I think like this: if some things doesn't work at least they can work on it, flesh out ideas and present something even better later. Now, if all we got was a "Super Metroid Remake" what would we get afterwards? Another Super Metroid remake. And then another Super Metroid Remake, because the fanz only wantz Super Metroidz. Yay.Kard8p3 said:
-
Hey Guest. Check out your NeoGAF Wrapped 2025 results here!
New Metroid: Other M Gameplay Trailer
- Thread starter Kard8p3
- Start date
Hot Coldman
Banned
heringer said:
Hey, that's what Zelda did and it's not that bad.
Datschge said:I really like how sleek the transition from first to third person view looks after using a grapple beam:
I also love how after that it seamlessly transitions into the scene with the creature jumping out of the lava. They've said one of their goals was to make everything as seamless as possible and I think they've achieved that goal.
Hot Coldman
Banned
heringer said:
I think I'm immune to having too much of a good thing. I mean, I'm still playing Pokemon games, so that should give you some idea of what I think about samey sequels, ha.
I love how different Other M is daring to be, but I definitely also love how Zelda is, well, still gonna be Zelda. I'd love this new Metroid whether it was looking as awesome as Other M is or just another Super Metroid.
You're basically pitting subjectivity vs objectivity here. Not possible. Within my expectations, of course. But that's consistent with what I was replying to.jrricky said:
I'm pretty damn sure this won't be a bad game. But it doesn't have to be "bad" to be an "underwhelming disappointment".jrricky said:
D
Deleted member 30609
Unconfirmed Member
I really wish the colours weren't so... ugly.
I don't see what's so funnySpacePirate Ridley said:
etiolate said:
I think just the basic change in perspective is enough to change a lot of the core gameplay. I feel your major concern with the franchise is how it used to do things specific to the videogame enviroments and that's why you celebrate it so, and the original Prime excelled at this with the log books and even just the fauna and the architecture in Tallon IV.
But in regards of gameplay, although it got as much as it could from thepast titles and adjusted it to 1st person, it's still quite different. It's much slower paced than Super, and definately more linear in terms of power up progresion gameplay. No hidden paths/fake lava and stuff like that, and the powerup themselves were a lot more systematic.
Not to talk about combat which is vastly different with the lock-on system, multiple beams, and no focus on rapidfiring missiles.
In my opinion, the core design has been present in every Metroid game to date (pinball excluded of course, wouldn't know about Hunters). Powered up exploration gameplay. The rest, are simply personal preferences on what elements should the franchise keep/drop and in what direction should it go.
I noticed this too, and it's present in a lot of times in the trailer. Happens at the 40 second mark with the monster ambushing her, the shinespark, the finishing moves, and of course the final part in the trailer where she's running to the corridor outside. That change to first person is absolutely amazing. (can somebody gif it up?)Kard8p3 said:
MadOdorMachine
No additional functions
Same here. I'm really starting to think Nintendo should limit the main Zelda games to one per generation especially now that most people have their consoles hooked up online. I love TP, I'm playing through it a 4th time w/my son so I'm sure an expansion pack for the game would do wonders for Nintendo if the were to ever release a competent online infrastructure. There really is no reason for them to release a whole new game especially if the gameplay mechanics are already in place and won't be changing much.heringer said:
I think Castlevania is another example of how simply rehashing the same type of games over and over again can make it stale. People have been begging for a more action oriented Castlevania for awhile now. Funny that Metroid is the one to actually get it.
flintstryker
Banned
man the colors are beautiful.
D
Deleted member 30609
Unconfirmed Member
no, it's cool. some people are turned on by uncut toe nails and acne.
BocoDragon
or, How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Realize This Assgrab is Delicious
This game comes out the week I start school. Not good.
