Author Topic: Metroid Prime 3 Revolutionized (Read 302040 times)

wandering · « **Reply #100 on:** April 16, 2006, 08:15:05 PM »

Quote
When something is expected 100%, it's pretty much the same thing as knowing... =)

The Bush Doctrine.

Quote
Uh...the significance of that quote is that Metroid Prime 3 will be playable, not that the Rev will be. Nintendo has already said that REPEATEDLY.

ahaha, that's what I meant to say. That mp3 will be playable. Yes.

Spak-Spang · « **Reply #101 on:** April 17, 2006, 05:42:38 AM »

I am curious. Matt said FULLY PLAYABLE. So I wonder how far along they are on the game. Obviously that doesn't mean they are finished with the game...but it could mean they are close. Perhaps the single player game is done and they are working on multiplayer...or vice versa.

It would be really amazing if the game was practically finished.

I also wonder about Super Smash Brothers Revolution. In one since I am sure they were able to use some of the old code and tweak the balance of the game, adding new levels and characters. The hardest thing to figure out is the control mechanics. Yet, they have a HUGE staff working on this game and Nintendo could be ready to show us something really impressive.

mantidor · « **Reply #102 on:** April 17, 2006, 06:10:20 AM »

I think that is nearly impossible that the game is ready. They had like what? 1 year and few months of development? and this isnt like echoes where the control scheme was stablished and they just expanded the game based on that, this time they have to implement completly new mechanics from the ground up. The advantage this time is that they dont need to start building an engine from the scratch, but still, echoes alone took more than this time frame.

I really would prefer for them to take their time, because I felt echoes a little rushed. The game is very polished and I love it, but the main theme, you know, the echoes part and the echo visor were practically never used, except for some sensors that were nothing more than glorified keys, and the final battle, I had this impression that Nintendo wanted to use the game as a counter-meassure for halo 2 (which really didnt do well at all) and pushed Retro to have the game ready on a time near halo 2's launch.

Bill Aurion · « **Reply #103 on:** April 17, 2006, 06:38:06 AM »

"and this isnt like echoes where the control scheme was stablished and they just expanded the game based on that, this time they have to implement completly new mechanics from the ground up."

It took Retro TWO WEEKS to implement a likely control scheme in the MP2 demo...

Kairon · « **Reply #104 on:** April 17, 2006, 07:27:50 AM »

There are many factors to consider when dealing with MP3's development time, including but not limited to:

1. Retro had a hand in designing the revolution controller.
Recent Ubi Soft comments have suggested that the controller was shown to thrid parties before E3 3005. This suggests that Retro knew of the controller's capabilities in early 2005, which would give them a 1.5 year spread between then and a speculated Fall 2006 launch.

2. Retro designed the MP2 demo in two weeks.
The control scheme appeared to not weird them out too much.

3. The MP2 demo was internal.
This demo was first known to exist at TGS 2005 in Oct 2005, but Retro did NOT know this demo would be shown publically. It was an internal demo, and it is highly likely that the demo was created much earlier in 2005.

4. The revmote changes everything!
Obviously, Retro will have to re-evaluate their level designs and game design tenets in order to accomodate and challenge the new control scheme, creating new puzzle dynamics, as well as new over-arching gameplay dynamics. For example, will the "lock-on" function exist in MP3? This will evidently take a bit of time to figure out.

5. MP2 Echoes released stateside in Nov '04.
It released in Japan in May '05, but one wonders what they've been at since Nov '04 anyways.

6. Retro helped NST a little with Hunters.
Maybe not a lot, but that may have slowed them down just a day or two...

And who knows what other factors to consider! Yet still, if we're going to construct a timeline, I think we should take all the above and more into account, especially the very specific timeline of the Rev controller's development and Retro's own involvement in that.

~Carmine M. Red
Kairon@aol.com

Spak-Spang · « **Reply #105 on:** April 17, 2006, 08:05:32 AM »

Kairon: Great points about the time. I still believe that the game can be further along than any of us can believe. It has to be. Nintendo needs to show with Metroid Prime 3 both a great single player and multiplayer experience to help sell the controller and sell Nintendo's online system.

Going through your points most of them are very positive to the game being more complete than incomplete.

1)I believe the game structure will be very similar to that of Metroid Prime 2 but without the lockon system. Everyone believes this lockon feature is a neccessity to the Adventure part of the game...but I don't see it as such. Scanning, solving puzzles, and determining how to kill enemies is the adventure, and the free hand control actually opens up MORE possibilities not less. And I am sure Retro has had ideas since Metroid Prime that they would have liked to implement but didn't because of limitations of the lockon system.

2)Retro helping NST actually helps them be FURTHER along with the MP3 not less. What I mean is, Retro has been already working with NST and Nintendo to create a free look Metroid experience and a strong Metroid multiplayer experience. In many ways NST's Hunters was the perfect experiment for the bigger MP3's multiplayer experience.

