I've played through Metroid Fusion more than I have any other game. I love it. It's a far more linear affair than Super Metroid which understandably turns a lot of people off, but as a trade off it's exceptionally paced. There's not a second of downtime in Fusion. I also think they did a lot of intelligent things with the controls and power up stacking that streamlined a lot of things that should have always been streamlined. Zero Mission did a better job of maintaining a non linear feel and had sequence breaking and had that stealth sequence at the end and is probably just the better game overall, but Fusion is great.

You see if someone would have said that Other M was a Prequel to Metroid Fusion I probably would have bothered with the game by know.

My younger bro's been stealing my 3DS just to play this game.

I thought it was clear that the point of Other M's story was to give more context to Samus's relationship with Adam because Fusion touched on it so much.

Best metroid game IMO. I have them all and i love the series but this game was just on another level when it came out. Prime blew my mind sure but when fusion released (almost along side it) I felt like i was playing a perfected Super metroid and what more could anyone possibly ask for.

I didn't realise Super Metroid wasn't already perfect.

I liked Fusion for what it was though cloning dead things always feels like cheating in stories. Super Metroid had a great ending with a perfect emotional high, all without a single line of dialog. Prime could and should have been a series reboot allowing Retro Studios to go their own way but I suppose that's easy to say in hindsight.

Gameplay-wise, I didn't love Fusion. It didn't evolve enough from Supet Metroid. While still good, it's hanging on the coattails of it's predecessor.

+1

Great game, but relatively forgettable when compared to the heights of Super Metroid and the Prime Trilogy.

I'm sure it is if you had played the game.

I haven't played this since it came out and considering how it hints towards Sakamoto's meltdown in Other M I might not like it as much now with more context.  At the time I couldn't help notice how it was much more linear than Super Metroid.  It still seemed to work though.  It had hidden missile tanks and you actually got new weapons instead of being told when you can use something.  Little details like that can make a big difference in how fun the game is to play.

Metroid Fusion is a good example of what I used to consider a typical Nintendo sequel.  It still played like Metroid but it wasn't Super Metroid Part 2.  Changes like the Fusion suit and the way you collected the X virus cell things for health and how it had that more mission structured design made it distinct from the rest of the series and made it stand out.  It isn't a non-essential sequel.  It CAN'T be because it differentiates itself too much.  I used to associate Nintendo with that sort of approach.  Each game was somewhat of a unique entity that you HAD to play.

What is weird though is that I find the non-linear approach of Super Metroid is exactly what makes it so good.  You explore around and find some area you can't get past.  Then later you get some new item and you immediately think "hey, I remember that area I couldn't access.  This new item will let me explore there!" and then you head over there and start exploring the area and it's immediately rewarding.  Sakamoto seems to not get that.  If you make Metroid linear that whole hook is gone.  If Metroid was just some side-scroller it would have, well, become obscure like Kid Icarus because it wouldn't stand out against better side-scrollers like Castlevania and Mega Man.  The non-linear approach is what made the series stand out in the first place.

Linear Metroid, to me, is like a Mario game with Zelda's auto-jump.  It just completely nullifies the whole point of the series.

Yes, it is. In almost every way. Plot-wise, Samus defeated that Space Pirates, even blowing up an entire planet that their leaders were stationed (after blowing them up) and the very last Metroid, which the series gets its namesake, was destroyed.

I didn't think so. Gameplay-wise, the only real differences were hanging on ledges and the introduction of missions. The latter severely limited sequence-breaking. The core gameplay is Super Metroid in portable form. The way the X gave the Fusion suit was new abilities isn't wholly difference from the upgrade system in the previous 3 games.

Ah, Ian. You make me smile.
Who else can so deftly weave together compliments to Nintendo with bashing Nintendo?

So when you play a game where the story appears to have wrapped up you have no interest in a sequel?  Doesn't gameplay matter?  I never even think of the story when I decide whether or not to skip a sequel.

