Gaming Metroid: Zero Mission

[Charles]

Yeah, you're obviously allowed to increase your jumping ability as the game progresses, along with the trajectory of your shots. Good stuff. Isn't the diagonal shot new to this one as well? If so, I'm sure that changes the feel of the game significantly.

[spoiler]Unfortunately, the somersault attack can be a problem when platforming because it actually [i]destroys[/i] certain platforms and enemies you're trying to leap across.[/spoiler]

On the whole, I'm not very [i]impressed[/i] with Zero Mission, per se. That's due, in part, to my mile high expectations. It delivers exactly it should thus far. The design isn't up to Fusion's standards, or even the most recent Castlevania title, but it's still impressive considering it's influenced by such an old game. [spoiler]I've not yet experienced the post Mother Brain segment though, which I've heard is a breath of fresh air. That should be exciting[/spoiler].

I'm past the two hour mark and it's still not over, so I'm satisfied seeing as how length was my biggest concern. I'm thorough with my exploration habits, so I'm confident I can stretch out the gameplay. If you take into account the fact that I only play portable games for their intended purpose instead of at my own leisure, I'd say this could last nicely. I was never a huge fan of the original Metroid, so after I'm done with the redux, I can play that one on here.

How could would it have been if Fusion and this had been one large adventure though? super Metroid would have been toppled for sure.

[Desbreko]

[color=indigo]I just got Zero Mission today and I'm already an hour and a half into the game. I just beat Kraid and now I'm headed back to Norfair. So far I've been liking the game quite a bit, and I'm finding the new areas to be fun to explore, as well as the original areas that have been tweaked. It seemed kind of weird to get the Speed Booster from [spoiler]beating Kraid, though. I was expecting the Varia Suit like in Super Metroid, heh. The fight itself was a lot of fun, though--just as good as in Super Metroid.[/spoiler]

One thing I thought was cool was that they kept sort of the same layout for Crateria as they had in Super Metroid. One of the secret Missile Tanks from Super Metroid was even still there, heh. It also looked like the Wrecked Ship from Super Metroid is there too, though the door to it required a Power Bomb to open. I can't wait to be able to explore more of the area.

So far I think Zero Mission is standing up to Fusion for sheer fun factor, though it definitely has a much different atmosphere. Zero Mission sort of feels like Super Metroid only with the original Metroid's setting, which is by no means a bad thing. Still, though, I really doubt Zero Mission is going to beat out Super Metroid as my favorite in the series. It's not quite that good.

More comments shall be forthcoming as I get farther into the game. ^_^[/color]

[Charles]

[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by Desbreko [/i]
[B][color=indigo][spoiler]The fight itself was a lot of fun, though--just as good as in Super Metroid.[/spoiler] [/color] [/B][/QUOTE]

[spoiler]You thought that was fun? Hm, I don't know. It only took me about thirty seconds [i]max[/i] to beat Kraid. You have this huge, screen-filling gargantuan bearing down on you, and he keels over like he's nothing. Lame. Sadly, Ridley was just as [b]pathetic.[/b][/spoiler] And, I have it on normal mode.

So, although the boss sequences are set up nicely with great cinematic flair and the creatures look fantastic, the battles themselves are lackluster. If I were to write a FAQ about this game, all I would have to do is urge players to shoot a barrage of missiles at these "menaces" until they die. It's really that mindless.

Hopefully hard mode will remedy this problem.

[Semjaza]

Hard should have been the Normal setting and something even more difficult should have been hard. It's like they were trying to cater to the masses with the difficulty. Fusion might have been short, but it was no slouch in the difficulty department -- particularly with the bosses.

Overall, while impressive, I don't think this game has the same level of polish as Fusion does. It's obvious even within the first thirty minutes. That doesn't mean that it's bad, just different, I guess.

[Desbreko]

[color=indigo]Well, it was about as fun as Kraid in Super Metroid. It's not like he was very hard in that one either--especially not if you can hit with all your Super Missiles. And you even beat him the same way, so yeah.

And hey, the bosses so far are better than in the original game. In that one, you can just jump in a lava pit and shoot them through the floor with the Wave Beam and they can't hit you, lol. If you time your jumps right and you have the Varia, you don't even take damage from the lava. :rolleyes:[/color]

[Semjaza]

I'd say Kraid, overall, was possibly more difficult in Zero Mission... not that that's saying much. In general, I think the boss battles were far less intense, surprising or fun as those in Super Metroid or Metroid Fusion.

I finished this game the other day and I'm kind of mixed. In some ways, it rocked. I loved some of the new additions. I loved seeing the new versions of familiar enemies and areas. I loved the great remixed area music (Norfair in particular).

What I didn't love was that the game was simply too easy. Normal Mode might as well be Easy. I'd expect Easy would be comparable to Toddler Mode. I've played some of Hard and that honestly feels like how it should have been in the first place. It really would have helped extend the game length.

The other issue is its length. I finished it my first time through in 3 hours and 10 minutes. I had 65% collected, but I didn't even need half of what I had. I just felt like I blew through this game in no time at all... I almost feel ripped off in some senses. Even another hour would have been nice.

I did however like the areas added to the game that weren't present in the original in any form. I wish there was more of that. The cutscenes were neat too.

Overall, I much preferred Fusion. It was just more challenging and felt far more polished.

