Mirror's Edge Another Trilogy

[DoctorFinger]

In news that I'm sure will surprise very few people, DICE senior producer Owen O'Brien has announced that their upcoming title Mirror's Edge will be a trilogy. The story we're telling at the moment is kind of a trilogy, a three-story arc. "For these first couple games, it's all about Faith. It's all about her experience in the worldDid I say trilogy? I meant at least a trilogy. DICE sees the world they're creating for Mirror's Edge as rich enough to sustain titles past the current heroine, Faith. He also said that they hope to include some sort of level editor in the sequel.

At this point I think game companies should just announce when a game isn't planned as a trilogy from the get go. Just to save some effort, you know.

Mirror's Edge will release on the Xbox 360 and PS3 on November 11th, with a PC release following later this winter.

Source - 1UP (http://www.1up.com/do/newsStory?cId=3170632).

[Young Al Capone]

Hmm, I guess that is good news. I mean, Mirror's Edge is an extremely anticipated game for me, but I would have really liked for it to be a self contained story. Hopefully this doesn't mean a cliff hanger ending, but instead a complete chapter that can stand by itself.

[digitalErich]

Attention game devs: you are not Peter Jackson. If your game plays well and is fun, sure, bring on the sequels.

But when I haven't even played the first game, don't try to sell me on some grand, sweeping story that needs multiple games to tell.

[DoctorFinger]

At least admit why you're doing this: because it costs so much to develop these engines, tools and assets that you need to use them in at least 2 games to insure that you make a profit on them.

[LongStepMantis]

At least admit why you're doing this: because it costs so much to develop these engines, tools and assets that you need to use them in at least 2 games to insure that you make a profit on them.

That's the thing. If the first game is good, well they're all set.
If it tanks...good job. You failed, and those that actually liked your game will never get to complete the entire story.

Reminds me of Too Human. I haven't played it and I know quite a few people like it, but with its bad reviews, will it really make it to a trilogy? Maybe. But the second entry had better be something really special after the bashing the first has taken.

I guess the era of good games earning sequels is just outdated.

[quidmonkey]

http://thecoolestanimals.com/wp-content/uploads/2007/10/funny_cow_pink_glasses.JPG

[Rock Bandit]

Stop declaring your new franchise a trilogy before the first game even hits the fucking shelves! (see: Rising, Advent)

[Wilkz07]

Bah, I'm sick of games coming out as part of a trilogy because:

a. you don't know if your character in the first game will carry over to the 2nd (i.e my lvl 50 too human beserker probably won't import to TH2)
b. lazy milking of a game. Keeps the game from having a finish forcing players to by each new disc
c. limits DLC - whatever the story planned out in advance is would have to be readjusted if new levels or content released to incorporate it into the story
d. EA just plain sucks.

I'll play the first one because it does look really cool but most likely not the rest of them

[National Kato]

At least admit why you're doing this: because it costs so much to develop these engines, tools and assets that you need to use them in at least 2 games to insure that you make a profit on them.

Exactly. With increasing game and media budgets, we've entered a world where the product no longer dictates whether a sequel or additional games will occur for an IP.

[Kryopsis]

a. you don't know if your character in the first game will carry over to the 2nd (i.e my lvl 50 too human beserker probably won't import to TH2)

Actually Silicon Knights confirmed that you will be able to import your character into Too Human 2.

b. lazy milking of a game. Keeps the game from having a finish forcing players to by each new disc
c. limits DLC - whatever the story planned out in advance is would have to be readjusted if new levels or content released to incorporate it into the story
Isn't DLC 'lazy milking of the game' too? Limiting it is only a good thing as it often prevents companies from releasing hasty add-ons instead of more meaningful additions to enrich the player's experience.

d. EA just plain sucks.
...

I have to agree with the rest of the gang in this case, however, as deciding whether or not a game should be a trilogy or a stand-alone product works better after getting the sales figures from the first project.

