The "General Games Chat" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only.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.
God knows how many years ago, Zelda numbero one was released. A few years back, Ocarina of Time was released on the N64.
I think Miyamoto has stated several times that the N64 Zelda is how he first imagined it to look... This kind of huge adventure with pixies and stuff. Bah, horrible to think about, great to play, and that's all that mattered.
There was actually a time when games were restricted... Miyamoto, instead of allowing this wonderful vision of 3D, kept to the birds eye view. It was still a great game, and the view worked excellently too.
First impressions of a first person Zelda? Would be awful.
It's strange how a game can be changed just by the way you look at it. Let's compare X-Wing Alliance to Rogue Squadron.
X-Wing Alliance is a pretty complicated game, requiring a load of buttons and key combinations to remember... it looks great, and it plays great. Barrel rolling with the joystick to escape almost certain death from two missiles speeding towards you gives you a great feeling.
Rogue Squadron is a simple game, just point, move, and shoot. The gameplay was basic, and enjoyable for a limited period. This, apparently, has been improved in the true sequel, Rogue Leader.
So why the big change in gameplay and style?
X-Wing Alliance is first person, Rogue Leader is third person.
Simple as that. Such a small difference in the changes to how the game mechanics work, can make a huge difference in how the actual finished game plays or feels. Rogue Squadron is an action shooter, X-Wing Alliance is a space simulator.
On a side note, I hate the word simulator. Automatically links to the word "dull." Alliance is far from dull, so go play. :0)
So while Zelda works best, perhaps, in the third person view... controlling an X-Wing, definitely in my opinion, works much better in the first person view.
Logically, a first person mode should be must more exciting. If you can't see the player, then you ARE the player... or whatever it is. It should automatically become more exciting, and become much more scarier when you're under attack...
That's fine and said for Alliance, and stuff like Half-Life, definitely... but what about Zelda and Mario?
Mario requires jumping. It is certainly not fun to have to look down every five seconds in a game... and that's what you would have to do.
So, in other words, it's more *fun* to put it in a third person mode. First person would become boring.
Same with Zelda... you need to be able to see as much as you can, so the third person is necessary... this is also important for attacking, and defending.
So are fun "press button makes you jump" games for third person, and realistic "you're not playing a game" games for first person?
There's been a lot of negative thought over the next/prequelish installation of Metroid. The original games were great, and took themselves very seriously. In it's heart was an action game, definitely, but it went further than that. The RPG elements of collecting weapons and combining them, along with the huge areas to explore, added further to the gameplay and mechanics of the game. It was designed to be a scary shooter, where you expected nothing.
First person is restrictive, and would make the game scarier, because not only does it put you in the body of Samus, but then restricts what you can see. You'll be moving around all the time, moving towards noises, and being generally scared.
Now take Resident Evil. Taken from fixed camera angles, Resident Evil was scary, yes... but that was because of bloody great big noises and things jumping through windows... you were afraid to MOVE YOUR CHARACTER. You weren't afraid to STEP FORWARD.
If you moved your character a bit more, you expected that they'll be something right around that sodding corner... So you'll turn him around and run, or so on.
It didn't really take itself that seriously. It was a shooter in heart and image. That's all.
Go back to Metroid... although it's birth was of the moving the character, I now believe, after looking into it further, that it would do amazingly well as a first person shooter.
It's got all the elements of success, but they're just hard to find. You need to be scared, and as a first person, you'll defintely be scared. You won't be mixing Samus's weapons, you'll be mixing your weapons.
If it was a third person, you'll see things behind you just on the screen... you can look around corners without having to go around them. First person? You'd have to hear them, and turn around.
And THAT'S where sound comes in. We now must all invest in 5.1 Dolby Doo Da, not because that's the standard now, but we'll need to. Games aren't going to use instruments in the left corner and vocals in the right, they'll have bullets being fired in the speaker behind to your right, and explosions to the speaker to your top left. And hell, that would work excellently.
Sit down PC gamers... alright, yeah, you've had it for a while... but you KNOW that PC games are very different to console games...
...But they are beginning to merge, which is what I'm discussing here. PC Games are on the whole very serious affairs. You don't get many [good selling] action shooters on the PC. We want first person serious goodness. Because we have a mouse, keyboard and joystick.