MadOdorMachine said:
Skyward Sword really doesn't play like TP much, aside from some pointing controls. There's a dash/stamina system that depletes slowly ala Shadow of the Colossus as you're climbing things (you can even jump-climb like in SotC) or run. Just that alone changes up the way the levels are designed as Link can now run up walls to grab the tops of taller ones to hoist himself over. Then there's the more obvious stuff like the motion controls and how that affects the combat and puzzles.
And really, all we know about SS are the controls and graphics, and with those being so totally different from previous games, I doubt the rest of the game will "play it safe." It has to be different because the foundation is incredibly different.
flintstryker
Banned
Well since peace and love usually win in movies i win by default.Boney said:
BocoDragon said:
Same and to make it worse this is the first time i am going to school in four years.
_Alkaline_
Member
I don't really understanding people saying SS is playing it safe.
It's basically overhauling the world's structure - the distinction between field and dungeon will be blurred, removing the black and white contrast that has been found in Zelda overworlds for decades now. If that isn't a big change, I don't know what is.
Not to mention placing a considerable emphasis on motion controls, not only in navigation and combat but in puzzle solving too. It's placing a huge emphasis on M+ as opposed to playing it safe with traditional controls.
It's basically overhauling the world's structure - the distinction between field and dungeon will be blurred, removing the black and white contrast that has been found in Zelda overworlds for decades now. If that isn't a big change, I don't know what is.
Not to mention placing a considerable emphasis on motion controls, not only in navigation and combat but in puzzle solving too. It's placing a huge emphasis on M+ as opposed to playing it safe with traditional controls.
Boney said:DLC
...
It's all good, but honestly I hope he never gets what he wants, a DLC'd Zelda is pretty much the worst thing in the world to me.
That and if you don't want more then one Zelda per Gen don't buy as it stands releasing two games over a 5 year time span is not that bad and to even been metioned in the same breath as Castlevania is crazy talk.
D
Deleted member 30609
Unconfirmed Member
Until this is shown and detailed you can't blame people for being skeptical when they slash another goblin thing again and then use a boomerang, bow and arrow and slingshot to kill a think to get a key to unlock a door in a whimsical forest._Alkaline_ said:
I eat that shit up, don't get me wrong, but nothing (as of yet) shown has indicated that anyone with an inherent dislike of the Zelda formula is going to change their mind with SS.
_Alkaline_ said:
This is what I think as well, the amount density that is going into the overworld and how Aonuma talked about how there won't be such a massive split makes me incredibly excited.
I really think that at this point though we will hear this kinda talk from some people if the game has a character named Link in a green outfit and using a sword. It doesn't matter how different it is people will still say it isn't different enough.
_Alkaline_
Member
I mean, obviously we don't know to what extent the game's structure with be changed from previous 3D Zeldas, but everything we've been told by Aunoma and Miyamoto would suggest that things are being shaken up, even if we haven't seen it for ourselves yet due to the nature of the E3 demo. Plus, that demo was simplified to the extreme in order to place almost total emphasis on the controls.
_Alkaline_
Member
robor said:
Yeah I've seen ads on IGN and a few others. Hopefully we get a good tv spot soon.
flintstryker
Banned
from now on i propose a motion that when making an e3 demo the developers put the entire game in it therefore people who are stupid enough to make sweeping remarks without seeing it all won't look so silly.
robor said:
Well there's that but I was hoping for a more robust advertising campaign. Nintendo put alot into advertising Metroid Prime and that ended up being the highest selling game in the series so I was hoping this would get the same treatment (though I should know better.)
Zoramon089
Banned
heringer said:
We know next to nothing about SS besides it being in 3D and Link having weapons...I mean, there's only so much you can change in Zelda.
Kard8p3 said:
Yeah but the marketing has only gone further and further down since then for Metroid.
Prime 2 got a little but not much, I think that Prime 3 may have gotten equal to Prime 2 but still no where near what Prime got.
But that is the good, Prime Pinball, Prime Hunters (outside of the demo with the Phat) Prime Trilogy got almost no marketing as far as I remember so to me it isn't exactly surprising that they aren't going all out.
