| Welcome to Nintendo Fans Alliance. We hope you enjoy your visit. You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free. Join our community! If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features: |
- Pages:
- 1
- 2
| Metroid is better than Zelda | ||
|---|---|---|
| Tweet Topic Started: Feb 16 2010, 08:43 PM (746 Views) | ||
| Golem | Feb 16 2010, 08:43 PM Post #1 | |
|
Corrigible Carburetor
![]()
|
Design in Metroid is more cohesive; Zelda's individual dungeons give the games a comparatively shallow, gimmicky feel--IE, "this is the hookshot dungeon." In Metroid, the entire world is reshaped by every upgrade you receive. That's all I got for now. Respond. |
|
Quoth the raven, "~teehee~"
| ||
![]() |
|
|
| Timnis | Feb 16 2010, 09:13 PM Post #2 | |
|
Traces of Argon
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
That doesn't mean that Metroid is necessarily better. It's just that Zelda would be more localized in that regard (the areas of the game that focus on a specific upgrade are collected in one area) as opposed to globalized (this upgrade is relevant in this area, this area, and that area way over there). It could be preferable in some regard, but it also could require you to remember some small fact about some area followed by a long trip back later on. (I'm playing devil's advocate here. I haven't played much of either franchise. I'm responding based on the generality of your post.) |
|
![]() |
|
|
| Golem | Feb 19 2010, 04:22 AM Post #3 | |
|
Corrigible Carburetor
![]()
|
Just wanted to say I couldn't have asked for a better reply. I would have responded but I have been swamped as of late! I will bump this with a response soon enough. | |
Quoth the raven, "~teehee~"
| ||
![]() |
|
|
| Kester | Feb 19 2010, 08:02 PM Post #4 | |
|
Minus World
|
Wait are we talking about NES or overall? Either way I disagree with you. DOOM is better than Metroid. |
|
![]() |
|
|
| Golem | Feb 20 2010, 01:16 PM Post #5 | |
|
Corrigible Carburetor
![]()
|
Overall--I think the Metroid series is a stronger concept. Zelda's gimmicks are, in one sense, used to greater effect because they're localized... you often solve puzzles that, while not that complex, are more sophisticated than anything you'd see done in Metroid. For example, the Hookshot in Link to the Past is required to traverse the village dungeon at very specific places. The Grapple Beam in Super Metroid, on the other hand, is really just used to go where you want; it's pretty straightforward. This localization, though, almost dumbs Zelda down. When use of an item is only encouraged in a small space (this item is only useful in this dungeon), the design is rich (you've got puzzles), sure, but it's alienated from the whole. It's a structure that is necessarily less complex than the likes of Metroid. Think of it this way. Zelda is like a laundry list of values you might hold.
These are all very powerful and important concepts, just like the different gimmicks of Zelda might be richly used for a short span of time. However, laying them all out like that doesn't require any skill. I have to admit that this analogy eventually breaks down, though. You come to a good understanding of Zelda items, whereas saying "money isn't everything" doesn't mean you understand it. Any good work of art, though, will construct a large and subtle structure. And sure, Heart of Darkness doesn't directly comment on lots of things, but I'll be darned if it doesn't convey the notion that everyone's evil on the inside. That one notion is thoroughly conveyed and explored through a number of different interweaving elements of imagery and perspective. Metroid is the same way; you don't achieve the same variety in gimmicks, but they weave in much subtler and much more effective ways. Cohesion takes more skill than design of localized, bite-size pieces. In literature, cohesion also leads to a deeper understanding on the part of the reader. Conrad fully explores Marlowe's confrontation with the notion that, beneath the veil of society, he's evil. By walking you through the process, you know the theme better than if someone just said "we're all bad people." You can empathize with Marlowe's discovery and understand it on a more personal level. Knowing the specifics of the issue also gives you a better idea of what it's about. In video games,... well, I don't know. That's not a terribly strong response. In part, I'm still just asserting that localization isn't good without much more to back it up. I hope, however, that the example of literature speaks for itself more than I can speak for it. This is what makes Wind Waker the best Zelda. The items are much more organic and practical--that is to say, they make sense in a larger world outside of a dungeon, they have uses in that larger world, and in terms of gameplay, the items in Wind Waker give the player greater control. The Deku Leaf is the best example of this. Floating is a very practical ability, as sometimes you need to cover large gaps. Rather than a lock and key mechanism with the Hookshot, the Deku Leaf lets you float wherever you want in any space, not just at pre-designated spots. Also, while the Hookshot just requires a button press, the Deku Leaf gives the player control of a Link gliding through the air. This is Metroidian since floating is a practical ability that you might want to have in any number of places; it's not just a key that you use in a dungeon. Edited by Golem, Feb 20 2010, 01:38 PM.
