In my experience the final combat encounter is the only one in the original game that's mandatory.
Making the statement that you can get through the entire game without a combat encounter untrue.
In my experience the final combat encounter is the only one in the original game that's mandatory.
Graphics on PC were pretty amazing to me, and the controls were novel and exciting.
Tell me more about what "I remember" of a game that's one of the only non-Mario 3D platformers with depth.
No way man. It was true, in theory, in as far as killing enemies wasn't required to unlock progress, but you try running past all those armed guards towards the end of the game without getting shot to shit? No chance.Doubtful
You could beat the entire first game without engaging in combat even once
Is that true of catalyst?
Their loss. In spite of the mediocre scores, it was still one of the best games last gen, IMHO.5 points is not "much worse". I imagine a lot of people would write off both games if they're the type to avoid anything with a 7 in its score unless that 7 comes after a 9 and a decimal point.
The first one had no characters or storyline. You can unlock all of the movement upgrades in just over an hour. I'm not excusing these as positives, simply saying that it's a negligible difference. The first game shined in time trials and learning the intricacies of the movement and finding new paths. From my time with the sequel that will remain true. Everyone that was hoping for a markedly different game will be disappointed, but I for one have loved what I played so far.Weak characters/storyline and locked moves will always bring it down a couple of notches imo.
Well said. EA has gone on record saying Catalyst is to remain true to the original's spirit. I would say they've achieved just that, going by the reviews thus far.The first one had no characters or storyline. You can unlock all of the movement upgrades in just over an hour. I'm not excusing these as positives, simply saying that it's a negligible difference. The first game shined in time trials and learning the intricacies of the movement and finding new paths. From my time with the sequel that will remain true. Everyone that was hoping for a markedly different game will be disappointed, but I for one have loved what I played so far.
Mirror's Edge Catalyst makes some major missteps in the story and character department, but hey, that's what the mute button is for.
More important is that when the action is go and Faith is in full stride, Mirror's Edge Catalyst is as thrilling and sure-footed as they come.
Definitely enjoying my time with it. Reviews are all pretty accurate but I'm having a great time in here.
I love the transitions between areas of the city. Running throughwas a real treat, seeing what life looks like for them when you're a dirty roofrat.the empty sections of the city where the regular people hang out, like cafes or shops
Anyway, I like it. It's got flaws and they're very real ones, but I don't regret getting it at all.
But what if its 1st game 93, 2nd game 85?So...you...proved his point? Ok.
Oh that's in the game?! I'm sold now. That was one of my worries with the game. I knew it was open world, but I didn't want to be just a bigger area of the beta. Awesome!
All I want to know at this point is whether or not the OST is worth picking up.
They seem to have believed the problem with the combat revolved around the guns, and not the combat encounters themselves.Most reviews seem to affirm my fears of the game being open world. Glad to see praise for the platforming still being strong, that's what I'll pick the game up to have fun with. If that's all I'll get from it I still think I'll have a good time.
Edit: What makes me most suspicious is some comments about more terribly bad and forced combat sessions. Those ground the first game to an absolute halt at a couple of points and if they're making a return I just don't understand how Dice can make that mistake again. It sounds mind boggling. Will have to see it for myself.
I like it a lot and the CHVRCHES song is surprisingly decent.
No way man. It was true, in theory, in as far as killing enemies wasn't required to unlock progress, but you try running past all those armed guards towards the end of the game without getting shot to shit? No chance.
Mirror's Edge 2008 79 on X360.
Mirror's Edge Catalyst 74 on XONE.
5 points is not "much worse". I imagine a lot of people would write off both games if they're the type to avoid anything with a 7 in its score unless that 7 comes after a 9 and a decimal point.
There was an achievement for it. I have it. And I didn't play on easy, either.
I don't know where the idea is coming from that the first Mirror's Edge got reviews that were just as mixed as Catalyst. That simply isn't the truth.
http://www.metacritic.com/game/playstation-3/mirrors-edge-2008
http://www.metacritic.com/game/playstation-4/mirrors-edge-catalyst
The first Mirror's Edge is at a 79 on Metacritic. That's a full 9 points higher than Catalyst. Catalyst also only has 17 reviews in, and generally scores tend to drop a bit as more reviews come in.
By any measurement, the reviews have been a disappointment thus far.
The achievement is for not shooting anybody, you're free to engage them with melee or disarming them to get it
How many hours is this?
To be honest, I prefer them making kind of unique games for different audiences rather than generic boring AAA to cater to everyone and not paying so much attention to metacritic.
Except they don't. EA are trying to make unique games which are also AAA, appeal to everybody and do well on metacritic.
This, mass effect 3, dead space 3, dragon age inquisition... All games they messed up trying to make them bigger than they really are.
I agree it is still better than what Ubisoft does, but the bar is pretty darn low.
The main story is alarmingly short. But there are many side missions/characters to get work from.
If you just book it through the main story, I think I hear 6 hours as the quoted number. Granted, I've had it since Friday and put around twice that into the game so far.