The "General Games Chat" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only. You cannot post here or create a new thread or review on this forum.
I've just read one of the most fascinating articles on IGN.
The reason it did was because it was staring me straight in the face, a concept developing in my mind and there it was. The entire problem surrounding Nintendo's fall from grace. In a collection of words on a page.
It started to play on my mind when the latest DS title was announced. Super Princess Peach, a tongue in cheek role reversal of Nintendo's classic Mario franchise. The game could well be an innovative and enjoyable new franchise. But it isn't. Not really. Instead it is placed along Nintendo's other DS franchises. These are Animal Crossing DS, Wario Ware DS, Mario Kart DS, Mario Brothers DS, Mario 64 DS, Metroid Prime: Hunters, four swords, Pokemon Dash, Yoshi's Touch and go... and so forth.
All of the above titles try to use (and probably succeed) a new and original form of gameplay. Yet they all, every one of them, share a common issue. They are all established Nintendo franchises. Why could Nintendo not call "Yoshi's Touch and Go" something totally different and remove Mario and Yoshi. Introduce a few new characters. Suddenly a new world is born, suddenly a new franchise is born... Yoshi and Mario could help the game to sell well but... we will never truly know.
It is funny how Nintendo are trying to release the most innovative game system ever... and yet they have not got one original game in the line up. SEGA's XY/XX feel the magic, is in fact the only game I see that isn't a new breed of an old franchise.
You see I, you and the legions of avid Nintendo followers love Nintendo for Mario, for Pokemon and for Zelda. So Nintendo continue to keep their forever falling fan base happy with new iterations of Mario and Zelda. Yet by not making a new "Mario" or a new "Pokemon" how can Nintendo ever hope to expand their fan base?
Metroid Prime was Nintendo "re-inventing" the Metroid brand. It was clever and the game is genius. Introducing the gaming world to something totally new. So why Metroid? Strafio, a massive Metroid fan from these very forums, still craves for a third person action platformer. Was it beyond Nintendo's capacity to make this? This would have satisfied the fan base. And what of Metroid Prime? Well did we have to have Samus in it? Did it have to be based around the Metroid universe?
Sure, Metroid Prime may not have sold as much if Samus and his enemies were not part of the game. And yet I feel we could have seen the birth of a brand new killer Nintendo franchise. Metroid could take the crown from Tomb Raider in the action platform sides of things. Whilst this new innovative First Person Adventure from Nintendo will make Perfect Dark a distant memory.
I shall present Zelda as my next example. A perfectly lovely realistic Zelda would have kept all Nintendo gamers happy. But the Wind Waker ruled did it not? The Wind Waker was a great new addition to the series. Yet why did it have to be Zelda? Could we not have seen a new adventure title from Nintendo? Even an RPG game! A cartoon RPG is a good idea (Namco did it). It did not have to be Zelda. It could have been a different game. A whole new series of Nintendo titles. Maybe next year we'd have the cel-shaded new adventure RPG and a new Zelda game. And the series' need not have anything to do with eachother.
Pokemon saved Nintendo back in 1996 as sales started to fall. It was Nintendo "being original". There was no Mario. There was no Zelda. This was something new. This was to attract new gamers. This was a new game. And like Mario and Zelda before it. It was huge. Now though we do not get that. We get Nintendo putting all their money, resources and efforts into keeping the fan base happy with a new Mario title or a new "Zelda Four Swords adventure". If Nintendo can keep 2 20-year-old franchises such as Mario and Zelda feeling fresh imagine what they could do with a new idea? Imagine if they were asked to make a Bongo action game that had nothing to do with Donkey Kong? We'd be looking at a totally new franchise at the beginning of next year.
