/// This is an archived version of the official forums, which went offline in September 2017.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. ///
@Elly_Dawn It would've been appropriate to have level difficulty options in Mirror's Edge. It's fairly standard in the video game industry. You can't even unlock a "legendary" type mode after beating the game... it sucks.
How about not buying combat upgrades? There - difficulty settings. That was hard?
@ninemil You suggest the d u m b e s t things. We can't undo combat upgrades. The upgrades are built into the game for a reason... they're designed for the campaign experience and progression. Everyone playing the game naturally upgrades as they become available. The developers didn't include difficulty options for the game... another frustration. Just stop with your nonsensical advice.
You think this is unique to Catalyst? Do you actually play games, or just complain about them?
First example: Saints Row - the entire series, (5 games to date, released across the course of a decade, considerable sales performance,) included the same update structure. The final tier of each combat upgrade makes you immune to damage from that source. Immune. You can't turn off upgrades once you've made them in that, either.
Why would you buy a combat upgrade that makes combat easier, if you don't like combat being easy.
You can keep from upgrading combat skills, but it's not really hard mode is it? It only takes a bit longer to take down enemies. They could add more difficulty options that increased the number of security on the rooftops, make enemies faster, more armed enemies too and at vantage points, more turrets, more agressive alert status. Something that would discourage engaging in combat and give a sense of needing to use the running skills as best one can to save one's life. Nothing's wrong with games with more difficulty options, it actually increases replayability.
To be honest with you all I don't really know why we have bothered to continue to comment on this post which is utterly pointless, its making people snarky and angry clearly. Stop being rude to one another, who cares what this guy who started this discussion thinks its just another bad review no one cares about. If you think the game is bad, great, if you think its good, great... Lets just be decent human beings and play the games instead of making a massive deal about them...
@Bird_Of_Faith can't have productive dialogue if individuals blindly defend this sub par product. I list reasons why Catalyst fails in order to educate/highlight to the MEC team where they went wrong and why. But if other members in this forum insults the intelligence of others by blaming them for playing Catalyst on a console then he's just asinine. Clearly his agenda is shaming others for their lack of "knowledge" and their choice in hardware purchases, only to furthermore suggest illogical things to compensate for Catalyst's failures as a minimum viable product. Nearly EVERY forum post on this site is about how messed up this game is and as a consumer, it's disappointing, let alone frustrating, given MEC team had 4 years to develop something truly unique. They even had the first Mirror's Edge as a basis to expand on.
I list reasons why Catalyst fails in order to educate/highlight to the MEC team where they went wrong and why.
That is one simplistic way to see it. Of course it's always welcome to state ones opinion to draw up stats on what people liked, disliked, wished...
But there are a thousands thing to take in consideration too, I wouldn't say Mirror's Edge team went "wrong", I mean the game is out, like the first one it has its flaw and its epic moments. They both share in a way the same DNA which makes people very frustrated (and I understand) since both game ressemble a well polished BETA (or an unfinished game). You can judge it by the quantity of lags, glitch, problems there are and the limitations the game offer but mostly, about what it tried to deliver but couldn't. This is mostly due in the video game industries to deadlines, you know, what most gamers cry about when they see their game release date push back several months. I would bet it was the case with Mirror's Edge, just by looking at how many title the studio worked on, it makes total sense this game was likely developed in a well organized chaos.
They tried their best, it's not what you expected but it's there.
@GeoffreyOmega I appreciate your response and agree. If they would've sold the game at $20 or so price point, it would've been appropriate IMO. I understand the business requires them to recoup as much funds as possible for investments made and whatever profit. Organized chaos does indeed seem to have plagued this beloved title unfortunately. Deadlines is understandable for sure... 4 years of development without the core talent and resourcing of Dice/EA remains criminal though.
@Bird_Of_Faith can't have productive dialogue if individuals blindly defend this sub par product. I list reasons why Catalyst fails in order to educate/highlight to the MEC team where they went wrong and why. But if other members in this forum insults the intelligence of others by blaming them for playing Catalyst on a console then he's just asinine. Clearly his agenda is shaming others for their lack of "knowledge" and their choice in hardware purchases, only to furthermore suggest illogical things to compensate for Catalyst's failures as a minimum viable product. Nearly EVERY forum post on this site is about how messed up this game is and as a consumer, it's disappointing, let alone frustrating, given MEC team had 4 years to develop something truly unique. They even had the first Mirror's Edge as a basis to expand on.
