Videogame News

[Stanshall]

Metroid Prime Trilogy is in the can, supposedly, but given that it's not going to age a day, it makes sense for them to wait to release it as part of the Prime 4 promo cycle. Who knows how far off that might be.

Likewise, there have been lots of rumours around both Pikmin 4 and a Pikmin 3 port. I don't know why they they've not just shoved one out for the Pikmin fans but that IP had entries on the Wii and Wii U. I guess it just sells poorly.

I sympathise with F-Zero or Starfox fans because they're iconic Nintendo series even if neither particularly excite me. I get it, though. I'll be like that with ARMS if it never gets a sequel. It's the frequent calls for Wave Race which cause me to roll my eyes. A very very average game.

[KSubzero1000]

Metroid Prime Trilogy is in the can, supposedly, but given that it's not going to age a day, it makes sense for them to wait to release it as part of the Prime 4 promo cycle.

Yeah, that would make sense, marketing-wise. I obviously have reservations about the input technicalities of such a port, but that's probably how it's going to play out.

I sympathise with F-Zero or Starfox fans because they're iconic Nintendo series even if neither particularly excite me. I get it, though.

I'm curious now, have you ever played GX? Because GX is a very different beast from any of the 2D F-Zeros. It's an incredible game. Native widescreen, rock solid framerate, ludicrously precise gameplay. Doesn't compare to anything else, really. They could re-release it as is without any additional tinkering and it'd be worth whatever the asking price may be.

[Alex79]

There would only be an issue with the third game in the Metroid trilogy though as the first two were designed for a pad weren't they. I'm sure it could be adapted, as well as the Galaxy games, there's really not much in Galaxy you really needed the pointer for desperately.

[KSubzero1000]

the first two were designed for a pad weren't they.

...Yeah, with perfectly functional tank controls. Do I need to remind you how popular those are with modern players?

In any case, if they port all three games they would probably use the Wii Trilogy versions as their basis anyway.

[Alex79]

Oh really? I've never played the GC versions and only ever had a quick go on the Wii ones. I guess they were pre-dual analogue for FPS becoming standard. I remember playing Quake 2 on the PS1 back in the day with forward, backward and turn on the left stick and I'm sure you had to strafe with the left and right triggers. You're probably right, wouldn't sit that well with most people now.

[KSubzero1000]

Well, Metroid Prime isn't an FPS, for once. Those games really don't need a dual analogue setup on the GameCube, they control perfectly well as is.

Although to be fair I think they handled the transition to the Wii motion controls incredibly gracefully in a way that thankfully didn't devalue any of their core systems. Even as a purist who dislikes the Wii version of RE4 for example, I don't have the same criticism of the Wii version of Metroid Prime and I think it's probably the best available version to date.

The only issue I now have is that I don't think it's technically feasible to port the Wii versions over to the Switch 1:1, as the two console's architectures simply don't overlap with one another in that way. Gyro =/= pointer.

We'll see.

[Sinclair Gregstrum]

There's also more chance of them actually damaging the legacy of the those games as they almost certainly don't hold up as well as the 2D titles. Anyone who's played an old 3D platformer recently for example knows those games come with a certain unavoidable technical debt simply due to where the state of the medium was at the time.

Metroid Prime, F-Zero GX, Fire Emblem PoR or Pikmin all have a bit of a steeper learning curve than most of their 2D or modern counterparts, but I don't think that translates to them being poorly designed and potentially damaging their own brand / legacy. The idea that they "almost certainly don't hold up" is a bit much imo. If OoT and MM can be re-released to roaring applause, I don't see why they couldn't.

I take your point about a lot of early 3D platformers being a bit clunky (and even then, I would point to stuff like Super Monkey Ball as counter-examples of that), but when it comes to Nintendo games in particular? I disagree. Not to mention all the abandoned quality third-party games from that era stuck in the same limbo that would benefit from a port as well, of course.

I see what you're saying. I suppose the full sentence I put though was "they almost certainly don't hold up as well as the 2D titles", and I'd stand by that.

For example, Super Mario Bros 3 does hold up better than Super Mario 64. The former can stand shoulder to shoulder with any 2D platformer created today due to the core nature of the gameplay and how little it has fundamentally changed in terms of mechanics over the years. I believe it could be released tomorrow as a new game, and would be widely praised as a fine 2D platformer.

