Don't mind me, just posting the best Metroid

Actually I suppose the worst path would also include the original Metroid II and Federation Force, which I forgot existed again. But yeah, not the best two games to start with for sure.

I prefer Super, but i love all 2D Metroid.
But i don't really understand why everyone love Prime trilogy. Boring shit.

Attached: 1521701783579.jpg (256x679, 30K)

>atmospherically great
>shitty wall-jumps
>good music
>lore is kind of good hence the powerups
>linear as fuck
no, not the best but definitely still good.

>original Metroid II
Metroid II is pretty good. I had never played it until a few years ago and had a good time with it. I think AM2R and SR are also good, but they don't really replace the original for me.

I would easily put Metroid II on par with Fusion. It has flaws but it's pretty cool.

For the people who prefer Super to the GBA ones, what aspect of Super draws you to it? Honestly for the most part, Super's gameplay is unrefined compared to the GBA ones, (although that hack of it that gives it GBA-like controls fixes that) and the map can be real fucky to figure out where to go sometimes. I'm trying to understand this, but it honestly just seems like nostalgia goggles.

Its pretty fun, but Super is superior

Probably for the same reason some people prefer Fusion over the other 2D ones. It has some unique elements that are just grand to some people.

I really want a new metroid game that takes place after fusion

I played 1 and 2 recently and honestly they were terrible, what are you talking about? They were only bad due to their age and choice of console though, really. They really can't stand up to anything else in the series, but that's to be expected and fine.

>gameplay unrefined
what the fuck am I reading? everything plays well. are you just mad that you can't into walljumps and spacejumps as easily as in the GBA Metroid ZM?
are you mad that you need to sprint to use the physics?
baka man, baka.

Well, I meant that it's just not a good starting game. Very zoomed in, no maps, every place looks the same, boring music (when there is music), the old beam switching system, more linear than Metroid usually is. I'm not a fan, but I'm not saying it shouldn't be played first because I don't like it, I just think it's something to only play once you're already a fan and want to try the older ones.

The differences are subtle. The control freak patch handles perfectly, so I guess you could use that as a reference for what I meant, comparatively.

romhacking.net/hacks/405/

I prefer how ZM and Fusion feel (I even prefer their control scheme), but I prefer Super's level design and flexibility. My biggest issue with ZM in particular is that it's a remake of a game that already had a quasi-remake in Super. It's still distinct enough to justify its existence, but I'd have rather had a completely original game. I feel the same way about Samus Returns.
>they were terrible
Nah.

>Nah.
Well, I'll give you the high ground here. What is good about Metroid 2 and what makes it worth playing? I found that the hunting aspect was neat, but it was poorly utilized, there were few enemy types, level design was spotty, it was surprisingly linear in a bad way, and control just wasn't there. But what can you expect from an early game boy game? Shit was ambitious as fuck. I respect it as a stepping stone, but it was not enjoyable to play through, and it only is good compared to what was on the original game boy, not games as a whole. That's also how I felt about 1.

"""""""""metroid" f*sion shouldn't even be considered a metroid game, like other M

That's not Super Metroid.

Here's the real best Metroid game.

Attached: 1370691705337.jpg (1662x2181, 1.87M)

>What is good about Metroid 2 and what makes it worth playing?
For a handheld game I like how it's organized. The way the game compartmentalizes its levels while still giving plenty to explore with each layer gives the game a nice pace. Never knowing when exactly a metroid will show up gives the game an interesting tension, as do the aesthetics (though the cramped screen does suck). The game has plenty of issues and I'd never call it my favorite, but I think it's worth playing. I wrote it off for years but I'm glad I played it.
>only good compared to what was on the original game boy, not games as a whole.
Your dismissal of the GB tells me you should play more GB games. There are quite a few great ones by any standard, even if you don't think Metroid II is one of them.

Super has the classic formula of Get Item, Use Item, unlock new area. Granted I don't think a nudge towards the "right" path is bad thing. Something I think Prime nailed when you went to an old area and suddenly get 2spooked by a new enemy or event (Super only does that once...like once in Crateria)

>unrefined
metroid's core aspects are about exploration, "improved" controls in the GBA games mean nothing if the world/level design is worse ESPECIALLY when it comes to fusion.

>I played 1 and 2 recently and honestly they were terrible
You just have bad taste, zoom zoom.

I grew up with the GB, so I do know of plenty, but a lot of them are super rough and don't really hold up nowadays. I still respect them, I just don't really claim they're good when they were effectively unpolished prototypes for an unpolished system. Probably the game I would say holds up best is Mole Mania. That shit's grand.

