Hey Sean Malstrom,
.
I really enjoy your articles, and your passion for gaming inspired me to go back and play some of the “classics”. I’ve realized some interesting things and I wanted to hear your thoughts. First of all, you’ve been right all along about how the original Zelda games felt like an action-RPG and become progressively more “puzzle-ized” as the series continues. In the context of Legend of Zelda (and other NES games of the time), LoZ 2 does not feel out of place one bit. I have Phantom Hourglass on the DS and the difference is like night and day: one is the perilous journey of a warrior in a mysterious land, and the other is a goofy Saturday morning cartoon with Blue’s Clues-style puzzles. I’m sure you know which game is which. You have mentioned several times in your articles how many gamers feel entitled to beat a game, and developers cater to that mindset. As I go back and play some of these older games, I realize that the ones I enjoy most are the ones that do not let you win easily. It’s refreshing. If this design philosophy was replicated today, I’d probably buy MORE games and put MORE hours into gaming. When I go to the game store, there’s a little voice in the back of my mind pretty much saying “alright, here we are again. Try to pick out a game with enough redeemable elements so that you don’t get bored…” I’m getting BORED! I am rarely excited for games. Rather, I’m trying to stave off boredom. It’s really sad. The last game I really enjoyed was Demon’s Souls. It has its own issues, and ultimately it’s not that difficult of a game, but at least it tries to be difficult in a genuine way instead of being cheap. Oh, and at least you can skip tutorials. Oh, and at least they don’t play a 15-second player insult (a.k.a cutscene) that spins around the boss and points at his glowing weak spot with a bright red arrow.
Second of all, I don’t know if we will ever receive a “good ol’ Metroid” like the original, but that has nothing to do with Sakamoto or Nintendo’s direction. Metroid is a tough game, but it’s also the ONLY tough game in the series when compared to the others. Even at the beginning of the series, I don’t think the developers understood what made the game great, because they did not replicate it a single time since. I’ve died a minimum of forty times since starting up Metroid last week, and I’ve only just begun exploring Kraid’s area. I have two blocks of health, 20 missiles, morph ball bombs, and the Long shot. Of course, when I begin the game, my health is a measly 35 because I’ve died so often and I can’t manage to stock up much health. Now, to contrast, I booted up a brand new file in Metroid II (which was my very first Metroid game and holds a special place in my heart). Right off the bat, I have one full health block (99 health) and 20 missiles. The player also has the Morph ball at the beginning. Not only can you shoot up and forward, but the “Long shot” seems built in. You can also shoot down when you jump in the air, which eliminates the need for ball + bomb in a lot of instances. Within the first 20 minutes of play (I know you hate to hear about “time commitment” instead of where you are in the game, but let’s roll with it), I’ve already acquired an extra Health tank, four missile upgrades, the Ice Beam, and the Spider Ball. And keep in mind that I’m not getting these in super-secret areas. They’re pretty much placed in your path. There is even a room that has THREE missile upgrades in it. And the enemies do a lot less damage, so I’ve never come close to dying.
As a consequence, THE GAME IS BORING. I’m gritting my teeth a bit as I say it because I still love the game so much from a nostalgia/comfort standpoint, but even though Metroid II has more upgrades, more weapons, more frequent bosses, a better save system, and in many cases better sprite quality, I keep going back to the original Metroid. Hey, but at least Metroid II has a bit of freedom. After booting up Super Metroid, I was really thrown by the reduction of freedom. Look, I have no problem with the premise. Baby Metroid escaped, bad people are here, blah blah blah. But please, let me explore. Let me find the weapons on my own. Nope, we want you to watch this thing explode. We want you to use X item on Y problem ad nauseum.
.
This problem gets worse and worse until we have the piece de resistance, Metroid Fusion. In many ways, it is the worst because the 2D sidescrolling tricks you into thinking “ah, a good ol’ Metroid game”. At least Metroid Other M has the decency of informing me I won’t like it by adding Ninja Gaiden battles and cutscenes right at the beginning.
.
.
You shouldn’t really apply the same console standards to the handheld games. Especially the original Gameboy games.
It might have said Metroid II, but it was really just handheld Metroid. I do remember back then people being unhappy that they were treating the Gameboy version as the sequel with the II.
Super Mario Land is a crappy Mario game. Despite that, it is consistently fun, charming, and very well done for being a launch Gameboy game. It would be unfair to compare Super Mario Land to its console cousins. Despite the inferior hardware, Super Mario Land also had to be designed for portable play.
I think the same applies with Metroid II. When Metroid II came out, I was amazed because the game was very lengthy for a Gameboy game. What else is there close to comparison when it came out? Exactly. There wasn’t a long adventure game on the Gameboy yet.
I remember Metroid II being the scariest Metroid game. The game was eerily silent until you’d enter the wrong passageway and a mutated Metroid would attack you with lightning bolts and all. The sound effects! The awful sound effects that screamed through the headphones and made your spine freeze.
