Mirror's Edge to become a trilogy

360 News | First one still not out yet.

Mirror's Edge isn't even out yet, but Owen O'Brien, a Senior Producer at DICE, has revealed that the company is already planning two sequels. That would make it a trilogy, then.

"The story we're telling at the moment is kind of a trilogy, a three-story arc," O'Brien said in an interview with AusGamers (via Eurogamer). "I think there's a lot of scope to take the story in different directions, or maybe tell someone else's story. But certainly for these first couple of games, it's all about Faith. It's all about her experience in the world."

At his early stage, he obviously wasn't especially forthcoming with details, but did mention that a level editor for the first sequel was in the pipeline.

"Creating a level editor is a skill in itself, and that's a lot of work. And if we do it, we want to make the level editor as easy to use and intuitive as the game is. And that's going to take us quite a lot of time. So that's something we're looking at for the sequel."

While we're waiting for that, the first Mirror's Edge game, starring the nimble Faith and her rad parkour moves, will be out for the PS3 and Xbox 360 next month.

Related Mirror's Edge Content

Mirror’s Edge demo coming November 6
05 Oct, 2008 GameStop lists demo date.

Mirror's Edge Review
31 Dec, 2008 Not quite at the edge.

Mirror's Edge dated for Europe
19 Sep, 2008 Demo out next week, too.

PagePrevious 12

38 Comments

Benza

3 years ago

Sin Ogaris wrote

Benza wrote

Skiller wrote

Trilogy = Bad/Unfinished story = saved myself $100.

Kind of like Star Wars, Lord of the Rings, Hitchikers Guide to the Galaxy, yeah Trilogies suck.

Way to jump to conclusions.

Technically LotR, and I believe Hitchhikers Guide (could have just been the tv show), had six parts each.

Hitchhikers Guide has 5 parts but is still called a trilogy (Mainly as a joke) Howerver it was intended to be a trilogy, Douglas Adams just thought of more stuff to write about.
I think there writing a sixth one but Douglas Adams isn't involved so it's not gunna be great.

Lord of the Rings is techincly 6 books as well but I don't think it's even possible to buy the individual books anymore, it's pretty safe to say it's a trilogy. The Hobbit and The Samarilian don't count they're just stories with the same setting not part of the original story.

Jarrod

3 years ago

The problem is not that trilogies are bad/unfinished stories, its that the developers behind them are just doing it for the novelty, rather than actually having the confidence and intention of fleshing it out. While it's not true for all developers (read: BioWare), its true for most.

Just look at the MGS series for a success story. While the game series and overall plot ended up spanning four main titles, the very first "Metal Gear Solid" has a plot that can stand alone. You can go in and play JUST that title, have a really awesome story, plenty of twists, and leave with very little if any plot holes remaining.

The following games then expanded on the concepts in the first, and fleshed out the overall story.

THAT is how a trilogy should work. The first game should feel like a complete story that doesn't necessarily require a sequel.

Benza

3 years ago

Shouldn't we wait till we've actully played Mirrors Edge to start complaining that it's going to feel unfinished at the end?

Jarrod

3 years ago

No, we must complain now as much as we can as fast as we can, not stopping for anything.

pock3tmonster

3 years ago

I think people are missing the point. With the development costs of games so high in this age of high definition graphics and sound, it makes sense for a developer to turn new IPs into ongoing series' or, for context, trilogies. Think about it, if Mirror's Edge cost EA $200 million to make, for example's sake, and it sold just one million copies, there's not a lot of profit to be had. So what would be the point of risking more financial damage in making another new IP, when it might cost even more money to complete, to stay ahead of competitors with cutting edge technology, and it might not even be successful? It could be a dud and become a financial bomb for EA.

So why not use the groundwork that has been set in place by Mirror's Edge, and develop another title? It's going to be cheaper for starters, as developer's aren't being paid to build a new engine or work with new technology, etc, and as it is an already established title, you have some guarantee of an audience to buy the game. This is where these trilogies are coming from. Though I can understand where a lot of the grievances are coming from, EA or other companies for that matter, shouldn't be announcing sequels to games before their release and reception by the public. Surely I can't be the only one who thinks that EA are being reasonable in developing a "trilogy"? This is only going to become more and more common place. These are the games that pay for our original IPs.

Sin Ogaris

3 years ago

Um actually if it cost 50 million and they sold a few million (we'll assume a few means 3) then that's a 100 million dollar return, 200% above and beyond what they paid... that's a lot of money.

pock3tmonster

3 years ago

That's not the point I was trying to make. The figures are off, yes, but it was meant to be an example. I'll change them to something more sensical.

