Branching Dialogue: Display of E-motion
by Ludwig Kietzmann 
{ Nov 21st 2008 at 7:00PM }
Presenting Branching Dialogue, a weekly, wordy and often worryingly pedantic discussion of video game genres, trends and err ... stuff I didn't think to put in this introductory line.
In his thoughtful review of Mirror's Edge, Eurogamer's Christian Donlan calls it a game "that's easier to love than like." He's quite right. DICE's first-person parkour platformer doesn't hold up to objective scrutiny, often coming apart under a reviewer's bit-by-bit examination. The discordant ratings are testament to that, if not to the claim that Mirror's Edge exudes a boldness and brilliance that's hard to capture in words, let alone numbers.
You can certainly try lobbing several comparisons at the game's gestalt ("It's Sonic the Hedgehog meets Montezuma's Return!"), but its evocative nature really comes through when you have the controller -- and the life of a runner -- in your hands. For as much as Mirror's Edge is about relentlessly pushing you through an urban obstacle course, it's also about capturing a gripping, breathless exhilaration. It's an unfortunate consequence of the mechanical and very deliberate design of games: doing exciting things with an on-screen proxy rarely feels as exciting as it should.
So, here it is. The game that puts you in someone else's body and better yet, a body that's dashing through a relentless sequence of last-minute escapes and vertiginous vaults. It's incredible, and as loathe as I am to connect a completely unique experience to any single genre, Mirror's Edge gives our friend, the platformer, a refreshing and long overdue kick in the pants.
At its core, the platformer presents a very simple question: How do I get from here to there? Except, the question isn't really laid at your feet, but rather the pitter-pattering shoes of someone else. Perhaps a plumber, a busty heroine or an anthropomorphic animal saddled with an XTREME attitude. It's never you. And though you could argue that, as Faith, you're still playing a character fundamentally separated from yourself (I'm definitely not a fleet-of-foot Asian woman, I checked), the first-person perspective is convincing enough to close that gap.
It's definitely a brave choice for the genre, considering the mere mention of it conjures up memories of Half-Life's final and most despicable moments. Jumping around in first-person view usually doesn't work, because it's so difficult to tell where exactly your character is in relation to the environment. Matters are made worse then, when your body is really just composed of two floating arms and an awkwardly held gun.
Looking down is encouraged.
I think Wired's Clive Thompson is absolutely correct when he suggests that Mirror's Edge messes with proprioception -- your body's innate ability to determine where your limbs are, even when you're not looking at them. I don't think Mirror's Edge is the first game to attempt it (Namco's underrated Breakdown landed a few punches of its own), but it's certainly successful in sticking you in the body of an agile sprinter as opposed to the typical, gun-toting tank man.
It's a fairly complex illusion and one I'm not sure I can adequately describe. The instantly convincing camera bob, subtle depth-of-field blur and occasional glimpses of Faith's body as she slides beneath pipes and CRASHES through doors (one of the most satisfying things you'll do in any game this year, I promise) gives you an inescapable, instinctual sense of location and speed within Mirror's muted city. For once, you feel like you're at the helm of an actual human being. Without even considering where your legs are or checking where your shadow is, you'll know in the moments before takeoff whether you're going to make a jump.
That's Mirror's Edge ultimate gift to platforming. The jump is important again. I've jumped over a lot of things in my gaming life, including pits of every size, description and depth, but I can't remember when last I held my breath or lurched forward in my seat as I flung myself over a computer-generated crevice. When you look down, seeing your feet run on air and eventually find a safe landing, it's truly, truly exciting.
That's a feeling you can fall in love with.
