A lot of the changes to the new Ninja Gaiden have been worrisome, but I am still trying to go into things with an open mind even if the difficulty has been turned down, weapon count has been reduced to essentially one, and upgrades have been removed.

That however just got a lot harder with IGN's review hitting. Now I don't put much stalk in their reviews and have just recently really enjoyed Silent Hill Downpour which they gave a very low score as well. That being said, I am worried that maybe I should skip this entry. Is this game going to be a bust or is it just in the good company of God Hand? What do you guys think of what you have seen?

Edit: Godamn it: THINGS are looking dire.

Edit 2: My thought process during the 6 hours I have had with the game

During the first level I thought it was terrible. I played some more and decide I was wrong and it was an okay game. I played more and decided it was actually kinda good. Now I have been playing the ninja trials ... this game is great.

To put that in context I am a huge Ninja Gaiden fan. Beat all nes games in my youth. Beat 1 and black on master ninja. Beat 2 on mentor but did not get into like I did with the first one. But, I also think SIlent Hill: Downpour was fantastic and Yakuza: Dead Souls was really fun ... so what do I know.

Yea from watching the quick look the game seemed incredibly dumbed down. I read the IGN review and from what they say it seems like Team Ninja fucked this game up in every aspect.

Still, it's only one person's opinion. I'm sure some people will enjoy it.

You're overthinging it.

It's definitely sounding like it'll be similar to God Hand. 7 and 8's everywhere except for IGN's 3. The game looked pretty fun from the Quick Look so I'll definitely be getting it.

The game from the get-go didn't look good at all.

Don't give a shit about IGN. They rate some games from small publishers overly harsh to detract from their hype scores for big-publisher games. I'm sure they want to lower their average metacritic index, too.

@CptBedlam said:

Don't give a shit about IGN. They rate some games from small publishers overly harsh to detract from their hype scores for big-publisher games. I'm sure they want to lower their average metacritic index, too.

Please don't state your stupid conspiracy theories as fact. IGN is made up of many reviewers who all have different opinions. People don't seem to understand this.

@Heltom92 said:

@CptBedlam said:

Don't give a shit about IGN. They rate some games from small publishers overly harsh to detract from their hype scores for big-publisher games. I'm sure they want to lower their average metacritic index, too.

Please don't state your stupid conspiracy theories as fact. IGN is made up of many reviewers who all have different opinions. People don't seem to understand this.

Fox News is made up of many employees, too.

Even since Itagaki left Team Ninja, all the talent seemed to have went with him. I wasn't expecting anything from Team Ninja is now, but man they sure surprised me with how bad this seems. They didn't get me with Metroid: Other M and nothing so far makes me when to get Ninja Gaiden 3. (Loved the first two, but *bleck* to this 3rd one). Here's hope for Devil's Third.

Eh, I'll just rent it on GameFly at some point in the future.

@CptBedlam said:

@Heltom92 said:

@CptBedlam said:

Don't give a shit about IGN. They rate some games from small publishers overly harsh to detract from their hype scores for big-publisher games. I'm sure they want to lower their average metacritic index, too.

Please don't state your stupid conspiracy theories as fact. IGN is made up of many reviewers who all have different opinions. People don't seem to understand this.

Fox News is made up of many employees, too.

Doesn't detract from you being retarded.

@Oldirtybearon said:

@CptBedlam said:

@Heltom92 said:

@CptBedlam said:

Don't give a shit about IGN. They rate some games from small publishers overly harsh to detract from their hype scores for big-publisher games. I'm sure they want to lower their average metacritic index, too.

Please don't state your stupid conspiracy theories as fact. IGN is made up of many reviewers who all have different opinions. People don't seem to understand this.

Fox News is made up of many employees, too.

Doesn't detract from you being retarded.

All you need is one idiot in charge in order to make all the others look bad.

@Oldirtybearon said:

@CptBedlam said:

@Heltom92 said:

@CptBedlam said:

Don't give a shit about IGN. They rate some games from small publishers overly harsh to detract from their hype scores for big-publisher games. I'm sure they want to lower their average metacritic index, too.

Please don't state your stupid conspiracy theories as fact. IGN is made up of many reviewers who all have different opinions. People don't seem to understand this.

Fox News is made up of many employees, too.

Doesn't detract from you being retarded.

The ever-charming Oscar Wilde, ladies and gentlemen.

Anyway, NG is clearly experiencing an existential crisis. Big, explosive action is not compatible with refined swordplay: veterans and newcomers want different things. NG2 screwed the balance and was just stupid-hard in an attempt to seem original-gangsta-gaiden. Now NG3 is selling-out. That's sequels, yo. You never win.

