I wouldn’t be surprised if the SC 2 beta is shorter than expected. The game is already very solid and far more solid than Warcraft 3 was when it was in beta. I remember the Night Elf race being a complete mess.

I’ve been keeping an eye on the beta process of SC 2 because it is fun to look at Blizzard’s development process. Two patches in two days? And look at how hard they are nerfing that mothership! hahaha

The players reactions are very funny. “How dare they nerf the Protoss!? What do they think this is, a beta?” Well, it is exactly that. This is why I refuse to beta test games to this day. Why should I spend my free time to test out other people’s products? Why bother building strategies when the company will likely nerf them? Your time is better spent playing the finished games that are out today.

My favorite are the players who are bragging about how high they are getting in the rankings of Starcraft 2. Yes sir, you certainly are special for beating a few thousand people in an unbalanced game. Do these clowns realize that all their rankings are going to be wiped when the beta test is over? This reminds me of the ’stress test’ for World of Warcraft where people were racing to level up, to grind, to get special items, only to have Blizzard wipe their character at the end of the stress test.

RTS games are always my favorite types of games, and I’ve been playing them since the very beginning. But the Starcraft 2 reactions from Starcraft die-hards is greatly amusing to me.

It is all about Warcraft 3. I admit that Warcraft 3 had its disappointments (notably how the Orcs no longer seem badass and cool like they did in Warcraft 2. And the Night Elves are pretty lame with their stupid big trees). Warcraft 3 was a radically different game than Starcraft (however, Starcraft was not a radical change from Warcraft 2).

It was not the heroes of Warcraft 3 that radically changed the gameplay. It was the emphasis on battles. In games like Warcraft 2 or Starcraft, the gameplay was very production based. It was more about cranking out units. You could have your army be entirely one or two types of units, and you would be fine. It is a totally different story in Warcraft 3. Production wasn’t emphasized in Warcraft 3 as was the battles. What does this mean?

Let us say you are Orc. Instead of making all of one or two units, you make a few taurens for melee, a few beserkers for range, a witch doctor for heals, and shamans for blood lust. The result is that during the battle, your shamans would be casting blood lust (which improves attack speed), your witch doctors would be placing heal wards (heals during battle), the enemy would be beating on the heavy  hitpoint taurens, while your beserkers would be adding damage from behind the protective taurens. The point is that you would win the battle. And in Warcraft 3, winning battles is the key to winning the game.

At first, I couldn’t get into Warcraft 3’s “battle” gameplay. Ironically, every Blizzard game I have bought I immediately disliked and said, “Blizzard has lost it.” Yet, I somehow grow into the game especially with the expansions. I distinctly remember saying when Starcraft came out that “Blizzard has lost it. This game is nowhere as good as Warcraft 2.” Reviews were very harsh on Starcraft 1 at the time. Blizzard even acknowledged this when in Brood War, Artanis says, “Starcraft is not Warcraft in space! It is much more sophisticated!” Starcraft was panned because the game was not cutting edge visuals and was not ‘3d’. Hardcore RTS gamers said that Starcraft catered only to the noobs (today, they would be called the “casuals”. This same complaint was made by RPG players when Diablo appeared, by strategy players when Warcraft appeared, by MMORPG fans when World of Warcraft appeared, and so on).

However, after playing Warcraft 3 with some Blizzard guys and learning from them, I really got the flow of the game. I could never go back to Starcraft and its archaic systems (and Starcraft really shows its age visually. Yech!). The problem was that Warcraft 3 became too sophisticated. There were too many nuances. The game was overshooting its target audience allow a window of opportunity for simpler games to enter. And this is why people played tower defense or DOTA from the start. They are far more simpler games.

Meanwhile, there have been many people who have not left Starcraft. They just turned up their noses at Warcraft 3 and said, “Heroes? Lame!” and kept playing Starcraft for this past decade. The truth is that I don’t think these Starcraft players ever could grasp the new ‘battle’ orientated gameplay that Warcraft 3 had. You cannot play Warcraft 3 in a production orientated way. And it had to be frustrating to have more gold and more units in an army only to get wasted in a battle. “The game sucks!” they said as they went back to Starcraft.

So now we have Starcraft 2 Beta and very different reactions from Warcraft 3 players and Starcraft players. The Warcraft 3 players are having a ball. They find Starcraft 2 to be MUCH SIMPLER and (dare I say it) a more casual game than Warcraft 3. With no heroes and less spell casters, the game becomes very simple. It is a joke among Warcraft 3 players that the creeps have been replaced with dumb rocks (the destroyable rocks). Since Starcraft 2 has a similar ‘battle’ orientated gameplay, Warcraft 3 players are fitting into the game very well.

