IGN: Ninja Gaiden Sigma 2 Review

IGN Writes: Minor complaints aside, Ninja Gaiden Sigma 2 is an immensely satisfying action game. If you enjoy a good challenge it offers plenty of content to keep you happy. Beating the game will take a few days, but mastering the escalating difficulty levels could take weeks, or in my case, many months of enjoyable practice.

The story is too old to be commented.
shocky163219d ago

The 360 version got a 8.7 from IGN.

chaosatom3219d ago (Edited 3219d ago )

look at this.

New version vs Old version
Presentation 8.0 vs 8.0
Graphics 8.0 vs 9.0
Sound 8.0 vs 8.0
Gameplay 8.5 vs 9.0
Lasting Appeal 8.5 vs 8.5

And I thought gameplay is the same, but I guess they were looking for new stuff.

Homicide3219d ago

"The first Ninja Gaiden Sigma was an excellent upgrade to one of the best action games ever created. Ninja Gaiden Sigma 2 suffers from two problems, the first being that Ninja Gaiden 2 was a lesser game than the original. The second problem is that the additions just don't improve upon the original experience in any significant way. The playable women are pretty, but their missions are short. The multiplayer is a great idea, but ultimately not conducive to Ninja Gaiden's style of combat. And lastly, for a game that is based completely around brutal violence and life or death confrontation, removing the blood was a bad idea."

Looks like the new content isn't all that great.

Rock Bottom3219d ago

The one year old enhanced port is still averaging at higher score than Halo:ODST...

raztad3219d ago (Edited 3219d ago )


That just comes to show they overscored the xbox version. With all the complains they have, 8.4 sounds fair but then how can the inferior version score better than the superior?. Pretty stupid if you ask me and shows that there is not consistence across reviews/reviewers.

Talking about inconsistencies, its nice to see UC2 as the visual benchmark, it deserves it, but will that benchmark applied only to PS3 exclusive games? cause I dont understand how ODST got a 9/10, I guess it got pretty damn awesome visuals, UC2 close.

shocky163219d ago (Edited 3219d ago )

I guess no matter how hard you try to polish it, a turd will always be a turd.

EDIT: I guess saying turd is harsh, it's just that NG2 was no where near as good as Black so in a way Sigma 1 is still the superior game to Sigma 2.

Simon_Brezhnev3219d ago (Edited 3219d ago )

i wish i could see a timed ps3 game go to 360 just to see how IGN score it


i dont agree since 360 supposely a next gen console and suppose 2 be competition its right 2 compare the games

SnuggleBandit3219d ago (Edited 3219d ago )


ya and somehow halo:odst got a nine for graphics lmao


hmm i guess that could explain why uncharted 2 got a 9.5/10.....if it was 360 exclusive it would have been like a 15/10 haha

calis3219d ago

jesus christ, how dumb are you people.

SIGMA 2 is not scored against NG2 on the xbox, it is scored AGAINST other PS3 GAMES

Far out, it is not that damn difficult.

PopEmUp3219d ago

you meant a turd that also on the 360? :P

Lifendz3219d ago

The Bioshock effect will kick in. This is where a port of a year plus old game is released for full price with the justification of improved visuals and exclusive content. While that stuff is nice, it's not enough to compete with games like Uncharted 2, Modern Warfare 2, etc.

Perfect price for this would've been 39.99 to 49.99. It's almost an impulse purchase at that point. But no matter, it'll be that price in a few months.

Serjikal_Strike3219d ago

For any ps3 only owner....i played the demo and personaly think it deserves at least a 9...

getting my copy next tuesday...let the NGS2 trophy hunting begin!

morganfell3219d ago (Edited 3219d ago )

The game is supposed to be scored against a set of standards that exist regardless of other games. However, IGN like many other sites with a motivation score games based on the master of the moment.

If games were scored against other titles then Bioshock would have gotten a 3 for no co-op and no multiplayer when it first appeared. Wait, you can only downgrade Bioshock one it appeared on the PS3.

For all the criticism of Gamespot during the Gerstmann firing, IGN is no better.

Dragun6193219d ago (Edited 3219d ago )

I Agree with Calis, PS3 games are rated against the quality of other PS3 games and not their Xbox360 counterparts. Besides its still a good game.
But I shall wait til Ninja Gaiden Sigma 2 gets a $30 price tag.