Sin Ogaris

3 years ago

Yeah, I get what you mean, games are moving into the big dollars like films and as a result need to make a return. The thing is, make a good enough game and it'll earn you the dollars, claiming a trilogy off the bat is actually a detriment because you can't gaurantee your title will be received well and you may not earn enough from the first to finish the rest (i.e. Beyond Good and Evil).

Benza

3 years ago

Sin Ogaris wrote

Beyond Good and Evil is getting a sequel.

Aftershock

3 years ago

Sin Ogaris wrote

Benza wrote

Skiller wrote

Trilogy = Bad/Unfinished story = saved myself $100.

Kind of like Star Wars, Lord of the Rings, Hitchikers Guide to the Galaxy, yeah Trilogies suck.

Way to jump to conclusions.

Technically LotR, and I believe Hitchhikers Guide (could have just been the tv show), had six parts each.

Yes, Technically LotR had 6 parts, but theres 5 Hitchhikers books in the (increasingly incorrectly named) trilogy.

ObsoletE

3 years ago

Benza wrote

Sin Ogaris wrote

Benza wrote

Skiller wrote

Trilogy = Bad/Unfinished story = saved myself $100.

Kind of like Star Wars, Lord of the Rings, Hitchikers Guide to the Galaxy, yeah Trilogies suck.

Way to jump to conclusions.

Technically LotR, and I believe Hitchhikers Guide (could have just been the tv show), had six parts each.

Lord of the Rings is techincly 6 books as well but I don't think it's even possible to buy the individual books anymore, it's pretty safe to say it's a trilogy. The Hobbit and The Samarilian don't count they're just stories with the same setting not part of the original story.

The Lord of the Rings is an especially different case - it was never really a trilogy in the eyes of Tolkien (and possibly not in the eyes of his original publisher), but rather 1 book.

it's written as 6 books, but was released in 3 volumes, at the same time, bought as 1 unit. it was only later that publishers split the 3 volumes up - and later again that the sub-books were further split up (as an aside, there are several collections that keep the 6 books seperate - and they usually collect The Hobbit, The Silmarillion, The Adventures of Tom Bombadill and Unfinished Tales as well.)
it's like if Guns and Roses: Use Your Illusion I/II were released as a double album - like Nine Inch Nails: The Fragile - instead of as seperate units.

the sub-books are more analogous to the books of the bible.
you don't go and buy the book of Matthew, then wait for the book of Mark. it's done as one book: The Lord of the Rings, with the "trilogy" being like the Old and New Testaments, and the sub-books being the gospels.

and yeah - i went there...

Duckula

3 years ago

Aftershock wrote

Yes, Technically LotR had 6 parts, but theres 5 Hitchhikers books in the (increasingly incorrectly named) trilogy.

There are 6 if you count Young Zaphod Plays it safe.

Lord Haart

3 years ago

Sin Ogaris wrote

Um actually if it cost 50 million and they sold a few million (we'll assume a few means 3) then that's a 100 million dollar return, 200% above and beyond what they paid... that's a lot of money.

Actually, the developers get far less return on their games. Publishers take a fair chunk - while people love whining about this, the fact is that YOU wouldn't sink a $50 million investment into just anyone and expect no return. Publishers have the right to profit (within reason of course). What DOES annoy me is when publishers make moves that actually harm the game's sales and profitability, out of their own misguided attempts to feel like they understand how to make games. It happens too often. But without publishers, we wouldn't have much of a gaming industry at all.

And you're assuming they sell a few million - even WoW is only on 8 million.

Furthermore, not everyone has Australia's ridiculous prices. Games are much cheaper in the States, in Europe, and certainly in Asia.

Add to that the fact that we are in economic recession (if not depression) and you see that sales will be cut significantly this season. Quite bad timing for lots of franchises, but that's the way the cookie crumbles.

And lastly, and this is the reason for the -ve, why the hell shouldn't the developers earn lots for sinking years of their lives into this? You act like it's something they do for pleasure in their spare time - sure, making games sounds fun, but I can tell you from plenty of experience it's pretty darn unpleasant most of the time. Would YOU spend 5 years on a project just for the *possibility* that you *might* make a tiny return on your investment? No. Good developers are driven and skilled, and when they produce a great game, I have no qualms about them profiting, or wanting to continue the franchise they've worked so hard to build.

Think twice about this. Who would declare a trilogy before a game is released? Not the publisher. There's way too much risk if the game goes sour. Only a great developer, who trusts in their franchise and wants to build it into something special will make that commitment. Why are you all so worried?

Benza

3 years ago

Quote

Why are you all so worried?

Cause it's being published by EA and people are jumping at any opportunity to rubish them.

PagePrevious 12

View as forum topic

Add Comment