surf dtoid with 
Rising (10+)
People you follow
Yeah, as much as I want it, I've pretty much written off Metroid Dread.
Anyways, the whole GBA or DS debate, as well as a low print count in my area, meant that I never got to pick this up, even though I watched it struggle to get released for a few years. Linde, just for kicks, did you notice anything blatently weak in the DS presentation where you think there might be a better presentation in the GBA version? (Apologies for bad wording, I'm kinda tired.)
Anyways, the whole GBA or DS debate, as well as a low print count in my area, meant that I never got to pick this up, even though I watched it struggle to get released for a few years. Linde, just for kicks, did you notice anything blatently weak in the DS presentation where you think there might be a better presentation in the GBA version? (Apologies for bad wording, I'm kinda tired.)
Well, like I said, I never did play the GBA version, but when I was scouring reviews when Scurge was initially released, I noticed a couple sites mentioning that some of the cool fog effects didn't really translate over very well, and the sound seemed a bit tinnier in the DS version. Little stuff, nothing game-breaking or obviously horrid. A worthy sacrifice for an always-on map, at least for me.
Anyone in the Columbus, OH area, the FYE in the Tuttle Mall has rougly 5-7 copies of this game used for about 13 or 14 dollars. Some guy brings them in all the time. Says his brother works for some distribution center and ships him stuff that "falls off the back of the truck."
Alright, guess I'll try to find the DS version than. A map is a simple use of the second screen, but having a map available all the time in Castlevania on DS was a godsend.
Damn, that dropped in price quickly... Heard good things about it too, I'll have to try to track a copy down.
I have to point out something you missed.
Metroid Prime Hunters isn't supposed to fill your 2d needs, or bring the series to 3d. Hunters, is just another of the Prime series, an already fantastic Metroid series.
Hunters was actually a good game, a little slow at first, but it had a lot going for it. Not to mention the awesome online deathmatch mode.
So, not only is your gripe about hunters unnessicary, its wrong.
Sorry, but you cant complain about a game thats meant to be 3d for not being 2d.
Metroid Prime Hunters isn't supposed to fill your 2d needs, or bring the series to 3d. Hunters, is just another of the Prime series, an already fantastic Metroid series.
Hunters was actually a good game, a little slow at first, but it had a lot going for it. Not to mention the awesome online deathmatch mode.
So, not only is your gripe about hunters unnessicary, its wrong.
Sorry, but you cant complain about a game thats meant to be 3d for not being 2d.
ZMTToxics, I didn't miss anything. I lamented the fact that, while Metroid Prime: Hunters is a swell game, its success alongside Metroid Dread's going MIA and/or being canceled makes me fear that Nintendo might be backing off from 2D Metroid titles on the DS. You might've missed the part where I said, y'know, that Hunters was a great game. It's just not the direction I'd like Metroid to go.
Well, at any rate, its a little late to be complaining. When did the first prime come out? That was the date the signified the possible coming to an end for the 2d series.
Fusion was the last I played for the 2d Metroids. I never beat any of them, and I haven't played them all either. I will say they are good games, but good in the way of the Megaman. I bought the anniversary edition for the cube, it has 1-8 on it. I love Megaman 1, and i was playing 2 and it was good too. After beating 1 and most of 2, I got tired of the game play and decided to try the others. They are all the same! And any real fan will say thats why they are great! But what about the gamers who didn't like it? How do you try and sell it to them and keep it alive if its the same every time. Unfortunately when it finally did change, we get the mass marketed crap we have today. Battle series 1000 X RockMan NT 2k4 Network edition! And as the list grows on for 2d Metroid, I would only assume it would take the path of Megaman and eventually change to bring in a new demographic. That means either slowly be over done into a steaming pile of crap that brings in money, or reinvent it self just enough to keep old fans happy and bring in new fans.
The problem is old fans never want to see their favorite games change. And when they do change, those fans loose interest.
The move to 3d was an excellent decision to keep the series alive. And no one can complain as its labeled as separate series. Old fans will appreciate that they sexy Samus is still there and new fans will be pulled in by the new age 3d graphics. From a profit to happiness ratio, thats about the best they can do.
Do you really need another of the same just because it is the DS? Why not bring the new found life of the game to the new systems?
