Mirror’s Edge 2, The Teaser Trailer

Mirror’s Edge wasn’t actually that good. Discuss.

But maybe they’ll get it right this time, eh?


  1. povu says:

    Slightly more open levels, less (forced) combat, that’s all I need. If they have to do multiplayer, there’s some interesting stuff they could do that doesn’t involve guns.

    • Captchist says:

      I’d love it if they made the world richer – make it feel like a place people live. Maybe show me some slums.

      • bella404 says:

        Annabelle. even though Glenn`s bl0g is nice, last saturday I bought a great new Dodge since I been making $7951 thiss month and-even more than, 10 grand this past month. without a doubt it is the most-financially rewarding Ive ever done. I started this 10-months ago and pretty much straight away started earning more than $80 p/h. I follow this great link, kep2.com

        • roryok says:

          One day, machines will walk among us. When that day comes, I will find you, and I will end you

          • baby snot says:

            More likely you’ll find you or someone close to you is the machine.

          • Samwise Gamgee says:

            If it is anything like Boomer the Cylon I will be delighted and sleep with it, robot or not.

        • Maver1ckZer0 says:

          Annabelle? Glenn? Come on, you’re not even trying. At least make us think about believing that you are real. And care.

      • LionsPhil says:

        What slums? Look how clean and beautiful that world is.

        Why can’t I play as the good guys, trying to stop the tatooed anarchists from ruining everything?

        • lijenstina says:

          It’s easier to tile textures without the grit patterns, sorry I meant it’s easier to fight the oppression.

    • Jason Moyer says:

      Yeah, the one time you had to fight somebody (hand-to-hand, no less) really ruined it for me.

      • benkc says:

        Are you saying that you can get through the entire game without fighting more than one person? I find this claim equally dubious and intriguing; got a youtube link or something?

        • sparkiijaxx says:

          I’m fairly certain there was an achievement for it on 360 (possibly Steam as well) so I’d say so. Or was that just not firing a single bullet?

        • Naryn says:

          The achievement “Pacifist” was exactly for this.

          It wasn’t that difficult to get past 99% of the enemies without fighting, the only place that is pretty damn difficult is the room in Boat with a door that takes forever to open, and the QTE with Ropeburn.

    • scatterbrainless says:

      I feel like the narrative pacing could have taken a leaf out of the Portal handbook, by having a few regular delivery missions to build the world and work entirely as a series of regular free-running problems before they spring the whole “giant conspiracy pursued by the police/world” thing, instead of throwing it at you from the beginning.

      • Muzman says:

        Putting the tatts on suggests this may be a prequel. So hopefully we get a lot of regular Runner life.

        • Naryn says:

          It’s a reboot rather than a prequel or sequel. It does look like it focuses on running a bit more though, for instance all the enemies look like runners, rather than cops

    • Keyrock says:

      Zero forced combat is what I’m looking for.

    • bill says:

      They should make hub areas that get modified / opened up by events in the game.
      – Eg: 1st time through there is only one main route, but then a crane gets blown up and you get a different route option next time. And other times you are going back in the opposite direction, or starting in a different location, etc..
      (Mirror’s edge was one of the few games where the optional time trials were actually really fun)

      Combat should consist only of moves that can be performed in motion. Leg swipes, throws, etc…
      – I don’t mind taking down a few enemies as I flash past them, but I don’t want the game to grind to a halt every time i have to STOP and fight them. I don’t want to stop.

      No guns or ranged combat.

  2. Ysellian says:


  3. Wauffles says:


    • freakpants says:

      don’t feed the troll :)

    • Thermal Ions says:

      I was momentarily concerned that RPS had been taken over by Kotaku with an “article” like that. Reassuringly it seems to be an anomaly.

  4. Bobsy says:

    Mirror’s Edge wasn’t that good, but it was good, as well as fresh, creative and colourful. I still dig it out every now and then for a bit of a punt around the city.

    • McDan says:

      Exactly this pretty much, loved it when I first played it. but the introduction and slightly more forced focused on use of guns towards the end of the game did dull it slightly. But if instead they replace that with better fighting mechanics, and a longer game in general I think the second one will be thoroughly excellent.

    • iniudan says:

      Agree except for the colorful part, it was quite blinding from all the white if you ask me. =p

    • GreatGreyBeast says:

      It’s exactly the sort of game that needs – nay, *deserves* – a sequel. It was too unique to get everything right the first time, but could be genuinely great given another chance to smooth out the kinks.

    • Lobotomist says:

      I actually think it was very good. It just was rushed out.
      Perhaps EA didnt feel like too much experimenting.

      Actually, they really tried to dig it. Which makes it one rare franchise that was forcefully resurrected by fans.

  5. DatonKallandor says:

    It should frighten any Mirrors Edge fan that the overwhelming majority of the teaser is combat. Remember that incredible Free Running Game that everyone loved except for the combat? We made the sequel all about the combat.

    • darkChozo says:

      If it isn’t abundantly clear by now, E3 trailers are targeted at a, um, very specific audience.

      Though maybe it says something that the two games I’m actually excited for have some of the more reprehensible trailers.

      Also SPORTS.

    • The First Door says:

      The hand-to-hand combat wasn’t bad as it fitted in quite well with the free-running and in most cases you could just run away. It was the being forced to pick up a gun which was terrible!

      • Baf says:

        At least you weren’t forced to actually use the guns once you picked them up. I know I kept conspicuously throwing them away, as if to say to the remaining goons “Look! I’m not shooting at you! Your superiors lied!”

        • The Random One says:

          I did too, while imagining my character bellowing ‘FAITH NOT NEED PUNY GUN, WEIGHT FAITH DOWN”

      • Lanthalona says:

        I’m one of the people who really loved Mirror’s Edge despite some of the obvious flaws it had. The game constantly forcing you into “Pick up the gun and shoot them already” when what I really wanted was to go through without killing anyone was incredibly annoying, though. The game forced a gun into my hands only to have me throw it away immediately.

        It wasn’t all that easy to finish a non-lethal playthrough, but some of the parts…ugh. I still have nightmares about that one staircase full of enemies which I must’ve replayed at least 50 times.

