Game with good gameplay and not an interactive movie anyone?

So what you're saying is, it aged?

OG Metroid is fine. Just because it's flawed doesn't mean it's a bad game.

>repetitive

How so? They reused tiles because of memory limits, but the map was creative enough to make up for it.

I disagree, the map was very small compared to other Metroid games and distinct rooms reused a lot of platform layouts.

Nioh

>the map was very small compared to other Metroid games

That's a memory issue.

>and distinct rooms reused a lot of platform layouts.

Mostly corridors.

This was especially prevalent in vertical corridors early game, and some structures in Norfair that repeated many times.

Ignoring the map layout, a few of OG Metroid's flaws can be patched out for a better gameplay experience.
romhacking.net/hacks/1186/
It adds an in-game map, a proper saving system which also remembers your energy, and lets you combine the ice and wave beams.
It apparently has a further enhanced hack too.
romhacking.net/hacks/4471/

One of OG Metroid's biggest annoyances was that when starting a game, you would always start a measly 30 energy. You had to grind your energy back up to full, however many energy tanks you'd found, and the game had no refill stations.

I'm not gonna give the game sympathy points for technical limitations. If it's flawed then it's flawed.

Also the vertical shafts were even worse than the corridors when it came to level design.

The game was ambitious for an 1986 NES game, that's where the flaws came from.

If it were a title that came much later in the NES system's lifecycle, like the 1993 Kirby's Adventure, I wonder what it would've looked like.

Yeah, it certainly was ambitious. Metroid II addressed a number of flaws in Metroid, and I think it's the superior game. That said, Metroid II was different from Metroid 1 in terms of game design and not just technology.

Failing to take technical limitations into account is disingenuous. The shafts and the corridors are just passages. How much variety do you need?

Whether or not it's disingenuous depends on the angle you're examining the game from. I prefer to look at games in terms of whether they're worth playing today rather than whether they were worth playing in the 80s because that's the more relevant question to ask.

All subsequent Metroid games have much better level design.

Shafts and corridors are the entire game dude.

The original game has the best challenge and is far more open than the later ones. That alone makes it worth playing.

Transitional rooms make up very little of the map.

Yeah that's why I pointed out that Metroid II (which was broadly an improvement) also differed from the original in terms of design rather than just quality. It's still worth checking out because of its unique aspects but its flaws make it one of my least liked Metroid games. In particular, I don't care at all about openness when everything looks and plays the same.

recently played super metroid for the first time. Its amazing how well it holds up. One of the most impressive games ive played a long time

>everything looks and plays the same.

Each area feels distinct enough.

Who cares about some old boomer game, jesus

Every subsequent Metroid game has more areas. Every subsequent Metroid game also has more variety within an area.

And every subsequent game has also felt more guided.

Sure, but that's not necessary based on the design. It's possible to have a game as with more variety without having to compromise in terms of openness. Metroid doesn't though, and given the choice I'll take actual level design over a bunch of copy pasted corridors.

>Game with good gameplay and not an interactive movie anyone?

Basically any metroidvania, starting with Hollow Knight

>Game with good gameplay and not an interactive movie anyone?

any Metroid game that is not Other M

I still think you're overstating the number of corridors.