Super Metroid Killed Metroid 64

[Cynical skeptic]

...

Pretty much every 3D console game from that era was utterly terrible. Goldeneye being something of an exception, but not really...

Look, I too was one of those gamers who were all aboard the "3D will ruin our classics" bandwagon during the mid-late 90's, and was absolutely thrilled with Super Metroid and Castlevania: SOTN, but it didn't mean "pretty much" every game that didn't concede to 2D or 2.5D was "utterly terrible". I don't even know where to begin (but I'll try). Metal Gear Solid, Super Mario 64, both Zelda's for N64, I could go on all day and still relegate myself to sequels to classic, traditionally 2D/2.5D games. Then you also had Starfox 64, Doom, Duke Nukem, Quake...

Your statement holds no water whatsoever. If anything, that era was likely the golden age of 3D gaming, and I am a die-hard, crotchety old 2D proponent who used to suffer Vitamin D deficiency to the likes of Pong on my parents Zenith cabinet TV, and wishes they would stop fucking up Metroid with this 3D crap.

EDIT: Also want to add that Goldeneye was quite a bit better than your assessment of "something of an exception, but not really". What the hell does that even mean? Seriously.

... That none of those games have aged well at all and subsisted primarily on the novelty of the 3D perspective, while lacking in every real aspect? While the 2D games of the time were images of a particular format reaching perfection?

My argument can basically be summed up by, "Link to the past vs ocarina of time. Which is better now?" I will concede that mario (apart from sunshine) didn't really have that same drop off in quality as a result of being pushed into 3D.

Listen, I know the nostalgia here is strong. I know the transition from great 2D to okay 3D was utterly staggering. But most impressions of quality were based upon the stark contrast between games with and without that "new" dimension. But now, 14 years later, the "new" has completely worn off and we can see these games (a handful still being quite good) as they really are.

I did like how, during your recounting of great games from the dawn of polygons, you kinda segued into PC games. Which, last I checked, aren't classified as "console."

 

[fu3lman]

...

Pretty much every 3D console game from that era was utterly terrible. Goldeneye being something of an exception, but not really...

Look, I too was one of those gamers who were all aboard the "3D will ruin our classics" bandwagon during the mid-late 90's, and was absolutely thrilled with Super Metroid and Castlevania: SOTN, but it didn't mean "pretty much" every game that didn't concede to 2D or 2.5D was "utterly terrible". I don't even know where to begin (but I'll try). Metal Gear Solid, Super Mario 64, both Zelda's for N64, I could go on all day and still relegate myself to sequels to classic, traditionally 2D/2.5D games. Then you also had Starfox 64, Doom, Duke Nukem, Quake...

Your statement holds no water whatsoever. If anything, that era was likely the golden age of 3D gaming, and I am a die-hard, crotchety old 2D proponent who used to suffer Vitamin D deficiency to the likes of Pong on my parents Zenith cabinet TV, and wishes they would stop fucking up Metroid with this 3D crap.

EDIT: Also want to add that Goldeneye was quite a bit better than your assessment of "something of an exception, but not really". What the hell does that even mean? Seriously.

... That none of those games have aged well at all and subsisted primarily on the novelty of the 3D perspective, while lacking in every real aspect? While the 2D games of the time were images of a particular format reaching perfection?

My argument can basically be summed up by, "Link to the past vs ocarina of time. Which is better now?" I will concede that mario (apart from sunshine) didn't really have that same drop off in quality as a result of being pushed into 3D.

Listen, I know the nostalgia here is strong. I know the transition from great 2D to okay 3D was utterly staggering. But most impressions of quality were based upon the stark contrast between games with and without that "new" dimension. But now, 14 years later, the "new" has completely worn off and we can see these games (a handful still being quite good) as they really are.

I did like how, during your recounting of great games from the dawn of polygons, you kinda segued into PC games. Which, last I checked, aren't classified as "console."

My bad for meandering into PC game territory there (all of which were flourishing well on consoles within the time period in question), but your original claim that the majority of the 3D games from that era were utterly terrible still, despite your elaboration and explanation, still (to me at least) comes across as a pretty off-the-mark generalization.

I agree with you that there was a bit of a pie in the sky mentality with 3D that, much in the way it's being used with feature films today, became a major selling point for the mainstream just looking for eye candy, and yes, there were a handful of games like that, but that was the level of technology of the time, and everyone was enamored with it in some pretty ridiculous ways (Lawnmower Man comes to mind, more a VR thing but yeah, it looked like it was rendered on an Atari Jaguar).

