Post by: Pittbboi on February 16, 2007, 05:33:03 AM
Ok, saw this Reggie interview over at MTV. (http://www.mtv.com/news/articles/1552624/20070215/index.jhtml)
Pretty standard interview, until I saw this:
Quote
"What I will tell you about 'Metroid' is that 'Metroid' will be fabulous," he said. "I think it's fair to say that all of us were disappointed with the sales of 'Metroid Prime 2,' [the game's developer] Retro included. The focus on 'Prime 3' is to make that the stellar game for a first-person experience on the platform. ... What that means is we're going to make sure it's perfect when we launch it. I think this is one where your readers — the fans of Nintendo, the core gamer — need to recognize that when we release it, it will be perfect. And if that's a little later than folks would have liked, I'm hoping they're going to be happy. They certainly seem to be happy that we took our time with '[The Legend of Zelda: Twilight Princess.' " With that kind of talk, the obvious follow-up question was: "If it's perfect, does that mean it's going to be online?" In response, Fils-Aime said: "That's perfect for you."
Oh you've gotta be kidding me. Either they want to save online for some big unveiling, or Reggie's doing his usual "hey, we warned you" clean-up routine. This doesn't make me feel too good. Any thoughts?
We can forget any decent Wii Online play if Metroid--Nintendo's most obvious choice for 1st party online--doesn't have it.
Post by: Bill Aurion on February 16, 2007, 05:36:29 AM
Post by: Pittbboi on February 16, 2007, 05:39:49 AM
But even if it's just me, doesn't change the fact that no Metroid online will seriously suck.
Post by: Kairon on February 16, 2007, 05:40:48 AM
I'm not holding my breath. MP3 will crash and burn if it tries to shoehorn in an online mode. I won't be sad to see even split screen multiplayer gone.
~Carmine "Cai" M. Red
Kairon@aol.com
Post by: Ceric on February 16, 2007, 05:41:25 AM
A new franchise is going to have to come out for it to be perfect of online. Because none of the ones with there roots in the NES are.
Post by: Kairon on February 16, 2007, 05:41:43 AM
~Carmine "Cai" M. Red
Kairon@aol.com
Post by: Pittbboi on February 16, 2007, 05:42:47 AM
Quote
Originally posted by: Kairon
What would they DO with online even if they had it?!?!?!
I'm not holding my breath. MP3 will crash and burn if it tries to shoehorn in an online mode. I won't be sad to see even split screen multiplayer gone.
~Carmine "Cai" M. Red
Kairon@aol.com
Are you serious? Why?
Then again, the only game I haven't seen you pooh at is Animal Crossing....
Post by: darknight06 on February 16, 2007, 05:46:10 AM
Post by: nitsu niflheim on February 16, 2007, 05:48:03 AM
Post by: ryancoke on February 16, 2007, 05:52:19 AM
Post by: Kairon on February 16, 2007, 05:56:56 AM
Quote
Originally posted by: PittbboiQuote
Originally posted by: Kairon
What would they DO with online even if they had it?!?!?!
I'm not holding my breath. MP3 will crash and burn if it tries to shoehorn in an online mode. I won't be sad to see even split screen multiplayer gone.
~Carmine "Cai" M. Red
Kairon@aol.com
Are you serious? Why?
Then again, the only game I haven't seen you pooh at is Animal Crossing....
Because MP2 BOMBED. And because Halo 3 will eat everything else for breakfast, lunch, and dinner.
You think just because something has an online mode that it will stand a better chance against the current reigning genre kings? MP3 will sell maybe 1.5 million in America lifetime at BEST and bomb everywhere else. Halo 3 will sell something in the range of 2 million within just its first month or two and then linger on to sell 6-7 million worldwide. The sales numbers prove it.
Now, I've said before that MP3 online is important, but only insofar as it sets the standard for third party FPS games. If MP3 is online, then third partie FPS games will have to be online in order to compete, and they'd probably do a far better job of providing a traditional FPS online experience than Nintendo and Metroid. But insofar as online play will help Metroid the GAME? *phsaw*
~Carmine "Cai" M. Red
Kairon@aol.com
Post by: Spak-Spang on February 16, 2007, 05:58:52 AM
The Statement that is perfect for you.
Seems to indicate when KNOW what you want for perfect.
Metroid Prime 3 is going to be awesome. It will be online, and it is going to directly compete with Halo 3. Will it be better? Probably not. Will it be incredible none the less....YES.
Post by: Maverick on February 16, 2007, 06:01:14 AM
Post by: Ceric on February 16, 2007, 06:03:40 AM
Post by: JonLeung on February 16, 2007, 06:04:58 AM
While it seems unlikely that there would be a good multiplayer online mode (unlikely because Nintendo/Retro doesn't seem to want to compete with Halo), there's no physical impossibility why there couldn't be one (especially considering the time spent on this game).
If they did feel like they wanted to compete with Halo, and that they could add a good versus mode without taking resources away from the development of the single-player mode (Metroid's more-than-primary strength), then why not? Seriously, why not?
I'm not keen on Prime 2: Echoes' multiplayer and I never took Hunters online for some reason, but that doesn't mean I should hate on the existence of a multiplayer mode in Prime 3. If it's an actually good mode, awesome! And if I still didn't like multiplayer, no one's going to make me play that mode. So single-player mode fans have no reason to totally pooh-pooh multiplayer unless they can say with absolute certainty that it affected the development of the single-player main game.
Post by: Pittbboi on February 16, 2007, 06:11:00 AM
Quote
Now, I've said before that MP3 online is important, but only insofar as it sets the standard for third party FPS games. If MP3 is online, then third partie FPS games will have to be online in order to compete, and they'd probably do a far better job of providing a traditional FPS online experience than Nintendo and Metroid. But insofar as online play will help Metroid the GAME? *phsaw*
Well duh. How many FPS out there have multiplayer modes that actually are a benefit to the single player experience? They're mostly just excuses to shoot at or with other people. They're a gaming experience all their own, and Nintendo needs to set the standard. If they don't do online FPS with Metroid, the perfect game for Nintendo to show third parties that it is possible on the Wii, then I'm afraid the Wii will never get a decent online experience.
And if they don't do it with Metroid, a console FPS where adding an online feature would be pretty straight forward, how can we expect them to do it with Brawl, a game so fast and intense that even developers experienced with creating online games would have problems with it?
Post by: Nephilim on February 16, 2007, 06:11:52 AM
I think you have the wrong idea on online, there are 100s of modes for them choose between, doesnt mean it has to end up boring like mp2 multiplayer
simple coop boss rush, with no health spawns or such... would be easy to design and would be fun
Post by: Smash_Brother on February 16, 2007, 06:17:59 AM
Quote
Originally posted by: Pittbboi
Well, it could be personal opinion, but I'm definitely more interested in online play with Metroid than any other Nintendo game.
But even if it's just me, doesn't change the fact that no Metroid online will seriously suck.
I have to agree.
First of all, MP is the ONLY Nintendo-made FPS right now with any marketing power. Geist? As much as I loved it, good LUCK with THAT...
Second, if the Wii is EVER going to have anything even remotely resembling online support, it's going to have to be Nintendo who pushes the envelope and thus forces developers to get the lead out and likewise put their games online. The platform maker always sets the standard for their own console. Always.
I'd personally rather Nintendo create a completely new FPS franchise which will aim to BE a Halo-killer (because so many people clamor for it). If they gave Retro the task of creating a Halo 3 killer, I'd bet my balls they could do it. Retro has proven themselves not only capable of making some awesome games but pushing the hell out of the graphical capabilities of the consoles to boot.
But like I said, Nintendo needs to set the standard. Unless, by some goddamn miracle, Ubisoft pulls of a AAA title with Red Steel 2 with online play, then it's gonna have to come from Nintendo and even a straightforward deathmatch, CTF, etc. online mode for MP3 would have been better than nothing.
If Nintendo doesn't get serious about online play, then devs never will and as much as ignorant fanb*tches would like to claim otherwise, that WILL hurt the Wii in the long run.
Why completely surrender online console gaming to the 360 and PS3 and thus give both of them an edge over the Wii? I thought Reggie apologized at one point for Nintendo not getting on the online bandwagon sooner...
Also, I had a lot of fun with MP: Hunters. Not only did I get to hear some of my fellow PGCers for the first time but I thought the online multiplayer was pretty solid, with the exception of a few cheap hunters. If they could fix the balance issues or everyone has identical abilities then the game would have been great, minus the hand cramping.
I can only imagine how awesome full-screen Wiimote-driven online multiplayer FPSes would be...
Post by: Bloodworth on February 16, 2007, 06:30:23 AM
However, Retro may do something completely different since they did seem open to exploring the possibilities of Wii Connect 24 despite not wanting to do traditional online multi.
Post by: decoyman on February 16, 2007, 06:55:11 AM
I think that would be supercool
Post by: Hostile Creation on February 16, 2007, 07:06:44 AM
Post by: JonLeung on February 16, 2007, 07:07:13 AM
QuoteI was actually thinking earlier that it would be cool if Ridley was an available player (he'd have to be weaker to compensate for his flight and speed, etc., however, he already is a larger target). After all, there aren't many recurring characters in Metroid...
Originally posted by: decoyman
When I think of Metroid CTF, I think of "Capture the Metroid." Except, to capture it, you have to lure it into latching onto your head. Then you have to race back to your base as fast as you can, not only because people are shooting at you and all, but because it's sucking your energy.
I think that would be supercool
I like your idea of Capture The Metroid. A simpler version with Ridley could involve grabbing the baby Metroid's canister. It could be a reenactment of the escape from Ceres at the beginning of Super Metroid except that the "Samuses" are able to keep up with the "Ridleys" and the winner is the one who reaches the elevator while carrying the baby Metroid. Or something.
Post by: Crimm on February 16, 2007, 07:08:03 AM
Then again, people would probably camp the trap items. Maybe a mode where only one person is the ghost and the others are all trying to take him out...somehow. I don't know, how do you kill a ghost? Either way, the ghost needs to knock off all the other players or escape the level. Whatever. There would have to be a reason that all players can't be ghosts, or no one would ever lose.
Post by: Smash_Brother on February 16, 2007, 07:08:10 AM
Good times...times I'd like to see more of on my Wii.
Quote
Originally posted by: decoyman
I think that would be supercool
God yes. Even small variations on classic deathmatch elements like that would make the game vastly better than its standard-fare counterparts.
Quote
Originally posted by: Crimm
Geist online would be all kinds of awesome. I mean, they would have to change some things first. For example, when inhabiting inanimate objects they can be used as traps. Wait for someone to pass and nail them. That wouldn't work on split screen because your opponent could see what you've taken over.
Then again, people would probably camp the trap items. Maybe a mode where only one person is the ghost and the others are all trying to take him out...somehow. I don't know, how do you kill a ghost? Either way, the ghost needs to knock off all the other players or escape the level. Whatever. There would have to be a reason that all players can't be ghosts, or no one would ever lose.
