AarowSwift

I've said this a few times before. Yes, shooting has always been a element of the Metroid series. But if you took away Samus' gun and replaced it with say, a sword, the overall experience of the game would not change. Only the combat element would be altered and even then it wouldn't be a dramatic difference. The game would still sit squarely in the same genre, the Action Adventure genre. Most combat is trivial. You walk and shoot a bug, swiping it with a sword wouldn't change the experience. Most combat is at close quarters with minimal cover. Engaging directly with a melee weapon wouldn't change this. Only the bosses would be handled differently. In fact, the main instances where samus needs the long range attribute of a gun..is for manipulating the environment. But if you took away the guns in any true shooter, you'd fundamentally change the way these games are played. Melee combat requires a different approach, different tactics, different uses of the environment. Shooters would necessarily be moved into a different genre because the main play element they are built around had been replaced. Edit: To I-n-j-i-n, you seem more concerned with extolling the various attributes incorporated into shooters as your main argument for Metroid as a shooter. I don't think anybody here is saying shooters haven't a great deal of variety and offer different shooter experiences. But whether they're frag fests, tactical, or stealth based, they're still shooters. That's the foundation all of their elements are built upon. Shooting things and avoiding being shot is the essential experience of these games and can not be replaced without changing the game's very foundation. That's the one thing they have in common, and Metroid just does not share this common thread. Metroid would still retain its foundation elements if Samus didn't have a gun at all. Metroid is not dependent on its shooting combat.

Not going to respond point by point this time. Again, I never meant to disparage FPS'. Ultimately, many modern games are becoming too robust and varied to fit into classic genre labels. But labels are still given to them for the purpose of a quick tag. A description in a single word for people to digest at a glance. Ideas too complex to make clear in a single sentence may not reach the consumer's ear at all. This is well understood in advertising. It's the consumer's first impression. Gamers used to being in the know dismiss this out of hand. The reason I think applying accurate genre labels (specifically where Metroid is concerned since that's my focus here) probably stems from some of the gamer reaction I read back when the first Prime came out. Amidst the praise I read a significant number of posts from people who felt Prime was a poor game. Their specific complaints made it apparent they went into Prime expecting a classic shooter with the combat elements traditionally associated with the genre and found little to shoot at with controls not well suited to twitch combat. Again, this was not the game's fault, it was misplaced expectations. Exactly so. My own example gives Samus a sword and replaces the sci-fi stylings of the environments with fantasy elements (but maintains the same mood and atmosphere). Even if you remove the shooting element, you still end up with the same basic game, the same experience, sitting squarely in the same genre. But if you remove the shooting element from a game that falls into the (robust and varied) shooting genres, you fundamentally change the experience. Guns into swords changes your whole tactical approach and how you use the environments. The games would have to be moved into a different genre (hack and slash for some, maybe even full blown action adventure for others). The shooting element, however it's applied, is just a lot more important to these games.

Sure, that's good enough for me, but that really doesn't mean anything to a person playing Metroid for the first time. I didn't intend to imply FPS games were simple or lacked diversity. The focus is still the same though. Combat. It's all about you VS the other guy. It may mean a shoot out, or it may involve tactics and strategy. It may be frantic shooting and strafing or it may mean careful positioning and sniping. But it's still combat focused. That's what you paid your entrance fee for. Modern games are certainly more genre agnostic and harder to fit into neat categories than past games. Modern FPS games may incorporate RPG or Adventure elements...but that just means they're veering into Metroid territory, not the other way around. Now, I'll admit I only have passing familiarity with the FPS genre, watching a lot more than playing. But in your examples, what are the elements that make those environments stars? In Metroid, your biggest opponent is the environment. Most of your abilities, weapons and tools are used to maneuver through it, once you've figured out how. This is a basic adventure game element and has been present in Metroid from the beginning. Again, its presence in an FPS means the FPS has taken on Adventure (see Metroid) like elements. You must keep enlightened company. An average trip around an average message board shows me as much ignorance as education. The fact that people want Metroid to gain a multiplayer focus and take on Halo head to head leads me to conclude some gamers are focusing on elements in opposition to what makes a Metroid game a Metroid game. Again, that just means FPS' are veering into Metroid/Adventure territory, not the other way around. The purpose of creating a genre is to be descriptive. If you have a unique experience you don't lump it together with games that are superficially related just because you only have one example of it. That doesn't even make sense. Regardless, Metroid is an Adventure series. The fact that the Prime Trilogy uses a First Person Perspective is trivial, but that's what people get hung up on. I'd drop the FP altogether and just call them Adventure games. Again, you can't use the series' title as a genre descriptor because that assumes everyone knows what it means to be a Metroid game (everybody should know what it means to be a Metroid game, but let's not kid ourselves here). It's like defining a word with itself. "The definition of Jump is Jump." Edit: Really, when it comes right down to it, gaming is a very personal experience: What we like, what we don't like, what makes or breaks an experience what defines an experience... I just feel that calling the Metroid games Adventure games serves as a better descriptor than calling them shooters. Shooters, whatever the flavor, call to mind a combat focus that just isn't present in Metroid. Even Corruption, which has the heaviest combat presence of the Prime Trilogy doesn't make combat its main focus. It's not a constant presence and the most common enemies are still more nuisance than threat.