Im trust trying to tell people that opinions are a personal view, of course that's obvious. But we are literally just telling people their opinions are wrong, you can't do that... Yes the game got a 6.8 to an 8 on different gaming websites. But that doesn't matter, i enjoyed the game, and if you didn't enjoy it as much as i did then thats just how it works, you have a view, and you're entitled it, like everyone else. But i just think when everyone says a sub par game, i just see it as a view, thats just what i think. Yes the game has its problems. You may find those problems more annoying then me, we all like different games. im just sick and tired of these discussions being a breeding ground for people who force opinions on each other, because people say mean things about others because they think differently about the game. Im not annoyed or agrivated by your view on it at all, its your opinion not mine. Im just trying to calm this constan flow of comments from being negative towards others, im not saying its you at all but i think everyone is getting a bit agitated...
You can keep from upgrading combat skills, but it's not really hard mode is it?
I tried it on my second playthrough - significantly harder in keys fights, such as waiting for the train or the double Sentinel in the Shard.
Worth trying before writing it off, tbh.
I actually tried it until after the train on my second playthrough. Kept from upgrading those intel files that make taking enemies down faster. It wasn't that big a difference so I upgraded everything after that. I even play with no HUD, no enemy health bars, runner's vision completely off since the first time playing and I only use the disrupt on security cameras when I want to walk around that particular place or take screenshots, but even so, it's not a particularly challenging game. It could have multiple difficulty levels, it would only add more to the game.
Why are you defending it in such a manner? Isn't there something you would like to be in the game, or something changed?
I list reasons why Catalyst fails in order to educate/highlight to the MEC team where they went wrong and why.
That is one simplistic way to see it. Of course it's always welcome to state ones opinion to draw up stats on what people liked, disliked, wished...
But there are a thousands thing to take in consideration too, I wouldn't say Mirror's Edge team went "wrong", I mean the game is out, like the first one it has its flaw and its epic moments. They both share in a way the same DNA which makes people very frustrated (and I understand) since both game ressemble a well polished BETA (or an unfinished game). You can judge it by the quantity of lags, glitch, problems there are and the limitations the game offer but mostly, about what it tried to deliver but couldn't. This is mostly due in the video game industries to deadlines, you know, what most gamers cry about when they see their game release date push back several months. I would bet it was the case with Mirror's Edge, just by looking at how many title the studio worked on, it makes total sense this game was likely developed in a well organized chaos.
They tried their best, it's not what you expected but it's there.
The development didn't went wrong, but the concept didn't achieved it's potential. Usually that happens on new IPs, especially that release at launch with new platforms, but this isn't really the case. Sure they wanted to start over like it's the first in a series, that's why there's a new storyline and no "2" on the title, but then they did some of the same mistakes the first one had, even things that got changed that have basically the same effect (no guns this time, but the melee combat and focus shield makes the player more overpowered that in the first). To me, the worse thing about the game is that aside the main missions and a couple of side missions, everything else is repetitive, has no impact in the game or imagination in their concept. This is not a problem caused by deadlines, it's a flawed concept from the start that settled on a limited number of outdated ideas from open world games, while not being a real open world game. I enjoyed the game, not as much as I wanted or expected, but I like it, but hopefully, if a new one does get made, they'll fix the problems that seem tied to the franchise so far.
Let's be clear, I LOVE Mirror's Edge, but Catalyst was a utter disappointment. As an Xbox One player, graphics were horrible, rendering was terrible and there were frame rate issues throughout gameplay. Constant flickering, glitches and insulting AI also plague this game.
How the game manages to maintain its fun factor is impressive however. It seems like EA/Dice left this game for the interns to develop while their REAL talent worked on Battlefront and Battlefield unfortunately.
This game has enormous potential to be a massive money-maker but it needs to be respected, given priority and re- imagined.
