"Mirrors Edge 2" actually Mirrors Edge Catalyst - Official Website - Polidicks

[QUOTE=itisjuly;47941283]I don't see a problem. They wanted to make a new ME but didn't want to make more of same, but instead wanted to try something different. People complain devs make same games, people complain devs try something different. They can't win. Who cares if it's more of same or different, as long as it's good it shouldn't matter.[/QUOTE] It's not as simple as trying something new, you know that. Games do things differently literally all the time, changing art is something new but it's not innovation. And turning a game people loved for it's concepts of speed, clarity, crispness and adding guns and more walls to run up is not innovation and is also stagnation. You can't rip up the carpet and install same colored tile and say it's the same. That's just something different. [editline]12th June 2015[/editline] That's the bullshit with apologetic non-criticism. You don't force anyone to do any good by telling them it's okay to just start over to something easier to later replicate. Developers can win but a win that comes easy is nothing to celebrate.

[QUOTE=itisjuly;47941283]I don't see a problem. They wanted to make a new ME but didn't want to make more of same, but instead wanted to try something different. People complain devs make same games, people complain devs try something different. They can't win. Who cares if it's more of same or different, as long as it's good it shouldn't matter.[/QUOTE] What I'm saying is that they can't have Mirror's edge 2 without mirror's edge 1. There are bad examples on both sides. I think that the Call of duty series (particularly the Modern Warfare series) hasn't been innovative since Cod4. That's an example of thinking "oh we'll just make it again but with different guns". I think an example of trying to hard to capture the portal 2 effect is Five Nights at Freddies; I thought the sequels tried to add a new mechanic to the game but to me is just got stupid. An example of taking a good game and then turning it 360 and making a completely new game of it is pretty much anything ever made by Rare, or the Sonic the hedgehog series. Nuts n Bolts, Starfox adventures, etc. all tried to redefine the series but it only ended up pissing people off. People would have like starfox adventures or nuts n bolts more if it was just a new IP and not an old one (sonic is just broke though). What I'm saying is that if they wanted to go a completely new direction with ME2, they should have made a new IP. We have yet to see if ME2 is good or bad, but I think that it's tempting to want to try something totally new using an old IP, but history has shown that it doesn't work out well for audience reception. I think that Sequels should have a part of the old game, with new stuff, rather than a completely new paradigm and the only thing similar from the last game is the art style. [editline]12th June 2015[/editline] [QUOTE=Mr. Someguy;47941314]Executive meddling was the reason the terrible gun-play was added, so there's that at least.[/QUOTE] I thought the gunplay was fine. The guns were mostly useless, so it added to the idea that Faith's weapon was her momentum. The only time they got useful was in the end when you had to blow up all those servers

[QUOTE=proboardslol;47941394]What I'm saying is that they can't have Mirror's edge 2 without mirror's edge 1. There are bad examples on both sides. I think that the Call of duty series (particularly the Modern Warfare series) hasn't been innovative since Cod4. That's an example of thinking "oh we'll just make it again but with different guns". [/QUOTE] Good example. I would prefer an awkward Black Ops sequel than a Modern Warfare game with new graphics and guns. Innovation isn't always graceful.

[QUOTE=RichyZ;47941432]if you think cod hasn't done anything new since 4 you probably haven't been paying attention[/QUOTE] I would say with some certainty that MW, MW2, MW3 and Ghosts were pretty derivative.

[QUOTE=RichyZ;47941432]if you think cod hasn't done anything new since 4 you probably haven't been paying attention[/QUOTE] I wouldn't say the series does very much that is truly innovative. But it's the pack leader so it doesn't need to try super hard, and everyone copies pieces from it that work but fuck it up. Still solid enough shooters, but hardly the boldest.

CoD 2 to MW1 was probably the biggest change CoD made by introducing weapon customization, perks, grenade types, killstreaks and sprinting but was still using the same basis for gameplay mechanics (hip-fire, ironsights, crouch/prone/jump, hold breath with sniper rifles and similar map sizes and gamemodes) but you could argue that MW2 improved on that concept by expanding quite a bit on those concepts introduced in MW1. The games after that haven't changed that much in how they play though up until Advanced Warfighter.