Is the Mona Lisa any less relevant or sophisticated, or warrant less accolades because it was created using unsophisticated (for our time) technology and didn't follow modern concessions and expectations? Should look back and judge old works based on their archaic mediums, or capabilities of that medium? Or maybe I'm misinterpreting you, and you mean to imply that the games aren't worth playing because they have no redeeming qualities TODAY?

You are right, nostalgia does run thick here, but a good game is a good game, just like a good film...despite the age, medium or technical prowess, can be a timeless classic, hell, why else do you think cultural throwbacks like pixelart exist, or feature films such as Scott Pilgrim, and do I even need to dig into the indie community?

The statement "Pretty much every 3D console game from that era was utterly terrible. Goldeneye being something of an exception, but not really..." doesn't leave a whole lot of room for interpretation. It's pretty straightforward and I'm downright confused as to what ends you were expecting from it. I'm only replying because I'd hate for anyone to take from that the idea that these old games aren't worth playing! I'm sincerely asking if you feel that way.

My position, I guess, would be that mainstream 3D graphics roughly equates to the introduction of color film to movie making, and while a critic might argue his head off that "the majority of those color films were terrible", the fact is that they were still few, far between, the studios with the resources to capitalize on it were always taking a risk, and as far as I can tell, The Wizard of Oz is still a pretty damn good movie...even by today's standards. Should I stop recommending TRON to people who grew up with Toy Story, Matrix, and Avatar, because they knew how to use the technology -right-?

I also want to add that I meant no disrespect to you earlier, and if I came across that way, I apologize.

EDIT: I reread your post and I can see your point, but there are likely a great deal of people who might not be quite as disenchanted as you are with these old games, regardless of how much more advanced their successors are (technically and/or artistically), at least not the point of just downright calling them "terrible". I just think that was a tad bit irresponsible in a forum with an "escapist" community, with people who may not have experienced those games, but we take the medium seriously and I can appreciate where you are coming from on this. I actually wasn't a huge fan of where the games went after the nineties (Metroid Prime, Mario Sunshine, etc.) so yeah, I'll admit to some of that bias and just agree to disagree.

Ok, I'll admit to quite a bit of bias

 

[Cynical skeptic]

My bad for meandering into PC game territory there (all of which were flourishing well on consoles within the time period in question), but your original claim that the majority of the 3D games from that era were utterly terrible still, despite your elaboration and explanation, still (to me at least) comes across as a pretty off-the-mark generalization.

I agree with you that there was a bit of a pie in the sky mentality with 3D that, much in the way it's being used with feature films today, became a major selling point for the mainstream just looking for eye candy, and yes, there were a handful of games like that, but that was the level of technology of the time, and everyone was enamored with it in some pretty ridiculous ways (Lawnmower Man comes to mind, more a VR thing but yeah, it looked like it was rendered on an Atari Jaguar).

Is the Mona Lisa any less relevant or sophisticated, or warrant less accolades because it was created using unsophisticated (for our time) technology and didn't follow modern concessions and expectations? Should look back and judge old works based on their archaic mediums, or capabilities of that medium? Or maybe I'm misinterpreting you, and you mean to imply that the games aren't worth playing because they have no redeeming qualities TODAY?

You are right, nostalgia does run thick here, but a good game is a good game, just like a good film...despite the age, medium or technical prowess, can be a timeless classic, hell, why else do you think cultural throwbacks like pixelart exist, or feature films such as Scott Pilgrim, and do I even need to dig into the indie community?

The statement "Pretty much every 3D console game from that era was utterly terrible. Goldeneye being something of an exception, but not really..." doesn't leave a whole lot of room for interpretation. It's pretty straightforward and I'm downright confused as to what ends you were expecting from it. I'm only replying because I'd hate for anyone to take from that the idea that these old games aren't worth playing! I'm sincerely asking if you feel that way.

My position, I guess, would be that mainstream 3D graphics roughly equates to the introduction of color film to movie making, and while a critic might argue his head off that "the majority of those color films were terrible", the fact is that they were still few, far between, the studios with the resources to capitalize on it were always taking a risk, and as far as I can tell, The Wizard of Oz is still a pretty damn good movie...even by today's standards.

I also want to add that I meant no disrespect to you earlier, and if I came across that way, I apologize.

Well, for starters, this is the internet. Shit can get pointed. Its fun and harmless unless knickers start getting really twisted.

You bring up the Mona Lisa. The Mona Lisa is more an example of a particular art form reaching (or even achieving) perfection rather than an example of dated means and techniques. Early 3D was closer to fingerpaint and the only games that really did it objectively well weren't made by (or for) people with only four fingers (PC games)... Oh damn I seem to have killed the analogy.

Early console 3D was clumsy, awkward, and (by the standards of 2D) pretty ugly. The early 3D games of the PC platform, though, could shave away most of the awkward clumsyness, but it was still pretty ugly. The few early 3D console games one could even begin to classify as "good" were based around very simple action sets and very simple mechanics. They also relied pretty heavily upon methods to circumvent the awkward clumsyness of the controls (lock on). This... hasn't changed a whole lot...

Okay, fine, I'm saying console 3D sucks, have always sucked, and barring the invention of something even remotely comparable to mouse+keyboard (i.e. direct brain interaction), will always suck. But they were even worse when 3D first started. The 3D metroid games are still a pale imitations of the 2D ones. Their only real similarities are names and characters. 3D, due to the amount of visiblity it offers, demands games have a much higher amount of action than 2D games. You can't have a proper 3D exploration game because, unlike 2D, the act of taking in the scenery and exploring are completely separate. In a 3D game, You stop, look around, then go back to staring at walls for hidden switches. I'd even go so far as to say the entire perspective, apart from a few shining gems is a mistake.

But now that the memory of 2D's glory days has faded (or never even existed, in most people's case), 3D metroid games are marketable.

Or something.

 

[Altorin]

it was certainly the best first party nintendo game on the SNES generation. In the top 5 SNES games in my opinion, maybe even #1.

Spoiler: my top 5 list, in case you're curious

1. Chrono Trigger
2. Super Metroid
3. Super Mario RPG
4. Earthbound
5. Final Fantasy VI

Yup, dominated by Nintendo First Parties and Squaresoft. They were just THAT good back then.

 

[BlindMessiah94]

A lot of people loved Prime, and I'm not saying it's a bad game, but I honestly prefer Super Metroid. I found that in my gameplay experience of Prime that too much of an emphasis was on the shooter part of the game as opposed to the exploration. It was just more satisfying to know you explored every possible nook and cranny in Super Metroid. In Prime there were always little areas that were inaccessible in the 3D environment that made me feel like I would never have fully explored the game.

Again, not saying it was a bad game, but I much prefer Super Metroid to any of the 3D adaptations.

I gotta agree and add that I thought OM was a good followup and better than Prime as well. Yeah, the story wasn't particularly great, but I don't ask for much from story in videogames anyway, good storytelling in games is pretty rare. And sorry ladies, but I don't care that the "strong female lead" is whiny and hesitant. It could have been a whiny dude and I would have cared just as much... none at all. And the hesitation, well, imagine a giant pterodactyl murdered your parents, came back from the dead and started to try and eat you. She's lucky she didn't soil the suit.

For all it's flaws it was good. Not like Retro's attempt at "3D"ing Metroid. Don't get me wrong, I enjoyed playing Prime. But it had really terrible fundamental flaws. It undervalued it's own story by making it optional. I never bothered to scan every little thing on my 2nd playthrough, got very little story, but the game played much better. Like the story was just tacked on but completely un-necessary. At least OM told a story. If you wanted story in Prime it took forever and was a pain in the butt.

Some folk complained that P2E was too hard. Naa, it was just too lame.

P3C... no beef with it. It improved upon the Prime franchise. Too bad it was the last, it took Retro 3 tries to get it right.

But the biggest fundamental flaw in Prime. 1st person platform jumper. You can't get around it, there is no way to make 1st person platform jumper good. Those elements of Prime are just horrible.

Good points, I agree on the FPS as a platformer being fundamentally flawed at best.

When I think of Metroid I think of the whole genre of games that can be dubbed "Metroidvania". The 3d games never fit under this category to me, and I didn't enjoy them as much as the 2D ones.

I haven't played other M because the wii can go to hell

 

[WhiteTigerShiro]

I'm sorry, but I never really classified what happened in super metroid as "exploration." Just a lot of "can't go this ways" culminating to eventually finding the proper direction and fighting a boss.

You pretty much just defined exploration. Albeit with cynical definition, but really there isn't much more I can do to correct your description besides to give a less hateful definition.

