.: The Official Ninja Gaiden II Thread (Reviews are coming in!) :. (56k warning)

[QUOTE="UpInFlames"]

It seems everyone is saying that it's too much like the original which is a perfectly sound complaint, but then please be consistant. These same reviewers gush over yearly expansion packs such as Vegas 2 and Call of Duty 4 and then "slam" (let's not ignore the fact that it's still getting good/great reviews) Ninja Gaiden II - except that Ninja Gaiden does what it does much better than those games in the first place.

I never realized that Ninja Gaiden had a "horrible" camera - and if so, why did every reviewer ignore it back then? Frustratingly hard and inconsistent difficulty - check. That didn't stop the original being one of the best games ever made. So basically it all comes down to it being too similar to the original. Again, a fair complaint and definitely grounds for slight disappointment - but at the same time meaningless coming from the people that will at the end of the year give awards to games that recycle formulas even more obviously and more repeatedly than Ninja Gaiden.

EvilTaru

You'll have to ask them. The original probably wasn't one of the best games ever made, personally I never really found any of the bosses in the first game truly memorable, there was a lot of cheapness in the first game too but it was the first and the best action game on the xbox at the time and pretty much every flaw got overlooked, the gaming media just got caught up in the hype.

Ninja Gaiden had some flaws, but it was a high quality DMC style game which wiped the awful aftertaste of DMC2 out of people's mouths so I can fully understand why it got the reception it did and believe the reception would have been equally rapturous on the PS2.

I agree UIF, I never thought of the camera in NG1 to be terrible.

I have noticed something about these review reactions from around the web. So NG2 gets these scores and everyone is quick to attack the reviews. But DMC4 gets the same scores and everyone is quick to agree with them. I see how it is... :P

dvader654

The gamesradar review was totally harsh but probably totally true, from the first day I saw NG2 the environments just never received the necessary upgrade, I suspect they locked down their tech too early in the generation and simply have trouble pushing the graphics because with the game looking like it does there should NOT be any slowdowns whatsoever, the bosses in the cutscenes that I saw were simply uninteresting and lacked at least that appeal that Murai did and even Murai wasn't all that memorable in the first game. Frankly I didn't think DMC4 was all that hot either. The action genre itself on current-gen consoles is seriously getting dull.

The number of enemies has been doubled, the action is at least as fast if not faster than ever and the enemies are at least as lethal as their predecessors. That would make a sloppy camera a bigger issue in NG2 than it was in 1 (it was normally mentioned in reviews, though much wasn't made of it).

Also, especting sequels to improve on the strong points and the weak points of their predecessors is perfectly reasonable. A camera that was acceptable in RE1 was intolerable in RECV. Designers shouldn't tell themselves, 'People liked the last game, so I won't change anything!".CarnageHeart

From what I've seen, the number of enemies on-screen has remained largely the same with perhaps only a slight increase. I also remember Itagaki saying that the obvious thing for the sequel would be to throw in more enemies which he didn't want to do - he rather wanted their actions to mean more than they did before meaning an AI improvement.

I think Dead or Alive is a testament to Team Ninja not being a developer that likes to rest on its laurels - the series has evolved and improved dramatically over the years. Perhaps Ninja Gaiden's evolution is more subtle, but again from what I've seen, it's there. Team Ninja introduced body parts slicing which makes the combat all the more visceral, they introduced environmental interaction similar to that of Dead or Alive 4, character and object interaction (werevolves use their own severed limbs as weapons against you, for example), real-time weapon switching and ninpo deployment....I don't know, perhaps people expected a more radical change, but everything I've seen from Ninja Gaiden II sounds not only fantastic, but also a natural progression. Perhaps I'll feel different after playing the game myself, we'll see.

You'll have to ask them. The original probably wasn't one of the best games ever made, personally I never really found any of the bosses in the first game truly memorable, there was a lot of cheapness in the first game too but it was the first and the best action game on the xbox at the time and pretty much every flaw got overlooked, the gaming media just got caught up in the hype.EvilTaru

I find Ninja Gaiden to be the best action game I ever played. It certainly wasn't without flaws, but I replayed it four times (the last time being last year) and enjoyed it throroghly each and every time. In my opinion, Ninja Gaiden is the epitomy of a timeless cIassic.

Framerate problems in a Team Ninja game? Say it ain't so!

"The only trouble is that our review build had trouble maintaining a solid framerate throughout the adventure. Quite a few times when there were explosions on screen the game would start chugging. Late in the game when the levels toss huge numbers of enemies at you the game would crawl. Occasionally this was actually cool -- when things move a bit slower you can actually appreciate the artful movements on screen -- but more often it left me a bit disappointed that the framerate wasn't locked down."

~IGN

[QUOTE="EvilTaru"]You'll have to ask them. The original probably wasn't one of the best games ever made, personally I never really found any of the bosses in the first game truly memorable, there was a lot of cheapness in the first game too but it was the first and the best action game on the xbox at the time and pretty much every flaw got overlooked, the gaming media just got caught up in the hype.UpInFlames

I find Ninja Gaiden to be the best action game I ever played. It certainly wasn't without flaws, but I replayed it four times (the last time being last year) and enjoyed it throroghly each and every time. In my opinion, Ninja Gaiden is the epitomy of a timeless cIassic.

Yes, you're a big ninja gaiden fan who have played the game 4 times, but that makes your argument less compelling because you're willing to overlook the flaws.

Without memorable bosses, environments or characters? Because that's what NG was. The actual execution of gameplay was great, but it didn't have the things that true classic action games also have which I've already mentioned aside from gameplay mechanics, to me that's what separated DMC1 from NG1, the bosses and the settings.

From what I've seen, the number of enemies on-screen has remained largely the same with perhaps only a slight increase. I also remember Itagaki saying that the obvious thing for the sequel would be to throw in more enemies which he didn't want to do - he rather wanted their actions to mean more than they did before meaning an AI improvement.

