I mean ultimately if you want to say “it’s structured just like Metroid” you can just say “Metroidlike” which you already say you do sooo~
I do like the idea of genre terms being a little broader and less specific because it encourages you to make connections you might otherwise not make. I dunno, is Zelda a metrovania? I think you could learn things just thinking about that question. Is Metroid Prime a first-person shooter? (Corridor shooter? Doom clone? Shootman?) This can go up its own asshole real quickly if you treat the terms as essential, but a reasonable grownup can get a lot of mileage out of it.
I find those discussions valuable, too. Certainly the way we name and label constrains our thinking. I think I dislike language as an output from the talks without strong consensus, as past the analysis we are communicating to people without the context.
And in this case, I didn’t agree with the reasons behind the classification, so packaging that discussion tickles me to disagree.
I feel like Doom-like had more potential to die off because it was easier to mutate than Metroidvania is. FPSes came to feel and function differently than Doom because long term combat from a first person perspective was easily applicable to different aesthetics. Whereas MVs are a crossroads of specific choices that are apparently so essential that it becomes hard to remove them from the ancestor. Accumulating abilities that change how you traverse a world defines Zelda. Gradually charting a map defines dungeon crawlers. Gradually charting a singular map while gathering new ways to move around defines Metroid. Add to Metroid’s model the wrinkle of RPG progression, equipment, stats (which is to say, repeatedly replaced as superior versions are found), and you have SoTN. Most Metroidvanias just feel like Metroids with RPG fluff. After you consider enough ingredients as essential, you run out of room to make something different.
I guess the short version of this is just that I call SotN a Metroid (RPG) too.
I thought one of the aspects of Metroidvanias outside of backtracking is the power progression. Tbh, once Megaman let you re-enter old stages, it was pretty much a Metroidvania to me (sup Demons Souls).
The fascinating thing that makes all the backtracking worth it is looking at the same piece of terrain with a different perspective because you are different. The clutter is the content. Whether it’s getting a power up and running through an area again OR if it’s starting over and picking a different power set — the interesting part is passing the same challenge from a different vantage point.
Tldr keyring is my kind of snotty hate-on-Metroid-vania, but it doesn’t indicate that the player character themselves has changed in any way.
I stalled finishing this post trying to think of a new name for lock and key progression back tracking games but I just haven’t thought of anything. I do want to make a single screen metroidvania now. Also I still hate that name. THanks all
I think if there’s a distinction to be made between a Zeldalike and a metroidvania it’s that Zelda (and also later Mega Man games) have distinct, separate levels/stages/temples/dungeons to enter. It may be a small difference, but I think it’s actually a significant one ultimately.
Otherwise, I’ve spent a lot of time thinking about how First Zelda and Metroid NES share a whole lot.
I still think the word metroidvania would be a lot less cringey if it was what I thought it was in the first place, metrovania, especially since the word metrosexual is now long dead. Word still sucks either way though.
For me that’s a bit too vague of a distinction. The theme park-y Zelda games with discrete levels all still focus on changing after hitting switches/getting items/“picking up keys”, many Zelda games revolve around a game mechanic that is all about negotiating terrain (Dark World, time travel, wolf mode), and pretty much every Zelda has a hub world that changes as you gather items.
Maybe it’s a good reason why classic Mega Man style games will always feel less Metroidvania-y — they’re mostly focused on engaging challenges than negotiating mazes. But I also feel even that is a matter of direction and purpose. MM games are meant to be fast action with some clever exploration whereas Zelda games are meant to be exploration and have engaging action on the side.