What could Nintendo create with that sort of freedom on the Gamecube? Let me tell you. Pikmin. Pikmin started life as a demo featuring 100 Mario's. Imagine if that had stayed the same. Imagine if Olimar was a big Mario and the Pikmin were hundreds of little Mario’s/Luigi's and Peach's being directed to do various tasks to defeat Bowser. Indeed the game would still be original and fun. But instead we got a different world. New characters, a new franchise, new iconography and new landscapes. We got a whole new Nintendo game. One that can stand besides Mario/Zelda and Pokemon as a game that had NOTHING to do with another game. Olimar was never a baddie in Mario Land and Pikmin was never a Pokemon.
This is what Nintendo need. New games. New franchises. They don't HAVE to be adult either, might be helpful but hardly essential. Why does Wario Ware have Wario in it? Is he needed? Why did Dinosaur Planet have Fox in it? It was obviously not a Starfox game!
Nintendo are scared. Releasing a totally new game could mean a disaster. A flop. Would Viewtiful Joe have sold through the roof if it were a Megaman game? Hell yes. But would it be a new franchise on which Capcom can build on? No it could not.
Nintendo tried widening its appeal with new games. Metal Gear and Resident Evil remakes are a prime example. Yet these two games are still "old" games. Nintendo should never have bought the Resident Evil games because they had Eternal Darkness. This game could have been a new Nintendo franchise. An ideal new Nintendo franchise. As it happens it was never needed. It would never sell. Capcom's famous survival horror put pay to that.
RARE were never scared to release a new game. They did sequels too but next to the release of Banjo Tooie came Conker's Bad Fur Day. Next to Donkey Kong 64 came Jet Force Gemini. Besides Killer Instinct Gold there was Blast Corps and Goldeneye. Some were sequels. Most were totally new franchises that branched out to new gamers. What would the N64 have been without RARE? What new franchise did Nintendo create themselves? If it wasn't for the fact Nintendo's brand faces were moving into 3D we would all have wondered "what's new?" Just like we are now. If Nintendo still had RARE we would have had Grabbed by the Gholies and Kameo by now. 2 completley original and new games.
X-box gamers are lucky. Loads of totally new games to play, Knights of the Old Republic was a success, Blinx a failure but an attempt at least... and the biggest success story of this generation. Halo. A game that was so totally fresh that nearly every gamer in the world wants to own it. Even Sony, with Ico, the eye toy games, Rachet and Clank and Sly Cooper can risk a new franchise.
Are Nintendo just a bunch old golden oldies? Making nice games with the same faces over and over again? Are Nintendo out of touch? No I don't think so. Shigeru Miyamoto, a guy that made the original Donkey Kong game decades ago, made Pikmin. He hasn't lost it. He can still create a new world to exploit. A New World to delve into and explore.
Retro, Nintendo's latest acquisition, is one of Nintendo's greatest properties. Metroid Prime is almost a totally new franchise. Sure the name is the same but the game is not. Retro are original and Nintendo need to expand this team and bring Raven Blade and the companies back to the release schedule. Rare, Left Field and Silicon Knights have gone. It was a stupid mistake by the big N. But if only Nintendo themselves can make something new.
Nintendo are innovators. They were once the driving force in the gaming industry. Introducing new characters and new ideas. Now they are just a company growing old. Making the same great games... we need new great games.
Wake up Nintendo.
The reason it did was because it was staring me straight in the face, a concept developing in my mind and there it was. The entire problem surrounding Nintendo's fall from grace. In a collection of words on a page.
It started to play on my mind when the latest DS title was announced. Super Princess Peach, a tongue in cheek role reversal of Nintendo's classic Mario franchise. The game could well be an innovative and enjoyable new franchise. But it isn't. Not really. Instead it is placed along Nintendo's other DS franchises. These are Animal Crossing DS, Wario Ware DS, Mario Kart DS, Mario Brothers DS, Mario 64 DS, Metroid Prime: Hunters, four swords, Pokemon Dash, Yoshi's Touch and go... and so forth.
All of the above titles try to use (and probably succeed) a new and original form of gameplay. Yet they all, every one of them, share a common issue. They are all established Nintendo franchises. Why could Nintendo not call "Yoshi's Touch and Go" something totally different and remove Mario and Yoshi. Introduce a few new characters. Suddenly a new world is born, suddenly a new franchise is born... Yoshi and Mario could help the game to sell well but... we will never truly know.