With a console, we want to be able to press fire with the middle button and change weapons with the right one. The princible is still there, but we don't become so absorbed... it's only to pass the time, it's not because we're scared to go around the next corner.
So what can this all be put down to? Why ARE console games and PC games beginning to merge?
Certainly not because of sound, surely? Nah. It's helping by making games less "press a button and something happens on the tv" to "duck the hell behind that crate otherwise you're gonna lose your ****ing face"... simply by making them that little bit more realistic.
Ok, what else? Originality? Very likely, actually. Twenty years ago you could make a blob on screen eat loads of little blobs, and get chased by other coloured blobs, and it would be a great game. To pass the time.
But now, we're running out of original ideas. So what can we do?
Just keep expanding the old ones. If we made Pacman now, we'd have to make it a third person survival horror, with mansions and keys to collect. It would have to have a plot, and it would definitely need mulitplayer.
Because we're becoming more demanding. We know that we can get it good, and we want it better. Games aren't games anymore, they're experiences.
And this gets back to first person/third person. We don't want to move stuff around any more. We want to be in the game. The demand for virtual reality is becoming incredibly high... but until we can develop the correct technology, we have to make playing "from the outside" as much as "playing on the inside" as possible.
Games are for mobile phones now. We've gone beyond that... perhaps it's a bad thing... but the art of gaming is becoming so real, and understood, that it can't be ignored.
I think Miyamoto has stated several times that the N64 Zelda is how he first imagined it to look... This kind of huge adventure with pixies and stuff. Bah, horrible to think about, great to play, and that's all that mattered.
There was actually a time when games were restricted... Miyamoto, instead of allowing this wonderful vision of 3D, kept to the birds eye view. It was still a great game, and the view worked excellently too.
First impressions of a first person Zelda? Would be awful.
It's strange how a game can be changed just by the way you look at it. Let's compare X-Wing Alliance to Rogue Squadron.
X-Wing Alliance is a pretty complicated game, requiring a load of buttons and key combinations to remember... it looks great, and it plays great. Barrel rolling with the joystick to escape almost certain death from two missiles speeding towards you gives you a great feeling.
Rogue Squadron is a simple game, just point, move, and shoot. The gameplay was basic, and enjoyable for a limited period. This, apparently, has been improved in the true sequel, Rogue Leader.
So why the big change in gameplay and style?
X-Wing Alliance is first person, Rogue Leader is third person.
Simple as that. Such a small difference in the changes to how the game mechanics work, can make a huge difference in how the actual finished game plays or feels. Rogue Squadron is an action shooter, X-Wing Alliance is a space simulator.
On a side note, I hate the word simulator. Automatically links to the word "dull." Alliance is far from dull, so go play. :0)
So while Zelda works best, perhaps, in the third person view... controlling an X-Wing, definitely in my opinion, works much better in the first person view.
Logically, a first person mode should be must more exciting. If you can't see the player, then you ARE the player... or whatever it is. It should automatically become more exciting, and become much more scarier when you're under attack...
That's fine and said for Alliance, and stuff like Half-Life, definitely... but what about Zelda and Mario?
Mario requires jumping. It is certainly not fun to have to look down every five seconds in a game... and that's what you would have to do.
So, in other words, it's more *fun* to put it in a third person mode. First person would become boring.
Same with Zelda... you need to be able to see as much as you can, so the third person is necessary... this is also important for attacking, and defending.
So are fun "press button makes you jump" games for third person, and realistic "you're not playing a game" games for first person?
There's been a lot of negative thought over the next/prequelish installation of Metroid. The original games were great, and took themselves very seriously. In it's heart was an action game, definitely, but it went further than that. The RPG elements of collecting weapons and combining them, along with the huge areas to explore, added further to the gameplay and mechanics of the game. It was designed to be a scary shooter, where you expected nothing.
First person is restrictive, and would make the game scarier, because not only does it put you in the body of Samus, but then restricts what you can see. You'll be moving around all the time, moving towards noises, and being generally scared.
Now take Resident Evil. Taken from fixed camera angles, Resident Evil was scary, yes... but that was because of bloody great big noises and things jumping through windows... you were afraid to MOVE YOUR CHARACTER. You weren't afraid to STEP FORWARD.
If you moved your character a bit more, you expected that they'll be something right around that sodding corner... So you'll turn him around and run, or so on.
It didn't really take itself that seriously. It was a shooter in heart and image. That's all.
