The Story of Mirror's Edge.

Finally, here's Part 3 of the little series I did on Mirror's Edge. You can find Part 1 - Flow, Part 2 - Combat, and Part 2 - Addendum... in those links.

Today, we talk about the Story of Mirror's Edge. I finally finished the game a day or two ago and have had a little bit of time to think about its story. This may end up a little stream-of-consciousness, but here goes. Also, SPOILERS MAY LIE IN WAIT LIKE CREEPY LITTLE EELS OF KNOWLEDGE-YOU-DON'T-WANT-TO-HAVE.

I think I heard somewhere (maybe it was at GDC?) that the writer of Mirror's Edge was brought on quite late in the process. This isn't altogether uncommon in the game industry. Quite frequently, writers will be brought onto a project that has six months until launch. They are given a bunch of levels and are asked to come up with a story to suit it. So you can easily see why some games are incredibly lacking in the story department.

Rhianna Pratchett, daughter of renowned author Terry Pratchett, was selected to be the writer for Mirror's Edge and, I think, the one responsible for the world design and overall story of the game. I really hand it to her. If someone handed me a bunch of levels for a first person parkour game, I wouldn't know where to start. But she took that and asked the question, "Why would someone be doing this? In what society would this need to happen?" She created this whole dystopian society out of those questions. Runners are needed to make sure information is not seen by anyone but the intended recipient. It's a simple, elegant solution that did not require the designers to create a whole bunch of new assets to fit the story. In fact, it even helps explain why the landscape is so devoid of color. The story helps put the game mechanics into a semblance of logic (which is what game stories should be doing!).

In fact, it was partly because of Pratchett's solution to the problem of being brought on late that I was excited about the story of Mirror's Edge. I thought, "Surely an author who can come up with such elegant solutions to the gameplay/narrative problem would tell a great story."

Well, I've been wrong before.

Before I go on, I want to say that very little of this is probably Pratchett's fault. I can guarantee that the same forces that thought it wise to bring on a writer six months before release prevented Pratchett from doing anything really revolutionary. However...

The first question on my mind when I heard the concept was, "What are they carrying?" What can't the government see? And, since I believe in surprising storytelling, I thought, "What, besides rebellion, would Runners be carrying?" What if there was a government conspiracy even outside the government conspiracy? Etc., etc., etc... So when they decide to go the "someone framed my sister for murder route," I was unpleasantly surprised.

If it were me, I would have put the focus on the Running. What are they carrying? For whom? What does it mean if cops show up and start shooting? I would have propelled the story on the mystery of the packages, not on the interpersonal relationships of the characters. This would accomplish many, many things at once.

First, it would give the players an entire game to understand the world and understand the stakes of being a Runner. If this was only the first of a trilogy, then it makes sense to spend most of the first game in what will be perceived as Act 1.

Second, it skips the cut and paste characterization. The characters would mostly be defined by actions, not by cutscenes and mission requirements. Faith goes to Kate because she gets in over her head with some private security firm that keeps hiring her to carry something that gets her shot. Now we know their relationship before anything terrible happens to either character. We are not told to go rescue our sister on the basis that she's our sister. (I mean, that satisfies the audience's need to understand why the character does it, but we don't see the connection. It's another case of needing to be shown, not told.)

Third, it opens up new gameplay possibilities. In a world where there are these Runners that take important documents around the eyes of the law, wouldn't there be a whole lot more teamwork? More false bags? I would have built the story around a partnership between Celeste and Faith - swapping bags, acting as decoys, and, ultimately, betrayal by the person you trust most. When the betrayal came in this story (both by Celeste and the other Runner guy...), there was no kick. I couldn't care less about these characters. But if I had spent the game working with Celeste, watching her risk her life for me as I do the same for her, I would have felt much differently when she sold out to Project Icarus.

At its core, Mirror's Edge is a kind of vengeance story in the vein of Taken or Shooter. Both of those stories feature very active protagonists who have a particular assortment of skills that make them good at taking revenge. Faith is a RUNNER! She runs away! The act of running - even running toward something - is not the skillset needed to take vengeance. I keep coming back to the idea of Flow in this game. A vengeance story necessitates combat. This game is not about combat (In fact, it does it terribly!). Therefore, it should not have been a vengeance story. Period.

That being said, in the grand scheme of the trilogy, a second game could be about vengeance. Maybe at the end of the first story, she upsets a corporation by revealing their secrets and they frame Faith's sister to show her who's boss. The second game can be about rescuing her, proving her innocence, and rising above petty, personal vengeance into a more aware, society-wide sense of justice. That's what future dystopias are for, right?


Like I said in the beginning, I don't think Pratchett had direct control over a lot of this. I think her premise is powerful, the dialog carried voice and subtext where necessary, and the voice acting was pretty good. However, the choice to have a character driven vengeance story in a first person game with Flash animation cut scenes? Not that great.