Mirror's edge, looks promising.

Zillameth on 31/1/2009 at 11:29

Quote Posted by Shakey-Lo

I have played through Portal with the developer commentary on. And TF2, and parts of Left4Dead.

Then do it again, because you didn't understand it. And yes, I would use examples from different games if their authors were kind enough to express their intent so that you could take their word for it instead of mine. I'm just a humble game designer with some completely irrelevant IT/CS background, and I've been dealing with games professionally for mere eight years, so obviously I don't know what I'm talking about.

Shakey-Lo on 31/1/2009 at 11:40

Quote Posted by Zillameth

And yes, I would use examples from different games if their authors were kind enough to express their intent so that you could take their word for it instead of mine.

Your word on what? All you've tried to do is take what Valve said about Portal and apply it to Mirror's Edge. You should analyse a game - on its own terms. (edit- though I'm a big believer that intent is irrelevant to the final product, while you seem to hold a contrary position, so whatever)
Anyway, when I write several paragraphs and get a reply that only addresses a couple of sentences (and then lists a CV) I think the conversation's done. Have a read of the article I posted if you like, it's interesting if nothing else.

EZ-52 on 31/1/2009 at 13:50

Possible information to Mirror's Edge 2?

(http://www.pirandellokruger.com) Pirandello Kruger Website

See the door image? Save it to your pc and read the comments metadata :thumb:

See (http://on-mirrors-edge.com/forums/viewtopic.php?id=2880) this page for more information.

[SPOILER]Who are you?, are you trying to get me killed?

Your name is a lie, your code was wrong, they found me, you led them to me.

But I escaped, I always escape, it's what I do, It's all I do.

Before it was only personal, for what you had taken from me.
But things have changed, they always change, and for you, they have not changed for the better.

I'll find you, but don't worry, you won't see me coming, none of you will.

Faith/ ---END[/SPOILER]

Of course, could be just some fansite messing around.

Judith on 3/2/2009 at 14:08

Finally I got my copy of a game (PC) and after playing a few chapters I found it quite disappointing. I didn't read all the pages since I last posted here, but the main problem for me was running on vertical surfaces other than walls, as it wasn't executed properly by my character. Sometimes Faith just jumped on a board and jumped back or kept hanging on it. The other thing were those excessively high jumps you had to make after a short run and jump, in 90% cases I had to repeat this every time I encountered such spot. Besides, can anyone tell me how the hell one can use a few loose bricks like a springboard? :cheeky:

But the major flaw in the level design, IMO are the climbing pipes. The same mesh that gets highlighted in runner vision at some spot can be unusable (and not highlighted, of course) in some other place. I didn't play the game with RV off, but I guess that must be quite frustrating experience. In these terms one may say that the level design is a bit amateurish, since this violates the very basic rules of game design (systemic design, creating comprehensible game rules, etc.)

gunsmoke on 3/2/2009 at 15:46

It definitely plays by its own rules.

Wormrat on 3/2/2009 at 17:22

Quote Posted by Judith

The same mesh that gets highlighted in runner vision at some spot can be unusable (and not highlighted, of course) in some other place.

Are you sure about this? I never encountered it, and I played with runner vision off on my first playthrough. Obviously that's anecdotal, but forgive me for being skeptical. I feel like a lot of people are throwing around claims like this without any examples.

catbarf on 3/2/2009 at 22:14

Quote Posted by gunsmoke

It definitely plays by its own rules.

While I detest Runner Vision (feels like cheating- to each his own), I found it necessary because most areas have only a couple ways to get through, and when I'm running at top speed I'm likely to jump for a pipe or ledge only to find that I wasn't supposed to go there and plummet to my death. It's very difficult to tell what's useful and what isn't with the fast pace you're forced into.

But if there's one thing I'd change about the game, it'd be setting. More outdoor levels. When I heard that a parkour-ish game was in development I did not envision subways and cargo ships.

Jason Moyer on 4/2/2009 at 05:29

I didn't mind the indoor areas that much, because they were mostly threat-free and gave you a chance to catch your breath and do some exploring. Obviously the rooftop sections are the meat of the game but I thought the indoor parts were ok for pacing (and to hide loading screens, apparently).

Runner vision is ok, but even on my first playthrough there were a lot of areas where I totally ignored it. I don't think there's a level in the game where the runner vision actually shows you a fast path through the level. On hard difficulty you basically have to find your own path anyway because the enemies don't mess around as much as they do on easy/normal.

KoHaN69 on 7/2/2009 at 09:08

I love this game.

And oh BOY I wish Thief had a similar mounting system!

This game is awesome. It felt like the original Half-Life.

Yes, I wish the combat system was better, yes I wish the levels were more open, yes I wish the story wasn't "meh", but the game still gets a huge praise for doing something differently. :thumb:

Fafhrd on 8/2/2009 at 09:35

Quote Posted by EZ-52

Agreed. Anybody up for a little contest?

9:36:73 on Jacknife (Currently number 12 on the PC leaderboards. 11 if you discount the number 1 guy for obviously fucking cheating). And that was with dying once. Eat it.

Side note: The absolute worst thing about the combat is the fucking lock on. It's practically impossible to just kick a guy in the crotch and then immediately turn and run away while he's briefly incapacitated.