<LATE> What's wrong with Metroid re Shadow Complex

[Stark]

I finally (years late) bought Shadow Complex, after keeping the original demo that' glitched so you can play the whole game.... and it's ... so much better than Metroid.

It's basically exactly the same (sideways, platform, infinite ammo, special weapons that open doors, etc), but it does everything better. Even the laugh of Samus losing her shit all the time is totally defeated by just having the first bit be about SOMEONE ELSE with all the cool shit, so it's not massively lazy to take it all away. It even has (shock) dialog! A story! Enemies that aren't beetles or pterodactyls!

The special weapons are actually different, instead of a differnt wiggle pattern; they're useful for more than just opening doors or creating platform puzzles. The flashlight even gives the player feedback about what they're supposed to do!

Being based on an actual engine means it even looks like a 'proper' game instead of 'retro art style' (code for 'lazy'). The combat is a bit lame (especially if you're captain headshot like me) and the background stuff can be unclear (which you only find out when you try to grab and fall into electric lazer cement)... but it's not a big deal because the game doesn't punish failure.

I know guys here played Other M. Shouldn't Other M be at least as good as Shadow Complex? Why isn't it? People tell me it's the advantage of not having decades of fan bullshit built up around a franchise, but I'm not so sure.

[weemadando]

Dontcha know that Shadow Complex is a homophobic hate parade?

I'm appalled at you sir.

[Stark]

Metroid is sexist so I'm not sure how Orson Scott Crazy is any worse???

It's just a giant laugh that at the first attempt the game is measurably superior in almost every way to a game that should be tuned to perfection after 25 years. The fact that it's about LIBERALS LIBERALS LIBERALS is just icing on the cake.

[weemadando]

I quite dig Shadow Complex, much more than any Metroid I've played. I guess actually looking at your controls rather than still using the NES basics.

[Stark]

The only control problems I have are because my RB is fucked and that I'm just really bad and dropping down from grapped ledges instead of jumping up first (which means I often get killed by laser cement). I'd be curious to know how much it cost, since it even looks more polished than most non-Prime Metroid games. The character animation (not to mention physics) are way better than any Metroid I've seen.

[DaveJB]

I know guys here played Other M. Shouldn't Other M be at least as good as Shadow Complex? Why isn't it?

I think the biggest problem with Other M was really its basic design. Had it been a 2.5D platformer or a Metroid Prime-style FPS, then I think it would have at least played well, even with the questionable storyline and voice acting. Instead, we ended up with an awkward combination of 3D platforming and FPS gameplay (plus a few other stupid gimmicks) compounded by the worst camera this side of the original Metal Gear Solid, and the frankly idiotic decision to use the Wii Remote by itself as the controller. Yoshio Sakamoto evidently saw the appeal of using simple NES-style controls in games like Super Smash Bros. Brawl, New Super Mario Bros Wii. and Super Paper Mario, but didn't have the first clue as to why it worked in those titles.

[Stark]

It's not just the flaws in a given Metroid game I'm talking about; it's fundamentals like 'rockets open doors' and 'you get more agility as you go on'. It's been pointed out to me that the 2D Metroid games are heavily mired in fanservice lore, so they're 'backward' in conceptual terms, but I can't understand why a new game - a one-shot, even, a goddamn budget XBLA game - can do central play elements like platforming and shit better than an established game that should be tuned to all hell by now.

If I think of particular elements the 2D Metroid games don't have, I keep ending up looking at Metroid 1. Samus has no real agility, lacks modern climbing skills, has a wierd save system, and many powerups boil down to 'bigger/different gun' (almost all except icegun). The later games have added to the formula, but I'm not sure they ever moved beyond the limitations inherent in an 80s game.

A core comaprison is that Metroid is a game where you shoot/bomb every square inch of levels looking for secret tunnels (artifically inflating 'play time') and Shadow Complex gives you feedback telling you what you have to do and where ... but leaves you to work out how. It's still challenging and they're still physical puzzles, but it's not tedium - it drills right down to actual problem-solving, rather than endless repetition.

