naznatips said:
Crono said:
ZZetaAlec said:
Crono said:
You keep saying that naznatips, but you know what. Its game where you go around and shoot things, with a gun, from a first person perspective.
Guess what we call that?
It was a no brainer to have multiplayer in this game. Just because it sucked in prime 2 doesn't mean it has to suck again. Just because they add multiplayer, doesn't mean the single player experience will be any different.
Stop being such an eliteist. Some people who like metroid and have played them since the original in the 80 would like to see the series grow a little since 2002, instead of being the same game with more levels.
Let me guess, at the beginning of prime 3, Samus will have all her cool equipment, and the SOMETHING will happen, and she loses it all and has to find it again. This was cool in Prime 1, it was stale in Prime 2, and if it happens in prime 3, they need to hire new plot writers.
This game could have really benefited from a good multiplayer mode. Benefited the way Halo benefited.
Missed opportunities, story of nintendo's life. |
Regardless of whether or not you have actually played the games (something i highly doubt, but you never know) i'm not going to respond to the majority of your post as its mindless twaddle and i'm sure naznatips or some other person will respond with a very well executed post that would be better than what i could post but i would just like to clarify: Samus will NOT loose all her guns and powers at the start, as stated by Retro...there you go. |
Not only have beat them all (but Metroid 2), I speedrun super metroid. If anyone can appreciate metroid, its me. But believe me, this would be a better game if in addition to its awesome single player game, it had a killer multiplayer game. Saying "i'm glad it doesn't" because you're afraid it will suck or lower the games score is the antithesis of a fan. True fans realize the games must continue moving forward to be relevant, not stay in the past (2002). Metroid games haven't appreciably changed in 7 years. I'm still very much looking forward to the single player experience: I just take offense to people telling me I'm stupid for being disappointed there is not multiplayer aspect. |
I'm not telling you your stupid for being disappointed. Andir name one adventure game with good multiplayer. You people can believe what you want, but you simply know nothing about the games. The only type of multiplayer that could POSSIBLY work is co-op, and even that is overkill. It's not the same as being disappointed because of Halo not having multiplayer. THIS ISN'T HALO. It's not a Halo competitor, it's not even the same GENRE. For the love of god people know what you are dealing with. This game is closer to Zelda than Halo. Much closer. You wanna link me to the next Bioshock having multiplayer ckmlb? You people are attacking a game based on a feature it should never have had in the first place. OMG Halo and Metal Gear Solid suck cause the don't have Mini-games! I like mini-games and even though they have nothing to do with Halo and Metal Gear and do not fit in the play style it should have them! Do you see how sutpid an argument this is yet? You are talking about adding a feature that has nothing to do with the game's play style. Some online features would be nice like maybe scoreboards, achievement sytle things, downloadable weapons and armor, but the actual gameplay is not meant for online multiplayer.
Now please, move on to the next game you haven't played to bitch about like it's the end of the world and the doom of Nintendo and how much they suck at making games. I'm tired of listening to this crap from people who really just don't understand what they are talking about (Crono thought Hunters was successful and well recieved rofl). Since you people need more examples: Uncharted sucks cause it's not multiplayer, Tomb Raider sucks cause it doesn't have multiplayer, Lair sucks cause it doesn't have multiplayer (actually, this one really does suck lol, it should have had multiplayer). |
