×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Mirror's Edge Sequel On Hold

Soulskill posted more than 3 years ago | from the one-and-done dept.

Games 109

An anonymous reader tips news that Electronic Arts has rejected DICE's pitch for Mirror's Edge 2, halting development on the sequel to 2008's Parkour-inspired first-person action game. "'Patrick [Soderlund - EA driving and shooting game boss] acknowledges that Mirror's Edge didn't match up to their expectations regarding sales, and that has stopped the sequel that has been in development,' declared the report, published originally in December. EA was shown a prototype, but declined with askance. The project has been stopped — involved parties at DICE are working on something else now. Patrick himself seems to have Mirror's Edge near his heart, but they are not in the business of charity.' Presumably the extra development is going into Battlefield 3 — EA's well publicized attempt at wrestling shooter supremacy from the Call of Duty series."

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered

109 comments

Bullshit (4, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35208118)

This is bullshit, Mirror's Edge was barely a game. We've seen the single player campaign fps thing a billion times, it really needs to go big! The sequel really would of been what it needed to deliver the first time around. Ah well another reasonably original IP, dies another shitty sequel is made.

Re:Bullshit (1)

commodore6502 (1981532) | more than 3 years ago | (#35208542)

Never heard of Mirror's Edge. What makes it so special that you say, "We've seen the single player campaign fps thing a billion times, it really needs to go big!"

Re:Bullshit (5, Informative)

somersault (912633) | more than 3 years ago | (#35208638)

*facepalm*

First of all, go and look up the definitions of Parkour or Freerunning.

There have only been a couple of games based on this, and the other was just a Tony Hawks style 3rd person trick-fest

Mirror's Edge was pretty much based on pure Parkour, first person view, with plenty of running, jumping, climbing and generally figuring out how to get your way through the level (kind of like Portal, but without the Portals). You could do melee attacks/disarms and use weapons too, but the game was designed such that if you were a good player you wouldn't need to do much fighting.

I was looking forward to this sequel a lot. The first game was indeed a bit short, and now that I do Parkour myself some of the movement options in Mirror's Edge feel a bit restrictive.

At least there's still Brink [brinkthegame.com] to look forward too, but it's very much a shooter, with a bit of Parkour tagged on.

Re:Bullshit (yes the game is bullshit) (1)

dieth (951868) | more than 3 years ago | (#35208896)

It's controls where also horrible and the game atleast the demo was very unplayable. I don't know how anyone could have enjoyed this game, let alone the developers want to make a sequel with the thousands of horrible reviews it got.

Re:Bullshit (yes the game is bullshit) (1)

somersault (912633) | more than 3 years ago | (#35209072)

What specifically about the controls were horrible? I can think of stuff that perhaps could have been improved, like the wall running, but I wouldn't have called it "horrible". I tried Prince of Persia recently, and it was certainly better than that.

I don't know how anyone can enjoy any of Blizzard's games, but that doesn't mean anything - a large number of people still continue to enjoy them.

Re:Bullshit (yes the game is bullshit) (2)

deek (22697) | more than 3 years ago | (#35209176)

I played the first one on the PS3. The game was great! I thought using parkour for a game was awesome fun.

I don't know what the controls were like on other systems, but the PS3 felt pretty natural to me. It was so much fun to pull off strings of moves, like doing a wall run, then spin and jump, grabbing onto a pole, flinging yourself forward to some platform which you hit at a running pace. Once the controls became instinctive, the movement just felt so natural and fluid. An excellent game. One of my favourites.

Re:Bullshit (yes the game is bullshit) (1)

interkin3tic (1469267) | more than 3 years ago | (#35211634)

It's controls where also horrible and the game atleast the demo was very unplayable

It sounds like you mean that you hadn't played a hundred clones of the game before and thus didn't know how to play the game before you picked it up. Maybe you thought that since it was first person perspective, it should play like every other FPS out there. That's not possible since the game was about navigating obstacles, unlike almost any other game. Once you got used to them, the controls worked great.

Re:Bullshit (4, Informative)

HAKdragon (193605) | more than 3 years ago | (#35209078)

I think combat, especially in the later levels, was the biggest let down to be honest. If they scaled that back a bunch or made it almost pure free running, I think I would have loved the game a lot more than I did.t

Re:Bullshit (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35211962)

would of been

I am sure you had something to say. Unfortunately it all just sounds like "Oh my, I am a person of questionable intelligence with sub-standard writing skills!".

Re:Bullshit (1)

blahplusplus (757119) | more than 3 years ago | (#35213142)

Mirror's edge 1 was nothing revolutionary it was FPS with platforming mechanics... I quite dislike how FPS style has come to take over the industry.

Shame (4, Informative)

rainmouse (1784278) | more than 3 years ago | (#35208134)

Such a shame, the first one had so much potential but was partially spoiled by terrible map design and an awful lot of player deaths.

Re:Shame (2)

Gadget_Guy (627405) | more than 3 years ago | (#35208450)

Such a shame, the first one had so much potential but was partially spoiled by terrible map design and an awful lot of player deaths

That is interesting, because I actually expected to die more often than I did. But I don't have a problem with dying in a game anyway. That might be because I started playing games in the 80s when finishing a game was not a forgone conclusion (when you died you had to start again).

I really enjoyed Mirror's Edge, especially when you turned off the red colouring that pointed where to go all the time. That made it way too easy and it spoiled the tension when you had to think on your feet - or in midair.

I knew that it was short before I bought it, so I didn't get disappointed by the length. (It helped that I got it on sale for $5!)

Re:Shame (1)

GameboyRMH (1153867) | more than 3 years ago | (#35208692)

Lot of player deaths? Maybe if you try to go through without shooting anyone to get the achievement. There weren't that many player deaths IMO, and dying is no huge problem in Mirror's Edge (the only place I always died is when you have to jump to that floor where the sniper rifle is, and then shoot out the tire on the police truck. How the hell do you get down there without dying? As soon as you step out of the vent you're standing on cardboard roof tiles!)

