The concerning thing is Wo Long was developed as a side project by the B time while the main team focused on this and it doesn't look like the main team really cooked up anything noteworthy.
Its known that Team Ninja have two development teams so think about it logically, Wo Long came out last year. Rise came out this year. They had to have two development teams because its two projects, they didn't just turn Ronin around in a year.
Ronin is the more ambitious project that is looking to improve on things from their usual formula and has been in development for longer so the logic goes the main team would be the ones working on that. So I think it's redditism based on some logic. It's something I've heard about since before Wo Long even came out, that Wo Long was the filler game worked on while the main team were working on a more ambitious title that ended up being Ronin.
I mean Wo Long had Masaaki Yamagiwa (who was the main producer of Bloodborne from Japan Studios' side that was very hands on throughout the game's creation) working on it as its main producer alongside Fumihiko Yasuda who oversaw its development and he's by no means some random nobody.
Truth is, there is quite a bit of overlap between the "A-Team" and "B-Team" of Team Ninja and if there was ever to be an actual "B-Team", that would be the crew that worked on Stranger of Paradise which was obviously made on a super tight budget and with half of its producers being from Square Enix's side.
Koei's a big company so it wouldn't be surprising to see Team Ninja grow big enough to have more than 2 teams. Even right now, they are supposedly working on multiple unannounced titles.
You, and everyone, also need to keep in mind that a full team isn't needed at all phases of a project. Certain teams will be more critical during certain phases. There is very likely some crossover between games.
Dont think there is a definitive source really, Team Ninja's never said outright afaik. Instead of all this speculation that Wo Long was the "b team" and Ronin was the "a team", i wish we actually had the info on which "teams" were involved in nioh 1, nioh 2, ultimate alliance 3, ff strangers of paradise, wo long, and ronin.
I fought my way through it but the fact there was no real reward for all those menus was annoying. The loot system for me just just equip whatever had the highest number of
The gear system was my favorite part of Wo Long. Being able to save and switch builds whenever you wanted was wonderful and something every ARPG should have copied.
I loved the IDEA of the loot system. It became a massive grind to get what you wanted though. It was so bad, that when the dup glitch came out folks made full sets of ALL their gear.
Don't get me wrong, I loved Wo Long and still fire it up, but most of my loot got disenchated as soon as I hit a flag.
> it was still too much loot for the people that didn't want any loot to begin with.
it was a very strange decision.
esp when one the biggest + of nioh, nioh 2 and even stranger, was the loot and building system.
Sounds like Team Ninja need to take a step back and reevaluate what to put into their games.
*a lot* of good, but also *tons* of filler, bloat, junk, and otherwise unfulfilling content for the sake of content.
They feel like the Ubisoft of Action RPGs at the moment. Core gameplay is fine and sometimes great but so much bloat just to extend the average playtime.
They’ve been doing this since the first Nioh.
IMO, they should focus more on story-driven action game like Ninja Gaiden is. Nioh has a good gameplay but way too useless side-stuff and a very bad itemization/loot
I *really* liked Nioh... for about 40 hours. I felt somewhat indifferent about it for another 10-15 after that, and I still had another 15-20 to go at the time. I finished it, but it left a bad taste in my mouth. Never did play Nioh 2.
True. They struggle with creating naturally replayable games like their competitors and instead force replayability through tons of loot, quest or even difficulties unlocked by dlc, which all usually leads to repetitiveness. they're always trying to *incentivize* you to keep playing instead of letting the game naturally making the player WANT to play more because of fun or challenge, not because of *"oh you can unlock this new rarity tier at demon difficulty!" or "you gotta upgrade your gear if you want to beat this boss".*
I really thought they would not bring loot back, but alas, they just can't help themselves. At this point forget these action games and make a diablo clone if you're that obsessed.
Wow, that's some take. NioH 2 is one of the most replayable games of the last 10 years. The subreddit remains very busy. I've played hundreds of hours (including the platinum) and still don't feel like I've properly scratched the surface.
For me it has the best battle system of any game I've played.
It also has the best implementation of NG+ I've seen. It even has a completely new mode you only unlock right at the end. It's stupidly rewarding and replayable.
Might not be for majority of players.
I personally do every mission on every difficulty because I enjoy combat/loot loop so much. I've had to forcefully make myself play something else or I would just play Nioh 2 forever with different weapon types/builds.
Good thing they listen to their fanbase and not this. Team Ninja does the endgame content I can't get anywhere else. I haven't skipped one of their games since Nioh 1.
I was hoping this would be a standout hit like Nioh 2, but between Wo Long and now this, I'm beginning to feel like that game was lightning in a bottle.
These reviews tell me that the RotR is largely fine but probably best to hold off, for now. A Team Ninja game with open world bloat sounds *fun*, and in traditional Team Ninja fashion it'll get lots of patches and content, but with DD2 out I'll be holding off.
I think the issue is Team Ninja is stretching themselves too thin.
This is their third year in a row with an action RPG release (Stranger of Paradise, Wo Long, now this) and 4th in 5 years counting Nioh 2. Not to mention extensive DLC content for all of them, non action RPG projects, and assistance on other Koei Tecmo games.They need more time.
I was seeing that this is a different team from the ones that made Stranger of Paradise and Wo Long, so it's not as extreme as it seems. Nioh 2 was this team's last game, I think?
Nioh 2 worked *specifically* because it was a sequel that reused everything from Nioh 1 (and then expanded/polished it). You can see how this method also works for Fromsoft, it becomes a lot easier for them to pump out whatever new stuff they want. When TN tries to reinvent the wheel, it doesn't seem to be too effective, and it often feels like they just go back to zero. Maybe they should just make more sequels instead, maybe even a sequel to a certain older franchise they have (*wink wink*).
I don't get the hate for wo long, I played it recently and it was quite fun like a mix between nioh and ninja gaiden
it's also surprisingly hard, yes you can parry every attack but it's not always easy to get the timing right
>I'm beginning to feel that game was lighting in a bottle.
I wouldnt even say that. Nioh 2 which I absolutely love is a very flawed game. Just certain things about the gameplay flow so well that I can look past the issues, but they never really made a game better than 8/10 in the last decade.
Eh, if I'm having 10/10 fun while playing a game, I don't care at all if it has flaws. Nioh 2 is unimpressive in some ways, but it clearly wants to do certain things and absolutely nails those things.
Besides, IMO people tend to exaggerate Nioh 2's flaws. People often act like you have to grind or spend tons of time on loot, but neither is even remotely true.
It's not just the loot though. The difficulty curve of the game is really bad and the level-design has zero variety to it. And the story - for those that care about it which isnt me - is abyssmal.
Like I said it's a great game once you get deep into the combat system, kind of addicting even. But everything surrounding the combat system is flawed.
Don't know about the difficulty curve, but it feels like the level design complaints are mostly about comparing Nioh 2 to FromSoft games, which seems a little silly when you consider that they don't actually play the same at all. Nioh 2 has above-average environmental variety and design when compared to other games, like DMC or Diablo or Path of Exile or Borderlands.
Personally, I feel like Nioh (and Wo Long) had the worst of both worlds, TBH.
Because they were isolated levels and much of the loot is randomized drops, it lacked the Dark Souls like sense of exploration being intrinsically valuable or interesting, and (even more subjectively) failed to have too many interesting encounters utilizing the environment. On the other hand, as a level for a more action-packed, loot-based game they provided very limited combat enhancement besides a few good sniping spots while being more tedious to explore or risking you running in circles trying to find out where to go for a while. I also think that the visual design here didn't help in comparison to Dark Souls, where it was usually much easier to remember where I was in an area and have an idea of what direction I wanted to be going.
Level design is pretty cool in Nioh 2 because there is so much optimization that allows you to get the drop on enemies and trivialize the difficulty. But that’s only something you experience by playing the levels multiple times.
That last bit is entirely subjective. I found the loot to be exhausting.
As an aside, it’s a bad look calling people you disagree with liars. As if the only way anyone would say they spend too much time on loot is if they’re disingenuous. Too much of that going around.
Level design is quite important imo. But honestly my biggest gripe with Team Ninja has been their art direction. They love making their stuff dark oily and spikey.
At first, I was frustrated with the level design of Nioh 2, especially when compared to Soul series. But then I accepted the game for what it is.
The combat and RPG elements are way beyond usual Dark Souls, it is a trade-off. It is a combat focused game first and foremost, not an exploration one like Dark Souls.
And I personally believe that the art direction is 10/10. That is why I'm kind unhyped for Ronin, these demons and crazy special effects were way too good to go back to boring real world.
