Quote:
I agree that the game didn't have focus. Somehow it seems to me ... that the game just didn't have a clue what it should do or be, or why it should exist, or why anyone should enjoy it.


I guess I should elaborate on this.

I tend to think that, just like an essay or a piece of short literature, a game should have a thesis statement or a theme.

(I also think that that theme should be *based on gameplay*. It should not be something like, "It's cool to see ninja moves in action!" Because some game designers now are actually failed movie makers or artists, they want their themes to be based on things other than gameplay)

An example from a recent game would be the TATE system in Shinobi. The TATE system *makes* that game. It makes the game fun -- it is much more enjoyable to take out enemies with single hits than to wail on them over and over, beat'em'up style. It's the source of the challenge -- the most difficult boss in the game is the most difficult to tate.

Of course, there are other things to Shinobi, like wall runs, targeted dashes, and so on, but clearly the designers of Shinobi knew what to put the focus on, and what their game should be. Not just an "action game" in broad terms (which would already be more focused than NGX), but a game based around tate.


With Ninja Gaiden X, what are we supposed really supposed to take from the game? Saying "literally nothing" might be an overstatement.

First, when I restarted the game last night, I did find it much easier even dealing with early normal enemies, even before I had the flying swallow move. You do learn about the game's controls, and other basics. Knowing when to block is important. (I said in an early post -- over a year ago -- that I thought the charge move would be important. It isn't, at least if you're not playing for rank. I guess knowing what movies *not* to bother with is also important).

This is pretty common, though it does seem that "learning" a game is a bigger part of modern than vintage games. And being familiar with a game's mechanics is the main test of (what FacilityPro called) "action-reaction" challenges, which indeed also were a part of DMC, and (I'm told) DMC3.

For strategies, it seems there's little to have taken away. I've mentioned "attack and block" has replaced "attack and get away." Is that really a good basis to build a game around? It's not that big of a change.

Another thing was successive attacks (using a flying swallow just to get behind an enemy that's strong to the front, then immediately doing it again for a back attack).

And I got a *little* use out of some of the other weapons and moves. They are neither useful enough to make it seem like their presence is part of the point of the game, nor are they completely worthless.



As for the game's difficulty curve, or lack thereof, I'd say I took 4~5 tries to beat the bosses pretty consistently throughout the game. Some were easier. The stage 5 boss is definitely much easier than the bosses to stages 1, 2 or 3. The final boss seemed remarkably easy. The fire dragon boss I beat on maybe my second try.

A game is its challenge, but in broader terms it's its difficulty curve, so a game without such a curve seems like it's been made by people that don't know what they're doing.

Again, I like challenges the most that I think took talent to design. This game might seem harder to newcomers because the first boss and second bosses are unusually hard for 1st and 2nd bosses. But it doesn't take any talent to put bosses in a game in order of random difficulty.


I didn't think Alma was remarkable at all. I don't know what's up with her being considered a great boss. I'd probably say the last good boss in the game was the radio tower. That one at first seemed a little cheap -- you'd get attacked by enemies out of your field of view, you weren't given breaks to get your own attacks in. But it turned out that getting your attacks in was a matter of some skill.



As for the story, I read a faq on it. It claimed that the statue boss (2nd to last in the game) was the Vigoor Emperor, not the final boss (which is what I assumed). It said there was no basis for the final boss being the emperor, plus how could he run a country and a ninja stronghold at the same time?

That doesn't seem too tricky to me. My question is, how can a military country be run by a sleeping statue?


Anyway, the story definitely seems like they started with the ending "twist" first, then put some foreshadowing really early in the game -- so they can think they've "played fair" -- then have nothing interesting happen in the story for the rest of the game, so you'll forget the foreshadowing (if you even picked up on it; the first time I saw the opening cinema, and the narrator was talking about "The Dark Dragon Blade", made from a dragon, and "The Dragon Sword", made from a dragon, it took me a second to realize he was talking about two different swords that had almost the same name) in the meantime.


"Perhaps one did not want to be loved so much as to be understood." -Orwell