By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Sorry Squeak, I don't think you get what he is saying, in fact all the pints you bring up are not at all contradictory, and in fact support the same point, that Other M and Galaxy, super gamecube games, were a complete mistake by Nintendo

 

It is pretty delusional of Nintendo to release galaxy 2 when galaxy one was such a flop, and lo and behold, Galaxy two flopped even harder, either Nintendo was thinking it was going to sell better, or they just gave into Miyamoto's desire to make another ego game

 

And first party games should move hardware, and Nintendo is stupid for emphasizing 3D Mario, when 2D sells boatloads more

 

No that's not what he intended, he intended that Galaxy and Other M should not have been made, they were flops and failed to move hardware, unlike expanded games which move a ton of hardware

 

If Galaxy and Other M were such well done games, then why did they fail to move hardware?



Around the Network
--OkeyDokey-- said:
Mr Khan said:
--OkeyDokey-- said:

Did Super Mario Galaxy 2 kill this guy's father and rape his mother? If I knew nothing of game prior to reading this crap I'd assume it was the devil incarnate. There are far worse things that can happen to a console than the fastest selling and highest rated single platform game of the year 8 months in.

He expects Nintendo to get a fluke megahit like Mario Kart Wii every time they try? I seriously doubt Donkey Kong or Wii Party will fare much better in terms of selling consoles. The Wii will be back in the same position this time next year and it won't be because Nintendo made Skyward Sword instead of Wii Potty Training. It's because third parties don't want to develop for it. That endless barrage of great PS3/360 multiplats isn't stopping and the market is starting to take notice.

Third party support (or lack thereof) has only had minimal negative impact on Wii, and likewise minimal positive impact on PS360. The number of 3rd party killer apps is relatively low, relegated to great franchises like FF and GTA, and neither of those are in the pipeline. While relatively strong, the upcoming lineups of multiplats for PS360 aren't going to really do anything (it's first party on both platforms that's going to help them most in the present and future)

 

The epoch of good third party support making a difference to hardware sales is over.

Wait. Did you just say Third Party support doesn't make a difference? LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL. I won't even dignify that with a mature response.


What was the last third party game to make a difference?  Last I checked, Nintendo's first party games have decided this gen



axt113 said:
--OkeyDokey-- said:
Mr Khan said:
--OkeyDokey-- said:

Did Super Mario Galaxy 2 kill this guy's father and rape his mother? If I knew nothing of game prior to reading this crap I'd assume it was the devil incarnate. There are far worse things that can happen to a console than the fastest selling and highest rated single platform game of the year 8 months in.

He expects Nintendo to get a fluke megahit like Mario Kart Wii every time they try? I seriously doubt Donkey Kong or Wii Party will fare much better in terms of selling consoles. The Wii will be back in the same position this time next year and it won't be because Nintendo made Skyward Sword instead of Wii Potty Training. It's because third parties don't want to develop for it. That endless barrage of great PS3/360 multiplats isn't stopping and the market is starting to take notice.

Third party support (or lack thereof) has only had minimal negative impact on Wii, and likewise minimal positive impact on PS360. The number of 3rd party killer apps is relatively low, relegated to great franchises like FF and GTA, and neither of those are in the pipeline. While relatively strong, the upcoming lineups of multiplats for PS360 aren't going to really do anything (it's first party on both platforms that's going to help them most in the present and future)

 

The epoch of good third party support making a difference to hardware sales is over.

Wait. Did you just say Third Party support doesn't make a difference? LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL. I won't even dignify that with a mature response.


What was the last third party game to make a difference?  Last I checked, Nintendo's first party games have decided this gen

Are you honestly saying the 360 would still have anywhere near a 40 million userbase without third party support?



axt113 said:
--OkeyDokey-- said:
Mr Khan said:
--OkeyDokey-- said:

Did Super Mario Galaxy 2 kill this guy's father and rape his mother? If I knew nothing of game prior to reading this crap I'd assume it was the devil incarnate. There are far worse things that can happen to a console than the fastest selling and highest rated single platform game of the year 8 months in.

He expects Nintendo to get a fluke megahit like Mario Kart Wii every time they try? I seriously doubt Donkey Kong or Wii Party will fare much better in terms of selling consoles. The Wii will be back in the same position this time next year and it won't be because Nintendo made Skyward Sword instead of Wii Potty Training. It's because third parties don't want to develop for it. That endless barrage of great PS3/360 multiplats isn't stopping and the market is starting to take notice.

Third party support (or lack thereof) has only had minimal negative impact on Wii, and likewise minimal positive impact on PS360. The number of 3rd party killer apps is relatively low, relegated to great franchises like FF and GTA, and neither of those are in the pipeline. While relatively strong, the upcoming lineups of multiplats for PS360 aren't going to really do anything (it's first party on both platforms that's going to help them most in the present and future)

 

The epoch of good third party support making a difference to hardware sales is over.

Wait. Did you just say Third Party support doesn't make a difference? LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL. I won't even dignify that with a mature response.


What was the last third party game to make a difference?  Last I checked, Nintendo's first party games have decided this gen

Not just Nintendo, but Sony and Microsoft, too. What's going to sell the most PS3's this holiday? Gran Turismo, or something for Move that came under Sony Computer Entertainment. What's going to sell 360s? Halo Reach, or something from under Microsoft or one of its development partners for Kinect.

 

Oddly, this holiday season, Nintendo has one of the few third party games that might make a difference: Epic Mickey. Things could go vastly different depending on how Disney pitches it, but it could be one of two real 3rd party killer apps this holiday season, aside from Harmonix's Dance Central.

Outside of Japan, when was the last time a third party game made a substantial difference on the consoles, at least individually. Their combined weight has something going for it, but no more than is natural for a console. Individual 3rd party killer apps, outside of Japan, are a rare thing now.



Monster Hunter: pissing me off since 2010.

--OkeyDokey-- said:
axt113 said:
--OkeyDokey-- said:
Mr Khan said:
--OkeyDokey-- said:

Did Super Mario Galaxy 2 kill this guy's father and rape his mother? If I knew nothing of game prior to reading this crap I'd assume it was the devil incarnate. There are far worse things that can happen to a console than the fastest selling and highest rated single platform game of the year 8 months in.

He expects Nintendo to get a fluke megahit like Mario Kart Wii every time they try? I seriously doubt Donkey Kong or Wii Party will fare much better in terms of selling consoles. The Wii will be back in the same position this time next year and it won't be because Nintendo made Skyward Sword instead of Wii Potty Training. It's because third parties don't want to develop for it. That endless barrage of great PS3/360 multiplats isn't stopping and the market is starting to take notice.

Third party support (or lack thereof) has only had minimal negative impact on Wii, and likewise minimal positive impact on PS360. The number of 3rd party killer apps is relatively low, relegated to great franchises like FF and GTA, and neither of those are in the pipeline. While relatively strong, the upcoming lineups of multiplats for PS360 aren't going to really do anything (it's first party on both platforms that's going to help them most in the present and future)

 

The epoch of good third party support making a difference to hardware sales is over.

Wait. Did you just say Third Party support doesn't make a difference? LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL. I won't even dignify that with a mature response.


What was the last third party game to make a difference?  Last I checked, Nintendo's first party games have decided this gen

Are you honestly saying the 360 would still have anywhere near a 40 million userbase without third party support?


Much of its sales came off of games like Halo and Gears



Around the Network
axt113 said:
--OkeyDokey-- said:
axt113 said:
--OkeyDokey-- said:
Mr Khan said:
--OkeyDokey-- said:

Did Super Mario Galaxy 2 kill this guy's father and rape his mother? If I knew nothing of game prior to reading this crap I'd assume it was the devil incarnate. There are far worse things that can happen to a console than the fastest selling and highest rated single platform game of the year 8 months in.

He expects Nintendo to get a fluke megahit like Mario Kart Wii every time they try? I seriously doubt Donkey Kong or Wii Party will fare much better in terms of selling consoles. The Wii will be back in the same position this time next year and it won't be because Nintendo made Skyward Sword instead of Wii Potty Training. It's because third parties don't want to develop for it. That endless barrage of great PS3/360 multiplats isn't stopping and the market is starting to take notice.

Third party support (or lack thereof) has only had minimal negative impact on Wii, and likewise minimal positive impact on PS360. The number of 3rd party killer apps is relatively low, relegated to great franchises like FF and GTA, and neither of those are in the pipeline. While relatively strong, the upcoming lineups of multiplats for PS360 aren't going to really do anything (it's first party on both platforms that's going to help them most in the present and future)

 

The epoch of good third party support making a difference to hardware sales is over.

Wait. Did you just say Third Party support doesn't make a difference? LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL. I won't even dignify that with a mature response.


What was the last third party game to make a difference?  Last I checked, Nintendo's first party games have decided this gen

Are you honestly saying the 360 would still have anywhere near a 40 million userbase without third party support?


Much of its sales came off of games like Halo and Gears

Gears is a third party game... 

So now you expect to believe "much" of 40 million people bought a 360 to play Halo 3? O_o



Wow, Malstrom is still alive!

Anyway, third party support is extremely important, that's why all of the big 3 always look for them. If no third party game has moved as many consoles, but a combination of all of them surely have. If Microsoft or Sony didn't had the HUGE third party support they have, they wouldn't be making the same numbers in sales. And the same applies to Nintendo but backwards.



Castlevania Judgment FC:     1161 - 3389 - 1512

3DS Friend Code:   3480-2746-6289


Wii Friend Code: 4268-9719-1932-3069

Soma said:

Wow, Malstrom is still alive!(1)

Anyway, third party support is extremely important, that's why all of the big 3 always look for them. If no third party game has moved as many consoles, but a combination of all of them surely have. If Microsoft or Sony didn't had the HUGE third party support they have, they wouldn't be making the same numbers in sales. And the same applies to Nintendo but backwards. (2)


1. He did say he would take time off to enjoy Starcraft 2.

2. Although the most impact was them failing to fill in the gap Nintendo made last year. The overall effect is not what they think it is, no matter how hard they try.