Go back to Metroid... although it's birth was of the moving the character, I now believe, after looking into it further, that it would do amazingly well as a first person shooter.
It's got all the elements of success, but they're just hard to find. You need to be scared, and as a first person, you'll defintely be scared. You won't be mixing Samus's weapons, you'll be mixing your weapons.
If it was a third person, you'll see things behind you just on the screen... you can look around corners without having to go around them. First person? You'd have to hear them, and turn around.
And THAT'S where sound comes in. We now must all invest in 5.1 Dolby Doo Da, not because that's the standard now, but we'll need to. Games aren't going to use instruments in the left corner and vocals in the right, they'll have bullets being fired in the speaker behind to your right, and explosions to the speaker to your top left. And hell, that would work excellently.
Sit down PC gamers... alright, yeah, you've had it for a while... but you KNOW that PC games are very different to console games...
...But they are beginning to merge, which is what I'm discussing here. PC Games are on the whole very serious affairs. You don't get many [good selling] action shooters on the PC. We want first person serious goodness. Because we have a mouse, keyboard and joystick.
With a console, we want to be able to press fire with the middle button and change weapons with the right one. The princible is still there, but we don't become so absorbed... it's only to pass the time, it's not because we're scared to go around the next corner.
So what can this all be put down to? Why ARE console games and PC games beginning to merge?
Certainly not because of sound, surely? Nah. It's helping by making games less "press a button and something happens on the tv" to "duck the hell behind that crate otherwise you're gonna lose your ****ing face"... simply by making them that little bit more realistic.
Ok, what else? Originality? Very likely, actually. Twenty years ago you could make a blob on screen eat loads of little blobs, and get chased by other coloured blobs, and it would be a great game. To pass the time.
But now, we're running out of original ideas. So what can we do?
Just keep expanding the old ones. If we made Pacman now, we'd have to make it a third person survival horror, with mansions and keys to collect. It would have to have a plot, and it would definitely need mulitplayer.
Because we're becoming more demanding. We know that we can get it good, and we want it better. Games aren't games anymore, they're experiences.
And this gets back to first person/third person. We don't want to move stuff around any more. We want to be in the game. The demand for virtual reality is becoming incredibly high... but until we can develop the correct technology, we have to make playing "from the outside" as much as "playing on the inside" as possible.
Games are for mobile phones now. We've gone beyond that... perhaps it's a bad thing... but the art of gaming is becoming so real, and understood, that it can't be ignored.
Page:
Strafex wrote:
"Shoot and blast? Explain what that means and I'll argue.
In Jet Force Gemini, when you aimed, you pretty much went into first person so there should be no difference..."
Hmmm... ok, compare Quake 2 to Half Life.
In Quake 2, the most taxing puzzle you could do was to press a lever to make a bridge fall down. To get there, you had to pick up better and bigger guns, and blow stuff up a lot.
It was a BLASTER.
In Half Life, you shot a lot too, but every other minute you had to think about things. Like hell are you going to go out through that door and face that big monster thing that's walking around... you only just managed to survive running in there... there has to be another way, and you're going to find it.
It was a THINKER.
Jet Force Gemini was a bit of both. The levels were very much action/blaster styled, with no real thinking, just blast your way from start to end.
However, out of levels, you had to think a bit more. Finding all the ewok things, getting all the ship parts. Not so much thinking, but still trying to enforce that.
You cannot say Jet Force Gemini was a smooth game. It was jumpy, and the styles changed a lot. This, however, happened to be a good thing. Running through level after level of blasting without a break would have made the game very repetitive and very boring. Same with the thinking stuff. They could not have found enough to do for either, so they had to combine them.
Would Metroid work like this? This is what I'm getting at. Not so much "ACTION LEVEL LOADING, PLEASE WAIT" sort of Sonic Adventure thing... but you've just mananged to blast your way out of hallway, first person. You go outside, and the cliffs and tunnels have collapsed. The only way is down, so you automatically switch to third person, so you jump down from cliff section to cliff section, all the way to the bottom. Perhaps there you can go into the broken section of the tunnel, and find some weapons, or a map. Then, climb back up again, or find another door, and go through... Boss time. You automatically switch to first person.
That sort of fluidity could make the game. Add a ton of Metroid styled puzzles, and it'll be great. *he prays* :0)
"Not ALL third person. Third Person until you have to aim with a gun. It means Samus will be there for all to see and admire, but won't get in the way when the action gets intense and you need an accurate cross-hair."
