icon to pop-up a window with pricing information.
 |
 |
|
Mirror's Edge is so far from being a $60 product. Shame on EA.
By jer7583 11-07-2008 11:08 PM
|
1771 views |
|
You know that Mirror's Edge game, with that girl who's doing those things and it makes you all dizzy and looks slick and makes you say, wow, that looks fresh and cool? Yeah, that one with the girl with the hip tattoos and the calm, but exciting music?
I would like to play that game, but never for the price being demanded of it. $60? Really? Early reports put the game's length at 6 hours. However, relativity, not brevity is my complaint here. Playing the demo, I had two expectations for satisfaction in playing Mirror's Edge. That it be less than $30, and also that it be over in 3 hours. Like a good movie, right? The problem is that Mirror's Edge's formula has a huge amount of inherant fatigue built into it. I really felt that the demo would make a great game that lasted only a few hours, consisted only of the teams best concieved and excecuted upon ideas, and left a lasting impression with the player. A lot like portal did last year. But that would NEVER happen. The game most likely was padded out to at least 8 or so hours as it seems to be the bare minimum you can put in a game at $60 and not have the press give you a hard time for it. Mirror's Edge's problems seem to parallel another hit from last year, Assassin's Creed. Assassin's Creed was understood to be a solid and unique game that had lots and lots of repetition and tedious goals added to fill out the game. One would hope that EA would learn from Valve's success with Portal and the demand for shorter, more distilled, more affordable, higher quality games. I guess they never learn. I'll look forward to Mirror's Edge sometime around April/June next year when the stacks of used copies at ShameStop have hit $25 or so. A $30 disc with DLC that added the Time Trial stuff (Which I have zero interest in) would have been great. Nobody keeps games anymore.. Must have been 100 total copies of MGS4 and GTA4 on the shelves at one I went to the other day.. but that's another rant, for another day. |
 Comments (Total Comments: 24) |
|
|
Blackout
- 11-07-2008, 11:24 PM
|
I'm going to wait until it drops to $30-40 until I buy it. I can't be buying every 60 buck game left and right.
|
|
oscargrouch
- 11-07-2008, 11:28 PM
|
Yeah totally agreeing with your take on Mirror's Edge. I would consider picking it up when it hits half price or less. This is not a day one pickup just like MGS4.
Speaking of MGS4 since every Gamestop has 40 of them, you would think they would knock down the used price and try to move some. |
|
paintball745
- 11-07-2008, 11:39 PM
|
|
yeah i just played the demo today and was a little underwhelmed to say the best. i will probably wait for a price drop/good sale as well.
|
|
Monsta Mack
- 11-07-2008, 11:51 PM
|
Yeah the demo was very unimpressive. I think my wife would murder me in my sleep if I spent $60 on a game that was trying to play itself out as Prince of Persia/gymnastics but in first person mood and extremely boring. Yikes, what a horrible demo.
|
|
BlueSwim
- 11-07-2008, 11:54 PM
Updated 11-08-2008 at 02:59 PM by BlueSwim |
You have to give EA credit for taking some chances with their games as of late, like Dead Space and Mirror's Edge, for example. It's uncharacteristic of EA to take a huge chance on not one, but two new IPs in the same holiday season.
That being said, $60 for a 6 hour single player mode is way too much. That very reason is why I never picked up COD4 even with the awesome reviews it got. The single player mode is the one truly timeless mode in a game. Online is great while it lasts, but when people move on to the next big thing, the single player mode is all you're left with. |
|
necrojustice
- 11-08-2008, 10:19 AM
|
|
I loved the demo. I must've played it 4-5 times...
Blueswim, you can say what you do about COD4's multiplayer because you clearly haven't tried it. |
|
GuilewasNK
- 11-08-2008, 12:24 PM
|
OP, I'm not sure how you formed that opinion based on a short demo.
Also, price should never be a determining factor in whether a person thinks a game is good or worthy of playing. The gameplay remains the same regardless of pricepoint. If you don't want to pay that that is fine, but when development costs can hit over $10 million on current hardware (non-Live arcade titles) and when you consider that new IP is a risky venture, EA or any other company would be foolish to release a title under $60 right off the bat. Also, the demand for shorter game experiences is the entire point of Live Arcade. In regards to COD4, if you didn't pick it up due to the report that it is short, you did yourself a disservice. That is one of the most overrated complaints about videogames that there is. |
|
BlueSwim
- 11-08-2008, 12:28 PM
Updated 11-08-2008 at 12:43 PM by BlueSwim |
|
@necrofustice - Did you even read my comment? I don't think you did as your post doesn't even sync with what I said. You're right, however. I haven't played COD4's online multiplayer. But what I'm talking about is a time from now, maybe a few years, when the "NEXT BIG THING!!!" in online play has hit and people stop playing COD4 online in favor of the new thing. Can't find a match? Know what that means you're left with?
 The single player mode, as I said in my last comment. I wasn't bashing COD4's online play at all, I'm bashing how the online community dies for older games when something new and better comes along. Understand now? @GuilewasNK - I do want to play it as I LOVED COD2's single player. But $60 is too much for 6 hours. Plus, I don't have the $100 Wi-Fi adapter for the 360(which I need due to my set-up) meaning online play isn't a factor in anything I buy for it. I'd rather pay $30 more and get a new DS instead of that overpriced adapter.  |
|
necrojustice
- 11-08-2008, 01:30 PM
|
|
By that theory you should never buy a game that has multiplayer. Or anything ever.
|
|
Cleaner7
- 11-08-2008, 01:58 PM
Updated 11-08-2008 at 11:01 PM by Cleaner7 |
Personally, I thought the demo was awesome. The first time through it was a learning experience but once I realized what I was supposed to do I played the level again and it was so fun! Learning which path is the fastest is pretty cool.
