Mega Man 9 - IGN Review

8.6/10

Holy karp

Sounds cool for fans, but I'm really not that interested in paying 1000 points for an NES game, especially considering i can get mega man 2 for 500.gamer6464

[QUOTE="gamer6464"]Sounds cool for fans, but I'm really not that interested in paying 1000 points for an NES game, especially considering i can get mega man 2 for 500.air_wolf_cubed

Is that the megaman anniversary collection?

[QUOTE="air_wolf_cubed"][QUOTE="gamer6464"]Sounds cool for fans, but I'm really not that interested in paying 1000 points for an NES game, especially considering i can get mega man 2 for 500.gamer6464

Is that the megaman anniversary collection?

Graphics-3

Gameplay-9

Retro gamers everywhere are pleased.

Still, the review copy has been gold for over two weeks? This title was ready the week Madden 09 hit shelves? Capcom has already admitted that the Wii release date actually depended on another big game, why did Nintendo not use one of the two weeks in between to give us that as well? Was even Nintendo afraid that Mega Man wouldn't sell on VC?

8.6/10

Holy karp

air_wolf_cubed

IGN once again shows that they have no business reviewing games

They give the graphics a 3 while Capcom was GOING for that look. They didn't try to do HD graphics and fail, they tried for top notch 8 bit design and nailed it.

These people are fools.

They give the graphics a 3 while Capcom was GOING for that look. They didn't try to do HD graphics and fail, they tried for top notch 8 bit design and nailed it.

Jaysonguy

Did you read the description they put beside the 3? The 3 acknowledges the fact that it doesn't hold a candle to any other modern game, but the text acknowledges that that was the whole point. The final score isn't an average, and given that it come out to 8.6, it's pretty obvious that they didn't give a crap that the graphics were dated.

It would matter if the overall score were an average. It's not.

IGN once again shows that they have no business reviewing games

They give the graphics a 3 while Capcom was GOING for that look. They didn't try to do HD graphics and fail, they tried for top notch 8 bit design and nailed it.

These people are fools.

Jaysonguy

I assumed that they must rate graphics on a technical standpoint. They said in the review that they loved the graphics and that this is probably the only game that benefits from the graphics having a low score. Since their final score is not an average of the other scores (gameplay, sound, etc.) and they liked the look of the graphics, the overall score probably went up because of them.

Sounds good. I may pick up the 360 or PS3 version though.LINKloco

From the description, the other versions are smoother, but thus less 8-bit in style. The Wii version offers the most true-to-life 8-bit experience. That doesn't make either version worse than the other - just sayin' so you know what the difference is.

[QUOTE="Jaysonguy"]

They give the graphics a 3 while Capcom was GOING for that look. They didn't try to do HD graphics and fail, they tried for top notch 8 bit design and nailed it.

GabuEx

Did you read the description they put beside the 3? The 3 acknowledges the fact that it doesn't hold a candle to any modern game, but the text acknowledges that that was the whole point. The final score isn't an average, and given that it come out to 8.6, it's pretty obvious that they didn't give a crap that the graphics were dated.

It would matter if the overall score were an average. It's not.

Yeah, that's what the sites does. It gives categories numbers then says "we can make up anything at the end to fit our needs at the moment" That's also why they edit scores from other writers to match what they think the title should have picked up.

It's a complete discredit to the work that went into the visuals. The simple fact that he cannot grasp that just shows that IGN do not get this whole "reviewing" business.

They went for great looking 8 bit graphics that would rival or surpass all other platformers when it comes to 8 bit and they did it masterfully. Instead of kudos they pick up some nice "oh that looks old" remarks from a clueless reviewer.

Yeah, that's what the sites does. It gives categories numbers then says "we can make up anything at the end to fit our needs at the moment" That's also why they edit scores from other writers to match what they think the title should have picked up.

It's a complete discredit to the work that went into the visuals. The simple fact that he cannot grasp that just shows that IGN do not get this whole "reviewing" business.

They went for great looking 8 bit graphics that would rival or surpass all other platformers when it comes to 8 bit and they did it masterfully. Instead of kudos they pick up some nice "oh that looks old" remarks from a clueless reviewer.

Jaysonguy

This is what they said:

"A true 'period piece' in gaming. Hardcore will love it, but when put against other download games, it won't look pretty. We wouldn't have it any other way though. Classic, and dated by design."

I don't see how that translates into "oh that looks old". If anything, I think the 3 was a compliment, acknowledging how bang-on they got the oldness of the graphics. They're basically saying, "the graphics look very dated, and in this case, that's a good thing". It's kind of a dilemma: when something is intended to be "bad, but that's good", is it a good thing to give it a high score or a low score?

ITT: Jaysonguy is angry and can't read, and Gabu manages to respond to him before I can sound loud and angry.

I couldn't have said it better myself Gabu.

MM9 looks quite amazing by my book, I enjoy it when developers make statements with games, all while having fun, and, you know, making a good game in the process.