Hey, cool, that's what I just said. :0)
"First person platforming doesn't work because it's awkward to work out where the platform is in relation to you.
Third person shooting doesn't work because you can't aim properly.
Combine them and you have the best of both worlds.
But you have to combine them properly, else you're right, not bother at all."
Perhaps I should have read this properly before replying. :0)
Looks like we agree more than it first appears...
"Shoot and blast? Explain what that means and I'll argue.
In Jet Force Gemini, when you aimed, you pretty much went into first person so there should be no difference..."
Hmmm... ok, compare Quake 2 to Half Life.
In Quake 2, the most taxing puzzle you could do was to press a lever to make a bridge fall down. To get there, you had to pick up better and bigger guns, and blow stuff up a lot.
It was a BLASTER.
In Half Life, you shot a lot too, but every other minute you had to think about things. Like hell are you going to go out through that door and face that big monster thing that's walking around... you only just managed to survive running in there... there has to be another way, and you're going to find it.
It was a THINKER.
Jet Force Gemini was a bit of both. The levels were very much action/blaster styled, with no real thinking, just blast your way from start to end.
However, out of levels, you had to think a bit more. Finding all the ewok things, getting all the ship parts. Not so much thinking, but still trying to enforce that.
You cannot say Jet Force Gemini was a smooth game. It was jumpy, and the styles changed a lot. This, however, happened to be a good thing. Running through level after level of blasting without a break would have made the game very repetitive and very boring. Same with the thinking stuff. They could not have found enough to do for either, so they had to combine them.
Would Metroid work like this? This is what I'm getting at. Not so much "ACTION LEVEL LOADING, PLEASE WAIT" sort of Sonic Adventure thing... but you've just mananged to blast your way out of hallway, first person. You go outside, and the cliffs and tunnels have collapsed. The only way is down, so you automatically switch to third person, so you jump down from cliff section to cliff section, all the way to the bottom. Perhaps there you can go into the broken section of the tunnel, and find some weapons, or a map. Then, climb back up again, or find another door, and go through... Boss time. You automatically switch to first person.
That sort of fluidity could make the game. Add a ton of Metroid styled puzzles, and it'll be great. *he prays* :0)
"Not ALL third person. Third Person until you have to aim with a gun. It means Samus will be there for all to see and admire, but won't get in the way when the action gets intense and you need an accurate cross-hair."
Hey, cool, that's what I just said. :0)
"First person platforming doesn't work because it's awkward to work out where the platform is in relation to you.
Third person shooting doesn't work because you can't aim properly.
Combine them and you have the best of both worlds.
But you have to combine them properly, else you're right, not bother at all."
Perhaps I should have read this properly before replying. :0)
Looks like we agree more than it first appears...
Damnit.
I don't care. I won gameday.
:D
:D
Strafex wrote:
> Good win by the way.
Wasn't it about a year ago when you won and chose
> "Metroid GC" as a GAD win.
The good old days before Retro screwed
> things up...
Ah! That's right. I'd forgotten all about that. I now seem to recall Grix defending the changes to metroid sometime early last year, too. I wondered at the time if it was to do with the fact he was getting a copy anyway.
Self denial will get you nowhere, Grix. Admit it, Strafex is right ;)
> Good win by the way.
Wasn't it about a year ago when you won and chose
> "Metroid GC" as a GAD win.
The good old days before Retro screwed
> things up...
Ah! That's right. I'd forgotten all about that. I now seem to recall Grix defending the changes to metroid sometime early last year, too. I wondered at the time if it was to do with the fact he was getting a copy anyway.
Self denial will get you nowhere, Grix. Admit it, Strafex is right ;)
Good win by the way.
Wasn't it about a year ago when you won and chose "Metroid GC" as a GAD win.
The good old days before Retro screwed things up...
Wasn't it about a year ago when you won and chose "Metroid GC" as a GAD win.
The good old days before Retro screwed things up...
Grix Thraves wrote: (after I started writing that big chunk of rabble posted after it...)
> God I hope you're wrong. I'm going to drive to you and laugh in your face
> personally. :0D
If I'm right then although Metroid Prime will be messed, they'll take more care to make the next one properly.
