Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

http://www.metacritic.com/game/playstation-4/mighty-no-9

So, after all of the hype, all of the drama and all of the ups and downs of this game's development, we have a finished, playable product. That is flat, bland and not fun. Even though I didn't back this, this situation really upsets me because I fear it is going to set back Kickstarter games a good ways.

Sounds like a creator too afraid to step away from his classic that he can no longer make anything that interesting.

I cant watch the video at work. But I have seen snippet of game here and there and it looked like classic megaman. Isn't that what folks wanted out of this?

lonestarr777 wrote:
I cant watch the video at work. But I have seen snippet of game here and there and it looked like classic megaman. Isn't that what folks wanted out of this?

Well, for one the presentation is astoundingly bad. Despite its budget of several million dollars, and a couple of years worth of development time, it looks and runs poorly. It has graphics more suited to the ps1 era of gaming, yet somehow still lags and chugs despite this.

Couple that with gameplay that removes the challenge (the regular gun, against the bosses, is the fastest and easiest way to win), removes the Mega Man feel (weapons don't feel fun, most are worthless) and pacing, and you've got something that nobody wanted.

Well, that's certianly dissapointing. Sounds like they completely missed their mark with this project.

I guess megaman really is dead, sad day.

The reviews I have seen have been very "meh". More like Mighty No. 5 out of 10 amiright?


I'll see myself out.

Inafune gets surreal... http://www.nintendolife.com/news/2016/06/even_if_itrs_not_perfect_itrs_better_than_nothing_says_mighty_no_9_creator_keiji_inafune


https://twitter.com/sonic_hedgehog/status/745311041987371008

The best thing to come from this.

Really disappointed in this. First, all the Kickstarter drama and delays, then the game is actually not great.

I'm wondering if to much time was spent on design and not enough on the technical/gameplay side.

 Ahtman wrote:
I'm wondering if to much time was spent on design and not enough on the technical/gameplay side.

Which is funny, cause the design also looks like ass.

At least Bloodstained still looks good.

 Soladrin wrote:

 Ahtman wrote:
I'm wondering if to much time was spent on design and not enough on the technical/gameplay side.

Which is funny, cause the design also looks like ass.

I was interested when pics first came out, it looked rather pretty and I figured mega man like would be cool. This steamer looks severely downgraded and to me is not that fun to play. Total let down

The biggest problem with this game is not enoug hand holding. People expected a megaman game with modern gameplay and lots of hand holding. The creator made it like an old fashion game, you figure it out or you die.

The graphics are amazing, the voices are not bad a little to.....asain based for me like ninja awesom samurai bad ass but other then that it is really fun. Atleast a 8/10

Halo is a 6/10, battlefield a 7/10 and warhammer total war 4/10

OgreChubbs wrote:
The biggest problem with this game is not enoug hand holding. People expected a megaman game with modern gameplay and lots of hand holding. The creator made it like an old fashion game, you figure it out or you die.

The graphics are amazing, the voices are not bad a little to.....asain based for me like ninja awesom samurai bad ass but other then that it is really fun. Atleast a 8/10

Halo is a 6/10, battlefield a 7/10 and warhammer total war 4/10

Er...wait, you give total war 4/10 and this 8/10? It's one thing if total war isn't your cup of tea, but value-wise total war is waaaaaay better than No.9. With No. 9 You get maybe 3-5 hours worth of play? In comparison, total war not only gives you have distinct factions with different playstyles, but easily provides over 10 hours worth of gaming, either through campaign, quick battles, etc.

OgreChubbs wrote:
The biggest problem with this game is not enoug hand holding. People expected a megaman game with modern gameplay and lots of hand holding. The creator made it like an old fashion game, you figure it out or you die.

The graphics are amazing, the voices are not bad a little to.....asain based for me like ninja awesom samurai bad ass but other then that it is really fun. Atleast a 8/10

Halo is a 6/10, battlefield a 7/10 and warhammer total war 4/10

Amazing graphics........ for the ps2 yes. It was supposed to look WAAAY better but they crapped on the graphics for some reason. Not to mention slow down which for this is super not cool. I wouldn't say it's lack of hand holding either, you're assuming everyone bashing this game has only played games for the past 5 years where hand holding is common. It's just a mediocre game at best, made worse by the fact that it has had several push backs and they seem to be giving 2 gaks for many kick-starter backers which sucks most of all since they were on the ground floor back when this was supposed to be for fans

 Grimskul wrote:

OgreChubbs wrote:
The biggest problem with this game is not enoug hand holding. People expected a megaman game with modern gameplay and lots of hand holding. The creator made it like an old fashion game, you figure it out or you die.

The graphics are amazing, the voices are not bad a little to.....asain based for me like ninja awesom samurai bad ass but other then that it is really fun. Atleast a 8/10

Halo is a 6/10, battlefield a 7/10 and warhammer total war 4/10

Er...wait, you give total war 4/10 and this 8/10? It's one thing if total war isn't your cup of tea, but value-wise total war is waaaaaay better than No.9. With No. 9 You get maybe 3-5 hours worth of play? In comparison, total war not only gives you have distinct factions with different playstyles, but easily provides over 10 hours worth of gaming, either through campaign, quick battles, etc.

Don't bother, he's a confirmed troll.

 Grimskul wrote:

OgreChubbs wrote:
The biggest problem with this game is not enoug hand holding. People expected a megaman game with modern gameplay and lots of hand holding. The creator made it like an old fashion game, you figure it out or you die.

