Mirror's Edge

http://www.gamevideos.com/video/id/18706

:)

Why are there guns in what could be an interesting platformer?

Why the fuck are there GUNS!?

Platforming doesn't look that great actually, it looks way too easy. There doesn't seem to be much of a sense of momentum. Maybe that's why there's guns, to cover up for the lack of decent platforming.

Looks pretty though.

[quote=Speedfreak;848224]Platforming doesn't look that great actually, it looks way too easy.
You're basing this on a minute of footage. For all you know, it could be the first level.

[quote]Although the player character can hold weapons, O'Brien stressed that "this is an action adventure. We're not positioning this as a shooter - the focus isn't on the gun, it's on the person." Gameplay in Mirror's Edge will focus on finding the best route through the game's environments while combat takes a secondary role. Consequently, guns may be obtained by disarming an enemy, but when the magazine is empty, it will need to be discarded. Additionally, carrying a weapon slows Faith down and the heavier the gun, the more it hinders her movement, which introduces an element of strategy in determining when to trade agility for short-term firepower.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mirror's_Edge

I'd say the guns work just fine.

I envision guns working somewhat like they did in Condemned. Super-powerful, with limited ammo. Seems like it would fit with the style of the game.

[quote=The X;848225]You're basing this on a minute of footage. For all you know, it could be the first level.

You can get a sense of momentum from the first horizontal jump in Super Mario Bros.

It's not like I'm making any kind of final judgement, anyway.

[quote=Fate;848238][URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mirror%27s_Edge"]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mirror's_Edge[/URL]

[COLOR=skyblue]I'd say the guns work just fine.[/COLOR]

Beside the point, why have guns at all? Why does every fucking new game have to have a f[color=lightgreen
u[/color]cking gun in it? I don't care if it's using it in some fantastic new way, why does it have to be there in the first place?

Because the story and theme of a totalitarian government kind of fits with them being the few that own guns and they happen to be your enemy? And real life has guns? :/

[quote=Fate;848471][COLOR=skyblue]Because the story and theme of a totalitarian government kind of fits with them being the few that own guns and they happen to be your enemy? And real life has guns?[/COLOR] :/

1. Why make a story that necessitates guns? The game is f[COLOR=lightgreen]u[/COLOR]cking Parkour, why do you even need a story?
2. Real life has Ricki Lake, why isn't that in the game?

[quote=Bebop;848476]I hope the levels are open too. Would defeat the point of free running if the paths were linear.

They're not only linear, you're told you where to go through the scenery turning red. If there's no skill involved in the jumping itself then the game pretty much boils down to "zipwire means pressing jump and jump again, pipe means mashing the jump button, climbing means mashing jump" like some extremely slow and easy rhythm game.

Right now all it's praise seems to be on the fact that, fuck me, it's a next gen game that's red, blue and white instead of brown and grey. We've seen platformers before, we've seen parkour before, we've seen platforming in the first person before. The game concept isn't new so it's pretty much down to how well they implement it, which they're keeping schtum on.

If the game didn't have a story, you'd ***** about that. Seriously. You do hate video games, right?

My theory is that guns are common in games because guns mean violence and conflict, all of which make games more exciting. What's more exciting than people chasing after you? People chasing after you with guns. Especially if you're unarmed. Whew, what a rush.

And the same could be said about swords, if someone felt the need to point that out. Why swords? "Why are there ****ing swords in every ****ing RPG, most ****ing action games, and quite-a-****ing-few shooters?" I can imagine someone asking. But the answer's the same. Weapons are exciting, and guns are like super-weapons.

Besides, it wouldn't be that much fun if all you did was punch things. It'd be like Condemned without weapons. Christ, one-on-one combat is irritating when you have a team to defeat.

Slade: It's become a next-gen joke that everything in this generation is brown and gray and super-contrasted. I don't see the joke consistent enough to make it a staple, but whatever.

Yeah, I've seen some of that, but I was mostly wondering who exactly was doing "all this praising" of the game for its non-brown qualities.

[quote=Bebop;848598]Why does it NEED to have combat? This game sounded better when it was all about parkour. It started off sounding to be original and different, but the guns and LOL GOVERNMENT BAD crap brings it straight back into the group of samey samey game devices.
Assassin's Creed has jaw-dropping freerunning elements, and that wasn't enough to save it being a game that was only moderately enjoyable.

So you guys think story and conflict are the base requirements for a new game? Is it so hard to imagine a game where "killing the other guy" isn't the objective? Does every game HAVE to be about escapism and immersion? Are video games reserved purely for hyper nerds that so desperately want to be the super awesome game character, is that their alpha and omega? Is it right to be offended by casual games that are JUST FUCKING GAMES played for the sake of PLAY?

If your answer to any of these questions isn't"no" you wrong. Categorically, indisputably wrong.

This game didn't want to do that, obviously, so what are you ranting about? :confused:

That it's totally lame that they almost did they but some cunt of an exective obviously decided the games need guns and a mediocre storyline to be a "proper video game".

Well I could be wrong, as far as I can tell the game world is open but when you're doing missions the red objects guide you along the correct path.

I would be suprised if its not then again seeing EA is somehow involved it's more than likely.

You're both way too eager to try to rip this game a new one. How about wait for some more "information" to be released so you can have even more things to complain about? All right?

Seriously, give it a rest.

I already said I hadn't made a final judgement or anything, I just don't see what all the fuss is about.

Something I just now picked up on is that apparently this game was first shown as something other than what it is now...? I wouldn't know because I don't keep up with games on systems I don't own.

A few statements like this:

So, what exactly was it marketed as originally? I only heard of it as an adventure game set entirely in First Person. I never remember hearing anything otherwise.

[quote=Slade;849167]Something I just now picked up on is that apparently this game was first shown as something other than what it is now...? I wouldn't know because I don't keep up with games on systems I don't own.

A few statements like this:

made me think you were making outlandish assumptions and then drawing negative conclusions from them. But if the game was originally touted as being a free-running game with zero other ideas implemented into the experience, then I can see how you could act like the game was "pure" before they... added(?) guns. I just find it hard to believe that the developer really worked it out that way.

I still think that even if that is the case, calling the storyline mediocre and assuming that guns will ruin it are unreasonable assumptions. So you know the basis for the storyline, and you've seen about 5 seconds of footage involving guns. It's just too early to tell. And okay, that's not your final judgement. Cool.

I don't think it was originally a "pure" game which then was corrupted with guns, I think there's a good idea in there that's tainted by the presence of guns. They probably came in around the same time.

spoilers: people like shooting stuff, they like combat and guns and combat sells. Something tells me a straight-up running game wouldn't do too incredibly well. I just don't think parkour is established well enough to justify it (unlike skateboarding and other sports.) Plus, the combat could be really fun for all we know, and gun-play could be really limited. Personally, I like the idea of blending both, assuming combat is fun.

unlike jade's game.

Are they individual levels or a sandbox game? The latter wouls surely be better for parkour.

Probably the latter I'd guess, only because the style seems to indicate that direction. Though open-world could be a really... bad thing if not done right. Jumping and running and swinging is only so fun in an open environment before you get bored with it, whereas it should always stay pretty fun and streamlined in a level-based system.

I mean, as is the world looks pretty... bland. On purpose, sure. But it looks incredibly empty. So the missions better be pretty **** intriguing and fulfilling to pull off the open-world system.

What's your problem with guns? Were you raped at gunpoint as a child? Why does the inclusion of guns suddenly make this game 'unoriginal'? I think it was Slade who said earlier in this thread that swords are way more prevalent in games than firearms, anyway. Would swordplay in Mirror's Edge irritate you?

Bebop, there's already been a game this generation that had a fantastic free-running system. Plus it had murdering. And horse riding. But that wasn't even enough to get it any more praise than 'good'. The main flaw in Assassin's Creed was that there wasn't much to do. Now imagine the game with everything but the running cut. That's essentially what you're asking for.

[quote=Bebop]"A game where you roll a ball and pick up stuff? No way that would be a success on any level."
what the **** has katamari got to do with this? haha oh wow

Running without a goal gets boring really fast even if you're playing in a pretty world like in GTA or Shadow of the Colossus. When I play games I like to play with an even sense of immersion and gameplay, not just tool around with my abilities because there is nothing else to do.

[quote] Oh yeah, also Weapons are bad. They slow you down and many times you have to choose whether or not to keep that badass shotgun or throw it down some alley.
Gleamed this from one of the interviews on GT. WEAPONS ARE NOT GOING TO RUIN THIS GAME. jeez.

Everybody who mentioned weapons ruining the game skipped over my post where I said the same thing.

Pretty awful logic here:

[quote=Fate;849639][COLOR=skyblue]Running without a goal gets boring really fast even if you're playing in a pretty world like in GTA or Shadow of the Colossus. When I play games I like to play with an even sense of immersion and gameplay, not just tool around with my abilities because there is nothing else to do.[/COLOR]

Games require guns to have an objective? What the fuck?

[quote=Vampiro V. Empire;849400]spoilers: people like shooting stuff, they like combat and guns and combat sells.