It is funny how Nintendo are trying to release the most innovative game system ever... and yet they have not got one original game in the line up. SEGA's XY/XX feel the magic, is in fact the only game I see that isn't a new breed of an old franchise.
You see I, you and the legions of avid Nintendo followers love Nintendo for Mario, for Pokemon and for Zelda. So Nintendo continue to keep their forever falling fan base happy with new iterations of Mario and Zelda. Yet by not making a new "Mario" or a new "Pokemon" how can Nintendo ever hope to expand their fan base?
Metroid Prime was Nintendo "re-inventing" the Metroid brand. It was clever and the game is genius. Introducing the gaming world to something totally new. So why Metroid? Strafio, a massive Metroid fan from these very forums, still craves for a third person action platformer. Was it beyond Nintendo's capacity to make this? This would have satisfied the fan base. And what of Metroid Prime? Well did we have to have Samus in it? Did it have to be based around the Metroid universe?
Sure, Metroid Prime may not have sold as much if Samus and his enemies were not part of the game. And yet I feel we could have seen the birth of a brand new killer Nintendo franchise. Metroid could take the crown from Tomb Raider in the action platform sides of things. Whilst this new innovative First Person Adventure from Nintendo will make Perfect Dark a distant memory.
I shall present Zelda as my next example. A perfectly lovely realistic Zelda would have kept all Nintendo gamers happy. But the Wind Waker ruled did it not? The Wind Waker was a great new addition to the series. Yet why did it have to be Zelda? Could we not have seen a new adventure title from Nintendo? Even an RPG game! A cartoon RPG is a good idea (Namco did it). It did not have to be Zelda. It could have been a different game. A whole new series of Nintendo titles. Maybe next year we'd have the cel-shaded new adventure RPG and a new Zelda game. And the series' need not have anything to do with eachother.
Pokemon saved Nintendo back in 1996 as sales started to fall. It was Nintendo "being original". There was no Mario. There was no Zelda. This was something new. This was to attract new gamers. This was a new game. And like Mario and Zelda before it. It was huge. Now though we do not get that. We get Nintendo putting all their money, resources and efforts into keeping the fan base happy with a new Mario title or a new "Zelda Four Swords adventure". If Nintendo can keep 2 20-year-old franchises such as Mario and Zelda feeling fresh imagine what they could do with a new idea? Imagine if they were asked to make a Bongo action game that had nothing to do with Donkey Kong? We'd be looking at a totally new franchise at the beginning of next year.
What could Nintendo create with that sort of freedom on the Gamecube? Let me tell you. Pikmin. Pikmin started life as a demo featuring 100 Mario's. Imagine if that had stayed the same. Imagine if Olimar was a big Mario and the Pikmin were hundreds of little Mario’s/Luigi's and Peach's being directed to do various tasks to defeat Bowser. Indeed the game would still be original and fun. But instead we got a different world. New characters, a new franchise, new iconography and new landscapes. We got a whole new Nintendo game. One that can stand besides Mario/Zelda and Pokemon as a game that had NOTHING to do with another game. Olimar was never a baddie in Mario Land and Pikmin was never a Pokemon.
This is what Nintendo need. New games. New franchises. They don't HAVE to be adult either, might be helpful but hardly essential. Why does Wario Ware have Wario in it? Is he needed? Why did Dinosaur Planet have Fox in it? It was obviously not a Starfox game!
Nintendo are scared. Releasing a totally new game could mean a disaster. A flop. Would Viewtiful Joe have sold through the roof if it were a Megaman game? Hell yes. But would it be a new franchise on which Capcom can build on? No it could not.
Nintendo tried widening its appeal with new games. Metal Gear and Resident Evil remakes are a prime example. Yet these two games are still "old" games. Nintendo should never have bought the Resident Evil games because they had Eternal Darkness. This game could have been a new Nintendo franchise. An ideal new Nintendo franchise. As it happens it was never needed. It would never sell. Capcom's famous survival horror put pay to that.