But that bases the definition on superficial elements and is non descriptive of the experience. This oversimplification makes for a poor and misleading definition. A proper definition should describe the focus of the game. It's first person, and you explore engrossing environments. One would think it's an FPA just by definition.

The Metroid Prime games, they use a first person view point and you shoot things. That makes them First Person Shooters, right? This is a misconception common among people new to the series but I see even those familiar with the series give these games the FPS label, and it's just not correct at all. You can't compare Metroid Prime to Halo or Doom etc. because these games simply are not in the same genre. But what's the difference, really? The repetition of this question has lead me to give the answer a few days of thought and I've finally decided to post my answer, it's a bit involved so bear with me. First, let's step back to the 2-D roots of both the Metroid Series and the Run 'N Gun style games. I'll use Super Metroid and Contra 3 as my genre representatives. In Super Metroid and Contra 3, you control an armed character, you run through environments and you shoot things. Yet, despite these similiarities these games play nothing like each other. The defining difference is in the games' focus. In a Run 'N Gun, you shoot things. That's what you do to progress. The focus is on combat. Contra 3 is a very pure Run 'N Gun example. The Mega Man series are Run 'N Gun games that also have a very heavy platforming element, but what you do to progress is still primarily focused on combating enemies. Super Metroid and its 2-D kin are Side-scrolling Adventure games. They share more in common with the Legend of Zelda series than with the likes of Contra. Super Metroid has 3 (quite well balanced) focuses. The primary focus is Navigation. This consists of exploration and puzzle solving. Travel from one point to another is often not straight forward. A lot of examination and thought are required to figure out the environment and discover how to progress. The secondary focus is Traversal, the actual act of moving through the environment. Samus makes use of basic platforming, acrobatics, and her own inventory of tools and weapons to manipulate the environment to allow her to progress. The tertiary focus is Combat. Most enemies in Super Metroid are trivial, little more than nuisances to shoot or avoid or make use of. That's not to say there are no intense fire fights. There are points were you run into aggressive enemies that take a lot of damage before going down, unexpected mini-bosses to keep you on your toes, and main boss battles are never short of spectacular. Even so, this element is part of a much more intricate whole, part of an overarching cerebral/visceral experience that defines the Action Adventure genre. These elements directly translate into 3-D. (Note: nowhere does linear VS non-linear level design become relevant in this definition) The 3-D equivalents of the 2-D Run 'N Gun games are the 3rd Person and First Person Shooters (I'll only address the First Person Shooters here). A modern FPS is a lot more complex than a classic Run 'N Gun but the focus remains the same. You shoot to progress. Combat is the objective and main attraction. The typical "environmental puzzle" is usually no more involved than finding the right color key card for the door at the end of the level. The Metroid Prime games, meanwhile, are in the direct lineage of the 2-D Metroid games. They are Adventure games. Moving the perspective to First Person does not change the genre. The focuses of the games are largely unchanged. The primary focus is still Navigation. The star of the show (aside from Samus herself) is the environment. It's your main opponent. There's a bit of a change in the secondary and tertiary focuses, depending on which of the 3 Prime games you're addressing. Classic platforming has been reduced since it's a lot more difficult to pull off traditional acrobatics in 3-D, but in its place are some expansive Morph Ball obstacle courses (these reached their apex in Echoes). Prime probably stays closest to the classic distribution; Echoes sees Traversal and Combat reach more of an even level; and Corruption sees Combat as the secondary focus with slightly reduced Traversal as tertiary. They're all still Adventure games. If Samus wielded a sword and traveled through fantasy themed environments there wouldn't even be a question on genre. In the Legend of Zelda, Link uses a melee weapon to hit things, so it's totally a Hack and Slash game and should be directly compared to God of War, right? Of course not. Saying Wind Waker is in the same genre as God of War because of some superficial similiarities is absurd, but this is exactly the type of comparison being made with every Metroid VS Halo (or whatever the hot FPS of the moment is) comment. But why are genre labels important anyway? When meeting new people, most of you probably know how important first impressions are. They leave the first indelible mental imprint of what sort of person you are. Well, the first impression many gamers get of a game are from the genre the game has been tagged with. If a gamer is used to the style of play seen in Halo or Quake or Unreal and expects that sort of experience going into Metroid Prime, they have been set up for a disappointment: and it's not the game's fault. Here's a personal example: A friend of mine went to the theater to see The Mummy (1999). The previews had lead him to believe it was a horror film and that's what he was anticipating. Finding out it was an Indiana Jones style movie left a bad taste in his mouth and to this day he really hates The Mummy. But he Loves The Mummy Returns. The sequel is the exact same type of film as the first was. The reason his opinions are so polar opposite has everything to do with his expectations. He went into The Mummy Returns knowing exactly what sort of movie it was, and so his expectations were met, and he thoroughly enjoyed the experience. Labels can have a huge impact on whether a movie or video game is enjoyed or not. Some people just can't get past that first impression. The Metroid games sit squarely in the Action Adventure genre and properly rub shoulders with games like The Legend of Zelda. The settings and presentation are different, but the game play focuses are largely the same. That's the conclusion I drew from my examination of these games. It's getting a bit late and I hope I put it down in text as clearly as it is in my head.

