PS3 Fanboy review: Mirror's Edge

Mirror's Edge has almost everything going for it. The innovative first-person parkour gameplay, meshed with a distinct high-contrast style, makes it look and play unlike anything before it. To think, only a generation ago, we touted Metroid Prime on Gamecube for its ability to successfully present first-person platforming. Mirror's Edge goes even further, offering a system that's far more complex, but at the same time, deceptively intuitive.
Gallery: Mirror's Edge
When I first got my hands on Mirror's Edge, I could only describe it to others as "the Mario of a new generation." Super Mario Bros. defined what good platforming games are all about: simple controls that do exactly what the player wants. The original NES game defined the new standards of 2D platforming, and did so with no frills. Players didn't need a complex story -- they just needed to save the princess.
Mirror's Edge succeeds in creating a game system that's, put simply, fun. There is an unquestionable joy that comes from jumping from platform to platform, rooftop to rooftop. Faith's arsenal of moves is quite wide, including wallruns, walljumps, kicks, slides, and rolls. Yet, in spite of the complexity of her moves, they're incredibly easy to pull off. Most of the game is played with just one button: L1, for jump. Players very rarely have to access the face buttons, as the game's most important actions are all mapped to the four shoulder buttons. By streamlining the controls, players can quickly and easily jump into the game, and do exactly what they want to do.
The game's relentless momentum doesn't allow for players to get caught up by tricky controls. Before the first real chapter even begins, players are treated to an incredible chase sequence. Bullets are flying about, and players are forced to run through rooftops, jumping from one place to another. The game does an excellent job of transposing Faith's fear into the player's hands (or is it vice versa?), as players make panicked decisions, rushing into leaps of faith, stumbling onto paths with no clear destination.

Mirror's Edge is a non-stop adrenaline rush, with one incredible setpiece after another. The prologue had my heart pounding, and subsequent levels only upped the ante. Level 1 features an incredible chase sequence in an office building. Faith must run away from a heavily armored squad that's trying to take her out. A helicopter awaits outside, and the windows and glass displays all start shattering as gunfire flies everywhere. Try keeping your head straight during that sequence. Another thrilling level has Faith jumping from one moving subway car to another. The chase sequences only get more intense as the enemies get progressively stronger and faster. Cops with pistols are easy to shove around, but wait until you get to the armored enemies with machine guns. Even scarier: enemies that can mimic your every move, and follow you through entire levels.
The stunning chase sequences are made possible through smart level design. While this isn't a free-roaming game a la Assassin's Creed, there are still multiple paths between point A and point B. Players may not discover them all, but those that play multiple times will discover there are many shortcuts -- ways of shaving precious seconds off their run. The levels, for the most part, don't feel game-like. The placement of objects in the world can feel quite natural, never breaking the reality presented by the game. "Runner's Vision," which highlights a potential path in red, makes it easy for players to find potential routes through a level (although Runner's Vision becomes increasingly sparse in later levels).
While a majority of the game is spent running away from something (or running to something), there are a few occasions where Faith must slow down and so some tricky indoor platforming. These pop up in the latter half of the game, and act almost like puzzles. Runner's Vision won't come into play during these sequences, and players must figure out exactly how to get to their destination. For example, one level features two massive scaffolding towers, and players must use them to get to the top floor of a building. "So, I have to wall run off of this wall, turn, kick off to that pipe hanging above, swing and grab a ledge on that side of the pillar." Sound crazy? You bet. But, the game will demand this kind of movement -- and it's so incredibly satisfying to succeed in conquering these tricky sequences.

Faith is an incredible runner, but she also is quite the warrior in combat, as well. Here, we see players becoming frustrated with the game. It's true that Faith can pick up guns, and it's true it will look very much like a FPS game when she does. But, that's not the point of the game. Even on the easiest difficulty, Faith is very easy to kill, with a small handful of hits taking her down. She's not a tank, nor is she meant to be. A single enemy can, and will, be able to knock out Faith with relative ease.
This kind of design encourages players to approach each combat situation smartly. I like to think of Faith as a horror movie villain -- running around as much as possible, trying to take each enemy out one at a time. Faith can disarm enemies quite easily, provided players have mastered the timing of the disarm move. Punches and kicks, while somewhat ineffectual, can still provide players a moment of breathing room. It's incredibly fun to run off a wall, kick someone in the face and then take their gun.
