/// This is an archived version of the official forums, which went offline in September 2017. Functionality is limited. Visit the Mirror's Edge Archive to learn more. ///
Why Mirror's Edge Catalyst FAILS - Page 2 — Mirror's Edge™ Catalyst Forums

Why Mirror's Edge Catalyst FAILS - Page 2

Forum Closure and Move to Answers HQ - read more here!

Why Mirror's Edge Catalyst FAILS

Comments

  • Rassatu
    28 posts
    edited June 2016
    It has been 8 years since ME was launched. Now here we are, ME:C. It is a really really long time for a game, because of long time, you can not know if it is going to sell well, when you launched new version of the game especially for a reboot/prequel . Battlefield has a lot of fans, so DICE knew it would sell very well. Despite of that, I think the team made a good job. I do not say ME:C is awesome but at least, it is good. ( I am a big fan of ME, by the way) Yes, story was not as we expected, there are so many gaps that we don't understand, also it was too short. Story could have been more detailed and also they could introduce characters in game with cutscenes instead of web site articles. November riot flashbacks were not enough. We needed more detail about it, we can read web site articles but it should have been in game. If ME:C used another engine which has worse graphics than frosbite 3, people started to grumple. Frosbite 3 is a great engine for ME:C despite of some texture, optimization ( for PC) issues in ME:C. (I don't know why engine or game has these problems.) Making a open world game is not a easy thing to do. If you just focus on main story, it is not right. Main story missions, delivery missions, side missions, small elements (but has great effects on game) like recordings, dashes, time trials, hackable bilboards, gridleaks, exc... These are parts of the game, I am not pleased for rush story either but we must think them as a whole. These are not easy thing to do. And the game was already released, so, discussing will bring us nowhere. I think something went wrong while they developing the game ( as you know, game was delayed two times), so it explains rush story. Wish, the team delayed the game more than several months, thus they could focus on story. But it did not happen, so it is time to wait for a sequel and enjoying and accept ME:C. All in all, I loved the game despite of short main story because I am a big fan and I must look on the bright side, ME:C could have been never existed.
    Post edited by Rassatu on
    " Once this city used to pulse with energy; dirty and dangerous but alive and wonderful. Now, it is something else. "





  • @Rassatu I hear you. It seems like Catalyst certainly had development issues and it simple came down to the company pushing out a minimal viable product hoping for maximum profit to at least break even for such an extended development time to recover investment. Lucky for them, Mirror's Edge has a diehard fan base and will buy anything pushed out no matter how lackluster it is. Low risk- high reward probability was the mentality if I had to guess.
  • Aftef finishing the main story, I think this need a bit more time to develop, I played worse than this, most graphic issues and falling through floors. This seems to be a passion project of a few key people, and EA seems to stand more behind the bigger FPS franchise, I think they do wanna diverse, and i do see them trying, the open world was great IMO, but felt empty at parts. I had a few moments where it really felt like a tribute to the first, places named after levels, from the first, similar missions, etc. I am not disappointed in this at all, I had fun, and will continue to run around the world. I even theorized how this could connect to the first game story wise, perhaps i right fanfic of it. I sure hope theirs more, as this is a special world and should remain that way. I do like the lack of gun aspect,, was a nice change and made it challenging, but ai at some points felt the "dumb henchman" syndrome. Solar Feilds was also special, it wouldn't be the same without him. Good effort guys, please fix the glitches, and keep faith running. Please add the slat sound when faith falls off a building to street level that was so heart wringing it made you not want to do it.
  • @Bird_Of_Faith My feedback is legit. Catalyst remains short, repetitive and "empty".

    There's zero customization within the game. I can't change Faith's shoes or unlock any outfits, I can't play as any other character, it may be open world but the game is still linear. All side missions are either going to point A to point B or finding something randomly in the world (security chips, documents etc.) And there are no maps for any of it but the glypths. The game limits you to unoccupied rooftops. No street level running? Eh, fine but where the **** is the life of the city?

