Forums

Topic: What if Nintendo pulled a "Star Fox Zero" with Metroid?

Posts 101 to 120 of 120

Indy83

Bolt_Strike wrote:

No, you're not understanding me. I don't think it's a big deal if we can't sequence break. Sequence breaks are neat tricks, but aside from novelty or bragging rights there's not much point in it as long as there's a sense of exploration and nonlinearity.

No, I perfectly understand what you are talking about, you just don't quite have the right idea of what a sequence break is. You are misunderstanding a sequence break for a speed run, or an alternate sequence (Metroid Zero mission had no sequence breaks, only alternate sequences, its better than being completely linear like fusion or Other M, but a far cry from fusion or prime).

The vast majority of people who played super metroid sequence broke it. The vast majority of them, never realized they sequence broke, or even know about the concept of sequence breaking. They were simply using the tools available to them, to solve the problem in front of them, their own way.

Sequence breaking isnt a neat thing for bragging rights, its an organic emergent development that occurs naturally as a result of player agenecy as a side effect of having design that is more sophisticated than use missile to unlock green door, in a world with a stronger design than that of a flacid meaningles level 6 sandbox.

Bolt_Strike wrote:

Also, it's not always a matter of skill, some of the sequence breaks are exploits in glitches or level design.

You are correct is that. An astute observation. They are not a result of skill, they are a result of player agency, with and ingenuity, and having game mechanic tools that allow the player to use them. They are ALL glitch or level design exploits, if they arent, the player wouldn't be breaking a sequence, they would be following an alternate sequence, like zero mission.

This is what makes level 3/4 open world games so much more satisfying than level 5/6 sand boxes. Overcoming developer intent because they gave you the tools that are useful enough to use the power of your mind to blaze your own trail. With level 5/6 open worlds, it's so loose that it doesn't matter, its all meaningless, everything you could possibly do is completely interchangable, to the point that any differences are completely superficial and meaningless.

In metroid, sequence breaking so you have the ice beam instead of the high jump boots, completely changes the way you progress through the game.

Nintendo has not figured this out, and has been over zealously nuetering metroid with over bearing QA nazi's 'You MUST do it this way, and we must REMOVE any possibility for a player to come up with anything on their own.'

Bolt_Strike wrote:

So I think for them to bring back sequence breaking they would have to design the game around them, discouraging you from going there until you have a certain ability, but intentionally making it possible for skilled players to skip them. And that would be tricky to accomplish.

Beyond tricky, it would be nearly impossible.

Fortunately it is an innate side effect of using soft locks for game design and having sentient human beings as players, as opposed to brain dead soft locks. What they would need to do, is have the QA team find them, and then actually discuss WHETHER they should remove them, or let them be a thing, depending on whether or not it completely breaks the game, gets the player stuck so they can not finish the game, or if they can do something to make it work successfully.... Which is much easier than trying to manually create them.

Bolt_Strike wrote:

I don't think having a more complex "key that opens the door" is really a bad thing if the key is well hidden.

It is. Its the same cognitive process no matter how you disguise it. If it werent, all those indie metroidvanias would be hailed as better than super metroid. There is a reason the two metroid games unanimously hailed as the greatest of all time have the highest usage of soft lock power up design.

Bolt_Strike wrote:

Then you still have to put thought into where you're supposed to go or how to get the key.

You really don't. Particularly when how you are supposed to get a key is just yet ANOTHER barely disguised lock and key.

Oh. This beam melts ice blocks over doors. Now I go back and melt all the ice blocks I saw before. THought process over.

Oh. This ice block has a beam behind it that opens electric gates. Now I get to go back to all the electric gates I saw before... Thought process over. Its just a lock and key, that is all there is to it, no matter how you disfuise it, that will never change. You get the key, you are shown the door, there is nothing to learn, no critical thinking, no problems to solve. Just go back to the doors that correspond to the key.

Bolt_Strike wrote:

By "realistic" I mean not something as lazy as a different colored door that requires a certain weapon to open, that doesn't really make much sense and downplays the ability's qualities. I mean, instead of using the Plasma Beam to open an orange door, we should be using it to burn obstacles like ice or vines.

Now the vines are the green door. Its the same exact thing, same exact cognitive process, same exact rut all games that try and fail to be a metroid-like run into. No critical thinking, no problem solving, no player agency or creativity.

Edited on by Indy83

Indy83

Haru17

Bolt_Strike wrote:

Haru17 wrote:

Yeah, and the further towards 'linear' that scale goes the higher quality everything you encounter tends to be. Especially narratively.