Branching Dialogue is written by Ludwig Kietzmann. He regularly writes posts on Joystiq and also wrote the highly narcissistic blurb you're reading right now (well done for making it all the way to the end, by the way). He can be written to by means of this fairly uncomplicated e-mail address:
You can certainly try lobbing several comparisons at the game's gestalt ("It's Sonic the Hedgehog meets Montezuma's Return!"), but its evocative nature really comes through when you have the controller -- and the life of a runner -- in your hands. For as much as Mirror's Edge is about relentlessly pushing you through an urban obstacle course, it's also about capturing a gripping, breathless exhilaration. It's an unfortunate consequence of the mechanical and very deliberate design of games: doing exciting things with an on-screen proxy rarely feels as exciting as it should.
So, here it is. The game that puts you in someone else's body and better yet, a body that's dashing through a relentless sequence of last-minute escapes and vertiginous vaults. It's incredible, and as loathe as I am to connect a completely unique experience to any single genre, Mirror's Edge gives our friend, the platformer, a refreshing and long overdue kick in the pants.
"The jump is important again." |
It's definitely a brave choice for the genre, considering the mere mention of it conjures up memories of Half-Life's final and most despicable moments. Jumping around in first-person view usually doesn't work, because it's so difficult to tell where exactly your character is in relation to the environment. Matters are made worse then, when your body is really just composed of two floating arms and an awkwardly held gun.
Looking down is encouraged.
I think Wired's Clive Thompson is absolutely correct when he suggests that Mirror's Edge messes with proprioception -- your body's innate ability to determine where your limbs are, even when you're not looking at them. I don't think Mirror's Edge is the first game to attempt it (Namco's underrated Breakdown landed a few punches of its own), but it's certainly successful in sticking you in the body of an agile sprinter as opposed to the typical, gun-toting tank man.
It's a fairly complex illusion and one I'm not sure I can adequately describe. The instantly convincing camera bob, subtle depth-of-field blur and occasional glimpses of Faith's body as she slides beneath pipes and CRASHES through doors (one of the most satisfying things you'll do in any game this year, I promise) gives you an inescapable, instinctual sense of location and speed within Mirror's muted city. For once, you feel like you're at the helm of an actual human being. Without even considering where your legs are or checking where your shadow is, you'll know in the moments before takeoff whether you're going to make a jump.
That's Mirror's Edge ultimate gift to platforming. The jump is important again. I've jumped over a lot of things in my gaming life, including pits of every size, description and depth, but I can't remember when last I held my breath or lurched forward in my seat as I flung myself over a computer-generated crevice. When you look down, seeing your feet run on air and eventually find a safe landing, it's truly, truly exciting.
That's a feeling you can fall in love with.
Branching Dialogue is written by Ludwig Kietzmann. He regularly writes posts on Joystiq and also wrote the highly narcissistic blurb you're reading right now (well done for making it all the way to the end, by the way). He can be written to by means of this fairly uncomplicated e-mail address:
Get a WordPress.com Blog
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 2)
LeMuRfArT @ Nov 21st 2008 7:12PM
i still plan on purchasing this game even though i heard the combat blows
the demo was just so damn fun
heyo007 @ Nov 21st 2008 7:17PM
Yeah, the combat does kinda suck but, even still, I'm loving the absolute hell out of this game.
riggs @ Nov 21st 2008 7:21PM
if you just run away, then the combat is AWESOME.
A Pissed-off English Gamer @ Nov 22nd 2008 12:42PM
I wasn't expecting a particularly novel combat experience, so I wasn't dissapointed. In fact, there's achievments for clearing levels without getting hit once, so I don't think killing everyone is really your goal.
TheBrainninja @ Nov 22nd 2008 1:51PM
While running away yields the best (and most satisfying) results, a lot of the frustration in combat can be avoided by creating a strategy for each enemy.
They're all visually distinctive, and with some experimentation you'll be able to instantly know how many hits it'll take to drop them, or if you should just bum rush 'em and disarm.
Overall, though, you should only fight the bare-minimum of enemies, those standing directly between you and your goal. If you just keep that in mind and run like hell after they're down, I guarantee you'll hate the combat less.