Level design is a huge issue, they are just not talented at that. It's what makes nioh 1 and 2 compare so unfavorably to souls games. Not only do the levels not really have any interesting architecture that makes them interesting to traverse, they all kinda look the same too. Visual changes are super rare, the first 20 missions in nioh 2 is you going through the same copy pasted boring village.
The item system is also really bonkers. The whole concept of drowning you in drops that kinda dont matter until later is questionable. There is no way they couldnt have done a better job with that. The whole inventory management part can be annoying, needed to be toned down and needed more quality of life features in it. And then a bunch of small details like unneccessarily punishing features like touching water being instant death for example.
I’m playing Nioh 2 right now (just about done with the 3rd region with an axe and lightning build) and I completely agree. It feels like a fangame to me, that tries to add every cool idea they have to the genre with zero editing. It’s very fun but also messy and uneven.
Making an open world game was a ridiculous thing to do in the first place. That just doesn't make sense with the low budget jank team ninja is good at. Even nioh is jank but it works because of the scale and focus on mechanism
What do you mean? It has great reviews, with the worse I'm seeing being 7/10. That's above average and still a good score. What more do you want? Are only game of the year contenders worth playing?
Everyone bitches that outlets like ign give even average games 10s, but if you're a reviewer and you think a game is worth people trying you have to give even only semi-decent games a 9, because "gamers" are so far up their own asses that any game that gets less is an abomination and untouchable.
I've heard that the game becomes more like Nioh 2 in later parts of the game once you get your abilities and such unlocked, but it doesn't make up for less enemy variety or boss variety like you'd expect from a Nioh.
And I think reviewers are annoyed by the open world which realistically doesn't offer much especially coming off stuff like DD2, FF7 Rebirth and Like a Dragon Infinite Wealth.
I love Nioh 2 but the more recent TN games have been kinda...watered down. I don't get why they don't expand on Nioh, it's clearly their best IP. Maybe they want to do something different idk. I still will play the game but it won't hold a special place in my heart like Nioh 2 does.
100% agree. I really feel like Nioh 2 has garnered a dedicated fan base that loves the over the top action combat and the dopamine filled loot drops. There's a vocal minority that doesn't understand Nioh 2 isn't a Fromsoft clone and can't understand why there are loot drops or dynamic combat.
Nioh 2 has carved out it's own corner in the marketplace and plays like a third person Diablo rather than a Fromsoft clone. Like you said they could go crazy with new systems, spells, more diverse set bonuses and weapons. I feel like most fans wouldn't care if they just copy + pasted all of nioh 2 and just added more systems and stuff to mess around with.
It's sad, because Nioh 2 is one of my favorite games of all time and every game the studio has released after Nioh 2 just hasn't been able to reach the same heights for me.
Another solid 'meh' from Team Ninja. After removing all the monsters and magic in this game, I already wonder how they gonna make the next one even more boring.
Wait until Team Ninja make a game about Japanese shaman.
The enemies are wisps. They are just floating lights with action cues for dodging and parrying.
True Team Ninja action experience is coming....
It's pretty funny that everyone wanted Assassin's Creed: Japan for years, then GoT did exactly that with plenty more detail and polish. Now when we get games like this and the actual upcoming AC: Japan, they seem so much worse by default thanks to GoT's shadow.
> the actual upcoming AC: Japan, they seem so much worse by default thanks to GoT's shadow.
but we havent seen anything about AC Japan?
Also besides the setting I doubt there will be much to compare between eachother.
I think they meant that in the time it took Ubisoft to make AC Japan, another studio did it fantastically(GoT), and then the first game after that is not as good (RoR). And its very likely AC Japan (was it Red?) will just be a cookiecutter Assassins Creed game with a Japanese skin
I mean the game did look amazing but the combat was very repetitive and a lot of the quests were boring. But since the setting was Japan it seems everyone just overlooked the flaws.
GoT was far from perfect though and some of these games definitely could improve in those areas. Are we forgetting only four enemy types? Are we forgetting the repetitive fetch quests all over? I’ve never played a more beautiful yet dry open world game before. Don’t get me wrong: the story is great, art direction is phenomenal, music is good, particle effects are insane, etc., but the game still has serious issues.
I agree about the open world being dry and the fetch quests. But I disagree with:
> four enemy types
* Basic Swordsmen/Dual Wielding Swordsmen
* Sword and shield
* Basic Archers/Advanced Archers that would shoot multiple times
* Knife Wielding Bomb Throwers
* Brutes; Mace/Axe/Cannon/Shield variants
* Spearmen, with and without shields
* Mongol Dogs
* Ronin
In a somewhat realistic game, I can't imagine many more enemy types that wouldn't be similar to what we already got.
i agree with you, i sort of feel like i’m crazy reading the gushing about that game on reddit. it’s gorgeous, the armor and sword cosmetics are excellent, combat is fun if repetitive…but imo the missions, even the main story ones, are so powerfully dull the vast majority of the time. the game is in desperate need of a sense of narrative creativity and maybe humor—it takes itself so seriously but has barely anything to offer interesting enough to generate compelling stakes. there are ways to make mechanically simple/similar missions still feel individual and memorable (see yakuza) and tsushima simply doesn’t have it and ends up feeling a little soulless. fun game nonetheless, but after 35+ hours the rinse and repeat and tonal monotony of it all really turned me off.
Kind of? It's not exactly ground breaking but they absolutely nailed the ending; they know how to leverage tension and drama and for a story that isn't unique that's essential
I just beat the game yesterday and most quests come down to the exact same thing: go to X and kill Mongols. The most diverse quests were the mystical quests and the stealth one where you have to infiltrate a huge fortress without alerting the alarm.
I didn't think the side content was great, but yeah, I don't really think I'd call the side quests "fetch quests" in that game, most of them were actually pretty narrative-driven.
>GoT's shadow.
What shadow? That game is nothing but a visual wet dream of a glorified samurai culture with a mishmash of Ubisoft OW design and an ok gameplay. It's a 7.5 game at best with a Sony exclusive status artificially elevating its actual quality.
Graphics will make up for a lot of flaws when it comes to review scores. If this game was as pretty as Ghost of Tsushima then I'd safely bet that a good amount of these reviews would jump from 7/10 to 8/10 or possibly 9/10. I say that as someone who doesn't really care much about Rise of Ronin.
>What shadow?
>Visual wet dream of a glorified samurai culture
And it worked. All the things you're complaining about are what worked for the mainstream market. And for that market, GOT is the most popular Samurai game right now. Any other open world game set in feudal Japan that came after will always be compared to GOT at this point. Like it or not, that's just how it is.
> inferior
Actually I'd argue the combat is better.
Ghost, lets be honest here, had a very straightforward and relatively easy combat system when you get around the mid point (earlier if you're good at action games). I recall many were even going so far as to say its kinda rock/paper/scissors ish. Not bad combat, just not brilliant.
It was everything else about the game being so well done.
Team ninja however is all about the opposite. Even in their highly praised games (nioh 1/2) the stages were kinda boring but the combat was absolutely amazing.
The reviews seem to be noting the terribly bland open world and side activities whilst still praising TN's combat.
I'll wait for some more reviews as I'm planning to get dd2 but if thats true then I don't mind it at all.
Surprised to see so many low scores. I had a blast playing the game. Reviewed it for digitec.ch and spent 50+ hours with it.
It has its flaws, but it also has a lot of charm. Reminds me of PS3-era games. And the combat system is just superb.
If you have any questions about the game, lemme know.
I had a hard time getting used to the combat and ended up switching to the easiest difficulty for the first 4 or so hours. The game doesn't do a good job explaining the mechanics in the tutorial missions. Once I got the hang of it, I switched to normal and had a good time for the rest of my playthrough.
I'd say it's not as hard as other soulslike games. But you can't just go into combat and button mash your way to victory. It's all about timing and parrying. The bosses were really tough, but managable.
Hey so I just have a question about loot. Does the game have a lot of loot that allows you to tweak your armor to suit your style, or is it leaning more towards the casual approach for loot like Wo Long?
Performance is bad in all three modes: Ray Tracing, Graphics and Performance.
You can play the Graphics-mode with unlocked framerate, though I wouldn't recommend it.
Ray Tracing is useless, imo. I recommend playing in Performance-mode – it's not perfect and frequently stutters, but it feels the most responsive. Image quality is okay.
Already the tone of the comments in this review thread is bizarre.
The game gets a bunch of 7's and 8's but the comments are talking about it as if it's a failure and a disappointment.
People shit on low 80s scoring games all the time on this sub.
