Review

Mirror's Edge Catalyst Review

  • First Released Jun 7, 2016
    released
  • XONE

Fun run.

There are moments when all of Mirror's Edge Catalyst's components fall into place, moments when intricate level design allows the fluid freerunning to shine, the mission at hand delivers a memorable set piece, or the open world surprises with a cleverly hidden area. Between those moments, there's a disappointing amount of filler and several mechanics--most notably the combat--that trip up the experience, but these stumbling blocks aren't enough to erase the magic of those instances where everything goes right.

Much of that magic stems from the game's signature mechanic: parkour. Unlike most first-person action games, Catalyst emphasizes precision platforming over guns and grit. Protagonist Faith Connor's moveset consists of vaults, rolls, wall-runs, and more, all of which demand some degree of skill from players. Split-second timing can determine the fluidity of an animation, and successfully chaining successive moves over great distances requires serious dexterity.

Please use a html5 video capable browser to watch videos.
This video has an invalid file format.
00:00:00
Sorry, but you can't access this content!
Please enter your date of birth to view this video

By clicking 'enter', you agree to GameSpot's
Terms of Use and Privacy Policy

Now Playing: Mirror's Edge Catalyst Review

No Caption Provided

Skill-based traversal is not only cool conceptually, it's satisfying in practice thanks to responsive controls, naturalistic animations, and the variety of movement options at your disposal. Even little touches like your controller vibrating right before impact after a long drop help make movement even more exhilarating than it was in the original game. Mastering your environment with flawless speed proves just as thrilling and liberating as executing a complex combo in a fighting game or nailing a demanding solo in a rhythm game.

The flipside of this coin, however, is the clunky, cumbersome combat. Faith relies entirely on her feet and fists when taking down enemies, so the game encourages you to pair your attacks with her movement for maximum impact. When it works, it's awesome: wall-running into a flying kick or sliding into an enemy's knees and watching his helmet slam into the ground is super gratifying. Problem is, many environments are too open to foster this form of kinetic combat, and without boxes to vault over or raised platforms to dive from, you're left clumsily dodging around enemies on flat ground and slowly chipping away at their health instead.

Worse still, some enemies are programmed to automatically counter certain attacks regardless of context, which feels awkwardly unrealistic. Because the enemy AI is bizarrely predictable, I generally just spammed whatever cheap move I found most effective against that specific enemy type. Thankfully, I could often avoid combat altogether; Catalyst even encourages this by making Faith essentially bulletproof if you fully fill her Focus meter by keeping her momentum high. In other words, you're much more likely to survive if you keep on moving instead of stopping to fight. More than once, however, I was locked in a relatively sparse arena and forced to defeat a preset number of enemies. Given the game's focus on movement over fighting, these moments, though rare, were totally unnecessary.

I experienced several sincerely vertigo-inducing moments while soaring across Catalyst's rooftops.
I experienced several sincerely vertigo-inducing moments while soaring across Catalyst's rooftops.

The upgrade system is another low point for Catalyst. Some essential maneuvers that should simply be available from the start--like the quickturn and tactical roll--must be unlocked, and other abilities can't be upgraded until you've progressed far enough into the campaign. This practice of artificially gating upgrades feels forced and pointless, though thankfully, the progression system ultimately has little impact on the moment-to-moment gameplay since you'll already have all the essentials unlocked after the first hour or two. All later upgrades--such as increased health and damage--are helpful but by no means crucial.

Other important aspects of Catalyst end up feeling a bit more mixed, though most ultimately add more than they detract. The open-world structure, for example, results in quite a bit of empty commuting as you run from mission to mission (at least until you unlock more safe houses for fast travel). The Runner Vision tool automatically guides you down the most expedient path to your next objective, which means you end up seeing certain routes over and over again.

Outside of the campaign, however, the world becomes an enticing playground full of collectibles to uncover and races to run. The inherent joy of the core mechanics makes unstructured exploration feel worthwhile, in part because you can ignore Catalyst's weak combat system and focus entirely on what the game does best: running. If you turn off Runner Vision entirely and simply rely on subtle environmental cues like the telltale blackfoot prints you'll occasionally find running up walls, you'll suddenly start to notice vents, ledges, and even entire concealed areas you previously ran right past.

