SecondPrize said:
Mirror's Edge 2. The first was said to be too difficult. They've also spruced up the fighting, and I worry they've gone the prince of persia route by fixing the awful but sparse fighting from the first and then jammed it in everywhere because it's 'fixed' now.
Well, it was said that
"We're going to talk about combat. We are selecting very special sounds for that. We're having very tight, controlled hits. They kind of speak about Faith's power and efficiency because she is a projectile and whatever she does hit she hits quick, fast, and hard and then moves on"
So, maybe that can give you hope. Then again, not to dash any hopes you might have, this came from the audio director (hence him starting the statement with what sounds they're utilizing). He may not have the full grasp of the combat gameplay goals or may misinterpret what he sees or hear about combat gameplay as a result of him being outside of that expertise. I definitely am concerned when they say they want anyone to play it and then brush off that lowest common denominator statement with some hand waving. Oh, sure, I believe more skilled players can take the quicker, more dangerous route. Seriously, that could easily be artificial difficulty in reality. They have yet to demonstrate that more skilled players will actually feel the difficulty naturally without having to force it on themselves with purposeful handicapping. Regardless, I'd take any seemingly positive statements as reasons to relax a bit but still remain cautiously optimistic, keep a balance.
Besides, it's not like developers have promised something they could not live up to all the time, right? Oh wait, that does happen all the time. There's Fable, for example, because even though I only touched like 1 of the games for a VERY short period of time the statements I heard about and read were ridiculous. From what little I know about him, Peter Molyneux, like David Cage and Phil Fish, is one of those developers who is a bit full of himself, in a closed bubble and not quite grasping the cognitive dissonance between their vision or statement and what the audience either thought they meant or knew they meant depending on whether they were in denial over something or just interpreting things differently. Or there's
Batman: Arkham City, when it was promised Detective Mode would act less like a terrible filter to obscure the best part of the visuals and more like an augmented reality mode. I do not know about anybody else, but I thought that meant a colored filter would be far less pronounced if not utterly removed and that the data displayed would be more superimposed over the reality. I suppose I kind of envisioned something along the lines of the Nintendo 3DS's augmented reality feature incorporated into the gameplay. There would have to be some colored filter though because I think that would look weird with Batman especially with the glowing eyes. It wouldn't fit the character. But I didn't want it obscuring the artwork to any extremem degree either, which it still did in
Arkham City. It did look better though, so I wonder if that's what they meant when they said that or if they could not live up to to what they meant and went halfway. I am going to assume the former. Considering how dedicated Rocksteady seems to be with the smallest details, I doubt it's because they could not live up to it, but rather because they did not mean their statement as literally as I was hoping they did.
Getting back on track and away from my Arkham fan rants, I will remain cautiously optimistic about
Mirror's Edge 2 the way I am about all the games I'm excited for. I am not ready to put myself in a false sense of security again, but, hey, DICE is also bring back
Star Wars: Battlefront, so I cannot help giving them the benefit of the doubt.