[Dread Not]

I love metroidvanias but feel that very few of them live up to their potential. I enjoyed Metroid Prime but was seriously bummed when it didn't live up to the colossal expectations others had built up in me. I barely remember playing the original Metroid, and never played Super Metroid but would like to give it a go one day for the sake of history, if I get the opportunity.

I feel very few games handle the formula well. Batman: AA for example did a great job of steering you towards the collectibles, and you can 100% the game without too much tedious bullshit. Too bad the collectible "riddles" were pointless crap that didn't benefit the gameplay at all. Experience points? I already bought all the upgrades I need two hours ago. Concept art? Meh. The unlockable challenge missions were the saving grace of the riddles, though they are unlocked through by solving a dozen or so riddles out of hundreds, so the majority of them are still pointless. Unlocking them by solving a certain percentage of the riddles might have been a better approach. Conversely, the health and missile upgrades in Metroid Prime are quite useful in several sections, but scouring every room for them is a chore.

Nintendo games in general are pretty dated (though I'll make an exception for the DS which has some really fun original titles on it). I hold a similar opinion to yours Stark when it comes to the Legend of Zelda and comparing it to the likes of Beyond Good & Evil and Okami. Sidequests you might actually bother doing? Voice acting? Orchestral music? Characters and storylines you haven't heard dozens of times already? Clearly laid out objectives that don't have you running around in circles wondering what to do? Sold. There are still things that Zelda does better like combat, but I bought Twilight Princess five years ago on the Gamecube and to have yet to get halfway through it, while I've beaten BG&E and Okami multiple times.

I had hoped Nintendo were going the right direction with Metroid Prime 3 by adding voice acting, a driving narrative, and streamlined level design instead of the massive labyrinths of previous games. I don't own a Wii so I don't know how it turned out, but if I did, Metroid Prime would probably be the first game I would get. I've only played about 30 minutes of Other M but judging from my experience and the feedback I got from others, Team Ninja and Nintendo pissed away whatever merit the franchise still had.

I'm planning on getting a 360 some time soon, and that's largely because of the appeal of playing Shadow Complex (and Epic's other contributions to the system for that matter). If Shadow Complex is one of the few games that uses the metroidvania formula to it's full potential, I might have to get the system a bit sooner.

[DaveJB]

It's not just the flaws in a given Metroid game I'm talking about; it's fundamentals like 'rockets open doors' and 'you get more agility as you go on'. It's been pointed out to me that the 2D Metroid games are heavily mired in fanservice lore, so they're 'backward' in conceptual terms, but I can't understand why a new game - a one-shot, even, a goddamn budget XBLA game - can do central play elements like platforming and shit better than an established game that should be tuned to all hell by now.

If I think of particular elements the 2D Metroid games don't have, I keep ending up looking at Metroid 1. Samus has no real agility, lacks modern climbing skills, has a wierd save system, and many powerups boil down to 'bigger/different gun' (almost all except icegun). The later games have added to the formula, but I'm not sure they ever moved beyond the limitations inherent in an 80s game.

It's difficult to know what to say; there hasn't been an all-new 2D Metroid game since Metroid: Fusion way back in 2002, and I seems to recall that no-one really liked that game, hence why Nintendo focused exclusively on the Prime series (aside from remaking the original as Metroid: Zero Mission; I think they did try to modernise the original in that game, but went about it the wrong way) until Other M came along. As far as I can tell, the only 2D Metroid game that everyone in the fanbase seems to love is Super Metroid.

[TheFeniX]

I know guys here played Other M. Shouldn't Other M be at least as good as Shadow Complex? Why isn't it? People tell me it's the advantage of not having decades of fan bullshit built up around a franchise, but I'm not so sure.

Fan bullshit isn't at fault for making Other M suck, anymore so than the Zelda CD-i game sucking. And comparing that game to Shadow Complex is unfair: you're better off comparing SC to Super Metroid, one the the games that inspired the creators, which even they admit was one the best platformers made. Other M is an outlier like Super Mario Bros. 2. I have to admit, I only got about 4 hours into Other M because it was so fucking bad, but I always had the feeling Samus could have been replaced by some random "Space Ninja," a few names/settings changed, and you'd still have the same fucking game.

