Mirror's Edge: Catalyst will not have gun combat

Zontar

Mad Max 2019
Feb 18, 2013
4,931
0
0

As the tile states and video elaborated on, Mirror's Edge: Catalyst will not have gunplay in it. Surprising enough on its own as a sequel to a game which did have gunplay, the fact that it is from DICE, a company whose MO seems to be 'if the game isn't done yet, add more guns' is only more surprising.

I personally don't know how to feel about this. I'm definitely not buying it when it releases, but that's because it's from EA more then anything else, so it'll be a wait and see type of deal for weather I'll get it eventually. Still, it seems odd, and the reason stated just doesn't make sense to me.
 

DementedSheep

New member
Jan 8, 2010
2,654
0
0
This doesn't surprise me.
If I remember right, originally in ME1 they had Faith with her own gun but they dropped it, deciding guns didn't fit her or the game. Faith isn't a pacifist but she doesn't do mass killings of law enforcement.
I remember seeing somewhere that they intentionally made the guns handle like crap because the game isn't meant to be played like a shooter. Guns make some of the combat sections a bit easier but I got the impression you aren't really "suppose" to be using them, they just didn't force you to drop them.
I think using the disarms, throwing the gun and keeping moving flows much better with the rest of the game which is about movement and timing. Hopefully this means they will put more effort into making the hand to hand combat better, they won't be forcing fights because a player can't fall back on just picking up a gun and they can focus on other things rather than making half-assed gunplay just so they can says it's there.
 

Fiz_The_Toaster

books, Books, BOOKS
Legacy
Apr 8, 2020
5,498
1
3
Country
United States
Good.

I hated using guns in Mirror's Edge, and it felt super awkward using them. They weighed you down and it really broke the flow of the game for me, so I'm glad that they're dropping it.

Hopefully, they will make the disarms and the hand-to-hand combat better because of this change. Make it smoother and not based on how lucky you were to hit the right prompts. Really excited for this game to come out.
 

Andy Shandy

Fucked if I know
Jun 7, 2010
4,797
0
0
Yeessssssssssss. I'm all for it if it allows them to put more of a focus on the free-running.
 

Redryhno

New member
Jul 25, 2011
3,077
0
0
You know, in a way, this makes me sad. Not because I missed the shooting, but just because I'd really like there to be a game where you having a gun means you can just get people to give up so long as you have the gun pointed at them. Like the new Battlefield, or I Am Alive, except better implemented.
 

vledleR

New member
Nov 3, 2014
115
0
0
Andy Shandy said:
Yeessssssssssss. I'm all for it if it allows them to put more of a focus on the free-running.
Yeah, the free-running was pretty broken in Mirrors Edge. Easily exploitable things like punching in the air to gain distance on your jumps, or constantly jumping while running to gain speed. It was pretty silly.
 

LaoJim

New member
Aug 24, 2013
555
0
0
I'm ambivalent about this:

On the one hand, shooting obviously wasn't a core or even necessary part of Mirror's Edge. On the other hand, I quite like the idea of having the choice not to shoot someone - to chose pacifism rather than to have it forced upon me. On a third hand, it seems the developers want to send a clear message that they are not CoDifying the game as some fans have feared. On the fourth hand, I am now worried about them Arkhamifying the combat.
 

Ambient_Malice

New member
Sep 22, 2014
836
0
0
IMO, it's a questionable design decision. Mirror's Edge isn't a Jackie Chan movie where not using guns during chase sequences and fights can be handwaved with comedy.

Mirrors Edge's FPS mechanics were servicable on PC. They allowed a degree of gameplay freedom.

Removing the ability to pick up guns completely risks feeling extremely artificial. Oh, gee, I'm cornered. If only I could pick up that shotgun on the floor, but I can't because reasons. Na, I'll just charge madly at the enemy, hoping my nonsensical "free running" invulnerability triggers fast enough.

It strikes me as a misguided attempt to make Mirror's Edge more sophisticated. Like how Ubisoft tries desperately (and wrongly, IMO) to prevent Assassin's Creed games turning into third person shooters.
 

