Author Topic: Metroid Fusion  (Read 11886 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline nickmitch

  • You can edit these yourself now?!
  • Score: 82
    • View Profile
    • FACEBOOK!
Re: Metroid Fusion
« Reply #25 on: May 10, 2012, 08:07:37 PM »
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.
There was no mention of the X because Sakamoto invented them for Metroid Fusion.
Quote
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?
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.

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 ****, 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.
TVman is dead. I killed him and took his posts.

Offline Adrock

  • I’m just here for the zipline.
  • Score: 138
    • View Profile
Re: Metroid Fusion
« Reply #26 on: May 10, 2012, 09:13:11 PM »
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.
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.

Offline Halbred

  • Staff Paleontologist, Ruiner of Worlds
  • NWR Staff
  • Score: 17
    • View Profile
    • When Pigs Fly Returns
Re: Metroid Fusion
« Reply #27 on: May 10, 2012, 09:47:42 PM »
Prime Hunters has it beat HARD in that department.

I like to pretend it doesn't exist.
This would be my PSN Trophy Card, but I guess I can't post HTML in my Signature. I'm the pixel spaceship, and I have nine Gold trophies.

Offline nickmitch

  • You can edit these yourself now?!
  • Score: 82
    • View Profile
    • FACEBOOK!
Re: Metroid Fusion
« Reply #28 on: May 10, 2012, 10:15:03 PM »
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.
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 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.
TVman is dead. I killed him and took his posts.