If I think of particular elements the 2D Metroid games don't have, I keep ending up looking at Metroid 1. Samus has no real agility, lacks modern climbing skills, has a wierd save system, and many powerups boil down to 'bigger/different gun' (almost all except icegun). The later games have added to the formula, but I'm not sure they ever moved beyond the limitations inherent in an 80s game.

The original Metroid wouldn't even let you crouch. And Super Metroid, corrected every problem you've listed. Saying that the Metroids (even just the side-scrollers) haven't evolved past the concepts of the 80's original is dishonest. The later side-scrollers cleaned-up the platforming even more (although, WTF was up with needing an upgrade in Zero Mission and Shadow Complex to grab a fucking ledge?).

A core comaprison is that Metroid is a game where you shoot/bomb every square inch of levels looking for secret tunnels (artifically inflating 'play time') and Shadow Complex gives you feedback telling you what you have to do and where ... but leaves you to work out how. It's still challenging and they're still physical puzzles, but it's not tedium - it drills right down to actual problem-solving, rather than endless repetition.

Shadow Complex is an extremely fun game, but it's basically the same thing as Metroid Fusion: a railroad-fest (except the 7% run), with limited sequence breaking, unlike Super Metroid. Your problem is you're comparing the wrong games: Super Metroid dumps you off back on Zebes and says "Get fucking to it." Shadow Complex on the hardest difficulty is pretty analgous as the game doesn't tell you where to go every 5 seconds. But SC has much more in common with either Fusion or Zero Mission than any other Metroid game. And even if you didn't like said games, they were very solid with concern to the gameplay.

It's difficult to know what to say; there hasn't been an all-new 2D Metroid game since Metroid: Fusion way back in 2002, and I seems to recall that no-one really liked that game, hence why Nintendo focused exclusively on the Prime series (aside from remaking the original as Metroid: Zero Mission; I think they did try to modernise the original in that game, but went about it the wrong way) until Other M came along. As far as I can tell, the only 2D Metroid game that everyone in the fanbase seems to love is Super Metroid.

Prime and Fusion came out around the same time IIRC. Fusion had a shaky story, was visually stunted (considering the time), and had only one sequence breaking part (which is where 99% of re-playability comes from for many Metroid fans), which the game just said "Nice, now go back and do it right.

Prime on the other hand brought Metroid into First Person with impressive graphics, controls, a pretty damn good story, an awesome soundtrack, and transitioned the power-ups into 3D pretty fucking well. Also, the Meta Ridley fight. You could also sequence break the shit out of it.

I enjoyed Fusion (even with it's controller smashing difficulty at times), but it didn't stand a fucking chance against Prime.

[Stark]

Ha, that'll teach me for going from memory; if they haven't made any 2D Metroid games since the Primes, that is probably why they're so backward.

Fan bullshit isn't at fault for making Other M suck, anymore so than the Zelda CD-i game sucking. And comparing that game to Shadow Complex is unfair: you're better off comparing SC to Super Metroid, one the the games that inspired the creators, which even they admit was one the best platformers made.

Don't be sad; that's like saying you have to compare Gears 3 to Robotron.

The original Metroid wouldn't even let you crouch. And Super Metroid, corrected every problem you've listed. Saying that the Metroids (even just the side-scrollers) haven't evolved past the concepts of the 80's original is dishonest. The later side-scrollers cleaned-up the platforming even more (although, WTF was up with needing an upgrade in Zero Mission and Shadow Complex to grab a fucking ledge?).

You need an upgrade... that you found exactly 5 seconds in ... to walljump.

Anyway, if you think Super Metroid is as modern as Shadow Complex, you're crazy. It's a shame that they never got on the modern platforming (even if they stopped in 2002, they still had a full dev cycle after the late 90s changed the expectations). It's remarkable that if you remove the ball sequences, you lose about half the interesting shit Metroid games try to do.

If people seriously consider 'sequence breaking' is more important that things like UI, controls, graphics, map design etc, that's just sad.

