EA sees a trilogy in Mirror's Edge

by Randy Nelson { Oct 14th 2008 at 10:30PM }

With its developer already inking comic book deals and counting the dollars, euros, yen, and copper farthings it expects to rake in from a projected three million copies worldwide, Mirror's Edge staying a one-off affair may have seemed unlikely ... and is now so totally not one. In an interview with AusGamers, DICE senior producer, Owen O'Brien, reveals that the game – launching next month – will be the first in a planned trilogy.

O'Brien commented: "The story we're telling at the moment is kind of a trilogy, a three-story arc," adding that, "certainly for these first couple games, it's all about Faith." Faith being the protagonist of the first (and now, it seems, second) Mirror's Edge – or, you might also say, what EA has in the franchise. O'Brien also mentioned that the second game in the freshly-minted series may pack a level editor, saying: "It's something we're probably going to look at for the sequel."

He also said that, "We want to make the level editor as easy to use and intuitive as the game is. And that's going to take us quite a lot of time." In other words: the first dose of rooftop running action – complete with its recently revealed time trial mode – will have to keep us happy for a good while.

[Via GameSpot]

Tags: dice, ea, electronic-arts, mirrors-edge, sequel, trilogy

Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)

why not the LS2LS7? @ Oct 14th 2008 10:37PM

EA likes money. News at 11.

Kellydude025 @ Oct 14th 2008 11:17PM

Mirrors Edge 2015...
2016...
2017...
ect.

MBO @ Oct 15th 2008 12:18AM

Everyone hates EA. News at 12.

Fanboy @ Oct 15th 2008 8:21AM

Yea, so? Who doesn't

KevinWI @ Oct 15th 2008 10:29AM

I don't hate EA, but then again, I also vote Republican.

Vegeta (aka Ska Oreo) @ Oct 14th 2008 10:37PM

aaargh. Game companies really need to stop with the trilogy bullshit. Seriously just make the first game, do all that you can do story wise. And if game is successful, and if it is possible to make a sequel, then you can do it.

Superstar90 @ Oct 14th 2008 10:53PM

It's kind of a double edged sword.

On one hand you have a story that is written as a trilogy initially, therefore the second and third parts don't seem tacked on and are actually well developped.

On the other hand, if the first game sells like shit but has a cliffhanger ending, they might not do the second game and annoy the people who liked it.

Markez @ Oct 14th 2008 10:58PM

Well here's my issue with the trilogy thing, how about giving us some continuity and actually having closer release dates?

I mean, when the hell is Mass Effect 2 coming out? Why did it take so effing long to get Bring Down the Sky out? Will there actually ever be any other DLC for ME, or are they just a one pump chump?

I was already way finished by the time I got around to Bring Down the Sky. I enjoyed it, but good lord what a horrible wait. A single DLC for that game is all we get!? It's going to be the same stupid issue with GTAIV. My enthusiasm for DLC is highest during or immediately after I finish the game.

Sigh... I'm done ranting. I wouldn't be surprised if Mirror's Edge III comes out 20 years from now. Alright I'm going to go pout off in a corner now...

jimmygotsmack @ Oct 14th 2008 11:46PM

@Vegeta

Game companies, movies, books, triple stackers at burger king. Trilogies seem to be the new fetish now.

Seishino @ Oct 15th 2008 12:04AM

Strongly Seconded. The trilogy entitlement has to stop. If the first game doesn't contain all of your mindblowingly amazing ideas: you didn't deserve the first 50 dollars, and you won't get the second.

Titanium_Orchid @ Oct 15th 2008 12:51AM

@Markez

Are you sure there is going to be a Mass Effect 2? I could be wrong but I thought that I heard there were no plans for a squeal... or maybe that was no plans for more DLC I can't remember.

Vcize @ Oct 15th 2008 10:36AM

There's definitely going to be a Mass Effect 2. They've already talked about how the side missions will be less generic the second time around since they won't have to spend so much of their time building the engine from scratch.

Also, the book leading in the second game has already been released.

Vcize @ Oct 15th 2008 10:38AM

Speaking of Mass Effect though, they did the sequel/trilogy thing perfectly. I HATE cliffhanger endings in videogames. All the best movie trilogies (well, except LoTR if you consider that up there) have first movies that could have been standalone movies. They wrap up the story, but leave just enough out there that you can see they can easily create one event to keep things going.

Mass Effect has done exactly the same. Even if no sequel were ever released, the first game would stand perfectly on its own. But you can kind of see where they might go to create a sequel...

Einhanderkiller @ Oct 14th 2008 10:43PM

$$$

Arnon @ Oct 14th 2008 10:47PM

Damn damn damn DAMN DAMN DAMN DAAAAAAA-*explodes*

M2:

Now you can use jetpacks and ruin the experience! EA makes another $200million..

JerJer @ Oct 14th 2008 10:51PM

level editor! am i the only one who saw that?? that's a good thing right?? we want more mirror's edge and we like level editors.

is no one else seeing this as a good thing?

Arnon @ Oct 14th 2008 11:06PM

That.. would be kinda cool.

Markez @ Oct 14th 2008 11:19PM

Provided there is easy sharing. I'm not into user created content at all. It really busts my chops that Boom Blox didn't have better sharing of user created levels.

eldee @ Oct 14th 2008 11:04PM

ARGH TRILOGYITIS

seriously.. why THREE? If it's good, make another. If that one is good, make another, ET CETERA.