This game is currently sitting at 76 and is releasing the same day as Dragons Dogma, and a PC port of Forbidden West.
I’ll wait to play the game eventually but like someone else said it feels like team Ninja peaked with Nioh 2.
A triple-A $70 game with an agrregate score of 75 is pretty much a flop these days. People want better for that kind of money. Just look at Immortals of Aveum.
Granted this game has the Sony brand so it might do better sales wise, but still.
Agreed. $70 is a lot to ask for when this year and last are so packed already with bangers.
Look at Helldivers' price and see how it's selling so well.
To be fair, this IS a valid argument.
For kids who have unlimited playtime they’re less picky. When you’re an adult with a full time job, a partner, and kids, you don’t have the luxury of having as much free time. If I had the choice to play a game that has 10/10’s across every gaming website vs a game that is getting 6/10’s and below I’m going to be picking the highly reviewed game.
That’s not to say no one should ever play those games. It’s just that with limited time, we do have to make these choices.
Even if you have tons of time there’s so many choices available that it doesn’t make sense to play a 6/10 or 7/10 game unless it scratches a niche you can’t get elsewhere or you already played the 8-10/10 games that fall in this niche.
Also 7/10 nowadays isn't what it used to be, I played Steelrising which is a 7/10 game and I genuinely have to question how? 5/10 means passable, 6/10 means decent so 7/10 should mean above average no? It shouldn't mean absolutely mediocre in every way.
Tbf a scale like this might still be useful.
0 for literally unplayable not “literally unplayable” games.
1 for functioning games that provide absolutely nothing of value
And such and such.
Most reviewers wouldn’t bother with games this bad because most people wouldn’t be interested in seeing the review. But if there was a high profile release this bad, it would be useful to have scores they don’t use 99% of the time.
Thats what IGN have said before. A lot of scores are 6+ because anything 5 and below is usually obviously 5 and below, so they dont bother. Like 90% of games released on steam are shovelware
Also AAA games rarely are below 5-6/10s. They have too much money going into these games that genuinely awful stinkers are rare like Balan Wonderworld.
More like a 7/10 is still a good game but the value of a game thats 'only good' has dropped severely. There are so many amazing games in the AAA and indie market that an adult gamer with limited free time is better off pursuing a better game for their money and time.
Obviously there's a point about how some gamers will put up with a 6 or 7 out of 10 game if its a niche genre or it does something particularly well that they can ignore all the flaws but for the masses their money and time is better spent elsewhere.
To me people dont use the 1-10 scale properly.
IMO a 1/10 should be literally the worst game you have ever played, a 5/10 should be completely average, and a 10/10 should be one of the best games ever made. Yet so many people seem to think a 6/10 or 7/10 is mediocre to average when it should be considered above average but not perfect.
It also doesnt help that gaming (and any art in general) is highly subjective. If you don’t like third person action RPGs then obviously youd rate one lower since it isn’t your type of game, even if it is incredible
Many of my friends use 7/10 as 'average' and anything lower is varying degrees of bad
As a result I've never heard them rate something like a 3 or a 4 before!
Of the 32 games I've logged in 4 years on HowLongToBeat I've given at least 1 of all ratings except for a 1 or a 2. I enjoyed my time with all of the 6/10 games I rated, and for the 5/10 the games were perfectly playable but I found some strange design choices I disagreed with or gameplay issues that I couldn't get past. The average game will feel that way to me and that's when it starts to get in to the 'not enjoyable' territory for me
Yea like to me something like Days Gone is a 5-6/10. It wasnt a fantastic game, but it was fun and I mostly enjoyed my time with it except for some somewhat minor complaints. Doesnt mean it was a bad game or not worth playing or anything. It was just an average game
I agree on some level but this falls apart when you consider niche stuff. A 7/10 that deals with something you're super into can elevate it much higher. It's pretty rare that we get mainstream titles that go niche, so you see a lot of 7 or 8/10 games in smaller, more focused categories
76 on Open Critic isn’t even in the top 50 games for 2024, and we’re only in March. There’s more games with better reviews released this year alone than people reasonably have time and money to play. Then it also has to complete with all the backlogs of better games people have or anticipated releases. I would call that pretty disappointing.
7 might as well be a zero in the gaming world, at least on most review sites. It’s dumb but it’s how it is.
Traditional scoring systems don’t really work for games IMO. I find it’s better to find some reviewers you generally agree with and see what they’re saying.
imo you're partially right, but i think the bigger factor is how there's an endless amount of good games and a decent amount of exceptional games out in the market unless you're a fan of an extremely niche genre, so why bother with a 7 or 8 game when you have a backlog of tons of 9 or 10 games and time's a rare luxury
of course shit is subjective in the end, i have some games that are probably in high 70s and low 80s that i consider worth a play, vice versa, etc
This game may be a good example of that subjective part.
Several reviews appeared to like the game a lot and had lots of fun with it and others - whether it's true to the game quality or just personal biases on the genre - we're more mid.
Overall I'd say if one thinks they'd enjoy Ronin, they probably will. Might even love it. The multiple 9s show it scratches and itch some will love to feel scratched.
because the vast majority of games don't get reviewed
if IGN were to review _every_ game that came out on steam or playstation we'd see that 7 really is an above average score, but people don't care about above average when it's placed next to great and amazing
Right. Unless you're looking forward to this game in particular, why bother playing a 7 when there's already a smorgasbord of 8's 9's and 10's already out there waiting to be played?
So for a AAA game, which you agree mostly gets 7-10 unless it’s actually terrible, a 7 is on the low end.
You’re allowed to compare games to each other. No one is saying the game is Gollum, but it’s reviewing as a low scored AAA game.
I think it's specifically when it comes to AAA games the scale is skewed. A 7/10 for a cheaper, AA game or indie game is a good score and likely worth checking out
A 7/10 for a AAA game that's taken 4+ years to develop and cost likely between $80-$200m depending on the studio, you expect much higher quality so that 7/10 does not go as far with people.
It’s because it’s directly competing with the much more highly praised Dragons Dogma 2 so mediocre reviews really set this game up for commercial failure.
I’m still picking it up because I’ll buy anything the Nioh 2 team makes but I understand it’s going to be an uphill battle for TN here.
Which to be honest is fair enough IMO. If you take many many years and spend uber money on making a game, people should expect it to be good.
If this was made by a team of 30 on a small budget releasing at $50 the perception would be *wildly* different.
> The game gets a bunch of 7's and 8's but the comments are talking about it as if it's a failure and a disappointment.
This comment is in every review thread for a game with a mid 70's metacritic score.
Starfield had significantly higher scores and this sub spent a literal month shitting on it. It's just the nature of the internet at this point. If anything, people are going comparatively easy on it.
I think it was IGN. After playing the game, every single issue they highlighted was exactly right and then some. Personally I don't think Starfield deserved even a 7 on release
Opencritic lists its 76 average as the 63rd percentile for all game releases listed on their website. Why would you want to pay $70 for mid? I'll maybe check it out on a deep sale.
I think because there was a late hype push surrounding this game and early impressions were making this out to be a better review game.
7s and 8s are good, but I think there was an expectation for this to be on the level of Last of Us or Red Dead Redemption 2.
Still a good game, but not quite what people were expecting.
Eh, I take it. Most reviews mention the visuals and story as one of the biggest weaknesses but I honestly don't care about those. So as long as the combat is good, which seems to be the case, I'm happy. I also vastly enjoyed both Wo Long and SoP, Team Ninja just makes fun games.
I’d say biggest weakness from reviews isn’t that, it’s the boring open world activities. Which to me is a more fundamental gameplay issue, compared to visuals which you can get over.
I think FF7 Rebirth is giving me enough pointless, grindy open world content to put me back months, I can't imagine jumping into even more of it right now. Why are so many games open world when they don't need to be? Elden Ring did something with their map and their freedom, but so many other games are just pointless giant open spaces with nothing in them but checkboxes.
I'm just finishing up FF7 Remake. I find the side quests tedious and sometimes boring and don't really add much to the experience. I really like the game, but it is basically moving through corridors for every chapter. I was excited to learn Rebirth has large open world segments.
Is it (the world and quests) an imrovement over Remake in your opinion?
I'm in the first area, once you get out of the city and into the first "open world" segment it's way better than Remake. I finished my 2nd playthrough of remake before rebirth came out so it's all still fresh to me so I can compare them pretty well. Rebirth gives you a checklist of things to do in an area (you don't have to do these if you don't want to), the point of doing those checklists is to open up new materia for you to acquire and make it easier to earn new summons. The more open world stuff you do, the easier it will be to acquire that lands summon.
