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

Forums - Gaming Discussion - Metroid Dread review! - I wanted to like this game more...

Tagged games:

Leynos said:
d21lewis said:

Because sometimes you get Resident Evil 4.

And other times Resident Evil 6.

And that's when it's time to change it again!

3D Mario, MGS, GTA 3, Metroid Prime, etc. Sometimes it goes great. Sometimes, not so much. Personally, I'd love if Nintendo tried a 3rd person Metroid, again. Other M left a bad taste in people's mouths but it's a concept that needs to happen successfully if Metroid is going to survive. I tolerate Prime but I like seeing my be Samus instead of being my Samus.



Twitter: @d21lewis

Around the Network
ZyroXZ2 said:
mZuzek said:

Don't worry, I also played through all of the Metroid games as well as other games in the genre like the Ori games and Bloodstained and Symphony of the Night and Hollow Knight. And a bit of Axiom Verge. This knowledge isn't exclusive to you.

About your "facts"... Metroid Dread re-uses things from previous games is fact. Saying it does so to be nostalgic or that it makes it a retread is an opinion. And when you're in an opinion-based discussion and treat your opinion like a fact, it's just annoying. So don't do that.

Anyways.

1. Losing all moves at the start is necessary for a game like this. Teaching players new moves as they progress is what makes the genre what it is. If you start with everything from the previous game and then add more and more on top of that, it'll be a complete mess. If you don't add anything over the course of the game, it's not even a metroidvania. It's actually a really convenient complaint because Metroid is the only series in the genre with multiple sequels starring the same protagonist in a continuing story, which means other metroidvanias don't need to address the issue at all.

2. Actually, I lied a bit up there, because Ori is also like that. Ori conveniently loses all power-ups (except walljump) between the first and second game, for reasons never addressed, and then has to get double jump, sticky (previously known as climb), dash, bash, triple jump, water breath and more, all over again. It's part of what makes a sequel. You can't drop everything the previous games had, you're supposed to build on them, and you do that by keeping the best elements, improving on them, and ditching the bad things. Which both Metroid Dread and Ori and the Will of the Wisps did.

3. I literally have no idea what you're talking about. I can see the escape sequence part being especially reminiscent of Super Metroid, but still, it's a series staple - something you don't ditch, you maintain and improve upon, and Super had the best escape sequence of the series so it only makes sense. As for the rest of the ending, it's wholly original and extremely unlike literally any other Metroid game, which all end with you fighting some brainless monstrosity. If anything, it was Fusion that had the "retread" kind of ending, what with the whole "being saved by your supposed enemy" feeling entirely like a cheap attempt at redoing the ending of Super Metroid. I saw none of that in Dread.

4. Are you actually serious dude. That is literally what the genre is. Guess they should make the next Metroid open-world, that'll be innovative.

So to answer your question, yes. I really feel it's a truly new entry other than in name/lore. And also in lore it's fresher than anything this series has had in a very long time. If anything, I find it particularly funny that you use Fusion as an example of a game that shook the formula, because it fails at all those 4 criteria as well.

You're also wrong about the new moves. I mean, for starters, one of those three isn't even new. Melee counter was already a thing. It was certainly revamped in this game, because of how much it slowed everything down in Samus Returns, so they made it faster and snappier, added two variations (melee dash and air counter), and made it so it's less centralizing. But still it's not new. What's new is slides, the Phantom Cloak, the Diffusion Beam, the Spin Boost (albeit only a weaker version of the Space Jump, which already existed), the Cross Bombs, the Storm Missiles (though they are basically the Seeker Missiles from Prime 2, but still new to the 2D series), and obviously the Flash Shift which is a total gamechanger. I'm not sure if I'm forgetting or if that's all of them, but it's plenty and I'm pretty sure it's more new stuff than Fusion. Or Super, for that matter.

