Howdy, Stranger!
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
If you have an email ending in @hotmail.com, @live.com or @outlook.com (or any other Microsoft-related domain), please consider changing it to another email provider; Microsoft decided to instantly block the server's IP, so emails can't be sent to these addresses.
If you use an @yahoo.com email or any related Yahoo services, they have blocked us also due to "user complaints"
-UE
If you use an @yahoo.com email or any related Yahoo services, they have blocked us also due to "user complaints"
-UE
The fact that people think Team Ninja are good game developers.
It's a defense often given when their less-than-ideal portrayals of females in their games that the games are well-designed.
Except they're not. Ninja Gaiden is really wonky with uneven weapons, boss fights that range from murderous to easiest thing ever in no particular order, bugs up the wazoo, and a malevolent camera.
And that's the one that people praise to high heaven.
Why does this company get such a free ride?
Comments
That right there is probably most of the answer, from what I've seen of their games.
Because they make HARDCOER GAMES for REAL GAMERS
that's seriously probably it. What you (rightly) percieve as design flaws, a certain demographic lumps under the umbrella of "challenge".
This is, after all, the team that made Ninja Gaiden, is it not? Later installments of which call their easy difficulty "Dog Mode"? Because (to paraphrase) their head developer thinks that people who play on easy modes are, by implication, lazy and useless?
I would like to take "basic things people should know before they talk." for 500 please.
The question is, "What is the most important fact about opinions, especially when talking on forums?"
What is opinions are subjective. Also, people shouldn't mistake their opinions as fact, especially if they don't have enough information on the subject matter to make an educated opinion.
(Also this company gets a free-ride because a certain segment of the gaming population like games that provide a lot of difficulty. See games like Dark Souls)
Dark Souls isn't difficult; it just has a shitty tutorial.
...Is there an actual argument in there or are you just complaining about me complaining?
Also there's a difference between difficulty from a game that demands a lot of you (God Hand, SMT, Dark and Demons Soul) and a game that just has poor design. (things by Team Ninja)
The argument is that your taking your opinion and presenting it as fact. And on top of that, you're complaining about an issue that doesn't even exist.
About Dark Souls?
Because I definitely have played it. Several times. It's about average in terms of difficulty once you figure out all of the vital information the game refuses to provide.
What vital information does the game not provide?
^^^No, I'm backing up my opinion with facts. Something you have yet to do. You just bitched about subjectivity.
^^ Character-building logic, largely, and how to deal with the poise value. I'd still say Dark Souls is more difficult than most other games, even understanding those things, but there's no doubt its tutorial is very threadbare.
It tells you absolutely nothing about how to build and equip your character, meaning that unless you look it up or spend the first few hours experimenting, you will play through the first several hours of the game with an absurdly underpowered character.
Ninja'd.
A little bit above average in terms of difficulty, but, for example, I don't think you could find an arcade or NES game that's easier than Dark Souls.
Atlus tends to have a policy of 'Here's this awesome pool that's a lot of fun' and then shoving you in the deep end after kind of explaining the doggy paddle.
I'll be honest I'd have a better time arguing against you if I understood what
"It's a defense often given when their less-than-ideal portrayals of females in their games that the games are well-designed."
What this is a response to.
I'm talking about how pretty much all of their women are treated as giant sex dolls to fap to rather than actual characters.
Then people respond with 'but the games are really good!'
which they are not.
But can you prove their games are crap?
I assume that's what he was getting at with this bit:
^^In as much as any piece of media can be proven to suck.
^Right.
^^
But thats not really objective proof its crap.
Do you have their metacritic score?
Yeah, something like dead or alive game with women meant to appeal to a male audience who wants sexy women. I really don't see a problem with that.
But my problem is that you are missing out what made the games fun: How well executed the actual combat was. The game doesn't have bullshit like "avatar strength", instead the player has to get better at the game, which is easy to do because of how fluid the game plays out, and how it retains this smoothness. In short, it rewards skill instead of giving you items.
The game also provides a good variety of enemy and weapons, so really, you're looking for reasons to say the game is bad so you can disprove a point. But in the end, you want to say this game is bad, rather than give a frank analysis of its strengths of weaknesses, so your opinion is pretty biased.
Also what "bugs" are there in this game? And how do these bugs detract from the experience? Granted, the camera was an issue but it wasn't game-breaking as you portray it as being.
^^ That would be implying that game journalism isn't a pile of shit.
Also, my primary experience with Team Ninja is Metroid: Other M, which did not endear me to them in the slightest. It was decent mechanically, but we all know about the real failings of that game.
Because whether a specific set of people liked something definitely says more about it than whether certain portions of it function properly.
Erm you know that Metacritic allows bad reviews right?
Yes.
That has absolutely nothing to do with whether Metacritic scores are objective facts.
"Also, my primary experience with Team Ninja is Metroid: Other M, which did not endear me to them in the slightest. It was decent mechanically, but we all know about the real failings of that game."
That is irrelevant to a discussion about Ninja Gaiden. (Other M was an awful game on every level)
I don't really understand the difference between the opinion of people who're writing on Metacritic and the opinion of people who aren't, in terms of validity.
Also this argument is basically one of you saying "Team Ninja sucks" and the other one saying "no, they're RAD." Just saying.
Because whether or not it's good porn has nothing to do with whether Team Ninja can make good games.
Game journalism still operates, largely, on a scale of 7-10 rather than 1-10. Review scores are unreliable, and there's no lack of money being transferred under the table. There are also plenty of professional game journalists who don't really seem to understand journalism, nor journalistic integrity. Not that other forms of journalism are perfect, but other forms of media journalism at least provide an attempt at honesty and deeper discussion.
Because it's demeaning, objectifying, and generally misogynistic as all hell? You have no problem with that?
"That has absolutely nothing to do with whether Metacritic scores are objective facts."
That does seem to be something of an irrelevancy, but I think the point is that over-overwhelmingly the view was, from a variety of reviewers both professional and amateur, was that the game was really, really good, so someone dissenting has to provide something more than "I don't like it therefore it sucks."
He did. He described several portions of the game that do not function properly. That seems to be a pretty big something.
Note: I have never played a Team Ninja game, and no nothing about them except that DoA is porn and Ninja Gaiden is apparently hard.
However, the only thing concrete about a Team Ninja game that anyone has said in this thread is:
So in terms of who is wining the debate, I would thus far call it in favor of that side.