Sorry, I can not feel your pain. I believe in change and that it happens for a reason, and when nothing changes for so long, it can either be really good, or really bad. I think this change was good.
Fusion was the last I played for the 2d Metroids. I never beat any of them, and I haven't played them all either. I will say they are good games, but good in the way of the Megaman. I bought the anniversary edition for the cube, it has 1-8 on it. I love Megaman 1, and i was playing 2 and it was good too. After beating 1 and most of 2, I got tired of the game play and decided to try the others. They are all the same! And any real fan will say thats why they are great! But what about the gamers who didn't like it? How do you try and sell it to them and keep it alive if its the same every time. Unfortunately when it finally did change, we get the mass marketed crap we have today. Battle series 1000 X RockMan NT 2k4 Network edition! And as the list grows on for 2d Metroid, I would only assume it would take the path of Megaman and eventually change to bring in a new demographic. That means either slowly be over done into a steaming pile of crap that brings in money, or reinvent it self just enough to keep old fans happy and bring in new fans.
The problem is old fans never want to see their favorite games change. And when they do change, those fans loose interest.
The move to 3d was an excellent decision to keep the series alive. And no one can complain as its labeled as separate series. Old fans will appreciate that they sexy Samus is still there and new fans will be pulled in by the new age 3d graphics. From a profit to happiness ratio, thats about the best they can do.
Do you really need another of the same just because it is the DS? Why not bring the new found life of the game to the new systems?
Sorry, I can not feel your pain. I believe in change and that it happens for a reason, and when nothing changes for so long, it can either be really good, or really bad. I think this change was good.
I'd also like to point out, I am just ranting while I avoid my 3 assignment do in 12 hours (assembly, c++, and shell).
It's not late to be complaining. Metroid Fusion and Prime came out in the US on the same day, and Zero Mission a year or so after Fusion -- 2D Metroid carried on after Prime's advent, but it's slowing to a halt.
I'm in agreement that change is a good thing, but to change doesn't always have to necessitate a movement to three dimensions. A lot of the elements that are particular to the Metroid series were present in Prime, but it lost a bit in the translation. Fusion and Zero Mission, on the other hand, proved that Intelligent Systems still had a lot of room to grow in the 2D department, new ideas and new play schemes to explore. Prime was good, Prime 2 was just more Prime with different weapons and a dark world (whee), and Hunters, while a fine game, was like Prime minus Metroid.
You know what that is? Fucking Quake.
Reinvention does not mean three dimensions. If such was the case, every existing franchise on every last-gen and current-gen console would be doomed. Building a successful series is about banking on what works, improving what doesn't, and expanding the reach of the franchise to incorporate new and innovative ideas that refresh the game. Hunters, though -- that was cashing in.
I'm in agreement that change is a good thing, but to change doesn't always have to necessitate a movement to three dimensions. A lot of the elements that are particular to the Metroid series were present in Prime, but it lost a bit in the translation. Fusion and Zero Mission, on the other hand, proved that Intelligent Systems still had a lot of room to grow in the 2D department, new ideas and new play schemes to explore. Prime was good, Prime 2 was just more Prime with different weapons and a dark world (whee), and Hunters, while a fine game, was like Prime minus Metroid.
You know what that is? Fucking Quake.
Reinvention does not mean three dimensions. If such was the case, every existing franchise on every last-gen and current-gen console would be doomed. Building a successful series is about banking on what works, improving what doesn't, and expanding the reach of the franchise to incorporate new and innovative ideas that refresh the game. Hunters, though -- that was cashing in.
Incidentally, Castlevania's movement to 3D -- it's reinvention, you might say -- was a fucking disaster. Since then, every successful Castlevania title has stuck to the more traditional style of gameplay. Just an example.
"The problem is old fans never want to see their favorite games change. And when they do change, those fans loose interest."
ZMTToxics, when you grow up with a hugely successful string of 2D Metroid games, being served a game like Prime is like having a massive iron ball shoved up your ass... and somehow magically lodged between you prostate and bladder, so everytime you sit down to play this game you feel its rough profile rubbing against your precious innards, nearly pulling your inner cock out of your ass, and you can't help but feel that something's very fucking wrong.
Likewise, if there were ever a 2D Quake (not sure if there is or not yet), I'd have the same feeling playing it.
