LazyBoy

I'm interested in how this turns out, whilst not really wanting to buy it just yet. You've got to consider that Kojima had been wanting to step away from Metal Gear since MGS2 was complete, and so Death Stranding is surely the product of years of pent up ideas and creativity. And yet, could this also be its curse? He is now unbound by the boundaries of the Metal Gear template, so whats to stop him just vomiting up every half arsed idea he has? I fear that he has simply designed a game where the user is asked to walk between a series of sketches, stopping for minutes at a time to listen to some faux-philosophical bollocks. I hope I am proven wrong.

I've been dying to talk to a Blade about how you guys are doing. As someone who is constantly waiting for the emergence of English coaches with modern methods, how excited should we be about Chris Wilder? Every time I have watched you guys I have thought you looked great, and you were robbed by the scousers.

This has been a really interesting discussion, and i think both sides have put up some good points as to why the CotiYTHHE principle (I'm sticking with it) can and can't work. In particular there are two points made by Dcubed that I think are real problem points for that approach. First is to do with difficulty, and in particular how do you scale difficulty when you give the player so much freedom over what order they approach the game in. In the Elder scrolls series we saw this issue play out in the move from Oblivion to Skyrim, and is an something developers are still trying to solve. The second one is creating sufficient content - specifically that when you lower of remove barriers to certain parts of your game you lose the ability to control context, and thus face difficulty in deepening the experience. So Korok seeds are representative of the freedom BotW offers, but are a bit shallow and week as puzzles. You compare that to a puzzle you may encounter in Day of the Tentacles, where you need to have processed the entire narrative and understood all the items you have, and you can see the benefit context has on the complexity a puzzle or challenge can possess. One further point of disagreement I have before I wrap up is this: Now at no point did I user the word realistic, and you should know that I like games to be as abstract and as weird as possible (give me Mario Galaxy's planets over Odyssey's cities every time). I referred to the rules of the game world - as in do the restrictions/freedoms make sense in the context of the game world that the developer has presented to you. Katamari Damacy is not realistic, but it teaches you the realism of its world - namely that if you're big enough you can take it with you. It never betrays this rule, so the game feel fair and the player is free to explore the world/levels within the rules it understands. This is where BotW excels. Its not perfect, but it does so much right. Take lightening - the game will demonstrate to you at least once in the game (if explored) that equipping metal items will cause you to be struck by lightening. What it will never tell you, and is completely up to the player to discover, is that if a metal sword is being held or is even just need a explosive barrel, the lightening will still strike the sword and blow up the barrel, which can be an incredible gambit against enemies. The player has been taught a rule of the world, but is given the freedom to turn it to their advantage. Quite simply, it makes sense that you would be able to use lightening in that way according to the reality of the world that you have been taught. To bring this back to my main point, the open structure demands this kind of rule creation. If this is a Link to the Past style Zelda, then you could still have a puzzle that similarly explores lightening and conductivity. It would probably be in the sky temple or something like that. And because this is a tightly directed game, the game will have probably ensured that you get the 'metal rod' or something like that first before you can solve the puzzle. But in an open structure like BotW you cannot ensure that the player has a metal rod - maybe they skipped that bit. So instead lightening needs to have a universal rule, not a contextual one - it applies regardless of where you are in the game, both in terms of location and progress. And wonderfully BotW manages to have its cake and it eat too - there is a shrine that is unlocked by having it be struck by lightening. But you can attack this puzzle when you want, if you recognize it, and then take those learning and apply them to the rest of the game as you see fit. Player agency at its finest. ------ I think I'm spent on this topic, but I have the feeling that I will devise another controversial topic soon. Keep an eye out.

