well, Vanquish is about the combat, whereas Metroid isn’t
plenty of other companies have prior relationships with Nintendo and made good games with them, I don’t see why Platinum gets first crack
honestly.
what you should be taking away from this is not that metroid needs hot new space karate, it’s that boss battles are incongruous with the rest of the design and need to be approached differently to be harmonious with its goals. metroid “combat” is explorative texture. it’s “combat” the way flying medusa heads placed during crucial jumps in castlevania is “combat”.
the failing of metroid’s bosses is not that your offensive options are limited, it’s that the majority of them take place in locked rectangles that don’t also engage your traversal options. metroid needs more complex medusa heads, not more complex gunplay.
the SA-X is a broken promise i won’t forgive as long as they continue to make metroid games without addressing it. which is to say: i had resigned myself to their no longer making metroid games.
2 Likes
What interests me regarding Prime 4 is that Retro isn’t on it, at least not in name. It is some “all new team” that could end up being 80% old Retro people, but perhaps it is mostly new blood and if so who knows.
I watched too much of nuevo Metroid II and… I mean, it’s not impossible that it could end up being alright but what they showed didn’t sell me on that. Aiming looks like it might be a pain given that it is on the 3DS.
let shinji mikami from 1997 make the new metroid, or falcom
1 Like
falcom does great combat as texture
this is what i am saying except that the boss fight is necessarily an extension of the environment. the exploration and combat flower in tandem through iteration of a given environmental concept.
I disagree with this because my own interpretation of Metroid is that it’s mostly about exploring a weird alien world and tangentially about defeating strange alien bugs. The biggest problem in every Metroid game is the combat, but that’s because it is in conflict with the core of alien world exploration. Occasionally fighting bosses just adds texture to the world in my experience. I’d like to see a Metroid game that starts with Samus as more of an intergalactic detective, where the beginning is finding the enemy (scanning for enemy remnants or something), the middle is gathering info about them (to give advantages against the enemy), and the final is fighting the final enemy (Ridley or Mother Brain, either’s fine). Along the way is a similar collect-a-thon which complements the alien world exploration better than trying to make the already awkward combat better.
i don’t really
disagree with that?
i’m only talking about how “better combat” would present itself when/if it does
so he’s trying to say people aren’t already defined by what they consume? does he live in the world?
5 Likes
Big shocker that the reactionary has a blinkered and barely considered worldview.
I’m tickled that the commies at Microsoft forced him to rewrite his Steam blurb!
2 Likes
Ah man all the machines are making such great art that we don’t know how to enjoy! Oh the machines made more machines to enjoy the art that we can’t because we are gray garbage bags.
4 Likes
you know that sounds like a pretty great premise in the right hands
Yeah, imagine coming up with that and then thinking it’s a dead end.
What I’m wondering is:
Would the moralist mobs have piled on him if he hadn’t made a game about moralist mobs going out of control in the cyberpunk future?
You were the paradox all along.
No?
I mean, my scientifically documented elite reading comprehension skills tell me that if he claims in the description of his game that people “define themselves by what they consume” because they have been “stabilized by universal income,” then it would follow that a world in which universal income does not exist, such as, for example, the world we currently inhabit, would not include people defined by what they consume.
Things that seem good turning out bad is a theme of dystopias so i don’t really understand why this was changed.
1 Like
I believe the logically valid reading would be “in a world where universal income doesn’t exist” there would be people “not defined by what they consume” (different than “there would be no people defined by what they consume”)
I agree that the wording in the revised blurb makes it sound that it’s a recent development, yeah. I thought an “exclusively” would be implied in there.
also a lot of the most famous dystopian novels are all about oppressive enforcement of mandatory ‘equality’ and the suppression of individuality based on an imaginary communist bogeyman, this isn’t really anything new
1 Like