Gaming Forums => Nintendo Gaming => Topic started by: KDR_11k on September 04, 2010, 04:14:02 AM
Title: Metroid (NES)
Post by: KDR_11k on September 04, 2010, 04:14:02 AM
All this recent talk about Metroid games made me go back and play the one Metroid game I have (as part of Zero Mission) but haven't played much. I saw some Let's Play video excerpts that helped me get into the mentality of the game and now I find it pretty easy (previously I was stuck trying to navigate Kraid's lair without even the Ice Beam, I learned that I should go elsewhere first and get more items). Chalk up another one for not balancing enemy strength with player upgrades.
Anyone else got thoughts on the game? While I retract my statement that it's an awful game it still isn't that good either.
Title: Re: Metroid (NES)
Post by: Killer_Man_Jaro on September 04, 2010, 05:45:24 AM
Eh. I'm not really a fan of the first Metroid, although my perspective is skewed due to the fact that I played this in the interim between Prime 2 and Prime 3, after all those other, more polished and refined Metroid games. It was too ambitious for its time, that is the only way I would put it, and while I can appreciate this ambition (which would later be realised properly), I cannot appreciate this. I actually prefer it to Metroid II, the lowest point of the franchise in my opinion, because the colour and the zoomed out view is at least slightly helpful for navigation, but it's still not nearly enough. The world design is just not conducive to logical exploration and seriously, the difficulty curve is utterly backwards. At the beginning, it is toeing the line of controller-throwing frustration because Samus is SO nerfed in every way. Then, after surmounting that hill, it gets progressively easier, the Ice Beam being the biggest turning point for me, though I didn't find it particularly fun even after that. I've said before how I despise the bosses, if they can be called that, for being little more than missile cannon fodder. Oh, and one more comparatively minor complaint: Metroid on NES has quite possibly the worst sprite flicker I've ever seen in anything.
That said, I do like the music. I'm sure most will agree it's the best part of the game and the only part that has stood up to the test of time. Great tunes made more impactful by the arrangements in Smash Bros. That's it though. Nothing else is likeable. I haven't played Zero Mission, but I will tell anybody to go play that instead as I'm 100% confident that it blows its inspiration out of the water.
Title: Re: Metroid (NES)
Post by: KDR_11k on September 04, 2010, 09:40:48 AM
Besides, Zero Mission includes the original game and unlocks that after you beat the main game. I'm not terribly fond of ZM though.
Title: Re: Metroid (NES)
Post by: Spak-Spang on September 04, 2010, 09:55:35 AM
So I will not retract that it is an awful game. It is very, very bad. The game requires trial and error to do anything in the game, no map feature, and level design that is impossible to distinguish screens and where you are in the game. People that forgive the original Metroid I believe do so because they are fond of its outstanding sequels and pay homage to the original for allowing us to have the brilliant Super Metroid. Which, is one of the best video games ever made still today.
Title: Re: Metroid (NES)
Post by: TJ Spyke on September 04, 2010, 10:21:03 AM
I never liked Metroid, even as a kid. The graphics are ugly, no map means you basically have to draw your own map since most of the rooms like the same, and the game is too difficult. Metroid: Zero Mission fixed all of the problems with the game, but the NES original is horrible. Yes the music was good, but that is pretty much the only part I like. KMJ, you are correct in that the GBA re-make is the version everybody should play.
Title: Re: Metroid (NES)
Post by: Halbred on September 04, 2010, 03:51:12 PM
I don't care for the NES Metroid, but I can see the genius behind it. I think Super Metroid is what the original Metroid was supposed to be.
Title: Re: Metroid (NES)
Post by: Guitar Smasher on September 04, 2010, 04:33:43 PM
I think Metroid is seriously underrated. Think of the era in which it was released, and it is really not a bad game at all. If it was as bad as people like to pretend, then there would be no Metroid II or Super Metroid.
I think there is a significant distinction between older gamers and modern gamers, in terms of expectation of difficulty. I don't pretend that I'm an older gamer (I'm only 22), or that I really have a complete understanding of the era, but it seems that games were supposed to be hard (since they weren't very long). By comparison, today's games pretty much hold your hand the whole way through.
I can understand how it's frustrating to start off handicapped by next to no health, with enemies already attacking. And when you die in the 3rd room, it's easy to write the game off as fundamentally flawed. But after several tries you really refine your skill set and determine your objectives. That's a really rewarding feeling.