Thank you Ronnie, platformers are a far more elegant example of the 'everything at the beginning' method. It does not necessarily mean it is a shallow game. By contrast, you can have a game loaded with RPG features, with a massive amount of revealed mechanisms, but it can be quite boring or feel valueless. I think Zelda at its most stale - Skyward Sword imo, still had loads of weapons that you unlocked as you progressed. But exactly because they were not imbedded from the beginning of the game, their use was restircted primarily to the relevant dungeon. What was that spinner thing that was kind of awesome? Used it in the one dungeon and never again (or close, only played it once so please forgive any unintentional hyperbole). Loosening the reigns on how, when and why you acquire and deploy tools and mechanics means the developers have to think harder about how those things interact with the world as a whole, and thus increases their value.

Before I get into this, I must say I'm enjoying this debate enormously. Even if you take that as a truth, which it is not (and again I am for the staggered introduction of mechanics and tools), its does not matter if all the tools are there at the beginning. It only matters if all the mechanics are so simple that you can understand and master them all at the beginning, which - again putting your superb skill with game aside - is unlikely. The environmental systems in BotW are nuanced and ripe for exploitation, but require time with the game to understand. Is a game with impressive mechanical depth which sets it apart from Assasins Creed which is an open but shallow game. You have all the tools you need at your disposal at the beginning of a game of chess. Is Chess fundamentally boring? No its not. In fact not being able to sequence break is fundamentally immersion breaking. Like in RE4 how you couldn't vault a low fence - the moment you experience those kind of restrictions it reminds you you are not in a living world with rules but instead in a corridor decorated by a developer (I love RE4 by the way, nothing against it). Again, that breaking a game is fun is my point. I like how you can exploit BotW by running straight for Ganon, and skipping all the content the developers have created for you. I want Metroid to have that, where they have designed a whole world to explore, but if you want to exploit levels and enemy design to get straight to Dark Samus then great! Movie and Films are fundamentally different mediums and I'm not going to go into why here. But replaying games - are you telling me you replay games the same way every time? In SMB1, do you make all the same mistakes you made the first time you played it? No, you improve, increase running speed, and go for jumps that you would have first time around. Im only asking that you increase the options on the table. Im not in disagreement with you here, balance is of course tantamount, and at no point have I argued in the above post that you have the 'most open game possible'. But the Korok seeds in BotW are not subtracting anything from the game experience, just because there is the possibility that you will miss them entirely. In fact they are adding something because not only is it a puzzle, as expected from any Zelda game, but there is an additional challenge in recognizing that it is a puzzle at all. In going "oh, thats strange", and following your curiosity. Metroid has this already, in the form of suspiciously cracked walls that when bombed reveal missile expansions. Not necessary, very much structured, but not mandated. Same with bigger upgrades like the wavebeam in Prime. So these elements of choice already exist. So the question becomes how far do you extend that choice? Do you only do it for minor items, or do you expand it out to the entirety of the game? Why would you not? Say someone is teaching me chess. They suggest that I start by playing with each of the pieces individually first, learning their movement and tactical importance. As I progress I start using pieces together, and the opponent does the same, scaling both the strategic complexity bu also the difficulty and thus reward. I learn and enjoy the game in an effort-reward cycle. But what if I have played chess before? Why can't we just go straight into a game of chess? If I lose I can always go back and progress the learning curve. But why force it on me? What is the benefit?

Hold up - you're disposing of BotW as a comparison because the ease with which you completed it made it boring, so you're turning to Zero Mission instead? I sleepwalked through Zero Mission it was so easy. That's the problem with 'designing' ways to break the game - they rarely meet the necessary level of challenge. As for glitches and bugs, I just on a conceptual level think that having purposely broken parts of the game is stupid. You're solution for giving the players the room for lateral thinking is that they have to clip through the environment and completely ruin any immersion the world that has been created? How is that better than just preventative difficulty? And no I disagree fundamentally that you need to have one specific way of beating the game. The joy of revisiting a game is by beating it in different ways. What is the point of playing it again if you can only beat it the one way you have already beat it? Wheres the enjoyment in that? You acknowledge the importance of multiple paths to give players the 'feeling' of freedom. Well why not just give them actual freedom? You can have your multiple paths (again, the path up river to Zora's domain v scaling the cliffs around it), but it exist within a context that trusts the player. Not a simpler Option A or Option B, but also the option to select neither A or B and do your own thing. If you have designed your options well enough the player will want to engage with them, leaving them the freedom to miss it out on their next playthrough should they fancy it. What is wrong with giving players that freedom?

