Lazy thought: Metroid should learn something from BotW

[LazyBoy]

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
 

[Ronnie]

I’m on my phone so can’t reply properly but what I would say is Metroid fans have been starved of decent games lately and so such a big departure from what the series is known for might not be received well. 

Zelda meanwhile had 16 previous games that followed the same or a similar formula so fans were mostly happy to see them try something different. 

[Glen-i]

9 hours ago, Ronnie said:

I’m on my phone so can’t reply properly but what I would say is Metroid fans have been starved of decent games lately and so such a big departure from what the series is known for might not be received well. 

This is the biggest thing to note. The Metroid community are some of the whiniest, stubbornest gamers of all. Any kind of deviation gets them up in arms.

There's one thing with the argument that Metroid should be more like BOTW that I don't think would work as well. And that's the suit upgrades themselves.

In BOTW, you're pretty much given your entire toolset in the opening area. And the world is designed with that in mind. You give Samus her entire toolset in the opening area and she becomes an unstoppable destruction machine.

10 hours ago, LazyBoy said:

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?

Yeah... I'm sick to death of this rhetoric that structured, linear world design is somehow inherently bad compared to open-world games.

I've yet to play a single open-world that hasn't bored me to tears. Open-worlds and tight, engaging world design are just incompatible as far as I'm concerned. Something has to give.

Another thing to take into account is the sheer amount of time it takes to make something as gargantuan as BOTW. Metroid Prime 4 just had to be restarted from scratch, and you want it to go huge? Sure, you tell people they'll have to wait another 7 years for Metroid Prime 4, see how well that will go over.

And despite all that, this is the kicker. Why do two Nintendo series need to be the same? Especially with a BOTW 2 on the way, MP4 following in its foot stamps would just look sad in comparison.

I've said this with Pokémon and I'll say it with any series that uses some form gatekeeping to keep you on some kind of set path. Not everything needs to be open-world. There's already plenty of those games littering gaming these days. And they're dull. I can only think of a game where Samus doesn't need all her stuff to get to places she needs to go boring me to tears.

If the force behind Zelda couldn't pull it off, I doubt much smaller Retro Studios can either.

[LazyBoy]

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.

1 hour ago, Glen-i said:

There's one thing with the argument that Metroid should be more like BOTW that I don't think would work as well. And that's the suit upgrades themselves.

In BOTW, you're pretty much given your entire toolset in the opening area. And the world is designed with that in mind. You give Samus her entire toolset in the opening area and she becomes an unstoppable destruction machine.

I'm not suggesting immediate access to all gear - as I say here:

11 hours ago, LazyBoy said:

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.

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.

 

1 hour ago, Glen-i said:

Yeah... I'm sick to death of this rhetoric that structured, linear world design is somehow inherently bad compared to open-world games.

I've yet to play a single open-world that hasn't bored me to tears. Open-worlds and tight, engaging world design are just incompatible as far as I'm concerned. Something has to give.

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.

 

Edited September 24, 2019 by LazyBoy

[Sheikah]

So I was watching

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.

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
 

Nice post. I definitely agree with the comment about the doors, I remember in MP1 you would shoot a door to open it and it wouldn't always open immediately because the loading wasn't done. So as this shouldn't be an issue anymore; they could do away with the doors and open the game up more in the process.

Another thing to note, in response to people saying it would annoy the existing hardcore fans, is that Metroid isn't anywhere near as popular a series as many of Nintendo's others. In this way, Metroid might well be the perfect candidate to receive the BoTW treatment of a big revamp in order to see the game appeal to many more people.

For reference, the best selling Metroid game is the original Metroid Prime, but even that only sold 2.82 million units:



In contrast, 2D Mario/Mario Kart sold tens of millions of copies on Wii, while Mario Galaxy and Smash each sold around 10 million. For a Switch comparison, MP3 sold just 1.63 million copies - on one of the best selling consoles of all time.

