|
|
Post by Nester the Lark on Aug 24, 2007 22:34:56 GMT -5
I'm sure some of you have been following GameTrailers' Metroid Retrospective for the last few weeks. Well, I guess Metroid fever is hitting its stride, because IGN has just published its own History of Metroid. The part that caught my eye, however, is on page three... "Sakamoto remastered Metroid for the GBA in 2004 as Metroid: Zero Mission, and suggested Metroid II might get the same excellent treatment. Ultimately, Zero Mission became R&D1's final project before a reorg saw it broken up and absorbed into EAD." I think this is the first I've heard about a Metroid II remake. I guess it's been scrapped, but it's just as well. What would be the point of remaking the entire series? Anyway, if you guys are getting hyped up for Metroid Prime 3, I thought you might find these features interesting. |
|
|
|
Post by TV Eye on Aug 24, 2007 23:26:29 GMT -5
A remake of Metroid II would have been great! I never actually played it, as my first portable was Gameboy Color, and at the time, all I played was Pokemon  EDIT: Post 400!!! |
|
|
|
Post by nocturnal YL on Aug 25, 2007 7:33:59 GMT -5
Well... now that you say it....
I want them to make early metroid makes avaliable with Wii-DS connective function. Say, when you're done with the DS you can send the save file back to Wii and give it a second shot...
Of course, this wonn't happen with a downloadable Super Metroid. Nintendo would hold every opportunity to earn money tightly and woudn't do compilation now! Dang!
|
|
|
|
Post by Hiker of Games on Aug 25, 2007 17:44:06 GMT -5
I think a Metroid II remake would be ideal with the Prime series. It's the next stage in the series, so remastering the game on the DS with new graphics and an expanded plot (to tie in the Prime series with the main series) would be wonderful. It was my first Metroid game, so it holds a special place in my heart.
|
|
|
|
Post by Phil Bond on Sept 8, 2007 7:00:52 GMT -5
Metroid II is too barren for today's standards, and there's no way to flesh it out or add chapters to it without fundamentally changing it and its important point in the timeline. Planet SR388 was the home of the X, and the home of the Metroids, created by the Chozo to prey upon the X. It's an organic, uncivilized planet where no lore could reasonably have been written. Also: the method of gaining access to new areas is somewhat strange. Every so often, the game decides you've killed enough Metroids for the lava in a certain area to recede and allow you safe passage. There are Chozo statues here and there, as they liked to scatter those throughout space, but nothing reverent.
As I heard it, a colorized "DX" version was also promised once, but became vaporware as well. That would have been nice, and possibly perfect. The game is too hard to navigate in monotonous black-and-white, and would be too easy with an auto-drawn map.
|
|
|
|
Post by kirbychu on Sept 8, 2007 7:14:50 GMT -5
If they were able to do it with the original Metroid, I'm sure they could do it with Metroid II as well.
|
|
|
|
Post by Fryguy64 on Sept 8, 2007 8:12:58 GMT -5
The story of Metroid Fusion has laid out a much deeper backstory to SR388 that could be used to flesh out any Metroid II remakes. For a start, it was a proper Chozo colony at one time, but one ravaged by disease, and wiped out by the cure.
The game isn't barren, at least no more than any other game in the series. Huge, cavernous tunnels leading through the interior of the planet. Spruce them up a bit, throw in some new areas, update the gameplay to be closer to that of the post-Super Metroid 2D games and you have a prime candidate. It's an important part of the series, sure... but I don't see why any of that would be lost with a proper Zero Mission style update.
|
|
|
|
Post by Phil Bond on Sept 8, 2007 15:21:09 GMT -5
Zero Mission still doesn't sit right with me. George Lucas, etc...
I thought it was a beautiful thing that so much continuity had been built upon an apparently simple NES game, and then they just up and replaced it. The only reason anyone forgives Zero Mission for that is because it was a well-made game, but it still muddled something that was pure.
|
|
|
|
Post by TV Eye on Sept 8, 2007 15:27:57 GMT -5
Zero Mission still doesn't sit right with me. George Lucas, etc... I thought it was a beautiful thing that so much continuity had been built upon an apparently simple NES game, and then they just up and replaced it. The only reason anyone forgives Zero Mission for that is because it was a well-made game, but it still muddled something that was pure. See, I think the opposite. It gave the first Metroid an actual story. There were short cut-scenes throughout that helped narrate the story. It's like when Pokemon was remade with Firered and Leafgreen. Some people complained, but the majority enjoyed it. ... don't know. Different people have different opinions I guess..  |
|
|
|
Post by kirbychu on Sept 8, 2007 15:59:46 GMT -5
I don't think a better story is ever a bad thing. It's not like George Lucas, because the original story wasn't changed or contradicted. It was just fleshed out and clarified. Taking that as a bad thing seems a bit overtly purist to me.
|
|
|
|
Post by Phil Bond on Sept 8, 2007 23:03:20 GMT -5
Wasn't changed or contradicted? What are you, a maniac?
|
|
|
|
Post by Fryguy64 on Sept 9, 2007 3:21:11 GMT -5
Wasn't changed or contradicted? What are you, a maniac? You should probably explain that. The important points of the original story were correct and present, and they basically inserted Chozo ruins and the Space Pirate ships. It ties in better with its sequels now. I don't see the contradictions to the original story. |
|
|
|
Post by Phil Bond on Sept 9, 2007 4:12:30 GMT -5
All that stuff that happens in Zero Mission, contrary to the fact that those items, areas and characters weren't accessible in the original? Those are changes. They are also contradictions.
It ties in *more* with the chronologically later games, but whether it ties in *better* is a matter of perspective.
|
|
|
|
Post by Fryguy64 on Sept 9, 2007 4:26:43 GMT -5
No, it seems it is a matter of opinion and definition. I still fail to see how any of that stuff counts as a contradiction. A contradiction suggests that the changes Zero Mission made are more incompatible with the storyline and other games than the original. From what I can tell, the exact opposite is true.
|
|
|
|
Post by kirbychu on Sept 9, 2007 5:15:11 GMT -5
All that stuff that happens in Zero Mission, contrary to the fact that those items, areas and characters weren't accessible in the original? Those are changes. They are also contradictions. They're additions, not contradictions. If parts of the original story were removed and replaced with entirely different things, it'd be contradiction. But they weren't. New things were just added along with them. It's like watching a movie with the deleted scenes added back in. Just because they weren't there in the original screening, that doesn't mean they contradict the original story. |
|
