Metroid General Thread - The Queen of Video Land - The Bear and Badger

RedDave2

Was other m the attempt to get the mainstream?

Fuck it, that was pure rank.

LivDiv

Yeah proper stinker.
Got Metroid so wrong.

Skerret

Tempy wrote:

Echoes is a good yarn, but quite punishing if I recall. Actively toxic environment for most of the first part of the game, lots of frantic scurrying to bubbles of safety. Tough but interesting morph ballmsections as well.

Some really good bosses, like the previously mentioned Quadraxis which has you use basically everything at your disposal to take out a massive robot. The final suit design is very cool too.

I remember very little of Corruption beyond fighting Dark Samus a lot, and yanking shields off enemies.

Dat Annihilation Beam tho

retroking1981

hylian_elf wrote:

I have always thought of that as the Nintendo Trinity not cos of big and sales and all that shit, but game quality. Those three have ways filled my Top 3 one way or another at all times.

Definitely agree with that.

RamSteelwood

The thought of another Metroid game is intriguing, but a Prime sequel less so. I know it's just semantics, but for me it works best as a standalone story - bounty hunter crashes/stranded on mysterious planet, explores looking to escape, finds special powers that conveniently help, uncover mystery and destroy bad guy.
A sequel where the same thing happens again to the same person and they try to link the story just rubs me up the wrong way.
But a new version of the Metroid story, where basically the same stuff happens but it's for the 'first time' in the narrative sits better with me. A bit like how each Zelda game it's a different Link, rather than the same shit happening to the same person every couple of years.

So yeah, a new Metroid that can borrow liberally from Prime but basically rewrites the story so it can be called it's own thing. A bit like The Force Awakens, but keeping the original characters!

GurtTractor

Yeah, a sort of spiritual successor that gives similar feels is what I'm hoping for.

Skerret

RamSteelwood wrote:

The thought of another Metroid game is intriguing, but a Prime sequel less so. I know it's just semantics, but for me it works best as a standalone story - bounty hunter crashes/stranded on mysterious planet, explores looking to escape, finds special powers that conveniently help, uncover mystery and destroy bad guy. A sequel where the same thing happens again to the same person and they try to link the story just rubs me up the wrong way. But a new version of the Metroid story, where basically the same stuff happens but it's for the 'first time' in the narrative sits better with me. A bit like how each Zelda game it's a different Link, rather than the same shit happening to the same person every couple of years. So yeah, a new Metroid that can borrow liberally from Prime but basically rewrites the story so it can be called it's own thing. A bit like The Force Awakens, but keeping the original characters!

Die Hard m8

Tempy

If Nintendo had followed that line of thinking there wouldn't have been a Metroid Prime, thanks to Metroid, Metroid 2, Super Metroid, and Metroid Fusion.

(Although she's only stranded in Prime and Fusion, she chooses to go to Zebes and SR388 because she's a bounty hunter and that's her job)

Is it really a stretch to a Bounty Hunter who makes a living off hunting Space Pirates to keep encountering them? This whole line of thinking is very confusing to me.

cockbeard

Metroid, holy trinity?? We'll ignore Castlevania, MegaMan, and Kid Icarus (it may be obvious that the only Nintendo console I owned before turning 30-ish was the GameBoy)

But Metroid as an openworld game, skill trees?? No way, In my memory it was as much a puzzler as a platformer, using your abilities to get out of the set predicament. No need for open world, by it's very nature you can create more immersion in a heavily scripted game than a wide open one, plus there are less chance of bugs (user errors) occuring

Tempy

Castlevania and MegaMan weren't initially developed by Ninty my dude, which is what people were angling at with this "trinity" stuff.

LivDiv

I do think era is important though.
N64 was my first Nintendo home console (I had a Gameboy but hardly any games).

Metroid wasn't a thing on N64 so it's never been cemented in my mind as being core Nintendo.

Cap Falc is my boi. I still think there is more to be done with the F Zero universe. Skin Yakuza in F Zero colours like the Fist of the North star game and add some driving mechanics.

RedDave2

I love me some f zero but why would you not do an arcade racer with insane speeds and do yakuza with tacked on car bits?

Next you'll be suggesting street fighter 6 should be a side on strider rip off.