For Starcraft players, it is another story. They like the game, but…. “I like this, but…” The way how they have articulated their complaints is in a type of “hard counters” versus “soft counters”. What do they mean by this? A “hard counter” is a unit that counters another units very intensely, like the hippo-glyph does to air units. A “soft counter” is a unit that counters another unit less intensely with tons of room for micromanagement. For example, lurkers can kill marines but a skilled player can move the marines around to eventually kill the lurkers. Another complaint from Starcraft players is that the game’s battles “are too fast”. This could be translated to “I keep losing in the battles”. There has also been surprise when they find that adding a couple of units, say the ultralisk, completely changes their army (e.g. the ultralisk can mow down smaller units like zerglings in SC 2).

It is amusing to me, a Warcraft 3 player, seeing these Starcraft elitists get their clocks being cleaned by Warcraft 3 players (since Warcraft 3 wasn’t a real ‘RTS’ game to these fools). I’ve played Warcraft 3 more than Warcraft 2 and Starcraft playtime combined. A great game. However, I do think its singe player was meh. And I do think the Night Elves and their big trees were high on the lame meter. The worse was that Orcs were no longer the badass guys they were in Warcraft 2. I want Warcraft 4 to be Orcs versus Humans again.

Above: Remember when the Orcs were badass?

Anyway, what I most look forward to is what people can do with the Starcraft 2 editor. It hasn’t been noticed by anyone, but there is a large underground modding world (mostly by people in Eastern Europe, Russia, and so on) concerning Warcraft 3. “Game journalists” just talk about tower defense (which is old) or DOTA (which actually began with Starcraft and stole from many War 3 modders), but there is a huge amount of energy on these ‘little map makers’. They are literally spending years (!) of their lives on a single map! No joke! And they are all stuck with a 8 mb limit in their maps (used to be 4 mb). They have had to become very creative when it came to importing art assets as well as map size.

There are going to be two type of Starcraft 2 editors: those who did well with Warcraft 3 modding and those who didn’t. And those who didn’t, including our elitist Starcraft players who wrote off Warcraft 3, are going to be completely rolled by the War 3 modders.

Above: This level of detail is rapidly considered the ‘norm’ for terrain in Warcraft 3 maps.

Above: What happens to young ones with intense excitement for Diablo 3? Why, they just make the game in Warcraft 3! Incredible detail.

Above: Some maps rewrite the stat system and create whole new systems. I’m still not sure how they did it. Although, this map is on the verge of breaking the game.

With Starcraft 2, these War 3 modders are going to be erupting like a farg out of hell at top speed. Starcraft 2 is going to be much easier to mod than Warcraft 3. No JASS, for one (do not mention the evil 1.24 patch to any War 3 modder). And this is the first time, that I can recall, that the game company is setting up a system where people can actually SELL their work. Now, Blizzard is doing this only for the purpose to keep popular stuff from leaving their platform (like tower defense did). But there is immense potential here and I think many people, especially the Starcraft 1 people who think their skills in Staredit will translate to the Galaxy Editor, are going to be shocked.

But I will not be shocked. In the Era of Disinterest, gamers are going to be making their own games. Industry men who think their games are secure because they have tons of money in ‘production values’ should be concerned of the revolution bubbling up from the low end.

Dear Malstrom,

I just read your latest post (“And their little hearts are going to
break…”) and, frankly, I have to admit that it’s already happened to
a number of people. I’m a long-time Metroid fan (started with the
originals, born in 1984) that has been growing more and more
disillusioned with the Metroid franchise. I’ll be the first to admit
that I didn’t rush out to buy Super Metroid on day one, due to being
ten years old and having zero income at the time. I actually first
played the game in 1997 and, I must admit, I was floored by the game.
One of my NES favorites was given new life, a new lease! Everything
was bigger, more intense, and just more fun. It’s really hard to say
it any differently. At the time, I thought that a new Metroid would be
like Samus’ return to Zebes, only on some bigger, more fantastic
planet. It seemed natural at the time, since that’s what happened
between Metroid and Super Metroid (anybody with a brain knew why
Metroid II was smaller back in the day).