RARE were never scared to release a new game. They did sequels too but next to the release of Banjo Tooie came Conker's Bad Fur Day. Next to Donkey Kong 64 came Jet Force Gemini. Besides Killer Instinct Gold there was Blast Corps and Goldeneye. Some were sequels. Most were totally new franchises that branched out to new gamers. What would the N64 have been without RARE? What new franchise did Nintendo create themselves? If it wasn't for the fact Nintendo's brand faces were moving into 3D we would all have wondered "what's new?" Just like we are now. If Nintendo still had RARE we would have had Grabbed by the Gholies and Kameo by now. 2 completley original and new games.
X-box gamers are lucky. Loads of totally new games to play, Knights of the Old Republic was a success, Blinx a failure but an attempt at least... and the biggest success story of this generation. Halo. A game that was so totally fresh that nearly every gamer in the world wants to own it. Even Sony, with Ico, the eye toy games, Rachet and Clank and Sly Cooper can risk a new franchise.
Are Nintendo just a bunch old golden oldies? Making nice games with the same faces over and over again? Are Nintendo out of touch? No I don't think so. Shigeru Miyamoto, a guy that made the original Donkey Kong game decades ago, made Pikmin. He hasn't lost it. He can still create a new world to exploit. A New World to delve into and explore.
Retro, Nintendo's latest acquisition, is one of Nintendo's greatest properties. Metroid Prime is almost a totally new franchise. Sure the name is the same but the game is not. Retro are original and Nintendo need to expand this team and bring Raven Blade and the companies back to the release schedule. Rare, Left Field and Silicon Knights have gone. It was a stupid mistake by the big N. But if only Nintendo themselves can make something new.
Nintendo are innovators. They were once the driving force in the gaming industry. Introducing new characters and new ideas. Now they are just a company growing old. Making the same great games... we need new great games.
Wake up Nintendo.
Page:
Dringo wrote:
> i'munn wrote:
> Dringo wrote:
> I'm late for Uni now. Great.
>
> That's your fault, he posted 9 hours before you, you didn't HAVE to
> come on.
> Also, what sort of Uni would let you in?
> Paisley?
>
> Cambridge :P
>
> Ha!
God they must have been desperate.
> i'munn wrote:
> Dringo wrote:
> I'm late for Uni now. Great.
>
> That's your fault, he posted 9 hours before you, you didn't HAVE to
> come on.
> Also, what sort of Uni would let you in?
> Paisley?
>
> Cambridge :P
>
> Ha!
God they must have been desperate.
Look Whitestripes it wouldn't be an FPS and TPS of the same game because the FPA, the Metroid Prime we play, won't be remotley the same.
The game would have taken a totally different turn if Metroid was not involved.
And as I've said Nintendo would ensure the game was good no matter if it contained Samus or not.
And Strafio hit the nail on the head, the Metroid example (which I believe is very valied) is just one example out of an awful lot.
See the larger picture and even if you slightly disagree with Prime (which your argument that Metroid had kinda vanished anyway is a pretty good point) the overall idea, do you disagree with that?
The game would have taken a totally different turn if Metroid was not involved.
And as I've said Nintendo would ensure the game was good no matter if it contained Samus or not.
And Strafio hit the nail on the head, the Metroid example (which I believe is very valied) is just one example out of an awful lot.
See the larger picture and even if you slightly disagree with Prime (which your argument that Metroid had kinda vanished anyway is a pretty good point) the overall idea, do you disagree with that?
i'munn wrote:
> Dringo wrote:
> I'm late for Uni now. Great.
>
> That's your fault, he posted 9 hours before you, you didn't HAVE to
> come on.
> Also, what sort of Uni would let you in?
> Paisley?
Cambridge :P
Ha!
> Dringo wrote:
> I'm late for Uni now. Great.
>
> That's your fault, he posted 9 hours before you, you didn't HAVE to
> come on.