Retro will be impressing all of us with its creation coming soon...I can promise you that.

PaLaDiN · « **Reply #106 on:** April 17, 2006, 09:16:47 AM »

I'm still naively hoping there's no multiplayer.

Bill Aurion · « **Reply #107 on:** April 17, 2006, 01:24:16 PM »

I think hoping there are less features in a game is pretty lame...

mantidor · « **Reply #108 on:** April 17, 2006, 01:40:54 PM »

To be honest, Ill rather get more clever puzzles, more weapons and beams, or more mini bosses that are usually awesome over a multiplayer feature any day. At least we are not forced to use it I hope .

Nosferat2 · « **Reply #109 on:** April 17, 2006, 02:00:32 PM »

Quote
Originally posted by: Bill Aurion
I think hoping there are less features in a game is pretty lame...

As do i. But i would rather not have the Multiplayer aspect take away from the Single palyer experience a la MP hunters and Halo 2. I have not played either but i heard various conplaints that the single palyer campaigns blows on both especially on Halo 2.

Give me a New Metroid prime like 1 and 2 but expand on the Multiplayer that was on MP2 without fuking up the real MP3. I will be Lived and have a coniption, be hella pissed, if MP3 is anything less than MP1 and 2. In fact i want it to be bigger and badder than the privious titles as there is more disk space.

OH AND RETRO CAN YOU GIVE US A DAMN ENDING WORTHY OF THE TRILOGY"S FINALE!! THE FIRST TWO ENDING KINDA SUCKED FOR GAMES OF OTHERWISE SUPERB QUALITY.

ShyGuy · « **Reply #110 on:** April 17, 2006, 02:07:46 PM »

I want X-TREME online deathmatch only in MP3! With big swords! and Samus in a Bikini! ....yeah, that'd be freaking sweet.

But seriously, Paladin, why all the multiplayer hate?

Spak-Spang · « **Reply #111 on:** April 17, 2006, 02:23:07 PM »

The Multiplayer Hate comes from people who see Metroid as a single player game surrounded with the sense of a lonely Bounty Hunter fighting for her life on a violent world all alone.

I don't understand why Retro including Multiplayer would take away from the single player experience. I am all for a robust and enjoyable single player experience. But too much of a game can be well TOO MUCH.

Metroid Prime and Metroid Prime 2 were fantastic in scope. Metroid Prime felt right, but could have had a few more bosses. Metroid Prime 2 felt much better with bosses, but then the scope of the bosses were too big...and I didn't enjoy that as much.

So if we received games of the size and scope of Metroid Prime 1 or 2 and then also had a robust multiplayer mode with online play I think we would be in heaven...and if the Multiplayer mode was not in the game then I would feel Nintendo not only ignored an opportunity to create a new Metroid experience and new online fanbase. (Hey Halo literally defined Xbox, so a Great Metroid online experience would define Revolution)

Kairon · « **Reply #112 on:** April 17, 2006, 04:09:26 PM »

I'd LOVE Metroid Multiplayer.

I'd HATE Metroid as a FPS deathmatch.

~Carmine M. Red
Kairon@aol.com

PaLaDiN · « **Reply #113 on:** April 17, 2006, 04:26:29 PM »

Metroid Echoes could have been even better if they'd stripped away the crappy multiplayer and spent the time focusing more on singleplayer.

Metroid Hunters singleplayer sucks, doesn't even feel like metroid and was directly sacrificed to make a good multiplayer game.

You tell me where all the multiplayer hate comes from.

Bill Aurion · « **Reply #114 on:** April 17, 2006, 04:26:42 PM »

Quote
Originally posted by: Spak-Spang
I don't understand why Retro including Multiplayer would take away from the single player experience. I am all for a robust and enjoyable single player experience. But too much of a game can be well TOO MUCH.

I seriously don't see why people would think this...Retro is awesome at the single-player adventure...If needed, they could even get NST to do the multiplayer portion...

Spak-Spang · « **Reply #115 on:** April 17, 2006, 05:30:42 PM »

Bill: I feel that way because a game can be too long. I want to enjoy a game to the fullest, but I don't believe every game should be required 40 or more hours of game. Video games are already a huge commitment of time, and money. As such I am monetarily limited to what games I can buy and play.

Beyond that I have a wife, school, work, and church. My time pushes me away from gaming to the point that I barely have the time to finish a game anymore.

Side Quests are great and mini games are great, but to create a game experience too long or too involved hurts the game in the end.

Look at it this way. A 3 hour movie is good. A 6 hour movie is not good. Now with video games the time spent can be broken to smaller segments, but the same still applies.

Finally, great bands know how to craft an album. You create a unique sound and style for that album and you create songs within that style or theme of the album until you explore all the elements, and end the album. You may have written 25 songs but only 12-15 make it on the album because they are the best songs, and fit the best. If you put too much your songs begin to sound the same and get muddled.

