Mirror’s Edge 2 Is Now Mirror’s Edge: Catalyst

Mirror’s Edge 2 Is Now Mirror’s Edge: Catalyst

For the longest time, Mirror’s Edge 2 has seemed like one of those sequels that needed to happen but probably never would. Put your anxious mind at ease. The thing has a real name now! And it’s definitely “not a sequel”.

In advance of the hype-a-palooza next week at video game industry convention E3, Electronic Arts updated the website for Mirror’s Edge today to announce Mirror’s Edge: Catalyst. The long-awaited follow-up to Mirror’s Edge got a spiffy new name to reflect the fact that the developers wanted it to be more than a rehashing of the first game’s revolutionary take on first-person gaming. From a post written by Catalyst senior producer Sara Jansson:

Mirror’s Edge has always had a special place in the hearts of all of us at DICE. The first game had a lot of promise. It was unlike anything else in terms of the gameplay and style — it had a unique soul. But as much as we loved that game, we knew it could be more. So that’s what we have set out to do as we introduce Mirror’s Edge to a new generation.

The team has spent a lot of time re-evaluating every aspect of the game and making it a new experience. This is not a sequel, this is not Mirror’s Edge 2. We have landed on a vision that honours the first game — pushing the boundaries of first person movement and diving deeper into the story behind our heroine Faith — but also brings a lot of great new, interesting gameplay and features to the experience for our players.

Let’s see if what EA shows next week lives up to the new nomenclature.


      • Or you know, mid-2016. MGS V + Mad Max + Fallout 4 = Prrrrrobably about 600 hours of gaming right there (that’s not even too far from accurate math, I think).

        • 10hrs Mad Max, 40hrs MGS, 550hrs Fallout… hm. Might not have budgeted enough time with your 600, methinks.

          • Yeah, you’re right. I get the feeling that if Mad Max is good, I could sink more like 40 hours into that as well. ARGH TIMING.

  • While I appreciate the psychology, a lot of games with subtitles tend to translate to “Same game, different setting” (especially if you look at Assassin’s Creed). This can be the same for numeric succession as well (FIFA 15 is totally different from 14) but as a JRPG player, a numeric sequel tends to indicate new systems and gameplay to me.

    • Yeah, their reasoning seems ass-about-backwards. ‘Original Title: The Renaming’ is for when you’ve refined the existing mechanics, ‘Original Title 2′ is reserved for actual sequels, with all the improvements, advacements, and expansion of the world, mechanics, and continuous story.

      A numerical title, to me, is BETTER than a different subtitle, because it means they’ve got the bollocks to say, “This is the new and improved version,” rather than, “This is the next one in the series’.

      It’s the difference between 1.0 moving to 2.0 vs 1.0 to 1.1.

      • I agree that’s the rule of thumb, but it’s no guarantee.

        The problem with making a game like this a numerical sequel is that a lot of people missed the first game. DICE (and EA) aren’t making a new Mirror’s Edge because the first one was a cash cow, they took a chance on the new franchise in the first place (an FPS with very few guns starring a woman?) and they’re now taking another chance to realise the potential that they see in the series.

        If you put ‘Mirrors Edge 2’ on the shelves then there’s always going to be a portion of the market that goes “I didn’t play the 1st one, I don’t want to start half way through the story”.

        It seems ridiculous to be defending EA, but we should try to look at each situation on its own merits and not be cynical by default.

        Funnily enough the Assassins Creed series, which I would say are the worst offenders when it comes to sequencing titles in the ’1.1, 1.2, 1.3, 2, 2.1’ style, actually have a reverse correlation between the major sequels and the quality of the game.

        AC 1 did new things and was shit.
        AC2 builds on the AC1 mechanics and is good.
        AC2.1 and 2.2 build further on the AC1 mechanics and are good.
        AC 3 does new things and is shit.
        AC 4 builds on the AC3 mechanics and is good.
        AC 5 does new things and is shit.

        It’s essentially the ‘.something’ AC titles that are the good ones. Whenever they add new things they do so with such a short development cycle that they release a shit product.

        • I disagree there, AC2 did not build on AC1’s mechanics, it more or less reinvented them. Fighting was rebuilt from the ground up, you were given dual blades for combat, you had a whole new method of control, the city aspect was redefined as was mission structure… it was the purest aspect of going 1 – 2 as opposed 1 – 1.1.

          • I wouldn’t argue that AC2 isn’t a vastly superior game to AC1, but I do think that AC2 is really what AC1 would have been if a developer like Rockstar had sat on it until its original vision was realised. The basic mechanics of parkouring around a series of cities stabbing people are at the heart of both games and the first one was REALLY half-baked. Maybe the games should have been called AC0.5 and AC1 respectively.

            My example isn’t perfect in that ACIV is a numbered sequel that is a legitimate improvement on the mechanics of ACIII, much in the same way as ACII is a numbered sequel which realises the first games vision without making significant changes.

            I guess my point boils down to the idea that the most often quoted example of the half assed ‘.something’ sequel actually has nothing to do with the name given to the title and more to do with where it fits in Ubisoft’s biennial development cycle.
            YEAR 1: Grand vision + 1 year development cycle = broken, glorified beta
            YEAR 2: Refined vision + 1 year development cycle = decent title
            Aside from the year before ACIII when they did AC2.2, this has been the cycle throughout the whole series. What they number the game is largely irrelevant, you’re just as likely to get good value out of a full priced ‘.something’ as you are from a full blow AC sequel.

      • I totally agree with you, but seeing as story wise it’s a prequel, Mirror’s Edge 2 wouldn’t make much sense.

  • what a strange discussion. The X-Com Series (the proper early ones) weren’t numbered. They were simply titled, but ‘back in the day’ we still interpreted them as their own individual games (even if TFTD didn’t change anything substantial from the first game Enemy Unknown) and some of those titles changed the style of gameplay quite radically (which then got referred to as spinoffs rather than sequels so you can’t win really).
    whether it is mirrors edge 2 or mirrors edge: catalyst and whether it is a prequel or sequel, I would still interpret it as a different game from the original

  • Numbering the big Sequels was GTA’s method, though I’d argue that San Andreas was a massive leap over III

Show more comments

Comments are closed.

Log in to comment on this story!