That's exactly it, games don't need guns to be successful so obviously some suit or a game designer that knows what suits think felt the game needs guns to sell when reality couldn't be further from the truth. The most successful sport in the world doesn't have guns, the most successful board game in the world doesn't have guns, the most successful video game in the world doesn't have fucking guns, so why tack them on to this one? None of those even have combat for Christ's sake.

Furthermore, why isn't complaining about 90% of games all having an FPS mode legitimate? Sure it sells, because that's all they're throwing out there, fact is pretty much any kind of game will sell. You're forgetting we live in a world where a puppy simulator is the second best-selling game this generation. Assuming games need guns to be successful is unimaginative, narrow-minded and short-sighted. Oh, and wrong.

I didn't say anywhere that guns needed to be in a game to have an objective. I don't know where in the blue holy hell you got that from and I didn't even imply it. I'm saying if all you do is run, there is nothing to do. You're drawing conclusions from something that isn't there like some woman or something.

[quote=Fate;849763][COLOR=skyblue]I didn't say anywhere that guns needed to be in a game to have an objective. I don't know where in the blue holy hell you got that from and I didn't even imply it. I'm saying if all you do is run, there is nothing to do. You're drawing conclusions from something that isn't there like some woman or something.[/COLOR]

I either had to assume you meant "no guns = no objectives" or you were stating the obvious, that a game without an objective would be pointless. I have no idea why you'd mention the latter since no one was disputing it, no one said it didn't have an objective and no one said it wouldn't have an objective without guns. Simply being narrow minded and thinking the game needs conflict to have an objective seemed less dumb to me than stating an obvious point that had nothing to do with anything. So grats on diving beneath my already low expectations.

I think the way to look at it is like this:

I'm sure you've probably seen the Bourne films, and if so, you know that for the most part, Jason is trying to run away from people instead of fighting them. This leads to some pretty cool stuff; the Mini Cooper chase, the parkour scene in Tangier, etc. However! At some juncture, there are people that must be dealt with, and Jason uses a variety of weapons, including his fists, objects, and oh, guns, to dispatch his foes. Why? Well, as the clich

Yeah, admittedly after reading that dev quote from X that's eased my suspisions by quite a bit. I'm still worried about the platforming itself, though.

What Speedy is going on is about a game needing conflict to be fun. I don't think anyone in this thread mentioned anything about conflict being necessary to a game formula. The story is what it is and it has guns in it. That's it. I don't know what the **** Speedfreak it talking about.

I mentioned my theory about them including guns in the formula because guns = conflict and that makes things interesting. But that was more of a theory as to why guns are included in games, not this one in particular.

[quote=Fate;850019][COLOR=skyblue]What Speedy is going on is about a game needing conflict to be fun. I don't think anyone in this thread mentioned anything about conflict being necessary to a game formula. The story is what it is and it has guns in it. That's it. I don't know what the **** Speedfreak it talking about.[/COLOR]

They did, if you actually read the posts you'd know. Nice avoiding explaining what the hell you were talking about, though.

The only one I saw that implied that conflict was necessary was where someone said that gun games are what is selling right now. I also said that this particular game didn't want to go the simple direction of just running around and doing stuff without combat-- I never said a game like this needed to have conflict, just goals. Running around without goals is boring. If you read, that's what I said.

Yeah, I did. Absolutely no one questioned whether games need objectives to be fun, so why bring it up? Christ, it's like getting blood out of a stone.

Because you're the only one going on about guns as if guns are the only things than can act as a proxy for conflict or the means of meeting a goal. I had to say that it wouldn't be fun running around without a goal because this game wanted to go in a different direction from just parkour (as it has a story that involves guns), and that was the only time that it contextually needed to be said if only as a response to what you're ranting about, that being that guns didn't need to be in the game.

So you can read. Read contextually now.

You're pinning arguements on me that aren't mine. I never implied that guns are the only way to have conflict, I was arguing the exact opposite. I never stated or implied that the game would be better without an objective either, again I was arguing the contrary. And who the hell said a game that was just parkour wouldn't have an objective anyway? That just further illustrates my point that you can't seem to imagine a game where the objective doesn't involve guns.

While I'm learning to "read contextually", why don't you learn to just plain read? How the f[COLOR=lightgreen]u[/COLOR]ck can you look at everything I've been saying and take away the precise opposite of what I mean on three different points? And then have the bollocks to blame the misunderstanding on me when you're the only one here so hopelessly lost?

Your brother was actually the first one to mention the game sounding more interesting when it was just parkour. What I've been saying the whole time is that this thread isn't really up for what the game should or shouldn't be, just what it is. I didn't create the ****ing game, for Christ's sake, so I'm not going to have that holier-than-thou attitude of my personal idea of what makes a game appealing and what every game should have. I take gameplay as it is and as it comes and judge it from there, because really nobody can say how the game will be in the end. The game presented guns, so we'll see how the gunplay works in the game. It doesn't take a ****ing genius to figure out that the entire time this idea is constantly applied by logical people-- meaning that for this particular video, all we have in the beginning is the cover of the book and we won't know a **** thing until we read it. The book, I mean. :)

Everything you've said to me in this thread is because you're reading it wrong, as my posts have been pretty clear on the matter. If you read contextually, your posts towards me wouldn't exist and this would be a shorter thread. Let's read together, yeah?

**** yeah, blue is the new brown. Deffo going to get the PC version of this; the environments look positively lovely and the fact that it's coming from one of EA's good studios is an indicator of quality.

Shame about the fugly generic protagonist though.

[quote=Fate;850837][COLOR=skyblue]Your brother was actually the first one to mention the game sounding more interesting when it was just parkour. What I've been saying the whole time is that this thread isn't really up for what the game should or shouldn't be, just what it is. I didn't create the ****ing game, for Christ's sake, so I'm not going to have that holier-than-thou attitude of my personal idea of what makes a game appealing and what every game should have. I take gameplay as it is and as it comes and judge it from there, because really nobody can say how the game will be in the end. The game presented guns, so we'll see how the gunplay works in the game. It doesn't take a ****ing genius to figure out that the entire time this idea is constantly applied by logical people-- meaning that for this particular video, all we have in the beginning is the cover of the book and we won't know a **** thing until we read it. The book, I mean. :)

Everything you've said to me in this thread is because you're reading it wrong, as my posts have been pretty clear on the matter. If you read contextually, your posts towards me wouldn't exist and this would be a shorter thread. Let's read together, yeah?[/COLOR]

...

I don't know why I even acknowledge you sometimes.

Nice cop out. You suck.

[quote=Fate;851006][COLOR=skyblue]Nice cop out. You suck.[/COLOR]

Cop out, a fucking cop out? I argued with you for pages and pages, mostly because you can't/won't read or construct intelligent or even relevent arguements. If I needed a cop out I wouldv'e used one ages ago. This is me giving up because you're fucking impossible to talk to. I throw in the towel, you win. I'm trading victory for never going through this again.

Okay, dude, just stop inferring stuff from nowhere and we wouldn't have irrelevant arguments. It's that simple. :cookie:

It's amazing how a huge, near 2 page long argument can spawn from the fact that they're ****ing guns in a game that was most likely to have guns in the first place

You must be new here.

Stating the obvious, are we now?;)

[quote=Old_Snake;851436]It's amazing how a huge, near 2 page long argument can spawn from the fact that they're ****ing guns in a game that was most likely to have guns in the first place

What makes a game more likely than others to have guns? I mean, if they're likely to have guns then they probably would start out without them, so what is it about parkour that makes guns a necessity?

[quote=Old_Snake;851675]Because, from the looks of all the stuff I've seen it's in a modern or near post-modern setting and guns are just something that comes naturally with that. It's not a necessity, but I highly doubt you'll find a game set in those times without guns, at least game-wise

How post-modern do you think this game is? I don't think it's set even 10 years in the future, judging from the architecture it could well be an alternative present. Regardless of when it's set, why does modern or post-modern necessarily imply guns? Are guns really that saturated into North American culture that you can't imagine playing without them? F[COLOR=lightgreen]u[/COLOR]ck, man. This isn't even about Mirror's Edge anymore since we know using guns is almost a bad thing in the game, it's about the principle that, apparantly, no one in the industry can think up mechanics unless you put a f[COLOR=lightgreen]u[/COLOR]cking sidearm in their hand.

I mean Christ, it's not even hard. I had to think of game mechanics that would make filling out a bank account application fun today and came up with about 6 fairly decent ideas. So why is it so hard to imagine a parkour game about making deliveries without fucking shooting? It'd be Super Mario on skyscraper rooftops, how the hell would that not work?

It would be easy to see a plot without guns. I'm saying that this game didn't want to do that. DUH. Don't accuse me of not being able to see a modern game without guns because I played the **** out of Viva Pinata.

[quote=Old_Snake;851769]Sorry about how you feel about the principle of things and all, but just about any game set in that relative time will have them it has nothing to do with whether I can see them or not, that's just the weapons of the modern age.

I never said it couldn't work, either, just speculation. Personally I think you're blowing this entire thing out of proportion. I don't see the big deal personally. I understand that you're wanting something gunless or whatever, but really, is it really that important of a thing?

Why have weapons at all? It seems like behind every reason that's been mentioned for the game needing guns lies either something that's just been assumed or circular logic.

