Comments on: Guardian: Mirror’s Edge is Just Too Innovative For Reviewers

By: Kroatien

Kroatien — Wed, 03 Dec 2008 04:06:33 +0000

Hey! I like your post “” so well that I like to ask you whether I should translate into German and linking back. Answer welcome. Greetings Kroatien

By: Sari

Sari — Sun, 16 Nov 2008 21:22:54 +0000

I don’t think excusing shortcomings in a game with innovation is a good idea.
If it was something entirely new, people would still see the apparent flaws in gameplay and level design.
By trying to defend like that, well, in my personal opinion, your ego may have suffered a blow.
Gaming is art to an extent, but at some point you have to consider what separates it from everything else, gameplay.
If you overlook that, then I could see how a game can’t get perfect scores.

By: junglistgamer

junglistgamer — Sun, 16 Nov 2008 20:10:05 +0000

I definitely agree with the point about the importance of gameplay. Gameplay, by it’s very name, defines the difference between it and all other forms of entertainment. I read a really interesting article in the Guardian about the concept of ‘pure film’, the idea that if you focus too heavily on dialogue vs cinematography you turn a film into a piece of literature and lose the point of having a film in the firstplace. A lot of the games-as-art debate seems to miss this point, focusing too heavily on cinematic or literary games rather than games that focus on pure gameplay. I’d call something like Ikaruga, Gears of War or Castle Crashers a better argument for games as art than something like Mirror’s Edge because they don’t attempt to be Dickens or Kubrik, they just do what no other medium can – enthrall the player with their gameplay mechanics.

By: ScottyG

ScottyG — Sun, 16 Nov 2008 18:56:48 +0000

Problem is, asking someone to spend $60 and potentially dozens of hours to experience “innovation” potentially at the expense of fun is a tall order. I think if the game were released at a budget price or $30-$40 it would’ve done much better.

By: Steve

Steve — Sun, 16 Nov 2008 06:50:09 +0000

Agreed. That is all. If they want to be innovative, do it the Portal way. I don’t know if I would’ve enjoyed Portal as a full-length, full-priced game.

By: Matt

Matt — Sun, 16 Nov 2008 05:22:16 +0000

They said the same thing about Lair. Think about that.

By: Mike

Mike — Sun, 16 Nov 2008 05:04:53 +0000

I have beaten the game and found it at its high points incredibly fun, and at its low points extremely frustrating. The game itself is a beautiful game, and the platform mechanics are really well done. My issue is with the combat. I understand that you are supposed to run away, and In most cases that is fine. But in some you are required to disarm and take a gun, or die. The difficulty curve is annoying and took away from the fun i was having with the platform aspects. I suggest making the game more like portal, making the platform aspects harder and more puzzle-like and leaving the gun mechanics and combat out. Either that or make them streamlined and easier to use. I expect great things from the sequel. Because unlike movies the sequel is almost always better.

By: Halfleft

Halfleft — Sun, 16 Nov 2008 00:10:05 +0000

I have it and I thoroughly enjoy it.

Though many of my friends find it frustrating and not fun at all.

By: greeneggsnsam

greeneggsnsam — Sat, 15 Nov 2008 19:27:39 +0000

True innovation lies in games able to leave a lasting impact on the player, like Portal. Yeah, it had a new mechanic, but the narrative style was the true innovative element which granted it such acclaim. Mirror’s Edge is just Prince of Persia in First-Person; that’s not true innovation.

Besides, what’s so important about innovation? A good game is a good game, whether it is old or new.