The gunplay isn't too great in Mirror's Edge -- there aren't that many weapons, and the controls don't feel tight enough for a FPS. Considering one of the game's achievements is to play the entire game without shooting an enemy, it's very possible to play the game without shooting. In fact, considering Faith's incredible agility, it might be easier to outrun enemies than it is to fight them.

I cannot emphasize strongly enough how enamored I am by the gameplay of Mirror's Edge. The core gameplay is so solid, and there are a number of directions I can think of taking it. For example, imagine a ninja game, where players are running around, swords and shooting stars in hand. I'm imagining a multiplayer game that takes advantage of this engine -- Capture the Flag amongst parkour masters sounds like an instant winner. (Dear EA, if you use any of these ideas, feel free to pay me a consultant's fee. Thanks!)
However, in spite of the incredible impact Mirror's Edge has had on me, it's sad to say that it's almost certain this won't win a "Game of the Year" award -- at least, not from us. While the gameplay, controls, graphics, music and presentation are all impeccable, there are two aspects that seriously detract from the overall experience: the story and the length of the game.
To call the story a mess would be an understatement. It's an unfocused mish-mash of cliche action movie storylines that do a great job of distancing the player from the world. It's a story about rescuing your sister. But wait, it's also a story about a government conspiracy. But wait, it's also a story about how an evil company is doing some kind of weird experiment. Wait, no, it's also a story about -- you get the point. The game's climax only resolves one of these threads, and just barely. The characterization is a total mess, with characters introduced (and killed) haphazardly left and right. Who are these people? Am I supposed to care about them? Because I certainly don't.

Although the game has some fantastic character models, the developers opted to use an atrocious animated look for the storytelling cutscenes that happen between chapters. Amateur animated porn looks better than this stuff. How did DICE let this happen?
Perhaps this is a classic example of the old saying: "less is more." If the developers chose to simply focus on one storyline (instead of four), perhaps it would have a bit more resonance. Or, maybe go the route of the classic NES Mario game -- don't bother with a story at all, and simply end each chapter with "Your Sister is in Another Building." Perhaps you'll disagree with me, but I believe not having a story is better than force-feeding a terrible one. When the gameplay is so compelling, there's little reason to impress me with a far-fetched conspiracy story.
While I don't have a problem with the game's length, I can see many others that will. There are ten levels in all, each taking about half an hour the first time through. That's 5 hours of gameplay in the Story mode. Mirror's Edge is firmly rooted in the old school world of speed runs and high scores, as hardcore gamers will undoubtedly play through each level multiple times, to discover the hidden bags, post the best times, and increase their time trial rankings. For those that want the most out of what the game can offer, I can see this taking easily over 20 hours. Perfecting a single time trial run, for example, may take an hour. Trying to find the best route through a level, and then executing that route, is quite addictive -- but perhaps that's not what you're looking for in a game.

In spite of the atrocious story, and the surprisingly short length of the game, Mirror's Edge is a game that's easy to wholeheartedly recommend. This truly is the beginning of a new kind of game, and I cannot wait for a sequel (or a copycat clone). If you're still unsure about this one, download the demo as it will give you a very good sense of what the game is like. If you're still on the edge, then perhaps you'll just have to take a leap of faith.
PS3 Fanboy Score: 8.0





Get a WordPress.com Blog



Reader Comments (Page 1 of 2)
ijustw1n @ Nov 11th 2008 12:31PM
Poor EA, they try to do original ideas like Dead Space or Mirror's Edge but it's hard for gamers to justify these single player games and the full pricetag. Without multiplayer, these games won't reach the sales of a Call of Duty X or Madden XX and be relegated to rentals.
Christian @ Nov 11th 2008 12:42PM
You seriously think they would reach the sales of COD X or Madden X if they had online multiplayer? If success is defined by beating a two of the worlds most successful and popular franchises then I guess only 2% of released games are successful in your view.
I enjoy online play as much as anyone, but I have also seen to many games where online is tagged on without a clear idea about how it is supposed to be fun. I prefer developers spending time on making a really fun single player game than trying to jury rig online multiplayer onto a game where it doesn't really fit.
ijustw1n @ Nov 11th 2008 1:02PM
The point wasn't that they can beat the Call of Duty or Madden's but that those games will continue to get facelifts (EA is notorious for making small changes and releasing something as new or with a new year number behind it) and clog retail stores if these "new" "innovative" ideas give us 5 hours of gameplay for 60 bucks.