LivDiv

Because they're never gonna make another proper f zero.

RamSteelwood

Tempy wrote:

Is it really a stretch to a Bounty Hunter who makes a living off hunting Space Pirates to keep encountering them? This whole line of thinking is very confusing to me.

It's not the bounty hunter bit, in fact that seems mostly irrelevant to what happens in a metroid game. it's that each game follows the same pattern of losing/having no powers at the start, then going round finding them. a sequel where she lands on another planet and 'oops my powers have fell off again' just feels too contrived - and a metroid game where you start and stay all powered up doesn't really seem like a metroid game to me.

b0r1s

Surely if Ninetendo were to do this well it’s all about those powers and how they interact with the environment and enemies. Nintendo have proven that they can take the set MARIO formula and continue to build on it with more depth and ability to excite players by extending Mario’s abilities in various ways. Just adding another single ability to the shoot, missile, ball trinity and balancing that really well in a modern way would be enough.

To suggest that the story is contrived is irrelevant. No gives a shit that Peach has been captured more times than Liam Neeson’s daughter. It’s just minor window dressing to the gameplay.

retroking1981

This is something that effects other mediums of entertainment recently.

Everything seems to need an overarching story these days.

Just look at the modern Bond films, who cares that his heart is broken from the Bond girl in the Casino Royale. Bring back the new film, new villain and new totty formula. I always thought the Metal Gear games should have followed suit.

Hyrule Historia, who fucking cares.

Marvel Universe I'm at a complete loss at.

When did these things stop becoming casual fun.

Samus is a bounty hunter. If it's ok for Link to save Zelda every generation then why not throw Samus into her familiar surroundings too.

retroking1981

b0r1s wrote:

It’s just minor window dressing to the gameplay.

Exactly.

Why am I running away from Zombies in Resident Evil, because they're trying to eat me.

RedDave2

LivDiv wrote:

Because they're never gonna make another proper f zero.

Hey, words can hurt dude.

Vela

retroking1981 wrote:

This is something that effects other mediums of entertainment recently. Everything seems to need an overarching story these days. Just look at the modern Bond films, who cares that his heart is broken from the Bond girl in the Casino Royale. Bring back the new film, new villain and new totty formula. I always thought the Metal Gear games should have followed suit. Hyrule Historia, who fucking cares. Marvel Universe I'm at a complete loss at. When did these things stop becoming throw away fun. Samus is a bounty hunter. If it's ok for Link to save Zelda every generation then why not throw Samus into her familiar surroundings too.

Just on the Bond films, I watched half of Skyfall expecting it to be a direct follow on from Casino/Quantum. I was confused. Instead it turned out to be Home Alone 4.

The other problem with overarching stories is that they inevitably wind up painting themselves into a narrative corner (witness the absurd story twists, retcons, double crosses and revisionist framing of events in Halo and Metal Gear games - let alone the cross media bullshit of ARGs and novels).

I like the Zelda approach of distinct games with suggestions of connections, or enough time between them to have it not matter so much. They can still be played independent of another even when they directly follow on from others (Wind Waker, Majora, Link Between Worlds).

retroking1981

Vela wrote:

Just on the Bond films, I watched half of Skyfall expecting it to be a direct follow on from Casino/Quantum. I was confused. Instead it turned out to be Home Alone 4. The other problem with overarching stories is that they inevitably wind up painting themselves into a narrative corner (witness the absurd story twists, retcons, double crosses and revisionist framing of events in Halo and Metal Gear games - let alone the cross media bullshit of ARGs and novels). I like the Zelda approach of distinct games with suggestions of connections, or enough time between them to have it not matter so much. They can still be played independent of another even when they directly follow on from others (Wind Waker, Majora, Link Between Worlds).

Best post I've read on here in a while, agree with everything, even the Home Alone bit and especially the Metal Gear bit.

Regarding Metal Gear and games backing themselves into a narrative corner, I think Konami should just make new MGS games in the same way Nintendo remake Zelda.

Your Snake, Col. Campbell has your back on the codec. Mei Ling is there to save and Otacon is your nerdy mate. New bad guy with new henchmen and a new love interest. Use the MGSV engine and job done.