    Then this clearly isn't a game for you. If you're looking for customization, variants of gameplay, different characters, then you're clearly in no position to review this game because you are no better than those IGN "critics" who review a game they wouldn't like no matter how good it is. From how you are complaining about mirrors edge (aside from your Xbox one performance) you wouldn't like the first mirrors edge at all. In that case, you should get off of the forums, get on with your life, and play a different game.
    "I'm gonna' run."
  • Xbox One version seems to have serious issues. I played on PS4 and found no such issues. Yeah I did notice the random traffic patterns, but only the one time I stopped at a window just to check out everything. It's not something I would have had a chance to notice in normal gameplay.
  • @CookieMan Failed response. I'm a massive Mirror's Edge fan and also do parkour. I played the original, beat it, loved it and even unlocked every achievement for it. Catalyst is OK but not a great game by any stretch. You across as a typical blind fanboy who will violently defend a sub par game unfortunately. Wish you had something to actually say.
  • @ArchAngeL_777 Yeah, I guess xbox one got the bad end version of Catalyst. I began to soak in the environment of Catalyst after beating the game and continuing with side missions. The details and life of Glass is simply awful.
  • Einon
    22 posts
    edited June 2016
    ninemil wrote: »
    Yes, it's your bone's fault your experience of the game has been poor. The same way a PS3 player's experience of Destiny is poor.

    And no, you're not in a position to criticise the game generally. You're in a position to criticise the port you play, nothing more.

    The majority of whining on this forum is from people trying to play the game on substandard hardware for the settings they're using, or from people using graphics cards that AMD dumped for being too old. This is 2016 Frostbite 3, not 2014.

    Everything else is from people and media outlets that can't cope with originality, and games that do not fit their small-minded categories. Remember, the original Mirror's Edge reviewed just as bad. Basing an argument on review scores is ill-advised.

    I'll say it again. Your experience has been poor because of your platform. If you were in Hong Kong, I'd happily welcome you to come try it under ideal conditions instead.

    I'm sorry, but that is complete rubbish. While there is a lot of criticism because of the terrible performance, it's not the only bad part of the game. The player is completely overpowered no matter the version. Background scenery like far buildings and streets look terrible, story is completely underdeveloped even with a lot of background present, enemies are slow and AI is lacking, marketing was deceitful when saying the entire city was available and it was open world, skill tree was pathetic making it unnecessary, missions had no impact in the world, etc.
    So yeah, all who play the game are in a position to criticise, because the core game is the same in all platforms. Also, if a company wants to release a game in several platforms, it's their job to make it run as best possible on all of them, and considering we have far better games in terms of performance on them, including Dice's own Battlefield 4 and SW Battlefront, that use the same engine, then it's the dev team's absolute fault that the final product runs as bad as it does, not the particular choice of hardware.
    Also, gameplay on PC (at least at launch) showed terrible performance as well, so...
  • Einon wrote: »
    Also, gameplay on PC (at least at launch) showed terrible performance as well, so...
    No, it didn't. I've been playing it with a 680 (and then a 1080) on Hyper since day one with zero issues, and a solid 60 fps. No texture LOD, no stuttering, no slowdowns. The difference between my machine and the majority of people whining on here? 4Gb VRAM.

    I'll repeat myself. The bone is the problem here, not the game.

    Play it on something capable of 2016 Frostbite 3. And get ready for a winter of disappointment, if you refuse to change your hardware.
  • ninemil wrote: »
    No, it didn't. I've been playing it with a 680 (and then a 1080) on Hyper since day one with zero issues, and a solid 60 fps. No texture LOD, no stuttering, no slowdowns.
    60 fps on a 680...?

  • ninemil wrote: »
    Einon wrote: »
    Also, gameplay on PC (at least at launch) showed terrible performance as well, so...
    No, it didn't. I've been playing it with a 680 (and then a 1080) on Hyper since day one with zero issues, and a solid 60 fps. No texture LOD, no stuttering, no slowdowns. The difference between my machine and the majority of people whining on here? 4Gb VRAM.

    I'll repeat myself. The bone is the problem here, not the game.

    Play it on something capable of 2016 Frostbite 3. And get ready for a winter of disappointment, if you refuse to change your hardware.

    Hmm, I believe you then. But it doesn't matter, aside from better performance on PC over consoles (I've the PS4 version), the game is still the same. It was a nice try to revive the franchise, but the game is average and most likely fail to make it into a series. I like it, but regret getting it at launch. The game was advertised as something and launched lacking in almost every aspect.
    I'm not a fan of Dice other than Mirror's Edge, so I won't have a reason to be disappointed this winter
  • killchan wrote: »
    60 fps on a 680...?
    Yes, comfortably. I'd likely have been able to increase Render.ResolutionScale as well, but didn't start experimenting with that until after my MSI 1080 X arrived. As I say - 4Gb+ is the key. Scrub cards with 2Gb or the 970's 3.5Gb just won't cut it.

    I've been posting screenshots since release day.

    mirrorsedgecatalyst_2016_06_10_14_34_05_96_by_www_ninemil_com-da5snea.png
    680.

    mirrorsedgecatalyst_2016_06_13_00_10_27_61_by_www_ninemil_com-da636wh.png
    1080.