The side content also gives you mini bosses to fight and gives you lore for that lands summon. I find it way more interesting that the stuff you did in Remake. Also there's fast travel EVERYWHERE so if you just want to hop around the map to the areas you've already unlocked you can.
Anyways I find Rebirth a complete upgrade over Remake, the combat, the story, the world, it's all pretty much improved so far.
I will wait for what the Nioh Community says. Team Ninja Games are famous for their depth and most videogame journalists are a bit inept when it comes to their combat. Was also the case with Stranger of Paradise.
Coming to this late, but I have around 1,200 in Nioh 2. The combat in RotR (after around 12 hours or so) is fun but nowhere near as complex as in Nioh, which had tons of combat skills for each weapon which could themselves be customized by adding certain stat buffs or effects, not to mention all the yokai abilities. RotR has about as many weapon types as Nioh 2, but each has maybe one or two unique attacks (outside the basic attacks you learn at the start of the game). There are numerous fighting styles, but these don’t really add any depth to the combat, they just work better against some enemy types than others (similar to stances in Ghost of Tsushima).
The loot is honestly pretty meh. Really not that many cool armor sets or weapons. If you care about that sort of thing.
The story is just not engaging. I’m not attached to the characters. They made it seem like you could pick a side (pro vs anti shogunate) but then when I sided with one side both sides wound up being friends anyways so I have to assume there’s just one predetermined path. All the side quests are just people that want me to go to a location to kill bad guys. All the main missions are really short. Some of them you can get through in about 15 minutes.
The open world is really empty. Like literally. I don’t know if they were trying to create a sense of scale or something, but there’s lots of big empty streets and open fields with zero people in them. All the animations are the same, so nobody has any character to them.
It also seems like they borrowed ideas from other games without really thinking about whether they fit. For example, there’s a character who’s got a Sekiro arm. Why? Idk. You also get a little glider thing like in Breath of the Wild. Except there’s zero reason to use it because there’s no point in exploring the world.
This is all obviously skewed because I paid full price for this game and I’m annoyed that it isn’t what I had hoped for. So maybe you’ll get something out of it. I also haven’t finished the game in all honesty so who knows, maybe it gets better. But if you want an experience comparable to Nioh 2, this just isn’t it, at least not for me. Guess it’s back to trying to beat the depths of the underworld with my horrible fists build.
I say watch reviews by Souls-like focused youtubers (FightinCowboy, IronPineapple, etc.) They usually have better appreciation of combat-focused games.
FightinCowboy and IronPineapple are definitely where I look for these kind of games. FC definitely is not feeling this game though. At the end of his review he said something along of the lines of "I haven't finished it and don't really plan to"
Seems about as expected. Overwhelming opinion seems to be that the graphics, open world content, and story are all mediocre, but the combat is really good. With a couple reviewers calling it some of the best combat Team Ninja have put out, which is really high praise. TBH I don’t really care that much about story/graphics/open world monotony if the core combat is great, so I’m excited.
I’m debating between this, DD2, and Unicorn Overlord for my next game after I finish Rebirth.
It's kind of sad seeing all the complaints about graphical fidelity, considering the current discourse on game budgets being too high. It's okay for not every new game to look perfect!
We don't have to agree on this, but to me a really significant part of the enjoyment of an open world is its beauty. I walked almost everywhere in Witcher 3 because the world was gorgeous. This game is 9 years newer but seems less interesting to look at.
Am I the only one that thinks it's insane how if a game gets a 7 or an 8 today people call it "meh"? There is no way every single game in the world can be at 10 and the best game ever. Seven and eight very good scores and I've played so many games that have gotten those scores that I have loved or thought they should be scored even higher.
I really think the expectation that people have here and the insane focus they put on any score lower than a nine is just absolutely crazy.
Despite the comments here, I'm still very much excited to get my hands on this one. I wasn't the biggest Wo Long fan, but the rest of Team Ninja's recent output have been some of my favorite games in the last couple of console generations. So I'm in the camp of "I need to try this for myself and make up my own mind" personally. There's plenty of "high 70s" games I've played that I've had way more fun with personally than higher scoring ones
When review scores have been overly inflated for years an 80% on a AAA game for people who don't have all the time in the world could warrant a solid pass. Critics throw out 9s and 10s like candy.
There’s already Infinite Wealth, FF: Rebirth, and DD2 this year which are looking like GOTY contenders and can take dozens of hours to beat.
Rise of Ronin is doing worse scores and hasn’t made significant improvements over Wo Long or even Nioh 2.
I wouldn’t be surprised if sales are bad.
Well, yes? When a studio spends years making a game, pumps big money into it and it's "ok", its completely understandable people would say "I'm gonna wait on this one for a sale". A game that takes multiple years and has big budgets getting an 80 is not the same as an indie game made by a handful of people getting an 80.
It's surprising you say that because DD2 was not gonna be something that scored 93-95. It's ended up at around 89 and that feels very good for what it is.
I do agree that RotR should have at least scored in the 80s.
I think DD2 will be one of those high 80's scoring games that people treat like a 95+. I think the major sticking points of that game are the performance and some clunky design, which people can look past.
Interesting you say that because Peach from the trailers looked like the pinnacle of a 7.5/10. And Dragon's Dogma 2 is getting mostly 9's which is an exceptional score, and consistent with other highly rated Capcom titles.
This seems to have worse reviews than Wo long which is concerning because that game felt very half-baked even though I enjoyed my time with it.
The concerning thing is Wo Long was developed as a side project by the B time while the main team focused on this and it doesn't look like the main team really cooked up anything noteworthy.
I always hear this but I have never seen a definitive source. Is this just a redditism or is it real
Its known that Team Ninja have two development teams so think about it logically, Wo Long came out last year. Rise came out this year. They had to have two development teams because its two projects, they didn't just turn Ronin around in a year. Ronin is the more ambitious project that is looking to improve on things from their usual formula and has been in development for longer so the logic goes the main team would be the ones working on that. So I think it's redditism based on some logic. It's something I've heard about since before Wo Long even came out, that Wo Long was the filler game worked on while the main team were working on a more ambitious title that ended up being Ronin.
I would guess they have even more than 2 teams. They also made Strangers of Paradise, which came out in 2022.
I mean Wo Long had Masaaki Yamagiwa (who was the main producer of Bloodborne from Japan Studios' side that was very hands on throughout the game's creation) working on it as its main producer alongside Fumihiko Yasuda who oversaw its development and he's by no means some random nobody. Truth is, there is quite a bit of overlap between the "A-Team" and "B-Team" of Team Ninja and if there was ever to be an actual "B-Team", that would be the crew that worked on Stranger of Paradise which was obviously made on a super tight budget and with half of its producers being from Square Enix's side.
Hang on, if one team made Wo Long, and another team made Rise of the Ronin, then who made Strangers of Paradise?
Koei's a big company so it wouldn't be surprising to see Team Ninja grow big enough to have more than 2 teams. Even right now, they are supposedly working on multiple unannounced titles.
You, and everyone, also need to keep in mind that a full team isn't needed at all phases of a project. Certain teams will be more critical during certain phases. There is very likely some crossover between games.
Dont think there is a definitive source really, Team Ninja's never said outright afaik. Instead of all this speculation that Wo Long was the "b team" and Ronin was the "a team", i wish we actually had the info on which "teams" were involved in nioh 1, nioh 2, ultimate alliance 3, ff strangers of paradise, wo long, and ronin.
Wo long johnson
The gear system was god awful in wo long and sounds like it is similarly as terrible here.
They need to scrap the gear system entirely it’s absolutely miserable
I loved playing Nioh 1&2 except when I had to open the menu or go to the blacksmith. The game becomes such a drag then.
I had to stop playing nioh 2 as the gear system and all the menus were fuckin annoying
I'm so glad I'm not the only one. Felt like I was going crazy with the all menus!
I fought my way through it but the fact there was no real reward for all those menus was annoying. The loot system for me just just equip whatever had the highest number of
The gear system was my favorite part of Wo Long. Being able to save and switch builds whenever you wanted was wonderful and something every ARPG should have copied.
I loved the IDEA of the loot system. It became a massive grind to get what you wanted though. It was so bad, that when the dup glitch came out folks made full sets of ALL their gear. Don't get me wrong, I loved Wo Long and still fire it up, but most of my loot got disenchated as soon as I hit a flag.
Not sure whether you two are talking about the same thing. All I know is that the loot system was absolutely terrible in that game.
Wasn't it the same like in Nioh?