You can't say that about Super Mario 64, as 3D gaming (be it third or first person) has dramatically changed, and almost without exception for the better. Cameras, controls and traversal, environment design and scale, visual fidelity etc are all massively improved. That's not to say there aren't still things to appreciate about older 3D games (I'm a Saturn collector for christ's sake - janky old 3D at its best/worst!), but if you put Mario 64 out tomorrow it would be torn apart.

I'd argue that Metroid Prime, F-Zero GX, Fire Emblem PoR or Pikmin are all still good games, but (controversial opinion alert!) none are now best-in-class or even particularly close to it in their respective genres (if Pikmin even has a genre of course!).

It's personal opinion, but I would stand by my statement that older 3D games "almost certainly don't hold up as well as the 2D titles", because I think fundamentally they don't. It's not about poor design, I never said that, but (to quote myself!) more the “unavoidable technical debt simply due to where the state of the medium was at the time”.

[Alex79]

Honestly, regarding Mario 64, I don't think it would be torn apart. I guess it's impossible for me to view objectively but I've played it fairly recently and it's pretty flawless.

[KSubzero1000]

3D gaming (be it third or first person) has dramatically changed, and almost without exception for the better. Cameras, controls and traversal, environment design and scale, visual fidelity etc are all massively improved.

Okay, I'm gonna have to (politely, yet firmly) push back against this for the simple reason that you are lumping together elements that are indeed a result of unavoidable technical limitations (like environmental scale and visual fidelity) with elements that are purely a matter of artistic choice and personal preferences (like camera and controls) as if they're one and the same. It doesn't work like that. Some players, myself included, happen to cherish the unique little touches and properties inherent to a lot of 5th gen / 6th gen idiosyncratic camera systems. The fact that most modern games have all but thrown that specific branch of game design out of the window out of sheer convenience is not synonymous with the notion that they somehow "massively improved" over time.

The same can also be said of control schemes. Some genres have become massively dumbed down and some have disappeared entirely as a result of the constant push for universal control schemes. One of last year's most successful AAA games actively chose to re-create a control scheme from two generations ago because the attempt at implementing modern standardized controls in the series' previous installment was widely rejected by long-time fans. And there's a very good reason for that. Most of the time, old-school control schemes and camera systems aren't the result of technical limitations per se but perfectly valid design choices that are meant to underline the strengths of their respective experiences in a way that modern homogenized systems often can't.

Now if you simply prefer the way modern games look, feel, play, control, etc.. all across the board, then that's perfectly fine and more power to you. But you're painting with a very broad brush here and I don't think that's terribly fair.

I'd argue that Metroid Prime, F-Zero GX, Fire Emblem PoR or Pikmin are all still good games, but (controversial opinion alert!) none are now best-in-class or even particularly close to it in their respective genres (if Pikmin even has a genre of course!).

Okay. I would be interested in hearing why you feel that way, especially about Metroid Prime (considering how I can't think of any other first-person adventure game released since MP3, let alone one that would somehow surpass it in the genre), F-Zero GX (considering the abysmal current state of singleplayer arcade racers), and Fire Emblem PoR (considering the game's main selling points are the writing, map design, soundtrack and art style, all of which are virtually immune to the "unavoidable technical debt" argument). I assume you've played them all semi-recently, correct?

It's personal opinion, but I would stand by my statement that older 3D games "almost certainly don't hold up as well as the 2D titles", because I think fundamentally they don't. It's not about poor design, I never said that, but (to quote myself!) more the “unavoidable technical debt simply due to where the state of the medium was at the time”.

The main issue I have with the "Game X does / doesn't hold up" framing is that it's essentially based on the notion that "Game X at release" and "Game X now" are somehow two separate entities that are both deserving of their individual evaluations. But they're not, it's the exact same game. The only things that change over time are the average player's expectations, sensibilities and habits, and the gaming community's insistence on arguing whether or not older games "hold up" puts the onus where it doesn't belong and unfortunately contributes to blurring the lines between 'poorly designed older games' and 'well-designed older games that players refuse to adapt to', which in turn has a bad influence on future development.

