Metroid and The Loss of Originality and Innovation

[LesserChozo]

Yeah but doesn't Metroid boil down to 'you're in a spooky maze, you find cool stuff, you fight aliens'?

Bare minimum, sure, but that could be said of a lot of other games, too. What makes Metroid unique?

[doc O. Mire]

I got to admit, there is some merit behind metroid not innovating as much as they could (and probably should). However, the series did create at least one massive improvement since Super, and that was the scan visor. It allowed players to get an in depth story and background for the events in the game or, if they chose, completely ignore the side stories and focus on the main game, I'm not sure if many other games in the genre did things the same way, but now we even have Skyrim using a similar story-telling method.

And Other M brought some interesting innovations also. I doubt that most developers nowadays would have the confidence in their own ability to essentially make a modern game controlled by an NES controller. Nor would most action/adventure games be willing to let the adventure take a back seat to the story. Actually, if the developers could just add more freedom between plot points, I wouldn't mind having a more story driven game... assuming that story is well written and all possible repercussions and interpretations of a plot point are considered well in advance *cough* ridley scene *cough* (scene made perfect sense if you were one of the 1000 people to actually read the metroid manga, for the other several million... good luck to them)

The fact of the matter is that Metroid is going down an increasingly story-driven route ever since Prime 1 and fusion were released. Not a bad path to take, but the metroid division of nintendo seems to be struggling between what they did in the past and what's expected in the present, causing an imbalance and forcing theme to sacrifice some possible gameplay innovations so they can find the best way to communicate the story they wish to tell.

*Sigh* I really shouldn't type when I'm half-asleep, I don't even remember half of what I just said. Whatever, I'm retreating to my cabin for the night...

[Robotnik]

I will admit that Super Metroid is definitely the game with the most new innovations that did not exist in M1 or 2, but Prime 1 introduced tons of new items and ways to use them that almost equal Super.

The scan visor is the big one that many have mentioned already, and no it doesn't equal the X-Ray scope at all because it allows for full interaction with lots of the environment. The boost ball led to all kinds of new cool puzzles involving half-pipes and the morph ball bombs could be used to activate all kinds of switches and whatnot. The beam-combos were all interesting (minus the flamethrower) and the thermal visor led to further examination of the environment. Prime 2 can be judged however, as the only new innovation it brought was the echo visor, which was barely utilized. Prime 3 had plenty of innovations as well involving the grapple lasso and the use of it to drain energy and use it to power machines. The hyperball was interesting as well as the hyper mode itself, and lets not forget the command visor.

But yes, the 2D games are in a bit of a rut, Fusion and Zero Mission didn't do a whole lot of innovate, but they were still insanely fun and improved some things that Super Metroid introduced.

[doc O. Mire]

I'd have to disagree about Echoes. That game had several innovations. It featured a dual-world system seemingly inspired by Zelda, an ammo system to increase the tension by making the layer always wonder if they had enough, seeker missiles, fast travel (albeit only in the very late game), and probably the most challenging bosses/enemies of the entire series, which, while it may not seem innovative, I doubt even the guys at Team Ninja would put a boss in the game that they cannot themselves beat without resorting to debug weapons

Then there were the various new uses for previous weapons like boost-jumping off of spider-ball tracks, screw-attack wall-jumping, and the ability to strategically fire your limited beam ammo to make the most out of it by shooting light crystals and the like for various effects.

And yet, again, I must agree with the point about the 2-d games. Thinking back on it, I can see why Sakamoto brought in two other teams to help with Other M. He was simply not experienced enough with modern gaming to be able to make the game he wanted. Nintendo is going to have to add some more new people with lots of experience in modern gaming to let the series reach its next step in evolution (a la Aonuma being added to help with Ocarina of Time)

[okey]

Bare minimum, sure, but that could be said of a lot of other games, too. What makes Metroid unique?

Alright, I'll take a try at answering this.

Imagine if the next Metroid game rolled around and the first item you got was something completely new.

There might be a new area based around this new item. New enemies to fight with it. New puzzles to solve. This new upgrade could be like the speed booster, where there are a lot of hidden tricks to it. Maybe it adds new life to an old item. And hey, who only adds one new feature to a sequel? There must be a whole bunch of new things to find. Suddenly the mystery is back, and the formula feels fresh again.

You wouldn't get that feeling if you found a new gun in Halo 4. So yeah, I'd say inventiveness is a pretty big part of what makes Metroid unique.

[LesserChozo]

Innovation should be a gradual thing, or else one risks losing the core of the franchise. Metroid Prime and Fusion got it right in that they both introduced new things while staying overall familiar. Additionally, once the association between old and new was established the Prime series was able to venture into all new territory.

Other M, on the otherhand, changed too much too quickly. While the core is still there in some form - it's still a Metroid game - it is a very different experience.