Zhukov

The Laughing Arsehole
Dec 29, 2009
13,768
0
0
Good.

For me, that's a relief. Anything to avoid them turning it into yet another fucking shooter.

I always played Mirror's Edge without guns anyway. I have a hundred other games about shooting dudes.
 

CrystalShadow

don't upset the insane catgirl
Apr 11, 2009
3,829
0
0
Given the original gamel this makes sense. The guns felt out of place. I always felt it would've worked better if you kept the disarms, but tossed the gun by default.

Guns are a lot more awkward than they sound. It's not unreasonable to make that choice.
 

AlouetteSK

New member
Sep 4, 2014
47
0
0
Good. As good as having the choice to shoot or not was, I think this game was more about momentum and flow. Gunplay bogs down this idea because it makes players have to slow down to aim. That being said, I'd like a cutscene where she tries to shoot, and it turns out you don't get any kind of perfect aim without training, like say, her sister(?) has with the cop training. As long as the map design allows for several methods of navigation, and no sniper/boat stupidity, then this will be a guaranteed buy from me.
 

BeerTent

Resident Furry Pimp
May 8, 2011
1,167
0
0
DementedSheep said:
This doesn't surprise me.
If I remember right, originally in ME1 they had Faith with her own gun but they dropped it, deciding guns didn't fit her or the game. Faith isn't a pacifist but she doesn't do mass killings of law enforcement.
I remember seeing somewhere that they intentionally made the guns handle like crap because the game isn't meant to be played like a shooter. Guns make some of the combat sections a bit easier but I got the impression you aren't really "suppose" to be using them, they just didn't force you to drop them.
I think using the disarms, throwing the gun and keeping moving flows much better with the rest of the game which is about movement and timing. Hopefully this means they will put more effort into making the hand to hand combat better, they won't be forcing fights because a player can't fall back on just picking up a gun and they can focus on other things rather than making half-assed gunplay just so they can says it's there.
This is actually what I liked about the combat in Mirror's edge.

Guns were unwieldy, difficult to use. Using them didn't feel right, but in my mind as a shooter guy, they still felt like a necessity. I think it all turned out pretty cool. Doing the disarm, using the gun for a moment, and then just casting it aside. You broke the flow, but now you don't have to deal with the enemies. And of course, those rare moments where you kept the gun and the flow was pretty goddamn cool, shooting someone up with a handgun as you slid under a garage door.

I see why they chose to remove the guns for Catalyst... I just feel a bit down that I feel they took out a cool component of the game.

Dunno why I feel sad though, I'm gonna keep the solitary boycott up.

Maybe it's because I'm getting older? I don't really care for these power fantasies. Halo is boring to me. I like a game where all is hopeless, the enemies are all powerful, and your skills are far underwhelming in comparison to your enemies. Faith isn't trained on how to use these guns. Your people in The Darkest Dungeon will collapse from the stress and become abusive, hopeless, or paranoid.[footnote]Even to the point of refusing heals and dying on their next turn. WHY DISMAS!?[/footnote] XCOM, Long War's troops are significantly under-equipped to deal with the threat. I hear something like, being in the zone, and invulnerable against bullets as, well... Dull.
 

Zhukov

The Laughing Arsehole
Dec 29, 2009
13,768
0
0
BeerTent said:
I hear something like, being in the zone, and invulnerable against bullets as, well... Dull.
Actually, kinda with you on that one. (Also somewhat with you on the power fantasy thing in general, but with caveats.)

Being immune to bullets by going fast enough as a mechanic leaves me scratching my head a bit.

Hopefully they make it so it's a challenge in itself to maintain enough momentum to get that effect. If so, I can get behind it, even if it does sound a bit goofy. We shall see.
 

Darth Rosenberg

New member
Oct 25, 2011
1,288
0
0
Zhukov said:
Actually, kinda with you on that one. (Also somewhat with you on the power fantasy thing in general, but with caveats.)