I'd play online Wiimote Geist in a heartbeat, but my fear is that it doesn't have the name power that the Metroid brand does.
Post by: UltimatePartyBear on February 16, 2007, 07:22:50 AM
I doubt Metroid Prime 3 will have multiplayer, but I'll abstain from judging whether that's good or bad. I just don't want them to target Halo to the point that it affects the game's design. That's the vibe I get from the intro, and it's worrisome.
Post by: mantidor on February 16, 2007, 07:24:03 AM
All you can do for Metroid is good marketing, because I cannot see any flaw in the metroid gameplay formula, trying to add something so un-metroidish will do nothing for the game, as it happened with echoes, everyone would have prefered the effort put in that multiplayer rather invested in the single player.
However all those multiplayer modes you people are talking about are ok, but give it to NST again and make it separate from the real Metroid.
Post by: Ceric on February 16, 2007, 07:30:27 AM
Post by: Crimm on February 16, 2007, 07:34:32 AM
Post by: Smash_Brother on February 16, 2007, 07:36:04 AM
Quote
Originally posted by: mantidor
As I see it Metroid's brand name power is attached to its hardcore fanbase, and the fanbase wants something very specific, a Metroid game, online won't increase this fanbase at all, it will probably shrink it.
Actually, when MP first debuted on the GC, it was noted that it was one of the biggest system sellers the GC had had to date. I'm guessing that all those cubes weren't just dormant Metroid fans but that a lot of them were new players intrigued by the insanely awesome commercial they made for the game.
Personally, I'd prefer online Geist to MP as well, but I'd take a Nintendo online FPS anywhere I could get it.
Post by: ViewtifulJoe on February 16, 2007, 07:42:10 AM
Post by: Kairon on February 16, 2007, 07:48:34 AM
Quote
Originally posted by: Ceric
Metriod Prime: PSO You all know you want it.
Hmmm... turn Metroid into a TPS? A PSO version of Gears of War? Hmmmm... I can SO buy into that vision!
~Carmine "Cai" M. Red
Kairon@aol.com
Post by: Pittbboi on February 16, 2007, 07:58:16 AM
Quote
I doubt Metroid Prime 3 will have multiplayer, but I'll abstain from judging whether that's good or bad. I just don't want them to target Halo to the point that it affects the game's design. That's the vibe I get from the intro, and it's worrisome.
It's this line of thinking that I'll never understand. It's just another "Third parties don't want to compete with Nintendo games" excuse. I get that Halo was a good game, but damnit, it doesn't COMMAND the entire FPS genre, and it sure as hell didn't bring online FPS to consoles. There have been countless online FPSs since Halo that have been good games and done well, and many of those didn't draw comparison to Halo. By it's very nature Metroid probably wouldn't be compared to Halo no matter what features it adds, except by Nintendo fanboys who want to come up with any excuse possible for why Nintendo is right for NOT doing something. If Nintendo is so afraid of competing with Halo then you can forget them EVER releasing an online FPS game (and that includes Geist).
Metroid with online play wouldn't be competing with Halo any more so than any other game. People really need to get rid of this whole "[insert franchise here]-killer" concept. It's elitist bullshit and it just proves that even Nintendo fans feel they have to have the BEST of something on their console or bust. As if the only way an online Metroid game would be GOOD is if it was BETTER than Halo. Ridiculous.
Post by: Kairon on February 16, 2007, 08:08:59 AM
There are multiple reasons why online won't be good for a Metroid game (though I've already stated why it'd be good for the Wii in general).
1. It doesn't fit the themes behind Metroid.
2. It doesn't fit the current Metroid gameplay paradigm.
3. It would be going up against serious contenders from established players, probably a waste of money to compete in a crowded market.
Now, the best case scenario I see is this: Metroid will be online but this online mode doesn't detract at all from the single player game. Then, third parties bring their own FPS franchises to the Wii and utilize online in the ways that match their expertise, and do a MUCH better job than Nintendo would ever do at filling that gap.
The trick is NEVER to get Nintendo to make a hardcore FPS experience. The trick is to make it so that third parties want to do it FOR Nintendo. Much like even though Sony tried to counter-program Mario with their Jak & Daxter, other companies came forward to do the same thing on their own power.
Nintendo needs to have their own Rachet & Clank or Sly Cooper, for example. In hardcore online experiences of course. I seriously doubt Nintendo's ability to do this particular job in this particular field as well as third parties do.
~Carmine "Cai" M. Red
Kairon@aol.com
Post by: Smash_Brother on February 16, 2007, 08:09:28 AM
Seriously, take the standard features of MP and apply them creatively in a vs. mode and they'd be awesome. The MP2 multiplayer was poorly received because it was poorly executed. No other reason.
Post by: Kairon on February 16, 2007, 08:11:14 AM
~Carmine "Cai" M. Red
Kairon@aol.com
Post by: UltimatePartyBear on February 16, 2007, 08:13:40 AM
Quote
Originally posted by: Kairon
Hmmm... turn Metroid into a TPS? A PSO version of Gears of War? Hmmmm... I can SO buy into that vision!
Just don't forget the new cover sheet.
I don't really think Metroid is well suited to being expanded into new genres. I think people try to look at it that way because it's Nintendo's premiere scifi setting. However, Nintendo doesn't create worlds to create games in so much as they create worlds to accommodate gameplay. That means the worlds they create don't typically have enough room in the background in which to build new gameplay styles. Maybe the reason fans often lash out at the idea of branching out is that it requires additions to a setting that has traditionally been extremely tightly focused. You can't do that without disrupting that focus. Multiplayer in Metroid? Blasphemy. Zelda MMORPG? Heresy! So on and so forth.
If Nintendo is going to successfully try new genres, it's going to require new settings that aren't already encumbered with fan-orthodoxy.
Post by: Smash_Brother on February 16, 2007, 08:14:31 AM
My only complaint about it was balance and hand cramping. If everyone played as Samus then balance is a non-issue and my hand only ever cramped with the Wiimote because of Elebits.
Quote
Originally posted by: PartyBear
I don't really think Metroid is well suited to being expanded into new genres. I think people try to look at it that way because it's Nintendo's premiere scifi setting. However, Nintendo doesn't create worlds to create games in so much as they create worlds to accommodate gameplay. That means the worlds they create don't typically have enough room in the background in which to build new gameplay styles. Maybe the reason fans often lash out at the idea of branching out is that it requires additions to a setting that has traditionally been extremely tightly focused. You can't do that without disrupting that focus. Multiplayer in Metroid? Blasphemy. Zelda MMORPG? Heresy! So on and so forth.
But by that logic, Four Swords would have never been born, and I seem to recall you enjoying it.
They would have said, "Four player Zelda?!? NEVER!!!!"
Even Four Swords on the cube had a pure vs. mode: it was Zelda deathmatch.
Post by: Kairon on February 16, 2007, 08:16:13 AM
Metroid is, after all, a universe that seems to revolve around bounty hunters, the perfect opportunities for player character creation and identity!
~Carmine "Cai" M. Red
Kairon@aol.com
Post by: Pittbboi on February 16, 2007, 08:16:26 AM
Quote
3. It would be going up against serious contenders from established players, probably a waste of money to compete in a crowded market.
It would only be competing against games on other consoles. For all the Wii owners this will be the ONLY game to get if you want online FPS action on the Wii. It'll have that market cornered.
I agree that Nintendo isn't exactly the first game developer to look to for online gaming goodness (which is a shame because they do everything else so well). But sometimes Nintendo needs to stop thinking as a game developer and START thinking like a console developer. And if they ever want that genre to take off on the Wii, they're going to have to get the ball rolling. And I see no better vehicle than Metroid.
Quote
If Nintendo is going to successfully try new genres, it's going to require new settings that aren't already encumbered with fan-orthodoxy.
I partially agree with this. It's only that, nowadays, Nintendo seems to be less focused on creating new, inspired settings and characters and REALLY pushing them like they did back in the day. Oh, they'll occasionally do it (Pikmin), but then they'll just leave them by the wayside if they don't become a smash hit (which is mostly due to THEIR poor marketing).
Nintendo seems content with relying on their aging mascots, but they're growing stale. So I think people are now expecting them to do different things with those mascots, if that's where Nintendo wants to keep their focus. If you're constantly going to rely on Mario and Link and Samus to keep you relevant, it's time to change up their gameplay a little to maintain their relevancy.
Though I've always said that Nintendo really needs to create a new mascot for the new generation of gamers. Mario is past his prime. Time to pass the torch.
Post by: Kairon on February 16, 2007, 08:18:26 AM
Quote
Originally posted by: Smash_Brother
But MP:H WAS fun online: I got to butt heads with the forum's finest and even chat with them via voice.
My only complaint about it was balance and hand cramping. If everyone played as Samus then balance is a non-issue and my hand only ever cramped with the Wiimote because of Elebits.
...
But by that logic, Four Swords would have never been born, and I seem to recall you enjoying it.
They would have said, "Four player Zelda?!? NEVER!!!!"
*ahem* Four player Zelda? NEVER! *ahem*
Oh, and since MP:H has its defenders, it sounds like NST should be looked at as Nintendo's best in-house hope for traditional/hardcore games, especially fps ones.
~Carmine "Cai" M. Red
Kairon@aol.com
Post by: Smash_Brother on February 16, 2007, 08:19:33 AM
Quote
Originally posted by: Pittbboi And I see no better vehicle than Metroid.
Either that or Nintendo should personally fund Red Steel 2 and its online mode, including lending out development talent, to ensure that it's a AAA online FPS experience for the Wii only.
I don't care how Nintendo gets there, I just wish they'd GET THERE. I'm regretting selling back my copy of Hunters now because I have a strong urge to play it...
Quote
Originally posted by: Kairon Oh, and since MP:H has its defenders, it sounds like NST should be looked at as Nintendo's best in-house hope for traditional/hardcore games, especially fps ones.
Sounds fine to me: NST definitely did a good job with the game, barring some balance issues, and god knows they pushed the DS hardware to the wall.
I'd love to see what they could do for the Wii...
Post by: Kairon on February 16, 2007, 08:21:08 AM
Quote
Originally posted by: PittbboiQuote
3. It would be going up against serious contenders from established players, probably a waste of money to compete in a crowded market.
It would only be competing against games on other consoles. For all the Wii owners this will be the ONLY game to get if you want online FPS action on the Wii. It'll have that market cornered.
I agree that Nintendo isn't exactly the first game developer to look to for online gaming goodness (which is a shame because they do everything else so well). But sometimes Nintendo needs to stop thinking as a game developer and START thinking like a console developer. And if they ever want that genre to take off on the Wii, they're going to have to get the ball rolling. And I see no better vehicle than Metroid.