It's pretty important, yeah. It sort of stifles creativity if you can't pitch a game without guns if guns could fit into that universe. It's not that I want gunless games, two of my ideas for games right now involves guns/missiles/blood/explosions. It's just that guns in Mirror's Edge seemed just so shoehorned in. It would work just fine without them, shooting and parkour don't really compliment eachother. It just seems like they're pandering to the masses.

[quote=Fate;851861][COLOR=skyblue]It would be easy to see a plot without guns. I'm saying that this game didn't want to do that. DUH. Don't accuse me of not being able to see a modern game without guns because I played the **** out of Viva Pinata.[/COLOR]

The game has guns in it because that's what they did. Nice answer.:rolleyes:

[quote=mis0;852018]
"Tony Hawk's extreme parkour adventure"
Guns would have improved that game.

[quote=mis0;852018]It's not a ****ing parkour game. It's a game where you play as a criminal, essentially, because you're violating the laws of your oppressive government by delivering physical messages. This means the police are going to try to stop you. In many countries that are not England, the police may draw weapons on you if you simply resist authority, and when you're dealing with big brother, they might tend to be more aggressive. As such, guns appear in the game as something the police have and you may elect to take from the officers you might elect to defeat, because it sounds like you can choose from a variety of routes and therefore may be able to avoid confrontations in the first place.

Stop saying this is a parkour game. It's not "Tony Hawk's extreme parkour adventure" or anything. It's more like "Criminal running on rooftops and possibly beating the **** out of/shooting/otherwise maiming various agents of the government to deliver a package."


Oh please, the game was clearly designed around parkour. That's shitty plot you just described only exists so you have a reason to run around city rooftops, because every game must have some kind of story even though it's perfectly acceptable to make a game out of something you'd actually make a game of in real life. "We need this gameplay because of our plot" does not fly with me and won't ever. It's not like they're serving some plot g[COLOR=lightgreen]o[/COLOR]d, they f[COLOR=lightgreen]u[/COLOR]cking wrote it!

Not that I care anymore, I already said the guns thing wasn't as bad as it seemed and was just arguing against the principle that games need guns or guns suit most games or this game couldn't function without guns. But then I already said that so now I'm just repeating myself.

[QUOTE=Speedfreak;852615]even though it's perfectly acceptable to make a game out of something you'd actually make a game of [I]in real life.
So what are we supposed to have, then? Petty Theft Candy Bar? Don't Burnout (and Obey the Speed Posted Speed Limit)? The Sims? The real lives of most people are horribly boring and I'm sure they don't want that in their leisure time as well.

Yeah, I understand that isn't exactly your point, but you seem to forget that video game companies have loyalty to their stockholders first, so that means they're going to make games which make money, and minimize risk in doing so. A game where all you do is aimlessly jump around on buildings is a significant risk.

F[COLOR=lightgreen]u[/COLOR]cking Christ, why does an absence of a plot necessarily mean the game is aimless or otherwise devoid of an objective?

To use your own example, what's the plot of Burnout? What narrative am I following while I chase my friend around a city? Is Burnout aimless, or, as a racing game, does it have the most obvious objective you can think of?

The point would be that a lot of people wouldn't like to simply jump off of buildings or whatever. Last time I checked, a lot of people find racing games pretty boring! They don't like to "pointlessly" drive around in circles. This is especially true of the technical ones like Gran Turismo; it doesn't really have a point, so most people get bored with it.

This is why a plot is necessary in a lot of these games in order to sell them. The "most obvious point" applies in games that are more like simulators (ie Gran Turismo, Microsoft Flight/Combat Simulators, etc) but last time I checked even Burnout was trying to have a plot, what with the post apocalypse, etc, regardless of how "weak" it may have been.

Now I finally understand why everyone always asks you if you hate video games. If you want everything to be a fucking simulator, why not just get off your ass and jump off of some buildings?

Again, I have not ever stated, nor will I ever state that if you removed guns all you would do in the game would be jump off rooftops for no reason. That is you creating strawman arguements, not a flaw in mine.

I am assuming you mean pointless as in they don't know why they are racing as opposed to they don't know why they are driving in circles. Anyone who doesn't understand the objective of a race probably has an IQ smaller than their shoe size
Last I checked something that all games have in common, absolutely without exception, is that they are all are pointless. They exist purely for entertainment and have no bearing on the real world, and should they have an effect on the real world they become something more than a game. Anyone who thinks that racing is pointless should, therefore, agree that any game that they play (if they actually play games) is pointless. Clearly they don't realise this, otherwise being pointless wouldn't be a problem. So I propose two explanations for why those people would think what they play isn't pointless.

1. They're crazy enough to think the games they play are not pointless, and that they are actually saving some miniature kingdom somewhere by remote.
2. They simply don't like racing games, and aren't articulate enough to describe why they don't like them without hyperbole or with adjectives that apply to every game in existance.

Who said that I want simulations? I certainly didn't, I never even implied it.
If you want to jump into the middle of this discussion that's absolutely fine. But unless you address my points instead of wimping out and manufacturing your own to argue with I'm afraid you'll get no reaction from me. Actually listen to me and you'll get twofold back.


As for hating videogames, I don't and you know d[COLOR=lightgreen]a[/COLOR]mn well I don't. The thing is, once you actually step out of your comfort zone and start looking at things you never looked at before your worldview tends to change quite a bit, your standards get raised and your tastes more refined. It's called going to f[COLOR=lightgreen]u[/COLOR]cking college. If it appears that I think many mainstream games are totally overrated then I'm afraid that's the truth. Mainstream movies suck, mainstream music sucks; TV, food, books, anything that aims for the lowest common demoninator tends suck, so why would games be any different? I sing the praises of many games still, on these very forums, it just so happens that "MGS sucks" tends to be a lot more noticable "Fire Emblem is great". I think the fact that I've abandoned fanboyism entirely has pissed people off, that one of the board's most vocal fanboys has gone cold turkey and yet they still hold their biases.

Speedfreak's outgrown video games, and it doesn't seem he's sampled much of the current gen.

Also, mainstream food?! Jesus H, buddy.

[QUOTE=Speedfreak;852659]
Who said that I want simulations? I certainly didn't, I never even implied it.
If you want to jump into the middle of this discussion that's absolutely fine. But unless you address my points instead of wimping out and manufacturing your own to argue with I'm afraid you'll get no reaction from me. Actually listen to me and you'll get twofold back.
"me! me me me! listen to me!! LISTEN TO ME!!!!"

Because your points are so much more valid than anyone elses? And I'm "wimping out?" This is where I'm "laughing out loud". You and your brother... neither one of you can stand it when anyone challenges your opinion on anything. It doesn't really matter what I present to you because you'll just disagree with me or tell me it's irrelevant, because your argument is really "this" and not "that". Okay. You win. Please don't have an anurism.

[quote=Speedfreak]The thing is, once you actually step out of your comfort zone and start looking at things you never looked at before your worldview tends to change quite a bit, your standards get raised and your tastes more refined. It's called going to f[COLOR=lightgreen]u[/COLOR]cking college.
I'm going to "fucking college", Mister Worldview. Just because we don't have the same opinion doesn't mean mine is inferior to yours, and just to pre-empt you here, that really is the only thing you could have possibly meant by that little paragraph there (before you try to deny it).

I really don't want to get involved in your new line of argument, which is that that "all games are pointless". *sigh* Now you're just being stupid, as it was fairly obvious what was meant. I'd have more luck getting through to a slab of concrete.

I like how Speedfreak thinks that valid opinions on video game gameplay can be formed only by going to college. We're not talking scripting here, buddy!

Miso: He's going on the "philosophical" route of video game speech. Like along the same route of getting new clothes just to look nice or getting a new car even though your old one works fine. Everything is pointless, for ****'s sake. This discussion is going on a route that is dumber than anything else stated in this thread.

[quote=Old_Snake;852668]So being mainstream makes something suck or accustomed to sucking? I really hope that isn't what you're saying and I'm just misunderstanding.

No, I said mainstream lowest common demoninator stuff tends to suck. Really, I did actually say that, look.

[quote=The X;852671]Speedfreak's outgrown video games, and it doesn't seem he's sampled much of the current gen.

Also, mainstream food?! Jesus H, buddy.

Just because I haven't sampled 50 shooting games based on last gens shooting games doesn't mean I haven't sampled much. I do actually have a PC as well as my Wii, you know.

By food I meant fast food, which, you know, tends to be really awful? Way to nitpick and avoid my point entirely, though.

[quote=mis0;852683]"me! me me me! listen to me!! LISTEN TO ME!!!!"

Because your points are so much more valid than anyone elses? And I'm "wimping out?" This is where I'm "laughing out loud". You and your brother... neither one of you can stand it when anyone challenges your opinion on anything. It doesn't really matter what I present to you because you'll just disagree with me or tell me it's irrelevant, because your argument is really "this" and not "that". Okay. You win. Please don't have an anurism.

No, my points are not automatically more valid than anyone elses. I change my opinions and admit I'm wrong all the time. I'm just not going to bother discussing anything with you if you don't bother actually listening. Yes, that's right, I want you to listen to me, I'm glad you at least managed to gather that. See, I can't actually have any kind of meaningful discussion with you if we both don't listen to eachother. I've had pages of arguements with people recently, but in many of them we were entirely respectful to eachother. WillisGreeny is a good example, even though we disagree all the time at least we actually listen and talk like adults. You're not going to draw me into insulting you and I don't think my reputation would be sundered should I choose to ignore arguements where the other person ignores everything I say and insults me, so it's entirely your call.


