have even considered. But not the only option.)

I don´t see it as bad gamedesign, giving the player options is a good thing.

I might be misunderstanding how you want it to work, but what i´m thinking is that if i wanted to jump to the helicopter, the controls would just freeze? or? Cause that would be annoying as hell, never ever remove the core abilities, that´s very important. If you want to run off the beaten path and do something silly that the gamedesigners never thought of (something that might work) you shouldn´t be limited. If you limit the controls whenever you try to do "the wrong thing", then it just becomes a matter of "guess what the designers are thinking" which is a horrible way to design a game.

 

[Metalrocks]

little worried that it will have to much action and that you are forced to fight. but if they still give us the option to run away, then i can live with it. after all they said it will be a open world game.

 

[MrBaskerville]

I can se we have VERY different opinions on things .

Though i do agree that you shouldn´t be required to jump on the helicopter if it isn´t obvious that you have to (i don´t really recall that part of the game, it´s so long since i played it). But i can´t agree that the game should be able to play itself to accomodate people who only care for the story. If you aren´t willing to put up with the gameplay in a game i really think you should play something else. But that´s because i see gameplay as the main part of every game ever, i can´t see the point of playing Mirrors Edge if you don´t care for the gameplay. And if a player has poor reaction skills, he probably need to play something that doesn´t require reaction skills.

Every game isn´t for everyone, and they shouldn´t be.

 

[MrBaskerville]

When you make a movie, you don´t have to pander to the lowest common denominator to make sure that everyone gets it. You can make your David Lynch movie and people who likes that kind of thing will get it, the rest can watch something else.

I think the same goes for videogames, if your game is about solving puzzles and battling enemies, then that´s what it´s about. You might have a story, but that´s just to spice things up, if a person hates puzzles and battling enemies, then he should probably play something else because the core of the game is puzzles and battling enemies... It doesn´t make any sense to make your game more inclusive just to please people who doesn´t give a crap about your game^^. Make some games where there´s no challenge and where the game plays itself, that´s for the people who only cares about story, then make something for the people who cares about games.

 

[BarkBarker]

EA hears a loud few people...and decides to alter an entire games approach onto a more action adventure title, but there wasn't much adventure in the first one, and the action was, as most people agree, bad....so why tip the scales so? Focus on what you did well AS WELL as what you did wrong, do not try and patch up this leak in the dam at the expense of the other side, I do hope they keep it at a all round good quality, but unfortunately as one who merely watched someone play Mirrors Edge I can't weigh in fully, but I can tell you that the white as fuck world was always a bad idea & the combat need not exist, why can't I free run past the baddies, like flying knee him and kick off his falling body to reach the ledge above, you know, enemy based free running, we already have enemy based platforming.