In When Metroid Prime and Fusion came out, I gravitated toward Fusion
first – it looked like Super Metroid, and had the promises of the
“original development team” working on the title, and the idea of an
evil Samus DID seem cool. However, when the game finally came out, I
was, frankly, disappointed. Why was Samus narrating? Why did she keep
talking about this Adam guy? Why the hell was Samus half Metroid? It
just felt so wrong… so unlike the sci-fi inspired action I loved. I
found myself gravitating toward the Prime series. Even today, I find
myself shaking my head at the situation. How could anyone screw up 2D
Metroid? I skipped Zero Mission, mostly out of disgust, and opted for
Prime 2 instead. I hear that I made the wise choice in this decision.

When I saw the Other M teaser, I was immediately mixed. The rapid
shots of Samus kicking butt interested me, excited me even. Then, I
saw Samus in a city window at sunset. My heart sank. They were going
to do it again. The same questions came up. “Why are they showing this
part?” “Who is this woman… is that…? Why is Samus Asian?
Nevermind… who is she talking to, and why should I care?” Gaming
sites proclaimed it as “the next big step for Metroid,” or “a dream
title.” I saw it as something to fret about, to worry about. I’ve
tried posting a comment or two on a few sites expressing my opinion,
but it gets shouted down quickly – “The story was tastefully done!”
people proclaim, and “it’s good to see Samus as a character!” I’ve
since given up on that avenue. It’s not worth arguing with idiots,
after all.

I do apologize for the rant but, frankly, I feel that you understand
exactly what I’m going through. I’m a long-time gamer, who grew up
with the franchise. And, to me, it’s never been about Samus. It’s
never even been about the story. It’s never even been about the
atmosphere. It’s always been about exploring amazing locales filled
with crazy, strange, even deadly enemies. The crazy, unusual logic you
had to use was fun! You never know what was around the corner! Was
there a missile upgrade past the wall? Could an energy tank be in the
ceiling? You just never knew what to expect.

I feel like the magic is draining away from the series – Sakamoto
seems dead set on running the franchise into the ground before he
retires. I’m still taking the “wait and see” approach, and I still
have the game pre-ordered. However, this may be the last time I go to
such lengths for a Metroid game.

If Metroid could be summed up in one word, it would be “alien”. The games always felt very “alien” whether you go from Brinstar to Maridia to Mother Brain. Exploring Samus Aran and her ’story’ is doing the opposite of being ‘aien’.

With Metroid Fusion, Sakamoto destroyed the timeline of the Metroid series by totally messing up Samus and her space suit. It is because of Fusion’s horrible storyline that every Metroid game is now a ‘prequel’.

With Zero Mission, Sakamoto destroyed the original Metroid by ‘re-imagining’ it to be a game with cutscenes, a silly Zero Suit stealth game at the end, completely took out the original Metroid feeling of fear (people who played Metroid when it was new will tell you how ridiculously scary Kraid and Ridley were),  and generally pissed all over your memory of the game. (The market responded by purchasing NES Metroid for the GBA classic series over Zero Mission [which included NES Metroid as an unlockable]).

And now with Other M, Sakamoto seems set to make the entire franchise a laughingstock.

I know while some readers defend Zero Mission, I think the game was a turning point for the worse of the series which was the egg and Other M is the abomination hatching from that egg. Let me elaborate.

The Metroid ‘genre’ as defined as a game divided into areas where only a unique item gets you to the next area… is not Metroid and has never been Metroid. Yet, the lingo was popularized by game journalists as they began applying it other games. Castlevania for the handhelds became “Metroidvania”. Back when NES Metroid came out, almost every adventure game had what is today called the ‘Metroid’ style of gaining an item to explore another area.

The Legend of Zelda had this gameplay as did Zelda 2. Blaster Master had this gameplay. There were many famous games at the time that had that gameplay.

Ironically, NES Metroid did not have that ‘gameplay’ that has been named after it. This is probably why when kids, who grew up on Super Metroid, play NES Metroid they get confused and then just say, “This game sucks! It is so primitive!”

This is the map of NES Metroid. While there are clearly areas that require an item to get into, what is so distinct is just how undefined the areas are. There is Brinstar, there is Norfair, there are the boss areas and Mother Brain’s area, but everything is very interconnected and meshed into one another.

Super Mario Brothers was an action game. RPGs were games that had feelings of growth. Legend of Zelda was an action / RPG hybrid. Metroid was an action game, but Metroid was not an RPG. Metroid was never about ‘feelings of growth’ as it was in Zelda. In Zelda, when you got items you became more powerful. While you did get more powerful in Metroid, growing in power was not what the items were about. And the items were not about being mere ‘keys’ to other areas.