Shadow Complex is an extremely fun game, but it's basically the same thing as Metroid Fusion: a railroad-fest (except the 7% run), with limited sequence breaking, unlike Super Metroid. Your problem is you're comparing the wrong games: Super Metroid dumps you off back on Zebes and says "Get fucking to it." Shadow Complex on the hardest difficulty is pretty analgous as the game doesn't tell you where to go every 5 seconds. But SC has much more in common with either Fusion or Zero Mission than any other Metroid game. And even if you didn't like said games, they were very solid with concern to the gameplay.

I wouldn't consider Zero Mission very modern with regard to the specific platform elements discussed, even if it is miles more modern than Super Metroid. I think you need to internalise the idea that I'm not saying Metroid games suck (although, to be honest, they kind of do) just that I'm surprised how much better Shadow Complex is. Of course, that they stopped making 2D games in 2002 might have something to do with it.

PS, a lack of any kind of guiding narrative isn't nonlinear gameplay, it's boring. SC is short and pretty easy, but it's a $10 XBLA game.

I enjoyed Fusion (even with it's controller smashing difficulty at times), but it didn't stand a fucking chance against Prime.

I guess that's why there's no marketplace for thoroughly modern Metoid-em-ups, then. Oh ... wait a second! Amusingly, SC even spawned a bunch of horrible q metroi games, all of which sucked. Rush'n Attack - EX PATRIOT!

[DaveJB]

Weird as it sounds, I think the Metroid series has been the victim of internal Nintendo politics over the years, thanks to the fact that it was one of the franchises created by Gunpei Yokoi rather than Shigeru Miyamoto. Looking over their releases in the post-SNES era, it seems as if Miyamoto's franchises got all the attention, while Yokoi's franchises (barring Wario Land, oddly enough) were allowed to wither and die after he was fired from Nintendo in the wake of the Virtual Boy's failure. Considering that all of the recent Metroid games except for Fusion and Zero Mission have been handled by external studios, I can only guess that there's no-one left at Nintendo who actually gives that much of a shit about Metroid beyond its money-spinning ability.

[Stark]

I heard in the Other M thread about this sort of thing. Apparently the Primes weren't made by the same guy as the other games?

Many of the 2D Metroid games are derivative, like 'remake metroid' and 'Metroid mission 2'. Was the only 2D Metroid game that really got headlines Super Metroid?

[DaveJB]

I heard in the Other M thread about this sort of thing. Apparently the Primes weren't made by the same guy as the other games?

Sort of. All the 2D games were handled in-house by Nintendo, and the 3D games were done by Retro Studios (barring Other M, which was developed by Team Ninja).

Yoshio Sakamoto has been making some claims about what should and shouldn't be canon in the series, but I don't really know that he's in a position to be doing so, since he was only the lead developer on four of the games (Super Metroid, Fusion, Zero Mission and Other M), along with being the main character and level artist on the original Metroid.

Many of the 2D Metroid games are derivative, like 'remake metroid' and 'Metroid mission 2'. Was the only 2D Metroid game that really got headlines Super Metroid?

They all did to some degree, but the original and Super Metroid were the heavy hitters. I remember that Metroid Fusion got torn to shreds because people thought it wasn't enough like Super Metroid (it was actually more like Metroid II with some Super Metroid features added), so it seems like that's the game that fanboys want 2D Metroid titles to be modelled after.

[Stark]

I really need to watch some Other M footage before I ask questions like this, but why don't they make 2D Prime-style games? Shadow Complex shows you can do 2D-in-3D just fine, and Prime had a lot more modern features than 'fogs up visor'. Is Other M a Prime game?

If you added some more feedback to Primes (generally just making the visors more useful would go a long way) and gave Samus more interesting powers, I think they'd be in a pretty good place. It'd help - in my opinion - to actually tie the action into a narrative or plot, rather than the plot being something that happens in between games.

[Vendetta]

I heard in the Other M thread about this sort of thing. Apparently the Primes weren't made by the same guy as the other games?

Many of the 2D Metroid games are derivative, like 'remake metroid' and 'Metroid mission 2'. Was the only 2D Metroid game that really got headlines Super Metroid?

The Primes were overseen by Shigeru Miyamoto, who really wanted them to be faithful to the spirit of the originals because Gunpei Yokoi was his mentor at Nintendo.