> Also, what sort of Uni would let you in?
> Paisley?
Cambridge :P
Ha!
Dringo wrote:
> I'm not saying the game doesn't play like Metroid...
>
> Just open your mind. I'm not talking about just removing Samus I'm
> talking about changing the whole game! Maybe not even a futuristic
> game on a new planet.
>
> The fact Duke Nukem is a mindless shooter and Metroid is an
> adventure/action/platform hybrid which would work well in the third
> person.
>
> You are right in thinking the Metroid series is underused but Samus
> is a good character to sell Nintendo and if you can't see her what's
> the point?
>
You can see her. You ARE her!
> I've always criticised Nintendo, I just back them up when other
> people criticise falsely.
Yeah, sure.
>
> And you are treating it as if I'm the only one that thinks this. The
> entire idea of this comes from IGN, so it isn't really my argument.
> Although I agree with it.
I don't give a crap about the rest of what you're saying, I'm trying to make you understand how utterly wrong you are about all Metroid comments.
>
> A first person adventure game with a new character is what is needed.
> Not a different version of the Metroid series. Metroid could have
> been explored by those that know the games better than Retro, those
> over at Intelligent Studio's.
Refer to previous point about making two identical games with a different perspective
One company should not be making two different games in the same genre. And I'll be choosing Metroid over any other new fangled crap everytime.
>
> Retro are modern game artists and it was worth Nintendo's while to
> let them make modern games.
Yeah.
That's why ALL THEIR GAMES WERE CANCELLED FOR BEING SH*T! and they were only allowed to continue Metroid by being guided by Shigsy.
>
> Wind Waker plays just like Zelda but it didn't have to. It could have
> been a different game.
So...what? WW should have been nothing like previous Zeldas? You'd like it to be a space shooter controlled by playing the flute or something? Or they should have put new characters into it and made it not Zelda? So then you would have had a 95% Zelda clone from the same company? Good one!
>
> I can see this going round in circles because you're refusing to open
> your eyes to more than what is in front of you.
It's more like because your IQ is the wrong side of 100.
Metroid Prime is
> Metroid. Well no funking $h!t sherlock.
Well if you can figure that one out, you can move on to trying to comprehend how making two Metroid style adventure games is a really stupid thing to do.
>
> I'm late for Uni now. Great.
Don't worry, I'm sure the teachers of Being a Dumb Ass 101 expect you to be late.
> I'm not saying the game doesn't play like Metroid...
>
> Just open your mind. I'm not talking about just removing Samus I'm
> talking about changing the whole game! Maybe not even a futuristic
> game on a new planet.
>
> The fact Duke Nukem is a mindless shooter and Metroid is an
> adventure/action/platform hybrid which would work well in the third
> person.
>
> You are right in thinking the Metroid series is underused but Samus
> is a good character to sell Nintendo and if you can't see her what's
> the point?
>
You can see her. You ARE her!
> I've always criticised Nintendo, I just back them up when other
> people criticise falsely.
Yeah, sure.
>
> And you are treating it as if I'm the only one that thinks this. The
> entire idea of this comes from IGN, so it isn't really my argument.
> Although I agree with it.
I don't give a crap about the rest of what you're saying, I'm trying to make you understand how utterly wrong you are about all Metroid comments.
>
> A first person adventure game with a new character is what is needed.
> Not a different version of the Metroid series. Metroid could have
> been explored by those that know the games better than Retro, those
> over at Intelligent Studio's.
Refer to previous point about making two identical games with a different perspective
One company should not be making two different games in the same genre. And I'll be choosing Metroid over any other new fangled crap everytime.
>
> Retro are modern game artists and it was worth Nintendo's while to
> let them make modern games.
Yeah.
That's why ALL THEIR GAMES WERE CANCELLED FOR BEING SH*T! and they were only allowed to continue Metroid by being guided by Shigsy.
>
> Wind Waker plays just like Zelda but it didn't have to. It could have
> been a different game.
