Google+   Facebook button  Twitter button 
3DS | DS | PS3 | PS4 | PSP | VITA | WII | WIIU | X360 | XB1 | All

foe_en_s4_b22.jpg

Ninja Gaiden (NES) artwork

Ninja Gaiden (NES) review


"You have to wonder why, in a game like “Ninja Gaiden”, a collision with a small bird can send a grown man flying. This is one of many considerations I made in the act of playing this game. Another one: if you’re fighting on the side of justice, why is everything out to get you? Your character, Ryu Hayabusa, is attacked from all sides, by all manner of creature, be it man or animal. I can understand man, but why the animals? I don’t think sparrows and hawks are that territorial. They can’t have a..."



You have to wonder why, in a game like “Ninja Gaiden”, a collision with a small bird can send a grown man flying. This is one of many considerations I made in the act of playing this game. Another one: if you’re fighting on the side of justice, why is everything out to get you? Your character, Ryu Hayabusa, is attacked from all sides, by all manner of creature, be it man or animal. I can understand man, but why the animals? I don’t think sparrows and hawks are that territorial. They can’t have an agenda either. Wouldn’t it nice in these kinds of games if, for once, nature stepped aside and let you do your job?

But the fact is that “Ninja Gaiden” is a very dumb, un-imaginative action game. It’s bottom-of-the-barrel entertainment, for people who don’t care that the software developers don’t care. To answer the question I raised at the start of this review, the reason little creatures can send grown men flying in these sorts of games is to give the level designer some lazy shortcuts. Put an ordinary house cat in front of a deep gap, and you’ve got an obstacle. It doesn’t matter if the thing is defenseless, because if Ryu even taps it, off he goes into the abyss.

Here’s yet another consideration: if Ryu can stick to walls, why can’t he climb them? There are many moments in “Ninja Gaiden” where you’ll encounter narrow spaces, which you climb by bouncing back and forth like a pinball. Why would a ninja want to look so silly? Anyway, I raise this point because there will be times where a bird or some loitering oaf will send you flying into wall, right above a deep drop. Your first instinct will be to climb the wall using your miraculous sticking abilities. That instinct will be denied, so you’ll instead try to do what I call a “one-handed climb” which is: jumping away from the wall and then pushing toward it as you fall. This won’t be very effective, because Ryu does not jump very high when clinging to something. Moreover, he’s incapable of pulling himself over a ledge, except by “one-handed climbing”. In many cases, you will find yourself thrust into a no-win, no-climb scenario. Just embrace the drop.

The enemies in this game are all stupid and therefore easy to program and create. There is little difference between a tiger and a mutant football player. Both mindlessly charge at you, and both can be dispatched simply by standing still and flailing your weapon wildly. Many enemies meander back and forth, like they’re trying to decide what flavor of ice cream they’ll pick up at the Dairy Queen. Some are actually aware of your presence and they *gasp* attack you. What a concept! But most of the time, you’re expected to gradually die by bumping into things.

Do you think that maybe some creativity went into the bosses? Nope, they’re brainless too. They tend to have the same pattern: move back and forth, occasionally attack. The challenge comes from making it to the boss with health to spare and trying to get around their immense frames. Remember: collision is the most common cause of death in “Ninja Gaiden”, so it’s only natural that boss design be centered on big sprites that lumber toward you.

Yep, this game is moronic. I could go into the “deep” story or the variety of power-ups, but what’s the point? In a good game, we can muster up the enthusiasm to care about such things. In a game like “Ninja Gaiden”, all other considerations are secondary to how crushingly boorish it is. This is the low end of the action-platforming spectrum.

Rating: 3/10

joseph_valencia's avatar
Community review by joseph_valencia (July 04, 2009)

A bio for this contributor is currently unavailable, but check back soon to see if that changes. If you are the author of this review, you can update your bio from the Settings page.

More Reviews by joseph_valencia
Jurassic Park: Rampage Edition (Genesis) artwork
Jurassic Park: Rampage Edition (Genesis)

Alan Grant is mad as hell and he's not going to take it anymore.
Mega Man Zero 2 (Game Boy Advance) artwork
Mega Man Zero 2 (Game Boy Advance)

The first stage of “Mega Man Zero 2” is one of the best possible notes a game could start on. Our hero, garbed in a poncho, fatigued from the battles he’s fought since the prior installment, limps his way through a canyon in the midst of a sandstorm. The storm dies down, and a battalion of Neo Arcadian foot soldiers fl...
Mega Man Zero (Game Boy Advance) artwork
Mega Man Zero (Game Boy Advance)

My initial impression of “Mega Man Zero” when I first played it was: This game is hard as fuck! I was humiliated by the first real boss, Aztec Falcon. The claustrophobic quarters where you fight him caused me to panic. He dwarfed my little Zero character in size, and he nimbly bounded and dashed all over the place. He ...

