Mirror's Edge: Didn't take long

On Nov 17, 9:22 pm, Rich Hutnik <richardhut....RemoveThis@gmail.com> wrote:

> Let this be a lesson to people who are crying out, "Give us
> INNOVATION!".  Innovation is a gamble at producing something that will
> be sufficiently appealing.  Mirror's Edge is innovative, and
> apparently people just don't like it.

Looks like that's coming across in the reviews as well...

Metacritic PS3 - 80 (39 reviews)

http://www.metacritic.com/games/platforms/ps3/mirrorsedge?q=Mirror%27s%20Edge

Metacritic 360 - 79 (43 reviews)

http://www.metacritic.com/games/platforms/xbox360/mirrorsedge?q=Mirror...s%20Edg

Variety was particularly vicious:

http://www.variety.com/review/VE1117939039.html?categoryid=1079&cs=1

"Repetitive, difficult and visually dull, the game is undone by its
use of a highly constrained first person viewpoint in a world of high-
speed running and jumping where perspective is everything. Though it
deserves some credit for originality, "Mirror's Edge" is too
fundamentally misconceived to avoid tumbling down the sales charts."

"At first glance, the world of "Mirror's Edge" is stunning, bathed in
nearly blinding light and seemingly full of paths for a runner to
explore. But that scope turns out to be a facade. Save for minor
detours, there's only one right way to go, and the developers at Dice
use barbed wire, ramps and brightly colored hints to mark the path.
When players do discover alternate routes that look interesting,
they'll find that Faith suddenly can't grab ledges or survive falls
she normally should.

Instead of allowing exploration, "Mirror's Edge" is focused entirely
on speed. To make the bigger jumps, Faith needs to build up a full
head of steam. Many levels are also populated by cops who, while not
smart enough to block escape routes, fire their guns nonstop, making
it tough to stop and get one's bearings. Combined with the first-
person POV, this often means the only way to figure out the correct
series of jumps, slides and swings needed to escape a dangerous area
is to die over and over until one has memorized the route (or given up
out of sheer annoyance)."

Sounds like another $20 pickup for yuks.

- Jordan

p.s. The IP does look interesting though, it's just perhaps a 1st
person game isn't the proper avenue. In the right hands it could make
an interesting movie along the lines of District B-13 or Run, Lola,
Run.
 >> Stay informed about: Mirror's Edge: Didn't take long 

Here's the thing - it isn't the gameplay, it's the level design. There's no
flow. When you're on rooftops and running, jumping, etc, it's exhilirating.

When you're in the sewer with 10 people shooting at you (and you die from
3-5 bullets), it's not fun - just tedious.
 >> Stay informed about: Mirror's Edge: Didn't take long 

On Nov 17, 9:22 pm, Rich Hutnik <richardhut....DeleteThis@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Nov 17, 11:38 pm, "Jonah Falcon" <jonahny....DeleteThis@mindspring.com> wrote:
>
> > For me to get tired of this game. Ironic - I got in the sewers, and that's
> > just where the game went: the sewer.
>
> > Glad I rented this dog.
>
> > Interesting visuals? Don't mean much to me.
>
> > High speed gameplay? They ruined that mechanic but good.
>
> > Makes me realize how good Portal really is. 1. it never bored me. 2. only
> > cost $15-20 if you didn't get the bundle.
>
> > Glad I rented.
>
> Let this be a lesson to people who are crying out, "Give us
> INNOVATION!".  Innovation is a gamble at producing something that will
> be sufficiently appealing.  Mirror's Edge is innovative, and
> apparently people just don't like it.


Running and jumping gets boring after a while.

The demo was interesting, but to play an entire game like that? No
thanks.
 >> Stay informed about: Mirror's Edge: Didn't take long 

Rich Hutnik wrote:

> Let this be a lesson to people who are crying out, "Give us
> INNOVATION!". Innovation is a gamble at producing something that will
> be sufficiently appealing. Mirror's Edge is innovative, and
> apparently people just don't like it.