[QUOTE="Jaysonguy"]

Yeah, that's what the sites does. It gives categories numbers then says "we can make up anything at the end to fit our needs at the moment" That's also why they edit scores from other writers to match what they think the title should have picked up.

It's a complete discredit to the work that went into the visuals. The simple fact that he cannot grasp that just shows that IGN do not get this whole "reviewing" business.

They went for great looking 8 bit graphics that would rival or surpass all other platformers when it comes to 8 bit and they did it masterfully. Instead of kudos they pick up some nice "oh that looks old" remarks from a clueless reviewer.

GabuEx

This is what they said:

"A true 'period piece' in gaming. Hardcore will love it, but when put against other download games, it won't look pretty. We wouldn't have it any other way though. Classic, and dated by design."

I don't see how that translates into "oh that looks old". If anything, I think the 3 was a compliment, acknowledging how bang-on they got the oldness of the graphics. They're basically saying, "the graphics look very dated, and in this case, that's a good thing". It's kind of a dilemma: when something is intended to be "bad, but that's good", is it a good thing to give it a high score or a low score?

It should be what the developers are going for, not what the reviewer thinks they should be.

If you hold all games to the criteria that they place here then all games that aren't lifelike should have 4's and 5's because the technology is here to allow all devs to make graphics like that.

It's like if someone made a WW2 shooter that featured movies and audio from the time and the review gives the sound a 2 because of the quality of recordings.

It should be what the developers are going for, not what the reviewer thinks they should be.

If you hold all games to the criteria that they place here then all games that aren't lifelike should have 4's and 5's because the technology is here to allow all devs to make graphics like that.

It's like if someone made a WW2 shooter that featured movies and audio from the time and the review gives the sound a 2 because of the quality of recordings.

Jaysonguy

You're approaching this with the implicit assumption that when IGN gave the graphics a 3, they were intending that as a mark against the game.

I don't know how you can read the text describing the score and still have that impression. :?

I can't wait to download this!

My opinion on the score of the graphics in answer to Jason is the same as it was in the 360 forum.

I don't think it really effected their final score but I think they are right. I don't care what a developer is going for, it doesn't look good compared to other arcade titles. That's fine, they even said that, it's like a true old school Mega Man game, and that is great. But it doesn't make it look any better when compared to other titles. You want them to give it a 10 in graphics because it looks just like a NES game? If they did that how would they rate all the other arcade games graphics scores, especially games that come out that are brand new? Should games like Castle Crashers be given a 10 in graphics because it looks better than Mega Man 9 or should it be given a low score because they weren't trying to make it look old school.Legolas_Katarn

If a developer made a game called Darkness. And all the reviews complained about it being so dark that they couldn't see anything, I would agree with them. I don't care if the developer wanted the game to be dark. And no, games aren't being knocked for not being realistic. There is technical graphics like with Gears of War and there is artistic graphics like with Eternal Sonata. Graphics aren't rated only on how realistic a game looks.

As for the game, I'm happy to see a good score. I'll be getting the 360 version because I want the achievements and because that is the system I have points on.

Well in reference to that, I don't think all reviews should be done on the same scale. I mean its not like they were trying to make the game look like Mario Galaxy and this was the result. They intentionally did this if another dev made a game that looked like a NES game by accident they should be penalized. But really in this case I dont care, but generally I believe that all games being graded on the same scale is one of the biggest problems with reviews.Sepewrath

Well, they're not really being graded on the same scale on account of the fact that the score that matters - the overall score - is not an average. If Capcom was actually trying to make a good-looking current-gen game and came up with what Mega Man 9 is, I can guarantee you it wouldn't have gotten an 8.6.

[QUOTE="Sepewrath"]Well in reference to that, I don't think all reviews should be done on the same scale. I mean its not like they were trying to make the game look like Mario Galaxy and this was the result. They intentionally did this if another dev made a game that looked like a NES game by accident they should be penalized. But really in this case I dont care, but generally I believe that all games being graded on the same scale is one of the biggest problems with reviews.GabuEx

Well, they're not really being graded on the same scale on account of the fact that the score that matters - the overall score - is not an average. If Capcom was actually trying to make a good-looking current-gen game and came up with what Mega Man 9 is, I can guarantee you it wouldn't have gotten an 8.6.

It also helps that it is a WiiWare, PSN, and XBLA game. If it was released as a retail $50-$60 game, the scale would be different.

I'm just playing through Mega man 2 for the first time and I'm loving it so I'll definitely be picking this up too. Free downloadable content FTWPopadophalis

Mega Man 9s downloadable content is going to cost money. Also don't buy older Mega Man games off the VC, just buy the Mega Man Anniversery collection, I believe that is for the Xbox, Gamecube, and maybe PS2. It has the first eight Mega Man games.

It should be what the developers are going for, not what the reviewer thinks they should be.

Jaysonguy

[QUOTE="Jaysonguy"]

It should be what the developers are going for, not what the reviewer thinks they should be.

likesstuff

Yeah, by that logic Howard Scott Warshaw could come out tomorrow and say E.T. (the Atari game) was actually MEANT to be that way and the history books will revise their articles to read "greatest game ever made" instead of "worst". lol.