They also changed old abilities and expected progression path. The melee counter was revamped as I said earlier, and free aim can be done while running now as well. The morph ball takes shockingly long to get, which makes traversal very different than in other Metroid games, and comes pre-equipped with the spring ball now. The Varia Suit now no longer protects you from cold areas, meaning they now differ from hot areas in the game's progression. The speed boost can now be maintained through several actions it couldn't before, such as landing, walljumping, and even morphing and unmorphing, and also shinesparks can now be performed in all directions as both a morph ball and... not morph ball. Shinesparks and screw attacks are also useful in several boss fights now, something that was never the case before (barring one specific boss that can be shinesparked in Super Metroid). The Gravity Suit was usually handed to you right after going through your first water section, but in Dread you will spend a long time underwater, even fight a boss in it without getting Gravity as a reward until much, much later, which makes it a cathartic pickup again like it hadn't been since Super Metroid. I could go on, but yes, there is a lot of new meaning in finding most of these old abilities, and even if some are kept the same, they did because sometimes you just don't need to change it. If it ain't broke, don't fix it. There's a reason so many metroidvanias have a double jump upgrade. It works.

As for your last few points... you said the game would have been better off had they targeted 30fps to pretty it up a bit... yeah, man, no thanks.

tl;dr Don't call your opinion a fact. And especially, don't do it when you're getting a lot of the 'facts' wrong. If you think of Dread as a retread, I disagree with you. If you say it's factually a retread, I think you're wrong.

Whoooaaa there, and I said above I know we're clearly not going to come to any agreeance, but when did I say or treat my opinions are fact? I clearly said I listed things that are factual: you FACTUALLY lose all your powers at the start AGAIN, you FACTUALLY have to get most of the same powers AGAIN, you FACTUALLY go into OP mode to destroy the final boss and go into (I said token!) a timed escape AGAIN.  And at what point did I say my experience is unique to me?  I'm saying that my statement doesn't come from just playing Metroid or jumping on some sort of bandwagon statement.  You need to slow down a bit and not put words in my mouth lol

Having said that, I debated whether I was going to write another novel to counter each point, or just make more umbrella statements.  And yes it's narcissistic to type that out loud, but I did choose the latter...

I've been around awhile, I've seen this before: you inspect on such a granular level to find all the things that are different because there's a narrative in place.  All I would ask you to do is apply this level of inspection to Call of Duty or Assassin's Creed or whatnot... Most of what you list are permutations (example: the crossbomb is just a permutation of the bomb [and sadly sees a very small total including getting pickups], that's hardly "new" since many game across iterations make these kinds of small changes to existing movesets; or that you get the morph ball or gravity suit LATER or whatnot, and that's simply because it's a NEW MAP, man...), and I get this feeling you would conveniently ignore the much larger list of changes made across CoD or AC games and relegate those to "copy-paste" clones.

Having said that, I DID forget about the melee counter in the Metroid II remake, though you sort of made my point inadvertently... The things that are new are clearly overall minimized so as to not completely destroy or alter the core formula.  This is the point I'm making above about EMMIs, too.  They've clearly been very careful NOT to change it too much because, well, you actually know how this goes.  To conversely pretend they did NOT focus on nostalgia or re-use is ignoring the existence of the Prime series.

And that leads to my closing statement: the Prime series overall didn't sell that well, but was well-received by many and me included.  While it uses familiar mechanics, the Prime series did actually reinvent Metroid primarily by moving to a new perspective.  Then, they added Wiimote aiming and motion controls and I absolutely loved that immersion in Prime 3.  The existence of the Prime series is, in and of itself, an overall counter argument to everything you're saying about Dread.  Nintendo DID commission a proper advancement of the series, so I have no clue why you had to use "open world" hyperbole when an example already exists.

This is why I look forward so eagerly to Prime 4 with high hopes that they advance the Prime series because it was a (logical) big step forward for the series and more future-proof in design (even if, again, the Switch might not be up for the task...).  Dread is not a big step forward, but more like another chapter that wants to keep its fanbase happy, and I'm a bit shocked you don't see that's the core foundation for it.  Heck, I feel like I could have "cheated" your perspective by using semantics and replace "retread" with "fan service" and you wouldn't be so adamantly disagreeable

RolStoppable said:

The review reads a lot like a retread of "I want a Switch Pro." In parts it also reads like it's coming from someone who wants to be edgy and is reaching with their criticism as a result. I can't explain it any other way why someone would ask for 30fps over 60fps in a 2D game. I can't explain it any other way why the lack of achievements gets pointed out, but then the unlock requirements for the gallery get ignored; good achievements aren't much more than obtaining 100% item collection and beating a game under a certain amount of time, both of which are present in Dread along with a higher difficulty mode.