Don't listen to this. Echoes is incredible. It's technically a better game than Prime 1 but has some frustrating elements that some people can't seem to get over. I think the biggest hurdle to liking this game is it makes you work harder for your rewards. I've played through it 4 times now and ever play through I appreciate all the more. Ultimately, which you like and which you like more, Prime or Echoes, is very much up to personal tastes and tolerances.

I'd definitely do both, but then, I replay my games ad infinitum anyway.

Sure thing. And ahh...to make this post more substantial than a quote and two words, here's a fun question. Who out there ordered Metroid Prime 3 online and must therefore wait for it to ship to you? I preordered ages ago from Amazon and I always go for the free (but slow) shipping if its available. The added wait shall be painful indeed.

Yeah, I think it is at NeoGAF. I'll have to ask there since I haven't been able to find it. I always found navigation difficult in Echoes, but the post pointed out how much more convenient it actually was compared to Prime. It just doesn't seem to feel like it.

Yep, wall jumping in Super Metroid is an advanced skill for a reason...it's tough!. I used to be quite horrible at it but on my latest play through, I really got the timing and was able to do it with pretty good consistency. The order of actions is: Jump towards the wall, it must be a spinning jump. Touch the wall. Quickly push the direction away from the wall and then hit the jump button. Of course, knowing this doesn't make it easy because the timing is very precise. You must perform the actions very quickly. All you can do is practice to get it down. If you just can't get the hang of it, then do like I did on my first few plays: use the bomb jump to get out of there. I was a bit better at the bomb jump's timing. You'll probably be pleased to know there is no place in the game where you must wall jump to proceed.

Hey, I'm trying to find a specific post. I don't know who posted it. The topic was Navigation in Metroid Prime: Echoes. Somebody wrote a wonderful post pointing out how carefully interconnected the areas were in Echoes, how you were never very far from an elevator and so forth. I really want to quote this post but I can't find it. It was either in this thread or in a Metroid thread at NeoGAF. I probably read the post in question a couple weeks ago. If you were the poster, or you remember the post I'm referring to, please help me, I'd appreciate it!

That's fine. I was just elaborating on my own philosophy.

But you see, that's where the "line in the sand" comes in. I'm not waiting to try and squeeze every nickel I can out of a product, I simply have a price point limit. I'll buy as soon as I can find the product at, or really close, to my price point. If it NEVER reaches my price point, then I never buy. I'm hardly missing out since I already own a console that has met met my price point and is supplying me with plenty of games. There are lots of games I have missed out on because of cost, but they were forgotten about quickly enough since I was busy playing the games that weren't isolated from me by a wall of money.

Ah, I guess I wasn't paying attention on DMC4. Unfortunately, I can't name more than a small handful of games on the Xbox and Xbox360 combined that I'm even interested in. For me, it'd be an even poorer investment than a PS3 at full price. As for $600 really being a lot? Yes, yes it is. What I spend on any game system is a lot, but asking me to shell out that much up front is just too much to ask. Everyone needs a line they don't cross or we get royally screwed. After all, if $600 isn't too much, then next time they'll see if they can push it to $800, after all, what's $200 more? How about $1000 next time? Hey, these mooks will pay even that, let's see how far we can ride this horse... The argument that the bleeding edge tech makes it worth it doesn't fly with me. Sure, the raw power of the PS3 is impressive, but know what? If I just wait a few years the next console from Nintendo will probably be that powerful, or close enough, and it'll cost under $300 more than likely. A little patience will get you equivalent quality at a much lower price tag. I already got burned on the DVD player. I was a moderately early adopter of that. I paid $200 for one the size of an older VCR. Shortly after you could pick them up for much, much, much, less at a quarter the size and weight. Let the people who own million dollar homes and private jets support the bleeding edge, I'll just wait until it's actually worth my own money. The way I see it, the extra polygons and fancy shaders are not worth the $350 difference and that's just the raw cost of the console. I spend too much on the Wii and DS...but at least that's on games.