For now, I must save my money for Demon's Souls Deluxe Edition and Uncharted 2!

calis3219d ago


i dont agree since 360 supposely a next gen console and suppose 2 be competition its right 2 compare the games "

Wii is a next gen console (regardless if you consider it or not, it is), if the reviews are done how you say then the graphics on a Wii game would never go above 7 but they do, because the standards are set against other Wii games.

calis3219d ago (Edited 3219d ago )

"The game is supposed to be scored against a set of standards that exist regardless of other games. However, IGN like many other sites with a motivation score games based on the master of the moment."


Games are scored against games on that console. It's how IGN do it, email them and ask.
Regardless of your short sighted view, IGN works that way and it is a fair and comparable way.


morgan - I said you have a short sighted view. And you do, you are also unbelievably arrogant as you think your way is the correct way.

IGN absolutely do not compare games across consoles, my Wii comparison proves that as does their previous comments on the subject. You can ignore it all you want and live in your paranoid delusional world, you are nothing but a fanboy and a very annoying one, but it's the way reviews work.

@socrates - I know.

morganfell3219d ago

No you are wrong. IGN themselves have stated in reviews what they use as a guide and it isn't other games on the platform. Look at the GTA IV review where they state why they award a 10. It is based on genre not platform. So you are wrong indeed.

Then again you can't read. I never stated what IGN uses. I stated what should be used. Such a reference has no regard to any site. So twice in one remark you are wrong.

Socrates3219d ago

Exactly. It makes perfect sense why IGN and other sites do it that way. Don't mind morganfell, he is just another one of the tinfoil hat-wearing fanboys who think the entire world is in a plot against Sony.

SiteNblog Defender3219d ago

And that expansion is getting better scores than the majority of PS3 exclusives.

-EvoAnubis-3219d ago

Actually, morganfell, you're wrong. This exact question was answered on GameScoop about 2 and a half months ago or so. They rate games in comparison to genre, yes, but also against other games on the platform in question.

GameGambits3219d ago

I thought they would end up being dead even to be honest.

Take into account when Ninja Gaiden 2 came out for 360 it was labeled as an exclusive. It had less stellar games at the time to be compared against. It also came out a good time for a release.

Sigma 2 is now an enhanced version of what a reviewer would already be familiar with, thus not as blown away by what happens. Since NG2 came out plenty of monster games have come out on both consoles, and more are on their way. Plus NG2 is now coming out with Uncharted 2 right around the corner(in the reviewers hands I bet in his spare time), and you've got Tokyo Game Show on the brain with buzz. They added new content, upped the resolution, took out the blood, and took out the shock and awe factor when it was just on 360 and first released.

It was to be expected to me for both to be very similar. Obviously if you haven't played NG2, then the better version for a new comer to get IS the PS3 version, UNLESS you really need the blood which is the staple of Ninja Gaiden(one of them anyway).

All in all people going flame war crazy in here need to focus on bigger fish to fry, because honestly this game is a rental for most and it was on 360 as well. If you want tons of blood and over the top violence grab God of War or Gears of War...they will satisfy your thirst.

Rock Bottom3219d ago

Umm... lets see:

Is 84 greater than?

WipEout HD Fury 89
Demon's Souls 90
MLB 09: The Show 90
Killzone 2 91
Uncharted 2 (100+100+95)/3


Well, at least it's greater than every 2009 360 exclusive, except for shadow complex.

Ravage273219d ago's a PS3-exclusive's not named Halo Gaiden Sigma 2's not a 360-exclusive doesn't have a faceless astronaut in it
5.IGN reviewing staff has completely lost it

blind-reaper3219d ago (Edited 3219d ago )

It is still a 1 year old game with a $60 price tag WTF did you expect a 9??? I think it is pretty fair. I might add that I loved Sigma so I am buying this one when it reaches $40 or less, right now my money is on Uncharted 2.

swiftshot933219d ago (Edited 3219d ago )

Great to see a nice, clean debate here for once. I think the topic of reviews of ports are interesting, but ultimately I think that the reviews of these games should be on the merit of the game alone ignoring previous versions, as long as they werent on the same console.

Bathyj3219d ago

So what you're saying is, going by the logic being put forward here, games are ranked compared to other games on the platform, not similar (or same) games on other consoles.

And apparently even though many sites will pretend both console are equal in power (be it theoretical or not) they are quite happy to measure PS3 games by a higher yardstick than Xbox, meaning a PS3 title has to show of more to get a 9 than an XB title does.