The game time pauses on the map screen, so the actual time for completion is notably higher than what is displayed in the end. This isn't a short game. It's to be expected that 2D games take far shorter than 3D games because the content of 2D games is much more condensed, so there aren't frequently minutes of running through empty space to get to the next point of interest like it is all too common in 3D games.

The conclusion of the review is also perplexing:

"This is a top franchise for me, and I want to see it grow and fulfill its vision as an industry top dog."

It is incredible hard to argue that Metroid Dread failed on any of the three metrics: Sales, fan reception, critical reception. This is just about the only Metroid-like game in the market that receives the AAA treatment and releases at $60. There's nothing else like it, because every publisher not named Nintendo does not have the balls to invest in a 2D game. The Metroid IP as a whole may have been in trouble between the releases of Metroid Prime 3: Corruption and Metroid Dread, but Metroid 5 leaves very little room for doubt that the Metroid IP has reinstated itself as the gold standard in the genre. This will already be a multimillion selling title before seeing any discounts.

This is not a top dog, it's the top dog. There's nothing else on the same level, nothing else that the market at large would be willing to pay $60 for.

Lastly, I noticed that the mantra of the website is "Play games, not systems." Isn't that contradicted by a review that repeatedly harps on Switch and Nintendo for allegedly not being able to do the Metroid IP justice?

60fps is nice, I don't argue that, but when it requires obvious sacrifices to achieve, then I consider whether there were ever "twitch" response moments that the extra 16ms would have helped me achieve, and if the answer is "no", then 30fps is acceptable.  This is less "Switch Pro" than it is the reality that Nintendo is working with very dated hardware.  People defend it because it sells well, devs defend it because of good marketing/fanbase favor, but qualitatively (or "by the numbers" if you will) it's just not there.  So having to make sacrificial graphical choices continues to exist on the Switch and will always remain a point of contention when everyone else is moving so far ahead of them.  They're surely working on their next system, and my hope is they actually recognize this...

I actually don't think deaths get counted.  Meaning, if you die and reload, the game timer is at that spot, so everyone's runs are "zero deaths" times.  Even so, though, most people would not have, say, died for hours worth of game time since the auto-save spots and save rooms are relatively frequent.

It sounds a lot like you're ignoring all of the franchises that channel Metroid and the existence of the metroidvania subgenre.  To pretend that there have not been successful attempts by other devs to capture the formula would be foolish: there are a large amount of games that do this correctly (Ori is the easiest example to use) and an even larger amount of devs that continue to invest in 2D games.  Of course there's no other Metroid, but to pretend that no one else understands and has invested and employed its methods is to put Nintendo on a non-existent pedestal.  And considering there was a decently well-done recent attempt known as FIST, Metroid continues to have competition.  Others don't have the namesake and legacy, of course.  In fact, Nintendo lives off of legacy more than people realize...

Which is perfect about your last statement: yes, play games, not systems.  It means an equal amount of criticism or praise where its warranted with complete disregard to what company made it.  You're reaching a bit on this one... Most people aren't confused by what I mean when I say that lol... Nintendo's Switch hardware is long in the tooth, I'm not going to pretend "well I grew up on Nintendo, they're my favorite and I love them, SO THEY GET A PASS!" just because of their legacy.  I don't play favorites, it's equal praise or criticism wherever it's warranted.  This thread is proving it's not a popular mindset, though...

Kakadu18 said:

@ZyroXZ2 Framerate is way more important than graphics because a lower framerate would have been detrimental to the gameplay, which should always have top priority.

We'll have to disagree, 60fps is nice (again, that's not the argument), but at no point would an extra 16ms have made the difference (the counter window is pretty large, in fact!).  The Switch's hardware dilemma is a constant balancing act, so everyone picks their side on this.  I figure the decision should be based on the game, and Metroid's never been a twitch shooter or something that requires excellent reflexes where 60fps is a higher priority.  It's just nice to have, but when the cinematics in Dread drop to 30fps, it already becomes clear to me that some choices are being made because the hardware can't keep up.

d21lewis said:

No mention of the epic (and still forgettable) boys I fights? I was so satisfied after each one!