Again, no. Linear games are just more consistent, not higher quality. Which is actually a double edged sword because while it does have a better guarantee of quality it also tends to be more repetitive and boring.

Linear games are the only ones that allow a journey. Open worlds take so many resources that, when the developer builds one, they stick to it. The setting becomes a story and the story becomes consistent. Stale. Moreover, because the world never changes the gameplay can't either. In Twilight Princess you go through this completely linear part of the game that has you surviving on an icy mountain one moment and snowboarding down the other side the next. In the Witcher 3 a war wages at the beginning of the game (or, rather, the two sides hold a staring contest) and goes through the end (where it is wrapped up by a 2D cutscene, but the world state never changes).

People say 'open worlds are adventurous,' 'open worlds you can explore,' but that's just not true because they're only ever one thing.

And if high quality games bore you, then boy do I have something for you: http://www.amazon.com/Ride-Hell-Retribution-Xbox-360/dp/B00BR...

Don't hate me because I'm bnahabulous.

Indy83

Haru17 wrote:

Indy83 wrote:

Okay, you're worthless. Moving on.

'Fix'd?' Wow.

Next level internet discourse.

You dont get to pull that card after being EXACTLY what you are claiming to complain about.

Actually respond to what was written, or deal with the fact that I am not going to bother having a discourse with somebody who responds to their own fictional fanboy battles in their head instead of the person they quoted.

Indy83

Bolt_Strike

Indy83 wrote:

You are correct is that. An astute observation. They are not a result of skill, they are a result of player agency, with and ingenuity, and having game mechanic tools that allow the player to use them. They are ALL glitch or level design exploits, if they arent, the player wouldn't be breaking a sequence, they would be following an alternate sequence, like zero mission.

This is what makes level 3/4 open world games so much more satisfying than level 5/6 sand boxes. Overcoming developer intent because they gave you the tools that are useful enough to use the power of your mind to blaze your own trail. With level 5/6 open worlds, it's so loose that it doesn't matter, its all meaningless, everything you could possibly do is completely interchangable, to the point that any differences are completely superficial and meaningless.

The problem is that being able to circumvent skill is that it can serve as a crutch and devalues your accomplishment. For instance, if you're bad at platforming, but you use an exploit to get through the game without jumping, do you really think you deserve to beat the game? Have you demonstrated the requisite mastery over the game's mechanics? No, you haven't.

Indy83 wrote:

In metroid, sequence breaking so you have the ice beam instead of the high jump boots, completely changes the way you progress through the game.

Circumventing the developer's intention isn't inherent to that feeling of progressing through the game differently, if they designed the game so you could get the Ice Beam when you wanted, you would still be progressing through the game differently than the intended sequence.

Indy83 wrote:

Nintendo has not figured this out, and has been over zealously nuetering metroid with over bearing QA nazi's 'You MUST do it this way, and we must REMOVE any possibility for a player to come up with anything on their own.'

Well yeah, the developers design it to be done their way, that's how game design works. The developer creates a scenario to be solved a certain way, and it's up to the player to figure it out. If the player can figure out something that the developer didn't account for, then that's bad game design because then the developer isn't teaching the player what they need to know. Player agency is powerful, yes, but when it's not reined in the player has a tendency not to overcome their weaknesses.

Indy83 wrote:

You really don't. Particularly when how you are supposed to get a key is just yet ANOTHER barely disguised lock and key.

Oh. This beam melts ice blocks over doors. Now I go back and melt all the ice blocks I saw before. THought process over.

Oh. This ice block has a beam behind it that opens electric gates. Now I get to go back to all the electric gates I saw before... Thought process over. Its just a lock and key, that is all there is to it, no matter how you disfuise it, that will never change. You get the key, you are shown the door, there is nothing to learn, no critical thinking, no problems to solve. Just go back to the doors that correspond to the key.

Now the vines are the green door. Its the same exact thing, same exact cognitive process, same exact rut all games that try and fail to be a metroid-like run into. No critical thinking, no problem solving, no player agency or creativity.

You're getting so hung up on needing to think about how to use the key that you're ignoring other areas of the game where they can test the player's problem solving skills. For one, how do you even find or obtain the key? That requires problem solving as well. Furthermore, if they want to encourage the player to be more creative, they can complicate the scenario as they go through the game. For instance, soon after you find the Plasma Beam you encounter ice walls that you can melt with it. The player learns from this that they can use the Plasma Beam to melt ice. Later on, the player can apply this knowledge to other scenarios that involve a bit more thought. Maybe in one room you can't get across a chasm and you see a stalactite frozen to the ceiling. Remembering that the Plasma Beam melts ice, the player would think to shoot the ice on the ceiling which causes the stalactite to fall and serve as a platform across the chasm. Then it's no longer a simple lock/key scenario, you're adding in basic physics to further test the player's problem solving skills.