Another complaint is that it's difficult to navigate. But really, we've grown accustomed to having a map, compass, and never-ending hints to help us find our way in modern games. I suspect gamers of the era were more accustomed to navigating blind. They might even prefer the challenge of it.
People say it has aged horribly, but I argue that it's not because it's a bad game. It's just that gaming expectations have evolved and Metroid doesn't fit into the modern expectations. Honestly, I think anyone who enjoyed the game when it first came out, and has been exposed to modern games will still find the original enjoyable.
Considering how Prime 1 is the only series-game to outsell it, it must have been loved upon its release. You can't just dismiss this.
Title: Re: Metroid (NES)
Post by: MoronSonOfBoron on September 04, 2010, 05:26:35 PM
I would think drawing your own map is part of the fun of the game (it was certainly the case for my family and Zelda). In Metroid's case, it would add to the factor of exploring an alien environment. It's rare to see a game that you can play beyond the controller, much as some companies try these days.
Title: Re: Metroid (NES)
Post by: TJ Spyke on September 04, 2010, 05:37:01 PM
Not having a map wouldn't have been so bad if every room practically looked the same. Take The Legend of Zelda (released the same year), it is relatively easy to navigate because areas look distinct from each other.
The game has aged terribly. People respect it for what it did, but the game is not enjoyable anymore. I played the game in the early 90s (around 1991/1992) and even then it was that not that fun, and it got less fun over time. There is no reason for anyone to play the NES original when the GBA re-make is better in every possible way. There are games older than it which have aged much better. Ms. Pac-Man came out in 1981 and is still very fun, Super Mario Bros. came out in 1985 and is still a good game (although nowhere near as good as Super Mario Bros. 3 or Super Mario World). No one is disputing that it was good at that time, but it would be like trying to tell someone to play video games on a 1950s black-and-white television. Even someone who grew up with one isn't likely to enjoy using it anymore.
Having to draw your own map is a ridiculous idea and I am glad that it was already antiquated by the name I got my first NES in 1990.
Title: Re: Metroid (NES)
Post by: Killer_Man_Jaro on September 04, 2010, 05:46:20 PM
I disagree, Guitar Smasher. Games like Mega Man 2 or 3, which are from the same era as Metroid, I think are probably more difficult, but I don't feel anywhere close to the amount of frustration when I play them because they have superior design. These games provide challenges that rely on the player's dexterity. The original Metroid -- it's simply unbalanced. And that goes both ways. Once the initial spike is defeated through agitating conservative playing, it becomes shockingly easy (and yet still annoying because of the map that loves to make you bomb identical tiles on the floor searching for the one that is fake). Honestly, if I am tasked with navigating blind, then it should let me do so. How it ever occurred to people in 1986 to have to do this to advance, I will never know.
For the record, I think the first two Legend of Zelda games have similar problems, though not as bad. Open world videogames in general were archaically designed on 8-bit consoles.
Title: Re: Metroid (NES)
Post by: Mop it up on September 04, 2010, 07:32:05 PM
The original Metroid is the first game in the series that I played, although it was in 2002. I'm glad it was the first one, otherwise I'd have never been able to tolerate it, knowing just how much better the sequels are. I don't know how I ever managed to beat that game without resorting to a guide... I don't have that kind of resolve today.
I can appreciate Metroid for the things it did in its time, but there are just some types of game design that don't hold up, regardless of how good they actually were. Though I do think that starting with low energy each time is a design flaw; There was no limitation that prevented starting with full energy, so it is not excusable. It was a tedious grind to have to start each play session with blasting the same group of enemies over and over until collecting enough to move on. The game was plenty tough without that. The original Zelda has this issue as well.
Title: Re: Metroid (NES)
Post by: Chozo Ghost on September 05, 2010, 12:35:18 AM
Metroid is great as a NES game, just as Metroid II was great as a GB game. You have to realize those systems were very limited in their capabilities, so even though the early Metroid games can't stand up to modern games, they can definitely stand up to the sorts of games of their era. The main reason the levels all looked the same was because of the weak hardware of the NES/GB. That was true with a large chunk of games from that era.