I think Dead or Alive is a testament to Team Ninja not being a developer that likes to rest on its laurels - the series has evolved and improved dramatically over the years. Perhaps Ninja Gaiden's evolution is more subtle, but again from what I've seen, it's there. Team Ninja introduced body parts slicing which makes the combat all the more visceral, they introduced environmental interaction similar to that of Dead or Alive 4, character and object interaction (werevolves use their own severed limbs as weapons against you, for example), real-time weapon switching and ninpo deployment....I don't know, perhaps people expected a more radical change, but everything I've seen from Ninja Gaiden II sounds not only fantastic, but also a natural progression. Perhaps I'll feel different after playing the game myself, we'll see.

UpInFlames

Real-time weapon switch has been done, WITHOUT LOAD TIMES which NG2 clearly has, and it has been done seamlessly MID-COMBO.

Personally I think these action game developers have forgotten that the games they make are meant to entertain, not just test the players, cheap last grasp attacks are things that while cool, just make the game a little be cheaper than it needs to be.

[QUOTE="EvilTaru"]You'll have to ask them. The original probably wasn't one of the best games ever made, personally I never really found any of the bosses in the first game truly memorable, there was a lot of cheapness in the first game too but it was the first and the best action game on the xbox at the time and pretty much every flaw got overlooked, the gaming media just got caught up in the hype.UpInFlames

I find Ninja Gaiden to be the best action game I ever played. It certainly wasn't without flaws, but I replayed it four times (the last time being last year) and enjoyed it throroghly each and every time. In my opinion, Ninja Gaiden is the epitomy of a timeless cIassic.

Yeah that's the same way I felt. I don't know how many times I replayed it but it was quite a few and I'm planning on playing through NGB again before I get NGII. For me NGB was pretty much the perfect action game.

From what I've seen on NGII the levels look quite nice and varied so I'm not really feeling what said about the blandness of the game.

Cheapness and framerate are what have me a little worried right now but it's hard what to know what they consider cheap or not and while a chugging framerate can certainly disappoint it depends on how bad and how often it actually does this.

I really wasn't expecting a ton of change in this sequel anyway since I felt NGB was such a fine game but from what I've seen with the different levels, the severing of limbs, werewolves using their own limbs as weapons, some awesome looking bosses, and the making of switching weapons and ninpo more easier and fluid it would seem that NGII did what it needed to do.

But without memorable bosses, environments or characters? Because that's what NG was. The actual execution of gameplay was great, but it didn't have the things that true classic action games also have which I've already mentioned aside from gameplay mechanics, to me that's what separated DMC1 from NG1, the bosses and the settings.EvilTaru

Ryu is a cool character (ninjas are just cool by default :wink: ), others not so much, yeah. The bosses and environments were all stellar and varied. They all required different tactics and provided different types of challenges - whether it was a feudal Japan horseman, a robot-type thingie on the top of a zeppelin, tanks and helicopters in a military base or the composed works of Alma, the grave-rising shapeshifter.

[QUOTE="EvilTaru"]But without memorable bosses, environments or characters? Because that's what NG was. The actual execution of gameplay was great, but it didn't have the things that true classic action games also have which I've already mentioned aside from gameplay mechanics, to me that's what separated DMC1 from NG1, the bosses and the settings.UpInFlames

Ryu is a cool character (ninjas are just cool by default :wink: ), others not so much, yeah. The bosses and environments were all stellar and varied. They all required different tactics and provided different types of challenges - whether it was a feudal Japan horseman, a robot-type thingie on the top of a zeppelin, tanks and helicopters in a military base or the composed works of Alma, the grave-rising shapeshifter.

What memorable enviromnets, bosses, characters did DMC1 had? All I can think of is Nelo Angelo & Mundus and maybe Shadow. The game had a great atmoshpere as for the rest, that's it nothing memorable. NG1 had a TON of boss fights and there's quite some memorable ones like Murai, horseman, Alma, Doku, The Angel, Ishtaros (whip lady) We're talking about an action game here not a story type RPG. I don't know what Taru's point is.

Real-time weapon switch has been done, WITHOUT LOAD TIMES which NG2 clearly has, and it has been done seamlessly MID-COMBO.

Personally I think these action game developers have forgotten that the games they make are meant to entertain, not just test the players, cheap last grasp attacks are things that while cool, just make the game a little be cheaper than it needs to be.EvilTaru

You make it seem like I said that real-time weapon-switching is a Team Ninja innovation which I simply didn't. It just served as a small example of Team Ninja's willingness to improve their games.

As for your second paragraph, I'm the last person to whom you should be saying that. I generally dislike hard games and I flat-out despise cheap AI. I loved Ninja Gaiden despite it being frustratingly hard at times because the gameplay was just incredible and I simply wasn't willing to let anything make me pass such a game up. Ninja Gaiden may be a lot of things, but it certainly was not cheap. The AI is still unrivaled by action game standards, it relentlessly made use of all your mistakes and made you weep like a little girl. But when you were up to snuff, they couldn't do ****.

[QUOTE="EvilTaru"]Real-time weapon switch has been done, WITHOUT LOAD TIMES which NG2 clearly has, and it has been done seamlessly MID-COMBO.

Personally I think these action game developers have forgotten that the games they make are meant to entertain, not just test the players, cheap last grasp attacks are things that while cool, just make the game a little be cheaper than it needs to be.UpInFlames

You make it seem like I said that real-time weapon-switching is a Team Ninja innovation which I simply didn't. It just served as a small example of Team Ninja's willingness to improve their games.

Basically they put in weapon-switch but it's not truly real-time as it's neither seamless nor is it done without loadtimes.

As for your second paragraph, I'm the last person to whom you should be saying that. I generally dislike hard games and I flat-out despise cheap AI. I loved Ninja Gaiden despite it being frustratingly hard at times because the gameplay was just incredible and I simply wasn't willing to let anything make me pass such a game up. Ninja Gaiden may be a lot of things, but it certainly was not cheap. The AI is still unrivaled by action game standards, it relentlessly made use of all your mistakes and made you weep like a little girl. But when you were up to snuff, they couldn't do ****.