I actually don't want to read it, I can't give up hope yet, not out till Friday over here.

Yep, it's trash. I've watched some of the play-throughs. As someone who's played a fair bit of NG, the combat just doesn't make any sense. All the new things they've added are horrible, the things omitted only serve to water the combat down and the story is ham-fisted melodrama. I'd written this off pretty early on and nothing I've seen has changed my mind.

@Oldirtybearon said:

@CptBedlam said:

@Heltom92 said:

@CptBedlam said:

Don't give a shit about IGN. They rate some games from small publishers overly harsh to detract from their hype scores for big-publisher games. I'm sure they want to lower their average metacritic index, too.

Please don't state your stupid conspiracy theories as fact. IGN is made up of many reviewers who all have different opinions. People don't seem to understand this.

Fox News is made up of many employees, too.

Doesn't detract from you being retarded.

Why do you need to insult the handicap community? :)

Seriously, if you think there is a giant conspiracy at IGN... you're an idiot. If you ask any IGN editor "what the hell is going on", however, they'll be just as puzzled at their current lineup and publishing strategy as some readers are. But that doesn't mean A + B = Conspiracy Hype.

@GooieGreen said:

@Oldirtybearon said:

@CptBedlam said:

@Heltom92 said:

@CptBedlam said:

Don't give a shit about IGN. They rate some games from small publishers overly harsh to detract from their hype scores for big-publisher games. I'm sure they want to lower their average metacritic index, too.

Please don't state your stupid conspiracy theories as fact. IGN is made up of many reviewers who all have different opinions. People don't seem to understand this.

Fox News is made up of many employees, too.

Doesn't detract from you being retarded.

Why do you need to insult the handicap community? :)

Seriously, if you think there is a giant conspiracy at IGN... you're an idiot. If you ask any IGN editor "what the hell is going on", however, they'll be just as puzzled at their current lineup and publishing strategy as some readers are. But that doesn't mean A + B = Conspiracy Hype.

I never called it a conspiracy, you guys do.

But anyone who believes IGN editors have completely free reign over the scores they give, is an idiot. The editor in chief will have a talk with them if they attempted to rate the newest Call of Duty game below an 8.5.

If anyone here is seriously taking that garbage IGN review seriously...I have no words for you. The game may be disappointing to some, but to give it a score like that is just trolling for cheap hits, plain and simple. Who wrote that anyways? I'm not giving them any hits so if someone could tell me I'd appreciate it.

Guess Tecmo Koei didn't advertise enough on IGN. BOOM!

As a fan of the Ninja Gaiden series, I hope it's not as bad as all that.

The quick look makes the game look like a HD PS2 game, it's worse than Sigma 1 & 2 for sure.

Everyone has their own opinion on games. Some will like a game more than others and some will despise it. I never dictate whether I should enjoy a game or not based on reviews. I just like knowing other people's opinions.

As for the IGN review, I agree with it for the most part. It looks very much dumbed down and lost what the series was really about. I was skeptical about since it was first announced.

I love how everyone is essentially rushing to the defense of Nolan North here. His whole argument being with all of the work put into those games, how in the hell could you give it a "five out of ten?"

Yeah, that's what you're doing. One second you're raging that all review scores are homogenized, and then when people give a lower score than deemed culturally acceptable (7 or lower, let's say), you scream and cry that the review has no merit, or that someone had an agenda. Not once did anyone ever consider that Ninja Gaiden 3 is truly an awful, awful game.

Yeah, that makes sense.

@kishinfoulux said:

If anyone here is seriously taking that garbage IGN review seriously...I have no words for you. The game may be disappointing to some, but to give it a score like that is just trolling for cheap hits, plain and simple. Who wrote that anyways? I'm not giving them any hits so if someone could tell me I'd appreciate it.

Why? What's wrong with it? The text justified the score and from the couple of hours I've watched of a playthrough, I would say the complaints are entirely valid. Videogamer dot com gave it a 5 btw. Expect Joystiq to eviscerate it.

I didn't expect IGN to go all Edge Magazine on NG3, but from the gameplay vids and articles I've seen, this game does not look good at all. 3/10 is extreme but not all that surprising in retrospect.

@CptBedlam said:

I never called it a conspiracy, you guys do.

But anyone who believes IGN editors have completely free reign over the scores they give, is an idiot. The editor in chief will have a talk with them if they attempted to rate the newest Call of Duty game below an 8.5.

