El_Galant

After some more time playing today I will say that the game is flawed...I have the PS3 version of the game, and there are substantial graphical slowdowns. When facing 4 or 5 grunts ( which seems to be the SOP of the game ) things start to get into slow motion when other things are going on. The response time for the controls are not quick enough either, and there is a notable difference between the Normal and Hard modes. Enemies facing you seem to wait for you to attack them on Normal but on Hard mode they are vicious and aggressive. I faced one of the Bosses and he had several more moves on Hard mode than on Normal. The voice acting is rather suspect, Ryu's voice sounds too harsh and old and the sound quality of the other voices are vague. I have issues with the health gauge only replenishing after killing everyone in the section. There are no items to collect or maneuver around, and Bosses have no health bar to see what damage you are inflicting on them or a hit counter to see your combos at work. As cool as the closeups and slashes seem they turn unrealistic quickly after you slice a 4 foot Dragon Sword thru the guy and his waist is still attached to his torso...I don't know, seems like they extracted the best points of the previous two games in the first 40mins I've played of the game. Probably end up giving it a 7.0, as in passable, and oh yeah the story is not Oscar worthy either...

Just started to play Ninja Gaiden 3 for the PS3. The game looks really good, placed it on the 'Hard' difficulty setting as first word was that the game was easy. So far, about 20mins in I can say that the controls are not as tight as in the previous 2 games and the camera might be a problem. There are no items to collect apparently and your health gauge replenishes after defeating a wave of enemies. Your Ki charges up to release the Fire ninpo and obliterates all enemies on screen and you still have the Ultimate technique to use as well when the Dragon Sword is red stained enough. Will see what the rest offers but I doubt even with these issues the game will be a fail as posted on the IGN review.

@Jimbo: @Jimbo said:

@Video_Game_King said:

@Jimbo said:

If five very similar 'awesome' things come out then what was once 'awesome' has now become average.

No, it's the other way around; the average becomes awesome. Besides, there are ways to determine a game's quality without referencing the time it was made. You could ask questions about the game, like "Does the game control well?" or "Does it look good on an artistic level?" or "Is the story any good, and if not, does it need a story to be enjoyed?" Not a perfect method, but it's some type of proof that standards don't need to change.

It blows my mind that you can't grasp this concept.

When you call something awesome you are making a comparative statement. It inspires awe because it is of a higher / more impressive nature than its peers. Once enough of those peers match or improve on it then it ceases to be awesome.

You cannot judge quality in isolation like you are suggesting. That's like... the exact opposite of how quality is defined.

To make it simple, why is a woman hot? Because she is physically more beautiful than most of her female counterparts, thus making her more desirable and 'awesome' to be with...haha...in all seriousness though there are a couple of degrees at the top where a hot girl will not cease to be hot just because you find a 'hotter' one. So I refute the 'cease to be awesome' argument, it just makes it less impressive, more like something to compare it to when grading others. Best of the best.

@CaptainCody said:

@Video_Game_King: Video games aren't movies, books, or television. They are video games. The interactivity of them is what makes them stale and unoriginal over time, this will be a constant from now until the end of time. It is a quantitative factor based on how many games of a kind you play.

I don't know about this. Things that are great stand the test of time regardless of what they are. I just played Shadow of the Colossus for the first time and I was very impressed on how enjoyable the game is with just a sword, a bow, a horse and just being able to grab onto a certain texture. Great execution on a simple premise with over the top bosses. The Matrix is still great to watch 13 years later...and many people keep their favorite books around so they can read them again at some point in the future. Just because the interactivity isn't updating the impact of the experience will always stay enjoyable....even if you are looking at the Sistine Chapel or the statue of David, both created by Michelangelo, they remain great works and enjoyed by millions 400+ years later....

@Rowr said:

You're not going to find much sympathy in here, game forums are populated with people who have nothing but time on their hands, mostly teenagers.

That's probably what I did not understand...anyways it's cool to see the thread had a good number of replies. Now that I saw the AC3 trailer, I can easily say that I will probably GameFly it sometime in 2013...haha

I posted a couple of reviews for this game and the two DLCs that were released. I wonder what you guys think about them. The DLCs I did not like much...

This DLC was the worst of the two. Definitely not worth the money.

@Sackmanjones: I think this game is going to be great if you can finally shoot & MOVE at the same time! RE4 was my favorite game ever until recently...and yes I believe they will prob fight the end boss together like Dante and Virgil in DMC 3....now that would be awesome...

@FluxWaveZ: Just saying that with so much going on in your life and other games to play might be rather wise to ease off on putting an AC game every year. Might turn into a series people stop caring about quickly.

@JeanLuc said:

I've never heard the phrase "officially Megamans" before.

It means making more installments of the same franchise that players can either count or remember playing. How many AC games are there now and the franchise was started when, 5 years ago?