[Zynux]

I think we can all agree that when it comes to progressing a game series that the changes should be gradual, but one could make the argument that Metroid plays it too safe (and sometimes even regresses. From a gameplay standpoint, compare Super Metroid to Fusion. imo Fusion was a huge regression in many ways). Yes, the changes from Super Metroid to Metroid Prime were wonderful, but after that it for the most part stagnated or regressed (I believe Prime 3 was a regression in the Prime games. Its motion controls doesn't really help its overall gameplay)

Now, as for Other M... I don't want to make a wall of text, but I'll just say this: While I'll concede that it made too many changes too quickly, I think it had more to do with the fact that the changes that were made were fundamentally just flawed for both a Metroid game and an action game (even excluding its laughable story).

[okey]

Innovation should be a gradual thing, or else one risks losing the core of the franchise. Metroid Prime and Fusion got it right in that they both introduced new things while staying overall familiar. Additionally, once the association between old and new was established the Prime series was able to venture into all new territory.

Other M, on the otherhand, changed too much too quickly. While the core is still there in some form - it's still a Metroid game - it is a very different experience.

I think they didn't change enough.

Other M really, really needed to have new items and environments that couldn't have worked in a sidescroller or FPS. Instead it tries to shoehorn the old stuff into the new format. You end up with a game where the levels feel like dioramas and the old abilities aren't fun to use anymore. It's like they made the game 3d just for the sake of it.

[rondus18]

I disagree, you can add new tricks to a game or change the way you use old tricks, but changing both the tricks and the way you use them would be too much. Especially considering the big changes Other M was already introducing.

[LesserChozo]

Now, as for Other M... I don't want to make a wall of text, but I'll just say this: While I'll concede that it made too many changes too quickly, I think it had more to do with the fact that the changes that were made were fundamentally just flawed for both a Metroid game and an action game (even excluding its laughable story).

Yeah, there's that, too. I think with Other M we learned the true core of the Metroid franchise; Samus Aran. Although, as far as I'm concerned, they didn't really change her, they changed her role in the game. Despite being the player character, Samus was not the front runner in Other M, she was the follower, and people didn't like that. True, the situation is similar in Fusion, but I think Samus is more liberated in her decisions there than in M:OM, or maybe it's because she is the only person on the station and not part of a team. At any rate, I think Other M has proven that a Metroid game without Samus Aran would not be a Metroid game. Nintendo could probably get away with all kinds of innovation in the franchise, changing everything else, so long as they don't change Samus.


But I could be wrong.

[okey]

I disagree, you can add new tricks to a game or change the way you use old tricks, but changing both the tricks and the way you use them would be too much. Especially considering the big changes Other M was already introducing.

Mario 64 did that, and it's considered one of the best transitions from 2d to 3d.

[rondus18]

And Ocarina of Time didn't and it's considered a better 2D to 3D transition. Yes, you can find one example of an exception to any general statement. But as a general rule I think it applies to Other M.

For example, Super Mario 64 was developed by Nintendo's A team and was meant to be groundbreaking and launch the N64. Nintendo spared no expense because they couldn't afford for Super Mario 64 to fail. If Mario failed then that could have ended the N64 before it had a chance since Mario was one of only 2 launch games for the system. In short there was a lot of money riding on Super Mario 64 so Nintendo spent a lot of money and talent on it.

Other M was not exactly in the same position. Metroid has never been a cash cow for Nintendo like Mario or Zelda have been. Therefore if Metroid returns less per dollar than the other franchises you would spend fewer dollars on it. Now, I expect it's a reasonable assumption to assume more innovation/changes to the standard mold equals more development time if you want the new changes to match up to old quality standards. Therefore what you're saying is that Nintendo's problem was that they didn't invest enough money to make Other M more different.

I hope it goes without saying, but just in case:

A game that is different = uncertain sales numbers.
Uncertain sales numbers = risky investment.
Risky investment = developers getting less money from a publisher.

If Other M was to stand a chance the best thing to do would be to make it less of a risk. Make the game smaller (so it could be made cheaper) and cut down on the number of changes made to the standard formula. Other M should have been a platform to sell the new gameplay system to fans.

I think Portal is the best example of what I'm talking about. The first game was short and pretty much just a big tutorial/tech demo showing off the possibilities of the gameplay. The sequel was longer, introduced more mechanics, and tried to tell a bigger story as well as deliver backstory. That was Other M's problem, it tried to be Portal 2 without having Portal 1 to build on.

[okey]

I agree with that Other M should have focused on selling a new system, but how can it do that when it doesn't introduce anything unique?

OOT may be more conservative than Mario 64, but it still had fun new stuff that couldn't have worked in ALttP. What new possibilities does Other M showcase?

If you only adapt stuff to 3d you end up with something that feels like the 3d Mortal Kombat games.

Therefore what you're saying is that Nintendo's problem was that they didn't invest enough money to make Other M more different.

They were already putting a lot of money into the game to make it different. Why couldn't that cutscene budget have gone toward coming up with new gameplay stuff?

[Zynux]

They were already putting a lot of money into the game to make it different. Why couldn't that cutscene budget have gone toward coming up with new gameplay stuff?