[quote=mis0;852683] I'm going to "fu[COLOR=#33ffcc]cking colle[/COLOR]ge", Mister Worldview. Just because we don't have the same opinion doesn't mean mine is inferior to yours, and just to pre-empt you here, that really is the only thing you could have possibly meant by that little paragraph there (before you try to deny it).

I really don't want to get involved in your new line of argument, which is that that "all games are pointless". *sigh* Now you're just being stupid, as it was fairly obvious what was meant. I'd have more luck getting through to a slab of concrete.

Where did I say or imply that my opinion superior to yours because I've gone to college? I was defending myself against a comment you made by stating that, since I've started college, my tastes in games along with many other things have changed. Something you can surely sympathise with since it's such a common phenomenon, even if it hasn't happened to yourself.

Woops, I missed the part where you decided what my arguement was. Well since you're deciding on what my arguement is and are actually creating whole new ones for me, mind if I just watch you argue with your version of Speedfreak? He probably has more stamina for this.

[quote=Fate;852700][COLOR=skyblue]I like how Speedfreak thinks that valid opinions on video game gameplay can be formed only by going to college. We're not talking scripting here, buddy!

Miso: He's going on the "philosophical" route of video game speech. Like along the same route of getting new clothes just to look nice or getting a new car even though your old one works fine. Everything is pointless, for ****'s sake. This discussion is going on a route that is dumber than anything else stated in this thread.[/COLOR]

Oh for G[COLOR=lightgreen]o[/COLOR]d's sake, I didn't say that. I said my opinions have changed since I've gone to college. Why are you taking everything I say as a personal attack?

If you actually read what I said you would have seen that I didn't take any one particular route. I said all games were pointless, yes, to make a point that racing games aren't any more pointless than any other kind of game. Anyone who thinks they are is either too stupid to understand the rules (since they're so amazingly simple) or simply doesn't like them but doesn't realise just what they're saying when they say they're pointless.

[QUOTE=Speedfreak;852829]
No, my points are not automatically more valid than anyone elses. I change my opinions and admit I'm wrong all the time. I'm just not going to bother discussing anything with you if you don't bother actually listening. Yes, that's right, I want you to listen to me, I'm glad you at least managed to gather that.
I've listened to you. What more can I do? You simply don't like my responses. If you think I'm "getting it all wrong" all the time, I'm going to probably say your writing doesn't do a good job of getting your point across, an example of that being this:

[quote]Where did I say or imply that my opinion superior to yours because I've gone to college? I was defending myself against a comment you made by stating that, since I've started college, my tastes in games along with many other things have changed. Something you can surely sympathise with since it's such a common phenomenon, even if it hasn't happened to yourself.
That came out of nowhere, and the way it was written implied you had said qualities, and I did not. And really, the tone of your writing made it insulting, so with no real reason to bring any of it up in the first place, I took it as an insult. If you read that as though someone else had written it to you, you might see where I'm coming from.

Look, as a general rule, I don't do those gigantic disections of posts and respond to every little peice. Why? Because either a) I don't think it's relevant or b) I might actually agree with it, and by "arguing", I'm actually seeking clarification on a particular point. I'm not going to start doing it just for you. If you want to call me a coward and have a big hissy fit about how you're not a fanboy, etc, every time, then by all means. Or if you're going to ignore me, that's also fine. Whatever.

If that's your criterion for being "listened" to, tough luck. Somehow, I seem to have discussions with other people on this board; you're the exception.

[quote=mis0;852856]I've listened to you. What more can I do? You simply don't like my responses. If you think I'm "getting it all wrong" all the time, I'm going to probably say your writing doesn't do a good job of getting your point across, an example of that being this:

You heard me, that's different to listening. Maybe I do have a problem getting my point across, but after having shown other people the closest I got to your reaction was "you could only be offended by that if you were trying to be". Nevertheless it's something I've been working on recently.

[quote=mis0;852856] That came out of nowhere, and the way it was written implied you had said qualities, and I did not. And really, the tone of your writing made it insulting, so with no real reason to bring any of it up in the first place, I took it as an insult. If you read that as though someone else had written it to you, you might see where I'm coming from.

I will definately admit that I implied I had gained certain qualities which I had not had before through my experiences at college. If you read it from the persective of "he's explaining why his tastes are suddenly very different" you would picked up just that. However, I can understand that if you were predisposed to thinking that it would be another excuse for how my opinions are better than anyone elses then, yeah, you wouldn've picked up an "I'm better than you" message from it. So I apologise for that, I guess I should go to greater lengths to not seem like I'm acting like a bastard all of the time (not being sarcastic here).

[quote=mis0;852856] Look, as a general rule, I don't do those gigantic disections of posts and respond to every little peice. Why? Because either a) I don't think it's relevant or b) I might actually agree with it, and by "arguing", I'm actually seeking clarification on a particular point. I'm not going to start doing it just for you. If you want to call me a coward and have a big hissy fit about how you're not a fanboy, etc, every time, then by all means. Or if you're going to ignore me, that's also fine. Whatever.

The only real way to have any kind of debate through posts is to dissect the other person's arguement, point by point. Though you can always ignore irrelevent details, as long as you stick to the core issue (note: actually pretty hard) it's not that big a deal. When I talk about wimping out I meant what I perceived as you ignoring my points and creating strawman arguements, when it was actually just a misunderstanding.

As you can see I can quite freely admit I'm wrong, it's not something I'm at all afraid of. Maybe now you can see that when I stick to my guns on something it's not out of stubbornness or narrowmindedness but because I genuinely believe in it and have logic and evidence to back it up, which I'll gladly explain should I be given the oppertunity.

So if you'll let me I'd like to start again.

[quote]The point would be that a lot of people wouldn't like to simply jump off of buildings or whatever. Last time I checked, a lot of people find racing games pretty boring! They don't like to "pointlessly" drive around in circles. This is especially true of the technical ones like Gran Turismo; it doesn't really have a point, so most people get bored with it.I don't understand your point here. If there are people that don't see the point in racing in circles then surely there are also people don't see the point in blasting lots of bad guys (actually there are, a recent Famitsu survey revealed that that was a fairly common reason the Japanese don't like shooting games). It would follow that there are people who don't see the point in story-heavy games (there are, my father and older brother always get confused/bored whenever I try to get them to play a game with an opening cutscene, they honestly don't see the point in games with a storyline).

So my question is, is a story for a game based on such a simple concept really all that necessary, and wouldn't it alienate just as much if not more people than it attracts? If so, then my next question would be this: how does this mean the game or the game's story would need guns, and how are guns necessary in most other games?

Don't be silly. Guns aren't needed in any "game" if you get to the core. Guns in games are just the way to achieve an objective, much like a weapon in a game like Ninja Gaiden. It's just a means of getting there. People just seem to like using guns as a way of getting to a goal here in the States.

What we're failing to see is eye to eye here. You're essentially implying that this game is barebones parkour and they just simply added a gun to it. This game isn't just parkour. It's not Tony Hawk with a gun. The entire point of a game like Tony Hawk's is to get points based on the tricks you do; this game doesn't want to do that. A story in a game isn't necessary either, but since this isn't a trick-performing game and you have a "real" character, a story would certainly help, especially since you're doing dangerous things-- without a story, you'd be doing it for no reason (you wouldn't mess with the guys with guns for any reason) and then you'd have a parkour game with no story. Those would be two different games. Obviously you don't want to fight a war with walkie-talkies and you don't want to be a White House pencil-pusher when a war takes place, you want to be the soldier. It's just popular and that's it.

I'll stick to what I said before because there would be NO OTHER REASON as to why guns are in this game: They wanted to or they had to. Chances are that guns were in the game from initial design.

[quote=Fate;852908][COLOR=skyblue]Don't be silly. Guns aren't needed in any "game" if you get to the core. Guns in games are just the way to achieve an objective, much like a weapon in a game like Ninja Gaiden. It's just a means of getting there. People just seem to like using guns as a way of getting to a goal here in the States.

What we're failing to see is eye to eye here. You're essentially implying that this game is barebones parkour and they just simply added a gun to it. This game isn't just parkour. It's not Tony Hawk with a gun. The entire point of a game like Tony Hawk's is to get points based on the tricks you do; this game doesn't want to do that. A story in a game isn't necessary either, but since this isn't a trick-performing game and you have a "real" character, a story would certainly help, especially since you're doing dangerous things-- without a story, you'd be doing it for no reason (you wouldn't mess with the guys with guns for any reason) and then you'd have a parkour game with no story. Those would be two different games. Obviously you don't want to fight a war with walkie-talkies and you don't want to be a White House pencil-pusher when a war takes place, you want to be the soldier. It's just popular and that's it.

I'll stick to what I said before because there would be NO OTHER REASON as to why guns are in this game: They wanted to or they had to. Chances are that guns were in the game from initial design.[/COLOR]

I totally understand that. I said already that I understand how they're incorperating guns into the game, it's very tasteful and not at all like what I expected. To be fair, if you watch the very short trailer again, you wouldn't have been able to tell that the gunplay is anything like they said in an interview, not once does the character throw the gun away and keep on running. Considering the sheer amount of PS360 shooters out there it was difficult to walk away from that thinking anything other than "shooting game with a gimmick". A gimmick which I thought could've been amazing on it's own, hence my disgust.