Just because a game was born in 2D does not mean it has to become 3D because it's the logical next step in evolution. Offshoots are fine of course (look at the 2D Half-Life game), but continuing in the direction of incorporating it into a a complete core rewrite of games like Metroid is just going to end in many loyal fans shitting their dicks out of their ass wondering what has happened to their favorite game.
ZMTToxics, when you grow up with a hugely successful string of 2D Metroid games, being served a game like Prime is like having a massive iron ball shoved up your ass... and somehow magically lodged between you prostate and bladder, so everytime you sit down to play this game you feel its rough profile rubbing against your precious innards, nearly pulling your inner cock out of your ass, and you can't help but feel that something's very fucking wrong.
Likewise, if there were ever a 2D Quake (not sure if there is or not yet), I'd have the same feeling playing it.
Just because a game was born in 2D does not mean it has to become 3D because it's the logical next step in evolution. Offshoots are fine of course (look at the 2D Half-Life game), but continuing in the direction of incorporating it into a a complete core rewrite of games like Metroid is just going to end in many loyal fans shitting their dicks out of their ass wondering what has happened to their favorite game.
Linde, I haven't gotten to play them yet, but I heard that the PS2 Castlevanias, which are in 3D, are a large step in the right direction. I heard the largest complaints were that the backtracking is excessive (which happens in a move from 2D to 3D, like in Metroid Prime) and that combat isn't as nice as something like Devil May Cry. I haven't tried them, though, so I can't give a personal opinion other than the fact that I'm loving the handheld versions.
They won't make you kill any babies, but compared to superior 3D action adventure games like DMC3 or God of War 1/2, they seem terrifically dull. Moreover, I felt a sort of total abandonment of what makes CV... well, CV. If SOTN is sex, Lament is slamming your cock in the silverware drawer.
Oops, I am a quake man my self. Ha ha.
I wasn't saying every 2d game should be brought to 3d. I was merely saying it was a change in the interest of breathing new life into the series.
And I played Castlevania 64, and I rather enjoyed it. I still love the the 2d ones, don't get me wrong, but the 3d one added, well, another dimension of game play. I still felt like I was playing Castlevania, I mean, the giant skeletons were there, the whips, vampires, the heart of a Castlevania game. Not to mention the latest one for the ds, Portait of Ruin is a mix of 2d and 3d, and its fucking fantastic.
However, the point of a 2d quake game makes me sick. I would not play it. Quake is designed for 1 thing, fps, anything else isn't Quake. Games like Metroid and Castlevania where the purpose is to tell a story through means of action, that can work on any level. The systems they started on were limited to 2d graphics. That is the only way the story to could be displayed. If they were 3d capable like todays systems, they would have been completely different games, and now is their chance to improve apon their game concept by adding a 3rd dimension. They don't have too, but it makes things more interesting compared a 2d only game.
Quake didn't have a story other then the space marines were under attack.
I wasn't saying every 2d game should be brought to 3d. I was merely saying it was a change in the interest of breathing new life into the series.
And I played Castlevania 64, and I rather enjoyed it. I still love the the 2d ones, don't get me wrong, but the 3d one added, well, another dimension of game play. I still felt like I was playing Castlevania, I mean, the giant skeletons were there, the whips, vampires, the heart of a Castlevania game. Not to mention the latest one for the ds, Portait of Ruin is a mix of 2d and 3d, and its fucking fantastic.
However, the point of a 2d quake game makes me sick. I would not play it. Quake is designed for 1 thing, fps, anything else isn't Quake. Games like Metroid and Castlevania where the purpose is to tell a story through means of action, that can work on any level. The systems they started on were limited to 2d graphics. That is the only way the story to could be displayed. If they were 3d capable like todays systems, they would have been completely different games, and now is their chance to improve apon their game concept by adding a 3rd dimension. They don't have too, but it makes things more interesting compared a 2d only game.
Quake didn't have a story other then the space marines were under attack.
Wait a minute -- Castlevania 64 felt like Castlevania, as opposed to Lament of Innocense or Curse of Darkness? You, sir, have invalidated yourself in every way possible.