Now DMC4 on the other hand, that game is fucking hard, and if you die you get to choose between losing one of your precious lives or loading the game from waaaay back when. On hard mode I can't get past the snow level where you get attacked by a bunch of ice demons (just before you enter the castle for the first time IIRC)

Re:Shame (1)

justsomebody (525308) | more than 3 years ago | (#35212140)

hah, you jump on the ledge and down. sad story, dying was faster way to climb down;) in speed run dying was a must

Re:Shame (2)

hansamurai (907719) | more than 3 years ago | (#35209164)

I would say the map design was pretty good, and dying wasn't an issue because the level design was implemented in such a way that dying wasn't that much of a punishment. There were only a few very large underground open areas where I was frustrated with the lack of checkpoints.

And like someone else mentioned, the real problem was with the combat. Mirror's Edge was all about getting into the zone and quickly zipping through the level smoothly. That was mostly interrupted whenever a gun-less bad guy showed up, and destroyed whenever you had to shoot back, or at least fight back against gun-toters

Don't mean to promote my site but I wrote lots of words on Mirror's Edge back in December: http://firsthour.net/full-review/mirrors-edge-greg-noe [firsthour.net]

On topic of the headline, this is disappointing, to say the least. The industry needs less focus on one genre (such as FPS). Mirror's Edge was a fun platformer from the first-person perspective.

Re:Shame (1)

rainmouse (1784278) | more than 3 years ago | (#35211746)

I would say the map design was pretty good, and dying wasn't an issue because the level design was implemented in such a way that dying wasn't that much of a punishment.

Thats exactly the problem I had with the game, where dying becomes part of the game mechanic, then instantly re-spawning and doing it again properly. That to me screams failed map design. The game itself was very enjoyable and I didn't have any problem with the shooting that everyone else seems to have, it's just that it could have been so much more.

Re:Shame (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35213138)

Err, how would you have wanted them to do it? There are already generous checkpoints, you don't have to restart the entire level or anything. Would Faith just rebound off the pavement? I imagine learning real parkour involves a lot of bruises and injuries. There has to be some failure state - even if they made it so the buildings were only a story high, so you only lost some health if you missed a jump, there would be the tedious returning to where you were to try the jump again either way, besides losing any of the possible tension. DICE did a pretty good job of walking you through what had to happen next with the runner's vision where objects are highlighted in red. I can't think of a system where there wouldn't be some trial and error, short of some patronizing voiceover telling you exactly where to go and what to do.
If anything, there should have been more alternate routes, so you really could find your own way across the levels. An open world Mirror's Edge, I'd love to see something like that.

Re:Shame (1)

kiddygrinder (605598) | more than 3 years ago | (#35214830)

how does it scream of failed map design? they wanted to make it hard but not punish the player too much for failing, sounds like they got the map design perfect to me.

Re:Shame (2)

interkin3tic (1469267) | more than 3 years ago | (#35211658)

and an awful lot of player deaths

How is that a thing? It's a videogame, your character dies all the... Wait, you mean -ACTUAL- player deaths?!? Like the game kills people? Whoa man... I really dodged a bullet there...

Re:Shame (1)

rainmouse (1784278) | more than 3 years ago | (#35211824)

and an awful lot of player deaths

How is that a thing? It's a videogame, your character dies all the... Wait, you mean -ACTUAL- player deaths?!? Like the game kills people? Whoa man... I really dodged a bullet there...

In most FPS games they have a bit about 2 thirds of the way through where the formula dictates they change the pace of the game before building up to the big finale. In many of these games they decide 'I know a really annoying jumping on moving platforms bit where the player falls down again and again before finally getting past would flesh this out'. In Mirrors Edge it had entire maps following this annoying jumping bit formula only when you fall down you die and respawn instead of having to climb back up and that to me was pretty immersion breaking.

This is why corporations are bad (5, Insightful)

giuseppemag (1100721) | more than 3 years ago | (#35208138)

Because they do not judge the value of something based on quality, but exclusively on money. This way many good products get ditched...

Re:This is why corporations are bad (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35208182)

This is why consumers are bad. They don't buy buy things because of quality. If the best was to make money was to release quality products (by your definition) that's all the top corporations would do. If ME2 was going to be such an awesome product, put together a case, buy the rights and put the game out? Surely, you an enlightened individual can achieve what a mere corporation can't? Never mind, you're obviously too busy making vague critical remarks on Slashdot.

Re:This is why corporations are bad (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35208256)

ME2 was an awesome product, but I fail to see what that has to do with TFA.

Re:This is why corporations are bad (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35208296)

For the parent, ME2 : Mass Effect 2
For the parent's parent ME2 : Mirror's Edge 2

Re:This is why corporations are bad (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35208402)

lol me2!

Re:This is why corporations are bad (-1, Troll)

0123456 (636235) | more than 3 years ago | (#35209244)

For the parent, ME2 : Mass Effect 2
For the parent's parent ME2 : Mirror's Edge 2

Ah... I was confused for a moment because I couldn't understand how anyone could call a stinker like Mass Effect 2 'awesome'.

Re:This is why corporations are bad (1)

giuseppemag (1100721) | more than 3 years ago | (#35209700)

Actually I am an indie game developer, so yes, I struggle to achieve this every fucking day. But thanks for playing.

Re:This is why corporations are bad (1)

c0lo (1497653) | more than 3 years ago | (#35208310)

Because they do not judge the value of something based on quality, but exclusively on money. This way many good products get ditched...

May also have something to do with the fact that you cannot sample the quality properly without paying up first for the full crap?

Re:This is why corporations are bad (2)

August_zero (654282) | more than 3 years ago | (#35208448)

Except that Mirror's Edge was short on both.

It did have a striking visual design, and the basic idea was good, but after you get past that first impression the gameplay never really progressed. I liken it to the first Assassin's Creed, great first impression, but after about 2 hours you have seen everything the game has to offer and the experience begins to stagnate.

Re:This is why corporations are bad (5, Insightful)

Nagrom (1233532) | more than 3 years ago | (#35208494)

True, and I think that's why this news is so disappointing - Assassin's Creed II was an enormous improvement upon the first one and there was plenty of potential to do the same here with a Mirror's Edge sequel. Oh well.

Re:This is why corporations are bad (1)

Nemyst (1383049) | more than 3 years ago | (#35210166)

This. Mod this up please.

Ubisoft gave AC a second chance and it paid off tremendously. Mirror's Edge is definitely worthy of another shot, too.

Re:This is why corporations are bad (1)

justsomebody (525308) | more than 3 years ago | (#35212306)

not true. i have to admit that during first gameplay i thought somewhat like you.

then i tried speed run and since level time limit was 6 min while i still didn't finished it in 99:59:99 i figured i have to do something wrong. 5 days later i finished all speed runs in time limit and boy... i can tell you completely different game. purest high speed action i ever played.

biggest problem this game had was bad presentation how and where you should run. red vision marked probably THE most boring and unintuitive way how to get to the goal, while no one really told/shown you running basics like speed vaults and so on.

Re:This is why corporations are bad (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35213262)

The first Assassin's Creed was a bit samey... but it was a beautifully crafted environment and a fabulous story that just left you wanting to see more.

Mirror's Edge gave you a headache with it's graphics, and had no story for speaking of. I tried to get into it twice.

Re:This is why corporations are bad (1)

Sc4Freak (1479423) | more than 3 years ago | (#35208606)

Well, duh. That's the whole point of a business: to make money.

I suppose you think that without corporations we'd live in a fantasy land with unicorns and fairies where hundreds of people and millions of dollars can appear out of nowhere to start making quality video games.

Re:This is why corporations are bad (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35208938)

Well, duh. That's the whole point of a business: to make money.

The question "What part of Goldman Sachs is good for the country?" implies otherwise.

Re:This is why corporations are bad (2)

giuseppemag (1100721) | more than 3 years ago | (#35209946)

Sort of. Games can be good and tell interesting stories (ME was an instance of a decent critique of modern societies) with believable characters (once again, ME is one of the few games featuring a female protagonsit with less than 6kg of breasts). Making these games is harder than making dumb games with lots of shooting and semi-naked sterotypical women with huge breasts, and so is selling these games. That is why I feel a tad disappointed. There was a lot of potential that is now lost, and this is because in our society we are yet to find a way to balance money which is a but poor as a sole metaphor for value.

My original comment did not in any way imply that corporations should be removed or disappear.

Finally, I am an indie game developer. I have just rejected a series of sketches from one of the designers that my publisher sent me: the main female character was completely naked apart from some futuristic boots. So yes, I make this kind of struggle to avoid clichés and dumbness very often...

Re:This is why corporations are bad (1)

interkin3tic (1469267) | more than 3 years ago | (#35211756)

I suppose you think that without corporations we'd live in a fantasy land with unicorns and fairies where hundreds of people and millions of dollars can appear out of nowhere to start making quality video games.

I didn't see anything in his post suggesting that corporations are something we'd be better off without. He can't idly criticize something unless there's a viable alternative?

Re:This is why people are bad. (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35208696)

People can't judge the value of something based on quality. A lot of time the crappy product comes out on top. VHS vs BetaMax. Nientendo Gameboy vs Atari Lynx. In many instances people demonstrate a lack of insight, judgment, and rationalism. The larger the group the more likely these qualities are to be in effect.

-In the USA, we model our society on the Greek City states. They awarded their top Olympic athletes free room and board for the year. In the USA we call this prison.
-The United States of America. We are number #1 in per capita prison incarceration rates. We are #1. We are #1. We are #1.

Re:This is why people are bad. (1)

PitaBred (632671) | more than 3 years ago | (#35208850)

VHS vs Beta is a misnomer. Same with Gameboy vs Lynx. The problem is that you seem to think that everyone should buy everything purely on technical mojo and not actual, you know, content.

VHS won because it had longer recording times than Beta, 120 minutes to Beta's 60. The slight picture quality difference was MUCH less important [wikipedia.org] than being able to record more than an hour.

As for Gameboy vs Lynx, the whole problem is games. Just like it was with the Saturn, with the Dreamcast, with countless other failed technological marvels. It's an amazing piece of hardware that you couldn't actually use to play games because there were no games. Not compared to the Gameboy.

I do agree that our incarceration rates are way too high, but I fail to see what that has to do with the Olympics. I'm thinking you should make sure you're using actual tinfoil instead of aluminum foil though.

Re:This is why corporations are bad (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35210074)

You are short sighted.

The real problem is people. Stupid people. The people who only buy crap.

The corporations just go where the money is. You can't just force people to like things.

Good according to who? (1)

Sycraft-fu (314770) | more than 3 years ago | (#35211050)

Mirror's Edge was crap, which is why it sold poorly, which is why they didn't make much money.

To me your post just sounds like a generic anti-corporate rant, with no relevance to the actual issue at hand. Of COURSE corporations care about money, they have to or they'll go out of business. Making games is not free, it is actually quite expensive if you hadn't noticed. That means the games need to sell to make money back or they cannot afford to do it. They have to have the sales to pay all the programmers, artists, level designers, testers, and so on that.

Now how well a game sells is 100% up to consumers. If people like it, if they feel it is a good game and buy it then it sells well and the company makes money. If they ignore it, don't purchase it, then it does not and the company does not make money. The control really is in the hands of the consumers for this. It is up to them where to spend their money.

Now if you liked Mirror's Edge, well ok, but understand that most people didn't (and do a search online and you can find lots of reasons why). That being the case you cannot expect EA to want to fund a game just for you, or you and a few others. You can't say "They should spend millions on a game and expect to lose a lot of money because only a few people want it." That is selfish and unreasonable.

Re:Good according to who? (1)

justsomebody (525308) | more than 3 years ago | (#35212450)

2.5mio is sold poor? well, it is not same as battlefield, but whole lot more than development costs. if they wouldn't like battlefield figures more, ME would surrely warrant a sequel

i kinda feel that most people liked that game (taking into account people that finished at least 1 speed run)... scores, videos on youtube (i doubt you will find game with more videos and more tributes), being constantly mentioned in gaming forums as their wish for sequel tells me game has avid fan base.

its only problem was it wasn't straight out shooter and most people didn't know what to think about it. it is much easier to sell generic shit like battlefield

Re:Good according to who? (1)

Sycraft-fu (314770) | more than 3 years ago | (#35214106)

May not be enough to cover costs. So assume that everyone bought the game at full price. They probably didn't all but just assume. The publisher sees maybe half of that. In the case of consoles it is less than half since they take about $10/copy sold. So $20ish per copy is what the publisher makes. Well that translates to around $50 million. Not bad, but it is easy for a game to cost that much. So if development was in the same area of cost then the game may well have been not very profitable, perhaps even taken a small loss. That isn't worth making a sequel. If your original didn't turn a reasonable profit, there's a good chance your sequel will take a loss.

Re:Good according to who? (2)

UnknownSoldier (67820) | more than 3 years ago | (#35214326)

> Mirror's Edge was crap,

I'm a game programmer, designer, and my friends know that I tend to be very vocal about ranting (-negative) and rave (+postive) about games _with_ very specific design (& implementation) reasons WHY said games are good/bad.

You haven't listed _any_ reasons.

I am going to include what I emailed my friends back in Dec '09 when I finished it.

Raves

+ Story was engaging enough for me to actually finish the game - it was half-decent. I was entertained. Maybe I had no expectations, or was able to put all the hype aside. Regardless, they could of easily messed this one up, and was thankful EA didn't fuck it up or make it worse then it could of been.

+ The martial arts mini-boss battle with the white assassin was REAL interesting to figure out how to beat. The hand-to-hand combat was neat when you were able to execute the timing.

+ Artistic / Beautiful (over-saturated) world, even if bordering on "bland." The main menu definitely has a very cool look to it when you stop and considering it is all being rendered in real-time was used to be pre-rendered cut-scenes just 5 years ago. The "visuals" of the game reminds me of originality of the pre-rendered cut-scenes of Privater.

+ Music was awesome and fit the mood perfectly. Rank 11 / 10 .

+ The game is literally a puzzle game -- where do I go next. I enjoyed the last few levels of the game the best. Initial frustration turned to joy of figuring them out.
http://www.mahalo.com/mirrors-edge-kate [mahalo.com] (Start watching around 5 min mark)
http://faqs.ign.com/articles/953/953471p8.html [ign.com] (or start here)

+ You can skip the cutscenes! Thank-God.

Rants:

- Unfortunately, most of the time you have no clue how to actually get where you are supposed to go. Yes, I used the built-in hint to view. I still spent far too much time trying to figure out how the heck to get up there. Yes, this is a VERY fine line between spoon feeding the player and forcing him to solve difficult puzzles. While the overall level design was good, the individual specific environment hints of where to go next was terrible. The levels were for the most part, not intuitive. Which leads me to my next point...

- I grok the point of the game. I really do. You pull off all these amazing moves in one zen flow of execution and it feels fucking fantastic!

The hard Reality of the situation: You spend 1 minute figuring out where to go next. You die. You figure out that jump / climb, then you get stuck again trying to figure out the next 'segment'. Repeat ad nasuem. This constant interruption on trying to figure out how to make your way from 'Start' to some vague 'Finish' location, TOTALLY breaks the flow of the game. Each time you die, you figure out a little more of the "path" you are supposed to take. Finally, after 20 deaths, you can "chain" all the movement together, it feels awesome to do all these "stunts", and you think "this game has potential !" Then you die, and you realize you are a new checkpoint and you get to do it all over again until the chapter is done. LOL.

- Bad save-points. There was even one point where the save-point was BEFORE a cutscene, so when you died you had to skip it all the time. WTF? Place the dam save-point AFTER. If cut-scenes weren't skippable, I think this would of been a pretty major deal breaker.

- Was too easy to accidently skip the cutscenes. The first time I played I actually ended up skipping the cut scene when ending the first level because I didn't realize my direct action was over !

- The world is BARREN. Aside from a few pedestrations you see down below on the street, you never see anybody "normal" in any of the offices or indoors aside from Police or a few people dependent on the plot. Even the inside offices were "too clean." Not even a secretary was around ??? Grand Theft Auto was (partially) successfull because it had the "feeling" of being a living, breathing world.

- The 1st person view of forcing you to jump or wall-jump makes the game more difficult then it needs to be. Seriously, who wants or needs a 1st person 360 camera spin squatting forward roll ??

- The escapism is just too blatant with the invisible armor. You can take 3 or 4 direct bullet hits, but yet the same weapon kills a cop in 1 shot?? This total break of immersion hard to put aside.

- The intermissions used a LAME cartoon look (and I _love_ traditional comics.) It really didn't mesh with the game AT ALL.

Summary:
* You can "play" the entire game just by watching the Mahlo walkthroughs and save yourself the agony of repeatedly trying and failing, and the $5. (I say $5, because I would only buy this game if it was on sale for less then $10.)

Bottom Line:
Story was good, has moments of potential. If you have nothing else to play, its on sale, and you like platform jumpers, like Tomb Raider, then you might enjoy it.

TL;DR: Mirror's Edge had _potential_. We bought into it. We would love to see a sequel with what they learnt in the mean-time. Sadly, we won't get that chance now.

Cheers

Re:This is why corporations are bad (1)

interkin3tic (1469267) | more than 3 years ago | (#35211728)

That's usually the case, yes, but in this case I think the corporation actually was helping mirror's edge 2's chances. The president of EA was pushing for a sequel when the game didn't actually sell very well.

Motion sickness (1)

Andy Smith (55346) | more than 3 years ago | (#35208240)

Mirror's Edge is one of the most tense and atmospheric games I've ever played, and it deserved to sell better than it did. Unfortunately it gave me extreme motion sickness. One time after playing it for just a couple of minutes I felt so nauseous that I had to go and lie down, and I slept for the rest of the day. It's such a shame because it was a brilliant game, but I could only play it for tiny amounts of time so I gave up by about halfway through the second level.

Re:Motion sickness (2)

Spad (470073) | more than 3 years ago | (#35208252)

It was one of the things I really liked about the game; not the motion sickness, obviously, but the fact that you felt like a person rather than the camera-on-wheels effect that most FP(S) games seem to go for.

Re:Motion sickness (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35208292)

It did not "deserve" to sell better than it did.
A massive free-roaming world (ie, the kind which all the camera angles wished you thought it was) that had more than an hour of gameplay might have, but as it was, Mirror's Edge was just a cool concept demo which should never have been sold as an end product.

Re:Motion sickness (1)

biryokumaru (822262) | more than 3 years ago | (#35208374)

Ya, it was almost as bad as that stupid "Mario" game... I just feel like I'm jumping on koopas down a hallway, you know?

Free roaming is nice, but 3d graphics don't necessitate non-linear gameplay. If you can concede being railroaded, as people are implicitly willing to do in scrolling games, you might find you enjoy the actual gameplay a lot more.

That said, Mirror's Edge just felt like a well done 3d Mario to me, and I agree it didn't deserve too terribly much praise.

Re:Motion sickness (1)

Ephemeriis (315124) | more than 3 years ago | (#35208348)

Unfortunately it gave me extreme motion sickness.

This.

I played it just briefly... The demos looked fantastic, I couldn't wait to see what it was about. And after about 10 minutes I had to shut it off.

Re:Motion sickness (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35208764)

The same happened to me. But it wasn't as bad as Wolfenstein 3D or Timesplitters 2. Watching or playing those 2 games had me in agony for hours, including headaches and nausea.

The odd thing is that I play other FPSes, and plenty of fast action games, yet only those (and HL-2) bring up those reactions. It has to be something specific, but I don't know what.

Re:Motion sickness (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35210722)

There was a big noise when the game came out about how it screws up your proprioception, your internal sense of the positioning and orientation of the various parts of your body. You have a first-person view of a world where your avatar is doing all these rapid, acrobatic moves. But the difference between Mirror's Edge and other games is that you can see your avatar's body as she moves around. Your brain is immersed in this, and while one part of your brain accepts the body parts you see as your own body, your proprioception doesn't match up, so your brain gets confused to the point where you can even get nauseous.

Enormous Potential (1)

deemen (1316945) | more than 3 years ago | (#35208276)

I thoroughly enjoyed Mirror's Edge the first time around. The movement system was absolutely phenomenal and jumping from building to building was a lot of fun. I don't understand why reviews were so mixed or sales so poor. DICE's innovation made the game unlike anything I had played before. Had I known the sequel would be canned, I'd have bought 2... or 5 copies. DICE has the engine now, they could really push it with a sequel and bring the rest of the game up to par (online multiplayer, longer campaign, more stunts). It's a shame this awesome franchise will fizzle out because of budget constraints...

With one HUGE problem (5, Insightful)

SmallFurryCreature (593017) | more than 3 years ago | (#35208376)

Apart from all its strengths it suffered one HUGE flaw.

It had the flaw of the most extreme console platformers. The HUGE "how the fuck was I supposed to know THAT" flaw.

Some platform games have lots of hidden features or specials that can only be found through methodically exploring every last pixel of a level. The worsed (or best if you like this) of them even have in the main game play. Where your progress through the game is a constant Trial and Error approach with you NOT being able to do just get it right the first time because there was no way for you to know what to do.

You know the examples, the landing target you can't see until you made the jump meaning a fall to your death until you got the jump correct. The enemy attack that you can only counter once you know what it is.

Mirror's Edge looked a LOT like a FPS and most modern FPS give the player a different style of game. If you are good most of them can be played first time around without dying because challenges are about seeing the problem and then solving it. Not, oops I died WTF happened. Mirror's Edge was nicely done in the tutorial but pretty soon you were to often caught by guards while trying to figure out where the hell you were supposed to go to.

There is a reason Tomb Raider doesn't have so many guards running around while you are exploring. ME just forgot that there is a reason racetracks have got far more signs showing you were to go then a ordinary road. Because at 300+ km/h you do NOT want to have any surprises about the upcoming corner.

For many the game held a lot of promise but since it was all about speed its "run a bit, fall, reload, run a bit more, fall, reload" gameplay just wasn't it. It appealled to the kind of person who gets a kick out of memorizing a Mario run through. For the ordinary Maria player who just wants to run through a level it was to unforgiving and to obscure with where you were supposed to go while also constantly adding pressure so you never could just look around to see what the designer had in mind you do next.

That 99% of the time there was only one path didn't help either.

Re:With one HUGE problem (2)

tucara (812321) | more than 3 years ago | (#35208592)

I agree with your basic premise and found myself thinking the same thing at first. Then after playing for a while I'd get in the zone where I could go for long stretches w/o dying, that there was a certain logic in the layout. I ended up having a lot of fun playing it and wished it was longer. The atmosphere was well done, too. Also, I tried it with a gamepad at first and found the mouse/keyboard is WAAAY better, as usual, so perhaps that didn't help console sales. A few year ago a tried parkour around the Boston area and found it a lot of fun and very challenging. I stopped quickly after a) being terrible at it and b) breaking my toe. But, the people I did meet and watched had a philosophy which I think was captured very well in this game. That being said, I can imagine why video game that intends to appeal to people who are interested in parkour didn't sell well. They're too busy doing crazy stuff at your local T-stop.

Re:With one HUGE problem (1)

MistrBlank (1183469) | more than 3 years ago | (#35208702)

If you felt that 99% of the time there was only one path, you didn't give the game a chance, or you didn't bother to try to look for a different direction. You failed, not the game design.

