Desbreko

[QUOTE=Ayokano]Personally, games to me are more as an entertainment. Some games have artistic qualities to them, but that doesn't make it art. Some games use motion capturing, so does that make them movies? Anybody can program something tasteless and unoriginal, but it takes much more to call it art. It also raises a question, ?Would I put a game in an art gallery, or in a theater? Just because games aren't art, doesn't make them any less enjoyable. Just like art, there are good pieces and bad pieces. Basically, video games are built of different Medias, and art can be one of them if the creator chooses.[/QUOTE][color=#4B0082]By that logic, movies aren't art either. They're also an entertainment, and anyone can go out and shoot a tasteless and unoriginal home movie that wouldn't be considered art. So does that mean all movies aren't art? I think people get too hung up on the mediums being used when they try to classify things as "art" and "not art." If a medium doesn't fit into the traditional mold of what art is generally accepted to be, it faces opposition like video games are facing right now. And, believe it or not, movies went through the same thing when they were new. Personally, I don't see the medium as all that important. Rather, I look at the care that went into creating something beautiful, whether that's a painting, book, movie, or video game. One of the definitions of "[url=http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=art][u]art[/u][/url]" on Dictionary.com is, "The conscious production or arrangement of sounds, colors, forms, movements, or other elements in a manner that affects the sense of beauty, specifically the production of the beautiful in a graphic or plastic medium." And if you think about what video games are--the arrangement of various graphical and programming elements into a well crafted game--they fit into that definition without trouble. So I see no reason why video games shouldn't be accepted as an art form.[/color]

[QUOTE=Dodeca][SIZE=1]No kidding. I beat O.W. using only Bahamut pretty much - though I think I lost him just before the end of the battle. The Dark Aeons are a completely different story though. Those guys seriously haul a**... But compare the standard bosses to the likes of the 0:00 Chocobo Challenge, the 200 Thunderbolts, and the Butterfly Catching, and they're... well, yes.[/SIZE][/QUOTE][color=#4B0082]Dark Aeons? Do you mean [spoiler]the ones you fight just before the end boss (I made short work of those, since exploring the Omega Ruins before going through Sin had leveled me up a bit much),[/spoiler] or am I missing something? Or is it one of those international version only things? Speaking of which, I'm still annoyed that I can't use the advanced sphere grid in my US copy. That would've given me some incentive to replay the game. I suppose the monster arena thing in the Calm Lands does have some hard fights, but I tend not to really count those. Mainly because you're expected to power level just to have any chance at winning most of them. Whereas everything else in the game is possible to beat with little to no leveling.[/color]

[quote name='Tatsubei Yagyu][COLOR=Navy][FONT=Comic Sans MS](Don't mind me, I wanna play "Admin" ;) )[/FONT][/COLOR][/QUOTE][QUOTE=Tatsubei Yagyu][COLOR=Navy][FONT=Comic Sans MS]How was that? :p [/FONT'][/COLOR][/quote][color=#4B0082]You say not to mind your post, but then you ask how you did? :rolleyes: In any case, we frown on members "playing mod" when they don't have the authority to actually do anything. Using the report post function is much more helpful. And the_band_guy, this is the second thread of yours I've had to close in here. I again direct you to the [url=http://www.otakuboards.com/rules.php?][u]rules[/u][/url], as well as to the [url=http://www.otakuboards.com/showthread.php?t=46746][u]Play It Thread Directory[/u][/url]. Reading both the rules and the sticky threads in a forum is important, or else you [i]are[/i] likely to have a ban coming your way. If you have any questions about the rules and such, feel free to PM me or another staff member. Thread Closed (fo' real)[/color]

[quote name='Dagger]I don't think any of us would have leapt at the opportunity to stifle your creative impulses. [spoiler]Well, maybe Des--he gets a little gung-ho about his modrod during Happy Hour in the staff forum.[/spoiler'] :animesmil[/quote][color=#4B0082]Says the one who's on a spoiler tag high. :p I think this is a great idea, but if you want it to be successful, you'll have to really stick with it. Especially if you get other people involved; make sure they won't just get bored with it after a short while and quit. I remember something like this popped up a long time ago but it fell apart within a week and barely anything actually got written. So that's my advice.[/color]