Feedback

If you enjoyed this Ninja Gaiden review, you're encouraged to discuss it with the author and with other members of the site's community. If you don't already have an HonestGamers account, you can sign up for one in a snap. Thank you for reading!

board icon
randxian posted July 05, 2009:

Many enemies meander back and forth, like they’re trying to decide what flavor of ice cream they’ll pick up at the Dairy Queen.

Heh, heh, heh.

I'm glad you took the road less traveled here and gave such an immensely popular game such as Ninja Gaiden a low score. I think it's a good game myself, but I do have to agree with most of your points. Yes, a large part of the challenge is artificial and cheap. However, I don't see Ryu's inability to climb as a big deal. I also don't recall any serious issues with the bosses' size, save maybe the last three, who are challenging in spite of their girth.
board icon
drella posted July 05, 2009:

I didn't like this review because spaceworlder's case that Ninja Gaiden is bad hinges on being convinced Ninja Gaiden is dumb (well done) but also that having dumb and absurd qualities equals a bad game (not always). I get that sparrows would never behave like they do in NG and that being able to stick to walls but not climb makes no sense. But I also don't think it makes any sense for a mayor to fight a million street thugs... and that made a terrific game, and there are countless other non-Final Fight examples. Ninja Gaiden isn't a game for everyone, but I wouldn't peg its unique absurdities as the reason why. Otherwise the entire NES catalog is atrocious.
board icon
joseph_valencia posted July 05, 2009:

I don't think I said that dumb and absurd qualities equal a bad game. Hell, I gave "Back to the Future" a 6/10 and that game embodies dumb and absurd. The point of the review is that "Ninja Gaiden" is not only dumb but lazy. The programmers were too lazy to implement a proper wall-climbing feature, and they were too lazy to create interesting enemies and bosses. Too put it another way, the real dumbness comes from the lack of thought needed to make a game like this.

One point that I did neglect to mention in retrospect are the constant re-spawns, which are definitely going to be a subject in my "Ninja Gaiden II" review.
board icon
randxian posted July 05, 2009:

Agreed. Peronsally, I play video games largely because it offers experiences that are way out of the ordinary. I like pelting little guys with hoods and masks with giant veggies. I like slicing up thugs and mutants while frantically trying to save my hot FBI girlfriend. I like exploring the countryside and taking out the evil forces of the night with nothing but my trusty whip and bottles of water. Heh, that almost sounds like one of those football commercials. I like refs who yell first down. I like making quarterbacks cry...

However, I am impressed that he's willing to show some guts and challenge Ninja Gaiden's popularity. When I was involved in the NES community, we would have an annual tournament where NES fans would vote on their favorite game, done in psuedo NCAA basketball tournament style. Ninja Gaiden won the very first one, and has consistently done well every year. Hardcore NES fans generally love this game, so giving this a 3/10 is really going out on a limb.
board icon
randxian posted July 05, 2009:

Then I think you should edit that into this review. I think only including it in Ninja Gaiden 2 would be a mistake, since I found that one MUCH easier than the original.

But maybe that's just me.
board icon
joseph_valencia posted July 05, 2009:

I would, but I hate going back and making major edits to reviews I've already posted. I'd rather just use that energy to write a new review. As it is, I'm satisfied with this one and the way it covers most of the things about the game that annoyed me.
board icon
zigfried posted July 05, 2009:

The respawns were hella worse in the original than in the second, so unless the plan is to do a curious reversal, I'd balk at claims that respawns mess up the second game.

Also, I don't see much difference between the Ninja Gaiden enemies/bosses and the enemies in most other NES games (including the Castlevanias). I'm not sure I buy the "laziness" argument, so much as it being a missed opportunity to break away from the pack. Look at the Mega Man games -- they seized the opportunity to make unique enemies and I'd say they've held up way better than the original Ninja Gaiden. Tecmo seemed to care about Ninja Gaiden enough (by way of the weapons, cinemas, music) to avoid being "lazy"... I would say they just weren't as creative as a scant few of their peers.

I'd also say they got more daring with the second game.

//Zig
board icon
joseph_valencia posted July 05, 2009:

I tend to dislike games that have re-spawns, and the sequel had one level that magnified the problems with this mechanic. I will admit that part two is better than the first, but I'm still not liking it too much.

Tecmo seemed to care about Ninja Gaiden enough (by way of the weapons, cinemas, music) to avoid being "lazy".

You seem to be considering it from a standpoint of presentation. The cinematics and music don't mean anything to me if I can't get into the game. When I look outside of the things people liked about "Ninja Gaiden" (power-ups, music, story, etc.) I see an annoying NES game.
board icon
randxian posted July 05, 2009:

Hm, I suppose that's a good point to consider. If not for the cinematics, would all the fans like it as much?
board icon
zigfried posted July 05, 2009:

I'm not disputing the claim that it's annoying, just the claim of developer laziness.

