Started playing Sigma 2. Little things make such a difference.

#11SpiritRoverPosted 12/12/2012 8:18:35 PM
^You should press forward and finish the game on Mentor and MN, my friend. Yeah, I can tell you're going to find yourself wanting to put the original NG:II back in... but try to persevere until it's over. This way, you really will appreciate the truth about how these two games measure up against one another in the eyes of many of the most hardcore NG veteran gamers that played both versions.


Basically, what Hayashi did was port over NG:II's Acolyte to the PS3 hardware. I say this because of the low enemy numbers on all NGS2 difficulty settings. The only time NGS2 and NG:II have the same enemy count per encounter is on each game's Path of the Acolyte setting. When you play NG:II on Warrior, Mentor, and MN paths, the enemy numbers increase overall and spawns are more varied as you go up. In NGS2?? Not so.


After that, then Hayashi tinkered quite a bit with enemy spawns, tinkered a lot with all damage ratios (to offset the reduced enemy count and artificially extend game length), RUINED the upgrade system, and slowed the overall speed & pace of the game down to a noticeable degree. That's not to mention how stupid it was to remove the ninpo indicator on the NGS2 HUD and butcher dismemberment from in-game cutscenes.


The only thing I like about NGS2 was how the jellyfish were removed. Aside from so many other things I could hammer it for, it's NGS2's artificial and unbalanced difficulty (i.e. every setting is stupid easy up until you get to MN's OHKO's) and reduced number of enemies to decimate that really do affect its longevity. That's in spite of it being a shell of what was a great action game in its own right. The game should have been better than NG:II, but its just so boring and doesn't have anywhere near the same atmosphere, imho. That feral tenacity just isn't there.


I could go on and on destroying NGS2 for the things that I do not like about it. But the game is still a heavily altered version of NG:II, which is still "passable" solely for that reason alone. That 2008 NG:II gameplay engine is awesome, in spite of Hayashi. But I'd rather play the less tameable beast that Hayashi never shot with a tranquilizer gun. NGS2 was a hint of how the guy would do on his own and NG3 serves as proof.


The areas that needed fine tuning in NG:II were straight forward. Hayashi did surgery with a chainsaw instead of a scalpel on a patient that wasn't really sick.
#12gamingdutchmanPosted 12/13/2012 5:52:57 AM
As always, very eloquently put SpiritRover. I never thought about the acolyte port part. It makes perfect sense though. So in essence, a PS3's divided RAM can only handle that amount of enemies simultaneously?

The feral tenacity present in NG2, someone mentioned earlier, goes as far as the programming itself. Since the 360 is pushed to the max. That kind of determination is rare these days in videogameland.

I pushed myself in beating MNM just to see all the differences. I never bothered in completing It again. On NG2, I beat MNM many times and still have fun doing it.

I agree that Hayashi was trying to make the game more as NGB/S. The Tengu fight is a good example. The insane amount of health on IS ninjas, etc. What kills the fun completely is the repetetiveness and OHKO's. IMO, it's the worst of two great worlds. But NGS2 at least was an acceptable game.
---
If you always do what you always did, you'll always get what you always got.
#13Garhinder(Topic Creator)Posted 12/13/2012 10:56:05 PM(edited)
Thanks for your post, SpiritRover. That was insightful.

I'm actually playing Mentor right now. But everything you mentioned makes perfect sense from what I've played. I'll finish MNM later, but i'll do it bit by bit, I'm playing other things too.

It still baffles me, how many good scores Sigma 2 got, and overall good criticism. I guess people just can't stand a challenge.
#14MurphysGhostPosted 12/14/2012 7:30:09 AM
^ Partly, yes, some critics probably (unfortunately) gave it high marks for being 'more accessible' (easier) than NG2.

Less enemies, much less projectiles, etc.


On the other hand, as a reviewer I wouldn't assume that everyone has both systems. If you only have a ps3 and like action games, I would highly recommend NGS2. IMO it's not as good as the 360 version, but still one of the best action games available for ps3.
---
"The act of treachery is an art, but the traitor himself is a piece of ****." - Mike Tyson
#15provettPosted 12/14/2012 10:11:09 AM
MurphysGhost posted...
On the other hand, as a reviewer


Do you work as a reviewer? Or do reviews articles/videos?
---
Best Buy sucks so bad, I have to Sig it!
The customer service were stupid & they lied. Don't Buy from Best Buy
#16MurphysGhostPosted 12/14/2012 10:36:41 AM(edited)
^ Nope.


Just trying to put myself into that perspective, is where I'm coming from with that comment.


---
"The act of treachery is an art, but the traitor himself is a piece of ****." - Mike Tyson
#17Garhinder(Topic Creator)Posted 12/14/2012 5:34:08 PM
Well, yeah. When the "biggest" thing you have in the PS3 as far as action games are concerned, is God of War 3... yeah. Sigma 2 is gold. Bayonetta would be my go-to action game if I didn't have a 360 to be honest.