Personally, I enjoyed the game and I enjoyed the review. Not the best Metroidvania ever (Ori 1&2 and Hollow Knight do it better, imo) but it satisfied my itch. Metroid has been a favorite of mine since I was a kid wishing I could have my own NES. Followed the game from system to system buying each one at or close to launch. I can accept that it's not the industry king anymore--but I'm happy with what we got and I'm glad to still be alive to see the story "end".

Hahaha, I mean, the boss fights were pretty standard fare!  Kraid, though... Kind of a nostalgia (OMG LOOK OUT PEOPLE!) trip because the X parasites don't get released until later, so Kraid is unexplained and him dying the normal way is weird (he doesn't die like the X parasites, so that theory goes out the window!).

Hynad said:

“This isn’t a good looking game, period.”

Stopped watching the pretentious cringey fake accent skit at that part.

See you next time.

You make personal attacks, I could speak my normal voice and you'll just find something else to attack.  You got some little dick energy going on, here, man.

JWeinCom said:

The time to make major changes to a franchise's formula is when its fanbase is growing tired of it, not when the series hadn't has a fully new entry in about 20 years. If after waiting this long I wasn't exploring a large maze with new abilities gradually unlocking more of it, I'd have been fucking pissed.

... A-are you ignoring Other M?  Granted, that's still 11 years ago, but still.  And I'm not saying we shouldn't have the "Metroid" formula, I'm saying that little was done to alter it.  I'm not short on ideas, either, and I could literally write up all sorts of ways both major and minor changes could have taken place, but since THAT would be very deep into the opinionated space, I figure it's not worth the ensuing debates.  The fact that I didn't address how they overcompensated for Other M and dehumanized Samus too much in spite of Other M OVER-humanizing Samus says I have some respect for the dev's choices.

Alright, I spent my hour on this thread, I'm getting back to Iki Island.  I do wish y'all a nice Sunday!

Metroid Other M is irrelevant to my point. Avoiding any semantics about whether it is part of the main series, it does not offer the same type of experience as 2D Metroid. That's an experience fans have been wanting, and they haven't gotten in 20 years. So, that's why this game exists.

victor83fernandes said:
mZuzek said:

I really disagree with you on it being a retread, and a nostalgic formula, and whatever other terms you used to keep saying the same thing. To me this felt like a proper new entry in the series with its own unique twists and feel, obviously it doesn't reinvent the wheel but "retread" is the last word I'd use to describe it. That term to me implies something that is being made only to appease the nostalgia of a fanbase, and Dread is very much not that, it was made as a proper sequel to Fusion and one that was planned for a long time with its own storyline and concepts.

Everything from the tone to the visuals, the upgrades both old and new, the combat and movement mechanics, level design, the EMMIs, everything was revamped and felt really brand new. If anything, that's what surprised me most about this game - unlike Samus Returns, which felt like the most formulaic Metroid game you could have (even as a remake, they should've done better), this game truly felt like it was breaking into new grounds and expanding the scope of the series, pushing it further.

I'm kinda surprised you still rated it an 8.5 as your review seemed to focus quite a bit on the negatives.

Sorry but for me felt like a copy of samus returns on the 3ds. The only different was the higher resolution. Game is way overrated, I enjoyed way more Ori and the blind forest.

Before responding to this comment, learn to read properly, I never said the game was bad, nowhere near bad, just overrated, they made it like it was the biggest release of the year, in a year that we already had Returnal, Monster hunter rise, Skyward sword. far cry 6, resident evil village, Hitman 3, Ratchet and clank, scarlet nexus, age of empires 4, tales of arise, forza horizon 4, monster hunter stories 2. 

So you seriously just complained that "the only difference was the higher resolution" and that it was too similar to Samus Returns, and then went on to list Skyward Sword as a bigger release when that is literally the exact same thing as a previous game but with higher resolution and a modified control scheme (and a couple of minor changes).

O_o...

Last edited by JWeinCom - on 25 October 2021

victor83fernandes said:

Game is way overrated, I enjoyed way more Ori and the blind forest.

