Nebulous said:
Ha, and the reason for this is pretty obvious...most journamists likely aren't that great at action games, and likely don't compare them at a high level. To appreciate how substantially better a game like Ninja Gaiden's combat system and AI is, you have to put in some dedication. Something most journalists on a time constraint don't have. Having said that, EDGE is easily the most respectable reviewer of action games, in my opinion. They give credit where credit is due. God of War has amazing visual presentation, but the core gameplay is severely lacking comparitively. Understand that Ninja Gaiden's combat system is essentially the masterwork of a team who has been making action/ fighting game's for well over a decade. God of War aped most of their elenments from Ninja Gaiden, and made the game more acessable. But it also dumbed down the AI, and offered a shallow impercise combat system, and the QTE gimmick in its abcense. Also, God of War's story is mediocre as well, so a critical eye would easily catch that as not necisarily an amazing point either. Bayonetta on the other hand, has risen to the challenge, and amazingly, offered a comparable combat system to Ninja Gaiden II, while also offering up a healthy dose of insanity, and amazing presentation seen in God of War, while surpassing both by innovating on top of that (wall walking, amazingly percise controls, dodging out of every single animation on-ground or in the air), offering a substantial and incredibly polished capaign, large enemy veriety, amazing boss fights, and tons of extras, and unlockables that significantly enhance the replayability of the game.
Anyways, I'm sure, just like the previous God of War's, GOWIII will be immensely popular, and recieve amazing reviews. But there's a good reason experienced action-game fans/critics pretty much universally consider the series lower-tier than the Devil May Cry's, Ninja Gaidens, and Bayonettas. Luckily for us nerds, at least one publication puts in enough effort to see this as well.
|
So what you're pretty much saying is, 1 review is right, and 99 other reviews are wrong.. and the worst thing is that you're saying Edge is the right one lol Well, it's been proved that Edge is, at the very minimum, slightly biased to the 360, and notice how I used the word "minimum" before "slightly".
I'm not saying you're wrong, you do have a point, a review of someone experient, oh let's say on FPS, will be completely different of someone who often reviews racing games - it's logic. However, we aren't talking about rookies in Hack 'n' Slash, there are lots of respectful reviewers giving 90s and 100s to God of War. You also mentioned the time factor, but for example, I remember that Konami forbade all reviewers to tell MGS4's ending, and you can't obviously make a review about MGS4 without ending it, at least once, first. Well, Edge still gave it a 8/10, and it got a 94 overall. IGN, Gamespot, TheSixthAxis, etc.. gave it a 10/10. It's ok to have diversity on reviews, so we see different points of view, but if each magazine has its own way to score games (an 6 on Edge is a 10 on IGN, a 9 on Gamespot is a 7 on vgchartz.. hypothetically speaking), then metacritic will be completely useless, and we will have big problems to compare games on an objective way.
Ninja Gaiden and God of War are two very different games, at least in my opinion, but if you still want to compare them, God of War beats it in many, many ways: the bosses, the main character, the weapons, the graphics, the puzzles, the whole environment and the plot, just make it a much more fun and entertaining game. I like Ninja Gaiden, but I prefer God of War, by far. I only played Bayonetta for the PS3, and we all know how "good" that version is so.. I'll just talk about Ninja Gaiden and God of War.
Essay Pro