What do Mirror’s Edge and Tomb Raider: Underworld have most in common? Both games are 3D platformers, both feature a beautiful kick-ass heroine and indeed both feature Chris Barrie as a fussing English butler. OK, that last one is only true of Tomb Raider...the movie, anyway. The real correct answer is that despite being decent games, both are arguably guilty of shoehorning combat in when it wasn’t required. So, whilst Lara and Faith do kick butt, did they need to kick actual butt?

Mirror’s Edge may not be everyone’s cup of tea, but few will argue against it paving the way for future first-person action games. The protagonist is Faith, a girl on the run since she’s constantly being hounded by the bad guys. She leaps and bounds across the heights of a bright minimalist backdrop, and all the while you watch through her eyes as she speeds, slides and jumps over the obstacles of the dystopian city’s rooftops. The result is an exhilarating experience that’s one of the most unique this year. Yes, it’s full of thrills, and indeed spills, but also some incongruous kills. Either developer DICE, or more likely publisher EA, felt it was necessary to periodically include combat in the form of guns, fighting, and weapon disarmament. It’s somewhat understandable. After all, Mirror’s Edge is a brand new and very risky IP, so why not make it more relatable with some shooting? Also, since it’s in first-person view, it’s not hard to superimpose FPS technicalities. The problem is that the immersive free-running Faith employs was more than enough, and the gunners you have to directly deal with felt like great big barriers stopping you from staying within that adrenaline-pumping buzz. In short, the fighting felt superfluous. Sure, DICE gently push you towards the idea of shunning a brawl by including an achievement/trophy for avoiding killing throughout the main campaign. Indeed there are some points when trying to get into a fight will KO you within seconds. Still, given the gaming industry’s bad rep for focusing on violence, wouldn’t it have been a bolder statement to have excluded combat from the game altogether? In fact, would that have made for a better game?

In contrast, Tomb Raider: Underworld is a far more pedestrian affair. That’s not to say it’s boring; far from it. There’s just no pressure to do things quickly or on impulse. Instead, Lara relies on her wits, her perseverance and her other-worldly acrobatic skills. She patiently negotiates the ledges, jumps and swings off of gigantic, gorgeous, and absolutely awe-inspiring structures in her search for answers, and more importantly, treasure. If that still bores you, then you can always just sit back and watch her since she’s more droolworthy than ever before. Props, though, must be given to Crystal Dynamics for having finally made Tomb Raider platforming an uncomplicated joy whilst still keeping it reminiscent of the franchises’ beginnings. Underworld has rightly received bucketloads of praise, but none of those good words have been reserved for its combat. It’s a sporadic and simplistic lock-on affair with no skill involved, and it makes GTA IV’s shooting look pretty sophisticated in comparison. If Mirror’s Edge’s fighting was superfluous then Underworld’s is utterly redundant. At least DICE could defend their fighting by pointing towards the refined disarming and melee mechanics. There is none of that with Lara, and whilst the term "shoehorning" may be harsh in relation to shooting in Mirror’s Edge, with Underworld it feels generous. So why did Crystal Dynamics and publisher Eidos include it? Well, since when has Ms. Croft been without her trusty hip holsters? It would be a bold departure for the series, and one that would push the game more towards the less commercially appealing tag of puzzle game rather than an action one. Again, like Mirror’s Edge, the decision is understandable, if not advisable.

In my opinion, both games would have been better without including combat. Mirror’s Edge would have been more fluid, whilst Underworld had enough in its own arsenal to not include token shooting that begs comparison to rival Uncharted’s far superior cover-based shooting. So, in that respect, the decision to include fighting was an incorrect one. Is it really as simple as that, though? After all, most action plots involve conflict and adversity, so how do you translate that into the gameplay without including violence?

This is an issue that relates not just to these two titles, but to the entire games industry. It has from the moment we first pulled the trigger or drew blood with our thumbs. The finger has been pointed at videogames ever since, their reliance on bloodshed and the potential influence they have on an impressionable audience. Whether you believe this stigma is right or wrong, the fact is that a vast number of games include violence in one form or another. Just look at the big hitters that came out in November, the month Underworld and Mirror’s Edge were released, and work out which ones have combat. Only include the ones primarily focused on combat and the number won’t have dropped significantly. Wouldn’t it be good for the industry’s reputation, the developers and publishers involved, and the reputation of the franchises themselves if these games eschewed their tacked-on violence?