What I find striking about original Metroid is how the power-ups substantially altered the gameplay core. For example, Samus cannot fire very far at the beginning. However, once she gets the long beam, she can shoot across the screen. This substantially changes the game. Obtaining bombs or the ice beam also substancially changes the gameplay.

In this fashion, one cannot say there is ‘backtracking’ in Metroid. Sure, you go through the same areas again, but the gameplay has substantially changed. The first time you go up the corridor, you have to dodge the flying guys. But with the ice beam, the flying guys become handy platforms.

Look at how the Varia Suit is looked at between then and now. The Varia Suit is seen today as nothing more than a key to allow Samus to access new areas through lava. While that is true, that is not the consumer experience. When the player got the Varia Suit, the player did not say, “Oh boy, I can now go through lava filled areas of which I could not go through before.” It was “This game has totally changed on me! I can now fall through the lava areas and not immediately die!” When someone got the high jump boots, it was more like “I have more freedom now” rather than “I can now access that area with the very high block.”

Going through old areas with new power-ups was a new experience, not a backtrack through an old experience. If you are going through an area with high jump boots on, you are having a very different experience than before.

Let me give you an example of what I am talking about. Let us say there is an item that allows Samus to shoot dimensional damage on walls that effectively allow Samus to walk through them. Do you not think this item, alone, would substantially alter the game experience? Suddenly, the player would be re-visiting old areas and trying out his new toy. He is not so much backtracking but having a new experience. Seeing this item as merely a ‘key’ to get to another area is entirely missing the spirit of Metroid.

Above all, NES Metroid was a very scary game. The game was extremely dangerous. You easily died. Kraid and Ridley, while looking ridiculous in their 8-bit sprites, were terrifying because they were very, very dangerous.

Now, let us look at Metroid II.

This is the map for Metroid II. As you can tell, the map is clearly divided into areas which not only require items to get to (i.e. used as keys) but also Samus must destroy all the Metroids in an area so the quicksand will sink. This is a linear Metroid but consider that it is intended for the handheld. And consider that it is the Gameboy. Anyone who mocks Metroid II for its ’simplicity’ has no understanding about the old brick Gameboy. This was a massive, absolutely massive, Gameboy game.

I think the Spider Ball was the coolest item in Metroid II. It really altered how you played the game and how you explored it.

But the point is that the so-called “Metroid gameplay” really began with Metroid II in its deliberate division of areas which is accessed not just through items but through killing bosses as well.

Now let us look at Super Metroid:

Super Metroid inherited many of Metroid II’s bad traits. You can see how the areas are very divided. Also, like Metroid II, one needs not just items to get to another area but must kill bosses. Super Metroid is not as linear as Metroid II, but the game is definitely not as crazy as the first Metroid. Super Metroid is a far, far easier game than Metroid. I know I was disappointed when I played it when the game first came out.

Super Metroid did do great things for the series, however. The production values were out of this world for the game. The music was nirvana. More critically, the areas were differentiated. In Metroid II, all the places seemed samey. In Metroid, there wasn’t even that much difference between Brinstar and Norfair except for all the lava. But Super Metroid made the areas FEEL different. Maridia feels very different from Crateria. And Norfair feels very different from the Wrecked Ship.

In a podcast, Blizzard admits it believes one of the reasons why Diablo 2 was successful was because the game used so many differing environments which removed the sense of repetition.

(Note that Metroid Prime was also praised for this as well. With areas like Phenandra Drifts, the differing environments was one of the highlights of that game.)

So ever since Super Metroid acquired the bad habit from Metroid II of having areas that could only be accessed by beating a boss and getting an item, this became seen as “Metroid gameplay” and every Metroid game followed that formula.

But one Metroid game was sticking out.

Above: Other M’s amazing graphics.

It was NES Metroid. There were no cutscenes in NES Metroid. There was no focus on Samus except at the very end (and that was only to pull a fast one on the player). NES Metroid doesn’t even have the areas as clearly divided. NES Metroid is extremely confusing to play. Today, people see this confusion as one of Metroid’s “problems”. But that was considered its highlight back at the time. Where the hell do you go in Metroid? Do you go left or right? Up or down? Unlike the sequels, it is not clear where to go. This added to the alien experience.

The problem of today is that they are relying on the production values to create the alien experience. But the gameplay was very trippy. Samus turning into a ball? WTF. And giant bird statues holding the hidden items? That was considered very cool especially the song that played when you got the item. Metroid didn’t make much sense. Neither did Super Mario Brothers. These things were part of their charm.