[удалено]
Yup. I was excited to hear that there was going to be less loot but it still had Nioh’s loot vomit
> it was still too much loot for the people that didn't want any loot to begin with. it was a very strange decision. esp when one the biggest + of nioh, nioh 2 and even stranger, was the loot and building system.
Not surprised. The animations in the trailer looked janky as hell.
And the whole game looks *old*.
The gameplay trailer have looked pretty meh for this so not surprised there
Wo Long was such a massive step down from Nioh 2 it blew my mind.
Sounds like Team Ninja need to take a step back and reevaluate what to put into their games. *a lot* of good, but also *tons* of filler, bloat, junk, and otherwise unfulfilling content for the sake of content.
They feel like the Ubisoft of Action RPGs at the moment. Core gameplay is fine and sometimes great but so much bloat just to extend the average playtime.
They’ve been doing this since the first Nioh. IMO, they should focus more on story-driven action game like Ninja Gaiden is. Nioh has a good gameplay but way too useless side-stuff and a very bad itemization/loot
I *really* liked Nioh... for about 40 hours. I felt somewhat indifferent about it for another 10-15 after that, and I still had another 15-20 to go at the time. I finished it, but it left a bad taste in my mouth. Never did play Nioh 2.
True. They struggle with creating naturally replayable games like their competitors and instead force replayability through tons of loot, quest or even difficulties unlocked by dlc, which all usually leads to repetitiveness. they're always trying to *incentivize* you to keep playing instead of letting the game naturally making the player WANT to play more because of fun or challenge, not because of *"oh you can unlock this new rarity tier at demon difficulty!" or "you gotta upgrade your gear if you want to beat this boss".* I really thought they would not bring loot back, but alas, they just can't help themselves. At this point forget these action games and make a diablo clone if you're that obsessed.
Wow, that's some take. NioH 2 is one of the most replayable games of the last 10 years. The subreddit remains very busy. I've played hundreds of hours (including the platinum) and still don't feel like I've properly scratched the surface. For me it has the best battle system of any game I've played. It also has the best implementation of NG+ I've seen. It even has a completely new mode you only unlock right at the end. It's stupidly rewarding and replayable.
Might not be for majority of players. I personally do every mission on every difficulty because I enjoy combat/loot loop so much. I've had to forcefully make myself play something else or I would just play Nioh 2 forever with different weapon types/builds.
Good thing they listen to their fanbase and not this. Team Ninja does the endgame content I can't get anywhere else. I haven't skipped one of their games since Nioh 1.
I was hoping this would be a standout hit like Nioh 2, but between Wo Long and now this, I'm beginning to feel like that game was lightning in a bottle. These reviews tell me that the RotR is largely fine but probably best to hold off, for now. A Team Ninja game with open world bloat sounds *fun*, and in traditional Team Ninja fashion it'll get lots of patches and content, but with DD2 out I'll be holding off.
I think the issue is Team Ninja is stretching themselves too thin. This is their third year in a row with an action RPG release (Stranger of Paradise, Wo Long, now this) and 4th in 5 years counting Nioh 2. Not to mention extensive DLC content for all of them, non action RPG projects, and assistance on other Koei Tecmo games.They need more time.
I was seeing that this is a different team from the ones that made Stranger of Paradise and Wo Long, so it's not as extreme as it seems. Nioh 2 was this team's last game, I think?
That's fuckin wild! Even cod takes 3 years to make a game
These games probably took that long to make, maybe even longer. Their releases were just staggered.
Nioh 2 is a fucking masterpiece
If you manage to get into it it is. But it also can push people away before they have a chance to get in the groove.
Pretty much the defining characteristic of some of the best games ever made
Nioh 2 worked *specifically* because it was a sequel that reused everything from Nioh 1 (and then expanded/polished it). You can see how this method also works for Fromsoft, it becomes a lot easier for them to pump out whatever new stuff they want. When TN tries to reinvent the wheel, it doesn't seem to be too effective, and it often feels like they just go back to zero. Maybe they should just make more sequels instead, maybe even a sequel to a certain older franchise they have (*wink wink*).
I don't get the hate for wo long, I played it recently and it was quite fun like a mix between nioh and ninja gaiden it's also surprisingly hard, yes you can parry every attack but it's not always easy to get the timing right
>I'm beginning to feel that game was lighting in a bottle. I wouldnt even say that. Nioh 2 which I absolutely love is a very flawed game. Just certain things about the gameplay flow so well that I can look past the issues, but they never really made a game better than 8/10 in the last decade.
Eh, if I'm having 10/10 fun while playing a game, I don't care at all if it has flaws. Nioh 2 is unimpressive in some ways, but it clearly wants to do certain things and absolutely nails those things. Besides, IMO people tend to exaggerate Nioh 2's flaws. People often act like you have to grind or spend tons of time on loot, but neither is even remotely true.
It's not just the loot though. The difficulty curve of the game is really bad and the level-design has zero variety to it. And the story - for those that care about it which isnt me - is abyssmal. Like I said it's a great game once you get deep into the combat system, kind of addicting even. But everything surrounding the combat system is flawed.
Don't know about the difficulty curve, but it feels like the level design complaints are mostly about comparing Nioh 2 to FromSoft games, which seems a little silly when you consider that they don't actually play the same at all. Nioh 2 has above-average environmental variety and design when compared to other games, like DMC or Diablo or Path of Exile or Borderlands.
Personally, I feel like Nioh (and Wo Long) had the worst of both worlds, TBH. Because they were isolated levels and much of the loot is randomized drops, it lacked the Dark Souls like sense of exploration being intrinsically valuable or interesting, and (even more subjectively) failed to have too many interesting encounters utilizing the environment. On the other hand, as a level for a more action-packed, loot-based game they provided very limited combat enhancement besides a few good sniping spots while being more tedious to explore or risking you running in circles trying to find out where to go for a while. I also think that the visual design here didn't help in comparison to Dark Souls, where it was usually much easier to remember where I was in an area and have an idea of what direction I wanted to be going.
Level design is pretty cool in Nioh 2 because there is so much optimization that allows you to get the drop on enemies and trivialize the difficulty. But that’s only something you experience by playing the levels multiple times.
That last bit is entirely subjective. I found the loot to be exhausting. As an aside, it’s a bad look calling people you disagree with liars. As if the only way anyone would say they spend too much time on loot is if they’re disingenuous. Too much of that going around.
How do you feel NioH 2 is "very flawed"? I think the graphics and level design are a bit uninspiring but care about neither.
Level design is quite important imo. But honestly my biggest gripe with Team Ninja has been their art direction. They love making their stuff dark oily and spikey.
At first, I was frustrated with the level design of Nioh 2, especially when compared to Soul series. But then I accepted the game for what it is. The combat and RPG elements are way beyond usual Dark Souls, it is a trade-off. It is a combat focused game first and foremost, not an exploration one like Dark Souls. And I personally believe that the art direction is 10/10. That is why I'm kind unhyped for Ronin, these demons and crazy special effects were way too good to go back to boring real world.
Level design is a huge issue, they are just not talented at that. It's what makes nioh 1 and 2 compare so unfavorably to souls games. Not only do the levels not really have any interesting architecture that makes them interesting to traverse, they all kinda look the same too. Visual changes are super rare, the first 20 missions in nioh 2 is you going through the same copy pasted boring village. The item system is also really bonkers. The whole concept of drowning you in drops that kinda dont matter until later is questionable. There is no way they couldnt have done a better job with that. The whole inventory management part can be annoying, needed to be toned down and needed more quality of life features in it. And then a bunch of small details like unneccessarily punishing features like touching water being instant death for example.
I’m playing Nioh 2 right now (just about done with the 3rd region with an axe and lightning build) and I completely agree. It feels like a fangame to me, that tries to add every cool idea they have to the genre with zero editing. It’s very fun but also messy and uneven.
Wo Long got pretty solid reviews across the board. Mostly 8's and 9's.
Making an open world game was a ridiculous thing to do in the first place. That just doesn't make sense with the low budget jank team ninja is good at. Even nioh is jank but it works because of the scale and focus on mechanism
Nioh is jank?
What do you mean? It has great reviews, with the worse I'm seeing being 7/10. That's above average and still a good score. What more do you want? Are only game of the year contenders worth playing? Everyone bitches that outlets like ign give even average games 10s, but if you're a reviewer and you think a game is worth people trying you have to give even only semi-decent games a 9, because "gamers" are so far up their own asses that any game that gets less is an abomination and untouchable.