That's not really an argument, but whatever floats your boat my dude.

Patrician taste, user.

I can't decide if I love or hate that game. For everything right it does, it feels like it does something else wrong. Which perfectly fits the theme of the game, I might add.

You know, seeing everyone calling anyone who doesn't like what they like a zoomer is getting to be pretty annoying. I remember a decent chunk of the fanbase thinking that the first two games were either bad or just mediocre 15 years ago. I saw the same thing several years ago when there was a surge of contrarians saying Zelda II was a great game (I don't care if you actually believe this, all I'm saying is that there was a big spike in the people saying this, just like the spike FF IX and later FF V got when VI got too popular here) and pretended that people haven't been shitting on it since the late 80s/early 90s. Just play is safe and call people with opinions you don't like a faggot like usual.

I find the argument weird as well. I mean, if they were actual zoomers, they'd more likely have nostalgia goggles for the games they grew up with. Shit's such a bizarre stretch.

>and don't really hold up nowadays
Belmont's Revenge
Super Mario Land 2-3
Gargoyle's Quest
Megaman IV-V
Donkey Kong
Link's Awakening
Kid Icarus
Dream Land 2

These are all great games that hold up quite well. There's plenty of junk on the GB but it has a solid library.

That's not a refutation of the point, those are exceptions to the rule. The majority of games on the GB were pretty bad. I've worked my way through a full romset of it and the amount of games I actually wanted to play on it were pretty bleak, but they did exist. Which is more than I can say for the 32X.

same

the best parts of echoes are probably the best in the franchise (sanctuary fortress is unironically the greatest area in any 3d game I've played) but it has alot of annoying aspects that bring the overall experience down

Btw Catrap and Mole Mania isn't on that list, shame on you.

mole mania 2 when

I just gave examples; there are plenty more. The majority of games on anything are pretty bad. The GB's library has never seemed particularly bad to me, though. It was a popular system that attracted a lot of trash, just like the PS2, just like the Wii, just like the DS.

It's a pretty high concentration of bad games though if you ask me, mostly because they were held back by the extremely limited hardware. I struggle a lot with early generations where they're still figuring out how to actually make games for that kind of system, like NES, GB, N64, etc. Like sure, they just didn't know better so they experimented, and that might be something interesting to check out, but it's so rough I can't call that stuff good if it can't recommend it without some "buts". Like Metroid 1. Highly ambitious, treaded a lot of afaik new ground, is so rough and unforgiving especially in the beginning that it felt unplayable to me for years. Still kinda does. Comparing it to the PS2, Wii, and DS isn't exactly fair when they knew what they were doing at the time, and the gameboy didn't have all that much to work with.

Fusion isn't the best metroid game because its too different from what metroid is.
That difference is what makes it such an amazing game though, I'm glad they didnt just try to make another super metroid.

I find that argument to be kinda dumb because it's still Metroid. Do you think Prime is a bad metroid due to its focus on atmosphere that's not really present in much of anywhere else in the series? It's still metroid at its core even if it's twisted a little bit.

The difference is prime still has a heavy focus on exploration which is the defining feature of metroid.
It's a bit like saying that a new Ace attorney game was still ace attorney but they cut out all the court room scenes.
Yes the title still says Ace attorney and all of the other elements like exploring for clues are still there, but when you take the core element out is it really the same?

You're acting like Fusion completely removed the elements of exploration though. They didn't, they just toned it down greatly. The whole game was made up like Ridley and Kraid were in the other games, self-contained areas to explore. So yeah, I'd still say the core of Fusion is the same, but some aspects are not as prominent as in the other games, whereas they experimented with an aspect relatively nonexistent in the series at the time. Fusion is Metroid at its core through and through. Just remember, exploration is not the only aspect of Metroid. It's but one of many.

I never said it was the only aspect, just like I never said ace attorney was just court room scenes.
Just remember to properly read someones post before responding to it.

>focus on atmosphere that's not really present in much of anywhere else in the series?
are you legitimately brain damaged

I did. I'm saying your argument was a misguided one since all the core elements of metroid exist in fusion, they just have been tweaked a bit, and not a single one is missing. There is exploration in Fusion, but it's not completely about exploration.

There's a few areas that try to be atmospheric in the series, particularly in Super, but almost nowhere gets on the same level that Prime does. They try to be atmospheric for the majority of the game. Not to mention that Prime focused heavily on world building and scans, which isn't as prominent in many of the other games. I mean, it's pretty clear that there was a huge shift here in prime, but it was true that I was underselling Super's attempts at atmosphere a little bit.