Gaming is the same way. How many times in a single game can you do the EXACT same thing over and over...eventually it gets boring or too much. The experience needs to end. Nintendo has always been great about that. Super Mario 3 had really great suits and that boot thing, and a level of giant enemies...but you only saw the boot in like one single level and it made that level unique and special. The giant world was only a few levels. Nintendo understood that minimalizing is important for the experience.

I want Retro to create the best Metroid Prime 3 they can. I want it to be innovative and blow my mind, but I also want them to create an amazing multiplayer aspect of the game, because the multiplayer I will revisit more than the single player mode. (Specially if the single player mode is a long game.)

And it isn't a good idea to give NST the multiplayer aspect, because the control needs to feel the same in both elements, and if NST is coding the multiplayer aspect then it won't feel exact. Besides, I want to give Retro another chance at Metroid multiplayer because they deserve it.

Bill Aurion · « **Reply #116 on:** April 17, 2006, 06:20:19 PM »

Haha, I was quoting the first bit of the quote about multiplayer, not about the length...Length of a game does not equal its overall enjoyment to me...

Spak-Spang · « **Reply #117 on:** April 17, 2006, 06:26:05 PM »

Ha. That is funny Bill. Sorry for the confusion. I didn't find the first part at all contraversial.

But hey that above answer has the reason why I think Multiplayer is important too. It is what is most revisited when I play games, and I enjoy to show people games and let them play...multiplayer modes allow me to do that more than single player modes.

trip1eX · « **Reply #118 on:** April 17, 2006, 06:53:28 PM »

I'm all for short games. I pcgame alot and I'm excited about the episodic content Valve is going to releasing shortly. HL2:Episode 1 is going to be about 6 hours long for $20.

For me I think it's just going to be easier to get into those types of games. I'll be able to finish 'em, replay 'em more frequently and $20 is alot easier to swallow than $50.

I don't mind if games don't have multiplayer. Honestly it gets a bit generic that every multiplayer game has deathmatch or something. It usually feels tacked on. AT this point in time if you're going to do it then do it right and make it robust because those are the only multiplayer games I'm going to bother with anyway.

IceCold · « **Reply #119 on:** April 17, 2006, 08:06:14 PM »

Quote
Metroid Hunters singleplayer sucks, doesn't even feel like metroid and was directly sacrificed to make a good multiplayer game.

It was made by NST, and everyone knew a long, long time ago that it was multiplayer-centric. It was even a surprise to see that the single player mode was as long as it was. I'm sure that a Retro Metroid game won't be like that..

Knoxxville · « **Reply #120 on:** April 17, 2006, 08:48:18 PM »

It has probably been stated, but I think that a co-op multiplayer would be ace. Certain bosses could be restructured where teamwork is neccessary to beat it. Like, rather than everyone just taking pot shots at it when it's weak spot shows, have it like where some one has to pull or stand on something at the right time to trigger an environmental effect which leads to the weak spot being shown....I know it's a simple example, but you guys get my drift.

Remember how in PSO sometimes you would have to separate to have everyone stand on a "floor key" to unlock a door? It's kinda like that in concept, but I hope that Retro can institude it much less lamer than that.....get REALLY CREATIVE, RETRO!!

Hostile Creation · « **Reply #121 on:** April 17, 2006, 09:14:35 PM »

"Look at it this way. A 3 hour movie is good. A 6 hour movie is not good."

Watch The Best of Youth. Freaking excellent six hour movie.

And Metroid should not be co-op, for a variety of reasons. Something like Halo is co-op because it's just bloodshed. Metroid is too complex for co-op.
Plus it's Metroid. I mean, come on.

ShyGuy · « **Reply #122 on:** April 17, 2006, 09:23:48 PM »

See? this is why Nintendo needs a second first-person-shooter/adventure. Hello Geist 2 for the Rev!

Kairon · « **Reply #123 on:** April 17, 2006, 09:50:12 PM »

No, hello RED STEEL!

~Carmine M. Red
Kairon@aol.com

Artimus · « **Reply #124 on:** April 17, 2006, 11:18:05 PM »

Quote
Originally posted by: Spak-Spang
Look at it this way. A 3 hour movie is good. A 6 hour movie is not good. Now with video games the time spent can be broken to smaller segments, but the same still applies.

No, it doesn't still apply. Not in the same way, at least. I agree that 120+ hours is a little ridiculous (and rarely engaging), but games can be very long without being too much. It's like a novel. A 250 page novel can be just as good as a 1500 page novel. But the 1500 isn't inferior.

It's all about balance. A 6 hour movie can be fantastic (someone mentioned Best of Youth, also Angels in America). As can a 1500 page novel. And an 80 hour game. All that matters is what developers decide to do with the time that is given them (speaking of really long, but really great, movies).

News:

Author Topic: Metroid Prime 3 Revolutionized (Read 302040 times)