In my view that makes your article about it 90% less interesting. So you like being self-indulgent, but you can’t appreciate that from a game, and then you want to write about it. Ok, cool, or whatever. I thought it was a game that tried to be special in its own way, and succeeded about 90%. The journey was…

90% of it? Wow, I don’t agree at all. And I find that view very surprising on the end of an ostensibly praise-filled revisitation. If the graphics are the only part of the game you connected with, I think there's a lot that flew over your head.

That’s weird that you only think 10% of the game is worth keeping. So, just the aesthetic? You want Mario Paint: Okami?

90%? We were obviously playing different games. In my opinion, that’s what’s lacking in most of todays games...meat and depth. They're far to short and with the exception of a few outliers, they have no respect for the player. They're far to easy.

you are wrong.

There is nothing deeply or fatally flawed about Okami. Just because it had poor sales doesn’t mean its fans or the critics were wrong about it. I don’t really understand the criticism given here about the progression mechanics, either, or why someone felt the need to write a hit piece against a beloved 10-year-old…