Mirror’s Edge…2D?

I haven’t much to write about this week (or the time to play many games at all) but I thought I could pass along this pretty neat find (thanks Joystiq!): A 2D Flash version of EA’s Mirror’s Edge. It’s amazingly well done and I think captures the parkour/fast-paced action of the console version (but without all of the intensely frustrating deaths or crap shooting controls). It also sounds fantastic, thanks to the inclusion of the actual game’s soundtrack (or parts of it at least). This is truly one of the coolest Flash games I’ve seen simply because of how FAITHful it is (I know, *groan*) to its 3D big brother…er, I mean sister. :)

If you get a chance, check it out – I don’t think you’ll be disappointed.

Mirror’s Edge [PS3] Review

Nowadays, it’s not often that you have a game come along and actually try something different. In fact, it’s even rarer to have a “different” game NOT be a sequel of some sorts to an existing franchise. Because of these two distinct traits, Mirror’s Edge caught my eye earlier in the year when the first promotional video came out for it.

The teaser trailer painted a setting of a city…white & shiny, clean and orderly…but with something terribly wrong and corrupt just behind all the gloss. The game was to revolve around “runners” – individuals who, for whatever reason, choose to deliver secret packages for clients who need to operate out of the sight of the government’s ever-watchful eyes.

Before Mirror’s Edge came out though it was revealed by the developers that they were already planning the sequels to it. Not only was this a bit cocky since this was a totally new IP that might not sell well, it also gave many gamers (myself included) a horrible gut feeling that the story (whatever it might be) would be just a fraction of something bigger like so many others games do now (Half Life, Halo, Metal Gear Solid, etc.). That’s fine and dandy…but what if the game doesn’t do well financially? What about this epic story then? Will it be forever unfinished like the no-ending Shenmue series?

Before I talk about what Mirror’s Edge doesn’t do right, let me mention the things it does (or attempts to do) well. For starters, the sound is great. The new age/pop/techno soundtrack is very well done and, unlike many 3D adventure/exploration games now I seem to end up playing, music is always present in each level. It should also be mentioned that the vast majority of the game’s 3D visuals look great. Some full-screen anti-aliasing would’ve helped overall but the enviroments look really unique and the character models are well designed and animated too. Finally, I think EA should be given a pat on the back for trying something different with Mirror’s Edge gameplay. It was a risky move to base a game around an unproven visual and control format…but they did it anyways. More developers/publishers need to do this.

Now, let’s talk about why Mirror’s Edge simply didn’t live up to the hype…

The simplest answer is that Mirror’s Edge is a game based around visual style instead of a visual style based on a game. Let me explain. While the 3D perspective is a neat concept and certainly makes the game appear unique, the sad truth is that the game is a lot harder than it has to be because of this. The controls never feel quite right (even in the last stage I was never comfortable in thinking I knew where my fingers were and what actions would have to be performed in what order…that’s pretty pathetic. I blame it on the poor button mapping and over-use of the shoulder buttons). The hit detection feels dodgy (many times I’d clearly grab a ledge or run on a wall and the game simply wouldn’t register it). The combat is awful (while the first-person perspective should work the controls felt sloppy in aiming and response time…fighting was never fun). Also, there’s really no chance to explore the levels since everything is so linear..and the few times you do get to look around, there’s nothing to do with anything you might find (the extent of enviroment interaction is pressing buttons).

Basically, the developers should have made the demo we all played and then asked themselves if the game really would work if that’s all that was in it. And for those of you who played the demo…what you played IS the game. Unfortunately there are no surprises waiting for you in any department.

Another gripe I have with Mirror’s Edge is its story. While I wasn’t expecting something deep, the story you are given probably could have been completely written on index card. It’s pretty sad. Also, as I feared, the game has no ending and ends rather abruptly. There’s also vanishing cops at the end. (Don’t ask…) Even with those story issues though the real problem were the cutscenes. Imagine someone decided to use the look of the 2D, cartoon Esurance commercials to tell the story of a game that has done so many other things rather realistically visually. Wouldn’t that just be a bizarre combination for you to experience? One wonders why the developers just didn’t make the story be told via 3D cutscenes using the game’s awesome looking character models because the 2D animation no doubt took just as long (and looks extremely sloppy).

Finally, let’s talk about the game’s difficulty. As most gamers have heard, Mirror’s Edge is extremely short: 6-7 hours at the most. So that already knocks the game down to rental status. Then, players discover the game is really only about 4 hours long because you’ll simply be dying repeatedly for the other 2-3 hours. That will make many gamers sad and angry. The problem lies in the game’s forced one-way-to-finish-a-level design. Even though Mirror’s Edge would like you to believe you will have lots of freedom in getting from point A to point B…the sad truth is that you don’t. Also, even though I mentioned it already, I have to say again how bad the combat is. Melee fighting is a joke (especially when you’re getting shot at from all sides) and aiming or shooting any gun is a terrible experience.