[color=#4B0082]Well, it would help if you said exactly which Naruto game you're talking about. . . . "The new one" doesn't tell us all that much. Also, when creating a new thread about a game, you need to actually say something about it yourself. Please read the site [url=http://www.otakuboards.com/rules.php?][u]rules[/u][/url], and be sure to take note of the section relating to Play It and Anime Lounge. Thread Closed[/color]

[quote name='Avenged666fold']OK loserville is refering to not being in 1-3rd place. Not an insult to the game or the people who play it. It more like honorable(or something) mention.[/quote][color=#4B0082]You know, until I realized people must've been taking the "loserville" rank as an insult, I had no idea what the problem here was. When all its saying is, "These are my least favorite games in the series." It's the same way I classify Zelda II within the Zelda series, yet still play it and enjoy it. But I would have to agree that FF games of late, at least the ones I've played, are pretty easy. FFIX and FFX in particular; the only real hard parts of those games are maybe the end bosses [i]if[/i] you haven't leveled at all. I still had a lot of fun with the games, but they barely challenged me, which I think is a valid criticism. Especially when FFIV Advance makes you fight tooth and nail through every dungeon, desparately trying to conserve your healer's MP in order to survive until you find the next save point. And then when you get there, you'd better have a tent/cabin. Deaths are a common occurance during boss battles, so stock up on Phoenix Downs--because your healer usually doesn't have time to both revive and heal without someone else falling. The entire game was a great challenge that I enjoyed immensely. Personally, I think FFIV Advance has the perfect level of difficulty for a Final Fantasy game. It walks the line between "hard" and "impossible without leveling," which makes for a great sense of accomplishment when you get through some of the tougher areas and fights. Or, if you want to take it easy, it doesn't take long to go up a few levels just by fighting baddies in the current dungeon. I played FFX mainly because I enjoyed the battle system, but I came out of almost every boss fight with a feeling of, "What, that's it?" Having seen numerous help threads on OB here over the years, I'd get to bosses whose names I recognized and think, "Finally, something challenging." (Note, however, that I didn't remember much, if anything, about how to beat said bosses.) A few minutes later as the boss fell, that thought would be turned into, "Wait, I never even came close to having anyone die." Sinspawn Gui and the fight with [spoiler]Seymour[/spoiler] on Mt. Gagazet were two that particularly disappointed me that way. So, good fun with the battles, but little sense of accomplishment to go along with that. Maybe it's just me, but I find it a bit sad that FFX's minigames are harder than its boss fights. Omega Weapon? Whatever, I took him down no problem. Butterfly catching? Now that was a pain in the ***. lol[/color]

[color=#4B0082]I just have to mention that I instantly recognized the SMB movie shot without even noticing the Koopa sign. Am I lame or what? lol Too bad I'm a few days too late, though.[/color]

[color=#4B0082]Maybe this is just me, but I don't think playing FFVII before watching FFVII: Advent Children is all that necessary. There's a short little summary--and I mean [i]short[/i], so there's not much in the way of spoilers--of FFVII's basic plot at the start of the movie, and then most of the references to the game are just little easter egg type things for the fans. Of course, without the detailed backstory of FFVII, you won't really know who some people are. But considering that Advent Children is primarily an action movie with a pretty simple storyline, that doesn't stop you from enjoying it. I showed it to one of my friends who hasn't played FFVII and he liked it well enough.[/color]

[color=#4B0082]I think there's more wrong with most of the people reading the reviews than with the reviews themselves. They look at the score number and throw everything else out the window, using it to justify their argument that the game is either good or bad, when a lot of the time they've already made up their minds whether or not they're going to buy the game before any review is published. It all comes down to the petty argument of, "My opinion of a good game is right and yours is wrong." On the other hand, the few intelligent and open-minded people reading the reviews look at the actual information given. You know, the actual review, and not only the opinionated score? (I know, this concept probably just blew some people's minds, but try to keep up.) They look at what the reviewers describe the game to be like and then decide whether or not they'd enjoy what's being described. Scores are a highly subjective thing, but unless a reviewer is flat out lying, the information given in a review will accurately depict whether or not the game aligns with your preferences. That's why these arguments of, "This game deserves a higher/lower score because I liked it more/less," are completely pointless. Scores are subjective, and obviously the reviewer has a different opinion of the game; so what? As long as they didn't paint a false picture of what the game actually plays like there's no real problem. Saying a review is "unfair" or "unjust" just because you think your rating is more accurate is pretty egotistical, since someone else will no doubt consider your score to be just as inaccurate.[/color]

