Why were everyone so damn harsh on the new Mirror's Edge?

[Nick Cave]

Despite the game industry generally on the side of "fooking hell, the game's *alright*, fuck me it's brilliant, highest score!" everyone just seemed to have their hate stiffy out for Catalyst before it even came out.

Most of it seemed to be that quickturn was a unlockable, which true was a bit barm,y but you unlock it an hour after pressing start anyways. Catalyst also was unfortunate to come out right after Fallout 4 and MGSV pissed in everyone's openworld cereal and Open world had become a pariah over night (or over half a year, but whatever). But even when the game was out, people still act like it's a pile of shit to such a degree I feel a bit like a twat when I had such a positive experience myself.

I mean the Parkour's still great, and the combat nicely combined with it. The devs seemed to have put on their clever hats when they made it because the attacks that utilize the parkour (wallrun kicks, jump-on-people-kicks, glide kicks) are also the ones who do the most damage. So the cooolest way to play the game is also the optimal one.

The story, while predictable, is also surprisingly good. Well, "surprisingly good" would be if it actually had a story (thankfully they booted out Rhianna Pratchett after the first game's story, good lord), but the game is genuinely top tier when it comes to cutscene animation and voiceacting. It's seriously in competition with Naughty Dog and the new Wolfenstein, looking at, say the new Mass Effect gane makes it feel like an utter joke in comparison.

The aesthetic design is great as ever. It feels nice with a futuristic design that actually feels like it was designed by humans, you know those things that actually care if thigns look good, rather than putting as many spikes as possible on everything.

Sure it's a got a few flaws, most of the errands have a pretty silly timelimit where if you fuck up even once you won't make it, and the sidemissions are pretty boring over all. The kidnapping mission was also a bit silly with all the character telling you the important thigns happening while you yourself wank yourself silly (not a bad thing mind you, those white hotpants, HNGH), and the ending is a bit of an "well, I guess we stopped that thing we didn't even see the effects of, go us".

Am I just going bonkers or was this game actually good?

 

[Zhukov]

Well I loved it. Among my favourites of the year, if not the favourite.

I don't recall people hating it. Mostly people seemed to just be indifferent.

I actually enjoyed the open world aspect, and I say that as someone who has come to despise open worlds. (Have done for years, I hated them before it was cool damn it!) However, there's no denying that the open world of Mirror's Edge Catalyst was poorly designed. It wasn't open so much as a series of paths. So you end up traversing the exact same routes a fair bit, especially in the opening stages before you unlock quick travel points.

I loved the combat but a lot of people didn't get it. Every bit off gameplay footage I've seen involved the player utterly sucking at the combat. (Use the sidestep people, it's not hard!) It was oddly balanced in that it was hard enough to make you feel clumsy but not hard enough to force you to improve, so a lot of people ended up just bumbling through using sub-optimal methods.

Story was meh. Pretty dialogue cutscenes don't mean much when they have so little substance behind them.

 

[Phoenixmgs_v1legacy]

Well I loved it. Among my favourites of the year, if not the favourite.

I don't recall people hating it. Mostly people seemed to just be indifferent.

I actually enjoyed the open world aspect, and I say that as someone who has come to despise open worlds. (Have done for years, I hated them before it was cool damn it!) However, there's no denying that the open world of Mirror's Edge Catalyst was poorly designed. It wasn't open so much as a series of paths. So you end up traversing the exact same routes a fair bit, especially in the opening stages before you unlock quick travel points.

I loved the combat but a lot of people didn't get it. Every bit off gameplay footage I've seen involved the player utterly sucking at the combat. (Use the sidestep people, it's not hard!) It was oddly balanced in that it was hard enough to make you feel clumsy but not hard enough to force you to improve, so a lot of people ended up just bumbling through using sub-optimal methods.

Story was meh. Pretty dialogue cutscenes don't mean much when they have so little substance behind them.

I loved the 1st Mirror's Edge and bought Catalyst on release day and only played it for a few hours mainly because I was in the middle of other games at the time. I didn't exactly care for the open world aspect much (from what I played) but I hope the story missions are as good as the 1st game in design at least. I hated open worlds ever since Mercenaries (on PS2) showed me the light of what they could/should be.

 

[meiam]

I don't remember anyone been particularly negative about it, it really was just a collective "meh". It's another open world game with parkour so you know, just one more in the bin, same thing that happened to watch dog 2. Few things were lame like reseting the story to put a less interesting one instead and still having combat when the overwhelming response to the first game was "this game doesn't need combat", most review/comment I've seen of it were people saying that the combat was shallow and kinda pointless.

 

[Nick Cave]

I actually enjoyed the open world aspect, and I say that as someone who has come to despise open worlds. (Have done for years, I hated them before it was cool damn it!) However, there's no denying that the open world of Mirror's Edge Catalyst was poorly designed. It wasn't open so much as a series of paths. So you end up traversing the exact same routes a fair bit, especially in the opening stages before you unlock quick travel points.

You sound a bit, contradictory? Why'd you like it if it was poorly designed?

I'd just found the open world aspect to be pointless. You don't really explore anything, you end up seeing mostly the same stuff and the sidemissions were pretty wank (the variety was just awful, covert and fragile deliveries worked exactly the same because of the harsh time limit, and the "hit all the glowing things" wasn't much fun either, and that was all of them).

Story was meh. Pretty dialogue cutscenes don't mean much when they have so little substance behind them.

I thought it was alright, not great by any means but I understood what was going on, the characters were flawed but had their own agency, it moved forward at a reasonable pace and I did care atleast a little about what was going on. Sure the villain and his plan was pretty stupid, and it went after the "typical story beats" like a damn checkboard, but hey, atleast there was a story.

I might just appreciate it because I'm comparing it with the first one, which was utter nonsense and terrible writing barely strung together without any sense of direction or focus.

 

[MrCalavera_v1legacy]

Haven't played it, but what i got from general reception is that the good elements are the same as in the original game, while the newly introduced elements aren't so good.
So the se/pre/rebootquel didn't deliver the promised improvement. Shame, cause i really liked first ME.

 

[Zhukov]

I actually enjoyed the open world aspect, and I say that as someone who has come to despise open worlds. (Have done for years, I hated them before it was cool damn it!) However, there's no denying that the open world of Mirror's Edge Catalyst was poorly designed. It wasn't open so much as a series of paths. So you end up traversing the exact same routes a fair bit, especially in the opening stages before you unlock quick travel points.

You sound a bit, contradictory? Why'd you like it if it was poorly designed?

Because I can enjoy a thing while simultaneously acknowledging its flaws?

Most open world games do nothing but add a commute between the interesting bits, making me jog or drive from A to B before I can actually do something.

The gameplay of Mirror's Edge is largely based around getting from A to B, so if one enjoys the parkour gameplay, which I do, then the trip is fun rather than a chore.

The flaw is in the limited number of pathways, meaning I end up traversing the path from A to B a few too many times. Then when the game tells me to go from A to C I end having to get there by way of B anyway rather than finding a new path because there is a bloody urban canyon between A and C.

 

[Nick Cave]

Because I can enjoy a thing while simultaneously acknowledging its flaws?

Most open world games do nothing but add a commute between the interesting bits, making me jog or drive from A to B before I can actually do something.

The gameplay of Mirror's Edge is largely based around getting from A to B, so if one enjoys the parkour gameplay, which I do, then the trip is fun rather than a chore.

The flaw is in the limited number of pathways, meaning I end up traversing the path from A to B a few too many times. Then when the game tells me to go from A to C I end having to get there by way of B anyway rather than finding a new path because there is a bloody urban canyon between A and C.

You just listed the flaws, then said you loved it, s' why it sounded odd.

But yeah, how you get around the sandbox is basically the do or die point, which was a bit why playing Catwoman in Arkham Ctiy was so woefull, slamming facefirst into everything building and taking ages to get anywhere, bleh. That said, for myself the biggest enjoyment of playing Mirror's edge is parkouring while under some kind of pressure, either chased by bullets or under a time limit, just treversing is alright the first time, but near the end of the game where I've traveled the same route fifteen or so times, I'd prefer to just fast travel instead.

I'd say the idea of the open world was better than the execution.

 

[Dreiko_v1legacy]

I am wholly apathetic on the series, not my cup of tea I guess. If you parkour, I think it looks cooler in the third person and you can do more stuff with it. I didn't really understand why it needed to be first person other than because first person games are popular right now.

 

[Xprimentyl]

I wanted a sequel for years, but by the time it came out I no longer cared. I still haven't played it. It didn't do enough to improve on the flawed original. Open world and fucking upgrades weren't the answer. Stop shoehorning that into everything.

I loved the first Mirror?s Edge, but like you, I kinda lost steam for hopes of a sequel, but not because of time, but because of the recent trend within the industry to misapply the transitive property: ?[insert beloved aging IP] is liked by gamers, and gamers really like [insert modern overused trope] in more recent video games, therefore [aging IP] MUST have [modern overused trope].? Many publishers/devs attempting to pander to their sleeper/cult hits? fanbases with ?long-awaited sequels? tend to miss the forest for the trees when it comes to recognizing what it is the fan bases loved in the first place and end up shitting out not only poor excuses for sequels, but at best mediocre clones of what?s currently selling in the given genres. That being said, I?ve not played the latest Mirror?s Edge either, but EA being the epitome of shitty publishers/devs coupled with some scathing reviews from sources I tend to agree with if not listen to, I doubt I?m missing anything.