You're right; you never called it a conspiracy. Conspiracy theorists tend not to do that since it is bad press for their idea :P

Where are you getting this information? Is this one of those "fate is fact" deals? #InMyHeart?

The peer-review process is such that multiple editors will read over a review before it goes live. That is a way to cut down on typos, inaccuracies, and unfounded commentary on a game. As someone who has seen the IGN backend, it was (up until 8 months ago, at least) set up that way. It also applies to other types of articles as well. If there was an extreme and unfounded bias (for or against something) and it was noticed by one of the staff members, they would talk to the editor. However, that is assuming at least one person thought there was a problem. If an editor can make their case for a game, no matter how harsh or positive it is, they have to be able to justify it to anyone who says otherwise on staff.

@GooieGreen: You're naive. Go listen to the podcast on which Jeff Green and others talk about Gerstmann-gate. There are also numerous other sources with information about how publisher pressure works (both, passive and active) and about the problematic relationship between the gaming press and publishers. Are you living under a rock or are you just defending a former employer? Especially the exclusive review business is ALWAYS shady and IGN is pretty much the only electronic publication left who does it. Even Jeff called out this business relationship model multiple times.

@GhosthH said:

@kishinfoulux said:

If anyone here is seriously taking that garbage IGN review seriously...I have no words for you. The game may be disappointing to some, but to give it a score like that is just trolling for cheap hits, plain and simple. Who wrote that anyways? I'm not giving them any hits so if someone could tell me I'd appreciate it.

Why? What's wrong with it? The text justified the score and from the couple of hours I've watched of a playthrough, I would say the complaints are entirely valid. Videogamer dot com gave it a 5 btw. Expect Joystiq to eviscerate it.

Everything I've seen of this game tells me it's not a 3. To say it's a 3 would imply it's broken, unplayable mess and that simply isn't the case. Hell Skyrim on PS3 should be a fucking 0/10 then. Like I said they're trolling for hits...like always.

Damn, I was hoping it would be as good as Ninja Gaiden 2.

Maybe it still is and it's just underrated?

@CptBedlam: Given that I know and worked with current and former IGN people, I'd have to say I'm not living under a rock. You do realize that anyone working at GameSpot at that time or right before that livestream would have said it was because of the management team. Now, considering the IGN management team consists of former staff writers (including Tal, who is one of the nicest guys you'll ever meet), I am extremely skeptical of that viewpoint. If you want to accuse the marketing side of the business to be pulling strings and throwing the weight of Newscorp around to grease the wheels of exclusives for editorial, then fine. But if you asked me if I trust my friends and colleagues that work there, I'd tell you without a doubt that I do.

So here we are, with two sides that can't be easily substantiated. I'm just wondering how you are so unable to see the plain fact that Newscorp has a lot of power as it is, IGN built a reputation prior to the buyout, and they continue to house some heavy-hitters on staff that have the connections to get exclusives. Tal and Peer have been around for ages and they have both had successful careers built on knowing people. It is a media empire, which means it is big, scary, and unknown. But that doesn't mean you have any grounds to call out the editorial team for functioning in the same way that CBSi did with Jeff.

I took one look at that 3.0 and cancelled my Amazon preorder like a gag reflex.

If anyone here is seriously taking that garbage IGN review seriously...I have no words for you. The game may be disappointing to some, but to give it a score like that is just trolling for cheap hits, plain and simple. Who wrote that anyways? I'm not giving them any hits so if someone could tell me I'd appreciate it.

i tink tha shit be lookn dire as well innit?

Unfortunately, NG3 does look rather poor. I've never been much of a fan of the series but can appreciate what they tried to do, with 3 it seems like the whole appeal of the franchise has been abandoned. In fact this might be the only time I will say it looks like the developers are literally 'pandering to the casuals'.

@Farley_Lives said:

Even since Itagaki left Team Ninja, all the talent seemed to have went with him. I wasn't expecting anything from Team Ninja is now, but man they sure surprised me with how bad this seems. They didn't get me with Metroid: Other M and nothing so far makes me when to get Ninja Gaiden 3. (Loved the first two, but *bleck* to this 3rd one). Here's hope for Devil's Third.

Other M was a disgrace of a game, but Dead or Alive 5 is looking somewhat promising. I like that the characters actually have distinct looking features and faces now, rather than all looking like the same porcelain doll with different haircuts.

from what I've heard, this does not feel like a Ninja Gaiden game at all. Take that as you will.

Ninja Gaiden 3 does look like potential garbage; but I don't care for IGN's reviews. Hopefully it's better then that but I would not be surprised if the review was spot on.

