Forums

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

Posts 81 to 100 of 120

NinjaWaddleDee

@Octane: Good point about Bayonetta 2. I just don't know anymore with Nintendo. I just miss the days of the GameCube when their games used to have worlds that were full of life, instead of these plastic-looking linear adventures. I'm probably wrong though.

Check out my YouTube channel if you love gaming, and Nintendo (especially Metroid) I think you'll enjoy my videos. :)
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCagN36OxIjCGUVMaYFtPgSg

Nintendo Network ID: NinjaWaddleDee

Octane

@NinjaWaddleDee: Yeah, I agree. I do love me some 2D platformers, but I'd like to see a little more variety.

Octane

NinjaWaddleDee

@Octane: Definitely, there's nothing like a tight controlling 2d platformer. But I miss the sense of adventure. DKCTF kind of had that, but it was in 2d.

Check out my YouTube channel if you love gaming, and Nintendo (especially Metroid) I think you'll enjoy my videos. :)
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCagN36OxIjCGUVMaYFtPgSg

Nintendo Network ID: NinjaWaddleDee

Octane

@NinjaWaddleDee: That's why Pikmin 3 and Captain Toad are among my favourite Wii U games. They're nothing like a big adventure, but they are the closest thing we'll get on the Wii U, apart from Zelda U.

Octane

Indy83

NinjaWaddleDee wrote:

@Indy83: I'm not sure it's even possible to recreate the magic of Super Metroid and Prime anymore, especially if Nintendo is making the game. It seems like they want to make sure every single one of their franchises appeals to children. (Ex. Federation Force.) Not that there's anything wrong with that, but I don't see why they can't have ONE franchise that appeals to mostly adults and teens.

This is a huge point of mine, and I have brought it up before, unfortunately at the time it met an immediate wall of "must defend Nintendo" over riding rational thought.

Although I dont think federation forces was an appeal to children specifically, judging off of Nintendos conferences that paint their plans for the future, this looks like them acting on their plan to "Leverage the power of our Ip's" and failing horribly, because they fundamentally misunderstood or forgot why the metroid IP has the power it does... Likely at the incessant demandsof shareholders...

FF doesnt seem to be so much 'lets appeal to the kiddies', so much as "wow, splatoon was a huge success, people really liked this social shooter, what else can we do this with? Oh Metroid has shooting, we cantake that metroid game thats been having a turbulent dev cycle and quickly retool it to be a social shooter... With the powerful brand and mind share metroid has this will be an easy slam dunk. "

Whoops, Metroid has an incredibly powerful brand... But its brand power is reverence for its legendary design philosophy, not something that bodes well when that legendary design has been missing in action for most of a decade, people have been begging for it for years, and they cant get it ANYWHERE else.

Had Nintendo just come off of a mindblowing Metroid U release, FF would have been accepted with open arms.

Its like Nintendo doesnt understand that when people have their core needs satisfied they are much more willing to happily purchase other things.

Back on cube wii and ds, When I was knee deep in fulfilling adventures, Like Prime, Galaxy and Zeldas, Pandoras tower, Xenoblade etc, I happily bought things like Hunters, pinball, DK bongo, side scrolling platformers. Now that the genres I play games for are an endangered species on the platform holder that used to be the sole supplier of these experiences is completely devoid of them (and no one else is filling the gaps either, psr and xbone have practically no adventures, they have games that are themepark rides depicting the things I used to do, in flashy cinematics) My saturation limit for games outside my favourite genres has dropped considerably. Im hungry for steak, I have little interest in candy and chips... If I have a steady supply of steak,I candy and chip it up.

With the Wii u, literally theonly thing I have that satisfies that itch was Xenoblade X. Tons of platformers, great action games, but only one deep engaging adventure.

And I dont think I am alone. Nintendo focused hardcore on games that are pick up and play, moment to moment action, ignoring engrossing adventures...

And I can understand why, they focused entirely on those things, they were mega sellers on wii. But... I think the reason why, was because those titles were titles that people from multiple aspects happily converged on because they were satisfied. Without that foundation, Wii u sunk.

3ds has that foundation, and it swam it swam right in the face of the mobile apocolypse.

ANYWAYS back to metroid...

I agree with you. Nintendo either no longer understands what metroid was, or refuses to make them, hoping to trade the existing fan base for a splatoon like crowd, with the hope that metroid would then be easier cheaper and faster to develop, with a larger audience.

