Quantcast
Is Metroid Other M any good?

Forums - Nintendo Discussion - Is Metroid Other M any good?

Tagged games:

Should RedInker buy Metroid Other M?

Yep! 79 72.48%
 
Nah 27 24.77%
 
Total:106
KungKras said:
curl-6 said:
KungKras said:
curl-6 said:
RolStoppable said:
curl-6 said:

Adventures was 99% on foot. It's still part of the series. And all the flashy graphics in the world can't cover up a fundamentally flawed concept and bland Zelda-lite gameplay.

You don't seem to understand the difference between a mainline game and a spinoff. Even if SFA was the worst game in the world, it would not have killed Star Fox, because people would have said that it was never a proper Star Fox game to begin with and the quality of the series would be judged on the next mainline entry. Which was the mediocre Assault, followed by the mediocre Command. These are also unsurprisingly the games with the worst sales in the series.

Spin-offs are still part of a series and contribute to its quality. The franchise went from good to crap with Adventures, hence that's the one that killed it. It even introduced the on-foot stuff that dragged down Assault.

 

And I too hope that Nintendo realise their mistake with Other M; they probably will given its sales, but they might just take those to mean "fans don't want new things" instead of "fans don't want new things that ruin the entire franchise."

I guess Mario & Sonic at the olympics series is killing the Mario franchise then. Worst platform game ever....

Luckily for Mario he has many other great games to outweigh is bad ones, and the Olympics series hasn't made all the ones since crap.

You're just not getting it.

There is a sharp difference between spinoff and mainline franchise. If Mario Kart started sucking, it would not kill the main platformer franchise. If Starfox Assault was good, Starfox adventures would have had no impact on the franchise.

Except that Adventures isn't a spinoff to the degree that those games are. It's storyline links in directly with the other games, it's treated as a sequel in every way but the style of gameplay, which is something that has changed within a series before. It doesn't have the"this doesn't count" vibe. And Assault's shortcomings, namly the on foot stuff, can be traced directly to Adventures. Assault sucked because of Adventures.



Around the Network
KungKras said:
darkknightkryta said:
KungKras said:
Crono141 said:
shakarak said:
The hate is completely unjustified. The game was great, and took metroid in a good direction. Nintendo needs more story driven games and I feel that's what they were trying to accomplish with Samus. The gameplay was very fun and addicting, and the cutscenes were awesome. The story wasn't quite the best, but it was certainly better then the story we've had in the previous games. I do like the Primes more (because of all the side stuff) but Other M was a great 10 hour thrill ride.


The hate is completely justified for many reasons listed above.  This games whole point was for samus to say, continuously "Hey, I'm a woman, and I have daddy issues."  If the next metroid is anything like OtherM, I'll completely skip it, and so will most folks who actually played super metroid for any length of time.  Team Ninja may have killed this franchise, just as Namco killed Starfox.

I do like the idea of more dialog and story in Metroid series.  But the specifics of this story made up probably the worst video game plot abortion I had ever witnessed.

If you want to try out metroid, start with Super Metroid or Zero Mission on the GBA.  Technically as far as story goes, Zero Mission comes first.  The intro to Super Metroid summarizes Metroid 1 and Metroid 2 well enough that you can start on it, though.  After that, play the prime series (Wii version with pointer controls.  So much better.)  Then play Metroid 4 for GBA (which is very linear, and more story driven).  Then, if you REALLY want to see how bad OtherM is, play it.  After playing through all the other games, it'll be impossible not to agree that it is by far the worst metroid game ever created. 

Will you people stop blaming Team Ninja already. Sakamoto did the writing, and he insisted on the control scheme. WTF did Team Ninja do wrong?

Make the best 2D gameplay Metroid?

wat

Other M's gameplay is top notch.  They implemented an actual combat system.  It's quick and responsive.  As far as gameplay goes, it's probably the best "2D" Metroid made.  So in that respect the only "wrong" that Team Ninja did was make a fantastic game. 



curl-6 said:
KungKras said:
curl-6 said:
KungKras said:
curl-6 said:
RolStoppable said:
curl-6 said:

Adventures was 99% on foot. It's still part of the series. And all the flashy graphics in the world can't cover up a fundamentally flawed concept and bland Zelda-lite gameplay.

