Mirror's Edge: Catalyst is "Not a Sequel", But Honors The Original
- Thread starter Steven Bogos
- Start date
Recommended Videos
I found that hard to believe. Why would a developer discredit their own writing ability by bringing on a "social critic" to help? That really strikes me as somewhat like a scientist bringing in a soothsayer to help with predictions on an experiment.LysanderNemoinis said:
It's not like it'd make people buy it more. That's ultimately all they care about.
No, believe me, I've seen the threads calling for boycott and how many people told them it wasn't actually true.odolwa said:
Some troll some place is laughing his ass off as people are calling for to be fired from a job she never had :/
OT: Watch them put in more weapons and turn it into a FPS shooter with some gimmicky movement options.
Then EA will be all like "Huh, turns out people don't like this game. Guess we might as well kill the series now."
Urg, wonder what the original team thinks about EA shitting over their life's work?
I thought I heard this was going to be a prequel? That it was going to go over the events that made Faith become a runner in the first place?
As for the game itself. I'm happily optimistic. I loved the first one, and thought it was a well made game. I know a lot of people complain about the mechanics of it, but I never had an issue with that. The game played fine to me. So if the next game is at least as good as the first one, I'll be quite happy.
I also hope the continue to focus on the non-combat aspect of it. I really enjoy the fact that you can fairly easily make it through the game without having to fight anyone.
As for the game itself. I'm happily optimistic. I loved the first one, and thought it was a well made game. I know a lot of people complain about the mechanics of it, but I never had an issue with that. The game played fine to me. So if the next game is at least as good as the first one, I'll be quite happy.
I also hope the continue to focus on the non-combat aspect of it. I really enjoy the fact that you can fairly easily make it through the game without having to fight anyone.
It's kind of frightening how many people were taken in by an anonymous blog post with literally no backing.odolwa said:
I'm fine with them calling do-over, as the original was flawed and could use improvement in gameplay and in plot. I'm just really really REALLY hoping it doesn't get EA'd too much. If it's good, that's great and I will buy it on day one. If it's not, I won't be surprised.
Blind, raging hate can make you do weird things.lacktheknack said:
OT: Calling it now: this is going to be a mobile-only infinite runner.
That reads to me like "We have observed how everyone else fares with the first-person parkour mechanic, and are confident that people want a game that includes open world maps, crafting, climbing up a tall thing to unlock a tiny part of a map, and thousands of icons all over the map that you just collect arbitrarily."Steven Bogos said:
I'm not sure I like this line very much. I feel like the way the game focused on the free-running at the expense of combat and gunplay was a good thing, because it rewarded better free-running than shooting and punching. If the dominant strategy ends up being combat, I feel like something valuable to the game will have been lost.Steven Bogos said:
Alternatively, if this means a slightly more open world to run around in, with refined parkour mechanics, then that could be something quite interesting.
every EA title is only available through origin since BF3. how many EA titles have you seen on steam since 2011?Rituro said:
and origin is not bad at all. i never had a single issue with it. not even with the beta version. hell, i prefer it even more than steam at times. i have purchased a bunch of titles through origin and it works flawlessly. even got my money back for unity with no questions asked.
"But Honors The Original"
Oh boy, what could possibly go wrong? Every single time a company said that, the results were awesome.
Oh boy, what could possibly go wrong? Every single time a company said that, the results were awesome.
This whole statement seems very bizarre to me. Why would it being a 'sequel' be a bad thing. Wasn't this game greenlit after constant badgering from fans who wanted a sequel? Sure we're what 6/7 years down the road from the first one so, yeah, innovate a bit, but that wouldn't stop it from being a sequel.
This is hardly a series that needs a reboot, nothing of particular note happened in the first game from what I remember - Faith's sister got into trouble, Faith got her out of trouble. The end. Sure if Faith had died in some noble sacrifice at the end, they might have needed to retcon it a bit, but nope - as far as I can see the story can proceed in pretty much any direction without being constrained by the first one.
Now, even if, horror of horrors, they've made this a FPS where Faith grabs an RPG in the first chapter and becomes the angel of death, it's surely still a sequel. (And if it's a prequel, just say it's a prequel, not just 'not a sequel').