Lets extend this logic to multiplats.
This means a multiplat could be EXACTLY the same on both consoles. Frame rate, poly count, resolution, everything. Then it will automatically get a lower score on PS3 because according to those here, the PS3 version is judged against a higher standard. They're saying therefore, its good for an XBox game, but PS3 should be better because PS3 can do more.

I think you guys are actually right, I think this is how they think.
And its crap. Its wrong. The finished product is what should be judged, not the baggage someone carries for the console. PS3 and XB360 are in the same generation of hardware. They are direct competitors. You're telling me because PS3 is more advanced hardware it actually get marked down?

If 2 identical steaks are put before me, both juicy and delicious. One was cooked by a diner short order cook, one cooked by a 5 star chef, I dont mark down the one the chef cooked because he should have been able to do something better. I dont mark up the Diner cook because thats a really good effort for you guy. All I care about is how good the steak is and they get equal marks for equal quality.

SiteNblog Defender3219d ago

Heavenly Sword
Gran Turismo 5 Prologue

Just to name a couple.

prowiew3219d ago

Ninja gaiden 1 is one of my favorite games of all times, but the sequel, meh. Didnt like it a bit.

Socrates3219d ago


Except PS3 games don't have a higher standard to live up to. You guys act so arrogant.

What this is, is that Sigma is a year old port that doesn't have anything too significant (according to the review) to distinguish it from the original. And yes, it is also going to be compared to games like Uncharted 2, because they are coming out around the same time. But this doesn't mean the PS3 has a higher standard of games in general.

ThanatosDMC3219d ago

They took out the blood?! WTF???

SnuggleBandit3219d ago

@ blindreaper

go read his post and tell me what game you think of?
Halo perhaps? same engine, same gameplay...two year old game basically

Does anyone think that Uncharted 2 deserves a 9.5 and halo Odst deserves a 9.0...look at the amount of improvement between the two games. And the amount of content (let alone the quality)is much greater in Uncharted 2 and that warrants a .5 difference?

Bottom line: Reviews are written by people trying to make money. Think about it.(this goes for both sides of the fence)

Rock Bottom3219d ago (Edited 3219d ago )

Do you seriously want me to start naming 360 exclusive with scores lower than 84? =)

Also, I find it ironic that in order to defend Halo:ODST(which is 360's biggest exclusive in 09) you're comparing it with two years old PS3 exclusives. :p

Bathyj3219d ago (Edited 3219d ago )

I'm not arrogant, I was responding to what was said here.

And yes its a year old port, but its a year old IMPROVED port. Tell me one logical reason why an improved version of the same thing should get a lower score?

And so what if its a one year old game. If you havent played it before, its brand new. I keep hearing that if you didnt have all the maps from Halo 3, then HaloOD is a really good deal. What, is that not true anymore?

Poopface the 2nd3219d ago (Edited 3219d ago )

It is based on a 1+ year old game. Sure they added and improved things, but a majority of the content in the game is based around a game that is over a year old.

That said, Im a huge NG fan and I will be buying this version too even though I have owned ever NG game yet, including 2.

^^^above. The reason taht an improved year old port may get a lower score is just taht, its a year old. Believe it or not alot of people play on more than one system. And any game on any system loses some luster if a another version came out a year earlier, regardless of the improvements.

for example- On IGN, HL 2 on PC got a 9.7. The orange box for PC got a 9.5. Even though the orange box had alot of additions(portal, ep. 2) a majority of the content was old( hl 2, ep. 1, and TF2).

Also it may be someone different reviewing it. Alot of reviews for NG2 and sigma 2 will complain about the difficulty. Maybe the original reviewer of NG 2 embraced the difficulty more than the reviewer of sigma 2.

Im going to get it anyways, cause Ive owned ever NG game, and will enjoy this one.

Also-- regardless of what they compare it to ps3 game, 360 games whatever. The videogame industry keeps moving forward, and an improved year old port, is still a year old.

VVV-- hahahah guy below, NG 2/sigma doesnt suck. If you think it sucks why do you care what it got? 8.4 is far from sucking for an improved port of an old game.

cmrbe3219d ago

I never knew that IGN rate PS3 games to other PS3 games. I guess this is why the rating standards are set higher for PS3 games. However i agree with Morgan and Bathyj. It is not right to do this.

In essence what IGN is doing then is punish PS3 devs for developing on the PS3. Why should PS3 devs efforts should be scored lower compare to comparative efforts of x360 devs?. Wouldn't this mean that we are right all along that x360 games get a free pass from the media and in this case IGN?.