Makes me wonder why you even like NG at all, because the AI is definitely cheap in both NG and in NGS, and for NG2 they're basically making it even cheaper, I wouldn't put NG in the category of "hard but fair", DMC1 and 3 punish the player for mistakes, NG requires constant dodge-rolling and isolation, it's intense gameplay but it's cheap in execution.

[QUOTE="EvilTaru"]Real-time weapon switch has been done, WITHOUT LOAD TIMES which NG2 clearly has, and it has been done seamlessly MID-COMBO.

Personally I think these action game developers have forgotten that the games they make are meant to entertain, not just test the players, cheap last grasp attacks are things that while cool, just make the game a little be cheaper than it needs to be.UpInFlames

You make it seem like I said that real-time weapon-switching is a Team Ninja innovation which I simply didn't. It just served as a small example of Team Ninja's willingness to improve their games.

As for your second paragraph, I'm the last person to whom you should be saying that. I generally dislike hard games and I flat-out despise cheap AI. I loved Ninja Gaiden despite it being frustratingly hard at times because the gameplay was just incredible and I simply wasn't willing to let anything make me pass such a game up. Ninja Gaiden may be a lot of things, but it certainly was not cheap. The AI is still unrivaled by action game standards, it relentlessly made use of all your mistakes and made you weep like a little girl. But when you were up to snuff, they couldn't do ****.

NG is a classic, pure and simple. There are some detractors who will jump all over the original but anybody who knows anything about quality can understand why NG is one of the definitive action games of all time. Even top tier franchises, like God of War and DMC, can't quite measure up, at least in terms of raw, pure gameplay.

As to NGII, the framerate issues bother me but the camera and difficulty complaints seem pedantic and whiny.

[QUOTE="UpInFlames"][QUOTE="EvilTaru"]Real-time weapon switch has been done, WITHOUT LOAD TIMES which NG2 clearly has, and it has been done seamlessly MID-COMBO.

Personally I think these action game developers have forgotten that the games they make are meant to entertain, not just test the players, cheap last grasp attacks are things that while cool, just make the game a little be cheaper than it needs to be.EvilTaru

You make it seem like I said that real-time weapon-switching is a Team Ninja innovation which I simply didn't. It just served as a small example of Team Ninja's willingness to improve their games.

Basically they put in weapon-switch but it's not truly real-time as it's neither seamless nor is it done without loadtimes.

As for your second paragraph, I'm the last person to whom you should be saying that. I generally dislike hard games and I flat-out despise cheap AI. I loved Ninja Gaiden despite it being frustratingly hard at times because the gameplay was just incredible and I simply wasn't willing to let anything make me pass such a game up. Ninja Gaiden may be a lot of things, but it certainly was not cheap. The AI is still unrivaled by action game standards, it relentlessly made use of all your mistakes and made you weep like a little girl. But when you were up to snuff, they couldn't do ****.

Makes me wonder why you even like NG at all, because the AI is definitely cheap in both NG and in NGS, and for NG2 they're basically making it even cheaper, I wouldn't put NG in the category of "hard but fair", DMC1 and 3 punish the player for mistakes, NG requires constant dodge-rolling and isolation, it's intense gameplay but it's cheap in execution.

YOu lost me man, NGII might be cheap, but NG definitely was not...ANd you really have offered no evidence or example of this whatsoever.

I'm just as disappointed as everyone else with these reviews. NG2 was one of my most anticipated games of 2008. It might not make much difference, but has anyone seen this?

It's basically a website saying that alot of sites with early reviews are using an early copy of the game, which contain problems not seen in the retail version. Namely the slowdown and loadtimes, which seem to be minor complaints at this point in the scope of reviews talking about the inherent cheapness of the gameplay, and mediocre enviromental graphics. Worth mentioning nonetheless.

[QUOTE="UpInFlames"]

[QUOTE="EvilTaru"]But without memorable bosses, environments or characters? Because that's what NG was. The actual execution of gameplay was great, but it didn't have the things that true classic action games also have which I've already mentioned aside from gameplay mechanics, to me that's what separated DMC1 from NG1, the bosses and the settings.D3s7rUc71oN

Ryu is a cool character (ninjas are just cool by default :wink: ), others not so much, yeah. The bosses and environments were all stellar and varied. They all required different tactics and provided different types of challenges - whether it was a feudal Japan horseman, a robot-type thingie on the top of a zeppelin, tanks and helicopters in a military base or the composed works of Alma, the grave-rising shapeshifter.

What memorable enviromnets, bosses, characters did DMC1 had? All I can think of is Nelo Angelo & Mundus and maybe Shadow. The game had a great atmoshpere as for the rest, that's it nothing memorable. NG1 had a TON of boss fights and there's quite some memorable ones like Murai, horseman, Alma, Doku, The Angel, Ishtaros (whip lady) We're talking about an action game here not a story type RPG. I don't know what Taru's point is.

Phantom? Gryphon? ALL of DMC1's bosses (maybe aside from Mundus) were memorable and were great pattern-boss fights with wicked boss attacks that were both punishing while dodgeable, and memorable. I haven't played the game for years now and I still remember most of the fights as if I just played it yesterday.

NONE of NG's bosses was memorable, not even Murai (maybe the first fight because they showed the pre-fight cutscene so much before the game's release but when actually playing through that fight it really wasn't all that special, the last fight was totally meh). Horseman? WTF? How many of those boss attacks do you actually remember from NG?

[QUOTE="UpInFlames"][QUOTE="EvilTaru"]Real-time weapon switch has been done, WITHOUT LOAD TIMES which NG2 clearly has, and it has been done seamlessly MID-COMBO.

Personally I think these action game developers have forgotten that the games they make are meant to entertain, not just test the players, cheap last grasp attacks are things that while cool, just make the game a little be cheaper than it needs to be.EvilTaru

You make it seem like I said that real-time weapon-switching is a Team Ninja innovation which I simply didn't. It just served as a small example of Team Ninja's willingness to improve their games.

Basically they put in weapon-switch but it's not truly real-time as it's neither seamless nor is it done without loadtimes.