|
|
Quoth the raven, "~teehee~"
| ||
![]() |
|
|
| Kester | Feb 20 2010, 05:25 PM Post #6 | |
|
Minus World
|
Ok, firstly, you first two paragraphs and your last one make sense, but you lose me when you brought up books. Secondly, I guess I can sort of see what you're saying, but I have very little experience with the Metroid games and them being more free to do what you want. But you seem to be focusing on the dungeons (I don't know if there's dungeons in Metroid...?) for Zelda, and honestly, the dungeons are usually my least favorite part of the game. I like to explore and find out the story and figure that out, and then I get to the dungeon and it's like "oh no, I have to go through all these rooms to fight the boss!" ....Is that the same thing you're trying to convey? So without me having much knowledge of Metroid, I must say that a fantasy adventure with swords almost always makes for a much funner story than a space battle with laser beams. (And Majora's Mask is the best Zelda game, not Wind Waker) |
|
![]() |
|
|
| Golem | Feb 20 2010, 06:50 PM Post #7 | |
|
Corrigible Carburetor
![]()
|
I still need to play Majora's Mask. Kinda scared of that one, especially after everything B102 told me when he played through it. I have heard, though, about the populace of that game, and it does sound really well done. A Metroid game is one large dungeon. Also, every Metroid game is pretty lonely--you just have Samus, small enemies, and the bosses in there. I never care for the people in Zelda games. Video game people always feel really ingenuine (aside from Animal Crossing and Shenmue for the two seconds I played it), so I never talk to them. Also, the dungeons are where you do the most stuff, fighting enemies and solving puzzles. So, since I'm a gameplay oriented guy, I tend to assume that the dungeons are the center of the game. I guess one strength of Zelda is that it's able to appeal to us both despite our different tastes. The book example is just the notion of a parable. Yes, it takes more time for Jesus to give his story about mustard seeds rather than say "take this stuff seriously," but the story about mustard seeds is also much more compelling than a single imperative sentence. My argument is that the localized gimmicks (the items) of Zelda are like imperative statements; you never see them in any truly complex light and you only see them for two seconds. Metroid items, on the other hand, work on a global basis, contributing to a large whole that may seem to do less, but in reality, is like the parable--it does one thing very effectively. |
|
Quoth the raven, "~teehee~"
| ||
![]() |
|
|
| BOWSER102 | Feb 21 2010, 06:40 PM Post #8 | |
|
King of Koopas
![]()
|
Dude.. first of all nobody gives a crap about your mustard seeds.