Yeah... a real pity it couldn't have been Wii Wars though.
~Carmine "Cai" M. Red
Kairon@aol.com
Post by: NWR_pap64 on February 16, 2007, 08:23:00 AM
Quote
Originally posted by: Smash_BrotherQuote
Originally posted by: Pittbboi And I see no better vehicle than Metroid.
Either that or personally fund Red Steel 2 and its online mode, including lending out development talent, to ensure that it's a AAA online FPS experience for the Wii only.
I don't care how Nintendo gets there, I just wish they'd GET THERE. I'm regretting selling back my copy of Hunters now because I have a strong urge to play it...
I regret not playing it when it launched. I'm sure activity was high then...I wasn't too impressed with the game, but multiplayer lookd interesting.
Post by: Smash_Brother on February 16, 2007, 08:25:32 AM
I'm almost ashamed to admit that I won a bunch of online games against random opponents from the...bathroom.
Post by: UltimatePartyBear on February 16, 2007, 08:28:42 AM
Quote
Originally posted by: PittbboiQuote
I doubt Metroid Prime 3 will have multiplayer, but I'll abstain from judging whether that's good or bad. I just don't want them to target Halo to the point that it affects the game's design. That's the vibe I get from the intro, and it's worrisome.
It's this line of thinking that I'll never understand. It's just another "Third parties don't want to compete with Nintendo games" excuse. I get that Halo was a good game, but damnit, it doesn't COMMAND the entire FPS genre, and it sure as hell didn't bring online FPS to consoles. There have been countless online FPSs since Halo that have been good games and done well, and many of those didn't draw comparison to Halo. By it's very nature Metroid probably wouldn't be compared to Halo no matter what features it adds, except by Nintendo fanboys who want to come up with any excuse possible for why Nintendo is right for NOT doing something. If Nintendo is so afraid of competing with Halo then you can forget them EVER releasing an online FPS game (and that includes Geist).
Metroid with online play wouldn't be competing with Halo any more so than any other game. People really need to get rid of this whole "[insert franchise here]-killer" concept. It's elitist bullshit and it just proves that even Nintendo fans feel they have to have the BEST of something on their console or bust. As if the only way an online Metroid game would be GOOD is if it was BETTER than Halo. Ridiculous.
I don't know how you got any of that from my post. I specifically withheld comment on multiplayer. I was talking about the single player mode. I watched the play-through of the intro sequence on IGN, and it reminded me very strongly of the intro to Halo. I didn't make it much farther than that in Halo, honestly, because I never had the opportunity to play the story mode again, but it appeared to me that Retro was trying to emulate the feel of Halo. Not the multiplayer. The single player. I have played many FPS games, and for all the sameness in the genre, I have never perceived such a strong similarity between two games before.
Honestly, your reply perplexes me utterly. "It's just another 'Third parties don't want to compete with Nintendo games' excuse." Where did that even come from? I'll try to be more clear this time. I have no strong feelings one way or the other on Metroid online multiplayer.
Post by: Galford on February 16, 2007, 08:30:34 AM
Isn't Smash Bros suppose to go online?
It't wouldn't surprise me that Nintendo would gimp the online part of MP3 in order not to steal thunder from SSB:B.
Also the Metroid universe is ripe for expansion, look at the ending of Metroid Fusion.
Post by: Smash_Brother on February 16, 2007, 08:31:52 AM
But I agree: if we want a franchise to beat Halo (something I believe is readily possible), I think it should be something new, built from the ground up for the Wii to rival Halo.
I just thirst for online FPS Wiimote experiences to an extent that I'd slake my thirst with the first online FPS the Wii has, no matter how awful it might be.
Post by: ryancoke on February 16, 2007, 08:34:03 AM
Post by: Smash_Brother on February 16, 2007, 08:37:41 AM
From everything I heard, it sounded near-ready for launch and god knows the Wii has a drought at present. Why did it get pushed back to...when is it? Late spring? Q2?
Post by: Kairon on February 16, 2007, 08:38:40 AM
I'd hit it. Multiple times. Oh yeah.
~Carmine "Cai" M. Red
Kairon@aol.com
Post by: Smash_Brother on February 16, 2007, 08:43:01 AM
OH F*CK YES!!!!
Post by: Kairon on February 16, 2007, 08:47:59 AM
~Carmine "Cai" M. Re3d
Kairon@aol.com
Post by: Smash_Brother on February 16, 2007, 08:48:44 AM
That would likewise be awesome.
Post by: UltimatePartyBear on February 16, 2007, 08:51:32 AM
Quote
Originally posted by: Smash_Brother
But by that logic, Four Swords would have never been born, and I seem to recall you enjoying it.
They would have said, "Four player Zelda?!? NEVER!!!!"
Even Four Swords on the cube had a pure vs. mode: it was Zelda deathmatch.
Sorry. I seem to be falling into my old trap of editing and re-editing my posts until parts of my point only exist in my head. I, myself, don't think the Metroid setting should be expanded beyond the adventures of Samus. Samus having those adventures from a first person perspective didn't bother me at all (although Samus handling like a tank kind of did). A multiplayer mode is a side thing that has about as much bearing on her fight against the Space Pirates as Super Smash Bros. does. It doesn't really appeal to me much, but I have no problem with it. On the other hand, an RTS game featuring Galactic Federation and Space Pirate vehicles and ships fighting each other while collecting Phazon to upgrade weapons would sound cool, but leave me wondering why Nintendo didn't just make up a new setting instead.
The rest of the post was me trying to explain why someone would vehemently oppose the idea of something as relatively innocuous as a multiplayer mode in Metroid. I think I understand where that comes from because I'd also draw the line at some point (as I just demonstrated). I think we'd all probably draw the line at some point, even if we do differ on where.
Post by: Ian Sane on February 16, 2007, 08:58:16 AM
It's stupid for Nintendo to push Metroid as their big FPS anyway. As it is the Metroid formula lacks the feel that FPS fans want and to change it would turn off Metroid fans. Nintendo either has to turn off one group of fans or make a compromise that neither of them really like. It's a waste of time and effort.
Nintendo should just make a new franchise to be their big fairly traditional online FPS. You can argue that it will lack the name recognition but Halo and Gears of War didn't have any name recognition initially but MS marketed them really well so that when the games came out the IP was already a household name. Besides Metroid does not have that good of a name brand outside the Nintendo fanbase anyway. A new IP would be a fresh slate without any pre-conceived bias against it. It also would be seen as something fresh from Nintendo, who is often criticized for rehashing.
Trying to put Metroid Prime in direct competition with Halo is like putting Metroid against Contra. In screenshots they may look similar but the two games are totally different.
Hell with a similar engine already in place Retro could probably make a decent FPS in a good time frame. I imagine they're getting bored of working on nothing but Metroid anyway and the Wii doesn't really need more than one Metroid game.
Post by: Smash_Brother on February 16, 2007, 09:09:39 AM
Quote
Originally posted by: PartyBearOn the other hand, an RTS game featuring Galactic Federation and Space Pirate vehicles and ships fighting each other while collecting Phazon to upgrade weapons would sound cool, but leave me wondering why Nintendo didn't just make up a new setting instead.
The same reason Bungie is making "Halo Wars" (a RTS) instead of making a new IP.
Here's a question from WAY out of left field...
Has anyone here ever played a game called "Giants: Citizen Kabuto"? It was done by Shiny entertainment (or one of its later iterations) and the game had a multiplayer mode that was so insanely in depth that I can't help but think that an online version of it would still have me playing to this very day.
In order for me to properly explain it, imagine Starcraft. Now imagine that you play as a Marine, except you do so from a 3rd person perspective in a 3D world, and that you and four other marines work together to issue commands to a group of SCVs who build buildings and defenses for your base, but you, the players, must personally acquire resources for the SCVs to use so they can do their work.
In practice, an ideal team of players would have certain players assigned to gathering resources while others were on defense and others still were attacking, or the team coordinated to assign players to tasks as they were needed so they could continue to push forward into the battlefield against other teams with their own bases and agendas.
I never played this game online, but I can only imagine that the teamwork and resourcefulness involved in a round of this would absolutely DESTROY the kind of teamwork needed in any other game to date.
In this way, it's complexity works against it, and maybe the game just came well before its time. Lacking online play and a matchmaking service made the game nigh-impossible to play with others (especially since, like Custom Robo, there was a long period in which players would need to become acquainted with the game before they could hope to compete in a match).
Has anyone heard of or seen anything like this to date? I wonder how it would compete in today's online-heavy gaming arena...
Post by: denjet78 on February 16, 2007, 09:33:10 AM
Quote
Originally posted by: Pittbboi
How many FPS out there have multiplayer modes that actually are a benefit to the single player experience? They're mostly just excuses to shoot at or with other people. They're a gaming experience all their own, and Nintendo needs to set the standard. If they don't do online FPS with Metroid, the perfect game for Nintendo to show third parties that it is possible on the Wii, then I'm afraid the Wii will never get a decent online experience.
And if they don't do it with Metroid, a console FPS where adding an online feature would be pretty straight forward, how can we expect them to do it with Brawl, a game so fast and intense that even developers experienced with creating online games would have problems with it?
For someone who constantly rallies around the idea that online is the future you just described the exact reason as to why I hate it and see it more as a distraction from real gaming than anything else. Online sucks. Online blows. In your own words "they're mostly just excuses to shoot at other people".
Do I care if MP3 is online? HELL NO! Do I care that putting a craptacular online mode into the game will cut into the single player experience? You better believe it. And Halo is a perfect example. Almost everyone universally pans the single player mode but loves the online mode (for some reason I can't fathom). Nintendo shouldn't have to add online to any games just because they feel like they have to keep up with the Joneses. Whenever they get around to dealing with online I want it to be a new, and actually fun, experience that can't be done any other way.
Developers are TERRIFIED of doing an online only game because they know that if they base it off of what online is today that it won't sell. Until online can stand on it's own, as it's own feature, it's little more than a gimmick. The thing is, I have faith in it, and I really REALLY want it. I think online could redefine gaming as we know it. It's just that someone is going to have to put the EFFORT into it and so far no one really seems interested.
Post by: Pittbboi on February 16, 2007, 09:39:35 AM
Quote
Online sucks. Online blows. In your own words "they're mostly just excuses to shoot at other people"
I was talking about multiplayer in general. Not just online. And let's not pretend that the multiplayer in games in like Goldeneye and Perfect Dark weren't a major part of their success.
Multiplayer FPS is a legitimate gaming genre in its own right, and online is a natural extension of it that has so far enjoyed success on PCs and every other console but Nintendo's. Nintendo can shuck online all it wants, but don't kid yourself into thinking that it's because online isn't worth, because I think the rest of the gaming world would disagree.
