davidh219

@burusu: I don't know where you come off saying it wasn't supposed to be a believable world. How do you know the designer's intentions? One of my favorite moments of the first game is when you're in an alley with a dumpster and a rat runs across your path. It was the first and maybe only time that the game truly acknowledges its world is real and and has normal problems like rats, even though the alley itself is clean as a whistle. The piles of wood and painting supplies kinda work to the same end. And then there's the fact that they put a narrative in this world, with characters that have lives you're supposed to care about. And the fact that there are no crazy scifi elements or absurdist twists on reality. Clearly they cared about believability somewhat, and when they cared is where the game shined and stuck out most to me. They wanted it to feel like a real city, on Earth, that could conceivably exist in the very near future. I think so, anyway. But they just didn't think about the little touches enough, and they wound up with an art style that was a little too one-note and shallow to really draw you in even if it does generally work pretty well on a strictly surface level.

I get the exact same good, tingly feelings from looking at the new game as I got from the old game, with none of the suspension of disbelief problems or any of the feelings that what I'm looking at is a little too flat and sparse to be visually interesting, which I definitely felt about some sections of the first game (especially rooftop sections where you were surrounded by a sea of faceless, washed out white buildings). All they did was add depth and character in order to push it a little closer to a realistic city. They found a very nice middle ground that still very much errs on the side of being unrealistically clean and minimalist. It's not some massive departure. For you to say it doesn't even look like Mirror's Edge anymore is the most hyperbolic nonsense I've heard in a very, very long time. It is instantly identifiable as Mirror's Edge. It still looks like no other game out there. I could show my girlfriend (who's only seen me play a little of the first game a couple times) some still screenshots and she would immediately know it's a Mirror's Edge sequel. If you don't like it, fine, but snap back to reality.

That's still the point though. Regardless of whether or not they're fun to do, they're still pointless and added in for the sake of the game being open world now. I'd rather they had much more elegant designed and bigger linear levels, rather than tacked on collectables.

First of all, nobody's forcing you to engage with the collectibles. Even linear games have collectibles. The first game had collectibles. I've played plenty of games that had collectibles and completely ignored that part and they were still great games. Whether or not a game has collectibles literally does not matter one bit, so stop trying to use it as some kind of proof of quality, because you know damn well it's not, you're just trolling. Stop.

Second, I love how you didn't respond at all to me explaining how the open world is not at all similar to a typical open world. If the design is just as elegant, which it definitely seems to be, how is it any different than the bigger linear levels you want? When does a "bigger linear level" become a small open world of interconnected branching paths? Is Demons Souls better than Dark Souls simply because it's split up into levels you have to load into from a hub, rather than being all connected together in a brilliant way? What parts are missing that you can't let go of? Loading screens? The inability to go backwards through places you've been without restarting a level from a menu? Do those things actually matter when it comes to how fun something is, or how well-designed it is?

Not only is the city essentially a bunch of high-quality levels stitched together into an impressive, dense whole ala Dark Souls 1, but you go into interiors for the story missions that are just like the linear levels from the first game, meaning you literally have nothing to complain about, which makes you come across as complaining just to complain. I seriously wonder how much footage of the game you've even seen. They made incredibly smart decisions and are being very true to the spirit of the first game.

The first Mirror's Edge is one of my favorite games of all time, and man do I not get where you're coming from at all. From what I saw in the unfinished and a couple other videos, this game seems incredible. I'm very excited for it. The most excited I've been for a game in a good long while.

I definitely do not agree that it looks generic now, simply because they threw the smallest amount of dirt and personality onto the city. It's still way cleaner than any other game world I can think of, and still very full of primary colors. Still incredibly distinct. That art style just has more depth and variety to it now. Those shots of original Mirror's Edge look pretty flat and lifeless in comparison. It was just too far in that direction to be a believable world, I think. It needed a little dirt and a little chaos. I honestly like the look of this city way, way more.

I also hate open-world games as a rule, but this isn't a typical open world at all, to the point where it's arguable if it even is open world, since it has more in common with Dark Souls than Assassin's Creed. It's not some huge, flat, empty expanse where you can run off in any direction. It's way smaller, denser, with very well-designed paths you have to navigate through to get from point A to B that may as well be levels, just sewn together. The design of the "open-world" seems just as dense and brilliant as the original game, but it's all connected. That's way more impressive. And this you're mad about? Makes no sense to me.

Not only is the level design you hold in such high regard still there for all intents and purposes, but because of this, now you don't have to bumble your way through the entire game and find true enjoyment only on subsequent runs; you can memorize the optimal paths through this small, interconnected city organically as you play, and get that satisfaction out of your first playthrough. This a brilliant decision for Mirror's Edge specifically, but it's also a step in the right direction for open-world design in general. We badly need variety in open-world games, and this is it. Embrace it.

Finally, as regards collectibles. I can think of no game where collectibles make more sense than Mirror's Edge. Climbing is a core part of the gameplay. Getting from point A to B quickly is a core part of the gameplay. That is the game. Do you not see how this could make things that suck in other games, like collectibles and time trials, actually...fun? No? Just me? Did you do the time trials in the original game? Did you collect all the messenger bags? Cause I did both of those things, and I'm not the type that normally cares about collectibles or time trial stuff. And it's not like you're being forced at gunpoint to engage with any of it, just play through the main missions. But personally, running packages from point A to B and figuring out the right sequence of moves to get to collectibles in a gorgeous, dense, hand-crafted city jungle gym sounds like heaven. If there were something in the game that randomly generated infinite delivery quests, I may never stop playing it. At every turn I feel they've made the smartest possible decision and I literally could not be happier.

