Sections

Mirror’s Edge reboot to right wrongs of first game, DICE explains reveal timing

Wednesday, 19th June 2013 13:10 GMT By Dave Cook

Mirror’s Edge has been gunning for a re-emergence for some time, and it’s no secret fans have been eager for a second game since the first instalment dropped. DICE’s executive producer Patrick Bach has shed light on why the studio is rebooting the franchise, how it hopes to right the wrongs of the original, and why it’s taken so long to emerge.

First up, if you missed the Mirror’s Edge reboot trailer, you can watch it again here.

Speaking with IGN, Bach stressed that he and his team wants to do something great with the series, rather than just putting a ’2′ on the end and calling the new game a sequel. If anything, it’s a re-imagining of the original concept with all the wrinkles ironed out.

Bach said of last week’s E3 reveal, “Why not now? We had to dwell on what it should be and what it could be, as well as find the right focus for the franchise, bringing it back and not just rushing it out there. I think the franchise deserves a proper launch.”

Changing the free-running formula of the original might alienate fans however, and Bach knows this all-too well. “How do you innovate and move forward without ruining what made the game great?” he mused. “It’s easy to capitalize on gimmicks or things that are popular right now.

“Couple years ago everyone’s talking about subscription. That’s the s–t…now no one is talking about subscription…. Jumping onto the awesome wagon that’s passing by is not helping your franchise if you have a great franchise. And Mirror’s Edge is one of them. We need to always remind ourselves what the game is at its core so we don’t move away from that.”

What would you like to see from the Mirror’s Edge reboot? Let us know below.

Latest

20 Comments

  1. YoungZer0

    No sewers levels?

    #1 1 year ago
  2. grizzlycake

    What exactly does he mean by changing the free-running formula?

    #2 1 year ago
  3. Hunam

    I loved the storm drain section!

    #3 1 year ago
  4. SplatteredHouse

    I wonder whether Faith’s whole body could be present as part of the gameplay? I’ll explain: In Mirror’s Edge, despite interacting with characters and objects in the world, in reality, Faith only ever used her arms and legs to affect the game. There is a chance it over-complicates things, but could be interesting.

    I remember, as I played ME, that I was interested in how the game world reacted to Faith’s activities. In the first one, Enforcers with batons and guns were introduced. Maybe the world can be more expressive, without destroying the atmosphere, the distant, dystopian nature of the environment? I supposed that a sequel might see others following in Faith’s stead, her actions proving inspirational, leading perhaps, even to a perilous situation of their making drawing her back to the runner lifestyle once again – again, how would that closed society react to a spread of these opposing tendencies?

    I think there’s lots of room for exploration towards future Mirror’s Edge installments, but I do like that DICE are seeking to set off from the best new start possible, especially through not making some irrational, crass decision to hurry for the sake of it – or a new generation’s dawn. Take your time, and Faith will return.
    Right! :D

    #4 1 year ago
  5. Samoan Spider

    @2 Funny, that’s the bit that worries me the most. I loved how the mechanic worked last time.

    To me, the first game needed to be a bit ‘busier’ but the essence should be left well alone. Also, they better not touch the challenge mode. To me, that constant need to shave split seconds off each manoeuvre around the map to get the fastest time was the biggest thrill.

    #5 1 year ago
  6. Max Payne

    @2 Hold A to run, Press A to jump, press A to mantle, press double A to roll.

    #6 1 year ago
  7. salarta

    “We need to always remind ourselves what the game is at its core so we don’t move away from that.”

    Nice to see a dev team think that way. Too bad many other great franchises have been ruined because of people deciding to radically change what IPs were meant to be just because they wanted to hop on what’s popular and consumers are too stupid to notice and acknowledge the good qualities those IPs had.

