This is the type of topics that makes one think about the necessecity of having an actual "Academia of Videogames". But one held by actual historians and videogame developers not English Majors with youtube channels passing of as intelectuals.
AetoSuchian said:
Are there not Metroidvania games that predate Metroid as well? I've seen this "Metroid came first" argument repeatedly but I don't think this is true. (Brain Breaker and Xanadu).
Well yes, in most of these cases there tends to be a "Proto game" which introduced the concept first. However, there's lots of considerations to make:
- a)Was the concept in the proto game substantially realised?
- b)Did the "credited" game brough up enough new stuff and refined significantly the proto game's formula?
- c)Did the proto game kickstarted a raise of those type of games or was the "credited" one?
More or less past the 5th generation there's a more pronounced trend in the videogame community of having realy short term memory. As for specific examples of this: Gears of War seing as the bringer of cover shooters when infact there were already stablished games exploiting the mechanic. Another most recent example is comparing everything to "Dark Souls". Or any game with a companion character is labeled as aping The Last of Us.
AetoSuchian said:
Maybe Metroidlike works as a subset, but to me it creates confusion because what about games like Metroid Fusion and Metroid II which people are more divisive about? Does a Metroidlike inherently need to have sequence breaking? Is it about the sci-fi atmosphere?
The "sci-fi" atmosphere is mainly a presentation element in this case. For games that prioritize "gameplay" is possible to have 2 different games that are the same at it's core but with different settings I.E: A WWII COD/Medal of Honor/or a COD like Infinity Warfare.
At the macro level Metroid is a "Zelda like" that prioritized other aspects and mechanics: Shooting, "path finding", more structured progression and platforming on a sci-fi environement.
In the end these elements were sufficient to diffirentiate the game enough to be considered it's own thing past it's obvious influence.
Now, here's the thing, why exactly the "Metroidvania" term was coined after Symphony of the Night when it (or any other of the less "standard" Castlevanias) was preceded by the 1986 Zelda/Metroid & the 1987 Adventure of Link without introducing much of anything new over these past games? And why it should be used to define a genre?
i just saw the Digibro video. It seems Digi has all the puzzle pieces but can quiet emssemble the puzzle, to the point of not having some facts straight and reaching wrong conclusions. I.E.: He's aware of Zelda II existance but seems to think is totally different to Symphony because "there's not enough side scrolling play and combat focus", which is factually wrong dungeons and temples are proof enough.
But overall, Digi makes a good arguement when he says that "Igavania" could be a good name to distinguish the Metroid like games within the confines of the Castlevania series.
Particulary don't have anything against the term itself, save for the fact that is not been employed in the most useful way. i think it should stay as long as is employed to define the subset of Castlevania games popularized after Symphony of the Night.