If I'm wrong and everyone else thinks it suits the series, then when I become a games design, I'll make a proper Metroid game and show everyone how it's REALLY done! :-)
But in the meantime, let's throw some crap at eachother.
> :0)
No. I'll get my hands all dirty...
;-D
> God I hope you're wrong. I'm going to drive to you and laugh in your face
> personally. :0D
If I'm right then although Metroid Prime will be messed, they'll take more care to make the next one properly.
If I'm wrong and everyone else thinks it suits the series, then when I become a games design, I'll make a proper Metroid game and show everyone how it's REALLY done! :-)
But in the meantime, let's throw some crap at eachother.
> :0)
No. I'll get my hands all dirty...
;-D
Grix Thraves wrote:
I just think that the style of Metroid isn't a shoot and blast sort of
> game... and that's what it would be if it was third person.
Shoot and blast? Explain what that means and I'll argue.
In Jet Force Gemini, when you aimed, you pretty much went into first person so there should be no difference...
Jet Force Gemini
> had the best sound on the N64, full stop. The music fitted excellently, and the
> effects were great. It was irritating to play, when you realised you had to go
> back and do it all again, but good fun, while it lasted.
I'm sure Metroid Prime won't send you back for Ewok style Hostages! :-)
But Metroid wouldn't
> work like that, I'm sure. In bits it could, easily, but it would be TOO easy to
> keep it all third person. But it's got to be done perfectly, or not at
> all.
Not ALL third person. Third Person until you have to aim with a gun. It means Samus will be there for all to see and admire, but won't get in the way when the action gets intense and you need an accurate cross-hair.
First person platforming doesn't work because it's awkward to work out where the platform is in relation to you.
Third person shooting doesn't work because you can't aim properly.
Combine them and you have the best of both worlds.
But you have to combine them properly, else you're right, not bother at all.
I just think that the style of Metroid isn't a shoot and blast sort of
> game... and that's what it would be if it was third person.
Shoot and blast? Explain what that means and I'll argue.
In Jet Force Gemini, when you aimed, you pretty much went into first person so there should be no difference...
Jet Force Gemini
> had the best sound on the N64, full stop. The music fitted excellently, and the
> effects were great. It was irritating to play, when you realised you had to go
> back and do it all again, but good fun, while it lasted.
I'm sure Metroid Prime won't send you back for Ewok style Hostages! :-)
But Metroid wouldn't
> work like that, I'm sure. In bits it could, easily, but it would be TOO easy to
> keep it all third person. But it's got to be done perfectly, or not at
> all.
Not ALL third person. Third Person until you have to aim with a gun. It means Samus will be there for all to see and admire, but won't get in the way when the action gets intense and you need an accurate cross-hair.
First person platforming doesn't work because it's awkward to work out where the platform is in relation to you.
Third person shooting doesn't work because you can't aim properly.
Combine them and you have the best of both worlds.
But you have to combine them properly, else you're right, not bother at all.
God I hope you're wrong. I'm going to drive to you and laugh in your face personally. :0D
But in the meantime, let's throw some crap at eachother. :0)
But busy at the moment, making movies.
But in the meantime, let's throw some crap at eachother. :0)
But busy at the moment, making movies.
So the plus points of first person is disabling looking around corners without going round them, and being easier to aim.
In Jet Force Gemini, you pretty much went into first person for aiming (at was a cross between a platformer and a shooting game - just like Metroid should be).
You were in third person until you needed to start shooting.
That is how Metroid Prime should've been.
I know that you can switch to roll, but rolling would've been much easier and far more convenient if you didn't have to change camera angles everytime you wanted to do it.
What's more, what's to stop people going into the roll, and then using the third person camera to see round a corner! :-D
At the end of the day, you could play any FPS games as yourself, but what's the point of wasting Samus on one.
I know you say that Samus will appear at brief moments when you roll or hookshot, but wouldn't that just mix things up.
Imagine Mario64 in first person.
It would've sort of worked as a platformer.
It would still have all the Mario enemies and characters.
But at the end of the day, it wouldn't be Mario.
Imagine Zelda64 in first person.
You've got all the elements of Zelda games, and first person means it's easier to shoot.
It'll be set in Hyrule, but what's the first thing a Zelda fan would say?
W(here)TF is Link???
It wouldn't be a Zelda game.
For a good FPS, any old mix of polygons could be the character, and only the most dedicated fanatics would care to know about them.