But getting that Super Metroid or Prime feeling back? Thats suoer doable. All Nintendo needs to do, is what those games did, new powerups. that have a large impact on level design and world building.

Metroid is hard to design, but it is not something that is exhausted, the surface has barely been scratched.

Look at Super and prime. Those were the games that actually brought new powerups to the table that were more than a barely disguised lock and key.

Fusion. and zero mission had no relevant new powerups whatsoever (zero m is a remake it gets a pass) And all the power ups of primes after the first were literally the same exact powerrups from pre but with a different graphic, or nothing more than a key.

All metroid needs is fresh powerups, which naturally begets fresh design which begets super/prime 1 quality.

Indy83

NinjaWaddleDee

@Indy83: Brilliantly written. Literally all I want from the NX is a good solid Metroid game. I know that I probably sound crazy by constantly talking about Metroid on this site, but it's my favorite Nintendo series, so that's why I stick by it.

Check out my YouTube channel if you love gaming, and Nintendo (especially Metroid) I think you'll enjoy my videos. :)
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCagN36OxIjCGUVMaYFtPgSg

Nintendo Network ID: NinjaWaddleDee

OneBagTravel

If I want to go back to Zebus, I'd just play the original or Super Metroid. If Nintendo actually did reboot Metroid, they'd throw in motion control and campy amiibo support.

Side rant: I'm sick of Nintendo games forcing a story. The Metroid series has really gone off the wagon with wanting to turn it into a story driven JPRG. Nah I'll take the open world exploration and sense of isolation. I don't care about some robot AI and how it reminds you of a former commander. zzz

Edited on by OneBagTravel

I love traveling light through Europe and run a blog about it at OneBagTravel.com
Hardware: Wii U, New 3DS, Super Famicom & Super GameBoy, Game Boy Pocket

3DS Friend Code: 4399-0976-8690 | Nintendo Network ID: OneBagTravel | Twitter:

Bolt_Strike

@Indy83 I think the reason why there's less soft locks is because they want to avoid sequence breaks, they don't want the player to skip a huge chunk of the game using a trick the game isn't designed for and finish the game in 10 minutes. That being said, I don't want to see something as basic as "use X powerup to open the green door", the obstacles should be realistic.

I'm more concerned about Nintendo's unwillingness to create exploration based games in the first place,
Mario's abandoned the exploration based platforming pioneered by the earlier 3D games in favor of retro style linear platformers, collectathon platforming in general is dead right now, Metroid as we know hasn't had a main series game in years, and Pokemon has been trending more linear since 2010 to the point where it's less an adventure through a vast region and more a gauntlet of gym connected by linear paths, leaving Xenoblade and Zelda as the only ones left (and I don't see Xenoblade continuing much longer). And you can pretty much blame casuals and the mobile market for that. Gamers today don't really want to put much thought or effort into their games, so they avoid genres like exploration that demand critical thinking to successfully navigate the game. All this casual pandering is really killing the quality of their games.

Edited on by Bolt_Strike

Bolt_Strike

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

MarcelRguez

Bolt_Strike wrote:

they want to avoid sequence breaks, they don't want the player to skip a huge chunk of the game using a trick the game isn't designed for

Then the issue is easy to solve.
Design the game to be sequence-broken

Stupid spoilers aside and dwelling slightly into off-topic territory, why the negativity around Xenoblade's future? And other than that, I'd argue that, despite Nintendo's current direction, exploration is more alive than ever. I've lost count of how many franchises have gone open-world in the last decade. Sure, a game having a large overworld doesn't necessarily mean it's designed to encourage exploration (sounds weird when I put it like that, but I hope you get what I mean), but hey, those still are exploration-based games, no matter the quality of the exploration itself. If anything, trying to cater to the Skyrim audience (i.e., casuals) has made the popularity of those games explode.

About Nintendo in particular, I'd add DKC to the list of franchises that still encourage exploration. A bit far-fetched, but whatever. 3D Mario's current direction responds to a focus on finding the essence of platforming more than anything else, in my opinion. We can't really establish a trend for Metroid due to the lack of new installments, and I can't help but think of GameFreak's general incompetence whenever Pokémon is brought to the table, exploration being another sub-par aspect of the newer entries.