    Other than the resolution, what difference do you see there? That's right - none.

    Just for giggles, here's 4k with Render.ResolutionScale at 1.2. I can't go higher without it crashing, but even then, I'm getting 40 odd fps. I'm just running out of physical memory.

    mirrorsedgecatalyst_2016_06_12_23_53_58_47_by_www_ninemil_com-da636xx.png
    Yeah, I know - such an ugly, poorly optimized game, right? (o_0 lol, whatever.)
  • Einon wrote: »
    I'm not a fan of Dice other than Mirror's Edge, so I won't have a reason to be disappointed this winter
    What makes you think I'm talking about a DICE game, lol? God, you are in for a shock, aren't you.
  • Merc
    19 posts
    edited June 2016
    @Ninja_Devi1 We all need to support Catalyst or else this will be the actual end of the Mirror's Edge franchise. Catalyst was a second chance for Mirror's Edge. EA won't give it another chance unfortunately. The best we can do is buy it, enjoy what's there, while pointing out the flaws which will hopefully be fixed in the next installment (if there is one).

    @ninemil It's not our fault the console versions of Catalyst look awful. It's ridiculous to say we aren't allowed to judge the game without a high end PC. The original Mirror's Edge has far superior texture quality on consoles.
  • Merc wrote: »
    @ninemil It's not our fault the console versions of Catalyst look awful. It's ridiculous to say we aren't allowed to judge the game without a high end PC. The original Mirror's Edge has far superior texture quality on consoles.
    You bought it on substandard hardware - who's fault is that? It's long established, (nearly three years!) that anything multi-plat and presented on the bone is going to suffer, and perform and look worse than it should. We're in 2016, not 2014. You don't have an excuse for ignorance anymore.

    And you're misquoting me. I said you're unable to criticise the game generally - you're only in a position to criticise the port you played, and limit your feedback to that, and you should acknowledge that in your reviews.

    That way anyone shrewd enough can simply discard anything you say about image quality, performance, and anything tied to the CPU, and judge your review with proper balance. And almost everything in the OP is attributable to the machine he played it on.
  • Merc wrote: »
    EA won't give it another chance unfortunately.
    Also - I wasn't aware you worked for EA. Perhaps you should disclose your full involvement, before posting so adamantly on company policy?
  • @Merc I suppose it's only a matter of time before another company creates their own version of "Mirror's Edge" and come away with a massive hit, leaving Dice/EA wondering where they went wrong.
    Perhaps they should consider selling the IP to a developer/publisher willing to make the game into what it deserves to be.
    ****, I'd do it myself if I knew how:/
  • ninemil wrote: »
    Merc wrote: »
    EA won't give it another chance unfortunately.
    Also - I wasn't aware you worked for EA. Perhaps you should disclose your full involvement, before posting so adamantly on company policy?

    EA stated several times this was the last chance for Mirror's Edge. Perhaps you should pay attention to EA's statements?
  • First I'd want to apologise for my mistakes in writing in english (it's not my mother language). I've been looking through the forums, trying to find some response from DICE to the problems faced by the XONE users and MEC gamers in general. I'm also a great fan of the original X360 ME, 100% achievements and more than sixty hours played. Loved the gameplay, story, world, characters, music etc, a 9/10. I was very anxious for MEC since it was announced (4 years ago??), and i was following every bit of information and video released, and i was very excited by the quality showed by DICE. Now I have played more than 54 hours on the XONE version of Catalyst, acquiring also 100% achievement but disappointed. ME:C for me is a 8/10 game, but i'm biased because i'm a fan, i think the proper note is what Metacritic is showing 7/10.

    Positive points
    1. Beautiful cinematics
    2. Open world without loading times
    3. Great gameplay 60 fps without problems
    4. Some main missions have terrific layouts
    5. MAG
    6. Great music and sounds

    Negative points
    1. Short game, only 15 main missions (majority of my time gaming time spent on trying to improve on dashes and finding collectibles)
    2. Story could have more depth (there is a good backstory when you read the site and the documents, but the game could use some secondary missions to further develop some characters - Dogen, Rebecca...)
    3. Poor variety of secondary and optional missions (could use other type of missions like skill missions, points missions etc)
    4. Terrible lightining and bad reflections in the world (the game is far, far from what was shown from videos)
    5. Poor texture quality and flickering issues (the ME from 8 years ago in some aspects had better looking parts)
    6. Extended loading times after restart/death
    7. Bad AI