This is a perfect example of why we can't let people have their own opinions.



ZyroXZ2 said:

Whoooaaa there, and I said above I know we're clearly not going to come to any agreeance, but when did I say or treat my opinions are fact? I clearly said I listed things that are factual: you FACTUALLY lose all your powers at the start AGAIN, you FACTUALLY have to get most of the same powers AGAIN, you FACTUALLY go into OP mode to destroy the final boss and go into (I said token!) a timed escape AGAIN.  And at what point did I say my experience is unique to me?  I'm saying that my statement doesn't come from just playing Metroid or jumping on some sort of bandwagon statement.  You need to slow down a bit and not put words in my mouth lol

Having said that, I debated whether I was going to write another novel to counter each point, or just make more umbrella statements.  And yes it's narcissistic to type that out loud, but I did choose the latter...

I've been around awhile, I've seen this before: you inspect on such a granular level to find all the things that are different because there's a narrative in place.  All I would ask you to do is apply this level of inspection to Call of Duty or Assassin's Creed or whatnot... Most of what you list are permutations (example: the crossbomb is just a permutation of the bomb [and sadly sees a very small total including getting pickups], that's hardly "new" since many game across iterations make these kinds of small changes to existing movesets; or that you get the morph ball or gravity suit LATER or whatnot, and that's simply because it's a NEW MAP, man...), and I get this feeling you would conveniently ignore the much larger list of changes made across CoD or AC games and relegate those to "copy-paste" clones.

Having said that, I DID forget about the melee counter in the Metroid II remake, though you sort of made my point inadvertently... The things that are new are clearly overall minimized so as to not completely destroy or alter the core formula.  This is the point I'm making above about EMMIs, too.  They've clearly been very careful NOT to change it too much because, well, you actually know how this goes.  To conversely pretend they did NOT focus on nostalgia or re-use is ignoring the existence of the Prime series.

And that leads to my closing statement: the Prime series overall didn't sell that well, but was well-received by many and me included.  While it uses familiar mechanics, the Prime series did actually reinvent Metroid primarily by moving to a new perspective.  Then, they added Wiimote aiming and motion controls and I absolutely loved that immersion in Prime 3.  The existence of the Prime series is, in and of itself, an overall counter argument to everything you're saying about Dread.  Nintendo DID commission a proper advancement of the series, so I have no clue why you had to use "open world" hyperbole when an example already exists.

This is why I look forward so eagerly to Prime 4 with high hopes that they advance the Prime series because it was a (logical) big step forward for the series and more future-proof in design (even if, again, the Switch might not be up for the task...).  Dread is not a big step forward, but more like another chapter that wants to keep its fanbase happy, and I'm a bit shocked you don't see that's the core foundation for it.  Heck, I feel like I could have "cheated" your perspective by using semantics and replace "retread" with "fan service" and you wouldn't be so adamantly disagreeable

Funny you say "don't put words in my mouth" cause what you did there is make a lot of assumptions about me.

Last point here being the most obvious. I disagreed with "retread" and I would've only disagreed harder with "fan service". Fan service of any kind is everything I dislike about the industry. Dread to me feels like the absolute opposite of it: it feels like a genuine game that was made because a developer wanted to continue and finish a story they had going. The game feels original and different from the rest of the series in theme and tone, at least to me.

Prime definitely was bold gameplay-wise, but thematically it was extremely derivative from Super Metroid, and then Prime 2 was very derivative of the first one. That isn't to say those were bad or unoriginal, or even that they were fan service, but just thematically, they never felt as fresh as games like Fusion or Dread do. If anything, my main concern with Prime 4 is that I feel that the game is being made solely because of fan pressure, so much so that Nintendo felt the need to announce it in 2017 when it had barely started development. In that sense, the game is already fan service. I just hope they put some passion and creativity behind it. Dread came out of nowhere and released in the state it did because it was a creative project the developers and company were confident about.

Anyways.

"Going into OP mode and escaping" also happened at the end of all three Prime games. Except two of them threw the escape sequence into a cutscene because they couldn't figure out the gameplay of it. Which yes makes it worse than having an actual escape sequence.