Yeah, but I don't think it teaches anyone a lesson. It's not uncommon for games
that innovate to miss the mark a bit the first time around. It's awfully
difficult to flesh out a brand new gaming concept and get all the details right
in the process. Does that mean we shouldn't cry for innovation? Of course not.
In 2020, do you want to be looking forward to nothing more than Halo 7 and GTA
9? Mirror's Edge will spawn a handful of first-person platformers in the next
few years (possibly even a Mirror's 2), and it's likely that a couple of them
will be better.
 >> Stay informed about: Mirror's Edge: Didn't take long 

On Nov 18, 9:38 am, "Jonah Falcon" <jonahny... RemoveThis @mindspring.com> wrote:
> >Running and jumping gets boring after a while.
> >The demo was interesting, but to play an entire game like that? No
> >thanks.
>
> Actually, no. There isn't ENOUGH running and jumping.


Not enough running and jumping?

Sounds like you need a Wii.
 >> Stay informed about: Mirror's Edge: Didn't take long 

>Running and jumping gets boring after a while.

>The demo was interesting, but to play an entire game like that? No
>thanks.

Actually, no. There isn't ENOUGH running and jumping.
 >> Stay informed about: Mirror's Edge: Didn't take long 

Rich Hutnik wrote:
> On Nov 17, 11:38 pm, "Jonah Falcon" <jonahny....DeleteThis@mindspring.com> wrote:
>> For me to get tired of this game. Ironic - I got in the sewers, and
>> that's just where the game went: the sewer.
>>
>> Glad I rented this dog.
>>
>> Interesting visuals? Don't mean much to me.
>>
>> High speed gameplay? They ruined that mechanic but good.
>>
>> Makes me realize how good Portal really is. 1. it never bored me. 2.
>> only cost $15-20 if you didn't get the bundle.
>>
>> Glad I rented.
>
> Let this be a lesson to people who are crying out, "Give us
> INNOVATION!". Innovation is a gamble at producing something that will
> be sufficiently appealing. Mirror's Edge is innovative, and
> apparently people just don't like it.

But is it innovative? Remember innovation isn't just doing something
different it's also doing something well. For example, the litter free
ring-pull was an innovative idea. The use of bullet time in the Matrix. On
the other hand, the Sinclair C5.

Granted I've not played this game but I looked at some of the videos and I
just though "How is that entertaining?" Then concluded that it wasn't. Like
I said, I've not played the game but the concept doesn't look interesting to
me. Of course I also don't like driving or sports games so it could just be
me.
 >> Stay informed about: Mirror's Edge: Didn't take long 

On Nov 18, 12:57 pm, "Morgan" <Nos... DeleteThis @nospam.co.uk> wrote:
> Rich Hutnik wrote:
> > On Nov 17, 11:38 pm, "Jonah Falcon" <jonahny... DeleteThis @mindspring.com> wrote:
> >> For me to get tired of this game. Ironic - I got in the sewers, and
> >> that's just where the game went: the sewer.
>
> >> Glad I rented this dog.
>
> >> Interesting visuals? Don't mean much to me.
>
> >> High speed gameplay? They ruined that mechanic but good.
>
> >> Makes me realize how good Portal really is. 1. it never bored me. 2.
> >> only cost $15-20 if you didn't get the bundle.
>
> >> Glad I rented.
>
> > Let this be a lesson to people who are crying out, "Give us
> > INNOVATION!".  Innovation is a gamble at producing something that will
> > be sufficiently appealing.  Mirror's Edge is innovative, and
> > apparently people just don't like it.
>
> But is it innovative?  Remember innovation isn't just doing something
> different it's also doing something well.  For example, the litter free
> ring-pull was an innovative idea. The use of bullet time in the Matrix.  On
> the other hand, the Sinclair C5.
>
> Granted I've not played this game but I looked at some of the videos and I
> just though "How is that entertaining?" Then concluded that it wasn't.  Like
> I said, I've not played the game but the concept doesn't look interesting to
> me.  Of course I also don't like driving or sports games so it could just be
> me.