Haru17 wrote:

Linear games are the only ones that allow a journey. Open worlds take so many resources that, when the developer builds one, they stick to it. The setting becomes a story and the story becomes consistent. Stale. Moreover, because the world never changes the gameplay can't either. In Twilight Princess you go through this completely linear part of the game that has you surviving on an icy mountain one moment and snowboarding down the other side the next. In the Witcher 3 a war wages at the beginning of the game (or, rather, the two sides hold a staring contest) and goes through the end (where it is wrapped up by a 2D cutscene, but the world state never changes).

People say 'open worlds are adventurous,' 'open worlds you can explore,' but that's just not true because they're only ever one thing.

And if high quality games bore you, then boy do I have something for you: http://www.amazon.com/Ride-Hell-Retribution-Xbox-360/dp/B00BR...

Those things aren't necessary for a high quality experience. That's just what you want.

Edited on by Bolt_Strike

Bolt_Strike

3DS Friend Code: 4725-8075-8961 | Nintendo Network ID: Bolt_Strike

RR529

I've been reading this for quite some time, and I think there's been some misunderstanding between @Indy83 & @Bolt_Strike VS @Haru17.

Bolt & Indy think certain Nintendo franchises have become too linear (to the point where they are essentially a series of hallways with only one particular way of doing things). They want these games to be "open world" in the same sense OoT or Super Metroid are (there is a certain linear progression, but with the option to experiment & find other ways to do said progress).

Haru thinks games as a whole have become too open (to the point the game's world can't be altered throughout the adventure, since any & everything has to be made available at all times), and so they need some linearity to ensure a sense of progression (maybe the big bad's doom canon should destroy a city at some point. This would mean you don't have the freedom to access a certain sidequest in the city at all times, since it would eventually be gone, but it would add to the game's narrative that the big bad is up to no good).

I think both groups want the same solution, but from different sides of the problem.

Currently Playing:
Switch - NSMBU Deluxe
PS4 - Moss

Indy83

bolt%20strike wrote:

The problem is that being able to circumvent skill is that it can serve as a crutch and devalues your accomplishment. For instance, if you're bad at platforming, but you use an exploit to get through the game without jumping, do you really think you deserve to beat the game? Have you demonstrated the requisite mastery over the game's mechanics? No, you haven't.

It can, and in that case, if you are using a cheesy exploit, you would be right. But thats not the case with super metroid, prime, or what I am talking about, its quite the opposite. People developed equal or greater skills to overcome powerups they were lacking. You should try an out of order run to see how it changes the game, and if you have the mental flexibility and the skill to pull it off.

In the specific example I was talking about, no high jump runs, it requires vastly more platforming skill, a mastery of precision wall jumping, and very clever use of the ice beam. It is a far greater accomplishment than simply using a higher jump and moving on. Thats why people keep citing super metroid as one of the greatest of all time.

bolt%20strike wrote:

Circumventing the developer's intention isn't inherent to that feeling of progressing through the game differently, if they designed the game so you could get the Ice Beam when you wanted, you would still be progressing through the game differently than the intended sequence.

It specifically is in, and only in, metroid like games, where how the player sees observes interacts and understands the world is based on their current ability set. That is not something that can be done if they made it so you can get the ice beam whenever you want. That makes it impotent, like level 6 open world sand box games. In order to make the game so open, everything you can do differently is completely interchangable, and thus becomes trivial.

bolt%20strike wrote:

Well yeah, the developers design it to be done their way, that's how game design works.

Game design isn't built on the legal system. Thank God.

It's expression, it's art, and once it leaves the authors hands.... The Author is Dead, and the Reader has been born.

Despite the macabre vocabulary, this is actually a very positive thing, and one artists at large adhere to, they make their work to be interpreted, not consumed. When asked what their intent was, they will often tell you to assume that they are dead.

The logic is fairly simple: Books are meant to be read, not written, and so the ways readers interpret them are more important and "real" than the ways writers write them. There are also the more practical facts that a lot of authors are not available or not willing to comment on their intentions, and even when they are, artists don't always make choices for reasons that make sense or are easily explained to others — or, in some cases, even to themselves.