    Well, I think this is a place to discuss with respect and honesty. I'm a fan of the series but i'm not a blind one. DICE should have delivered a better product for us (at least console users). It is unacceptable that the same company that have made SW Battlefront and BF4 so beautiful on consoles, deliver us a so outdated and ugly version of a game. I'm currently the only one in my friends list on Brazil playing this game, and i'd like to say that MEC is my game of the year to them, but it is not the case...not by a mile.
  • @MethodicBR77 Great response. I appreciate your feedback. I'm really not sure if anyone from Dice/EA/developers are even reading or interacting in these forums but hopefully some dialogue can transpire in regards to the future of this franchise.
  • CookieMan
    30 posts
    edited June 2016
    You across as a typical blind fanboy who will violently defend a sub par game unfortunately. Wish you had something to actually say.

    A blind fanboy? Such strong words coming from an Xbox one player. Anyways, I'm actually surprised to see that you loved the first mirrors edge but hate this one, the game play mechanics have improved ten fold and the "runners flow" is something you can actually feel in this game. In the original, (which I loved but it still had its flaws,) whenever you would roll, slide, climb, or vault you would instantly lose your momentum then you would have to rely on that cheap side dash trick to regain momentum. In this game, there is no need because faith keeps her momentum as well as uses it to blow through enemies and keep moving. In the last game, combat encounters usually ended up in disarming a bad guy and shooting the rest with the gun. You said that you wished you could customize faith or choose different runners to play as, which was not existent in the last game. Tell me, what does the original mirrors edge have that the new one doesn't? Catalyst has just as much originality, passion, and fun factor as the last game considering you will never come across a game with such advanced parkour mechanics and a city filled with unique design and color scheme such as mirrors edge and catalyst. Your perception of the game has been belittled so much because so many disagree with you. If you don't see why so many disagree with you, maybe you should read over your past comments and consider how hypocritical your view points are on catalyst compared to your view points of the original. To add on to this comment to sound less hostile, I understand. Catalyst has flaws and mistakes just like the last one had, and sadly the game was underdeveloped because EA had rushed DICE. The parts where I don't agree with you however is the fact how you're complaining based on the game's performance on your console. Is it DICE's fault the game could not run perfectly on your console? No. The frostbite 3 (2016 version) is not made to run perfectly on consoles in general. I've played the game on my PC and my PS4 and ps4 doesn't hold up as much as PC. The only issues coming from ps4 were little bugs and glitches that PC didn't have as much. Criticizing the game itself just because of how your console played the game is just wrong. Catalyst was NOT an awful game. However considering you and I will not come to an agreement I'll digress.
    "I'm gonna' run."
  • @CookieMan I rest my case. Don't expect me to respond to you anymore.


  • To be honest with you, if you see this, im not having a personal attack, to anyone on this forum, this is for everyone. but we are not in denial, because an opinion is an opinion and everyone has there own views. When i first commented on this, i was asking why everyone has to be so blunt about saying their views all the time, you can say your bad reviews, you're obviously entitled to it of course. But i hate how everyone has to just bag it out to the point where we have discussions like this one.This discussion is just an overall bad discussion and everyone here, is getting protective over it. But if i have one more say in this discussion, I'd like to say, Respect other people's opinions as there is no wrong opinion, don't say something about other people when they are happily expressing their opinion as you can not, in any situation, say that they are wrong. I THINK tha Catalyst for me is an enjoyable game, thats my view, don't bother to counter it, because this is my last comment on this discussion...
  • Merc wrote: »
    ninemil wrote: »
    Merc wrote: »
    EA won't give it another chance unfortunately.
    Also - I wasn't aware you worked for EA. Perhaps you should disclose your full involvement, before posting so adamantly on company policy?

    EA stated several times this was the last chance for Mirror's Edge. Perhaps you should pay attention to EA's statements?

    When and where did they say that?
  • When and where did they say that?
    Spoiler: they didn't, and haven't.

    They also launched a pro-indie initiative recently called EA Originals, which aims specifically to prop up small sales products, and facilitate breadth in the marketplace:

    "First, it is about taking first-time experiences that are unique, gorgeous, innovative and memorable, and bringing them to the world.

    Second, it is about supporting small developers and helping them make the most of their games. We'll seek a few projects each year for EA Originals, and partner with them throughout the process of development to marketing to publishing.

    Lastly, it is about funding, and offering small studios a level of security with an EA Originals game. Making games is hard. It's a hard business. These developers have taken on the risk of developing a new IP, and great games deserve to be played. So with EA Originals, we want the profits from these games to go into the hands of the studios making them. We want them to be recognized for their work, so they can keep innovating and creating, and so the players get to play more and more amazing games."