I think we're talking about nine different things. Portrait of Ruin is not a mix of 2D and 3D. It has 3D graphics at intermittent points in the game, but it's not a 3D game, just like how Ultimate Ghosts 'n Goblins is entirely 3D graphics but still a 2D platformer.
3D graphics are one thing, but just because a game can incorporate 3D gameplay doesn't mean it ought to.
I think we're talking about nine different things. Portrait of Ruin is not a mix of 2D and 3D. It has 3D graphics at intermittent points in the game, but it's not a 3D game, just like how Ultimate Ghosts 'n Goblins is entirely 3D graphics but still a 2D platformer.
3D graphics are one thing, but just because a game can incorporate 3D gameplay doesn't mean it ought to.
@ ZMTToxics: Sorry, going to have to pick apart your last post. Also, Castlevania 64 and Legacy of Darkness were bad enough to get kicked out of continuity and relegated to a mere non-canon footnote in recent Castlevania timelines.
"However, the point of a 2d quake game makes me sick. I would not play it. Quake is designed for 1 thing, fps, anything else isn't Quake."
That's kind of Linde's point, from what I understand. Castlevania is designed for 1 thing, 2D sidescrolling, the same way Quake is designed for FPS. The mechanics in Castlevania evolved around a 2D environment and, if CV64 is any indicator, they don't fit very well into a 3D environment.
"Games like Metroid and Castlevania where the purpose is to tell a story through means of action, that can work on any level."
I must have missed the incredibly deep stories in Metroid I-III and Castlevania I-IV.
"The systems they started on were limited to 2d graphics. That is the only way the story to could be displayed."
I seem to remember a game called Legend of Zelda using 2D graphics to let you actually explore a world instead of simply go left and right. It made sense when they adapted those mechanics into 3D, even if Ocarina of Time did suffer from a common 2D-to-3D problem (it takes longer to move in 3D games than 2D ones). The only reason the Metroid Prime series succeeds as an adaption of the classic 2D Metroid gameplay is because it artfully implements the same Metroid feel into a 3D environment (other than Hunters, that is).
"If they were 3d capable like todays systems, they would have been completely different games, and now is their chance to improve apon their game concept by adding a 3rd dimension. They don't have too, but it makes things more interesting compared a 2d only game."
That is highly debatable. 2D is still a very viable genre that everyone attempted to abandon once Super Mario 64 came out. I thought people got this after the N64/PS1 days ended: GAMES ARE NOT AUTOMATICALLY BETTER IN 3D. Compare: Castlevania 64 vs. Castlevania: Symphony of the Night. Compare: Sonic Adventure vs. Sonic Advance. Compare: Final Fight: Streetwise vs. the original Final Fight. Mario, Zelda, and Metroid all successfully evolved, but that doesn't mean that every series needs to.
Also, you'll note that new series are still being made in 2D, such as the Viewtiful Joe series, a superb concept (sadly dead) that I'm not sure would work as well as it did in a 3D environment.
Apologies for a long post. Also cocks.
"However, the point of a 2d quake game makes me sick. I would not play it. Quake is designed for 1 thing, fps, anything else isn't Quake."
That's kind of Linde's point, from what I understand. Castlevania is designed for 1 thing, 2D sidescrolling, the same way Quake is designed for FPS. The mechanics in Castlevania evolved around a 2D environment and, if CV64 is any indicator, they don't fit very well into a 3D environment.
"Games like Metroid and Castlevania where the purpose is to tell a story through means of action, that can work on any level."
I must have missed the incredibly deep stories in Metroid I-III and Castlevania I-IV.
"The systems they started on were limited to 2d graphics. That is the only way the story to could be displayed."
I seem to remember a game called Legend of Zelda using 2D graphics to let you actually explore a world instead of simply go left and right. It made sense when they adapted those mechanics into 3D, even if Ocarina of Time did suffer from a common 2D-to-3D problem (it takes longer to move in 3D games than 2D ones). The only reason the Metroid Prime series succeeds as an adaption of the classic 2D Metroid gameplay is because it artfully implements the same Metroid feel into a 3D environment (other than Hunters, that is).
"If they were 3d capable like todays systems, they would have been completely different games, and now is their chance to improve apon their game concept by adding a 3rd dimension. They don't have too, but it makes things more interesting compared a 2d only game."