A straight path directly down the designers intent, is not the only way to play, and is not the measure of good design. Having a design powerful enough for the player themselves to come up with their own interpretations that work, and are engaging, THATS powerful design, and once again, THATS why games like super metroid and metroid prime stay in the greatest of all times without fail.

Intentions are one thing. What was actually accomplished might be something very different. And this, this is what makes the goods, into the greats.

And in the case of Metroid, what was intended was a simple linear path hidden by what appeared to be an open world, but in fact was meant to be strictly guided by intent. What was accomplished was Legend.

bolt%20strike wrote:

The developer creates a scenario to be solved a certain way, and it's up to the player to figure it out. If the player can figure out something that the developer didn't account for, then that's bad game design because then the developer isn't teaching the player what they need to know.

Well, no, its not bad game design, one could argue lax QA. However, having a system of mechanics that is so powerful that the player can use it to fundamentally create their ownsystems and mechanics that you never foresaw, is the holy grail every designer wishes they could accomplish. Many of the greatest games of all time owe this to their success, and many of the things they are known for didnt become apparent until, during testing, someone said, hey look what I can do! And then it was incorporated into the design.

bolt%20strike wrote:

Player agency is powerful, yes, but when it's not reined in the player has a tendency not to overcome their weaknesses.

No, they learn to create their own strengths.

bolt%20strike wrote:

You're getting so hung up on needing to think about how to use the key that you're ignoring other areas of the game where they can test the player's problem solving skills. For one, how do you even find or obtain the key? That requires problem solving as well. Furthermore, if they want to encourage the player to be more creative, they can complicate the scenario as they go through the game. For instance, soon after you find the Plasma Beam you encounter ice walls that you can melt with it. The player learns from this that they can use the Plasma Beam to melt ice. Later on, the player can apply this knowledge to other scenarios that involve a bit more thought. Maybe in one room you can't get across a chasm and you see a stalactite frozen to the ceiling. Remembering that the Plasma Beam melts ice, the player would think to shoot the ice on the ceiling which causes the stalactite to fall and serve as a platform across the chasm. Then it's no longer a simple lock/key scenario, you're adding in basic physics to further test the player's problem solving skills.

Its still a lock and key scenario, now the stalactite is the lock, and the plasma beam is still the key. There is no way around this as long as you are using the design crutch/sin you are using, which is context sensitive actions.

The problem with this, is that because it is a lock and key design, a digital lock and key, and not an analog mechanic, the programmers have to manually put in an event for each case. This means that only the ice that is supposed to be a lock will ever be able to be interacted with... and none of the other ice ever responds... Making it a guess what the developer meant you to interact with akin to many failed metroidvanias and the the horrible pixel hunts in other M. THe reason why is because context sensitive events cant be established as an inherent rule of the game world, because they arent, they are event flags, digitally triggered. This is trial and error game design... WHich IS bad game design. Boring and primitive as well. Basicaly its what all modern AAAAAAAA games use for everything, which is why most games are flaming garbage today. Because everything is context sensitive events, despite having the power with even the meager wii, to have actual systemic design.

NOW. You got real close to something really cool when you brought up the plasma beam and physics.... ANd something we have the technology to do (And in fact, technology wise Nintendo technically DID do in skyward sword).

We have the processing power, for any system, to stop having that be context sensitive events, and have it become a reliable rule of how the game world works. An intrinsic analog way of interacting with the world, instead of a primitive event trigger.

We can actually have an ice material, that is melted, in real time, by the plasma beam, in a way that it melts/carves ice, "For Real" As opposed to a context sensitive action "Oh he shot it, go to the falling event".

What this means is engagement and interaction can soar to new heights. Any ice is now something the player can interact with and press their agency on.

So, knowing that they can melt any ice, the player in a particular room could in fact look up, and decide to cut ice stalactites down from the ceiling as platforms. (For Real, instead of a fake event) Another player could see that same room, and use the plasma beam to carve a stair case in the ice wall beside the platform that has the door. A third player, could carve a big ramp out of a glacier in the room, and use the boost ball to launch themselves across the room and onto the platform where the door is.

Now you are playing with power.

Edited on by Indy83

Indy83

Indy83

RR529 wrote:

I think both groups want the same solution, but from different sides of the problem.

Your observations are correct, and I am well aware of this.

However, I am the one who actually READS and bothers to try and UNDERSTAND, what other people have to say. He is the one who refuses even read what others say, and that is his problem if he refuses to read it, and refuses to respond to what people actually say.