Courtney @ Nov 21st 2008 7:23PM
My kid asked if she could have Mirror's Edge for Christmas this week, which rocks, as then I don't *have* to buy it for myself. But honestly, I'm not sure if I can wait a month to play it.
dantebk @ Nov 21st 2008 7:40PM
Great job, Ludwig. You hit the nail on the head.
On the one hand, the game is severely flawed and frustrating, but it's also an amazing accomplishment and definitely worth playing. The single-player campaign is exhausting (at least it was for me, trying to get the "never shoot anyone" achievement). But it's somewhat redeemed by the Time Trial races, where you can have fun running from one place to another as fast as you can without getting shot in the back.
Though I'd like to say "screw you" to the Atirum time trial.
dantebk @ Nov 21st 2008 7:42PM
edit for spelling: Atrium
Phil @ Nov 21st 2008 7:50PM
Finally, someone coming out to say, "Ignore the flaws and enjoy the experience, THAT is what matters."
Or at least... I interpreted it as such. That's my feeling on the game. That's what I feel Play Magazine did, they thought, "Man, FUCK the flaws, this is just AWESOME" and hence the perfect rating. XD
Not that I think like... Mirror's Edge is TEH GRTIST GAME EVAR. No... that belongs to, in my honest opinion...
...Um...
Nevermind... I wish not to encourage nerdrage.
Ludwig Kietzmann @ Nov 21st 2008 7:58PM
Well, I don't think flaws should be *ignored* but you can certainly love the game despite them. And even to spite them.
Robert112 @ Nov 21st 2008 8:29PM
I honestly couldn't get enough of the game. I played it through on all three difficulties and again trying to find the bags. I love it and can't wait for the next one. I just wish the main game wasn't so short. The time trials got annoying trying to perfect so I skipped over most of that.
Phil @ Nov 21st 2008 9:02PM
Right, that's what I meant, I hope I didn't come off as trying to take your words out of context.
Still, awesome article, thank you for supporting it. Many games come out these days with flaws that are not game ruining but are portrayed as such by reviewers (...Honestly, IGN is seeming to be one of the most common culprits of this behavior, I have no hatred for them, I'm just stating what I've noticed in terms of a trend in their reviews... Maybe not so much this game) and thus, get viewed by the mainstream who essentially... Ends up determining the fate of the future of the series, as not worthy of being played.
After the plot that Mirror's Edge has brought out to us, I really just want to see it come full circle, it's one I feel is... worthy of having the excuse of being a trilogy game. :P
The question is how fast will EA and Dice get out the next title... It'd be nice if it could become a 'slightly' episodic game and have the sequel out sometime next year...
Which if they build it on the same engine (which... would be idiotic if they didn't, right?), don't change too much and focus on what they already have and how it CAN be changed for making it suiting as a 'new' game, could be possible.
sk8monroe81 @ Nov 22nd 2008 2:26AM
what game, great game included doesnt have flaws....
something to grow on for the future to make better.
the perfect game will be the end..
haha.
A Pissed-off English Gamer @ Nov 22nd 2008 12:51PM
I think this game is the perfect reason to stop with the archaic "number out of ten" bottom-liners that reviews have. This game is really damn good, but it DOES have flaws; this cannot be reconciled with just a number. It can't. Not just that, but this game has promised an experience gamers can't liken to a previous one; that alone means that general expectations are bound to be varied, to say the least.
How can anyone just take a goddamn number's word for it? You really need some well-written paragraphs (like Ludwig's. By the way, "vertiginous"? Nice) to really parse this kind of experience, and people are less willing to interpret a review when there's a fucking arbitrary number slapped on the end.
Richter @ Nov 21st 2008 8:19PM
This is exactly what I experienced with Mirror's Edge. I wanted so badly to like it, because its creators were being bold and it was new and creative, but when I played it... I just hated it. It felt like a constricted platformer from the wrong perspective, given the lack of proprioception available. The creativity I desired in the running just wasn't there, either. I can't say it's a bad game, it's highly competent, and yet... you couldn't pay me to play it now. I ended up hating it. And I've got a bit of cognitive dissonance going on now about it, because I still want to like it.