    If they can do this for third-party, they can definitely do it in-house. DICE more than justifies itself with it's big name products. Giving 40 people from the studio the opportunity to make a little money on a labour of love, is perfectly acceptable, financially, and very easy to sell to the shareholders.
  • Einon
    22 posts
    edited June 2016
    ninemil wrote: »
    Einon wrote: »
    I'm not a fan of Dice other than Mirror's Edge, so I won't have a reason to be disappointed this winter
    What makes you think I'm talking about a DICE game, lol? God, you are in for a shock, aren't you.

    All the games I want for this winter are either exclusive to PS4 or are developed primarily on consoles. Also I play on PC, but not enough to justify a top tier build. What exactly makes you think I will be shocked (performance wise) by anything, when what I want is tailored specifically to what I have?
    ninemil wrote: »
    Merc wrote: »
    @ninemil It's not our fault the console versions of Catalyst look awful. It's ridiculous to say we aren't allowed to judge the game without a high end PC. The original Mirror's Edge has far superior texture quality on consoles.
    You bought it on substandard hardware - who's fault is that? It's long established, (nearly three years!) that anything multi-plat and presented on the bone is going to suffer, and perform and look worse than it should. We're in 2016, not 2014. You don't have an excuse for ignorance anymore.

    And you're misquoting me. I said you're unable to criticise the game generally - you're only in a position to criticise the port you played, and limit your feedback to that, and you should acknowledge that in your reviews.

    That way anyone shrewd enough can simply discard anything you say about image quality, performance, and anything tied to the CPU, and judge your review with proper balance. And almost everything in the OP is attributable to the machine he played it on.

    So, you're one of those ridiculously blind elitists, aren't you? The game looks mediocre on all platforms. It's not about resolution differences or rendering issues, it's about how it's average in all accounts and did most of the same errors the first one did. The city looks dead and bland, level design gets worse from district to district, characters look bad, etc. It's not a visually impressive game at all and gameplay is not relevant today. I don't agree with some here that ME1 was better, but at least it had better level design and was a novelty in terms of gameplay. Quite a shame, considering there's a bunch of other games on "substandard hardware" that look better than this one or any other on PC.
    The port of a specific game doesn't limit the core elements of it. If AI is bad in the primary version, it's bad in all. If story is weak, it's still weak in all, so what the **** are you talking about? Everyone is able to criticize the game, because core elements are the same, even if visual fidelity is not. You don't have an excuse for that ignorance.
  • ninemil wrote: »
    I'll say it again. Your experience has been poor because of your platform. .

    I've also played on Xbox One, and although I've experienced a couple of the problems, I don't think it's because of the console. It's the latest console and based on your argument, you're suggesting the only people getting the real experience are PC players with the top tier equipment... yet I've seen hundreds of similar complaints from PC gamers about these kinds of problems. I wouldn't label the game as a failure; on the contrary, I loved it, despite its problems and difficulties. But I don't think its problems are caused by platform. In any case, if the game was built to play on a specific platform, it should be good on said platform. If they choose to release the game on Xbox One, it should look good and work well on Xbox One. Platform should be irrelevant.
  • It's the latest console...
    Okay, no. This conversation is pointless, isn't it. It's a 2013 piece of hardware that released with substandard components for it's inception date. It's not the latest anything, and is incapable of driving the game. The only reason Catalyst exists on the platform is because of the size of the current install base. Destiny exists on 360 and PS3 for the same reason, and plays equally awfully for the same reasons.

    There's nothing elitist about acknowledging this at all. Story? Subjective. Everything else in the OP can be attributed to the hardware, (yes, AI included.)
  • ninemil wrote: »
    It's the latest console...
    Okay, no. This conversation is pointless, isn't it. It's a 2013 piece of hardware that released with substandard components for it's inception date. It's not the latest anything, and is incapable of driving the game. The only reason Catalyst exists on the platform is because of the size of the current install base. Destiny exists on 360 and PS3 for the same reason, and plays equally awfully for the same reasons.

    There's nothing elitist about acknowledging this at all. Story? Subjective. Everything else in the OP can be attributed to the hardware, (yes, AI included.)

    It is the latest console to be released other than PC. Again, if the game is going to be released on Xbox and PlayStation, it should be to an acceptable if not impeccable standard. If you're going to argue that the game is only good enough for perfect new PC-exclusive hardware, then the makers never should have released it on console at all. But they made that choice and because of that, they should have built the game to achieve on every platform.
  • But they made that choice and because of that, they should have built the game to achieve on every platform.
    Why?
Sign In or Register to comment.

Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!