I won’t say I hated Mirror’s Edge because it’s not the worst game I have ever played. However, it isn’t really a fun game and [this is bad to say] isn’t truly even worth the 6-7 hours the game does deliver. Any gamer who picks this up will end the game feeling bored, relieved, disappointed, mildly upset and slightly cheated. I can’t imagine who’d be extremely happy, proud or eagerly waiting for the sequel after finishing it. So my final verdict is to just pass on Mirror’s Edge completely…you aren’t missing anything worth seeing or experiencing even if EA would like you to think otherwise.

Graphics: 7 | Sound: 8 | Play Control: 4 | Fun Factor: 3 | Final Score: 47%

The Real Mirror’s Edge

I still haven’t played Mirror’s Edge. I’ve wanted to ever since I saw the initial trailer for it. And it was a big reason why I chose to buy a next-gen console this fall even though I was quite happy with a PSP purchase in August.

But then I played the demo…and it really didn’t offer much more than a training scenario and maybe 5 minutes of gameplay. I noticed some problems at that time but I figured I was only seeing a glimpse of the true product. Apparently I wasn’t. At least there was a demo though – so I gave kudos to EA for at least doing that much. Although I tried to avoid any review of the game online, it was pretty much unavoidable: Critics responded to Mirror’s Edge with a big, “Meh.”

Their biggest complaint? The game’s length — around 6-8 hours. The other major gripe? The controls which forced players to take part a die-and-repeat style of gameplay that Prince of Persia, Flashback and Oddworld used years ago.

So fine. It’s not game of the year. And that’s alright. There have been many games over the years that turned out less exciting than I expected. That wasn’t the problem. My problem is this — why did Mirror’s Edge get such a cold shoulder when it obviously was trying something different when just a year earlier Valve’s Portal basically did the same exact thing?

Portal was even shorter than Mirror’s Edge – the first play through perhaps took 3-4 hours. Subsequent runs could be done in less than 2 hours. There really weren’t tons of ways to finish levels — especially when they got more complex…so the argument that Faith has limited routes to the end of levels in Mirror’s Edge doesn’t seem quite fair when you compare the two.

Also, perhaps Portal didn’t have a player die constantly…but to be perfectly honest…the only thing Portal had going for it was the Portal gun. It was pretty much as gimmicky as the first person view in Mirror’s Edge. It’s a neat concept but hardly something that should or could be used in all games. Also, it’s not something unique enough I’d want to build an entire game around.

Read that previous sentence again, because that’s the key to this argument. Portal, like it or not…isn’t really a true game. It’s very short, has no story, limited replay value and no multiplayer. I’m not saying any or all of those are conditions to be considered a game but c’mon…what Portal turned out to be was just a fancy demo of a neat weapon – the portal gun. However, Mirror’s Edge was built to be a full game with a longer campaign, multiplayer options, downloadable content, etc. – this was a concept packed in a real game. Like I said, I haven’t played it beyond the demo so I can’t speak for the story but it can’t be any worse, vague or simpler than Portal’s.

What I’m trying to say is why did Portal get nothing but praise and Mirror’s Edge get kicked in the crotch? I mean, ME was actually one of the very few unique, innovative games trying something new this year. There were so many sequels (GTA IV, MGS4, Soul Calibur IV, etc.) and so many generic rip-offs (Dead Space *ahem*) it was refreshing to see a new intellectual property with a unique twist on gameplay. Sure, I had a feeling the first person view might not work in an action game…but at least this company was willing to try and find out!

I think a major reason why Portal was recieved with so much love is because Valve has made two games the press has done nothing but praise for over a decade: Half-Life 1 & 2. That’s it. (Team Fortress and Counterstrike are just online-based shooters and were heavily influenced by modders so those don’t really count as Valve game offerings.) Meanwhile, EA owns a bazillion publishers and has got nothing but crap for buying people left and right. They came very close to buying Rockstar earlier this year but the GTA maker would have nothing of it. EA later withdrew its offer, giving the game industry a very unique view of the company — although they come across as some huge evil corporation they still want to make good games at the end of the day…and they probably figured out if they bought Rockstar just to get GTA, gamers would ditch the GTA franchise because of the EA brand alone.