Yeah. I really don't get that either. The NPC's in Zelda games are mostly characterless and MM is no different. The most interesting guy is probably the Windmill guy and that's just because he's a nut. The cast is full of characters that lack personality beyond a strange grin or a weird jog. Yeah, this one does have the characters doing things, like some couple gets married or whatever, but you never truly care for them, as they don't give you a reason to. The temples are the meat of the gameplay. The overworld is great too and it may be fun to explore and carry out the little sidequests and what not, but there's no question as to which is the dominant. After thinking about it a bit, it's really apples and oranges. I don't get what you're saying. Well.. I do, sorta; a new item may be introduced in a particular dungeon and then the item is prominently used throughout that dungeon. Makes sense. However, just because a new item is introduced, it doesn't make the other items obsolete. You're still going to need to figure out when to use the crossbow, the bombs, the hookshot, the deku sticks, etc., WHILE incorporating whatever new item you get into the mix. You talk of the localization as a bad thing, I don't see how it is. Actually, is there even a "hookshot" dungeon? I recall in OoT the hookshot/longshot is used throughout, not just in one dungeon and that's that. You could point to the Lens of Truth, which is used almost exclusively in the Shadow Temple, and the Silver Gauntlets which are introduced in the Spirit Temple, but that doesn't mean that the puzzles require you to ONLY make use of those items. But again, these are two totally different games. Metroid is not a puzzle-based game, it's an action/exploration based game. You don't have a plethora of items/weapons at your disposal, just your arm cannon, missiles, morph ball bomb, screw attack (I guess) and whatever the other games throw at you (like powerbombs, spiderball). But it's not about pushing the right switch in the right order or any of that nonsense. If you're trying to make the case that the Metroid series is a better series than Zelda (which isn't an off the wall claim, btw) then I think you're at least looking in the wrong place. Even calling Metroid one big dungeon is a pretty sketchy thing to say. Taking Metroid Prime, for example, you've got the Tallon IV overworld which then branches off into other areas such like Magmoor Caverns and Phazon Mines. These areas I think are much more apt to be considered the "dungeon" areas of MP. That's where you get the key items you need and fight the big bosses. Then you move from that location and on to the next. Also, I'm a little perplexed. I recall just a few months back you could not stop raving about how great Ocarina of Time was, and how it could possibly be the greatest of all time. Now... Wind Waker is..? and.. Metroid trounces all? You c-razy yo. |
|
| ||
![]() |
|
|
| Kester | Feb 21 2010, 09:23 PM Post #9 | |
|
Minus World
|
I disagree. I cared for them a lot! The world was ending and everyone was like "We're going to die! :(" and I was all "I'm Link and I need to help you! :)" |
|
![]() |
|
|
| Golem | Feb 21 2010, 10:47 PM Post #10 | |
|
Corrigible Carburetor
![]()
|
A few months back, I had some confusion regarding Ocarina of Time vs. Super Mario 64--if Super Mario 64 is the atmospheric Mario, and Ocarina of Time is an atmospheric powerhouse, why isn't Ocarina of Time better? And certainly, the dungeons of OoT are more involving than the stages of Mario 64. My one hesitation was the notion that platforming is just more compelling than anything Zelda ever offered. That notion, however, was more valuable than I gave it credit for; my recent 120 star run of Super Mario 64 proved to me that the Mario engine in that game is fantastic. I don't know if I'd say it makes the game--the enemy and platform design is very well done--but Mario truly shines. I don't think (though I'm not sure) if I ever thought Ocarina of Time could beat Wind Waker. Ocarina of Time has some wonderful dungeons, but Wind Waker is an upgrade to Ocarina of Time in every respect. I took localization in the wrong direction there, focusing on gimmicks. Still, you have to admit that Metroid games, even past the first three, all have structures where one area contributes to the construction of another. Magmoor Caverns leads right to Phendrana Drifts, but the Water Temple and Fire Temple are completely distinct entities. I do think that this contributes to the hammy feel of items in Zelda. In Metroid, these areas are bridged by item use, and you truly traverse more of the world with the use of your items. In Zelda, a new item lets you into a new, clearly defined area. In Metroid, it's more flexible. Though, this begs another question. You did bring up the point that, in Zelda, old items and new are often used together to solve new puzzles. What if these are not new puzzles at all, but instead, commentary on old puzzles? What if the Water Temple is distinct from the Fire Temple in location alone? Saying that you can't walk from one place into the other might be simplifying the issue to its most obvious element. I guess this requires more study of dungeon and puzzle construction in Zelda. Also, how would you argue that Metroid is better than Zelda? Anyway, at the moment I'm going through cycles of playing these games. I'm already familiar with Mario, but until recently, I don't think I knew how I'd compare them to Zelda. To understand that, I had to go through Zelda, then play Mario again. I've already played all of the 2D Metroids (aside from Zero Mission) multiple times, but I still need to go back and replay the Zeldas I've been through. Got stuck in Dodongo's Cavern in OoT: Master Quest. And this MM debate is making me want to play MM.