Sorry to bring this to sales talk but from Nintendo's view, at Metroid Prime's last outing on Wii there were only 1.63 million people buying it. It wouldn't be crazy to think they are less bothered about annoying a relatively small number of people if they bring in a lot more players.

[ThiophenSJ]

I read the previous comments and ideas and want to add another thought here:

How well would an open world Metroid work, considering that Metroid games are mostly played out in caves or facilities? Sure, Super Metroid has Crateria. Metroid Prime has the Tallon Overworld. But the biggest parts of the games are still in secluded areas. And that's not because the games have to be linear, that's because secluded, dark and lonely places are what makes part of the Metroid vibe. I think when you ask people about their favorite area of the games you will very often hear Brinstar or Norfair for Super Metroid and the Magmoor Caverns or the Phazon Mines for Metroid Prime. And while it would likely be possible to create a mostly underground open world game (haven't played Dark Sould, so dunno about those), I personally think that the execution of this might be difficult. What's more, "secluded and lonely" is not something you would like from an open world game.

BotW was great for Zelda. But Metroid Prime 4 can stay in its roots in my opinion.

Edited September 24, 2019 by ThiophenSJ

[Sheikah]

I read the previous comments and ideas and want to add another thought here:
How well would an open world Metroid work, considering that Metroid games are mostly played out in caves or facilities? Sure, Super Metroid has Crateria. Metroid Prime has the Tallon Overworld. But the biggest parts of the games are still in secluded areas. And that's not because the games have to be linear, that's because secluded, dark and lonely places are what makes part of the Metroid vibe. I think when you ask people about their favorite area of the games you will very often hear Brinstar or Norfair for Super Metroid and the Magmoor Caverns or the Phazon Mines for Metroid Prime. And while it would likely be possible to create a mostly underground open world game (haven't played Dark Sould, so dunno about those), I personally think that the execution of this might be difficult. What's more, "secluded and lonely" is not something you would like from an open world game.
BotW was great for Zelda. But Metroid Prime 4 can stay in its roots in my opinion.

I'm not sure he suggested it be open world, just removing the locked doors and open up the levels more, and let you tackle areas in whichever order you want.

[S.C.G]

5 minutes ago, Sheikah said:

Sorry to bring this to sales talk but from Nintendo's view, at Metroid Prime's last outing on Wii there were only 1.63 million people buying it. It wouldn't be crazy to think they are less bothered about annoying a relatively small number of people if they bring in a lot more players.

Sales are a valid point though, ultimately if Nintendo didn't think it would be worth their while then they wouldn't bother making Metroid games any more but I'd love to see them sell well.

That's not to say that I'd want Metroid Prime 4 changed into something unrecognisable just to make it sell loads though, there has to be a balance here.

I hear what you're saying though, from a business perspective Nintendo might be willing to be a bit bolder with the Metroid series but there's definitely a list of things with Metroid which we now know work and a list of things which clearly don't thanks to recent entries in the franchise.

Metroid: Other M and Metroid: Samus Returns both demonstrate that close-quarters combat can work in addition to blasting stuff and that it can add to the gameplay.

Open-World elements could work but only to a certain extent, and open-ended approach to level design which gives the player more options or agency however? That would work.

Another thing which has become popular in Metroidvania titles of late is proceedurally generated environments, again this has its advantages and disadvantages as when it's done right it can bolster the gameplay but if it's poorly executed then it can ruin the whole thing; I'm not sure if something like that would be a good fit for the series.

If there were more varied paths to take during the game which would lead to you picking up power-ups in a slightly different order, giving access to areas which other players who made a different choice earlier in the game wouldn't be able to find until later or taking one of the other paths after doubling back or finding a new shortcut... something like that has potential from a game design perspective.

There's no easy answer, I'm just glad that Nintendo are still making Metroid games and that we'll hopefully have Metroid Prime 4 to look forward to in the coming years in whatever form it takes and of course there have been many different approaches to the Metroidvania genre in the years since Metroid Prime 3 so it would be good if some inspiration from other modern titles could be taken, so long as they fit with some of the more established elements in the Metroid series.