I would also like to point out that putting technological considerations front-and-center in one's evaluation of an artistic product is a very narrow and lopsided, almost self-fulfilling metric to use. One which would struggle to gain any traction in any other artistic hobby community.

[Sinclair Gregstrum]

Honestly I’m finding our difference of opinion really interesting here and I’d love to reply, but I’m feeling like my last one maybe rubbed you up the wrong way and you’re getting a bit annoyed. Really don’t want a falling out over video games (the internet’s favourite past time, but my absolute least - so many more important things to fall out about!), so I’m happy to continue the conversation but just let me know you’re cool with that otherwise we can shake hands and call it quits

[Sinclair Gregstrum]

Honestly, regarding Mario 64, I don't think it would be torn apart. I guess it's impossible for me to view objectively but I've played it fairly recently and it's pretty flawless.

Yeah I guess I meant if you took Mario out of it or say it was released as ‘The New 3D Mario Game’ today, so removed any nostalgia related factors. Still, glad that you love it as much as you do though Alex!

I’d compare it to my love of Shenmue. There are loads of things about that game that by today’s standards are objectively crappy if you play it fresh (way more than Mario 64!). But I love it anyway and my overwhelming nostalgia allows insane forgiveness to those flaws.

Can’t choose who you love

[KSubzero1000]

let me know you’re cool with that otherwise we can shake hands and call it quits

We're cool! It's a subject I'm fairly passionate about and since my stance on this tends to go against the grain of the gaming community as a whole, it often feels like my arguments are remaining unheard, which might explain my rather defensive tone and frustration with certain cultural trends. Absolutely no offense intended.

One other pet peeve of mine is when some of my rather niche favorites are being dismissed out of hand by people who don't take the time to understand or appreciate them properly. But if you have some well thought-out and rational criticisms of the games I've mentioned, I'm all ears.

Looking forward to your response!

[Alex79]

I think we can all agree Resident Evil 4 would be a much better game if it had dual analogue controls similar to something like Unchart........

....

No, I just can't do that to you mate.

[Stanshall]

On that note, I haven't actually played FZGX for more than an hour or so very casually (a few months ago, maybe last summer in fact) so I'm not dismissing it. I've heard great things. The subgenre itself hasn't ever really clicked with me besides Wipeout 2097, though. I love racing games but I'm resolutely in favour of driving automobiles, no matter where the game is on the Excite Truck <-> GT Sport continuum.

[KSubzero1000]

I think we can all agree Resident Evil 4 would be a much better game if it had dual analogue controls similar to something like Unchart........

Spoiler: show

I love racing games but I'm resolutely in favour of driving automobiles, no matter where the game is on the Excite Truck <-> GT Sport continuum.

Totally fair. The top secret trick to enjoy F-Zero is to not treat it as a conventional racing game though, and more like a rhythm game of sorts. It's not really a part of that continuum to begin with. Even Wipeout is completely different, despite looking very similar on the surface. Hand over heart, GX is inherently closer to Groove Coaster Wai Wai Party!!!! than to Gran Turismo in terms of its core design.

Knowing you, if it ever truly clicked with you, you would become completely obsessed with it and not play or talk about anything else for six months. Don't say I didn't warn you.

[Stanshall]

Ooohh...Now that sounds intriguing. I can kind of imagine what you mean because it felt incredibly difficult to do well on pure sight reading. If we're talking memorisation, timing, grinding and execution... OK, leave it with me. I need some batteries for the Wii remote (and XB pad) but I'll give it a proper go and report back.

[KSubzero1000]

Ooohh...Now that sounds intriguing. I can kind of imagine what you mean because it felt incredibly difficult to do well on pure sight reading. If we're talking memorisation, timing, grinding and execution...

Yeah, and also it's because the kind of physics-based mechanics present in 99% of racing games aren't really a thing in this one. GX is arcade as fuck, your vehicle instantly moves when and where you tell it to, shmup-style. It's difficult to explain without playing it yourself but you basically have to throw all your conventional racing game muscle memory out the window and build it back up from scratch. Might as well be a completely different genre, mechanically speaking.