Several of the side missions end up feeling just as substantial as the story missions, but even just figuring out how to scale a building for no reason can be rewarding in its own right. And unlike many of the story quests, most side missions genuinely challenge your abilities. I failed certain timed events repeatedly, but I steadily improved until I finally beat the clock. And when I did, I really felt like I'd earned the elation I experienced. You can also craft and share your own public, playable online time trial events by dropping markers in the environment, which further deepens the open-world experience. It's a simple yet ingenious system, and a serious boon to the game's longevity.

This is not to say Catalyst's world is impeccable, though. Its early rooftops look a bit empty and sterile and fail to provide much gameplay variety. While the stark white rooftops are an understandable aesthetic choice given the game's dystopian premise, these environments still grow repetitive over time. Thankfully the world is large and diverse enough to compensate for these shortcomings eventually. Late in the game, you'll find an elaborate construction site packed with stellar level design and squalid tunnels that offer visual relief from the city's samey rooftops.

As for the campaign, some missions feel routine and unimaginative, sending you on simple errands to areas you've already seen. But others deliver truly pulse-pounding tension or thoughtful environmental puzzle solving. You'll zipline from the tops of buildings, dive over security lasers, and escape from more than one collapsing construction site. While it's damn disappointing that later levels up the difficulty by adding more enemies rather than crafting more elaborate environments to test your parkour skills, the campaign still provides several welcome challenges and unforgettable moments.

For a game that emphasizes speed and movement, there's an annoying amount of barely visible glass to smack into.
For a game that emphasizes speed and movement, there's an annoying amount of barely visible glass to smack into.

The story stringing all these missions together is unremarkable but also unobtrusive. It disappointingly squanders the intriguing near-future dystopian premise by focusing on a half-baked corporate conspiracy filled with predictable twists and paper-thin characters, but the dialogue cringe factor is low and the narrative lends a discernible arc to the action. As much as I hated some of the character design and felt let down by the lackluster world building, the story does exactly enough to move the game along without leaving a lasting impression, positive or negative.

Finally, it's worth noting this final version of the game runs smoother than the somewhat sloppy beta. The frame rate dipped once or twice and I experienced a small handful of glitches like multiple audio cues playing simultaneously, but load times were completely reasonable and none of the technical hiccups I experienced actually impacted the gameplay. Catalyst may not be the best looking game out there, but it runs well enough to keep you invested in the action.

And really, being able to focus on and enjoy the gameplay is what matters. Yes, certain portions of the game are deeply unimpressive, but I rarely (if ever) found them frustrating, painful, or unavoidable, which allowed me to overlook those elements and enjoy the unique pleasures Catalyst provides. I was consistently wowed by the movement and everything that comes with it, so while it's a disappointing action game, it works wonderfully as a platformer, puzzler, and racing game. And for that reason, I can't wait to keep playing.

Back To Top

The Good

  • Satisfying, nuanced movement mechanics
  • Rewarding open-world exploration
  • Huge mix of worthwhile side content

The Bad

  • Clunky though largely avoidable combat
  • Mediocre storytelling

About the Author

Scott dashed through Catalyst's campaign in roughly 14 hours, but happily explored the copious side content for at least another six. Also, yes, he did play and enjoy the original Mirror's Edge. Publisher EA provided copies of the game for this review.
283 Comments  RefreshSorted By 
GameSpot has a zero tolerance policy when it comes to toxic conduct in comments. Any abusive, racist, sexist, threatening, bullying, vulgar, and otherwise objectionable behavior will result in moderation and/or account termination. Please keep your discussion civil.

Avatar image for Lord_Python1049
Lord_Python1049

52

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 17

User Lists: 0

What's with these comments? How is a 7, "garbage", "suck" or "shit"...wtf

13 • 
Avatar image for Ezioprez9709
Ezioprez9709

742

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 65

User Lists: 1

@Lord_Python1049: People lost their cool when Dark Souls III was given an EIGHT. This is no Driv3rgate!