[Worldcrafter]

So, based on past trilogies, this will go one of two ways:

1) The other two will never come out

2) The dev/publisher is going to milk the franchise with a string of subpar sequels

Or we might get lucky and get some good games, but I have my doubts about something that feels like a cash grab.

[fitbabits]

Wow! The negativity in this thread is really harshing my melon!

[LongStepMantis]

Wow! The negativity in this thread is really harshing my melon!

You watched Encino Man the other day, didn't you? ;)

Wheezin the juice! Awooo!

[EternalGamer]

That will show the people that accused EA of being original. You think Mirror's Edge looked like a great original IP? Ha! They promised to release it at least 3 times until there can be no doubt any anyone's mind that it has become completely stale.

[AgtFox]

Wow! The negativity in this thread is really harshing my melon!
Honestly, I think the dearth of information post-E3 (where it garnered some Best of awards) has really brought the hype down on this game. It comes out during a busy time of game releases and may be relegated to the back burner on many gamer's lists no matter how cool it looks.

Much as I hate to say it, it might be a good idea for EA to push this game into early next year. They have a lot of games coming out before the end of the year and they may be stretching their properties thin with the avalanche of releases.

[LongStepMantis]

Honestly, I think the dearth of information post-E3 (where it garnered some Best of awards) has really brought the hype down on this game. It comes out during a busy time of game releases and may be relegated to the back burner on many gamer's lists no matter how cool it looks.

Much as I hate to say it, it might be a good idea for EA to push this game into early next year. They have a lot of games coming out before the end of the year and they may be stretching their properties thin with the avalanche of releases.

That's assuming that EA, of all companies, will postpone a title instead of making any kind of hype-based cash grab regardless of whether the game is bug-free or even completed...EA... ;)

I agree with your points, but I think we know them well enough by now. There will be no delays unless one of the bugs sets your house on fire...then I'd say it's 50/50.

[pseudopseudo]

I agree with all the other people - why not wait to see how the first game does before you go off announcing sequels?

I mean, if the game does well, more power to 'em. However, why not just hold back, so you don't end up with massive egg on your face?

EDIT: I wish the "real" reason for this was that they really, REALLY do believe that Mirror's Edge's world/characters/gameplay kicks so much ass that they feel the need to flesh the original game's story out with 2 more games. I highly doubt it, though. No company seems to think like that anymore.

[Scaryfaced]

That's assuming that EA, of all companies, will postpone a title instead of making any kind of hype-based cash grab regardless of whether the game is bug-free or even completed...EA... ;)

I agree with your points, but I think we know them well enough by now. There will be no delays unless one of the bugs sets your house on fire...then I'd say it's 50/50.

Now correct me if I'm wrong, but hasn't EA been doing exactly the opposite lately? Sure, they deserve the stigma of a money grubbing faceless corporation, they earned it over the last 5 years or so, but they've pretty responsible as of about a year ago. Pushing street dates back, dumping money on relatively unknown yet intersting IPs, etc. I'm pretty sure it was EA, anyway. I don't follow publishers very closely.
________
Universal Health Warehouse (http://uhwh.com/)

[Wilkz07]

Actually Silicon Knights confirmed that you will be able to import your character into Too Human 2.

Isn't DLC 'lazy milking of the game' too? Limiting it is only a good thing as it often prevents companies from releasing hasty add-ons instead of more meaningful additions to enrich the player's experience.



Sweet! I had not heard that Too Human 2 will import the characters. That's reason enough for me to play the next one (even if it is as glitchy as the first).

It depends on the DLC - the content for GRAW 2 adding new co-op sections and achievements is great. That is the only game I have all the extra content for and feel it was worth the $.... that and Rockband tracks.

[Johan]

At least admit why you're doing this: because it costs so much to develop these engines, tools and assets that you need to use them in at least 2 games to insure that you make a profit on them.

THIS sums it up. This is it.