The various Grand Prix strikes a nice balance of memorization and reaction. Track design is all about memorization if you want to be somewhat competitive starting with the advanced races. But the enemies themselves are difficult to predict so you need to be aware of your surroundings to be able to deal with them mid-race. It's definitely the meat-and-potatoes of the game though, content-wise.

But Story Mode is almost pure memorization. It's one of the most challenging parts of the game, but I think it would be perfect for someone like you. It's actually my favorite part of the game and one of the gaming "achievements" I'm the most proud of. Basically, every chapter is a completely different hand-crafted scenario that you have to master after countless retries. Each with three different difficulty modes that really mix things up and force you to master everything there is to even stand a chance. It's more or less like the different difficulty modes in MuFu.

My advice: Go full lunatic, start with Story Mode right away, skip the dumb cutscenes if you want and don't hesitate to try Hard and Very Hard when you unlock them. You'll see what I mean.

Do yourself a favor and watch this video of the very first chapter on Very Hard (it's only one minute long):



All about route planning and boost meter management, countless hours of retries and pixel-perfect execution. Enjoy your new life.

Just to tease you, here's the very last chapter for when you're completely plugged into the Matrix:

Spoiler: show

PS: Don't forget there's a wonderful native widescreen mode you can manually toggle in the options to make the best out of your decadent telly.

PPS: If you can somehow get your hands on a GC controller, I would strongly recommend playing with that one instead of the XB pad. The game is completely made for it, you're supposed to have instantaneous access to all three secondary face buttons without ever letting go of the main accelerator, that's gonna be a complete cramp on the XB pad.

[Flabyo]

I’ve never liked Mario 64. I don’t know why, it’s just never clicked with me at all. Same with Banjo Kazooie.

It’s not a general 3d platformers thing though, cause I’m fine with sunshine, galaxy and odyssey.

(And it’s not a generational thing, I’ve *coded* on the n64, I was there at the time man...)

[NoMoreSpearows]

Super Mario 64 is a game that's the most fun when you're trying to see how much you can bend the rules. Kicking your way up slopes, triple-jumping into a ground pound to activate an underwater switch, and leaping backwards to ascend an infinite staircase: that's what keeps the game alive in this day and age.

As for Banjo, it struggles with the fact that your main form of transportation also accompanies the sound of "ca-CAW ca-CAW ca-CAW" for the entirety of the time, which can lead to obnoxiousness that can overshadow the genuine fun of the game. (Well, that and the "get all the notes in one go" thing.)

[Sinclair Gregstrum]

Looking forward to your response!

Cool! Here goes!

you are lumping together elements that are indeed a result of unavoidable technical limitations (like environmental scale and visual fidelity) with elements that are purely a matter of artistic choice and personal preferences (like camera and controls) as if they're one and the same.

I’m not saying they’re the same thing, but in my opinion they do all absolutely have a strong root in the tech and implementation, which is why I’d address them together in that way. I’d disagree for example that camera and controls in games are solely driven by the artistic choices and personal preferences of the creator/developer. For me they are absolutely both tied to the technologies being utilised to deliver them, and also in the skill of the developer creating them. I’d weight those two factors easily on equal footing with anything to do with artistic choice.

Using in-game cameras as an example, there are too many games to count or name from the fifth & sixth generations that featured poorly implemented cameras that would get stuck in the environment, be difficult to centre on your character (which often had to be done manually), and gave you viewing perspectives that led to even simple environment traversal or combat being made more difficult than it needed to be. They’re not artistically bad - they’re technically bad. I’d be hugely surprised if the developers of these games would want a camera to be deliberately obstructive to the player experience. That’s not to say there aren’t decent in-game cameras from those eras, or that we can’t enjoy games from that time where the camera is poor by modern standards, but the fact that the technical implementation of in-game cameras in 3D space has broadly improved from then to now, is almost undeniable to me.

Some genres have become massively dumbed down and some have disappeared entirely as a result of the constant push for universal control schemes……Most of the time, old-school control schemes and camera systems aren't the result of technical limitations per se but perfectly valid design choices that are meant to underline the strengths of their respective experiences in a way that modern homogenized systems often can't.