Samus is one of the strongest characters Nintendo have.
Not is she "cool", she's also an example of a well designed character without being cute and cuddly looking.
Metroid Prime should've been a "mature" gamer's introduction to platforming.
What's more, in a Jet Force Gemini style, it would sat faithful to the original game mechanics. Plenty of platforming using a variety of special moves as well as plenty of shooting, and it would bind them together in a way that had not been done properly before (Jet Force Gemini had the control system right, but just like every new idea, it wasn't perfect and could do with tweaking).
I know that seeing round corners might be a little bit annoying, but it's not THAT important. Besides, good game design could have have enemies above and below you so you still have that element of surprise.
Say an old Metroid fan who'd lost touch with games saw Prime on the shelf and they bought a Gamecube to play on it.
Their first reaction would be "W(here)TF is Samus??"
After that it would be "This isn't Metroid! Is it?"
And lastly "3D ruins everything!"
At the end of the day, Retro didn't chose first person because it suited the series best, they chose it because their attempt at doing it in third person screwed up.
When going for the Metroid liscence they bit off more than they could chew.
It's a pity really when a liscence goes the wrong way.
Look at Donkey Kong 64...
In Jet Force Gemini, you pretty much went into first person for aiming (at was a cross between a platformer and a shooting game - just like Metroid should be).
You were in third person until you needed to start shooting.
That is how Metroid Prime should've been.
I know that you can switch to roll, but rolling would've been much easier and far more convenient if you didn't have to change camera angles everytime you wanted to do it.
What's more, what's to stop people going into the roll, and then using the third person camera to see round a corner! :-D
At the end of the day, you could play any FPS games as yourself, but what's the point of wasting Samus on one.
I know you say that Samus will appear at brief moments when you roll or hookshot, but wouldn't that just mix things up.
Imagine Mario64 in first person.
It would've sort of worked as a platformer.
It would still have all the Mario enemies and characters.
But at the end of the day, it wouldn't be Mario.
Imagine Zelda64 in first person.
You've got all the elements of Zelda games, and first person means it's easier to shoot.
It'll be set in Hyrule, but what's the first thing a Zelda fan would say?
W(here)TF is Link???
It wouldn't be a Zelda game.
For a good FPS, any old mix of polygons could be the character, and only the most dedicated fanatics would care to know about them.
Samus is one of the strongest characters Nintendo have.
Not is she "cool", she's also an example of a well designed character without being cute and cuddly looking.
Metroid Prime should've been a "mature" gamer's introduction to platforming.
What's more, in a Jet Force Gemini style, it would sat faithful to the original game mechanics. Plenty of platforming using a variety of special moves as well as plenty of shooting, and it would bind them together in a way that had not been done properly before (Jet Force Gemini had the control system right, but just like every new idea, it wasn't perfect and could do with tweaking).
I know that seeing round corners might be a little bit annoying, but it's not THAT important. Besides, good game design could have have enemies above and below you so you still have that element of surprise.
Say an old Metroid fan who'd lost touch with games saw Prime on the shelf and they bought a Gamecube to play on it.
Their first reaction would be "W(here)TF is Samus??"
After that it would be "This isn't Metroid! Is it?"
And lastly "3D ruins everything!"
At the end of the day, Retro didn't chose first person because it suited the series best, they chose it because their attempt at doing it in third person screwed up.
When going for the Metroid liscence they bit off more than they could chew.
It's a pity really when a liscence goes the wrong way.
Look at Donkey Kong 64...
I just hope Retro don't put too many little bugs in Metroid Prime. No, I don't mean glitches, I mean little bugs as in insects.
You know the sort, they run along the floor at high speeds in large numbers, and you can't hit them easily because they're too damned small.
I hate those in games, they suck.
Anyway, what exactly do we know about Metroid Prime? Very little, I think. We know that it has both 1st and 3rd person elements, but what do we know of the story?
If we knew a little more surely we could more accurately guage which direction it was heading in?
You know the sort, they run along the floor at high speeds in large numbers, and you can't hit them easily because they're too damned small.
I hate those in games, they suck.
Anyway, what exactly do we know about Metroid Prime? Very little, I think. We know that it has both 1st and 3rd person elements, but what do we know of the story?
If we knew a little more surely we could more accurately guage which direction it was heading in?
Page: