|
|
|
A Nintendo community by the fans!
|
|
|
∧ |
Forum main |
|
|
Metroid: Zero Mission Discussion (Nintendo Game Boy Advance) [game]
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
01/27/16, 01:51 Edited: 01/27/16, 01:56
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
TriforceBun said:Also, he was debating between Prime and Fusion, rather than Super. Oh so he was. Why did I say Super? I'm the goon. Haha. Yeah maybe go with Fusion for a continuation of the 2D series. But Prime is super sweet too. Fusion was the game that got me into the series and quickly followed up with Prime. And I can't agree with the design sensibilities for Super. Everything about Zero Mission just screams attention to detail. I know you can sequence break in Super Mission, but man, look at the work that went into Zero Mission's sequence breaking runs. To the point that they specifically designed two whole endings around a 15% run. That's so far beyond what Super Metroid did. Also unlike Super Metroid, Zero Mission doesn't lock you out from going back to 100% the game once you get past a certain point . That stinks. Super is alright, and a classic for it's time. But Zero Mission destroys it. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
@ShadowlinkSuper Metroid's point of no return is a little weird, but it is pretty much right at the end of the game. Otherwise, I gotta disagree. SM was ridiculously forward-thinking (both at its time and even from a modern perspective) with how it designed its areas to gently guide the player forward while still maintaining the veneer of nonlinearity. This set of articles by Jeremy Parish is really good for breaking down exactly why SM works so much better than games trying to emulate it, and a big reason is because it blends learning the game mechanics into the level design in remarkably clever ways. I'll say this about Zero Mission--it's probably the best Metroid-style 2-D game that ISN'T Super Metroid. But even comparing them side-by-side, SM delivers more variety, a good selection of very large rooms (something I really missed in ZM), a longer/bigger game in general, better visuals and sound design, and more memorable/spookier bosses, plus a stronger narrative told almost entirely through visuals. Regarding the sequence-breaking, there are two schools of thought. I think they both do well at what they do, but some people (like you) feel that designing the game around sequence-breaking is more effective than what SM did. I'm not sure I agree--when I sequence-break in Zero Mission, it sort of feels like solving an in-game puzzle; I don't really feel "outside" of the game's limits, like I'm mischievously breaking the rules so much as playing by them. SM deliberately gives you the tools to sequence break, and then boldly trusts the player to go to town. And remarkably, there's no way to get "stuck" in the game, no matter how you sequence break! So I do think a lot of this was still tested, but it's got sort of a more free spirit about it. This isn't to disparage ZM--it's definitely one of the best GBA games and an excellent title by any measure. But it's hard for me to forget all the things a 16-bit Metroid got right on its first try; Super Metroid was ridiculously groundbreaking. There's a reason why it's my all-time favorite game, above even the stuff I get crazy obsessive about like EarthBound, Final Fantasy 3, and the original Zelda. I'm definitely familiar with the 15% run, by the way! (Zero Mission SPOILERS!) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
∧ |
Forum main |
|
|