Opinion: How should Mirror's Edge be (re)viewed?

Mirror's Edge as certainly divided gamers this fall. One of the most hyped titles this holiday season, an innovative take on the first person genre, discarding the shooting for high speed environmental puzzles. A brave game, a game that must be seen as a perfect example of the "new EA", yet a flawed experience that has left many frustrated.

A few well respected gaming blogs have weighed in how the game has been reviewed - an interesting discussion that ultimately boils down to how games should be critiqued. Is it okay to call upon the developer to fix perceived flaws for the sequel? Are reviewers in general focusing too much on technical details and missing the bigger picture? Is innovation truly appreciated?

N'Gai Croal, of the Level Up blog, gave his take on the blogs written by Leigh Alexander (Sexy Videogameland), Ben Fritz (The Cut Scene), Keith Stuart (Games Blog). While Alexander and Stuart argue the fault lies with reviewers not seeing that bigger picture, Fritz maintains that DICE fails at painting that picture because the gameplay gets broken up and ends up in what amounts to trial-and-error.

Level Up takes the middle road saying that it's okay to praise a game for innovation while at the same time raising issues with the execution. A position I think everyone would agree on. However, this is where things get complicated in the world of video game reviews. This is where the score enters. With the emergence of metacritic and gamerankings, not just valuable tools for gathering information, but as the basis for bonuses and second only to sales the most important measure of success - the question is how to score a flawed game that you still consider a milestone for its innovative qualities.

Mirror's Edge received mainly positive marks amongst Gamereactor's reviewers (a 6 in Denmark, and three 8's in Finland, Norway and Sweden), while a second opinion in Norway by editor-in-chief Jon Cato Lorentzen (5/10) stuck out. An EA PR rep told me: "That's just wrong!" But is it? Jon Cato echoed an opinion shared by many (such as the reputable UK magazine Edge), and a bunch of frustrated players who downloaded the demo and opted not to buy the full game. He is entitled to his opinion, while personally I disagree with it. Others have scored the game more generously A- at 1UP, 9.5/10 in the Official Xbox Magazine and 8.5/10 at Kikizo. It currently has 80.3% (Xbox 360) and 79% (PS3) on Gamerankings. Not poor numbers by any means, but certainly not the kind of average that rockets sales into the stratosphere.

My personal take on Mirror's Edge is that it is probably going to be one of those games that opens up the eyes of many developers and game designers to the possibilities of the first person genre.

Keith Stuart went on to criticise one particular part of IGN's review:

"I found the IGN review particularly depressing. Not only does the writer suggest that the combat system could have done with an extra button (wha? Why?! Why add extra layers of complexity? Since when was that an artful response to anything?), but he ends with:

The ideas are there for a very cool experience, and I truly hope that a sequel is spawned, but this first attempt falls just a bit short.

Can you imagine, for a second, critics emerging from the press screening of Apocalypse Now, or The Magnificent Ambersons, or Bladerunner and proclaiming, 'yeah, it had some good ideas, but it wasn't perfect - I'll look forward to the sequel'. I suppose there's an argument that, as films are only ninety minutes long, we'll accept a more flawed experience, but are notions of quality really so tightly governed by longevity? I hope not. "

Are we not allowed to state what we would like to see fix for a possible sequel in a review? These days pre-production on sequels to huge projects like Mirror's Edge are usually well under way when the original ships. It may be a bit tough on the developers, but I think Keith is overreacting a bit. The thing about the extra button, however, is just idiotic. It also raises the question about game reviewers who longs to be game designers. I sometimes fall into that trap myself and it can be hard to avoid.

It is refreshing to see an action title taking a pacifist approach, and as you realise that the guns won't solve any of your problems you are forced to question a lot of what we have taken for granted in the genre. Just as Resident Evil and Silent Hill made us fear what we couldn't see because of the fixed camera positions, Mirror's Edge forces us to through the guns away to stay alive and the poor shooting mechanics forces the player to rethink how to tackle a situation he has faced a thousand times over in other first person shooters. Mirror's Edge forced me to think and that is something rare and something that should be applauded.

At the same time Mirror's Edge made me swear out loud more than any other game this generation. Forcing the player to think in new ways while putting him under deadly fire is not the most intelligent game design I have seen. I was also disappointed in the lacklustre story and storytelling. The story felt like a necessary evil and although the stereotypical and slightly ridiculous characters may have been something of a statement it just didn't connect with me. It didn't motivate me at all. I was motivated by the gameplay and the sense that I was improving and becoming a better runner. I was developing a runner's vision along the way. It's a hard game to score, I gave it a 4/5 on Swedish TV8 and I would towards a strong 7/10 or a weak 8/10 with our scoring system here at Gamereactor. But those are just numbers they are useless without the proper explanations.

