Silent Biohazard Solid:

But what if I felt like playing those exact mechanics but in a modern setting, with a fresh new storyline? Suddenly that game is just another PoP clone, and not something new and interesting, simply because it's got similar gameplay mechanics.

Actually, I haven't ever seen sliding under pipes and climbing over fences in Prince of Persia. Climbing over fences is GTA, The Warriors and Splinter Cell. Not Prince of Persia. In fact, the only things Mirror's Edge copied from PoP is jumping onto ledges. And if you want a game that doesn't copy grabbing onto ledges, then, uhh. I seriously don't know what to put here.

Novajam:

Also it seems like a step forward. If more first person games rendered your own body you could do some cool stuff (see your character get stuff out of pockets, button shirts, whatever).

Like uhh, Alone in the Dark? Hmm...

[Please Delete This]

Silent Biohazard Solid:
I don't understand this whole big deal with "innovation" these days. It seems like a game is considered crappy if there's nothing new, ingenious and innovative about it.

I think that's just stupid. I mean, if I want to play a game like Prince of Persia, like, exploring dungeons, and mountains, and all kinds of ancient, exotic locations.
But what if I felt like playing those exact mechanics but in a modern setting, with a fresh new storyline? Suddenly that game is just another PoP clone, and not something new and interesting, simply because it's got similar gameplay mechanics.
Frankly, I'd rather play a bunch of games with different settings and storylines and same tried and tested, solid gameplay mechanics, rather than play something 'new and innovative' just because it's different, even if it could very well end up being an uncomfortable experience.

"exploring dungeons, and mountains, and all kinds of ancient, exotic locations" Is not something pop made up. But there is a difference between using old mechanics and "ripping off". Take for example okami. It is a zelda clone, but still feels fresh and creative.

Im not saying that mirrors edge should be in fp just for innovations sake, at least I dont think of it that way. It looks more immersive and fun this way imo, and not just "different". Im not saying that third person games cant feel immersive (like the rooftop parts in beyond good and evil), but either way Im eager to try out this game and see how it plays like.

Fraught:

Silent Biohazard Solid:

But what if I felt like playing those exact mechanics but in a modern setting, with a fresh new storyline? Suddenly that game is just another PoP clone, and not something new and interesting, simply because it's got similar gameplay mechanics.

Actually, I haven't ever seen sliding under pipes and climbing over fences in Prince of Persia. Climbing over fences is GTA, The Warriors and Splinter Cell. Not Prince of Persia. In fact, the only things Mirror's Edge copied from PoP is jumping onto ledges. And if you want a game that doesn't copy grabbing onto ledges, then, uhh. I seriously don't know what to put here.

Well, that wasn't exactly my point. I'm just saying that sometimes it's not such a bad thing to play a game with the same mechanics, but different setting and storyline.

But okay, let's say Mirror's Edge was made in third person. If the only thing it has in common with PoP is grabbing onto ledges, then nobody would call it a clone anyway.

I have mixed feelings about mirror's edge.

On the one hand, I think I'd love it more if it was third person, as I'm a fan of third person "parkour" type games (i.e: Assassin's Creed)... On the other hand, the first person view on a game mostly about moving around does seem innovative and capable of more effectively simulating "first hand experience" as a result.

I think it can go either ways really, it all depends on how it's done, but it seems to have the potential to be truly epic.

Silent Biohazard Solid:
Well, that wasn't exactly my point. I'm just saying that sometimes it's not such a bad thing to play a game with the same mechanics, but different setting and storyline.

Look, this was made by DICE, the people behind the Battlefield series, not Prince of Persia. If anything, the first-person perspective is pretty much the "same mechanics" that they've worked with in the past. And hey, different story, different setting! See how that works out?

I've always argued that first person games make it impossible to have the same level of control over a character and its interaction with the environment. Imagine Devil may Cry in first person: Not only do you not see 90% of the stylish movies you make which is the game's selling point, but it becomes impossible to coordinate your moves to target the enemies accurately, and you're guaranteed to get hit in the back because you can't see what's going on behind you.

