Ok.

To be fair though, Team Ninja has only remade Ninja Gaiden (Xbox) once. Ninja Gaiden Black was more like a "Game of the Year edition" and not a remake. There were some expansions called the Hurricane packs that could only be downloaded via Xbox Live. Since many people were not Live subscribers back then (this was before the days of the free Silver service) they created NGB. NGB was the original game + the Hurricane packs. It also added an easy mode (Ninja Dog mode) for all the whiners complaining about the difficulty and an insanely hard mode (Master Ninja mode) for all the masochists out there. That was all that NGB was.

Ninja Gaiden Sigma however is a true remake with many new additions, HD graphics, etc. Plus, the main reason that Team Ninja made NGS is so that all the Playstation only owners could get a chance to play it since many of them never owned an Xbox.

Team Ninja has been hinting for awhile that they are making an actual sequel now. I will surely buy it without waiting for reviews.

http://www.gamespot.com/ds/strategy/...tds/index.html

It didn't get great reviews but people who played Mage Knight enjoyed it because it recreates the tabletop game pretty well.

I think this is why having game demos on Xbox Live and other iterations are such a godsend. There are plenty of times, I've read reviews on games, and thought it was crap. I played the demo and enjoyed it enough to buy it. It works both ways.

At a minimum, the review should be enough to get a general concept of gameplay and plot.

Hmm.. I'll have to see if I can rent it.

I don't think I could have summed it up better myself. Kudos

I'm definitely pre-ordering NG2 as soon as they set a date

Game reviews are useful, scores aren't necessarily. They're a reflection of someone's opinion (or, unfortunately, an opinion that an editor tells them to have). Without them, what do we have to give us an indication of what gameplay is like? Demos, which are few and far between? Hyped up previews in magazines before the game even comes out? The back of the box?

If you like the genre, you'll probably like the game and buy it, regardless of the reviewer slant. All I know is, I wish I had read some reviews on the DS version of Hoshigami before I bought it... I love strategy games, but I hate this game, even though it seemed like it was right up my alley...

Yup!

I think a combination of trying out a demo and reading a good review that actually covers gameplay is important. I'm not going to waste $60 on a game unless I know there's something about it that interests me, even if it's the next iteration of a series I love.

I never liked EGM's "reviews" in their magazine. 3 scores yet 2 paragraphs of rambling.

A good review should help the reader decide whether the game is right for them regardless of the reviewer's personal opinion. An example of a critic that writes in this style is Roger Ebert. I can read one of his reviews and have a good idea of whether I'd probably like a film regardless of the star rating. In terms of video game reviews, I'm yet to read one that was like that so I just browse through them for a summary of features, etc.

Just keep in mind that reviews are I think written by game playing generalists - they play so many games that they must have an interest in most genres. For example, a game that gets a 5-7 is probably a fantastic game for a fan of the genre (thus the Enchanted Arms comments).

I hit Metacritic for composite reviews, and read EGM in the bathroom. READing the reviews helps too, because they say why they don't like it. If they are mainly complaining about graphics I ignore them :D Too many graphics whores.

I mean, I play very few FPS games (Quake2, UT2004, Quake 4, Gears of War is pretty much my whole list of liked FPS games), but many of them get very high ratings. I'm much more likely to buy a 60%-70% rated JRPG or strategy game or quirky niche game than a 98% rated FPS game.

I can see that a lot of magazine's will want to keep a good relationship between themselves and game developers, and thus will give games higher scores. But i think this is total bullshit. At the end of the day its the consumer who is going to make or break a magazine by buying it on a regular basis. I was actually in Borders over the weekend and i picked up a magazine (can't remember which one off the top of my head....maybe EGM), but i noticed that every game seemed to get scores above 7. I find this difficult to believe. There are a tonne of games that get released that are just garbage. And the quote about making a game for the desired audience....sure i can imagine that they do aim at specific gamers...but who are they aiming at when they produce crap like Jaws Unleashed or Superman Returns??? A lot of game developers rush their games out to meet a deadline and in the end the product suffers. I just wish that game developers would not rush games as much, and that reviewers would actually be honest. In the end the paying public will appreciate them both more. Its one of the reasons that i have gotten to hate a lot of online movie reviewers (Harry Knowles being a prime example). They have gotten seduced by the movie companies and i get the destinct impression that they only give good reviews to people who they have a good relationship with.

I am so close to buying Hoshigami, but the reviews and opinions from people that have purchased it are chasing me away. Glad I didn't just assume I would like it because I like strategy RPGs.

I don't get why people don't seem to understand that others can have vastly different opinions. There are posts in this thread complaining about game reviews having scores that are too high, and others complaining that they are too low. Outside of the ones where the reviewers admit being pressured by game companies, it's just their opinion on the game. Do you want them to give an honest score based on what they thought of it, or what they think others will get out of it? I don't think it's completely fair to have a complete fanboy of the genre give the review every time either.