Most of this thread has been about the reaction to my reaction. Once I found out what the game actually like I decided to just keep talking about it anyway, see where the discussion went. I admitted I was wrong fairly on (top of page 3, in fact).

There's 45 seconds of platforming VS 15 seconds of combat, not all that much more considering platforming is supposed to be the gimmick, and that they actually show a similar number of combat mechanics (Disarming, stealth, CQC, FPS) to platforming (jumping, climbing, sliding. It's not an unreasonable conclusion to come to, by any means.

You realise there's less shooting in a Half-Life trailer, right?

But everyone knows you shoot in half-life, so that's a pretty stupid analogy. No one is going to pick up Half-Life and say "*******IT, I THOUGHT THIS WAS A ****ING RACING GAME."

Christ this could go on for days. It looked like a shooting game with a gimmick to me from the minute's worth of gameplay footage, as a first impression. Take it or leave it.

Then you have an odd way of looking at things. It looked like a running game with shooting elements to me. I think that was common sense from the trailer.

Just because I took a different perspective to you doesn't necessarily mean it's odd.

It is odd. There's nobody in this thread who agrees with your perspective.

Thus, odd.

You just wanted to ***** is all.

Actually, no one contested it. The entire discussion was about my problem with the game being based on shooting. Shooting being a popular form of conflict was a point raised by several people. I don't see why anyone would bother to raise that point if the game so obviously didn't have FPS as a core gameplay element, surely they'd point out the impression I got from the trailer was wrong way before that? Unless there was a group conspiracy to humour my amazingly wrong impression wrong it seems several people didn't really have a problem accepting that. Turns out many of us were in agreement on how guns were implemented into the game and a lot of it was a big misunderstanding!

But yeah, I really can't be bothered to continue this. I mean, my first impression was wrong anyway and I admitted that about 3 times before Vamp even got here, there's not much point in defending it. Sorry to disappoint you.

We weren't arguing whether the game was more shooting than platforming or not, we were arguing over why it shouldn't be done or why it isn't a big deal. You said it was a bad idea basically, and most others were arguing why it wasn't. Not whether it was a shooter or not.

Wow this is the most boring discussion ever. What was your original point again?

That you don't know how to watch and comprehend a pretty basic trailer I guess.

Getting an innaccurate first impression from one game means I DON'T KNOW HOW TO WATCH A TRAILER.

Fucking lol. I'm glad this actually went somewhere, thanks for your contribution.

Well, you sure messed up on this one. So apparently you don't know how to watch a trailer. I mean, it was pretty cut and dry, buddy.

Yeah, I don't actually know how to watch a trailer? When I watch it the colours are inverse and it plays backwards.

Hence the comprehend part, buddy! You need to watch a trailer to actually comprehend it right? And apparently what you saw was 75% shooting and 15% running.

I didn't comprehend it either! I totally thought it was a Katamari Damacy/Quake mashup. I blame the Bourne Conspiracy, my vision hasn't been right since I saw the trailer for that peice of shit.

Seems to be the case! You did manage to assume it was a shooter with a gimmick after all.

This joke is pretty much exhausted. Seriously, thanks for reviving this with the most pointless bullshit ever.

2 days isn't really a revival, but all right! Though it's only bull**** because you're an idiot, but yeah.

Because making one mistake (i.e. being human) invalidates your ability to watch a trailer. That was your point in your words. F[COLOR=lightgreen]u[/COLOR]ck you're stupid.

Not quite. You just weren't able to understand this particular trailer apparently. You couldn't get the balance between guns and running quite right, even though it more or less seemed fairly basic.

stuuuuuupid

[quote=Vampiro V. Empire;853524]Not quite. You just weren't able to understand this particular trailer apparently. You couldn't get the balance between guns and running quite right, even though it more or less seemed fairly basic.

Your entire arguement is based on something I already said on the top of page 3.





...oh. Ohhh, you got me. Well played.

Hey, buddy. You're the one that asked me what my point was. You're the one who thought your perspective wasn't odd, even though it was!

Wrong isn't the same as o- FUCK YOU.

Your perspective was wrong though. Wrong and odd. And stupid to boot!

Bookmarking this thread as SPEEDFREAK WAS WRONG for weekly bumping.

Up there with Sun Tzu.

[quote=mis0;853635]My point is essentially that games that border on simulators, like Gran Turismo, don't really have much of a point beyond, well, going faster than everyone else. There's no story, just drive quickly. To a lot of people, that is tedious and boring. I guess the way to phrase it would be, "so I drive quickly in circles... so what?"

The "so what" is the question that is satisfied by a story in a lot of games. The racing game isn't a great analogy because none of them tend to have a story beyond win championship/defeat rival driver/etc. But in CoD4, for example, you're not just cutting down all of those horrible foreigners for giggles; the story is that you've gotta find and neutralize those Russians because they're trying to nuke you, and it's personal sort of because you've have a previous encounter with one of them in the Ukraine. Or something.


I'd say yes, because if not, the jumping around rooftops becomes a lot like driving on a racing circuit. There's really not much reason to do it except to do it better every time.

To be honest I'm still not totally getting this, but I'll do my best.
While there are certainly a lot of people who can't accept that a game is a game and need other forms of motivation I think you're underestimating the amount of people that just want to skip all the story crap and play. If the world's best-selling games are anything to go by most player's don't really care, especially when it comes to multiplayer games. Perhaps that's your point, that racing games "campains" are such an extremely poor substitute for racing against a real-life person they feel completely pointless. Am I getting warmer?

[quote=mis0;853635] Obviously, it doesn't imply guns are necessary, but in this context, I think it does. There is a clich

You're getting into the designer mind, now. If you want to know why the designers chose to make the game about a totalitarian government, then ask them. You can't make up reasons or even question about them unless you ask the source. People come up with ideas out of nowhere and share them with each other. Most designers wouldn't create gameplay without some kind of history or reference. Designers in any medium don't create piece by piece, but by pieces of a whole.

[quote=Fate;853672][COLOR=skyblue]You're getting into the designer mind, now. If you want to know why the designers chose to make the game about a totalitarian government, then ask them. You can't make up reasons or even question about them unless you ask the source. People come up with ideas out of nowhere and share them with each other. Most designers wouldn't create gameplay without some kind of history or reference. Designers in any medium don't create piece by piece, but by pieces of a whole.[/COLOR]

We're not actually talking about the game anymore. I accept Mirror's Edge as is, now it's a discussion about why so many makes need story/guns.

Luckily most games don't have a story. At least not one that's more than a means to drive the gameplay from one location to another.

oh, that was directed at speedy's comment I guess. didn't see the new page

http://kotaku.com/5039511/new-mirrors-edge-gameplay-trailer-shows-free-running-acrobatic-insanity

new gameplay clip. Looks pretty great to me. Definitely reminiscent of Prince of Persia just in first person, which isn't a knock against the game one bit.

indeed. the flow of the game seems pretty fast and smooth. and it's interesting for the most part you actually don't see your body or arms(just hands).

Yeah, the first person perspective is gonna make for some awesome leaps of faith.

OH **** DID I MAKE IT DID I MAKE IT.... YEAHHHHHHH

Yeah, it was pretty seemless, the whole first person thing. Only time I was like "WHOA FIRST PERSON" was when she rolled on the ground.

Yeaahhh...this is going to be awesome.

Looks excellent, can't wait to play it.

When I seen the first video in a different forum, I had said this:
[quote]As for this game, yeah it looks pretty, but while watching the clip it didn't really excite me game-play wise. It's pretty basic.

Run. Jump from building to building. Hit someone TWICE?! to take them out. Run from the cops. It's like GTA only first-person and building jumps. :\

Don't get me wrong, I'd still like to check it out... I just hope it's not as dull as it seems.

I see the second video and [i]still[i] it seems a bit dull, but maybe dull could be good for this one. It's prioritized to be find the best routes, right? So that's cool and ****, however, I wonder if it could get boring just constantly running around doing the same things over and over kinda like Assassin's Creed?

Though I may seem a bit negative towards the game, I'm just saying that I think it could get boring, but I may be wrong. I will still check this game out though. If not for the gameplay, but for the magnificent detailing in the graphics.

Also; I would've like it if they kept the realism to an extreme real. It's got a bit of fantasy moves in there. Not a lot to counter the already real that's in it though. BUT HEY, it's a game with deathly leaps from building to building, and now that I say that, disregard what I said about the realism. Lol Game physics.

[quote]Whats the point if the mode on transport for the play is "FREE running" but it's restricted?
Agreed.

It's like any game. More fun to play than to watch. And this game especially seems to agree with that. Just the type of gameplay that would benefit from hands-on, rather than eyes-on.

Also, you do the same thing over and over again in every game. Assassin's Creed failed by never changing up the pace or the missions. Like in an FPS it suddenly gets really dull and repetitive when you're stuck in the same looking area shooting the same enemy over and over again with no shift in pace or no change in objective other than "get to the end."