Mirror's Edge, or at least the idea behind it, is a brave attempt at changing that, by adding a dimension of bodily-kinetic awareness. They're trying to introduce an accurate sense of the player character's body's presence in the world. I don't really know how it's supposed to work or if it will, but I like the idea. If it works it could make immersion and playability not mutually exclusive.

Eiseman:

Silent Biohazard Solid:
Well, that wasn't exactly my point. I'm just saying that sometimes it's not such a bad thing to play a game with the same mechanics, but different setting and storyline.

Look, this was made by DICE, the people behind the Battlefield series, not Prince of Persia. If anything, the first-person perspective is pretty much the "same mechanics" that they've worked with in the past. And hey, different story, different setting! See how that works out?

Well, that's all good and fun. So if you like Battlefield, I'm sure you'll have tons of fun with it.

Personally, the first person aspect of this game, turned me off from checking it out. If there's a demo on PSN, I'll give it a try. Otherwise, I won't bother.
Had it been third person, I'd probably buy it without even trying the demo.

I have sick feeling soon after this gets released, that we're gunna see a small influx of accidental suicides from little kids trying to impresonate this stuff.

Syphonz:
I have sick feeling soon after this gets released, that we're gunna see a small influx of accidental suicides from little kids trying to impresonate this stuff.

Would that be so bad though? Natural selection at it's best.

The only problem would be that we'd get about a 2 months period of time of "Jack Thompson clones", then it would die down again.

Syphonz:
I don't feel like discussing.

Well that was stupid.

Anyway I guess it would give a closer feeling to the action. In assassins creed if you saw the stabbings in first person it would be more personal.

Since you're o stabbing people I think it a good idea, for combat if nothing else.

Jack Thompson couldn't scratch the reputation of the gaming industry. So I don't think his clones are even worth worrying about.

I do understnad what you mean. Fun>Inivation. But whos to say this game won't be fun? The first-person prospective is MENT to add to the game, not take away from it. I can imagine it being very intense and challenging. That adds to the fun for for me.

Without invation or experiments we'd still be playing nothing but 2D platformers. Even if its a fuck up, ME will leave an imprint or a lesson on the gaming scene, even if the message is "Don't, for gods sake, do platformers in first-person".

I mean, look at something like Spore. I found the game boring, but the actual technology and invation behind it is remarkable, and hopefully it will be reflected in later, better games.

...but you wouldn't feel as much like YOU are jumping across building gaps.
I usually don't like first person view in any game, but I have to admit they might just have made the right choice for this one.

SomeBritishDude:
I do understnad what you mean. Fun>Inivation. But whos to say this game won't be fun? The first-person prospective is MENT to add to the game, not take away from it. I can imagine it being very intense and challenging. That adds to the fun for for me.

Without invation or experiments we'd still be playing nothing but 2D platformers. Even if its a fuck up, ME will leave an imprint or a lesson on the gaming scene, even if the message is "Don't, for gods sake, do platformers in first-person".

I mean, look at something like Spore. I found the game boring, but the actual technology and invation behind it is remarkable, and hopefully it will be reflected in later, better games.

I'm just stating my personal opinion.

To me, games are interactive movies, so I prefer my games to give me a movie-like experience that I am in control of.
I'm not saying that there should be no first person games. But personally, they don't interest me. So I think this game would be better in 3rd person because it would have more appeal to me. Other people might have their own reasons. That's mine. It's why I'm not gonna get the game. I'm sure the developers and publishers aren't gonna grieve over the fact that I don't buy the game. But personally, I wish it was in 3rd person.

They did it so they could make the aiming more precise and so they could induce a sense of vertigo so while jumping across rooftops. Its the same thing with Condemed, if they made it into a third person game, all the fear and anxiety that comes with being attacked by homeless people (or in Mirrors Edge's case, the fear and anxiety of parkour).

yeah, I don't like the first person aspect of this game

I understand that that's the point

but It just doesn't appeal to me.

I would have hated Assassin's Creed if it were in First Person

Well, I guess this game is aimed at one certain demographic, which isolates a certain group of people.

