It looks like 2025 is the «Year of the Ninja.» Assassin’s Creed: Shadows was one of the big hits of the year’s first half, a new Shinobi game is on the way, and Ninja Gaiden fans are being treated to a full trilogy: Ninja Gaiden 2 Black, released in January, Ninja Gaiden 4, arriving later this year and Ninja Gaiden: Ragebound, arriving Thursday. However, based on my experience, you might want to skip this installment: It’s charming but far from satisfying.

Ninja Gaiden Ragebound is a 2D side-scrolling action game that pays tribute to the original NES Ninja Gaiden trilogy. While the retro graphics are appealing, the gameplay lacks meaningful depth. It feels like a concept-first project where ninjas were added after the fact, with the Ninja Gaiden name slapped on to sell it.

Interestingly, Ragebound acts as a side-story to the original NES title. Ryu Hayabusa learns of his father’s death in America and leaves his village, setting up the events of the first game. In his absence, fellow ninja Kenji Muzo stays behind to protect the village. Soon after, a demon army invades. Meanwhile, Kumori, a ninja from the rival Black Spider clan, finds her home base under siege as well. Captured, Kumori tells Kenji to use a mystical dagger to bind her spirit to him.

This dual-character mechanic is Ragebound’s central hook. Players control Kenji, who uses a sword, while Kumori aids in spirit form by throwing shurikens. Occasionally, she can take physical form to reach areas Kenji can’t access. As the duo progresses, they unlock a powerful screen-clearing magic attack.

As clever as that sounds, it falls flat in execution. Kenji’s sword is his only consistent weapon, and Kumori’s shurikens are tied to a meter that only fills when Kenji lands hits. At full charge, you might get a dozen throws before it empties again. There’s a jump-based guillotine attack that feels vaguely Sonic the Hedgehog-like, bouncing off enemies, but it’s mostly used for platforming rather than combat. The moveset is shallow, as are the level designs.

Stages feel repetitive, filled with endless waves of weak enemies that die in one hit. Occasionally, one drops a power-up that lets you instantly kill a larger foe, but these moments don’t change the core loop that repeats again and again until you reach a boss.

To the game’s credit, boss fights are a highlight. Each has distinct patterns and grows more complex in its second phase. These encounters forced me to be more tactical with dodges and attacks, and a few required multiple attempts due to overcommitting or mistiming. But these fights are the only part of Ragebound that feels like it was designed with care.

The regular enemies are mindless and mostly exist to knock you into pits, which cause instant death. Otherwise, they’re laughably easy. With healing talismans and generous checkpoint placement, it’s difficult to actually die. In fact, with Kenji’s dodge ability, you can run past most of the level without engaging. You’ll be healed at the next checkpoint anyway.

Levels are set in various regions of Japan, and while one stage on a building under construction offers a bit of variety, most environments lack creativity or challenge.

The difficulty is also a huge departure from Ninja Gaiden’s legacy. The original NES games were notoriously punishing, and the Xbox reboots were even harder. Here, the default difficulty feels like «baby mode.» You can tweak settings to remove healing items or increase enemy damage, but that’s about it.

The 2D pixel art is from developer The Game Kitchen, known for the Blasphemous series. The style echoes the NES and SNES era nicely, but the charm fades fast. Unlike Blasphemous, which featured unique enemy designs and animations that oozed personality, Ragebound’s enemies feel lazy. They just run toward you, then pop like water balloons when defeated.

With six to eight hours of gameplay at a price tag of $25, I cannot recommend Ninja Gaiden: Ragebound. It lacks anything of interest other than this side story to the original Ninja Gaiden game, and even then, it’s just introducing different ninjas that are fighting monsters. This game was supposed to be a love letter to the original trilogy, but instead, it’s more like a bad photocopy of a love letter made by someone who didn’t seem to care that much. 

Ninja Gaiden: Ragebound is available for PC, Switch, PS4, PS5, Xbox One and Xbox Series consoles.

Depending on who you ask, texting is either an easy way to keep in touch or an overbearing item on an ever-growing to-do list. What’s convenient for one person may be a burden to another, which can cause strains on some relationships. 

So, how long can someone go without texting you back before they end up on the friendship chopping block? Not very long, if you ask me. 

It might come across as harsh, but I believe healthy relationships are sustained by timely communication, instead of consistently leaving someone on Read or Delivered for a week. It becomes practically impossible to coordinate hangouts or share life updates if someone can’t bother to respond to your messages within a reasonable window, or otherwise call you if that’s how they prefer to chat. 

Friends who take days to reply — if they ever do — come off as indifferent and uninterested, especially when they don’t arrange alternative ways to catch up. You might start to wonder how much they actually value your time and effort, and why they don’t prioritize communicating with you. Repeated offenses can make it tempting to throw in the towel and invest your energy elsewhere.  

How long can you go without texting someone back?

I’ll first acknowledge my personal bias here: I have always enjoyed texting. It’s been my preferred method of communication since I got my first phone at 13 years old and discovered the magic of talking to my friends anytime, anywhere. 

It’s no coincidence that some of my closest friends tend to be people with whom I regularly text. There’s a sense of familiarity that comes from sharing your day-to-day experiences and thoughts. It’s also a fun way to engage in banter and share relatable memes and videos.

And before I upset anyone — if I haven’t already — I’ll again acknowledge that for some people, texting isn’t enjoyable. But I still think people have a responsibility to communicate clearly and frequently with loved ones if they hope to maintain those relationships, whether it’s a text, phone call or in-person meetup.  

So, what’s an acceptable window of time for someone to text you back? 

Despite how unaccommodating I may come off in that frank introduction, I do like to give people chances. If someone takes days to reply to me the first time, or simply never gets back to me, I let it go. But if it happens again, that’s a strike. I believe you should always text someone back within a 24-hour period — notwithstanding special circumstances like travel or illness, etc. 

Repeatedly taking several days to reply is not only inconsiderate, it also just kills the vibe. Why do I care if you laughed at a meme I sent you five days ago? At that point, I won’t even remember what I reached out to you about. And if I’m asking you about going to an event and you only respond after it’s over, that unlocks a whole other level of annoyance. 

I believe the time and effort you invest in friendships includes replying to texts within a reasonable period (as long as your friend isn’t bombarding your inbox, of course). So if someone continuously takes days to reply, I take it as my sign to stop trying, and to put that energy into the friends who won’t leave me waiting.

A more personal way to stay in touch

As a teenager, my friends and I would text each other around the clock, sending a steady stream of messages and photos about anything and everything, most of it totally inconsequential. (Being young and unemployed made this all the easier.)

But as we got older and busier, and as social media began eating up our free time, text messages were largely supplanted by posting and consuming content on platforms like Facebook and Instagram. Our digital activity became less personal, more performative and less conducive to maintaining relationships. Social media gives the false impression of keeping up with someone without actually talking to them, so relationships tend to fracture.

Most people have witnessed the awkwardness of someone not replying to your text for days, but ceaselessly posting on social media. Time and energy goes into both activities, and choosing to bypass personal interactions for more public-facing ones can prevent you from feeling a genuine connection to the people who care to reach out to you. Taking 30 seconds to reply to a text could be the difference between making and breaking a meaningful relationship. 

While phone calls and in-person meetups are undoubtedly the best ways to have an in-depth conversation with someone, finding a time that works for both parties can be a challenge, given how increasingly hectic our lives have become. Texting can be a comparatively low-lift way to build a true sense of camaraderie and connection.

So, the next time you think it’s not a big deal to leave someone on Read or Delivered, maybe reconsider what your actions (or lack thereof) may convey.