[Epitome]

[size=1]Now dont go spoiling anything for me just yet. But I havent played the game yet but am definatley looking into it. From what Semjaza said about him liking Fusion more I definatley think that I will like it more than as well. I was addicted to Metroid Fusion for like 3-4 months straight. I beat it like 5-6 times over thats how awesome I thought the game was. But, from what I have seen for Zero Mission, it does look like it will be a most incredible game. So, keep me posted on whether it is worth the money or not.[/size]

[Desbreko]

[color=indigo]Personally, I think it's worth the money, and also a game that lives up to the Metroid name, but it does have its shortcomings. I too prefer Metroid Fusion over Zero Mission, but I'm still having lots of fun with the game. I'm up over eight hours of play time now, trying to get 100% on my first play through. (Though I've already beaten the game).

So I'd definitely recommend Zero Mission, but don't expect it to be as good as Fusion. The simple fact is, Zero Mission is a remake of the original. And even though it does have a lot of elements from Super Metroid and Fusion thrown in, it's still not too much longer than the original game, and it's also a lot easier. (At least on Normal difficulty it is--I haven't started Hard mode yet). At first I was a somewhat disappointed with Zero Mission, but then I realized I was expecting too much from it. It's not a completely new Metroid game, so it's not going to have much new to the series.

It may not be all that original, and it may not be that long if you just play straight through without searching out all of the powerups, but it's still a lot of fun. Like I said, it has its shortcomings, but I don't think you could reasonably expect too much more from a remake without it becoming a completely new game.[/color]

[Shinmaru]

Man, am I ever jumping back into this thread late. lol

After [i]finally[/i] buying Metroid: Zero Mission *pauses to thank Tony for selling it to him* and getting some time to play it just now, I'd have to say that I like what I've played through so far. Right now, [spoiler]I'm in Kraid and I'm on my way to fight him.[/spoiler]

So far, the game hasn't really presented me with too many troubles. The enemies are fairly easy to kill, except for a couple of the mini-bosses (I guess you could call them mini-bosses) I've seen, which have been a tad trickier to fell. [spoiler]I found the Acid Worm pretty fun to fight, even if the fight wasn't really that difficult. Something about boss fights that force you to use quick reactions always strikes me as fun no matter how easy they may be sometimes.[/spoiler]

The only place where I even had a bit of trouble so far was in [spoiler]the Chozo Ruins, where you fall through the bridge. Took me a couple seconds before I realized that I should blast the crap out of the walls so that I could find the hidden passage - it pays to be well acquainted with the Metroid series sometimes :p[/spoiler]

Overall, the game is good so far. Of course, you have the obvious things that come with Metroid, such as good graphics, great controls and fantastic music. I'm looking forward to doing some more exploring later on today when I play it again, heh.

[BlueYoshi]

[quote name='Desbreko][color=#4B0082']Actually, I find Ridley to be the easiest boss in the entire game, on all three difficulty levels. I think it only takes something like four or five super missiles to bring him down ... and I believe I had four max when I played through on hard mode. If I remember correctly, he got in all of two hits before dying, and I actually ended up taking less damage than when I fought him on normal mode.[/color][/quote]

[color=darkred]I was talking about fighting Ridley early, at a time where you only have three Super Missiles, tops.

When I first read this, I thought to myself "yeah, whatever, keep talking", but it's true... Ridley is extremely easy. Based on my impression from Super Metroid, Ridley was a pain in the neck to get around., and there were many factors that contributed to the difficulty of fighting him, like the high, narrow room, and the lava down below. In Zero Mission, every thing has been done to a lesser extent regarding Ridley and the other bosses. I found that he was a lot less flexible in Zero Mission than in Super Metroid, as in he was constantly on the move, though in Zero Mission, you more or less just had to stand beneath him and let loose with whatever missiles you have.

Even Meta-Ridley in the Space Pirate Mother Ship was terrible. It took me five Super Missiles to bring that thing down, which is absolutely abrasive. There are some serious issues regarding the bosses in Zero Mission. They're just so sloppy.

Anyway, as for the game as a whole, I really can't complain. I got my kicks out of it, and I enjoyed playing it. Simple as. True, the game is simplified to extreme measures, but it was by no means bad. On my first time playing it -- on easy -- I managed to complete 81% of it, which is something I no way would've been able to have accomplished in Super Metroid, and is also why I won't be re-running through the game to obtain that 100% completion. There's no point, and it wouldn't feel very challenging. I'll play through Normal and Hard mode, though, just to see what it's like, and to be able to say that I've done it.[/color]

[Desbreko]

[color=#4B0082]So you believe me now, eh? :toothy:

But yeah, Ridley is a [i]lot[/i] harder in Super Metroid, if only for the fact that it takes nearly all 50 of your super missiles to bring the sucker down. So if you miss a few times and/or haven't gotten all the super missile tanks in the game, you're also going to be unloading a lot of normal missiles into him. Not to mention the fact that, if you just stand on the platform and don't bother jumping around to dodge while shooting him, you'll take a ton more damage.

After I fought Ridley in Zero Mission on the normal difficulty level (fighting him like I would in Super Metroid and realizing how unnecessary it was), I came up with this strategy for beating him on hard mode, and it worked flawlessly: When the fight begins, crouch and fire your normal beam diagonally up at him to block the fireballs he spits at you, then stand up and fire super missles/missiles like crazy once he stops spitting fireballs. Doing that, I never even had to move. And the funny thing is, I even skipped one of the super missile tanks up to that point (the one that you have to fight the wasp miniboss for), so I could've even had another super missile to use against him if I had bothered to get it earlier.

