Metroid Prime 3: Corruption

[Devyn]

Well, I'm getting my wifi back soon, so I have to trade some points with someone, that's the only way you can get those special tokens that unlock all the cool stuff, right?

Edit: Just got to 75% last night. I have to get 100%! There is no alternative. Has anyone reached it yet, and do you have to get all of the scans?

[Penfold]

Well, I'm getting my wifi back soon, so I have to trade some points with someone, that's the only way you can get those special tokens that unlock all the cool stuff, right?

Edit: Just got to 75% last night. I have to get 100%! There is no alternative. Has anyone reached it yet, and do you have to get all of the scans?

Yeah, you have to trade to be able to unlock all the extras. I think you need a total of 15 or so of the green ones (the ones you get from other people) to unlock all of it.

I think you have to get 100% of items and scans to unlock the full ending. I just beat it last night, and today I'll probably start working on my second playthrough to collect the last 7 scans I missed (gonna try out Hyper Mode Difficulty and see how that goes during the Olympus sequence, and if that's too tough right now I'll bump it down to Veteran).

[dsx100]

Um. It IS true. Just so you need to be told this directly, I was specifically talking about the singleplayer experience. Did I ever get into Metroid Hunters or MP2's multiplayer? "hurrrrrr. you still frag people." Same thing if we're talking multiplayer. A Call of Duty game is specifically a war-emulator on top of its generic FPS descriptor. Compare that to Bioshock which is basically a bit of a suspense/sci-fi game. Compare that to FarCry which is almost entirely based on survival at times. Singleplayer wise, the experience can vary vastly. You're just going on and on about how they're all the same, and again, if I do the same to platformers, how would it pan out?: Compare Sonic the Hedgehog games to Ratchet and Clank and see how similar they are. Because they simply aren't..

Once agian, you assume to much. It sepcifically wrote they are similar "especially" multiplayer wise. I never said thats the only thing they have in common. I can't speak for Unreal Tournament 3's single player because the game isn't obviously out yet, so I'm going to use Unreal 2004's single player as an example. In both UT and CoD, single player focuses on repilcating the multiplayer experience as that is dominant trait of both. In both, you have to accomplish various tasks and work with your AI teamates inorder to do so. There are a lot of differences but they still both offer something similar. The same can be said about the platformers you mentioned. They are completely different but like other platformers, there is a strong emphasis on collecting things.

I'm not even talking about the FPS convention anymore, but how people blatantly dismiss FPS as a genre and as something to be 'slapped on' something and think that's a real argument, no less a balanced or insightful one.

.

Agian your the one assuming too much. Basically from the beginning of this 'debate', you were essentially just agruing your point with two people, me and AarowSwift. I have already made it clear that I don't generalize FPSs. I enjoy them, I play them, I play a wide variety of them, and like I said before some happen to be some of my most favorite games of all time. I know what your trying to say that FPSs aren't shallow, they aren't just about multiplayer, they aren't just run and gun. I already know that. If this is the point your trying to argue then this 'debate' should have ended a long time ago. Now I can't speak for AarowSwift, but I believe has been trying to say the same things and make you understand that he also sees that FPSs aren't shallow run and guns. It seems to me that your trying to convince us that Prime is an FPS. And like I said before, that just isn't going to happen.

Finally, I suggest we leave all this Genre nonsense alone and possibly come to the agreement that the Prime series is Action Adventure, leave the First person out of it. Just like Oblivion and Fallout 3 are RPGs, notice no first person added on.

As for me, I'm done with this debate. I just going to go now and enjoy MP 3 Corruption as much as possibile before other great games come out. Please don't drag me into this if it continues.

[Kureejii Lea]

So, genre debating aside, I just wanted to say that even though I haven't seen much of the game so far, the environments are pretty pretty if you take the time to look at 'em. There are some really funky patterns and textures on the walls and the like. Kinda makes me think of old middle-eastern tilework/patterns.

[Penfold]

Just outta curiousity, what sorta times are people getting in beating the game? I beat it in just over 21hrs (which felt like it included a lot of useless wandering), but I think my second playthrough will end up being a bit quicker even on a higher difficulty.

[Cecilff2]

bout 15 hours on my first game, and I may have left it unpaused once for 2-3 hours.

[shikigami]

13 hrs on normal. i felt i did alot of wandering as well

[Hale-Bopp]

On normal mode, I got 96% items at 23:01. I loved wandering aimlessly at times and just soaking in the environment. I don't feel like I want to rush to finish a game when I'm playing through it for the first time ever.