Sorry Dcubed but I really must be communicating my ideas badly, because in that last post you seem to denounce things Im not suggesting and then almost agree with me by the end. Also quick note to say well done on beating BotW immediately, you must have some skill. I certainly am not on that level, as I imagine most are not. Again I am asking for a lock and key structure, or as I have referred to it above 'gating' (gates can have locks right?). What I am saying is design the game so those of sufficient skill can by-pass the locks, so the next time I play the game I can approach it in a different way. You advocate for this yourself: This is all I am asking for! Just instead of it being done through glitching (as Prime speedrunners seem to be dependent on), do it through skill and knowledge. And again, I am not asking for the complete removal of structured sequences, just as there are structured sequences in BoTW I would want them in Metroid. I would want more of them, and certainly in a tighter map structure (again, more dark souls then BotW), but skip-able IF the players has the ability and knowledge. On the doors, ask yourself this. if Metroid was a new game, about a bounty hunter in space, alone on alien world progressing through dangerous terrain, would one of your design choices be to have a door every 30-40 meters? Would you divide the entire world up into Gamecube RAM friendly rooms? Would the progress of Samus Aran, the Hunter, be deemed not by her ability to fell massive beasts, leap across gorges or crack alien technology (puzzles), or would it be because she couldn't open a door? Think bigger, that's all I'm saying.

Sorry if I haven't made this clear enough in my earlier posts, but I am in no way advocating giving players every ability at the start of the game, and for the record neither does BotW. You get three runes yes, but looked at in the context of the ultimate aim of the game - defeating Ganon - you cannot say that it gives you all the abilities at the start. Apologies for the lack of clarity of this next part, but from my memory I remember a very specific dialogue in BotW where the game proposes 3 options of how to approach the ascent of Hyrule Castle: Swimming up the waterfalls, gliding over from a high place, or just riding a horse right through the gauntlet. Now look at those three options and consider whether you have everything you need to do that at the start: Swimming up the waterfalls - you need the power from the Zora domain Gliding over - you need increased stamina and probably the jump boost thingy from the bird people (urgh, details) Powering through - you'll need a horse, good kit, and probably plenty of hearts This does ignore the option of just powering through with only what you have at the start - but did anyone actually do that? Did you? Did anyone reading this just go straight to Ganon after the plateau on their first playthrough, and beat him? For the vast majority of players you are still having to progress through structured parts of the game (the walk to Zora's domain for example) on at least one playthrough, because even though it is not impossible to ignore all those areas and go straight to Ganon, practically it's not going to happen. The lock n'key structure is still there in Zelda (the waterfalls are the lock, the zora armour the key), as I am advocating for it to be in Metroid. The difference in what I am asking for is that if you're confident enough in your own abilities, you can skip the key and kick the door down. Two things here: You don't need coloured doors to guide players down recommended routes - there are a myriad examples across gaming where developers have used other prompts, such as clever visual clues to indicate the way forward - take the dueling peaks in BotW, which is immediately enticing when seen from a distance. Follow it and you'll find yourself on the path to Karariko. Building a game with steady progression is also not at odds with what I am proposing. Dark souls leads you through the Undead Burg with a steady, increasing difficulty, first teaching you how to deal with melee encounters, then ranged, then both. But, if I have played the game already, why shouldn't I be able to do the catacombs first? What benefit is there to the player in flat out denying options for how they progress through the game?

