170°
9.0

VideoGamer: Mirror's Edge Review

There are times in Mirror's Edge when you'll be frustrated, replaying a section for the umpteenth time with no solution in sight, but persevere; Faith always has a way out - you just have to find it. Combine a thoroughly entertaining single-player campaign with a stunning and challenging time trial mode and you'll soon forget that you managed to run through the story in six hours or less. There's depth here that you'll only discover hours into time trialling a single stage. No other game released this year comes close to being as cool.

Read Full Story >>
videogamer.com
Final_Rpg5665d ago

"No other game released this year comes close to being as cool. " You telling me Sackboy isn't cool?

WIIIS15665d ago

There's a lot about Sackboy that's cute, but pray tell what is so cool about Sackboy?

running rampid5665d ago

definite buy for me. i love the demo.

Bangladesh5665d ago (Edited 5665d ago )

A 9 for a 6hr game with no multiplayer? I'd laugh in this reviewers face if he were standing here.

I buy 9's not rent them, and 6hrs is a rental so this game isn't a 9 to me anyway.

MK_Red5665d ago

Maybe that 6 hours is worth more than all those stupid mulitplayer games. Plus, the reviewer DID explain that the meat of the game is in time trial mode and other stuff.
Plus, multiplayer sucks. Singleplayer FTW!

BigPete79785664d ago

I will take a great single player game (regardless of length) over multiplayer any day of the week. I love a great storyline with great gameplay. Judging from the demo Mirror's Edge has definitely got that and it has caught my interest.

Bangladesh5664d ago

Hey, if you guys want to pay $10 an hour to experience this game go ahead. I'll bet most everyone else will pay $5 for 6 hrs though.

MK_Red5664d ago

Multiplayer is no different than having trail and other game extenders. If you're just talking about hours, the game has them and the reviewer very well said that time trial and other modes are well worth it and will be more than 6 hours.

Plus for someone like me who never touches multiplayer, this game is heaven.

BigPete7978, definitly agreed though IMO, any singleplayer > multiplayer.

Panthers5664d ago

I hate when companies spend a lot of time on multiplayer and ruin the single player. Mainly because I dont want all of my games to have multiplayer. I have Socom. That is all I need. I dont even play R2 multiplayer (although i will play the co-op)

+ Show (2) more repliesLast reply 5664d ago
Foxgod5665d ago

Nice, i generally do not have much faith in new game genre's
But this one actually seems to succeed in what it tried to be, something new.

titntin5665d ago

Whilst I love the game and what they are trying to do - 6 hours with no multiplayer precludes this from being a "9" on value for money alone.

Given the other high profile reviews recently, its quite plain to see that this site is way off the mark and is incredibly inconsistent with its scoring.

Still - I'd urge you to rent this, as its really satisfying while it lasts. I have the full game on 360 and just the demo for comparison on PS3, but it looks pretty much identical to me, so all games fans can enjoy this one..

thor5665d ago

Tintin you are simply pointing out a major flaw in the scoring system ITSELF. If the game is really, really fun then why shouldn't it get a 9 just because it doesn't have MP? It doesn't pretend to have MP. That's not what it offers.

On the other hand, let's say there's a game that DOES have MP but it gets an 8. This game is not as good for what it is, but it's more worth you putting money down for it because it's got that much more content. If you really like MP, this will be the better game. But as MP goes, it might not be the best.

With sites like metacritic and with fanboys (and just average people) taking the scores of reviews as gospel as to whether or not they should buy the game, I think the whole concept of a review score should be completely revised or scrapped.

No FanS Land5665d ago

Kudos for Dice beacuse they were able to make the game on both consoles identical + they used the UE3 engine and we all know the struggles with the engine on ps3. again, wow.

titntin5664d ago

@ thor - I understand what you are saying, but I think you miss the point I was trying to make.