      • The First Door says:

        No, but there are a couple of parts which are stupidly unbalanced if you don’t use a gun. Like the final fight with the servers…

        • gwathdring says:

          I was ok picking up gun for that though. I thought it made sense. I was never told my character is non-violent that I recall. Just that shooting things isn’t my bag, isn’t my job, and is best avoided. But you do what you have to do.

          I was ok with the servers. My sticking point was this one part of one later level that was brutal if you didn’t shoot anyone and easy as hell if you did where I was coming down a big, wide orange stairwell. I finally pulled it off without shooting and with only two disarms, but damn was it hard. And even then, I was only annoyed becasue it was so EASY when I did pick up a gun. I felt like the game shouldn’t punish you for playing on it’s own terms–a hard level should be hard, and if one method of getting through is going to be a lot easier, it should be the primary method (i.e. running in Mirror’s Edge).

          I realize for a lot of people the server level broke this rule, too … I feel like the context made it ok but I totally get people who disagree.

          Edit: Part of that context is that if you didn’t mind picking up a gun, Mirror’s Edge is one of the few games I’ve played that delivers an explosive finale that isn’t all cutscene or all punishingly difficult boss fighting. It took a leaf out of Half Life 2’s book and lets you stomp around the server room with a machine gun before booking it.

          It missed a chance to one-up the formula by making it a little too difficult to finish the game if you wanted to challenge yourself and use no weapons … which I think was appropriately more difficult in context. It was just a bit too much.

          • diamondmx says:

            Yeah, the last level broke my no-kill playthrough because it was just impossible (obviously not quite) to get through without shooting some of the super-heavy guys.

          • Wraggles says:

            I may have played the game too much, but I don’t honestly understand why the server frustrated people, vault up to the heavy in the middle, use bullet time to disarm him, turn and shoot the servers while still in bullet time and running up the stairs, drop gun, continue on your way, that whole room takes about 5-10 seconds. The orange stairs at the end of Ch:8, there’s a tonne of platforms out in the center that you can leap from, again with some reasonably well timed and aimed jumps (bullet time helps) the room wont take longer than 10-15 seconds without fighting a single person, don’t actually run down the stairs. The only part that the game frustratingly wants you to fight is the parking lot in chapter 7. Even then a few quick disarms and you’re good to go, and if you don’t mind shooting its over in a few seconds.

            The only thing is perhaps the game needed a better intro that got players into the habit of finding their own paths, the vast majority of the “problems” people complain about are just people running down the obvious corridor rather than trying to find a faster or better way of doing things. The problem is the game encourages that laziness until a few tricky sections which people bounce off of because they’ve not had to find alternate routes before.

          • Muzman says:

            and if you don’t want to touch a gun just run around in circles and the guards will shoot the servers for you.

          • gwathdring says:


            When I read that, this is what I hear: “It was easy for me, so if it wasn’t easy for you you’re playing it wrong.”

            Just because it was easy for you doesn’t mean it was well designed. Just becasue it wasn’t easy for me doesn’t mean I didn’t explore other paths. I did. A lot.

          • Wraggles says:

            Apologies, it wasn’t my intent to be condescending, more to point out alternatives to fighting in those sections. But I have to point out that just because something was hard, doesn’t make it poorly designed. Shooting is appropriately easier in several scenarios because it’s made to be “the easy way out”, while playing without killing anyone is to be the harder path. Players who feel “forced to shoot people” are, in reality, being lazy. I don’t think there’s anything wrong with being lazy in this manner, but coming online and complaining about it seems a bit rich. The levels themselves are not poorly designed, most have a large number of ways to get around them, players merely need to experiment to find them.

            The criticism I might agree with though is that the game fails to manage player expectations of difficulty well. Most of the game is easy until you hit one of the hard sections (night sniper level, orange stairs, parking lot, server room), and the game never asks for a player to find their own route until those points, which might be why they feel a bit cheated.

          • Widthwood says:

            It was definitely designed to be played with guns, no sane game designer would punish players this much. They might have made sure that a nonviolent playthrough was at least theoretically possible, but definitely no real thought or effort went into it.

            Just as with Deus Ex, when non-violent route requires behaving in a non realistic way, completely different to what your character might do, to the point of exploiting quirks and bugs in game and in AI – you can safely assume that this wasn’t really intended.

            For example if it was designed to have a non violent option – server room might have gotten some way of c4’ing the whole room and leading all guards away from it, or hacking other hard to reach computers, etc.

          • gwathdring says:


            I guess that leaves me somewhat confused as to why your reply was directed at me. Because I said something quite similar in my post, about how context makes (for example) the use of weapons in the server room quite fitting as an easier solution.

            I certainly don’t think something being hard makes it poorly designed. As I said in my original post, it’s about the game punishing you for playing by it’s own rules. I also think calling players lazy is a cop-out. Sometimes it’s genuinely difficult to tell whether or not I’m “supposed” to be able to beat a level under certain parameters; thus when I encounter difficult situations I’m always wondering “is this hard because I’m not doing what I’m supposed to do or is this just really hard to do?” I might try to beat the game without picking up a gun over and over and over and over only to finally give in and pick up a gun. This doesn’t make me lazy.

            For that matter, using the gun first isn’t lazy. The choice is provided by the game designer, intentionally or not. It has been made part of the player’s tool set with which to solve problems. Using it, whether or not it’s easier to use it, doesn’t make the player lazy. It is not lazy to avoid work by misunderstanding which of two tasks you were given, and sometimes that misunderstanding can be laid at the feet of developers as much as the feet of players. There’s a fine line between expecting too much of players and “dumbing it down,” so I appreciate that it doesn’t take a bad developer to screw things up. But don’t conflate taking the path of least resistance in a game with laziness; you don’t know how many players tried quite hard to beat the level normally only to pick up the gun after a while … under the impression that they weren’t “supposed” to be able to finish the level without the gun and that succeeding would be a matter of fluke or glitch or superhuman feat rather than trial, error and patience.

            As a game designer you aren’t just trying a player’s patience for overcoming a challenge. You’re trying their ability to discern how far you as a designer are willing to go. That meta layer is an important part of game discourse and one that is far too often solved with painfully obvious telegraphing as opposed to skillful telegraphing. Mirror’s Edge frequently had neither which frustrated many players when the game got difficult and caused them to assume that using weapons was the “default” intended solution or perhaps the only intended solution to certain sticking points.