//Zig
board icon
zigfried posted July 05, 2009:

In response to Randxian:

If not for the cinematics, I know I wouldn't have liked it as much. But those cinematics are an integral part of the game; they provide backstory to the action that other NES games weren't doing at the time.

People sometimes try to separate presentational elements (whether story, music, visual effects, whatever) from gameplay, usually under the assumption that one is more important than the other, but the combination of the two is what creates an entire experience. Excising the cinematics from NG is like muting the sound on Mega Man 2. It would sour the experience.

EDIT: I would also classify enemy design under presentation.

//Zig
board icon
bluberry posted July 05, 2009:

don't take this as the rantings of a deranged fan, I couldn't stand Ninja Gaiden, but dude Joseph what action games do you actually like? haha
board icon
joseph_valencia posted July 05, 2009:

don't take this as the rantings of a deranged fan, I couldn't stand Ninja Gaiden, but dude Joseph what action games do you actually like? haha

Ironically, I think I might actually like "Ninja Gaiden III". :-O

Beyond that, I've liked a lot of the "Shinobi" games, "Sunset Riders", and the first two "Contra" games. I'm not sure what the common thread is between these titles.

I'm not disputing the claim that it's annoying, just the claim of developer laziness.

I dunno. The general impression I got from enemy behavior and placement was that anyone could make this game. Like I said in the review, in a game where the tiniest of creatures can send the character flying, it's easy to create obstacles. Most of the action doesn't come from observing the enemy and striking at the right moment, but from mindlessly charging forward and flailing your weapon. It takes little thought to make a game like this.
board icon
honestgamer posted July 05, 2009:

The responses in this thread are the responses that I would expect if someone posted a rant about Ninja Gaiden instead of an actual review. That's hardly surprising, as that's precisely what has happened. Spaceworlder, you've been doing a nice job reviewing some old games, but there is an important difference between reviews and rants. Slapping a score on a rant doesn't suddenly make it a review.
board icon
randxian posted July 05, 2009:

What bothers me the most is your refusal to go back and edit this one. I understand where you are coming from; I used to have the same mentality. I felt when a game was published, that's it. But this TT has completely challenged everything I previously thought about game reviewing.

Take it from someone who has been through the change. You'll be MUCH happier if you take other people's criticisms seriously and edit your prior reviews. It makes a huge difference.

I still feel it would be a huge blunder to bring up respawning in Ninja Gaiden 2 and not in this game. Zig said the same thing, so it's not just me.

On the flipside, I still admire your stance of challenging such a popular game. The fact you are coming under such heavy fire here proves this is one of the all time greats. I think you have the right train of thought on some of your ideas, but I agree your review could use some tweaking here and there. It can still be a good review despite being an unpopular opinion.

You have a chance to write a really good review that would also be really unique given your stance. I hope you don't squander that chance.

When the TT is over, I WILL go back and edit all of my older reviews so they are up to snuff.
board icon
zigfried posted July 05, 2009:

Going back and editing old stuff isn't for everyone. Edits do result in a more consistently level quality of work, but there's also something to be said for staying forward-focused and just taking all feedback into account for the future.

Some people may also view their writing as "once it's published, it can't be changed". That mentality was born due to limitations with print media, but on the internet, it serves more as a historical reminder of "when I wrote this, these are the things that were on my mind." Some people like to look back and see how they've changed, and that can't happen if you keep going back and editing old work.

//Zig
board icon
joseph_valencia posted July 05, 2009:

The responses in this thread are the responses that I would expect if someone posted a rant about Ninja Gaiden instead of an actual review. That's hardly surprising, as that's precisely what has happened. Spaceworlder, you've been doing a nice job reviewing some old games, but there is an important difference between reviews and rants. Slapping a score on a rant doesn't suddenly make it a review.

I don't see how my review is a "rant". The language isn't very heated, and I think the points I bring up are pretty genuine criticisms. People might disagree that they are, but disagreement doesn't make something a rant. I also fail to see why a rant can't be a review either.

As for the whole editing issue, Zig's post pretty much sums up my reasons for not overhauling this review at the moment. Flaws or not, I'd rather just let this essay stand and move on to something else. (On the other hand, I do try to go back and tweak stuff like mis-spellings, sentence structure, and grammer.)
board icon
randxian posted July 05, 2009:

Well, here's my thoughts on that:

1. As far as looking back to see how you've changed, you could simply copy and paste the review onto word pad or some similar program and save it on your hard drive.

2. If I don't edit all my reviews, someone can read one of the ones I elected not to edit, arrive at the conclusion I'm a sub-par reviewer, and never read any more of my stuff. It's not like we can control what games people read about. I can't tell visitors "Hey, check out my Legacy of the Wizard review first. By the way, don't read by Xexyz review because I wrote it a long time ago and it sucks."