The Gameboy couldn’t really handle action too well. The screen was too tiny. Everything was green. And you couldn’t really see moving objects too well or follow them with your eyes. It was just with this generation with the DS that portable screens are now very nicely lit and clear. It seemed as if Metroid II was emphasized on scouting the ruins for these Metroids making you do things like spiderball climb on these vast, vast caverns. Or space jump through these massive, massive caverns. I rather liked the scale, now that I think about it. (Super Metroid’s space jumping seems so small in comparison.)
As an action game, Metroid II is pretty boring. But I think they designed the game around the limitations of the hardware (and that it was a portable game) so they made more emphasis on moving around caverns exploring for the Metroids you were supposed to shoot down.
I don’t remember anyone being disappointed to Metroid II when it was out. The only thing I do remember was that people were upset that the portable game was the ‘sequel’. I think there were many people wishing for Metroid II on the NES (which would have been damn cool). Or even as an early SNES game (Super Metroid came out the year as Donkey Kong Country in 1994. Eight years after Metroid I).
I don’t think Metroid was a fluke. I think the reason why we are not getting games of the same quality is because petty egos inside Nintendo (much of these egos are tilting their game ideas the wrong way. An example would be tilting Zelda more toward ‘story’ because everyone believes he or she is a natural storyteller.)
In 2005 or was it GDC 2006, at some restaurant Reggie Fils-Aime asked some game industry people, “How would you market the successor to Super Mario World to a generation raised on Grand Theft Auto?” Nintendo saw Super Mario Galaxy as the successor to Super Mario World. It wasn’t, of course. The true successor to Super Mario World would be Super Mario Brothers 5. Interestingly, at the time, our ‘hardcore’ gamer friends told us that there is no need to make new 2d Mario. And if there is, it should only be for the handhelds. Not for consoles! This made no sense to me. But miraculously, we got a 2d Mario for the home console. It’s sales power, and hardware selling power, is undeniable.
This is so important because we got lucky. If Nintendo had waited to the 3DS to make another Mario game, we would not have had NSMB DS. We would have had a 3d Mario because the 3d aspects of 3DS mean every game will be ’3d’. And without NSMB DS, there would be no NSMB Wii.
For some reason, Nintendo is treating the “character” properties of Mario, Zelda, and Metroid differently from their other games. Developers are abusing them to use their ‘visions’ or to explore ‘gameplay experiments’ or ’3d experiments’ and abusing the install base for these franchises. If Aonuma made the same exact game but it didn’t have Zelda in it, would anyone buy it? No.
In your email, you speak of Metroid as a GAME. The GAME was you, the player, going forth the alien obstacles and trying to keep your health from too low to avoid dying. It was like you versus Planet Zebes itself.
Metroid was not an ‘experience’.
Metroid was not a ‘surprise’.
Metroid was a game. The slogan used to be “The name of the game is games!” Today, Nintendo says, “We don’t make games. We make EXPERIENCES. We make SURPRISES.” And we say, “You make garbage.” Software such as Other M was never designed to be a ‘game’. It was designed to be an ‘experience’. This is why gamers are so hostile to cutscene heavy software. They are not games. We are not ‘playing’ them. We are not a ‘player’. We are a passive or manipulated audience. And this goes against the entire grain of why we play games. It would be as absurd as playing Double Dragon and hear Billy and Jimmy talk about their feelings for Marion. It is insulting not in the Metroid fan sense but in the consumer sense. We thought we were spending money to buy a game but we ended up getting ripped off. What we got was not a ‘video game’ but a ‘digital experience’ or whatever you want to call it. And worse this ‘digital experience’ was using the Metroid brand as a trojan horse to wheel it into our homes. That is the true source for the anger.
Now that Nintendo has received a wake-up clue to the true nature of what the audience wants from its Mario game, my thoughts bend more toward Zelda. The solution isn’t as simple as ’2d Zelda!’, but I think the arcade/RPG combination gets the point across. It will take more Zelda failure before Nintendo tries something as rationally simple as designing Zelda as an arcade/RPG game.
I want Mario and Zelda restored back to their former glory. Mario is almost there. Almost. Nintendo needs to realize that Super Mario Brothers is not just gameplay tricks and traps but also an exploration of the Mushroom Kingdom. What is the effect of the blue sky but to suggest you are exploring an actual world?
Zelda is an arcade/RPG that is a grand journey across a dangerous but magical Hyrule. It is that simple. Simple concepts are also easier to sell. And Zelda was easy to explain to people who had never played it before. I think when Skyward Sword doesn’t create the ‘phenomenon’, Nintendo will be crushed and go back again at the drawing boards. It is then I hope the idea of an acrade/RPG takes hold. It could come to fruit as easily as making a 3DS game of “New Legend of Zelda” (this would be a partial solution). Nintendo would then be puzzled as to why such a New Legend of Zelda is getting people so excited and why the sales keep spreading and spreading. (That is where Nintendo is now with 2d Mario. They seem surprised that NSMB Wii will sell hardware and keep selling but are confused why Galaxy 2 hits a ceiling and causes no hardware sales. It’s no surprise to us, of course.)
