Jun 20
By Matt Gander In Blog No Comments

Reviews of Mighty No. 9 went live earlier, a whole four days ahead of Friday’s UK multi-format launch. Usually a review embargo lifting this early is a good sign, but this is the exception – review scores are mostly mediocre, resulting in a current 58% Metacritic.

This spiritual successor to Mega Man has found few fans thus far, with GameInformer – amongst others – sharing this sentiment: “Mighty No. 9 was supposed to be the game that sated our long-starved appetite for a new Mega Man entry, but it instead just made me want to play the old games again”.

Eurogamer meanwhile wasn’t exactly smitten but did find much to enjoy, calling it “a fascinating, often slick video game” and “arguably Keiji Inafune’s best work to date”.

Maybe not a complete disaster then, but if these reviews are to go by it has certainly fallen short of potential:

7/10 – God is a Geek: “Mighty No. 9 follows the Mega Man formula to a tee, and that’s both a blessing and a curse”

6.5 – Destructoid: “Outside of the Countershade stage, where players are chasing down a sniper robot through a looping Capital building (essentially morphing the entire level into a boss fight itself), pretty much everything else gives off that been there, done that feel — whether it’s in Inafune’s own games or more recent platforms”

6.0 – GameInformer: “Games like Shovel Knight feel more like a spiritual successor than this half-baked misstep”

6/10 – Push Square: “Mighty No. 9 appears to be caught in two minds about whether it wants to make a Mega Man-style game for novices or veterans, and that indecision unfortunately prevents it from being anything close to mighty”

5.6 – IGN: “There are brief moments where its pieces come together, but even then it’s hamstrung by its visually joyless art and animation”

5.5 – PlayStation Universe: “There’s not much inherently wrong with how it plays, but it is haphazardly presented and not quite as enjoyable as it could be”

5/10 – GameSpot: “Mighty No. 9 is an inoffensively average game sprung from the memories of the past, with little to show for its position in the present”

5/10 – VideoGamer: “It has moments of quality, and long stretches of competency (although you can finish in 3-5 hours), but numerous terrible design choices and ugly presentation make it incredibly hard to play without becoming frustrated”

2.5/5 – Digital Spy: “So sad that what started with hope, excitement and nostalgia should end with disappointment for all concerned”

2.5/5 – GamesRadar: “For every idea that elicits appreciation, there’s the enforced repetition that deflates the initial buzz or a frustratingly cheap missed jump that sends you hurtling back to the start and your pad into the wall”

4/10 – The Jimquisition: “It feels cheaply presented, frustrating to play, and devoid of definitive direction”

Critics were let loose on the PC, PS4 and Xbox One versions. How it fares on PS3, Xbox 360 and Wii U remains to be seen. The PS Vita and 3DS iterations remain undated.



Published Monday 20th June 2016 by Games Asylum


About the Author
Matt Gander

Matt Gander

Matt is Games Asylum's most prolific writer, having produced a non-stop stream of articles for the site since 2001. A retro collector and bargain hunter, his knowledge has been found in the pages of tree-based publication Retro Gamer.

© 2001-2017 Games Asylum