[color=#4B0082]I don't see why PC games would die out just because consoles are getting online capabilities. People with PCs are still a huge market, both for online and offline games. Also, if Sony and Microsoft keep going in the same direction they are now, Nintendo's will probably be the only consoles that are any cheaper than a PC. Even right now, I could probably put together a decent gaming PC for about $500, which isn't much more than an Xbox 360 costs.[/color]

[quote name='Charles']I figured this forum could use a break from the Kingdom Hearts crap and we could actually discuss a quality title.[/quote][color=#4B0082]Charles, you're my hero. N-Sider also posted a news article about this with a link to a video, so I saw this a bit ago. You know what my first reaction was? "Holy crap yes! The Dark World theme is back!" . . . Okay, I'm lame, I know. But the actual gameplay also had me drooling. From what I've seen, I think I'm really going to like the perspective they're using. It looks to play like a 2D Zelda, but also have stuff such as the sailing which could only be done effectively in 3D. The best of both worlds, pretty much. I'm not worried about switching from stylus to buttons and back, though. Playing Animal Crossing: Wild World, I got so I could switch back and forth easy enough. I just hold the stylus in the palm of my right hand with my pinky and ring fingers, up against the side of the DS, while I'm using the buttons with my thumb and index finger. Then I can flip it up and hold it like a pencil when I need to do something on the touch screen. It's fast, easy, and comfortable. But I'm still wondering if there's a Four Swords game in production, or even in planning, for the DS. I'd really love to play FS over wi-fi.[/color]

[color=#4B0082]I'm no authority when it comes to theOtaku submissions, but that wallpaper [i]is[/i] really blurry. The original picture has a lot of jpg artifacting which was only made worse by upsizing it to 1024x768 and recompressing it. If I were you I'd look for a higher quality version of the original image to use in the wallpaper if you plan on resubmiting it. Though I'd agree that extracting the image and setting it against a new background should be enough to get it accepted, provided the image quality issues are worked out.[/color]

[color=#4B0082]Yeah, there's already a [url=http://www.otakuboards.com/showthread.php?t=52451][u]thread[/u][/url] about this in the tech support sub-forum. There are some problems with myOtaku at the moment and linking the accounts is one of them. Hopefully things will be fixed soon. In the mean time I can set up the OB side of the link manually so that your myOtaku info shows up in the postbit. If anyone needs this done just PM me with your myOtaku username and I can go from there.[/color]

[color=#4B0082]For the record, Pokemon was a game originally and was then made into an anime. It's just that, in the US, the anime started airing about a week before the games were released. So that's a common misconception.[/color]

[QUOTE=Transtic Nerve]Wow, if this isn't a blast from the past.... I dont mean me, I mean the topic... I remember the infamous socks thread from years ago... Sara recalls oh so well. I like socks, i always wear socks, people think i'm weird because i dont take off my socks... You know what else is funny? I have no leg hair where i wear my socks.... it just stops in a line... because i always wear socks... what a funny word.... rymes with.... oh nevermind...[/QUOTE][color=#4B0082]As do I. Now let's just hope it doesn't have the same effect. . . . Myself, I used to like wearing socks all the time around the house, even if I didn't have shoes on. Mainly in the winter, because my feet would get cold I guess. Now, though, I barely touch the things except when I'm wearing shoes; I like to go barefoot around the house a lot if I'm not going out that day and needing my shoes on. Or if not barefoot, in my maccosin slippers. But the funny thing is I used to have [i]more[/i] hair where my socks cover. My ankles were actually the third hairiest place on my body. First being my head, obviously, and . . . well, you can guess the second. But the hair on the rest of my legs has since grown in so there's not much difference anymore. So what kind of socks do I wear? Boring, white crew socks. They come up a few inches below the knee, though I only keep them pulled up while wearing long pants. I find them to be more comfortable that way but they look kind of funny while wearing shorts. Nothing too exciting here, but they get the job done.[/color]

