Topic: Metroid Other M

[TJ Spyke]

'Wonderful'? I allllllready killed them. When the bad guys keep coming back to life am I supposed to feel nostalgic and happy inside?

It's like winning the Special Zombie Olympics: even if you win, the retards keep coming after you. Eventually I'm not going to want to participate, not even for charity.

The bad guys can be cloned. I take you hate the Mario games then? Villains always come back in them, or Zelda? Nostalgia mixed with fresh elements can be a very good experience. It is like when the Koopa Kids returned in Mario and Luigi, it was a fun moment for fans of the series. It is ridiculous that Kraid never made an appearance in any of the 3D games, while Ridley is in every single one of them.

Here's the key difference, though: Mario, like Zelda for that matter, is a mockery of continuity.  Each branch of that franchise is essentially its own independent universe that shares similar things.  I am sick to death of certain enemies in the Mario universe (like Bowser and Bowser Jr.), but there's nothing really preventing them from being logical bosses in those games.

The Metroid universe, in the other hand, has had a fairly strong emphasis on continuity: each game takes place in a specified point in the timeline and events from each game generally matter in the game that follows.  Given that, it takes a great deal of fun out of the experience knowing that there's no real accomplishment to killing someone like Ridley: he'll just get resurrected for the next game in the line, usually with no explanation for it.  There's permanence to everything in the Metroid franchise except the enemies and it gets kind of tiring after a while in a franchise that's as pseudo-serious as Metroid.  If they're not going to even try to pretend that there's meaning behind taking these bosses down, I'd prefer new bosses that can be perma-killed.

Nintendo has said that there is no Mario canon, every game is basically independent of others. Besides, Mario never really kills any of the unique characters (for example, he never kills the Koopalings). Even Bowser was only resurrected thanks to Kamek's magic.

As for Zelda, it does have a strict continuity. Not sure what enemies you think are killed and resurrected. Link and Zelda are reincarnations of previous ones, and the games have explained how Ganon isn't really ever killed.

As for the Metroid series, that is again different. When Ridley was brought back in Metroid Prime, it was explained that it was basically a artificial version created by the Space Pirates.

[balzzzy]

Also I would argue that Kraid has untapped potential as a 3D boss fight, he is an interestingly designed character and could prove to be a memorable fight like he was in Super Metroid (though that fight was more memorable because of his size now really the battle itself). He is still my favorite Metroid villain, so I'd be overjoyed if he was brought back for Other M for an epic well designed boss battle. I never really found the bosses in the Prime games all that interesting besides a couple anyway (Sadly Kraid was cut from Metroid Prime, I would have loved to see what Retro would have done with him).  Perhaps I'm a fan of him because he was a true villain back in the first Metroid game and killed me many times before I beat him.

BTW, Kraid also made a cameo in Super Smash Bros Melee. And as for what Kraid would have looked like as done by Rare if they hadn`t had time constraints, here is a link just look on the right. But as for you wanting to include Kraid in another Metroid game because he was big in a game and killed you a lot when you were younger...that's great and all, but I have to agree with Brood and Bit Trip, new bosses please. The fact that I saw Ridley in an Other M trailer grasping Samus and fighting with her made me roll my eyes and hope that it was only a cut scene recapping Samus` past as part of the `story` and not a cut-scene leading up to another fight. Samus is on a Bottle Ship now. Kind of a dumb name but let`s hope that Ridley and Kraid aren`t interfering this round.

[KDR_11k]

The bad guys can be cloned. I take you hate the Mario games then?

This takes place just after Zebes got destroyed, while the Federation did manage to grab another creature of Ridley's species (Fusion has a Ridley in the freezer but there's no way that's the original Ridley as the Federation wouldn't have been able to recover the corpse or any genetic material before Zebes blew up and yes I know Sakamoto didn't think that through) I don't think the space pirates should be able to whip up a clone within a few days of the old guy dying.

[Stratos]

Huh, Kraid was supposed to be in Prime. I'm kinda surprised that they didn't just add him in during the Trilogy work. That would have been neat.

[Adrock]

As for Zelda, it does have a strict continuity.

Because Nintendo said it has a strict continuity? Ehh...

BTW, Kraid also made a cameo in Super Smash Bros Melee. And as for what Kraid would have looked like as done by Rare if they hadn`t had time constraints...

Banned.

Huh, Kraid was supposed to be in Prime. I'm kinda surprised that they didn't just add him in during the Trilogy work. That would have been neat.

George Lucas Presents Metroid Prime Trilogy. Dude, sometimes you just have to let it go. Metroid Prime was a near perfect game. Just adding Kraid for sh*ts and giggles would seriously mess up the game's pacing... maybe more than that stupid fetch quest at the end. And what if it sucked? The Saturn version of Symphony of the Night added 2 new areas and a new boss. They didn't add anything to the game and the new boss, The Skeleton King, was lame. The only reason anyone even cared was because Konami remixed Vampire Killer and Bloody Tears. I don't really think that's worth messing with a classic.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s8LZgH5-x_U

[TheBlackCat]

I was at the movies tonight.  They had a trailer for Other M before the movie.  It was pretty good, too.