I'd be open to some compromises if it makes the game better overall though and I have a feeling that with the Switch userbase only growing, there will be more people willing to give a Metroid game a chance, especially with Super Metroid now on the SNES application for Nintendo Switch Online and with any luck the enhanced version of Metroid Prime Trilogy will have come out long before Metroid Prime 4 which will give people a chance to catch up and make players more aware of the franchise in general.

[LazyBoy]

1 minute ago, ThiophenSJ said:

I read the previous comments and ideas and want to add another thought here:

How well would an open world Metroid work, considering that Metroid games are mostly played out in caves or facilities? Sure, Super Metroid has Crateria. Metroid Prime has the Tallon Overworld. But the biggest parts of the games are still in secluded areas. And that's not because the games have to be linear, that's because secluded, dark and lonely places are what makes part of the Metroid vibe. I think when you ask people about their favorite area of the games you will very often hear Brinstar or Norfair for Super Metroid and the Magmoor Caverns or the Phazon Mines for Metroid Prime. And while it would likely be possible to create a mostly underground open world game (haven't played Dark Sould, so dunno about those), I personally think that the execution of this might be difficult. What's more, "secluded and lonely" is not something you would like from an open world game.

BotW was great for Zelda. But Metroid Prime 4 can stay in its roots in my opinion.

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.

 

[LazyBoy]

7 minutes ago, S.C.G said:

Another thing which has become popular in Metroidvania titles of late is procedurally generated environments, again this has its advantages and disadvantages as when it's done right it can bolster the gameplay but if it's poorly executed then it can ruin the whole thing; I'm not sure if something like that would be a good fit for the series.

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.

[ThiophenSJ]

17 minutes ago, LazyBoy said:

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.

You're right, I see your point. I guess even a cavern or facility can be designed more openly than parting it into many rooms. Also, @Sheikah is right, I kinda missed your point of removing the doors and giving the player more freedom in exploration. Maybe A Link Between Worlds would be a good comparison here? Let the player tackle the areas (dungeons) in the order they want, but you still have to do all of them to get into the final area. As in, Samus has to upgrade her suit no matter what. Because I think that part should stay.

 

17 minutes ago, LazyBoy said:

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.

I believe Dark Souls is great. But I'm not that much into realistic styles + violence + darkness.

[S.C.G]

6 minutes ago, LazyBoy said:

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.

Not a problem, you can't change how games make you feel, if you get the same feeling from certain areas in Minecraft as you do in Metroid that can only be a good thing.

I can't say that Minecraft ever did that much for me personally though, I dabbled with it for a few sessions and then didn't return as it's not really my kind of game.

Procedural generation done badly can indeed ruin the game, having it for an extra mode though is something I could see really changing things up without damaging the main game.

The feeling of isolation in the Metroid world should still be as it was originally though, that's still a main selling point of the series.

[LazyBoy]

17 minutes ago, ThiophenSJ said:

Maybe A Link Between Worlds would be a good comparison here? Let the player tackle the areas (dungeons) in the order they want, but you still have to do all of them to get into the final area. As in, Samus has to upgrade her suit no matter what. Because I think that part should stay.

 

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?

[Dcubed]

The whole point of Metroid is the lock n' key structure.  If you take that away and give the player every ability at the start, why wouldn't you just go straight to the end and ignore the entierty of the rest of the game?

 

If you take away Metroid's basic structure, there's nothing left there anymore.  Metroid IS its lock n' key structure; it's the glue that brings everything together.

 

There's plenty you can do with that structure.  You can have an open and unguided experience (like Super Metroid and Prime 1), you can have a more guided and linear experience (Like Metroid Fusion and Other M), or you can do an entierly different kind of game within the genre, like the Castlevania series after SOTN.

 

But if you take that glue away, the whole thing falls apart into a mess of pieces that do nothing on their own.

 

Quote

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?

