Comments on: PS3/360 Review: Mirror’s Edge

By: CallofDoody

CallofDoody — Fri, 28 Nov 2008 16:44:05 +0000

Hmm well, Dan’s Armoured Core 4 review said that the game would only be fun for harcore fans, and it still got 7.5. Chelse seems to think this game isnt fun on the first play, still got a 7. I really like the game, but if it isnt fun the first time i pick it up does it deserve a good score?

i mean i liked the game so, the score seems a little low. at least there was a clear explenation of why she gave the score.

By: Tomonoatmeal Cookigaki

Tomonoatmeal Cookigaki — Fri, 28 Nov 2008 16:25:11 +0000

Cookigaki is not confused. Cookigaki has played the game, but this is really not Cookigaki’s style of game. Cookigaki did not think game was as hard as Chelsea makes it sound, but Cookigaki did not play the whole way through because again this is not Cookigaki’s kind of game. Cookigaki looked at Destructoid review and it was an 8, so Cookigaki does not see your point. Cookigaki did not mean to sound too harsh, but Cookigaki just believes Chelsea gave undeserved lower score because Chelsea was not good at the game.

By: CallofDoody

CallofDoody — Fri, 28 Nov 2008 16:12:57 +0000

Interesting review. I dont agree w/ the score, but you really nailed some of the problems w/ the game.

By: Chelsea Thompson

Chelsea Thompson — Wed, 26 Nov 2008 19:46:30 +0000

Cookigaki, I definitely understand why you got this impression from the review. However, from the sound of your comment it seems you have yet to play the game yourself, so maybe you’re a little confused about some of the things I said. Let me clarify a bit on this:

My point is, no game should be that painful on the first run though. The replayability is what makes this game shine, however I don’t feel as if that is what should sell a game. A well-designed game is fun whether it is your first playthrough or you 37th. The whole game is based on the flow of parkouring, and for the flow of the game to be constantly broken up puts a dent both the playability and the artistic value of the game.

As for me not understanding things that weren’t immediately obvious, of course I admit to that: it’s part of what made the game so frustrating. My point here is simply that because of this, you spend more of your first playthrough getting shot or falling off buildings than actually playing the game properly. Not terribly enjoyable.

Before writing this review, I contacted several friends who had also played through the game (to make sure I wasn’t just horrible, haha). If you look at Destructoid’s review, they find similar problems. Everyone I know who has played this game had a lot of difficulty on their first play through.

Thanks for the feedback though. If you guys have any other questions, I’d love to answer them for you :)

By: SeasonedSalt

SeasonedSalt — Wed, 26 Nov 2008 17:24:37 +0000

This review is embarrassing.

By: Tomonoatmeal Cookigaki

Tomonoatmeal Cookigaki — Wed, 26 Nov 2008 15:09:54 +0000

Cookigaki does not like this review. Reviewer basically says “Chelsea don’t get it. Chelsea have to figure things out and it wasn’t immediately obvious so the game is not good. Then after it is beaten it Chelsea knows more what to do in time trial so it was more fun.” There is proof in this when Chelsea says that the demo levels went fast and were fun but then the first levels were not fun because Chelsea didn’t already play them and know what to do. Then the speed run was fun because Chelsea already knew what to do. It is still trial and error, but the trial part was already done during story mode. Replaying story mode would also probably be fun, but Chelsea doesn’t seem to realize what this review says.

Cookigaki does not want to read poor reviews from this person. No more, please.

By: Beau Rosser

Beau Rosser — Wed, 26 Nov 2008 04:40:04 +0000

This is my Game of the Year.

For serious.