That is highly debatable. 2D is still a very viable genre that everyone attempted to abandon once Super Mario 64 came out. I thought people got this after the N64/PS1 days ended: GAMES ARE NOT AUTOMATICALLY BETTER IN 3D. Compare: Castlevania 64 vs. Castlevania: Symphony of the Night. Compare: Sonic Adventure vs. Sonic Advance. Compare: Final Fight: Streetwise vs. the original Final Fight. Mario, Zelda, and Metroid all successfully evolved, but that doesn't mean that every series needs to.
Also, you'll note that new series are still being made in 2D, such as the Viewtiful Joe series, a superb concept (sadly dead) that I'm not sure would work as well as it did in a 3D environment.
Apologies for a long post. Also cocks.
Admitting you liked Castlevania 64 has the same result as Godwining a forum thread: You automatically lose.
I enjoyed Hunters, but it definitely was just an FPS in Metroid clothing. I'd love to see a 2D Metroid game, or even a 3D Prime-style adventure on the DS.
I enjoyed Hunters, but it definitely was just an FPS in Metroid clothing. I'd love to see a 2D Metroid game, or even a 3D Prime-style adventure on the DS.
@Linde: My points do not become mute because I havent played every castlevania game.
@Line and Necros: The perspective of which a game is played dosnt change the theme or the story. If rescue the princess by side scrolling, or by world roaming (not sure of a better term, its almost 4am), I still saved the princess.
These games are still based on story concepts. The older ones may not have expressed it in the game, but there were story pages in the manuals if im not mistaken. Castlevania for example, your a vampire hunter, generic plot line is you have to defeat some sort of vampire related creature, and the game is your adventure (not confuse this statement with me calling the game an adventure game, as I know its an action side scroller). Not to confuse people reading this, but the gameplay on these games are 2 parts, gameplay and story / theme. The gameplay is inherited from for the story. Make story then make game. Making a game and then adding a story doesn't work. Keeping the same top level hierarchy (the story), any style of game play can be inherited from it. The story is Castlevania, game play will be 2d sidescroller, or 3rd person 3d. Again, doesn't matter, its Castlevania.
Linde mentioned that he didnt like the direction of hunters. Thats the underlying point of this discussion. The changing of games style of gameplay. And when games are based on stories, its not about what style of game play it is (Final Fantasy 8-13 for example) as long as it works with the story.
Samus baking cakes to blow stuff up dosn't make sense. Samus using her arm cannon to blow stuff up makes sense. Depicting that in 3d or 2d doesn't change anything other then how you play. Its still metroid, just not what your used to playing to get at the story. Castlevania 64, is jut another way to play, inherited from the same base. Now, I am well aware of the ps2 games sucking, and thats a case of the gameplay not working with the story.
Or I could e entirely wrong. But its my oppinion, changing the gameplay, doesn't change the heart of the game. If it does, its no longer the same game (2 different bases, 2 different games).
Its 4am. I now have 6 hours to get my assignments done and handed it. Awesome.
@Line and Necros: The perspective of which a game is played dosnt change the theme or the story. If rescue the princess by side scrolling, or by world roaming (not sure of a better term, its almost 4am), I still saved the princess.
These games are still based on story concepts. The older ones may not have expressed it in the game, but there were story pages in the manuals if im not mistaken. Castlevania for example, your a vampire hunter, generic plot line is you have to defeat some sort of vampire related creature, and the game is your adventure (not confuse this statement with me calling the game an adventure game, as I know its an action side scroller). Not to confuse people reading this, but the gameplay on these games are 2 parts, gameplay and story / theme. The gameplay is inherited from for the story. Make story then make game. Making a game and then adding a story doesn't work. Keeping the same top level hierarchy (the story), any style of game play can be inherited from it. The story is Castlevania, game play will be 2d sidescroller, or 3rd person 3d. Again, doesn't matter, its Castlevania.
Linde mentioned that he didnt like the direction of hunters. Thats the underlying point of this discussion. The changing of games style of gameplay. And when games are based on stories, its not about what style of game play it is (Final Fantasy 8-13 for example) as long as it works with the story.