Not having any multiplayer simply means that the game needs to be very engaging in single player to be considered 'value for money'. With the single player campaign being so short, that makes this title one of the most expensive I've ever played in terms of hours of fun per pound spent, and that should surely be a factor in any review?
If a full priced game offered the best thrill you'd ever had playing a game, but only lasted 30 minutes, would you think it warrented a 10?
I feel this game needed to be at least twice the length it is...

Swiftfox5664d ago

A good experience is a good experience, regardless of length.

How would you rate Fighting Games then. Matches only last an average of 2 or so minutes. What makes it worth it? The answer is fun.

Was it fun? It your personal response to the game that makes it of value to you. Wether or not a person has fun at a game is subjective and can not be scored, should not be scored.

How much fun you are having tells you how long you play the game, it tells you how much the game was worth really. Some people find fun in multiplayer, some find it in time trails, some find it in simply replaying the game. If you are not having fun, you stop playing the game.

If the game is fun not only is it worth every penny, but it's worth the 10 you personally give it. Graphics, sound, genre be darned, if it's fun then it doesn't matter.

titntin5664d ago

@Swiftfox

Your analogy of a fighting game is simply flawed. That a bout only lasts for minutes is absolutely true, but I still play good fighting games with my friends for years after they are released. They are the very definition of a multiplayer game, and as such, have many hundred of hours of entertainment in them.

This title doesn't. There is hardly any incentive to replay a level once you have completed it.

I can't disagree that the 6 hours it offers is fun, but I still contend that I expect much more entertainment for the entry cost involved.
If you are personally happy to pay £45 for 6 hours, thats completely up to you and more power to you. But many people will expect more for that amount of money. The value for money factor has seldom been ignored in any other reviews of titles I've read, so why should it not count now? If you have yet to play this, then you won't understand. Play it and then tell me your not disappointed with how much it offers.

+ Show (2) more repliesLast reply 5664d ago
Show all comments (25)
80°

Battlefield 2042 Mirror's Edge Easter Egg Surfaces in Season 4 Map

It seems that in Season 4, DICE has snuck in a Battlefield 2042 Mirror's Edge Easter egg in the new Flashpoint map.

220°

10 Old Games With Outstanding Graphics

GF365: "There are some games with extraordinary visuals that impress us to this day. Here are old games with outstanding graphics."

Read Full Story >>
gamefreaks365.com
ShwaaMan474d ago

Bioshock still looks fantastic, one of my all time favorites.

Yui_Suzumiya474d ago

Beyond: Two Souls on PS3 can compete with modern day graphics.

SonyStyled474d ago (Edited 474d ago )

Same as Killzone 2 and 3, uncharted 2 and 3, Infamous 2, Heavy Rain, Resistance 3

jasonismoney474d ago

I wish this was entirely true, but you might want to load up Killzone 2 and Resistance 3 again.

SonyStyled474d ago

@jason I watched some gameplay videos of KZ2 and R3 on my full screen. They are on par or succeed graphically to the first person shooters mentioned in the article that also launched on the seventh generation of consoles. Try the same and see what you think

cthulhucultist473d ago

Killzone 3 was super impressive! I could not believe the graphics back then as I was regularly pausing the game to stand in awe looking at the surroundings! Resistance however did not impress me that much. Heavy rain is also another amazing graphically speaking game. It almost felt next gen

Fist4achin474d ago

I always thought the first 3 Gears of War games looked great and still hold up for today.

SonyStyled474d ago

They did for their day. I recently played gears judgement with on the 360 and the draw distance was so blurry. The characters up close look great though

JEECE474d ago

Far Cry 2 was awesome. In addition to having demonstrably better physics and AI than later games in the series, it had a lot of design decisions that, criticized at the time, have since been praised in games like BOTW and Dark Souls.

iNcRiMiNaTi474d ago

It might not be super amazing by today's standard but I thought Mgs3 looked really good

JEECE474d ago

In terms of art style it still holds up.