Also, it's worth pointing out that there really haven't been that many Metroid games. There are only five 2D metroid games over the span of 25 years, and that includes Zero Mission. It isn't a series that's been endlessly iterated and should be polished to a fine sheen by now, it's an occasional blip that pops out of Nintendo HQ but goes for long periods without a peep. Most of the actual development on the format has been done by other people (mostly Konami, in the shape of endless Castlevania games, the fact that they're frequently called "Metroidvania" reflects the fact that Symphony of the Night has as much claim to developing the style as does any Metroid game).

If people seriously consider 'sequence breaking' is more important that things like UI, controls, graphics, map design etc, that's just sad.

Sequence breaking in a Metroid game is all about controls and map design. Because the majority of the gameplay of a Metroid game is figuring out where the new ability you just got fits into the puzzle the environment presents, people like to be able to find novel solutions that you aren't meant to be able to do.

[Stark]

Amusingly, if the powers you got in Metroid games were better or more flexible, it'd be harder for the map designers to maintain narrative integrity. But then I don't get a boner from 'breaking' a game; I just want it to be fun to play. Wrong audeince?

[Covenant]

Amusingly, if the powers you got in Metroid games were better or more flexible, it'd be harder for the map designers to maintain narrative integrity. But then I don't get a boner from 'breaking' a game; I just want it to be fun to play. Wrong audience?

Maybe? It's not breaking the game, it's exploration. It's called sequence breaking because you're breaking the linear path, not because you've broken the game. You're allowed to do things out of order, it's just that nine times out of ten you won't be able to get places without the right gear, but it can be done. Most of it isn't a big deal, it's just finding a creative solution, and you do it without even thinking about it.

The thing I enjoyed most about the the three good metroid games (Original, Super Metroid, Metroid Prime) were that it really felt like you were exploring. The enemies weren't meant to be challenging, but there was a bit of a puzzle to be had. Once you learned what the environment's patterns were you could go "Wait a minute, that block is totally an obvious bomb block" and blow it up.

In super metroid it even got easier with the x-ray visor, which let you look at the map and see right off what areas were bomb blocks, where the secret passages were, and where there were hidden items. For someone like Stark who enjoyed the concept but didn't like the tedium, using the Scan Visor and paying attention to the map is all you need.

Prime was even better than that because it had several visors which made the environment way more interactive. Now, going back to the original will be primitive, sure. I'm not going to defend it as a good game by modern standards. Super Metroid is a great game but a lot of it comes from the aesthetics--the water zones, the different areas with nice bright palettes, the music, the atmospheric elements... and that it was so big and fun to explore. If you don't enjoy the exploration then whatever, I guess the game's not for you. I personally never felt bad backtracking because I felt like I was unlocking new areas, and I never once had a hard time finding an item. You just comb through the levels and mentally note where things are and you should be fine. Kill all the colored doors, explore in, check your map, done.

Other M by comparison just sucks. If it wasn't called Metroid I'd never have made the connection in my head. It was terrible from top to bottom and when I had a chance to see it played I was horrified at just how bad it was, even on it's own. Maybe if it was an indie title but it's just shit. Slapping a shitty narrative onto a shitty game just makes it doubly as shitty. Super Metroid had no real story but none was required. Other M's story was garbage. If you had a story like that on top of Super Metroid, it wouldn't have been a classic. That plot was just that toxic to fun.

[Stark]

Maybe? It's not breaking the game, it's exploration. It's called sequence breaking because you're breaking the linear path, not because you've broken the game. You're allowed to do things out of order, it's just that nine times out of ten you won't be able to get places without the right gear, but it can be done. Most of it isn't a big deal, it's just finding a creative solution, and you do it without even thinking about it.

You mean 'alternate paths'. You'd have to be retarded to think that it's anything but intentional; I think an actual narrative is a fair trade.

The thing I enjoyed most about the the three good metroid games (Original, Super Metroid, Metroid Prime) were that it really felt like you were exploring. The enemies weren't meant to be challenging, but there was a bit of a puzzle to be had. Once you learned what the environment's patterns were you could go "Wait a minute, that block is totally an obvious bomb block" and blow it up.