What we should be asking is “Why did the original Metroid sell? It is, after all, responsible for starting everything.” It was clear Metroid was sticking out from the other Metroid games in being very different. Instead of trying to understand this difference, Sakamoto re-made NES Metroid to have all the traits that came with the sequels plus adding much Sakamoto eccentricity in Zero Mission. This is why I don’t like Zero Mission. Zero Mission feels as if Sakamoto is pissing on NES Metroid.

Plus, there was no reason to remake NES Metroid. Metroid was ‘remade’ with Super Metroid and that game was ‘remade’ with Metroid Prime. Why not make a brand new 2d Metroid? Why screw around in the limited world that was NES Metroid?

Imagine if Miyamoto remade The Legend of Zelda and put in cutscenes and made the gameplay all about puzzles. Only the current Zelda fans might like this. The older Zelda fans would be intensely offended. It would feel as if Miyamoto was pissing on their golden game. People would rationally ask, “Why not just make a new Zelda instead?” “Why screw up the classic?”

Above: Samus Aran is holding a sword and has a new suit. Oh wait, that is just the typical Japanese character.

If you notice, the original Zelda game really sticks out from the rest of the series, especially the later games in the series, because the game is very arcade like. It would be wise to understand why Zelda is sticking out because it is the clue as to why modern Zelda is in decline (the old question of “Why did Zelda become popular in the first place?”).

Zero Mission is Sakamoto inflicting his “vision” onto the original Metroid instead of looking back and understanding why Metroid sold in the first place. Just because the original game ’sticks out’ from the series doesn’t mean that is a ‘flaw’. It is because there is something in the original that the modern ones are lacking.

For another example, imagine Miyamoto remaking Super Mario Brothers so that it is a 2d platformer where you collect ’stars’ and there is no flagpole (plus there is a hub world like in NES Kirby). Super Mario Brothers sticks out from the 3d Marios because you just run to the right to reach a flagpole, you do not do a puzzle to find a ’star’. I believe Super Mario Brothers reveals why 3d Mario does not sell like 2d Mario. But instead of acknowledging this, it was be extreme vanity if Miyamoto remade Super Mario Brothers to collect stars from a HUB world only so it would match up with the rest of the series.

And this is exactly what Sakamoto did with Zero Mission. Sakamoto is so filled with vanity that he thought the old classic was *wrong* while his new version was the *right way*.

So no, emailer, Nintendo has no interest in remaking the ‘magic’ you felt with the older Metroid games. The reason why Other M is being made is so Sakamoto can become famous. Other M is being made for Sakamoto, not for people like you. We should change the subtitle to Metroid: Sakamoto Gone Wild.

Above: I remember him! He’s the Token Black Guy that appears in Japanese games! Thank God he doesn’t have a fro as the Token Black Guy did in Final Fantasy XIII.

Hey there Sean, I’ve been a fan of your website for awhile now and I just came across an interesting thought. I really like shmups, and I really wish for it to become mainstream again. I ran across a thread in the shmups forums awhile back about the possible reasons as to why it became the way it is today. The person who started it has good intentions, but I believe they’re not going to find the real answer by asking the people in there directly, since… well, they’re the part of the reason for it being niche since they know so much about the genre and are willing to go through a lot of hoops in order to play the games that they want like buying two versions of the same console that were meant to be sold and played in different parts of the world.

Anyway, here’s my take on the reason as to why shmups became the way they are today:

1) Like with Platformers, Japanese developers excel in this genre due to excellent controls, something which Western developers tend to have a hard time grasping for some reason. And since Western developers can’t really compete with them (although it’s not to say this is a rule; look at Geometry Wars for example), the only other option is to make them irrelevant, which they succeeded in doing using first-person shooters, a genre which the Japanese aren’t very good in making.

2) Because they froze out the genre, most developers either died off (Technosoft folded and Thunderforce, their flagship series, was bought out by Sega; Irem so far has kept their promise by not making another shmup after R-Type Final, one of the most iconic series in the genre) or moved on. Those that did this and tried to make another shmup after a long hiatus of not practicing the craft realized they lost their touch; look at Capcom’s remake of 1942 or Konami’s Otomedius (yes, you can use those same abilities for the single player mode, so you can literally destroy enemy bosses in less than 5 seconds if they stand still for that long like in 2:35 of that video); Konami was so rusty that even before this game, they had to get Treasure, their former employee, to make a proper sequel to the main Gradius series.