[Mop it up]

I like a mixture of old and new enemies, especially if the returning enemies are seen in a new way. Kraid has yet to appear in a 3D Metroid game, and 3D space would completely change the method of fighting it. Though it was a bit easy to defeat in Super Metroid, as if I remember rightly, it took only four Super Missiles to beat it. I'd like to see it have strength match its size.

[TheBlackCat]

Four super missiles isn't that easy if you are only supposed to have 5 by that point.

[TJ Spyke]

As for Zelda, it does have a strict continuity.

Because Nintendo said it has a strict continuity? Ehh...

Besides the fact that they get to decide what is canon and they have confirmed there IS a canon, yes. Everything in Nintendo's Zelda games (meaning not counting the crappy CD-i games) can be explained in canon.

[broodwars]

As for Zelda, it does have a strict continuity.

Because Nintendo said it has a strict continuity? Ehh...

Besides the fact that they get to decide what is canon and they have confirmed there IS a canon, yes. Everything in Nintendo's Zelda games (meaning not counting the crappy CD-i games) can be explained in canon.

Given that Nintendo can't seem to make up its mind what the beginning of the canon is (first it was Link to the Past, then Ocarina of Time, then Minish Cap, and now Skyward Sword) and how fans had to make up wild theories to try to explain what Ocarina of Time did to the timeline, I've long since given up hope that anyone at Nintendo really cares about having an official timeline.  I just try to enjoy each game for what it is and not even try these days to place it in that convoluted mess.

[KDR_11k]

The Zelda timeline is written on post-it notes for quick rearranging.

They could do Kraid in Other M if they do flashback battles but the game is taking place immediately after Super Metroid so reviving him by then would be weird.

[Ian Sane]

I find the repeat appearances of bosses in Nintendo games to be a rather annoying trend that I kind of tolerate at best.  Like it doesn't ruin the game but it is weak.  The fact that it's Bowser EVERY SINGLE TIME is pretty lame.  I really really would prefer it if it was a different bad guy once in a while.  With Zelda if there is the appearance of a different main enemy I now assume that Ganon is who is REALLY behind it all.  It's become so predictable.  Having Ridley appear again and again in Metroid irritates me.  I don't think "Oh yeah, it's Ridley!"  I think "Oh, here's that traditional Ridley appearance.  Ho-hum."

I don't fight the same bosses in every Metal Gear Solid game.  If I killed them, they're fucking dead.  Vamp or Revolver Ocelot I do fight in more than one game because I didn't kill them so there is some coherent reason to fight them again.

I think the situation exists entirely because of fans that just ask for the same **** again and again.  They don't even necessarily actually want the same exact thing they just don't really know how to ask for what they want.  They thought this boss fight was awesome so they want it again but what they REALLY want is something that gives them that feeling again.  Often the originality of the scenario was what gave them that feeling.  You don't want Kraid you want something that makes you feel like you did when you fought Kraid in Super Metroid.  If it's the same thing it won't give you that feeling, it'll just be a nostalgic thrill at best.

I think if Nintendo made a complete new Metroid where Samus is not even fighting the space pirates OR Metroids but it had the general Metroid-style gameplay it would still rock and fans would love it and they need to have the balls to try that kind of stuff.  When you ask to see Kraid or Ripley yet again you're asking Nintendo to be complacent and play it safe and we're going to get inferior games from that.

I think the occasional re-appearance is okay.  If Kraid is in this but Ridley is not and no other existing bosses are re-used then that's a pretty good blast-from-the-past moment for the fans with an otherwise unique and original Metroid to go with it.  And we haven't had Kraid in 3D so it's a good choice.  But Nintendo re-uses this stuff too much.  In Zelda I want a vague reference to Ganon like a mural in a dungeon or something, not Ganon being the main bad guy every damn time.

[NWR_insanolord]

I don't mind repeat bosses as long as the battles play different each time. Ganon's almost always the final boss of Zelda, but it's a different battle each time. I guess it's the same way I feel about Nintendo's franchises: I'm fine with them keeping making sequels as long as they keep coming up with fresh ideas for them.

[Adrock]

Besides the fact that they get to decide what is canon and they have confirmed there IS a canon, yes. Everything in Nintendo's Zelda games (meaning not counting the crappy CD-i games) can be explained in canon.

Alright, calm down, chief. I don't know why you take everything so seriously around here. I was only commenting on Nintendo's loose definition of "canon." The series is littered with contradictions and retcons. I'm curious how the maidens in A Link to the Past are decedents of the sages in Ocarina of Time.... you know, without some serious interspecies erotica going on. I can't even imagine how painful that would be with a Goron.....