[QUOTE=Reiku][color=DarkOrange][size=1][b]Awww... now now Desbreko... that's cheating. :p Although I am curious. Do you do the whole female facade as well when you're playing and meet other characters?[/color][/size][/b][/QUOTE][color=#4B0082]Heheh . . . somewhat. I have a few little personalities floating around in my head for my various characters and sometimes those will add some color to my conversation. Amelia Starfire, that cute female elementalist, for example, is a sweet and somewhat naive girl. She is by no means of the "stupid cheerleader" stereotype, however, and is determined and confident in her abilities. More than just a little feminine, she wears [url=http://img373.imageshack.us/img373/1923/ameliastarfirepink15kpyro16do.jpg][u]light pink[/u][/url] and [url=http://img373.imageshack.us/img373/6169/ameliastarfirepink15kpyro22ou.jpg][u]white[/u][/url] armor. I, being a fan of irony, thought it perfect to have this innocent looking girl rain down fiery death upon her enemies. However, whenever someone's flat out asked if I'm a real girl, I've told them I'm a guy. Though then again, if they just assume, I don't bother correcting them. :p[/color]

[color=#4B0082]I've been hit on by some guy while playing my cute female elementalist in Guild Wars. Does that count? Though, having a ponytail, I have been mistaken for a girl a couple times when someone has only seen me from the back. But then they usually get this awkward look on their face when I turn around, which is funny. Messing with people is fun. ^_^[/color]

[QUOTE=Shinmaru][center][IMG]http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v388/Shinmaru/squall.jpg[/IMG][/center] I think it's obvious that he's the scarriest video game character.[/QUOTE][color=#4B0082]*screams like a little schoolgirl*[/color]

[color=#4B0082]The [url=http://na.square-enix.com/dvd/ff7ac/][u]official website[/u][/url] has a countdown to the movie's release on April 25.[/color]