You spend the game on the run, right? There'll be some awesome as hell chases, count on it.

That clip was smooth and fluid but obviously the player knew that level inside out and knew exactly what to do next. If you don't know what to do it might ruin the pace of the game and end up being choppy.

Almost looks as good as Heavenly Sword and Heavy Rain do from the trailers.

[quote=Last Fog;878590]That clip was smooth and fluid but obviously the player knew that level inside out and knew exactly what to do next. If you don't know what to do it might ruin the pace of the game and end up being choppy.I think that would make it more enjoyable. One of the best feelings in Assassin's Creed and Prince of Persia is looking around for stuff to climb on.

Time limits would ruin that quick.

What time limits?

There's only a time limit in the time trial mode AFIAK.

[quote=The X;879157]What time limits?

Time limits that hinder exploring areas at a lesiurely pace. I wasn't being game specific.

...it's a linear platformer, hence the red objects. You can't explore.

You can explore, it's just limited to a general direction.

Gay.

I guess you can explore as much as you can explore an empty, four-sided room.

Yeah... so far it doesn't look like an exploring game. Clearly not what they're trying to do. Which is quite fine.

Exploring routs, not rooms.

EDIT: I can't decide what I actually want to say now that people have completely lost the point of what I was going off of. Exploring games were brought up earlier, and I made a comment that time limits would put a stop to that in an exploring game.

Wouldn't really call that exploring. But yeah, routes seem to be key in this game at the very least.

...what? Since when?

Uh...

...alright then.

http://www.gametrailers.com/player/39367.html

among other things

Looks like Tomb Raider Legend without the button prompts.

Hardly alternate routes, more like alternate platforms.

I was thinking the same thing. But I assume that's just because it's the demo level.

It's DICE combined with EA, I'm keeping my expectations low.

Bad Company was pretty good when it came to tackling objectives however you wished.

It was pretty bad when it came to inviting your friends to play and then not being able to play with them.

It was a ****ty, unfinished game, which is beside the point. I'm just saying they can do the route thing fine.

you know what? FORGET IT! No explorable routs. **** it. :(

MY POST WAS DELETED BECAUSE IT HAD A LOT OF SARCASM.

I, ANT, THINK OTHERWISE TO THE ABOVE STATEMENT. GIVE THE GAME SOME MORE TIME BEFORE PASSING SUCH JUDGMENT UPON IT. BECAUSE I, ANT, FIND IT UNLIKELY THAT THE GAME WOULD BE SO LINEAR.

end communication.

I'm hoping for the game to require something around Portal's level in terms of how much the game makes you think about what you're doing before you can successfully reach your destination and deliver the delicious cake.

I hope for the exact opposite, I want to intuitvely leg it through levels like SMB3, because that's what freerunning is all about!

You're not using the game's buzzword, Speedfreak. It's called "parkour." If I know my buzzwords, and I hate them enough to know that I know them pretty well, we'll be hearing that word on popular television shows soon.

Has anyone considered that this might play like the platforming in Turok?

No, I'm thinking more about the beginning of each level of Portal, where often times you got a good look at the playing field and could just stand there and plan your approach. Then, as soon as you jump over the edge/start firing the Portal gun/whatever, you blast through your plan as quickly as possible. That's how I attacked the game, anyway.

[quote=Speedfreak]Has anyone considered that this might play like the platforming in Turok?

The bad platforming in Turok involved very tiny little posts for you to jump on with no lock-on mechanics or anything to help you quickly navigate them. Mirror's Edge appears to have all its ducks in a row in terms of what it asks you to do and gives you specific ways to do those things.

Yeah I'm officially going to pick this game up.

I just played by the seat of my pants. Especially since you couldn't see the entire level of many from the start.

Is there a demo out or something?

I doubt we're in for a demo until at least next month. The game doesn't come out until November in the States. Speedfreak might have one available in his neck of the woods, though.

Kinda surprised it's even coming out this year. Guess I'm just used to hearing about games years in advance.

[quote=Prince Shondronai;881309]The bad platforming in Turok involved very tiny little posts for you to jump on with no lock-on mechanics or anything to help you quickly navigate them. Mirror's Edge appears to have all its ducks in a row in terms of what it asks you to do and gives you specific ways to do those things.

It was exacerbated by the first-person perspective, though. Because you can't see your feet or the edge of a platform, and with a lack of depth perception you can't even accurately judge how far away something is.

You could always, I don't know, judge the jump like you would in real life?

In real life my vision is not so restricted.

Huh? I'm assuming you still have 360 degree vision in this game?

I can't imagine a first person game where you can't look around, but it's stupid to assume that means it's just like real life. Without turning my head I have a much wider field of view than what a TV gives, and looking around is much less effort. I wouldn't wanna play this game always looking down anyway.

What the hell? When I walk, I don't look at my feet. :/

EGM's latest blurb on it claims that you will be able to see your legs and feet when you look down at them or when they leap out in front of you whilst you kick someone/something. The game's creators claim that you'll have a much wider range that you can move your camera around in than in most first-person games.

I think the main problem with platform jumping in 3D games in general, and not just first-person games, is that there's no depth perception as there is in real life. It saddens me that the Virtual Boy's dismal performance in the marketplace makes it unlikely that we'll see a 3D system that actually provides depth perception in the near future. Peripherals like I-Glasses help a little, but very few games were made with those in mind, so the 3D depth perception isn't really noticeable on most games.

You don't need depth perception when you can turn the camera to a side-on view and see exactly how far away it is, that's how the problem is solved in 3D platformers. But you can't do that with a first-person view, which makes it inherently problematic.

If something looks far, run fast. Depth perception solved.

Though I haven't heard anyone comment on such a problem. So I doubt it will be one. I mean, I sure as hell never had a problem with depth perception in an FPS, and that includes a lot of intricate jumping to get to glitches in games like call of duty.

You haven't heard of anyone playing it, either.

It was playable at GC and PAX. So many people got to get their hands on it. And everything I've read has been nothing but praise, with no one running into any difficulties when it comes to jumping. Most've said it's elegant and simple, or along those lines.

I wonder if it'll get too simple.

speedfreak: hmmmm not enough innovation in this *** **** industry

NEW! INNOVATIVE FIRST PERSON PLATFORMING GAME

speedfreak: third person is better, an i aint even played the game yet boyyyys

:confused:

I don't really care about innovation anymore, it's become apparant that devs can't even rip off other ideas and make them good. On the other hand 90% of indy games start off with the conviction that GAMES ARE ART and turn to a puddle of wank.

This is gonna be as stupid a design move as focusing on the minimap the entire time in Burnout Paradise.

In Burnout's defense, I find myself looking just as much at minimaps and radar than what is in front of me. Saves my life.

Mirror's Edge looks like fun, but I've seen many ideas go to **** because they get repetitive. HOPEFULLY it doesn't turn out like that.

[quote=Speedfreak;881722]I don't really care about innovation anymoreDoes your opinion on **** change just to suit the argument in the thread?

You don't like sequels and rehashes but you don't like innovation either...

[quote=The X;881740]Does your opinion on **** change just to suit the argument in the thread?

You don't like sequels and rehashes but you don't like innovation either...


Ha! It must seem like that, I've been changing how I've see things pretty rapidly lately. I don't mean I think innovation is bad, but I figure you knew that and are just trying to rile me up. I just don't consider it numero uno anymore when so many developers can't get something plain and simple right. I guess I want innovation from people who have the capability to do something good with it, which seems to be a constantly shrinking amount.

Point out where I'm contradicting myself and I'll admit I was wrong before, if it's that big a deal.

[quote=Fate;881736][COLOR=skyblue]In Burnout's defense, I find myself looking just as much at minimaps and radar than what is in front of me. Saves my life.[/COLOR]

It's like I (now) always say. Just because you can put up with it it doesn't make it not retarded.
[COLOR=skyblue]
[/COLOR][quote=Fate;881736][COLOR=skyblue]Mirror's Edge looks like fun, but I've seen many ideas go to **** because they get repetitive. HOPEFULLY it doesn't turn out like that.[/COLOR]

What's kind of funny about a game being bad because of repetition is that all games have vast amounts of it. Whenever a critic says a game is bad because it is repetitive I always get annoyed, I want them to explain why the repetition isn't fun.

Uhh, because you're doing the same **** over and over with noticeable lack of variety in either gameplay, scenario, or whatever else?

Lots of games do it and make it fun. My point is "repetitiveness" is rarely ever explained, and is just assumed that it's inherently bad.

It's inherently bad because it's a word with normally negative connotation. Not too many people say something is "repetitively fun" or anything. The word itself implies too much of something, and "too much" means more than what is needed or intended.

If all you did in Mirror's Edge was run around and do nothing, it would get repetitive. What about a moveset? Things to collect? Easter eggs? Secret weapons? A point/trick system? Or just making the running short-lived and getting into the combat? Aerial villians?

There are many things that could be introduced in the game that won't make it repetitive. Honestly, I don't want a game where I just run around and do nothing. I'm sure jumping around for no reason would get tiring really fast.

Its going to be awsome guys don't over think the game. If it sucks(which it won't) big deal.