Oh well, at least Valkyria Chronicles turned out to be flippin' awesome.
A Pissed-off English Gamer @ Nov 22nd 2008 1:20PM
Yeah, you've described my disappointment when i started playing pretty well. I try to avoid the hype and, in the event of something not living up to expectations I adjust them.
finnith @ Nov 21st 2008 8:26PM
I love your column, Ludwig. I hope this is a permanent feature.
DocZoid @ Nov 22nd 2008 1:31AM
Agreed, they've all been solid reads so far. I have yet to pick up Mirror's Edge, but my take from the demo is that yeah, it has flaws, but I'll enjoy the hell out of it anyway.
Once I figure out how to play with anything remotely close to being considered 'skill'.
Bass Masterson @ Nov 21st 2008 8:45PM
This is just another example of how the words "we were wrong" have vanished from the acceptable use lexicon. It's all about re-defining your defeat to be a victory.
The game doesn't abjectly suck, it's an exercise in the gestalt! It's too INNOVATIVE to be fun! Sure I'm not enjoying it, but I was right to call it the best game evah before playing it!
aj @ Nov 22nd 2008 3:47AM
Were you a humanities major too?
Ludwig Kietzmann @ Nov 22nd 2008 5:45AM
I think that's an example of bending over backwards to invalidate someone's opinion. Note how your starting position is "the other guy is wrong."
A Pissed-off English Gamer @ Nov 22nd 2008 1:22PM
"It's too INNOVATIVE to be fun!"
Ahhh, my oxymoron sensor is overloading.
ThornedVenom (Harley Quinn Defense Force) @ Nov 21st 2008 9:18PM
"The Jump is important again."
We ought to have T-shirts saying that.
aj @ Nov 22nd 2008 3:48AM
No more t-shirts with cryptic phrases from the internet. That boat has long since sailed, burned, and sunk deep, deep down.
Bowser the Baptist @ Nov 22nd 2008 8:48AM
AJ: yet you call me a douche for banning clubbers with gaming shirts. Contradiction much?
Eric @ Nov 21st 2008 9:53PM
I've discovered for some time now that intense cardio exercise normally enhances the gaming experience afterward--even for a turn-based RPG. Of course, if you're used to staying in shape and only playing video-games when you have an endorphin rush (uh...like me) then it can be pretty devastating if you get injured and can't do serious exercise for a few weeks. MIRROR'S EDGE seems like the worst type of game for someone trying to get his/her mind off cardio activity.
FSK405K @ Nov 21st 2008 10:13PM
Mirror's Edge is what the non-combat 1/2 of the Bourne Identity/Supremacy (whatever) game should have been.
t_m @ Nov 22nd 2008 1:15AM
Sometimes i think people are too busy analysing the details of games to actually step back and look at the big picture.
This can work both ways.. sometimes people are so obsessed with percieved flaws that they miss the fact that the game is awesome (Mirror's Edge)
And sometimes they are so busy counting "features" on a checklist that they miss the fact the game has no heart (The Two Thrones)
Mirror's Edge was awesome. It could have a bazillion flaws and it'd still be awesome.
ThePhoenixLament @ Nov 22nd 2008 2:07AM
Horrible game...sorry it has to be said. Combat is a disaster. The whole thing just feels tacky, weird, and cheap.
wehooo @ Nov 22nd 2008 3:29AM
Well, the game is not about combat.
aj @ Nov 22nd 2008 3:49AM
The game is about getting your 60$.
bm @ Nov 22nd 2008 4:20AM
I'm not defending the game or something, but you're an idiot. You might as well play tetris and say "combat is a disaster".