Morganfell is right. There should be standards. Its the only way for people to have confidence in these rating systems. If not then people will wonder how many points reviwers deduct because its a PS3 game.

As for NGS. I never had much faith in it because the NG2 is just crap.

I did not murder him3219d ago (Edited 3219d ago )

That's because not every anti Sony website is trying to review NG2S so that they can lower its score.

Anti Halo/MSFT people conditioned the media about Halo Odst saying it's only a expansion of Halo 3 which at first was true! and in many ways still is when it comes to *Game Engine* and *story arc* but when the devs went ahead and developed a full game instead all the anti Halo brainwashing remained and was used as an excuse to lower its score lol

DaTruth3219d ago (Edited 3219d ago )

That's great! That means that whenever 360 fanboys throw review scores and metacritic at PS3 owners, we can say; "But that is a 360 9/10 which is like a PS3 7/10".

No 360 game is a AAA game by PS3 standards!

I'm glad we cleared that up!

Bathyj3219d ago

Thats right DA Truth

Both versions of GTAIV has a meta score of 98.

Now this is not neccessarily my opinion, but going by the monkey logic in here if they scored the same it must be a better game on PS3 because if they were actually equal the PS3 version would have been marked down having been judged again the higher yardstick. By that rational, the fact the scores are the same mean PS3's version is better.

Thats right isn't it? I mean thats what they're saying, XB games get judged against XB hardware standard and PS3 likewise. If I'm wrong, wont someone please tell me.

Just be sure to bring logic as well as passion.


well what do you guys expect.

....they fvckedup itagaki's dream.

taking out blood and replacing it with a purple mist.

they rewrote the damn thing, ryu was a lone dog and they messed it up by putting people in there that had nothing to with the original story.

it would be no different if someone took out the blood in MGS or Gears and started putting in extra characters. (altering it's original history)

DaTruth3219d ago (Edited 3219d ago )

Seriously, I'm okay with Uncharted 2 getting a 9 for graphics, if the standard is Crysis, But if Halo:ODST gets a 9, Uncharted 2 gets a 9.5 and Crysis gets a 10, that's a pretty strange grade curve there!

They should have an HD console standard by which they rate graphics! Because we say; "Those graphics are awesome.... for a console", but nobody says; "Those graphics are awesome.... for the 360, but for the PS3 they're meh".

Will Forza get a 10 and GT5 get a ten and Mariokart Wii get a ten in graphics! 360 fanboys will say; "See teh graphics are teh same", but Wii fanboys will not say something so stupid!

@MGSR THE SUB HD VERSION KOJIMA HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH AND DISOWNS: I see your point there, that could definitely make the scoring difference, but the content and lasting appeal should be bumped up. But I'm not arguing this score, it could be justified for all I know.

jack_burt0n3219d ago

Only one problem with this friendly debate is this will b the only review to get heat!?

Come on today there was a really good accurate review posted and 4 actual gamers (multiconsole too) posted their appreciation LOL we should be used to ps3 games getting panned by now for the stupidest of reasons dont give it heat.

Prototype3219d ago

Who cares, still Day 1 for me

CrazzyMan3219d ago (Edited 3219d ago )

Especially, since NG2 there were not much slashers released.

New version vs Old version

Graphics 8.0 vs 9.0
So.. true HD resolution and no framerate drops after 1 year does not justifies a 9???

Gameplay 8.5 vs 9.0
So gameplay with Fixed camera became only worse? WTF?

Come on, this is CLEAR bias.

I just can`t justify such high scores for Halo ODST.
Unless you are halo fanboy, which there are around 10 mln. in the world.. i don`t know, how anyone can rate it above 8.
I lost all my trust in reviews. Latest ODST reviews are clearly biased.

I mean come on, 6 hours great side story of Halo 3, but that`s it. And it get what? 9???
Some expansion pack is having more value for a gamer, than games like Killzone 2 or Infamous?????

The ODST is the last straw. It`s official, you need to remove 1-2 points from x360 exclusives and add 1-2 points to ps3 exclusives to get the real score.

I did not murder him3219d ago (Edited 3219d ago )

Hitting Rock Bottom because of a game review? So you post some crybaby ass attack on Halo? Halo sells millions and pushes hardware I wouldn't mention that game.

Wah Wah Wah...