A flashy-first game is awesome when it comes out. A great-first game is awesome forever.

Plus, just for the hell of it: Kelly Brook at the 2008 BAFTAs

--OkeyDokey-- said:
axt113 said:
--OkeyDokey-- said:
axt113 said:
--OkeyDokey-- said:
Mr Khan said:
--OkeyDokey-- said:

Did Super Mario Galaxy 2 kill this guy's father and rape his mother? If I knew nothing of game prior to reading this crap I'd assume it was the devil incarnate. There are far worse things that can happen to a console than the fastest selling and highest rated single platform game of the year 8 months in.

He expects Nintendo to get a fluke megahit like Mario Kart Wii every time they try? I seriously doubt Donkey Kong or Wii Party will fare much better in terms of selling consoles. The Wii will be back in the same position this time next year and it won't be because Nintendo made Skyward Sword instead of Wii Potty Training. It's because third parties don't want to develop for it. That endless barrage of great PS3/360 multiplats isn't stopping and the market is starting to take notice.

Third party support (or lack thereof) has only had minimal negative impact on Wii, and likewise minimal positive impact on PS360. The number of 3rd party killer apps is relatively low, relegated to great franchises like FF and GTA, and neither of those are in the pipeline. While relatively strong, the upcoming lineups of multiplats for PS360 aren't going to really do anything (it's first party on both platforms that's going to help them most in the present and future)

 

The epoch of good third party support making a difference to hardware sales is over.

Wait. Did you just say Third Party support doesn't make a difference? LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL. I won't even dignify that with a mature response.


What was the last third party game to make a difference?  Last I checked, Nintendo's first party games have decided this gen

Are you honestly saying the 360 would still have anywhere near a 40 million userbase without third party support?


Much of its sales came off of games like Halo and Gears

Gears is a third party game...

So now you expect to believe "much" of 40 million people bought a 360 to play Halo 3? O_o


Gears is Published by MS though

 10 million plus did buy Halo 3, so that's like 25% of the base right there



Hi Malstrom,

I’m long time reading and a first time emailer. I have a comment about your thoughts on self expression. You wrote:

“Video games, in general, are in decline because developers keep trying to use them as a vehicle of self-expression. What does the development of games have anything to do with self-expression? Sports, which are games, has nothing to do with ‘self expression’. People do not play baseball to ‘express themselves’. People do not go to baseball games to see ‘baseball creativity’. This could explain why that the more a game developer tries to “express himself”, the faster gaming slides into decline.”

I agree with the general sentiment behind this but I think it’s incorrectly stated. People do play sports and video games to express themselves, but this is distinct to and sometimes opposed to the developer expressing himself. For me, the appeal of gaming is in the freedom and variation that becomes possible because of interaction. My actions and the way I act is important. As Warren Spector says: “Play style matters”. The problem is when developers use their games mainly to express their own creativity and do not allow the player to express theirs. Games that are more cinematic tend to be less interactive and therefore allow less player expression. However, this is not an argument for user-generated content, just user-generated events.

Back in 2004 and 2005, when Nintendo was openly talking about the decline in gaming and working on solutions to ‘reverse it’, Nintendo came back with several antidotes. The first was removing the controller barrier between the game and the user by innovating on the interface (touch screen, motion controls). The second was making games that were unorthodox as if they could even be defined as a game (Nintendogs, Brain Age). Hollywood, when they suffered decline, said they must re-capture the element of ‘surprise’ in order to ‘surprise’ the audience. (Despite this, Hollywood is still in decline.)

It is about Fundamentals versus Tricks.

Take a look at this story. For the first time, ever, cable television is in decline. Of course, the business interests are not saying it is in ‘decline’, they are saying the decline is due to people watching streaming over the Internet. This is the same exact excuse business interests are saying about the decline in video games and the decline in newspapers. None of it is true. The Internet is just an alternative that people are voting for. Netflix disrupted Blockbuster, now Netflix’s streaming is disrupting cable television. But in order for disruption to occur, there must be unhappy customers to exist in the first place.

In each of these three cases of cable TV, video games, and newspapers, the problem is the content. American newspapers are in a far steeper decline than the rest of the world precisely because of their content. When someone looks at an American newspaper today, they do not think ‘news’. They think ‘garbage’. And they go to an alternative source to get their ‘news’.

In the case of cable TV, again the problem is content. It is a constant refrain that there are 100 channels on and there is nothing to watch. So what many consumers are doing is canceling their cable subscription and replacing it with the much cheaper Netflix subscription. But what are they watching on Netflix? Well, they are watching older movies, older TV shows. Netflix is not only cheaper and simpler, it provides content the people want to watch.

This pattern also fits the old school gamers. Distressed at how video games were changing, many gamers just stuck with their Atari 2600s, their Super Nintendos, their NES systems, their Sega Genesis, and kept playing those games while ignoring the N64, the PlayStations, and even the Xboxes. Today, you can walk into a game store and see all these new games coming out and say, with a straight face, “There are no games coming out,” and the games clerk will agree with you. Where once there used to be huge excitement, there is now nothing. Gamers began looking for alternatives and began gravitating toward older game systems, flash based games, or just gravitate toward one or two games and keep playing them (such as Modern Warfare 2 or World of Warcraft).

Old school gamers constantly complain how modern games wish to be like a movie. They are not complaining about ‘modern production techniques’ or about ‘cutscenes’ in general, the essence of the old school gamer complaint is that gaming is moving further and further away from the fundamentals that made the classic games.

The fundamentals are things in entertainment that make it work that the audience never “sees”. For example, a reason why 2d Mario was so incredibly successful was because of good play control. Playing Super Mario Brothers 3 on a real NES system is incredibly amazing control. Another example would be the rock music that would be stimulating in the background which is a big reason why a game like Mega Man II was successful (Mega Man is known as ‘Rock Man’ in Japan). But when you first played Mega Man II, you did not sit there and say, “Wow, this music is so great.” You just kept playing and playing the game. In the same way, when playing Super Mario Brothers, you never sat there and declared, “The control is so well done.”

Let’s look at movies. Solid fundamentals in a movie would be good actors, good directing, good script, interesting content. When you watched your favorite movies, you never stood up in the middle of it and said, “That is some damn good acting there!” or “That is some very nice directing there!”. You just watched intensely as you were riveted of what was going on the screen. A good movie draws someone in. When the audience begins thinking about the acting or directing or the script, it is almost always because it is bad and the audience is wondering why they are so bored.

The solution to these entertainment industries is to focus on their fundamentals. If cable channels actually put up shows people wish to see, people would not be quitting their channel subscriptions. If newspapers actually focused on being a respectable and competent news provider, they would not have people quitting newspapers in mass. If movies actually focused on the fundamentals of a movie people want to see, they will swim in profits. If video game companies focus on their fundamentals instead of looking for a ‘trick’ to “surprise” people, they will be performing very well.

The reason why gamers are upset with game companies trying to make ‘movie like games’ is because it shows they are not interested in the fundamentals of making a good game. Instead, they are interested in a ‘trick’.

When it comes to ‘tricks’, they can mostly be divided into three kinds. There is the Technology Trick where the game’s appeal relies heavily on some new technological component such as ’16-bit graphics’, ‘blast processing’, ‘motion controls’ or ‘HD visuals’. There is the Revolution Trick where the game’s appeal is about how it will ‘revolutionize’ gameplay… forever!  The game will transform RPGs, will transform FPS, will transform puzzle games, and so on. Something like User Generated Content was a ‘revolution trick’ as the focus was not on fundamentals but on ‘changing the definition of video games’. The ‘Revolution Trick’ also applies to altering the business model to make the same exact games. Proclamations that Cloud Gaming will save gaming are just like the proclamations that HD gaming will save gaming. Note how the focus is on ‘tricks’ and is not on the fundamentals of gaming. Last, but certainly not least, is the Story Trick where the game is more interested in pretending to be a movie than being a game. The ‘story trick’ is a game that focuses on characterization and the ‘plot’ where the gameplay receives very little passion. A good example of this is the Final Fantasy series which is more interested in ‘story tricks’ than in going back to the fundamentals that made the series great in the first place.

Gamers constantly saying “Gameplay over graphics” are really saying, “Fundamentals over tricks.” Gamers respond well to games, not to software trying to trick them. This also goes to hype. Hype will try to trick people, but we all know a game is good or not when we actually play it.

The big picture as to why Mario, Zelda, and Metroid are in decline is because of the reliance on tricks and not focusing on the fundamentals. 3d Mario has been nothing but a decline from 2d Mario. 3d Mario has relied entirely on ‘tricks’. Mario 64, which didn’t sell anywhere near previous Mario games, was said it was great because it was in ’3d’. But many Mario fans, including this one, refused to transition over as they saw a decline in the fundamentals from 2d Mario to Mario 64. With Mario Sunshine, the ‘trick’ was the water jetpack and the pressure buttons of the gamecube controller. With Mario Galaxy, the ‘trick’ was spherical gravity. A cynic could say, “That is fine and well, Malstrom, but what about 2d Mario? You could say Super Mario Brothers was a ‘trick’ with power-ups and Mushroom Land, that Mario 3 had more ‘tricks’ with the map screen and more power-ups, that Super Mario World was a trick with Yoshi and 16-bit graphics, and that Mario 5 was a trick with four player simultaneous multiplayer.” Then how do you explain the sales of NSMB DS? The point is that why these 2d Mario games succeeded in the first place was because of solid fundamentals. Solid platforming fundamentals are also why games like Mega Man or Ducktales or Bonk or Sonic succeeded. The reason why a game series like Sonic is in decline is because the developers do not see the fundamentals of solid platforming that made Sonic successful. What they see instead is the ‘trick’ of “fast speed”. So every Sonic game made now has ‘fast speed’ and is why Sonic has seen only decline and mockery.