Now I suppose it does all boil down to personal preference and philosophy, but I don't see anything wrong with making sure everything with your name on it is top notch.
board icon
bluberry posted July 05, 2009:

dairy queen is awesome, i love that cherry coating they have for the soft serve ice cream.

there's nothing soft about me when i'm eating it.
board icon
zigfried posted July 05, 2009:

You go for the cherry? I figured you as more of a fudge fellow.

Mmm. Fudge.

//Zig
board icon
joseph_valencia posted July 05, 2009:

It's all about the Blizzards, especially the Oreo ones.
board icon
bluberry posted July 05, 2009:

i'm considering getting a car or something just because there's no DQ near me.
board icon
joseph_valencia posted July 05, 2009:

I'm a half-hour's walk away from one. I can get exercise and a soft-serve!
board icon
randxian posted July 05, 2009:

DQ cakes are the best. Mmmm cake!
board icon
bluberry posted July 05, 2009:

i think there's actually one down by longwood here in boston, genj should get a job there so he can get me free shit.

haha, longwood.
board icon
honestgamer posted July 05, 2009:

I don't see how my review is a "rant". The language isn't very heated, and I think the points I bring up are pretty genuine criticisms. People might disagree that they are, but disagreement doesn't make something a rant. I also fail to see why a rant can't be a review either.

A rant is a one-sided argument. Heated language and superfluous exclamation marks are optional. Agreement (I happen to agree with the points you make) and disagreement on the part of the audience have no relevance when it comes to determining whether or not something is a rant.

A review is different from a rant because of the inherent change in purpose.

The purpose of a rant is to say "I like/don't like this" and maybe to provide some reasons, as you have done. The purpose of a review is to say "Here's how the game works and here are some particular points of interest that might cause you to like or not like it." In general, someone reads a review because he wants information about the game and because he wants to know whether or not he will like it. Whether or not the person reviewing it liked the game is almost irrelevant.

Choosing to ignore points that will interest most readers in favor of only hitting on points that allow you to rail upon the game--however politely--is what turns something from a potential review into a definite rant. There's definitely a place for ranting about games and for making the very points you made about Ninja Gaiden. By themselves, however, those points do not count as a review. I believe that when someone clicks to read a review, what he should get is an actual review.
board icon
bluberry posted July 05, 2009:

board icon
randxian posted July 05, 2009:

Whether or not the person reviewing it liked the game is almost irrelevant.

If that's the case, then why do we even bother giving the game a score on a scale of 1-10? I know you said "almost irrelevant" but I think you are downplaying the opinion aspect of reviews. I've yet to see a review that is completely, 100% objective. There is almost no way you can write a review without the author's voice seeping through in some way, shape, or form.

That would be a boring report. Who would want to read those?

And dammit bluberry, you're making me hungry!

Edit: The more I think about it, the more I think I get what you are trying to say here. Maybe there needs to be some balance between objective information and well formed opinions. Perhaps the review would work better if there was a little more depth about what makes the game tick.
board icon
joseph_valencia posted July 05, 2009:

Heated language and superfluous exclamation marks are optional.

Wrong. Open up your dictionary and read the definition.

The purpose of a rant is to say "I like/don't like this" and maybe to provide some reasons, as you have done.

That sounds like the purpose of a review to me.

Whether or not the person reviewing it liked the game is almost irrelevant.

LOL

What the writer thinks about the game is the most relevant thing of all. Otherwise, what's the point of having a web site called "Honest Gamers" where hundreds of reviews written by hundreds of different writers are posted? How can any reviewer be "honest" if they hate a game but use "muted" language to suppress their desire to make that known, because an opinion is apparently not very relevant in criticism? What you're saying is a bane against honesty.

Choosing to ignore points that will interest most readers in favor of only hitting on points that allow you to rail upon the game--however politely--is what turns something from a potential review into a definite rant.

Oh, I could've told the the reader "If you love mindless action games where you mow down waves of one-note enemies, then 'Ninja Gaiden' is for you!" But that would be an insult to the reader, because I would be trying to imitate the dime-a-dozen positive reviews for this game. I assume whoever is reading my review is smart enough to look for a second opinion, which is why your web site exists. In my essay, I "overlook" positive points, because I don't believe there are many, if at all.

Now, back on topic...

That is one sweet soft-serve, Blu. But that picture reminds me why I tend to avoid them. Look at how the damn thing is melting and slowly trickling to the fingers that grip the cone. Those digits are gonna get sticky.
board icon
zigfried posted July 05, 2009:

I guess I'll weigh in here. I agree with Honestgamer about the difference between a review and a rant. Personally, I don't mind clicking on something and seeing a rant -- which can be either negative or favorable, mind you -- as long as it's well-written and entertains me. But a rant is not a review, and as such, is prone to criticism (and deserves it) when posing as a review.