Seriously, though, just because a canon exists, doesn't make it strict. Ask any Star Wars fan how badly the new trilogy f*cked with the canon. Midi-chlorians... say what? The problem is that once you start messing with unplanned prequels, interquels and sequels, you run the risk of screwing something up, mostly because there's so much information to keep track of. I kind of get the feeling like Nintendo created a Zelda canon because fans demanded it when originally, they were just making games that be fun, not specifically thinking about where everything fits. I think the games are far more enjoyable without the canon because trying to connect the games into a coherent timeline is one big headache that isn't worth it because Nintendo never really took the time or effort to craft a consistent storyline.

I don't fight the same bosses in every Metal Gear Solid game.  If I killed them, they're ****ing dead.  Vamp or Revolver Ocelot I do fight in more than one game because I didn't kill them so there is some coherent reason to fight them again.

You kill Vamp like 9 times in Sons of Liberty and the big explanation in Guns of the Patriots is the same explanation for everything else that made no sense: nanomachines. Also, Grey Fox comes back in Metal Gear Solid (statute of limitations on spoilers for that one) and Big Boss officially dies at the END of Guns of the Patriots. I get your point, but MGS is a terrible example, dude.

[Luigi Dude]

In Zelda I want a vague reference to Ganon like a mural in a dungeon or something, not Ganon being the main bad guy every damn time.

Out of the 15 Zelda games that have been released, Ganon has only been the villain of 6 of them.  Well technically it's 7 but that's only if you combine both Oracle games together since each has a different final boss as a standalone game.  Not to mention Aonuma has said Skyward Sword is going to be the new first Zelda on the timeline taking place before even Minish Cap, which means Ganon is not going to be the villain of Skyward Sword either.

So I don't see why some of you act like Ganon is the villain of every Zelda when in reality he's not even close.

[Stratos]

What thread is this again? I forgot. (seriously, I had to check the thread title just now).

[Ian Sane]

Seriously, though, just because a canon exists, doesn't make it strict. Ask any Star Wars fan how badly the new trilogy f*cked with the canon. Midi-chlorians... say what? The problem is that once you start messing with unplanned prequels, interquels and sequels, you run the risk of screwing something up, mostly because there's so much information to keep track of. I kind of get the feeling like Nintendo created a Zelda canon because fans demanded it when originally, they were just making games that be fun, not specifically thinking about where everything fits. I think the games are far more enjoyable without the canon because trying to connect the games into a coherent timeline is one big headache that isn't worth it because Nintendo never really took the time or effort to craft a consistent storyline.

I think canon works perfectly fine if those in charge of it aren't morons.  The Star Wars prequels fucked up the canon because George Lucas is apparently too stupid to make sure his new movies fit in coherently with the existing films.  I'm even excluding the expanded universe here.  Same with Zelda.  Even if you ignore the Capcom games the main Zelda series makes no sense.  The creators are either too stupid or too lazy to do it right.  I think lazy in that case.  Fiction is more or less lying and a good liar doesn't contradict himself and expose himself as a liar.
 
In fact the Metroid series has traditionally been very good at ensuring things continue to make sense.  It seems like Sakamoto considers that to be important (though he never once explained how the dead Ridley, Kraid and Motherbrain are alive in Super Metroid) and Retro obviously felt it was important to make sure Metroid Prime doesn't goof up the existing Metroid continuity.  So we'll see where things go.

[Halbred]

The instruction manual for Super Metroid (and Nintendo Power at the time) stated that the Pirates resurrected Kraid, Ridley, and Mother Brain. I suppose they were cloned. In Ridley's case, he might've been some kind of android. Zero Mission and Metroid Prime have established the Ridley is readily rebuilt.

Ridley must've also been on SR-388 at some point, because the X cloned him too.

Metroid at least allows conceits for the reappearance of series villains.

As for Zelda, I'm gonna say this: energy ball tennis.

[Chozo Ghost]

The fact that it's Bowser EVERY SINGLE TIME is pretty lame.

In SMRPG and in Mario & Luigi, Bowser is not only not the main boss, but he even teams up with Mario.

But yeah, I do know what you mean. I don't think Nintendo acknowledges death as a finality. If you "kill" a character in battle, don't be surprised to find that same character later on. Like in M&L 3 you battle this worm thing in Bowser's stomach and that should have killed it, right? But then you have to go to it later for some reason so it doesn't actually die. Has any character ever died in any Nintendo game ever for real?

But this never really dying characters thing should work both ways. Remember in Metroid 3 those other hunters who team up with Samus? They all end up getting killed by Dark Samus (if I recall correctly), and at the end of the game one of the endings has Samus mourning over the death of her friends. But does it really have to be like that? If Ridley, Kraid, Mother Brain, and all the other bad guys we know and love come back again and again then why can't that be true for the good guys also?