Wow, I didn't realize that my asking about what makes Hunters an FPS vs. other Prime games was gonna start such a long and pointles debate over something so ultimately trivial. Awesome!

[Penfold]

On normal mode, I got 96% items at 23:01. I loved wandering aimlessly at times and just soaking in the environment. I don't feel like I want to rush to finish a game when I'm playing through it for the first time ever.

That's how I felt for the most part playing through, in regard to wandering (when it came to getting to objectives, I didn't use the map and just kinda tried stumbling across where I should be). When I collected about 90% of items, though, I got to the point where I just wanted to beat the game and got slightly impatient looking for the last 10 items.

[Eten]

Officially 15:14 for me to beat it on my first time, with 84%. I never left it unpaused or just sat to soak in the environment. I did not however have any hint system on and let myself move through the environment in my exploratory pace, without free wandering to the point I wasn't attempting to track down the path to my next objective. It was common for me to do one full spin to look at all the walls before I moved on, just to make sure I wasn't missing anything, but never lingered.

I think an average player playing purely for speed and new the paths to take could beat the game at any % in ~5 hours average. This really makes it fitting for Metroid game duration.

[Lemonectric]

My first time was 13:01 with 97%. On normal. I thought I was being slow about it (taking the time to observe stuff everywhere), but I guess other people observed/wandered longer.

[I-n-j-i-n]

Once agian, you assume to much. It sepcifically wrote they are similar "especially" multiplayer wise. I never said thats the only thing they have in common. I can't speak for Unreal Tournament 3's single player because the game isn't obviously out yet, so I'm going to use Unreal 2004's single player as an example. In both UT and CoD, single player focuses on repilcating the multiplayer experience as that is dominant trait of both. In both, you have to accomplish various tasks and work with your AI teamates inorder to do so. There are a lot of differences but they still both offer something similar. The same can be said about the platformers you mentioned. They are completely different but like other platformers, there is a strong emphasis on collecting things.

Um. You are just oversimplifying your description of Call of Duty games because that game is all about creating the warlike atmosphere that can't really be done in a multiplayer setting with all the chaos. It's more like controlled chaos they're going for. That and a lot of motion, mission-sensitive moments and events. CoD games are on an entire another level when it comes down to bringing in the warlike atmosphere. While UT games traditionally replicate the online modes into singleplayer too. And obviously, the tournament set up UT games present for singleplayer.

Also, if you're going by the commonality alone, that is simply too vague and it's not even worth getting into. Collecting items? How is collecting Sonic Rings to propagate Super Sonic powers the same thing as collecting gears that can give you weapons upgrades? They are extremely vague and too dumbed down to be used credibly in an argument. Even look at Prime. You jump and shoot "HURRR THEY ARE THE SAMES".

Agian your the one assuming too much. Basically from the beginning of this 'debate', you were essentially just agruing your point with two people, me and AarowSwift. I have already made it clear that I don't generalize FPSs.

Right. Just when you just generalized a bunch of FPS games, you are saying you aren't. I'm not even arguing this. You're doing that yourself.

I enjoy them, I play them, I play a wide variety of them, and like I said before some happen to be some of my most favorite games of all time. I know what your trying to say that FPSs aren't shallow, they aren't just about multiplayer, they aren't just run and gun. I already know that. If this is the point your trying to argue then this 'debate' should have ended a long time ago.

I was talking about the lack of appreciation not for the enjoyment or variety of FPS games. Pay attention. I was talking about how people openly and basely use the old analogy that FPS games are "only about run and gun" and how the sense of adventure isn't there. Because there clearly are. And a lot of people mention 'slapping on' the FPS branding, but I simply do not see it in a derogatory manner at all since it IS a shallow branding as it is for vast majority of FPS games that focus on totally different game styles. This 'debate' as you put it, did put some worthy arguments out I believe. If you believe otherwise, then kindly stop with the simplistic disparagements.

Now I can't speak for AarowSwift, but I believe has been trying to say the same things and make you understand that he also sees that FPSs aren't shallow run and guns. It seems to me that your trying to convince us that Prime is an FPS. And like I said before, that just isn't going to happen.

I said before that I see it as a matter of fact that Metroid is an FPS game at its most basic level. And once you delve into its mechanics at all, it's obviously an adventure game. This is not about convincing anyone at all. This is just fact to me.

Finally, I suggest we leave all this Genre nonsense alone and possibly come to the agreement that the Prime series is Action Adventure, leave the First person out of it. Just like Oblivion and Fallout 3 are RPGs, notice no first person added on.