The replayability of online, community, leaderboards, levelling up ala Call of Duty 4, can't be beat by something new or unique in the mind of most consumers today.
linebeginstoblur @ Nov 11th 2008 1:37PM
Lol. Wow. I hardly ever, EVER, play multiplayer in games. Why do you think it's so relevant? Sometimes, I think that online multiplayer is a great fad, but after a while, it won't be that important to people anymore. I don't see it as the future of gaming at all. I hate the fact that, on LittleBigPlanet, the Play Online button is so big in comparison to the button to just play by yourself. Also, it's great that you can play with up to 60 people in Resistance 2, but I can't see myself playing with more than 1 anytime soon. I regret buying Warhawk. Why do you think multiplayer is so damn important in games?
Lars @ Nov 11th 2008 2:13PM
Online multiplayer is only overly-important for those that are new to it. I'm an old-school PC gamer so it's just par for the course for me. Some games are meant to be played with others, some aren't... no biggie.
I was just at Gamestop this morning and there were about 10 people lined up for CoD, and only 2 for Mirror's Edge.
ijustw1n @ Nov 11th 2008 2:32PM
Multiplayer is replayability. If you want to make a great single player game without multiplayer, it has to be epic. Think Elder Scrolls: Oblivion or Grand Theft Auto everything before IV.
Making these unique or interesting single player games and giving consumers 5-10 hours of gameplay isn't enough. Single player with just a story can most often only be played one way, like you can only read a book or watch a movie one way. For me, that means play, beat, shelve. Maybe pull it back out when bored in the future.
I just feel consumers as a whole have come to enjoy mutliplayer because it's new and dynamic every single map or game, it's not programmed AI, it's unique and new. You can't ever beat multiplayer.
I've been gaming since Commodore 64 and while I enjoy an epic single player game like Final Fantasy, I need multiplayer in others that promise limited amounts of time. I can spend 7 dollars at Blockbuster and for 5 days, I can play and beat these games.
Doesn't even make fiscal sense to fork out 60 to do the same thing.
Gonzo @ Nov 11th 2008 3:39PM
I dig the online multiplayer in games but unfortunately it seems to have completely overshadowed 2p on the couch play which I prefer.
I tried the demo for this and while I can now at least understand why they made this game first person but I still would've preferred 3rd person just so we can see the character's feet. It's important when you run out of ledge.
Chainblast @ Nov 11th 2008 7:37PM
The 6-7 hours of gameplay I'd get out of Mirror's Edge doesn't warrant $60, but I'm definitely going to rent it.
kentuckyfried @ Nov 12th 2008 1:30AM
There seems to be too much focus on having a MP component. It's a dangerous trend when you demand that developers come up with Oblivion magnitude scale games for replayability. Mind you, much of Oblivion becomes boring and repetitive, so duration doesn't necessarily translate into a game being fun. The forced addition of online MP is going to kill video games.
On the downside though, b/c making games seems to be so resource-intensive, the length has been shrinking from the typical 12-15 hr romp on the ps2 down to half or less. This is not a big problem for people that work, but I can understand that it's a problem for students.
jared @ Nov 11th 2008 12:38PM
Maybe I'm in the minority here, but I prefer single player games. Too many douchebags play online and ruin the experience. The one exception I've noticed so far has been LittleBigPlanet. The online experience has been awesome (aside from servers being down).
wem003 @ Nov 11th 2008 12:52PM
you aren't alone. I totally agree with you regarding online play.
IsaacEpp @ Nov 11th 2008 1:21PM
While I still play other games online, I completely appreciate your sentiment and also concur that the community play in LittleBigPlanet has been totally rewarding and fun!
acefondu @ Nov 11th 2008 1:26PM
I'm with you, single player all the way!
dantebk @ Nov 11th 2008 1:30PM
I totally agree. I've tried so many times to enjoy online multiplayer gaming, as so many gaming sites and podcasts I like seem enamored with it, but it's just not very much fun for me.
I do still really like playing games with other people if we're all in the same room, but that's a totally different experience, in my opinion.