Meta-Ridley is also just a huge joke. I actually beat it one time before it ever had a chance to attack me. It appeared and I was able to hit it with the four (pretty sure it's four) super missiles that it takes to kill the thing before it could so much as raise a claw. On one hand, I was laughing at it because I had just made four perfectly timed shots on the thing in quick succession, but on the other hand I was feeling sorry for how easy it was.

So I really have to agree; the bosses were a big disappointment for me in Zero Mission, though with one exception. Mother Brain, considering that they were sticking to the original game and couldn't really include the second form as seen in Super Metroid, was a pretty fun fight. Having to dodge all the little turret shots, rings, and energy waves from Mother Brain itself while managing to stay on that narrow little platform without falling into the lava provided a decent challenge.

You might reconsider going for 100%, though. Personally, I had a lot of fun tracking down all the hidden powerups; the "puzzles" in Zero Mission are the best I've seen in the Metroid series. Most of the best ones require you to do some pretty cool shine spark (flying with the Speed Booster) tricks that can take a while to figure out and can be pretty hard to execute correctly. They really put your platforming skills to the test and encourage you to figure out all of the shine spark techniques.[/color]

[BlueYoshi]

[color=darkred]Fighting Ridley in Super Metroid was bliss. He was like the boss to end all bosses, besides the fact that the fight was in the form of a one on one duel. Whenever I'd miss a single normal Missile, let alone a Super Missile, I screwed beyond belief... missing isn't an option. But I digress, Ridley isn't that difficult in the first stages of the fight; my usual strategy would be to jump to the opposite side that he's on and lay a Super Missile into him one at a time, and keep doing that until he turns red. That's when it becomes every man for himself, though, because his attacks and movement become a lot more aggressive, and you really need to put in a good level of knack to bring him down.

On the other hand, Ridley was horrible in Zero Mission. His tail was one of the key elements that made him half the boss he is in Super Metroid, and it was something I didn't even take into consideration when battling him in Zero Mission. If I remember correctly, I think I walked away from that fight more or less unscathed.

About Meta-Ridley, though, I think it varies in terms of beating him. From what I know about the game, the more items you have, or the more maxed out your item collection percentage is, then the harder the fight will be. For me, it took five Super Missiles to destroy him, but when I decided to fight Meta-Ridley again, I made the effort to get the Energy Tank just before him, and it took me six Super Missiles instead. So maybe I'll end up seeing how 100% completion will work out after all.

You're right about Mother Brain. It's funny, because in Super Metroid, Mother Brain was the easiest boss in the game. All you pretty much had to do was keep your energy level in sufficient shape until [spoiler]the Metroid saves you[/spoiler]. After that, the rest of the fight gets handed to you on a plate, because you acquire the Hyper Beam (and get to listen to Samus' awesome theme). One thing I'm grateful for, is that Mother Brain is a lot bigger in Zero Mission than she was in Super Metroid; I couldn't stand aiming at that small thing and missing half the time... ugh.[/color]

[Desbreko]

[color=#4B0082]For the second half of the Ridley battle in Super Metroid, I find it's all about being able to aim in the air. I'm pretty much constantly jumping, dodging Ridley's attacks with the Space Jump before firing off a couple super missiles, and then I'm back in the air again as soon as I land.

But you're right, if that tail smacks you, even if you're doing a screw attack, you get hit hard. Add to that the fact that his tail will also block missiles, and you've got the biggest threat in the fight. I remember the first time I fought Ridley and got hit out of the screw attack by it, it really surprised me; nothing else up to that point had been able to break through a screw attack.

And then you have Zero Mission, where it's like, "Tail? Oh, yeah, Ridley's tail. He tried to hit me with it, but he died too quickly." :p

As for Meta-Ridley, I don't remember the number of super missiles required to destroy it varying. All three times I played through the game, I played though, beat the game, then went back and beat Meta-Ridley again once I had gotten 100%, and I only remember the number of super missiles varying with the difficulty setting. I wonder if I just wasn't paying enough attention. ...

Oh, and have you ever played through the original Metroid? You have an even smaller area in which to hit Mother Brain in that one, since you don't even break away all of the glass surrounding it. You only break away a section of the glass about one and a half, maybe two times the width of a missile, so there's very little room for error when timing your shots.

In Zero Mission, though, I thought you had to crouch on the little platform and fire at Mother Brain's eye when it's open. Whenever I shot Mother Brain anywhere else, or when its eye was closed, it didn't look like I was doing any damage. For me, that added a good amount of difficulty to the battle, since later in the fight you have a pretty narrow opening in which to shoot it, between when it opens its eye and when it shoots an energy wave at you.[/color]

[BlueYoshi]

[color=darkred]You're spot on about the Ridley battle. It's very much a test of your jumping and aiming skills. But, even if the very same Ridley from Super Metroid was translated into Zero Mission, I don't think he'd be quite the same. The difficulty will be there, I'm sure of that, but when you consider Zero Mission's mechanics, I don't think the fight would be that hard. The Space Jump makes a good example of what I'm trying to say. In Super Metroid, you'd have to time each jump almost precisely if you wanted to effectively pull the manoeuvre off, but on the other hand, in Zero Mission, you can repeatedly bash the A button and sustain Samus in the air with little to no effort. So what I'm trying to say is that it's not just the bosses or enemies who make the difficulty, but everything together.