    • Baf says:

      So, basically the same design philosophy as Prince of Persia: Warrior Within, then.

      • Bhazor says:

        To be fair Warrior Within also had the great Dakha chases and some really challenging bonus obstacle courses. Point being it made the parkour gameplay much more challenging and involved. I’d even say in many ways its better than Sands of Time. Even if it was the worst attempt I’ve ever seen of rebranding a game.

        • Claidheamh says:

          Although I’m a bit ashamed to admit, Warrior Within is probably my favourite of the three Prince of Persia games. Even with all the ‘ooh, edgy’-ness. The first one had more charm, but I think I enjoyed the second one a bit more.

          • Cheradanine Zakalwe says:

            I feel the same way. Even though it lost a lot of its charm, the gameplay of warrior within was better than the other 2 in the series. The platforming was slightly better than sands of time while the combat was miles better. On subsequent playthroughs I found that the combat began to lack depth but it was admirable for a first runthrough.

          • The Random One says:

            Warrior Within is as great as a game as it is awful as a sequel.

          • Rashkavar says:

            Warrior Within had the best gameplay of the Sands of Time trilogy. It also had an absurdly abysmal cast of characters, both as actors in the story and as moving collections of polygons on the screen. The quality of the trilogy seems to be largely a matter of what matters to you most in a game. Endearing story: Sands of Time; adrenaline inducing gameplay: Warrior within; stealth gameplay, quicktime events and graphics: Two Thrones.

            And RPS has it dead wrong – Mirror’s Edge has a fundamental flaw. It’s extremely short. The story is somewhat bland and unresolved, as is anything based in an Orwellian setting that doesn’t involve aliens breaking it (in which case it goes from bland to absurd), but it provides sufficient wrapping for good level design, believable combat mechanics (have you ever tried eliminating a swat team using only your fists? Weaponless gameplay should be hard), intense chases, etc. If I had to voice one complaint about the game, it’s the PK warehouse level’s big orange “puzzle” rooms. The puzzles aren’t so much puzzles as just painting the entire room a color that makes it hard to figure out what is and is not a viable platform, whether you have the red highlights on or not. Oh, and the ending is a massive exception to the whole believable combat thing. All I’ll say, for the sake of those who have not finished the game, is that 3 enemies spontaneously disappear when the final cutscene hits, in a situation where said disappearance makes absolutely no sense.

    • Liquidoodle says:

      I loved the combat in Mirrors Edge, sure it could have done with some refinements but you can’t beat doing a weapon grab on someone then leaping down the stairs backwards in slow motion as you shoot the two guys stood at the top. I thought it had quite a nice balance, though being a little more open would have been good.

      • gwathdring says:

        The closest I got to doing that, I leapt too far sideways while shooting and continued to fall down said stairwell to my death. :P

      • adam.jutzi says:

        Yup, the combat was janky but it could be great with practice. I tend to play Mirror’s Edge kind of like Super Hexagon. Constant repetition until a run clicks.

        Nothing quite like chaining a wall run into a shotgun disarm and unloading on the poor sap.

    • klmx says:

      She’s so agressive

    • Morangie says:

      It worked so well for Prince of Persia, why wouldn’t EA copy it?

    • roryok says:

      I LOVED THE COMBAT DAMMIT. Sliding to pick up guns was one of my favourite things in an FPS ever.

    • Low Life says:

      The original Mirror’s Edge E3 trailer had Faith actually shooting in it: link to youtube.com

    • majora says:

      I actually thought the combat was more successful than the parkour stuff. The free running movement never felt good to me. Compare it to Dishonored, where just running around and jumping is SO MUCH FUN, and you can see how much of a wasted opportunity it was. Maybe they’ll focus the running mechanics in ME2, but by the looks of the trailer it’s going to be the same kind of thing as the first game.

      • EwokEnsemble says:

        Comparing Mirror’s Edge to a game that was made four years later, makes sense.

  6. rebochan says:

    Oh, that is it, it is ON. I’m going to put on my parkour shoes and jump all over the RPS offices RIGHT NOW!

    As soon as I can stop heaving from the motion sickness!

  7. citiral says:

    How dare you!

  8. tKe says:

    Lewie P has just exploded.

  9. Brun says:

    You have dared slander a sacred cow?! HEATHEN! Such heresy shall not go unpunished! Priests of the Hivemind, gather forth the inquisition and prepare this fool for mind conditioning!

  10. Ernesto25 says:

    It wasn’t a racing games the guns added to make you feel chased. This is probably the only EA game ill buy happy it will exist and shocked tbh.

  11. Zeliard says:

    It was that good. Play the DLC Time Trial runs to get the most out of the great gameplay at the core of it.

  12. lowprices says:

    Mirror’s Edge was a great free running game buried within a fairly mediocre game that wanted you to fight guys quite a lot. Great music and visuals, though, and the good bits were really good, so I’ll give it a chance.

    • Ernesto25 says:

      I think along with LA NOIRE Mirrors edge is one of those games you want to succeed so much despite the flaws that holds it back due to being fairly unique.

    • Bhazor says:

      This guy gets it.

      Its a case where I would actually prefer a spiritual successor than a straight sequel. Something that took the feel and completely excised it from the bland story and innane combat and moved it to a setting with more interesting stuff to jump off of.

  13. razgon says:

    Mirrors Edge was awesome – Unfortunately, it seems they have no idea WHY since they show combat.

    Yeah, combat is why we loved Mirrors Edge…

  14. Treadstone says:

    Rossignol is just mad because he’s rubbish at parkour.

  15. Random Gorilla says:


    (OK, it was quite short and linear but compare it to the shit EA release these days. It was crescent fresh.)

  16. TehK says:

    Unfortunately, Rhianna Pratchett isn’t the writer for this. Pity… would’ve loved to see more from her.
    (source: twitter.com/GIBiz/statuses/344198960983973888)

    Still: My body is ready!

    • Taidan says:

      Yah, just saw her tweet that. Sucks.