They are first person. They are played in first person. But again, most reviewers and gamers in the know know that the games go beyond the FPS conventions and control schemes. If can't make it any more easy to understand than how I put it in that one sentence.

As for me, I'm done with this debate. I just going to go now and enjoy MP 3 Corruption as much as possibile before other great games come out. Please don't drag me into this if it continues.

I never dragged anyone into anything. The whole "separate Metroid Prime games from ALL first person styled games" thing just irks me that's all. As I said, it's a shallow tag no matter what type of FPS games you talk about nowadays.

Also, I don't know why people seemingly tag me into the whole "HALO IS SAMES AS METROID HURRRRRRRR" category. That's funny because the counterpoint bothers bringing up Halo at all. I fully understand Prime games are Metroid at heart 100%. That has absolutely nothing to do with the game working like a FPS game in its most basic, technical form.

[Rambo]

On my hunt for unfound items at 94% I finally found the God damned ITEM LOCATION INFO. I can't believe I spent so much to wandering over EVERY single room, when by chance that could've been among the first I checked. Baaah

[Lemonectric]

When I first found the observatory and sent out a few satellites, I was like "Ooh, it found suit expansions" and then forgot completely about it. Later, as I was exploring Norion to find missed expansions, I was like "How did those dots get there?" and then finally remembered the satellite thing. I guess I had thought it was going to show me actual suit upgrades.

[Arrow]

Clearly I have too much time on my hands, as in two weeks I'm already on my third playthrough (Veteran now; first two were Normal) and will hop right into a fourth when I finish this one.

Though the fourth probably wouldn't be by choice if you could get any Gold Credits for beating bosses in Veteran that you hadn't already beaten in Normal, but oh well.

[AarowSwift]

I fully understand Prime games are Metroid at heart 100%. That has absolutely nothing to do with the game working like a FPS game in its most basic, technical form.

I think that's it right there. That's why I say Metroid isn't a shooter but rather an adventure first and foremost with shooter components. If you take Metroid as a shooter, you get a very simple shooter. A very basic shooter. A very primitive shooter. A game that has none of robust characteristics of the shooters you are trying to defend. In its shooting elements, Metroid is not very heavy on strategy, or stealth, or any advanced shooter mechanics. This is why Metroid is not a shooter. Its shooter elements are added for variety. To mix up the pacing. To give a sudden shot of adrenaline now and then.

I can't speak for anyone else, but when I say Metroid is not a shooter, I am not in any way saying shooters are basic, simple, primitive frag fests. I'm saying the shooter elements in Metroid exists on too minor and simple of a level to be placed next to much more advanced shooter games. This is because Metroid doesn't focus its game play on the shooting combat aspect. If you're used to the advanced mechanics of serious shooters, and you go into Metroid thinking its foremost a shooter, you'll probably be disappointed by Metroid's simplistic approaches. Because Metroid is not a shooter. Metroid simply incorporates basic shooting combat into its whole. Metroid's focus remains, as always on Navigating the Environments. Since that's Metroid's biggest draw, that is how it should be labeled: Action Adventure or First Person Adventure.

[AarowSwift]

My first play through was on Veteran Difficulty and I finished in a bit over 17 hours with 88% items. I did a lot of wandering and looking around. Since I ignored any and all hints I spent a of time in the wrong places. But it never felt that way. I'm replaying with the purpose of collecting and scanning everything this time. I put the difficulty down on Normal so the battles don't distract me too much from my desire to poke into everything. I'm also using the map marking feature which will save a whole lot of faulty memory "where was that missile expansion again?" I really wish the map marker existed in the previous Primes, what a great feature.

[dsx100]

Right. Just when you just generalized a bunch of FPS games, you are saying you aren't. I'm not even arguing this. You're doing that yourself.

I was talking about the lack of appreciation not for the enjoyment or variety of FPS games. Pay attention. I was talking about how people openly and basely use the old analogy that FPS games are "only about run and gun" and how the sense of adventure isn't there. Because there clearly are. And a lot of people mention 'slapping on' the FPS branding, but I simply do not see it in a derogatory manner at all since it IS a shallow branding as it is for vast majority of FPS games that focus on totally different game styles. This 'debate' as you put it, did put some worthy arguments out I believe. If you believe otherwise, then kindly stop with the simplistic disparagements.

I can enjoy, understand, and appreciate FPSs as much as you can. I never once generalized the genre. If you insist its true then please show me where I once generalized the genre please. I would love to see it. If your going by the simple "run and gun" generaltion, I never said FPSs where simply "run and gun". Stop acting like your the only that can fully understand and apperciate the FPS genre.