 

This also shows a fundamental misunderstanding of the Metroidvania structure... Metroid's doors are not a puzzle in of themselves (hell the Metroid Prime games, and Other M, outright tell you what weapons work on each door!), but rather they act as macro-level guidance markers to tell you what areas of the game you can currently explore.  They are used to funnel the player down certain paths and to allow for a logical difficulty curve, which in turn allows the developers to introduce new and interesting mechanics that build on top of what the player has learnt, consistently throughout the game's entire running time.

 

You take those doors away and then your difficulty curve has to be flat; and you can't build mechanics that assume existing knowledge from the player.  It's the same problem that A Link Between Worlds suffered from (although it'd be much worse in this case).

Edited September 24, 2019 by Dcubed

[LazyBoy]

41 minutes ago, Dcubed said:

The whole point of Metroid is the lock n' key structure.  If you take that away and give the player every ability at the start, why wouldn't you just go straight to the end and ignore the entierty of the rest of the game?

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:

1. Swimming up the waterfalls - you need the power from the Zora domain
2. Gliding over - you need increased stamina and probably the jump boost thingy from the bird people (urgh, details)
3. 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. 

1 hour ago, Dcubed said:

Metroid's doors are not a puzzle in of themselves (hell the Metroid Prime games, and Other M, outright tell you what weapons work on each door!), but rather they act as macro-level guidance markers to tell you what areas of the game you can currently explore.  They are used to funnel the player down certain paths and to allow for a logical difficulty curve, which in turn allows the developers to introduce new and interesting mechanics that build on top of what the player has learnt, consistently throughout the game's entire running time.

Two things here:

1. 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. 
2. 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?

[Dcubed]

28 minutes ago, LazyBoy said:

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:

1. Swimming up the waterfalls - you need the power from the Zora domain
2. Gliding over - you need increased stamina and probably the jump boost thingy from the bird people (urgh, details)
3. 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

That was the very first thing I did.  Only after that did I do another playthrough and then go on to try exploring the entire map.  It's absolutely perfectly doable with no upgrades whatsoever (it's also the only real fun I managed to gleam out of that pile of total boredom).

 

In a Metroid game? There's no point to it if there is no overarching lock n' key structure.  The entire point of the game is the process of exploration and finding upgrades to progressively unlock the map; hell, you could even have that without any bosses or puzzles whatsoever, but not without that structure.

 

Quote

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. 

 

This philosophy already exists in Metroid games to some extent with the ability to sequence break events.  Hell, some of the later titles are even explictely designed with this in mind (Metroid Zero Mission being the most obvious example).  You still need that structure there though, because the game is designed to take advantage of the knowledge and skills already aqquired from earlier parts in the game to allow for map design and gameplay that increases in complexity and interest...

 

Quote

Two things here:

1. 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. 
2. 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?

... a door by any other name is still a door.  Metroid itself has long used obstacles other than doors to impede progress and funnel players; be they ledges that are too high to reach, grapple markers, long gaps, language barriers, partially invisible platforms/walls, interactive switches/objects, bombable walls, or even walls with specific materials that can only be broken with select weapons (hi Metroid Prime 1 & 2!).  That's nothing new; but doors serve a purpose as a clear and easily readable way of communicating the path of where to go.  It's not just a technical decision to include them (Metroid Prime 1-3, Other M and Metroid Samus Returns all already use open-world esc data streaming engines anyway), it's a great tool to communicate the map structure to the player that works and works very well.

 

If you take away a progressive structure, then you can't design a game with increasing complexity.  You have to have a flat difficulty curve, and you have to keep your game mechanics reletively simple and straight forward throughout the entire game (which gets boring, really fast).  What makes Metroid great is the increasing complexity and the progressively interesting map design and accompanying difficulty curve that comes with it.

 

What Metroid really needs more than anything else though, is a greater focus on allowing for sequence breaking.  This is something that Metroid Zero Mission handled extremely well, but something that the Metroid Prime games never really managed (and it is something that Retro Studios actively tried to stamp out with their updated revisions and later sequels).  I think that Metroid Prime 4 should look to Metroid Zero Mission for inspiration far more than something like Breath of the Wild if they want to make an "open" Metroid game that allows for the kind of lateral thinking that you are asking for.  An "open world" Metroid game is something that will satisfy nobody other than people that need yet another Minecraft/GTA clone; Metroid IS its structure! That's why the entire genre is named after it!

