Mirror's Edge

There was a blog essay thing that was on Kotaku/Destructoid a couple weeks back where some guy called out game reviewers for not slathering Mirror's Edge with a think, lustrous coat of the highest honors possible simply because it was "innovative". I'm not going to waste my time finding this dude's blog or the news stories that covered it, you can probably find it in Google by searching for "Mirror's Edge knob slobbery pretentious Internet doucheblogger" (it'll be the link that pops up right after the link to this place, ahem self referential blog joke).

At any rate, this guy's entire thrust was that Mirror's Edge was innovative and new, and thus should be given a free ride as far as reviews go. I believe one of his points was that had it been a movie, reviewers would have heaped praise on it simply because of its freshness or daring-ness and told everyone they had to see it regardless of anything else about the film. I thought that was funny, since that line of thinking has led me to see some truly awful, pretentious pieces of shit in my day. Apparently, reviewers should ignore all other flaws in lieu of showcasing something that tried something different, because apparently simply being different is reason enough to dole out the nines and tens and tell people to plunk down sixty bucks plus tax.

First off, let's get something out of the way: I haven't played Mirror's Edge. I haven't even played the demo. I've seen the demo played, and that's about it. There's a reason for that: There are two things that have never ever worked well in First Person: Melee combat and jumping puzzles, and I certainly don't expect EA of all people to shatter those barriers. From what I've come to understand and what little I've seen, it could have been a lot worse, but that's missing the point: Those aren't barriers that need to be broken. You don't need to strive for the best possible first person jumping puzzle experience because you already have third person camera technology, and that's just better for the task. That's really the long and short of it. It's like saying "We worked really hard on making a racing game that works from street level front left wheel camera view". Why would you fucking bother? You're just making it harder simply for the sake of being different.

The only real defense for the first person choice is "It's more immersive, you really feel like you're the person!". No it isn't and no you don't. Saying a first person view is more immersive because you're looking through the eyes of the person is simplistic and childish. That's like saying the most powerful love story in a movie ever would be one told entirely from first person. You get immersion in games from controls that are simple and effective, good characters, and a believable world. Being Gordon Freeman isn't a more immersive experience than any other game because while yes, you're looking through his eyes, Gordon is a non-character who never talks and no one holds rifles and pistols out at almost eye level for 8 hours straight while having invisible feet. Mirror's Edge isn't immersive because from what I understand, the story is simplistic bullshit. The government is bad because I said so and the cities are so shiny it's sinister. Why exactly? OOPS OUT OF TIME. That's something first person view doesn't fix guys, sorry.

I'd also like to point out that having your game be in first person saves a metric ton of time and money on character animation. Faith has more animation than most FPS heroes because you actually see her arms and legs and such, but it's still ten times more simple than the amount of animation you'd have to do for a main character in an action game you see your entire playthrough.

Second off, what fucking innovation? Do you mean the parkour gameplay? You mean, the same parkour gameplay that Ubisoft blew out of the water like five years ago with Prince of Persia: Sands of Time and its sequels and to this day is superior to Mirror's Edge because you can actually fucking see the Prince do all his badassery? You mean the parkour gameplay that they blew out of the water again with Assassin's Creed (albeit the only thing they did well there)? Let me tell you something, if Ubisoft (further) lost their mind and released a game called "Reflective Surface's Side" that featured an Asian woman running over rooftops in third person, it would stomp Mirror's Edge flat. It wouldn't even be a contest, which is why EA made their game first person: If they had made it third person, people would have gone "This game is a less well done Prince of Persia" and ignored it. All of a sudden you shift the camera view forward three feet which makes the game harder to play and less cool to watch and you're a fucking genius? No, don't think so. There's a reason Jedi Knight, Jedi Knight II and the 3D Zeldas all automatically switched from third to first person based on what weapon you whipped out.

Third off, no, it doesn't get a critical free ride. When you work in a medium, be it books or movies or comics or games, you have to take into consideration the strengths and weaknesses of said medium. When you write for comics, you have to learn to show rather than tell. You don't fucking fill the page up with huge word balloons, I don't care how well the text is written. When you make a movie, you don't totally ignore lighting and camera angles and film every scene from the waist up, I don't care how fucking original your script is. True masterpieces endeavor to master every strength of the medium and minimize every weakness, they don't just try to throw different shit at a wall until it sticks and hope no one gets pissed at all the things they did wrong. If it's a videogame, I have to play it. I don't care how off the wall your concepts and controls and premise is, if your game plays like shit and is not fun, you've failed.

There's only three things Mirror's Edge should be given credit for doing. First off, hooray for actually daring to feature a world that's not composed entirely of brown and grey, although I'm not sure white and red and Bloom all over is much better. Second off, hooray for EA trying something different, and with a new IP no less. Mirror's Edge didn't set the world on fire though, so that's probably the last time they'll try and pull that shit. Unfortunately they probably won't take away the message that "making a first person game focused on jumping and melee combat was a fucking retarded idea" instead. Third off, hooray for making an action game that focuses on avoidance and quick, smart takedowns rather than straight up gunfire FPS action. It's too bad that apparently that stuff is the weakest and most boring part of the game, but hey, they tried. Protip for next time guys: Takedowns look far more badass when you can actually see what your guy is doing to the other guy.

I would love to see a third person parkour game set in Mirror's Edge's shiny futurescape with a more fleshed out story, but that's never going to happen.