You don't seem to understand the difference between a mainline game and a spinoff. Even if SFA was the worst game in the world, it would not have killed Star Fox, because people would have said that it was never a proper Star Fox game to begin with and the quality of the series would be judged on the next mainline entry. Which was the mediocre Assault, followed by the mediocre Command. These are also unsurprisingly the games with the worst sales in the series.

Spin-offs are still part of a series and contribute to its quality. The franchise went from good to crap with Adventures, hence that's the one that killed it. It even introduced the on-foot stuff that dragged down Assault.

 

And I too hope that Nintendo realise their mistake with Other M; they probably will given its sales, but they might just take those to mean "fans don't want new things" instead of "fans don't want new things that ruin the entire franchise."

I guess Mario & Sonic at the olympics series is killing the Mario franchise then. Worst platform game ever....

Luckily for Mario he has many other great games to outweigh is bad ones, and the Olympics series hasn't made all the ones since crap.

You're just not getting it.

There is a sharp difference between spinoff and mainline franchise. If Mario Kart started sucking, it would not kill the main platformer franchise. If Starfox Assault was good, Starfox adventures would have had no impact on the franchise.

Except that Adventures isn't a spinoff to the degree that those games are. It's storyline links in directly with the other games, it's treated as a sequel in every way but the style of gameplay, which is something that has changed within a series before. It doesn't have the"this doesn't count" vibe. And Assault's shortcomings, namly the on foot stuff, can be traced directly to Adventures. Assault sucked because of Adventures.

You're saying that as if gameplay isn't close to everything in a game. So what if the story ties in with the other games?

Also, there is nothing similar about the gameplay of Adventures and the on-foot missions in Assault. You could play on foot in Lylatwars as well.



I LOVE ICELAND!

darkknightkryta said:

Other M's gameplay is top notch.  They implemented an actual combat system.  It's quick and responsive.  As far as gameplay goes, it's probably the best "2D" Metroid made.  So in that respect the only "wrong" that Team Ninja did was make a fantastic game. 

I disagree Metroid is the best 2D Metroid to me.

What I mean is that Team Ninja probably did the best they could under the insane direction of Sakamoto.



I LOVE ICELAND!

KungKras said:
darkknightkryta said:
 

Other M's gameplay is top notch.  They implemented an actual combat system.  It's quick and responsive.  As far as gameplay goes, it's probably the best "2D" Metroid made.  So in that respect the only "wrong" that Team Ninja did was make a fantastic game. 

I disagree Metroid is the best 2D Metroid to me.

What I mean is that Team Ninja probably did the best they could under the insane direction of Sakamoto.

Fair enough, but Team Ninja really revamped the core gameplay.  Only being lost and going around in circles was taken out of the game.  But was essentially agreeing with you, gameplay is great, not Team Ninja's fault Sakomoto doesn't know how to write.



Around the Network
KungKras said:
curl-6 said:
KungKras said:
curl-6 said:
KungKras said:
curl-6 said:
RolStoppable said:
curl-6 said:

Adventures was 99% on foot. It's still part of the series. And all the flashy graphics in the world can't cover up a fundamentally flawed concept and bland Zelda-lite gameplay.

You don't seem to understand the difference between a mainline game and a spinoff. Even if SFA was the worst game in the world, it would not have killed Star Fox, because people would have said that it was never a proper Star Fox game to begin with and the quality of the series would be judged on the next mainline entry. Which was the mediocre Assault, followed by the mediocre Command. These are also unsurprisingly the games with the worst sales in the series.

Spin-offs are still part of a series and contribute to its quality. The franchise went from good to crap with Adventures, hence that's the one that killed it. It even introduced the on-foot stuff that dragged down Assault.