[quote name='Dai Grepher']Isn't it possible to look at all the extras and differences in Super Metroid and make the same conclusion about that game? I am saying that we cannot automatically assume that the differences between Zero Mission and Metroid are because remakes are inconsistent, and this is because differences exist between games that are different as well.[/quote][color=#4B0082]The problem with comparing Zero Mission with Super Metroid is that Super Metroid has far less in common with Metroid than Zero Mission does. Super Metroid only contains a few areas that are similar to Metroid's; the old Mother Brain chamber/shaft and the bit of Brinstar around where you get the Morph Ball are the only two that come to mind, though there might be a couple more. On the other hand, Zero Mission's map is almost identical to Metroid's in its layout, and even though a lot of areas have been spruced up to make use of the updated gameplay mechanics, there are still a lot of areas that are nearly identical. I think it's pretty obvious that Super Metroid is a whole different game, just looking at the game itself, apart from the story. When you look at Zero Mission, though, that line becomes a whole lot blurrier. It's got less to separate it as a new game, while also having a lot more to tie it to the original Metroid.[/color] [quote=Dai Grepher]I am sure there are not many people who thought about the Prime scans in a series timeline sense, but I do not think that matters. Nintendo knows that the fans will try to place the games in a timeline order, and that consistency would still matter to Sakamoto regardless of how many fans it does not matter to. If you consider them insignificant that that is fine. I think these differences were made with the intention of making Zero Mission different from other games though.[/quote][color=#4B0082]When you look at the issue alone, by itself, you can easily draw that conclusion. But when you look at the big picture, where the bottom line ultimately matters more than consistancy, that's harder to do. I mean, sure, Nintendo expects fans to put the games into a timeline, and they obviously have an interest in making sure there's a coherent series to the games. The Metroid Chronicle bit of the Prime 2 bonus disc shows that. But there comes a point where you have to realize, in order to make new games fun and interesting, some little inconsistancies must be accepted. Take the Mother Brain chamber in Zero Mission as compared to the one in Metroid, for example. Yes, they're different, but there's a very good reason why, which is completely due to gameplay changes. In Zero Mission, Mother Brain actually fights back with the shockwave things that she shoots out of her eye. She doesn't do this in Metroid, so the main challenge there is simply to avoid being knocked into the lava by the turrets. But with that new added bit of gameplay in Zero Mission, the old layout of the room simply would not work. So they changed it, giving you those two little platforms and room to jump over the shockwaves. So yes, you could argue that they changed the room for storyline purposes. Or you could look at the very real fact that the room had to be changed in order to allow for the added gameplay. Thus, in order to make the game more than just a port, they had to sacrifice a bit of storyline consistancy for the sake of gameplay. Just like I've said, gameplay trumps storyline in an action/adventure game like Metroid. And if storyline consistancy mattered that much to the developers, they would never allow a prequel or remake to be made. The reason being, there are almost always at least small inconsistancies introduced when anything but sequels are made, as shown by my example above. Gameplay is always being tweaked and changed, and when you go back in a game's timeline, those tweaks and changes stay. So areas have to be changed to take into account those gameplay tweaks, and then you've got inconsistancies. That's the very reason why Zelda is riddled with so many inconsistancies that have to be overlooked when creating a timeline for it. For the most part, Hyrule's history has been told backwards, with the original Zelda being one of the latest in the timeline and Ocarina of Time being the earliest. The storyline progresses backwards while gameplay progresses forward and those two forces simply cannot be completely reconciled. One has to give way, and it's always been the storyline because gameplay is what sells.[/color] [quote name='Dai Grepher']Well for that, you would have to compare A Link to the Past and Ocarina of Time, as those are the games with the landmarks. An explanation I once heard dictated that each land we see in a Zelda game is one section of Hyrule that is separate and spaced far apart from another. This is plausible. However, even where Ocarina of Time reuses the names of places, it does not look the same. There was no intention to follow the known design. In Zero Mission there was the intention to follow the known design, but it was not followed enough so that it could be seen as the same time and place. I think a remake would have portrayed Zebes to look similar to how it did in Metroid and Super Metroid. A good example of this is the area beneath the brain pod in Zero Mission. In that game it is undamaged, in Super Metroid it is damaged. So I think this is a case where the developers intentionally made Zero Mission different from Metroid or how Metroid's Tourian looks in Super Metroid, to show that these are indeed different time periods and also in this specific area, a different place as well.[/quote][color=#4B0082]Okay, LttP and OoT works just as well, though LoZ also has landmarks like Death Mountain, the Graveyard, the Lost Woods, Spectacle Rock, a good sized lake (presumably Lake Hylia), and a coastline. But okay, take OoT and LttP: Death Mountain is in the far northeast corner instead covering most of the northern map. The desert is in the NW corner instead of the SW. Lake Hylia is in the SW corner instead of the SE. The Lost Woods are in the SE instead of the NW. And Zora's Domain is in the east instead of the NE at the foot of Death Mountain. Oh, and no, it's not plausible that each game shows a different part of Hyrule. Hyrule is a kingdom, not a world, so for one there simply wouldn't be that much room in a single kingdom. And two, why would there be a bunch of different landmarks all named the same thing? Why would there be a bunch of different Hyrule Castles in a single Kingdom of Hyrule? I've heard that same theory and it's laughable when you actually stop to think about it. But to get back to the point, they kept the maps as similar as was reasonable, given the changes in gameplay. I made that point above, with the Mother Brain chamber. Yes, there was an intent to keep the maps similar, and they kept them similar. What they didn't do is keep them [i]exactly[/i] the same. Again, if they had, the game would have been very boring as you'd have updated gameplay without updated maps to make use of it. As for the small area underneath Mother Brain, since you keep bringing that up, the damage in Super Metroid could easily be attributed to decay and erosion. In Zero Mission, there are standing pools of acid left in the Mother Brain chamber after the self destruct mechanism goes off. What do you think would happen to that little room after the acid finally seeps down into it and begins eating away at the metal? In Super Metroid, there are no such pools of acid, so it had to have gone somewhere. And if you want to argue that the rooms in Zero Mission and Super Metroid are different places, just look at the layouts of Crateria in the two games. From that, I think it's obvious that the rooms in both games are one and the same. There are some landscape changes, but the overall layout is too similar to argue that they're different rooms. The maps might not match up exactly, but they're close enough that there's not room for a whole other Tourian in between. And if there isn't room for that, then it's implausible that they're different rooms.