Samus baking cakes to blow stuff up dosn't make sense. Samus using her arm cannon to blow stuff up makes sense. Depicting that in 3d or 2d doesn't change anything other then how you play. Its still metroid, just not what your used to playing to get at the story. Castlevania 64, is jut another way to play, inherited from the same base. Now, I am well aware of the ps2 games sucking, and thats a case of the gameplay not working with the story.
Or I could e entirely wrong. But its my oppinion, changing the gameplay, doesn't change the heart of the game. If it does, its no longer the same game (2 different bases, 2 different games).
Its 4am. I now have 6 hours to get my assignments done and handed it. Awesome.
>Samus baking cakes to blow stuff up dosn't make sense.
It makes sense more than everything else you written. Actually, can you be 100% sure that her bombs aren't cakes?
It makes sense more than everything else you written. Actually, can you be 100% sure that her bombs aren't cakes?
I got as soon as I could find it (week after it came out). I got the GBA verison cause I was told it plays a little smoother.
It is pretty fun and tough.
It is pretty fun and tough.
I actually could go for some cake.
As I mentioned earlier, I was just debating to avoid homework. :D
As I mentioned earlier, I was just debating to avoid homework. :D
@ ZMTToxics: The essence of Metroid and Castlevania wasn't originally built around just a theme or story. How many other alien or vampire hunter games were there on NES? The reason why Metroid and Castlevania stood apart were their play mechanics, the way they felt when you performed actions, and in those games, that is much more important than a simple concept story established just to provide incentive to play the game. These mechanics and feel must stay somewhat intact in the transition between games, or else it will not feel like the original game.
Super Mario 64 still feels like a Mario game. Ocarina of Time is basically a 3D Link to the Past. The reason Metroid Prime is still Metroid is that it maintains all of Metroid's mechanics and feel, only in a first-person environment (though backtracking in any of these 3D games is slightly more tedious). Linde's point is that Metroid Prime: Hunters didn't maintain that Metroid/Metroid Prime feel and instead plays as though it was Quake with a Samus skin slapped on. The scenario and plot doesn't factor into the gameplay, one of the defining aspects of Metroid. It feels like the Metroid scenario is simply being used for a Quake game. Now, will it not be fun? No, it can be fun. It just won't feel like a real Metroid game.
Similarly, Castlevania 64 maintains the basic scenario of Castlevania games (as silly as it is), yet slaps it onto a very poorly made game that attempts to adapt the traditional games' structure but fails miserably. Linde wasn't saying that your points are moot because you haven't played every Castlevania game. Hell, I haven't played them all, and it's my favorite series. He's saying that your points are invalid because you're defending what could easily be considered the worst game of the series (though in my opinion, I hate The Castlevania Adventure for GB much more), a nostalgic trainwreck that does not rise to the expectations we set for a classic series like Castlevania.
Super Mario 64 still feels like a Mario game. Ocarina of Time is basically a 3D Link to the Past. The reason Metroid Prime is still Metroid is that it maintains all of Metroid's mechanics and feel, only in a first-person environment (though backtracking in any of these 3D games is slightly more tedious). Linde's point is that Metroid Prime: Hunters didn't maintain that Metroid/Metroid Prime feel and instead plays as though it was Quake with a Samus skin slapped on. The scenario and plot doesn't factor into the gameplay, one of the defining aspects of Metroid. It feels like the Metroid scenario is simply being used for a Quake game. Now, will it not be fun? No, it can be fun. It just won't feel like a real Metroid game.
Similarly, Castlevania 64 maintains the basic scenario of Castlevania games (as silly as it is), yet slaps it onto a very poorly made game that attempts to adapt the traditional games' structure but fails miserably. Linde wasn't saying that your points are moot because you haven't played every Castlevania game. Hell, I haven't played them all, and it's my favorite series. He's saying that your points are invalid because you're defending what could easily be considered the worst game of the series (though in my opinion, I hate The Castlevania Adventure for GB much more), a nostalgic trainwreck that does not rise to the expectations we set for a classic series like Castlevania.
Way late on the draw, but I'm in the 2D-to-3D-baaaad camp. I haven't liked a Mario, Zelda or Castlevania in 3D and likely never will. It's a transition that *does not work*. The 3D Metroid games were great games, but they weren't Metroid games. The others, well, they were just bad games.
Whatever dimension you start in, you stay in. Period.
Whatever dimension you start in, you stay in. Period.
follow