So...what? WW should have been nothing like previous Zeldas? You'd like it to be a space shooter controlled by playing the flute or something? Or they should have put new characters into it and made it not Zelda? So then you would have had a 95% Zelda clone from the same company? Good one!
>
> I can see this going round in circles because you're refusing to open
> your eyes to more than what is in front of you.
It's more like because your IQ is the wrong side of 100.
Metroid Prime is
> Metroid. Well no funking $h!t sherlock.
Well if you can figure that one out, you can move on to trying to comprehend how making two Metroid style adventure games is a really stupid thing to do.
>
> I'm late for Uni now. Great.
Don't worry, I'm sure the teachers of Being a Dumb Ass 101 expect you to be late.
Dringo wrote:
> I'm late for Uni now. Great.
That's your fault, he posted 9 hours before you, you didn't HAVE to come on.
Also, what sort of Uni would let you in?
Paisley?
> I'm late for Uni now. Great.
That's your fault, he posted 9 hours before you, you didn't HAVE to come on.
Also, what sort of Uni would let you in?
Paisley?
Spot on.
As to Metroid, I'm sort of seeing both sides here.
I personally can't tell whether they painted a first person game with Metroidness or made a Metroid game and took out the third person camera.
So much of it WAS Metroid, but there was a little missing.
I mean, Samus was doing all those sumersaults and wall kicks while Mario was just managing to "go upwards" for a jump. Prime had all the exploration but it seemed like a lot of the moves like the grapple hook and the morph ball were put in to "make it like" Metroid.
The camera change between morphball and normal, it sort of made them so seperate when rolling used to be more natural, so you'd be able to combine both in a situation rather than mode A for situation A and mode B for situation B.
The level design, the atmosphere, the imagery, the exploration - all very Metroid. And they DID take the Metoid elements so far that I can't really imagine it as a different franchise.
But Dringo's real point is the approach they took to making it.
They had to make a game with the Metroid franchise.
Same approach to plonking Starfox in Dinosaur Planet except that Retro did a good job and made a great game out of it.
But the same game complete with Samus' full range of moves could've been even more. The controls would've even have been the same, except the platforming would've been "brilliant" rather than just "works in an FPS? wow!".
But even if Metroid Prime is a grey issue the rest was 100% spot on.
Dinosaur Planet should've remained Dinosaur Planet.
Mario Sunshine and Luigi's Mansion they'd've gotten away with if they'd been isolated incidents.
And what people don't seem to realise it that characters don't define games, games define characters. Mario started as red suited jumpman to jump over Donkey Kong's barrels.
Zelda started as kid in green going on big adventure.
Samus was just another character in another futuristic game.
Yoshi was just a dinosaur that hatched from an egg and could eat things.
That's how they all appeared in their first games.
And then each game develloped them further, building their characteristics. Now Mario jumps and sumersaults with an Italien accent and Donkey Kong is savvy ape with a tie.
It's like you said, people have gotten so attached to Nintendo's established characters that they seem to be afraid to do present anything else. But if they carry on like this then people are going to get well sick of the Maro crew.
I mean Mario Kart was a great idea, but with Mario golf and Mario ball... it's getting more than a little silly now...
As to Metroid, I'm sort of seeing both sides here.
I personally can't tell whether they painted a first person game with Metroidness or made a Metroid game and took out the third person camera.
So much of it WAS Metroid, but there was a little missing.
I mean, Samus was doing all those sumersaults and wall kicks while Mario was just managing to "go upwards" for a jump. Prime had all the exploration but it seemed like a lot of the moves like the grapple hook and the morph ball were put in to "make it like" Metroid.
The camera change between morphball and normal, it sort of made them so seperate when rolling used to be more natural, so you'd be able to combine both in a situation rather than mode A for situation A and mode B for situation B.
The level design, the atmosphere, the imagery, the exploration - all very Metroid. And they DID take the Metoid elements so far that I can't really imagine it as a different franchise.
But Dringo's real point is the approach they took to making it.