[Young Al Capone]

Now correct me if I'm wrong, but hasn't EA been doing exactly the opposite lately? Sure, they deserve the stigma of a money grubbing faceless corporation, they earned it over the last 5 years or so, but they've pretty responsible as of about a year ago. Pushing street dates back, dumping money on relatively unknown yet intersting IPs, etc. I'm pretty sure it was EA, anyway. I don't follow publishers very closely.

This is true; while they have earned thier rep, the last couple of years have been quite better.

[AgtFox]

At least admit why you're doing this: because it costs so much to develop these engines, tools and assets that you need to use them in at least 2 games to insure that you make a profit on them.
Except word is the Mirror's Edge engine or assets from it will be used in the next Battlefield game that they're working on.

[Disgustipated]

We'll see, won't we? This game is this year's Assassin's Creed, but somehow I doubt it'll be quite as good.

Let's not count all of our eggs before they hatch, alright EA?

[Young Al Capone]

We'll see, won't we? This game is this year's Assassin's Creed, but somehow I doubt it'll be quite as good.

Let's not count all of our eggs before they hatch, alright EA?

Not as good as Assassin's Creed?!?

That would be such a huge dissapointment to me, as I thought Assassin's Creed was alright at best. For everything they did right they did something else totally wrong.

[Disgustipated]

Not as good as Assassin's Creed?!?

That would be such a huge dissapointment to me, as I thought Assassin's Creed was alright at best. For everything they did right they did something else totally wrong.

Mmm, Assassin's Creed was fantastic for about 65-70% of the game. It was gorgeous, fun, and killing people was excellent. The combat was also pretty damn good.

However, once it got repetitive, it dropped off sharply. By the end of the game I was ready for it to end - which it did, thankfully.

For you, Mirror's Edge may be much better than AC but for me... eh. :D

[MagGnome]

This is another EA title, along with Dead Space, that REALLY needs a sequel.

[Deadend]

Dear Game Companies,
When making a trilogy, please have all 3 games on the same hardware and engine... that way in the future if I ever decide to play the games again, they will feel consistent.

[KingGorilla]

I demand my second installment of Advent Rising.

[jeffbax]

I expect the game to be way better than Assassin's Creed. That said, I'd rather not have a trilogy... it makes the games so much less special that way making them a yearly $60.

[VerseD]

Why can't people just make one game these days? We're on Halo 3.5, Bioshock 2, and Mass Effect, Too Human, and Mirror's Edge all have trilogies.

[Squidbot]

So this is part of Ea's new strategy, to not recycle, right?

[MagGnome]

So this is part of Ea's new strategy, to not recycle, right?

Yeah, this is part of that original content/IP strategy.

Make new IP

Milk it 'til it's dead!

[JayVe]

Mmm, Assassin's Creed was fantastic for about 65-70% of the game. It was gorgeous, fun, and killing people was excellent. The combat was also pretty damn good.

However, once it got repetitive, it dropped off sharply.

I found Assassin's Creed very very very repetitive WAY before the 50% mark. The game consisted of a few basic missions you did again, and again, and again.

I sincerely hope Mirror's Edge is better than Assassin's Creed.

[Young Al Capone]

Mmm, Assassin's Creed was fantastic for about 65-70% of the game. It was gorgeous, fun, and killing people was excellent. The combat was also pretty damn good.

However, once it got repetitive, it dropped off sharply. By the end of the game I was ready for it to end - which it did, thankfully.

For you, Mirror's Edge may be much better than AC but for me... eh. :D

For everything they got right they did something else horribly wrong.

The movement was almost entirely automated, to the point that when I wanted to do a complicated movement he would just do whatever he wanted.

Same with the combat.

Otherwise it was just obtusely designed and difficult to play, it was as if the story prevented you from playing for the first quater of the game.

I enjoyed exploring and climbing towers, and did quite a few missions, but never finished it. It just didn't click with me, at all.