Bowser the Baptist @ Nov 22nd 2008 6:09AM
I played the demo, and I can't help aping what a fellow said to me about this game: they've co-opted Free Running culture, rinsed it of any substance, and sold it on to the mediocre class.
Now I'm not judging or anything, but I can't get away from the fact that this is once again an example of bland corporations encroaching into our public space, our culture space.
Free Running was about escaping beyond urban nothingness redefining what it meant to live in a concrete city. It had no rules and limitless freedom. I never partook in any of these shenanigans, but I did observe, and document these moments. These Free Runners had a genuine love for their cities, they were true creatives. To see culture neatly packaged up like this, especially from the likes of EA, well I don't know. I don't feel all too comfortable with it.
Wehooo @ Nov 22nd 2008 6:31AM
Huh. Did you get the same emotions when you watched Sony Pictures pack it in Casino Royal?
Bowser the Baptist @ Nov 22nd 2008 6:44AM
I've never watched a James Bond film.
Kia @ Nov 22nd 2008 12:55PM
Please, do get over yourself. If every game based on a certain style/sport/culture/etc was some horrible attempt at cashing in/ruining their "flow"/wtf-ever, then no games would ever be made. Don't be such an elitist prat.
Bowser the Baptist @ Nov 22nd 2008 1:35PM
Good job staying classy, Kia.
We had drag queens yesterday spluttering in the same nonsensical manner that you oh so well replicate. Difference was that was just for show.
Autopsy15 @ Nov 23rd 2008 4:11AM
Nice way to defend your point Bowser.
Ethan @ Nov 22nd 2008 8:26AM
This is the thing about Mirror's Edge. Although it's got weird cutscenes and combat, the sensation is something entirely new and wonderful. Which is personally what I'm looking for.
Levi @ Nov 22nd 2008 10:58AM
Having read all of the comments for once, I definitely have a few things to say. I think I left off on chapter 3 or so. Please keep this in mind when reading the comment, and feel free to let me know if parts of this comment are negated due to the fact that I haven't yet finished the game.
First, I have to ask: what are the game's flaws? If you start by saying "The combat sucks," then you missed the whole point of the game. I agree with the Tetris comment, and I'll have to come up with another to further my point. It's like saying Mariokart isn't enough like a Mario game. Just because Mario is in it doesn't mean you have to jump, hit coin blocks, and use warp whistles to get to world 8 faster. Just because Mirror's Edge has guns doesn't mean you need to shoot people. So far, I have jump-kicked most enemies that I have come across, which both works very well and is the most satisfying jump-kick since TMNT2 the arcade game.
Though I'm sure this isn't the only flaw that people find with the game, so I'll welcome them in the form of responses to this comment, and most likely comment on the responses later.
Second, the difficulty. This part of the comment will focus on how difficulty has been handled since the NES era. During NES, games like Super Mario Bros. The Lost Levels (which was simply SMB2 in Japan) weren't even ported to America because the industry felt we weren't good enough at games to appreciate them. Regardless, the NES era was full of incredibly tough games. Many of them held up just because the game was so tough that you couldn't finish them, which kept you coming back time and time again for the challenge. Difficulty has just gone down ever since. Players' hands are held through almost all games, which a cinematic ending that tries to artificially create a sense of accomplishment. Atrificially, at least, when compared next to the sense of accomplishment after finishing the original Metroid for the first time. I know there are some really tough games out there, from last gen and maybe a few from this gen, but that is not my point. My point is that gamers have been babied through so many games of the past few generations that we have all become used to breezing through them. And if we die, it's not that big of a deal, because there was a save point 30 seconds ago. Games like Mirror's Edge get a bad rep (NOT RAP -- IT'S NOT A BAD RAP YOU IDIOTS - IT'S REP, for REPUTATION, GET IT RIGHT!!! - ahem, sorry) because games are too easy. You might counter this by saying, "why would you want to do something in a game over and over again, just to get frustrated every time you sit down and play it?" Because overcoming challenge is an aspect of gaming that has come close to obliteration. Games like Mega Man 9 keep it going on life support, but I wonder how long it will hold on.