There's no reason why most 4 year old games looks and performs better than this game. "Copy and Paste" vehicles driving in predictable yet illogical pattern fill the streets. The moon looks like a cardboard cut-out. Building windows are nothing more than static pixelated images. Character animations are limited and repetitive, drones suddenly appear and disappear, while exploring rooftops I would glitch through windows and wall and fall to my death....the list goes on.
Catalyst feels rushed and underdeveloped. The campaign is incredibly short, while side missions all remain repetitive. This game should rival that of Dishonored and Assassin's Creed. Lord knows the company had enough time to do it. It's embarrassing that they released this game. I, alone, can give an incredible amount of valuable ideas/ concepts and direction, moving forward, for this franchise (I would love to, given the opportunity).
I hate writing all this but it needs to be said. I also filled out the survey the company emailed me ,regarding my thoughts of this game, but I wanted to share it as well with this community.
HIGHLY disagree.
The open world plays nicely and the story was well written. While I agree it doesnt look as good as it couldve, MEC plays better than the original in every way. Better, deeper combat, better characters and writing, not to mention actual world development, and left plenty of room for more in a future title.
Isn't there something you would like to be in the game, or something changed?
"Still Alive."
But otherwise, no - I'm incredibly happy with what we got. I'd like more, of course, but have enough exposure to the industry and development to know the limits of what can be done relative to the budget allocated. It's a fringe game, so has a fringe budget - I went in knowing we weren't going to get much more than we got in the first instalment, and I think they did a brilliant job.
Fingers crossed for DLC, episodic, or a sequel further down the line. Faith's final monologue feels like a solid promise from DICE that their intent is as such.
@HD_Simplicityy I never mentioned that the story wasn't well written. I stated the campaign is extremely short... can be done within a day. Your response doesn't exactly list your disagreements with what I wrote either. Comparing Catalyst to 8 year old game isn't saying much other than, it's better than the first. Rather, Catalyst should be compared to current games.
I honestly have very little complains, texture popping (most likely limitations of the ps4, (30fps with more drawing distance would had probably been wiser), the combat system has the solid principles to be good, now they just need to improve it if it happens to exist a new one, add a move list that applies well and give enemies more tools too, the parkour is great, few flaws sometimes, but it´s an open world.
@Teto possibly but we'll never know. I hope there is something cooking in the oven for future development... god this game has huge potential. If they only knew...
@Bird_Of_Faith I hear you, I'm not here to force my opinion on anyone and I never did. I created this topic for the MEC team because I'm a day one customer who felt compelled to express my frustrations with Catalyst.
When other members of these forums come in and insult my intelligence, telling me my experience is invalid, insult my console, the company that makes the console, and my list of concerns about Catalyst moving forward, is where the problem lies.
If someone doesn't agree that's fine, I don't care. But if someone begins stating that I'm wrong, inadequate to make claims and such, there's an issue. I enjoy debates but it appears this community is mostly interested in stroking MEC's ego instead of acknowledging the elephant in the room.
Blind fans violently defending and justifying Catalyst without end is just silly at this point. The MEC teams needs straight up real talk about their product.
@Bird_Of_Faith I hear you, I'm not here to force my opinion on anyone and I never did. I created this topic for the MEC team because I'm a day one customer who felt compelled to express my frustrations with Catalyst.
When other members of these forums come in and insult my intelligence, telling me my experience is invalid, insult my console, the company that makes the console, and my list of concerns about Catalyst moving forward, is where the problem lies.
If someone doesn't agree that's fine, I don't care. But if someone begins stating that I'm wrong, inadequate to make claims and such, there's an issue. I enjoy debates but it appears this community is mostly interested in stroking MEC's ego instead of acknowledging the elephant in the room.
Blind fans violently defending and justifying Catalyst without end is just silly at this point. The MEC teams needs straight up real talk about their product.
I totally understand. Everyone has a view and im sure Dice takes these reviews like yours into a count for hopefully future mirrors edge games. Catalyst has its flaws, I notice them every time I play it, but I absolutely love it as its one of those unique and different games that im extremely good at. Your view may be harsh, but harsh is sometimes good and you're doing it good, Dice will hopefully look at this and learn from their mistakes for next time to make an even better game. Don't worry about people saying you're wrong, because like I've said an opinion can not be wrong...
Isn't there something you would like to be in the game, or something changed?