Ask roberta williams- imagine if Kings Quest was a trilogy.. or Space quest.

Pre-announcing a trilogy is just *begging* the community to hold it under the star-wars examining light and see if it's worthy. See: Advent Rising and Too Human. Both fairly decent games that fans pretty much raped, and neither one will likely ever see episode 2, let alone 3.

Derek @ Oct 14th 2008 11:20PM

I don't know about anyone else, but this sort of thing makes me feel cheated even before I've played the game. To say that they want to make this game a trilogy, is almost like, "Oh, I think we'll put just enough content in this first game to give these guys a taste of what this game's supposed to be like. then, as soon as they start enjoying themselves, BAM: Mirror's Edge 2, coming holiday season 2009."

I'm just saying, I have a hard time justifying paying $60 for a game as it is, so if I'm buying a title at release time, it better be good and totally worth it. Besides, these guys wipe their asses with Benjamins so give us guys who supply you with your cash flow a break here and let's see some worthwhile content that for once, maaaaaaaaaaaybe, lives up to the hype.

Chin-Poh @ Oct 14th 2008 11:28PM

LOL, what is up with everyone wanting to make trilogies out of games now? Bioshock, Heavenly Sword, Mirrors Edge, Assassins Creed, etc.

Premature ejaculation man @ Oct 15th 2008 1:10AM

So many games are announced trilogies and so far we haven't seen any followups to any of them.

Premature ejaculation man @ Oct 15th 2008 1:11AM

I read that as "why are people hating on trilogies"...
...
...
Sorry mister mysterious mustache man

Titanium_Orchid @ Oct 15th 2008 1:11AM

so their studios don't get shut down?

ExMcCloud @ Oct 15th 2008 8:28AM

Well........they know your gonna pay $180 for all three titles...lol...This is Halo's fault...Dammit how dare Bungie make a good trilogy.....Yeah I said it...So if you don't like Halo I dont wanna hear it....I got 5 million Bungie fans, and every game review on the planet on my side!!!

paralipsis @ Oct 14th 2008 11:33PM

A successful game is like opening a packet of pringles for EA. If they can hold themselves to three games I will be shocked.

Talk of a trilogy is simply code for saying "We've got two development teams working on sequels now, and if the game is successful then that is all that those development teams will be working on for the next ten years"

Lone Starr @ Oct 15th 2008 12:01AM

Once the first drops, EA don't stop.

farfisa @ Oct 14th 2008 11:46PM

Yeah, three story arcs generally arc downwards--but hey, prove me wrong, children! Prove me wrong!

Markez @ Oct 14th 2008 11:54PM

Oh cmon, Edna, we both know these sequels have no futures!

Sesur @ Oct 14th 2008 11:59PM

Why the hell is everything a trilogy these days? I understand the need to capitalize on the success of new IPs, but the whole affair feels abusive by the time you're done with the 2nd game (like Halo).

carg0 @ Oct 15th 2008 12:07AM

*rolls eyes, laughing* yea, i'll bet they can...

these moron's (who can't even make quality games with any level of consistency) could "see" a trilogy while staring at a doorknob...

Markez @ Oct 15th 2008 12:09AM

EA Games proudly announces for the 2009 Holiday Lineup:

Doorknob III: One Good Turn Deserves Another (And Another After That)

Titanium_Orchid @ Oct 15th 2008 1:24AM

I posted this above but I wanted to expand on this a little more.

I think that the trilogy phenomenon is not as driven by the publishers as people here might think (I'm basing this on the posts above). My theory is that developers push harder for the creation of trilogies.

Mainly because, from the perspective of a developer, creating a trilogy is a far better way of securing work when compared to creating new IP's.

If you don't agree, think of it this way: You are a painter and in order to support yourself for the next three years, you need to sell a total of three paintings. What would you rather do? Sell three paintings at once and complete them over the course of three years, or make one painting a year and hope that someone comes along and buys each one?

Yes, publishers like money and yes it is easier to sell a known name than an unknown one. However, publishers are taking a risk by funding a developer for three games (We'll assume that two games can be created based on the success of the first) rather than one.

Look at Ensemble studios. Does anybody here think that Microsoft would have dropped them as quickly if they had signed a contract to make two additional games?

Titanium_Orchid @ Oct 15th 2008 1:27AM

Oh, I forgot to add: It is also seems like it would be easier to pitch the concept of a trilogy as a dev. as the people who buy your first game will most likely be interested in buying the second and third just to see what happens.

Examples: Assassin's Creed and Too Human

Samael @ Oct 15th 2008 6:21AM

Is this game going to do good enough to warrant two sequels? I am definitely not interested in purchasing this game no matter what the scores will be just because motion sickness is not my thing.

Snowblind @ Oct 15th 2008 7:04AM

I'm really sick of everything being a trilogy these days, even things that don't need to be. Pirates of the Caribbean instantly springs to mind, the second movie existed for the sole purpose of hyping up the third, there was no need for it.

Mass Effect however has done it quite well.. We knew it's been planned as a trilogy from the start, yet the first game still ended in a reasonable fashion, but simply left a few loose ends open to be explained later.