Instead of focusing on the fundamentals of what made Zelda great, Nintendo has been focusing entirely on ‘tricks’ so people will be “surprised”. So a Zelda game could be about sailing, could be about trains, and there is always a ‘trick’ in it and no focus on the fundamentals. The reason why people became Zelda fans in the first place is because of the fundamental gameplay the series had. No one gives a damn if Link turns into a dog or if Link travels between clouds and the ground.

Metroid is an interesting case in itself. The reason why Metroid Prime was so well received was because of its strong focus on the fundamentals of Metroid. The reason why people were annoyed at Metroid Prime 2 and 3 was due to the ‘tricks’ that were put in. In Prime 2, it is about the ‘dark world’. In Prime 3, it is the unnecessary motion controls (Revolution Trick) and the stupid chatter between characters (Story Trick). Metroid Fusion was howled at because there was a sense that the game was straying away from the fundamentals (e.g. the linear handholding which did not feel Metroid-like) so it could engage in a ‘story’ (e.g. the Story Trick). The complaints coming about Metroid: Other M are mirroring the reaction to Fusion in that the fundamentals of what are Metroid is being slighted for tricks (the Story Trick and the Revolution Trick [Sakamoto thinking he is going to redefine the concept of gaming by blurring 2d/3d gameplay]).

The reason why Blizzard games are consistently well received by gamers because there is such a strong focus on the fundamentals. However, not all is well in Blizzard land. Note that the complaints can all be tied to the three ‘tricks’. When people complain about Bnet 2.0, it is because Blizzard committed the ‘Revolution Trick’ in trying to redefine online gaming with it. When people complain about the pacification of the Orcs in Warcraft 3 or Zerg in Starcraft 2, they are complaining about the ‘Story Trick’ that was committed to create ‘surprise’. When they complain about the heroes in Warcraft 3, they are complaining about the ‘Revolution Trick’ as if Blizzard was going to ‘revolutionize’ the RTS genre.

The problem with focusing on ‘surprise’ is that it is legitimizing game companies to commit these ‘tricks’. And gaming continues to decline.

Where does the surprise really come from? Nintendo put up a graph that showed gaming’s popularity compared to other mediums such as movies and sports. For a long time, video games keeps getting compared to movies. Let us compare it to sports this time.

The reason why I am not interested in looking at the business behind sports is because, in the cases of American football, it is impossible to lose money. Sports companies never, ever lose money. Like gamers, sports fans are extremely passionate. What is interesting is how the business of sports stays strong no matter the economic climate.

One thing you see sports companies do is they are extremely protective of the fundamentals of the game. They do not alter the game. And there is very little reliance on ‘tricks’. No one goes out to the middle of the field to “tell a story” or to watch a “soap opera between players”. If you want to see a ‘sport’ that is heavily reliant on tricks, watch the WWF.

If entertainment is dependent on surprise, where is it coming from with sports? Why, it is coming from the unpredictability of the game itself. No one knows how a game will end. A sudden move or a sudden score will ‘surprise’ the audience.

This is the same exact source of surprise that exists in video games. The reason why Super Mario Brothers was so much fun was because you would have a different experience when you played it. A game like Smash Brothers is riddled with spontaneous events that adds to the surprise value. Games like Starcraft 2 have surprise occur all through it, but it exists within the gameplay. A player is “surprised” when ultralisks drop into his mineral line. FPS games keeps selling because people get “surprised” when someone shoots them from behind and players love to “surprise” other players by sniping them from the rooftops. The surprise doesn’t come from the ‘game’, it exists spontaneously within the gameplay. This is why the market loves playing, what appears to be, the same exact games. People love FPS and 2d Mario because the gameplay generates surprises on its own.

“Foolish Malstrom!” shouts a reader. “To compare sports and video games… this is madness!” This is a White Space between markets that is being unfilled. What were the big hits for the Wii again? One of them is ‘Wii Fit’ which is a game that is all about athleticism. Another is ‘Wii Sports’ which is everything to do with sports. Keep in mind that sports games have always been strong sellers on every game console ever made. Even the Atari 2600. When sports games left Nintendo systems for other consoles such as the Sega Genesis, a major decline occurred for Nintendo. Nintendo was absolutely right to focus on getting back the sports games when the Wii launched.

Detractors of the Wii eruption declared the Wii (and the DS) to be ‘gimmicks’. Motion controls were a ‘gimmick’. But, then again, so were HD visuals. So why did the Wii sell so well?

The Wii (and the DS) got back to the fundamentals of gaming. Wii Sports wasn’t great because of motion controls. Wii Sports was great because it nailed solid fundamentals. Many companies that Wii Sports succeeded because of a ‘trick’ such as the Technology Trick or Revolution Trick. This is why third party games kept failing is because they kept focusing on the tricks and not on the fundamentals. When Mario 5 came out, it sold so well because of solid fundamentals. There was no ‘trick’ behind the game. There was no ‘Story Trick’, no ‘Revolution Trick’, no ‘Technology Trick’. One could say that the 4 player simultaneous was a ‘revolution trick’ but that is a hard sell considering 4 playing simultaneous games have been around since the Atari 2600. Mario Kart Wii, also a big seller, kept true to the fundamentals. There is no real ‘trick’ behind the game.

Or the story behind the creation of Pac-Man, there was no ‘trick’ behind it. Pac-Man was designed to get women to play it. The game wasn’t about ‘technology’, wasn’t about ‘story’, and wasn’t about ‘revolution’. It succeeded because of solid fundamentals. Some authors mistake the success of Donkey Kong to be about it having a ‘story’. But the truth is the game had solid fundamentals.

When gamers like myself complain about developers polluting games with their ‘self-expression’, what we are complaining about is that the fundamentals are not their priority. Their priority is a ‘trick’. And that is the consistent reason why the game fails.

Perhaps the reason for the cycle in gaming for a hit game to come out and for copycats to emulate it until the genre collapses is because the copycats believe the success is a ‘trick’ (and emulate that) while not seeing the strong fundamentals that were in place. When GTA 3 became a hit, game companies saw only a ‘trick’ which was the “Revolution Trick” of the ‘sandbox genre’. They did not see the strong fundamentals that were in place (thanks partly due to GTA 1 and 2). When Wii Sports became a hit, absolutely no one saw the strong fundamentals behind the game. All they saw was a ‘trick’ (e.g. motion controls. mini-games, Mii aesthetics, etc).

With each new generation of game consoles, they were well received not because anyone was ‘surprised’ but because they were carrying out the torch of the fundamentals. Super Mario Kart was a good game because of its fundamentals, not because of Mode 7 effects. Starfox and Donkey Kong Country were good not because of the chips in them but because of the fundamentals the games had.

The HD Twins were not well received, at first, because they seemed to be going to La La Land and were drifting away from the fundamentals of gaming. The Wii, however, became hot stuff instantly to gamers, non-gamers, and former gamers because it appeared as if it was embracing those fundamentals. This is the source of the advocacy of the Wii. When the Wii began to move away from the fundamentals and moved more toward ‘tricks’, such as third party “casual games” or Nintendo’s “User Generated Content”, the advocacy vanished and people began to move away from the Wii.

By focusing on something other than the fundamentals, video games are going to become like modern comedians: not funny and people will think back that once upon a time they used to be fun.

 

Hi Malstrom

There was always one thing I never truly understood. I don’t like WiiPlay and I couldn’t get myself to play it more than three times (not even the tanks), even though I generally like these kinds of games and even enjoy their NES counterparts on the Virtual Console. But I think I can now put my finger on the issue. Let me explain.

If you want to play a game on Atari, you swap the cartridge, flip a switch, press a button and start playing.

If you want to play a game on the NES, you swap the cartridge, flip a switch, press start and start playing.

If you want to play a game on the SNES, you swap the cartridge, flip a switch, wait for the “Nintendo or whoever presents…” to pass, press start and start playing.

Now if you want to play a game on the Wii you have to press the power button, wait for the console to eject the disc, put the disc into its case, get the other disc out of its case and slide it into the console, click away the security warning, select the Disc Channel, wait for the animation to start, click on start, wait for the security warnings to pass by, press start (or whatever) and then finally start playing.

Out of curiosity if it’s really that much of a difference I made a comparison. Lacking an own NES or Atari I picked the next best thing, my SNES. Both consoles were plugged in, the TV was running and the fitting channel was selected, so once I flipped the switch the image would instantly appear on the screen, thus taking the speed of my individual TV out of the equation. All cartridges were lying on the coffee table in front of the couch, as well as the discs inside their cases, since discs need to be stored inside them for their protection. The controllers were next to each other and the WiiRemote had its batteries put in and at full power. Both consoles were turned off and had a game inside, since this is what consoles usually are like after finishing a game. I would count the time from getting up from the couch to the moment when I can play a game or choose a level. Included was the time it takes to put the old cartridge back to the others and the time it takes to put the old disc back into its case and place it next the other cases (on the coffee table, to the shelf).

So my results were the following:
SNES with Super Mario All Stars: 20 – 25 seconds (depending on the game I pick)

Wii with Wii Play: 1:06 minutes

So in total, the Wii takes five times longer to start a game. Out of curiosity I compared a few similar games:
Super Mario World: 20 seconds
Super Mario 5: 1:22 seconds
Zelda: a Link to the Past: 18 seconds
Zelda Twilight Princess: 1:10 minutes

Of course I would have had to run the experiment several times to get a proper average, but I think the pattern is more than obvious. If it’s a game like Monster Hunter or even Super Smash Bros. Brawl add a ton of loading times to it, and if it’s played online the waiting time can get insanely high.
WiiPlay is not the kind of game you play for a long time, but rather in small doses every now and then. But with all the procedure I have to go through just to play PONG I lose interest even before the game starts. With Virtual Console games however I don’t have most of that trouble. I can swap them quickly and there are no security warnings at all. But then again, that might be just me.