As for your second paragraph, I'm the last person to whom you should be saying that. I generally dislike hard games and I flat-out despise cheap AI. I loved Ninja Gaiden despite it being frustratingly hard at times because the gameplay was just incredible and I simply wasn't willing to let anything make me pass such a game up. Ninja Gaiden may be a lot of things, but it certainly was not cheap. The AI is still unrivaled by action game standards, it relentlessly made use of all your mistakes and made you weep like a little girl. But when you were up to snuff, they couldn't do ****.

Makes me wonder why you even like NG at all, because the AI is definitely cheap in both NG and in NGS, and for NG2 they're basically making it even cheaper, I wouldn't put NG in the category of "hard but fair", DMC1 and 3 punish the player for mistakes, NG requires constant dodge-rolling and isolation, it's intense gameplay but it's cheap in execution.

Taru, I think the majority are going to disagree with you regarding the original NG being "cheap", the game was challenging but in no way I found it in the "cheap" category. Failure was due to the lack of the player skill or mistake, if you managed to replay it the 2nd time after beating it you will be saying to yourself "how in the heck did I have so much trouble the first time through it"?

[QUOTE="EvilTaru"][QUOTE="UpInFlames"][QUOTE="EvilTaru"]Real-time weapon switch has been done, WITHOUT LOAD TIMES which NG2 clearly has, and it has been done seamlessly MID-COMBO.

Personally I think these action game developers have forgotten that the games they make are meant to entertain, not just test the players, cheap last grasp attacks are things that while cool, just make the game a little be cheaper than it needs to be.HiResDes

You make it seem like I said that real-time weapon-switching is a Team Ninja innovation which I simply didn't. It just served as a small example of Team Ninja's willingness to improve their games.

Basically they put in weapon-switch but it's not truly real-time as it's neither seamless nor is it done without loadtimes.

As for your second paragraph, I'm the last person to whom you should be saying that. I generally dislike hard games and I flat-out despise cheap AI. I loved Ninja Gaiden despite it being frustratingly hard at times because the gameplay was just incredible and I simply wasn't willing to let anything make me pass such a game up. Ninja Gaiden may be a lot of things, but it certainly was not cheap. The AI is still unrivaled by action game standards, it relentlessly made use of all your mistakes and made you weep like a little girl. But when you were up to snuff, they couldn't do ****.

Makes me wonder why you even like NG at all, because the AI is definitely cheap in both NG and in NGS, and for NG2 they're basically making it even cheaper, I wouldn't put NG in the category of "hard but fair", DMC1 and 3 punish the player for mistakes, NG requires constant dodge-rolling and isolation, it's intense gameplay but it's cheap in execution.

YOu lost me man, NGII might be cheap, but NG definitely was not...ANd you really have offered no evidence or example of this whatsoever.

There is no evidence to support his claim.

And it's not like DMC is known for great A.I. either. If NG can be called "cheap" then DMC3 is the equivalent of a two dollar Bankok whore.

YOu lost me man, NGII might be cheap, but NG definitely was not...ANd you really have offered no evidence or example of this whatsoever.

HiResDes

Maybe people forgot all about those exploding shurikens because those were damn cheap, the boss attacks were never all that well-telegraphed, sure I finished the game and I'm sure you did but for a lot of people the game just wouldn't be very playable.

Phantom? Gryphon? ALL of DMC1's bosses (maybe aside from Mundus) were memorable and were great pattern-boss fights with wicked boss attacks that were both punishing while dodgeable, and memorable. I haven't played the game for years now and I still remember most of the fights as if I just played it yesterday.

NONE of NG's bosses was memorable, not even Murai (maybe the first fight because they showed the pre-fight cutscene so much before the game's release but when actually playing through that fight it really wasn't all that special, the last fight was totally meh). Horseman? WTF? How many of those boss attacks do you actually remember from NG?

EvilTaru

Well, my advice would be to actually play NG rather than read about it on Gamefaqs or Wikipedia.

Just a thought.

[QUOTE="D3s7rUc71oN"][QUOTE="UpInFlames"]

[QUOTE="EvilTaru"]But without memorable bosses, environments or characters? Because that's what NG was. The actual execution of gameplay was great, but it didn't have the things that true classic action games also have which I've already mentioned aside from gameplay mechanics, to me that's what separated DMC1 from NG1, the bosses and the settings.EvilTaru

Ryu is a cool character (ninjas are just cool by default :wink: ), others not so much, yeah. The bosses and environments were all stellar and varied. They all required different tactics and provided different types of challenges - whether it was a feudal Japan horseman, a robot-type thingie on the top of a zeppelin, tanks and helicopters in a military base or the composed works of Alma, the grave-rising shapeshifter.

What memorable enviromnets, bosses, characters did DMC1 had? All I can think of is Nelo Angelo & Mundus and maybe Shadow. The game had a great atmoshpere as for the rest, that's it nothing memorable. NG1 had a TON of boss fights and there's quite some memorable ones like Murai, horseman, Alma, Doku, The Angel, Ishtaros (whip lady) We're talking about an action game here not a story type RPG. I don't know what Taru's point is.

Phantom? Gryphon? ALL of DMC1's bosses (maybe aside from Mundus) were memorable and were great pattern-boss fights with wicked boss attacks that were both punishing while dodgeable, and memorable. I haven't played the game for years now and I still remember most of the fights as if I just played it yesterday.

NONE of NG's bosses was memorable, not even Murai (maybe the first fight because they showed the pre-fight cutscene so much before the game's release but when actually playing through that fight it really wasn't all that special, the last fight was totally meh). Horseman? WTF? How many of those boss attacks do you actually remember from NG?

Funny because I recently beat DMC1 for the first time 18 months ago, well after repeatedly beating NG. If you're going to mention Phantom and Gryphon then I might as well throw the tentacle boss fight and the Guardian from NG. You say all of DMC1 bosses were memorable and none in NG? I guess we're going to agree to disagree on that one.

[QUOTE="HiResDes"]

YOu lost me man, NGII might be cheap, but NG definitely was not...ANd you really have offered no evidence or example of this whatsoever.