"The later jp onry castlevanias did have exploration elements, and I'd always classify wallmeat as exploration.

I guess you'll have to go into more details. The only "JP Onry" Castlevania I'm aware of pre-SotN was Rondo of Blood, and while that had branching paths on a couple of the levels, it was still the same formula as before over-all. It had some exploration to find those branches, sure, but not quite enough to put it on par with Metroid or SotN. And one game certainly isn't enough to classify an entire series, anyway.

Also, what is this "wallmeat" term you refer to?

Basically, you're confusing what originally made the titles similar... with a map screen.

If you seriously think that a map screen is what sets apart the early Metroid series from the early Castlevania series, then I contest that you haven't played one of the two series.

 

[Cynical skeptic]

I'm sorry, but I never really classified what happened in super metroid as "exploration." Just a lot of "can't go this ways" culminating to eventually finding the proper direction and fighting a boss.

You pretty much just defined exploration. Albeit with cynical definition, but really there isn't much more I can do to correct your description besides to give a less hateful definition.

It is so... so sad you think that is exploration.

Super metroid, while worthy in every way of being differentiated from metroid with "super," wasn't about exploration. VVVVVV was about exploration. Cave Story is about exploration. Knytt was about exploration. Metroid games in general are a series of linear paths with an occasional branch typically blocked with some sort of "can not access" mechanic who's counter is granted by the boss of that particular path. Funneling the player through boss battles then forcing a bit of backtracking to find the way forward. This is not exploration. This is simply moving the "way forward" from directly after the boss to some random location.

The only time metroid really rewards exploration is when you find extra energy tanks or a [weapon] cap upgrade. These are rarely, if ever, necessary. So in the end, its just a mechanic like flying rats in GTA4 that makes the game easier.

Symphony of the night more than doubled the game's length and difficulty as a reward for exploration. Thats a proper exploration reward.

If, say, metroid started you off with a simple objective (blow up the planet by placing a charge on a faultline), and this objective was completable after, maybe, 3 hours of gameplay, AND the game considered completing the game in 3 hours 100% completion, but the game dropped subtle hints to indicate you could explore and find more bosses, more story, more challenges, etc, etc, etc, that would be an exploration game.

Actually, there was a super metroid romhack like that. Not with the "3 hour game ender," but the game was structured around rewarding exploration with progression, rather than bullshit that simply made the game easier. Super Metroid: Redesign

 

[enriquetnt]

A lot of people loved Prime, and I'm not saying it's a bad game, but I honestly prefer Super Metroid. I found that in my gameplay experience of Prime that too much of an emphasis was on the shooter part of the game as opposed to the exploration. It was just more satisfying to know you explored every possible nook and cranny in Super Metroid. In Prime there were always little areas that were inaccessible in the 3D environment that made me feel like I would never have fully explored the game.

Again, not saying it was a bad game, but I much prefer Super Metroid to any of the 3D adaptations.

I gotta agree and add that I thought OM was a good followup and better than Prime as well. Yeah, the story wasn't particularly great, but I don't ask for much from story in videogames anyway, good storytelling in games is pretty rare. And sorry ladies, but I don't care that the "strong female lead" is whiny and hesitant. It could have been a whiny dude and I would have cared just as much... none at all. And the hesitation, well, imagine a giant pterodactyl murdered your parents, came back from the dead and started to try and eat you. She's lucky she didn't soil the suit.

For all it's flaws it was good. Not like Retro's attempt at "3D"ing Metroid. Don't get me wrong, I enjoyed playing Prime. But it had really terrible fundamental flaws. It undervalued it's own story by making it optional. I never bothered to scan every little thing on my 2nd playthrough, got very little story, but the game played much better. Like the story was just tacked on but completely un-necessary. At least OM told a story. If you wanted story in Prime it took forever and was a pain in the butt.

Some folk complained that P2E was too hard. Naa, it was just too lame.

P3C... no beef with it. It improved upon the Prime franchise. Too bad it was the last, it took Retro 3 tries to get it right.

But the biggest fundamental flaw in Prime. 1st person platform jumper. You can't get around it, there is no way to make 1st person platform jumper good. Those elements of Prime are just horrible.

Nope, it CAN be done, automatic jumping (rail based) or aim jumping, lock on jumping, there are several ways to accomplish jumping in FPS, of course the do it yourself aproach in MP was not optimal, (i still have nightmares about the jumping sequences in the original Turok for the N64)