I’d argue genres disappear or ebb & flow in popularity not because of anything to do with their control schemes, but to do with market trends, both cultural and commercial (with the latter being the primary driver). If a genre of game sold well enough for someone to turn a profit on it, more would be made. I can’t imagine a genre being made extinct because of an edict that its control scheme doesn’t fit a universally agreed upon methodology, and therefore they should no longer be made. What genres would you say have disappeared as a result of their control scheme? Happy to be proved wrong!

On the dumbing down of control schemes point, I agree with you here in that there are definitely examples where games have been overly simplified to the detriment of the experience and suffered a backlash as a result (which was the example you were thinking of by the why- I couldn’t guess!). But then you have to ask why? I’d wager that in many cases it’s to try and broaden the appeal of the game, and make it more accessible to a wider audience and thus ultimately generate more sales. So I suppose looping back up to the top when you say you believe controls schemes in games are purely an artistic choice on the part of the developer, I’d disagree and say it’s a lot more complicated than that. For me there are not only technology and implementational skill factors at play, same as with cameras, but I believe there can even be commercial motivations as to why a game’s control scheme is the way it is. It’s an interesting debate (to at least you and I anyway!).

I would be interested in hearing why you feel that way, especially about Metroid Prime (considering how I can't think of any other first-person adventure game released since MP3, let alone one that would somehow surpass it in the genre), F-Zero GX (considering the abysmal current state of singleplayer arcade racers), and Fire Emblem PoR (considering the game's main selling points are the writing, map design, soundtrack and art style, all of which are virtually immune to the "unavoidable technical debt" argument). I assume you've played them all semi-recently, correct?

Not recent play-throughs no, but have enough experience with them to have a view, with the exception of probably Fire Emblem: Path of Radiance which I dabbled with on a friend’s Gamecube back in the day but never took to (Awakening on 3DS is my personal favourite). So quick-fire more recent, similar games I personally prefer to the other three (bearing in mind there’s no such thing as a game that’s exactly like another, so for me these simply feature many similar traits/characteristics):
Wipeout 2048 > F-Zero GX
Bioshock > Metroid Prime
Pikmin 3 > Pikmin (cheating a bit obviously, but I do think it’s better and possibly a reason why they don’t bother re-releasing the original).

Don’t hate me!

The main issue I have with the "Game X does / doesn't hold up" framing is that it's essentially based on the notion that "Game X at release" and "Game X now" are somehow two separate entities that are both deserving of their individual evaluations. But they're not, it's the exact same game. The only things that change over time are the average player's expectations, sensibilities and habits, and the gaming community's insistence on arguing whether or not older games "hold up" puts the onus where it doesn't belong and unfortunately contributes to blurring the lines between 'poorly designed older games' and 'well-designed older games that players refuse to adapt to', which in turn has a bad influence on future development.

I would also like to point out that putting technological considerations front-and-center in one's evaluation of an artistic product is a very narrow and lopsided, almost self-fulfilling metric to use. One which would struggle to gain any traction in any other artistic hobby community.

This is a really interesting debate, because I totally see where you’re coming from, but again (there’s a trend here between you and I K-Sub isn’t there!), I have to disagree. The game is the game. No doubt. But all art is viewed through the lens and context of the time in which it is created and every day/week/month/year that follows. Societal norms, cultural trends, personal experiences - they all have a completely unavoidable influence on one’s interpretation of art, and in this case, a game. And all of those things are in a constant state of flux. You can’t evaluate something in a vacuum. Yes the game has not changed, but everything else around it (including you!) has.

For example you can’t begrudge or invalidate the opinion of someone coming fresh to an older game today and comparing it to something more recent that they have played. You could in fact argue that theirs is the most objective opinion as, as far as possible, the time of the older game’s creation is less relevant to them. They’re simply comparing two things in the here and now, with none of the historical influence or nostalgia that comes from you or I looking back on something we’ve loved for years.

Just briefly on the point of whether looking at technical considerations as a factor when evaluating art has ‘traction’ in other mediums, I think it does. So from personal experience, I have a film degree (mostly theoretical, some practical) and am a film buff as much as I am a gamer. Debating how a shot or scene was achieved, discussing how the art form’s technical aspects have developed over time, and comparing works from different eras as part of that is absolutely commonplace and part of the community.

Phew! I think that’s it from me! Got lots to get through this afternoon, but more than happy to continue the discussion (just perhaps not today!).