It's sad, really, because it's as if the abilities that Samus learns throughout the game have been stripped off their purposes and are just there for the sake of being there. In Metroid Prime, there was a decent degree of difficulty, I think. The Space Jump was limited and had been narrowed down, but even with the 3D transition, it was reasonable, because you were only able to perform two consecutive jumps after each leap, rather than a continuous chain to the liking of Zero Mission. The Morph Ball Bombs were of similar value, because you were only able to plant three, one after another, before they were disabled for a while.

And yeah, you're right about the Mother Brain in Zero Mission; you have to hit its eye to deal the damage. I'm actually very pleased with that, seeing as there isn't a [spoiler]second form[/spoiler] and all, because if I was just stuck blasting an idle enemy whilst dodging attacks from turrets and such, I'd get very bored quickly, but Mother Brain's activity was welcomed with open arms with me. But still, I'm glad that you had to attack an eye of that size rather than an eye the size of the Super Metroid Mother Brain, heh.

And I'm currently playing through the NES Metroid right now. If Mother Brain is as small as you say so, then I'll definitely be a balder person when I'm through playing it, heh. To be honest, though, I'm enjoying the game very much, just as much as Zero Mission itself, if not, then more. The fact that you aren't able to crouch or shoot diagonally makes the game [i]very[/i] challenging and much harder, because you have to put jumping to use as an alternative, which I find to be fun. I was spoiled by Screw Attacks and special beam moves in Super Metroid, so I never really cared to apply jumping to that manner.

But despite the fact that I'm liking the NES Metroid more than Zero Mission, it doesn't mean that I don't appreciate Zero Mission. Because I played through Zero Mission before Metroid, I've gotten to grips with the terrain and have thoroughly familiarised myself with it (since it's apparently easier on the eye), so I'm able to track my way through Zebes without much fuss, even though the two games still slightly differ in those terms. It's great though, unlike Metroid II, which I've been stuck on for so long now for all the same reasons as I would be on the NES Metroid... I'll crack it, though, someday.[/color]

[Guest Dai Grepher]

I am not sure if this forum can display all of the presentation's data accurately. So please click the link below to see the presentation in its entirety.

*56 K Warning*

[url]http://forums.g4tv.com/messageview.cfm?catid=8&threadid=515808&FTVAR_MSGDBTABLE=&STARTPAGE=1[/url]

After viewing, please discuss the topic here. I will be happy to answer any and all questions anyone may have. Enjoy reading. I think this information can be very enlightening.

[Desbreko]

[QUOTE=Dai Grepher]I am not sure if this forum can display all of the presentation's data accurately. So please click the link below to see the presentation in its entirety.

*56 K Warning*

[url]http://forums.g4tv.com/messageview.cfm?catid=8&threadid=515808&FTVAR_MSGDBTABLE=&STARTPAGE=1[/url]

After viewing, please discuss the topic here. I will be happy to answer any and all questions anyone may have. Enjoy reading. I think this information can be very enlightening.[/QUOTE][color=#4B0082]*merges this with the original Zero Mission thread*

First of all, that was a great read and very interesting. I can appreciate how much work you put into that, since I do the same sort of thing with the Zelda storyline.

But I don't buy it. The main reason I don't is that you've got very little in-game evidence to back the theory up. If I recall correctly, you've got 1) map layout inconsistancies, 2) individual room layout inconsistancies, 3) Samus' memories at the beginning of Super Metroid not matching up, and 4) inconsistancies with Metroid Prime's references.

The first two of those I chalk up to the fact that gameplay will [i]always[/i] trump storyline in action/adventure games like Metroid. They changed the maps and rooms to fit their design ideas for making the game fun, and I seriously doubt anyone on the design staff would care about such small inconsistancies. I see this as the same sort of argument as The Legend of Zelda and Zelda: A Link to the Past being set in alternate universes just because the maps don't match up. There's just no way I would even consider something like that, because I know that level designers aren't going to scrap their maps because of some small things that might affect the storyline. As much as I wish it weren't so, the designers will never care about their action/adventure game storylines as much as we do; they care about making a game that's fun to play so that it will sell and be profitable.

As for the third point . . .[/color]

[quote]Samus states, ?I first battled the Metroid?s on Planet Zebes. It was there that I foiled the plans of the Space Pirate leader Mother Brain.? Some may say this is proof that Samus? memory of Metroid implies that this was her first battle with the Metroids, thus Zero Mission cannot take place before it, otherwise she would be lying. However, the text states that she first battled the Metroids on Zebes. Then she says that it was there that she defeated Mother Brain. So these are two different sentences and it does not indicate that her first battle with the Metroids was the same mission as Metroid.[/quote][color=#4B0082]. . . I gotta say, you really ripped those two sentences out of context. Just because they're different sentences does not mean they can refer to entirely different time periods. Being in the same paragraph, it [i]does[/i] imply that the foiling of Mother Brain was during Samus' first battle with the Metroids. Trying to completely separate those two sentences is just silly when you look at it grammatically.

And finally, for the fourth point, I would again point to the Gameplay > Storyline idea. Metroid Prime makes references to Metroid, yes. But Zero Mission was not out at the time of Prime's release, so it would've been impossible to reference Zero Mission. So why didn't Zero Mission rigidly stick to the same storyline in order to preserve those references? Well, it's hard to add new content like the Space Pirate Mother Ship sequence in Zero Mission without changing the story. And since gameplay (new content) takes precedence over storyline (keeping the references accurate), I again see this negligible.