Meanwhile, EA begins funding new IPs in hopes of making their own GTA-success story. Of course, developing a game for the 360/PS3 and trying to surpass gamers’ visual expectations is an expensive thing and something Valve didn’t worry about when it released Portal, a game that used HL2’s graphic engine from 2003/2004. But critics loved Portal’s visuals, saying they were clean and effective. Did anyone hear much praise for Mirror’s Edge’s visuals? Not me. I thought it looked very stylish…but apparently if you have a certain brand attached to your title you can get away with using old technology and STILL get a better write-up from critics.

In closing – let me just say I don’t hate Portal. I like it – I really do. But I just don’t understand why the game review industry (which ultimately affects the opinions of shoppers) loved it for trying something slightly different but pissed on Mirror’s Edge for doing the same thing? I can tell you this: Because of Mirror’s Edge’s bad press and poor sales, you can kiss a sequel goodbye because I’m almost certain EA’s pulling the plug.

Anyways, I just think the way this game was treated by the industry was a shame. Yes, the game could have been more but it sounds like it was solid first effort. Apparently now though you either have to make a super-popular AAA title out of the gate or you just need to churn out sequel after sequel under your much loved brand to be popular and make money.

Mirror’s Edge: Teetering On Mediocrity

Ermmmm…so, I guess Mirror’s Edge is now a trilogy. Check out this Kotaku article for more information on the parkour-themed first-person series.

Like so many titles now publishers/developers are pushing for games to be trilogies. Last year Crysis was was said to be a part of a trilogy, Assassin’s Creed was the start of a trilogy and even the recently released but critically dismissed Too Human (by Eternal Darkness creator Silicon Knights) was said to be a trilogy as well. Then, of course, we had Halo 2 and Half-Life 2 both being made as “Part 1 of 2″ in a trilogy and Metal Gear Solid 2 & 3 being created with the intention of a guaranteed future installment being made.

Point is, it seems whenever companies guarantee X amount of games ahead of time the quality of one or all games in said series suffer. Sometimes a bit, sometimes horribly. In Too Human’s case, I don’t think anyone (gamer or critic) will be interested in a follow-up. If there is a follow-up it’ll be done on a shoe-string budget using many of the first games assets in order to minimize development time / maximize profits. It’s the same thing sports games suffer from – mini-updates done over years and years of annual installments so that one year’s game is nearly indistinguishable from the previous or following title. Tomb Raider is another example of ”cheap sequelitis”.

I remember way back in the early ’00s when Oddworld was nearing completion on the original XBox (or it may have even been earlier than that when Oddworld: Ade’s Exoddus was being released in the late 90s). I distinctly remember an article interview with the game series’ creator saying how the Oddworld game series was originally planned as this huge 5-game epic series spanning multiple console generations and being graphically revolutionary in some way with each game. You know what happened? Oddworld on the XBox sold okay (it was a launch title but nothing spectacular) but then the game series all but disappeared after that. The lofty goals and epic plan went absolutely nowhere and no one even noticed or cared. Oddworld was semi-cool back in the late 90s in the niche category on the PlayStation (but then again, so many titles were like that on the PS1) but within a couple years gamers had “been there, done that…” and moved on. I personally think Mirror’s Edge’s gameplay may also be at-most a one-hit wonder. Right now it’s neat because we haven’t really seen anything like it. What’s next – a new city to run through? Unless they have a magic Ace up their sleave, the game developer really shouldn’t get too bold in announcing future installments yet.

Instead of putting out a solid decent game and trying something new out it seems like certain developers are hell-bent on milking a franchise to death on an annual basis (Tomb Raider, Mortal Kombat, Tony Hawk, anyone?) and now they’re starting to do that before games even come out!!!

Another major flaw in having game series span multiple titles before the first one is even out is that if a storyline is involved, the ending is usually a lame-ass “To be continued” and/or anti-climactic one. Say what you will about Star War’s Empire Strikes Back being a great film (which it is) but you can’t argue against the fact that the ending in it was not very well done. I mean, it was exciting – but only because the final movie turned out to be good. In more recent cinematic examples, Pirates of the Caribbean: At World’s End and The Matrix: Revolutions (& even Spiderman 3 I guess) proved that a lousy final installment in a trilogy will lessen the impact of the previous film(s) before it.

In the more recent game world, Halo 2 had a craptastic ending, as did Half Life 2 and Metal Gear Solid 2. What’s so sad is that in these three franchises the first game in each was made as a standalone title and was siginificantly more memorable and well-executed than anything that came after it. Coincidence? I think not.

Hearing this about Mirror’s Edge makes me feel sad — I haven’t even played it (great trailers do NOT mean great gameplay) and the game makers are promising two MORE games before anyone even determines if the game is great, average or sucks altogether. I will say this though – if I play Mirror’s Edge and I feel like the ending is some variation of “to be continued” and isn’t completely self-contained, I highly doubt I will continue on to games 2 and 3.