Show all comments (13)
270°

Mirror's Edge achievement designer: "Achievements have been bad for gaming"

Ubisoft Massive lead gameplay designer Fredrik Thylander, previously of DICE where he worked on Battlefield and Mirror's Edge, has spoken out about achievements and trophies, arguing that they "have been bad for gaming."

Machina491d ago (Edited 491d ago )

The achievements in Mirror's Edge opened my eyes to a whole other way of approaching the game. Since some of the toughest and most rewarding ones are basically whole levels turned into time trials with very strict time requirements, they force you to become much better at the game - in a way that difficulty levels just don't - and made me appreciate the mechanics that much more (especially the momentum-based running and platforming).

They actually made the game better for those like me who really enjoyed the game but wanted more of it, basically adding a new level of difficulty that took a long time to master/overcome. It added some extra longevity to a very short game.

He says "it eats resources that could have made the game better". I'm curious what he thinks the time he spent designing the achievements for the game would've been better spent on, because I expect bang for buck-wise achievements are a pretty efficient way of adding value to a game for the people who end up loving it.

shinoff2183491d ago (Edited 491d ago )

I kinda see his point but I also see your point.

I've been trying to remember what games over the years have had their own trophies inside the game before trophies and such were a thing and all I can think of is the star ocean series

Christopher491d ago

I think his point, though not elucidated upon because of Twitter limitations, is not that they can be bad but that they are used improperly to extend gameplay rather than reward actions.

Nebaku490d ago

Harvest Moon: Magical Melody on the GCN did.

In fact it actually built the game around it.

RpgSama490d ago (Edited 490d ago )

I am very OCD about playing games that I can platinum, in that sense I probably avoided playing games that I knew I would be unable to 100% complete.

I do think there are other people like me and also feel there should be an option for you to individually deactivate getting trophies on specific games, just so you play them and they do not go to your account.

-Foxtrot491d ago (Edited 491d ago )

I don't know. I used to think Achievements / Trophies were ruining games at first but then I saw the positive, if you totally love a game then they would offer you replay value by going after the last achievements to 100% the game. It made you explore every last bit of the game to achieve this and sometimes pushed you into areas or scenarios you probably might have missed.

It was a blast to get them on Oblivion / Skyrim, Fallout, Witcher, God of War, Elden Ring etc

Don't get me wrong, I do think there's achievements which are annoying, the ones where you need to find all collectibles which end up being missable AND are like trying to find a needle in a haystack are a kick to the balls, you know the majority of us are just going to use a guide to find them so what's the point.

Kind of a shame Nintendo haven't gotten a full system in place, they are so behind.

jambola490d ago

Nintendo seem to either be ahead of their time by years
or behind by 10 years
no in between

Rimeskeem490d ago

I enjoy having something to go for and feeling accomplished when doing something hard. I just hate it when achievements are based on things you can't really control. Like when something is for MP and the MP is just dead.

MadLad490d ago (Edited 490d ago )

I used to be a hardcore achievement hunter back in the day, but I couldn't care less nowadays. I just want to play games the way I actually want to play them, and don't care to waste my time just to get a little pop-up.

AzubuFrost490d ago

I envy you sir. I just gotta have every single achievement whenever I play a game. On my Steam profile I have an 83% completion rate out of 35 games, and my OCD is telling me to keep upping that percentage higher.

MadLad490d ago

Yeah. Back then, though I'm not sure what my actual completion rate was, I was mainly an Xbox player. I had close to 80k gamer score during the 360 days.

It just doesn't excite me anymore. I have less than 20% completion on my Steam account, though I have a pretty asinine amount of games there at the same time.
But I don't really bother with any of this anymore. If there's an interesting achievement I might aim for it just because I find it fun, but usually I just get that pop-up, say "cool" and continue with the game.

Outlawzz490d ago

Never been a fan of achievements. I just want to play the game however it may present itself to me, there's an overflow of achievements to seek in real life lol

Great for those that enjoy them though, much respect to the platinum hunters, it ain't easy lol

Show all comments (33)