This was certainly true of the first one, where due to non-existent documentation and guidance you can waste hours achieving nothing at all (well, drawing a map maybe). And then you can get a guide and get to Mother Brain out of order! Thrilling stuff.

Prime was even better than that because it had several visors which made the environment way more interactive.

This is what I'm getting at; there are heaps more things you can do (that aren't variations on 'jump on a lot of platforms', anyway) in the Prime games, because the shit you get isn't just 'open red door', it's changing the way you can approach shit (like the foam and sprint in SC). In Prime 1&2, however, the visors were implemented in a really shit way, which was a shame; you need them to be easy and helpful to use, but have something in place to prevent Arkham Asylum-style 'use it all the time, puzzles destroyed' situation.

Super Metroid is a great game but a lot of it comes from the aesthetics--the water zones, the different areas with nice bright palettes, the music, the atmospheric elements... and that it was so big and fun to explore.

Amusingly SC is three times the size of Super Metroid. I wish they'd done more environmental shit with the flooding and with the background interaction in SC, but it DOES cost $10.

Other M by comparison just sucks. If it wasn't called Metroid I'd never have made the connection in my head. It was terrible from top to bottom and when I had a chance to see it played I was horrified at just how bad it was, even on it's own. Maybe if it was an indie title but it's just shit. Slapping a shitty narrative onto a shitty game just makes it doubly as shitty. Super Metroid had no real story but none was required. Other M's story was garbage. If you had a story like that on top of Super Metroid, it wouldn't have been a classic. That plot was just that toxic to fun.

I've watched some gameplay now, and it really is pretty embarassing. I'd got the impression it was a more modern 2D Metroid, and not some kind of wierdass crazy thing. They should have just hired Chair to make it, and it would have even looked like a real game and not a melted LP.

[DaveJB]

It probably didn't help that, so far as I can tell, Yoshio Sakamoto had never been the lead developer on a 3D game prior to Other M. In fact, it probably explains why the 3D platforming sections of Other M feel like a Nintendo 64 game with better graphics.

[Covenant]

Well, you are comparing a modern game to a Ye Olde Game from the Super Nintendo era, so I won't try to say that Super Metroid has brilliant gameplay mechanics in light of current advances in technology and in player expectation. It was basically an exploration 'adventure' game more akin to Pitfall or somesuch, but with a gun that functioned as your toolkit of items. It wasn't really about combat or such, and back then, the red door/orange door/green door mechanic was good enough and there was still plenty of fun ways to shred the environment and explore.

But this is all back then. Super Metroid was a really great game, but like a lot of really great games, it has to be viewed within the time it was made. It's being needlessly snarky to take a game from a primitive era when it was still inventing the entire concept that these new games are based on, and compare it to those new games that took the old model and improved it. There are some genres that seemingly fail to recapture the original glory, but those are genres that we all rightfully malign for their failure. Adventure Platformers have had a lot more love.

I still say Super Metroid stands as one of the great platformers, but it's absolutely dated. That's not a bad thing, it just means you'd be silly to consider it "as good" as some of the later products that perfected the formula. It's still a good game though.

I think in time people will consider Shadow Complex a real gem of a game, especially from such a limited development team and for a mere 10-15 bucks. It's a pretty sweet game. Great environs, lots of good controls and stuff to do, awesome 2D/3D hybrid, and that blue line is meh in terms of exploration but hey, whatev, it keeps people from feeling lost.

Someone might as well say "Why have backtracking at all? Why not just make it linear?" There's no real inherent value to backtracking so that would be legitimate criticism really. But I always enjoyed the exploration aspects. The combat was always an afterthought. Combat in metroid was always easy, even in the "nintendo hard" era, which is why the game rewarded you for speed runs. Blast through it faster with less items collected and Samus takes off her helmet. It was a game so big you could take a week to beat it, or more. But it could also be beaten in a few hours.

[Stark]

Yeah, I think I'd mixed up my release dates; if they last 2D Metroid is ten years old, the only surprise is that Other M is so awful. It's sad that Metroid has been left behind so badly; even Castlevania has more modern iterations.