- - - - - - - - - - - - -

Now, with the in-game evidence out of the way, I wasn't too impressed with most of your other arguments. A lot of it seemed like playing on the semantics of PR hype, and taking things out of context in the same way as the Super Metroid monologue. But I see that as a moot point anyway.

When I formulate theories about the Zelda timeline, I place this order of importance on my sources: In-game events > in-game text > instruction manual text > other sources souch as developer interviews and official websites. Now, if a theory doesn't rest on either either of the first two sources (in game events or text), I don't regard it as especially valid because it has a pretty weak foundation. As well, if a theory is well founded on one of the first two sources, a lower important source's contradicting information will not destroy the theory in anything but large amounts.

Take, for example, Miyamoto's (I think it was his, either his or Aonuma's) claim that The Wind Waker is set 100 years after Ocarina of Time. In-game events and text clearly show this to be impossible, as it takes a lot longer than 100 years for a people's origins to completely dissolve into legend. That just doesn't happen, even if those origins involved a catastrophic flood. Therefore, there must be a longer period of time between OoT and TWW (which is a good thing, 'cause otherwise there wouldn't be room for Twilight Princess).

So why do I disregard the word of the series' creator? Make no mistake, I have an immense amount of respect for Miyamoto and Aonuma both. But the thing is, the question comes down to what [i]is[/i], and what is [i]said[/i]. The game clearly shows the people of Hyrule in a state that wouldn't fit the passage of a mere 100 years. So the actual game shows that what [i]is[/i], is a passage of time greater than that, while Miyamoto only [i]said[/i] the passage was 100 years.

All this, then, comes together as my reason for not bothering with your arguments regarding out-of-game evidence. I showed why I didn't think your in-game evidence had any weight, so thus, with your theory's foundation gone in my mind, I really have no reason to try and refute every other little point.

Of course, this is my order of importance that I use when formulating theories. You may use a different one and put more weight on out-of-game things. . . . But that's a different argument entirely.

- - - - - - - - - - - - -

All in all, a very well written article that I'm glad you shared here. I personally don't think the evidence stands up as proof, but I admire the effort you put into it. Keep up the good work.[/color]

[Guest Dai Grepher]

[quote name='Desbreko'] But I don't buy it. The main reason I don't is that you've got very little in-game evidence to back the theory up. If I recall correctly, you've got 1) map layout inconsistancies, 2) individual room layout inconsistancies, 3) Samus' memories at the beginning of Super Metroid not matching up, and 4) inconsistancies with Metroid Prime's references.[/quote]

I also have the storyline differences, as well as the many level differences and how Zero Mission was made to be more basic and plain than Metroid.

[quote name='Desbreko] The first two of those I chalk up to the fact that gameplay will [i]always[/i'] trump storyline in action/adventure games like Metroid. They changed the maps and rooms to fit their design ideas for making the game fun, and I seriously doubt anyone on the design staff would care about such small inconsistancies.[/quote]

The second interview with Sakamoto shows that he considers storyline consistency very important. Also, how can you be so sure that these are inconsistencies and not intended differences to show that Zero Mission is a unique adventure? It is more likely that the developers made the Mother Brain pod look as it did in Zero Mission so that it could not be compared to Super Metroid's destroyed Tourian or Metroid's Tourian. The fact that the area beneath the brain pod was undamaged by the blast shows that it cannot possibly lead into Super Metroid. There are too many differences for these all to be mistakes or cases where they simply disregarded how Tourian should look in Super Metroid. Even if they had not made Tourian to look that way before the explosion, they could have made it match Super Metroid after the explosion.

[quote name='Desbreko'] I see this as the same sort of argument as The Legend of Zelda and Zelda: A Link to the Past being set in alternate universes just because the maps don't match up. There's just no way I would even consider something like that, because I know that level designers aren't going to scrap their maps because of some small things that might affect the storyline. As much as I wish it weren't so, the designers will never care about their action/adventure game storylines as much as we do; they care about making a game that's fun to play so that it will sell and be profitable.[/quote]

Well that is not exactly fair. A Link to the Past did not have to follow any certain map layout because it was a new game and a new adventure. Zero Mission would have, or should have as a remake of Metroid. Plus, the alternate dimension argument does not really have a basis. Zero Mission being a prequel relies on other proof to support the idea, and as a prequel it explains why the maps do not match without blaming it all on the developers.

[quote name='Desbreko] I gotta say, you really ripped those two sentences out of context. Just because they're different sentences does not mean they can refer to entirely different time periods. Being in the same paragraph, it [i]does[/i'] imply that the foiling of Mother Brain was during Samus' first battle with the Metroids. Trying to completely separate those two sentences is just silly when you look at it grammatically.[/quote]

That is not true. The first statement says that Samus first battled the Metroids on Zebes. The next states that it was on Zebes that Samus defeated Mother Brain. So there is nothing in those statements that imply that these two events happened in the same timeframe. In reality, the first sentence is describing the setting and the second is describing the event and time.