I actually really like Geralt as a character, but I agree with the combat. I couldn't get into the game either. Idk. I think a lot of it has to do with having too much of the typical open-world design, which I find hard to like. I thought the fact that it was an RPG would make a difference since I like Elder Scrolls, but I guess it's just not enough like Elder Scrolls. The writing may be way better, but the world feels so much shallower. If it had tighter controls (less GTA, more Infamous), then I could maybe force myself to get into it, but as it is I don't think I'll be playing any more of it. Shame really. There are a lot of things I like about it and it seems like a quality product. I just hate the way it feels to actually play, and a typical open-world is much less interesting to me than smaller, denser, discreet levels would have been.

Sieglinde. She's like the only human in Lordran, and certainly the only one there by choice. She can't respawn after she dies, and yet shes stomping all over the place without a damn care, handling herself without a problem (after you free her from a golem anyway), and looking for her bumbling father who, despite being undead, has to constantly be helped out by you. She's fucking awesome. Don't get me wrong, Siegmeyer is a likable awesome dude who's probably a close second, but his daughter kicks major ass.

Laurentius is also a fucking stand up dude. Very much a, "too good for this world, too pure" type character.

@spoonman671: God forbid anybody wish there was something more complex going on with the main antagonist than, "yeah, they're ice zombies that just want to kill everyone and cause a zombie apocalypse." That worked for fantasy in the 50s-80s. In 2016 it's just lame, especially considering how much zombie apocalypse there already is floating around our pop culture. That's gotta be the villain in our one fantasy TV show now too?

They're just a giant contrivance that isn't necessary at all considering all that's going on with the human characters. I can think of few things less interesting than an unknowable race of beings that are just evil "because" to the point where they don't even talk or demand things, they just kill. No depth, no emotions, no complex motivations, no interesting interactions with the characters we know, and not even a cool origin story now. You could replace them with a meteor that will wipe out all life unless everyone in Westeros bands together to travel to the north and collectively power some anti-meteor artifact with sheer willpower and it would be essentially the same thing. Hell, the story would be more interesting if it was just some sort of natural disaster. Like if every 200 years winter spreads down from the north, killing everything in its wake, and now the northerners have to flee into southern lands and fight for their survival because of limited resources and that's where the motivation to fight for the throne comes from. Anyway, I digress. Point is, I think there are some very good, very obvious reasons for wanting to know more about the White Walkers considering they have yet to really justify their existence in the story for a lot of people.

Agree with others, White Walker reveal was terrible and disappointing. They go for five seasons without any real world-building/lore depth at all and then this is what they decide give us? Weird elf people (that are not given any depth or explanation) can make grenades, but instead have to make unstoppable army (that turns on them) to stop primitive men with axes from chopping their trees down. Really? That's your origin story for the biggest enemy in the show? Some green people who we don't know anything about were incompetent once? That's the shittiest origin ever. Would've been better left a mystery if that's the best you've got.

At this point, might as well not have the magic elements at all, the show would be so much better without them. We'll never get a satisfying explanation for any of it, they don't really mean anything or follow any internal logic; they'll just pop up to be a plot contrivance occasionally and annoy the crap out of me. Case in point, there's time travel/fate magic now, I guess? Why? Was that really a necessary addition to an already bloated "plot"? I mean, I'm usually not super into this show anyway, but even my girlfriend was down on this ep and that never happens because she is miss positivity. We were literally laughing at the Hodor reveal it was so dumb. Sorry to be such a party pooper, some people here really seem to get chafed and defensive about that (god knows why), but this show has gone full anime and I just had to vent. I know this show isn't really for me and I haven't popped in here to nitpick before, but this is just on another level. I hope that it continues to be a huge success though, so that some other fantasy book series that's more what I'm looking for can have a shot at big budget television someday. At least Tyrion is always fun and Arya's doing some cool stuff now (even if it is literally a repeat of her plot from before and not really progression per se), but man. This show...yeah...

http://www.giantbomb.com/videos/demo-derby-pizza-hut-disc-0/2300-9307/

31 minutes in.

This site is very helpful for finding super specific stuff like that: http://qlcrew.com/

Nope. And that extends to all media. Viewpoints that are opposite to my own or that I find abhorrent don't really bother me when they show up in artistic works. I've read short stories where the viewpoint character is racist as hell and didn't bat an eye. I read an entire trilogy of epic fantasy novels where the protagonist rapes women, lobotomizes priests with rusty nails, kills women and children, and once cut the unborn child out of the belly of his aunt. And it's some of my favorite epic fantasy of all time, lol. Fiction is such a safe place to explore other people's views that I find the idea of putting something down for the sole reason you disagree with its message or find it distasteful to be a little silly. The only reason I ever put something down is from boredom.

Obviously not everyone feels the same though, and that's totally okay. If you can't stomach something it's not like you can intellectualize your way out of it, I just happen not to have those gut emotional reactions for whatever reason. My heart is black and cold, I guess.

But...TNG was a "reboot." And Enterprise was incredibly decent. I'm okay with making sure we don't go 15 years without some kind of Star Trek show on TV, because I've yet to see evidence that Star Trek is "done." Of all the scifi shows I've seen, Star Trek is the most consistently culturally relevant one. And idk why you assume it'll be like the movies. Do you remember the old Star Trek movies? Weren't they also all way too action-ey, to the point where Picard was kind of out of character? That's just what happens with movies. TV has a smaller budget that they have to stretch over a longer running time, trust me it's not going to be an action romp explosion fest like the shitty Abrams movies. Your concerns are unfounded based on what we know so far, imo. TV Star Trek has yet to do wrong and I see nothing wrong with keeping the torch going as long as the quality is there.

Also Force Awakens was awesome. Legitimately the most fun I've had at a theater since 3D became a thing.

Same. Please fix this, it's destroying my eyes.

Windows 7 (64 bit)

Latest Chrome