Upvote • 
Avatar image for iskaroth
iskaroth

277

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 47

User Lists: 0

@Lord_Python1049: There are plenty of games with 8+ scores. Personally i can barely find time to play all of them, i havent even touched Witcher 3 or Phantom Pain even though i bought them almost a year ago and these games will be easily at least 200 hours of entertainment . Now TW:WH came out so thats another game ill spend 100+ hours.

People simply got no time for average titles like ME and lets be honest 7/10 IS average. How many games get score below 5/10? Not many and those games are pretty much all garbage not worth time nor money. Playable titles start at 7/10.

2 • 
Avatar image for SkytheWiz1
SkytheWiz1

2618

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 4

User Lists: 0

@Lord_Python1049: People are in the mindset these days that, if it's under an 8, it may as well be a 2.

Upvote • 
Avatar image for MrFreehuggs
MrFreehuggs

1260

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 5

User Lists: 0

@Lord_Python1049: People are really bad at understanding numbers. GameSpot had to label each rating (7= Good), but people still struggle to grasp it. Also, it's an EA game. You're not cool unless you say something negative about it.

6 • 
Avatar image for freeformrulz
freeformrulz

409

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 4

User Lists: 0

thanks ea and dice u done fked it up again like usual

Upvote • 
Avatar image for momoskysky
MomoSkySky

8

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

The first paragraph essentially describes the Uncharted series for me.

2 • 
Avatar image for anjon
anjon

8

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

@momoskysky: I'm sure "Sometimes this game is good, sometimes this game is bad" describes a lot of games. Like... all of them.

Upvote • 
Avatar image for deactivated-5ebc942967df5
deactivated-5ebc942967df5

1119

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

Well on the plus side it's better than the first ME, but they had to ruin it by turning it into another "icon janitor" open world game with a silly progression system that's designed for children but undermines the games supposed sense of freedom.

Upvote • 
Avatar image for xantufrog
xantufrog

17908

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 2

User Lists: 5

Edited By xantufrog  Moderator

I still have to play the first one - got it for free last summer when EA randomly gave it away on PSN for no reason.

Upvote • 
Avatar image for Fandango_Letho
Fandango_Letho

6204

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 41

User Lists: 0

DICE can't make a good single-player game even if their lives depended on it. Since they ridiculed Infinity War's trailer, I certainly hope that BF1 will be outstanding on all fronts. I mean, when you boast, you better deliver.

Also, maybe don't hire a 12 year old to write your games anymore. ''Badattitude'' boy-band outfits and edgy tattoo's don't make your characters interesting. Get your shit together, DICE.

Upvote • 
Avatar image for deactivated-5ebc942967df5
deactivated-5ebc942967df5

1119

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

@Fandango_Letho: They don't even make good multiplayer games anymore too, lol.

Upvote • 
Avatar image for fanboyman
FanboyMan

1627

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 5

Edited By FanboyMan

Disappointing, new ME sounds worse then the first game (which I enjoyed) DICE should have focused on making the gunplay/fighting mechanics better instead of removing combat options and seemingly adding nothing to replace them.

Upvote • 
Avatar image for Trev786
Trev786

386

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 0

Edited By Trev786

@fanboyman: There will only ever be one ME and it does not stand for Mirrors Edge....Forever Normandy

Upvote • 
Avatar image for fanboyman
FanboyMan

1627

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 5

@Trev786: ME is an abbreviation of the subject (Mirrors Edge) no need to be offended over the use of initials, it doesn't mean one game better than the other.

Upvote • 
Avatar image for soheil_nassri
soheil_nassri

115

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

Would you pleeeeease STOP making all games open world. Because of some stupid gamers who think if they pay 60 dollars for a game they should get more gameplay hours don't do this please. Open world is good for RPGs but not all games. Putting all efforts on quantity for sure will lower the quality

3 • 
Avatar image for Huantalahnmi
Huantalahnmi

79

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 16

User Lists: 0

Working for EA I had the chance to play the full game twice. I disagree with the review. I've seen worse games get a 8.5-9/10. The game is even funnier than the first one and different from everything else out there. I think it deserves a 8/10 at least.