    • Bhazor says:

      … that’s a bad thing?

      • TehK says:

        Not necessarily. I’d have just liked her to be given another chance at Mirror’s Edge, since I read somewhere that she wasn’t given much time for the first one. Faith was a great character and apparently Pratchett did pretty well with the latest Lara Croft incarnation, too.

        • StranaMente says:

          Did she?

        • DatonKallandor says:

          Rhianna Pratchett has absolutely no pull whatsoever. She can write well all she wants but all of the games she supposedly wrote so well on always end up with completely gutted story and complete gameplay/cutscene disconnect. Since she can’t actually get her story from the page to the game, there’s absolutely no point in having her write the story at all.

          See Lara Croft “I’m a helpless woman being thrust into a horrible situation, now watch me kill hundreds of men between cutscenes”. Or Mirrors “What Story?” Edge.

        • Sarkhan Lol says:

          Faith was barely a character at all, and sobbing regularly doesn’t make the new Lara any better. Mirror’s Edge would have benefited more from not having a story and letting us fill in the blanks over its “BMX Bandits, but on rooftops” garbage.

          Writing isn’t genetic. There’s absolutely nothing special about Pratchett at all. None of her stuff exceeds or frequently even lives up to any other AAA story-is-secondary release we’ve ever seen. And that’s, like, my opinion, man.

    • v_ware says:

      Mirrors Edge had a pretty abysmal story though. I mean seriously.

      • The Random One says:

        It wasn’t even well developed enough for it to be considered abysmal.

  17. Crimsoneer says:

    Oh, look, combat. How exceedingly excellent. That was the bit we all enjoyed, wasn’t it?

    Oh. Wait, no.

  18. Jerion says:

    I disagree good sir, and respect you for holding an opinion other than my own.

  19. aDFP says:

    Rhianna Pratchett just tweeted that she has no involvement with the sequel, which I’m guessing is a good thing, as the story in ME1 was pretty woeful.

    • Ernesto25 says:

      I thought it was “passable” but if more than 1 week was spent on writing it id be amazed.

      • Jerion says:

        Can’t for the life of me find the link, but she had a terrible constraint on that game- she had about a month to write the story and it had to shoehorn in all the levels which had already been mostly built and finished. Talk about setting things up backwards.

      • aDFP says:

        I heard she was brought in late to ‘fix’ the story, so I’ve no idea how much of a hand she had in the plot, which featured no courier missions, a sister who spent about ten seconds in the game, and consequently nobody gave a shit about before they had to risk their life for her, and one of the most tediously obvious betrayals in videogame history (Who could the traitor be? Maybe the only other NPC with an actual character model). Still, that might not have been her fault.

        • Widthwood says:

          Was there ever a good example of her writing? Maybe her console titles were great?…

          Frankly I don’t see any differences in story quality between “her” PC games and ones from generic Joe McWritington, apart from her last name and the fact that Joe never gets mentioned in media.

          • spectone says:

            Normally what happens with writing in games is that either a designer or programmer writes the story. The game gets written. They then realise the story is rubbish and so ask a writer to fix it for them, but by that time the story is embedded in the game itself and it is too late.

          • Widthwood says:

            (sorry, completely changed the post)

            I understand that, but how did she get her fame then? Her latest Tomb Raider wasn’t anything special strory-wise, amount of cliches was just about equal to any other Tomb Raider game, and I believe she was given pretty much free reign on that one.

        • Ernesto25 says:

          Wow, that sounds about right, i did wonder why there weren’t any courier missions in the game as well missed opportunity.

    • Snids says:

      Apparently she was brought in late to give it a bit of spit and polish.

    • Big Murray says:

      I thought Mass Effect 1 had a pretty good story?

  20. pancakes says:

    Anywhere to watch this at more than 12 frames per second?

  21. Aperger94 says:

    Yes it was that good.

  22. Fluka says:

    “Mirror’s Edge wasn’t actually that good.”

    Awwww! Well, it *did* have some extremely irritating bits, BUT-

    “But maybe they’ll get it right this time, eh?”

    Damn, that was the rest of my post! Seriously, the sheer amount of things done *right* in the first one gives me hope for the sequel, assuming they fix the problems. Also, Faith is awesome.

  23. Xocrates says:

    … it was, however, one of the most interesting and refreshing games of last gen.

    But yes, it was a very flawed game.

  24. Dowr says:

    Surprised they haven’t enlarged her breasts for “mass market appeal”.

    • Don Reba says:

      Enlargers gonna enlarge, but the mass market likes ’em the way they are.

    • F3ck says:

      Ahhh good, watchdogs are here to keep things in order.

  25. jonahcutter says:

    EA can make up for some sins here.

    Or they can sink yet lower by “expanding the appeal of the series” (or some other PR bullshit).

    Oh, and I thought she already had that arm tattoo in the original game. So perhaps they’re implying a prequel?

  26. Zanchito says:

    I loved ME to bits, all of it, even the things people usually disliked (except firing guns, I don’t think I ever fired a single shots in any of my runs). As a traceur, I gotta say it captured the feeling of running and the spirit behind it so very well. Looking forward to more of the stuff, more open ended if possible.

    • gwathdring says:

      I’m with you except the open ended part. ;)

      I’m chill with linear Mirror’s Edge. It suits the theme of getting from place to place as quickly as possible while avoiding pursuit.

  27. Uncle Fassbender says:

    “Mirror’s Edge wasn’t actually that good. Discuss.”

    This looks pretty flame-baity to me.

  28. Mman says:

    No, it wasn’t that good, it was much better.

    Too bad all they seemed to show was combat, although I’ll give the benefit of the doubt until some actual proper footage comes out (and at least they seemed to show Faith throwing a gun away after she disarmed it).

  29. Iceman346 says:

    Mirror’s Edge certainly wasn’t the greatest game evar!!!11 But it was interesting, innovative, stylish, and a risky new IP.

    And everytime we get more of that I’m quite delighted.

  30. Don Reba says:

    I’ve never been so happy!

  31. jokigenki says:

    Mirror’s Edge was a great running game that strayed into being a rubbish platformer far too often. It looks like this time it’ll be a great running game that strays into being a rubbish brawler for 90% the time.