[NWR_insanolord]

Metroid's continuity holds together better than Zelda's for one reason: there are fewer games in the series. The more things you tack on without being planned for, the likelier it is to not work right. I'm glad Nintendo takes the approach they take; they stick to canon as much as they can, but they don't let it change the way they make games. Gameplay>continuity.

[Adrock]

Even though I know the Prime games are set between Metroid 1 and 2, I don't like to count them in the same continuity, mostly because Super Metroid makes no mention of the Prime games. Zero Mission tried to somewhat link the main series and the Prime side-series then Corruption tried to unify the series further with the Aurora units, but ehh... they work better as separate continuities. They don't reference each other enough to make the series feel like a cohesive whole.

Super Metroid basically ended the series. "The last Metroid is in captivity..." As much as I liked Fusion, cloning is the cheapest plot coupon ever. It's hard to take canon seriously when it's so consistently rofl-stomped. Most of the older series are guilty of it. We've talk about Zelda. Castlevania set the rule that Dracula can only be resurrected every 100 years and yet we've seen how often that's been broken. The creators of Lords of Shadow just gave up and rebooted the franchise. Metal Gear is a total mess for anyone who's bothered to follow it though to Kojima and company's credit, they have at least tried.

The problem with videogames is that it was so reliant on technology. Storytelling was limited by what you could say and do with processing power and storage capacity. 20-25 years ago, they had like 4-8kB to work with. When Miyamoto created Zelda, he wasn't thinking "And there will be 5 prequels to this" (5 is a random number, don't think too hard about it). Nowadays, developers can do whatever they hell they want. There are no real limitations. If you f*ck up canon in a newer series, it's because you're stupid. Still, that's not necessarily a pass for developers older series. Ocarina of Time majorly retconned a series only 4 games deep and 1 (Link's Awakening) was totally inconsequential as it was a side story and 99% of it was a dream (let's not get into that). That's just terrible planning. Miyamoto wanted rock and fish people and forest children that don't age. That's great and everything from an artistic perspective.... but it f*cked everything up. Canon was tossed right out the window.

[TheBlackCat]

The instruction manual for Super Metroid (and Nintendo Power at the time) stated that the Pirates resurrected Kraid, Ridley, and Mother Brain. I suppose they were cloned. In Ridley's case, he might've been some kind of android. Zero Mission and Metroid Prime have established the Ridley is readily rebuilt.

Zero Mission Ridley isn't rebuilt, you fight Ridley and a robot that looks vaguely like Ridley, but it seems the robot was on the ship already. 

Ridley must've also been on SR-388 at some point, because the X cloned him too.

They had a frozen version of him on the station, that is what the x-parasites infected.

[Halbred]

No, I think it was a cloned version of Ridley that eventually melted, allowing the X to assume its globular form and float away. The ice just broke away at that point. I think it was always an X clone.

My interpretation only.

Still doesn't explain why Ridley was on SR-388, though.

Adrock, Zero Mission is the new canonical basis for the Metroid games. Since Ridley was the general of the Pirates at that point (or whatever), he or his CO must have been ordering replicants of him to be built before he attacked Zebes in the game. I think that Mecha-Ridley was an early, failed experiment, or prototype. By the time the Prime games come around (like two or three years later), the Pirates successfully created a robotic version of Ridley, and they sicked him on Samus.

Samus blew his **** up, and he went flying down a canyon. The Pirates must have recovered his body and either fixed him up (stronger, faster, better than he was before) or built a whole new improved model that appears in Corruption.

Since Zero Mission references Prime, it's canonical. Since the Prime games are canonical, and Corruption references Hunters, it's also canonical (sigh).

I'll be interested to see if there are any allusions to the Prime games in Other M.

[broodwars]

I'll be interested to see if there are any allusions to the Prime games in Other M.

I doubt it.  This game is meant to appeal to Nintendo's Japanese fans, and they didn't (in a relative sense) like the Prime games.  Besides, didn't the game's producer at one point say he didn't really consider the Prime games to be canonical (something that made me rather angry at the time)?  I hope we do see some solid links to the Prime games, though.

[TJ Spyke]

The only problem Adrock is that fans don't get to pick and choose what they want to be canon. Whoever owns the IP get to choose what is and isn't canon.

As for your logic about SM not mentioning Prime, then most prequels shouldn't count since they are usually not mentioned. The Prime games majorly reference the other games in the series. You are free to think what you want, I just hope you remember that all of the Metroid games are canon (including the Fusion is the last).

OOT didn't retcon anything, everything in the games before and after are still canon (retcon means it changes established canon).

brood, screw Sakamoto. He should not have been allowed to direct a Metroid game again. Luckily he has zero say over what is or isn't canon in Metroid.