Incidently, I don't mind a few new mechanics. Given the games, non-violent background, I though having stealth mechanics could work quite well (if not overdone).
This is hardly a series that needs a reboot, nothing of particular note happened in the first game from what I remember - Faith's sister got into trouble, Faith got her out of trouble. The end. Sure if Faith had died in some noble sacrifice at the end, they might have needed to retcon it a bit, but nope - as far as I can see the story can proceed in pretty much any direction without being constrained by the first one.
Now, even if, horror of horrors, they've made this a FPS where Faith grabs an RPG in the first chapter and becomes the angel of death, it's surely still a sequel. (And if it's a prequel, just say it's a prequel, not just 'not a sequel').
Incidently, I don't mind a few new mechanics. Given the games, non-violent background, I though having stealth mechanics could work quite well (if not overdone).
Pretty sure I heard at one point it was a prequel. Could be wrong, or out of date at this point though.LaoJim said:
I can't recall, but did they "Bring Down The Man" at the end of the game? I can't remember if the stuff they uncovered was enough to basically destroy the credibility of the dystopian society that was in control or not. If it was, and the next story still needed that setup, I could see a reboot being useful, to sort of clean up the fuzzy story elements.LaoJim said:
That would be neat. I'd love a stealth/parkour hybrid game, that just does away with the potential for combat at all. That's one of the things I loved about the first ME.LaoJim said:
Translation from Corporate PR speak:
"We are making a spin-off cash in that will milk whatever"s left of the fanbase"
By the way isn't this the same game that "proudlY" touted that Anita Sarkeliesian would be working direcly with them to "Help make the game as accepting and non-sexist as possible" Correct me if I'm wrong on that but yeah... given that and your recent track record I'm going to be avoiding this one like the plague
"We are making a spin-off cash in that will milk whatever"s left of the fanbase"
By the way isn't this the same game that "proudlY" touted that Anita Sarkeliesian would be working direcly with them to "Help make the game as accepting and non-sexist as possible" Correct me if I'm wrong on that but yeah... given that and your recent track record I'm going to be avoiding this one like the plague
If you had read the many posts in this thread, you would know that the rumor about AS working on this game are not true.thewatergamer said:
Seriously, for god's sake people, the person that started that rumor has an account on this very site, this wasn't some name in the industry spreading reliable information it was based on nothing more than a leap of logic based in fear-mongering. The sources for this rumor are less reliable than your average Buzzfeed article.Happyninja42 said:
There was a petition to take her off the game that got to 50,000 signatures before EA stepped in to basically say "she's not working on this game, please stop spreading obviously false information based on blog posts". The gullibility of people on the internet is just baffling sometimes, it's like all you have to do is allude to something for people to just believe it.
At this point, apparently even if EA showed a trailer at E3 with a giant splashscreen saying, "Anita Sarkeesian did not work on this game!!!!" you would still have people posting this nonsense everytime the game came up.
OT: I will say I am worried about the game as well, this does sound like empty corporate speak, still, I have my fingers crossed, the first game had so much potential.
Fluff.
Fluff.
Fluffity fluff.
And some worrying fluff.
If they go Dying Light with it, in that openworld-ish. I'm ok with that. Otherwise, i guess, i will measure my worry by the quality of the new Battlefront.
(Quick look. The last were Sims 3 addons in 2013.)
Really, i didn't notice. But then again, seemingly only their Bioware titles can get my attention on them.
Fluff.
Fluffity fluff.
And some worrying fluff.
If they go Dying Light with it, in that openworld-ish. I'm ok with that. Otherwise, i guess, i will measure my worry by the quality of the new Battlefront.
Really?Metalrocks said:
(Quick look. The last were Sims 3 addons in 2013.)
Really, i didn't notice. But then again, seemingly only their Bioware titles can get my attention on them.
lol, never was a sims fan so i have never noticed it on steam actually. EA always said that from BF3 on that every EA title will be only available/activated through origin.K.ur said:
but origin sells other titles as well. a bunch of ubisoft games, witcher games, even resident evil.