Then, uhh... yeah, you're right about me "conveniently" ignoring the list of changes in the annual Call of Duty and Assassin's Creed games. The convenience in this case being that I didn't once mention those games because they are completely irrelevant to the topic at hand??

Also I disagree with you on the EMMIs being kept to the side so as not to change the formula up too much, personally I thought they were awesome and for at least the first half of the game felt central to the entire gameplay loop. They were one of the main reasons why this game felt original and different, and I loved it. I imagine them being limited to specific areas is what makes you think they weren't relevant, but actually I think that makes them even more impactful: when you get to explore freely in an environment where nothing puts you in danger, it really puts in perspective just what you're losing the moment you go through that EMMI door. It elevates the dread, because it feels like you, the player, need to make the choice to go in there and deal with it. That, to me, is more awesome than if they were always around. And also it would just be annoying as all hell.

We're gonna disagree on this no matter what, I just wish we could agree to disagree. I feel like the way you go about discussing this, how you phrase your arguments, there's something about it that feels really dismissive and I think you should work on that if you're doing reviews on youtube. You may have never exactly said "my opinions are facts", but the moment you put the "factual" in your argument, it rubs people the wrong way. Seriously, never use that word. Especially when at least one of your list's "facts" is very debatable.

I'm gonna get some sleep, good night.




I make music, check it out here on Bandcamp, Spotify, and Youtube!
my top 50 games

Leynos said:
d21lewis said:

Because sometimes you get Resident Evil 4.

And other times Resident Evil 6.

Resident Evil 6 was my First Resident Evil game lucky me .



Cute and honest Sega Saturn fan, also noone should buy Sega grrrr, Sega for life.

Around the Network

I'm stunned I am saying this, but Dread is my favorite Metroid, it passed Super Metroid.

I loved the EMMI sections. More specifically the boss battles are superb. The game fundamentally is Metroid, but the battles feel like a Team Ninja game, especially late in the game. It boils down to the Dash+counter+slide+storm missiles+bosses hitting like a freight train. Battles require almost every button on the controller. One mistake can result in death.  The battles are significantly different than previous entries and gives Dread a very fresh/new feeling.  

The game is absolutely superb.  GotY for me personally.  It passed up Ratchet Rift Apart, which was still excellent as well.  

Graphically I won't comment much, we all know the Switch and it's hardware. It is what what it is.

Regarding losing all the powers at the start of the game, I don't personally get the complaint here.  It is required to have a progression system.  Think of Ratchet...  how many times has Ratchet's weapons, upgrades and levels carried over from previous games?  The answer is none, because it defeats the design of the game.  Same is true with God of War.  Standard practice here, hence I find it an odd complaint. 

Last edited by Chrkeller - on 25 October 2021

I feel sad for people who look at Metroid Dread and think it doesn't look good.



Signature goes here!

who is kendra?



 "I think people should define the word crap" - Kirby007

Join the Prediction League http://www.vgchartz.com/predictions

Instead of seeking to convince others, we can be open to changing our own minds, and seek out information that contradicts our own steadfast point of view. Maybe it’ll turn out that those who disagree with you actually have a solid grasp of the facts. There’s a slight possibility that, after all, you’re the one who’s wrong.

Nintendo shines mostly on gameplay , I like the Op , but he should rethink it. I like the graphics of Metroid Dread btw.



Cute and honest Sega Saturn fan, also noone should buy Sega grrrr, Sega for life.

RolStoppable said:
ZyroXZ2 said:

60fps is nice, I don't argue that, but when it requires obvious sacrifices to achieve, then I consider whether there were ever "twitch" response moments that the extra 16ms would have helped me achieve, and if the answer is "no", then 30fps is acceptable.  This is less "Switch Pro" than it is the reality that Nintendo is working with very dated hardware.  People defend it because it sells well, devs defend it because of good marketing/fanbase favor, but qualitatively (or "by the numbers" if you will) it's just not there.  So having to make sacrificial graphical choices continues to exist on the Switch and will always remain a point of contention when everyone else is moving so far ahead of them.  They're surely working on their next system, and my hope is they actually recognize this...