Games are about being entertained. As part of the entertainment
process, is novelty, and that comes from innovation. The problems
with the call for innovation above about everything else, which is the
norm of the whining by hardcore gamers and the likes of Zero
Punctuation, is that such innovation will often result in things that
are abnormal, and hard for people to get into.

- Rich
 >> Stay informed about: Mirror's Edge: Didn't take long 

On Nov 18, 12:48 pm, Jamal Bernhard <no... RemoveThis @nowhere.net> wrote:
> Rich Hutnik wrote:
> > Let this be a lesson to people who are crying out, "Give us
> > INNOVATION!".  Innovation is a gamble at producing something that will
> > be sufficiently appealing.  Mirror's Edge is innovative, and
> > apparently people just don't like it.
>
> Yeah, but I don't think it teaches anyone a lesson. It's not uncommon for games
> that innovate to miss the mark a bit the first time around. It's awfully
> difficult to flesh out a brand new gaming concept and get all the details right
> in the process. Does that mean we shouldn't cry for innovation? Of course not.
> In 2020, do you want to be looking forward to nothing more than Halo 7 and GTA
> 9? Mirror's Edge will spawn a handful of first-person platformers in the next
> few years (possibly even a Mirror's 2), and it's likely that a couple of them
> will be better.

Sales spawn clones, not innovation. If Mirror's Edge bombs, it won't
get a bunch of clones. Now, some developers may get some ideas for
other games from it, but don't expect it to get clones.

- Rich
 >> Stay informed about: Mirror's Edge: Didn't take long 

Rich Hutnik wrote:

>> Yeah, but I don't think it teaches anyone a lesson. It's not uncommon for games
>> that innovate to miss the mark a bit the first time around. It's awfully
>> difficult to flesh out a brand new gaming concept and get all the details right
>> in the process. Does that mean we shouldn't cry for innovation? Of course not.
>> In 2020, do you want to be looking forward to nothing more than Halo 7 and GTA
>> 9? Mirror's Edge will spawn a handful of first-person platformers in the next
>> few years (possibly even a Mirror's 2), and it's likely that a couple of them
>> will be better.
>
> Sales spawn clones, not innovation. If Mirror's Edge bombs, it won't
> get a bunch of clones. Now, some developers may get some ideas for
> other games from it, but don't expect it to get clones.

Maybe not "clones", but if developers take the "first-person platformer" concept
and expand upon it for new games, then that counts as a positive move forward
for the industry, even if the original game was somewhat mediocre. Also, you are
certainly right that sales directly spawn clones, but innovation can spawn
sales. Games like Mirror's Edge sometimes sell more than their ratings warrant,
because they get slapped with the "innovative" tag and people get curious.
 >> Stay informed about: Mirror's Edge: Didn't take long 

Rich Hutnik wrote:

> Games are about being entertained. As part of the entertainment
> process, is novelty, and that comes from innovation. The problems
> with the call for innovation above about everything else, which is the
> norm of the whining by hardcore gamers and the likes of Zero
> Punctuation, is that such innovation will often result in things that
> are abnormal, and hard for people to get into.

I'm not saying you're wrong, but isn't that a natural part of innovation in
general (and not just "forced" innovation)? Innovation, similar to game
developing, is often an iterative process -- you rarely get it all right the
first time, and even when you're innovating you're still building upon what's
already out there. I agree that innovation for innovation's sake is kind of
silly, but I don't want to throw out the baby with the bath water. You have to
have a good balance of innovation and sticking to what you do well. And though
some attempts at innovation suffer from what you describe, I don't think
Mirror's Edge is one of them (but I've only played the demo). It seems like a
legitimate game that's just a little too shallow and repetitive.
 >> Stay informed about: Mirror's Edge: Didn't take long 

Rich Hutnik wrote:

>
> Sales spawn clones, not innovation. If Mirror's Edge bombs, it won't
> get a bunch of clones. Now, some developers may get some ideas for
> other games from it, but don't expect it to get clones.
>
> - Rich

I don't think it needs much tweaking for it to become a classic
Certainly not from the physics point of view. I haven't played it, of
course, but actually believe Jonah is being objective (for a change).