As far as I've heard, those aren't demos. They're the full game.

That's the truth for me. I have a PS2 amidst my various Nintendo consoles and there are a few franchises I really like that have always been Sony exclusives, like Ratchet and Clank for example. I'm also a big fan of Devil May Cry, but Capcom has thus far insisted on keeping the series exclusively on Playstation. Maybe that will finally change this console generation. I think it would do very well on Wii. Hopefully people will give the small budget hack and slash Dragon Blade a chance (assuming it isn't terrible). If that one does well then Capcom would be out of excuses. Anyway, I refuse to pay more than $300 for a game console. I don't care how cutting edge it is. I want it for games, not to hang on my wall like some tech trophy. More than $300 is too much, no matter what games it has or how shiny its graphics are.

Nintendo ditching "Hardcore Gaming" for "Casual Gaming" is paranoid nonsense perpetrated by the spoiled brats of the gaming world who have to have everything catered to their own tastes and don't like sharing their toys. /generalization Sure, I'm waiting to see a Metroid commercial on TV and feel NOA's ad department needs to get on the ball here, but I also have no problems with their heavy focus on advertising casual games. If you actually stop to think about it for a second, you'll see why this is a necessary focus. Disclaimer: I'm about to use words relating to maturity and infancy. I am not in any way referring to game ratings or the ages of individuals. I'm talking about markets here. Demographically, the mainstream or "hardcore" audience has matured. It is established and it's not going anywhere. In the console world, the casual demographic is in its infancy and hardly established at all. Who needs more attention and nurture to grow strong, a baby or an adult? That is why casual gaming is getting the focus that it is. It needs it to grow and become established. This is not in any way a threat to mainstream gaming, it is simply an expansion of the market. When the market reaches equilibrium, the attention doled out to casual or mainstream games will even out.

I guess I feel exactly the opposite. Sure, bringing back Mother Brain in some form is cool, it revisits and updates beloved old ideas from the series roots, but I'm more interested in the story being told now, which since Prime 1, was the story of Phazon. Its evil effects were blatant in the first two games, now things look to be getting insidious and the possibilities excite me.

No, it wasn't, which is why I'm shocked that I've seen little to no comment on it.

Did no one else catch the hint at the end of the PED video that the Phazon is in fact affecting the marines and that their major role in the game could quite possible be as new mutated enemies and not as allies at all?

Well, I didn't care for the controls in Metroid Hunters but that's not what killed the game for me. I just flat out couldn't see what was happening comfortably. It's too much of a strain on my eyes to focus on shooting fast moving targets in 3-D on a screen the size of my hand. I had to give up on that game.

Well, it all depends on how the worlds are connected to each other. If the only way to travel is to jump in your ship and fly to a space port then yeah, there's a risk that things could end up too contained. But, and this is pure speculation, there could be other ways to travel, like "warp portals" that move you from a point on one planet to a point on another. Basically they would function in the same way as the traditional elevator, you just move to different worlds instead of different lands on one world. Or perhaps the ship mechanic could work the same way, with you flying to newly uncovered locations, though that would certainly lack the immediacy of opening a door to someplace unexpected.

Which is perfectly in line with the Metroid experience. Look at Super Metroid or any of the others; intense guns blazing action exists with bosses and regular but tough enemies. How do you kill 2-D Ridley? You spam it with missiles. The difference between the 2-D games and regular run-and-guns like Contra is this: Shooting the enemy is just part of the larger experience, not the defining element of it. The same relationship exists between 3-D Metroid and FPS games.

Then apparently you don't want to play Metroid. Just because the series moved into a first person perspective doesn't mean it should become a different experience. If Metroid stopped being Metroid and became another FPS, I wouldn't play it. I don't happen to like FPS games much. I might rent one in a blue moon, but I own none. Samus doesn't need to become genero marine # 456 just because a handful of people out there feel "threatened" by Halo. Halo isn't even on my radar.

I really wouldn't get too worried about them switching Metroid's focus to a first person shooter at the expense of the exploration elements that the series is known for. It makes sense that the demos and previews would focus on the combat element since Nintendo is trying to prove the Wii's FPS capabilities. Metroid is obviously Nintendo's big shooter franchise. It doesn't matter if the Prime series has an adventure focus, it's still the in house proving ground. I figure Corruption will have a more intense action element than the first two Prime games did, but I don't expect it to become Doom or even closely related. In short, the ads may have a shooter focus, but that doesn't mean they represent the focus of the game as a whole.