Finally, I have to reply to your comment, Bowser. (A) you cannot wrap up a niche like free running in a couple sentences, especially when I'm willing to bet you are not part of it. How can you say what it is all about if you aren't there? You can't say what snowboarding is all about unless you are part of it. I also completely disagree that it is "an example of bland corporations encroaching into our public space, our culture space." It is obvious that someone probably woke up one day, saw the videos on YouTube, and thought that it would make it a fantastic game. I do NOT, however, think that a CEO woke up one day, saw the videos on YouTube, and said, "This will make us millions." It is highly conceptual, which usually means that it doesn't have a very good chance to get funded. Thankfully, we're starting to break that mold, and this game is an example of that.
Everyone has their opinions, and everyone is entitled to them, but I guess I just don't understand all of the comments that say the game is highly flawed. I've been playing games all my life, and have dabbled in game design, programming, and level design. I have played the demo countless times, and after buying the game, the first few missions. I didn't really see any flaws while playing it. That's not to say I can't if I relly thoroughly pick the game apart, but that is not what it seems everyone here is doing. Many are saying they played the game, and there was a lot they didn't like.
After a huge post like this... I hope someone will reply, lol... I'm just curious, because, aside from complaints about combat and difficulty, I just don't see how the game is flawed.
Bowser the Baptist @ Nov 22nd 2008 11:13AM
"I never partook in any of these shenanigans, but I did observe, and document these moments."
Reading is fundamental, sweet boy. I never said I took part in the pursuit: I saw, recorded, and documented these moments. I was sent on an assignment and saw something wholly new and creative.
Now, a few years later, we have EA attempting to cash in, and I feel a little uneasy about it. It's easy to parasite external culture and claim it's 'breaking the mould,' and if it makes you feel better then keep regurgitating that tripe.
And I'm not one of those people that chants: everything must be original. But it does irk some, like the person I initially mentioned in my original post, and myself, to see easy re-packaging sold for big monies. Where's the trickle down effect for the people who started this pursuit?*
*my experience is only of those in my city. I'm fully aware the Free Running phenomenon occurred several years before I even knew it existed, in another city, on another continent.
Bowser the Baptist @ Nov 22nd 2008 11:17AM
"on another continent"
Mistake: I live on an island, it originated on the continent. UK - France. Yeah, I'm dumb like that.
Levi @ Nov 22nd 2008 12:27PM
yeah, I missed that line, sorry. I also didn't mean any of that in an offensive manor. I don't want to try to negate opinions, but I do disagree to a certain extent. I see your point, and I do agree that this is reminiscent of an obvious cash-in, but I just think that the game is far too polished and well designed to simply be a cash-in. I guess that is where our opinions differ.
But back to the faults of the game itself: can everyone who found faults try to explain what you see wrong with the game? Genuine question, no sarcasm.
iLogic @ Nov 22nd 2008 11:37AM
Excellent points Ludwig!
@ Levi, dude, I totally agree. One example is RPG, as a big fan of RPG, I've seen the genre go tail spin because the element of exploration has dissipated. I remember searching through every space of Dragon Warrior's world, Zelda's Hyrule, and the same for the other wildly famous series. Over time, the worlds have become more linear, now you "hop" to another city, like it's Mario 3. I don't get it and it urks me when I see these elements rated as negative impacts to the game! BTW, I absolutely love chaining commands one unit at a time, and if you don't like it, here's an idea! Stop playing RPG, and stop reviewing them!! I don't understand how people who don't like certain genres review games... Personally, I don't do Sports too much, why on earth would I review the genre when I'm looking for flaws that work against the fun that it really provides for people who enjoy it. I think somewhere in there... someone also complained that games are too hard... I love Mirror's EDGE!