[quote name='Desbreko'] And finally, for the fourth point, I would again point to the Gameplay > Storyline idea. Metroid Prime makes references to Metroid, yes. But Zero Mission was not out at the time of Prime's release, so it would've been impossible to reference Zero Mission. So why didn't Zero Mission rigidly stick to the same storyline in order to preserve those references? Well, it's hard to add new content like the Space Pirate Mother Ship sequence in Zero Mission without changing the story. And since gameplay (new content) takes precedence over storyline (keeping the references accurate), I again see this negligible.[/quote]

However, the second interview I quoted from Sakamoto states that he worked closely with Retro on Prime to make sure the storyline stayed consistent with Metroid. Why would he then throw all of that hard work away by remaking Metroid to be completely inaccurate with the facts? You are also suggesting that Sakamoto's idea of Zero Mission would have to be different from what Metroid has always been. Why do these inconsistencies have to be cases of where Sakamoto wanted something other than consistency, and why couldn't he find a way to work around the facts? Also, why couldn't he simply make a storyline that matches Metroid Prime? I do not think that gameplay is that important. After all, storyline comes before level design. Even if it did not, story can be created to make the levels and events flow together consistently. Also, if gameplay is more important than storyline and is going to make a story inconsistent, then why not just make a new story to fit the gameplay and call it a new adventure (which is what happened, in my opinion)?

[quote name='Desbreko'] Now, with the in-game evidence out of the way, I wasn't too impressed with most of your other arguments. A lot of it seemed like playing on the semantics of PR hype, and taking things out of context in the same way as the Super Metroid monologue. But I see that as a moot point anyway.[/quote]

So "The full story of Samus Aran's first mission finally unfolds..." from Zero Mission and "Samus had completed numerous missions..." from Metroid does not indicate a prequel to you?

[QUOTE=Desbreko] Take, for example, Miyamoto's (I think it was his, either his or Aonuma's) claim that The Wind Waker is set 100 years after Ocarina of Time. In-game events and text clearly show this to be impossible, as it takes a lot longer than 100 years for a people's origins to completely dissolve into legend. That just doesn't happen, even if those origins involved a catastrophic flood. Therefore, there must be a longer period of time between OoT and TWW (which is a good thing, 'cause otherwise there wouldn't be room for Twilight Princess).

So why do I disregard the word of the series' creator? Make no mistake, I have an immense amount of respect for Miyamoto and Aonuma both. But the thing is, the question comes down to what [i]is[/i], and what is [i]said[/i]. The game clearly shows the people of Hyrule in a state that wouldn't fit the passage of a mere 100 years. So the actual game shows that what [i]is[/i], is a passage of time greater than that, while Miyamoto only [i]said[/i] the passage was 100 years.[/quote]

Wait, so if you only regard in game events and text, as well as some manual text, then what makes you think that Zero Mission is a remake in the first place?

[quote name='Desbreko'] All this, then, comes together as my reason for not bothering with your arguments regarding out-of-game evidence. I showed why I didn't think your in-game evidence had any weight, so thus, with your theory's foundation gone in my mind, I really have no reason to try and refute every other little point.[/quote]

What about the fact that Ridley is the pirate leader in Zero Mission but Mother Brain is the pirate leader in Metroid? Those are both storyline differences that would be inconsistencies if Zero Mission were a remake. What about Mother Brain being reactivated in Metroid, as Metroid II's prologue states? What about all of the differences between the level designs of Zero Mission and Metroid? Why are there so many new areas, or areas taken out?

[quote name='Desbreko'] All in all, a very well written article that I'm glad you shared here. I personally don't think the evidence stands up as proof, but I admire the effort you put into it. Keep up the good work.[/quote]

Thank you for the compliment, and for reading and replying.

[Desbreko]

[quote name='Dai Grepher']I also have the storyline differences, as well as the many level differences and how Zero Mission was made to be more basic and plain than Metroid.[/quote][color=#4B0082]Well, yeah. But like I said, it was necessary to tweak Zero Mission's story in order to fit in the extra content after you beat Mother Brain. Things, both in storyline and level design, are rarely ever exactly the same as the original. If they were, it would be a port, not a remake. There is a difference between those two, and I don't think anyone's ever argued that Zero Mission is only a port.[/color]

[quote name='Dai Grepher']The second interview with Sakamoto shows that he considers storyline consistency very important. Also, how can you be so sure that these are inconsistencies and not intended differences to show that Zero Mission is a unique adventure? It is more likely that the developers made the Mother Brain pod look as it did in Zero Mission so that it could not be compared to Super Metroid's destroyed Tourian or Metroid's Tourian. The fact that the area beneath the brain pod was undamaged by the blast shows that it cannot possibly lead into Super Metroid. There are too many differences for these all to be mistakes or cases where they simply disregarded how Tourian should look in Super Metroid. Even if they had not made Tourian to look that way before the explosion, they could have made it match Super Metroid after the explosion.[/quote][color=#4B0082]Consistancy in a bigger sense, yes, I'm sure he considers important. But the tiny details you're bringing up would probably never even occur to the average player. Heck, out of all the people who've played Prime, how many do you think even read that Fall of Zebes scan? Or if they did read it, how many stopped to think about its relation to the rest of the series? Probably only a very small percentage, because Metroid is primarily about action and exploration, not storyline. A lot of people aren't going to stop to read every scan that isn't necessary for the completion of the game.