The graphics are amazing, the voices are not bad a little to.....asain based for me like ninja awesom samurai bad ass but other then that it is really fun. Atleast a 8/10

Halo is a 6/10, battlefield a 7/10 and warhammer total war 4/10

Er...wait, you give total war 4/10 and this 8/10? It's one thing if total war isn't your cup of tea, but value-wise total war is waaaaaay better than No.9. With No. 9 You get maybe 3-5 hours worth of play? In comparison, total war not only gives you have distinct factions with different playstyles, but easily provides over 10 hours worth of gaming, either through campaign, quick battles, etc.

Total war is a let down and a graphic mess.

Quick run down, very basic town tech tree system on key with say warcraft 2 or star craft 1,

The battles are so slow and with out true fog of war the idea of ambush is lack luster at best. Oh no I am getting flanked in the next 3 to 4 minutes they will be here.

Lord/hero system that feels anything but acomplishing. Hero lvl 1 to 30 nothing feels different or better. When you start the game very little will change from hour to hour other then more area will be yours.


But to nimber 9 the graphics are exactly what I would expect from a cartoon super hero your character evolves and it is a great game on line with megaman. If they made him into a real person it would be a bad game, more realistic looking people does not make a game. The ability to pick up a remote kill a couple hours with out noticing does.

Just no..

Mighty No. 9's graphics aren't anywhere near what they've shown before. The game overall is a bland mess. The gameplay consist of running to the right with little to no variation in there.

I've seen way better looking games in the past years with cartoony art styles and they looked way better.

 The Grumpy Eldar wrote:
Just no..

Mighty No. 9's graphics aren't anywhere near what they've shown before. The game overall is a bland mess. The gameplay consist of running to the right with little to no variation in there.

I've seen way better looking games in the past years with cartoony art styles and they looked way better.

So true.

They used an outdated engine, delayed almost 20 times and the PR manager was garbage, also backers demanding their money back. Enough content to write a complete ED article, which already happened .

 curran12 wrote:



http://www.metacritic.com/game/playstation-4/mighty-no-9

So, after all of the hype, all of the drama and all of the ups and downs of this game's development, we have a finished, playable product. That is flat, bland and not fun. Even though I didn't back this, this situation really upsets me because I fear it is going to set back Kickstarter games a good ways.

There is something wrong with this post, can the intelligent people of Dakka find it??

OgreChubbs wrote:
The biggest problem with this game is not enoug hand holding. People expected a megaman game with modern gameplay and lots of hand holding. The creator made it like an old fashion game, you figure it out or you die.

Oooh, internet toughguyisms! It's been a while since I've seen the pretentious "IF YOU DON'T LIKE THE GAME YOU JUST SUCK AT IT!" argument. It's almost adorable.

Actually most of the complaints I've seen are not about its difficulty at all.

 Melissia wrote:

OgreChubbs wrote:
The biggest problem with this game is not enoug hand holding. People expected a megaman game with modern gameplay and lots of hand holding. The creator made it like an old fashion game, you figure it out or you die.

Oooh, internet toughguyisms! It's been a while since I've seen the pretentious "IF YOU DON'T LIKE THE GAME YOU JUST SUCK AT IT!" argument. It's almost adorable.

Actually most of the complaints I've seen are not about its difficulty at all.

A lot of games I enjoy are hated for their difficulty.

Zelda 2.
Castlevania 2.
Mario 2 (The Japanese one)

(I mean, SMB2:TLL has the occasional glitch, such as firebars not spawning, phasing through fireballs etc. that were not present in the original, but its still a fantastic challenge.)

SNAAAAKE wrote:
A lot of games I enjoy are hated for their difficulty.

Zelda 2.
Castlevania 2.
Mario 2 (The Japanese one)

I don't have an opinion on the latter one (not being a massive Mario fan), but...

The complaint about difficulty in Zelda 2 isn't about it being hard, it's about its lack of a curve. You are put through the second hardest part of the game almost right from the start. It's not actually about the game being overly hard in and of itself, ultimately, it's a complaint about bad game design. Oh, and the conversations in towns are completely useless because of either laziness, or bad translations ("I am error" comes to mind). If it weren't for the fact that you had to grind a ton right at the start of the game, it'd be a perfectly acceptable entry in to the Zelda franchise.

Castlevania 2 was complained about because of its gakky translation making the game nigh-impossible to figure out without an issue of Nintendo Power or the internet. The original Japanese version actually had the hints and conversations make sense, the translation did not. Castlevania 2 is not actually the hardest Castlevania game-- that's Castlevania 3 IMO. But it is the one with the most needlessly cryptic bs to deal with. Oh, and the hideously awful transition from day to night to day.

They're disliked for faulty game design rather than their difficulty.

At least with those examples there's still plenty complaints of difficulty (with the exception of maybe Mario 2) but you bring up some good points as well, I would also add that the game play in Zelda 2 is radically different from Zelda which would alienate some fans.

There's a difference between fair difficulty-- on a rather hard game like, say, Super Castlevania-- and one with utterly unfair difficulty, like say, Castlevania 2.

The best games are often relentlessly hard, but have smooth controls and aren't absurdly cryptic.

 Melissia wrote:
There's a difference between fair difficulty-- on a rather hard game like, say, Super Castlevania-- and one with utterly unfair difficulty, like say, Castlevania 2.

I agree.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Melissia wrote:
The best games are often relentlessly hard, but have smooth controls and aren't absurdly cryptic.

I disagree, I haven't found games that are relentlessly hard to be any more or less fun than games of lower difficulty.