I'm glad they made the SC blue line optional, to be honest; most people would never need to have it turned on, but its there if you need it. It's just a shame it's so short/easy; I don't think you could really make it last more than 10 or so hours if you tried... but that's longer than most shooter stories, so it's not that bad.

[Covenant]

Compared to the competition, SC is still leagues ahead, and shows what you can do with just a bit of effort and an actual studio. The fact that Super Metroid, made back in 94, is still even a viable contender for modern games is really part of the problem.

Games like Super Metroid and X-COM don't represent the 'end of a genre' that had essentially hit it's peak, the way you might say Monkey Island won't really be eclipsed easily because new tech won't make it easier to write jokes. It shouldn't be hard to take a platformer and make it better by applying newer, more granular controls (dual sticks are a huge boon to such things) or powerful rendering engines to let you do more at once, or have more complex context sensitivity with all your variable doodads... or that we've seen so many games come up with doodads that we could easily see a game combine the top 20 good ones.

But people don't. Big studios that have the money to do big stuff are owned by idiots who are terrified of innovation, and Indie companies need to contend with small or nonexistent budgets for these things. My little game company has ideas for a few super advanced takes on the Metroidvania franchise, but those are BIG projects.

Anyway, thems just the breaks.

[TheFeniX]

Don't be sad; that's like saying you have to compare Gears 3 to Robotron.

This is a non-point. Shadow Complex was specifically modeled after Super Metroid. Comparing either game to Other M is pointless.

Anyway, if you think Super Metroid is as modern as Shadow Complex, you're crazy. It's a shame that they never got on the modern platforming (even if they stopped in 2002, they still had a full dev cycle after the late 90s changed the expectations). It's remarkable that if you remove the ball sequences, you lose about half the interesting shit Metroid games try to do.

Please inform me what Shadow Complex does that is so "modern," because at this point, I doubt you've even played Super Metroid.

If people seriously consider 'sequence breaking' is more important that things like UI, controls, graphics, map design etc, that's just sad.

Yes, that's exactly what I said.... never. SM also has all the other criteria you're on about, as well as a better soundtrack. They improved a few things, like the grapple gun (which was still glitchy) and they added a foam gun: whoop di fuckin' do.

I wouldn't consider Zero Mission very modern with regard to the specific platform elements discussed, even if it is miles more modern than Super Metroid. I think you need to internalise the idea that I'm not saying Metroid games suck (although, to be honest, they kind of do) just that I'm surprised how much better Shadow Complex is. Of course, that they stopped making 2D games in 2002 might have something to do with it.

You keep using modern and yet won't even bother to explain what makes SC modern besides graphics. I went back through Super Metroid after playing Shadow Complex and the game has held up surprisingly well, which is why Shadow Complex just improved on a few things and was a success. But these improvements weren't some big jump like from Metroid 1 to Super Metroid. They merely cleaned up the gameplay (what little they had to).

Maybe you're just seeing something I didn't. Even while enjoying Shadow Complex, I was constantly reminded through the gameplay that I was playing Super Metroid Lite.

I guess that's why there's no marketplace for thoroughly modern Metoid-em-ups, then. Oh ... wait a second! Amusingly, SC even spawned a bunch of horrible q metroi games, all of which sucked. Rush'n Attack - EX PATRIOT!

Even the original Rush'n Attack had nothing to do with Metroid. You think just because a game shares the same perspective and movement system, you can lump them all into "sidescroller?" I suppose Amnesia is an FPS then.

[Vendetta]

Maybe? It's not breaking the game, it's exploration. It's called sequence breaking because you're breaking the linear path, not because you've broken the game. You're allowed to do things out of order, it's just that nine times out of ten you won't be able to get places without the right gear, but it can be done. Most of it isn't a big deal, it's just finding a creative solution, and you do it without even thinking about it.

You mean 'alternate paths'. You'd have to be retarded to think that it's anything but intentional; I think an actual narrative is a fair trade.

Sequence breaking in Metroid games isn't intentional on the part of the designers. In fact, in the PAL versions of Metroid Prime you can't do most of the sequence breaks you could in the North American version because they changed the levels very subtly to stop it. Most of them rely on very tiny oversights on the part of the designer meaning you can do an obscure set of tricks to get a power early, or not get one at all.