Post by: UltimatePartyBear on February 16, 2007, 09:49:49 AM
Quote
Originally posted by: Smash_BrotherQuote
Originally posted by: PartyBearOn the other hand, an RTS game featuring Galactic Federation and Space Pirate vehicles and ships fighting each other while collecting Phazon to upgrade weapons would sound cool, but leave me wondering why Nintendo didn't just make up a new setting instead.
The same reason Bungie is making "Halo Wars" (a RTS) instead of making a new IP.
This goes back to my point about the setting being conducive to such things. The Haloverse has room for an RTS because Bungie always does a lot of work on the background. To squeeze an RTS into Metroid, you'd have to make room, and that goes back to the chafing of fans I was talking about.
Quote
Here's a question from WAY out of left field...
Has anyone here ever played a game called "Giants: Citizen Kabuto"? It was done by Shiny entertainment (or one of its later iterations) and the game had a multiplayer mode that was so insanely in depth that I can't help but think that an online version of it would still have me playing to this very day.
As a matter of fact, I have. Unfortunately, I can't comment on it. I played maybe the first level of single player before Deus Ex consumed me (I got both with an Audigy sound card back then, presumably because both games showed off EAX). I never got back to it.
There have been a few games that combined RTS and [FT]PS. Have you played Savage? It's the closest thing I've played to what you described. One player on each team is the commander, who has a bird's eye view of the game. Everyone else controls everything but the worker units, including multiple tiers of foot soldiers and siege engines. The workers can mine for resources (stone and gold) and build stuff. Players can mine, too, or earn gold by killing monsters or enemy troops. The commander spends the resources researching new units and items for the other players to use (at a cost of even more gold). The commander can give the other players orders, which are represented to them by shafts of light over their objectives, and he can give them a few buffs if he's built the right buildings. With a good team and a good commander, it really is a blast to play.
Post by: Ceric on February 16, 2007, 09:53:29 AM
Quote
Originally posted by: Smash_BrotherQuote
Originally posted by: PartyBearOn the other hand, an RTS game featuring Galactic Federation and Space Pirate vehicles and ships fighting each other while collecting Phazon to upgrade weapons would sound cool, but leave me wondering why Nintendo didn't just make up a new setting instead.
The same reason Bungie is making "Halo Wars" (a RTS) instead of making a new IP.
...
Metriod started life as an RTS but switched platforms and genre? :P
On the making room arguement. I have to disagree most notably because the Metroid Universe has always had a lot of fringe stuff to explain the why. It much like a novella. They have more indepth backgrounds over all then most novels I've read of comparable quality. I think Metroid has the overarching universe to support an RTS and I for one am curious to explore the Non-Samus side of that universe. The one with people and civilization...
Post by: JonLeung on February 16, 2007, 09:54:52 AM
QuoteNow that you've reminded me, GoldenEye 007 DID have a good single-player mode AND a good multiplayer mode. Just because Halo's single-player is weak and Metroid Prime 2: Echoes's multiplayer is weak shouldn't mean that a game with both modes done well couldn't be done again.
Originally posted by: Pittbboi
I was talking about multiplayer in general. Not just online. And let's not pretend that the multiplayer in games in like Goldeneye and Perfect Dark weren't a major part of their success.
Post by: NinGurl69 *huggles on February 16, 2007, 09:59:56 AM
Post by: JonLeung on February 16, 2007, 10:15:08 AM
QuoteSamus Aran > Brigadier Betty.
Originally posted by: Professional 666
BWii will pwn online Metroid.
Post by: Kairon on February 16, 2007, 10:15:59 AM
*ahem*
BIG TIME BRANNIGAN. Brush up on your extended universe characters people! B.T. is Back!*
~Carmine "Cai" M. Red
Kairon@aol.com
* B.T. Brannigan is my younger brother's nickname on MP:H... go easy on him! Oh, and B.T. Brannigan IS a character from the extended Metroid universe.
Post by: UltimatePartyBear on February 16, 2007, 10:36:24 AM
But I'm going to shut up now because I'm late for a birthday party.
Post by: Smash_Brother on February 16, 2007, 10:41:35 AM
Quote
Originally posted by: Ceric Metriod started life as an RTS but switched platforms and genre? :P
No, I mean that Bungie used the Halo franchise to make a RTS game because it's salable, the same reason Nintendo could do the same using the Metroid franchise.
There's the Galactic Federation, there's the Space Pirates, there's Metroids, there's other bounty hunters, there's the Ing, etc. There's no reason a Metroid RTS wouldn't be perfectly doable.
In fact, it has been pointed out a number of times that the Metroid, F-Zero and StarFox universes could EASILY be the same universe: F-Zero is rife with bounty hunters and anthropomorphic animals, Metroid deals with all manners of alien life and SF focuses on interplanetary combat with between anthropomorphic animals (not to mention "James McCloud" being an F-Zero racer...).
It'd likely never happen, but if they wanted to link the three universes, they easily could, be it for a RTS game or otherwise.
Quote
Originally posted by: PartyBear
It's not that the franchise can't support a larger universe. It's that building that universe necessarily broadens the focus. That's very difficult to do without alienating some of the fanbase. I also think that in the case of Metroid, it's unnecessary in the first place. Games that don't play like Metroid don't need to take place in the same universe, and will actually be limited by it if they do. I'd rather see new worlds created to support new franchises.
But how would a Metroid RTS be any different from, say, how Mario Party, Kart, etc. are spinoffs from the original Mario franchise?
RTSs are typically considered an older oriented genre due to the amount of brainpower they require. I see a Metroid RTS as being right in line with the subject matter a RTS should encompass.
Besides, a completely different dev team would likely be making the game, not Retro. I don't think anyone will be buying it expecting to play a staple Metroid game if it's advertised as a RTS from the very start.
Post by: King of Twitch on February 16, 2007, 10:43:48 AM
"A year ago, people were challenging me: 'What are you going to do to make sure there's strong third-party support?' " Fils-Aime said. "We have it. Now folks are saying, 'Where's all your strong first-party titles?' They're coming. But we're being very strategic when we're going to launch them.
Nice going on the 'read my lips pledge'. it turned out just like the real one from back in the day! Another day, another set of facts in nintendoland. Who knows what tomorrow will bring.
Post by: NinGurl69 *huggles on February 16, 2007, 10:44:07 AM
"SC", get it?
Oh, and TP is officially a fanservice game. "perfect" doesn't apply, cuz Nintendo can't do new things.
Post by: Kairon on February 16, 2007, 10:45:51 AM
~Carmine "Cai" M. Red
Kairon@aol.com
Post by: NinGurl69 *huggles on February 16, 2007, 10:48:30 AM
Post by: Smash_Brother on February 16, 2007, 10:51:51 AM
Quote
Originally posted by: MJRx9000 "A year ago, people were challenging me: 'What are you going to do to make sure there's strong third-party support?' " Fils-Aime said. "We have it. Now folks are saying, 'Where's all your strong first-party titles?' They're coming. But we're being very strategic when we're going to launch them.
Nice going on the 'read my lips pledge'. it turned out just like the real one from back in the day! Another day, another set of facts in nintendoland. Who knows what tomorrow will bring.
I'm not sure what you mean by this.
All he seems to be saying is that Nintendo is trying to not step on the toes of its 3rd parties, and considering that Nintendo's own games are what 3rd parties fear most of all, it's a wise thing to be doing (or at least saying and reassuring of the fact).
Post by: Kairon on February 16, 2007, 10:57:02 AM
Quote
Originally posted by: Smash_Brother
All he seems to be saying is that Nintendo is trying to not step on the toes of its 3rd parties, and considering that Nintendo's own games are what 3rd parties fear most of all, it's a wise thing to be doing (or at least saying and reassuring of the fact).
Agreed.
~Carmine "Cai" M. Red
Kairon@aol.com
Post by: GoldenPhoenix on February 16, 2007, 11:12:06 AM
1. Changing what the series was about and adding things like vehicles
2. Not changing the series license much but run the risk of having a generic shooter (Like Metroid Hunters)
I would really rather see Retro develop a new IP for online multiplayer, perhaps being the Wii's answer to Halo which Metroid Prime will NEVER be because they are two dfferent types of FPSs. If Retro is given free reign with a new IP, I'd much rather see them utilize that to create the "Benchmark" for Wii FPSs when it pertains to online since they do not have to be restricted by the Metroid License.
Post by: Artimus on February 16, 2007, 11:22:29 AM
Post by: GoldenPhoenix on February 16, 2007, 11:25:47 AM
Quote
Originally posted by: Artimus
This whole drought thing makes me keel over with laughter. A drought is a quarter with no worthwhile games. The PS3 launched in November and it just got its first worthwhile game. And yet people are oddly obsessed with the Wii's shortage? First party games are not required to avoid a drought. There are plenty of worthwhile games out this month and next month. PLENTY. Then Super Paper Mario is a huge release right at the start of April. This is not even close to a drought.
Not to mention the Wii has had some quality games come out, one being Wario Ware Smooth Moves, and hopefully Sonic and the Secret Rings Monday. This is probably one of the best post launches I've encountered. Heck even 360 hasn't had many if any worthwhile games for a couple of months!
Post by: Smash_Brother on February 16, 2007, 03:15:10 PM
But no, I don't mean to imply that what's happening now is unacceptable: it's the typical post launch release schedule.
Post by: UltimatePartyBear on February 16, 2007, 03:50:32 PM
Quote
Originally posted by: Smash_Brother
In fact, it has been pointed out a number of times that the Metroid, F-Zero and StarFox universes could EASILY be the same universe: F-Zero is rife with bounty hunters and anthropomorphic animals, Metroid deals with all manners of alien life and SF focuses on interplanetary combat with between anthropomorphic animals (not to mention "James McCloud" being an F-Zero racer...).
James McCloud is just a cameo/reference. It's similar to Mr. EAD looking like Mario, wearing a StarMan belt buckle, and driving a machine made by a man named Shiggs with the performance ratings EAD. The only relationship it implies is that the games were made by the same people. It may be possible to combine them, but it would be pretty silly.
Quote
But how would a Metroid RTS be any different from, say, how Mario Party, Kart, etc. are spinoffs from the original Mario franchise?
The Mario franchise is already outrageously silly. Anyway, like I said, we all have different places where we draw the line. How would you like it if the next official Metroid sequel had Samus fending off amorous space pirates with seltzer water while dancing to pop music in a bumblebee costume, controlled entirely by voice input? I'm going to go out on a limb and assume you'd think that was really dumb. That's about how I feel about the idea of any Metroid game that isn't about Samus on a lonely crusade against all thing Space Pirate. If Nintendo made up something new for that bumblebee seltzer water dancing game, it might be a hit.