EvilTaru

Maybe people forgot all about those exploding shurikens because those were damn cheap, the boss attacks were never all that well-telegraphed, sure I finished the game and I'm sure you did but for a lot of people the game just wouldn't be very playable.

And you think DMC1 or DMC3 was playable for most people?

Your arguments aren't even remotely consistent.

There is no evidence to support his claim.

And it's not like DMC is known for great A.I. either. If NG can be called "cheap" then DMC3 is the equivalent of a two dollar Bankok whore.

Grammaton-Cleric

I'm not sure how you define "great AI", this is not a shooter where you expect enemies to go out of view and circle around the back. NG didn't have great AI and neither did DMC1 or DMC3, but I doubt the games would be even playable if you make the enemies smarter than they are.

How so? DMC3's enemy attacks are better telegraphed than DMC1 and NG. You can see and hear the attacks coming way before you get hit with them, and that by definition is far from cheap.

[QUOTE="EvilTaru"][QUOTE="HiResDes"]

YOu lost me man, NGII might be cheap, but NG definitely was not...ANd you really have offered no evidence or example of this whatsoever.

Grammaton-Cleric

Maybe people forgot all about those exploding shurikens because those were damn cheap, the boss attacks were never all that well-telegraphed, sure I finished the game and I'm sure you did but for a lot of people the game just wouldn't be very playable.

And you think DMC1 or DMC3 was playable for most people?

Your arguments aren't even remotely consistent.

It depends on how you define playable. Obviously the only really playable action game out there is God of War but NG is less playable than both DMC1 and 3 in terms of the game telegraphing attacks before they land, hence the cheapness.

DMC1 definitely was playable for me the first time, DMC3 SP was much more reasonable than the NA version, the JP version which I first played was basically SP, DMC3 NA is obviously harder which had more to do with how one has to start from the beginning of the level which I in fact do not find reasonable because one has to have gold orbs, but the difficult has more to do with that than things like whether enemy attacks are clearly telegraphed and dodgeable which in DMC3's case they were very much, you can see AND HEAR the attacks coming in well before they land, by comparison NG simply does not telegraph attacks as well.

Funny because I recently beat DMC1 for the first time 18 months ago, well after repeatedly beating NG. If you're going to mention Phantom and Gryphon then I might as well throw the tentacle boss fight and the Guardian from NG. You say all of DMC1 bosses were memorable and none in NG? I guess we're going to agree to disagree on that one.

D3s7rUc71oN

You found the tentacle boss fight as memorable as something like the phantom or the gryphon? Yeah I would disagree with that one for sure.

[QUOTE="Grammaton-Cleric"]

There is no evidence to support his claim.

And it's not like DMC is known for great A.I. either. If NG can be called "cheap" then DMC3 is the equivalent of a two dollar Bankok whore.

EvilTaru

I'm not sure how you define "great AI", this is not a shooter where you expect enemies to go out of view and circle around the back. NG didn't have great AI and neither did DMC1 or DMC3, but I doubt the games would be even playable if you make the enemies smarter than they are.

How so? DMC3's enemy attacks are better telegraphed than DMC1 and NG. You can see and hear the attacks coming way before you get hit with them, and that by definition is far from cheap.

Well, you insisted that the AI in NG was cheap and presented that as a problem and offered DMC up as an example of superior enemy AI, which it is not. Now you say the AI in these games shouldn't be smarter, so really, what's your point? That you like DMC better? Because that's all I see here: your personal preference.

And the enemies and bosses in NG have plenty of tells and patterns; otherwise beating the game would be impossible.

[QUOTE="HiResDes"]

YOu lost me man, NGII might be cheap, but NG definitely was not...ANd you really have offered no evidence or example of this whatsoever.

EvilTaru

Maybe people forgot all about those exploding shurikens because those were damn cheap, the boss attacks were never all that well-telegraphed, sure I finished the game and I'm sure you did but for a lot of people the game just wouldn't be very playable.

The exploding shurikens were a bit troublesome at first but it forced you to do more than just straight up slice and dice. Because of those type of attacks from the enemy it made you find more creative ways to deal with them and exposed more of the game's dynamic fighting mechanics.

I didn't find the game cheap. I found that it kept the player honest.

There is no evidence to support his claim.

And it's not like DMC is known for great A.I. either. If NG can be called "cheap" then DMC3 is the equivalent of a two dollar Bankok whore.Grammaton-Cleric

I heard that DMC3 SP helped out with the difficulty and frustration factor of the game, but after several hours of struggle with the original NA release, I was simply done with that game.

Anyways, I plan on at least trying out NG2 since I never had the chance to give the first one a try, but for the time being, I'm going to just give the second one a rental.

Out of curiosity, would anyone here give me a small bit of advice as to whether I should start off with NG2, or pick up NGB and give that a go first if that would be a better route to try out this franchise.

[QUOTE="D3s7rUc71oN"]Funny because I recently beat DMC1 for the first time 18 months ago, well after repeatedly beating NG. If you're going to mention Phantom and Gryphon then I might as well throw the tentacle boss fight and the Guardian from NG. You say all of DMC1 bosses were memorable and none in NG? I guess we're going to agree to disagree on that one.

EvilTaru

You found the tentacle boss fight as memorable as something like the phantom or the gryphon? Yeah I would disagree with that one for sure.

No, I said if you've found the phantom and gryphon "memorable" then I might as well include those bosses from NG as "memorable". I didn't find those 4 bosses memorable, just the ones I posted earlier :wink:

Well, you insisted that the AI in NG was cheap and presented that as a problem and offered DMC up as an example of superior enemy AI, which it is not. Now you say the AI in these games shouldn't be smarter, so really, what's your point? That you like DMC better? Because that's all I see here: your personal preference.

And the enemies and bosses in NG have plenty of tells and patterns; otherwise beating the game would be impossible.

Grammaton-Cleric

I said NG's AI was cheap, I did not say DMC's AI is smarter, it isn't, it's just more fair in terms of you can see what's coming, it has nothing to do with the AI being "smart", it has nothing to do with "personal preference", it has to do with how clear and well-telegraphed attacks are before you're being hit with them, that's what makes one game fair and another which lacks such allowances cheap. NG's bosses and enemies actually don't have tells and patterns that are as clear as DMC or DMC3, which is in part what makes NG a more difficult game.