IdleLeeSiuLung3219d ago

So a bunch of you fanbois (you know who you are or go into the ODST review thread and compare here) complained about how Halo 3: ODST was an old game and didn't deserve an 8-9 rating. Mind you a score lower than its sibling, yet the very same people complain about how NG Sigma 2 got a lower score than NG2. The game adds some new content, but virtually unchanged game play with a little graphics boost over a year later.

Seems like a fair review to me. Although, personally I'm a Ninja Gaiden fan and do feel that taking away the blood partially ruins this game. Yet I would still score it higher, but I'm a biased fan of NG!!!

Traveler3219d ago

I'm a huge fan of the PS3 and I absolutely love Uncharted 2, but I am starting to really get sick of people hating on Halo 3 ODST. Why do we gamers have to be such fanboys?

calis3219d ago

"I think you guys are actually right, I think this is how they think.
And its crap. Its wrong. The finished product is what should be judged, not the baggage someone carries for the console. PS3 and XB360 are in the same generation of hardware. They are direct competitors. You're telling me because PS3 is more advanced hardware it actually get marked down?"

The finished product should be reviewed against what can be produced.
I mean, if you compare a 2009 Honda to a 2009 Ferrari, they are in this generation of hardware but the Ferrari is going to run/look/perform better.

And the PS3 version isn't being marked down, this is where the assumption fails, it is simply being marked against other PS3 versions where it doesn't stand up against the likes of Uncharted/Killzone etc, thus why it is getting a 'lower' score.

Rock Bottom3219d ago

1- You can't hit rock bottom if you're already at rock bottom.
2- Where did I heard that before?
3- Wii play sells more, does that mean it's better?
4- About your previous post: You're the last one here who should talk about brainwashing.

Anyway, sorry for showing my fanboy side, I tend to do that whenever I'm in a bad mood/needs some sleep. =(

I did not murder him3219d ago (Edited 3219d ago )

Eh ehe eheh e heh wah wah Haaayyylo halo

7ero H3LL3219d ago (Edited 3219d ago )

you know i think the ninja gaiden series is now going to hit the trash.

no help from itagaki, or a version of his game to reck.

we can all expect the next NG game to have lots of purple mist flying around and have lots of new characters that you know nothing about that either help or hurt you.

lovestruck063219d ago

i dont understand it makes complete sense what your saying i cant wrap my mind around why people can actually disagree with that. like come on are you that whipped by microsoft that you cant see the logic. like how can an amzing high quality game(uncharted 2 get the same or less score as a expansion with sub hd, sun par, regurgetaed game(halo 3 odst). like honestly. sony fan boys arent imagining that theyres a conspiracy against sony there is its plain and simple with examples like halo 3 odst getting a 9 then uncharted 2 getting a nine simple minded people actually think it means theyre equal games. gamers, fanboys all compare 360 vs ps3, so it gets confusing when game reviewers dont. is that frickin hard to understand.

oh yeah i did not murder him ur a tool u shouldnt be allowed to comment on this site. microsofts got a choke chain around ur neck. halo sells millions and pushes consoles cuz just means theyres still alotta stupid people out they that havent realized that ur creating a vicious cycle and you as xbox fans are feeding microsofts greed. its fine stick with a brand that rules the gaming world with deep pockets. bribing developers that once where exclusive to the ps brand before xbox even existed ( splintercell conviction) gta 5 dlc. all that money in bribing has to come back some how and it does by screwing u gamers over by paying 200 dollars 120gb hdd when u can buy a 1000gb hdd for the ps3, or 100 dollar wirelese add on 40 dollar play and charge kit or frickin batteries, rather than just find usb camera chord for the ps3 like 5 bucks. 76 dollar headsets. it makes me sick.hd dvd add on that is instinct but who cares lets support them anyways they have galo and they still exclusives from sony and bribe game developers to make games better on theyre console (multiplats)hah exclusives we all know who wins that. charges you for online almost forgot about all pay for microsofts bs somehow i for one am not paying for it again.

microsoft really grinds my gears they represent everything thats sh*tty with the gaming world today. maybe this will open your eyes microsoft is = to politicians......aslong as the 360 exist and microsofts bribery multiplat games will never look as good as uncharted 2, god of war 3, gt5 and so on in the same year of course. i wish sony had every exclusive i for sure would love to play gta 6 that fills a 50gb blu ray disc, rather than 9gb cuz of the 360...alotta game developers seem to cater to microsoft cuz they can make sub par games a 360 fans will eat them up. less work for them and just as much money for them if not more if u count the bribes shame, shame.......what rant you xbots really pissed me off this time disagreeing with someone that is abviously a million smarter than urselves. can anyone say phantom disagrees......

