Typical Roman5 bullshit. Sigh.

Roman5 is one of the best posters on GOG forums. Most other posters are your typical blowjob'ing consoletards who don't really belong here anyway.

If the original, didn't sell much, it's obvious that a sequel wouldn't be just the same.

Still looking forward to it. In fact, I'm very pleased that they at least kept the general art style.

Look who is talking Mr. I love the PS1 games.

I think it looks pretty frickin' awesome personally... and this coming from someone who played (and finished) the first PC version.

LOL. Ok, ok, enough internet for today.

Negnegnegnegnegnegnegneg

You make one new IP in this industry, with one title to its name, and people jump to calling it a fucking
"franchise".

And you wanna know why we get nothing but sequels?

Thanks for the chuckle :-D

Anyone who still plays console games post the first Xbox genuinely deserves mockery.

And the point I made is still true, the GOG forums are choc-a-bloc with your typical retarded contrarian who feels the need to defend every console game and next-gen cinematic experience simply because they happen to be on the forum of a site that sells (mostly old) PC games.

It's like spoiled teenagers who listen to death metal to annoy their parents.

Sometimes I wonder what is in the head of people who post things like that.

Meh. Guess I can't blame them for "wanting to reach more people", but I can't remember a sequel/remake (with that goal stated by the publisher) actually ending up being a game that appealed that much to me (Syndicate remake, Dragon Age 2, Mass Effect 2, XCOM etc).

Okay, I accept concerns about the possible treatment of studios and unrealistic target sales as possible concerns. But I can't see DICE going the way of the dodo over Mirror's Edge 2. Not with their other more mainstream shooter based titles.

Now, I loved Mirror's Edge. I own several copies of it (one on the PS3), three on the PC (one on Steam, two on Origin, one of which is the Japanese language version). But let's be honest, it was a flawed gem. It was way too short; some game mechanics were terrible (especially on the PS3); the story was mediocre at best with one section that was completely out of character; the big twist a complete let down and the main revelation disappointing. The game we got was not the originally planned game (but that happens most of the time). The choice to use 2D animation for some cut scenes was jarring in contrast to the in-game cut-scenes that stuck with the first person perspective. But despite its flaws, Mirror's Edge was stunning with its unique visual identity.

As far as I'm concerned any sequel that carries over that visual identity and maintains the urgency of flight over (gun)fight - downplaying the more traditional shooter elements - will be a worthy entry to the series.

To claim the series is over, based on one quote with zero context is just stupid. But then, we all know this isn't the first time such claims have been made on this forum based on just as little. *sigh*

I kinda have to agree with Roman5 on this one. Sure, we have no context, and I also agree with most of bansama's points, but this is indicative of EA's intentions and we've seen this pattern before. One game does reasonably well on it's niche player base, and instead of doing an "improved*" version of it with a realistic budget they pump up a lot of money and appeal for a wider audience. The result most of the times is a game that the original's player base won't like (betrayal!) while the "wider audience" is spread so thin they don't pay any attention to it. The sequel doesn't meet the publisher's sales expectations and the franchise gets canned. Sure we don't have any true info yet, but by my book the comment is enough to get a fan worried.

Now, the question is of course what we understand by improvement, as I'm sure the game makers (or the publishers, at least) do believe they are improving a game when they push in all that generic stuff. For instance, in this particular game you had to run from enemies, most of the time. Most games let you fight off your enemies, Mirror's edge doesn't. I'm sure a lot of people were annoyed at that, right? "Let me shoot down my enemies if I want to!", they'll say. And tons of people enjoy shooting things in the face, such as the CoD crowd, so publishers cater to it and add shooting segments, more CQC moves, etc... and suddenly you find yourself with an action game with some parkour moves. Not saying it will happen, but it is a clear possibility.

Another thing that many games do, but ME doesn't, is exploration. You were always in a hurry and never had time to explore an area. Finding those stupid drops while running away from the cops was insane. I constantly felt like I would enjoy just moving around and exploring the scenario, but I always had to run. Would it be an improvement to let the player have the time to explore, such as in an open world game? Well, I probably would enjoy it more, yes. But, and it's a big but, I would assume the fans of the original ME liked it because the sense of urgency. That was the biggest thing in ME, IMO. Take it away, and wouldn't the core fans be disappointed?

The thing is, it feels like they try to get all games to appeal to everyone at the same time. ME was a niche game, would it have killed EA to make a sequel using a fraction of the usual AAA budget and appeal to the same niche market as before, but with a better story and controls? Sure, it won't sell 5 million, but the original ME did sell a million or so right? Sure, I probably won't like it (like I didn't particularly like the original), but why not aim for that? This one comment implies this route isn't even considered by the bigshots, which is a valid reason of concern.

This is 100% true.

However, the issue with Mirror's Edge is that even most people who liked it will tell you the gameplay part was flawed. They will complain about the length, falls, getting lost and every other thing endlessly. They liked the game mostly because of its aesthetic, from what I have read.

This is different from, say, Dead Space. Dead Space was loved not only for how it looked and such but also for being a rather good survival horror game with few flaws. The sequels changed what was appreciated in the original, rather than fixing what was broken.

As much as I personally liked the gameplay in Mirror's Edge I certainly see a logic to changing it, since it was divisive even within the fanbase. It's different from taking something that really worked and had a strong appreciation in its audience and changing everything.