I thought about breaking up the time into its components, but what’s the point? Basically the two main time consumers are the disc medium and Nintendo’s thinking that their customers are morons.

Discs are fragile and need to be stored in their cases. You can’t just have them lying around, so you waste time fiddling around with them. Also the loading times are much longer than with cartridges. I can say it took me on average about 40 seconds to be done with both discs and be able to click away the first security warning. That’s already twice the time it takes to fully launch a SNES game, and I’m just half way through!

But that does not explain why we need all these security warnings? Why is the very first thing I see when turning on my DS or Wii a warning? Did someone sue Nintendo after their son had a seizure while playing videogames? Oh wait, they actually did:

http://www.nintendoworldreport.com/forums/index.php?topic=8399.0

Unfortunately I can’t find any information on the final outcome, but I know these warnings started appearing on GBA and Gamecube games shortly after.
But why does the game have to tell me to make sure there is enough room around me? Or tell me to put on the wrist strap even though I just want to play a 2D Mario? It’s my business if there is enough room around me or if I want to wear the strap. I had to sit through five minutes of instructional video on how to attach and remove WiiMotion Plus. As far as I have heard there was a bug which caused the video to be played every time WiiSports Resort was launched. That’s what instruction manuals are for! It just blows my mind how Nintendo could think that it’s a good idea to throw all that stuff at us. Do they think we are this stupid? Duuuuuh, how do I attach this Motion Plus thingy? I really wish there was a video showing every single move I have to make. Duuuuh, what’s this strap thingy for? Why do I need to see who made the game? It’s not like there is any company out there which I could blindly trust blindly (except Blizzard maybe; how’s Starcraft II?). Some third parties even invented their own warnings. I guess Nintendo was still too sloppy. Okami took more than a minute to finally get me to the file selection menu, counting the time AFTER I started the game in the Disc Channel (also it turns out this is faster than anything inside the actual game – ugh, it almost ranks up with Spirit Tracks and people say it sold poorly because it was “too special for the mass market”).

So, where am I going with this? I really don’t know. The only thing I know is how it annoys me. I really miss just putting in a cartridge and start playing. I don’t know what it’s like on the PS360, but I’m pretty sure it’s not better at all. At least I don’t have to patch or install Wii games.

I can definitely relate to your complaints. I find that all the waiting it takes to get a game to load up and the fuss of placing the disc out, putting it back in its case, opening up another case, going through the warning screens, going through the vanity company logos, makes me not want to play the game at all. The only real benefit of “digital distribution” is being able to switch from game to game very quickly which is what the Virtual Console can allow.

I don’t think young gamers realize today how rapidly we would switch games. A normal play session on a game console would have a pile of cartridges all around us. Even in the arcades, we would hop from one machine to another. The idea of playing one game for hours and hours on end is an element of PC gaming, not of console gaming or arcade gaming. This behavior of console gaming of playing one game for hours and hours at a time is something that was picked up from PC gaming (as many of the ‘core market’ console games are just PC games plopped onto dumbed down computers we call Playstations and Xboxes).

In Iwata Asks interview where Iwata talked to the people who designed the Wii (this was 2006), Iwata said that his mission was to make the start-up of the Wii as fast as possible. The hardware guys were trying to cut down the time as much as possible. They expressed they wished they could have cut down the time some more.

I wish there was an option where it would allow the Wii to jump straight to the game and bypass the Channels entirely. I find myself greatly annoyed at having to find a Wiimote to so I can use the pointer to move the cursor to click on the stupid box and and to click on ‘start’. What is so annoying about this is that I may have in my hands a gamecube controller if I am playing a Gamecube game or another controller to play a Wii game. If you move your Wii around, you have to set up the sensor bar only for the sole purpose of clicking the channel box to get to your game. (I know you can hook up the classic controller and use it to move the cursor, but that is annoying too.) One of the great appeals of the DS and handheld gaming in general is how you can pop in one game and put in another in quick fashion.

A friend and I were playing Life Force on the NES several years ago. After some stupid early deaths, we reset the game a couple of times. Then, all of a sudden, we stopped, looked at each other, and said, “Did you see that?” “Do it again.” We reset Life Force again. “Oh my God…” “I can’t believe it.” When Life Force for the NES was reset, the game instantly went to the title screen. No logo spinning. No introduction. It was 0 seconds. BAM! This was remarkable even for NES games. There was no music, no sound effects for the title screen. Even older games like Gradius or Kid Icarus would have the title screen slowly slide onto the screen. Super Mario Brothers 3 had the curtains, of course. During the SNES era, almost all games had fancy logo spinning and almost all added some introduction movie of some sort. When you put in Super Mario Brothers, BAM! You got the ‘blue sky’ title screen (genius idea to show the blue sky in the title screen).

When the consumer has bought your game and put it into the machine to play, the consumer should be rewarded by getting to the game as fast as possible. Why punish the consumer with dancing logos, bizarre introductions that have nothing to do with the gameplay, theme music trumpeting the coming arrival of the title screen, on and on? What does any of that serve?

For RPGs and all, a more intricate slowness can be expected. My preferred choice is for game makers to do the start up similar to Guardian Legend or Legend of Zelda. The game starts up immediately on the title screen and, if left for a few moments, will begin the introduction, the “story”, and all the company logos.

Above: Start immediately with the title screen. If the consumer wishes to know more, after a moment the introduction, story, and other information will come including the maker of the game.

The topic of warning screens and all that we see on the DS and Wii, when they load up, and the Wii Sports games advising to re-position furniture is another issue entirely. These are all put into the game for legal reasons. The creative side doesn’t have a choice. The constant warning signs are to make it air tight that Nintendo cannot be sued.

Ever since Nintendo has entered video games, I don’t think there has ever been a period without legal warfare. For the most part, business is about merit where you focus putting out the product people want to buy. However, it is not that simple. There are gangs and mafias who masquerade as politicians and state lawyers and corporate lawyers who, when they see something profiting, will try to use the law as a tool to carve some of that profit for themselves. It is despicable. But that is the world we live in.

When Donkey Kong became a huge hit, it was absolutely no threat to MGM. MGM knew, at the time, that they had argued in court that King Kong was an open copyright. They didn’t care. They thought their highly paid Hollywood lawyers would just stomp on this puny Japanese company. Bitter Atari teamed up with members of the United States Congress and the greater Nintendo succeeded in the market, the greater the lawyers and politicians attacked.

Nintendo wasn’t sued because children’s eyes and brains are melting from video games. They were sued because Nintendo makes tons of money and ‘child destroyed from video games’ works well in public sympathy. All the news you hear from legislatures saying how they need to stop violent video games to be sold to kids and the entire Jack Thompson character is all about money grubbing. It is like gangsters pointing legal guns and demanding tribute. This is a reason why so many companies donate to politicians. There are occasions where there is a major company that refuses to do so. An example of this would be Microsoft who, as we know makes insane amount of money, who wasn’t really interested in playing to politicians. After the anti-trust lawsuit which kept pending and pending, Microsoft agreed to donate to both political parties. And then, magically, the anti-trust lawsuit was put under the table.

These warning screens are a necessary part of Nintendo continuing to do business. We won’t be able to get rid of the reason why they are there. But perhaps there is a way to make it not be a ‘nag’ screen where it delays the consumer to get into the game. A possible solution could be that the consumer could make an agreement, via Nintendo’s website via their console, to be total and ultimately responsible, and it would remove the ‘nag’ screen due to this agreement. (But the problem with this is what about used machines selling to people who made no such agreement?).

The legal nag screens need to go. There has to be some better substitute for them.

 

The big myth going around about Metroid: Other M is that it is an “experiment”. What I wish to illustrate is that Other M is not an experiment but an evolution and final fruition of Sakamoto’s bizarre design and story philosophies that root back to Super Metroid. This is why Sakamoto and Nintendo did not advertise Other M as an “experiment” but as the ‘true sequel’ to Super Metroid and a continuation of ’2d Metroid’.

“Well things certainly have changed a lot for Samus and the Metroid games from the very beginning to where they are now,” Sakamoto told us, “but I feel that it was a very natural and desirable evolution. In fact each step along the way felt like it was a necessary and important change. When you think about the kind of experiences you have with Metroid, you’re slowly sinking into an unexplored world. So adding 3D to that definitely adds a certain level of immersion and sense of depth when you’re exploring the worlds.”

Of course, you do not explore any world in Other M but a holodeck. From Sakamoto’s viewpoint, Metroid: Other M is an evolution, not an ‘experiment’.

“I certainly do get asked that question a lot. During the Prime series, people always asked me when are you going to make a 2D Metroid. So we realized there was a lot of demand there, and that’s actually what drove the initial process to work on this project. I realize that there’s a lot of influence over a control scheme in the way that you feel about a game: When it’s in 2D, it feels more direct in terms of moving exactly where you want. There’s a certain dynamism with the screen in that regard, so the player has an exact understanding of their location and orientation of their movement. We wanted to bring both elements of the immersion of 3D and that kind of connection to your location on screen that you get from a 2D game..”

When I initially aired my concerns with Metroid: Other M (being the first to do so btw) based on initial ‘red flags’ (as Sakamoto said the game was about ‘maternal instincts’, a trailer appeared of Samus saying she was ‘so young’ and ‘young and naïve’ as well as Sakamoto declaring Super Metroid’s ending was an experience of ‘maternal instincts’), some ‘Metroid fans’ threatened me with physical violence and one said he wanted to punch me. Highlighting all the red flags appearing did no good as the “In Sakamoto We Trust!” attitude reigned supreme, and these Sakamoto Cultists kept emailing me nasty emails. But time makes more converts than reason. With colorful reviews of the game out and the sense that this is a Metroid game in name only, perhaps some will be more receptive now to hearing how Metroid has arrived to this point.