Edited September 24, 2019 by Dcubed

[Grazza]

In my opinion, games are losing the neatness and rigidity that once made them satisfying.  I don't even like the fluid overworld in the Link's Awakening remake, as part of the charm of the original was knowing where you were on the "grid".  Similarly, even Wind Waker, whilst being a very immersive 3D game, still had a neat sea chart that let you know which parts of the 7x7 grid you had explored.  We don't need unnecessary restrictions, but we do need rules.  By becoming so open world and sandbox, games are losing the pleasure of playing within set parameters.

 

One thing Breath of the Wild absolutely needed was item gating.  Zelda's popularity has been built on that gameplay, and without them it was formless.  Whilst exploration has always been integral to Zelda, BotW seemed as though there was no consideration as to how much exploration was on offer at any one time.

 

That said, I accept Metroid needn't be exactly the same.  BotW could have been a lot better if permanent upgrades were scattered around - once you've got the Fire Tunic (for example), your standard clothes should have just been upgraded, rather than having to craft and equip several different outfits.  Similar with bow, gauntlet and sword upgrades (if the game had all those).  Metroid could do this with the Varia Suit, Ice Beam and Super Missiles as usual, and it would be better than BotW for it.

 

It's undeniably a fair question though - how could Metroid be improved over Metroid Prime?  What did the developers want to do that they couldn't possibly achieve on GameCube?  I hope there are such avenues, and that they're done well.  A slightly bigger game would be fine, with carefully designed thrills planned throughout as usual, but I don't believe it has much to learn from Link's last outing.

[Ronnie]

3 minutes ago, Grazza said:

In my opinion, games are losing the neatness and rigidity that once made them satisfying.  I don't even like the fluid overworld in the Link's Awakening remake, as part of the charm of the original was knowing where you were on the "grid".  Similarly, even Wind Waker, whilst being a very immersive 3D game, still had a neat sea chart that let you know which parts of the 7x7 grid you had explored.  We don't need unnecessary restrictions, but we do need rules.  By becoming so open world and sandbox, games are losing the pleasure of playing within set parameters.

Does it really matter which arbitrary grid box you're in? 

3 minutes ago, Grazza said:

One thing Breath of the Wild absolutely needed was item gating.

If you add item gating to BOTW it completely changes the game. It wouldn't be BOTW anymore. We've had 16+ games of rigid Zelda structure, those still exist, but they went in a different direction and it was one of their biggest critical hits ever. Half arsing the approach wouldn't have improved it.

Edited September 24, 2019 by Ronnie

[LazyBoy]

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. 

10 minutes ago, Dcubed said:

In a Metroid game? There's no point to it if there is no overarching lock n' key structure.  The entire point of the game is the process of exploration and finding upgrades to progressively unlock the map; hell, you could even have that without any bosses or puzzles whatsoever, but not without that structure.

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:

 

14 minutes ago, Dcubed said:

What Metroid really needs more than anything else though, is a greater focus on allowing for sequence breaking

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.

 

[Dcubed]

29 minutes ago, LazyBoy said:

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.

 

Well then, BOTW is the wrong place to look for inspiration in that case.  Metroid Prime 4 should instead be turning to Metroid Zero Mission for ideas on how to broach that lateral thinking within the player.  You do that not by abandoning the lock n' key structure though, but rather by designing your game's challenges to be beaten in multiple ways, leaving in convinient "bugs" when they end up making the game more fun to break (see the Minus World & Warp Zone "glitches" that were purposely left in Super Mario Bros and the combos in Street Fighter 2 that were originally "bugs") and by introducing alternative paths that allow you to bypass parts of the game that you're supposed to go through the first time around (ALA Metroid Zero Mission).