Squid @ Nov 22nd 2008 12:39PM
The issue of EA co-opting and selling underground culture is an interesting and important one, and I'm glad someone finally brought it up.
But personally, I just think the game is completely overrated.
"So, here it is. The game that puts you in someone else's body and better yet, a body that's dashing through a relentless sequence of last-minute escapes and vertiginous vaults."
That would be great if the game didn't constantly break up that 'relentless sequence' with relentless trial-and-error gameplay. Oftentimes, it's not even a matter of skill: there are countless situations in the game where it's simply impossible to do something correctly without trying and failing at it once first, which certainly takes away from the immersion of a game that takes place on skyscraper rooftops.
But a lot of reviewers seem to share Ludwig's view that the flaws can be ignored when you look at the whole product. I don't agree: The flaws definitely subtract from the whole.
The experience isn't as complete or as fluid as it needs to be for what it tries to accomplish, and the game's gorgeous looks and unique style can't erase the shortcomings of its gameplay.
In short, I think people want to enjoy this game more than they actually do.
Levi @ Nov 22nd 2008 5:15PM
So you're basically saying that because it is near impossible to play through the game your first time without dying, that the game sucks. Otherwise, there would have to be trial and error, no matter what kind of death or game over it is. Take these two scenarios:
1) Mirror's Edge. You bust out of a door on a roof top while being chased by a bunch of dudes with guns. You are desparately trying to find a way out of the situation, but can't before they get the best of you. So you start back at the checkpoint, and a few tries later, you make it past.
2) Killzone. Yuo walk into an area that triggers a sequence of enemy spawns from various areas. You've been overwhelmed with the enemies, and you die. Next time, you know where the enemies spawn, so you start to formulate different strategies to overcome the obstacle.
I understand you're point is that you feel it is impossible in various parts of the game to overcome an obstacle your first time through, and that it can't be paralleled to a scene like that in a shooter. I believe it is similar, and I'll stick to it for the sake of my point.
My point is that I don't see how the trial-and-error gameplay here is a bad thing at all. I get the impression that you're saying you wish the game would be more straightforward so that you would die less. This would make the game more "fluid" as you put it, but it would just take away the challenge altogether. How would a game like this be fun if you didn't have some sort of danger?
I have to point out that I'm not trying to negate your opinions of the game, and I mean no offense in my reply. But I just don't see that as being a 'fault' of the game at all, just something that some players don't like.
Levi @ Nov 22nd 2008 5:17PM
Sorry for the double post, but I hate it when people say stuff like "you're" instead of "your," which I did. Woops!
Squid @ Nov 22nd 2008 5:34PM
The point is that as a player, I shouldn't have to be presented with a situation where the only solution is to kill myself in order to understand what I need to do the next time around.
Your Killzone example simply sounds like another example of poor game design. I shouldn't have to walk into a room and be shot full of holes to know that I need to prepare for a fight. There are plenty of traditional first person shooters that don't cause problems like this for the player.
Yes, it's inevitable that the player will die some of the time. I'm certainly not saying that the game should simply be easier.
I'm saying that death in a game should be a consequence, not something the player has to integrate into their strategy.
Ludwig Kietzmann @ Nov 23rd 2008 10:11AM
I can totally see where you're coming from, Squid. I don't entirely disagree either, but I think the game makes more effort to preserve this flow (runner vision + circle button) than to destroy it. There has to be some punishment for falling off a building or getting lost, though, since the game's checkpoints are pretty forgiving already.
It's also that much more satisfying when you *do* get it right in one smooth motion. In fact, I think Mirror's Edge is its most enjoyable on your second time through (since you know what you're doing!). I think the expectation that they're going to get everything right on their first attempt is what's most frustrating to people.
Kia @ Nov 22nd 2008 12:50PM
"androgynous animal saddled with an XTREME attitude. "
I believe you mean "anthropomorphic." At least, I -hope- you do.