Boney said:
Ya think?
I don't know, how popular has Sakamoto's Metroid been? I haven't the foggiest but I don't think Team Ninja's games have exatcly lite up the sales charts so I don't know if that would really drive it.
Then again I am really a downer for Wii software in Japan. the two big games I had hopes for both didn't even hit 150k LTD.
Boney said:
Eh that doesn't exactly make me confident, Japan is more focused on Handhelds then it was even when Fusion shipped, almost as if the two games should of switched platforms.
That and we have already seen games by established developers, even first party does not mean high sales in Japan for Wii software.
Just look at Xenoblade for a recent example.
_Alkaline_
Member
How much did Prime 3 end up selling in Japan?
I recall it opened up at 30k-40k in its first week, but did it end up making it past 100k?
I recall it opened up at 30k-40k in its first week, but did it end up making it past 100k?
MadOdorMachine
No additional functions
I haven't played SS, but it looks like the biggest difference is motion +. At it's heart, it's still a Zelda game and even though they are mixing up some of the elements, the core foundation is still there. What I'm saying is that I wouldn't be upset if Nintendo quit releasing Zelda games so late in the generation like this and instead released the game earlier - like within 2 years of system launch. That way their core foundation could be expanded upon in DLC and major revisions (like motion plus and level design) could be made in the sequel for the next console. This would make the game more exciting since not only would there be gameplay refinements, but also a major graphical leap. It would also help keep the series from running itself into the ground. Nintendo has so much IP that we often won't see sequels for quite a while (ex. Mario 64, Metroid, Donkey Kong, Kid Icarus, Pikmin, etc.) not to mention the fact that they haven't created any hardcore new IP in quite some time. I'm just saying that it could be better balanced.AniHawk said:
MadOdorMachine said:
I disagree, Nintendo has a problem with new Ip, but that problem isn't Zelda games that come out several years apart, you are effectivly labeling something the cause of which it has in no way a link to the problem you are offering forth.
Also one of the big thing about DLC we are seeing more and more of is people want bang for their buck and in know way should something from the ground up like SS be released as DLC pack when it by all signs easily deserves the price tag of 50 dollars when it launches..
MadOdorMachine
No additional functions
I think you may have misinterpreted what I was trying to say. I'm not blaming the Zelda series on the lack of sequels from other Nintendo games. I am saying that the series gets more sequels than other ones though and that there should be more balance. I'm also saying that the series risks becoming stale. Yes, even only two games a generation can cause this if it is happening every generation.TruePrime said:
As far as DLC goes, I'm not talking about an entire new game, but an expansion on what is already there. In the case of SS, it's an entirely new game and deserves a retail release, but did it need to be this gen? The game requires motion + and the won't be out until next year. I'm sure a lot of people are assuming this will be one of the last major releases for Wii. These are solid arguments to back up my case that the game could have been pushed back as a launch window title for the next console.
MadOdorMachine said:
Please, tell me what franchises that Nintendo has that get less games then Zelda?
For the last two gens.
Metroid - Prime 1, 2, 3, Other M.
Mario - Sunshine, Galaxy, Galaxy 2, New Super Mario Brother Wii, tons of spin offs.
Star Fox - Adventure, Assualt
Donkey Kong - Jungle Beat, Bongo Blast, DKCR, plus more.
Pikmin 1, 2 and possible 3.
Pokemon - GoD and 2 more console games when it is really a handled franchise.
I could go on but I don't think I need to at this point.
Zelda - Wind Waker, Twilight Princess, Link's Crossbow Training (If you want to count it I guess.) and Skyward Sword.
As it stands Yes SS did need to be this Gen because TP is a gamecube game, and the Wii needs it's own Zelda.
So it doesn't hurt new IP from Nintendo, it does't take away from Established franchises and it is the first real game on Wii, so I really don't see where you argument has any real weight.