 

Ultimately, you still need to design your game with the intention of beating it in one specific way, but you can achieve that feeling of "freedom" by slyly introducing ways to bypass parts of it and to break the intended sequence of events (most importantly, you must not acknowledge it explicitly within the game either.  Metroid Fusion does this with the one intended sequence break and it ends up taking that feeling away completely; for however fun the message is).

Quote

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.

 

Well, Coloured Doors are a very "video gamey" way of guiding the player and controlling game progression that isn't very realistic, but I probably wouldn't have been smart enough to think of to be honest!  It probably was partially born out of limitations, but they kept it around because it turned out to be a great mechanic that worked very well (the addage "limitation breeds creativity" is very true for a reason!).

 

It's pretty silly when you think about the context, but then again, Metroid is full of silly "video gamey" logic...

 

I still bloody love this comic

Sadly, modern AAA games are more focused on being realistic than being fun, so we can't have nice things like Coloured Doors anymore...

Edited September 24, 2019 by Dcubed

[LazyBoy]

4 minutes ago, Dcubed said:

Well then, BOTW is the wrong place to look for inspiration in that case.  Metroid Prime 4 should instead be turning to Metroid Zero Mission for ideas on how to broach that lateral thinking within the player.  You do that not by abandoning the lock n' key structure though, but rather by designing your game's challenges to be beaten in multiple ways, leaving in convinient "bugs" when they end up making the game more fun to break (see the Minus World & Warp Zone "glitches" that were purposely left in Super Mario Bros and the combos in Street Fighter 2 that were originally "bugs") and by introducing alternative paths that allow you to bypass parts of the game that you're supposed to be able to get through the first time around (ALA Metroid Zero Mission).

 

Ultimately, you still need to design your game with the intention of beating it in one specific way, but you can achieve that feeling of "freedom" by slyly introducing ways to bypass parts of it and to break the intended sequence of events (most importantly, you must not acknowledge it explicitly within the game either.  Metroid Fusion does this with the one intended sequence break and it ends up taking that feeling away completely; for however fun the message is).

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?

 

[Dcubed]

25 minutes ago, LazyBoy said:

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. 

 

My issues with BOTW have nothing to do with its difficulty.  My issues fundamentally lie with its overall structure and the complete lack of interesting gameplay mechanics introduced throughout the game (the Great Plateau literally contains the entire game's mechanics and there is more or less nothing else introduced throughout its entierty).  Breath of the Wild is a fundamentally boring game, where the player has to make up their own fun within a sandbox.  It's basically Minecraft and Assassin's Creed smashed together and its structure is poison for a game like Metroid.

Quote

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?

Then you best consider almost every classic game to be stupid.  This happens in game development all the time; and the best game mechanics are often borne out of unintended exploits and "bugs" that get found and are then left in (where do you think the quote "It's not a bug, it's a feature" comes from?).

Sequence breaking is fundamentally immersion shattering by its very nature.  Players go out of their way to purposely ignore the intended sequence of events to explore what you can do in a game, because that's fundamentally a fun thing to do.  Ultimately immersion and realism mean not a spit; the only thing that matters is if a game is fun.  And it doesn't even need to be done through outright clipping out of bounds and breaking a game; Metroid Zero Mission manages it without utterly shattering itself in the process! That's one of the reasons why its a great example to follow! (Even Metroid Prime isn't a bad one to look at either, as its a super popular game amongst speedrunners for how exploitable it is!)

Fundamentally, breaking and exploiting a game is fun! If it is done by breaking immersion, who cares? Speedrunning is hugely popular because people love seeing how far they can push and break their favourite games! And Metroid Zero Mission is a masterclass in how to design a game with an intended pathway that is also exploitable by design.

Quote

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? 

 

The same enjoyment one gets from re-watching any classic movie, or re-reading their favourite book, or re-playing their favourite game?

Not every game has to be an open sandbox with a million and one ways of approaching something.  SMB1 on the NES is a straightforward romp to the end of each level, but it's just as fun every time you play it.  You don't have to be a hardcore glitch hunter to enjoy replaying a game like that!