Upvote • 
Avatar image for mogan
mogan

19985

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 6

User Lists: 0

mogan  Moderator

@Huantalahnmi: Then give it an 8.

4 • 
Avatar image for Trev786
Trev786

386

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 0

@Huantalahnmi: Yea, how much is EA paying you to circle message boards and spew these lies???

Upvote • 
Avatar image for Huantalahnmi
Huantalahnmi

79

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 16

User Lists: 0

@Trev786: xDDD Actually nothing. I'm not working for them anymore. Do you think I would talk about my relationship with EA if I were working for the marketing department? Think about it. Community managers don't pose as ex employees in webs like this, but as fans of the product.

You may disagree with me, but there is no reason for you to think that I'm a lier.

2 • 
Avatar image for Pr0ving4Gr0undz
Pr0ving4Gr0undz

646

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 2

User Lists: 0

Damn same exact score as the original. Too bad.

Upvote • 
Avatar image for EducatingU_PCMR
EducatingU_PCMR

1581

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 5

User Lists: 0

Another flop by DICE, I fear for BF1, let's hope it doesn't suck as much as BF4.

11 • 
Avatar image for Rushaoz
Rushaoz

954

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

@EducatingU_PCMR: BF4 sucked? That's strange. BF4 is really damn good. Sure you're not mistaking a bad launch for the games actual quality?

7 • 
Avatar image for cboye18
cboye18

4153

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 20

User Lists: 0

@Rushaoz: BF4 sucked @ss, just like BF3 did. It's like playing a CoD game with larger maps and limited destruction. Bad Company 2 was vastly superior than both of those games combined.

6 • 
Avatar image for stevhall88
stevhall88

181

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 4

User Lists: 5

Edited By stevhall88

@cboye18: No it did not, you just didn't like it and you got sh*tty taste. BF4 is a fantastic game, go back to your pokemon games.

2 • 
Avatar image for Rushaoz
Rushaoz

954

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

Edited By Rushaoz

@cboye18: Get ready for a long post, because you unzipped me. This is a touchy subject for me as I'm a ginormous Battlefield nut.

I guess I should start out by saying that I respect your opinion, but as a fan of the franchise (It's my favorite all time FPS) and longtime vet I have to tell you that no, BFBC2 isn't better than both BF3 and BF4 combined. It's actually not better than either game. To be honest they shouldn't even be compared because BFBC2 is a spinoff, not a real Battlefield game.

Also. I'm not sure what you're talking about because playing CoD is nothing like playing Battlefield. They're both FPS' with guns. What? Because you can run slightly faster? News flash: Sprinting and jogging speed in both BFBC2 and BF3/BF4 are much closer than you think. Movement is so slow and clunky in BFBC2 that it's difficult to get used to again after playing BF3/4 for so long. It's dated.

BFBC2, as good as it was, isn't a real Battlefield game. It was built from the ground up for consoles. It was crippled in every "Battlefield" aspect. Small player count, limited vehicles (No boats, planes, etc), smaller maps.. you couldn't even sprint strafe or go prone. Subsequently all these negatives ended up making the game as awesome as it was. They made the game simple. Any Battlefield vet will tell you that. I've been playing BF since BF 1942. BFBC2 was awesome at the time but hasn't aged well. Trust me. I still play it from time to time. I just played it over the weekend. It feels extremely dated in it's mechanics. BF4 is vastly superior. And I'm talking multiplayer. If you wanna talk campaign, well that's a different story.

Sorry to say it, but the only people that think BFBC2 was amazing/best game in the series are infantry casuals and console gamers that never played a real Battlefield title prior to BFBC2. BFBC2 was like losing your Battlefield virginity. No one on console ever played a game like it so that's why it sticks in their minds so well as an amazing game.

Some negatives to BFBC2..