Jamegohanssj53219d ago

This is bs honestly. This game shouldn't have gotten anything below a damn 9.0.

I don't care as it's still my GOTY. I mean the GOTY.


mastiffchild3218d ago

Doesn't make sense that they seem to have knocked points off even though the removal of the(frankly OTT and distracting gore)blood and fixing of the camera cannot help but have made the game better.

I also think it's a bit better looking so to see they feel the 360 game was better graphically makes little sense. Oh, well, just a puzzling review and, imo, as it hasn'tbeen on PS3 before should have been reviewed on it's own merits anyway rather than in the confusing semi comparison to the 360 game(which he fails to emtnion anything about except the bits he liked)-just not a very good review for me.

dreamcast3218d ago

WTF, this is a great score. You guys are trippin'.

Christopher3218d ago

Why don't they review multiplatform games on all consoles (PC, 360, PS3)? They don't, they review one of the console versions and put that score out for all consoles.

That right there disproves that they score based on console.

They can't take a single multiplayer game, play it on the 360, score it the same across all platforms, and consider that equal across all. They'd have to play it on each console and score them individually.

I get what you guys are trying to say, but the logic just doesn't work out at all. There are obviously going to be comparisons between a version of the game on one console versus another, especially a year after the original release on one console. If you honestly believe that they don't or shouldn't take into consideration the original game in reviewing the port, then you're not really getting it.

Furthermore, it doesn't matter if they did or didn't, fanboys will still use these damn numbers to prove their idiotic bias.

poopface13218d ago

the splinter cell series started on the original xbox, it was never exclusive to the PS. PS stole it from xbox.

lephunk3218d ago

and NG2 got 8.7 on Xbox and 8.4 on PS3... would that mean the scoring curve is higher on the PS3?

usually when the curve is higher, that means the overall quality is higher...

so what IGN is trying to say is that PS3 has higher quality games overall... and all this time we thought you were biased...

Samsonite! man we were WAY off!

jib3218d ago (Edited 3218d ago )

here we go again. conspiracy theories and people b1tching about reviews

chill out. 8.4 is a good score

Alcon Caper3218d ago

"The second problem is that the additions just don't improve upon the original experience in any significant way. The playable women are pretty, but their missions are short. The multiplayer is a great idea, but ultimately not conducive to Ninja Gaiden's style of combat. And lastly, for a game that is based completely around brutal violence and life or death confrontation, removing the blood was a bad idea."

+ Show (58) more repliesLast reply 3218d ago
Stationfan3219d ago

isnt the ps3 version supposed to be a better more polished version, im confused.

shocky163219d ago

But not enough content to justify buying it for $60 if you already own the 360 version, however if you haven't played the 360 version then this is definitely a worthwhile purchase.

labaronx3219d ago

which was the main reason for porting it.....

The Great Melon3219d ago

Regardless of the values of the scores, you could say that even though the graphics are improved, the graphics are a year old now. There are better things out now that deserve the higher scores. Reviews are only an accurate (I wish) picture of the product WHEN it is released. Looking at reviews for 4 year old games may have high graphics marks, but bar has been raised and that score is no longer as meaningful.

Chubear3219d ago

That's some bull.

Ok, how come IGN didn't scrap off marks for the Wii version of RE4 that came out years after the PS2 version and literally did nothing but add waggle controls?

Oh please, if it's not more and more glaringly obvious sites like IGN are just playing the community like a violin then you're hopeless. Ain no way in hell a version of a game comes out a year later with more features and better graphics and framerate and gets marks deducted for that fact alone. That's BS.

Gawd, ever industry MS enters they soil to the core.

SaberEdge3219d ago

Chubear, you're delusional. Seriously, go get some help.

DaTruth3218d ago

But Halo:ODST still gets a nine for graphics, with 3yr old graphics. Why does one year with one years worth of graphical upgrades, ruin it!

You would be hard pressed to find any 360 games that have better graphics than 3 yrs ago!

The Great Melon3218d ago

I know there are some flaws with that statement. Some things get hyped up a little, but looking at Ninja Gaiden's score I see nothing really wrong with it when I look at the game. Haven't seen ODST yet, but you are probably right that the graphics marks were too high. That's why I said I wish in my comment above. Comparing just Ninja Gaiden 2 to Sigma 2 the review feels about right, except for gameplay.