[quote=Fate;881869][COLOR=skyblue]It's inherently bad because it's a word with normally negative connotation. Not too many people say something is "repetitively fun" or anything. The word itself implies too much of something, and "too much" means more than what is needed or intended.

If all you did in Mirror's Edge was run around and do nothing, it would get repetitive. What about a moveset? Things to collect? Easter eggs? Secret weapons? A point/trick system? Or just making the running short-lived and getting into the combat? Aerial villians?

There are many things that could be introduced in the game that won't make it repetitive. Honestly, I don't want a game where I just run around and do nothing. I'm sure jumping around for no reason would get tiring really fast.[/COLOR]

That's a list of stupid shit to throw in a game to disguise the fact that it isn't fun, like filling a small chicken breast with water to make it appear larger. "Things to collect" and "secret weapons", Fate? Really? Come on now.

Considering that a lot of games add that type of cushion that make it INSANELY fun, I have no idea what you're talking about.

***, you're pretty much telling me that games that offer exploring incentives like Metroid, Ninja Gaiden, and even Zelda completely suck for doing that. Adding stuff to basic combat is a no-no, apparently! :cookie:

You're pretty much seeing Pac-Man and saying "it's great because he's yellow".

[IMG]http://philip9876.files.wordpress.com/2007/10/nuclear-explosion.jpg[/IMG]

Wait, is that what you said? Didn't read anything but that post. If so, I take back what I said and agree with Fate.

What does this:

Okay, is everyone being stupid here? OF COURSE if you analyze every stupid aspect of the game, it's ENTIRELY built on repetitive actions and courses. However, if a player actually notices, that means the game isn't fast-paced enough or filled with variety, like time-sink RPGs and any other culprit in video games.

You guys are pretty much telling me this: "Gosh, Fate, NPCs talk in video games. It gets repetitive, too." I say, "****ING DUH, that's NOT what I'm talking about."

Vamp: I was saying that ANYTHING GOOD could be introduced in the game to make it better, not just to add stuff to cushion a game that might be crappy no matter what. From a gamer's standpoint, running around with no purpose would get old really fast. Wasn't everyone on Assassin's Creed for being repetitive? THAT is what I'm talking about.

Vamp's the only one who gets what I'm saying.

...where the hell am I?

I also hate it when reviewers use the term "repeditive gameplay" as a bad feature. It's a cop out for actually stating specific reasoning to the said gameplay being bad. Hell, the reviewer might aswell just say "I didn't like the gameplay", because that's just about as much substance as saying "didn't like it because it was repeditive". Reminds me of a scene in Amadeus.

Emperor: "I liked it but- it just had too many notes"

Mozart: "Which notes do you suggest I take out?"

pause.

Wow, okay this is getting weird now.

Vamp, I'm presenting a hypothetical. I said before that there had to be balance in the gameplay. If there is nothing to do when leaping from building to building, I better get some action soon or the "HOLY **** I JUST JUMPED THAT" effect on me would wear off. If there WASN'T anything to do other than just to leap to buildings, I don't care. This is supposed to be a game, not a simulator. Give me something to do and present it in a variety, for ****'s sake.

Well, it kinda seems like they're doing that. What with the combat, choice of gunplay, outrunning snipers, delivering packages, etc, etc.

If everyone would stop being so ****ing analytical for a moment, people would've been able to infer ALL OF THE **** I POSTED after this:

From what I can tell the less-than mediocre gunplay ain't gonna solve anything.

i should know guys, i've played it

STFU.

Keyword there: Looks.

SPEAKING OF WHICH, I REALLY LIKE THE WAY THE GAME LOOKS GRAPHICALLY!

From what people are reporting the combat plays as slick too. so idk

Look's alright.

WH... WHAT

The combat. Alright.

Oh, whew. For a second there I thought you meant the game. I was like "WHERE IS MY SPEEDFREAK?!"

I'm actually really excited for this game, more so than Call of Duty and Gears of War. When I first heard that this game was incorporated aspects of parkour and free-running, I thought it would be along the lines of TMNT or Prince of Persia, both which I didn't find very satisfying. After watching some trailers for Mirror's Edge, I can easily see that the main theme of the game is parkour/free-running. The way the game seems to capture it seems so right to me. It does to me what I wish Prince of Persia did; makes me want to go parkour around Honolulu and bounce off palm-trees and grass huts.

UGH, THERE'S A GUN IN IT, DEXTER. ****ING REHASH SHOOTAN

nonetheless i am looking forward to it

I saw guns, but I never saw her fire it, or even carry it longer than to hit someone with, nor did it seem like the major focus. To me, the running and jumping is the object, not shooting. This is definitely a good thing. I'd be ok with no shooting at all, but more of a Run Lola Run deal. Not sure how they're going to get a story structured so that she'll be running the whole time.

You can only use the guns for so long anyways before you have to abandon them. All you get is what's in the gun, and you can't do much in terms acrobatics when you have one. So even if that's how you wanted to play you really can't!

Anyways, yeah, I'll be getting it. Though, for christmas. Not going to bother with it on day of.

wow, really liked the demo, never even bothered using the guns since running away is way more effective

hooooly shiiiiit some of the jumps were awesome, hopefully the level design is good enough that it can be spun for a whole game

The controls feel natural and fluid which was my only concern. I was hoping the demo wouldn't end so soon. It was even more fun the second time knowing exactly what to do and I ran through it in what seemed like 2 minutes.

Honestly though, how many people will buy it this month what with Gears, Call of Duty, and Left4Dead all coming out.

Not me. Comes out the same day as CoDWaW and a few days after Gears. Can't make the time for it. So it's gonna have to wait until Christmas. Which is a shame really, because it has a lot more originality going for it than either game.

If I recall wasn't it set for December? That's why I was so surprised to see a demo this early. They should have left it there, but nooo.... lets stick it right between the two biggest games this year so everyone ignores it.

Well, most people have finished Christmas shopping by then, so idk. Though it would've been smarter I guess. Only good game out in that month is PoP and that's right at the beginning.

Wait, Is the Mirror's Edge demo out?

Yeah, a little bit.

All right, played it. Super impressed with the controls. When I was first told how to go through it I thought "these don't seem that intuitive, almost overly complex" but not even close. Really surprised how well crouch and jump work where they're located.

Depending on length and replayability, I might pick it up before christmas.

It will be short.

Yeah, replayability though. Time trails and other playthroughs seem like a must.

I thought it was a blast too. Definitely felt as I hoped it would. Looking forward to it.

Yup, feels extremely smooth...once you get into the "flow". teehee

oh and used the gun on that one dood, yeah, **** that ****.

i couldn't aim it for **** and like hell was i standing still in that game

I played the demo last night, and I might just have to get it. :)

If you wanna shoot that second guy try holding on to the gun and once you're on his level run straight at him and fire a couple shots. He drops and you never have to stop for a second.

Too fun to drop kick to actually use weapons.

SLIDING KICK TO THE SHINS YEEEEEEEEEEEAH

Seems to always end up in the groin for me.

Played the demo again, realized you don't have to use the red-marked objects on your routes through the level. **** just got a whole lot more awesome.

drr, you sure are stupid.

I read somewhere there's an option to turn the red off.

I heard that too. I believe I actually heard about it during E3.

There is. Which is probably a good thing because even if I try to ignore the red I can't!

Played the demo, it's pretty fun. However, the fact that there's guns kind of makes it a turn off for me. I do think it's a great concept, though. It makes me want to see what it would be like if they made a straightfoward Parkour game.

Can't say I'd want to play a sports game. Which is what it'd be if it wasn't developed this way.

Not necessarily. Sports games are faggy. All a parkour game would have to be is, "Get from point A to point B any way you can go". I'd say, an intense first person platforming bonanza. With no plot or storyline. And goals.

So, a sports game.

Thinking like that, I guess it does make sense. In any case, I don't really care, as long as the main focus is the parkour action. Guns'll just spice it up.

the guns and fighting and **** in mirror's edge are probably a result of a pure parkour game failing to satisfying initial focus groups

i mean, we never saw any of that stuff in the early demos

Yeah we did. Guns were always known about.

fuuuuuuuuuuuck *explodes into dust*

I lol'd

Anyway, most reviews I've read are so-so. Kind of expected it. The demo was fun, but not really enough to make me want to buy it unless it really offered a lot. Apparently the main campaign is like, six hours long.

rental's edge

the trailers and commercials for this game give me motion sickness

i'm pretty sure i'd die if i played it

I played the demo. Wow what a rush! I tend to raise the control like Its a Wii mote, I get THAT into it.

I'm a bit sloppy at the controls but I know after a while I'll be pretty pro and do everything on one go without dying. Dying also gives me a rush.

I'm not sure If I'll be purchasing it, since it's so short; I may as well just rent it.

Yeah, rent. WHAT A SHAME. I was totally prepared to buy it. But ****, I'm not spending 60 bucks for a 7 hour game.

Mirror's Edge is slow motion Guitar Hero with 2 buttons. The game sucks, the platforming is so unsatisfying after about 10 minutes it's impossible to screw up any jump ever. Combat's pretty good in a Megaman kind of way, though.

