Metareview -- Ninja Gaiden II (Xbox 360)

WTF @ avatar

I love Eurogamer's review that includes the basic theory that if the reviewer sucks at the game, then it must be terrible (or in the case of a 70/100, I guess just "average). If Ninja Gaiden II is only an "average" game (especially in it's sparsely populated Genre that is basically God of War, Devil May Cry, and Ninja Gaiden) then I hope to only play average games in the future.

I know I haven't played it yet, but even if they just give me the exact same experience as they did on the 360...it's got the new weapons, new combo's, and new graphics that will (at the very least) make it as good (for me) as Ninja Gaiden was. I respect his right to form his own opinion...but....basing it on his lack of ability to play the game? Meh

Is it everything that I dreamed it would be? No. The graphics aren't pushing the hardware to the absolute breaking point like they were with the original Gaiden on the 360 (which is basically what I imagined the sequel would do), but a 70? No sir. I'm more inclined to believe an 85 or a 90.

Left out a comma between Gaiden and "on the 360".

Amazing how the lack of a comma can make you look like a tit that thinks the Ninja Gaiden was an Xbox 360 game.

well i agree with Bananaboat. i havent played NGII and probably wont (not a 360 owner) but you cant give a Ninja Gaiden game a bad score because the reviewer wasnt good at it since there are plenty of people out there that will be good at it.

i personally dont care for the series because it is a little too difficult for my taste. i can play it and progress fine, but its so damn hard most of the time it becomes more like work to me than fun.

the game will probably get widely mixed reviews because of this very reason and judging from Ninja Gaiden's history of difficulty, that really isnt fair.

But isn't a cop out argument to assume that just because the score isn't where you want it to be its because of the reviewers lack of skill at the game?

From what I've seen of NG2 it was all looking to be more of the same. Without any substantial improvements to the formula it becomes harder to validate a higher score. I think thats been the problems with all the action games as of late from DMC4 to GoW. They've all played it safe or haven't strayed far enough from what established them in the first place.

It's fine not to agree with a review but to assume that a score has anything to do with a players skill or lack their of is demeaning to their intelligence.

Besides you were going to pick up NG2 regardless of the scores based on what you said. So what does it matter what one person thinks of it?

I do love how everyone popped out of the woodwork to defend a game based purely on namesake and not actually playing the title.

I only defended it so far as saying that it's ridiculous to give a game a low score, based solely on the fact that you aren't good at the game. Yes, I realize he also didn't like the camera, but do those two things add up to a loss of 30 points?

I'm a little amazed that a Eurogamer Defense Force actually exists. Either that, or there are alot of Ninja Gaiden haters around O_O

I'm a little confused right now. Look at metacritic, and you'll see that the lowest score is from 1up (it reports that 1up gave it a 67/100) but when you read the 1up review, it clearly has "B-" plastered right on the front page. Where I come from...a B*anything* is anything between 80% and 89%. Is metacritic not reporting 1up's scores properly?

I'm going to "job" there's a Ninja Gaiden 2 Black instead.

I'm with the "how can you knock a game for being too hard" crowd. Really? Are we to the point where we as hardcore gamers are encouraging easy games?

I could write a ten page paper on how this is a direct result of the casual gaming revolution, but in all honesty, I think games have been getting way to easy over the past decade, and it's nice to have a game like Ninja Gaiden or it's sequel to remind me that Video Games can still be challenging.

Contra was hard as fuck, and it had shit for a story even though it was made 20 years ago, but does that mean it doesn't deserve to be considered a classic?

I'd much rather pay $60 for a game that is going to challenge me and force me to learn to play it than pay $60 for some shit shooter that creates auto save checkpoints every ten minutes and allows me to run and hide for 10 seconds after getting shot 5 times to mystically restore my health to full strength again. Not to mention the amazingly drawn out 5 hour long campaign *cough* COD4 *cough* that allows me to really get my money's worth by then doing same fucking thing over and over again in the amazing online multi player modes. (run around, pull R trigger, respawn, repeat...)

Or perhaps I'd rather dump $60 into a different action game, maybe one of those awesome ones that requires me to really be challenged my pressing giant buttons that pop up on the screen in sequence, or maybe one of those games that can be beat by simply pressing the A button 5000 times.

The idea that someone would even begin to complain about a game being "too hard" is just ridiculous. This would be like calling films like Memento, Fight Club or The Sixth Sense bad movies because not everyone will get them after watching them only once.

We as a society for some reason cannot live without instant gratification these days, and for some reason or another the thought of actually having to take the time from our busy days to LEARN HOW TO PLAY A GAME is a bad thing now. If a game doesn't play EXACTLY LIKE every other game in the genre, that's a bad thing. Somehow in an industry that always preaches innovation, companies get knocked for there games not "being as good as _________". It's pure hypocrisy.

That's okay though. Hearing that NGII is too hard for someone who gets paid to play video games and write about them only makes me that much more eager to accept it's challenge.

And for those reviewers that find the game too hard, don't fear. God of War III should be out by this time next year, and you can give the game 10/10 rave reviews for it's innovative feature that tells you how to beat the game by flashing giant 12 inch images of buttons onto the screen.

God forbid you have to go back to the stone ages and read a moves list.

Can somebody say...360's Heavenly Sword?

I wouldn't go THAT far. This game will actually be entertaining as they always are. Heavenly Sword is one of those games you buy or rent and you just want it to be good but in the back of your mind you're like meh. True story yeah. Look at the sales charts :)

Will I be shot if I said I loved the hell out of Heavenly Sword and still enjoy it to this day? It did a lot of things well, including putting you into the perspective of god.

I also loved heavenly sword, minus the motion parts.

if people are allowed to love lost oddyssy, people are allowed to love heavenly sword.

Lost Odyssey was made by the RPG dream team, and it was a fantastic game.

I liked Heavenly Sword a lot, but damn I am glad I rented that. 60 bucks is far to much to spend on such a short game.

Heavenly Sword was a lot of fun, just short. If you could get it for $35, it'd be at least a 9, cause then you'd be getting your money's worth.

I've played through heavenly sword 5 times... I think I got my moneys worth at $60.

GRID - LMAO

Heavenly Sword has the best facial animations I have ever seen in a video game ...

As for Ninja Gaiden II - Well I was interested but I have had enough hack n slash with DMC 4 this year ... I will just get MGS 4 - a game with an actual purpose

Wong:

I totally love Heavenly Sword, too...I'm a late adopter to the franchise (got it on half.com for $30), but I definitely think it's worth it...the insane fighting mixed in with some of the slick button-press sequences...who WOULDN'T want to slide down giant ropes toward a tower, hopping from one to the next?!

Bad-ass, I tell you...too short, but still Bad-ass.

"Anything over a 9 for this is kinda overrating it"

Holy crap, dude, you've played it?

I mean, I agree with you, but I'm not gonna make claims about how a game should be rated when I haven't even put a decent amount of time into the game.

I played it when it was called Black/Sigma

Well played. I'm still gonna buy it, just 'cuz it's not the second coming of OoT doesn't mean it's a bad game.

Fatass, you're speaking to our resident jaded elitist

But, seriously, tmac. I would be interested to know what you actually DO like

I'll consider gameflying it once I find a reason too. There really was nothing memorable about the first one that makes me want more. Maybe it'll have good achievements at least :\

Mr Khan

I only have room for one mindless hack n slash franchise with boring characters, no story, bad camera, and generic enemies and I reserve that slot for Dynasty Warriors.

Here's the thing about gaming....

A revolution is often many great ideas, not a single goddam one of them pulled off right. So it goes unnoticed until the next game takes these ideas and stuffs them into their own design. A revolution is a red herring. Sure, it's different and the potential is there, but what you have can hardly be considered a good thing.

A Evolution is the foundation of gaming. Taking something that worked and improving on it. The constant evolution of design is the core of the experience. Sure, Ninja Gaiden II may not be all new, but if it improves upon the core formula, that's still an improvement.

Besides, you you were really interested in all new, never done before, designs, you'd only play Indy games and flick off consoles in general.

I see what you're saying Fidious but let me clarify. I don't expect pure innovation all the time but I sure don't expect to play the exact same thing.

God of war gameplay wise is about 99% the same, but it has a really good story and interesting characters to focus on. It takes some of the same old feeling away. Same with the MGS series and well, most of the great franchises today.