"Still Alive."
But otherwise, no - I'm incredibly happy with what we got. I'd like more, of course, but have enough exposure to the industry and development to know the limits of what can be done relative to the budget allocated. It's a fringe game, so has a fringe budget - I went in knowing we weren't going to get much more than we got in the first instalment, and I think they did a brilliant job.
Fingers crossed for DLC, episodic, or a sequel further down the line. Faith's final monologue feels like a solid promise from DICE that their intent is as such.
Indeed it is, and it all comes down to budget, naturally. Like I said before, it's not a bad game, the gameplay has been improved, but I was expecting some more attention to those certain details the first one didn't get quite right.
I'm not a big fan of the idea of DLC in general, but I would like that they get the necessary return to make a sequel in the near future.
@Teto possibly but we'll never know. I hope there is something cooking in the oven for future development... god this game has huge potential. If they only knew...
It really has. The first one inspired a lot of attention to first person gameplay vs environments. It has the potential to be or inspire a new genre, but I suppose that would take a few risks that could also kill it. If this one succeeds way better than the first, then they'll have more trust to expand on that.
@Bird_Of_Faith I hear you, I'm not here to force my opinion on anyone and I never did. I created this topic for the MEC team because I'm a day one customer who felt compelled to express my frustrations with Catalyst.
When other members of these forums come in and insult my intelligence, telling me my experience is invalid, insult my console, the company that makes the console, and my list of concerns about Catalyst moving forward, is where the problem lies.
If someone doesn't agree that's fine, I don't care. But if someone begins stating that I'm wrong, inadequate to make claims and such, there's an issue. I enjoy debates but it appears this community is mostly interested in stroking MEC's ego instead of acknowledging the elephant in the room.
Blind fans violently defending and justifying Catalyst without end is just silly at this point. The MEC teams needs straight up real talk about their product.
Yeah, it's frustrating for someone to support a product and then fall a little short on expectations. Releasing that frustrations can lead to a wrong idea, especially when it's written, that can be interpreted as hateful ranting even if it isn't one's intention. However, to those that really liked the game, it's also frustrating to read someone complaining harshly about something they enjoyed a lot, so they retaliate.
So ... at the risk of being called a shill or "blind fanboy" of the game, I just want to throw in my two cents. There are flaws with the game. But are the flaws big enough to really affect the game? Because here's the thing. Say all textures were at maximum resolution with zero lag and the level design was impeccable and obvious. Even then - the exact same complaints that are being raised in this thread would still be raised. Like I'm not saying it's a perfect game, but jeez. What I would criticize are the mechanics and performance, everything else is so subjective that it doesn't really matter. Because when someone says that their expectations aren't met either aesthetically or story wise or leveldesign wise - that is a meaningless piece of information. Like literally. My expectations weren't met when mankind sent spaceships on the moon. That doesn't make it less impressive.
I'm not sure what my point is, but reading this whole thread is like reading something written by an intelligent and angry badger.
I think what Catalyst fails the most is the scenario and the characters.
But overall, the game has quite a strange feeling, in a negative way I must say.
First, right at it's begining, the game feels like an old and "mediocre" Electronic Arts game, with this sort of "D4RK" side to it ; which is deceptive because the game isn't really like that and feels better as the story progresses (I don't speak about the incredibly frustrating scenario). Maybe it's just the tutorial which gives that bad feeling.
Then, here's my principal wrong feelings about the game : 1) the "fake Open World" is quite a frustrating choice ; 2) the musics are less memorable than Mirror's Edge 2008 ; 3) the voices are not so good compared to the first Mirror's Edge (I'm playing the French version), especially the secondary characters who seem to come from a 20 years old game ; 4) the graphics are less than what I expected (not to mention the low-resolution textures charging, the ugly low-poly or overscaled models in the backgrounds, the pixelated shadows and the massive lens-flare bugs happening sometimes, etc), because they feel way too vaporous or empty ; 5) the staging and dialogues feels too cliché, like some scenes and situations you've seen a million times in movies ; 6) the characters doesn't feel familiar and they are blatantly uninspired and cliché (Noah is a poor replica of Nathan Drake from Uncharted ; Plastic is a replica of Chandra from Perfect Dark Zero ; Aline is a replica of Doctor Mossman from Half-Life 2 ; Gabriel Kruger is your average megalomaniac villain (not even Breen) ; Faith's sister have no personnality (it's a shame because they cared about each other in the first Mirror's Edge and they were a simple yet touching aspect of the story) ; Birdman is a clone of Morgan Freeman ; Nomad is a **** Emo-boy no one cares about, etc...) ; and 7) the ending is one of the worst I've seen in a videogame (#1 worst ending ever was Rage for me ; Mirror's Edge Catalyst is #2 now). Oh, let me guess ; they will make a DLC to correct that. Why not, if it's free or complete enough to justify the price to pay.