Quote

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?

Because designing a game with total freedom is actually a subtractive process that takes away from the game/level design of any given game.  The most open game possible would be a flat field of nothing, but then there's nothing worthwhile to see and do in that space...

Freedom and structure are fundamentally two opposing concepts.  Games are fundamentally toys with specific rules, boundaries, tasks and goals; the more you take away from that, the more you take away from what makes a game uniquely fun.  That's not to say that games shouldn't strive to offer selective freedom, but rather the best games are the ones that aim to strike a balance between structure and freedom; and the best experiences usually lean much further towards structure than the latter.

The best example of an open world game done right is The Wind Waker, because it manages to strike that balance and keep introducing progressively new and interesting ideas and mechanics throughout the game.  BOTW pales in comparison because it has virtually no structure whatsoever and shows its entire hand almost immediately.

Edited September 24, 2019 by Dcubed

[LazyBoy]

Before I get into this, I must say I'm enjoying this debate enormously.

38 minutes ago, Dcubed said:

the Great Plateau literally contains the entire game's mechanics and there is more or less nothing else introduced throughout its entierty

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?

46 minutes ago, Dcubed said:

Sequence breaking is fundamentally immersion shattering by its very nature.  Players go out of their way to purposely ignore the intended sequence of events to explore what you can do in a game, because that's fundamentally a fun thing to do. 

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).

 

1 hour ago, Dcubed said:

Fundamentally, breaking and exploiting a game is fun! If it is done by breaking immersion, who cares? Speedrunning is hugely popular because people love seeing how far they can push and break their favourite games! And Metroid Zero Mission is a masterclass in how to design a game with an intended pathway that is also exploitable by design.

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!

 

1 hour ago, Dcubed said:

The same enjoyment one gets from re-watching any classic movie, or re-reading their favourite book, or re-playing their favourite game?

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. 

 

1 hour ago, Dcubed said:

Because designing a game with total freedom is actually a subtractive process that takes away from the game/level design of any given game.  The most open game possible would be a flat field of nothing, but then there's nothing worthwhile to see and do in that space...

Freedom and structure are fundamentally two opposing concepts.  Games are fundamentally toys with specific rules, boundaries, tasks and goals; the more you take away from that, the more you take away from what makes a game uniquely fun.  That's not to say that games shouldn't strive to offer selective freedom, but rather the best games are the ones that aim to strike a balance between structure and freedom; and the best experiences usually lean much further towards structure than the latter.

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?

[Ronnie]

12 minutes ago, LazyBoy said:

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.

Well said.

Take a game like Celeste. You might think the controls amount to just jump, dash and wall climb but there's TONS of hidden controls and manoeuvres you can do. They get taught to you throughout the campaign and B, C sides, but you were perfectly capable of doing them at the start, most just don't have the experience/knowledge to.

And let's not pretend the game doesn't have gameplay mechanics in the form of 120 shrines, the puzzle box divine beasts, the sequences to break into the beasts, side quests, memories, combat encounters or all the emergent things that you can do/happen. Just because you have all the tools at your disposal doesn't mean all the gameplay is experienced in the first couple of hours. If it did why would people put 100+ hours into the game.

Edited September 24, 2019 by Ronnie

[LazyBoy]

36 minutes ago, Ronnie said:

Well said.

Take a game like Celeste. You might think the controls amount to just jump, dash and wall climb but there's TONS of hidden controls and manoeuvres you can do. They get taught to you throughout the campaign and B, C sides, but you were perfectly capable of doing them at the start, most just don't have the experience/knowledge to.

And let's not pretend the game doesn't have gameplay mechanics in the form of 120 shrines, the puzzle box divine beasts, the sequences to break into the beasts, side quests, memories, combat encounters or all the emergent things that you can do/happen. Just because you have all the tools at your disposal doesn't mean all the gameplay is experienced in the first couple of hours. If it did why would people put 100+ hours into the game.

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.

Edited September 24, 2019 by LazyBoy