I'm so excited for this game! Give me an awesome single-player experience that doesn't take 20 - 30 hours to play through and I'm happy.
Eric E @ Nov 11th 2008 1:35PM
ditto, i wish most games didn't bother and had more campaign or better story, graphics, whatever. New bond game for instance.
Maybe thats the key difference of ps3fanboys over 360.
R_man_5K @ Nov 11th 2008 1:41PM
After reading this I am downloading the demo...
jared - I am with you also. I hardly take advantage on online mulitplayer. Too many people are out there to mess up your game and not to play.
I did have some good times on burnout paradise, but it was mostly with people I met in forums.
And I totaly agree with you on LBP. If they are not going to play they just get left behind ...
Rodz @ Nov 11th 2008 4:40PM
Same here. Just don't care that much about all the online multiplayer hype.
Just make good and innovative games and they will sell well.
Off course, making it at least 12-15 hour long helps. See Heavenly Sword's case, for example. Amazing game, but it didn't get high scores because of the reduced length.
Tom @ Nov 11th 2008 2:31PM
Jared - I agree completely. I've never been a fan of online multiplayer: I never get the immersion that I get from singleplayer, the gameplay is never quite 'jerk' or lag free, and a lot of the other people online seem to be, as another commenter put it, douchebags. So multiplayer is never a big selling point for me.
This game looks interesting. Downloading the demo right now.
DeathroW @ Nov 11th 2008 12:39PM
I'll be giving EA my money just for letting the developers go into uncommon areas, i loved the demo and can't wait for the game.
chimaera9 @ Nov 11th 2008 12:49PM
ARggh, the pun-cliche at the end was horrible, Andrew!
Loved the demo, but I'm going to wait on this one. Gotta pace myself, between Fallout 3, Valkyria Chronicles, and several others, I'm just not going to have time for it yet. I'm not too much of a high-score monkey, either, so considering the story is so poor, I'll save it for later (I bet the story will seem even worse when compared with that of the previous two games I mentioned I'm playing right now.)
It's so rare these days that the developers get everything right, and it's very sad they have such a lame story for Mirror's Edge. People were complaining about it months ago when it was announced, so how hard is it to hire a story writer and re-do the cutscenes before release?
Gervin @ Nov 11th 2008 1:37PM
Why do games always need a story? Some of the greatest games of the past never had stories. A good story doesn't necessarily make a game fun. And some great games had lame ass stories. (I'm sorry, the story behind MG4 was LAME!!!! But I still loved playing it the first time around).
Game_playa @ Nov 11th 2008 2:13PM
Garmin, if you thought MGS4 story was lame, You will never find any game story interesting as it was the best IMO. And may God have mercy on your critic-ass soul
Gervin @ Nov 11th 2008 3:08PM
MG4 story the best?
Please, it had EVERY cliche in the book, including the pointless fist-fight AFTER the war was over. (Why Snake didn't just put a bullet in him then, I'll never know).
Let's see...
- convoluted story where the arch villain claims once again that he planned to lose the whole time
- armies (even government based) stupidly not in control of their own weaponry
- magical Fox-Die / Fox-Live crap
- cyborg ninja that should have died like 10 times, but miraculously gains his humanity at the end
- incompetent allies
- enemy that afford a huge submarine batle-cruiser, maintain tons of weapons and vehicles, robots, etc.... but needs to steal Metal-Gear Rex for a simple electromagnetic launching system?
- about 2 extra hours of meaningless babbling that only serve to ruin the plot!!!!
The story line for MG4 contains 1 good plot based on the Military Inustrial Complex and some conspiracy theories. It also contains 1 horrible plot about Snake's bloodline and a lot of crap about Big Boss, and all. Then the game messes both plot-lines together RUINING them both. Too complex, too silly.
It's like all the false-endings of the Lord of the Rings trilogy. Movie should have ended after the first 'ending', not after the 5 drag-on scenes.
Rocks @ Nov 11th 2008 12:50PM
Hmm, after reading this review, I am cemented into not getting this game... 5 hours of gameplay? No thanks... do they really think time trials are going to keep people playing this over and over again?
It seems like this game is more of a test in game play controls than an actually finished and polished game.
For a dystopian world, it sure is clean, everything looks like it just came out of the factory, it's a highly unrealistic world, destroys any bit of fantasy while playing...
