Fuck yeah! Just hope it's a good sequel.

It was a pretty crappy game, with a shitty story.

The controls really got on my nerves a few times. And yeah, the story was dumb.

Mirror's Edge wasn't perfect but I enjoyed it. I always thought it deserved a sequel.

It was good because it dared to be different in a world of brown shooters and AAA game clones, it may have not worked out too well but at least the creativity and drive was there. Plus some parts were pretty enjoyable.

Not the time trials though, they can go fuck themselves.

What would you say if I shat in a game box and sent it you?

What system does that run on?

Vita.

I didn't really pay attention to the story. It was fairly average from what I remember. I just ignored it in favour of WHOOOOSH HUP HEP BOING WHEEEEEE THUD etc.

Even the shooting parts, which I'd heard were rubbish, were okay.

Also, the use of colour was very refreshing.

Lots of things have colour nowadays.

Not every game based on Unreal Engine 3 has many colours.

Everything has colour. Not everything uses colour.

Is 'Mirror's Edge was a good game because most games are too brown' really the kind of argument you want to commit yourself to?

Mirror’s Edge wasn’t a good game, it was a good concept which wasn’t fully executed. The gameplay was a great and unique spin on the FPS genre but DICE couldn’t match it with an interesting story, nor could it take that concept and build really great levels.

I own Mirror’s Edge. I played through it all, I tried to like it. I still think the concept has promise, and I hope a sequel gets made that expands on the foundations, but the original just couldn’t take that unique concept and build a mechanically good game.

If you define "good" as "better than average", then absolutely.

Also that shit about it being really immersive and enjoyable to play.

EDIT: WHY IS EVERYONE SO WORRIED ABOUT THE STORY

Seriously?! I've seen better games with worse stories where no-one complained. Does ME really shove it in your face that much?

I define “good” as “takes its core concepts and builds an entertaining experience out of it”.

By that ruling, Mirror’s Edge showed promise but it was never good.

As for the story, it’s a pretty big deal! A good story can really hammer home an entertaining experience, especially when it gels with other components of the medium.

There are games where stories aren't intended to matter much. This is not the case

Pac-man had a fucking awful story.

It was awesome, you just don't get the metaphors

I'd say a large percentage of video games I play have bad or mediocre story. But I generally don't care because the gameplay is good, and that's what games are about. Story comes second (at least with most types of games).

I think "entertaining" is about as subjective as "good". I found it entertaining, amusing, diverting, enjoyable, exciting, and whatever other gerunds* you'd like to offer.

Okay, you've said why a good story is an asset to a game. You haven't said why a bad story is a liability.

As Nepsotic joked, a story is a postive when it's good, but only neutral if it's bad. Sonic has a terrible story. No-one complains, they just get on with enjoying the rest of the game. You can ignore dull story in a way that you can't ignore unimaginative gameplay.

This is better. It's true. ME was supposed to have involving characters and emotional torque. It doesn't. Boo-hoo. Much like Sonic, I just take the various animated interludes as an excuse for why I've GOTTA GO FAST.

And in my humble opinion, the story wasn't that bad. I never really liked Faith's sister, but hey, sisters are sisters. You gotta save your flesh and blood. Celeste, though; She may as well have had "TRAITOR" branded on her face from the start.

*Doesn't work in this context I know go away

Games are still leagues behind cinema or books in terms of good writing, which is apparent in both storytelling and voice acting scripts. Very very few games have a really good story or script, and almost none can take it a step further and tie the storytelling into the medium in a more effective manner than “cutscene-player does thing-cutscene”.

e:

I found it entertaining up until the point where the basic concept had been established and cemented. I then found the gameplay to very quickly become samey, tedious and frustrating; and while I went on to finish the game I didn’t find it entertaining as a complete work.


Bad story is a liability because it is needed to provide context and justification to what the player is doing. Mediocre stories get a pass because games have more to them than mediums like cinema or books – the story is not as hard-wired in, as we can find examples of games with no story at all.

However, a game like Mirror’s Edge is a game which requires people, and it requires them doing things. Why are they doing things? That’s what the story is there for.

Games do not need stories, but a game which has player’s actions being driven by characters in a meaningful way need a good story. Sonic gets away with it because the gameplay is not effected by the story; Sonic runs around assault courses and beats up robots in the same way a Saturday morning cartoon does the same shit every episode.

This is the reason why I always thought deserved a sequel.

Ergo; You can't really criticise a game for having mediocre writing. You can't criticise a game for not being in 3D either. It's just the accepted standard.

EDIT: And now you've edited your post.

That’s really dumb.

If a game has mediocre writing it is not above criticism because its medium has a low standard of writing; you criticise it and the rest of the medium for not being at a higher standard.

The first 3 Resident Evil games had a good story but had terrible writing, and they were praised as some of the greatest horror games in history.

To be honest, I didn't pay attention to the story of Mirror's Edge. I was more intrested in the gameplay because that's what I care about the most in games. Obviously if the game has terrible writing and storyline, that's something to complain about.

Can't we come to the conclusion that Mirror's Edge was okay but it needed a lot of improvements?

If it needs that amount of improvements, it's not okay, I think

I thought it was really good gameplay/graphics-wise, just too short of a story and the plot wasn't that good.

I found there wasn't enough variation in the gameplay to keep me interested for the whole campaign. The controls were also rather awkward and clunky. Also, the constant red on white really burned/strained the eyes. If these problems are fixed with the sequel it could prove to be a great game.

also I didn't read the rest of the thread so I may just be repeating what others have said.