--
I don't mean to brag, I don't mean to boast,
But I'm like hot butter on a breakfast toast.
 >> Stay informed about: Mirror's Edge: Didn't take long 

On Mon, 17 Nov 2008 23:12:25 -0800 (PST), Jordan <lundj RemoveThis @earthlink.net>
wrote:

>On Nov 17, 9:22 pm, Rich Hutnik <richardhut... RemoveThis @gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Let this be a lesson to people who are crying out, "Give us
>> INNOVATION!".  Innovation is a gamble at producing something that will
>> be sufficiently appealing.  Mirror's Edge is innovative, and
>> apparently people just don't like it.
>
>Looks like that's coming across in the reviews as well...
>
>Metacritic PS3 - 80 (39 reviews)
>
>http://www.metacritic.com/games/platforms/ps3/mirrorsedge?q=Mirror%27s%20Edge
>
>Metacritic 360 - 79 (43 reviews)
>
>http://www.metacritic.com/games/platforms/xbox360/mirrorsedge?q=Mirror%27s%20Edge
>
>Variety was particularly vicious:
>
>http://www.variety.com/review/VE1117939039.html?categoryid=1079&cs=1
>
>"Repetitive, difficult and visually dull, the game is undone by its
>use of a highly constrained first person viewpoint in a world of high-
>speed running and jumping where perspective is everything. Though it
>deserves some credit for originality, "Mirror's Edge" is too
>fundamentally misconceived to avoid tumbling down the sales charts."
>
>"At first glance, the world of "Mirror's Edge" is stunning, bathed in
>nearly blinding light and seemingly full of paths for a runner to
>explore. But that scope turns out to be a facade. Save for minor
>detours, there's only one right way to go, and the developers at Dice
>use barbed wire, ramps and brightly colored hints to mark the path.
>When players do discover alternate routes that look interesting,
>they'll find that Faith suddenly can't grab ledges or survive falls
>she normally should.
>
>Instead of allowing exploration, "Mirror's Edge" is focused entirely
>on speed. To make the bigger jumps, Faith needs to build up a full
>head of steam. Many levels are also populated by cops who, while not
>smart enough to block escape routes, fire their guns nonstop, making
>it tough to stop and get one's bearings. Combined with the first-
>person POV, this often means the only way to figure out the correct
>series of jumps, slides and swings needed to escape a dangerous area
>is to die over and over until one has memorized the route (or given up
>out of sheer annoyance)."
>
>Sounds like another $20 pickup for yuks.
>
>- Jordan
>
>p.s. The IP does look interesting though, it's just perhaps a 1st
>person game isn't the proper avenue. In the right hands it could make
>an interesting movie along the lines of District B-13 or Run, Lola,
>Run.

I'm actually enjoying this game. I'm a big Ninja Gaiden franchise fan
and it reminds me of many of the elements in that game, particularly
the wall scaling using some of the leap moves, running and using
nearby walls to push off from to attack your enemies, avoiding some of
their fire by wall running, sliding in all directions.

Even in confined spaces, you just gotta run and run, even if you have
no idea where you're going. Run, wall sprint, run, slide, run, run.

As for this game being too difficult, I'm playing on the most
difficult level, so I do end up dying quite a bit, but I died thousand
deaths and then some when I played the Ninja Gaiden games, so I'm not
too annoyed by it.
 >> Stay informed about: Mirror's Edge: Didn't take long