Haven't played Link Between Worlds yet (waiting for the Switch release). Same as you though, the suits are one of my favourite parts of Metroid (and may in fact be my favourite part of Echoes). But why put a hard gate there? Take the Varia suit - usually used in the games in combination with a lava filled area to gate progress to a new area. Why not design this gate to be extremely difficult to traverse, but not impossible. So for first time, maybe even second time players it might as well be impossible for them to cross this lava filled room without the Varia suit. Your health will drain too quickly, and the panic of it all means you'll have too much trouble defeating the enemies in the room. Go elsewhere, find the suit instead, and get better at the game whilst experiencing a more manageable challenge for your current skill level. But if you are on your third playthrough, you've gotten some easy tanks early on and maybe picked up a double jump out of sequence, why should not I be able to give it a go? If I have both the confidence and ability to try it, and have already played the game twice whilst experiencing everything it has to offer, then what is the harm?

I was considering that as well - please don't hate me but I think of the feeling of exploring a cave in minecraft, and get a lot of the same chills as I do in a Metroid. However procedural can feel cheap, and as a Metroid fan I would feel slightly cheated to not have hand crafted environments ready for me when I play the game. As an extra, possibly post game mode though? Somewhere between The Trials of the Sword and Spelunky? Why not, can only lengthen the game.

This is a really valid point, and one which I tried to address but I'll say a little more on. Firstly you're right, what really sets Metroid apart is that atmosphere that is generated is the unknown depths of its worlds. The feelings of loneliness and isolation feed the fear of being lost deep in a cave system, with no glimpse of daylight. And I would not want lose those areas neither, give me all the subterranean systems you can muster. But from how I look at it the addition of large open spaces, or even just areas that are somewhere in between in terms of size, only help to accentuate the foreboding of closed spaces that are encountered later. Look at the first big open space in Phendrana drifts - beautifully atmospheric, calming, full of light. I want to stay in this place, and only fear the coming tunnels more because I have seen the beauty of Phendrana. A better comparison would be the nearby tower area. Very much an open area, very much not a cave. But challenging in a different way - Space Pirates now have the full verticality of the open sky in which they can maneuver around you. This change-up in environments only makes the game richer, not poorer. Also please take my recommendation to play Dark Souls - its a landmark game and should be enjoyed by everyone. Im always available for co-op assistance if you need it.

Thanks for the replies guys. Both of you raise the point about potential reception from the Metroid fan base, and though that may be true (and I would certainly want to hear more opinions), I am not going to take too much time debating it here. After all they may not receive the changes with open arms, but it doesn't mean they're right. Thank god developers didn't listen to the backlash when first person Metroid Prime was announced, or cel-shaded Zelda, or over-the-shoulder RE4. Can't be scared to change things up. I'm not suggesting immediate access to all gear - as I say here: You still have gear scattered about the world, with higher value items hidden in deeper caves and behind bigger baddies. However said items are not in anyway necessary to complete the game, just incredibly useful, and possibly even vital for a first time player. Think Link acquiring the master sword in BotW. That is not at all what I am trying to suggest, so apologies if it has come across that way. As I say above, I like structured games, and in no way am I suggesting that linear world design is 'inherently bad' compared to open world. I'll leave to one side your own opinion about the quality of open world games (though I concur there are some very dull ones out there, just like there are some very dull linear games), and I will agree with you that making these world's 'tight' is challenging. However I do reject the idea that open worlds can't be engaging. You can't spend 100 hours in Hyrule without being engaged by it - otherwise why would you bother exploring? And exploration is why there is a valid comparison between Zelda and Metroid. They are after all both adventure/exploration games, that 'gate' an open world (as opposed to say Mario which works in levels). The differences between the two lay mostly in their mood/aesthetic and movement/combat systems. So while not everything needs to be open world, I think Metroid is already there in many elements. My submission is only that you remove hard gating. Encourage the players to explore easier areas first, acquiring power ups that allow you to face the challenges of hard areas later. However if it is your third run through the game, and you fancy skipping an area, then the game should have the confidence to lay down that challenge to the player. If the game has done its job - engaged the player long enough that it can teach the player its mechanics and nurture skill - then surely it is a success if the players has both the confidence and ability to cut through the game. After all, you both refer to the Metroid community - well what about its speedrunning community? Is there a game more synonymous with speedrunning than Metroid? Super Metroid introduced certain mechanics that practically invited sequence skipping. Well what's the difference here? Forgive me but I'll skip your point about development effort - I'm purely talking in hypothetical terms here, and have no interest in being drawn into a debate about the theoretical development capacity of a game studio.