With Mario and Zelda restored, I will be happy. It is two out of the three which is probably the best we can hope for. I think Metroid is a lost cause now.
Nintendo is so far off the reservation, I don’t even know where to start. Their premise on Metroid is that it is the grand vision of Sakamoto who watches Italian movies and has long hair. The premise is that Metroid is popular because of ‘maternal instincts’ and because of the characterization of Samus Aran. What. The. F***.
How can you get a crazier premise than that? How do you respond to that? Any response revolves around, “Sakamoto is not a creative god and his ‘vision’ of what is Metroid is irrelevant,” instantly has Nintendo clam up, circle the wagons around precious Sakamoto, and say, “But Sakamoto is a creative genius. The problem is with you, the fans, who imagined Samus Aran differently than the one who has the true vision.”
There’s nothing to work with here. I don’t see a way how to bridge Nintendo into restoring Metroid back with that insane god worship over there.
Look at what it took just to get Nintendo make freaking Super Mario Brothers again. It was not easy. And getting Nintendo to restore Zelda is going to be much, much harder.
I don’t see a way with Metroid. It is too far gone. When the definition of Metroid is defined solely by an eccentric developer who is absolutely convinced that people play Metroid for ‘maternal instincts’, where do you go from there?
With Mario and Zelda, you get the impression that Nintendo was trying to fix them. The way how Mario Galaxy games were made seemed as if Nintendo was trying to fix Mario. The way how Nintendo is going about with Zelda seems to be as if Nintendo is trying to fix it.
But I don’t get that sense with Metroid. I get the impression that Sakamoto is convinced that ‘he has a story in him’ and the focus is not how to fix Metroid but how to get us to embrace his vision (e.g. Nintendo blaming the fans’ previous imagination as to why they didn’t embrace Other M). Metroid cannot be fixed because Sakamoto doesn’t want it fixed. He has a vision he has spent a decade or two ‘dreaming’ about. Other M is just the beginning. God help us.
And now, emailer, let us address the Unfortunate-Nintendo-Employee-Assigned-To-Read-This-Website (quite unfortunate. You knew he drew the small straw!).
Nintendo would never make a Nintendogs, a Wii Fit, or a Wii Sports based on a “vision”. Or based on a story. How stupid would that be? Nintendogs with a story? Wii Fit with a story and NPCs? STUPID! Yet, that is exactly how it feels with Mario, Zelda, and Metroid.
Nintendogs, Wii Fit, and Wii Sports (and let’s throw in Tetris for good measure too) are fundamentally games. They are not ‘experiences’. They are games.
Customers see Mario, Zelda, and Metroid as games. As games, they are meant to be played. Customers do NOT see Mario, Zelda, and Metroid as characters to ‘get to know better’. They are avatars for the player. I consider Mario the very first Mii.
Nintendo developers see Mario, Zelda, and Metroid as characters, not games. This explains why new Mario, Zelda, and Metroid games are not actually Mario, Zelda, and Metroid games despite the characters and themes appearing in both.
Fans of Super Mario Brothers did not accept 3d Mario as a Mario game, no matter how many symphonic orchestras were put in, because 3d Mario is a different game than Super Mario Brothers. With NSMB, these players see it as the first real Mario game in decades despite all the other Mario themed games.
Zelda will keep becoming the butt of jokes and being in decline until the game is addressed. What keeps being addressed and ‘fixed’ with Zelda has not been the game but the ‘character’ and how the character is ‘portrayed’ (e.g. the art style). The reason why Zelda has had a hit to its reputation is because it is not much of a game anymore. Instead, Zelda keeps trying to be an experience. We don’t want experiences. We want a game.
The reason why people complain about Other M is because it is not much of a game. The player is not allowed to play. Instead, it seems as if the developers ‘played’.
I think Nintendo’s biggest problem is that it is confusing the experience and the game to think the two are the same. They are not.
Reader, did you ever throw your NES controller at the wall? Did you ever swear nasty things when playing Mario Kart (especially when the princess tossed that toadstool at you)? I know you did.
Was it a pleasant experience? No.
Was Ghosts and Goblins ever a ‘great experience’? NO!
But they were GREAT GAMES. Part of the requirements of a game is being able to lose. And losing sucks. The Golden Age of Video Games is punctuated with controllers flying into walls and screams at the TV. Trying to make software into ‘Yellow Brick Road’ experiences ends up eliminating the game inside. What’s the point of playing a game if you cannot lose? If you cannot be humiliated?
The best video games are not the ones that have the best experiences but the ones that have the worst. A good game allows both the high and low. By trying to eliminate the low, you end up eliminating the high as well. And the result is we get a big pile of digital blah.
Do you think it is a coincidence that in Wii Sports or Wii Fit, you can make an absolute fool of yourself? Consistent ‘good’ “experiences” make bad games.
