170
rate

Mirror's Edge Took 7 Years To Make

March 01, 2010 in Interview comments 15

In a recent interview with GamingUnion.net, Co-founder and former CEO of DICE, Fredrik Liliegren, discussed what he thought of a Mirror's Edge sequel, how long the original game took to develop, and whether or not he believes making such an unusual IP was a good idea.
Go to the source for the full article.

Gaming Union: What do you think of DICE's choice to make Mirror's Edge, and now that they're developing a sequel?

Liliegren: Knowing that that product was in development for about seven years.. [laughs] and given that it wasn't Mirror's Edge when we started, but it was one team working on 'the new IP' for seven years, I think they did a strong final. They did something different that people hadn't done before. I think it needed a second generation so they can tweak on it, I played it a little bit.
Miss Razz via gamingunion.net »
Favourite this article Add source
| More
Report!
News story attached to:

Comments

Register as a member to subscribe comments.
  • 0
    ShadowGuard Mar 2, 10
    7 years!!! I thought it was a great game to be honest, a little short, but definitely innovative and fun to play. I thought the story was ok as well. I will be looking forward to Mirror's Edge 2 personally...
  • 0
    RabidChinaGirl Mar 2, 10
    That isn't an unusual span for games these days. You can tell, especially when GI releases those fun facts about games and the development team... like how many babies were carried out to term during development. XD
  • 3
    Aussie Legend Mar 2, 10
    It wasn't worth the wait
  • 0
    Daweii Mar 2, 10
    Mirrors Edge was a good game they clearly focused on the visuals and gameplay which in most cases would be the best thing a developer could do, but they neglected the story and it just didn't gel together. I look forward to Mirrors Edge 2 as it's one of those games like Bad Company, I said to myself that game couldn't get any better gameplay wise or visually and it did, if Mirrors Edge can somehow look even more photo realistic and expand on story telling and gameplay we are in for a treat.
  • 1
    Guugley Mar 2, 10
    Mirror's Edge was very poor in my opinion, wouldn't even consider getting a sequel unless it was more Assassin's Creed-esque.
    • 1
      Storm Mar 2, 10
      Why would you want it to be similar to another franchise? :S The more unique it is the better, imo. We need more IPs.

      I enjoyed Mirror's Edge. The first-person style, fast-paced movement, and the vibrant colors all came into play. Granted I bought it later on for the PC for just $5, but I still thought it was worth every penny. xD Agreed on the story, however, didn't really care for the characters or the 'conspiracy' in the game, but eh, that's what sequels are for, to improve (or go downhill, but no one hopes for that).
      • 1
        Aussie Legend Mar 2, 10
        I think he means in terms of growth rather than copying the game.

        I mean, if you compare AS1 and AS2 they're almost in a different universe.
  • 2
    Hideo1 Mar 2, 10
    The problem with MEdge was that they tacked on shitty gunplay and combat. The core of it, the parkour (I could have been cheesy and made a par-core pun, be grateful I didn't), was brilliant. They just *bleep*ed themselves over by not trusting people will have the mental capacity to enjoy a game that didn't rely on guns.
    • 1
      Sayyed Mar 2, 10
      But people don't have the mental capacity to enjoy the parkour. And you weren't forced to use the weapons, hell there is even a trophy for beating the game without using guns.

      I loved the first mirrors edge. Sure the story was decent but I thought the gameplay and the atmosphere was fun enough to make up for it. Bring on number 2.
      • 0
        Hideo1 Mar 2, 10
        A. Have you tried going on hard difficulty without guns?
        and
        B. Forcing you to run away from and fight people with guns was just as bad, and that happened throughout.
        • 1
          Sayyed Mar 2, 10
          Yeah, as a matter of fact I did the no gun trophy on hard. I did die a lot but It gave opportunities to try and take them down in different ways.

          And the whole point of the game was to get from one point to another as fast as possible. Stopping to think how to take down enemies slowed you down. So that also gave room for ways to effectively escape enemies, which I did a lot of as well in the later levels.
        • 0
          Hideo1 Mar 3, 10
          It did nothing in the later levels except force waves of gun toting bad guys on you and annoy you with one hit kill ninjas.

          So you're honestly trying the say the game was better for having guns in it? The whole point of parkour is to get from A to B as quickly as possible and as stylishly as possible. A major part of it is checking runs out before doing them. In the story campaign of MEdge you couldn't stop to scratch your ass without some *bleep*wit trying to put a bullet in you. Yeah, it gave you the opportunity to take down bad guys in different ways, but Parkour isn't about taking down bad guys, hence the tacked on shitty action point still stands.
  • 0
    dwg14390 Mar 2, 10
    7 years and they couldn't have made a longer game?
    • 0
      Slumpy monkey Mar 3, 10
      7 years development

      AKA: Ideas in lead game designers mind to finished product. They most likely only actually fully worked on the game for 3 or so years, the rest was most likely development work.
      • 0
        dwg14390 Mar 8, 10
        I know that, but still the game was just ridiculously short. Even Portal was longer. (but that's because I suck at puzzle games )

This news story is archived and is closed to comments now.