MarcelRguez

3DS Friend Code: 3308-4605-6296 | Nintendo Network ID: Marce2240 | Twitter:

Bolt_Strike

Marce2240 wrote:

Then the issue is easy to solve.
Design the game to be sequence-broken

Yeah, in general they should probably take a page from ALBW in terms of exploration and allow some sort of flexibility in the game's progression.

Marce2240 wrote:

Stupid spoilers aside and dwelling slightly into off-topic territory, why the negativity around Xenoblade's future?

Beyond what I already mentioned, Xenoblade hasn't sold very well, I don't think it's even cracked 1 million yet. Games that sell in that range either die out or are significantly retooled, like what they're doing with Star Fox and Metroid.

Marce2240 wrote:

And other than that, I'd argue that, despite Nintendo's current direction, exploration is more alive than ever. I've lost count of how many franchises have gone open-world in the last decade. Sure, a game having a large overworld doesn't necessarily mean it's designed to encourage exploration (sounds weird when I put it like that, but I hope you get what I mean), but hey, those still are exploration-based games, no matter the quality of the exploration itself. If anything, trying to cater to the Skyrim audience (i.e., casuals) has made the popularity of those games explode.

Are we still talking about Nintendo here? Because I see even less open world games now than there used to be. Nintendo's done little to appeal to the Skyrim audience this generation.

Marce2240 wrote:

About Nintendo in particular, I'd add DKC to the list of franchises that still encourage exploration. A bit far-fetched, but whatever. 3D Mario's current direction responds to a focus on finding the essence of platforming more than anything else, in my opinion.

Those aren't exploration games. There's minimal exploration to find the collectibles, but beyond that there's no exploration whatsoever. The gameplay is designed around progressing through a gauntlet of obstacles to reach a specified goal and completing levels in the order the games want you to. As opposed to collectathon platformers which give you open world levels where you can go in any direction and do things in whatever order you want. This kind of design philosophy is missing from nearly all of Nintendo's recent games.

Marce2240 wrote:

We can't really establish a trend for Metroid due to the lack of new installments

The lack of new installments IS the trend, they've been avoiding it so much that it hasn't had a main game in 6 years.

Marce2240 wrote:

and I can't help but think of GameFreak's general incompetence whenever Pokémon is brought to the table, exploration being another sub-par aspect of the newer entries.

Game Freak has specifically cited the mobile market as the reason for all of the changes in recent games. They're intentionally dumbing the games down to appeal to that market, it's not incompetence.

Bolt_Strike

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

MarcelRguez

Bolt_Strike wrote:

Games that sell in that range either die out or are significantly retooled, like what they're doing with Star Fox and Metroid.

Depends on the budget. Project Zero or Fire Emblem never sold that much, yet they adhered to their formulas vehemently. But yeah, I can see that happening with a larger project like Xeno.

Bolt_Strike wrote:

Are we still talking about Nintendo here? Because I see even less open world games now than there used to be. Nintendo's done little to appeal to the Skyrim audience this generation.

No, that's why I said "despite Nintendo's current direction". I wanted to point out that if Nintendo is doing this is not due to a hostile market toward these games, or because they can't be targeted to a wide audience. In fact, I'd say the situation is the opposite. Meaning, they could still cater to casuals and make those games. They are not the same casuals they are catering now, but they would qualify as casual nevertheless.

God, is this dichotomy worthless.

Bolt_Strike wrote:

Those aren't exploration games. There's minimal exploration to find the collectibles, but beyond that there's no exploration whatsoever.

Well, I did say it was far-fetched. My thinking was related to how the mechanics and progression incentives the player to explore. I'd argue that Tropical Freeze incentives the player more than games like Proteus or Fuel, for example.

Bolt_Strike wrote:

The lack of new installments IS the trend, they've been avoiding it so much that it hasn't had a main game in 6 years.

I think that's oversimplifying the issue. I bet the terrible reception of Other M, along with Retro wanting to do something other than a Prime game played much of a larger role.

Bolt_Strike wrote:

Game Freak has specifically cited the mobile market as the reason for all of the changes in recent games. They're intentionally dumbing the games down to appeal to that market, it's not incompetence.

Can't say I'm surprised, but I can say I'm mad.

Edited on by MarcelRguez

MarcelRguez

3DS Friend Code: 3308-4605-6296 | Nintendo Network ID: Marce2240 | Twitter:

Indy83

Bolt_Strike wrote:

@Indy83 I think the reason why there's less soft locks is because they want to avoid sequence breaks, they don't want the player to skip a huge chunk of the game using a trick the game isn't designed for and finish the game in 10 minutes.