[QUOTE="Grammaton-Cleric"]There is no evidence to support his claim.

And it's not like DMC is known for great A.I. either. If NG can be called "cheap" then DMC3 is the equivalent of a two dollar Bankok whore.Skylock00

Anyways, I plan on at least trying out NG2 since I never had the chance to give the first one a try, but for the time being, I'm going to just give the second one a rental.

Out of curiosity, would anyone here give me a small bit of advice as to whether I should start off with NG2, or pick up NGB and give that a go first if that would be a better route to try out this franchise.

Start with NGB, die 3 times in the first chapter and it will unlock Ninja Dog difficulty. It's pretty accessible in that difficulty.

[QUOTE="EvilTaru"][QUOTE="HiResDes"]

YOu lost me man, NGII might be cheap, but NG definitely was not...ANd you really have offered no evidence or example of this whatsoever.

juradai

Maybe people forgot all about those exploding shurikens because those were damn cheap, the boss attacks were never all that well-telegraphed, sure I finished the game and I'm sure you did but for a lot of people the game just wouldn't be very playable.

The exploding shurikens were a bit troublesome at first but it forced you to do more than just straight up slice and dice. Because of those type of attacks from the enemy it made you find more creative ways to deal with them and exposed more of the game's dynamic fighting mechanics.

I didn't find the game cheap. I found that it kept the player honest.

Basically it forced me to keep isolating them with izuna drops over and over and over, essentially I fought cheapness with cheapness.

[QUOTE="Grammaton-Cleric"][QUOTE="EvilTaru"][QUOTE="HiResDes"]

YOu lost me man, NGII might be cheap, but NG definitely was not...ANd you really have offered no evidence or example of this whatsoever.

EvilTaru

Maybe people forgot all about those exploding shurikens because those were damn cheap, the boss attacks were never all that well-telegraphed, sure I finished the game and I'm sure you did but for a lot of people the game just wouldn't be very playable.

And you think DMC1 or DMC3 was playable for most people?

Your arguments aren't even remotely consistent.

It depends on how you define playable. Obviously the only really playable action game out there is God of War but NG is less playable than both DMC1 and 3 in terms of the game telegraphing attacks before they land, hence the cheapness.

DMC1 definitely was playable for me the first time, DMC3 SP was much more reasonable than the NA version, the JP version which I first played was basically SP, DMC3 NA is obviously harder which had more to do with how one has to start from the beginning of the level which I in fact do not find reasonable because one has to have gold orbs, but the difficult has more to do with that than things like whether enemy attacks are clearly telegraphed and dodgeable which in DMC3's case they were very much, you can see AND HEAR the attacks coming in well before they land, by comparison NG simply does not telegraph attacks as well.

I define playable as something that can be played consistently while adhering to the parameters of the established game space, which NG does brilliantly. Frankly, you're now employing vague personal ideologies about game design, which really don't carry any weight outside of your own head. The notion that DMC enemies telegraph better than the enemies in NG, even if true, is a tenuous argument for superiority. Perhaps you require more visual or auditory clues from the enemies in your games but that obviously isn't the case for all. I can attest that every life lost while playing through NG was because my technique and or strategy were faulty.

[QUOTE="Grammaton-Cleric"]There is no evidence to support his claim.

And it's not like DMC is known for great A.I. either. If NG can be called "cheap" then DMC3 is the equivalent of a two dollar Bankok whore.Skylock00

I heard that DMC3 SP helped out with the difficulty and frustration factor of the game, but after several hours of struggle with the original NA release, I was simply done with that game.

Anyways, I plan on at least trying out NG2 since I never had the chance to give the first one a try, but for the time being, I'm going to just give the second one a rental.

Out of curiosity, would anyone here give me a small bit of advice as to whether I should start off with NG2, or pick up NGB and give that a go first if that would be a better route to try out this franchise.

The NA release forces the player to start from the beginning of the level, the SP version doesn't, it's like the JP version where you don't have to start at the beginning of the level, you're respawn at key points. If you have trouble with DMC3, play the easy mode I guess, or pick up the SP version. If you were having trouble with DMC3, I'm not sure if you should even touch NG at this point, it's probably less forgiving than DMC3.

[QUOTE="EvilTaru"][QUOTE="HiResDes"]

YOu lost me man, NGII might be cheap, but NG definitely was not...ANd you really have offered no evidence or example of this whatsoever.

juradai

Maybe people forgot all about those exploding shurikens because those were damn cheap, the boss attacks were never all that well-telegraphed, sure I finished the game and I'm sure you did but for a lot of people the game just wouldn't be very playable.

The exploding shurikens were a bit troublesome at first but it forced you to do more than just straight up slice and dice. Because of those type of attacks from the enemy it made you find more creative ways to deal with them and exposed more of the game's dynamic fighting mechanics.

I didn't find the game cheap. I found that it kept the player honest.

yes, thank you.

The NA release forces the player to start from the beginning of the level, the SP version doesn't, it's like the JP version where you don't have to start at the beginning of the level, you're respawn at key points. If you have trouble with DMC3, play the easy mode I guess, or pick up the SP version. If you were having trouble with DMC3, I'm not sure if you should even touch NG at this point, it's probably less forgiving than DMC3.

EvilTaru

I'm still not sure whether my annoyance is with the entire genre, or simply DMC as a franchise...in either case, chances are at this point that I'm not going to be playing anything DMC related any time soon, but I'll at least give NG2 a rental at the very least...at some point.

I define playable as something that can be played consistently while adhering to the parameters the established game space, which NG does brilliantly. Frankly, you're now employing vague personal ideologies about game design, which really don't carry any weight outside of your own head. The notion that DMC enemies telegraph better than the enemies in NG, even if true, is a tenuous argument for superiority.Perhaps you require more visual or auditory clues from the enemies in your games but that obviously isn't the case for all. I can attest that every life lost while playing through NG was because my technique and or strategy were faulty.