Some reviewers have compared Mirror's Edge to Portal and I can see the similarities. But I would like to make a more abstract comparison for the case of this blog with Fahrenheit (US: Indigo Prophecy). While that game had nothing in common with Mirror's Edge in terms of gameplay or mechanics, it turned a lot of things upside down and had a lot of first both in terms of mechanics and themes - suffering form a poor last third in terms of the script, the pacing and the execution. Eventhough we haven't seen a lot of Fahrenheit clones (Heavy Rain will probably be the first true follow up) it has certainly influenced how games are being designed both inside the action adventure genre and outside of it. I hope that Mirror's Edge can do the same inspiring developers to come up with new ways to entertain us. I would love to see a multiplayer experience with the same kind of mechanics for movement and a better and more traditional shooting mechanic for example. I would also love to see a more forgiving game with the same kind of mechanics for movement, perhaps with more of a sandbox approach. I would mind it if the camera changed to third person every once in a while either showing off the spectacular stunts you pull. (Watch me go over the edge into the "wannabe game designer" abyss)

Similarly think of what a CSI game would be with the mechanics of Fahrenheit instead of the ancient and flawed gameplay recent efforts have provided us with. Shenmue may have had many shortcomings (I still gave it 10/10 back in the day), but it did a lot of things right as well and it's influence can be seen in countless games to a varying degree. Then there are games who don't innovate in terms of mechanics, but instead in terms of the experience such as Rez. Little did I know that I would still be playing United Game Artists' "short" little game more than six years later when I gave an embarrasing 8/10 in my review. It remains one of my favorite games to this day, and at that time I made the mistake of trying to be too objective. Sure it wasn't very long and the gameplay wasn't anything special. But very few games have managed to evoke the same intense experience in me as the fifth level of Rez. It's the kind of experience that cannot be properly quantified as a number between 1 and 10.

The shooting mechanics was the subject of an interesting discussion I had with one of GRTV's camera men over a pizza a week or so ago. Andreas (the camera man) is really fond of Mirror's Edge and defended every game design made by DICE ferociously with pizza crumbs flying all over the kitchen. I love to play the devil's advocate and did so this time as well. Andreas maintained that the shooting mechanics were realistic and that most people would miss their target when running and gunning with a gun they'd just picked up. No arguments there, but does the realism improve the game or does it only succeed in frustrating the average player. In truth I agree with Andreas that this is a good way of persuading the player to solve a certain problem in a different way... but trying to change the habits of hardcore gamers cemented by 100's of previously played games is certainly an exercise in futility. Or at the very least a very difficult task. It is hard to like a game that frustrates you and makes you feel like a poor gamer - it requires character and patience. Something all gamers and reviewers don't possess - and the reviews should naturally reflect this.

Mirror's Edge is going to hit you over the head a few times, especially in the beginning, as you try to unlearn what you have learned. And you're probably not going to like it very much at times. The question is does the feeling of accomplishment as you succeed compensate for the frustration as you try to find your way to the next part of the puzzle? Fable II is probably one of the least frustrating experiences I have had in recent years. You're served with honey coated pancakes and all the sugar you could possibly want. Still it manages to provide me with challenges on top of that. There is the option to go for whole grain. Its going to be more of a challenge for my digestive system, but ultimately it may be more rewarding. Perhaps that is the major flaw of Mirror's Edge that it forces the player into a corner on too many occasions. The same kind of options are often available it's just that you have to go through the somewhat tedious trial and error to find it out for yourself while in Fable II it's served on a plate. It asks something of the player he or she may not be willing to give.

Is there a danger of missing the forest for all the trees as N'Gai Croal puts it? Certainly. The danger of ascending in a helicopter and viewing the forest from above, while not seeing anything of what moves below the tree tops. Deducting points for a faltering framerate or lack of multiplayer (not related to Mirror's Edge - just an example), while at the same time giving the developer a pat on the back for an innovative approach may sound "stupid and/or contradictory". But someone needs to tell "stupid" gamers if they are going to like a certain game or not as well, and ultimately reviewing games is all about consistency and being true to yourself. People who tend to agree with you or at least consider your arguments valid (though the may come to a different conclusion), will be helped by your review, while a person looking for different answers than those that you provide will have to go elsewhere to find them.

If a game can evoke such different feelings and opinions it must be reflected in the reviews as well. Some may look at the forest from above, others may look at it face down among the roots - but they are both entitled to their opinions. And I would argue that it is important for both to be heard and seen. Ideally someone who disagrees with your opinion of a game, can read the review and come to the conclusion that he or she is going to enjoy a game the reviewers considers average or flawed. It takes good writing, but one day I'm sure we'll get there. In the meantime, let's have some Faith... and on a personal note I should make an effort to keep my rants shorter.

For more, check out my interview with producer Tom Farrer at the Mirror's Edge launch event in central Stockholm where he was given the chance to respond to some of the perceived shortcomings of the game. His answer were predictable, but I look forward to a thorough post mortem on Mirror's Edge in a not too distant future.