The only time the game felt like it was on rails like that were the many (not all) of the fight scenes. You weren't supposed to fight, they gave you the tools if something got between you and your target you had a chance to eliminate it, but at it's core it was a runners game and you were supposed to run, not fight. And in most of those "guard" scenes of the game, there was a clear goal, but the way of getting there could have been through one set of stairs or jumping down from a high ledge or using scaffolding to get up and around. The environment allowed for a free reign of options even if you were stuck in a box corridor with the goal at the other end.

Re:With one HUGE problem (1)

Quiet_Desperation (858215) | more than 3 years ago | (#35209514)

The biggest problem was simply "first person + platforming". I have yet to see this work well. In fact, first person platforimg generally shows up on lists of "what not to do in video games". I'd love to see a 3rd person rework of it.

I tried the demo, but there was this part I had to run and jump at this thin vertical pipe way out from a roof edge. No matter how carefully I lined up and kept the analog stick straight, I would drift in midair after jumping and just miss it every time. The game offered no help, so I gave up.

Re:With one HUGE problem (1)

Jim Hall (2985) | more than 3 years ago | (#35209972)

Apart from all its strengths it suffered one HUGE flaw. It had the flaw of the most extreme console platformers. The HUGE "how the fuck was I supposed to know THAT" flaw.

...

For many the game held a lot of promise but since it was all about speed its "run a bit, fall, reload, run a bit more, fall, reload" gameplay just wasn't it. It appealled to the kind of person who gets a kick out of memorizing a Mario run through. ... That 99% of the time there was only one path didn't help either.

Your comment hits ME's problem right on. It advertised itself to be a first-person freerunner game, dodging pursuers, sprinting out of gunfights. The potential for multiple avenues seemed awesome. I played the demo, and I was even ok with the occasional "knock the gun out of his hand, then beat him unconscious" because it felt like part of the "escape".

But that wasn't the game I bought. It really was a "one true path" game. I got stuck more often than I'd like, and you had to figure out what the level designer wanted you to do rather than the way I wanted to do it to get past several levels. I got stuck on a level where I couldn't figure out how to get to the exit. I could see where I was supposed to end up, but couldn't figure out how to get there. Trial and error just lead to death, respawn, retry, repeat. I eventually just gave up. Later, I checked a walkthrough and found I was about 3/4 through the game, but I didn't feel like finishing it.

I'm glad they canned the sequel.

Re:With one HUGE problem (1)

bolthole (122186) | more than 3 years ago | (#35212328)

It really was a "one true path" game.

No, it wasnt. other than (you need to get from point A, to point B) and so the endpoints are fixed.

An amazing example of this, is if you try the online trials. Just the first main training course, even. there's an official "get gold" type of time, which is something like 1min20sec. And you think "wow, that's gonna be tough". Butyou remmeber the training, and maybe you manage to do it "just right", and get it. But then you check out the ONLINE scores... which come with **ghost replays**. and you see, "wow, that guy did it in 1 min flat, how's that even possible?" So you load up the ghost, and see a way you didnt even think was possible. And maybe you try that out.

But then you see there's a guy that did it in **40** seconds, and you think WTF?!?!, check out his ghost, and he did it in a way that the first guy didnt even think of... Other than the parts where you are stuck in corridors, there *are* really many ways to get to the destination.

Re:With one HUGE problem (1)

grumbel (592662) | more than 3 years ago | (#35215880)

No, it wasnt. other than (you need to get from point A, to point B) and so the endpoints are fixed.

Not really, it pretty much was a "one true path" game by design and while you could here and there add in a bit variation, that variation never was very large. What you do in time trial is very different, as there you have the time to do the exploration and try dozens of times, also you don't have enemies to worry about, on a single playthrough of the game you are never ever going to find many of those paths or even any add all. Adding a few hidden path just doesn't make it a non-linear game, more the opposite, it just goes to show that those hidden paths are something special to be discovered, not but of the main gameplay.

That said, I never had an issue with that fact, its an environment puzzle game, very much like Prince of Persia, Another World, etc. and finding the one true path is pretty much what you do in those games.

Re:With one HUGE problem (4, Interesting)

billcopc (196330) | more than 3 years ago | (#35211636)

I had that feeling of disorientation in the beginning, where the sequence of events seemed totally random and idiotic. Then it clicked in my head, as if I suddenly gained the ability to instantly scan an area and piece together an escape route. The game is designed for you to race through, so by necessity there is a certain flow that must be maintained.

The problem is at first, I had also just finished playing the ludicriously violent Stranglehold. I thought Mirror's Edge was an art-house FPS, so I was thinking in FPS mode. I'd automatically look for cover, try to anticipate where dozens of bad guys might storm out, and they never came. Once I got out of that rut, and accepted the fact that, most of the time, I'd be free to roam the rooftops like a suicidal gazelle, I started thinking in terms of "can I make that jump" and "where does that zip line go". When a baddie showed up, rather than whip out the gun and go for the headshot, my thought was "hey fuck off you're blocking my ladder".

A sequel would have allowed DICE to expand on this concept, address some of the flaws (game length), add some ground-level urban maps to "bring it home" so to speak, maybe an option to remove all the shooters making it more of a zen experience. That said, it is clearly not in line with EA's nihilistic capitalism. If it can't sell 10 million copies and three expansions, it ain't worth EA's time.

Dammit (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35208286)

Fuck you, EA. Fuck you. DICE is one of the few mostly consumer-centric dev teams that I still have expectations of and you pull a dick move like this?

Eh, with the way things are going with $ony, I might not have reason enough to get a new ps3 and thus, Mirror's Edge 2. Your loss.

Not surprised. (2)

Onuma (947856) | more than 3 years ago | (#35208308)

While Mirror's Edge was a fun game to play, I felt it lacked the substance that many games have. The storyline was short and hardly captivating, and the levels were too few to consider it for purchase and replay. This is where Gamefly and friends with games are great! However, I certainly enjoyed the Parkour style of movement, the combination of fist fights and disarming/shooting enemies with their own firearm, and the speed challenges after playing through the story mode.
It wasn't ever meant to be a blockbuster which changed the way people think about shooters and gaming in general, but it does have its own little niche in my VG memory. Many shooters have an extremely linear path which you're obligated to take in order to progress the storyline -- Mirror's Edge helped delineate that path, created a mode where the player could sometimes think outside conventional methods of completing a task. Jump over the pipe, slide under it, go around it? Avoid the guard, beat him up, or shoot him from a distance?