I actually don't think deaths get counted.  Meaning, if you die and reload, the game timer is at that spot, so everyone's runs are "zero deaths" times.  Even so, though, most people would not have, say, died for hours worth of game time since the auto-save spots and save rooms are relatively frequent.

It sounds a lot like you're ignoring all of the franchises that channel Metroid and the existence of the metroidvania subgenre.  To pretend that there have not been successful attempts by other devs to capture the formula would be foolish: there are a large amount of games that do this correctly (Ori is the easiest example to use) and an even larger amount of devs that continue to invest in 2D games.  Of course there's no other Metroid, but to pretend that no one else understands and has invested and employed its methods is to put Nintendo on a non-existent pedestal.  And considering there was a decently well-done recent attempt known as FIST, Metroid continues to have competition.  Others don't have the namesake and legacy, of course.  In fact, Nintendo lives off of legacy more than people realize...

Which is perfect about your last statement: yes, play games, not systems.  It means an equal amount of criticism or praise where its warranted with complete disregard to what company made it.  You're reaching a bit on this one... Most people aren't confused by what I mean when I say that lol... Nintendo's Switch hardware is long in the tooth, I'm not going to pretend "well I grew up on Nintendo, they're my favorite and I love them, SO THEY GET A PASS!" just because of their legacy.  I don't play favorites, it's equal praise or criticism wherever it's warranted.  This thread is proving it's not a popular mindset, though...

We've had dozens of people on VGC playing and commenting on Metroid Dread in the last couple of weeks and none of them said anything about the graphics being disappointing. You are really the odd one out and you don't live by your own mantra of "play games, not systems." Otherwise you wouldn't keep going on about Metroid Dread needing better hardware to run on.

I don't know whether or not time gets reset after a death. But if it does get reset, then the displayed completion time excludes even more than the time spent on the map screen, meaning the game is even longer.

What I said is that no other Metroid-like game is receiving the AAA treatment. F.I.S.T. looks like a similar deal as Shin'en games where the graphics make a good impression on a technical level, but are rather sterile as far as the artstyle is concerned, plus the gameplay is standard fare. Nintendo should absolutely get credit for investing in a big variety of genres, including a 2D Metroid, when the AAA industry limits itself to so few types of games.

Do you honestly think people here are giving Metroid Dread a pass because it's made by Nintendo?

I'm really shocked to see you trying to somehow take the mantra of "play games, not systems" and permutate that into a review thread about Metroid Dread lol... I mean, I already explained it, but it's been pretty clear to most people: if a game is good, it's good; if it's bad, it's bad.  I don't care what system it's on or who made, I'm here for the games.  That DOESN'T read as "love games, not systems" which is how you're interpreting it.  Valid criticism is valid criticism (sure, people may not agree, but that doesn't change what it is), and I'll criticize any of the piles of plastic just as equally as any other because, again, "not systems".  I have no preferential treatment DESPITE the fact that I grew up on Nintendo and my top two franchises are Zelda and Metroid...

And do I think there is a general sentiment in gaming communities towards games BASED ON the platform?  Abso-fucking-lutely, it's the VERY thing I'm working AGAINST.  Hence, ironically, the "play games, not systems".  The Switch hardware being weak, NSO+ being over-priced, those critcisms of mine have no bearing on whether I WILL or WON'T play a game on the Switch... I almost can't believe I'm explaining this

And look, to everyone else, including mZuzek, I have no intention of making anyone agree with me, but I stand my ground.  We'll disagree or agree on things, we'll debate about it, and some dude will make personal attacks on me even though he/she was not attacked by me or my content in any way (lol on so many levels), but what in the hell would I be doing reviews for if I waver and change my opinion just because everyone else says different?  I'd have less respect for me, even, if under the pressure of disagreement, I change my mind.  *I* wouldn't even watch me if I was that type of person, and the reality is many of you shouldn't expect that from anyone, either.  Disagreement, debates, arguments, that's how the world moves forward.  But that move forward isn't because a bunch of people had their minds changed, it's because they had their perspectives challenged.  This is also why I fight myself so hard to remain neutral, so my perspective remains inclusive of *ahem* all the systems: it offers up a greater overall perspective of how gaming is moving forward (and how some... aren't).



Check out my entertainment gaming channel!
^^/