    • gwathdring says:

      I’m quite confused. You thought the platforming was one of the bigger problems with Mirror’s Edge? Without the platforming, all that running is just … holding down a key. Or did you just mean that the platforming was sometimes rubbish, not that the platforming WAS the “sometimes rubbish”?

    • darkChozo says:

      Aside from a bit of an excess of pipes, I actually thought that the more platformer-y bits of ME were pretty good. Though maybe it’s because I really liked the hanging-from-a-wall-and-turning-to-reach-for-another-platform animation.

      • gwathdring says:

        Mentioning pipes reminds me. I could have done without the mandatory trains and sewers. Why did there have to be underground train tracks and sewers? Games industry, there are SO MANY PLACES.

        • Mman says:

          Some of the other indoor sections are less impressive but I’m still confounded at people trying to lump the sewer section in with typical ones when it has one of the most impressive environments in the whole game (and some of the best platforming in that environment too) even if the descent in/ascent out were lacking.

          • gwathdring says:

            I agree with you … except thematically. I’m just astounded by how many games manage to shoe-horn the same locations into their games. As a tabletop GM for a lot of games with low planning and prep, I know from experience that I can provide a more varied and interesting underground out of thin air than video game designers seem to be able to with lots of planning. And the ideas I come up with aren’t any more difficult to draw/model/design.

            But why think up something that is either more interesting, realistic, or both when you can have an architecturally elaborate and mechanically engaging sewer/ventilation system?

        • darkChozo says:

          I actually quite liked the sewers. They weren’t particularly striking aesthetically speaking, but the big room with the scaffolding had some of the better platforming and the rest was pretty good gameplay-wise.

          I think I want to like the train bits, but the implementation was a bit off. Really, I like the idea of running on a train (maybe skipping across a trainyard cross-wise or something?), but the whole glorified-rhythm-game thing made it not terribly interesting. Other than that, I didn’t mind the corridor sections but the dodging trains bit was just somewhat tiresome.

          • gwathdring says:

            As I say in my reply to the post above you, I also like the sewer bits on their own. It’s their taking place *in a sewer* that I was speaking to.

        • vivlo says:

          i guess there is a huge library of 3D reconstructions of sewers by now, somewhere in EA’s or dice’s or whatever developper’s database.

  32. gwathdring says:

    If enough of the original team is on this, it’ll be great. If not (quite likely) … urk. I’m expecting: a story that’s worse, writing that’s worse, voice acting about the same with or without the original cast where relevant, combat that’s better in some ways and worse in others, combat that’s unfortunately more frequent becasue why listen to fans when you have a target demographic for your entire company that supersedes your target demographic for the specific game in question because what kind of successful company sells things to more than one audience that would be … I don’t know … dumb or something.

    I’m expecting level design to have a few brighter moments and a lot of duller moments. I’m expecting the game to be much longer than it’s worth rather than the short, sweet deal that Mirror’s Edge was. I’m expecting the parkour itself it be gorgeous and well done and probably even slightly improved.

    Overall, I’m expecting it to be worthwhile for a lot of fans and with enough improvements that it’s hard to call is a resolutely worse game … but I’m not expecting what I want to be expecting.

    • Don Reba says:

      a story that’s worse, writing that’s worse, voice acting about the same with or without the original cast

      Frankly, none of those things were the least bit significant in the first game. It has an entirely forgettable placeholder story.

      I’m expecting level design to have a few brighter moments and a lot of duller moments. I’m expecting the game to be much longer than it’s worth rather than the short, sweet deal that Mirror’s Edge was. I’m expecting the parkour itself it be gorgeous and well done and probably even slightly improved.

      But these things actually sound great. Even better mechanics, more gameplay, and more music by Solar Flares is what I want.

      • gwathdring says:

        But I don’t want a forgettable placeholder story.

        You think the game overstaying it’s welcome is good? And the level design peaking higher but being overall more mediocre is good? Fair enough, but we have quite different tastes. ;)

        I’m sort of done with games needing to take a certain amount of time. 8 hours? 50 hours? 100 hours? I mean, if it’s worth it, sure. But just having more doesn’t make it worth it. Not that I don’t think a long Mirror’s Edge 2 *could* be worth it. I just don’t think EA has that sort of a play in it’s hand.

        • Don Reba says:

          I don’t think every game should try to be good at everything. DICE made an amazing parkour simulator with gorgeous graphics and music. I think that if they try to make it “epic”, they risk spoiling it. Finishing the story in Mirror’s Edge is just the beginning, much like it is in StarCraft, for example. I’ve spent countless hours training there afterwards and would not have minded the story to have lasted longer.

          Of course, a mediocre design would be bad.

          • gwathdring says:

            Fair. But when I say I don’t want forgettable placeholder, I don’t mean I want epic award winner.

            I liked the original ME story. I thought it worked and with a little more self-awareness and/or a few particularly heinous cliches avoided it would have hit the spot just right. My concern is that it will get more complicated without getting better. Simple, easy-going stories are fine for a lot of games. It’s the complicated but awfully written stories that I despise. Your conspiracy movie and thriller movie stuff. A lot of writers forget how much skill it takes to pull of intricate, twisting stories.

            ME 1 had a forgettable story, but I could follow it at the time and it made about as much sense as it needed to, and I was just interested enough not to tune out entirely. I did tune out a bit, though, and I don’t think it would take a brilliant or “epic” story to fix that. And I don’t need to fix that to be happy.

  33. edwardoka says:

    Careful, Mr. Rossignol, or you’ll have an Angry LewieP to deal with.

  34. AlexHeartnet says:

    It is easy to identify exactly what was wrong with the first one. Remove fighting sequences, multiple alternate routes (the game is about non-conformity, for gosh sakes), cut down on indoor sections. The sense of speed and parkour in the first game was very good, and if the developers just focus on only doing that this will be a good game.

    • gwathdring says:

      I don’t mind linear platformers. I think linear design with only slight pathway variations as in Mirror’s Edge, makes for a great Parkour game and helps the team focus on speed and momentum and whatnot.