They had to make a game with the Metroid franchise.
Same approach to plonking Starfox in Dinosaur Planet except that Retro did a good job and made a great game out of it.
But the same game complete with Samus' full range of moves could've been even more. The controls would've even have been the same, except the platforming would've been "brilliant" rather than just "works in an FPS? wow!".
But even if Metroid Prime is a grey issue the rest was 100% spot on.
Dinosaur Planet should've remained Dinosaur Planet.
Mario Sunshine and Luigi's Mansion they'd've gotten away with if they'd been isolated incidents.
And what people don't seem to realise it that characters don't define games, games define characters. Mario started as red suited jumpman to jump over Donkey Kong's barrels.
Zelda started as kid in green going on big adventure.
Samus was just another character in another futuristic game.
Yoshi was just a dinosaur that hatched from an egg and could eat things.
That's how they all appeared in their first games.
And then each game develloped them further, building their characteristics. Now Mario jumps and sumersaults with an Italien accent and Donkey Kong is savvy ape with a tie.
It's like you said, people have gotten so attached to Nintendo's established characters that they seem to be afraid to do present anything else. But if they carry on like this then people are going to get well sick of the Maro crew.
I mean Mario Kart was a great idea, but with Mario golf and Mario ball... it's getting more than a little silly now...
I'm not saying the game doesn't play like Metroid...
Just open your mind. I'm not talking about just removing Samus I'm talking about changing the whole game! Maybe not even a futuristic game on a new planet.
The fact Duke Nukem is a mindless shooter and Metroid is an adventure/action/platform hybrid which would work well in the third person.
You are right in thinking the Metroid series is underused but Samus is a good character to sell Nintendo and if you can't see her what's the point?
I've always criticised Nintendo, I just back them up when other people criticise falsely.
And you are treating it as if I'm the only one that thinks this. The entire idea of this comes from IGN, so it isn't really my argument. Although I agree with it.
A first person adventure game with a new character is what is needed. Not a different version of the Metroid series. Metroid could have been explored by those that know the games better than Retro, those over at Intelligent Studio's.
Retro are modern game artists and it was worth Nintendo's while to let them make modern games.
Wind Waker plays just like Zelda but it didn't have to. It could have been a different game.
I can see this going round in circles because you're refusing to open your eyes to more than what is in front of you. Metroid Prime is Metroid. Well no funking $h!t sherlock.
I'm late for Uni now. Great.
Just open your mind. I'm not talking about just removing Samus I'm talking about changing the whole game! Maybe not even a futuristic game on a new planet.
The fact Duke Nukem is a mindless shooter and Metroid is an adventure/action/platform hybrid which would work well in the third person.
You are right in thinking the Metroid series is underused but Samus is a good character to sell Nintendo and if you can't see her what's the point?
I've always criticised Nintendo, I just back them up when other people criticise falsely.
And you are treating it as if I'm the only one that thinks this. The entire idea of this comes from IGN, so it isn't really my argument. Although I agree with it.
A first person adventure game with a new character is what is needed. Not a different version of the Metroid series. Metroid could have been explored by those that know the games better than Retro, those over at Intelligent Studio's.
Retro are modern game artists and it was worth Nintendo's while to let them make modern games.
Wind Waker plays just like Zelda but it didn't have to. It could have been a different game.
I can see this going round in circles because you're refusing to open your eyes to more than what is in front of you. Metroid Prime is Metroid. Well no funking $h!t sherlock.
I'm late for Uni now. Great.
Ahh yes, I used to build crappy levels and then put a labyrinth of invisible walls in it, just to make it amazingly annoying and stupid.
hehe yep - twas rather amusing.
This has brought back memories of the crap levels I used to create using Build editor. I with it worked properly with XP...after all, the game itself does.
This has brought back memories of the crap levels I used to create using Build editor. I with it worked properly with XP...after all, the game itself does.
So it was, I remember you could do the quick kick attack along with the kick attack so it looked like he was floating around.
Page: