Edge Magazine Review Scores: Issue #414 — Donkey Kong Bananza, Killing Floor 3, Ninja Gaiden: Ragebound, RoboCop: Rogue City & More

Thick Thighs Save Lives

NeoGAF's Physical Games Advocate Extraordinaire
k82ohE0.png


REVIEWS:
  • Donkey Kong Bananza - 9
  • Eriksholm: The Stolen Dream - 7
  • The Drifter - 7
  • Killing Floor 3 - 6
  • Ninja Gaiden: Ragebound - 6
  • RoboCop: Rogue City - Unfinished Business - 6
  • Tales Of The Shire: A Lord Of The Rings Game - 6
  • The Wandering Village - 6
  • Wuchang: Fallen Feathers - 6
  • Shadow Labyrinth - 5
  • Wheel World - 5

Source - Messofanego from the purple forum.
 
Last edited:
Killing Floor 3 better than Ninja Gaiden Ragebound, how?
Whoops, I've made a typo there. The score should be 6 instead of 5. Going to fix that rn.

Also, here are the reviews from EDGE for both games:

Ninja Gaiden: Ragebound
"And while it's hard to grumble about shades of grey in any story, we're not quite sure this is place for it. Similar could be said for the katana-and-kunai action platform game our duo must fight through, where modernising additions detract from a core arcade-like purity. It's complicated, in short, in ways it needn't be.
...
Because, outside of boss battles, hypercharge often feels like an idea that doesn't quite gel with everything else. It appears as a somewhat contrived curiosity when it's introduced in Kenji's training level, and never quite convinces us that it isn't.
...
As your enemies continue to storm in, their linear patterns combining to increasingly devious effect, Ragebound is most entertaining when you're reacting rather than thinking, parsing the identity of each sprite and adjusting course instinctively. Yet too often there's a thin film of strategy wrapped around it that's more restrictive than refreshing, and as complexity stacks with the intricacy of the stage design, a cluttered control system struggles to keep up - accidentally grabbing walls in tight spots is a problem. Time-limited sequences created for Kumori to tackle alone in spirit form, meanwhile, follow a rote cycle of die, memorise, repeat.

There is still plenty to like. The pixel art and simulated chip music find that sweet spot of feeling 16bit while being so much more. The pace remains quick, enemies are varied, and long platform levels are punctuated by breezy chases. In other words, Ragebound sparkles when it doesn't over-egg the pudding, confusing additional layers for mechanical depth. And we remain convinced that, whichever clan they're from, the best ninjas work alone." [6]
Killing Floor 3
"Many of the newest tweaks, meanwhile, don't add up to very much. A narrative system that has you selecting specific levels to complete simple story objectives doesn't conjure that kind of playing-against-the-design chaos that a similar system does in Fortnite, largely because the scope of the game and the scale of the maps are so much smaller here. It's too easy to abandon it completely and simply live with the narrative pop-up lurking forever on the UI. A new hub, meanwhile, adds a burst of toybox XCOM flair with its VTOL that whisks you off to each match, but there's little reason to actually spend time in this space, and it can feel a bit like a menu that's simply had walking added to it.

Throw in a few low-level technical glitches, occasional stuttering, the rare enemy frozen in a T-pose in a doorway - and it's hard not to feel underwhelmed. A decent match will still offer a thrill, and sometimes a brisk laugh - mid-level monsters, their legs blasted away, will swipe comically at you from the floor and provide easy targets. But with eight maps and three final bosses in the current release, you'll probably feel that you've seen most of what's on offer within four or five hours. To put a more positive spin on things, multiplayer game design is a wave-based proposition in and of itself nowadays. There are decent bones here. Hopefully the designers are rushing to their own upgrade shop, and will return with something special." [6]
 
Last edited:
I don't understand the review for Donkey Kong. The game looks artistically very boring. It's also supposed to be very easy.
 
Last edited:
I don't understand the review for Donkey Kong. The game looks artistically very boring. It's also supposed to be very easy.

Largely agree, even though I have put 30h into the game in the first week or two. It's enjoyable but a bit boring and disorienting. I have the drive to complete it and find as many bananas on the way as I can, but I can't picture myself going back to complete everything.

The art of the worlds is Rare tier bland, but the character design and animation is undeniably the finest I have ever seen in a cartoony game.
 
Do people still put stock in Edge reviews? Genuine question. Is it still a physical product or just an online thing now?

Last time I read this publication was decades ago at this stage. I'm sure my nostalgia for the magazine would color any honest appraisal I would have for its modern incarnation.
 
Largely agree, even though I have put 30h into the game in the first week or two. It's enjoyable but a bit boring and disorienting. I have the drive to complete it and find as many bananas on the way as I can, but I can't picture myself going back to complete everything.

The art of the worlds is Rare tier bland, but the character design and animation is undeniably the finest I have ever seen in a cartoony game.
I saw a review by a German YouTuber, who's a huge Nintendo fan. He criticized it for not being a true platformer and for being too easy. The world design is often uninspired. But that's immediately noticeable after just a few glances.
 