Now I understand that this game is not for everyone, but "Shame on EA"? Come on! That is just unfair and sounds like a personal bias against EA. I'm actually applauding them for publishing new IPs lately such as Dead Space and Mirrors Edge. They are both fresh games. It's obviously up to the individual to decide if a game is worth $60 and you've made your decision, which I respect, but to shame EA is just ridiculous. Also, it's not DICE/EA's fault that you aren't going to utilize the Time Trial Mode they've included (again, your choice). That's where most gamers will get their money's worth. Actually, it kind of reminds me of old school gaming. Back then, games were always short and many were quarter munchers, but that didn't stop people from playing them. The joy and challenge came from trying to beat the/your top score and it's no different here. Edit: I forgot to say that BlueSwim's attitudes about COD4 are alarming. All multiplayer games have the risk of the audience moving on to a newer game, but as COD4 has proven, that hasn't been the case for itself. If anything, COD, Halo, and Gears of War should be the proven exceptions. |
PenguinMaster
- 11-08-2008, 02:03 PM
|
I personally loved the demo and I judge how much a game is worth based on it's quality, not it's length. If a game is truly great I will play it over and over again. Therefore I will spend a lot more time playing a short great game than a long good one.
Most of my favorite games have been less than 6 hours, most long games tend to have worse level design because they have to a lot more so they spend much less time on any individual part. That being said, no game is worth $60. But this is one of the few game I may buy for around $40 this fall/winter; it quite possibly could be the only game I spend around $40 on. |
|
BlueSwim
- 11-08-2008, 02:33 PM
Updated 11-08-2008 at 03:07 PM by BlueSwim |
|
@necrojustice - You. Don't. Get. It. If you buy a game because of the single player and it turns out to have a great multiplayer mode, FANTASTIC! But if all you buy it for is the multiplayer, you're screwed when people move on to something else. There are only about 2,000 people, down from well over 50,000, playing Halo 2 online now, just one year after Halo 3 launched. Imagine two years from now.
Games like God of War, Oblivion and Shadow of the Colossus can be played and enjoyed 10 years from now because the focus is on the single player exclusively. Sooner or later, the servers for all the popular games this generation will be turned off after they start to cost more to keep running than they make. What then? If you buy a game JUST for the single player, any enjoyment you get out of the online multiplayer is a bonus. I don't trade games in when I finish them solely so I can replay them at some point. Home console games with online multiplayer as the main focus can't be enjoyed at that level again after the servers go dark. You aren't wrong, a bad person or whatever to buy a game for online multiplayer. Kicking somebody's ass online is a rush, but you can't tell me that those online-focused games are timeless games that can be enjoyed generations from now like Super Mario Bros. 3 and Zelda: A Link to the Past can. |
|
Irukandji
- 11-08-2008, 03:48 PM
|
any game that lasts less than 10 hours is called a "gamefly" game. unless it's a game you can play through several times while still being entertained, effectively making a 10 hour game a 30-40 hour game.
|
|
PenguinMaster
- 11-08-2008, 05:09 PM
|
|
@BlueSwim - A discussion of a multiplayer game losing it's community in a year or two (or 4 in your example) is totally irrelevant in a topic about price. By the time the multiplayer has diminished the game will be a fraction of it's original price. If you're primarily concerned with long-term enjoyment you should always wait for the game to drop in price.
|
|
johnnypark
- 11-08-2008, 06:12 PM
|
Demo was great. I look forward to getting this for less than $30.
|
|
BlueSwim
- 11-08-2008, 07:04 PM
|
|
@PenguinMaster - My comment wasn't a price-based complaint. It was a general statement. I'm saying too many game developers these days put so much effort into the online modes that the single player mode, the timeless gameplay I was talking about, becomes an afterthought. The single player is the timeless legacy for a game. The thing that can still be experienced long after the servers are taken down. This isn't something I'm saying only about COD4, it's a statement on the industry as a whole.
 P.S. Thank you for capitalizing my name right. Not many do.I've got the Mirror's Edge demo downloading now. I'm really interested in seeing how it's done. I really like the concept, but it needs to immerse me before I'd consider buying it. |
|
ScallionN
- 11-08-2008, 09:14 PM
|
|
Guys, the game isn't out yet. We don't know how long it is. The demo, while short, is fun, and you can get a lot out of it if you're a perfectionist. While I don't think it's $60 worth of a game, I don't really think *any* title is worth that much money,
|
|
aknowlesjr
- 11-08-2008, 09:57 PM
|
this is the kind of game that makes me want to subscribe to gamefly. dead space is another game. i like the demo, but i feel it is a rental and not a purchase.
|
|
BlueSwim
- 11-08-2008, 10:58 PM
|
|
Just finished the demo and I have to say, it impressed me. Not enough to buy it at full price if it's only 6 hours long. But I'm buying what it's selling. I will get it at some point.
|
|
gordojones88
- 11-08-2008, 11:31 PM
|
Wow, you're a spaz.
Don't buy it, don't play it, move along. In my opinion, EA has done a terrific job the last year. I thought MOH:A, Army of Two, Dead Space, and Mirror's Edge are all pretty good games with fresh ideas. I have motion sickness and will not be able to play Mirror's Edge. But I'm not going to scream and cry about it. Shame on you. |
|
|
| Recent Blog Entries by jer7583 |
|