I'm curious how you define a non-essential sequel then. Plot-wise Super Metroid wrapped the series up quite nicely. Sakamoto basically said, Oh, shit... Uhhh... clones!" just so Fusion could have a story chronologically after Super Metroid. Gameplay-wise, Fusion is Super Metroid but worse. As I said, I liked Fusion for what it was. However, everything about its existence is non-essential. It did nothing except make the series worse. It's still good; it's just worse than Super Metroid in every way.

And I find it ironic that you're suddenly defending sequels when half of your posts are about how Nintendo makes too many sequels. As much as I like Metroid Fusion, Super Metroid was the one game that neither needed a sequel not was open for one.

Alex, I'm curious; why do you think you found the game so much easier this time around? Is it just because you are older and more experienced? Is it because you paid more attantion to the story? Something else?

From what I remember, Fusion plays to the idea of what happens after all the Metroids are dead. We find out that without Metroids, the X-parasites start over populating because the Metroids were actually created to keep them at bay.

I don't remember them being created for that as much as natural predators.

There was no mention of the X until Fusion. Sakamoto created a problem that didn't exist just so Fusion could exist. The series could have ended with Supet Metroid. That's what makes Fusion non-essential. Super Metroid didn't end with players wondering how the galaxy would survive without Metroids preying on the X because the X didn't exist until Fusion. Supet Metroid ended with players thinking the galaxy is finally at peace: the last Metroid was destroyed and the Space Pirates were defeated for good.

Metroid Fusion is a very odd game for me, as it's a game I remember enjoying (but not loving) on the GBA and yet nowadays I can't think of anything other than the creepiness of the SA-X that I altogether liked...especially in comparison to Zero Mission, which was faster; had a much greater emphasis on exploration; and was a great deal more fun, with the exception of the lame and frustrating Zero Suit sequence.

I do like the idea of moving the Metroid franchise forward past the events on Zebes, but there's just something about that game that never quite clicked with me.  Maybe it's the rather-poor storytelling, the lack of exploration, the entire game being on a space station (a problem that would return in Other M), or just that it's a 2D Metroid game and I'm more a fan of the Prime games.  I can respect that Fusion tried to bring new experiences to the Metroid franchise, but as I have no nostalgia whatsoever for Super Metroid it just didn't speak to me.

The story in a videogame sequel is irrelevent to me.  It matters a lot in movies or books but in videogames the gameplay experience is what really matters and that's what indicates if a sequel is essential or not.  In terms of gameplay I feel that Metroid Fusion is unique enough from its predecessors that anyone interested in the series can't skip it.  A good example of unessential sequels would be the Mega Man series.  A lot of the Mega Man sequels are glorified expansion packs.  It has new levels and that's about it.  What does Mega Man 5 do that Mega Man 4 doesn't?  You could take a mishmash of levels from both games, swap them around, and it wouldn't look out of place.

Metroid Fusion isn't just More Super Metroid.  It certainly has some similar gameplay.  I obviously needs to still feel like a Metroid game.  But it does enough new things that you couldn't write it off as unnecessary.

It's not like a sequel has to completely re-invent everything.  It just has to stand out from the previous games in some way either in adding new ideas or changing around existing ideas.  A sequel is unessential if it comes across as merely extra levels to the previous game, perhaps with some small additions with minimal impact on the gameplay.

I would say that Other M is unique enough that it isn't unessential.  It just SUCKS, unfortunately.  I would recommend skipping it entirely on a quality issue, not because it's generic.

If Metroid Fusion isn't that different from Super Metroid then why does it get flack for being linear?  Obviously that change impacts the game enough to create some controversy.

There's lore from Metroid Prime that implies that the Chozo either created them or were at least breeding them for that purpose. Don't remember the exact text, but it stuck out to me.