The fall began decades ago. But let us start at the beginning.

Metroid came out for the NES in 1986. The game was a hit. Why? Unlike other games at the time, Metroid felt very vast. While many games you could only move in one or two directions, Metroid had you going up and down and all around. Being a ‘ball’ also put the area in a different context as your ball could bomb and squeeze through certain areas. High quality music and sound effects wrapped the game up in a sort of trippiness. The game was a gigantic labyrinth where you would easily get lost. This was a great deal of its charm.

There was a high sense of danger throughout the game. The enemies were very dangerous. The lava pits would kill you fast. Anyone who played the original back in the day will tell you that Kraid and Ridley were absolutely terrifying. Even approaching their lairs was scary. The last battle with Mother Brain was nerve racking and probably the most intense sequence anyone had seen in a video game before.

The fact that Samus was a girl was more of a LOL at the end. It was not why people played the game. Metroid was a badge of a certain type of NES gamer. Not too many people were able to beat the game so if you did so, you were considered somewhat ‘elite’ back in those days.

One thing that NES games did were engage in many mind games with its players. The most obvious was the Super Mario Brothers line of games of how they were hiding the warp zones. After finding the Warp Zone in 1-2 by running on the ceiling, you can be assured every player was trying to ‘run on the ceiling’ in games. This was rewarded in Super Mario Brothers 2, Super Mario Brothers 3, and other various games. Zelda 2 had areas where there were trapdoors, where you could walk through walls, even to the point where the final boss was your own shadow. Bizarre and mind tripping stuff.

Metroid seemed designed as if to be the ultimate expression of these mind teasers and general trippiness. Sure enough, there are illusionary walls, trapdoors, places where you can go that makes no sense. It was the first game I can recall ever seeing a ‘fake boss’. Metroid felt like it had layers and layers of infinite amounts of secrets. We tried over and over again to get to the ‘hidden world’ which was just a bug in the game like Negative World was in Super Mario Brothers. We believed the game had more secrets than it did.

And the game’s trippiness made it somewhat like a religious experience. The choir and organs come on when Samus appears. The organs again come on when Samus gets an item (extremely creepy with those Chozu statues).

Metroid was never as big as Zelda and Super Mario Brothers because the game wasn’t popular with girls. Then again, no science fiction game is popular with girls.

Note the NES Advantage, usually shown to imply some ‘expert’ type game. But note how the commercial talks about saving or destroying the planet. The point is that Metroid was an epic experience. The entire planet blew up. This wasn’t your usual adventure.

As sequels to Mario and Zelda came out, people were awaiting a sequel to Metroid. Well, it finally occurred but on the Gameboy. This was a huge surprise as people expected the sequel to be on the NES. Apparently, Nintendo was desiring to draw NES players to their new handheld device.

Metroid II was an incredible game and very well received at the time. The only real complaint was that the portable game was called the sequel (as Super Mario Land was not called Super Mario Brothers 4).

Metroid II was a phenomenal update on Metroid. Player control had greatly increased and now Samus can shoot DOWN (she couldn’t before). Somehow, the game was scarier than the first one. The game was about hunting down and killing the Metroids, i.e. genocide. It was a brilliant twist to focus on the Metroids and focus that they would evolve into nastier and deadlier creatures (unlike other Metroid games where they tried to focus on Samus more and leave Metroids out).

As a Gameboy game, Metroid II was impressive. It was the biggest Gameboy game ever made at that time. While people might complain about how the areas are divided and you must create earthquakes to drain the toxic sand, keep in mind this was designed to be a handheld game. Instead of one massive area, it was many areas linked together. Anyone who played through this game will tell you how massive it is especially with the Spider Ball as Samus was exploring and running around on top of ceilings. It is something you could never do in any Metroid game since.

Metroid II is definitely the scariest Metroid game ever made. The creepiness of silence when going through the Metroid areas only to have the headphones shock you with the Metroid attack music began as an Omega Metroid appears from nowhere! And if you look at the walkthrough video, the sound and recoil Samus makes when she takes damage hits me to this day. You really feel as if you are dying and getting hurt. While Metroid 2 doesn’t make use of much music, it does make brilliant use of sound effects.

Super Metroid came very late near the end of the SNES Era in 1994. It is believed today that Super Metroid is the pinnacle of the series. Actually, it is the beginning of the series decline. If anything, it is vastly overrated.

Super Metroid is a very mixed bag. It did some things well. It was the biggest cartridge ever made at the time. It was very lush with wonderful art and beautiful music and sound effects. Super Metroid matched Metroid I and II in its quality of sound and utilized the SNES to really show off Metroid in 16-bit graphics.

Remember the difference in years. Metroid came out in 1986. Super Metroid came out in 1994. This is a HUGE amount of time. Comparing Metroid to Super Metroid is like comparing Super Mario Brothers to Donkey Kong Country. Younger people today will look at Super Mario Brothers and consider it a bad game due to its rigid mechanics and bad graphics. But anyone alive at the time will easily recall how huge Super Mario Brothers was and why it is the best selling Mario game.

The same is true for Metroid. Metroid for the NES was way more popular and far more of a phenomenon. Super Metroid had a mixed response. After a couple of months of good sales, the game dropped off the sales charts. Soon, Super Metroid sat in the bargain bin alongside games like Mystic Quest.

To many of the original Metroid fans, Super Metroid was a vast disapointment. While the graphics and sound were well received, this was expected as anything on the SNES should be better than an early NES game from 1986. The issues were the following:

-The game felt more like a re-make than a sequel. Metroid II was a sequel in that you went to a different planet and fought different bosses. In Super Metroid, it had the identical setting and bosses as NES Metroid. We have blown up Kraid, Ridley, and Mother Brain before. Why must we do so again? Doesn’t Nintendo have anything new to tell after eight years? It felt more like a remake because of this and that the name of the game was Super Metroid instead of Metroid 3 (despite it appearing at the title screen). It was as if a remake of NES Metroid with some ‘expansions’ (like Maridia and Crateria).

-There was nothing scary at all in Super Metroid. Enemies and bosses were very easy. Metroid I and II had a tight tension throughout the game. The game was terrifying. Metroids were terrifying. Since all the enemies were so easy to kill in Super Metroid, it was very difficult for you to die. In comparison, Super Metroid felt like a nature walk-in-the-park. While the previous Metroids felt like you were in battle against superior forces, Super Metroid felt like the enemies has no purpose in the game whatsoever except to slow you down from one item to another.

-Controls were funky. The wall jumping was horribly implemented. Sometimes the Space Jump felt off.

-”Extreme” style of the game made it lame. At this time period, Nintendo and Sega were engaged in the great 16-bit war. Advertising and games were being designed as being ‘extreme’ (to pander to teenagers). It was lame how Kraid would become ‘larger than the screen’ for example. Was that even necessary? Nintendo was very interested in showing off why Super Nintendo had better graphics than Genesis apparently. The Baby Metroid then turned into a giant big Metroid which was a giant sprite on the screen. I suppose we were supposed to be ‘surprised’ by this but it came off lame. The biggest lameness was Mother Brain turning into a giant T-Rex. WTF!

-Items were missing. Super Metroid added some cool new items. I remember people loving the grapple beam. The X-Beam was cool too. However, what happened to the awesome Spider Ball? People were so disappointed that it wasn’t in the game. The Charge Beam was disappointing for the same reason the Mega Buster was for Mega Man 4. For gameplay purposes, a player would normally always had it charged up and couldn’t hear the music and sound effects over its ‘charge’. It was something constantly to do and was annoying just like the Mega Buster was.

-Inconsistencies began appearing in the storyline. It was never well explained why you had to go back to Zebes and fight the same bosses again. Zebes was destroyed in Metroid I. So why is it back? And why didn’t the ‘Baby Metroid’ evolve like the Metroids in Metroid II?

If Super Metroid was so popular, then why didn’t Nintendo make a sequel to it? It took many, many years later into the Gamecube Era for more Metroid to appear. Everyone thought this was out of respect to Gunpei Yokoi due to his unfortunate death. But perhaps the simplest reason was that Nintendo thought the game wouldn’t sell as Super Metroid didn’t sell that well. But with Nintendo being trapped by marketers into the ‘kiddie corner’ definition, it is clear why Metroid was brought back.

I stopped console gaming at the end of the SNES Era. I had always wondered why Super Metroid felt ‘off’. Today, I realize the problems were due to eccentricities of Sakamoto. As more and more original Metroid developers would retire and leave Nintendo, the greater and more eccentric Metroid became as Sakamoto took greater control.

As time passed, the easiness of Super Metroid played to its favor. Younger gamers who do not possess the old school game playing skills and certainly have no map making skills would find the map-less Metroid and Metroid II “unplayable” while thinking the easy Super Metroid would be ‘difficult’. Super Metroid became what I call a ‘comfort game’. If you are sick and just want to run around in a game, Super Metroid was a ‘comfort game’ that would satisfy that need. It is arguable how large this ‘comfort game’ audience is as the 2d Sakamoto games that would follow, such as Fusion and Zero Mission, were pretty flat in sales (i.e. not phenomenons).

Metroid Prime came out with great success. It is the best selling Metroid game ever (and on the Nintendo console with the smallest install base). However, much of those sales could have been from some people thinking Metroid Prime was Nintendo’s FPS answer to Halo and other shooters.

While much has been written about Metroid Prime, what no one points out as a big reason for its succession was the lack of Sakamoto. Of course, Sakamoto was involved but only serving as a type of tinpot Metroid pope who would decide where a content element went out of the boundaries of what Metroid was.