EGM, for the most part, has kinda surprised me with some of their recent reviews, especially the ones where one reviewer gives the game a 7 and another gives it a 3. They've been a bit harsher on games lately. Even Nintendo Power criticizes games in their reviews, which I was surprised at (hey, I got a free subscription, ok?).

I disagree. Do you really want some one who hates FPSs reviewing the latest Halo?

And on the flipside: <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/11/arts/television/11game.html?ei=5088&en=063ae8731d7b8337&ex=1341806400&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss&pagewanted=print" target="blank">this NY Times article</a>.

well, its a double-edged sword

no, you wouldn't want someone who has a bias against a genre review a game of that genre. It would be a waste IMO.

Conversely, you wouldn't want a Halo fanboy to rate a Halo game, because that same bias would exist, accept it being the polar opposite.

Either way you look at it, you still need to discern subjectivity from objectivity and make your own decision

That's why the written word is more important than an inconsequential score. Even if one is biased, you should be able to discern it from the review and still be able to pull out something worthwhile.

I had never heard of that one until now, though I was very fond of Dragon Warrior IV back in the day.... this quote from the review at IGN is particularly harsh... and they gave it a 6:

I enjoy reading gamefaqs message boards. Sure they run rampant for underage noise but it does show true opinions of what every day folk think of what they are playing...

well, sounds simple enough to people that can make that distinction, but you'd be surprised how many people can't.


I know a few people that constantly say "Get this! It's the best game EVAR!!!"


kinda gets old after hearing that after 3 consecutive purchases

That's exactly what it is, a nethack (or alternatively, a rogue-like). The first part is particularly interesting because he attacks the genre as being for "people with no lives" when ALL of the games he listed past that are far more time-consuming than your typical rogue-like. Rogue-likes are more like arcade-style RPGs in that they're short and to the point, but can be replayed since their entire focus is on actual gameplay. Is that ignorance or immaturity? Probably a bit of both. The second part is basically word-for-word on what was stated above, "Game reviewers want every game to be Zelda," or as I said, he's more interested in what that game ISN'T as opposed to what it is. His ENTIRE closing comment is "This game isn't Final Fantasy VII."

Overall, a textbook example of why I think game reviews are shit.

On a related note, the few things I've read on Etrian Odyssey, another RPG in a sub-genre that makes people who salivate over Final Fantasy VII's "My First RPG" approach scream in terror, are far more refined. Most of them just flat out state that the game is not for them but fans of the genre should enjoy it. That's a lot more admirable to me than trying to say a twenty hour game is for "people with no lives" and then list off a half dozen sixty to eighty hour RPGs as counters.

Nice. I'm just like that, only the other way around. I will play (and enjoy) pretty much any 60%-70% FPS (or platformer), but it is the rare 95%< RPG that will interest me enough to buy.

But at this point, everyone knows what to look for in a review. For example, I like easy games, so when a review criticizes a game for being too easy, I see that as a plus and treat the review accordingly - I hardly ever look at numerical scores because they are retarded and don't tell me a damn thing.

It's the same with movie reviews. Roger Ebert stated that he was always being enticed with free stuff in the beginning of his career by movie studios. Then he'd pan the movie they released, and *poof*, no more free stuff.

He said that a lot of movie reviews give them their "quotes" because they get offered free hotels, vacations, etc...

NGB also added a button to center the camera. VERY helpful.

I really like the reviews at gametrailers.com. They give scores, but they also break down exactly why it is they like or dislike a game and show you why which makes it easy to make up your own mind as to whether a game is worth looking into or not.

Reviews can be a helpful gage and invaluable on licensed games. I know it's like invoking Satan around here, but I like playing games based on properties I'm a fan of. But I know these games are much more likely to be utterly terrible than most so I rely on reviews. I was planning on checking out Transformers, but now I'll probably pass. Whereas the latest TMNT game might not have been a stellar game, but probably still fun enough and worth my time to check out sooner or later.

I also think reviews are really helpful in warning you if a game is broken or not. A reviewer may have a slant or bias one way or another, but they most all can rely the basic information on whether a game is unplayable due to bugs or broken play mechanics. This isn't full proof, but right more times than not.

Where I don't rely on reviews is when they say stuff like "Same old same old. Where is the innovation?" or "You've played this game before." None of those are reason enough for me to write a game off (and it can be a good thing if the game is based on something I already liked). Likewise, when a reviewer seems to backlash against a mechanic or genre because it's "tired" like the mini-backlash against sandbox games a while ago.

I cannot STAND when a review says something is "Too kiddy" or they rag on something that was meant for an 8 yr old girl. Almost all reviewers seem to get this aspect of reviewing wrong. Maybe it's hard to be unbiased when reviewing Barbie's Horse Adventure, but I still think a good reviewer could do it without making all the obvious jokes and letting a parent know if it will be fun for their daughter.

So definitely not anti-reviews though they do have their issues.

I thought my Transformers review was pretty fair and balanced.