For an example of expanding a setting the bad way, take Star Fox. Dinosaur Planet was originally going to be an all new setting, but Star Fox got crammed into it just because. Then what should have been the game to redeem the series saw Fox spending most of his time on foot, as if anyone every played the original Star Fox and thought, "You know, this is neat and all, but I'd much rather get rid of all this flying nonsense and be totally ineffective." After two screwups in a row, I gave up on the series. Command might be fantastic for all I know, but the series is dead to me until it returns to the straightforward, violent mayhem of the titles I liked. I do not want to see Metroid or any other franchise suffer Star Fox's fate. If Nintendo wants to try new things, they should find new characters to do it with. It worked for Pikmin. That could have been a game about Mario chunking Toads at Goombas, but I don't think I would remember it as fondly if it had been.
Post by: Smash_Brother on February 16, 2007, 04:23:53 PM
Quote
Originally posted by: PartyBear
James McCloud is just a cameo/reference. It's similar to Mr. EAD looking like Mario, wearing a StarMan belt buckle, and driving a machine made by a man named Shiggs with the performance ratings EAD. The only relationship it implies is that the games were made by the same people. It may be possible to combine them, but it would be pretty silly.
Yeah, I know it's just silly cameos for the hell of it, but I have to disagree about the universes combining being silly. F-Zero would be more friendly to combine with since it has both bounty hunters and anthropomorphic animals at the same time, but yeah, if Fox McCloud suddenly showed up in a Metroid game, I'd cry "WTF!?!" as well.
Quote
The Mario franchise is already outrageously silly. Anyway, like I said, we all have different places where we draw the line. How would you like it if the next official Metroid sequel had Samus fending off amorous space pirates with seltzer water while dancing to pop music in a bumblebee costume, controlled entirely by voice input? I'm going to go out on a limb and assume you'd think that was really dumb. That's about how I feel about the idea of any Metroid game that isn't about Samus on a lonely crusade against all thing Space Pirate. If Nintendo made up something new for that bumblebee seltzer water dancing game, it might be a hit.
So, uh, what did you think of Metroid Pinball?
Quote
For an example of expanding a setting the bad way, take Star Fox. Dinosaur Planet was originally going to be an all new setting, but Star Fox got crammed into it just because. Then what should have been the game to redeem the series saw Fox spending most of his time on foot, as if anyone every played the original Star Fox and thought, "You know, this is neat and all, but I'd much rather get rid of all this flying nonsense and be totally ineffective." After two screwups in a row, I gave up on the series. Command might be fantastic for all I know, but the series is dead to me until it returns to the straightforward, violent mayhem of the titles I liked. I do not want to see Metroid or any other franchise suffer Star Fox's fate. If Nintendo wants to try new things, they should find new characters to do it with. It worked for Pikmin. That could have been a game about Mario chunking Toads at Goombas, but I don't think I would remember it as fondly if it had been.
What if Metroid Prime 4 (or the next 3D Metroid) launched with Metroid Wars a month after it? The games are two separate entities, clearly aimed at different audiences and yet share the same franchise.
What's the worst that could happen in that case? Someone gets confused and buys Metroid Wars when they meant to buy Metroid? On the plus side, you might wind up enticing many Metroid fans into trying RTSs and drawing in RTS fans and possibly convincing them to try the canon Metroid games.
Like I said, it'll never happen, but I don't think a Metroid spinoff would compromise the integrity of the main series. Hell, if Metroid PINBALL didn't, how could a well-crafted RTS?
Post by: Caterkiller on February 16, 2007, 04:36:04 PM
Man, you guys and these huge discussions! I don't want multiplayer at all. But you know what, if it is in the game and its good I will be glad its there. I just want this game now.
Post by: Kairon on February 16, 2007, 04:40:09 PM
FPS, TPS, RTS, I don't care. Just get me in that universe...
~Carmine "Cai" M. Red
Kairon@aol.com
Post by: UltimatePartyBear on February 16, 2007, 05:12:51 PM
Quote
Originally posted by: Smash_Brother
So, uh, what did you think of Metroid Pinball?
I found it lacking as a pinball game. As a Metroid game, it has about as much impact on the actual setting as Smash Bros. does. It's a nonissue.
Quote
What if Metroid Prime 4 (or the next 3D Metroid) launched with Metroid Wars a month after it? The games are two separate entities, clearly aimed at different audiences and yet share the same franchise.
What's the worst that could happen in that case? Someone gets confused and buys Metroid Wars when they meant to buy Metroid? On the plus side, you might wind up enticing many Metroid fans into trying RTSs and drawing in RTS fans and possibly convincing them to try the canon Metroid games.
Like I said, it'll never happen, but I don't think a Metroid spinoff would compromise the integrity of the main series. Hell, if Metroid PINBALL didn't, how could a well-crafted RTS?
I'm not worried about people getting confused. In the case of an RTS, it's not really so much about ruining the Metroid series, either. It's about the game being better served by a new setting. Getting back to my original point, just because Metroid is a fairly serious scifi series doesn't mean that it's a good setting for any genres that are typically set in a scifi setting. That said, a Metroid RTS could be an avenue for bad things to enter the franchise. For example, most of the big RTS games these days have more than two playable sides. While I wouldn't be overly bothered by a game about the Space Pirates and the Galactic Federation, if they decided to make the Chozo a playable race, I'd think ill thoughts. It's possible to expand a franchise well, like Four Swords, and it's possible to do it badly, like Dinosaur Planet. Either way, I'd still rather see new settings for new games.
I'm not totally opposed to expanding franchises. You may not recall, but my first post here was about how I'd like to see a free-roaming game in the F-Zero setting starring Captain Falcon. I seem to recall you liked the idea. If I remember right, I mentioned F-Zero as a counter to another setting....
Quote
Originally posted by: PartyBear (a long, long time ago)Quote
Originally posted by: Smash_Brother
I wouldn't see it as a bad thing if the Metroid games evolved to include more of what happens off of these deserted planets. Samus receives contracts, goes to planets to accomplish them, and like any contract, you have no idea what to expect. Some could be rescue missions, some are assassination missions (don't even try to argue that Samus has something against killing things), others could be a "bring 'em back alive" mission where Samus could actually apprehend a bounty, throw them into stasis and return them to the contractor.
The concept of exploration would still be readily available, but the Metroid universe could come to life in a way it never has before.
I'm not opposed to expanding Metroid, but I'd really rather see that concept done with Captain Falcon. There's already a good foundation for that gameplay in the F-Zero setting (and F-Zero fans would probably be less militant about such a spin-off than Metroid fans). Yeah, I know a new IP would be preferable in many ways, but Nintendo already has at least three franchises starring bounty hunters/mercenaries in a scifi setting, and of those (Metroid, F-Zero, and Star Fox) F-Zero is the one best suited to expanding in this way. A lot of people would probably mock the game as Grand Theft Auto: Mute City, but I think it would be interesting to see what Nintendo could do with that style of open-ended play.
Okay, sorry for interrupting. Go back to talking about MP:Hunters now.
Post by: NWR_pap64 on February 16, 2007, 06:03:17 PM
Quote
Originally posted by: Smash_Brother
The main game was pretty weak but the multiplayer was definitely worth it, especially against friends and not just random people from the internet (though I did those too).
I'm almost ashamed to admit that I won a bunch of online games against random opponents from the...bathroom.
At the time I borrowed the game I didn't have Wifi or friends with DSs and copies of the game, so all I had was the one play campaign, which was boring as hell.
Again, I wish I had gotten the game when the release hype was there. I hate missing out on hot online games due to lack of fund or not being able to buy it.
Post by: segagamer12 on February 16, 2007, 07:06:46 PM
It exactly the same thing. I hated mario Party, Kart, sports etc because they took away form the magical kingdom and ruined the whoel mario Universe. BUT they turned out to be rpetty fun games and after while i adjusted and now I like mario pary and kart a lot.
Some fans will be so offened by the change they will give up all hope and not play the new games (liekI had for a long time) others will welcome the change and others still will resit for a while but get won over once they see how fun it is.
Metroid isn't as big of a name as people think, and a lot of people bought a GC for MP and found out they didn't like it hence why MP2 didnt sell as much.
I am all for Online in MP3 but I also see where guys like Ian are coming from as I know that as a franchise dear to him he doesnt want to see it ruined. Its like how I hated sunshine toa point where I almost gave up on Nintendo altogether. I am an old school gamer and very much like my games to stay within thier original boundries while still changin with the times only where necesary.
Post by: Dirk Temporo on February 16, 2007, 07:08:01 PM
Post by: Kairon on February 16, 2007, 07:09:11 PM
~Carmine "Cai" M. Red
Kairon@aol.com
Post by: NWR_pap64 on February 16, 2007, 07:36:04 PM
And what issue of Nintendo Power are you talking about, Dirk? Like I said, Nintendo has said NOTHING about the game's progress since it was delayed back in September.
Post by: Artimus on February 16, 2007, 07:43:01 PM
I say make a brand new franchise. If it's good then you have the added bonus of a NEW franchise to exploit.
Post by: ShreddersDojo on February 16, 2007, 09:01:27 PM
.Post by: blackfootsteps on February 17, 2007, 12:39:49 PM
Post by: Maverick on February 17, 2007, 01:56:33 PM
Post by: Smash_Brother on February 17, 2007, 03:44:23 PM
But I CAN see your point: watching the canon of a series be undone just downright sucks.
Post by: GoldenPhoenix on February 17, 2007, 04:00:10 PM
Quote
Originally posted by: Smash_Brother
A Metroid MMORPG would probably make PB explode.
But I CAN see your point: watching the canon of a series be undone just downright sucks.
Which is why it would be wise for Nintendo (or Retro) to create a new IP to use with these things.
Post by: Smash_Brother on February 17, 2007, 04:09:32 PM
Post by: IceCold on February 17, 2007, 04:19:51 PM
QuoteExactly.
Originally posted by: GoldenPhoenix
I would really rather see Retro develop a new IP for online multiplayer, perhaps being the Wii's answer to Halo which Metroid Prime will NEVER be because they are two dfferent types of FPSs. If Retro is given free reign with a new IP, I'd much rather see them utilize that to create the "Benchmark" for Wii FPSs when it pertains to online since they do not have to be restricted by the Metroid License.
Post by: Kairon on February 17, 2007, 04:50:11 PM
~Carmine "Cai" M. Red
Kairon@aol.com
Post by: Smoke39 on February 17, 2007, 06:55:16 PM
Quote
Originally posted by: Kairon
Thankfully, MP3 will finish off the Prime trilogy and Retro can probably turn its focus to a new IP. The same goes for NST hopefully.
Does that mean we'll have to wait another fifteen billion years for a new Metroid game again, like we did after Super Metroid? D:
Post by: MaryJane on February 17, 2007, 11:18:53 PM
Quote
Originally posted by: Smoke39Quote
Originally posted by: Kairon
Thankfully, MP3 will finish off the Prime trilogy and Retro can probably turn its focus to a new IP. The same goes for NST hopefully.