So I was watching this video on Youtube about how Metroid Prime is a masterpiece. I've been in a bit of a Metroidvania love-in recently, partly just because of how well the genre has evolved, especially having played the brilliant hollow knight. These games always leave an impression on me (the good ones that is), because of how the genre demands the player interacts with the environment - the player character in hollow knight is very much an extension of the world around him, and that is communicated not just by its aesthetics but by its lore. In the video the author draws a parallel between the way Dark Souls, like Metroid, gets more fun the more you play it, as you revisit areas that once challenged you, but now is enjoyably surmountable with the addition of stronger gear. Now I would argue Dark Souls is the best of these recent metroidvanias. I would not be surprised if some disagree with me on the categorisation, but you cannot deny a lot of the elements that could be classed as metroidvania-esque are present. The RPG levelling elements (which in Metroid would be the increasing health bar, bomb stock etc), the lore and aesethtics of a connected world, and most importantly the gating of progression. In Dark Souls this would be tough obstacles in the form of monsters to beat, in Metroid its locked doors. Same concept, different execution. As a stone cold Metroid fan (though I think Prime is the best - dont try to change my mind), Ive been gagging for news on what Prime 4 is going to be like, but nothing has been released. The mind is thus drawn to anticipation, and expectations start to build. I love the Prime trilogy, but even its biggest fan has to admit they were running out of ideas by the third one. The whole ‘Halo’ angle?, not here thank you very much. Metroid has to evolve, and I can’t imagine I would be the only one who would be slightly disappointed if Prime 4 turned out to just be a rehash of the prime trilogies best bits. It's been a long time now since Prime came out, and the series has to evolve. But how? We can look at Dark Souls for sure. Its world lore is second to none, woven into every enemy, item and location. This is something Metroid Prime did well with the scanner, but Dark Souls really took to the next level. But Metroid ain't Dark Souls, and I think it Metroid would be better served looking closer to home for inspiration. Enter BOTW. Breath of the Wild’s most significant departure from the Zelda formal was its removal of hard gates between the player and ‘beating’ the games; collect three orbs to open the door to the boss and then go beat him before getting to the next gate. BoTW said bugger that, we’re going to institute what I call the “Come on then if you think you’re hard enough” gambit. If you’re feeling confident, you’re able to take the ultimate test the game has to offer as soon as you want. The game is confident you won’t be able to, but it lets you have a go. Its brilliant gamemaking and I won’t hear anything to the contrary. The gamemakers have bet that you will register the threat, recognise your deficiencies and engage with less threatening areas of the game first in the hope of finding the means of overcoming the big bad. Look, you may like more structured games - good, I do to. But just look at how many ways BoTW has been torn apart for lets plays, speed runs, trick videos, fan art - all because it has given fans the confidence to interact with the world in continually inventive ways due to their love of the game and the choice it affords. Seen this video of this guy beating the game with only a shield? There’s loads of this stuff out there, and its a reflection of the impact this game has made. Lets get back to Metroid, and apply the CotiYTYHE Gambit (patent pending). What if you just stuck Dark Samus at the other side of the map, and said ‘Go on then’. Well if you’re structuring the game the same way as Zelda, its possible (speed runners will rinse it before long), but first time players will be a too large a disadvantage by the absence of a double jump, super missiles or spiderballs. They will explore the rest of the world instead, visiting quieter areas first for lower level gear, before progressing to areas identified of possessing bigger risks, but greater rewards. There can still be puzzle elements, but make them environmental. Doors shouldn’t unlock when you beat all the enemies (why would they?) but if there is a puzzle or obstacle in the room, you’re going to want to clear out the enemies in the area first. Implemented correctly in a well designed open world would also allow you to get rid of that most archaic of Metroid tentpoles - the doors. Despite it gameplay value, doors were most probably originally implemented due the memory restrictions of the Switch’s bigger brothers. We can handle larger contiguous worlds now, so can we be rid of the non-puzzle that is red gun opens red door? Have enemies and environmental hazard be the doors. And sure you can run past them, but how long is your little walkabout going to last with only one tank? Think instead of a world that can use closed underground tunnels (good for doors), but also large open spaces. Contrasting these two gives more value to the world, not less. Look at the contrast between the Depths and Anor Londo in Dark Souls, which is taken one step further in DS3 by contrasting the shadowed close hallways of the catacombs with the majestic spacious light of Irithyll. Zelda not too long ago was stuck in a similar rut to what Metroid is now - I look at Skyward Sword and see a game devoid of ideas of how the larger game should be structured. You may disagree. But I see BoTW has having reinvigorated the franchise, thanks to the developers having the confidence to lay down the gauntlet and say “beat it any way you want.” I would hope the Retro guys have the same confidence in their own game design. p.s. dont know why its bold