[/color] [quote name='Dai Grepher']Yes, but the areas that lead down to Kraid's and Ridley's Hideouts for example, are designed to be basic and plain. In Metroid these wall carvings are more detailed and complex. I think that they could have changed things in Metroid but still made key areas, like the ones I mentioned, match Metroid and Super Metroid. Like I said, to me it seems like they did not try to remake Metroid, but rather create a new game based on the same areas that appeared in Metroid and Super Metroid.[/quote][color=#4B0082]Er . . . I'm not sure what you're saying here. Are you saying that the areas leading to Kraid and Ridley's hideouts are plain in Metroid, or in Zero Mission? And I have no idea what you mean by wall carvings. They did change things in Zero Mission while still leaving areas that are plainly recognizable as being the same as Metroid, however. Look at the area around where you get the Varia Suit. Or the shaft in Kraid's Hideout with the long, vertical stack of breakable blocks that you can have use to climb up the shaft. I'm sure there are other places that I noticed while playing Zero Mission, though I can't recall them at the moment. But as I've said, they had to change the landscape in order to fit the updated gameplay. If they kept things exactly the same in order to avoid inconsistancies the game would be boring. At that point, you might as well just play the original Metroid. A new game based on an older one is exactly what a remake is, by the way. Seriously, that is the very [url=http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=remake][u]definition[/u][/url] of "remake." It's not entirely the old game, but it's not entirely a new one, either. And that describes Zero Mission perfectly. It seems to me like you're arguing more against Zero Mission being a port of Metroid than a remake.[/color] [quote name='Dai Grepher']I do have a reason to believe that these are separate instances though, and that is the fact that Zero Mission is Samus' first mission and Metroid is not. I also disagree. Your statement and Super Metroid's both leave room for a reference to separate occasions. A more accurate statement would be, "I first battled the Metroids on Zebes, and it was then that I defeated..." The same applies for your statement.[/quote][color=#4B0082]That's exactly my point. You have reason to believe it's talking about two separate instances because you're looking at the statements from a biased point of view. You have your theory, and the statements can fit into it. But when you read the statements apart from the theory, they don't suggest what you're saying in any way. Therefore, you can't say that they support your theory. They don't contradict it, but they don't support it either. You're right that if it read, "...and it was there..." that there would be no doubt about it talking of one single instance. That would contradict your theory, unlike how it does read. But just because it doesn read like that doesn't mean it's necessarily talking about two inctances. As it is, the statements are neutral and can't be used to support one view or the other because they could be taken to mean either one or two instances.[/color] [quote name='Dai Grepher']When Super Metroid was first released, it could easily be assumed that the statement referred to Metroid as being the first battle with the Metroids and there was no reason to think otherwise. However, the statement never implies this, but actually leaves the storyline open. Zero Mission is what brings a new understanding to these statements.[/quote][color=#4B0082]No, your theory is what brings a new interpretation to those statements. If you think Zero Mission is a remake, they could be interpreted to fit that theory. And if you think it's a prequel, they could be interpreted to fit that theory as well. Like I said above, the statements are neutral because of this and can't be used as evidence either way.[/color] [quote=Dai Grepher]OK, what about the following case. The Super Metroid intro, which we just talked about, says that Samus foiled the plans of the Space Pirate leader Mother Brain, and this was in the statement referring to Metroid?s mission. However, in the Zero Mission manual, it states that Ridley was the Space Pirate leader. So first, if Zero Mission is a retelling of Metroid, then why did they change the leader to be Ridley? Second, if Sakamoto is more about making things consistent as far as what game goes where, then what is the purpose of changing the leader from Mother Brain to Ridley for Zero Mission? Wouldn?t keeping the remake the same as Metroid?s fact about whom the leader is be the easier and most logical choice? I think that Sakamoto changed Ridley to be the leader because he could. In other words, he was not confined by previously established facts that set Mother Brain as the leader. This is because Zero Mission would be the new mission, the first, which comes before Metroid.[/quote][color=#4B0082]Hmm. . . . You do have a point here. I could offer some possible explanations, but they'd be theories without much to back them up. But I would have to wonder, assuming your theory is true and Zero Mission is a prequel, why Ridley would be the leader in Zero Mission only to be replaced by Mother Brain as the new leader in Metroid. They both got whooped by Samus in Zero Mission, and they both got rebuilt or whatever, so what would cause a change in leadership? Looking at it purely from within the game universe, it doesn't make much sense. So my best guess would be that it was changed for Zero Mission to better reflect the current story that Sakamoto has in mind.[/color] [quote name='Dai Grepher']What about Super Metroid? That has many areas and items that appear in Metroid, and it has new bosses, new designs for old bosses, new items, more enemies, new areas, etc. It was a different game and adventure yet it reused many things from Metroid, including Fake Kraid. I think of Zero Mission and Super Metroid as being the same type of game, new games that have some of the original elements from Metroid.[/quote][color=#4B0082]See my first two paragraphs in this post. There are many, many more differences between Metroid and Super Metroid than there are between Metroid and Zero Mission.[/color] [quote name='Dai Grepher']Wouldn?t the average gamer also not know that Metroid was the first game that we saw though? Take the new generation gamers for example. They probably think Metroid Prime is the first Metroid game. I think if PR was going to indicate that this is the full story of Samus? first game, they would have said game, not mission. ?Mission? indicates a storyline reference, and so does the following statement of ?Experience the first of Samus?s legendary adventures?? Also, the Zero Mission commercial states that it is Samus? first adventure as an intergalactic bounty hunter. That is a direct storyline reference, and it informs us that it is the first mission of Samus? career. Again, if they meant Metroid, I think they would have said ?game?, not ?mission?.