From IGN:

Around the same time, Tanabe, a Tingle-loving member of Nintendo’s software product development group in Kyoto, was cornered by Miyamoto and asked to lead the daunting title, a proposition that caught him off guard, he readily admits. “When I first heard from Mr. Miyamoto that I was appointed to be in charge of this first-person shooter project, what I thought was, I had never developed a first-person shooter and I pretty much had no experience in playing first-person shooter titles, either. So I wasn’t really confident that I could pull off a phenomenal first-person shooter title,” he acknowledges, adding, “On top of that, I was never involved in the Metroid series before.”

Sakamoto’s disdain for Metroid Prime likely has more to do with Miyamoto’s involvement. People outside Miyamoto’s group are proud to say that Miyamoto is not their boss.

To aid him in this challenge, Tanabe sought the advice of Metroid series creator Yoshio Sakamoto, who had very strong opinions about who main character Samus Aran, a space bounty hunter, really was, and how she might behave in certain situations. “[We asked him], what would Samus do if Space Pirates took someone as a hostage and said, while pointing a gun to their head, ‘Samus, back off!’ How would Samus react?” explains Tanabe of some initial design planning. “What we heard from him was that she would not say, ‘Hold on!’ or show any emotions. She would just bring up her gun and shoot a head shot at the Space Pirate.” To illustrate this point, Mr. Tanabe makes a gun with his hand, points it has his forehead, pulls the virtual trigger and rocks his head backward as if in slow motion. I can’t help but laugh at the imitation.

Then what the heck happened with Other M? Not even Sakamoto is consistent with Sakamoto.

The problem was, Retro wasn’t entirely sure what to do with the Metroid franchise. Shortly after learning that it had received the popular license, Wikan and others gathered in a conference room and began playing the classic Metroid titles, all of which take place in 2D, where Samus is clearly visible as she platforms and guns down Space Pirates on her path to Mother Brain. “We had large numbers of meetings both internal and with Nintendo about every conceivable aspect of the game,” says Wikan, who also confirms that the team briefly considered making Prime a third-person game because it seemed the most intuitive way to tackle the transition to the third-dimension without sacrificing the essence of the original releases. Retro’s designers discussed the possibilities of a third-person view, but soon afterward Miyamoto put the kabosh on the design and told them instead that the project should keep the first-person perspective. It wouldn’t be easy, but in a way, it was a relief. As Wikan puts it: “We knew how to do first-person shooters.”

The decision to make Metroid Prime as first person perspective wasn’t a Retro decision but a Miyamoto decision. This adds more fuel that any dislike of Metroid Prime Sakamoto might have is more due to him trying to be different than Miyamoto.

For those annoyed at how Retro approached Prime 3, we might want to untie Retro’s hands first before blaming them.

For Prime 3, Retro needed a new gimmick and there was a great divide between the studio and Tanabe about what that should be. What they could agree on was Aran’s character — at least, for the most part. “Samus could best be summarized, at least in my mind, as Boba-Fett with a sense of honor. Everybody hears bounty hunter and, of course, Boba-Fett is synonymous with that for good reason: he’s a very compelling character,” says Walker. “But Samus has a sense of compassion and honor where she’s not in it for the money. She does it to protect humanity. And her upbringing and being raised by the Chozo gave her that sense of nobility that I think many characters lack.”

Samus really isn’t about the money, a truth that confused the developer — and me, upon hearing this story — when it presented Nintendo a gameplay design that appealed to Aran’s chosen occupation. “We were looking for something more along the lines of a mission-based game where Samus collected bounties. And for the life of us we couldn’t understand why [Nintendo was] being so resistive to that concept. And then over the period of days we came to understand that their definition of a bounty hunter is not a bounty hunter. It is not someone who brings in bad guys for money. That concept was completely outside of their definition,” says Walker. Nintendo told Retro that Samus does not actually take bounties for those she hunts. (Someone should tell Nintendo that Aran has officially been labeled a bounty hunter for two decades now, a slight inconsistency.) “So we started joking that Samus was actually a pro-bono hunter. And occasionally we’ll run into those nuances of translation and culture that can sometimes derail us for days.”

What Retro is talking about is a similar design that Blizzard would use for Starcraft 2 in that the main character would go out on ‘missions’ and make money (perhaps buy new items through that money). It could have been an interesting twist, far more interesting than what Retro eventually did with Prime 3.

It was never “Nintendo” being resistive to the concept. It was Sakamoto. Sakamoto is the tinpot Metroid pope. Nothing, story wise, is done without his approval. While Retro, in class, says that it was ‘cultural differences’, we know the real answer now is because Sakamoto is insane. Samus Aran being a bounty hunter and doing missions for money would run entirely counter into a ‘maternal instincts’ Samus Aran. I believe there is another take on this story as well (though I wasn’t able to locate it when doing this post) of Sakamoto shooting down the idea and saying, “No! She is a hero!” Yet, in Starcraft 2, everyone understands Raynor to be the hero despite him doing missions for money. I consider this an example of Sakamoto’s eccentricity holding the Metroid series back.

The Metroid Prime series had two big problems. The first was that everything was in 3d and this made the game very inaccessible to many people. The only way to solve this would have been to make a 2d Metroid which wasn’t the mission for Retro at the time. The other big problem was that there was three Prime games which was draining the well pretty low. In any entertainment, sequels tend to be draining and makes people less excited. Yet, how many series in video games have been able to sustain a sequel let alone two of them?

It is curious that Sakamoto said that a Metroid like his Other M hasn’t come out since Super Metroid as Sakamoto was behind two handheld Metroids during the Prime series

When talking about Other M, Sakamoto says:

“I certainly do get asked that question a lot. During the Prime series, people always asked me when are you going to make a 2D Metroid. So we realized there was a lot of demand there, and that’s actually what drove the initial process to work on this project.”

Is Sakamoto even living in reality? He made 2d Metroids for the Gameboy Advance. In fact, they were released at the same time as Metroid Prime and Metroid Prime 2. Has Sakamoto completely lost his mind that he has re-written history in his head?

Sakamoto’s 2d Metroid of Fusion came out at the same time Metroid Prime did. Despite the much larger Gameboy Advance install base, the audience overwhelmingly chose Metroid Prime. Praises and high review scores was the response to Metroid Prime. Metroid Fusion received complaints and questioning whether it was a real Metroid at all.

“So for all of these people saying that they really want a 2D Metroid, what I’d really like to say to them is I think this is your game. I’d like to see these people play it, and if they still want a purely 2D Metroid game after they’ve had this experience, then they should certainly let me know, then we’ll have to think about what to do next.”

It is astonishing to me that Sakamoto is pretending that his 2d Metroids of Fusion and Zero Mission do not exist.

Metroid Fusion came out at the same time as Metroid Prime did. Fusion sold pretty well due to being a new first party Nintendo game on the very large install base of Gameboy Advance yet it easily got overshadowed and vastly outsold by Metroid Prime.

Handheld games get a pass on many things that console games do not. With Metroid II, the game got a pass on its somewhat area by area design due to it being designed on a handheld. Fusion and Zero Mission got the same pass. However, while Metroid II’s eccentricities was due to the platform (brick Gameboy whose gameplay needed to be able to be stopped at anytime), the eccentricities of Fusion had nothing to do with the platform at all. They were designer originated eccentricities.

Immediately, people complained about them. Metroid Fusion’s complaints appear to be summed up as…

1) Linear Based- Like Metroid II, it was an ‘area by area’ and not like Super Metroid where everything was more intertwined. Unlike Metroid II, which tried to hide this with the planet and earthquakes, Fusion highlighted this that authorization from the computer allowed access to new areas and not by something Samus Aran did (like cause an earthquake). This authorization to advance would be used by Other M to intense complaint from Metroid fans.

2) Setting and Holodecks- Fusion was set entirely on a space station. This made the game feel as if one wasn’t exploring anything or penetrating some rich alien eco-system. The overuse of holodecks shows Sakamoto doesn’t understand science fiction. In science fiction, the holodeck is one of the most hated elements ever and was constantly despised whenever it appeared in Star Trek. Why? It is because the characters were not really doing anything, they were just ‘simulating’ the experience. Having a space station simulate biodomes or act as a type of zoo ruins the adventure and makes it seem as if Samus Aran is playing a video game herself.

3) Fusion Suit- There is nothing more stupid than the Fusion Suit. It looks awful and plays awful. Did Sakamoto watch Alien 4 and think it a great idea to mix alien DNA with the main protagonist? The Fusion suit itself destroyed the Metroid series and ensured every Metroid game, from here on out, was a prequel to Fusion.

4) Adam- Who cares about ‘Adam’? And there is too much text. Metroid is not a reading experience or a character experience.

While the criticism to Fusion was hot, it was tempered that it was a 2d Metroid and was on a handheld (where standards are less). It is likely these criticisms are why Zero Mission tried to be a more traditional Metroid.

As someone who loved NES Metroid, I should like the remake of it. Yet, I despised this game. And looking at the lackluster sales, apparently the oldschool Metroid fans despised it as well. The only saving grace of this game is that it included NES Metroid as an unlockable when you finished the game.

Seriously, wasn’t Metroid already remade with Super Metroid? Why was this game even made in the first place? The answer appears to be that Sakamoto wanted to re-define Metroid and NES Metroid doesn’t jive with his ‘vision’.

Zero Mission piles on with the flaws that Super Metroid introduced and Fusion embraced. NES Metroid was very much a maze like game with rich difficulty and evil creatures. Zero Mission feels like a zoo where enemies serve nothing more than to slow you down from point A to point B. And there is no maze at all. For some reason, areas like the Wrecked Ship, Crateria, and Maridia were not put in. Why not? What was the purpose of making this game at all? If you wanted to play NES Metroid in 16-bit, there was already Super Metroid.