3) The people that have been making shmups even after most of the devleopers decided to move on focus almost entirely on two things: elaborate danmaku patterns and convoluted scoring systems (The popularity of Touhou also adds intro stage and pre-boss fight dialog [wtf I want to shoot things not wait for people to talk, especially right before a boss encounter]). If people choose not to follow those systems, the game typically ends up being ridiculously easy, if not outright stupid in terms of game design (ie- boss wields scary sharp objects that can be used as melee weapons but instead chooses to sit back and barf more bullets at the player). And since people want to get the highest score possible, what ends up happening is that most shmup players end up flying solo since another person who just wants to play or has zero experience with the scoring system will ruin it; I remember seeing one dude at the game area of an anime convention screaming at someone while he was playing Radiant Silvergun because they wanted to join in his gaming session. It’s Serious Business indeed.

4) Game journalism is pretty lame as it is, but it also looks like they’re secretly part of the grand scheme of 1). The reason why I say this is because they always praise Treasure’s shmups. And they’ve like, made a total of three so far, with two of them using strange scoring systems and two of them lasting very closet to one hour per playing session. Problem is, as you said, one needs to question these more now instead of putting them on a pedestal all the time, since budding shmup developers want to ape the decisions Treasure made for their first two shmups instead of making something accessible to newcomers who’ve never played one in their entire lives.

5) The genre’s fanbase. When you get stuff like this and developers who attempt to make shmups go over there for advice, they’re most likely going to get replies from the most affluent people who will give them upmarket suggestions, with the end result being a game designed for a niche.

This vicious cycle needs to end. What these developers need to realize is they need to make games where it does feel like you’re controlling something really awesome (hence the tight controls for the shmup craft you’re flying) and you’re fighting enemies with real personality. The only modern shmup that unfortunately does that for me is Senko no Ronde, which is insanely complex because it follows the giant robot mythos found in Japanese animation. It also borrows a lot of atmosphere, if not outright steals it, from To Terra, which is one of those milestone comics that defined the medium in Japan and adds to the game’s charm. And as you’ve said before, it proves that original content ends up being great content that was stolen from something else.

____________________________________________

Malstrom replies:

You’re not going to like my answer.

When the shmups were popular, there was no ‘genre’ as they call it today. There was also a difference with Western shmups as they seemed to be arena based such as Geometry Wars. Japanese shmups were very linear. Even at the beginning, Space War, Defender and Asteroids came from America while Space Invaders, Xevious, and Gradius came from Japan.

What died first was the Western shmup. Western shmups are interesting since they are entirely arena based. Examples would be Uridium and even the Star Control series.

I don’t know why, but I guess gamers just like shooting things. Every generation, there is some ‘genre’ where people are doing nothing but shooting things. Shmups were the bread and butter of arcades and consoles back in the 80s and early 90s. However, the shmup was transforming away from its spaceship origins. If you had the same exact gameplay as a shmup but the sprite was a soldier running around on the ground, is it still a shmup? I’d say so. The aesthetics don’t really matter.

During the 8-bit generation, there were many games that, today, defy description since there was no genre label then and games would mix the genres. Is Guardian Legend a shmup or a Zelda game? Is Contra a shmup or a platformer? Contra shares many of the same elements as a shmup. Perhaps it is a platformer shmup?

Even though Robotron doesn’t have a space ship, the game clearly is shmup like. So wouldn’t Smash TV also be ’shmup like’?

Is Descent a shmup? It shares many of the same characteristics. How about Starfox? Are they just shmups in 3d?

Today, the shmups are long gone except for a few here and there. Twenty years ago, the bread and butter was shmups. Today, the bread and butter of gaming is First Person Shooters. And yet, the first person shooter shares many of the same elements as the westernized shmup. You are in an arena, you shoot at the enemy, you dodge the enemy’s bullets, get new weapons, and so on.

Somehow, along the way, the shmup transformed into the FPS. In a 1 vs 1 Deathmatch, I see Space War reflected in the game. The differences are no gravity, no space ships, and a maze for the map, but other than that they seem like distant relatives.

So I think the shmups have been transformed into FPS. Why did they lose the nifty space ship? It is probably because spaceships aren’t as accessible as a space marine. (For First Person Shmups, you could look at Wing Commander or TIE Fighter.)

Can the old shmup come back? Sure. One of the big problems with the shmup is that the game no longer makes people say “Wow”. When I first saw Zaxxon, I said, “Wow.” When I first saw Life Force, I said, “Wow.” When I first saw Blazing Lasers, I said, “Wow.” When I first saw R-Type, I really said “Wow!” When a shmup now appears, no matter how well it is done, the reaction is always “Meh”.