 

And I too hope that Nintendo realise their mistake with Other M; they probably will given its sales, but they might just take those to mean "fans don't want new things" instead of "fans don't want new things that ruin the entire franchise."

I guess Mario & Sonic at the olympics series is killing the Mario franchise then. Worst platform game ever....

Luckily for Mario he has many other great games to outweigh is bad ones, and the Olympics series hasn't made all the ones since crap.

You're just not getting it.

There is a sharp difference between spinoff and mainline franchise. If Mario Kart started sucking, it would not kill the main platformer franchise. If Starfox Assault was good, Starfox adventures would have had no impact on the franchise.

Except that Adventures isn't a spinoff to the degree that those games are. It's storyline links in directly with the other games, it's treated as a sequel in every way but the style of gameplay, which is something that has changed within a series before. It doesn't have the"this doesn't count" vibe. And Assault's shortcomings, namly the on foot stuff, can be traced directly to Adventures. Assault sucked because of Adventures.

You're saying that as if gameplay isn't close to everything in a game. So what if the story ties in with the other games?

Also, there is nothing similar about the gameplay of Adventures and the on-foot missions in Assault. You could play on foot in Lylatwars as well.

There's one very important similarity; they both suck. In Lylat Wars the on foot stuff was thankfully kept as a minor, optional aside, more an easter egg than anything else.
If not for the on-foot stuff in Adventures I doubt they would have put it in Assault.

Adventures was the first Starfox game to suck, not Assault. Assault was even a better game than Adventures, even if it was bad compared to the SNES/N64 games.



curl-6 said:
KungKras said:

You're saying that as if gameplay isn't close to everything in a game. So what if the story ties in with the other games?

Also, there is nothing similar about the gameplay of Adventures and the on-foot missions in Assault. You could play on foot in Lylatwars as well.

There's one very important similarity; they both suck. In Lylat Wars the on foot stuff was thankfully kept as a minor, optional aside, more an easter egg than anything else.
If not for the on-foot stuff in Adventures I doubt they would have put it in Assault.

Adventures was the first Starfox game to suck, not Assault. Assault was even a better game than Adventures, even if it was bad compared to the SNES/N64 games.

I actually liked adventures when it was new. Graphics were incredible, and there was nothing wrong with the Zelda-style gameplay. Now when I'm older, I can't play it due to how awkward the mish-mash of universes is, but if they just made the same game without fox, it would have been an incredible game.



I LOVE ICELAND!

KungKras said:
curl-6 said:
KungKras said:
 

You're saying that as if gameplay isn't close to everything in a game. So what if the story ties in with the other games?

Also, there is nothing similar about the gameplay of Adventures and the on-foot missions in Assault. You could play on foot in Lylatwars as well.

There's one very important similarity; they both suck. In Lylat Wars the on foot stuff was thankfully kept as a minor, optional aside, more an easter egg than anything else.
If not for the on-foot stuff in Adventures I doubt they would have put it in Assault.

Adventures was the first Starfox game to suck, not Assault. Assault was even a better game than Adventures, even if it was bad compared to the SNES/N64 games.

I actually liked adventures when it was new. Graphics were incredible, and there was nothing wrong with the Zelda-style gameplay. Now when I'm older, I can't play it due to how awkward the mish-mash of universes is, but if they just made the same game without fox, it would have been an incredible game.

Fair enough, to each their own. I do agree that the graphics were incredible. Most Wii games don't look as good 4-10 years later on a stronger system.



I liked Star Fox Adventure...



 

What?! I can't hear you over all this awsome! - Pyrrhon (Kid Icarus:Uprising)

Final Ultimate Legendary Earth Power Super Max Justice Future Miracle Dream Beautiful Galaxy Big Bang Little Bang Sunrise Starlight Infinite Fabulous Totally Final Wonderful Arrow...FIRE! - Wonder-Red (The Wonderful101)

 

I liked Adventures as well, dont get where all the hate comes from...the gameplay was more varied than Zeldas (NOT BETTER BY ANY MEANS), and the grafix more advanced than even SS or TP