Oh yeah! So I actually played Mirror's Edge at this game show in London after watching my friends fail at it. Keeping in mind I only ever played it for an hour at EA and it had been several months since then, I kicked ass on the first level. I kicked so much ass that, apparantly, someone was actually filiming me because I made the game look good. I wonder if he got the part where I finished, stood up and said "that was shit". Maybe I'm on some website somewhere!

speedfreak's ego... it's expanding... at an alarming rate...

The game is so shallow you can make it look fantastic (complimenting the animation and graphics right here) after an hour's worth of practice.

welcome to the speedfreak school of gaming logic. lesson 1:

the game looks fantastic?? BURN THIS PIECE OF ****

That's a pretty epic logical leap there. I wonder whether the thought of you being that stupid is more or less terrifying than the thought of you being stupid on purpose and actually finding that funny.

where's the video then, i wanna watch it

I thought the demo was nice to look at, but pretty bland

There's no difficulty at all. The only appeal I can see is speedrunning. If it's shipped without a time trial mode, the entire game might as well be bunk.

spoilers: it has a time trail mode.

[quote=The X;901442]where's the video then, i wanna watch it

I dunno! I have no idea if this guy worked for a site or what, but apparantly there was a dude filming me with a camera much better than a typical handheld camera. Even if he did work for a site doesnt mean he used the footage. Either way, YOU TOO can breeze through the first seven levels after an hour of practice. The only thing stopping your progress is either not knowing how to control the game or not knowing where the hell to go, there's nothing there to actually get good at.

gonna rent it because it was fun to play

Yeah, their story is _that_ important.

yeah, that's normally how games work.

Game stories are written by people who don't read FOR people who don't read OR like playing videogames.

speedfreak: heh, yeah. that's right. i'm the only intelligent gamer. :cool:

Just shut up, X. "don't feed the troll ahhhh"

Didn't like the game. Running was fun. Running away from combat was fun. Being forced into combat? Not fun.

[quote=The X;901800]speedfreak: heh, yeah. that's right. i'm the only intelligent gamer. :cool:

I'm not actually much of a reader, but then I don't go around claiming shitty videogame stories to be art either.

Then again, Mirror's Edge got pretty high scores despite having dull mechanics, so maybe I am :cool:

It's like speedy came back just to be negative about everything.

Hey man, he's a negative person. Makes sense that he'd have negative opinions.

He was once a positive guy. Once...

O, for the glory days of the mid-00's.

Less than six months ago.

No way. Seems like years to me.

only guy on vgchat seeking to make a career out of video games (big boss too but he's already in there)

only guy who hates every single game on the planet

His opinion matters more on the subject because he wants it to be his life.

GAMES SUCK. I WOULD KNOW BECAUSE I WILL MAKE GAMES

[CENTER]SPEEDFREAK GAMES DEVELOPMENT PRESENTS:
[SIZE=6][COLOR=Black]TURN-BASED STRATEGY ARCADE SHOOTER [/COLOR][/SIZE]
[/CENTER]

Rented it yesterday, got bored with it pretty quick. Must not play it for a long period of time.

There is a strong correlation between games I say are bad and games you say are great but will never ever play again.

Speedy, you were actually winning for a bit.

Way to blow it.

Pretty much what Vamp said. I don't want to play/watch/experience half the **** I've been through again ever, but ****, I had so much fun.

It seems anything that manages to either make you pay attention for 8 entire seconds or not vomit with rage at your own inadequacy is "great".

dude just go back to playing your silly top-down color shooting game

speedfreak: be trollin'

speedfreak: heh, i'm trolling you stupid babies

*replies to single-sentence post with six angry paragraphs*

:cool:

I'm trying to figure out why you like such a bad game, work with me here.

I do actually praise a lot of games, you guys never see it because you only talk about crappy ones.

Crash Commando on PS3 is very good!

if abdn doesn't like it speedy won't

Probably a better source than "what my boyfriend plays".

speedfreak's jealooooous

Yeah, my girlfriend doesn't like any of my games.

big boss owns

Fate? Yeah.

jealous of bb's success

That seems like a fair assumption to make considering im not even halfway through university and he's like 5 years older than I am.

and isnt a douchebag

Spoiler: I'm a douchebag on purpose.

Ergo, douchebag.

Hur Bur

sounds like a bad guy from dynasty warriors

Will you guys please stay on the topic





_

f... fu... fuuu.... fuuuuuuuck!!!!!

i have been owned

By a bot!

douche

Looks pretty, and now that I have a console for it, I'm tempted.

Side note: Big Boss hasn't played/liked most of the games I own/played, and vice versa.

lolololol douche

Did he play/like Mirror's Edge?

Just gonna say this then I'll gtfo :) :

I agree with Speed. The game was a disappointment for me due to the lack of a plausible story line, diversity in levels, and the fact that the cutscenes looked like esurance commercials.

That is all.

[quote=Fate;916854][COLOR=skyblue]He dislikes LittleBig Planet[/COLOR]

Predicting he won't like Mirror's Edge for the exact same reason.

From my understanding, he appreciates LBP, but doesn't care for it; Mirror's Edge he just doesn't care for.

I like both JRPGS and Western RPGS, so I'm quite the abomination. Someone should kill me for liking everything.

If you like most JRPGs you are an abomination.

Is there something wrong with me because I am thoroughly enjoying this game?

Yes, you may have a brain tumour. See your doctor immediately.

Oh, ****.

Traditional JRPGs bore the **** out of me now. Even when I really, really like the game I can't get through it. Suuuuucks.

Oh look you're back.

Most RPGs are bad, to an even greater degree than any other genre :(

Shooters have replaced RPGs in that regard. There's just more of them.

TIMELINE:

platform games > 2d fighters > turn-based RPGs > 3d platform games > FPS

wonder what genre is next to be run into the dust

Don't forget RTS!!! Should probably be between Turn-based Rpgs and 3D platforms.

I'm guessing Western RPGs will be the next genre to be overdone. Bioware and Bethesda are just the begining.

RTS was never as huge as any of the genres i posted there

RTS has the potential to be the next genre to be fouled up though. More likely it'll be western RPGs though, yeah.

halo wars will spark casualfaggot interest, then the landslide will begin

Pretty surprised EndWar didn't get more attention. I mean, the game wasn't so hot, but the voice controls were ****ing brilliant.

got swamped in the christmas rush

surprisingly it's still in the most popular demos list on XBL

makes sense. Gives you a couple scenarios and you can replay those endlessly really.

know a demo that owns? SKATE. TWO.

hell yeah, i'm pumped

I was might unimpressed. When you get off the board suddenly the controls go to ****.

off-board is horrible but fingerflips own

Yeah, the on-board stuff is as solid as expected, but off-board is supposed to be a big feature. And wow, it's really awkward. At least I don't have to stare at a dude's *** the entire time though now

the cutscenes are soooo bad i love them

everything that's doesn't involve you controlling the skateboard is pretty bad. Especially the voice work. Not only can they not act, but even the sound is off.

basically, everything that is good about the game is what was good about skate 1

I don't know how they can get skateboarding down do well but walking? totally beyond them. makes no sense.

it's times like these i wish i had a hard drive.

I really like this thread.

who buys an xbox but not a hard drive? system is useless without it

i got the arcade with a 256 memory card.
i need a HD for demos and all that mess.

shoulda gotten that live starter bundle. headset, 60 gig drive, 12 months of live for like, sixty bucks. ridiculous deal.

****, when was this.

the originalbox had a smokin deal with rainbow six 3, a headset, 12 months live and a map pack for the game's RRP

whatever i got an arcade at best buy in may because it was the only one they had in stock.

****.

so i picked the game up today for

game's length probably works in its favour. you'll be done before then

okay, so i'm up to the last mission, i figure i've seen enough to give a lowdown

good:
> if you get a good run going it feels badass
> being chased by the police-ninjas was a genuine rush
> the overall visual design is sweet as hell
> some of the set pieces are awe-inspiring
> the train level was ****ing awesome

bad:
> if you've played prince of persia 08, the flow of this game feels awkward as hell. a lot of the maneuvers lack speed
> too much time is spent climbing up pipes
> the last two levels are shootan-heavy. wouldnt be a bad thing if the guns werent a ***** to use
> the cutscenes are hideous and the story is transparent
> runner hints are misleading at times

I think I might pick it up if I find it cheap sometime. Knowing this country though, won't happen until the Xbox 720 has been out for three years.

Why don't you go DICE for a free copy?
I'm sure they'd give you one for free if you were obnoxious

Too much effort for such a game.

hmm might have to pick this game up sometime, visually it does look quite stunning

definitely. it's basically a game that has moments of being either really, really good or just ****ing terrible

thing is, does that make the good parts great, or the great parts bad?

Like, you just came off a horrible part into a good part. Does that suddenly make the good part even better by contrast? Or does going from a good part to a bad part make the game seem that much worse?


Important distinction.

i guess it depends on how much patience you have with the bad parts. eventually i just started blocking out the exposition, cutscenes and combat to focus on running and started to enjoy the game a whole lot better.

dreading going through the game again on a no-guns run though

Pretty sure I can block out cutscenes no problem. just go on the computer or watch tv or something

[youtube=XqiyMQSbRWI]XqiyMQSbRWI[/youtube]

this should give you an idea how terribad they are

looks like a monkey

well, i just beat the game

actually had a badass ending. kicking a guy out of a helicopter at like 10000 feet owns