[/quote][color=#4B0082]It's a lot easier to know about a game's existence than it is to know small details about that game's story. I'd be willing to bet there's a vast difference between the number of people who about Metroid, but not that particular detail, and the number who don't know about Metroid at all. Even Zero Mission's own instruction manual contradicts the back of the box, though. Like you said in your original post that you linked to, it states that Samus had completed numerous missions before Zero Mission, just like Metroid's manual stated about that game. So even if this couldn't be used as evidence for Zero Mission being a remake, I don't think it could be used as evidence against it because of that contradiction. But still, it's PR hype meant to grab people's attention and get them to buy the game. "Samus Aran's first mission," sounds cooler than, "Samus Aran's first game," wouldn't you agree? The back of game boxes are meant to make people want the game, and it's the job of NOA's marketing department to do that any way they can. If that means a small storyline inconsistancy to make the game sound cooler, then oh well; sales are more important.[/color] [quote name='Dai Grepher']Couldn?t Super Metroid be seen the same way when putting the backstory aside for just that moment? Of course there are bosses between Kraid and Ridley, but there are bosses between Kraid and Ridley in Zero Mission as well.[/quote][color=#4B0082]And again, there's a lot more difference between Metroid and Super Metroid than there is between Metroid and Zero Mission.[/color] [quote=Dai Grepher]Ah, that is where I must respectfully object. I mentioned before that Super Metroid called Mother Brain the leader for Metroid, but this does not necessarily carry over into Super Metroid. However, the Super Metroid manual states that Samus must take on the new leaders of Zebes when infiltrating Tourian, meaning Mother Brain. Also, Ridley is not described to be the leader in Super Metroid. Rather, he was the boss of Norfair, while Kraid was the boss of Brinstar, and the other bosses lead their respective areas. Then in Metroid Prime, one pirate log states that they revived Ridley and added technology which turned him into Meta-Ridley. Then it states that they made him the Chief of Security, not the leader. High Command still called all the shots until Mother Brain was later revived.[/quote][color=#4B0082]Okay, yeah, I forgot about that. And I remember the scan where it says Meta-Ridley is the head of security, now that you mention it. I'll concede this point, then. The change in leadership from Mother Brain to Ridley between Metroid and Zero Mission doesn't really have an explanation, at least not that I know of. It's not enough to convince me yet, but I'll admit you've got a bit of evidence on the line between the first and second tier. That is, somewhat derived from in game events, somewhat from instruction manuals.[/color] [quote name='Dai Grepher']If they thought it was minute detail that no one would notice, then why bother changing it in the first place? The first game that Ridley was every described to be the leader in was Zero Mission, so it was not done to match any other games. Doing so would only contradict other games, but only if Zero Mission replaced Metroid in the timeline, not if it came before it.[/quote][color=#4B0082]Dunno. Maybe they decided they wanted to tweak the storyline to better fit what they had in mind? I'm sure storyline ideas change with time just like gameplay ideas do, so maybe that's why. I don't think we can really be sure, at least not with what we know so far. But it still remains a minor inconsistancy that can hardly support an entire theory on its own. At least not in my opinion.[/color] [quote=Dai Grepher]That is very possible. The evidence I have for that is from Metroid Prime?s manual, and the online manga, which we will not consider canon for this issue. The manga basically states that the Chozo made Mother Brain and at the end of what they made of the manga, it is still active even after the Chozo realized that their extinction was Mother Brain?s fault. Anyway, the manual states: ?They immediately invaded the nearby planet of Zebes, wiping out all life (including most of the indigenous Chozo) and building a massive network of research facilities below the planet's surface. Deep below the surface of Zebes, the Space Pirates researched Metroids for many years, even as a young girl orphaned by their raid on the neighboring planet of K2-L was growing up among the Chozo.? This indicates that once the pirates did wipe out the rest of the Chozo, it did not allow the Chozo time to deactivate Mother Brain. Plus, if they could deactivate it, why not destroy it, or better yet why not set off the self-destruct to destroy the pirates as well? This would be the best thing for the Chozo to do, especially after discovering that it was Mother Brain that allowed all this to happen. Samus was not on the planet during this time, so it would have been better than simply deactivating Mother Brain just for the pirates to reactivate it. However, this evidence is not as solid as the rest. I think it is just supporting evidence that could be refuted with a simple alternate explanation. It is possible that the Chozo simply deactivated the brain, but like I said, it would be logical to then destroy it.[/quote][color=#4B0082]I'd never actually read any explanation for Mother Brain's origins before, so this is interesting. I've never gotten to play Metroid II, so I always figured Mother Brain was created by the Space Pirates. The "reactivated" statement makes sense if it was in fact the Chozo who created it, and it would also fit with Metroid Prime's manual when it says, "Even as their society reached its technological peak, however, the Chozo felt their spirituality wane. Their culture was steeped in prophecy and lore, and they foresaw the decline of the Chozo coinciding with the rise of evil." Mother Brain seems like one of the most advanced things the Chozo created, and with it turning against them, I could see how they'd retreat from technology as on Tallon IV. I don't know about destroying it, though. It could be they deactivated it and then tried to fix whatever had gone wrong, before the Space Pirates attacked and took over. Or they weren't able to destroy it, if it had put up defenses like we see in Metroid, and were only able to cut off its power source or something. So yeah, there are alternate explanations for that. I'd be interested in reading that manga, though. Think you could PM me with where I could find it?[/color] [quote name='Dai Grepher']No doubt that a remake will not be exactly the same, but it should at least be similar enough so people can identify it as the original shouldn?t it?[/quote][color=#4B0082]Well, to me, it is similar enough to be easily indentified as a remake. You start in the same place, get powerups in much the same order, explore very similar or nearly the exact same areas in much the same order. Fight the same bosses, same enemies. . . . There's new stuff mixed in all throughout the game, sure, but at its core the game is clearly still Metroid in my eyes. Whenever someone's asked me what Zero Mission is like, I've described it as Metroid updated with Super Metroid's gameplay mechanics. I think that's a pretty accurate description since you're playing through Metroid's areas, but the game plays very similar to Super Metroid, and most people I've talked to have agreed.[/color]