I'll grab a few quotes before launching into the meat of my post:
1) I've yet to see a review that is completely, 100% objective. There is almost no way you can write a review without the author's voice seeping through in some way, shape, or form.
2) What the writer thinks about the game is the most relevant thing of all.
3) How can any reviewer be "honest" if they hate a game but use "muted" language to suppress their desire to make that known, because an opinion is apparently not very relevant in criticism?

I highlighted the above because I agree with them and, going out on a limb, I bet Honestgamer does too.

The best reviews do not try to hide their emotions. If the writer has a passionate opinion, they should express it with passion. The writer's experience-based opinion of the game is what colors their commentary, and ultimately forms the basis of their recommendation. Hiding that opinion would be deceptive.

But the review's purpose is not to say "I love this game" or "I hate this game". Those opinions absolutely need to come through, but the question that should CONSTANTLY be on the writer's mind when sorting through his experiences with the game: "Is this a critical piece of the game's potential appeal/experience?" Not whether or not a statement supports the persuasive essay forming on paper. Even though a prospective player will appreciate a passionate opinion, that's not what they're really looking for. They're looking for information. Exploring ones' love or hatred for a game is fine as long as it leads to an informative picture. But the writer's love or hatred, in and of itself, is not really relevant to the review-seeking reader. (This does not contradict statement #2 above. What a writer thought of a game is hugely relevant when supported)

Your piece brings up the following points:
1) colliding with enemies sends you flying
2) everything, including animals, is out to get you
3) you can't climb walls
4) enemies charge blindly, or just walk left to right

However, huge swathes of Ninja Gaiden information are omitted. You explicitly say that you won't discuss the story or power-ups (and I'm adding music in here) because the game was bad enough that such things didn't matter to you... but those things matter to the game and they matter to the reader. It's impossible to 100% predict what aspects of a game people will want to hear about, so exclusions are sometimes accidental... but for a retro title like Ninja Gaiden, a game that has a fanbase more than willing to point out what they like about the game, those intentional exclusions clearly put this on the "rant" side of the fence.

Honestgamer made the distinction between rant and review by saying a rant is a one-sided argument, implying that a review is not. I'd actually amend that statement a bit. A rant is a one-sided argument on purpose. A review can be one-sided, but it's accidental. Or secondary to the purpose, if you prefer to think of it that way. In a review, when the writer has given his opinion of everything pertinent to the gaming experience, it may end up being one-sided... but proving the game "bad" wasn't the goal. The goal was to provide a complete synopsis of the experience.

There is no way to describe everything about a game inside a review, nor would I want to read something that tries. A (good) rant only includes information pertinent to the writer's opinion. A (good) review only includes information pertinent to the game.

Another way to look at it: a rant is about entertainment, a review is about information. Both have value, but the latter is far more useful to people trying to decide whether or not to play/buy/download a game.

//Zig
board icon
honestgamer posted July 05, 2009:

You're right about the point I'm making, Rand.

Spaceworlder made it obvious a long time ago that he feels the way to make a compelling argument is to ignore points from the opposing viewpoint, or to dismiss them without justification as irrelevant. The logic he applies--which is echoed in his post in this thread--is that bringing up those points weakens his argument.

While that's true to a point, an even better way to weaken an argument is to do precisely what he seems to feel is the solution! Ignoring or minimalizing your opposing viewpoint's arguments is the written equivalent of sticking your fingers in your ears and humming really loudly when someone says something you don't like in a debate. Anyone who heard the argument sees that as a concession on your part, yet invariably the person who resorted to such juvenile tactics walks away thinking he won. After all, he didn't hear any differently!

Reviews aren't debates or essays, but they're a lot closer to that than they are a statement that "This is my opinion so like it or lump it." The goal each time someone pens a video game review is to provide a fair look at the game that leaves the reader with an idea of how it plays, what the reviewer thought worked and didn't work and most importantly, a general idea of how likely the reader is to enjoy the game. If someone doesn't want to do that, then he's not really writing a review.

Every few months, someone makes the absurd suggestion that because the site is called 'HonestGamers,' the standard rules of reviewing don't apply and the writer only needs to state his opinions. I hope that those people will keep in mind that if I planned for people to write reviews where they don't hold themselves accountable for their opinions and don't work to justify the points they make, HonestGamers is one of the last names I would have chosen.
board icon
randxian posted July 05, 2009:

. A rant is a one-sided argument on purpose. A review can be one-sided, but it's accidental. Or secondary to the purpose, if you prefer to think of it that way. In a review, when the writer has given his opinion of everything pertinent to the gaming experience, it may end up being one-sided... but proving the game "bad" wasn't the goal. The goal was to provide a complete synopsis of the experience.

Well put.

I also like the analogy of sticking your fingers in your ears so you don't have to hear the other side.

Okay, now I'm getting it.
board icon
joseph_valencia posted July 05, 2009:

However, huge swathes of Ninja Gaiden information are omitted. You explicitly say that you won't discuss the story or power-ups (and I'm adding music in here) because the game was bad enough that such things didn't matter to you... but those things matter to the game and they matter to the reader.