Being immune to bullets by going fast enough as a mechanic leaves me scratching my head a bit.
It does sound dopey, but in terms of trying to emphasise a core Mirror's Edge style experience, I can easily see why they moved in that direction. Speed should be rewarded, especially when in the original - unless you knew the map - speed tended to mean you were going to die/fall off something faster... I found myself slowing down around enemies shooting at me, because I wanted to assess how I might safely proceed. Give a kind of invulnerability or buff once your speed's up? And maybe that player behaviour changes.

It's kinda like Valve trying to force/encourage a certain experience for those as the Tank in L4D; without the 'timer', players simply didn't play like the Tank was supposed to be behave (they waited, ambushed, co-ordinated, etc). Incentivising speed in a Mirror's Edge game seems to make sense, although I'd personally prefer some kind of manual bullet (arf... ) time feature, so speed = increased precision, not just-- well, increased speed and likelihood of falling off a skyscraper.

Anyhoo, as for the actual topic? I'm fine with it, as I never used a gun in Mirror's Edge outside the tutorial. Of course, I've still never finished the damn game and only got it a few months back, but whatevs... A protagonist not killing is a big draw for me, in an industry saturated with psychologically Teflon coated sociopaths who are never affected by the violence they unleash on the world and people around them (the awful, callous Assassin's Creed games come to mind).

The choice of pacifism would be more valuable, sure, but then they'd need to suitably punish those who decided to use guns anyway. For the sake of coherent character narrative (i.e. Faith doesn't want to take life) and gameplay, forcing a no weapon rule makes sense.
 

AlouetteSK

New member
Sep 4, 2014
47
0
0
Ezekiel said:
AlouetteSK said:
Good. As good as having the choice to shoot or not was, I think this game was more about momentum and flow. Gunplay bogs down this idea because it makes players have to slow down to aim. That being said, I'd like a cutscene where she tries to shoot, and it turns out you don't get any kind of perfect aim without training, like say, her sister(?) has with the cop training. As long as the map design allows for several methods of navigation, and no sniper/boat stupidity, then this will be a guaranteed buy from me.
I don't want a cutscene like that because it would imply that she wants to kill police officers and security personnel. That's pretty low. She's just fighting against the system. She doesn't want to create more hurt.
Was just tossing a hypothetical scenario out there for poking fun at the first game's gun mechanics. Besides, I never said that she'd go on a bloody rampage, and I'm sure that storywise there is a plausible explanation of her trying to use a gun. Heck, it could even be a plot point. Sister tries teaching Faith to shoot, she messes up or doesn't like it, does things her own way.
 

happyninja42

Elite Member
Legacy
May 7, 2020
8,577
2,898
118
DementedSheep said:
This doesn't surprise me.
If I remember right, originally in ME1 they had Faith with her own gun but they dropped it, deciding guns didn't fit her or the game. Faith isn't a pacifist but she doesn't do mass killings of law enforcement.
I remember seeing somewhere that they intentionally made the guns handle like crap because the game isn't meant to be played like a shooter. Guns make some of the combat sections a bit easier but I got the impression you aren't really "suppose" to be using them, they just didn't force you to drop them.
I think using the disarms, throwing the gun and keeping moving flows much better with the rest of the game which is about movement and timing. Hopefully this means they will put more effort into making the hand to hand combat better, they won't be forcing fights because a player can't fall back on just picking up a gun and they can focus on other things rather than making half-assed gunplay just so they can says it's there.
Yep, that's pretty much what the deal was. When you were carrying a weapon, it did several things to you, both of them bad:

1. Slowed you down.
2. Made you unable to do some of the parkour stuff you needed to do to traverse the map.

In a game about running and jumping and speed, both of these things were very bad.

I personally loved the fact that the game discouraged using guns to beat the game. It's not like we have a shortage of games with guns, to have a title that focused the gameplay on something else was quite refreshing, and really spoke to me personally. So I applaud DICE for doing away with it entirely, and putting the focus on other ways to deal with the threats. I personally had way more fun finding ways to just haul ass and bypass the people with guns, leaving them in my dust. xD

I will definitely be buying this at some point, probably not on release, because I try to avoid that at all costs, but some sale period, sure thing.