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).
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).
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
^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.
^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
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
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.
@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
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.
Forums
Topic: What if Nintendo pulled a "Star Fox Zero" with Metroid?
Posts 101 to 113 of 113
This topic has been archived, no further posts can be added.