It is kind of weird that there is no dismemberment... I think I'll wait until GB tells me if its good or not

@kishinfoulux said:

If anyone here is seriously taking that garbage IGN review seriously...I have no words for you. The game may be disappointing to some, but to give it a score like that is just trolling for cheap hits, plain and simple. Who wrote that anyways? I'm not giving them any hits so if someone could tell me I'd appreciate it.

And how would you know, exactly?

NO game should get lower than a 5 unless it is fundamentally from a software perspective broken. Seeing OXM gave it a 8 We would be seeing more people calling it out if it was true. I trust IGN's reviews about as much ad a hookers abstinence pledge.

@Demoskinos said:

NO game should get lower than a 5 unless it is fundamentally from a software perspective broken. Seeing OXM gave it a 8 We would be seeing more people calling it out if it was true. I trust IGN's reviews about as much ad a hookers abstinence pledge.

Are you for fucking real? What is the god damned point of having a ten-point scale if you've decided that anything under the middle point of the scale is worthless?

NO game should get lower than a 5 unless it is fundamentally from a software perspective broken. Seeing OXM gave it a 8 We would be seeing more people calling it out if it was true. I trust IGN's reviews about as much ad a hookers abstinence pledge.

@Demoskinos said:

NO game should get lower than a 5 unless it is fundamentally from a software perspective broken. Seeing OXM gave it a 8 We would be seeing more people calling it out if it was true. I trust IGN's reviews about as much ad a hookers abstinence pledge.

Are you for fucking real? What is the god damned point of having a ten-point scale if you've decided that anything under the middle point of the scale is worthless?

We are finally seeing reviewers that dare to use the entire scale again. Yes, we are conditioned that a 3 is pretty much an unplayable game, but to me unplayable is not a game so it is a 0. A 3 to me is a game that has very little merit, it is not a lot of fun to play and it has a very bad or incomprehensible story. From the text of the review, that all seems correct. And yes, the reviews on Skyrim should've been lower in my opinion, at least some reviewers should have put more weight on the technical issues.

I think we all benefit from games getting more diverse scores. Like recently, "I am alive" got scores ranging from a 4 to near perfect. I personally loved that game but I also understand the more critical reviews, it's just what that reviewer finds more important. Some really get on with the atmosphere and are more lenient towards clunky gameplay, some are not. The new icarus game seems to get some devisive scrores too, mostly very positive but some are more critical of the control scheme (like Destructoid). It benefits us to get both side of the coin and make up our own mind.

Jeff seems to want to go this way with reviews too, very personal critical reviews that don't have to adhere to some kind of industry standard. Not just the score is important, you have to take into account the reviewers likes and dislikes.

I am all for it.

From the quicklook it does seem dumbed down. It look interesting still, but seems like they're trying to appeal to a broader audience. Kind of a weird franchise for them to do that with.

O.O

There's a third Ninja Gaiden!?

@OllyOxenFree said:

i tink tha shit be lookn dire as well innit?

Too much.

@SeriouslyNow said:

@iAmJohn said:

@Demoskinos said:

NO game should get lower than a 5 unless it is fundamentally from a software perspective broken. Seeing OXM gave it a 8 We would be seeing more people calling it out if it was true. I trust IGN's reviews about as much ad a hookers abstinence pledge.

Are you for fucking real? What is the god damned point of having a ten-point scale if you've decided that anything under the middle point of the scale is worthless?

You expect too much from a generation reared on a false economy of paid for reviews and advertorials as content.

we almost never agree, but godddamn it, you're right. Fuck children.

@iAmJohn: Its simple. Not 100% of a review is subjective. There are things that you can measure on a quanatative scale. Things like Frame Rate, Screen tearing , if the game crashes and generally how it runs as a piece of software. The other half of the review is the subjective things... such as story, art direction, overall fun etc... Bottom line if the thing functions as intended as a piece of hardware no matter how "boring" you find it it shouldn't get less than a 5 because its still functioning as intended.

@Demoskinos said:

@iAmJohn: Its simple. Not 100% of a review is subjective. There are things that you can measure on a quanatative scale. Things like Frame Rate, Screen tearing , if the game crashes and generally how it runs as a piece of software. The other half of the review is the subjective things... such as story, art direction, overall fun etc... Bottom line if the thing functions as intended as a piece of hardware no matter how "boring" you find it it shouldn't get less than a 5 because its still functioning as intended.

I personally expect a game to be playable, not crash and have a decent framerate. That's no baseline for a 5 for me. If you take your line of thinking to the extreme you would have to give the snake clone I made in half an hour the other day a 5 because it doesn't crash and works as intended.