He refused to consider any of it, and instead deficated in his hands and threw it everywhere in response.

Hes a waste of my time.

Edited on by Indy83

Indy83

Octane

Remember to play nice people. You don't have to respond to others if you don't want to, let's not get this discussion out of hand.

Back on topic! Something about Star Fox, reboots and Metroids!

Octane

SomeBitTripFan

Bolt_Strike wrote:

The problem is that being able to circumvent skill is that it can serve as a crutch and devalues your accomplishment. For instance, if you're bad at platforming, but you use an exploit to get through the game without jumping, do you really think you deserve to beat the game? Have you demonstrated the requisite mastery over the game's mechanics? No, you haven't.

You haven't mastered the intended mechanic, but you have mastered some aspect of the game. There are bugs that are more simple than the intended solution that can ruin some fun (although the player still has the option to not exploit said bugs) and others add to the skill displayed in the game. Wavedashing wasn't intentional, but added to the depth of Melee. Many sequence breaks in Super Metroid are based on skilled wall jumping, impressive shinespark manipulation, or other skillful exploitations of the game. There's a different display of skill. Devs should try to avoid simplifying exploits, of course, but the potential from others is massive. I'd like to point out the Super Mario 64 minimal A-presses community, who spend hours trying to figure out how to collect all of the stars in the game using the jump button as few times as possible. (This is a long video showing what I'm talking about: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kpk2tdsPh0A).

Bolt_Strike wrote:

Circumventing the developer's intention isn't inherent to that feeling of progressing through the game differently, if they designed the game so you could get the Ice Beam when you wanted, you would still be progressing through the game differently than the intended sequence.

It's not supposed to make you feel like you're progressing through the game differently, it's just about not locking the player on a single (or multiple) intended path(s).

Bolt_Strike wrote:

Well yeah, the developers design it to be done their way, that's how game design works. The developer creates a scenario to be solved a certain way, and it's up to the player to figure it out. If the player can figure out something that the developer didn't account for, then that's bad game design because then the developer isn't teaching the player what they need to know. Player agency is powerful, yes, but when it's not reined in the player has a tendency not to overcome their weaknesses.

This is simply not true. While some games adhere to this idea, specifically teaching and guiding a player through the entire game, it is just one structure of game design. I'd like to point toward games like Thief and Thief II (or most of the games that came out of Looking Glass Studios or Ion Storm in the late 90's and early 2000's: System Shock 2, Deus Ex, etc.) or XCOM (the original especially and the newer games to a lesser degree). Their take on game design is to create a large set of interconnected mechanics, build a believable, well designed, large, complex level and have the player use their understanding of those mechanics and the individual situation to reach some conclusion (emergent gameplay). They create a playground full of options to the player and give them enough tools to succeed as long as there is a good understanding of the game. XCOM is particularly impressive because its mechanics produce an emergent narrative, a story develops based on which soldiers live and die and whatever headcanon you've produced throughout your playthrough.

I'm failing to find good examples of the two in terms that might be more familiar to you. I was looking for an example in terms of Mario levels. The best I could find was earlier levels in the games in comparison to later levels. It seems Mario does some other things though. I find this level to be relevant to the current discussion. It's a good example of developer intent and hard-lock dominated gameplay.

I also want to mention comparing Q.U.B.E. (or Portal to a lesser degree) and Spacechem. They are perfect emblems of rigid and open game design. As puzzle games, the difference is very noticeable.

Bolt_Strike wrote:

You're getting so hung up on needing to think about how to use the key that you're ignoring other areas of the game where they can test the player's problem solving skills. For one, how do you even find or obtain the key? That requires problem solving as well. Furthermore, if they want to encourage the player to be more creative, they can complicate the scenario as they go through the game. For instance, soon after you find the Plasma Beam you encounter ice walls that you can melt with it. The player learns from this that they can use the Plasma Beam to melt ice. Later on, the player can apply this knowledge to other scenarios that involve a bit more thought. Maybe in one room you can't get across a chasm and you see a stalactite frozen to the ceiling. Remembering that the Plasma Beam melts ice, the player would think to shoot the ice on the ceiling which causes the stalactite to fall and serve as a platform across the chasm. Then it's no longer a simple lock/key scenario, you're adding in basic physics to further test the player's problem solving skills.