Untitled
You are correct sir!

Nintendo is infuriatingly anal about removing what made metroid better than all the rest. Poor Europeans never got proper metroid, by the time super and prime got to them, Nintendo had already butchered the game and removed 99% of the sequence breaks from the pal versions

The thing is, people barely played fusion, and scoffed at other M, despite the games being basically unsequence breakable.

Yet they have played super metroid for Two Decades now and are still finding and celebrating new sequence breaks to this day.

So which one is being 'Short changed' on content Nintendo? Quit being agency Nazi's its the best damn part of the game Nintendo.

Bolt_Strike wrote:

That being said, I don't want to see something as basic as "use X powerup to open the green door", the obstacles should be realistic.

Im not sure realistic is the best word, then we start getting cinematic garbage like the new (anti) DOOMS 'puzzle' of you find a hand in a room you just got locked into and walk 10 feet to a hand scanner to use it on (Ooooh youre so smart player!!! Youre so smart and clever!!!! BAAAAAAARRRRFFFF)

I think the term we are looking for is more.... Organic.... No, Intrinsic its 'realistic' according to the rules of the game world, which is defined by how we interact with the world, which is defined by our current abilities/powerups....

Intrinsic is something that is more exclusive to softlocks, its something fundamentally involving the foundation of the games mechanics, and as such, the player can use them as building blocks to create their own way of playing. You cant do that with extrinsic things thats basically just a disguised version of a key that unlocks a door.

Bolt_Strike wrote:

I'm more concerned about Nintendo's unwillingness to create exploration based games in the first place,
Mario's abandoned the exploration based platforming pioneered by the earlier 3D games in favor of retro style linear platformers, collectathon platforming in general is dead right now, Metroid as we know hasn't had a main series game in years, and Pokemon has been trending more linear since 2010 to the point where it's less an adventure through a vast region and more a gauntlet of gym connected by linear paths, leaving Xenoblade and Zelda as the only ones left (and I don't see Xenoblade continuing much longer). And you can pretty much blame casuals and the mobile market for that. Gamers today don't really want to put much thought or effort into their games, so they avoid genres like exploration that demand critical thinking to successfully navigate the game. All this casual pandering is really killing the quality of their games.

So... Im not alone.

There is a market for games like this though, literally all Nintendo has to do, is in their advertising, say that the game is supposed to be that way. 'Prepare to get lost'.

Thats what Kings field did when from and sony rebranded it, and now the souls series is very healthy.

Edited on by Indy83

Indy83

Haru17

Linear games are basically always better than open ones. I don't see Nintendo doing anything interesting or unique with an open world outside of Zelda.

Don't hate me because I'm bnahabulous.

Indy83

Haru17 wrote:

Linear games are basically always better than open ones. I don't see Nintendo doing anything interesting or unique with an open world outside of Zelda.

False.

The entire premise of this is rooted in faulty binary thought. Its not simply linear or open world. Its a sliding scale, a six point sliding scale to be exact, of linear vs openess. Not that anybody who hasnt been aroumd for a while would know anymore, incumbants have spent billions making it seem like open world sand box designs (level 6) are the only thing thete is, because they are cheaper to make, faster to produce, and something within the capabilities for a complete amatuer to design. These things didnt become popular by high demand. It was manufactured by marketing, just like the erroneous belief that open world=sandbox games.

And thats why Metroids design is legendary. Its a level 3/4, of impeccable design. It has the engaging exploration and adventure of open worlds AND the tight design of linear games.

Edited on by Indy83

Indy83

Bolt_Strike

Indy83 wrote:

Untitled
You are correct sir!

Nintendo is infuriatingly anal about removing what made metroid better than all the rest. Poor Europeans never got proper metroid, by the time super and prime got to them, Nintendo had already butchered the game and removed 99% of the sequence breaks from the pal versions

The thing is, people barely played fusion, and scoffed at other M, despite the games being basically unsequence breakable.

Yet they have played super metroid for Two Decades now and are still finding and celebrating new sequence breaks to this day.

So which one is being 'Short changed' on content Nintendo? Quit being agency Nazi's its the best damn part of the game Nintendo.

