VideoGamer: Mirror's Edge Review

There are times in Mirror's Edge when you'll be frustrated, replaying a section for the umpteenth time with no solution in sight, but persevere; Faith always has a way out - you just have to find it. Combine a thoroughly entertaining single-player campaign with a stunning and challenging time trial mode and you'll soon forget that you managed to run through the story in six hours or less. There's depth here that you'll only discover hours into time trialling a single stage. No other game released this year comes close to being as cool.

Read Full Story >>
The story is too old to be commented.
Final_Rpg3659d ago

"No other game released this year comes close to being as cool. " You telling me Sackboy isn't cool?

WIIIS13659d ago

There's a lot about Sackboy that's cute, but pray tell what is so cool about Sackboy?

running rampid3659d ago

definite buy for me. i love the demo.

Bangladesh3659d ago (Edited 3659d ago )

A 9 for a 6hr game with no multiplayer? I'd laugh in this reviewers face if he were standing here.

I buy 9's not rent them, and 6hrs is a rental so this game isn't a 9 to me anyway.

MK_Red3659d ago

Maybe that 6 hours is worth more than all those stupid mulitplayer games. Plus, the reviewer DID explain that the meat of the game is in time trial mode and other stuff.
Plus, multiplayer sucks. Singleplayer FTW!

BigPete79783659d ago

I will take a great single player game (regardless of length) over multiplayer any day of the week. I love a great storyline with great gameplay. Judging from the demo Mirror's Edge has definitely got that and it has caught my interest.

Bangladesh3659d ago

Hey, if you guys want to pay $10 an hour to experience this game go ahead. I'll bet most everyone else will pay $5 for 6 hrs though.

MK_Red3659d ago

Multiplayer is no different than having trail and other game extenders. If you're just talking about hours, the game has them and the reviewer very well said that time trial and other modes are well worth it and will be more than 6 hours.

Plus for someone like me who never touches multiplayer, this game is heaven.

BigPete7978, definitly agreed though IMO, any singleplayer > multiplayer.

Panthers3659d ago

I hate when companies spend a lot of time on multiplayer and ruin the single player. Mainly because I dont want all of my games to have multiplayer. I have Socom. That is all I need. I dont even play R2 multiplayer (although i will play the co-op)

+ Show (2) more repliesLast reply 3659d ago
Foxgod3659d ago

Nice, i generally do not have much faith in new game genre's
But this one actually seems to succeed in what it tried to be, something new.

titntin3659d ago

Whilst I love the game and what they are trying to do - 6 hours with no multiplayer precludes this from being a "9" on value for money alone.

Given the other high profile reviews recently, its quite plain to see that this site is way off the mark and is incredibly inconsistent with its scoring.

Still - I'd urge you to rent this, as its really satisfying while it lasts. I have the full game on 360 and just the demo for comparison on PS3, but it looks pretty much identical to me, so all games fans can enjoy this one..

thor3659d ago

Tintin you are simply pointing out a major flaw in the scoring system ITSELF. If the game is really, really fun then why shouldn't it get a 9 just because it doesn't have MP? It doesn't pretend to have MP. That's not what it offers.

On the other hand, let's say there's a game that DOES have MP but it gets an 8. This game is not as good for what it is, but it's more worth you putting money down for it because it's got that much more content. If you really like MP, this will be the better game. But as MP goes, it might not be the best.

With sites like metacritic and with fanboys (and just average people) taking the scores of reviews as gospel as to whether or not they should buy the game, I think the whole concept of a review score should be completely revised or scrapped.

No FanS Land3659d ago

Kudos for Dice beacuse they were able to make the game on both consoles identical + they used the UE3 engine and we all know the struggles with the engine on ps3. again, wow.

titntin3659d ago

@ thor - I understand what you are saying, but I think you miss the point I was trying to make.

Not having any multiplayer simply means that the game needs to be very engaging in single player to be considered 'value for money'. With the single player campaign being so short, that makes this title one of the most expensive I've ever played in terms of hours of fun per pound spent, and that should surely be a factor in any review?
If a full priced game offered the best thrill you'd ever had playing a game, but only lasted 30 minutes, would you think it warrented a 10?
I feel this game needed to be at least twice the length it is...

Swiftfox3659d ago

A good experience is a good experience, regardless of length.

How would you rate Fighting Games then. Matches only last an average of 2 or so minutes. What makes it worth it? The answer is fun.

Was it fun? It your personal response to the game that makes it of value to you. Wether or not a person has fun at a game is subjective and can not be scored, should not be scored.

How much fun you are having tells you how long you play the game, it tells you how much the game was worth really. Some people find fun in multiplayer, some find it in time trails, some find it in simply replaying the game. If you are not having fun, you stop playing the game.

If the game is fun not only is it worth every penny, but it's worth the 10 you personally give it. Graphics, sound, genre be darned, if it's fun then it doesn't matter.

titntin3659d ago


Your analogy of a fighting game is simply flawed. That a bout only lasts for minutes is absolutely true, but I still play good fighting games with my friends for years after they are released. They are the very definition of a multiplayer game, and as such, have many hundred of hours of entertainment in them.

This title doesn't. There is hardly any incentive to replay a level once you have completed it.

I can't disagree that the 6 hours it offers is fun, but I still contend that I expect much more entertainment for the entry cost involved.
If you are personally happy to pay £45 for 6 hours, thats completely up to you and more power to you. But many people will expect more for that amount of money. The value for money factor has seldom been ignored in any other reviews of titles I've read, so why should it not count now? If you have yet to play this, then you won't understand. Play it and then tell me your not disappointed with how much it offers.

+ Show (2) more repliesLast reply 3659d ago
Show all comments (25)
The story is too old to be commented.