It wasn't a total revelation, but more than once I've wished I could do some of the things you did as Faith (the protagonist, for those of you who didn't play Mirror's Edge) while playing different games. Nothing wrong with shooting everything dead and letting God sort them out, but it's nice to have options. This game made me think about those options...even if I still choose the trigger :D

Re:Not surprised. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35208614)

They could have polished and improved the gameplay bases on critics like yours.
But I guess we'll never know since it seems if you don't get it right the first try, you never will. And that's a real shame.

Not in the business of charity? (1)

Gaian-Orlanthii (1032980) | more than 3 years ago | (#35208340)

Looking at EA over the years, it seems they're not in the business of making games either. Rather, they believe their business is in making entertainment product labelled 'games'.

Let's not forget either that it was EA executives who tried to strongarm DICE into making Mirror's Edge a shooter, but DICE quietly refused to comply.

Re:Not in the business of charity? (1)

ProbablyJoe (1914672) | more than 3 years ago | (#35208538)

Around the time Mirror's Edge came out, it actually looked like EA was starting to release some new and innovative games again, after years of sequels and sports games.

I liked Mirror's Edge, though the complaints here are all valid. I've have loved to see what they might have done with a sequel.

I don't know what the actual sales figures or reviews were like, but it seemed like a well received game. It's sad that games companies aren't willing to release a potentially good game because it's not going top the charts.

Re:Not in the business of charity? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35210832)

Looking at EA over the years, it seems they're not in the business of making games either.
Rather, they believe their business is in making entertainment product labelled 'games'.

I thought they were in the business of making interactive media products labeled "entertainment".

Re:Not in the business of charity? (1)

billcopc (196330) | more than 3 years ago | (#35211684)

Not quite. They're in the business of selling multiplayer frameworks labeled "expansion pack fodder".

Very disappointing (2)

FromWithin (627720) | more than 3 years ago | (#35208344)

This is very disappointing news. Mirror's Edge is one of my all-time favourite games. According to vgchartz.com, it sold over 2 million copies between the PS3 and x360 versions and probably a lot more since those number were last updated. That's pretty close to Dead Space's figures (2.6 million), and EA was also disappointed with the results of that project. Yet, Dead Space 2 has arrived complete with a ton of marketing. I don't see how anyone can claim that Mirror's Edge wasn't a success, even if EA's expectations were wildly optimistic. I hope that it doesn't get resubmitted and released in future as a terrible multi-player game, but I do hope that there is a sequel eventually.

Re:Very disappointing (1)

billcopc (196330) | more than 3 years ago | (#35211822)

Only in the U.S. can you sell 2 million units of something and still be considered a failure. EA and Activision need to stop thinking like Hollywood if they are to survive another decade of this nihilistic dumbening of the industry. We (game developers) used to produce a much wider variety of games on comparatively microscopic budgets, and there was something for everyone. This is going way back, but I'm reminded of a few indie titles on the PS1 that I still replay from time to time, like Intelligent Qube and Devil Dice. They sold maybe a million each, but cost much less than $100k to produce.

Not every title needs to be a cinematic masterpiece, that is nothing but a self-fulfilling prophecy that is rotting the industry inside-out.

Re:Very disappointing (1)

aj50 (789101) | more than 3 years ago | (#35213638)

Only in the U.S. can you sell 2 million units of something and still be considered a failure.

Success or failure is determined not by copies sold but by profit made.

Profit depends on your costs. If your game was made by a few guys in a single office over a few months then your costs could be pretty low. Mirror's Edge was made by a large team over several years.

Profit also depends on income. Mirror's Edge dropped in price quickly after release and you could pick up a copy for about £5 now. Additionally it has been on sale on Steam and at other online retailers several times. Copies sold at a discount obviously provide less income.

So how to fail after selling 2 million copies? Make a hugely expensive game and make most of your sales at a huge discount.

Re:Very disappointing (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35215012)

So, since you don't want games to be excessively cinematic, you should be happy that EA is canning a game that was designed around the fact that it is extremely cinematic, right?

The fact that indie titles do well, and are profitable, is great for indie developers. When you budget your break-even point at, say, 500 copies, you feel great when you sell 1,000. Mirror's Edge, as an A-list game, probably needed a couple million sales to break even. In surprising news, companies that insist on doing the same thing when they aren't making money go out of business.

so... (1)

hitmark (640295) | more than 3 years ago | (#35208358)

Not enough forced on rails shooting (hell, one can finish the whole game without firing a shot), and limited multiplayer (and so less enforced sales as the match making servers will aggressively check serials and such) and i am not surprised the EA bigwigs dropped a sequel.

Re:so... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35208684)

... (hell, one can finish the whole game without firing a shot)...

How do you disable the armored police van without firing a shot? I've seen many claims of people beating this game "without firing a shot", but they seem to forget that you must use the sniper rifle to disable the van. If there's another way of disabling the van on the street below you without firing a shot, I've not seen it.

One of my all-time favorite games, by the way.

Re:so... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35212472)

Honestly the fact that you could finish the game without firing a bullet is a PLUS because you CAN do it and not forced to it :)
Freedom was a main theme in this game and it was refreshing

Re:so... (1)

hitmark (640295) | more than 3 years ago | (#35212898)

And that is why it failed with the execs, as they do not get freedom...

Its kinda funny in a way, all the big entertainment sectors sell "rebellion" yet do not want their customers to rebel against them,

It seems Brink has already picked up the torch. (2)

Joshua Fan (1733100) | more than 3 years ago | (#35208372)

A full combat implementation was one of the natural potential developments, and I think Brink will do it well, even if it doesn't give the original any credit.