Title: Re: Metroid (NES)
Post by: NWR_insanolord on September 05, 2010, 01:58:50 AM
Metroid is great as a NES game, just as Metroid II was great as a GB game. You have to realize those systems were very limited in their capabilities, so even though the early Metroid games can't stand up to modern games, they can definitely stand up to the sorts of games of their era. The main reason the levels all looked the same was because of the weak hardware of the NES/GB. That was true with a large chunk of games from that era.
No, they really weren't. Metroid isn't anywhere close to something like Mario 3, and Metroid II can't touch Link's Awakening. They are far from top tier, even compared to other games of the time.
Title: Re: Metroid (NES)
Post by: TheBlackCat on September 05, 2010, 02:35:18 AM
No, they really weren't. Metroid isn't anywhere close to something like Mario 3, and Metroid II can't touch Link's Awakening. They are far from top tier, even compared to other games of the time.
I agree about Mario 3, not so much LA (I like Metroid II a lot, and LA was good but don't think that much better technologically, especially with the much smaller room size in LA). But in both cases the other game came out 2 years after the corresponding Metroid game. It is not surprising that the use of the technology is better, in the same way Super Metroid does a lot more and has a lot more detail than Link to the Past (which came out 2 years before), or mario 64 vs ocarina of time for that matter (also a 2-year gap) .
Title: Re: Metroid (NES)
Post by: KDR_11k on September 05, 2010, 02:44:21 AM
Once you learn about secret passages and whatnot it becomes much more feasible to distinguish rooms because while every path may start the same they quickly diverge in design. After that I was able to maintain a mental map of the game with little trouble.
It was a tedious grind to have to start each play session with blasting the same group of enemies over and over until collecting enough to move on. The game was plenty tough without that. The original Zelda has this issue as well.
You actually don't have to do that, you'll gather enough scraps from defeating every enemy along your path (yes it's still slightly tedious but not as grindy) for normal exploration, only bosses warrant grinding and even then I grabbed E tanks shortly before fighting them (or more accurately found an E tank and decided to go fight the boss) so I got full energy without grinding.
I think the low E start was the only way they had for making the game remotely difficult, with 3+ E tanks filled you're practically invulnerable because it takes so many hits to kill you.
Title: Re: Metroid (NES)
Post by: NWR_insanolord on September 05, 2010, 02:46:13 AM
But even the original Super Mario Bros. holds up a lot better than Metroid, and that came out two years earlier.
I can respect a game like Metroid for trailblazing and being ahead of its time, but in the end it's not something I ever want to play. I'm glad it exists because of what the series became, but if had never received the sequels we love it would be regarded today as just another archaic, forgettable NES game
Title: Re: Metroid (NES)
Post by: Art_de_Cat on September 05, 2010, 08:25:58 AM
I always hated how difficult it was to refill energy and missles after you were near empty. I am glad they fixed those issues in the later games. While there was one area with seemingly endless repeating rooms, most of the areas were not that hard to figure out. Zero Mission was definetly a great remake with its extras and extra area.
Title: Re: Metroid (NES)
Post by: BwrJim! on September 05, 2010, 07:07:25 PM
orignal metroid,
played it (when it first came out) loved it played it again.
i like games that are a challenge.
Title: Re: Metroid (NES)
Post by: Spak-Spang on September 07, 2010, 10:48:07 AM
I will admit that the Original Zelda had its problems...but the Original Zelda was only difficult when it forced you to remember some sequence to get to a dungeon. That was an annoying puzzle...but somewhat understandable for its time.
Not having a map in Metroid isn't the killer...in fact that is fine to me. It is the design of levels themselves. But that said, some people can figure it out easier and better than me.
Personally I have no problem with the difficulty. I like the play structure of being vulnerable but then as you improve becoming near invincible...it is kinda a cool premise actually.
Title: Re: Metroid (NES)
Post by: Ian Sane on September 07, 2010, 12:23:07 PM
Metroid falls into the problem that a lot of old NES games do in that the game is a lot more difficult then it needs to be because of the limitations of the game. You can't shoot diagonal or duck and shoot yet there are numerous enemies that move in patterns that require those shooting angles. And then of course there's the lack of a map and the lack of visual distinction in areas.
As games became more advanced this sort of artificial difficulty ceased to exist. Shooting in all angles means they can't make bullshit enemies that fly in your blind spot the whole time. There was no excuse anymore.