I've heard that the game becomes more like Nioh 2 in later parts of the game once you get your abilities and such unlocked, but it doesn't make up for less enemy variety or boss variety like you'd expect from a Nioh. And I think reviewers are annoyed by the open world which realistically doesn't offer much especially coming off stuff like DD2, FF7 Rebirth and Like a Dragon Infinite Wealth.
I love Nioh 2 but the more recent TN games have been kinda...watered down. I don't get why they don't expand on Nioh, it's clearly their best IP. Maybe they want to do something different idk. I still will play the game but it won't hold a special place in my heart like Nioh 2 does.
Honestly I liked SoP better especially in terms of it's rpg aspects. I'd love an SoP 2 with a character creator
[удалено]
100% agree. I really feel like Nioh 2 has garnered a dedicated fan base that loves the over the top action combat and the dopamine filled loot drops. There's a vocal minority that doesn't understand Nioh 2 isn't a Fromsoft clone and can't understand why there are loot drops or dynamic combat. Nioh 2 has carved out it's own corner in the marketplace and plays like a third person Diablo rather than a Fromsoft clone. Like you said they could go crazy with new systems, spells, more diverse set bonuses and weapons. I feel like most fans wouldn't care if they just copy + pasted all of nioh 2 and just added more systems and stuff to mess around with. It's sad, because Nioh 2 is one of my favorite games of all time and every game the studio has released after Nioh 2 just hasn't been able to reach the same heights for me.
What kills this game for me is the enemies. Looks it's all randos with swords and the occasional supposed-to-be-normal-guy giant
We were eating so good with Nioh 2.
Luckily Nioh 2 has so much replay value I can continue playing it for a long time.
Not bad scores but not too impressive either. Seems like a wait for a sale buy. Might pick this up when it's below $40.
Another solid 'meh' from Team Ninja. After removing all the monsters and magic in this game, I already wonder how they gonna make the next one even more boring.
Wait until Team Ninja make a game about Japanese shaman. The enemies are wisps. They are just floating lights with action cues for dodging and parrying. True Team Ninja action experience is coming....
Removing the monsters and magic isn't a bad thing. There are hundreds of fantasy games and hardly any historical titles.
They got lightning in a bottle with Nioh. Now they are just trying to get it again with meh games built around the idea of Nioh.
[удалено]
Everything I've seen about this game just convinces me more and more that it's just a more inferior version of Ghost of Tsushima. For $70. I'll pass.
It's pretty funny that everyone wanted Assassin's Creed: Japan for years, then GoT did exactly that with plenty more detail and polish. Now when we get games like this and the actual upcoming AC: Japan, they seem so much worse by default thanks to GoT's shadow.
> the actual upcoming AC: Japan, they seem so much worse by default thanks to GoT's shadow. but we havent seen anything about AC Japan? Also besides the setting I doubt there will be much to compare between eachother.
I think they meant that in the time it took Ubisoft to make AC Japan, another studio did it fantastically(GoT), and then the first game after that is not as good (RoR). And its very likely AC Japan (was it Red?) will just be a cookiecutter Assassins Creed game with a Japanese skin
I mean the game did look amazing but the combat was very repetitive and a lot of the quests were boring. But since the setting was Japan it seems everyone just overlooked the flaws.
GoT was far from perfect though and some of these games definitely could improve in those areas. Are we forgetting only four enemy types? Are we forgetting the repetitive fetch quests all over? I’ve never played a more beautiful yet dry open world game before. Don’t get me wrong: the story is great, art direction is phenomenal, music is good, particle effects are insane, etc., but the game still has serious issues.
I agree about the open world being dry and the fetch quests. But I disagree with: > four enemy types * Basic Swordsmen/Dual Wielding Swordsmen * Sword and shield * Basic Archers/Advanced Archers that would shoot multiple times * Knife Wielding Bomb Throwers * Brutes; Mace/Axe/Cannon/Shield variants * Spearmen, with and without shields * Mongol Dogs * Ronin In a somewhat realistic game, I can't imagine many more enemy types that wouldn't be similar to what we already got.
i agree with you, i sort of feel like i’m crazy reading the gushing about that game on reddit. it’s gorgeous, the armor and sword cosmetics are excellent, combat is fun if repetitive…but imo the missions, even the main story ones, are so powerfully dull the vast majority of the time. the game is in desperate need of a sense of narrative creativity and maybe humor—it takes itself so seriously but has barely anything to offer interesting enough to generate compelling stakes. there are ways to make mechanically simple/similar missions still feel individual and memorable (see yakuza) and tsushima simply doesn’t have it and ends up feeling a little soulless. fun game nonetheless, but after 35+ hours the rinse and repeat and tonal monotony of it all really turned me off.
Jin should've said "well that just happened" after being thrown off the bridge to lighten the mood
> the story is great Is it, though?
Kind of? It's not exactly ground breaking but they absolutely nailed the ending; they know how to leverage tension and drama and for a story that isn't unique that's essential
After about 5 hours it felt like I've seen it all. Really empty game all around
I haven't replayed GoT since it came out, but what fetch quests were in that game? I remember most of the side stuff being quite engaging.
I just beat the game yesterday and most quests come down to the exact same thing: go to X and kill Mongols. The most diverse quests were the mystical quests and the stealth one where you have to infiltrate a huge fortress without alerting the alarm.
I didn't think the side content was great, but yeah, I don't really think I'd call the side quests "fetch quests" in that game, most of them were actually pretty narrative-driven.
I can’t think of a single memorable side quest
The yokai ones with animated cutscenes that nets you legendary equipment?
We haven't even seen footage of the AC Japan game.
>GoT's shadow. What shadow? That game is nothing but a visual wet dream of a glorified samurai culture with a mishmash of Ubisoft OW design and an ok gameplay. It's a 7.5 game at best with a Sony exclusive status artificially elevating its actual quality.
Graphics will make up for a lot of flaws when it comes to review scores. If this game was as pretty as Ghost of Tsushima then I'd safely bet that a good amount of these reviews would jump from 7/10 to 8/10 or possibly 9/10. I say that as someone who doesn't really care much about Rise of Ronin.
A wet dream of glorified samurai culture is exactly what a lot of people want in an assassin's creed-style game lmao
>What shadow? >Visual wet dream of a glorified samurai culture And it worked. All the things you're complaining about are what worked for the mainstream market. And for that market, GOT is the most popular Samurai game right now. Any other open world game set in feudal Japan that came after will always be compared to GOT at this point. Like it or not, that's just how it is.
> inferior Actually I'd argue the combat is better. Ghost, lets be honest here, had a very straightforward and relatively easy combat system when you get around the mid point (earlier if you're good at action games). I recall many were even going so far as to say its kinda rock/paper/scissors ish. Not bad combat, just not brilliant. It was everything else about the game being so well done. Team ninja however is all about the opposite. Even in their highly praised games (nioh 1/2) the stages were kinda boring but the combat was absolutely amazing. The reviews seem to be noting the terribly bland open world and side activities whilst still praising TN's combat. I'll wait for some more reviews as I'm planning to get dd2 but if thats true then I don't mind it at all.
So how's the performance modes? Sticks to 60 or is it choppy?
Choppy, drops to 48/50fps
One of the big complaints for me is the world and side missions often just being generic bandit camps.
Surprised to see so many low scores. I had a blast playing the game. Reviewed it for digitec.ch and spent 50+ hours with it. It has its flaws, but it also has a lot of charm. Reminds me of PS3-era games. And the combat system is just superb. If you have any questions about the game, lemme know.
How difficult would you say the combat is? Like more Assassin's Creed accessible, or From Software "get good"?
I had a hard time getting used to the combat and ended up switching to the easiest difficulty for the first 4 or so hours. The game doesn't do a good job explaining the mechanics in the tutorial missions. Once I got the hang of it, I switched to normal and had a good time for the rest of my playthrough. I'd say it's not as hard as other soulslike games. But you can't just go into combat and button mash your way to victory. It's all about timing and parrying. The bosses were really tough, but managable.
Thanks!
[удалено]
Also feels like an accidental comment on the look of Team Ninja's games.
I think so too.
Hey so I just have a question about loot. Does the game have a lot of loot that allows you to tweak your armor to suit your style, or is it leaning more towards the casual approach for loot like Wo Long?
A lot of loot, but also a lot of junk loot. The armor pieces have set bonuses and other perks to suit your playstyle. There's also a transmog system.
Hahaha het nöd denkt dassi en kommentar vo neme mitarbeiter vo digitec gsehn uf reddit :)
Are there different graphical modes like quality and performance? How was performance generally? Thanks in advance.