Personally, the 1st person is what made the Chronicles of Riddick game. I loved the visceral feeling of the knife combat (the stealth kills specifically) and cutting to 3rd person really reinforced the idea that you are the character, while reminding you that you have a body attached to the camera (I really wished Fallout 3 would show a body when you look down, 'cause I hate the 'floating eye' feeling that I got from Oblivion) With some prudent level design and thorough playtesting, Mirror's Edge could be another game where I forget that I'm on a chair, and for a few hours, I'm *in* the game.

I'd really prefer it to be 3rd person. I think it would work so much better if you were able to see your surroundings, as well as your entire body to land jumps/grabs etc.

Apologies for the double post - browser lagged out, refreshed and it resent the post.

why first person? a little know thing called immersion maybe? not that anyone plays games for any other reason then to beat them anyway. It's not like we care whether or not we feel like we're part of the world. that's just pointless banter hindering our fun time.

You know what? People against first-person are not going to be swayed by this game, and people looking forward to this game are not going to be swayed by people who do not like first-person games. In other words, follow the advice of this poster.

thebobmaster:
You know what? People against first-person are not going to be swayed by this game, and people looking forward to this game are not going to be swayed by people who do not like first-person games. In other words, follow the advice of this poster.

well the whole point of a discussion is to have opposing sides. if we agreed to disagree this forum would be barren

"mirrors edge why first person?" moar liek: games in this genre why not first person?

OK, not rly an argument, but here's one: what if they just want to separate themselves from the rest of the genre? i'm not even aware of another game that does what mirrors edge proclaims to do, and if they pull it off, the developers names will go down in history.
another: the game play elements seem to rly on the perspective of the player for a more natural feel: it fades to black and white as you take damage, the route you want to take is highlighted red from the main characters experience, and the harder YOU try as a player, the better the character can move through the game. third person would make all these interesting ideas disappear.

I predict this game will be in the cheap bin at EB in droves buy the end of its first week of shelf life. E.A. will release it before its ready so it will be full of bugs and problems. Its clear from watching the video that it has 2 hours tops before running and jumping becomes old and you will be just wishing you could blow shit up. E.a. are also in debt to their eye balls this game has a lot of hype surrounding it they will need to cash in at some point even if dice say its not ready for release they wont listen.
But... I really hope I'm wrong and it actually Kicks ass.

This will also have sixaxis support for ps3

Anarchemitis:
Technically in a nutshell, First person makes animation devoid of having to animate the player character, simplifying renders and cutting down graphics demands. So yes, First person is a way of being lazy.

Not if your game has full body awareness, which Mirror's Edge does if you've checked the videos.

Won't people get sick?

Won't people get sick?

if your(you as in anyone)easily susceptible to vertigo and seasickness maybe.

Woe Is You:

Anarchemitis:
Technically in a nutshell, First person makes animation devoid of having to animate the player character, simplifying renders and cutting down graphics demands. So yes, First person is a way of being lazy.

Not if your game has full body awareness, which Mirror's Edge does if you've checked the videos.

I have.
Wide camera angle constraints to see a body and limbs is much less challenging than an entire person.

Look, if you dont want a first person game of this type then just dont buy it.
Theres a million other games in 3rd it's not like you're being deprived.

I for one am looking forward to a fresh game experience. I was bored with the survival
horror series until condemned came along. First person takes you into the game more than 3rd.
First person games let you suspend disbelieve for a little while and let you think that it is you
doing these feats.

3rd person on the other hand always feels like "playing with dolls" to me. Same goes for driving games.
Always have to be in first person.

But thats my personal choice

Anarchemitis:

I have.
Wide camera angle constraints to see a body and limbs is much less challenging than an entire person.

If you think that a single model is harder to achieve that 4 models (arms and legs) all working in sync to each other and the enviroment with detailed fingers then we'll have to agree to disagree. And the camera constraints should be pretty much to your field of vision.
I asume in the game you can move your "head" to look about. If you're talking about not being about to see behind you at all times then we're back to the "playing with dolls" experience for me.

I hope this raises the bar for first person games and in future all FPS are done with legs etc. The one thing that I hate about FPS is the "floating eyeball"

True harhol but it is incredibly special because its first person either i think the graphics are special and i think the developers wanted to create a viscereal viewpoint of them and one that doesent have the problems of dodgy camera angles and a character model in the way.

Anarchemitis: