Review: Mirror's Edge

Mstrswrd

Always playing Touhou. Always.
Mar 2, 2008
1,724
0
0
Not to sound rude (so, sorry if I end up sounding as such) or arrogant (Same as before), but I didn't have that much trouble with the game. Beat it in about 6 hours after I got it (on normal). Going through it again now to get all the bags and such that I missed. Were you playing with the small aiming reticle dot thing turned off? Turn it on of you have been. That makes it a lot easier if you've been having trouble with it off.
 

AntiAntagonist

Neither good or bad
Apr 17, 2008
652
0
0
I've been loving the game so far.

The plot leaves some to be desired, but hopefully that will change before the end.

Currently running through as a pacifist. It is a tough scenario, one in which channeling my 11 year old self (the one that had to play a platformer game a million times to get through ONE LEVEL) is the one way to continue.

A little more time was given in certain levels would've been great for exploration. However being gunned at while escaping without returning fire is an rare sensation.

Patience wanes with the GEICO cut scenes as well. There wouldn't have been as much of a problem if the composition and timing were at least a little different than those commercials.
 

Susan Arendt

Nerd Queen
Jan 9, 2007
7,222
0
0
Mstrswrd said:
Not to sound rude (so, sorry if I end up sounding as such) or arrogant (Same as before), but I didn't have that much trouble with the game. Beat it in about 6 hours after I got it (on normal). Going through it again now to get all the bags and such that I missed. Were you playing with the small aiming reticle dot thing turned off? Turn it on of you have been. That makes it a lot easier if you've been having trouble with it off.
I don't take offense at all - if you happen to be better at the game than me, that's awesome! I'm sure that a large portion of the audience will have an experience like yours...but I also guarantee that a large portion of the audience will have an experience like mine.

You are, however, absolutely right about the reticle...playing the game without it is a bad idea.

Oh, and it's not Geico, it's Esurance. ;)
 

Susan Arendt

Nerd Queen
Jan 9, 2007
7,222
0
0
I must be the only one who doesn't like the protagonist of this game. Sure, it's a step in the right direction, with more realistic features, but there are characteristics about her which really annoy me.

Firstly, her name. The book, Freakonomics, has a lot to answer for, but ever since I read that part of it relating to the names of children, I couldn't help but associate names like Faith, Destiny, etc. with poor - and by extrapolation, usually uneducated - people. Thanks a lot, Steven Levitt!

Secondly, the shoes. I have some very strange things which cause me a great deal of distaste, and footwear which resemble flip-flops, or any footwear which has to be held by the toes, is one of those things. (An example of another distasteful thing to me is fingerprints on screens, a reason why I couldn't buy the iPhone.)

Thirdly, and the most irritating bit of all - that bloody eye tattoo. To me, there's no point making your character realistically attractive if you're going to obscure that with an eye tattoo which causes instant disgust in my eyes.

For these very small and extremely pedantic issues, I will not be purchasing the game.
 

smallharmlesskitten

Not David Bowie
Apr 3, 2008
2,645
0
0
RAKtheUndead said:
I must be the only one who doesn't like the protagonist of this game. Sure, it's a step in the right direction, with more realistic features, but there are characteristics about her which really annoy me.

Firstly, her name. The book, Freakonomics, has a lot to answer for, but ever since I read that part of it relating to the names of children, I couldn't help but associate names like Faith, Destiny, etc. with poor - and by extrapolation, usually uneducated - people. Thanks a lot, Steven Levitt!

Secondly, the shoes. I have some very strange things which cause me a great deal of distaste, and footwear which resemble flip-flops, or any footwear which has to be held by the toes, is one of those things. (An example of another distasteful thing to me is fingerprints on screens, a reason why I couldn't buy the iPhone.)

Thirdly, and the most irritating bit of all - that bloody eye tattoo. To me, there's no point making your character realistically attractive if you're going to obscure that with an eye tattoo which causes instant disgust in my eyes.

For these very small and extremely pedantic issues, I will not be purchasing the game.
Those are very pedantic... A characters name, shoes and tattoo.....imagine they are soemthign else
 

OuroborosChoked

New member
Aug 20, 2008
558
0
0
Susan, you know the game was created for the PS3 and then ported to the 360, right?

It seems kind of awkward to me to complain about the controls on the system is wasn't designed for originally.
 

Susan Arendt

Nerd Queen
Jan 9, 2007
7,222
0
0
OuroborosChoked said:
Susan, you know the game was created for the PS3 and then ported to the 360, right?

It seems kind of awkward to me to complain about the controls on the system is wasn't designed for originally.
Why? If you don't plan on getting the PS3 version, it's pretty valuable information that the 360 controls are clunky, don't you think? Or are we simply supposed to say, sure, the poor control choice makes the game less fun than it could be, but heck, it's a port, so let's give it a pass?
 

smallharmlesskitten

Not David Bowie
Apr 3, 2008
2,645
0
0
Susan Arendt said:
OuroborosChoked said:
Susan, you know the game was created for the PS3 and then ported to the 360, right?

It seems kind of awkward to me to complain about the controls on the system is wasn't designed for originally.
Why? If you don't plan on getting the PS3 version, it's pretty valuable information that the 360 controls are clunky, don't you think? Or are we simply supposed to say, sure, the poor control choice makes the game less fun than it could be, but heck, it's a port, so let's give it a pass?
It could have been made clear that the 360 version was the ported version. (Aren't they usually ported to the PS3 from the 360?)
 

Susan Arendt

Nerd Queen
Jan 9, 2007
7,222
0
0
I think everyone thinks that the future will suck because our present sucks. Back in the 50's they were optimistic, and came up with a perfect vision of the future. Now we believe the world is going to hell, and so come up with dystopian futures.
 

Susan Arendt

Nerd Queen
Jan 9, 2007
7,222
0
0
Indigo_Dingo said:
I think everyone thinks that the future will suck because our present sucks. Back in the 50's they were optimistic, and came up with a perfect vision of the future. Now we believe the world is going to hell, and so come up with dystopian futures.
Huh? [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nineteen_Eighty-Four]
 

AceDiamond

New member
Jul 7, 2008
2,293
0
0
RAKtheUndead said:
Indigo_Dingo said:
I think everyone thinks that the future will suck because our present sucks. Back in the 50's they were optimistic, and came up with a perfect vision of the future. Now we believe the world is going to hell, and so come up with dystopian futures.
Huh? [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nineteen_Eighty-Four]
1949 is not the 50s. And the 50s was a time of wild idealism. Hell they thought we'd have (affordable and widespread) flying cars by now and robot butlers, just to name a couple examples. No such luck so far.
 

smallharmlesskitten

Not David Bowie
Apr 3, 2008
2,645
0
0
AceDiamond said:
RAKtheUndead said:
Indigo_Dingo said:
I think everyone thinks that the future will suck because our present sucks. Back in the 50's they were optimistic, and came up with a perfect vision of the future. Now we believe the world is going to hell, and so come up with dystopian futures.
Huh? [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nineteen_Eighty-Four]
1949 is not the 50s. And the 50s was a time of wild idealism. Hell they thought we'd have (affordable and widespread) flying cars by now, for example. No such luck.
Close enough...


And did they think we would have the internet?
 

Susan Arendt

Nerd Queen
Jan 9, 2007
7,222
0
0
smallharmlesskitten said:
AceDiamond said:
RAKtheUndead said:
Indigo_Dingo said:
I think everyone thinks that the future will suck because our present sucks. Back in the 50's they were optimistic, and came up with a perfect vision of the future. Now we believe the world is going to hell, and so come up with dystopian futures.
Huh? [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nineteen_Eighty-Four]
1949 is not the 50s. And the 50s was a time of wild idealism. Hell they thought we'd have (affordable and widespread) flying cars by now, for example. No such luck.
Close enough...


And did they think we would have the internet?
Well, somebody did [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paris_in_the_Twentieth_Century] - about eighty-five years earlier than that!
 

AceDiamond

New member
Jul 7, 2008
2,293
0
0
RAKtheUndead said:
smallharmlesskitten said:
AceDiamond said:
RAKtheUndead said:
Indigo_Dingo said:
I think everyone thinks that the future will suck because our present sucks. Back in the 50's they were optimistic, and came up with a perfect vision of the future. Now we believe the world is going to hell, and so come up with dystopian futures.
Huh? [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nineteen_Eighty-Four]
1949 is not the 50s. And the 50s was a time of wild idealism. Hell they thought we'd have (affordable and widespread) flying cars by now, for example. No such luck.
Close enough...


And did they think we would have the internet?
Well, somebody did [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paris_in_the_Twentieth_Century] - about eighty-five years earlier than that!
And also dystopic, so it's not like one can even say the 50s came up with dystopia.
 

Susan Arendt

Nerd Queen
Jan 9, 2007
7,222
0
0
The 50's was all about the facade of pretending that you were enjoying a life where your government would rob you blind, where death could happen in an instant, and where Black people were still allowed to be treated as second class citizens, and homosexuality was viewed as an actual mental disorder.
 

PedroSteckecilo

Mexican Fugitive
Feb 7, 2008
6,732
0
0
RAKtheUndead said:
smallharmlesskitten said:
AceDiamond said:
RAKtheUndead said:
Indigo_Dingo said:
I think everyone thinks that the future will suck because our present sucks. Back in the 50's they were optimistic, and came up with a perfect vision of the future. Now we believe the world is going to hell, and so come up with dystopian futures.
Huh? [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nineteen_Eighty-Four]
1949 is not the 50s. And the 50s was a time of wild idealism. Hell they thought we'd have (affordable and widespread) flying cars by now, for example. No such luck.
Close enough...


And did they think we would have the internet?
Well, somebody did [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paris_in_the_Twentieth_Century] - about eighty-five years earlier than that!
I bet even Verne would never have imagined the capacity of some flash drives though, or Video Technology. It is strange what has and hasn't been realized from Science Fiction however.
 

Susan Arendt

Nerd Queen
Jan 9, 2007
7,222
0
0
Good review. I'm a bit short on money right now, but I am certainly looking forward to getting this game and spend several hours staring at my tv.
 

AceDiamond

New member
Jul 7, 2008
2,293
0
0
Indigo_Dingo said:
The 50's was all about the facade of pretending that you were enjoying a life where your government would rob you blind, where death could happen in an instant, and where Black people were still allowed to be treated as second class citizens, and homosexuality was viewed as an actual mental disorder.
Hindsight does not equal what the people in the 1950s were thinking at the time. Also the govt. robbing people blind thing was more the 70s and beyond.

Death happening in an instant happened more around the late 50s when Senator McCarthy started scaring people, and even moreso after the Cuban Missile Crisis. It's not like the year 1950 rolled around and suddenly the panic button got pressed.