I was playing Metroid Prime 2 yesterday just because of this discussion. When I find a color coded door that I know I can't get past, I don't think, "Where could I get the item that lets me open this door?", I think, "Well, I can't go there right now. I'll just keep going where the game lets me until I get what lets me open that door". There isn't that much thought when you're still, essentially, on a path. That path has branches and does everything it can to not look like a path, but it's still a path. Hard-locks can be good/necessary, but they can also stifle the player's ability to show his own understanding or mastery of the game. As for the stalactite example, I don't think it's that good of an example. The game has simply taught to shoot ice with the Plasma Beam. If the game is designed in a way that there are times that it punishes the player for using the Plasma Beam on ice, then the player would have to consider the repercussions of shooting the ice holding up the stalactite, then they would factor in most of the situation (the physics, etc.). However, adding other solutions or giving the player different tools that, when used together, could also allow the player to traverse the chasm, it would become a situation which the player felt they had organically solved, versus just discovering the developer's intent. It's more complex and costly, but ultimately has an arguably greater effect and adds to replay value.

Just Someloggery
You have the right to disagree with me and the ability to consider anything valid that I say; Please exercise both.

Nintendo Network ID: SomeBitTripFan

Bolt_Strike

SomeBitTripFan wrote:

You haven't mastered the intended mechanic, but you have mastered some aspect of the game. There are bugs that are more simple than the intended solution that can ruin some fun (although the player still has the option to not exploit said bugs) and others add to the skill displayed in the game. Wavedashing wasn't intentional, but added to the depth of Melee. Many sequence breaks in Super Metroid are based on skilled wall jumping, impressive shinespark manipulation, or other skillful exploitations of the game. There's a different display of skill. Devs should try to avoid simplifying exploits, of course, but the potential from others is massive. I'd like to point out the Super Mario 64 minimal A-presses community, who spend hours trying to figure out how to collect all of the stars in the game using the jump button as few times as possible. (This is a long video showing what I'm talking about: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kpk2tdsPh0A).

And that's a nice bonus if you can do that, but you really should demonstrate mastery over ALL mechanics to beat the game.

SomeBitTripFan wrote:

It's not supposed to make you feel like you're progressing through the game differently, it's just about not locking the player on a single (or multiple) intended path(s).

As long as it's multiple paths, why does it matter whether or not you're locked into what the game wants? It doesn't really add anything aside from a feeling of self-satisfaction for doing something the developer didn't want you to do, which ultimately doesn't amount to much.

SomeBitTripFan wrote:

This is simply not true. While some games adhere to this idea, specifically teaching and guiding a player through the entire game, it is just one structure of game design. I'd like to point toward games like Thief and Thief II (or most of the games that came out of Looking Glass Studios or Ion Storm in the late 90's and early 2000's: System Shock 2, Deus Ex, etc.) or XCOM (the original especially and the newer games to a lesser degree). Their take on game design is to create a large set of interconnected mechanics, build a believable, well designed, large, complex level and have the player use their understanding of those mechanics and the individual situation to reach some conclusion (emergent gameplay). They create a playground full of options to the player and give them enough tools to succeed as long as there is a good understanding of the game. XCOM is particularly impressive because its mechanics produce an emergent narrative, a story develops based on which soldiers live and die and whatever headcanon you've produced throughout your playthrough.

The problem is that you can't ensure that the player has a good understanding of the game without hard locks that require them to demonstrate that they understand the mechanics in question. You can't prove that you understand how to jump unless you're presented with a situation that requires you to jump to progress. You can't prove that you know how to shoot unless you need to shoot something to move on. Otherwise the player can just avoid using that particular mechanic and end up not understanding it by the end of the gme.

SomeBitTripFan wrote:

I was playing Metroid Prime 2 yesterday just because of this discussion. When I find a color coded door that I know I can't get past, I don't think, "Where could I get the item that lets me open this door?", I think, "Well, I can't go there right now. I'll just keep going where the game lets me until I get what lets me open that door". There isn't that much thought when you're still, essentially, on a path. That path has branches and does everything it can to not look like a path, but it's still a path.

That's more a problem with linearity than hard locks. If you have multiple options to progress then you do have to think about where to go to get that item.

SomeBitTripFan wrote:

As for the stalactite example, I don't think it's that good of an example. The game has simply taught to shoot ice with the Plasma Beam. If the game is designed in a way that there are times that it punishes the player for using the Plasma Beam on ice, then the player would have to consider the repercussions of shooting the ice holding up the stalactite, then they would factor in most of the situation (the physics, etc.).

The point IS to teach players to shoot Ice with the Plasma Beam, once you've understood how a mechanic works it becomes second nature like that. That's where you need to add more complexity to the mechanic like realistic physics.