I'm sure that in a couple hours, this comment will be voted down, but I stand by my view that this game is more of a "toy" than an actual game.
linebeginstoblur @ Nov 11th 2008 1:37PM
And I'm sure you had the same opinion about Portal, right? Everyone's entitled to their own criteria in what constitutes "a real game," but I fucking loved Portal, regardless of its length, and in many other ways as well, I'm finding many comparisons between Portal and Mirror's Edge (shortness, lack of HUD, innovative gameplay, focus on moving around with minimal combat, female character, theme song called "Still Alive," released in late Fall, brought to the PS3 courtesy of EA, time trial mode, etc.)
No @ Nov 11th 2008 1:14PM
I'm not quite sure how an 'unrealistic' world destroys fantasy?
Isn't fantasy purely based on what is not real?
I'm pretty sure the emptiness of the world is more of a symbol of how much control the government has over its citizens, like V for Vendetta on steroids. They probably keep everyone cooped up in their homes, making all the basic needs accessible in doors, which leaves these runners to do their job.
Packfan @ Nov 11th 2008 1:37PM
The fact is that the devs wandered into new territory and are taking an extreme risk here. Besides the short playthrough and crap story, this game is incredible. There's honestly NOTHING out there like it. Hopefully there's a sequel where all of these gameplay elements are flushed out even more for a larger scale game.
All in all, it's a starter, not the end-all product.
Rocks @ Nov 11th 2008 2:19PM
nothing like it? after playing through it, it's very similar to pretty much every action game that came out this year.. Assassin's Creed, Drake's Fortune...
The big difference between this and Portal, is that Portal used tongue and cheek humor to convey it's world, Mirror's Edge force feeds a shitty story down your throat with lifeless characters. It's not engaging.
Sure this game is innovative, I guess... doesn't mean it's fun to play, or deserves to be forgiven for having little game play and a horrible story. It relies on one gimmick (momentum) for the entire game.
I like many others, have had high hopes for this game, and it just doesn't live up to the hype, it's like people are trying way to hard to enjoy this game.
mat parker @ Nov 11th 2008 12:51PM
I will allow Queen to sum my and this game up:
http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=FOdWxf1tRmI
Darkdrium777 @ Nov 11th 2008 1:02PM
Hmm the short story is what I feared. That is too bad really, but anyways I will still get the game. I'm a big fan of Wipeout which is basically the same thing: perfect your racing line. I like that a lot, so I think I'll like Mirror's Edge Time Trial too. :)
Still, I do hope that if there is a sequel it will be longer.
realityzero @ Nov 11th 2008 1:12PM
I was looking forward to this game but then I played the demo.....
Kudos to them for trying something new but the game just didn't do it for me.
Gervin @ Nov 11th 2008 1:15PM
This game blows.
Bored with it in 60 seconds. Hated it in 1 hour.
Would rather play Joust for a few hours.
farfisa @ Nov 11th 2008 1:45PM
Ha! Joust!
debaser @ Nov 11th 2008 1:56PM
Joust rules!
Gervin @ Nov 11th 2008 3:16PM
Funny, I bought a super expensive home console system, and I spend a majority of my time playing PSN games that are pointless but fun.
I can't believe I paid $5 for Joust, when I already had it on my PC from MAME. LOL.
SirLean @ Nov 11th 2008 1:22PM
It looks cool. But it's not a fun game.
Moreover, it really reminds me of a game I played a couple of years ago, it was a manga-style game, or at least japanese-inspired, it involved a girl who was at war with extreme evil forces, it had an intricate battle system, she slided across floors and jumped alot. That was a fun game, which I think our swedish friends has ripped off.
It looks very cool, though. But that is not enough. Sorry.
Eric E @ Nov 11th 2008 1:36PM
THANK GOD FOR GAMEFLY!
plus i try to make it a point not to buy EA games unless they truly deserve it.
Gaucho @ Nov 11th 2008 1:44PM
Based on the demo I wouldn't say this is a dystopian society at all. It does seem to be a very much veiled totalitarian one. In any case, the gameplay is pretty fun albeit a bit repetitive. in all honesty it seems like Mirror's Edge is a tech demo to show how this new type of game would look like. As a game, however, it looks unfinished and not thought out in terms of story or feel, which are generic and bland. Maybe EA can take this parkour-esque type of gameplay and make better use of it.
farfisa @ Nov 11th 2008 1:48PM
I'm surprised the story's so bad--wasn't it written by Rhianna Pratchett? (Heavenly Sword... That rocked).
ryan @ Nov 12th 2008 10:46AM
She probably wrote the entire story, but this was just the first part of a *shudders* trilogy.