-Conquest mode was TERRIBLE

-Every map in CQ mode only had 3 points

-Ticket drop rate in CQ was terrible even when a team held all flags

-There was no spawn protection for bases in CQ (Laguna Alta. That's all I have to say in regards to base rape)

-Hit detection was WORSE than it is now

-Movement was seriously clunky and slow

-The maps, while being well designed from a tactical standpoint, had terrible destruction. Just because you can destroy every building DOESN'T make the game better. I'll take well thought out tactical destruction over being able to destroy every building at will. It doesn't make for a better game, Just more chaos and rubble for shitty snipers and campers to hide in

-Because of all this destruction, every building was an empty, lifeless husk of a clone.

-MCOMs could be destroyed with explosives (REALLY???)

-Chopper controls were complete crap

I could list more, but this post is already long enough. There are also plenty of positives. I loved the game. Bought it on PC, XB360 AND PS3 so I could play with friends. When you factor in all negatives and positives BF3 and BF4 are the better games. I've put over three thousand hours combined into BF3 and BF4.

You wanna talk best Battlefield game? That's between Battlefield 2142 and Battlefield 2.

6 • 
Avatar image for cboye18
cboye18

4153

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 20

User Lists: 0

@Rushaoz: I didn't play any Battlefield games before Bad Company 2, but that game was just fantastic in every way. Definitely my favorite FPS of all time, regardless of being a spin-off. I have my own faults with BF3 and BF4 as well.

Bad Company 2 had better scaling in map size. Maps in BF3 and BF4 are way too large for 32 players and way too claustrophobic for 64 players. Strategic elements in map designs were lacking as well, probably because DICE didn't design these maps to the appropriate modes (conquest or rush). Too many urban areas for my taste as well, though BF4 did a better job in variety than BF4 did

That destruction mechanic is why many people loved the game in the first place. I personally never encountered a situation were everything around me was destroyed because the battle would be ended by then. Much rather have those small destructible buildings than towers where only glass is destructible and other buildings that are semi-destructible, which makes the game feel inconsistent with its mechanic. To each their own I guess. The lack of destruction made BF3/4 feel like CoD and bored the crap out of me.

Classes were better handled in BC2 and the smaller amount of weapons and gadgets made their usage far more practical over those found in BF3/4. Snipers were deadly but slow shooters in BC2, unlike the nerfed version in BF3/4. Medic was treated as the support class as it should be, not being hybrid assault/medic class which made the support class almost redundant in BF3/4.

Vehicles are the same across the games, though I find the helicopter somehow harder to control in BF3/4. I will say that I don't like the inclusion of planes, as they detract from the battlefield on the ground and the controls for it being terrible.

The few things that were improved in BF3/4 were the movement controls being much more fluid, the UI being more clean and informative, the heftiness and sound effects of weapons and ultimately, the graphics. But these improvements definitely does not make a more enjoyable game than BC2 and I know lots of people who say the same.

Upvote • 
Avatar image for NiteX
NiteX

1810

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 4

User Lists: 0

I guess no guns in the game was a lie. Shame.

2 • 
Avatar image for butterworth
butterworth

472

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 0

@NiteX: Certain enemies carry guns, but there is no option for you as a player to pick and use them. There are no shooting mechanics, only bullet-dodging mechanics.

Upvote • 
Avatar image for cpuchess
cpuchess

96

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 35

User Lists: 0

@NiteX: No it's not, there isn't enough guns. So stupid that the main character doesn't carry a gun

Upvote • 
Avatar image for Stedmister
Stedmister

180

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 4

User Lists: 0

@cpuchess: EA said from the start no guns this time, IMO games expect every game o have one to be good, I went through the first one gun free, and the redid it with guns, I enjoyed it more hand to hand than popping guys in the head, if I wanted to do that I buy an FPS, not a FPP

Upvote • 
Avatar image for Karmazyn
Karmazyn

994

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 5

User Lists: 0

I knew its going to be shit. Just get Dying Light with the DLC, better parkour and you have zombies too.

8 •