SpaceGazelle

Nintendo stock dropped 5% after the delay announcement. Seems they need to start announcing some new stuff.

Moot_Geeza

Enter Mario Golf. They could have it on the green by October.

Tempy

Just play MGS again Retro, it’s still there.

retroking1981

I have, a few times. But I also watch The Spy Who Loved Me as Well as Dr. No.

More MGS would be great, just wish they stopped trying to flesh out the story which got more convoluted with every entry.

Now Kojima has gone I was hoping that's what Konami would do, instead we got Survive.

Tempy

A lot of people like the story though, so you’re always in an unwinnable situation here. The cut and thrust of MGSV didn’t real require you to have any knowledge of the story to enjoy 90% of it.

retroking1981

Tempy wrote:

A lot of people like the story though, so you’re always in an unwinnable situation here. The cut and thrust of MGSV didn’t real require you to have any knowledge of the story to enjoy 90% of it.

90% of games don't I think, that's why I liked the quote minor window dressing to the gameplay by b0ris from above. It sums gaming plots up for me.

I get that people were invested in that story but it was Kojima's so whatever Konami do will likely anger fans story wise, which is why I think throwaway Bond remakes would fit well.

Tempy

I dunno, I manage to find a lot of games and films every year that don’t really rely on prior knowledge. I don’t ever look to hard. Big series follow on from each other because that’s sort of what most people want from an extended series. The problem is when they become over reliant on prior and still court a mainstream audience, which I think you can sort of aim st MGS, but anyone buying anything after 2 and not expecting it is as mad as anyone buying Kingdom Hearts 3 and expecting to just be able to press play and ignore 9 other games.

The MCU is nowhere near as bad as people make out, there are... what, 4 films that sort of need you to have an investment to really make sense of it, but even then its usually just blink and you’ll miss it cameos or overwrought explanations of pointless macguffins. All you really need to know is: bad guy get hit by good guy. I’d agree Spectre is on the worse end of this spectrum (ha) too, but I’m not sure it’s really all that bad of a problem, especially if you take a look at the GotY thread for last year. Generally made up of games you can go into blind.

monkey

Tempy wrote:

The MCU is nowhere near as bad as people make out, there are... what, 4 films that sort of need you to have an investment to really make sense of it, but even then its usually just blink and you’ll miss it cameos or overwrought explanations of pointless macguffins.

It's probably a lot more than 4 given how many sequels there are. The third film of Captain Ironpants needs you to have seen 1 and 2 then one of the Avengers that it follows on from, which in turn needs you to have seen the Avengers before that. It depends how much you can go with the flow really. There's a reason they start with the origin for each guy though. People need the backstory for the idea not to be stupid.

Videogames on the other hand often get more stupid the more story is added. Doing pretty much the same thing over and over again is dumb enough. Don't try and explain it too much. It's a bit like if they tried to come up with an in-universe explanation for why Bond looks different all the time and has stayed middle-aged since the early 60s. Although they have done that with Doctor Who and it's added quite a bit to the lore and enjoyment so I don't know, burn it all / ignore me (delete as applicable). There's not one hard and fast rule and people are going to have different points at which they think 'Nah'.

Tempy

I’m probably just assuming too much of mainstresm viewers to know about Marvel characters as broad as Iron Man and Cap and Thor, but I dunno that jumping in at Ragnarok or Iron Man 2 or Ant-Man and Te Wasp would matter too much to a casual hero, given how much time they often spend expositing on stuff from prior films.

Diluted Dante

monkey wrote:

Tempy wrote:

The MCU is nowhere near as bad as people make out, there are... what, 4 films that sort of need you to have an investment to really make sense of it, but even then its usually just blink and you’ll miss it cameos or overwrought explanations of pointless macguffins.

It's probably a lot more than 4 given how many sequels there are. The third film of Captain Ironpants needs you to have seen 1 and 2 then one of the Avengers that it follows on from, which in turn needs you to have seen the Avengers before that.

I mean, does it though? The film explains why Tony has PTSD, meaning you don't need to have seen the previous films to know that. Then the rest of it is self contained. The villain and their motivations are introduced in this film. I'm at a loss as to what details are needed to understand Iron Man 3 in isolation.

Howdy, Stranger!

Categories