Well I disagree.
I loved the shit out of NG (Black specifically). If you were to consider what makes these kinds of games great, it all comes down to thin lines. The thin line between challenging and cheap. From good - deliberate design to something that just doesn't belong. Ninja's throwing projectiles off-camera, well - it's okay, because NG had a somewhat decent idea of telegraphing attacks off-camera, so the line between fair and unfair wasn't crossed. Especially considering it was really the only enemy that did this. This line, however - was crossed in NG2 because seemingly every fucking enemy either threw shit at you, or lunged at you off camera. And the idea of telegraphing attacks through auditory means was seemingly lost in the sequal.
But ultimately, it was when I realized that not one boss fight in NG2 was fun. From the stupid electric worm in the subway to the dual exploding turtles. Whereas, the first boss fight in NG (Murai was it?) was better than anything in NG2.
NG2 was a lot closer to being a good game than DMC2 was sure, but both just kind of "didn't get it." And I think it's through that analogy which is what I meant. DMC4 - while not as good as DMC3/DMC3SE - in design was demonstrative of the good aspects of DMC3. You can -tell- that the same guys that made 4, made 3. The problem with DMC4 was really the content reuse. And the fact that they implemented Dante, in Nero's world. The levels and enemies were designed with Nero in mind, not Dante. This isn't so much a gameplay mechanic error, more of a judgement error. They should have never put Dante as a playable character in DMC4. But - DMC4 had all the elements, great bosses (seriously, Credo ranks up there with Vergil fights from (DMC3) and Nero Angelo fights from (DMC1).
Also, being challenging doesn't automatically make a good action game. It's challenge needs to work in an environment that supports that challenge. The only time NG2's challenged "worked" was when you were fighting regular foot ninjas. But beyond that, everything just crumbled under the games own design. From a technical perspective (i.e, framerate) or design (i.e, level design, enemy design, boss design)
The only one thing they took from NG1 and improved on was how Ryu's combat and movements worked. Despite my feelings that DMC1/3 are the better action games, I still say that no character (not even Bayonetta) plays and moves as fluidly and responsively as Ryu. But the problem is - most of the shit he was killing through most of the game be it enemies or bosses were just poorly designed.
Ultimately and obviously, I'd agree that Ninja Gaiden 2 is better than DMC2, but I think in sake of analogies, I stick by saying the reasons why DMC2 faltered was because the design team didn't get what made DMC1 so great, and the same could be said for NG2. Those lines that NG1 didn't cross, NG2 did.
Anyway, Dahbomb, we've had these discussions for the past 4 - 5 years LOL, there is really no point in going further in with it.