Some of your points about the inconsistancies are valid, but they're so minute, I don't think they really count as significant evidence.[/color]

[quote name='Dai Grepher']Well that is not exactly fair. A Link to the Past did not have to follow any certain map layout because it was a new game and a new adventure. Zero Mission would have, or should have as a remake of Metroid. Plus, the alternate dimension argument does not really have a basis. Zero Mission being a prequel relies on other proof to support the idea, and as a prequel it explains why the maps do not match without blaming it all on the developers.[/quote][color=#4B0082]I think it is. The two situations aren't exactly alike, but the underlying argument is very similar in both. You're arguing that there are differences in the map between Zero Mission and Metroid, so they can't be set at the same time; one must've been set after the other, and in time the map changed. In my example, Zelda's map is vastly different from A Link to the Past's. Now, LttP is known to be set a good while before LoZ, but lakes and forests don't just get up and walk to the other side of a country, even in a few hundred years. So it's impossible to reconcile the maps being different besides by saying, "The developers wanted to change things up."

So in the same way, I'm saying the developers wanted to change things up in Zero Mission--to remake the game, rather than simply port it -- in order to provide a fresh experience while still staying within the basic framework of the original game. If you look, there are actually a lot of similarities in the map layouts of Metroid and Zero Mission, there's just been so much added to make the game play better, it's hard to recognize sometimes.[/color]

[quote name='Dai Grepher']That is not true. The first statement says that Samus first battled the Metroids on Zebes. The next states that it was on Zebes that Samus defeated Mother Brain. So there is nothing in those statements that imply that these two events happened in the same timeframe. In reality, the first sentence is describing the setting and the second is describing the event and time.[/quote][color=#4B0082]Yes, yes it is. I'm sorry, but if I said, "I first ate a hamburger at McDonalds. It was there that I discovered my love of french fries," no one is going to think I'm talking about two separate occasions unless they have some other reason to do so. You have your theory as a reason to think those two sentences in Super Metroid are separate, but a straight reading of the paragraph provides no such implication.

I would think this would be especially clear considering Zero Mission as a game was not even in concept at the time Super Metroid was released. As well, I would have serious doubts about a vast backstory for Samus already having been developed at that time. So within that context, it would make perfect sense for the two sentences to be refering to one previous mission, and one only.[/color]

[quote name='Dai Grepher']However, the second interview I quoted from Sakamoto states that he worked closely with Retro on Prime to make sure the storyline stayed consistent with Metroid. Why would he then throw all of that hard work away by remaking Metroid to be completely inaccurate with the facts? You are also suggesting that Sakamoto's idea of Zero Mission would have to be different from what Metroid has always been. Why do these inconsistencies have to be cases of where Sakamoto wanted something other than consistency, and why couldn't he find a way to work around the facts? Also, why couldn't he simply make a storyline that matches Metroid Prime? I do not think that gameplay is that important. After all, storyline comes before level design. Even if it did not, story can be created to make the levels and events flow together consistently. Also, if gameplay is more important than storyline and is going to make a story inconsistent, then why not just make a new story to fit the gameplay and call it a new adventure (which is what happened, in my opinion)?[/quote][color=#4B0082]Again, I think he cares about plot consistancy in a bigger sense, such as making sure Prime didn't conflict with the overall timeline. (As an extreme example, making sure it wasn't set after Fusion, as that would be a huge inconsistancy.) I doubt developers have the time or resources to pour over every small little detail in order to make sure everything lines up from game to game. Development time isn't free, and for something that a vast majority of gamers aren't going to notice, why bother? Little things like what you've mentioned don't affect sales, and at the end of the day, that's what matters.

As for making a new story to fit the gameplay, that is kind of what they did. That's part of what makes the game a remake. A whole new game would feature a lot more changes than Zero Mission does.[/color]

[quote name='Dai Grepher']So "The full story of Samus Aran's first mission finally unfolds..." from Zero Mission and "Samus had completed numerous missions..." from Metroid does not indicate a prequel to you?[/quote][color=#4B0082]Maybe if I didn't realize that it's PR hype aimed at the average gamer who has no idea Samus has completed numerous missions before the original Metroid. The fact is, Metroid was the first mission that we, as gamers, saw. And that's all most gamers are going to remember; thus, they remember it as Samus' first mission as well. It's not technically correct, but it doesn't confuse people either.[/color]

[quote name='Dai Grepher']Wait, so if you only regard in game events and text, as well as some manual text, then what makes you think that Zero Mission is a remake in the first place?[/quote][color=#4B0082]Because of the fact that the game progresses nearly exactly the same as the original Metroid, only with improved gameplay mechanics. Even the in-game storyline is very similar to the original Metroid's, it just has some tweaks to accomodate the added content.[/color]

[quote name='Dai Grepher']What about the fact that Ridley is the pirate leader in Zero Mission but Mother Brain is the pirate leader in Metroid? Those are both storyline differences that would be inconsistencies if Zero Mission were a remake. What about Mother Brain being reactivated in Metroid, as Metroid II's prologue states? What about all of the differences between the level designs of Zero Mission and Metroid? Why are there so many new areas, or areas taken out?[/quote][color=#4B0082]For the Ridley thing, I think that got changed to reflect Ridley's role in every other game in the series, short of maybe Fusion. In Super Metroid and Prime both, he was the leader of the space pirates. So I'd think they changed it to be consistant with that. But either way, it's a minute detail like all the others that most people aren't even going to be aware of--heck, even I didn't know about that one.

