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

@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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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).

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.

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.

Okay, you're worthless. Moving on.

'Fix'd?' Wow.

Next level internet discourse.

Somehow I don't think @Haru17 cares

Edit: nope, dang slow computer

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.

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.

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.'

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.

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.

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.

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...

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

No, they learn to create their own strengths.

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.

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.