On the subject of story, "Ninja Gaiden" is a video game, not a book or a movie. The "plot", if you wish to call it that, is designed around the game, not vice versa. Therefore, the story is not critical to encapsulating the experience of the game. I don't care if "Ninja Gaiden's" story is of Shakespearian caliber--which it isn't by the way--it means nothing if the game itself is garbage--which it is by the way.

As for the power-ups, they are a secondary mechanic to the game's core "running and slashing" routine. An omission from my review, but not a huge one by any means. The pertinent information can be found in a manual or FAQ anyways.

I think my review paints a pretty good picture of the game. You run around and kill mindless enemies, you climb up walls like a ping-pong ball, and you fight a lumbering oaf at the end of each level. Does it matter if there's catchy music? Suppose you're being disemboweled. Is it a benefit to you if your killer plays some Richard Wagner on a boombox? If you live to tell someone else, do you say "Boy, having my intestines ripped out was hell, but at least the music was nice."

A rant is a one-sided argument on purpose.

Ignoring the dubious "on purpose" part of this statement, how can anyone be expected to make a "two-sided" argument? In a review, the writer is the only "side" saying anything. Therefore, any work of criticism is going to be "one-sided". I can't argue for anyone who isn't me.

But proving the game "bad" wasn't the goal.

This talk of "proving" is nonsense. My intention in writing this review was not to "prove" anything. My intent was to put my thoughts on the experience into words, which I'd then submit to be posted alongside other people's thoughts on this site for HG visitors to peruse. These "thoughts" are called reviews, and sometimes they read an awful lot like rants, especially when they're written for bad games. I'm sorry if you feel the need to segregate the two.

It's impossible to 100% predict what aspects of a game people will want to hear about, so exclusions are sometimes accidental... but for a retro title like Ninja Gaiden, a game that has a fanbase more than willing to point out what they like about the game, those intentional exclusions clearly put this on the "rant" side of the fence.

Funny, the "Zelda III" board on GameFAQs is starting to come to mind.

[Jason's usual asinine ideological warfare over video games.]

There's not point in responding to this. The winning move--dare I say it?--is not to play.
board icon
zigfried posted July 05, 2009:

Ignoring the dubious "on purpose" part of this statement, how can anyone be expected to make a "two-sided" argument?

By one-sided, I mean uniformly negative or uniformly positive. Sorry if that wasn't clear. Intentionally excluding important elements to present a uniformly positive or negative review is what I dub "on purpose". The most persuasive essays present both sides. Otherwise, it's way too easy to poke holes into the argument. The best reviews (which aren't necessarily persuasive essays) provide enough information for readers to make their own decision regardless of the writer's opinion.

Your piece isn't convincing people who already agreed with you, and it doesn't provide a full set of information for people who haven't played the game. Regardless of your intent, it could have been stronger. That's all.

but for a retro title like Ninja Gaiden, a game that has a fanbase more than willing to point out what they like about the game, those intentional exclusions clearly put this on the "rant" side of the fence.

Funny, the "Zelda III" board on GameFAQs is starting to come to mind.


I'm not sure why you say that. The GameFAQs board was very different from the discussion occurring in this topic. Sinner's review of Zelda: LTTP addressed the things Zelda fans praise. He just hated all of them. And the fans hated him for having a different opinion. That's not what happened here.

//Zig
board icon
joseph_valencia posted July 06, 2009:

I'm sorry, are we talking about reviewing or law? I don't see why I need to "convince" anyone or be "persuasive". It's simple: I play the game, I write about it, someone reads it for advice, and they either take it or don't. If they think I'm full of shit, they can look for a second opinion.

I'm not sure why you say that. The GameFAQs board was very different from the discussion occurring in this topic. Sinner's review of Zelda: LTTP addressed the things Zelda fans praise. He just hated all of them. And the fans hated him for having a different opinion. That's not what happened here.

The first thing I see:

"I thought a review was supposed to actually be about the game, not 700 words that do nothing but bash it relentlessly."

Jesus, that pretty much encapsulates Venter's position throughout this topic.
board icon
randxian posted July 06, 2009:

On the subject of story, "Ninja Gaiden" is a video game, not a book or a movie. The "plot", if you wish to call it that, is designed around the game, not vice versa. Therefore, the story is not critical to encapsulating the experience of the game. I don't care if "Ninja Gaiden's" story is of Shakespearian caliber--which it isn't by the way--it means nothing if the game itself is garbage--which it is by the way.

Okay, the whole "but it's a video game" is nothing but a cheap cop out here. Ninja Gaiden is famous for being one of the first, if not the first, game to feature cinematic cut scenes. To just casually swat away the importance of the plot here because it's "just a video game" is absolutely absurd. Yes, video games are interactive as opposed to books or movies, but to state story isn't important is just sticking your head in the sand. It doesn't matter if you like it or not, most gamers consider plot and character development an integral part of gaming.