      If I want less linearity, I think I’d rather see it added as the potential to screw up, to end up in a dead end or falling off a building. And I got a fair bit of that in Mirror’s Edge as it was. I don’t think this demands multiple paths, becasue having multiple paths really isn’t all it’s cracked up to be in a game that isn’t full open world. So I have ten ways to tackle a map. Well, that probably means I have way fewer maps, too with the disadvantage of having to backtrack or start a new game or reload an old save to get the added variety instead of just clicking “continue.” I guess, ultimately, it’s not that different. But I like seeing a variety of locations.

      • gwathdring says:

        Also I liked the combat. It was difficult and avoidable. Sounds like they nailed their concept to me.

  35. xsikal says:

    I really enjoyed Mirror’s Edge, but, as others have stated, it was almost in spite of the game. Great free-running game, hamstrung by fighting, a terrible story, and too many linear and interior locations

  36. Christo4 says:

    Well at least she’s got boobs now… I’d like it if, when i look down with my mouse and run and jump i can see them go bouncy bouncy

  37. Snids says:


  38. Yosharian says:

    Jim Rossignol isn’t actually all that good. Discuss.

  39. Gap Gen says:

    OK so in this game you get a tattoo gun, right? Because that CGI was presumably completely not superfluous to the game.

    • TechnicalBen says:

      That has actually made me cry a little inside. The last game got “actual in game gameplay” or whatever. Here we get half a mil spent on a 20 second CGI (not the in game type ;) ) clip. :(

  40. AraxisHT says:

    Yeah, Mirrors Edge really wasn’t very good.

  41. JoeyJungle says:


  42. Wret says:

    Everytime Mirrors Edge comes up, there is the mention of forced gun combat. The only time I was forced to use a gun was at the very end using a machine gun I got from a smacked up cop to shoot the BigBro servers. I then promptly dropped it. It’s difficult but not impossible to do the whole thing without shooting anyone, which I was inclined to since your sister is a cop ._.

    • gwathdring says:


    • Snids says:

      They should have put in big letters that pop up in your HUD that said: “YOU DON’T HAVE TO USE GUNS!!!!!”
      That way people would have got the message, but then people would have moaned about that as well.

    • darkChozo says:

      I’ve done the same, but I would agree that the gun combat is definitely forced by the game design. The late game areas that most people complain about can only be completed without guns using a weird combination of stealth in a game without a stealth system and abuse of health recovery, neither of which really feel like they’re fulfilling the game’s free running fantasy.

      The story and characterization also basically gave no reason for Faith to forgo guns besides metagame – she uses guns in cutscenes (though doesn’t fire them), she isn’t remotely pacifist or faced with internal conflict, and by the end she was fighting enemies that she had no logical reason to hold back on.

      Personally, I don’t mind if ME2 has combat and guns (hell, I don’t think you could avoid it without stretching believably given the setting), but I hope that they’re deemphasized and that the level design always supports the melee route. Something like always requiring guns to be explicitly picked up by the player and making all but the smallest guns super-awkward would help.

    • ix says:

      I found it really hard to disarm gunmen, some sort of input lag whenever I tried to engage bullet time. I did some googling around at the time and this did affect some configurations more than others, so that’s what might be the difference between you and me (cause there were bits I really would have spent way too much time trying to get through without guns for me to pretend the game didn’t want to force them on me).

      Also, you did increase the difficulty, right?

  43. Chris D says:

    I never did finish Mirror’s Edge. There was a bit, I think about halfway through, where you were escaping through the sewers and you had to do a 180 degree wall-jump to proceed.

    The problem was with the first-person view that I would go run, run, run, turn, face-full-of wall,jump, another face-full-of-wall, slide down the wall, start again. There was no feedback for whether I’d jumped too early, too late or anything else. I could probably have got it through trial and error eventually but as it happened the thought of having to go through that again was enough to prevent me booting it back up.

    I really wish Mirror’s Edge had been in third-person.

    • Don Reba says:

      This is very much like wishing StarCraft was turn-based. It would have been a completely different game then.

      • Chris D says:

        Why would that be the case? All you’re doing is changing the camera angle. In any case if it’s a different game that lets me know why I keep splatting against a wall then bring it on.

        • Phendron says:

          Wait, really? So with that logic, Gears of War and Halo play basically the same?

          Edit: Oh wait, of course they do, being manshooters and all.

          • Chris D says:

            I have no idea how you could possibly get that from what I said.

          • Phendron says:

            “All you’re doing is changing the camera angle.”

            I have no idea how you don’t recognize that as a huge change. The overall feel of any game is heavily influenced by perspective.

            If Mirror’s Edge were in 3rd person it would basically be a much more boring modern interpretation of Assassin’s Creed.

          • Chris D says:

            Why? What effect would it have on the gameplay? Other than being able to see your feet.

            Racing games allow for a variety of different camera angles but the game doesn’t change in any fundamental way. Why should this be different?

          • gwathdring says:

            That’s a poor comparison. I think it changes the game for a lot of racing players. I know in Shift 2, first person feels incredible. Third person doesn’t; it feels more arcade like. I can plan further ahead by just enough and am unaffected enough by the camera wobble and special effects that happen in first person mode that it’s a fairly different game.

            I think it’s perfectly feasible to make a game like Mirror’s Edge in every way except the perspective, but I don’t think it would be Mirror’s Edge. The first person visual effects and mechanics are part of what made the game stand out and more than that were a core piece of the design statement. I think people who disliked the first person are fooling themselves if they see it as a flaw in an otherwise decent game–that’s sort of like saying the problem with Halo is that it has guns or the problem with gears of war is that it has cover. Or that Mass Effect would have been a decent shooter if it didn’t have so many conversations. There’s nothing *wrong* with feeling that way, but there is something a bit silly about asking a game designer to change one of the core conceits of their design.

            It’s fine not to like the game because it’s in first person, but like it or not once you take that away you’re not playing Mirror’s Edge.

          • Chris D says:

            Lots of people saying it would be different but still no examples of why beyond “It just would be”. I’ll grant there’s a small aesthetic difference but I think that’s more than compensated for by the increased feedback. What else would change?

            If the assertion is that third person view would make it “a completely different game” then one example of how the gameplay or mechanics would be affected by a change in perspective would be useful.