I think the NES Zeldas are dated as hell as well and I don't find it even remotely enjoyable to play them either. In the original Zelda Link's sword is just a poke. It's like trying to hit someone with your dick. You have to go right next to an enemy to hurt it and touching an enemy causing damage. It creates an artificial difficulty. In A Link to the Past they introduced a non-useless sword swipe and suddenly the game got way easier. It was because there weren't bullshit limitations anymore so any challenge was due to good design instead of handicapping the player.
One reason I have such fondness for the SNES is that really is when all the kinks were worked out with videogames. It's when videogames became smooth.
Title: Re: Metroid (NES)
Post by: Mop it up on September 07, 2010, 06:50:44 PM
To its credit, Metroid was still better designed than some other NES games. Castlevania II comes to mind. You have to do some really random things in that game in order to progress, I have no idea how people figured it out. For example, there's a place in the game where you have to equip a certain item, I think it was a crystal or something, then crouch down for a few seconds, which will have a tornado come and carry you to another part of the map. With no hints telling you anything about this, how are you supposed to find that?
One reason I have such fondness for the SNES is that really is when all the kinks were worked out with videogames. It's when videogames became smooth.
I'd have to agree with that. I wasn't much into gaming during the SNES days and didn't even own one until 1997, and I'm sometimes amazed at how well a lot of the games still hold up. Since it was such a more capable piece of hardware than the NES, developers were finally able to design games with the best of their ability, and many of these will stand the test of time.
Title: Re: Metroid (NES)
Post by: Art_de_Cat on September 07, 2010, 09:31:36 PM
Aw, the backward clues or non existant clues in Castlevania 2. Metroid was much better than that game.
Title: Re: Metroid (NES)
Post by: NWR_DrewMG on September 08, 2010, 09:38:00 AM
It wasn't until I started coming around NWR that I noticed that other people didn't share my love for NES Metroid. Sad, to say the least. I have always loved the game, and have played through the entire thing probably a good 5 or 10 times. When it was an unlockable in Metroid Prime, I played through the entire game in one sitting... took around two hours or so.
Sure, the lack of a map is annoying, but back then you were expected to map yourself, or just commit it to memory. I still know most of the original Metroid's map in my head, although I do get lost sometimes when I'm down by Ridley's lair.
I feel like the actual gameplay holds up fairly well, and I would definitely choose it over Metroid II, which feels very clunky and slow paced to me.
Title: Re: Metroid (NES)
Post by: Sundoulos on September 08, 2010, 10:56:16 AM
I've always loved Metroid as well, and I don't really get the dislike for it either. I was just a kid when it was first released, and I had never seen anything like it or the original Zelda. Here, you had a game that featured permanent character upgrades, complete backtracking, vertical and horizontal scrolling in two directions, secret areas and power ups, as well as a quest that was so big that you were unlikely to complete it in one sitting. It's one of those games where, even if it doesn't play that well compared to games now, represented a sort of a pivotal step in game design.
Title: Re: Metroid (NES)
Post by: BwrJim! on September 08, 2010, 12:07:40 PM
hey lets not forget one massive part too,
Shooting UP
Title: Re: Metroid (NES)
Post by: Mop it up on September 08, 2010, 06:47:51 PM
I have noticed that the people who say they like NES Metroid have played it during or close to the NES days, and the people who don't like it played it later on. It would seem that it's a case of people liking it only due to nostalgia. There's nothing wrong with that, I'm just making an observation.
Title: Re: Metroid (NES)
Post by: Halbred on September 08, 2010, 06:56:04 PM
I played it back on the NES and probably didn't really "get" it, which is understandable. Hell, I didn't "get" Super Metroid when it first came out. I finally got around to playing both games in my late teens. I appreciated what Metroid was trying to do, and I've beat it several times (even got 100% once or twice), but it's clear that Super Metroid was what it's "supposed" to be.
You could say the same of Link's Awakening. It's a fully-realized version of Legend of Zelda.
Title: Re: Metroid (NES)
Post by: Louieturkey on September 08, 2010, 06:57:04 PM
Some people like some games and dislike others. I don't think nostalgia has anything to do with it. During the NES's life, games were harder and were harder to learn. So people who enjoyed those games usually still enjoy them. They just like the games that leave more up to the player.
Title: Re: Metroid (NES)
Post by: Mop it up on September 08, 2010, 07:09:19 PM
During the NES's life, games were harder and were harder to learn. So people who enjoyed those games usually still enjoy them. They just like the games that leave more up to the player.