I do like the idea of having situations where the player is punished for melting the ice, though.

SomeBitTripFan wrote:

However, adding other solutions or giving the player different tools that, when used together, could also allow the player to traverse the chasm, it would become a situation which the player felt they had organically solved, versus just discovering the developer's intent. It's more complex and costly, but ultimately has an arguably greater effect and adds to replay value.

The developer should align the organic solution to their intent in the first place, that way the mechanic is used in a sensible way and the player learns what they're supposed to. There's definitely value in thinking about multiple solutions, but again, if you can't mandate a particular solution, then the player isn't going to learn that mechanic.

Bolt_Strike

3DS Friend Code: 4725-8075-8961 | Nintendo Network ID: Bolt_Strike

Megas75

Does the series need a reboot? I'm pretty sure all people want is for them to remove Other M from canon

Steam/NNID/Xbox Gamertag - Megas75

Indy83

Megas75 wrote:

Does the series need a reboot? I'm pretty sure all people want is for them to remove Other M from canon

Other M is not the problem unfortunatley, that is an overly reductive and impotent solution to the problem.

The problem is what Nintendo thinks of todays Videogame players that led them to make a game like other M, with the expectations that it would by and far be the best selling metroid ever.

Allow me to shed some light on the situation with some inteviews:

"The game was too damn hard. And gamers got lost too easily, too. Now, we know that Metroid games are tuned differently in Japan compared to how they are tuned for the Western market, and while in Japan gamers don’t mind being lost, western gamers much prefer to know where they’re going. They find no pleasure in finding their way. They’d rather know where to go... and we found that Echoes wasn’t tuned to truly fit the needs of each kind of gamer.”

This is why We got Other M, and why we are getting Federation forces instead of a Metroid.

Nintendo isnt trying to make a great metroid game, they are trying to make a game that "Fits the needs of each kind of "Gamer" while using metroids brand power for attention.

So we have a two fold problem.

1. Nintendo trying to appease its moronic greedy shareholders that dogpiled in the wii generation is directly affecting their game design.

2. The worst generation is too damn stupid and mentally lazy.

Edited on by Indy83

Indy83

jump

^I'd disagree with that generalisation, I find most westerners prefer big and opened world games with freedom to explore whilst Japanese gamers prefer linear straight forward games. Of course this is a generalisation and not 100% true with all players.

Nicolai wrote:

Alright, I gotta stop getting into arguments with jump. Someone remind me next time.

3DS Friend Code: 1762-3772-0251

Indy83

jump wrote:

^I'd disagree with that generalisation, I find most westerners prefer big and opened world games with freedom to explore whilst Japanese gamers prefer linear straight forward games. Of course this is a generalisation and not 100% true with all players.

Of course you do. For anyone who actually has anything, even the merest figment of an idea, of what people want, that statement is raving lunatic Bass Backwards. And that statement, that assertation, that perception, was what was used to build metroid from that point on.

That was not me saying that, it was the director of the metroid prime trilogy, summarizing the think tank after prime and echoes, and what they chose as the future direction of Metroid. The unanimous conclusion they are 100% certain we want. More Stupid.

Make it dumber. Dumb down prime with corruption, dang, that one sold the least... Dumb it down and spend a butt ton on cinematics and voice acting and story, thats what they like right?! Damn, they hate it!!!! WE NEED MORE STUPID!!!! Federation Forces!!!!

The Next metroid is going to be an on rails shooter at this rate if something doesnt change.

It's not a generalization. Not anymore. Eleven years ago it was an erroneous sweeping generalization. Now, it's moment where a decision was made to permanently change the series, and each time it didnt have the intended results, instead of stepping back and taking a look at the validity of the assertion, they blindly doubled down, and decided clearly the solution was it needed more stupid.

Nintendo is 100% obsessed with fixing metroid by making it increasingly stupid until, they believe, it reaches universal appeal (The stupid levels equalize with the lowest common denominator), and suddenly sales take off.

Indy83

KO-Cub

@Indy83
What do you mean Other M isn't the problem? The entire game is not even 'Metroid-vania like', at all. Worse is, dialog containing that Prime series as non-canon and ripped the fanbase a new one.
It's stupid to think the beloved Prime series is the case for the series turning into Other M and then Metroid going into a down spiral. This change had nothing to do with the fanbase or the consumers not buying enough of Corruption, it's what happens behind the development team.