In order for the shmup to become mainstream again, it is going to have to make people say “Wow!”, and I don’t know how to do that. Games like Geometry Wars were popular because they were cheap little downloadable titles.

Even on the DS, there aren’t many shmups. There is Nanostray… but then what?

If 2d Mario can come back, so can the old shmup. I do agree they need to eliminate all the ‘eccentricity’ that has grown around the shmup such as the ‘bullet hell’ and the enemy designs that make no sense whatsoever. Just as NSMB Wii had to be Mario 5 instead of Super Mario World 2, the new shmup is going to have to be Gradius 6 instead of Gradius 3 Part 2.

Hey Sean, I wanted to pick at your brain a bit, what do you think Nintendo’s actions for these franchises will be after these three games fail?

Nintendo knows they aren’t going to push hardware which is why they are coming out during the graveyard period of spring and summer. I do not believe Other M or Galaxy Expansion Pack were made with the intention of sales. With the Wii becoming popular as well as Wii Fit, Nintendo developers believed they were geniuses and really “let go”. We got ‘genius’ titles like Wii Music and Spirit Tracks.

One thing is that Nintendo will never, ever, admit a game failed in public. So if you are waiting for that, then you will just be waiting.

It appears Nintendo is placing the ‘mission’ for Galaxy Expansion Pack and games like Other M to keep our hardcore friends from totally abandoning the Wii. What I find amusing are scribblings like this which ponder why Nintendo is putting their big hits all together in the spring. The answer is because they are weak games; weak in the sense of pushing Wii hardware momentum. There is already a 3d Mario and Metroid game on the Wii and neither pushed hardware sales. So why would their sequels do the same?

I did catch Dunaway saying she hoped the people who bought a Wii for NSMB Wii will buy Galaxy Expansion Pack. I wonder if she is just doing a PR statement with that or if she really believes it. I can tell you, with absolute conviction, that people who bought NSMB Wii will NOT be buying Galaxy Expansion Pack. People who buy 2d Mario and not 3d Mario are not just ‘uninterested’ in 3d Mario, they despise it.

Nintendo needs to study the gamers of disinterest in more detail. “Accessibility” isn’t the big reason that is keeping gamers away. They are not so much ‘disinterested’ as they are boycotting. For example, someone like me who has bought every Metroid game will not be buying Other M. It is not just ‘disinterest’. I am boycotting the product by not buying it. Sakamoto’s vision of Metroid is not Metroid. I am voting with my wallet.

People were not buying 3d Mario because they were BOYCOTTING it. Making the game more ‘accessible’ makes the assumption that the 2d Mario people really want to play it but cannot because it is “too hard”. The reality is that the 2d Mario despise 3d Mario. Why do they despise it? There are numerous reasons, but mostly it is because 3d Mario is a completely different game. In 2d Mario, you just run to the right. In 3d Mario, you have to find a ’star’ and you re-visit the same stage half a dozen times to find another star. I can’t believe anyone at Nintendo even saw 3d Mario as remotely the same as 2d Mario.

We have yet to see 2d Mario’s gameplay be created in 3d. A true 3d Mario would have every stage be different, would have the player keep moving one direction, and would have no scavenger hunt for stars.

I think Other M and Galaxy Expansion Pack are recognized by Nintendo as being ‘weak titles’ in terms of pushing momentum. The only people who do not realize this are the forum dwellers who are still in orgasm over the Nintendo summit.

(As disclaimer, keep in mind I do not think these games are ‘bad’. They are very well made. If you liked Galaxy, you will love Galaxy Expansion Pack. I am saying these games will not push hardware as, say, Wii Sports or Wii Fit or NSMB Wii did. Still, these games are a zillion times better than the User Generated Content software. And that begs us to ask, “Why the hell is NOA releasing that Warioware DS game?” It is just going to die.)

The emailer continues below:

As for Motion plus games, what are you expecting, so far motion plus seems to be more focused on sports and swordfighting games, What if any new directions for motion plus do you think Nintendo will unveil at E3?

If I knew, I would be working at Nintendo implementing my crazy awesome ideas instead of writing walls of text on a gaming website.

Motion Plus might work in Starfox. See the flying game in Wii Sports Resort.

But you bring up a good question of using Motion Plus for non-combat purposes. Well, imagine Motion Plus and a game like NES Shadowgate. You would use the Motion Plus to look around with the torch (and set fire to the carpet, hehe). You could pick up items or throw them. A non combat adventure game might be pretty cool with Motion Plus.