          • Phendron says:

            Skyrim allows for 3rd person as well, but you’ll soon notice that in 3rd person, melee combat is awful. Hit detection is way more difficult because you don’t get a good sense of weapon range and your model blocks your opponent’s movements and guard state. Basically, some games force your perspective, some games are designed for multiple perspectives, and some, like Skyrim, give you multiple FOV as an afterthought. In the case of racing games, I always prefer to race in the seat because it feels much more immersive.

            Most games are designed around a particular FOV, and some give you other options because hey, why not. If Mirror’s Edge just had a 3rd person mode slapped on, it would likely feel clunky and unresponsive.

          • RakeShark says:

            There is a Mirror’s Edge for you then. Check out the iPad.
            link to youtube.com

            That is VERY different from the original release, and it makes it more like cannabault and less like Mirror’s Edge.

          • Chris D says:


            Ok, that’s a better example, although I tended to play Skyrim in 3rd person as well. Not sure the combat was that great either way though.

            But the point of your example was that in that case 1st person is better because you have more information to base your decisions on. That’s the same case I’m making for 3rd person in Mirror’s Edge. In an activity like Parkour which relies on understanding the relationship between your body and the immediate area it’s useful to know what they’re both doing.

            Would it feel clunky and unresponsive? I’m not sure there’s any evidence for that. I’m not arguing for it as a last minute addition, just that I wish the game has been designed with that perspective in mind. What’s particularly frustrating about Mirror’s Edge is that there’s that sequence in the tutorial where you follow another runner about. I can see how it would work right there. All the animations are already in place but you never get to see them again.


            Yeah, to be fair that is an entirely different game. To be clear I’ve been referring to something more like a chase cam rather than cutting out an entire dimension.

          • Mman says:

            “If Mirror’s Edge were in 3rd person it would basically be a much more boring modern interpretation of Assassin’s Creed.”

            Huh? If Mirror’s Edge had it’s mechanics tweaked a little to work in third person (and animations added) it would still be a platforming game with actual skill required and be nothing like the skill-less auto”platforming” that stuff like Assassins Creed (and basically every other modern 3D action-adventure) uses.

            I don’t think there’s any reason for Mirror’s Edge itself to become third person, but I’d like to see someone else try it (then again, I’d like to see people rip-off ME’s mechanics in general).

          • gwathdring says:

            Chris, I gave you an example with Shift! You don’t have to agree with it or like it or whatever, but don’t say no one gave you examples. That hurts my feels. :(

            It’s hard to give explicit examples, because a lot of this stuff is subtle. In a well designed game, everything from the size of a room to the size of objects in the room to the speed of diagonal movement changes based on what the player can see. Mirror’s Edge is about putting you in Faith’s head, not just putting you in faiths *shoes*. That means giving you her perspective and designing the game to work well with that.

            If you just hacked a third person camera and model into Mirror’s edge, you’d miss some of the telegraphing. A lot of the motion-blur and camera wobble effects wouldn’t make sense or if disabled wouldn’t be adding their little spins into the mechanics. Certain segments that were difficult in first person (intentionally so) would be much easier to flow in third person. The challenge of pulling off Faith’s maneuvers while being stuck behind her eyes is part of the design; that third person makes the simplistic platforming of Mirror’s Edge easier and, well, simplistic doesn’t mean Mirror’s Edge should be in third person or that it’s a bad platformer.

            Just so, if I shunted a third person camera into Unreal Tournament 2k4, it wouldn’t quite play right. You would be able to peek around corners safely and check your six better but you wouldn’t be able to aim as precisely especially not at distance.

            Skyrim is also a great example of a multi-perspective game that doesn’t quite work, although I feel like Bethesda mostly puts that camera in so you can look at your character’s armor and gear and take selfies. I think at least one of their games even called it “vanity” mode. Was that Oblivion?

            Changing the perspective radically changes what information is available to a player and how easily it is available. It also gives the player one more thing to mess with and/or awful auto-cam while moving at high speed and focusing on careful timing. 2D platformers work because your available information is directly controlled by your movement except in the case of game-specific gimmicks. The less control the player has over available information (or the more difficult that control is), the slower and/or simpler the platformer needs to be to function properly because players can only take in so much information. Just so, when a player has to fuss with the camera angle independently of movement …

            Mostly I think it misses the point. Is it really easier to make jumps at high speed when you’re in third person? Even if it is easier … that’s not how people jump and that’s not what Mirror’s Edge is about.

          • Chris D says:


            I apologise for hurting your feels. The reason I skipped your Shift example was because it seemed to be a case of “It feels better” rather than providing any knock-on effects on gameplay.

            My problem with the whole “First person is more realistic/immersive” argument is that you may have given me Faith’s sight but you haven’t given me Faith’s sense of touch or body-awareness. You also haven’t given me Faith’s peripheral vision or ability to make quick eye-movements. First-person seems only superficially realistic to me. Third person seems to me to give me information that’s closer to what I would have in real life.

            I have no real argument to people who still prefer first person, we can agree to disagree on that, but I do take exception to the statement that it would be a completely different game.

          • gwathdring says:

            It’s not exactly about realism, though. SHIFT 2 is a similar thing. The game is design not to *simulate* actual first person experience as realisticly as possible, but to recreate the feeling of a first person experience as efficiently as possible.

            Again, it goes into everything from how rooms are designed to what sort of challenges you face. A lot of the wall jumping things that were difficult to time in Mirror’s Edge would have been trivial in, say, Prince of Persia, Sands of Time. Not being able to see behind me forced me to take on a different mental challenge while approaching the same jump. It also, as I already mentioned, reduces the amount of input required from the player and allows things to take place at a higher speed, or at least FEEL like they’re happening at a higher speed.

            And you never really answered to the idea that having it be from a first person perspective is part of the goal of the game design, same as Half Life 2 or what-have-you. It’s not that a similar game but in third person couldn’t be made so much as, again, that it would be a different game. It’s fine if this sort of game isn’t your thing. You’re welcome not to like it and think that first person platformers are inferior. But they are a different genre with their own challenges. Dismissing it as merely a camera angle is silly. Merely the element that controls what information is available to the player? Merely the visual interface of the game? It makes a difference.