Grammaton-Cleric

And that's what DMC1 and 3 does very well, everything is very well defined, even attacks and pre-attack animations which give players a clear indication of incoming attacks and patterns, something that NG doesn't do quite as well.

DMC enemies telegraph better than enemies in NG IS true, and games giving players better indication of incoming attacks? Yeah that makes it less cheap because the player can see and hear the attacks, allowing them time to dodge while a game like NG doesn't do this as well, which makes the game cheaper.

[QUOTE="juradai"][QUOTE="EvilTaru"][QUOTE="HiResDes"]

YOu lost me man, NGII might be cheap, but NG definitely was not...ANd you really have offered no evidence or example of this whatsoever.

EvilTaru

Maybe people forgot all about those exploding shurikens because those were damn cheap, the boss attacks were never all that well-telegraphed, sure I finished the game and I'm sure you did but for a lot of people the game just wouldn't be very playable.

The exploding shurikens were a bit troublesome at first but it forced you to do more than just straight up slice and dice. Because of those type of attacks from the enemy it made you find more creative ways to deal with them and exposed more of the game's dynamic fighting mechanics.

I didn't find the game cheap. I found that it kept the player honest.

Basically it forced me to keep isolating them with izuna drops over and over and over, essentially I fought cheapness with cheapness.

I think perhaps it came down to the player's approach with his/her strategy of dealing with those elements of the game. I always found that if I had issues with any of the enemies in the game, including bosses, it was my fault that I couldn't overcome them. The reason being was that Ninja Gaiden lived fairly in its own rules that it established on both the AI and the player.

If I didn't beat something then it came down to me not being capable of overcoming as skillfully as the AI but I never felt that it was impossible or beyond my reach to be successful. I found the difficulty very challenging and not patronizing like other games in its genre.

How many of those boss attacks do you actually remember from NG?EvilTaru

Not only do I remember pretty much every single boss, but I also remember the tactics I used for each of them - and they were all different and unique in one way or another.

By the way, I get the impression that you simply prefer Devil May Cry's playstyIe which is fine and good, but Ninja Gaiden simply has different rules. Devil May Cry is more static and focuses on combos whereas Ninja Gaiden is all about fast-paced moving, dodging attacks and waiting for your chance. You can't stand and slice your enemies in Ninja Gaiden. Perhaps that's why you call it cheap. It just isn't, it's just that you seemingly dislike its fundemental playstyIe.

Out of curiosity, would anyone here give me a small bit of advice as to whether I should start off with NG2, or pick up NGB and give that a go first if that would be a better route to try out this franchise.Skylock00

Regardless of how Ninja Gaiden II pans out, you really shouldn't miss the original if you're willing to give the series a try.

[QUOTE="Grammaton-Cleric"]I define playable as something that can be played consistently while adhering to the parameters the established game space, which NG does brilliantly. Frankly, you're now employing vague personal ideologies about game design, which really don't carry any weight outside of your own head. The notion that DMC enemies telegraph better than the enemies in NG, even if true, is a tenuous argument for superiority.Perhaps you require more visual or auditory clues from the enemies in your games but that obviously isn't the case for all. I can attest that every life lost while playing through NG was because my technique and or strategy were faulty.

EvilTaru

And that's what DMC1 and 3 does very well, everything is very well defined, even attacks and pre-attack animations which give players a clear indication of incoming attacks and patterns, something that NG doesn't do quite as well.

DMC enemies telegraph better than enemies in NG IS true, and games giving players better indication of incoming attacks? Yeah that makes it less cheap because the player can see and hear the attacks, allowing them time to dodge while a game like NG doesn't do this as well, which makes the game cheaper.

Even if that was true, the dynamics of Ninja Gaiden are completely different so the notion that DMC is superior for offering better-telegraphed attacks is pretty flimsy. Perhaps the need for more telegraphed attacks is necessitated in DMC because the game doesn't have a dedicated block component where by contrast Ninja Gaiden has a dedicated block mechanic that balances out the fact that enemies are fast and less prone to telegraphing their moves.

Of course, that's assuming that your theory is sound, which it isn't. It's your own personal theory as to why DMC is less "cheap" than NG and it belongs to you solely because there isn't much meat in the argument. Given the variables and differences in both games, I just don't think your assertion gels.

Yes I agree with UIF, the vibe I get from Taru's post is his preference for DMC's playstyle. DMC focuses 80-90% on combat being on the offensive all the time, while NG you have to learn to block and dodge attacks, it has a balance of 50%-50% offense and defense.

Not only do I remember pretty much every single boss, but I also remember the tactics I used for each of them - and they were all different and unique in one way or another.

By the way, I get the impression that you simply prefer Devil May Cry's playstyIe which is fine and good, but Ninja Gaiden simply has different rules. Devil May Cry is more static and focuses on combos whereas Ninja Gaiden is all about fast-paced moving, dodging attacks and waiting for your chance. You can't stand and slice your enemies in Ninja Gaiden. Perhaps that's why you call it cheap. It just isn't, it's just that you seemingly dislike its fundemental playstyIe.

UpInFlames

That's not the case, in DMC the player does have to dodge alot (enemies like shadows keep the player on the move constantly in DMC1) and you definitely can't spam your attacks in DMC3, it's just more about the enemies telegraphing their attacks better and clearer.

Even if that was true, the dynamics of Ninja Gaiden are completely different so the notion that DMC is superior for offering better-telegraphed attacks is pretty flimsy. Perhaps the need for more telegraphed attacks is necessitated in DMC because the game doesn't have a dedicated block component where by contrast Ninja Gaiden has a dedicated block mechanic that balances out the fact that enemies are fast and less prone to telegraphing their moves. Grammaton-Cleric

DMC telegraphed attacks better. Now you're basically saying that NG doesn't have to telegraph as well because it has blocking (which doesn't negate the exploding shurikens which is also why those are so cheap)?