Does that mean we'll have to wait another fifteen billion years for a new Metroid game again, like we did after Super Metroid? D:
If everyone keeps bitching about online play and forgets to buy this game, then probably.
Who gives a sh!t if you don't like online play? It isn't a mandatory part of the game. "I feel it ruins the solitude of the game which is it's main feature", o.k so then don't play it, why is that so hard? I'm all for online play, but you know what if they don't include it, I'm not going to cry about it either.
It's a two way option, it's an option for Nintendo to put it into the game, and it's option for the consumers to play it or not.
Post by: denjet78 on February 18, 2007, 02:27:08 AM
Quote
Originally posted by: MaryJane
Who gives a sh!t if you don't like online play? It isn't a mandatory part of the game. "I feel it ruins the solitude of the game which is it's main feature", o.k so then don't play it, why is that so hard? I'm all for online play, but you know what if they don't include it, I'm not going to cry about it either.
It's a two way option, it's an option for Nintendo to put it into the game, and it's option for the consumers to play it or not.
Actually, there is a third option to keep in mind: Should they waste time, energy, and resources just to throw a "me too" online feature into the game because a bunch of hardcore whinny babies seem to think that online multiplayer FPS, which is practically all there IS to online right now, is the future?
Come on here people. Let's be honest. No one is doing anything worthwhile with online. Since it's inception it's been used for almost nothing but straight up competitive "deathmatch" play. And 99% of the titles that employ it are... you guessed it: FPS. And it's not even being used to compliment the single player experience! Basically they're writing two completely different titles: A single player game and the online multiplayer. Why can no one come up with any other BETTER ideas for online? The whole situation is a total and complete crock.
How many people here would buy an online only game? Considering how crappy the single player mode is in Halo, why isn't it an online only game? If they stopped wasting resources on building the single player game wouldn't the online game be that much better? So why isn't it online only? Because as much as developers may play online up, and as much as hardcore gamers may eat it up, everyone knows for a FACT that online cannot stand on it's own. Hell, this is MS, the internet KINGS and they don't even believe that an online only game will sell.
I've said it before and I'll say it again: Until online can stand on it's own two feet it is a GIMMICK plain and simple. It can never reach it's full potential being tethered to an offline play mode. There needs to be a MAJOR paradigm shift before developers are actually going to be able to do anything with it.
In the mean time, why in the world do so many people seem to think it's the second coming? It could be, yes. But as of right now, and into the foreseeable future, it is anything but. And until that distant future gets here I don't understand why anyone would want to blow money on what is essentially nothing but wasted potential.
Post by: Maverick on February 18, 2007, 04:45:43 AM
Post by: Smash_Brother on February 18, 2007, 05:37:40 AM
Quote
Originally posted by: denjet78 How many people here would buy an online only game? Considering how crappy the single player mode is in Halo, why isn't it an online only game? If they stopped wasting resources on building the single player game wouldn't the online game be that much better? So why isn't it online only? Because as much as developers may play online up, and as much as hardcore gamers may eat it up, everyone knows for a FACT that online cannot stand on it's own. Hell, this is MS, the internet KINGS and they don't even believe that an online only game will sell.
I would: I'm completely for the idea of games which are built from the ground up to be multiplayer experiences.
I was pissed as hell about the fact that HAL Labs poured so much time and effort into the single player experience on SSBM when the multiplayer suffered as a result through a total lack of balance and clones.
I would have traded every last trophy and single player level for Ganondorf to have at least one more original move that wasn't shared with Falcon.
SSBM is ABOUT multiplayer: focusing on anything else is just bullsh*t.
...Hence why I'd be fine if there's no multiplayer mode in MP3. Like I said, my main concern is that Nintendo is holding back the online progress of the Wii by not implementing it themselves. They need to get it out there, or stop being pigheaded and just let Ubisoft do it instead.
Post by: Artimus on February 18, 2007, 05:40:59 AM
Post by: MaryJane on February 18, 2007, 06:45:06 AM
People who don't know(or like me don't care) about the "solitude" aspect of Metroid want to play online, why? Simply because it's fun, which is why 99% of online matches are deathmatches, they're just quick fun. Also looking at the DS, the most online game there is Mario Kart (I least I think so). Just log on, random opponent, play, have some fun, and forget it. Online has the potential to add sales, sales are a good thing, for developer and consumer alike.
Post by: segagamer12 on February 18, 2007, 06:52:51 AM
Post by: Adrock on February 18, 2007, 07:16:02 AM
Quote
Smash_Brother wrote:
SSBM is ABOUT multiplayer: focusing on anything else is just bullsh*t.
I disagree. The single player has potential. Sure, it was pretty shallow in the first 2, but there's a lot they could do to make it more fun and give it more depth. A story mode that linked all the characters together with a real plot and tough bosses would be a good start.
The problem with Melee is that it was obviously rushed and Sakurai was pressured by Miyamoto to focus on multiplayer. Brawl hasn't been given a timeline for release. Even though everyone wants it sooner than later, I'd wait if it meant I got an all-around better game, single and multiplayer.
Anyway, I see multiplayer in Metroid Prime 3 as an extra, just like it was on Echoes. I really don't think including a possible online mode affected the progress of the main adventure. Also, the easiest way for Nintendo and Retro to have included multiplayer in Corruption would have been to hand it over to another team. NST, despite currently working on Project H.A.M.M.E.R., probably could have done a pretty good job.
Post by: Bloodworth on February 18, 2007, 07:55:52 AM
Quote
Originally posted by: MaryJane
The "time and energy" their wasting translates to sales.
People who don't know(or like me don't care) about the "solitude" aspect of Metroid want to play online, why? Simply because it's fun, which is why 99% of online matches are deathmatches, they're just quick fun. Also looking at the DS, the most online game there is Mario Kart (I least I think so). Just log on, random opponent, play, have some fun, and forget it. Online has the potential to add sales, sales are a good thing, for developer and consumer alike.
People have muddied the issue a bit, but let's put it this way. Halo in single player is about shooting and non-stop action. There are some secret goodies hidden about for hardcore players, but for the most part, you are fighting through one wave of enemies after another. That same experience comes across in multiplayer.
Metroid is about exploring and finding new means to explore. When you knock on the walls, you expect to find something and you expect to backtrack because you constantly encounter areas you're not equipped to access. That experience does not have a clear way to transition into multiplayer.
So, in order to create a multiplayer mode, you basically have to come with an entirely different kind of game. The team's focus is split, so chances are that either the single player (MP2) or multiplayer (MPH) will take the lead and the other aspect of the game will suffer because they're trying to make the two as similar as possible.
The other problem is that you have to communicate to your audience. The people interested in fragging their friends online might be disappointed with Metroid's single player game, because they were expecting something else. Likewise, people that might like an exploration based title that's more similar to Zelda than Halo may not know that's what Metroid has in store if the marketing team promotes multiplayer more.
I think Metroid Prime Hunters shows that multiplayer games in the Metroid universe can turn out to be pretty decent, but I'm still not convinced that it's a good idea to shoe-horn that in with MP3.
Post by: MaryJane on February 18, 2007, 08:15:58 AM
I'm kind of looking at through my eyes, and the eyes of the other people I know who either want or have a Wii (the haves are 2 lucky bastards).
The point I agree with you on, is people who may be disappointed in the single player aspect of the game because it isn't like the multiplayer.
If you like the single player game however, I don't see what hinders you from enjoying the multiplayer part? Yes it's different, but that's exactly my point it is different, they aren't changing the single player mode to fit the multiplayer part.
They are two aspects of the same game, for me it's like having two conversations with the same person. Like earlier today; At one point we were discussing past girlfriends and how that's going to affect our current(for me) future(for him) girlfriends. I said something to him about how one girl I dated a few years back didn't know how to use a computer, and then he told me he got a new laptop, I asked him if it the was one I suggested to him, he said yes, and we started discussing it's features, and other laptops, and other things, after exhausting that, we went back to girlfriends.
That's how I see the single player vs. multiplayer aspects of a game. The multiplayer branches from the single player, but it has no effect on the single player game, really the only effect it has to offer a break from the game. A break to stop being by yourself for a second and play with others.
When I had GC the only person I could play with was my brother, and every now and again one of my friends would come over, or I would bring the GC to one of their houses, but for the most part it PS2 all the time, because that's what all of my friends had. Finally, there is the Wii, two friends have it, the others except one, want it. I can't wait to not only be able to play against them, but not have to leave my house to do it.
Post by: segagamer12 on February 18, 2007, 10:00:03 AM
But I do agree that MP1 was one of the *BEST* games of the GC and I know too many people who thought it was just a Halo rip off who wouldn't even try it because it looked lame. If adding Online multiplayer modes will attract the Halo fans who think MP is just a rip off and if it gives me a game to play online with them, then of course I am all for it. BUT at the same time, I can see the concern of if they have to focus on making the Multiplayer stand out and if that does take away from the Single player experience then I can understand the concern and I also have similar worries.
I didn't but MP2 because I never beat 1 and because everyoen said it wasnt as good. BUT I have seen screens and videos of MP3 and I really want to play it. I just hope that it turns out to be a pretty good game either way.
I know most people want Nintendo to make a *real* FPS for the online multiplayer stuff, and to be honest I think they can do it. I still don't think it will hurt MP3 too much unless they forget to make the single player game worth it. *OR* they could make a seperate MP Online game, like an online edition seperate that is more liek Hunters in that its a seperate game formt he main series and its focus is on multiplayers. Of coarse I havent played hunters yet either so I could be mistaken on its relevence to the story.
Post by: Artimus on February 18, 2007, 10:29:08 AM
Post by: segagamer12 on February 18, 2007, 10:32:57 AM
Post by: Kenology on February 18, 2007, 10:33:37 AM
I think it would be much better to have Retro develope an all new FPS and include an online mode. Metroid is just the wrong franchise to include an online fragfest - that's just not what Metroid is about.
Post by: Plugabugz on February 18, 2007, 11:06:53 AM
Post by: MaryJane on February 18, 2007, 11:44:19 AM
Quote
Originally posted by: Artimus
I just don't see why you can't make a new FPS game if Nintendo really needs to make one. That way you sell two games. Multiplayer just isn't going to sell Metroid like it did HALO.
So you can predict the future now?
I say that mockingly but, I know what you mean. Metroid online won't sell to people who feel emotion towards the Metroid series i.e the people on these boards and the people like them who probably make up about 10% of the video gaming population at large, to be a little fairer, I'll say 20%. So what about the other 80% of the people who don't feel the emotional ties of solitude toward the game, or loved MP1 AND MPH and want to see a best of both worlds game be realized on the Wii, or the non-gamer who can be interested in what is generally considered a "hardcore" genre, or lastly, all the people who own PS2's can't afford a PS3 and are deciding between Wii or X360(possibly just which one to get first, I plan on owning both, Wii first obviously) and need a game to sway them?