So I'm quite disappointed with what DICE made with Mirror's Edge after 8 years from the first episode, which feels so much more cool and familiar when you play this one (do it and just compare, I swear). And I have to admit : I just bought it again (for the 4th or 5th time in my life ; yes, 3 times on PC, 1 time on 360 and 1 time on PS3) on Origin after finishing Catalyst ; it was stronger than me, somewhere.
Yet, Catalyst is a good game : It's gameplay feels more free and more developped ; the fights feels very dynamic (I like to beat the **** out of the Kruger Sec. guys) ; the "photo-realistic" shaders are nice (on the characters at least) ; the city design is pleasant enough (yet the Level Design could have been so much more), and the situations are very immersive and intense (Sky City was sick). So I'll certainly have fun completing the game at 100% and play on Time Trial.
Of course, another disappointment is the absence of a Runners vs Security online multi-player, where you could create and customize your own Runner. And I tell myself DICE could have done that instead of focusing too much on a scenario that turns out to be not so good.
So ... at the risk of being called a shill or "blind fanboy" of the game, I just want to throw in my two cents. There are flaws with the game. But are the flaws big enough to really affect the game? Because here's the thing. Say all textures were at maximum resolution with zero lag and the level design was impeccable and obvious. Even then - the exact same complaints that are being raised in this thread would still be raised. Like I'm not saying it's a perfect game, but jeez. What I would criticize are the mechanics and performance, everything else is so subjective that it doesn't really matter. Because when someone says that their expectations aren't met either aesthetically or story wise or leveldesign wise - that is a meaningless piece of information. Like literally. My expectations weren't met when mankind sent spaceships on the moon. That doesn't make it less impressive.
I'm not sure what my point is, but reading this whole thread is like reading something written by an intelligent and angry badger.
The flaws do affect the game. First of all, not everyone plays it in top and impeccable performance even within the same platform, so it doesn't even makes sense to create that "what if" scenario. Second, people are mainly complaining about performance and about mechanics. Third, there's nothing subjective about the flaws present in the game. Example: A poor story is not subjective. You might like it and others might not, but it doesn't invalidate that it is, in fact, poor.
When people start complaining about a certain game doesn't meet expectations, then it's a potential loss of clients in the future, so it does matter.
Comments
First example: Saints Row - the entire series, (5 games to date, released across the course of a decade, considerable sales performance,) included the same update structure. The final tier of each combat upgrade makes you immune to damage from that source. Immune. You can't turn off upgrades once you've made them in that, either.
Why would you buy a combat upgrade that makes combat easier, if you don't like combat being easy.
And I'm the dumb one? o_0
*Please do not violate the Forum Rules*
Worth trying before writing it off, tbh.
That is one simplistic way to see it. Of course it's always welcome to state ones opinion to draw up stats on what people liked, disliked, wished...
But there are a thousands thing to take in consideration too, I wouldn't say Mirror's Edge team went "wrong", I mean the game is out, like the first one it has its flaw and its epic moments. They both share in a way the same DNA which makes people very frustrated (and I understand) since both game ressemble a well polished BETA (or an unfinished game). You can judge it by the quantity of lags, glitch, problems there are and the limitations the game offer but mostly, about what it tried to deliver but couldn't. This is mostly due in the video game industries to deadlines, you know, what most gamers cry about when they see their game release date push back several months. I would bet it was the case with Mirror's Edge, just by looking at how many title the studio worked on, it makes total sense this game was likely developed in a well organized chaos.
They tried their best, it's not what you expected but it's there.