    #7 1 year ago
  8. Lloytron

    “We need to remain true to the original concept”

    3 months later;

    “New Zombie attack DLC, 1200 MS points”

    #8 1 year ago
  9. Buran

    How about making it about the actual “mirror’s edge” mentioned but almost never touched upon in the original? About being a free-running carrier pigeon undermining a totalitarian (but beautiful) city-state?

    #9 1 year ago
  10. karma

    The free running and first person view point are the key things that attracted most of us to the IP, so those things need to be focussed on and refined for the better, along with the controls. The sense of physicality in the game world and that candy, airy light aesthetic feel to the visuals and audio were also important I feel.

    I think going open world is the right call, but they need to focus less on the gunplay this time around. The trailer showed Faith using more hand to hand on bad guys and I think that is a much better fit. I don’t really see her as a killer. They need to focus more on the chase and urgency of getting from one place to another, while avoiding bad guys.

    #10 1 year ago
  11. vormison

    I am relieved to see that no one is jumping to conclusions.

    #11 1 year ago
  12. sg1974

    There were some things wrong with the first game?

    #12 1 year ago
  13. TheWulf

    I just hope they understand that everyone who played Mirror’s Edge almost Universally hated the combat, but loved the complexities of the free-running. If this is an Assassin’s Creed reboot, then that’s another IP I’ll be tossing to the side as having been raped past the point of recognition.

    That is my primary worry, right now. Assassin’s Creed: Sci-Fi Woman Edition.

    THAT SAID. Despite not liking the combat, I have to say that the first-person footage actually looks very promising. They haven’t turned it into a third-person game and for that alone I almost want to hug them. I’m getting quite sick of the trope that you can’t do a first person game unless you have a gun, a sword, or a spell in the hands of the player at all times.

    I’m also very glad that they haven’t objectified Faith. The very moment I saw Mirror’s Edge 2, that was the first fear that came to mind. I am very conscious of this sort of thing. You may not know me all that well, but suffice it to say, I’m a fairly open-minded person. I’m a transhumanist with socioethical leanings, as such, one of the things that tends to play on my mind is the very binary way we treat gender.

    The objectification makes it an almost cavalier, misogynist mockery of Us versus Them. It leaves a bad taste in my mouth. Too many games suffer with that and they become unplayable to me, because treating genders in such a binary way where they are NOT equal just gets me down.

    Lo and behold, though… they actually didn’t objectify Faith.

    So on the grounds of the first person mode and not having ruined the design of faith, they get hope points. I’m cautiously optimistic. I actually want to believe in them, here. Don’t let me down, DICE. Really, don’t fuck this up.

    #13 1 year ago
  14. sg1974

    I didn’t mind the combat at all. Liked the game so much I beat it twice – once on 360 then again on PS3.

    #14 1 year ago
  15. TheWulf

    @14

    I was mostly talking about the forced gunplay near the end of the game. I didn’t find that fun, and neither did most of the people I’ve spoken with.

    But then, I have a weird inclination when it comes to that. See, the more realistic a digital world is, the more it bothers me to harm people. The more I value ways of taking people down non-lethally. In Assassin’s Creed, for example, I hate killing, yet I’m forced to do it. So I don’t like those games automatically on that count.

    Yet in, say, Saints Row the Third, you have a different scenario. Everyone’s an arsehole and people actually seem to encourage you to kill them, everyone has this happy attitude about it, to the point of breaking the fourth wall and being aware. It’s very silly. They know they’re pretty much invulnerable NPCs, and they’ll just respawn time and again, anyway. But the more real something gets, the more unsettling it is.

    Mirror’s Edge fell on the unsettling side of real, for me. So I went through the game without killing anyone. I did close quarters as a distraction, sometimes, but I didn’t kill. Then I got to the end of the game, and I was forced to. That was a really bad experience for me and it left a sour taste in my mouth that just didn’t match the rest of the game I’d played. I was hoping that this was one of those unique games where I wouldn’t have to kill anyone. I love those games.

    So, yeah.

