Author Topic: Are We Sure Metroid Prime 3 Will Have Online? Reggie's At It Again.... (Read 40941 times)

Kenology · « **Reply #125 on:** February 19, 2007, 02:13:14 AM »

Also, one more thing... I've never played Halo 2 yet, but the first one really wasn't all that great. It was a run-of-the-mill FPS that got way more attention than it deserved because it was one of the only game worth yelling about on the XBox at the time. I played better FPS's on the N64.

Ceric · « **Reply #126 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.

Smash_Brother · « **Reply #127 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.

Adrock · « **Reply #128 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.

Ceric · « **Reply #129 on:** February 19, 2007, 05:01:26 AM »

Quote
Originally posted by: Smash_Brother
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.

I'm pretty sure all the Myth games where on PC and where a big deal.

Smash_Brother · « **Reply #130 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.

IceCold · « **Reply #131 on:** February 19, 2007, 05:32:32 AM »

Quote
Originally posted by: Requiem
Wow....

I remember reading this exact conversation about two years ago...

Weird!

And I remember you posting more often two years ago!

MaryJane · « **Reply #132 on:** February 19, 2007, 06:05:23 AM »

Quote
Originally posted by: Smash_Brother
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.

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.

Smash_Brother · « **Reply #133 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...).

Ian Sane · « **Reply #134 on:** February 19, 2007, 07:01:18 AM »

Thinking about it even disregarding the feel of Metroid being incompatible with traditional FPS game mechanics I think the character of Samus herself isn't ideal. With Samus you are restricted to beams for weapons. That's kind of restrictive. What if I want to hold two guns at once? Plus I think having a variety of weapons is part of the fun of an FPS. And it's not just what the weapons do but what they look like and what type of ammo they use and what secondary functions they have, if they have any. I love it when an FPS gives you a massive machine gun that just sprays the place with bullets. A machine gun "beam" would be pretty silly. Having someone pick up guns has a better feel. Taking an existing franchise into a different genre often enforces restrictions. Samus dual-wielding pistols would look ridiculous. So does Samus with a knife.

Smash_Brother · « **Reply #135 on:** February 19, 2007, 07:07:50 AM »

You had those elements in Hunters with different weaponry, including missiles and a number of variations in beam weaponry which had different effects.

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.

Bloodworth · « **Reply #136 on:** February 19, 2007, 07:16:27 AM »

I just mentioned this to the staff, but honestly Metroid's release date needs to steer clear of Halo completely. If Nintendo wants to put any game against Halo 3, it should be Super Smash Bros. Brawl.

TrueNerd · « **Reply #137 on:** February 19, 2007, 07:31:57 AM »

Or Galaxy.

Adrock · « **Reply #138 on:** February 19, 2007, 07:36:16 AM »

Definitely.

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.

Smash_Brother · « **Reply #139 on:** February 19, 2007, 07:39:50 AM »

I think Brawl is it.

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.

MaryJane · « **Reply #140 on:** February 19, 2007, 08:18:16 AM »

I thought you were talking about 4 player adventure mode in Metroid, in SSMB it would make a lot more sense.

No matter when MP3 is released, comparisons are going to be made with Halo.

Smash_Brother · « **Reply #141 on:** February 19, 2007, 08:24:41 AM »

Oh, no, I mean SSB adventure mode.

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.

Requiem · « **Reply #142 on:** February 19, 2007, 08:35:37 AM »

Quote
Originally posted by: MaryJane
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.

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?

IceCold · « **Reply #143 on:** February 19, 2007, 05:08:14 PM »

Quote
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.

Acquaintances?

Nick DiMola · « **Reply #144 on:** February 21, 2007, 04:12:36 AM »

Uh oh

It says Metroid Prime 3 is 1 player ...

Well at least it has Ouedan 2 on there.

Smash_Brother · « **Reply #145 on:** February 21, 2007, 06:21:27 AM »

Thank you, Jack.

You found the link for me...

Now come to this thread and see why that brings about boners aplenty!

Crimm · « **Reply #146 on:** February 21, 2007, 03:11:21 PM »

MY PANTS!

Nick DiMola · « **Reply #147 on:** February 21, 2007, 06:10:55 PM »

OH NOES!

Slab · « **Reply #148 on:** February 22, 2007, 07:20:16 PM »

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.

Kairon · « **Reply #149 on:** February 22, 2007, 08:26:29 PM »

Halo is like a... Adam Sandler/Ben Stiller/insert looked-down-upon-comedian-here comedy. Vastly popular, but looked down upon by aesthetes.

Pah. Halo is fine. Now Timesplitters... why in the world are people gaga over THAT?!?!?

~Carmine "Cai" M. Red
Kairon@aol.com

News:

Author Topic: Are We Sure Metroid Prime 3 Will Have Online? Reggie's At It Again.... (Read 40941 times)