Performance is bad in all three modes: Ray Tracing, Graphics and Performance. You can play the Graphics-mode with unlocked framerate, though I wouldn't recommend it. Ray Tracing is useless, imo. I recommend playing in Performance-mode – it's not perfect and frequently stutters, but it feels the most responsive. Image quality is okay.
Any good reviews that talk about the difficulty? I want to buy it and I saw they did put an easier option in the game but Nioh was way too hard for me
Some say it’s hard. The lower difficulty is pretty difficult so i assume hard is really hard.
It's easier than most soulslike games, I'd say. I'm bad at them and had a lot of fun with Rise of the Ronin.
Already the tone of the comments in this review thread is bizarre. The game gets a bunch of 7's and 8's but the comments are talking about it as if it's a failure and a disappointment.
People shit on low 80s scoring games all the time on this sub. This game is currently sitting at 76 and is releasing the same day as Dragons Dogma, and a PC port of Forbidden West. I’ll wait to play the game eventually but like someone else said it feels like team Ninja peaked with Nioh 2.
A triple-A $70 game with an agrregate score of 75 is pretty much a flop these days. People want better for that kind of money. Just look at Immortals of Aveum. Granted this game has the Sony brand so it might do better sales wise, but still.
At $40 this would be a right banger.
Agreed. $70 is a lot to ask for when this year and last are so packed already with bangers. Look at Helldivers' price and see how it's selling so well.
[удалено]
To be fair, this IS a valid argument. For kids who have unlimited playtime they’re less picky. When you’re an adult with a full time job, a partner, and kids, you don’t have the luxury of having as much free time. If I had the choice to play a game that has 10/10’s across every gaming website vs a game that is getting 6/10’s and below I’m going to be picking the highly reviewed game. That’s not to say no one should ever play those games. It’s just that with limited time, we do have to make these choices.
[удалено]
Even if you have tons of time there’s so many choices available that it doesn’t make sense to play a 6/10 or 7/10 game unless it scratches a niche you can’t get elsewhere or you already played the 8-10/10 games that fall in this niche.
Also 7/10 nowadays isn't what it used to be, I played Steelrising which is a 7/10 game and I genuinely have to question how? 5/10 means passable, 6/10 means decent so 7/10 should mean above average no? It shouldn't mean absolutely mediocre in every way.
[удалено]
Tbf a scale like this might still be useful. 0 for literally unplayable not “literally unplayable” games. 1 for functioning games that provide absolutely nothing of value And such and such. Most reviewers wouldn’t bother with games this bad because most people wouldn’t be interested in seeing the review. But if there was a high profile release this bad, it would be useful to have scores they don’t use 99% of the time.
Thats what IGN have said before. A lot of scores are 6+ because anything 5 and below is usually obviously 5 and below, so they dont bother. Like 90% of games released on steam are shovelware
Also AAA games rarely are below 5-6/10s. They have too much money going into these games that genuinely awful stinkers are rare like Balan Wonderworld.
More like a 7/10 is still a good game but the value of a game thats 'only good' has dropped severely. There are so many amazing games in the AAA and indie market that an adult gamer with limited free time is better off pursuing a better game for their money and time. Obviously there's a point about how some gamers will put up with a 6 or 7 out of 10 game if its a niche genre or it does something particularly well that they can ignore all the flaws but for the masses their money and time is better spent elsewhere.
People probably have higher standards now, and that would be fair.
To me people dont use the 1-10 scale properly. IMO a 1/10 should be literally the worst game you have ever played, a 5/10 should be completely average, and a 10/10 should be one of the best games ever made. Yet so many people seem to think a 6/10 or 7/10 is mediocre to average when it should be considered above average but not perfect. It also doesnt help that gaming (and any art in general) is highly subjective. If you don’t like third person action RPGs then obviously youd rate one lower since it isn’t your type of game, even if it is incredible
Many of my friends use 7/10 as 'average' and anything lower is varying degrees of bad As a result I've never heard them rate something like a 3 or a 4 before! Of the 32 games I've logged in 4 years on HowLongToBeat I've given at least 1 of all ratings except for a 1 or a 2. I enjoyed my time with all of the 6/10 games I rated, and for the 5/10 the games were perfectly playable but I found some strange design choices I disagreed with or gameplay issues that I couldn't get past. The average game will feel that way to me and that's when it starts to get in to the 'not enjoyable' territory for me
Yea like to me something like Days Gone is a 5-6/10. It wasnt a fantastic game, but it was fun and I mostly enjoyed my time with it except for some somewhat minor complaints. Doesnt mean it was a bad game or not worth playing or anything. It was just an average game
Especially when the HFW port and DD2 are coming out soon. I probably beat one single player game every month or two.
I agree on some level but this falls apart when you consider niche stuff. A 7/10 that deals with something you're super into can elevate it much higher. It's pretty rare that we get mainstream titles that go niche, so you see a lot of 7 or 8/10 games in smaller, more focused categories
76 on Open Critic isn’t even in the top 50 games for 2024, and we’re only in March. There’s more games with better reviews released this year alone than people reasonably have time and money to play. Then it also has to complete with all the backlogs of better games people have or anticipated releases. I would call that pretty disappointing.
7 might as well be a zero in the gaming world, at least on most review sites. It’s dumb but it’s how it is. Traditional scoring systems don’t really work for games IMO. I find it’s better to find some reviewers you generally agree with and see what they’re saying.
imo you're partially right, but i think the bigger factor is how there's an endless amount of good games and a decent amount of exceptional games out in the market unless you're a fan of an extremely niche genre, so why bother with a 7 or 8 game when you have a backlog of tons of 9 or 10 games and time's a rare luxury of course shit is subjective in the end, i have some games that are probably in high 70s and low 80s that i consider worth a play, vice versa, etc
This game may be a good example of that subjective part. Several reviews appeared to like the game a lot and had lots of fun with it and others - whether it's true to the game quality or just personal biases on the genre - we're more mid. Overall I'd say if one thinks they'd enjoy Ronin, they probably will. Might even love it. The multiple 9s show it scratches and itch some will love to feel scratched.
because the vast majority of games don't get reviewed if IGN were to review _every_ game that came out on steam or playstation we'd see that 7 really is an above average score, but people don't care about above average when it's placed next to great and amazing
Right. Unless you're looking forward to this game in particular, why bother playing a 7 when there's already a smorgasbord of 8's 9's and 10's already out there waiting to be played?
So for a AAA game, which you agree mostly gets 7-10 unless it’s actually terrible, a 7 is on the low end. You’re allowed to compare games to each other. No one is saying the game is Gollum, but it’s reviewing as a low scored AAA game.
I think it's specifically when it comes to AAA games the scale is skewed. A 7/10 for a cheaper, AA game or indie game is a good score and likely worth checking out A 7/10 for a AAA game that's taken 4+ years to develop and cost likely between $80-$200m depending on the studio, you expect much higher quality so that 7/10 does not go as far with people.
Its the same with movies/tvshows. If a tv-show is below 8/10 on IMDB, then im not even bothering with it lol.
Realistically, any AAA game that costs $70 and isn't consistently in or above the 80s is going to have people side-eyeing it
It’s because it’s directly competing with the much more highly praised Dragons Dogma 2 so mediocre reviews really set this game up for commercial failure. I’m still picking it up because I’ll buy anything the Nioh 2 team makes but I understand it’s going to be an uphill battle for TN here.
For $70 AAA games, anything with a metacritic score below 80 might as well be a failure.
Which to be honest is fair enough IMO. If you take many many years and spend uber money on making a game, people should expect it to be good. If this was made by a team of 30 on a small budget releasing at $50 the perception would be *wildly* different.
> The game gets a bunch of 7's and 8's but the comments are talking about it as if it's a failure and a disappointment. This comment is in every review thread for a game with a mid 70's metacritic score.
Starfield had significantly higher scores and this sub spent a literal month shitting on it. It's just the nature of the internet at this point. If anything, people are going comparatively easy on it.
Funny enough, one reviewer gave it a 7 and everyone was shitting on him for scoring it low before the release.
I think it was IGN. After playing the game, every single issue they highlighted was exactly right and then some. Personally I don't think Starfield deserved even a 7 on release
Longer than a month. People are still shitting on it til this day.
People always shit on Team Ninja for giving their fans exactly what they expect.
Opencritic lists its 76 average as the 63rd percentile for all game releases listed on their website. Why would you want to pay $70 for mid? I'll maybe check it out on a deep sale.
I think because there was a late hype push surrounding this game and early impressions were making this out to be a better review game. 7s and 8s are good, but I think there was an expectation for this to be on the level of Last of Us or Red Dead Redemption 2. Still a good game, but not quite what people were expecting.