            I agree with you that third person can, in some circumstances, be more “realistic.” But I put quotes there for a reasons. The ARMA devs have your back becasue they feel like the surreality of third person is justified by the opposing surreality of no knowing where your feet are or hearing twigs crack behind you or whatnot. But realism isn’t an absolute concept. That may have been the right call for ARMA, but it’s not the right call for Mirror’s Edge. Mirror’s Edge isn’t about realistically simulating being a slow moving, carefully observant soldier. Mirror’s Edge is about simulating the high-speed chase. Moving on instinct and whim more than through planning. At top speed, full of adrenaline … you don’t have much peripheral awareness, you aren’t hearing every sound around you, even proprioception is a bit wonky becasue so much of your focus is just on controlling your body. You aren’t aware of exactly what the hair on your head is up to.

            Now you can feel the pavement. You do know where your limbs are. And even general proprioception like that is absent in games. But Mirror’s Edge has your back there. You don’t have to accurately pinpoint where Faith’s arms are, she vaults over the railing perfectly as long as you time the button press properly. They found a different way to get around the same problem ARMA circumvented with third person because they had different design goals.

            Again, it’s not about realism, in a straightforward sense. It’s about serving the design goal as efficiently and effectively as possible. Third Person changes everything from how the rooms are designed to how high the player can jump to how fast the character moves, visual cues and effects that tell the player how fast they’re going, which types of jumps are easy/difficult. Etc. But, while I reiterate that this is besides the point, if you’re going to claim that third person is, in a straightforward sense, more realistic … I’m still going to disagree; just because a first person camera misses out on a lot of human perception doesn’t make third person camera any less artificial. Again, though, it’s not this straightforward “realism” that matters; when you’re trying to capture the experience of a traceur, I think the third person camera really overdoes it and adds more unrealistic advantages and mechanical complexity than it corrects for unrealistic disadvantages.

        • Muzman says:

          It’s far more than just a camera angle. ME uses lots of clever techniques to…immerse the player in the first person view. One thing that’s particularly interesting is the game takes place at fairly realistic human speeds yet manages to convey momentum. Running 20kph feels like full tilt. Most games can’t do this and cheat the pace so humans run at superhuman speed to give that sense instead. There are many subtle gradations to acceleration, which no other game really bothers with. You can sense if you’re going quick enough to make a jump and if you’re not you can back up and take a longer run up
          If you’re grumpy enough you might say at this point “Well I never experienced any of this”. It’s not an absolute, but if this stuff isn’t working on some level you’d probably not even make it as far as you did. It’s that subtle and important.
          All of this is irrelevant in third person and becomes a matter of lining the player model up properly to do the thing. ME is attempting at least to fake more proprioception/body awareness than the third person game could ever hope to. Which is a noble goal in itself. It’s not pixel precision but feel. And yes this has its lumps and bumps and works better with some people more than others.

          I would suggest though that the part you were stuck on (not that I’m sure where it was off hand) was probably a case of you doing what you think you needed to do but didn’t actually need to do this. Which is another problem the game has from time to time, but a different one.

  44. Shooop says:

    It’s amusing how much hope some people are holding out for this game just because of the name.

    Get ready for a first-person shooter/brawler with a handful of free-running segments thrown in. Thinking it’ll be anything else is just setting themselves up for a more crushing disappointment.

  45. fish99 says:

    Though it was pretty damn amazing myself. Finished it about 5 times now.

  46. Drake Sigar says:

    There’s about to be a whoopin’ up in here.

  47. The_Great_Skratsby says:

    Yeah it wasn’t that good.

    But it’s admirable what it tried to do and what it got right, which is why it gets so much affection.

  48. rei says:

    You’re not actually that good. Discussion changes nothing :\

  49. Morte66 says:

    If I want some music like at the end of that trailer, where should I look?

  50. jimangi says:

    So Faith is getting her tattoos and wearing a different suit in this trailer, does that make it a prequel? I like the idea of running around that lovely cityscape whilst its being built or (if it’s a proper sequel) whilst its all collapsing.

    • DatonKallandor says:

      The press release is out. It’s another FUCKING “Series Reboot with an all new Origin Story”.

      Yeah, they’re RE-Fucking-BOOTING Mirrors Edge. It didn’t even have time get a second one. They’re doing a franchise reboot of a franchise with one entry.

      • jonahcutter says:

        It’s not as if there is an elaborate narrative and back story they’re wiping out. The particulars of the story weren’t the strongest point of the game.

        So they’re telling her beginnings. That’s not a problem to me. What is a problem is if they use it to introduce rpg elements or leveling. Worse, if they introduce powers. Her tattoos are nanotech tattoos that give her the power of PARKOUR!

        Some crap like that.

        Go ahead and reboot the story. Just don’t reboot the gameplay or core concept, by changing it from completely player-skill based, into rpg-skills or some janky hybrid intended to simulate (poorly) how Faith is learning her craft.

        • vivlo says:

          the background story was important to me. i don’t think the gameplay would have made the same amount of sense without that kind of setting, nor would that state of emergency and sky-wide loneliness bear as much meaning. you’re hurting my feelings. :(

          • jonahcutter says:

            I’d have to agree with that. At least in regards to the world itself. I really enjoyed the setting and atmosphere. Big brother as bare and antiseptic is a fresh way of presenting a totalitarian state. In games anyway. I absolutely agree they shouldn’t change the setting or world at all.

            But the particulars of the narrative weren’t really all that compelling. I only remember she was trying to clear her sister’s name. The details of how she went about it don’t really stand out though. So there’d be no great loss there for me there.

            And I don’t think the writing was as terrible as everyone makes it out to be. It was cartoony at times, yeah. But fairly decent. Though certainly not the reason the game stood out.

          • Widthwood says:

            I think this state of emergency killed the point of the game a bit. Instead of freerunning for the sake of it, the character was frantically trying to survive for the most of the game.

            Only in timetrials did the freerunning part emerge, but they were more like extras than the main game.

    • Josh W says:

      Prequel/reboot makes perfect sense. Take the same world, flesh the plot out a bit, have more actual courier stuff, because that actually sounds pretty fun!