But the biggest issue I see with Nintendo is not so much Motoin Plus but the lack of content. Games need substance, they need ideas. Why is it during the NES and even SNES Era, Nintendo could crank out brand new content such as Mario, Zelda, Metroid, Kid Icarus, Mach Rider, Star Tropics, Star Fox, and so on while today we just get sequels-with-a-twist? Sure, there was Pikmin, but is there anything else? Are there any new fictional universes that Nintendo can make? Keep in mind that this criticism will soon be falling on Blizzard once Diablo 3 and Starcraft 2 are out. People will be asking, “Can’t this company do anything new?”

Here is what I want:

I want genuine sequels to Metroid, Mario, and Zelda. I do not want Zelda with train or Metroid with soap opera. I want these series to stay true to their original spirit. If you want to explore new gameplay, make a brand new game for it. I find it insulting that developers are inflicting us with their ‘gameplay ideas’ that have not been tested by injecting them in solid franchises. For example, FLUDD from Super Mario Sunshine or the train from Spirit Tracks.

When Nintendo made Super Mario Kart, they did not inject ‘racing’ into Super Mario World. They made Super Mario Kart its own game. They made their gameplay idea stand on its own. And it made a new franchise.

With Starfox, Nintendo did not put Mario, Luigi, Toad, and Peach in Arwings. They put in new characters.

When I get a Metroid game, I want it to be Metroid. I don’t want Sakamoto’s stupid visions of how it “should” be. I would prefer no radical changes to the series games. If you want a radical change, make it a brand new game or a brand new universe. If your new gameplay idea is so good, then the IP shouldn’t matter.

With a new console, I expect to see an incarnation of Mario Kart, of 2d Mario, of Zelda, and of Metroid and all the rest of the usual suspects. I do not expect any of those games to be *weird*. And once Nintendo puts out those type of games, they can turn their attention to BRAND NEW games. Instead, we are getting sequels to these games instead. This makes the Wii seem stale.

The best approach would be to mix it up, to have the sequels to our favorites combined with new games at the time. So instead of Mario and Metroid sequels one fall, how about Mario sequel and a brand new game? And then next year, have the Metroid sequel and another brand new game?

“But what about Wii Sports and Wii Fit, Malstrom? They are new! Huh? Huh!?”

They are new IPs, but they are not new content in terms of an immersion. Nintendo seems unable or unwilling to create immersion games that are not a sequel. Not even on WiiWare!

Google has the philosophy of having employees dedicate like 10% of their time to a project they want. Why can it not be so with game developers? Why can’t they have a little project of their own the size of a WiiWare title? This way, they can get all their eccentricity out in their own WiiWare title instead of stinking up Zelda or Metroid with it (and if they are the genius they see themselves as, their WiiWare title will be big, and they can make a big title based on it).

Monster Hunter Tri is the only game from the summit that really has my attention, and I have been curious how Nintendo would arise to the unique marketing problem that is Monster Hunter Tri.

But these commercials are great. I love the ‘testosterone’ commercials (which is something gamers need more of). They remind me of the Caveman commercials which were a big hit.

The crabs are my favorite so it goes first:

I love how he calls anyone scared of the little crabs a girl. Hahahahaha

You know why these commercials feel so fresh? They are not politically correct. I guarantee some interest group somewhere is going to whine that the Monster Hunter guy said if they do not hunt monsters then they are being a girly man.

The Wii definitely needs some more testosterone enriched gaming.

Answer at the bottom of this post.

One of the things the Super Metroid did correctly was re-create the NES and Gameboy ending moments in the Super Metroid game engine, turn it black and white to signal a flashback, and successfully recreated a feeling for nostalgia. Seeing the end of Super Metroid in ridiculous CGI brings back no nostalgia and actually ruins the ending of Super Metroid (now when we get the Hyper Beam, we will have that stupid saying in our head of “Mother, time to go!” Ugh).

Much of Super Metroid’s intro was left to your imagination. You get the sense that the intro didn’t want to be there, that it was trying to do its thing and get off the stage. The intro is good because it did not linger. EG: No butt shots of Samus.

I’m rather fond of the intro to Metroid Prime. In that, no words are spoken. The camera only swirls around to show that you are now in 3d and then zooms into Samus’s helmet.

The Metroid Prime 2 intro was also pretty cool. All it shows is Samus crashing into the planet, camera swirls around, and then you are good to go.

So what do the intros of Other M and Super Metroid have in common? They both have bad voice acting*. Perhaps Sakamoto should have stuck to text instead.

*Does not include baby Metroid whose voice acting has always been excellent.