Im trust trying to tell people that opinions are a personal view, of course that's obvious. But we are literally just telling people their opinions are wrong, you can't do that... Yes the game got a 6.8 to an 8 on different gaming websites. But that doesn't matter, i enjoyed the game, and if you didn't enjoy it as much as i did then thats just how it works, you have a view, and you're entitled it, like everyone else. But i just think when everyone says a sub par game, i just see it as a view, thats just what i think. Yes the game has its problems. You may find those problems more annoying then me, we all like different games. im just sick and tired of these discussions being a breeding ground for people who force opinions on each other, because people say mean things about others because they think differently about the game. Im not annoyed or agrivated by your view on it at all, its your opinion not mine. Im just trying to calm this constan flow of comments from being negative towards others, im not saying its you at all but i think everyone is getting a bit agitated...
Do you work for DICE? Do you work for EA? Did you even bother to read the credits? Do you actually know any of the names attributed to each team?
Clearly, you're the one with the agenda.
I actually tried it until after the train on my second playthrough. Kept from upgrading those intel files that make taking enemies down faster. It wasn't that big a difference so I upgraded everything after that. I even play with no HUD, no enemy health bars, runner's vision completely off since the first time playing and I only use the disrupt on security cameras when I want to walk around that particular place or take screenshots, but even so, it's not a particularly challenging game. It could have multiple difficulty levels, it would only add more to the game.
Why are you defending it in such a manner? Isn't there something you would like to be in the game, or something changed?
The development didn't went wrong, but the concept didn't achieved it's potential. Usually that happens on new IPs, especially that release at launch with new platforms, but this isn't really the case. Sure they wanted to start over like it's the first in a series, that's why there's a new storyline and no "2" on the title, but then they did some of the same mistakes the first one had, even things that got changed that have basically the same effect (no guns this time, but the melee combat and focus shield makes the player more overpowered that in the first). To me, the worse thing about the game is that aside the main missions and a couple of side missions, everything else is repetitive, has no impact in the game or imagination in their concept. This is not a problem caused by deadlines, it's a flawed concept from the start that settled on a limited number of outdated ideas from open world games, while not being a real open world game. I enjoyed the game, not as much as I wanted or expected, but I like it, but hopefully, if a new one does get made, they'll fix the problems that seem tied to the franchise so far.
HIGHLY disagree.
The open world plays nicely and the story was well written. While I agree it doesnt look as good as it couldve, MEC plays better than the original in every way. Better, deeper combat, better characters and writing, not to mention actual world development, and left plenty of room for more in a future title.
But otherwise, no - I'm incredibly happy with what we got. I'd like more, of course, but have enough exposure to the industry and development to know the limits of what can be done relative to the budget allocated. It's a fringe game, so has a fringe budget - I went in knowing we weren't going to get much more than we got in the first instalment, and I think they did a brilliant job.
Fingers crossed for DLC, episodic, or a sequel further down the line. Faith's final monologue feels like a solid promise from DICE that their intent is as such.
When other members of these forums come in and insult my intelligence, telling me my experience is invalid, insult my console, the company that makes the console, and my list of concerns about Catalyst moving forward, is where the problem lies.
If someone doesn't agree that's fine, I don't care. But if someone begins stating that I'm wrong, inadequate to make claims and such, there's an issue. I enjoy debates but it appears this community is mostly interested in stroking MEC's ego instead of acknowledging the elephant in the room.
Blind fans violently defending and justifying Catalyst without end is just silly at this point. The MEC teams needs straight up real talk about their product.
I totally understand. Everyone has a view and im sure Dice takes these reviews like yours into a count for hopefully future mirrors edge games. Catalyst has its flaws, I notice them every time I play it, but I absolutely love it as its one of those unique and different games that im extremely good at. Your view may be harsh, but harsh is sometimes good and you're doing it good, Dice will hopefully look at this and learn from their mistakes for next time to make an even better game. Don't worry about people saying you're wrong, because like I've said an opinion can not be wrong...
Indeed it is, and it all comes down to budget, naturally. Like I said before, it's not a bad game, the gameplay has been improved, but I was expecting some more attention to those certain details the first one didn't get quite right.