    #15 1 year ago
  16. sg1974

    @15 Interesting comments. I mean, really interesting.

    #16 1 year ago
  17. fuchikoma

    Still looks like you’ll be doing plenty of hand-to-hand combat against guys with guns standing across the room and upstairs from you. That was what killed it for me. I was so hyped for ME1, until I got the demo and it dropped me into a kill closet. Even when I wasn’t boxed in, I was running on rails. It was really dumb gating the non-fighting(?) mode demo to preorderers since I’d never order the game without trying that mode.

    Ah well, if it’s successful this time, hopefully someone will make a parkour game with free exploration that isn’t just a first person shooter where you don’t get to shoot back. Exploration and traversal in this world look like they’d be really fun, but ME1 really didn’t allow for that since you were always running like your hair was on fire to avoid getting shot full of holes.

    #17 1 year ago
  18. TheWulf

    Yeah, the kill closets were what bothered me.

    Anyone who’s seen me commenting around here knows that I am very much a proponent of player choice. I tend to be rubbed the wrong way when a game suddenly takes choice out of my hands and presents only one course of action. There should always be multiples.

    I suppose this is why I was happy with the ending of Mass Effect 3, in contrast to other people. I was dreading the Star Wars ending it might have had.

    Hey, you just killed the Reapers. Which basically means that you’re the most horrible arsonist of all time, since that’s cultural knowledge we’ll never get back. But hey, you saved us, sure! Have an award ceremony thing. Yeah!

    I had this feeling of creeping dread that they were going to end Mass Effect 3 that way. Slaughtering Reapers started bothering me when I learned that they contain the cultural worth of the civilisations which were harvested to create them. That rumbled around in the back of my mind and I was genuinely bothered by the prospect of having a braindead, popcorn ending of just killin’ shit.

    So, finding out that there were two different ways in which I could both remove the Reaper threat whilst saving the Reapers at the same time was a delight. The Destroy option was still there for the popcorn-munchers, but they gave me something I hadn’t expected. I was very surprised.

    There should always, always be at least two ways of doing something. I genuinely think it’s bad game design in a game that’s centred around having any freedom at all to lock people into just one path. Mirror’s Edge, through most of the game, offered an array of choice as to how you could deal with threats. Then near the end of the game they started dropping you into those aforementioned ‘kill closets.’

    Deus Ex did the same thing much with bosses.

    It’s just bad game design.

    I hope that when they say that they’ve learned things from Mirror’s Edge 1, that they’re talking about that, because they should be.

    #18 1 year ago
  19. Beepluck

    I’ve played throug Mirror’s Edge several times and at least once without killing anybody (and I’ve got the achievement to prove it) so it’s certainly possible.

    However, I see where you’re coming from and agree about the importance of choice. An open world approach as has been mentioned in connection with the reboot sounds interesting.

    #19 1 year ago
  20. blindside

    Leaving remarks in forums is certainly not typical of me, although I do enjoy reading what people have to say. But this game compelled me to say a few things about it. I’ve looked at the cover of this game numerous times at the store, and for whatever reason skipped past it. It was not until this year that I came across some music that really caught my attention, it was the theme music for mirrors edge. I went out and rented it, and I was very impressed. Yes, the game was not perfect, it needed some work. But for me personally the look and feel of this game got me hook, line and sinker. The biggest attraction to this game is the art, the characters and the storyline. At the start of 2014 I think most all of us can look at this plot line and wonder how far off our future could be to this? Yes that statement may sound far fetched, but it’s really refreshing to see a game like this start to make people look around them and notice how things are changing right under their nose. If there is one thing I hope for in the next mirrors edge it will be to stay true to the storyline and characters, people will connect and relate to this. I have no doubt that the rest of the games “wrinkles” will be ironed out quite nicely. Hats off to all involved, this is the kind of game that truly is unique and will stand above the rest. Ill be waiting patiently …

    #20 10 months ago

Comments are now closed on this article.