This is certainly the most excited I have ever been about a generation coming through the United academy. You have to stay calm though, as the brightest talents - Garner, Greenwood, Tuanzebe and my personal favourite Gomes - are still yet to show they can make the step up. However if even 1 or 2 of them can make it, combined with the already established Rashford, Wan-Bisaka & Shaw and you're looking at an English backbone that could be at the club for 10 years. Zooming out from an England fan perspective, you've got to applaud the reforms that have been implemented, as you say Nick. Put aside the lack of controlling midfielders, and there is talent coming through everywhere on the pitch. It's a crying shame 2022 is Qatar, because I think we've got a hell of a chance.

New Game+, and thank god I did. It was the Battalions that tipped the whole thing in my favour eventually (though I still lost a unit in the process).

Wonder whether we'll get an entire weeks worth of analysis like we did with the Pogba penalty a couple weeks ago.

Just finished the church route in my first playthrough (didn't realise it was an option until I was 5 chapters in). Couldn't feel like I could really appreciate the systems because it was so easy. So I've now started with the Blue Lions on the new Maddening difficultly, and bugger me its difficult. I'm on the first chapter, and have seen the game over screen for the first time (and then like 10 times since). Anyone else trying it?

Strange start to the season so far. United have had what many would consider a disastrous start, yet we're in 4th and only 2 points behind City. With the exception of Liverpool (who have had an easy start, lets see where they are at the end of October) everyone has had a rather unremarkable first 5. The answer must lie with teams who we expect to normally finish lower down the league, all of whom have already won a game. The only two teams without a win are Wolves and Watford, which is mad considering many expected them to break top 6 this year. So maybe the league is just leveling out a bit more in terms of quality? One thing is for sure, next time the international games roll around I think we're going to see a lot of new faces in the England team. There's some really exciting talent coming through (especially at United, Chelsea, Norwich, Leicester, Arsenal). Shaping up to be a good season.

Jonnas can you please stop correcting me whilst I'm drinking, you're killing my buzz.

What a post, thank you for the explanation. I'm thinking though that maybe they'll lean more on the beat-em-up history, just because it then differentiates from Ken & Ryu. Watching some footage of FInal Fight it looks like a lot of side scrolling beat em up's in that success depends a lot on your movement, spacing and zoning (with throws being a big part of this). So maybe he'll be more of a zoning character? I

Thanks guys, great games!

To the people that played Final Fight, in what way we're the combo systems different to street fighter, that we could possibly see reflected with Terry in Smash?

Just watched it during the commute. Incredible the amount of stuff I would happily play - really does seem a world away from the dark days of the GameCube. Return of the Obra Dinn is the one I'm most excited about. I've heard great things about it, but I really dislike playing things on the PC.

Day 1. Links Awakening can wait.

Films cost more than ever to make, so studio execs are more risk averse than ever. Go with what you know works.