Shame, given a promising move from EA (1)

PriyanPhoenix (900509) | more than 3 years ago | (#35208416)

While EA was continually (and rightly) blasted for putting profits before quality, Mirror's Edge represented them delivering on a surprising promise to invest in new IP, alongside Dead Space that year. Sadly they felt stung by the move with lower sales than anticipated despite a sizeable marketing push unusual for a new IP. Meanwhile Dead Space (great but less interesting to me) is becoming a new gaming heavyweight franchise.

I absolutely view Mirror's Edge as a success and think there's plenty of room for strong sales with a sequel now that it has a recognizable name. It's not a game for everyone, but the exhilarating feeling of freedom in first person will be missed. For me the game only struggled in its closing levels when it started throwing too many enemies at the player so that fight (intentionally its most limited mechanic) overtook flight.

So much potential, instead we get another sequel (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35208500)

... and if EA think I'm going to buy Battlefield 3 while they're already lining up DLC for the game before its even out, they're very much mistaken.

Re:So much potential, instead we get another seque (1)

Narishma (822073) | more than 3 years ago | (#35209790)

We get more sequels because more people will buy them than new games, simple as that.

Charity (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35208624)

"but they are not in the business of charity"

Fuck that. How about concepts like improving the industry overall, expanding and welcoming new game ideas, or furthering the notion that games can be art?
You know, stuff that doesn't just revolve around the bottom line and proves that publishing corporations are made up of *people* instead of some sort of self-aware narcissistic greed-bot.

Re:Charity (1)

Issarlk (1429361) | more than 3 years ago | (#35208706)

I think EA can just wait for indies or smaller companies to do the "improving" and "art" stuff. They can alway buy the successful game concepts once they are identified.

MIRROR'S EDGE meets CALL OF DUTY (rifles only) (1)

makusu (797409) | more than 3 years ago | (#35209860)

I think that game had a lot of potencial. I've thought of a game like that for years and I really liked ME but..it lacked ..stuff. the maps could have used ..maybe someone more inspired by this "sport"..cuz they were a bit dull..or something. im just saying, it could have been much better..but I guess it's a FIRST ONE..and sometime the first of something don't do that well. If I ever make it to the game industry, I'll make a MIRROR'S EDGE meets CALL OF DUTY (rifles only)

Re:MIRROR'S EDGE meets CALL OF DUTY (rifles only) (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35210214)

Agreed, Bad Company 2 already adds a lot in terms of realism but still just has boring jump and crouch. Toss in ME2 movement dynamics (damped down to suitably match the whole laden-down-with-stuff limitations of military) and it would make BF3 interesting.

Climbing onto buildings, jumping from rooftop to rooftop as a sniper, etc...

Re:MIRROR'S EDGE meets CALL OF DUTY (rifles only) (1)

bolthole (122186) | more than 3 years ago | (#35212372)

I think the word you are looking for, instead of "stuff".. is "color" :-}

the colour pallet was almost greyscale.

Why? (1)

Altaile (1779454) | more than 3 years ago | (#35212922)

Mirror's Edge was such a great game. I mean, I honestly must have beaten the campaign on every difficulty at least 11 or 12 times, on both consoles. I mean, the story was fantastic, the gameplay was great, the soundtrack for the game went so perfectly with the game, and to be honest, next to FF7, and a couple other games, Mirror's Edge is up there with my favorite games of all time. They really are making a mistake.

Re:Why? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35213402)

Because Mirror's edge sucked. It was a FPS platformer.

Shooter Supremacy? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35213502)

EA already has it, and has had it since Battlefield 1942.

Shame, was a great IP (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35214020)

I enjoyed the game, yes it had its flaws and several obscenely annoying choke points (the assault team with automatic weapons in the warehouse of exploding barrels, and the rooftops of snipers near the end). However, it just made me want to get through and beat it.

I did win the achievement Leap of Faith, without shooting anyone, on hard too.

A agree with a lot of comments and several scathing reviews (like Yhatzee [escapistmagazine.com], but for me it's originality made up for it.

Like Assassin's Creed to Assassins Creed II - Ubisoft listen to the criticisims and made a much better flowing game. I expect DICE would have done the same with ME2 - hopefully kept it as a FPS too.

I love Mirror's Edge (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35214182)

I think it is one of most innovating games in recent times and the game mechanics are incredible.
I also love the aesthetics of the city and the music is awesome too.
The game is hard in some places (especially the part where you need to climb inside the building to find the sniper rifle) and level design could be a little better.
It is such a shame that there will be no sequel. It is probably the one sequel I have ever waited for.

Frankly, I rather liked it. (1)

Roxxxadelic (1531715) | more than 3 years ago | (#35215124)

Then again, I guess I'm not a typical twitch fps gamer. Story is probably the most important element of a game for me, and I found the story rather appealing.

This is why I liked it.
* Story is the most important to me (which is why I liked Mass Effect *, Vampire the Masquerade: Bloodlines, Halflife *, NOLF, Dreamfall)
* I'm a PC gamer. Maybe the console controls were problematic, but I didn't find the PC controls that hard.
* It wasn't about killing endless hordes of baddies
* The characters were appealing
* Parkour is cool
* The soundtrack was great
* It wasn't 'the same'. It had a slick European feel to it.
* The main character wasn't the typical large breasted (with advanced breast physics) 'wearing-next-to-nothing' character.

Things I didn't like:
* It was too short. Triple the size and it woulda been great.
* Load times
* There were a few moves that weren't obvious, and a few scenarios that weren't obvious (running to grab onto the chopper to escape the police)

Things EA coulda done to make it more of a success, IMHO:
* They never sufficiently market test/market analyze the over-22 year old female gamer community
* They didn't sufficiently market to that community
* Overpriced for it's size, hence their expectations were too high.
* Release a decent DLC
* Better beta testing to catch the potential issues early

this is good (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35215736)

maybe dice can get that team to help with the bugs in battlefield BC2 as that game is fun but fucked up because no one there seems to care about it.
AND STOP USING THE BINK SHIT! It sucks and part of the problem with the bugs!

Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Sign up for Slashdot Newsletters
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...