I don't understand the review for Donkey Kong. The game looks artistically very boring. It's also supposed to be very easy.
LOL

The game is fantastic , it controls like a dream, is addictive and loads of fun.
By all accounts it gets hard in the 2nd half.
I suggest you try it, understanding a review of something you don't have a clue about, have never played is not a great idea tbh.
 
Last edited:
sHojSrWN1Iowz3tI.jpg

this doesn`t look incredible and and there are more things like that.

Dude i agree with you. I tried donkey kong bananza at a friend's house and it was braindead easy and boring. If you make a game so easy that I essentially never die then what's the point? Face rolling through a game isn't fun, and the smashing gimmick gets old after like an hr because it's the same things time infinity.



Nintendo games used to have some sort of difficulty to them, but nowadays they've dumbed down alot of them to the point they've become too damn easy which makes them not fun to play because there's almost 0 challenge throughout the entire game.
 
Last edited:
Based on the demo at least, NG Ragebound feels a lot better than a damn 6, BUT their reviews are always at least well argued and articulated. Most reviews now barely spend time really breaking down gameplay systems and balancing etc. so I respect that shit. Doesn't matter if I agree.
 
I don't understand the review for Donkey Kong. The game looks artistically very boring. It's also supposed to be very easy.
It's a great game. There are a LOT of Nintendo haters who try to marginalize all their games. That "too easy" is a marginalization talking point from Nintendo haters. The game is just right. It isn't surprising at all that is is scoring much higher than most games.

On open critic it has a 92 average with 99% critics recommending and a 100 player rating. On metacritic it has a 91 average after 132 reviews. There is not a SINGLE professional(not user) review below 8/10 currently on metacritic. The user rating on metacritic is 9.1 which is abnormally high. On Amazon it has a 4.8 after 372 reviews. This metadata tells a story to those who monitor it regularly. Others will write it off as meaningless. Others are wrong.

And now on edge who gives everything a 6, this game gets a 9. The likely largest reviewer in the world IGN gave it a 10/10. Gamespot the historical but perhaps not current runner up gave it a 9/10. These scores reflect some technical performance issues so the game itself would actually be better(have scored higher) if the hardware had been able to run it perfectly. That speaks volumes for a game that has technical issues to rise this high in the metadata. The metadata is so good for this that inevitably conspiracy theories will form around how it got so good. People will claim Nintendo paid for these reviews and is keeping it secret(lol they aren't and they did not). The metadata is so good people can't believe it isn't cheating. Your reaction falls into this category.

These are just the beginnings of the accolades(I expect a goty nom at TGA unless Nintendo releases a better game before the cutoff). I struggle to understand myself how someone could get to the stage of having an account here and not already know this info, but I'm not upset, just curious. You seem concerned. You can play the game and find out for yourself. I promise you the reviewers aren't all lying to you, lol.
 
Last edited:
It's a great game. There are a LOT of Nintendo haters who try to marginalize all their games. That "too easy" is a marginalization talking point from Nintendo haters. The game is just right. It isn't surprising at all that is is scoring much higher than most games.

On open critic it has a 92 average with 99% critics recommending and a 100 player rating. On metacritic it has a 91 average after 132 reviews. There is not a SINGLE professional(not user) review below 8/10 currently on metacritic. The user rating on metacritic is 9.1 which is abnormally high. On Amazon it has a 4.8 after 372 reviews. This metadata tells a story to those who monitor it regularly. Others will write it off as meaningless. Others are wrong.

And now on edge who gives everything a 6, this game gets a 9. The likely largest reviewer in the world IGN gave it a 10/10. Gamespot the historical but perhaps not current runner up gave it a 9/10. These scores reflect some technical performance issues so the game itself would actually be better(have scored higher) if the hardware had been able to run it perfectly. That speaks volumes for a game that has technical issues to rise this high in the metadata. The metadata is so good for this that inevitably conspiracy theories will form around how it got so good. People will claim Nintendo paid for these reviews and is keeping it secret(lol they aren't and they did not). The metadata is so good people can't believe it isn't cheating. Your reaction falls into this category.

These are just the beginnings of the accolades(I expect a goty nom at TGA unless Nintendo releases a better game before the cutoff). I struggle to understand myself how someone could get to the stage of having an account here and not already know this info, but I'm not upset, just curious. You seem concerned. You can play the game and find out for yourself. I promise you the reviewers aren't all lying to you, lol.
And what good are numbers to me when I can judge for myself? And I don't go by numbers, but by my impression. A lot of games get hated here that have a score above 90%. Of course, criticism isn't allowed with Nintendo. That's the first rule. Otherwise, you'll be defamed. But I don't care - the game is an artistic failure.
 
I must admit, I was highly sceptical about The Game Kitchen developing a new Ninja Gaiden, but 6 seems highly questionable.
Just got the issue today, going to read the review and ascertain their beef.
 
Top Bottom