WTF the graphics are a 3??

Biased.

*reads above posts*

Jaysonguy already beat me to it I see.

The problem with megaman anniversary collection is that controls are backwards for shooting and jumping, it forces you to play with your fingers crossed.Sepewrath

[QUOTE="Jaysonguy"]

It should be what the developers are going for, not what the reviewer thinks they should be.

If you hold all games to the criteria that they place here then all games that aren't lifelike should have 4's and 5's because the technology is here to allow all devs to make graphics like that.

It's like if someone made a WW2 shooter that featured movies and audio from the time and the review gives the sound a 2 because of the quality of recordings.

GabuEx

You're approaching this with the implicit assumption that when IGN gave the graphics a 3, they were intending that as a mark against the game.

I don't know how you can read the text describing the score and still have that impression. :?

I agree with Jayson. And he isn't making any assumptions. A 30% is lower than 40%, etc. Higher percents indicate "betterness", and the betterness that the Graphics score should indicate is not "how fully does the game take advantage of the consoles power?" but "how well does the game pull off its art-styIe?"

If it were the former of the two, then artistic games that look like they're claymation or are watercolour or anime or made of paper etc. must get scored down because they don't take full advantage of the console's power. Moar lens-flare plx!

Their marking system is incredibly arbitrary. It doesn't explain why one score category is weighted lower or higher in a review, nor is it consistently weighted across the platform.

In a recent podcast, I believe Mark Bozon explained his rating of TFU for Wii by saying that he doesn't think how well a game is pulled off, nor does he think just how well the game takes advantage of the hardware, but also, how it measures up to other games on the system. This seems like a completely unfair way of assigning scores. The same game may then get a different score if its released near the beginning of the console's life-span versus at the end. And if most other games are terrible on a system, and one is slightly less terrible, that doesn't mean it's a good game.

I just fundamentally disagree with the way they score games. There's a lot of illogic and inscrutable business going on to pull a number out of thin air.

[QUOTE="Sepewrath"]The problem with megaman anniversary collection is that controls are backwards for shooting and jumping, it forces you to play with your fingers crossed.TwilightSoilder

No it isn't that's why I got the PS2 version over the Cube one myself.

Anyway MM9 looks great I've played all the others to death so $10 sounds fine to me.

he doesn't think how well a game is pulled off, nor does he think just how well the game takes advantage of the hardware, but also, how it measures up to other games on the system. This seems like a completely unfair way of assigning scores.clicketyclick

But if you only rate games based on their own merit, and not how they stack up to other current games, then you will basically be saying "It's good for what it is." Then you would have reviewers giving any functional game a 9, because there's nothing to compare it to. What's the point in that?

[QUOTE="clicketyclick"]he doesn't think how well a game is pulled off, nor does he think just how well the game takes advantage of the hardware, but also, how it measures up to other games on the system. This seems like a completely unfair way of assigning scores.Mike1978Smith

But if you only rate games based on their own merit, and not how they stack up to other current games, then you will basically be saying "It's good for what it is." Then you would have reviewers giving any functional game a 9, because there's nothing to compare it to. What's the point in that?

A game should be rated keeping in mind how well it takes advantage of the hardware (that doesn't mean just graphics card, but the controller as well) given the inherent limitations of said hardware, keeping in mind the effect, genre, and art-styIe the game has.

It's okay to compare a game loosely to games in the genre (is this an innovative RPG mechanic? Is this third-person shooter's camera as good as it could be? Has this story been recycled? Does this survival-horror game create tension and dread in an interesting way or does it rely on monsters jumping out of the closet?) but a game should not have its mark inflated (or deflated) based on the quality of other games - including ones completely unlike it! - on the same platform.

[QUOTE="LINKloco"]Sounds good. I may pick up the 360 or PS3 version though.GabuEx

From the description, the other versions are smoother, but thus less 8-bit in style. The Wii version offers the most true-to-life 8-bit experience. That doesn't make either version worse than the other - just sayin' so you know what the difference is.

Look, honestly why is everyone dwelling over the fact that they gave the graphics a 3, its not like the game's score was pulled down because of it, they even said they loved them and wouldnt have them any other way.

Sounds good. I may pick up the 360 or PS3 version though.LINKloco

How will megaman 9 have DLC?

How will megaman 9 have DLC?

musicman748

The other character is 200 points to download

Sounds great. The only thing that I'm afraid of is the difficulty:?. AdRock92

the difficulty is the point. the old megaman games would have sucked if ya could only play american mode. they were too easy and the hard mode, which was just japan's version of the difficulty, was what made them fun to play. i would have hated the series if it was an easy game.

anyway, im happy they added the graphical errors and stuff to make it look like the originals, but i hope theres no boss where it makes you invisible while you have a tough platform jumpin series to fight on like the dragon in mm2. that made that fight alot harder than it had to be. as a megaman fan whos been playin since 3 was the current game, i am really happy with what ive seen so far and im happy it turned out so good for what they were tryin to make it look and feel like. this might end up becoming one of my top 3 favorite megaman games