That sounds like nostalgia for old games and design. It's exactly what I was saying. Again, there's nothing wrong with that, and I'm not sure why some people view it as a bad thing.
Title: Re: Metroid (NES)
Post by: NWR_insanolord on September 08, 2010, 07:12:32 PM
There's a difference between being hard because of a genuine, legitimate challenge, and being hard because of being broken and/or cheap. I can appreciate the former; I'd argue this game is closer to the latter.
Title: Re: Metroid (NES)
Post by: Guitar Smasher on September 08, 2010, 07:39:16 PM
During the NES's life, games were harder and were harder to learn. So people who enjoyed those games usually still enjoy them. They just like the games that leave more up to the player.
That sounds like nostalgia for old games and design. It's exactly what I was saying. Again, there's nothing wrong with that, and I'm not sure why some people view it as a bad thing.
Because most of the time when someone says "your opinion's just based on nostalgia", it comes with the pretense of "which makes your argument for this game invalid."
Title: Re: Metroid (NES)
Post by: Ian Sane on September 09, 2010, 12:46:07 PM
Quote
Hell, I didn't "get" Super Metroid when it first came out.
Me neither. I remember playing it a bit at a demo kiosk at a store and wondering why I reached a dead end in a side scroller. I didn't get Zelda at the time either.
About three years later while in high school my brother bought Madden '94 from a friend of his because he wanted a five player SNES game. The guy threw in A Link to the Past FOR FREE. Once I gave that a whirl I realized what type of game I should have been paying more attention to this whole time. A few years after that I got my first job and having money for the first time started collecting old SNES games. I found Super Metroid with box in manual in perfect condition and bought it on a whim because I knew Nintendo made it and it was supposedly good. Playing that game for the first time when I really didn't know what to expect is one of the best game experiences of my life.
If one enjoys having to explore an area with no indication of what to do and no map then I imagine Metroid is pretty damn awesome for them. I don't like games that blatantly tell me exactly what to do the whole time. That isn't nostalgia talking that's just what I prefer. Maybe some people prefer taking that a further level where there aren't even clues at all.
Title: Re: Metroid (NES)
Post by: KDR_11k on September 09, 2010, 01:46:30 PM
I had a ton of game guides so I knew what to expect even though I got both Zelda and Super Metroid as bare cartridges from a flea market.
Title: Re: Metroid (NES)
Post by: Mop it up on September 09, 2010, 06:10:38 PM
During the NES's life, games were harder and were harder to learn. So people who enjoyed those games usually still enjoy them. They just like the games that leave more up to the player.
That sounds like nostalgia for old games and design. It's exactly what I was saying. Again, there's nothing wrong with that, and I'm not sure why some people view it as a bad thing.
Because most of the time when someone says "your opinion's just based on nostalgia", it comes with the pretense of "which makes your argument for this game invalid."
I guess that's true, and it's why I clarified my statement with "there's nothing wrong with that" to show I wasn't trying to belittle anyone's opinion. I was just noting that the people who like NES Metroid played it during its time, or have some fondness for NES in general; what that means is up for interpretation.
Title: Re: Metroid (NES)
Post by: Sundoulos on September 11, 2010, 01:43:49 AM
Oh, I think it's fair to say that nostalgia is a component, though it's not the only one. I think it's also true that sometimes experiences, age, among other things can shape your preferences in gaming. I wouldn't expect someone who grew up on more recent games to find some of the old ones as engaging as I do.
When I was really young, my Dad bought an Atari 2600 and 5200. Compared to what I played on those systems, Zelda and Metroid was a complete paradigm shift in the way I thought about games. Yes, I'm old (34). Sue me. :D
Title: Re: Metroid (NES)
Post by: UltimatePartyBear on September 14, 2010, 02:53:47 PM
I started gaming on a 2600, too, but I still find Metroid too primitive to enjoy. I would probably like it if I had played it when it was new. I remember being with a couple of kids at school who were talking about it while one drew the other a map from memory. I looked at the map and saw the interconnected horizontal and vertical passages, and then the foreboding note "Metroids!" above one cavern, which struck me like "Here be dragons" on an ancient map of the world. It was a mind-expanding experience just being confronted with that on notebook paper. And yet I didn't get to play the original until years later. I played Metroid II first, and Super Metroid, and it was longer still before I played the original. By then it had nothing left to grab me with.
