Reasons why I don't like Hunters

[MrBlackDX]

-Include Ghor, Gandrayda and Rundas. Hey, it could happen before Prime 3.

Maybe, but I like the idea of MPH having its own set of hunters, PLUS, if it was set after MP3, then certain "rumours" aka the ship which follows her after the end could be resolved

And I'm not suggesting that its Sylux, after reading a post stating an interesting point about Sylux's ship being GFed technology (sorry to steal this idea), then it could be a GFed ship and even another hunter in there, GFed elite soldier or something.

-Have it more about bounty hunting and don't try to make it epic. It failed in Hunters 1.

Interesting idea! Collecting bounties for other hunters, which could net you say ship upgrades from GFed or something, you could then have multiple planets, NOT have a "this planet currently has this hunter here", and instead have a scanning system where you have to track the hunters by their footprints or how they may have acted in the environment

-A better multiplayer system for Wii, and no Friend Codes!

You could have a system similar to Guitar Hero, where you can play random people online, but instead of GH when you finish the game with a player, you could have an opportunity to see their friend code, although if people were very strict about privacy they could have an option not to show their own code

-WiiSpeak is a must.

USB Headset would be essential, as long as the hardware can take voice chat

-Single player should still be an awesome Metroid adventure.

As it would be a hunters spin-off, it shouldn't go too much into the metroid/chozo/space pirate of the normal games.

The alimbic cluster only has limited potential, a new game IMO should investigate the Kriken Empire, it's an empire, and the Kriken's are gits, LOADS of exploration

-Some variety with the bosses.

If this didn't happen then I would withdraw from defending the series, a Wii version would have no excuse

[Jesse D]

I split the continuing discussion of Hunters 2 ideas off this way.

[Emperor Ing]

If Hunters was not a Metroid game, I would think it as mediocre as it is now, because I play games usually for single-player experience, and I would have found it lacking.


I bought Hunters because it was a Metroid game, and expected a decent Single-Player. If it wasn't Metroid, I would not have even touched the game, I think.

[9000]

honestly, i agree with the dislikes. they do get annoying. for me, hunters just opened up some more of the metroid universe. although the controls and stuff were terrible, i really got a feel for the universe. i thought the other hunters were awesome. every one is unique. one thing i like is the mult player. i just thought it was so cool to take control of sylux and hunt down samus. of course, samus is my #1.

[Alexiel]

controls and the story are awesome if you ask me

fighting with the same bosses is boring but since the other hunters can be considered as bosses too its not that bad

games not that hard, try it again a few more times and you should be ok

the cliffs are a pain in the ** for me too, at first

[1upD]

the cliffs are a pain in the ** for me too, at first

What "cliffs" are you even referring to?

I think he means the bottomless pit of doom.

[Mr. McIHOP]

its not a metroid game unless it has metroids in it!

but they really abused the evacuation sequences too much, not to mention repetative bosses!

[GF_Kennon]

i like hunters, mostly because its a portable metroid in 3D (not that there is nothing wrong with the 2D ones (super is still my fave))

[Mr. McIHOP]

its not a metroid game unless it has metroids in it!

I can not wait to see Samus not appear in a Metroid game, since as long as it has Metroids then it will be a Metroid game according to you.

*facepalm* lemme rephrase that: its not a metroid game if it dosent have metroids and samus in it. there, happy, IUniverse?

[zengosm]

its not a metroid game unless it has metroids in it!

I can not wait to see Samus not appear in a Metroid game, since as long as it has Metroids then it will be a Metroid game according to you.

Actually that's not quite logically correct. Mr. McIHOP never made mention of Samus, just Metroids. If A does not exist, then B does not exist. With just this information, it is a logical fallacy to assume since if not A, then not B, C is not important. Based on this information it is unreasonable to assume that if A then B, because there can be many factors that make up B.

[Emperor Ing]

This dude knows his (il)logical truisms.

[mental]

Also, if A and B then C, but sometimes also Y.

[Lazarius]

Also, if A and B then C, but sometimes also Y.

Woah man, woah. Let's not forget the X that occurs if A and C ARE B and the whole thing is multiplied by Y.

[Emperor Ing]

Getting trolled by IUniverse. Wow. Kid ain't bright.

(I'm going to have to take notes...)




A reason why I didn't like Hunters? Yeah, the lack of Space Pirate involvement was a bit meh (if it really was the Ultimate Power, I bet you the SP would have sent a damn Frigate to the cluster. Wouldn't have that made a cool level?), a gripe I have is that despite even being a side-story, it doesn't really fit in with anything else in the series.

[Mr. McIHOP]

I can not wait to see Samus not appear in a Metroid game, since as long as it has Metroids then it will be a Metroid game according to you.[/quote]

*facepalm* lemme rephrase that: its not a metroid game if it dosent have metroids and samus in it. there, happy, IUniverse?[/quote]

I love how you want to see a Metroid game without a story or upgrades to collect. As you said, it only has to have Metroids and Samus to be a Metroid game.[/quote]

oh ha ha ha. im going to reprhase this [i]again[i] what i meant was that it needs to have the aspects of past metroid games that made them fun: a good story, blowing up stuff, space pirates, upgrades (not just beam weapons) metroids, boss variety, etc.