Of course, that's assuming that your theory is sound, which it isn't. It's your own personal theory as to why DMC is less "cheap" than NG and it belongs to you solely because there isn't much meat in the argument. Given the variables and differences in both games, I just don't think your assertion gels.

It's not a "theory", go play both games, look and listen for the attacks, DMC1/3 telegraph their attacks more clearly, the player is made more aware of attacks and has a better chance of dodging them, thus making the games less cheap than a game where attacks are not telegraphed as well.

[QUOTE="UpInFlames"]

Not only do I remember pretty much every single boss, but I also remember the tactics I used for each of them - and they were all different and unique in one way or another.

By the way, I get the impression that you simply prefer Devil May Cry's playstyIe which is fine and good, but Ninja Gaiden simply has different rules. Devil May Cry is more static and focuses on combos whereas Ninja Gaiden is all about fast-paced moving, dodging attacks and waiting for your chance. You can't stand and slice your enemies in Ninja Gaiden. Perhaps that's why you call it cheap. It just isn't, it's just that you seemingly dislike its fundemental playstyIe.

EvilTaru

That's not the case, in DMC the player does have to dodge alot (enemies like shadows keep the player on the move constantly in DMC1) and you definitely can't spam your attacks in DMC3, it's just more about the enemies telegraphing their attacks better and clearer.

Dodging is an important aspect of DMC but at nowhere near the level of significance found in NG.

Compared to NG, DMC is a more static experience, however fast paced. I love them both but there is no way anyone can claim DMC places a greater emphasis on agility and movement than NG because that's simply not the case.

Dodging is an important aspect of DMC but at nowhere near the level of significance found in NG.

Compared to NG, DMC is a more static experience, however fast paced. I love them both but there is no way anyone can claim DMC places a greater emphasis on agility and movementthan NG because that's simply not the case.

Grammaton-Cleric

Not sure where from my post you got that idea, but obviously you do have to dodge in DMC, especially DMC3. DMC/DMC3 is more about jumping out of danger, NG relies more on rolling/roll-jump.

Yes I agree with UIF, the vibe I get from Taru's post is his preference for DMC's playstyle. DMC focuses 80-90% on combat being on the offensive all the time, while NG you have to learn to block and dodge attacks, it has a balance of 50%-50% offense and defense.

D3s7rUc71oN

Once again it has nothing to do with the play style but more to do with how enemy attacks are telegraphed.

[QUOTE="Grammaton-Cleric"]

Even if that was true, the dynamics of Ninja Gaiden are completely different so the notion that DMC is superior for offering better-telegraphed attacks is pretty flimsy. Perhaps the need for more telegraphed attacks is necessitated in DMC because the game doesn't have a dedicated block component where by contrast Ninja Gaiden has a dedicated block mechanic that balances out the fact that enemies are fast and less prone to telegraphing their moves. EvilTaru

DMC telegraphed attacks better. Now you're basically saying that NG doesn't have to telegraph as well because it has blocking (which doesn't negate the exploding shurikens which is also why those are so cheap)?

Of course, that's assuming that your theory is sound, which it isn't. It's your own personal theory as to why DMC is less "cheap" than NG and it belongs to you solely because there isn't much meat in the argument. Given the variables and differences in both games, I just don't think your assertion gels.

It's not a "theory", go play both games, look and listen for the attacks, DMC1/3 telegraph their attacks more clearly, the player is made more aware of attacks and has a better chance of dodging them, thus making the games less cheap than a game where attacks are not telegraphed as well.

Actually, it is a theory, and not a particularly well-defined one either.

And being able to actually block in NG makes it less cheap than DMC, which forces you to always play offensively or choose Royal Guard unless you want a roll-a-thon. So even assuming NG is "cheap" for having enemies that don't telegraph (which I don't agree with personally) DMC is equally cheap for not including a sorely needed block component to the combat.

And by the way, you can block the exploding shurikens. The challenge is dropping your guard and attacking, which leaves you open to them.

Once again it has nothing to do with the play style but more to do with how enemy attacks are telegraphed.EvilTaru

Which is a direct result of the respective game's playstyIe.

Devil May Cry - less agility + focus on attacks = enemy attacks need to be more obvious

Ninja Gaiden - emphasis on agility, avoiding attacks + waiting to exploit enemy weakness = enemy attacks don't need to be as obvious

It's a design preference, nothing else.

[QUOTE="EvilTaru"]Once again it has nothing to do with the play style but more to do with how enemy attacks are telegraphed.UpInFlames

Which is a direct result of the respective game's playstyIe.

Devil May Cry - less agility + focus on attacks = enemy attacks need to be more obvious

Ninja Gaiden - emphasis on agility, avoiding attacks + waiting to exploit enemy weakness = enemy attacks don't need to be as obvious

It's a design preference, nothing else.

Yep. That was pretty much my point.

Actually, it is a theory, and not a particularly well-defined one either.

Grammaton-Cleric

Actually it's pretty well-defined even if you want to keep saying it isn't. Clear indications of attacks by sight/sound before the player gets hit.

And being able to actually block in NG makes it less cheap than DMC, which forces you to always play offensively or choose Royal Guard unless you want a roll-a-thon.

Your argument is flawed because in DMC you can clearly SEE and HEAR the attacks before you get hit with it, allowing you to basically jump or roll out of the way well before the attacks even land, thus you don't even have to block, you don't have to constantly jump or roll either but only when you see or hear an attack coming in. And if you choose to block with RG, basically there's nothing you can't block at the point of impact, thus you don't get the situation where you're trying to block something you really can't block, and as a result takes damage, unlike NG.

So even assuming NG is "cheap" for having enemies that don't telegraph (which I don't agree with personally) DMC is equally cheap for not including a sorely needed block component to the combat.

And by the way, you can block the exploding shurikens. The challenge is dropping your guard and attacking, which leaves you open to them.

Your "oh DMC doesn't have block thus it's cheap" argument is wrong as I've illustrated since with RG you CAN block ANYTHING without the game throwing attacks at you that you can't block and thus take unnecessary damage, and since DMC telegraphs attacks well, you don't really have to stand and block, as you can jump/roll out of the way.