I'm not a big fan of the idea of DLC in general, but I would like that they get the necessary return to make a sequel in the near future.
I'm sure some EA gives some guidelines for them to follow in order to justify the investment, happens all the time, and it's to be expected.
Thanks
It really has. The first one inspired a lot of attention to first person gameplay vs environments. It has the potential to be or inspire a new genre, but I suppose that would take a few risks that could also kill it. If this one succeeds way better than the first, then they'll have more trust to expand on that.
Yeah, it's frustrating for someone to support a product and then fall a little short on expectations. Releasing that frustrations can lead to a wrong idea, especially when it's written, that can be interpreted as hateful ranting even if it isn't one's intention. However, to those that really liked the game, it's also frustrating to read someone complaining harshly about something they enjoyed a lot, so they retaliate.
I'm not sure what my point is, but reading this whole thread is like reading something written by an intelligent and angry badger.
But overall, the game has quite a strange feeling, in a negative way I must say.
First, right at it's begining, the game feels like an old and "mediocre" Electronic Arts game, with this sort of "D4RK" side to it ; which is deceptive because the game isn't really like that and feels better as the story progresses (I don't speak about the incredibly frustrating scenario). Maybe it's just the tutorial which gives that bad feeling.
Then, here's my principal wrong feelings about the game : 1) the "fake Open World" is quite a frustrating choice ; 2) the musics are less memorable than Mirror's Edge 2008 ; 3) the voices are not so good compared to the first Mirror's Edge (I'm playing the French version), especially the secondary characters who seem to come from a 20 years old game ; 4) the graphics are less than what I expected (not to mention the low-resolution textures charging, the ugly low-poly or overscaled models in the backgrounds, the pixelated shadows and the massive lens-flare bugs happening sometimes, etc), because they feel way too vaporous or empty ; 5) the staging and dialogues feels too cliché, like some scenes and situations you've seen a million times in movies ; 6) the characters doesn't feel familiar and they are blatantly uninspired and cliché (Noah is a poor replica of Nathan Drake from Uncharted ; Plastic is a replica of Chandra from Perfect Dark Zero ; Aline is a replica of Doctor Mossman from Half-Life 2 ; Gabriel Kruger is your average megalomaniac villain (not even Breen) ; Faith's sister have no personnality (it's a shame because they cared about each other in the first Mirror's Edge and they were a simple yet touching aspect of the story) ; Birdman is a clone of Morgan Freeman ; Nomad is a **** Emo-boy no one cares about, etc...) ; and 7) the ending is one of the worst I've seen in a videogame (#1 worst ending ever was Rage for me ; Mirror's Edge Catalyst is #2 now). Oh, let me guess ; they will make a DLC to correct that. Why not, if it's free or complete enough to justify the price to pay.
So I'm quite disappointed with what DICE made with Mirror's Edge after 8 years from the first episode, which feels so much more cool and familiar when you play this one (do it and just compare, I swear). And I have to admit : I just bought it again (for the 4th or 5th time in my life ; yes, 3 times on PC, 1 time on 360 and 1 time on PS3) on Origin after finishing Catalyst ; it was stronger than me, somewhere.
Yet, Catalyst is a good game : It's gameplay feels more free and more developped ; the fights feels very dynamic (I like to beat the **** out of the Kruger Sec. guys) ; the "photo-realistic" shaders are nice (on the characters at least) ; the city design is pleasant enough (yet the Level Design could have been so much more), and the situations are very immersive and intense (Sky City was sick). So I'll certainly have fun completing the game at 100% and play on Time Trial.
Of course, another disappointment is the absence of a Runners vs Security online multi-player, where you could create and customize your own Runner. And I tell myself DICE could have done that instead of focusing too much on a scenario that turns out to be not so good.
On PC with Ultra settings.
The flaws do affect the game. First of all, not everyone plays it in top and impeccable performance even within the same platform, so it doesn't even makes sense to create that "what if" scenario. Second, people are mainly complaining about performance and about mechanics. Third, there's nothing subjective about the flaws present in the game. Example: A poor story is not subjective. You might like it and others might not, but it doesn't invalidate that it is, in fact, poor.
When people start complaining about a certain game doesn't meet expectations, then it's a potential loss of clients in the future, so it does matter.