There are some people who really like Zero Mission. But these people treat Metroid as a type of ‘comfort food’, and they see Super Metroid as the same way. These same people would find NES Metroid or Metroid II as ‘unplayable’ because the games actually requires some skill to beat it (as well as crafting your own map). But as the sales numbers show there are not many of these gamers that exist despite their vocality on the local gaming message forum.

Again, the answer to Zero Mission’s strangeness seems to be about Sakamoto’s eccentricity. Anime sequences come and go throughout the game. Most ridiculous is at the end. When Samus flees the exploding Zebes, she is captured by a pirate ship! Clearly this wasn’t in the NES Metroid original! In this final part of Zero Mission, it plays like an entirely different game altogether. Samus Aran runs around in her jumpsuit with only a pistol while trying to run away and keep out of sight from enemies.

There are only two explanations as to why this final part is in the game. Either Sakamoto got bored remaking old Metroid and threw this in, or the entire purpose of Zero Mission was to redefine Metroid on Sakamoto’s terms (with this final part focusing fleshing out, literally, more of Samus Aran).

There were some other handheld Metroid games that came out later on. Metroid Prime Hunters was designed to be more of a Quake game, to demonstrate FPS gameplay on the DS, than a Metroid game. And Metroid Prime Pinball is, of course, a pinball game than a Metroid game. So I am going to ignore those two as they were not trying to be ‘Metroid experience’ games in the first place.

As Nintendo deals with the backlash from Metroid: Other M, the question is ‘how did we get to this point?’ The answer is that the problems did not suddenly appear in a game that was boldly trying to ‘experiment’. The problems of Other M can be seen in less evolved forms back in previous Sakamoto games such as Fusion and Zero Mission.

If Nintendo is serious about making expanding the audience of Metroid, the only solution is to make sure Sakamoto never touches Metroid again.

“So for all of these people saying that they really want a 2D Metroid, what I’d really like to say to them is I think this is your game. I’d like to see these people play it, and if they still want a purely 2D Metroid game after they’ve had this experience, then they should certainly let me know, then we’ll have to think about what to do next.

Source.

The issue is not 2d Metroid versus 3d Metroid. The issue is the fundamentals versus Sakamoto. From Kotaku:

“Retro has their own approach toward Metroid games,” Sakamoto said. “They had their own producer. Their approach to Metroid games has traditionally been the FPA — first person adventure — but my concept was kind of different than that and I was looking for a team that could bring my idea to life.”

To Sakamoto, there is no such thing as ‘fundamentals’ to why Metroid is Metroid. The reason why Metroid Prime was a success, even though it was 3d, was that it stayed true to many of the fundamentals that define Metroid. The criticisms that would come from the Prime games came when Retro distanced themselves from the fundamentals. For example, the ‘story’ and ‘bounty hunters’ of Metroid Prime 3 was not well received. The ‘dark world’ of Prime 2 was not well received. The reason why is not because they are ‘bad concepts’ but because they are not Metroid and go away from the fundamentals that define Metroid. But compared to something like Other M, these complaints amount to little more than nitpicks. Other M is so far away from the fundamentals of Metroid is why people have such intense hostility for the game and even call it “insulting”.

“With Fusion, that game was very story-driven. In that game, I believe I was able to explain Samus as a character, as a person, not just somebody in armor. And I was not only explain Samus but the characters around her… with Super Metroid I showed, through her relationship with the baby Metroid, some of her maternal instincts. Between those two stories I feel I was able to explain Samus as a person. But because Metroid equals Samus, I’d like to develop her character further, as a soldier, as a human, also as a woman. That’s what they’re hoping to do with Other M.”

Absolutely no one thought ‘maternal instincts’ when they played Super Metroid. And no one saw Samus Aran as a person in Fusion. With Fusion, Samus Aran became less human due to the Metroid DNA and virus.

Sakamoto is not connected to any reality. How in the hell can he say any of this stuff? My suspicions is that he already had an idea where he wanted to go with Other M and invented justifications in his mind that validated his direction. So he could tell himself that maternal instincts is fine in Other M because “it was in Super Metroid” which it most certainly wasn’t.

“Our goal in developing Other M,” said Sakamoto, “Is to deliver the kind of Metroid that all fans want to play.”

If this is true, then this is epic fail.

From Kotaku:

“These are all very interesting experiences, especially considering that Metroids are this enemy that you have to kill to progress through the game,” Yoshio Sakamoto, the game series co-creator, told Kotaku in a recent interview. “It’s possible for Samus to feel a bit maternal toward a newborn as she did in this case. That kind of connection between the baby Metroid and Samus was one of the first dramatic opportunities that we really got to hang a lot of story on.”

If anything is clear, it is that Sakamoto has no idea how players are responding to Metroid games. No one, and absolutely no one, even thought of ‘maternal instincts’ with Metroid II and Super Metroid.

“You are going to see a lot further development all of which is connected to this progression you see in the Samus character in the past,” Sakamoto said. “So you get to learn what kind of person she is and how she is connected to the events in her past and how they have made her the person she is in the present moment.”

Why does Sakamoto assume character development has a place in video games at all? No one can point to me a single video game where players are saying “that was excellent character development”.

You saw in the original Metroid series titles and then through Prime there were different glimpses of the Samus character,” he said. “But this is our best opportunity to date to present everything all together about Samus, to give the definitive character sketch and that is going to be something people can draw from as a resource as we pull them into the Metroid universe in the future as well.”

What future Metroid universe? At this point, the future of Metroid is very grim indeed. Why should anyone wish to buy a new Metroid game? Clearly, Sakamoto is not interested in the fundamentals of Metroid but interested in doing something else, this something else fans are not only hostile at but it pulls down the Metroid franchise as a whole.

My great fear is that Nintendo views its games that there will always be another one to make. So it doesn’t matter if the last Zelda game was bad, because there is always another Zelda game in the future. This is not the case of the market. The decline is terminal. The Metroid series may never ever be able to recover from the disaster of Other M (similar in how the Wii has been unable to permanently recover from the disaster of User Generated Content).

The best way to make a bad game is to assume you will be able to make a sequel after it. The best way to make a good game is to assume it is the last game you will ever make.

If you assume the game you make will be your last, one day you will be right.

“There are different emphases in the two series of games. The Samus that we present here is very much our own, but the creators of the Prime series might have different goals and different areas that they want to stress as they go forward.”

There is no acknowledgment of any fundamentals that exist with Metroid. According to Sakamoto, all that exists are different visions of game makers. In other words, talking to Sakamoto about bringing Metroid back to its fundamentals is like talking to a wall. In Sakamoto’s viewpoint, everything is about ‘visions’ and ‘creativity’.

“Samus is a character that fights and she has a lot of deep backstory and a lot of emotional content. That is what is essential here.”

But that isn’t what is essential. No one gives a damn about Samus Aran as a character, let alone her ‘deep backstory’ or ‘emotional content’. What the player cares about in a Metroid game is what the player can do. The character is irrelevant because the player cannot control that. What concerns the player is what he or she can control. So the player’s concerns are about the game world, how big and awesome it is, the cool power-ups, the cool enemies to blow up, all the stuff the player can interact with. The player cannot interact with cutscenes which is why video game players reject them. If a player cannot alter the story or interact with it, the player will see the story as ‘bloat’ that ruins their interactive experience.

Sakamoto is said to be a ‘legendary game designer’. Yet, he doesn’t even know the basic 101s of how video games are consumed by customers.

More from Kotaku:

“If we had thought of making this from the ground up as a first-person shooter there wouldn’t have been nearly as many opportunities for us to bring fresh design ideas,” he said. “It wouldn’t have been as fun. Similarly if we had aimed at it being solely 2D there wouldn’t have been as many opportunities here.”

These ‘fresh design ideas’ are not fresh and are ultimately frustrating to the consumer.

Sakamoto broke off from his answer then to ask what I thought of the game. I told him that being a fan of the original series, I loved to see their return to some of those elements. But, I added, I don’t think a game like Metroid could be made now because people would expect more from the experience.

He seemed to agree.

Remember, 2D Metroid, if you just shot at the right height lined up at the target the bullets were going to hit the enemies,” he said. “A lot of people played those games purely out of habit, because they were so immersed in that world at that time.

As you said, some of those games you just couldn’t make now. They have a feeling that has been lost to some extent. But we wanted to bring a little bit of that old feeling back while melding that nostalgia with the evolution of the gameplay experience here.”

What Sakamoto is saying is that the reason why we played games like NES Metroid was because of the immersion and atmosphere, not because of the gameplay or gameplay mechanics (which he calls ‘repetitive’). This, perhaps, also explains why Miyamoto was hell-bent on only making 3d Mario and not making 2d Mario. To him, he probably thought the Super Mario Brothers mechanics were ‘repetitive’ and the true reason why people played the game was because of the immersion of the gameworld and because of Mario the character.

Sakamoto is completely 180 degrees wrong. The mechanics and gameplay, much of what I refer to as the ‘fundamentals’, is precisely the reason why we played it in the first place. It is the reason why we keep playing these games today. The ‘immersion of the gameworld’ is secondary if at all in having any factor. In the 16-bit generation, we watched gamers gravitate to Sonic the Hedgehog as well as Bonk. Despite being different characters and completely different worlds, players were attracted to the solid fundamentals.

This would also explain why Sakamoto keeps fiddling with the fundamental gameplay elements even in the 2d Metroids. It explains why Samus Aran is making Mortal Kombat moves in Other M, why she is acting more and more like a ninja in the handheld Sakamoto Metroids, and why the rich labyrinth and difficulty of Metroid has been lost (“because it is repetitive”). The only thing that is repetitive is Sakamoto’s horrible character development, story, game world (yet another space station), and ‘visions’.

No one is responding to Other M with saying, “We want more character development! Oh yes! More cutscenes! And less of that repetitive gameplay!” The responses are exactly the opposite. Everyone is calling for less character development, less cutscenes, and more of that wonderful ‘repetitive gameplay’. Sakamoto has it completely backwards.