Significant moves in CoD: Call of Duty. Call of Duty 2 to MW. [I]Arguably[/I] MW to MW2 but not really. Black Ops, Black Ops 2 for sure, Advanced Warfighter.

I suppose WaW with it's zombie mode and co-op for the campaign too. I dunno, they're all somewhat different it's just that MW3 and Ghosts are shit and the rest are either p good or decent enough atleast.

[QUOTE=proboardslol;47941394]The guns were mostly useless, so it added to the idea that Faith's weapon was her momentum. The only time they got useful was in the end when you had to blow up all those servers[/QUOTE] I just ran a lap around them and had the SWAT guys shoot them for me.

I just disarmed the SWAT Guy with the M249, drop down and beat up all the others, returned to the LMG, and sprayed the server banks with it.

[media]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IsDX_LiJT7E[/media] So it looks like the "gorilla face" faith was just bad, ugly concept art. The models used in this trailer are much closer to what they had shown us back in 2013, which I'm glad about

[QUOTE=Grizz;47915184]Good luck. [img]http://blog.svd.se/spelbloggen/files/2014/06/AndrewWilsonEA.png[/img][/QUOTE] [img]https://akari.in/vx4Z[/img] How Relevant

More art: [img_thumb]http://mirrorsedge.com/media/cache/full/content/dam/ea/www-mirrorsedge/usp/MEC_USP1_Laptop.jpg[/img_thumb] [img_thumb]http://www.mirrorsedge.com/media/cache/full/content/dam/ea/www-mirrorsedge/usp/MEC_USP2_Laptop.jpg[/img_thumb] [img_thumb]http://www.mirrorsedge.com/media/cache/full/content/dam/ea/www-mirrorsedge/usp/MEC_USP3_Laptop_v2.jpg[/img_thumb] [img_thumb]http://www.mirrorsedge.com/media/cache/full/content/dam/ea/www-mirrorsedge/home-page/MEC_Homepage_Preorder_Laptop.jpg[/img_thumb]

Why are people slagging this game off because it's free-roam? Back when Mirror's Edge was released that was the only thing I wanted to see in Mirror's Edge.

[QUOTE=FalconKrunch;47981982]Why are people slagging this game off because it's free-roam? Back when Mirror's Edge was released that was the only thing I wanted to see in Mirror's Edge.[/QUOTE] Because freeroam generally means less polished levels, additions of amazing boring activities and a load of other stuff which a lot of people consider meh.

I think free roam would be great. Remember how much fun the Parkour was in Dying Light cause it was free roam? It's probably going to be better then that.

[QUOTE=Saxon;47983883]I think free roam would be great. Remember how much fun the Parkour was in Dying Light cause it was free roam? It's probably going to be better then that.[/QUOTE] I always wanted to explore every nook and cranny of the Mirror's Edge city. And now I can.

[QUOTE=Saxon;47983883]I think free roam would be great. Remember how much fun the Parkour was in Dying Light cause it was free roam? It's probably going to be better then that.[/QUOTE] Honestly, if the free running is better than dying light then I'm sold.

I think Mirror's Edge is the sort of thing where open-world can't really be done in exactly the same way as every other open-world game. I'm interested to see how it fares.

When I heard the name "catalyst" I thought ME2 was going to have some AMD exclusive features!

-snip-

If Dying Light can pull off freerunning, free-roaming fun, ME2 should be able to as well.

[QUOTE=FalconKrunch;47981982]Why are people slagging this game off because it's free-roam? Back when Mirror's Edge was released that was the only thing I wanted to see in Mirror's Edge.[/QUOTE] Personally I think it's because open-world / free-roam is becoming an overblown genre archetype at this rate in the past few years. I think forming one's own routes through the city will be pretty cool, and it'll obviously focus on the parkour so vehicles won't take precedence but it may get repetitive running back and forth through the same places unless there's a [i]lot[/i] of care taken to making sure paths and routes are quite varied. Not to mention I can't even really imagine how the AI can really treat all this optimally.

make it a hybrid, have an open overwold, and the plot and some side missions are locked in selective levels. For instance an npc gives you a key to a door and you navigate through indoors, then make your way through select roof tops that you can see from the over world but can't get to but thought it would be cool to see. I haven't played the game, but it looked like a game where the first time through you didn't know what was around the corner but making through someone new gave reward. The open world could make things repetitive, so keeping things fresh and new the next dozen times you go through the same thing is kinda needed. I'm waiting off until I can get a pc that goes 60 fps on max settings.

I actually have been thinking about this from when the name was first announced. But we all should be aware that the slogan has been about 'catalyst for change' I can't stop thinking about the lyrics to 'Still Alive', from the original game

[QUOTE=wraithcat;47983862]Because freeroam generally means less polished levels, additions of amazing boring activities and a load of other stuff which a lot of people consider meh.[/QUOTE] Sure, but there always seems to be something about free roam games with staying power in relation to how one gets around the world. Like, the first few GTA games after II (the 3d ones) had staying power because they did things with vehicles that weren't really common. The cars controlled like they came from borderline enthusiast driving games from the time. After that, the novelty wore off and around gta IV the concept petered out, for it was standard. Go back a few years, and you have Spider-man 2. Spider-man fucking 2. Sometimes-responsive combat, some downright broken missions, and assy random balloon grabbing events, but that fucking swinging. I don't even need to tell you. Then we can kinda go down the list of open world games that stuck, and there's always a pattern of them having one really special thing about locomotion. GTA III-SA had the driving. Spider-man had the swinging. Just Cause had the hook. Infamous had flying parkour. Red Dead had good horses. Blah blah blah. I think as long as Mirror's Edge Catalyst's locomotion is as good as or even better than ME1's, it's going to be successful as an open world game no matter how shitty the missions get.

It was playable at E3 and there are pictures of people playing it. But no videos.

[media]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RrZOlSDTBlo[/media] There was some footage before the trailer that nobody posted. Contains some actual gameplay and background story.

[QUOTE=xalener;48012701]Then we can kinda go down the list of open world games that stuck, and there's always a pattern of them having one really special thing about locomotion. GTA III-SA had the driving. Spider-man had the swinging. Just Cause had the hook. Infamous had flying parkour. Red Dead had good horses. Blah blah blah.[/QUOTE] But what about open-world (MMO)RPGs?

[QUOTE=Dr. Disciple;47919974]My play of the game gave me more of the impression it was Steve Jobs-inspired utopia but with subtext of an omnipresent authority that I think your getting the 'dystopia' -term from. Dystopias are typically more Bioshock and City 17 like. I just want to see more of the city in general tbh. I felt kind of distant from its vitality in the first game. Hopefully they mix in more elements of being on the ground/in buildings kind of like AC does?[/QUOTE] I have to disagree. While it may look like the society in Mirrors Edge is a Utopia, it's not. That's the whole thing about a Dystopia. It's designed to look like a Utopia even though it really isn't. You know what, here, let's go through the typical requirements for a society to be considered a Dystopia. • Propaganda is used to control the citizens of society - Check, as evidenced by the scroll-through in the Elevators. • Information, independent thought, and freedom are restricted - Check, that's the entire point of the Freerunners. • A figurehead or concept is worshipped by the citizens of the society - Although it's not explicitly stated, I'd say the Mayor of the City, currently Callahagn, fits this bill - Check • Citizens are perceived to be under constant surveillance - Check • Citizens have a fear of the outside world - Check, the city is very much dead. • Citizens live in a dehumanized state - We don't see this but we don't see daily citizens' lives so I'm just going to mark this as Plausible - Plausible • The natural world is banished and distrusted - Once again we don't exactly see this but I'd like you to consider one thing: Gardens. There aren't many gardens in a they city of Mirror's edge that you ever see, aside from the occasional grass plant. - Check • Citizens conform to uniform expectations. Individuality and dissent are bad - Faith explains this in the backstory moments so - Check • The society is an illusion of a perfect utopian world. - Check Check Check Check Check. There's only one thing on that list that we can't confirm since we can't peer into the daily lives of the citizens, but everything else is pretty much Checked. It's a dystopia.