I wouldn't be surprised if Nintendo puts MP3 up against Halo release dates, I also hope MP3 gets released first to get a foot in the door. You have to remember Nintendo is trying to get there foot into a door that was slammed in their face after the release of the PSOne and the stigma of Nintendo as a "child oriented" company.
Post by: GoldenPhoenix on February 18, 2007, 12:51:08 PM
Post by: Magik on February 18, 2007, 01:17:50 PM
Regarding Metroid, aslong as the single player game is on par with the quality that was in Prime 1 (NOT 2), I'll be happy.
If Nintendo seriously wants to have their own FPS, I think they need to focus on a new IP instead of trying to convert one of their existing IPs.
Post by: segagamer12 on February 18, 2007, 02:15:50 PM
Also Goldenphoenix you probabaly meant to say Retro, as I am sure by now you know Rare isn't makign games for Wii.
I think Metroid *could* very well be a good multi player game, and could still be a great single player experience on top of that. The problem is what is more beneficial to fans is not always what is more beneficial (pofitable) for Nintendo. I think they would prefer to keep MP3 single player, but atfer having already made 2 multi player Metroids I think that *most* people, die hard fans aside, have come to *expect* multiplayer in Metroid. Also if adding online to the game can attract Halo fans who think the single player is boring, that trasnlates into more sales, and *more* people to play online agianst. So win-win for the most part.
The game has been delayed long enough now that it is pretty obvious they are trying to make it the best game possible and I think they know the importance of at least trying to compete with Halo. Wii was made for FPS games and is made for Online so making a big franchise that has at least some brand recognition into an online game still kinda makes sense. I don't think the single player game is going to suffer at all, I think Nintendo knows what is at stake if it does.
Post by: NinGurl69 *huggles on February 18, 2007, 02:35:25 PM
If you want a new FPS, make up a new secret agent who doesn't have the luxury of life bars and health packs, whose progress really relies on good aim and intelligent use of the world around him/her.
Post by: GoldenPhoenix on February 18, 2007, 02:39:54 PM
Add some innovation dashed with alot of polish. There you have a Halo killer.
Post by: Maverick on February 18, 2007, 03:45:32 PM
Post by: Bloodworth on February 18, 2007, 05:00:15 PM
Post by: mantidor on February 18, 2007, 05:49:48 PM
I am still waiting for first person to be embraced better by developers, so they just stop cloning doom again and again, compared to any other gaming genre the innovation is practically null (with amazing but incredibly few exceptions, like Prime and Thief).
Post by: NinGurl69 *huggles on February 18, 2007, 06:13:02 PM
"Halo" and "Halo-killer" aren't really games inherently, they are the directions of a market.
Post by: TrueNerd on February 18, 2007, 06:23:40 PM
- Although I detest the comparison because they aren't even close to being similar games, the Metroid Primes ARE better then the Halos. From a factual point of view anyways.
- Metroid Prime Hunters sucked gross hairy man ass. Single player was blasphemous to everything Metroid stands for and the online multiplayer was not fun at all. It wasn't just a poor excuse for a Metroid game, it was a poor excuse for any kind of game, period.
- I'm hoping Retro is spending this extra time with Prime 3 on the single player aspect and making that as amazing as it can be. As others have said, Nintendo needs to make a new IP (in a western setting!) if they want to make a sweet online FPS. Let Metroid be Metroid. But I do agree with the person who said that Nintendo does need to lead the way with an online FPS and show everyone else how to do it. I just don't want it to be Metroid.
- A new 2D Metroid NEEDS to come to the DS. I likes my 3D Metroids a whole hell of a lot, but it pales to my undying love for the 2D variety.
- I heard Gunpei Yokoi came back from the dead to make the greatest Metroid game ever for the WonderSwan. Confirm/Deny?
Post by: GoldenPhoenix on February 18, 2007, 07:03:44 PM
Post by: Requiem on February 18, 2007, 09:30:41 PM
I remember reading this exact conversation about two years ago...
Weird!
Post by: MaryJane on February 19, 2007, 12:44:59 AM
Quote
Originally posted by: Requiem
Wow....
I remember reading this exact conversation about two years ago...
Weird!
I don't... lol.
I don't think Nintendo is (or should be) making Metroid a "Halo killer". What they are likely doing is making a Halo alternative. I for one grew tired of FPS's a long time ago. The single player campaign have never really appealed to me, I never beat Goldeneye or Perfect Dark, but I can garuntee you that I logged over a 100 hours into each game, because of the multiplayer. James Bond always works alone, he may have a Bond girl or two but they usually end up being caught, and saved by him, and not really much help at all, yet I didn't hear anyone bitching about the fact that Goldeneye had multiplayer.
Metroid was the exception, I remember having a discussion (as probably a lot of people have had) about why they didn't make FPS's more like adventure games. My brother, myself, one of his friends, and one of mine discussed this at great length until about 4 months after the initial conversation MP1 was announced. I loved it, "FPA" became my favorite 3 letters in video gaming. Most "casual" gamers, want multiplayer in there FPS's (which is why I can't understand how the thought they could release Call Of Duty on the Wii without it), but then Nintendo's strategy here seems to be "Hey not only do we have great online multiplayer so you can kill your friends and other people around the globe, but there's also a single player game, that's nothing like you've ever experienced before!" For a lot of people the multiplayer aspect of FPS's is there general attraction, adding a single player game worth playing can lead to new things for a lot of people. I can't even remember the last time I actually completed an FPS, but as I said before I've spent countless hours in the multiplayer offerings.
Post by: Kenology on February 19, 2007, 02:13:14 AM
Post by: Ceric on February 19, 2007, 03:55:15 AM
Quote
Originally posted by: MaryJane
I don't think Nintendo is (or should be) making Metroid a "Halo killer". What they are likely doing is making a Halo alternative. I for one grew tired of FPS's a long time ago. The single player campaign have never really appealed to me, I never beat Goldeneye or Perfect Dark, but I can garuntee you that I logged over a 100 hours into each game, because of the multiplayer. James Bond always works alone, he may have a Bond girl or two but they usually end up being caught, and saved by him, and not really much help at all, yet I didn't hear anyone bitching about the fact that Goldeneye had multiplayer.
I have to disagree on the comparison there. Both Bond and Samus when you boil it down work alone. The difference is Bond normally has a very large cast of "casual friends", I can't spell the word I really want. Who pop up every once and a while and help him out of a jam or provides him with something. Samus on the other hand doesn't have this sort of support to begin with. She doesn't have Q or a Money Penny. Shoot she doesn't even have a boss or organization. The closest thing that I can think of from the Games that Samus has to a "friend" is the ship in Metroid: Fusion.
Though at the end of the day both Bond and Samus are alone. It's very different getting there.
Post by: Smash_Brother on February 19, 2007, 04:38:26 AM
Quote
Originally posted by: Adrock
I disagree. The single player has potential. Sure, it was pretty shallow in the first 2, but there's a lot they could do to make it more fun and give it more depth. A story mode that linked all the characters together with a real plot and tough bosses would be a good start.
My group of friends probably played Melee for 300 hours or so (less than SSB64). How many hours would your average lone player put into the single player? 10? 20, tops?
Why be focusing on the single player when the multiplayer so desperately needed balancing?
Quote
Originally posted by: GoldenPhoenix The funny thing about Halo is that it is made by a company that has an average track record at best when it comes to game development. I mean their two biggest games were Myth and Oni before Halo.
Bungie was quite possibly one of the best developers, ever, but they were primarily Mac-only in their software so windows users never heard of them. They were the Mac community's best kept secret.
Oni was meh, but Myth was awesome. Before Myth was Marathon, which set the precedent for first-person shooters with actual storylines and is the game which Halo is heavily based off of, hence why the multiplayer is so good.
Believe me when I say that there was a colossal outcry when Bungie was bought by MS. My only hope is that what normally happens to purchased developers will happen in Bungie's case, where all of the talent that made the dev house what it was up and leaves to start their own dev houses, exactly what happened with Rare.
Post by: Adrock on February 19, 2007, 04:58:18 AM
Quote
Smash_Brother wrote:
Why be focusing on the single player when the multiplayer so desperately needed balancing?
I agree that multiplayer needs balancing. I'm just saying that they could focus on making both single and multiplayer excellent. Sakurai's team isn't rushed like Hal Labs was (well, as far as we know). They should have time for fine-tuning everything.
Post by: Ceric on February 19, 2007, 05:01:26 AM
Quote
Originally posted by: Smash_BrotherQuote
Originally posted by: Adrock
I disagree. The single player has potential. Sure, it was pretty shallow in the first 2, but there's a lot they could do to make it more fun and give it more depth. A story mode that linked all the characters together with a real plot and tough bosses would be a good start.
My group of friends probably played Melee for 300 hours or so (less than SSB64). How many hours would your average lone player put into the single player? 10? 20, tops?
Why be focusing on the single player when the multiplayer so desperately needed balancing?Quote
Originally posted by: GoldenPhoenix The funny thing about Halo is that it is made by a company that has an average track record at best when it comes to game development. I mean their two biggest games were Myth and Oni before Halo.
Bungie was quite possibly one of the best developers, ever, but they were primarily Mac-only in their software so windows users never heard of them. They were the Mac community's best kept secret.
Oni was meh, but Myth was awesome. Before Myth was Marathon, which set the precedent for first-person shooters with actual storylines and is the game which Halo is heavily based off of, hence why the multiplayer is so good.
Believe me when I say that there was a colossal outcry when Bungie was bought by MS. My only hope is that what normally happens to purchased developers will happen in Bungie's case, where all of the talent that made the dev house what it was up and leaves to start their own dev houses, exactly what happened with Rare.
I'm pretty sure all the Myth games where on PC and where a big deal.
Post by: Smash_Brother on February 19, 2007, 05:27:16 AM
Quote
Originally posted by: Adrock
I agree that multiplayer needs balancing. I'm just saying that they could focus on making both single and multiplayer excellent. Sakurai's team isn't rushed like Hal Labs was (well, as far as we know). They should have time for fine-tuning everything.
That's fair.
But you know what I'd REALLY like to see? Four player adventure mode. It would ensure that the time spent on single player is still effectively enhancing the multiplayer.
Post by: IceCold on February 19, 2007, 05:32:32 AM
QuoteAnd I remember you posting more often two years ago!
Originally posted by: Requiem
Wow....
I remember reading this exact conversation about two years ago...
Weird!
Post by: MaryJane on February 19, 2007, 06:05:23 AM
Quote
Originally posted by: Smash_BrotherQuote
Originally posted by: Adrock
I agree that multiplayer needs balancing. I'm just saying that they could focus on making both single and multiplayer excellent. Sakurai's team isn't rushed like Hal Labs was (well, as far as we know). They should have time for fine-tuning everything.
That's fair.