How to Resurrect the Metroid Franchise

Nintendo is underestimating how Other M will harm the series. It is probable that the Metroid franchise has been essentially destroyed at this point. The character of Samus Aran has been ruined. No longer is Samus Aran ‘cool’ anymore. No longer is Metroid ‘cool’ anymore. Other M has made Metroid cross a rubicon where it will never return from. Other M will be the equivalent of the Mario and Zelda CDi games and the Nintendo, of the future, will likely pretend Metroid: Other M never existed (as they do for the CDi games.)

Above: Confession Time: Can you spot the difference in quality between the two clips? I cannot. Other M is the CDi Metroid.

I see only two ways to resurrect the Metroid series from here. The first way is to remake the original Metroid (including Maridia, Crateria, and add in new places) and stick to the fundamentals. Remove all the Sakamoto garbage that has infiltrated the series. This, maybe, would provide a similar experience that made Metroid cool and popular back when the series began. Keep in mind that Super Metroid is nothing more than a Metroid remake as well. This would be like Super Super Metroid. It would be completely 2d game, no Sakamoto ninja bullshit he added in as well. It would stick true to the fundamentals and focus on making a rich, lush labyrinth to explore. Perhaps a designer could come up with some new feature to put in (though I’m not sure how multiplayer could be added to Metroid but anything is possible). In a way, this Metroid would follow a similar course as Mario 5 did.

The other way is to make a 2d Metroid but completely write the Samus Aran character out. After what Sakamoto has done, it is impossible to use the Samus Aran character except for a complete reboot (as the first solution would be). Samus Aran is now a joke character due to her ‘maternal instincts’ and ‘confession time’. Also, Samus Aran has not only a defined past, but a defined future due to the hideous Metroid Fusion suit. Remember, Sakamoto has expressed that the purpose of Other M is to solidify and define the Samus Aran character. This is why her character must be completely abandoned because it is so polluted with Sakamoto baggage.

I know developers like to define their own worlds and dislike having to take marching orders from someone else’s “vision”. This is why I think the second solution will be attractive.

A new 2d Metroid game could be made in the distant past. This would be before Samus Aran was even born. Metroids would not be extinct. They would be numerous and around. The Chozu would not be extinct. They would be around. And there could be other fun new galactic civilizations around. The new main character doesn’t have to be defined well as NES Metroid Samus was barely defined at all. I do not think they should differentiate the new character from Samus Aran’s usual suit. The goal of the game is to resurrect Metroid, not someone to have a vision of another character. With both solutions, Metroid will not be about the character at all. It will be about the gameworld and the Metroids. So the new character wouldn’t need much in definition.

To those who think the second solution wouldn’t work, it worked very well for series such as Castlevania and it worked very well for Link to the Past (a prequel). I think the second solution would be enticing for a developer because there is so much they get to ‘make up’ instead of regurgitate Brinstar and Norfair for the billionth time.

How do you make the Metroid series continue to stay dead? It would be to have Sakamoto assigned to the new 2d Metroid.

Folks, Sakamoto has made 2d Metroids. All Sakamoto can offer us is another Metroid Fusion and a Metroid Zero Mission, both of which would continue to drive the Metroid series into the abyss.

The solution to Metroid is not 2d Metroid. The solution to Metroid is Sakamoto-free Metroid. Sakamoto is not responsible for the rise of Metroid. Sakamoto is responsible for the fall of Metroid. Every action that has caused Metroid to become hated or scorned or become lame has the design fingerprints of Yoshi Sakamoto. If I was Iwata, I would assign him to do something else like make a new Wrecking Crew.

Malstrom charges up his arm cannon.

Sakamoto…. time to go!

 

Dear Malstrom, as a devoted reader for several months (your Birdmen article was absolutely fantastic and eye-opening) I must express my gratitude for having the guts to clearly lay out why Sakamoto has been poisoning Metroid.  It is truly disheartening that Gunpei Yokoi had to die, for I think that were he still alive Metroid would not be in the sad state it is now.

That is not the reason why I am sending you this e-mail.  I am sending this to you to give you an example of just how horribly Other M is ruining the franchise.  The following is an in-game cutscene from Other M.

This video.  This video embodies everything that is wrong.  Samus has faced and defeated Ridley several times before this encounter without batting an eyelash.  Why does she now break down and need a big, strong man to save her?  This cutscene effectively destroyed the very last glimmer of hope I had for Other M.  If LJN were still around and making games, I would rather have them make a Metroid game than Sakamoto.

No words can possibly express the fury I feel toward Sakamoto at this very moment.  As a gamer who also grew disillusioned at the end of the SNES era (I chose the Game Boy Color instead of any console due to my reluctance of 3D) I weep for what was once a unique and fantastic franchise.

Wow. That is… horrible. Other M truly is the CDi game of Metroid.

I don’t think Nintendo realizes how much anger and hostility there is out there over this game. I deliberately didn’t post anything about Other M for the last few months so no one could blame me for firing up a mob. And these angry people know Sakamoto is responsible for this trainwreck.

Do you think any of these people are remotely interested in buying a 2d Metroid from Sakamoto? Or is it more probable that they will boycott any Sakamoto Metroid game from now on? I think it is the latter. I definitely won’t be buying anything Metroid that Sakamoto makes.

The only silver lining in the disaster that is Other M is the entertainment I get from watching Sakamoto cultists turn themselves into pretzels trying to defend anything and everything of this game. They are Sakamoto cultists because they worship Sakamoto as a type of ‘game god’, and he never does anything wrong. If the audience reacts negatively, it is because the audience isn’t smart enough to realize Sakamoto’s vision. It is too funny.

I bet a Sakamoto cultist would respond to you by saying, “You need to read the manga!” or “There wasn’t technology back then for Sakamoto to express his characters!” (which isn’t true, NES Ninja Gaiden did ‘character expressions’) or “You just have a strange pure vision of what Samus was! The only true version comes from Sakamoto!”

The Sakamoto cult worship is a good reason why I think game god worship is a bad, bad idea. In entertainment, the audience is always, always right. The director’s “vision” or the actor’s “vision” doesn’t matter. The audience is right. With video games, we measure audience reaction by sales numbers. So good sales means the audience was pleased. Regardless, no business can survive without sales. Sales are everything.

It will be very curious how Other M sells. I’ve always seen this scenario of someone who bought a Wii for Mario 5 after not buying game consoles for a long time. Then, all of a sudden, he sees Metroid: Other M and says, “Hey, I liked playing Metroid on the NES and Gameboy. After having fun with Mario 5, I think I will go for some new Metroid.” Boy, will he be surprised! hahaha

At this time right before and right after a game releases is when hype is at the highest. The problems of a video game tend to be realized only weeks after the game is released. The fact that there is so much hostility to Metroid: Other M now, and the game is to be released within days means that the hostility and anger is going to snowball once the ‘hype high’ is over.

The Youtube comments on that Ridley video are full of disappointment, anger, hostility at Sakamoto on one side and a few Sakamoto cultists who I think we should begin renaming as ‘Sakamoto Apologists’. Nothing Sakamoto does is ever wrong. Everyone else is wrong, Sakamoto is pure and divine! I’ve never seen anything like this!

Here are some comments that made me laugh:

Loving the mandatory black character that speaks like a gangster, the fact samus is now a whiny bitch and not a fierce fisted woman and that she’s now so non-self sufficient that she needs some idiot screaming in her ear to shoot her basic weapon.

It’s funny because it’s true.

Samus being all BAWWWWW, some douche yelling “DON’T YOU KNOW HOW TO TREAT A LADY?”, Samus being all BAWWWWW again about him, Samus freaking out over Ridley, random Zero-Suit…

What the shit.

It isn’t that there is just one thing bad with the video. It is like the sum of all ingredients are bad. CDi Metroid indeed!

That’s obviously because this is the only Metroid game where Samus has a personality, and where it focuses on a story. This is what Sakamoto always wanted Samus, and Metroid to be like, he just didn’t have the technology for it until now. Expect more Metroid games like this, if he’s involved in them.

It is like the Sakamoto cultists are having meetings and putting out talking points. They all say there wasn’t technology for it.

But this isn’t true. Many NES games had cutscenes and story sequences. Ninja Gaiden series for the NES is a good example. The difference has to be that the producer would not allow such nonsense (for the first three Metroid games, that would have been Gunpei Yokoi who was a brilliant toymaker or Yamauchi who was president of Nintendo then).

i definitely don’t have a problem with Sakamoto getting his story out there. I really admire him for being brave enough to do it, considering Metroid fans are a rabid bunch.

This is a good example of a Sakamoto cultist. Sakamoto is worshiped and the audience is condemned as ‘rabid’ as if classic Metroid fans are dogs.

The rage this scene is getting, and the amount of people saying that Sakamoto is the Devil, and wishing this game wasn’t canon is just appalling. What’s even more disgusting is that many of these people think they know what Samus should act like, or should be like, when no other Metroid game gave her a real personality. Fusion, and Zero Mission are the only ones that come close, and Fusion in particular told us that she loves doing inner monologues.

The audience experience is the authority, not the Sakamoto vision or Sakamoto experience. The audience is always, always right. The Metroid fan is the King, and Sakamoto is the servant, not the other way around.

It completely amazes me seeing these cultists define all quality, all authority, all everything on Sakamoto and everyone who disagrees with him or have a poor reaction is “wrong”. It is stunning to me how Sakamoto is never wrong about anything to these people.

This cutscene alone has caused me to never buy this game.

What utter garbage.

That fanfiction story Metroid High School is more respectful than this.

It does feel as if this game is bad fanfiction.

I expect the MOM complaints to grow once the game gets in people’s hands. It stings watching this junk. Imagine if you paid $50 for it! Expect fons of Metroid: Other M to appear at used game stores immediately following release!