Like the others are saying, you are blatantly deciding which elements are important for the fans instead of giving sufficient information, even when the parts you are leaving out are video game landmarks.

Besides, is there some law that states good stories should be left to books or movies? Who says video gaming can't be a good medium to tell a good story as well?

By the way, the people laying down these "laws" and whatnot are simply trying to help you improve as a reviewer. It seems to me you are getting a little bit defensive and refuse to acknowledge anyone else's side. If you can't take constructive criticism, then you have no business being a reviewer.

Again, I like the fact you are willing to challenge such a popular game. It is admirable you are taking a different stance than the norm. I think what everyone is concerned about is how you just casually brush off aspects, such as story, that you feel aren't important. Plus you stated yourself you forgot to mention the respawning, which would have complimented the rest of your initial arguments well. We just want a more fleshed out review, that's all. You can score it 1/10 for all anyone cares as long as you cover all the bases.

board icon
pickhut posted July 06, 2009:

I finally got around to reading the rest of the review (I only read the opening paragraph earlier), and, I don't see what difference it would make to bring up the plot or music. The entire point of the review was that, in his eyes, the gameplay is broken. So I really don't see how it would make any sense to bring up the plot or music. After talking about the bad gameplay, people will suddenly want to play the game anyway because of those two other aspects? I doubt it.
board icon
randxian posted July 06, 2009:

That's not the point. No, people aren't going to play the game just for the plot, but the cutscenes are a huge part of the game. Particularly when this is the first game to include such a feature.

According to your logic, I should post a Zelda: Majora's Mask review and just talk about what a pain in the ass the water temple is. Since that part is so annoying and may cause some people to quit the game in frustration, I shouldn't even bother talking about anything else, right? The hell with the character interaction, side-quests, and the other dungeons. Those aren't important because one dungeon really sucks.
board icon
pickhut posted July 06, 2009:

That was an awful example.

He was complaining about the core of the game, everything that was going on inside it. You just picked one piece of gameplay from that Zelda game.
board icon
sashanan posted July 06, 2009:

Spoken as somebody who has never played or seen most Zelda games, MM included: if said water temple were hypothetically so incredibly broken that a vast number of gamers would in fact quit in frustration at how bad it is, then I *would* expect to see my share of reviews focusing on that level and how it ruins the experience even if it means a lesser focus on other aspects that would have been more important if the game had *not* been broken in that sense. The vibe I get from this review is that the problems spaceworlder mentions - problems that I myself experienced with this game also - are so overbearing and of such crushing weight that other points that might have deserved more of a mention ultimately took a backseat.

Probably that does make the piece more of a rant than a traditional review, but if spaceworlder's opinion is that it deserved one based on the grounds mentioned in the piece, I can certainly accept that.
board icon
zigfried posted July 06, 2009:

"I thought a review was supposed to actually be about the game, not 700 words that do nothing but bash it relentlessly."

Jesus, that pretty much encapsulates Venter's position throughout this topic.


Spaceworlder, that is not his stance, which is why I made my original long post that led to you and I going back and forth (because up until then, we weren't arguing). You misunderstood Honestgamer's post to mean reviews had to be in "muted" language. That's not what he said. It's not about muting the opinion, it's about strength of support in reviewing, which goes back to Drella's original post. My (long) clarification of Honestgamer's post -- while inserting my own opinion -- apparently offended you, since you've brought up the Zelda 3 board. Whatever I said that upset you, it wasn't intentional; I'm sorry.

I don't see why I need to "convince" anyone or be "persuasive".

Spaceworlder, I didn't say you needed to convince or persuade anyone. I listed that as one possible intention of writing. Another possible intention is simply to provide information for people to make up their own minds, and I said that all along.

I default back to:
"Your piece isn't convincing people who already agreed with you, and it doesn't provide a full set of information for people who haven't played the game. Regardless of your intent, it could have been stronger. That's all."

//Zig
board icon
zigfried posted July 06, 2009:

Pickhut, in theory I agree with you (and with Spaceworlder). If the gameplay is so broken to make the game that wretched, then would the plot or music make a difference?

In many cases, no, it wouldn't. The reason I brought it up here is because (1) the game is already well-known for those things and (2) the criticisms weren't strong/supported enough to make me forget that it's well-known for those things. The criticisms could be applied to many games (except for the one-handed climbing part; most NES games lack climbing altogether).

The intent all along was to provide feedback that could be kept in mind for the future. As with all feedback, anyone is free to ignore or listen as they please.