As for Mother Brain, "reactivated" implies that it was dormant and got powered back up or whatever. If it had been destroyed, the space pirates would have [i]rebuilt[/i] Mother Brain. Therefore, the space pirates could've found Mother Brain laying dormant, then reactivated it, setting into motion the events of Metroid.

The level design, I've explained already: A remake will not be exactly the same as the original. There will be changes, to provide a fresh experience within the basic framework of the original. Which is exactly what Zero Mission does.[/color]

[quote name='Dai Grepher']Thank you for the compliment, and for reading and replying.[/quote][color=#4B0082]Always fun to have a good discussion like this.[/color]

[Guest Dai Grepher]

[quote name='Desbreko'] Well, yeah. But like I said, it was necessary to tweak Zero Mission's story in order to fit in the extra content after you beat Mother Brain. Things, both in storyline and level design, are rarely ever exactly the same as the original. If they were, it would be a port, not a remake. There is a difference between those two, and I don't think anyone's ever argued that Zero Mission is only a port.[/quote]

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=Desbreko] Consistancy in a bigger sense, yes, I'm sure he considers important. But the tiny details you're bringing up would probably never even occur to the average player. Heck, out of all the people who've played Prime, how many do you think even read that Fall of Zebes scan? Or if they did read it, how many stopped to think about its relation to the rest of the series? Probably only a very small percentage, because Metroid is primarily about action and exploration, not storyline. A lot of people aren't going to stop to read every scan that isn't necessary for the completion of the game.

Some of your points about the inconsistancies are valid, but they're so minute, I don't think they really count as significant evidence.[/quote]

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 name='Desbreko'] I think it is. The two situations aren't exactly alike, but the underlying argument is very similar in both. You're arguing that there are differences in the map between Zero Mission and Metroid, so they can't be set at the same time; one must've been set after the other, and in time the map changed. In my example, Zelda's map is vastly different from A Link to the Past's. Now, LttP is known to be set a good while before LoZ, but lakes and forests don't just get up and walk to the other side of a country, even in a few hundred years. So it's impossible to reconcile the maps being different besides by saying, "The developers wanted to change things up."[/quote]

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 name='Desbreko'] So in the same way, I'm saying the developers wanted to change things up in Zero Mission--to remake the game, rather than simply port it -- in order to provide a fresh experience while still staying within the basic framework of the original game. If you look, there are actually a lot of similarities in the map layouts of Metroid and Zero Mission, there's just been so much added to make the game play better, it's hard to recognize sometimes.[/quote]

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 name='Desbreko'] Yes, yes it is. I'm sorry, but if I said, "I first ate a hamburger at McDonalds. It was there that I discovered my love of french fries," no one is going to think I'm talking about two separate occasions unless they have some other reason to do so. You have your theory as a reason to think those two sentences in Super Metroid are separate, but a straight reading of the paragraph provides no such implication.[/quote]

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 name='Desbreko'] I would think this would be especially clear considering Zero Mission as a game was not even in concept at the time Super Metroid was released. As well, I would have serious doubts about a vast backstory for Samus already having been developed at that time. So within that context, it would make perfect sense for the two sentences to be refering to one previous mission, and one only.[/quote]

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 name='Desbreko'] Again, I think he cares about plot consistancy in a bigger sense, such as making sure Prime didn't conflict with the overall timeline. (As an extreme example, making sure it wasn't set after Fusion, as that would be a huge inconsistancy.) I doubt developers have the time or resources to pour over every small little detail in order to make sure everything lines up from game to game. Development time isn't free, and for something that a vast majority of gamers aren't going to notice, why bother? Little things like what you've mentioned don't affect sales, and at the end of the day, that's what matters.[/quote]

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 name='Desbreko'] As for making a new story to fit the gameplay, that is kind of what they did. That's part of what makes the game a remake. A whole new game would feature a lot more changes than Zero Mission does.[/quote]

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 name='Desbreko'] Maybe if I didn't realize that it's PR hype aimed at the average gamer who has no idea Samus has completed numerous missions before the original Metroid. The fact is, Metroid was the first mission that we, as gamers, saw. And that's all most gamers are going to remember; thus, they remember it as Samus' first mission as well. It's not technically correct, but it doesn't confuse people either.[/quote]

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 name='Desbreko'] Because of the fact that the game progresses nearly exactly the same as the original Metroid, only with improved gameplay mechanics. Even the in-game storyline is very similar to the original Metroid's, it just has some tweaks to accomodate the added content.[/quote]

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 name='Desbreko'] For the Ridley thing, I think that got changed to reflect Ridley's role in every other game in the series, short of maybe Fusion. In Super Metroid and Prime both, he was the leader of the space pirates.[/quote]

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 name='Desbreko'] So I'd think they changed it to be consistant with that. But either way, it's a minute detail like all the others that most people aren't even going to be aware of--heck, even I didn't know about that one.[/quote]

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 name='Desbreko'] As for Mother Brain, "reactivated" implies that it was dormant and got powered back up or whatever. If it had been destroyed, the space pirates would have rebuilt Mother Brain. Therefore, the space pirates could've found Mother Brain laying dormant, then reactivated it, setting into motion the events of Metroid.[/quote]

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 name='Desbreko'] The level design, I've explained already: A remake will not be exactly the same as the original. There will be changes, to provide a fresh experience within the basic framework of the original. Which is exactly what Zero Mission does.[/quote]

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?

[Desbreko]

[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]