Wavedashes behind you Got some of dat Maylay?
FE Heroes: 0964602082

3DS Friend Code: 5343-9126-6120 | Nintendo Network ID: KOCub

Indy83

KO-Cub wrote:

@Indy83
What do you mean Other M isn't the problem? The entire game is not even 'Metroid-vania like', at all. Worse is, dialog containing that Prime series as non-canon and ripped the fanbase a new one.
It's stupid to think the beloved Prime series is the case for the series turning into Other M and then Metroid going into a down spiral. This change had nothing to do with the fanbase or the consumers not buying enough of Corruption, it's what happens behind the development team.

Swing and a miss. Respond to what is actually being said, not your perceived fan boy war garbage.

What do you mean Other M isn't the problem? The entire game is not even 'Metroid-vania like', at all.

As I have often, in this very thread described it. It is literally the anti-thesis of metroid.

But no, it is not the problem. You are blaming other M, the product, the blame lies in who what and why the product was made that way.

It's stupid to think the beloved Prime series is the case for the series turning into Other M and then Metroid going into a down spiral.

It's stupid for someone get this from what I said. Once again blaming work, and not those responsible for the work.

Now, you do realize, that these things right here: "" These are called quotations, and they are used to quote other people, and that big block of text that has you boo hooing at me, was NOT my words, but the words of the then director of the beloved prime series Mark Pacini, summarizing the conclusions of a nintendo think tank on metroids direction.

This change had nothing to do with the fanbase or the consumers not buying enough of Corruption

It absolutely does. And more. It has to do with not buying 'Enough' of echoes, not buying 'Enough' For corruption, not buying 'Enough' for other M. Your problem is you are misconstruing my stating this fact, you have taken me stating this fact, and created a fictional argument where I am blaming the fanbase for not buying what they don't want. No, in fact, In a federation forces thread I got into it with a corporate apologist who demanded blind conspicuous consumerism and buying what you don't want was the best thing for the series. No, that is not my stance.

I am blaming Nintendo for misconstruing fans buying less and less metroid games as they become less and less actual metroid, as a sign that they don't want actual metroid, when in fact it is the opposite. They arent buying them because they arent really metroid anymore, and the less metroid like they become, the less they sell.... And Nintendo's take is metroid is too confusing now, so they need to dumb it down so it sells more.... Which leads to it selling less....

Corruption> Other M> Federation forces> Samus on rails lightgun shooter.

"it's what happens behind the development team"

FINALLY.

Keep this line fresh in your mind, and re-read what I said.

Edited on by Indy83

Indy83

Indy83

shaneoh wrote:

Indy83 wrote:

Corruption> Other M> Federation forces> Samus on rails lightgun shooter.

I'd buy it, there aren't enough rail shooters for home consoles.

Thats... Actually a rather salient point.

Indy83

KO-Cub

@Indy83
I'm sorry, pardon? First of all, tell someone about quotations whom actually cares and doesn't know what it is. Next up, either realize that what I said WAS directed to your quote which you're believing in(Hence the paragraph split), or shut up. Because no one wants to hear bull, about how it's the consumers or Prime 3's fault for turning it into Other M abomination. Especial since Corruption sold more than Echoes and Super Metroid and Marc Pacini thinks the Prime games suck. Yeah, strange how the director only sees flaws in his games. So you shouldn't believe everything you see on the internet.
I rephrase what I said. This change had nothing to do with Corruption or the fan base, because not just sold more and well, but got positive reviews and feedback, unlike Other M. And we're allowed to criticize it.
You can believe Corruption was dumbed down and the cause for the downward spiral all you want (Which is weird, because you said we shouldn't blame the games for causes), but don't rub it in everyones face, act smart ass and try to shame other people.
I don't want anything to do with you if you're not going to act supportive.

Wavedashes behind you Got some of dat Maylay?
FE Heroes: 0964602082

3DS Friend Code: 5343-9126-6120 | Nintendo Network ID: KOCub

Bolt_Strike

shaneoh wrote:

Indy83 wrote:

Corruption> Other M> Federation forces> Samus on rails lightgun shooter.

I'd buy it, there aren't enough rail shooters for home consoles.

Probably best another IP solves that problem, unless it's something minigame-esque and doesn't take a lot of development time away from a main series Metroid game. Meanwhile, there aren't enough exploration based games on Nintendo consoles either, so we need more of the main series.

Bolt_Strike

3DS Friend Code: 4725-8075-8961 | Nintendo Network ID: Bolt_Strike

Top

Please login or sign up to reply to this topic