[color=#4B0082]No problem. Once I know someone's myOtaku account, it's just a matter of grabbing their account ID number from the page, then plugging the name and ID into their account on OB here. Though to get the link from your myOtaku page to your OB profile to show up, you'd have to talk to Adam or Justin. I can only set up the OB-to-myOtaku side of the link.[/color]

[color=#4B0082]Just to elaborate a little more, the archive forums, both the anime a video game ones, are all the old pre-version 7 posts that had accumulated in the anime and video game forums. When we switched to v7, the posting system we used changed drastically, having only one thread per specific game/anime. With all the forums being merged into a single one for all anime and all game discussion, this threw together a lot of threads that wouldn't fit into the new system. So what we did was go through and pick out the most current threads that would fit into the new forums, and left all the old posts that didn't get transfered in the archive forums. This way we didn't have to delete all those old posts, keeping them preservered like the old posts in all the other forums, and we could also keep them separate from the new forums.[/color]

[color=#4B0082]The Slayers sucked me in and didn't let go until I had watched all three seasons. And the OAV. And the movies. And I've since watched the first season over again. The first episode made a great impression. It opens with Lina, a petite little sorceress girl wasting an entire camp of bandits. Much burning, much looting--great fun. And at the end, she destroys an entire village in the process of killing a dragon, with one huge spell, then basically just runs for it. The humor mixed in with it all is great, and comes at the perfect times to offset the serious parts. Or maybe it's the other way around, with the serious parts offseting the humor. . . . Either way, I loved the series from the start, and it remains one of my favorites.[/color]

[color=#4B0082]No matter who wins, the drama afterwards is always the best part of these events.[/color]

[color=#4B0082]I resent the activation e-mail, so hopefully that should do it.[/color]