They are first person. They are played in first person. But again, most reviewers and gamers in the know know that the games go beyond the FPS conventions and control schemes. If can't make it any more easy to understand than how I put it in that one sentence.

.

Stop treating me like I'm an idoit. I know they are First Person. I was simply giving an example of First person games that don't have the First Person part tagged on to them. For the most part, they are known simply as RPGs.

[Red Shadow]

aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa

[Lemonectric]

aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa

I'm going to have to agree with you there.

[supremespleen]

I'm going to have to agree with you there.

aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa

[JackKieser]

OMG... I lol'ed so much when I saw that link. Thank you. Thank you very much.

I got a 17:23 time on normal with 100% items. Nowhere near 100% scans. I did take my time, though, and I took a while to find the last few upgrades, even with the map enhancements.

Oh, and thanks to the continuation of this whole genre argument, I decided to pull out my GAME100 textbook to see if I can clarify any of this crap and maybe stop the madness.

The definition of a shooter is a 'high-action [game] that, in the first-person mode, [relies] on multiplayer activities as the primary thrust. Can be first person or third person.' Shooters use long-range weaponry as their primary combat style, though melee weapons can be included as well.

So, no. Metroid Prime games are not FPS'. Prime 2 came closest to this, but even it was not because the multiplayer was NOT the primary aspect of the game.

Just for clarity, this comes straight from the GAME100 (Game Software Design and Production) course textbook at DigiPen, a game design and production institute.

Now, can we PLEASE stop arguing on whether MP games are FPS' or not?

--Jack Kieser

[AarowSwift]

OMG...

Now, can we PLEASE stop arguing on whether MP games are FPS' or not?

--Jack Kieser

Aww, but I was hoping I-n-j-i-n would at least respond to my main points before this concluded. He's been cherry picking certain arguments to contest.

I'm missing a Federation Creature Scan. It's the last one on the list. What the heck did I overlook? Also, you know how you can view creature models in the Log book? So far it seems the only version of Ghor I can look are of him in his battle armor. I really wanted to look at his regular model. Is it somewhere in there or did Retro leave it out?

[Necrotic]

Just for clarity, this comes straight from the GAME100 (Game Software Design and Production) course textbook at DigiPen, a game design and production institute.

Now, can we PLEASE stop arguing on whether MP games are FPS' or not?

--Jack Kieser

Well, sure we can stop. But we're probably not going to.

Because that text book is fucking retarded and loses all credibility in my eyes if it seriously means to say they require multiplayer to be a "shooter". Looking at it in the context of English, does the term "shooter" even remotely or accurately represent, "something in which many people take part in the same or similar activity together"? Even if you were to look at the group of people who play shooters nobody, and I mean nobody, I know personally flies with "multiplayer" being a requirement in their definition.

I'm not sure there's even really a way to properly interpret that textbook's definition of a shooter in this situation because it says it uses multiplayer as a "primary thrust," and "thrust" isn't really defined. It could mean it's A driving force in the genre. It could be THE driving force in the genre. It could be something to compel the market. What does 'thrust' mean? The entire definition itself is entirely moot unless that little bit is defined.

I'm hard pressed to call that a credible source of definitions because it may only represent what the text book writers think should define something. In the case of Webster, or Oxford, they're institutions which intensively and extensively study language in their respective place and try their damnedest to make sure no contradictions are there and that slang like "thrust" doesn't confuse the reader. That's not to say this institution you're going to doesn't study things like that but they're not linguists. I wouldn't look toward them for a semantic debate even once.

Just looking at the gaming market, there are plenty of single player games where you shoot shit. What do you call that? "A single player game where you shoot shit"?

For the record I got tired of this little FPS debate a long while back, but using this textbook as a credible source, to me, is just not going to fly.

-Nick

[Rambo]

Because that text book is fucking retarded and loses all credibility in my eyes if it seriously means to say they require multiplayer to be a "shooter". Looking at it in the context of English, does the term "shooter" even remotely or accurately represent, "something in which many people take part in the same or similar activity together"? Nobody, and I mean nobody, I know personally flies with "multiplayer" being a requirement in their definition.

Just looking at the gaming market, there are plenty of single player games where you shoot shit. What do you call that? "A single player game where you shoot shit"?

-Nick

I definitely have to agree on this one...

That definition is just ridiculous. Duck hunt was a FPS, and its main appeal was NOT multiplayer.