Ninja Gaiden really has nothing to focus on other than the gameplay and all of the video reviews, gameplay trailers, and screenshots I've seen shows that they took the first one's gameplay and added about 50 swimming pools of blood. I even recognized a lot of combos and moves from the first game.

So you put more stock in strong story, then?

If the gameplay is going to literally be the same thing then yes, I expect it to be really strong in many other areas. Otherwise I'm just spending full price to play the previous game but with different areas.

But is it the same thing? From what I've seen, Ninja gaiden II offers a ton more variety and isn't quite so obsessed with immasculating it's audience.

And believe it or not, those are good scores!

5/10 is still average, right? Or is all the hard work I've poured into my Maths A-Level in vain?

I loved GoW 1 and 2 but im sorry NOTHING changed from 1 to the other. hell stuff like COD and rainbow six do it all the time and nobody bitches but a new good game in a much needed genre and everyone is bitching about it. Hell how many games change from one to other. To be honest gameplay wise not much about NG needed to change. the game was the smoothest ive ever played in the genre. if you died its because you sucked not because of sloppy controls like in other games. anyone who buy sports titles year to year should be banned from this blog!!

People are only calling it Ninja Gaiden 1.5 to spite Itagaki and his comments towards Sigma, but they're convinced that it *must* be true since equally uninformed and spiteful people are making the same comments.

I'd really like to meet the person that started the whole "version 1.5" craze and punch him in the face. Although virtually of course, since I'm a total weak ass. What we don't need are more companies ruining the perfect game mechanics from the original in a desperate attempt to avoid the dreaded 1.5 moniker.

tmac-

you must have never played black or sigma is you can even begin to place dynasty warriors of all games into the game genre as Ninja Gaiden.

Dynasty Warriors is a button mashing pile of shit of a game that my 5 year old nephew could beat. Any monkey can press the same button 5000 times.

What I, and so many other people love about Ninja Gaiden is that is the EXACT opposite of that. It's a challenging game that rewards you for taking the time to figure out that pressing A to slash over and over will get you nowhere, and punishes those who refuse to press start and read the moves list.

The idea that you have even paired these two games as being one and the same tells me that you sir, are simply full of hot air.

And that is all there is to it.

Do your self a favor, stop pressing A over and over for a minute and challenge yourself. If doing so really entertains you, I have a broken Sega Saturn controller that you can just take with you everywhere. You won't even need a TV, it can just be your handheld version of Dynasty Warriors. The A button on it still has a pretty responsive feel to it, it can handle at least 20 or 30,000 more presses. That would be the equivalent of playing all of the next 5 Dynasty Warriors games that should be out by Christmas. Just think of all the money you'll save!

Personally, I can't get pass the irony of one of the main complaints being a lack of innovation over the previous gen game, given Itagaki bitch slapped Sigma for the exact same reason.

Perhaps he thought adding in pointless DLC costumes was next gen?

If he's taking his lessons from Namco, I can see where he gets his belief from.

if it gets the same or less amount of fanfare that sigma did, its a good thing this is suppose to be the last. now they can focus on more sweater cow physics.

and then i'd also like to know where his definition of evolution is. and why exactly tekken sucks so much ass compared to dead or alive.

*sigh*

Or completely unapproachable by most gamers. Especially considering the difficulty doesn't really ramp up like in previous Ninja Gaiden games, it's there right away.

Some people enjoy constant continues or watching one combo from a boss whittle away your health until you die, those people are retarded.

"Some people enjoy constant continues or watching one combo from a boss whittle away your health until you die, those people are retarded."

For most games, I'd agree with you, but not so with NG. The first WAS extremely difficult, but not because the game was cheap, it was because you had to be really really fast and learn to think on your toes.

To me it was like the high you get from nailing a really fast solo in GH or RB - it leaves you breathless thinking "Jesus, did I just do that?!". When I finally beat Alma 1.0 in the first NG, I felt like I had really accomplished something. It felt good to be challenged and still come out on top.

DMC is different because its bosses take about 999 hits to kill and can STILL kill you in a 5-hit combo. Ninja Gaiden at least gives you a powerful, fast character with which to dish out damage - you just have to learn to use him.

Thank god someone else gets it.

Well put.