IcerC @ Nov 11th 2008 1:55PM
I will just rent games without a multiplayer I play. I rented Dead Space... brilliant game... but once played I am done with it.
I will rent mirrors edge and if I want to beat it again rent it later.
Jimmijam @ Nov 11th 2008 2:28PM
With such a short gameplay, and obvious plot gaps (at least according to this review), sounds like this is meant to be more episodic. EA should have distributed this title via the online channels at a discounted rate.
I'd pay $30 for a title like this no problem. But $60 sounds a bit steep (especially during these months with so many other titles sucking up my wallet dry).
davebo @ Nov 11th 2008 2:37PM
Well the good news is, with reviews like these I don't think it'll be long before you see this title on shelves at $30 :P
Also, while I agree with many here that tacked on multiplayer is never a desired feature, I would really like more companies to tack on split screen co-op. Some people still have real life friends, and games that you can only play by yourself for 5 hours just aren't worth $60. I don't care if a co-op mode would seem tacked on and awkward, it would at least give the gave some longevity.
And maybe this is just LBP influencing me, but in a game centered around speed and navigating obstacles, ,we could sure have a lot of fun with a level editor :)
Mr. Joe @ Nov 11th 2008 3:32PM
if this was 30 bucks, i'd buy it without question. but at 60 for 5 hours of gameplay? i think this is gonna be a rental over christmas for me. i even liked the demo but i wasn't intrigued enough to preorder. if i'm not gonna preorder, there's a good chance i'll never buy the game, unless i get it as a gift or something.
PSN ID -- TheUnforgivenII @ Nov 11th 2008 2:20PM
Sure buy.. At half price. Only five hours?
Vcize @ Nov 11th 2008 2:42PM
Game length doesn't bother me, as there are so many great looking games I want to get through, but I'm a bit disappointed the story is supposedly so bad. This game's world is set up perfectly to have a good story.
I'm still buying it either way though.
And an online CTF mode would be awesome with this gameplay. Even a race mode against actual other people (not just their ghosts) would be sweet.
Gervin @ Nov 11th 2008 3:14PM
BTW - the only online games I've ever enjoyed were:
- SOCOM (for real strategy based FPS combat)
- HALO 1 (for fun shoot-em-up action)
- Soul Calibur IV (mindless fighting)
- Wipeout (mindless racing)
- LittleBigPlanet (which really I don't enjoy, but need to get the multi-player only accessible items).
Multiplayer to me is a huge waste of time 99.9% of the time. I enjoy playing games the way I like, without some douche-bag team-killing, or spawn-sniping. Most multiplayer games are not that much fun (MOD4 seemed pointless to me... all run-n-gun, no finesse or strategy).
muir666 @ Nov 11th 2008 3:29PM
How can u all say that multiplayer is a waste of time? taking a popular example of a multiplayer online game call of duty 4. i completed that in lyk 5hours and iv spent 10hours online. which triples the amount of enjoyment iv got from this. yes u will get sum people who seem to get off on ruining other peoples games but ignore them and they leave soon enough.
going back to being slightly more on topic the demo to this game was quite good even though i did get killed 6 straight times right after dropping through the grate as there was just too far to run against four gaurds. simple things like this would put me off buying this game. plus EA games are always overpriced bf:bad company anyone??
Gervin @ Nov 12th 2008 9:04AM
CoD4 multiplayer SUCKED!
Why you ask?
- completely chaotic,
- no strategy, all run-n-gun
- horrific icon system
- too many spawn-sniping douche-bags
- NO DIFFERENT from half the other multi-player frag fests. (Heck, I'd rather play Halo 1 on PC if I'm interested in MINDLESS franetic killing).
Compare the experience to say, SOCOM, where the teams that used strategy typically won the most.
kid cudi @ Nov 11th 2008 4:45PM
and don't forget, the Mirror's Edge Remix EP is also digitally available today!
"Still Alive" is the perfect song for Faith!