But you know what I'd REALLY like to see? Four player adventure mode. It would ensure that the time spent on single player is still effectively enhancing the multiplayer.
I disagree with that, I'd like to see the adventrue mode stay single player, I'm not a big fan of four player adventure. FF:CC was alright, but it was a task and a half to actually have 4 people play together, although I suppose that would be made a lot easier with the addition of online, but then how do start the missions? You can only play with people who are on the same save point as you? or would it have to be the same 4 people all the time? Or are we talking MMO here? It's too much.
Post by: Smash_Brother on February 19, 2007, 06:08:09 AM
Quote
Originally posted by: MaryJane Or are we talking MMO here? It's too much.
I was just imagining the adventure mode from SSBM, only with up to four players at the same time.
Pretty straightforward: the game would just throw in more enemies as needed. I'm sure the Wii could handle 8 entities on the screen at the same time without much issue (the GC did it with the ice climbers...).
Post by: Ian Sane on February 19, 2007, 07:01:18 AM
Post by: Smash_Brother on February 19, 2007, 07:07:50 AM
It worked fine, I thought. Like I said, minus some balance issues, multiplayer online Metroid on the DS was a success, IMHO, and thinking about it makes me wish I hadn't sold Hunters back because I have a mad urge to play it now just talking about it.
Ah well: I'll have Sonic tomorrow so that should take my mind off of it.
Post by: Bloodworth on February 19, 2007, 07:16:27 AM
Post by: TrueNerd on February 19, 2007, 07:31:57 AM
Post by: Adrock on February 19, 2007, 07:36:16 AM
I've said this on another board (maybe this one too). Metroid Prime 3 should be Nintendo's big mid-year game. They don't need a first person game up against Halo 3, especially since comparisons are bound to be made. Nintendo just needs a big multiplayer title, like Super Smash Bros. Brawl. It's Nintendo's best selling (and arguably) best multiplayer game.
Nintendo wants to spread their titles out, but Brawl and Super Mario Galaxy should both be out by the end of the year. Galaxy in September and Brawl in November would be good timing.
Post by: Smash_Brother on February 19, 2007, 07:39:50 AM
It's the only franchise with enough power to go against Halo right now and if Brawl makes good on online multiplayer, then it can do for SSBM what Halo 2 did for Halo 1: convince more than the original fanbase to come to it because the game now offers an online mode and there are a lot of solo gamers who would buy it just for that.
Halo 2 outsold Halo 1 because it allowed even the lone gamer to play the game with others. You have to figure that there are many people who wouldn't buy SSBM because they just don't have friends to play it with. If the game offers online, even THOSE gamers can be reached by it and that spells many more sales than what would have previously been garnered.
Post by: MaryJane on February 19, 2007, 08:18:16 AM
No matter when MP3 is released, comparisons are going to be made with Halo.
Post by: Smash_Brother on February 19, 2007, 08:24:41 AM
And yeah, MP3 launching alongside Halo 3 will just be one big put-down fest of "It doesn't have online, it doesn't have four player, piss, moan, whine, b*tch."
Online SSB is the only thing out of Nintendo right now that could contend with Halo 3, unless of course NST has been working on a Wii FPS with full online, Wiimote control, etc. and no one has said anything about it yet.
Post by: Requiem on February 19, 2007, 08:35:37 AM
Quote
Originally posted by: MaryJaneQuote
Originally posted by: Requiem
Wow....
I remember reading this exact conversation about two years ago...
Weird!
I don't... lol.
I don't think Nintendo is (or should be) making Metroid a "Halo killer". What they are likely doing is making a Halo alternative. I for one grew tired of FPS's a long time ago. The single player campaign have never really appealed to me, I never beat Goldeneye or Perfect Dark, but I can garuntee you that I logged over a 100 hours into each game, because of the multiplayer. James Bond always works alone, he may have a Bond girl or two but they usually end up being caught, and saved by him, and not really much help at all, yet I didn't hear anyone bitching about the fact that Goldeneye had multiplayer.
Metroid was the exception, I remember having a discussion (as probably a lot of people have had) about why they didn't make FPS's more like adventure games. My brother, myself, one of his friends, and one of mine discussed this at great length until about 4 months after the initial conversation MP1 was announced. I loved it, "FPA" became my favorite 3 letters in video gaming. Most "casual" gamers, want multiplayer in there FPS's (which is why I can't understand how the thought they could release Call Of Duty on the Wii without it), but then Nintendo's strategy here seems to be "Hey not only do we have great online multiplayer so you can kill your friends and other people around the globe, but there's also a single player game, that's nothing like you've ever experienced before!" For a lot of people the multiplayer aspect of FPS's is there general attraction, adding a single player game worth playing can lead to new things for a lot of people. I can't even remember the last time I actually completed an FPS, but as I said before I've spent countless hours in the multiplayer offerings.
You sure? Maybe your right. Maybe it was 4 or 5 years ago when Metriod Prime 2 was still in production and Retro announced multiplayer....
Still don't remember?
Post by: IceCold on February 19, 2007, 05:08:14 PM
QuoteAcquaintances?
The difference is Bond normally has a very large cast of "casual friends", I can't spell the word I really want. Who pop up every once and a while and help him out of a jam or provides him with something.
Post by: Nick DiMola on February 21, 2007, 04:12:36 AM
It says Metroid Prime 3 is 1 player ...
Well at least it has Ouedan 2 on there.
Post by: Smash_Brother on February 21, 2007, 06:21:27 AM
You found the link for me...
Now come to this thread and see why that brings about boners aplenty!
Post by: Crimm on February 21, 2007, 03:11:21 PM
Post by: Nick DiMola on February 21, 2007, 06:10:55 PM
Post by: Slab on February 22, 2007, 07:20:16 PM
I'm a huge PC FPS fan, and Halo on PC was mediocre at best, and even worst on Xbox. When I played Halo on Xbox it just seemed very slow/sluggish; running seemed like walking, and turning was even worst. Gamepads, even analogue ones do not have the percision of the keyboard/mouse. Maybe I'm just too used to the keyboard/mouse, but I find it hard to use a gamepad for FPS games.
I guess ppl who never played any real FPS's like Halo.
Post by: Kairon on February 22, 2007, 08:26:29 PM
Pah. Halo is fine. Now Timesplitters... why in the world are people gaga over THAT?!?!?
~Carmine "Cai" M. Red
Kairon@aol.com
Post by: Smoke39 on February 23, 2007, 06:48:22 AM
Post by: Kairon on February 23, 2007, 06:57:51 AM
~Carmine "Cai" M. Red
Kairon@aol.com
Post by: Smash_Brother on February 23, 2007, 07:35:57 AM
Huh?
I do remember the multiplayer being pretty decent, but I still loathe analogue stick-controlled FPSs.
Post by: TrueNerd on February 23, 2007, 11:42:40 AM
Post by: Nephilim on February 23, 2007, 12:45:11 PM
Quote
Why is everyone always talking about Halo? I'm a huge PC FPS fan, and Halo on PC was mediocre at best, and even worst on Xbox. When I played Halo on Xbox it just seemed very slow/sluggish; running seemed like walking, and turning was even worst. Gamepads, even analogue ones do not have the percision of the keyboard/mouse. Maybe I'm just too used to the keyboard/mouse, but I find it hard to use a gamepad for FPS games. I guess ppl who never played any real FPS's like Halo.
But there are different eite FPS groups, there are those whole bash anything that isnt made by valve, then the quake/ut crowd, war simulator groups, ect.
Halo fps fans just have there own style
Post by: Bloodworth on February 23, 2007, 01:24:30 PM
Quote
Originally posted by: Slab
Why is everyone always talking about Halo?
I'm a huge PC FPS fan, and Halo on PC was mediocre at best, and even worst on Xbox. When I played Halo on Xbox it just seemed very slow/sluggish; running seemed like walking, and turning was even worst. Gamepads, even analogue ones do not have the percision of the keyboard/mouse. Maybe I'm just too used to the keyboard/mouse, but I find it hard to use a gamepad for FPS games.
I guess ppl who never played any real FPS's like Halo.
Everyone is talking about Halo because over 3 million people have bought it. Whether the PC FPS crowd likes it or not, does not stop it from being one of the stand out multiplayer FPS games.
I don't think that an analog stick is technically less precise, but because there's a smaller range of motion, it takes more skill to hit a precise point. You have to make very small movements with your thumb. The surface area that you move a mouse across is probably at least three times as large as a thumbstick, allowing you to be more accurate even though you're moving your wrist over a greater distance. Also, because thumbsticks are spring-loaded to return to center you have to push against resistance to hold a specific point on the screen.
Post by: Smash_Brother on February 23, 2007, 04:54:50 PM
Red Steel, despite being raked across the coals by many critics, made good on one of its promises: you were able to shoot enemies in rapid succession in such a way that it would have been impossible on an analogue stick.
Post by: Kairon on February 23, 2007, 06:40:54 PM
~Carmine "Cai" M. Red
Kairon@aol.com
Post by: wandering on February 23, 2007, 07:29:32 PM
Quote
Originally posted by: Kairon
Now Timesplitters... why in the world are people gaga over THAT?!?!?
Training ground. Capture the flag. You + 3 friends vs. 12 monkeys.
Quote
Originally posted by: Bloodworth
Everyone is talking about Halo because over 3 million people have bought it.
Okay. Why did over 3 million buy it?
Post by: Kairon on February 23, 2007, 07:35:41 PM
Quote
Originally posted by: wanderingQuote
Originally posted by: Kairon
Now Timesplitters... why in the world are people gaga over THAT?!?!?
Training ground. Capture the flag. You + 3 friends vs. 12 monkeys.
Okay. You convinced me. Timesplitters is god's gift to FPS gamers... especially ones who like co-op.
Quote
Originally posted by: wanderingQuote
Originally posted by: Bloodworth
Everyone is talking about Halo because over 3 million people have bought it.
Okay. Why did over 3 million buy it?
Bald Space Marines... in helmets!
~Carmine "Cai" M. Red
Kairon@aol.com
Post by: Slab on February 26, 2007, 06:17:04 AM
Quote
Originally posted by: wandering
Okay. Why did over 3 million buy it?
My guess is that they don't know any better or don't know anything about PC's. In other words, they are ignorant and fall into the MS hype of tricking the public into thinking that Halo is a good FPS. The Majority of people who played any FPS on their PC stay away from this game. And I don't think that's a coincidence.
Bungie should have stick to their Myth games, those were fun on PC.
Post by: BigJim on February 26, 2007, 06:59:19 AM
That, and it wasn't a BAD game either. It moved many PC gamers into the console space when the two markets were mutually exclusive.
Post by: Kairon on February 26, 2007, 07:05:11 AM
~Carmine "Cai" M. Red
Kairon@aol.com
Post by: TrueNerd on February 26, 2007, 07:45:57 AM
Halo - Everyone but you = Not so much