Because it obviously didn't fit in Sakamoto's vision


I'm starting to suspect that Project M was sinking ship from day one. You got a developer that hasn't really made any major contributions to Metroid since Super Metroid (1994!), not only in many people eyes think his vision is "controversial" but he has never created a true 3D game before. He also has complete control over the games story, which is odd since he has never been known to write any comprehensive story before. He calls in a developer (Team Ninja) that has never really been known for level design, art (yes, they are good with graphics, but designing? I thought both the Power-Suit and the Zero-suit were just laughably awful), and (from my knowledge) has really never developed for a Nintendo Console after the SNES days (the graphics in Other M imo showed to me that maybe Team Ninja underestimated the limitations of the Wii). Not only that, but Team Ninja's talent in action were completely wasted thanks to the awful design choice to simplify the controls similar to the SNES with no analog stick (in a fucking 3D action game... ) because of Sakamoto's vision to have the game simple for casual audiences (why the hell is he trying to appease the casual audience in a Metroid game? Metroid has never been more then the hardcore/niche crowd. Also, the whole decision doesn't make sense. If he was trying to appeal to casual audiences, he wouldn't give them Super Metroid controls, since most of them probably don't even know what Super Metroid is, and would have given them an analog stick like 99% of the console gaming community), therefore successfully killing any chance this game could've had in depth and strategy.


If I'm speaking from my ass then feel free to critique but damn, I can't help but feel from the beginning Project M was going in the wrong direction, real fast, and that the warning signs were all there, plain as day. Which is a shame, because I wouldn't mind having a game like Other M in gameplay but just with a huge overhaul (it has potential, but its not quite there yet).

[Infinity's End]

*sigh* really? That post was so full of errors that I wonder if you're trolling. Get your facts straight.

I'm starting to suspect that Project M was sinking ship from day one. You got a developer that hasn't really made any major contributions to Metroid since Super Metroid (1994!)

What are Fusion and Zero Mission then? Huh? Table scraps? He directed BOTH games.

not only in many people eyes think his vision is "controversial" but he has never created a true 3D game before. He also has complete control over the games story, which is odd since he has never been known to write any comprehensive story before. He calls in a developer (Team Ninja) that has never really been known for level design, art (yes, they are good with graphics, but designing? I thought both the Power-Suit and the Zero-suit were just laughably awful),

He wrote Famicom Tantei Club series... he has comprehensive writing skills. Sakamoto is not a retard; he's an educated, well spoken man.
And your irks with the Suits are subjective. But I found nothing wrong with the Power Suit/Zero Suit designs. Guess you don't remember how stupid Samus looked in Prime 1 with her gigantosaurus shoulderpads? Also, have you played any of the Ninja Gaiden games?

and (from my knowledge) has really never developed for a Nintendo Console after the SNES days (the graphics in Other M imo showed to me that maybe Team Ninja underestimated the limitations of the Wii).

Oh this is so incorrect. Let's see what has worked on since 1994:
Teleroboxer (1995) - Director
Famicom Tantei Club Part II: Ushiro ni Tatsu Shoujo (1998) - Director, Writer
Trade & Battle: Card Hero (2000) - Director
Metroid Fusion (2002) - Chief Director
Metroid: Zero Mission (2004) - Chief Director
Metroid: Other M (TBA 2010?) - Director

And did we even play the same game? Aside from some very rare occurrences of some shitty textures, Other M's graphics are some of the best on the Wii. And I will defend that position til the death. Samus's suit and may other things are completely normal mapped, too. And doesn't the whole game run at 60fps?

Not only that, but Team Ninja's talent in action were completely wasted thanks to the awful design choice to simplify the controls similar to the SNES with no analog stick (in a fucking 3D action game... ) because of Sakamoto's vision to have the game simple for casual audiences (why the hell is he trying to appease the casual audience in a Metroid game? Metroid has never been more then the hardcore/niche crowd. Also, the whole decision doesn't make sense. If he was trying to appeal to casual audiences, he wouldn't give them Super Metroid controls, since most of them probably don't even know what Super Metroid is, and would have given them an analog stick like 99% of the console gaming community), therefore successfully killing any chance this game could've had in depth and strategy.

Clearly, the Wii's audience does not cater to a hardcore crowd. 2 minutes walking down the aisle at any store that sells video games will tell you that. Far too many people ignore the Metroid series due to the challenge. And he was trying to remedy that by simplifying the gameplay. If you refuse to understand that, then you're just being stubborn.

If I'm speaking from my ass then feel free to critique but damn, I can't help but feel from the beginning Project M was going in the wrong direction, real fast, and that the warning signs were all there, plain as day. Which is a shame, because I wouldn't mind having a game like Other M in gameplay but just with a huge overhaul (it has potential, but its not quite there yet).

Calm. Down. Take a breather, go outside. Take long, deep breaths. And if this thread turns into (yet another) Other M bitchfest it will be locked, immediately.