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

Indy83 wrote:

Im not sure realistic is the best word, then we start getting cinematic garbage like the new (anti) DOOMS 'puzzle' of you find a hand in a room you just got locked into and walk 10 feet to a hand scanner to use it on (Ooooh youre so smart player!!! Youre so smart and clever!!!! BAAAAAAARRRRFFFF)

I think the term we are looking for is more.... Organic.... No, Intrinsic its 'realistic' according to the rules of the game world, which is defined by how we interact with the world, which is defined by our current abilities/powerups....

Intrinsic is something that is more exclusive to softlocks, its something fundamentally involving the foundation of the games mechanics, and as such, the player can use them as building blocks to create their own way of playing. You cant do that with extrinsic things thats basically just a disguised version of a key that unlocks a door.

I don't think having a more complex "key that opens the door" is really a bad thing if the key is well hidden. Then you still have to put thought into where you're supposed to go or how to get the key. 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, or its piercing ability (for that matter, the 2D games have never taken advantage of its piercing ability in progression for that matter, it's always been an optional combat ability that makes it easier to eliminate fodder enemies).

Haru17 wrote:

Linear games are basically always better than open ones. I don't see Nintendo doing anything interesting or unique with an open world outside of Zelda.

That's completely false. There's not a linear game out there that can hold a candle to Metroid Prime or OoT. Open world does need more polish than linearity, but it's well worth it when they get it right.

Bolt_Strike

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

Haru17

Indy83 wrote:

Haru17 wrote:

Linear games are basically always better than open ones. I don't see Nintendo doing anything interesting or unique with an open world outside of Zelda.

False.

The entire premise of this is rooted in faulty binary thought. Its not simply linear or open world. Its a sliding scale, a six point sliding scale to be exact, of linear vs openess. Not that anybody who hasnt been aroumd for a while would know anymore, incumbants have spent billions making it seem like open world sand box designs (level 6) are the only thing thete is, because they are cheaper to make, faster to produce, and something within the capabilities for a complete amatuer to design. These things didnt become popular by high demand. It was manufactured by marketing, just like the erroneous belief that open world=sandbox games.

And thats why Metroids design is legendary. Its a level 3/4, of impeccable design. It has the engaging exploration and adventure of open worlds AND the tight design of linear games.

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

I don't really care for your absolutes, typos, or apparent 6-point scales, I just know that open worlds are a cancer. I think every series that wasn't open world before 8th gen should be banned from the open world genre. Like, show some restraint.

A new Metroid which, after an intro, has you explore and defeat X number of bosses in whatever order would be terrible. There's just no progression to it; no change. Each boss is the same as the last boss, requiring the ice beam or the super missile or whatever power up was in 'it's area' to defeat. There's no build to that: no development. At that point why not just sell a bunch of different $5 games with a section in each, because it's not like they gain anything by being stitched together.

Don't hate me because I'm bnahabulous.

Indy83

Haru17 wrote:

I don't care what you said, or how everything you said just negated everything I brought up before I brought it up, and completely explains what I say I like, and why it is so good, and why that is not mutually exclusive to open world, because it is not a binary yes or no concept. I have a self fulfilling prophecy and I will let no reality get in the way of my fallacious argument, and anyone who tries to reason with me, will have whatever they say transformed into some nonsense argument they never stated, which I had already assumed they were going to say, and my response will have nothing to do with what they actually said to me

Okay, you're worthless. Moving on.

Edited on by Indy83

Indy83

Haru17

Indy83 wrote:

Okay, you're worthless. Moving on.

'Fix'd?' Wow.

Next level internet discourse.

Don't hate me because I'm bnahabulous.

shaneoh

Indy83 wrote:

Haru17 wrote:

I don't care what you said, or how everything you said just negated everything I brought up before I brought it up, and completely explains what I say I like, and why it is so good, and why that is not mutually exclusive to open world, because it is not a binary yes or no concept. I have a self fulfilling prophecy and I will let no reality get in the way of my fallacious argument, and anyone who tries to reason with me, will have whatever they say transformed into some nonsense argument they never stated, which I had already assumed they were going to say, and my response will have nothing to do with what they actually said to me

Okay, you're worthless. Moving on.

Somehow I don't think @Haru17 cares

Edit: nope, dang slow computer

Edited on by shaneoh

The Greatest love story ever, Rosie Love (part 33 done)
The collective noun for a group of lunatics is a forum. A forum of lunatics.
I'm belligerent, you were warned.

Bolt_Strike

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.

Bolt_Strike

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

Top

Please login or sign up to reply to this topic