//Zig
board icon
joseph_valencia posted July 06, 2009:

Okay, the whole "but it's a video game" is nothing but a cheap cop out here. Ninja Gaiden is famous for being one of the first, if not the first, game to feature cinematic cut scenes. To just casually swat away the importance of the plot here because it's "just a video game" is absolutely absurd. Yes, video games are interactive as opposed to books or movies, but to state story isn't important is just sticking your head in the sand. It doesn't matter if you like it or not, most gamers consider plot and character development an integral part of gaming.

The plot means nothing to the game, except to connect each level in the loosest of ways. It has no effect on the gameplay, and it certainly doesn't enhance it. There are no characters to develop, because the dialogue doesn't create any. Rather than waste my and my reader's time talking about such an inconsequential aspect of the game, I chose to focus on the element they will spend the majority of their time with, namely the actual game itself.

I don't know if gamers really care about "plot" or "character development". In today's games, maybe, if only because a great deal of cut scenes forecast the action they're about to play. But in a game like "Ninja Gaiden", where the cinemas have little to do with what happens in each level, I think a lot of gamers would skip these sequences. I personally do that, even in action games that I like, and I've seen other people do it.

Besides, is there some law that states good stories should be left to books or movies? Who says video gaming can't be a good medium to tell a good story as well?

I think it was John Carmack who said that playing games for the story is like watching porn for the story. He's pretty much right, even in genres where written dialogue is crucial, such as RPGs and adventure games. In these games, the content of the story itself is not as important as how it immerses you in the game's world.

In any case, "Ninja Gaiden's" plot is so irrelevant to enjoying the game that it doesn't matter if I mention it or not in my review. If you skipped every cutscene and just played the game, the effect would be the same.

By the way, the people laying down these "laws" and whatnot are simply trying to help you improve as a reviewer. It seems to me you are getting a little bit defensive and refuse to acknowledge anyone else's side. If you can't take constructive criticism, then you have no business being a reviewer.

If people want to call my review shit, fine. What I'm not buying is the notion that I need to shoe-horn canned sentences and paragraphs about power-ups and "plot". Aside from re-spawns (which are more bothersome and worth mentioning in the second game) I feel my review, in spite of whatever shortcomings it may have as writing, gives a pretty thorough picture of what someone will experience when playing "Ninja Gaiden". If someone played the game and disliked it, I think they would be inclined to zero in on the same things I did. The last thing on their mind would probably be the "landmark" achievement of mixing pictures with words, or the power-ups that constantly kept slipping in and out of their fingers, or the generic "music".

EDIT:

The criticisms could be applied to many games (except for the one-handed climbing part; most NES games lack climbing altogether).

That's kind of the point. "Ninja Gaiden" is a bad Nintendo game that suffers from all the things bad Nintendo games suffer from. Peel away the prestige and the flash, and that's what it is. So little of the game has aesthetic coherence anyway, if at all. If there was a vision, I would have mentioned it.
board icon
randxian posted July 06, 2009:

That was an awful example.

He was complaining about the core of the game, everything that was going on inside it. You just picked one piece of gameplay from that Zelda game.


Maybe it is a bad example, but the core idea is still intact. You and spaceworlder seem to be implying, correct me if I'm wrong, that if the game is so lousy that you think people won't enjoy it, then you can safely ignore everything else except what's particularly annoying.

I would tend to agree that would fall under the category of rant, since you are blatantly making decisions for the readers, instead of giving as much information on the game as possible, and letting them make decisions.

Now yes, reviews will have opinions and will be slanted, but to blatantly ignore something just because something else is more grating is absurd.

If that's the case, I suppose from now on with every review we write that's scored 4 or less, we should simply discuss what pissed us off about the games and be done with it. Since those games are so bad, then obviously ignoring good sized chunks is no big deal, right?

Edit: Okay, obviously we are just going back and forth and neither side is willing to concede ground, so I think I'm going to drop everything. I'm sorry my Majora's Mask example didn't really illustrate the point I was trying to make; I posted that half asleep.
board icon
pickhut posted July 06, 2009:

Exactly. You said it yourself: the games are so bad, that talking about any remaining redeeming qualities would be pointless. If the games weren't that bad, then the reviewer would obviously mention some of the good stuff more, if any.
board icon
randxian posted July 06, 2009:

You do realize I was being sarcastic with that, right? I don't agree with your and spaceworlder's train of thought, but oh well. I suppose we'll just have some more diversity as far as how reviews are written.

You must be signed into an HonestGamers user account to leave feedback on this review.

Info | Help | Privacy Policy | Contact | Advertise | Links

eXTReMe Tracker
© 1998-2014 HonestGamers
None of the material contained within this site may be reproduced in any conceivable fashion without permission from the author(s) of said material. This site is not sponsored or endorsed by Nintendo, Sega, Sony, Microsoft, or any other such party. Ninja Gaiden is a registered trademark of its copyright holder. This site makes no claim to Ninja Gaiden, its characters, screenshots, artwork, music, or any intellectual property contained within. Opinions expressed on this site do not necessarily represent the opinion of site staff or sponsors.