There was no mention of them because they weren't a problem. The species was on the brink of extinction because of the Metroids and only came back because Samus killed them all.
In Metroid II, Samus kills the last Metroid, but saves one baby. Were you left wondering what the hell was going  to happen to that baby? No? Then that makes Super Metroid non-essential. As for the clones, one baby makes all of the Metroids you see in Super Metroid. It's shot with Beta rays or w/e and multiplies. That's better than clones?

For the record, Other M is not a bad game by any stretch of the imagination. I actually think it's rather good. Hell, it's not even the worst Metroid game. Prime Hunters has it beat HARD in that department.

There was no mention of the X because Sakamoto invented them for Metroid Fusion.

Actually, yes. Metroid II's ending is specifically written for there to be a sequel. Otherwise, Samus would have decimated every last Metroid and... well, the end. Super Metroid is written as an end game with a definite conclusion. You don't start a story with "The last Metroid is in captivity. The galaxy is at peace..." then end said story with the last Metroid blowing up (then the entire planet blowing up) if you weren't wrapping things up. There's nothing open-ended about that.

And yes, I think asexual reproduction through radiation works within the context of Super Metroid more so than cloning in Metroid Fusion. Cloning itself isn't the problem. Had Super Metroid ended with an epilogue with clear intentions of a sequel, we wouldn't be having this conversation. Cloning after Super Metroid's very clear-cut ending is what makes cloning in Fusion a cop-out. Sakamoto painted himself into a corner. Super Metroid was clearly planned, Metroid Fusion clearly wasn't.

I'll agree that from a storyline perspective the whole Metroid series makes the most sense as a trilogy.  If it was a movies series, that's where I would stop it.

I've thought more about what makes a good sequel and I think the best way to sum it up is how one would answer the question "what does this game have that the previous ones in the series did not?"  The broader the answer the better.  If you have to get to the point of saying "it has all new levels" to provide a suitable answer that's pretty weak because that's expected.  Hell, if you CAN'T say that then we're really in trouble (and some "sequels" are actually this minor).

A game that has a really lousy answer to this question is Doom II.  The answer would be "Well we've added some new enemies, there is now a variation of the shotgun with two barrels, and the level progression is done in one big blob instead of seperate episodes."  That's it?  Pretty weak.

Now compare that to a game with a really great answer to this question in Super Mario 64.  "The game is fully 3D and Mario can go in any direction to explore the levels."  BOOM!  Now THAT is doing something the previous games didn't and note how the change is so major that the answer can be summed up in one broad sentence.  The more detailed you have to go to explain the differences the less essential of a sequel it is.

You keep using the phrase "clear intentions for a sequel" or similar phrases. I don't think a clear, open ending is all that necessary to set up a sequel. You kind of want the story wrapped up at the end of a game. If you don't rescue the princess or save the world by the end of the game, either you lost or feel like shit, unless you're already expecting a sequel. Even in that case, it's better knowing that you saved the day in some sense, even if sinking an entire city doesn't kill of your enemies, like in Gears. Fusion keeps the story going and actually tells a good one.

No, it's not necessary. You don't need to plan a sequel to make a sequel (though it helps). You can make infinite sequels but this isn't about whether you can. Of course, you can.The crux of this discussion is whether or not Metroid Fusion is non-essential and really, it is. Super Metroid didn't just wrap up its own story, it wrapped up the story arc of the series. The events of the game resulted in the destruction of the very reason the games existed. That's a curtain call. That's not the end of Samus; just the end of "Metroid" because there are no more. Nintendo can make a sequel (and obviously they did) but they effectively wrapped the "Metroid" series up so everything else is non-essential. Metroid Fusion didn't tell a bad story. However, its only purpose is to continue a story that already ended. That's what makes it extraneous, non-essential.

I like to pretend it doesn't exist.

I think it was starting a new story (or at least trying to). Maybe that's extra or non-essential, but I think I like Ian's definition of an essential sequel better. No offense.