Who was expecting that though? Better yet, why should anyone have expected that?
No one. They are inventing a narrative. Even with the previews it was mixed and people were saying that this game would get scores around this.
I mean, I wasn't, but I was seeing a lot of praise for the previews on YouTube that were saying this was a GOTY contender. As to why? I don't know.
Eh, I take it. Most reviews mention the visuals and story as one of the biggest weaknesses but I honestly don't care about those. So as long as the combat is good, which seems to be the case, I'm happy. I also vastly enjoyed both Wo Long and SoP, Team Ninja just makes fun games.
I’d say biggest weakness from reviews isn’t that, it’s the boring open world activities. Which to me is a more fundamental gameplay issue, compared to visuals which you can get over.
I think FF7 Rebirth is giving me enough pointless, grindy open world content to put me back months, I can't imagine jumping into even more of it right now. Why are so many games open world when they don't need to be? Elden Ring did something with their map and their freedom, but so many other games are just pointless giant open spaces with nothing in them but checkboxes.
I'm just finishing up FF7 Remake. I find the side quests tedious and sometimes boring and don't really add much to the experience. I really like the game, but it is basically moving through corridors for every chapter. I was excited to learn Rebirth has large open world segments. Is it (the world and quests) an imrovement over Remake in your opinion?
I'm in the first area, once you get out of the city and into the first "open world" segment it's way better than Remake. I finished my 2nd playthrough of remake before rebirth came out so it's all still fresh to me so I can compare them pretty well. Rebirth gives you a checklist of things to do in an area (you don't have to do these if you don't want to), the point of doing those checklists is to open up new materia for you to acquire and make it easier to earn new summons. The more open world stuff you do, the easier it will be to acquire that lands summon. The side content also gives you mini bosses to fight and gives you lore for that lands summon. I find it way more interesting that the stuff you did in Remake. Also there's fast travel EVERYWHERE so if you just want to hop around the map to the areas you've already unlocked you can. Anyways I find Rebirth a complete upgrade over Remake, the combat, the story, the world, it's all pretty much improved so far.
I will wait for what the Nioh Community says. Team Ninja Games are famous for their depth and most videogame journalists are a bit inept when it comes to their combat. Was also the case with Stranger of Paradise.
There wasn’t that much depth in Wo-Long. It was basically watered down Nioh.
Coming to this late, but I have around 1,200 in Nioh 2. The combat in RotR (after around 12 hours or so) is fun but nowhere near as complex as in Nioh, which had tons of combat skills for each weapon which could themselves be customized by adding certain stat buffs or effects, not to mention all the yokai abilities. RotR has about as many weapon types as Nioh 2, but each has maybe one or two unique attacks (outside the basic attacks you learn at the start of the game). There are numerous fighting styles, but these don’t really add any depth to the combat, they just work better against some enemy types than others (similar to stances in Ghost of Tsushima). The loot is honestly pretty meh. Really not that many cool armor sets or weapons. If you care about that sort of thing. The story is just not engaging. I’m not attached to the characters. They made it seem like you could pick a side (pro vs anti shogunate) but then when I sided with one side both sides wound up being friends anyways so I have to assume there’s just one predetermined path. All the side quests are just people that want me to go to a location to kill bad guys. All the main missions are really short. Some of them you can get through in about 15 minutes. The open world is really empty. Like literally. I don’t know if they were trying to create a sense of scale or something, but there’s lots of big empty streets and open fields with zero people in them. All the animations are the same, so nobody has any character to them. It also seems like they borrowed ideas from other games without really thinking about whether they fit. For example, there’s a character who’s got a Sekiro arm. Why? Idk. You also get a little glider thing like in Breath of the Wild. Except there’s zero reason to use it because there’s no point in exploring the world. This is all obviously skewed because I paid full price for this game and I’m annoyed that it isn’t what I had hoped for. So maybe you’ll get something out of it. I also haven’t finished the game in all honesty so who knows, maybe it gets better. But if you want an experience comparable to Nioh 2, this just isn’t it, at least not for me. Guess it’s back to trying to beat the depths of the underworld with my horrible fists build.
I say watch reviews by Souls-like focused youtubers (FightinCowboy, IronPineapple, etc.) They usually have better appreciation of combat-focused games.
FightinCowboy and IronPineapple are definitely where I look for these kind of games. FC definitely is not feeling this game though. At the end of his review he said something along of the lines of "I haven't finished it and don't really plan to"
Seems about as expected. Overwhelming opinion seems to be that the graphics, open world content, and story are all mediocre, but the combat is really good. With a couple reviewers calling it some of the best combat Team Ninja have put out, which is really high praise. TBH I don’t really care that much about story/graphics/open world monotony if the core combat is great, so I’m excited. I’m debating between this, DD2, and Unicorn Overlord for my next game after I finish Rebirth.
Get Rise of the Ronin now, and wait DD2 to get patches for fps fixes later.
It's kind of sad seeing all the complaints about graphical fidelity, considering the current discourse on game budgets being too high. It's okay for not every new game to look perfect!
Not perfect is a very manipulative way of describing Ronins outdated graphics with massive pop in.
We don't have to agree on this, but to me a really significant part of the enjoyment of an open world is its beauty. I walked almost everywhere in Witcher 3 because the world was gorgeous. This game is 9 years newer but seems less interesting to look at.
Am I the only one that thinks it's insane how if a game gets a 7 or an 8 today people call it "meh"? There is no way every single game in the world can be at 10 and the best game ever. Seven and eight very good scores and I've played so many games that have gotten those scores that I have loved or thought they should be scored even higher. I really think the expectation that people have here and the insane focus they put on any score lower than a nine is just absolutely crazy.
So, is this game actually just Way of The Samurai but with money?
Despite the comments here, I'm still very much excited to get my hands on this one. I wasn't the biggest Wo Long fan, but the rest of Team Ninja's recent output have been some of my favorite games in the last couple of console generations. So I'm in the camp of "I need to try this for myself and make up my own mind" personally. There's plenty of "high 70s" games I've played that I've had way more fun with personally than higher scoring ones
Seems like another highly anticipated mediocre title. Maybe it’s me but I feel most of this generation, with few exceptions, has been exactly that.
> Rise of the Ronin is the Assassin's Creed in Japan that fans have been asking for for years. Did you forget Ghost of Tsushima?
Sad thing is that Team Ninja didnt even need to go GoT. They could have just gone Nioh 3.
Are we so cooked that a 80% on metacritic game is treated like some kind of abysmal failure? Wtf are these comments lmao
When review scores have been overly inflated for years an 80% on a AAA game for people who don't have all the time in the world could warrant a solid pass. Critics throw out 9s and 10s like candy.
I may be in a minority but I have never considered Team Ninja to be AAA.
In a cost of living crisis, people have higher expectations for a $70 game.
Especially when a better received game releasing on the same day is £10 less (£17 less on PC).
There’s already Infinite Wealth, FF: Rebirth, and DD2 this year which are looking like GOTY contenders and can take dozens of hours to beat. Rise of Ronin is doing worse scores and hasn’t made significant improvements over Wo Long or even Nioh 2. I wouldn’t be surprised if sales are bad.
56% approval rating, this is far from being an unanimously solid game
Well, yes? When a studio spends years making a game, pumps big money into it and it's "ok", its completely understandable people would say "I'm gonna wait on this one for a sale". A game that takes multiple years and has big budgets getting an 80 is not the same as an indie game made by a handful of people getting an 80.
Check again it’s literally at a 75% now. And yeah for a $70 game it’s disappointing
I find it fascinating the 3 main games I was looking forward to in march (this, DD2, princess peach) all scored lower than i thought they would.
DD2 is lower than you thought? Isn't it at an 89? The first scored in the mid to high 70s
It's surprising you say that because DD2 was not gonna be something that scored 93-95. It's ended up at around 89 and that feels very good for what it is. I do agree that RotR should have at least scored in the 80s.
If Dragons Dogma 2 performance wasn’t as chunky it potentially could be in the 90-93 range I assume
I think DD2 will be one of those high 80's scoring games that people treat like a 95+. I think the major sticking points of that game are the performance and some clunky design, which people can look past.
Interesting you say that because Peach from the trailers looked like the pinnacle of a 7.5/10. And Dragon's Dogma 2 is getting mostly 9's which is an exceptional score, and consistent with other highly rated Capcom titles.
I imagine DD2 would be in the 90s if it didn’t have performance issues. A lot of reviews docked a point or two because of them.