Edited by Golem, Feb 22 2010, 12:01 AM.
|
|
Quoth the raven, "~teehee~"
| ||
![]() |
|
|
| Kester | Feb 22 2010, 12:34 AM Post #11 | |
|
Minus World
|
I'm going to nitpick. I'm not going to challenge you on your little dungeon thing cause we know we have different opinions on that. Bu Wind Waker is not better than Ocarina of Time. Especially in every aspect. Minor Reason: It's cel shaded. But the big reason? You have to sail everywhere. And change the direction of the wind with a song if you want to go in the opposite direction. That's a huge flaw with the game I think. That's probably why I never finished it after getting halfway through the game and realizing I was only half way through the game. It was like "More sailing?! ARGH!" Now, Ocarina of Time eventually allowed you to have Epona as an adult, but Majora's Mask, MULTIPLE modes of fast transportation. And fun modes too. Edited by Kester, Feb 22 2010, 12:35 AM.
|
|
![]() |
|
|
| Golem | Feb 22 2010, 04:56 AM Post #12 | |
|
Corrigible Carburetor
![]()
|
I consider the Great Sea an improvement over Hyrule Field. I don't like traversing either, but at least the Great Sea makes atmospheric strides--these really are islands amidst a vast, cruel sea. Hyrule Field is just a circle with some stuff on its perimeter and a thing in the middle. With Wind Waker, they were going for the feeling of alienation, civilization being on its last legs, and they got that by putting a bunch of dots at random points in a large body of water. Ocarina of Time was going for a bustling, lively kingdom, and I don't think you get that from the structure of Hyrule Field. It'll take longer to get around the Great Sea, but not that much longer. What I really miss are the overworlds of yore, those found in LoZ first of the name and Link to the Past. Those were truly involving. (The Link's Awakening overworld is overcomplicated and unnecessarily mazey, though.) Edited by Golem, Feb 22 2010, 04:59 AM.
|
|
Quoth the raven, "~teehee~"
| ||
![]() |
|
|
| Kester | Feb 22 2010, 08:42 AM Post #13 | |
|
Minus World
|
I may be misremembering, but didn't you also have to do something at each island to get it etched in on your map? I also found that annoying. And also the random attacks! They were annoying too, especially if you messed up, then you fell out of the boat and started to drown. But there's no way the Great Sea is an upgrade over Hyrule Field. If Hyrule Field is just a circle with stuff on the perimeter, then Great Sea is a bunch of squares with evenly places islands in them. The only thing that doesn't geographically make sense for Hyrule Field is the desert. The rest is perfect. You have your capital, your suburb, both located along a river which eventually runs into a lake. and your undeveloped forest land. I think it would be wiser to place your capital further away from a mountain for strategic purposes (if an enemy invaded, Hyrule would be at a disadvantage fighting an uphill battle)...but that's looking way too in depth into this. The point is, the geography and thus, the atmosphere is miles better than Wind Waker, not to mention the ease of traveling. |
|
![]() |
|
|
| fantanoice | Feb 26 2010, 09:15 AM Post #14 | |
![]()
Stage 11
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
No. Just no. |
|
| ||
![]() |
|
|
| Golem | Feb 26 2010, 10:51 AM Post #15 | |
|
Corrigible Carburetor
![]()
|
Why not?
|
|
Quoth the raven, "~teehee~"
| ||
![]() |
|
|
| 1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous) | ||
| Go to Next Page | |
| « Previous Topic · Video Games · Next Topic » |
- Pages:
- 1
- 2








![]](http://z6.ifrm.com/static/1/pip_r.png)

And this MM debate is making me want to play MM.



